One guild per character in EverQuest Next? Or more?

I agree with this, but I believe this was the purpose of the Channel system in EQ1. I don't recall if this was part of EQ2 but I remember being a part of the Warrior channel in EQ1, and while few people ever talked in it, it was great when a random question came up or to help some newbie. Similarly, I could see crafting channels being available to you when you choose a skill to be helpful as well.

We always have /trade /occ etc for social aspects, so I do not see the need to actually create structures for it. Allow people to join the channels if they want to discuss those topics.

Yikes, what a question. *snort* This one should be interesting.

Personally... I think each character should have one guild. Twice the drama sounds horrifying, and I think there's just too many possible issues having multiple guilds. Raid schedules, guild houses, loyalty, which breaks out into drama and guild wars and who knows what else. I am, however, all for different 'types' of guilds. IE, Having a guild channel, and then an alliance channel like DAoC used to have, comprised of all the guilds in the alliance? I would be all for that.

Because thats the kind of character I play. I'm loyal...long as I get what I want out of it

Sorry but if you was ever a guild leader or an officer of a guild, you would then understand why others do not want multiple guilds. I don't want the extra drama to deal with when I am trying to enjoy a game. Why won't being in 1 guild with alliances not be a better choice? I think by each guild governing themselves is the best route to go personally. I can see having multiple guilds lead to many issues, that I just do not want in this game. I do not want OOC chat become part of my guild!

Yeah, I do, but I'm still confused why you are rating down people that want one guild, but support being a part of many communities of various sizes and interests.

I started playing MMO's back when NWN on AOL came out, which was the first MMO. Just getting a guild started there was a major deal. You had to jump through hoops and survive six months as a guild before you were given sanctioned status. So in short you had to prove your worth. This was back in 91 when the game launched. Years later, and still today, many of those guilds are still around now. It's easy to find KAAOS, Blood Keep, Mech, House ITB, just to name a few even still. What this system did was it made guilds special and it created community. Because of the process involved in making guilds, guilds also were made accountable for their members. So they didn't just randomly let in anyone. People got screened, their was an application process, and usually a trial time. You had to prove your worth before joining a guild.

I've lead my guild 1st Fist of Light since February of 2000. We started in EQ. I modeled us after the guilds of NWN and we are still doing well today and have even had offline get togethers. One thing that I hated about modern MMO's from EQ on was the "I have to have a guild" syndrome. You have people that want the "prestige" of being a leader but don't care about the responsibility that comes with being a leader. In any position of leadership you're responsible for the people you lead. Their well being, their happiness, how they feel, whether or not they are having a good time, that's on your shoulders. If they have a problem, its your problem too. Too many people in leadership positions simply do not care.

I think and I hope where EQ Next is concerned that there will be strict rules put in place not only for the creation of guilds and for joining them. Make guild leaders held accountable for the actions of their members. When the guild gets made, make them have a story for their name, instead of some random thrown together name that makes absolutely no sense; no rhyme or reason at all. This is a role playing game after all. I don't think spending a little bit of effort on a story is a bad thing. The idea shouldn't be to judge the role playing/story but the effort. As developers the responsibility of role playing ultimately falls on your shoulders, not the players.

You can't expect people to role play if they have no idea what it means to role play in a role playing game. That was one of the faults of EverQuest 1 where the story became very much lost and forgotten behind the chase for phat loots and leveling up a pixelated character. Guilds are a great way to promote role playing, which in turn focuses on building positive community.

traditionally, i have always preferred one guild per character. that being said, i'm not opposed to the idea of multi-guilding, however, i would think it a better idea to take advantage of another method and use something like a guild alliance system. have guilds able to band together and pool their resources, that way the smaller guilds won't feel the need to have to merge to accomplish things they would be otherwise unable to do. the size of the guild alliance should also be left open i feel to allow other guilds the chance to join

1 player per guild.

2 and 4.

Why u still not let us multi-vote?!?

Something to note as well- if guilds can level up, how would a players contribution handle multiple guilds? If its spread equally between multiple guilds, a guild leader would find multi-guild players a detriment compared to solo-guilders (Oh look, new designations already!).

Perhaps there will be a way to split the efforts of players to affect different "groups". Guilds may be an outdated concept, but its not broken in substance. Maybe a family group could prove more beneficial than just an extended chat channel or friends list, but until we see what being in a guild entails, we're speculating why we would even need to belong to multiple guilds.

BTW Goss, I'm too old and grumpy to raid for 4 hours a night . Once we get our Landmark accounts, hopefully we'll get the chance to form a bullet proof city state

Wouldn't that just be #4?

