[Poll] Should players be limited to one character in any given guild?

[Giftherz]

I feel like this would impacted Merchant type characters the most.. Most other guilds I would be fine with a enforced limit. If it is a policy issue bringing this up I agree with Vox.. Be responsible players, quit requiring so much damn policing.

[lkbalboa]

Yes. It's not about trusting players or assuming they'll be poor individuals. But the player base isn't high enough to need or support one person playing the same guild.

[Kinaed]

In terms of actual complaints I've fielded, crossover isn't actually the main issue. More, the issue seemed to be discomfort by other parties - for example, let's say Bob has Alt1 and Alt2 in a guild. Depending on the size of the guild, seekers and other guild members sometimes feel as if getting Alt1 upset is synonymous with upsetting the entire guild.

The other thing that lead to complaints was that when a concept already exists, other players felt dissuaded from creating it. Sort of like checking census to help guild chargen - or potentially thinking they don't want to compete for customers with someone already established.

We have a game design guideline that is intended to break-up and distribute power blocks around the game. That's why staff can't be GLs for example, and a player can only have one noble, etc. It's to keep any one player from dominating anything - that's even why we've tried to create bloodless ways to remove GLs, so conflict can ebb and flow. Allowing multiple chars in a single guild for a single player is counter to that, but there's also a point of terminal failure - ie, the pbase being to small to fill all necessary roles. That's why we allow multiplay. As you can see, it's not a cut and dry issue, but about priorities.

[Zeita]

I think there are too many grey areas and potentials for crossover, that it is a dangerous pool to wade around in.

If you do keep allowing it, I would make a rule that if one of your characters becomes a GL, then the other MUST leave the guild. That is the deep end of the pool for me.

[Voxumo]

In terms of actual complaints I've fielded, crossover isn't actually the main issue. More, the issue seemed to be discomfort by other parties - for example, let's say Bob has Alt1 and Alt2 in a guild. Depending on the size of the guild, seekers and other guild members sometimes feel as if getting Alt1 upset is synonymous with upsetting the entire guild.

Except that's exactly what crossover is Kinaed. If you allow your feelings on alt1 to affect your actions on alt2, that is crossover. However that also applies in the opposite. If you allow your characters feelings towards alt1 to affect your actions towards alt2, you are equally committing crossover. I can think of plenty of times in the past where I'd rp with one of Takta's alt and get into a pissing match with them, but then meet up with another of their alts within the hour and be perfectly fine with them. It's all about separating feelings.

The other thing that lead to complaints was that when a concept already exists, other players felt dissuaded from creating it. Sort of like checking census to help guild chargen - or potentially thinking they don't want to compete for customers with someone already established.

Here's the thing, staff have made a strong stance in the past when people have complained about Character 1 being to big of a merchant to compete with, and staff's general response has been "They've worked for that success, work to topple it as well." yet this is a clear cut case of people trying to circumvent previous rulings via other means.


I'm sorry, but without any actual recent cases being brought to the table, I find it utterly irresponsible that we are debating on changing a policy based on "Feelings" alone. This just seems like people wanting code to take care of their issues instead of taking care of it themselves. If you feel somebody is allowing feelings on alt1 to affect alt2's actions, do the proper thing and bring it up the staff, instead of trying get a blanket policy that will ultimately end up hurting the game. The game isn't large enough to support this kind of blanket policy.

I say this in regards to guilds such as the reeves and order. There isn't enough interest in playing either that we should dissuade those who wish to fill those roles even more... especially not when we allow free-roam mages and free-roam villains to wander about. You can play as many villains as you want outside of guilds and there's nothing stopping you, but you can't play free-roam knights and reeves without taking away from someone elses rp, which staff have frowned upon mind you, in the case of inquisitor's acting as if they were knights.

And no, I'm not presently biased in this matter. I have three alts, one of which is in a guild. I just think this is such a foolish initiative spurred by feelings versus actual issues.

I think there are too many grey areas and potentials for crossover, that it is a dangerous pool to wade around in.

If you do keep allowing it, I would make a rule that if one of your characters becomes a GL, then the other MUST leave the guild. That is the deep end of the pool for me.

If it is such a dangerous pool to wade in, why have we been wading in it for so long, particularly when we had more players in the past? If it such an issue, why is it only being brought up now. Perhaps the issue lies not in the game, but in its playerbase, a playerbase that as of recently seems to desire instant gratification versus work being put in.

And again, the matter with the GL is ridiculous. Staff can easily see if a GL is using their power to benefit an alt. Oh, alt2 suddenly was promoted to the highest rank and received a hefty stipend from alt1... that seems suspicious. In reality this is why second gls should be mandatory, as they can more easily watch a first gl and report such concerns. Plus if an issue does arise with alt2, the 2nd GL can handle it without concerns of crossover.

These are all concerns that are already taken care of by the crossover policy, and can be resolved if people just get a backbone and report such concerns.

[Zeita]

Why does it feel like you're attacking me for having an opinion that differs from yours?

I've not raised any concerns over this or complained about the topic, but I was asked- as was everyone else- for an opinion and I gave it. You may be frustrated, you may be fired up, and you may be thinking you're talking in general terms while addressing me (by quoting me and then moving on to attacking language)- but please be mindful, as I've done nothing to deserve the ire. Please be mindful of language like 'ridiculous' and 'get a backbone'.

