Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

I REALLY like the idea of lore appropriate changes when a guild hall is abandoned. Near/in a city? A den of thieves, cut throats, etc. In the wilderness? Claimed by the denizens or perhaps by some cult. Flavor of the month upstart guild x wants a hall? Dukes commission them to clear out the ruins of y and they can then renovate that hall/make it their own. That guild falters for several months with no response from members? Guild hall reverts to being a dungeon.

I have noticed there is a bit of a lack of dungeons for the level 15-20 range (plenty of areas to adventure, but not a lot of options to loot)where unless power built or with higher level chars you basically can manage only the central cloakwood. In addition, the areas you can loot at level 15+ are all available to epics so you become very limited and really are mostly just grinding xp until you can manage higher level dungeons. You can no longer loot the orc caves, gnoll caves or the goblin mine, but are not strong enough for most of the epic areas. Would kill 2 birds with one stone to turn unused, ready made abandoned areas into dungeons for mid levels!

I also think the idea of generating rp around scouting the abandoned site, initiating an offensive against the denizens (perhaps multiple over several events and perhaps screenshots of battling the spawns for dms) could provide several benefits. It would give the dm(s) facilitating the guild hall creation a chance to see how the guild members really operate, rp and fight. This could then lead to later/follow up rp, or at least give ideas for future plots. It also shows how invested(at least for the moment) the members of the guild are. It's great that a guild leader can put forth the time, fake money, rp, etc in to gaining a guild hall, but how about the membership? Do the other members take ownership of the guild or are they just there to piggy back at the chance of gaining XP/items?

Basically I think this gives way more insight into aspiring guild than the current requirements.

DM Golem wrote:I'm just making a general comment here, and that is that this thread will be more useful to us as staff in terms of understanding the feeling of the playerbase if we get multiple opinions from many players, rather than a discussion between a smaller group of players over specific details.

It might be better to open a thread on inactive guildhalls more generally, with a simple poll/question - "Should the DM team intervene in inactive guilds, passing them on to others or shutting them down?"

If we get a yes to that, we will need to define what constitutes inactivity.

If we get a yes to that, we will need to define what should be done.

Would any who have posted in this thread object to adopting a staged approach to this discussion, to get input from as wide a set of players as possible? If not I would open a thread in General discussion, with a poll in it.

I propose moving the entire thread to the general section of the forums then as more people will see it that way and take part in it. Also editing the poll to reflect what the discussion.

Okay being on this server now for a number of years and getting to learn some of the in and out of it here is my two cents.

Guilds are too hard to get put in.

By the time we get a hall most RP has been seen out and players move on.

With this said it is my opinion that current halls be made to be more flexible.

What this means is this.

Take the stagnant halls and outfit them with basics only.

Once these are outfitted by the devs and builders then put set LEASE prices on them monthly.

If a guild fails to pay its bill for a number of months the lands that they are beholden to will sell the lease to a new guild!!! BOOM! PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

One could also say that the housing in BG and other places could made to fit this idea as well letting players be more immersed in the RP by having leased homes as well.

Now on to the part that really matters. STOP LETTING US PLAYERS DESIGN OUR HALLS!!! WE SUCK AT IT!!! YEAH?

DM Golem wrote:I'm just making a general comment here, and that is that this thread will be more useful to us as staff in terms of understanding the feeling of the playerbase if we get multiple opinions from many players, rather than a discussion between a smaller group of players over specific details.

It might be better to open a thread on inactive guildhalls more generally, with a simple poll/question - "Should the DM team intervene in inactive guilds, passing them on to others or shutting them down?"

If we get a yes to that, we will need to define what constitutes inactivity.

If we get a yes to that, we will need to define what should be done.

Would any who have posted in this thread object to adopting a staged approach to this discussion, to get input from as wide a set of players as possible? If not I would open a thread in General discussion, with a poll in it.

No objection here. Maybe a link to this thread, for reference?

Blackman D wrote:while i can understand the issue/concern here the same can be said about any area on the server that isnt used can it not?

and the server is massive, there are a -lot- of infrequently used areas, not just guildhalls

+1

Server is now too large for population. This isn't 2011, with two servers filled with 75 players. I think ICly, there could be implemented a rotating area access. Say, x-y-z horde of monsters, or Foreign Nation invades the North, or the South and for 6 months those areas are closed until RP is shown to take steps to open them back up. Then 2 months later, another area becomes off limits.

I think by doing this, it could drive RP, push players into tighter, more RP manageable quarters and save resources.

Regarding Guild Halls, I voted yes, but as Golem stated, the new rules would need to be intensely debated and articulated before implementation.

Peccator wrote:

maulofthetitans55 wrote:The same person leading multiple guilds through different characters should also be forbidden.

I agree so much with this. I have to offer the observation that this is the only server that I've ever played that doesn't have a rule preventing the same player, on multiple PCs, to be in a position of leadership in more than one faction. I feel like this rule should be a given to prevent both willful and accidental metagaming.

It would, I think, also encourage a more thriving life for guilds and help prevent guild inactivity if guild leaders are not doling out their time down more than one avenue.

+1

Peccator wrote:I have to offer the observation that this is the only server that I've ever played that doesn't have a rule preventing the same player, on multiple PCs, to be in a position of leadership in more than one faction.

It goes even farther than that, imho.