1 player per player guild.

However...

Make NPC guilds that you can join (crafting, etc) that open up communication channels to other players regardless of what Player guild they are in.

I prefer to keep it simple. One guild per character. However, it would be nice if guilds could form alliances in game and the user interface be setup to support such a thing. Something other than "Just create a secret channel".

In game guild event calendars with sign up sheets, also an in game guild/alliance message board. Take the websites out of the equation and keep us in the game.

Oh! Because votes matter, and I want the devs to rule in my favor. The best thing I can do is upvote things that encourage things along the lines of what I'd like to see.

Given the current proportion of people that want to see ONLY one guild per character, it's incredibly unlikely SOE will go the route of allowing people as many guilds as they like. So my aim is to show as much support for it as possible in order to encourage them to a compromise in the way of having a couple of select types of groups that you can only have one of.

I don't mean it maliciously. Isn't that kind of how this works?

One character per guild. In previous MMOs I have played, guilds have been one of the best parts. The reason? A good guild is a community of players. A handful of players talking together and playing together on a regular basis - a group that you probably spend most of your in game conversations with. If you are in more than one guild, though, there is no longer that unified community. If you can be in as many guilds as possible, that community sense is completely forgotten.

I'm seeing a lot of "one size fits all" in people's expectation of guilds via the comments here. But the way I see it, "guild" means different things to different people. Some guilds are families. Some are militaristic. Some are organized and some are chaotic. Some are about socializing and some are about endgame content.

What are guilds, really? In-games these days, they're a chat channel, a tag over your head, maybe a tabard, and some tools for organization. Beyond the code that supports the in-game stuff, guilds are whatever people make of them.

So enable players to define their own structures rather than have the game shoehorn them into existing ones (that might or might not apply). For example, allow multiple guild/community/whatever memberships, but let each one decide its own membership requirements. If an uberguild wants all of its members forswear all others, let them set that up and enforce it. If a group of crafters who don't do their adventuring together want to use the in-game organizational tools, why shouldn't they be able to? Why throw in an arbitrary limit here?

I'm one of those that prefers to be part of one "social community" (i.e. a guild) within a game. That being said, I prefer to have it be one guild per character, but each character can join a different guild if you want, or all can join the same guild. I know in the <Military Gamers> guild in EQ2, I've got one member who has a couple characters in my guild, and the rest in another. I do not mind this, as the way that I see it, there are those that have created characters just for raiding (or similar), and characters they have created for more casual game play, and those that will still show loyalty to an older guild they have been a part of, and there are guilds for each, and people are welcome to put their raiding character (if they have one) into a raid guild (if they want to), and their more casual character (if they have one) into a more casual (read: "non-raiding") guild (if they want to).

All that being said, though, one thing I would really like to see is the ability to create alliance between guilds. This would give those that want to join their guilds up for raids, groups, et cetera a simpler and more formal means. It would also allow people that want to raid, but don't want to leave their guild (or want to help the guild they are in, in whatever way EQN has/will have) to still participate. I know on Crusbone in EQ2, there is an actual Raid Brigade (CRB) that allows people to raid without leaving the guilds they are in, but a more formal system would make it easier for people in friendly guilds to get into groups, do raids, and even do some big crafting event things if the devs ever decided to do something like that.

All I ask is that you don't let one character be a part of a dozen or so or more guilds. If guilds want to get together and form an alliance, that's between the guilds, and one (or more) guild(s) can choose to leave said alliance if it doesn't look promising. But if a PLAYER wants to join multiple guilds, let them roll up multiple characters.

I think we may have just run into another definition problem if people are talking about in-game NPC guilds. I'm fairly certain the question is about player guilds, as in the social chat room thing.

It shouldn't be. It's just a chat room with permissions. Player is added to x chat room permissions. They see x chat. At most I'd think they'd just need to have /1 /2 /3 /4 in place to send chat to different channels.

you could do it like linkshells , where a person can join multiple guilds kind of like chatrooms.

However then you could argue people should just make chatrooms.

Maybe have Guilds, and then some other form of common gathering, kind of like EQ had the magician channel, and the SK channel, etc.

Have it in the gui where you can join those in game , maybe not so much guilds as memberships to Orders

The best part of a multi-guild system...for those of you who want to keep it simple....guess what!? YOU CAN!! If the multi-guild system is applied nothing says you have to join several.

And personally I have been an officer and a guild leader, and running a good guild is very rough work...but I still like this idea. It could be interesting and revolutionary, or it could just crash and burn. But I say give it a shot.