[Puciek]

I'm on the fence about this. While I do think there should be a limit, that it shouldn't be a straight one or none deal. I say this because some guilds can have very different roles within it. The only guild I've ever had multiple alts in was the order, and I was typically playing a knight and priest/inquistor at the same time. These are very different roles that play very different from each other, yet under this proposed blanket policy it wouldn't be doable.

So while my vote is for Maybe, i'm leaning to no unless certain leeways are provided.

And I don't think that this being forbidden is a bad thing. While they are separate, knights and orderites constantly cross paths and have to work closely together, so that's an issue brewing. And with the small pop of those guilds, even at best of times, any internal struggle makes it complicated.

I'd speak for yourself. I never had that sort of issue, and I even played Grand Inquisitor at the time when I was the only inquisitor... people just need to play smart, and stop treating their mistakes as if it's an issue with the system. Heck the only issues of crossover I've ever had was accidently forgetting which alt I was on and posting a rumor or replying to a rumor intended by another alt.

Are players so careless nowadays that they can't even handle crossover without it being reinforced via policy and code?

Not sure what do you take it personally. And while you may not have an issue with your own alts, there are situations where crossover of other people is possible, and it's not always a clear-cut case of promoting/demoting people, but a much more subtle interatction, especially visible in low population guilds if that was to take place and an internal struggle starts, suddenly some characters are oddly cut out from it, which alone can be a big (dis)advantage.

But you can't play free-roam knights and reeves without taking away from someone elses rp, which staff have frowned upon mind you, in the case of inquisitor's acting as if they were knights.

Actually, you can play free-roam knights and Reeves, we have at least few players like that on the grid right now.

The Knight/Inquisitor split is not frowned upon but is the theme, and it's a good thing because if we will allow this to blend then we will quickly arrive at no need for inquisitors at all - as the knight can do it all, but also arrest the mage. And by the same token when we had highly combative inquisitors, who need knights?

[Kinaed]

Crossover is someone actually using information or abusing it across alts. People's complaints are more in line with FEAR of crossover in other people before anything has even happened. Fear of other people's behavior drives a lot of behaviour and decisions. Theoretically, it's fine for Bob to know who all of the mages in game are because Bob's alts don't ICly know, but mages still hide that information about their characters OOCly, for example.

Our view of the world builds our reality, even when it is invalid. Thus, feelings are real issues, they're just harder to resolve than cut and dried scenarios.

In my mind, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking players how they feel about things and using that information to guide decision making.

[Voxumo]

Why does it feel like you're attacking me for having an opinion that differs from yours?

I've not raised any concerns over this or complained about the topic, but I was asked- as was everyone else- for an opinion and I gave it. You may be frustrated, you may be fired up, and you may be thinking you're talking in general terms while addressing me (by quoting me and then moving on to attacking language)- but please be mindful, as I've done nothing to deserve the ire. Please be mindful of language like 'ridiculous' and 'get a backbone'.

I was in no way attacking you. The manner of my speech is no different than the multitude of times I have spoken up on topics I feel strongly about. Infact it's quite tame compared to how I usually speak. I'm sorry if you felt it was directed at you, but your comment merely served as a stepping stone into addressing the topic as a whole. If you happen to look back at previous posts of mine, you'll notice if I intend on pointing towards an individual, I don't tiptoe around naming them.

As it stands, I am merely offering a counter-opinion so that those who may be on the fence and view this topic can see more than one side.

Crossover is someone actually using information or abusing it across alts. People's complaints are more in line with FEAR of crossover in other people before anything has even happened. Fear of other people's behavior drives a lot of behaviour and decisions. Theoretically, it's fine for Bob to know who all of the mages in game are because Bob's alts don't ICly know, but mages still hide that information about their characters OOCly, for example.

Each and every character MUST ICly earn: information, relationships, support, items, money, etc.

Hating a character on alt1 because said character did something to alt2 falls under this category, as the character did nothing to earn alt1's ire.

Though if we are allowing fear of events that haven't even happened to pave the way for potentially gaming changing decisions then I'm very concerned for the future of this game. It sets a very bad precedent. Players should not have the potential to be punished based on actions they haven't even committed.



Also as for the bit about free-roam Knights and Reeves, I know such things were illegal icly in the past, not sure if it's still illegal or not. Being a retired member of those guilds, through actual ic time or backstories is a different beast though.

[Starstarfish]

I as a player have a lot of fears or concerns about a variety of behaviors I sometimes witness and those experiences shape my decisions.

That is not unique to alts or crossover concerns, if I had one it would be the concept of "pre-established antagonism" wherein a bad interaction with one member of a Guild seems to mean treating the entire org and anyone in it under a certain light. As that is not establishing unique relationships with each character and seems to ignore the reality of vNPCs.

This gets into a boggy road with allowing dual guilding because thst means, and yes especially for Merchants. Now ICly it's been established no one is meant to sell anything or provide services without joining even if some skills aren't guilded to the Merchants. If only one alt can be in that clan, that's going to by IC precedent cut off lots of possible support roles that might technically require that Guilding by IC rules.