Small Guilds - I MEAN SMALL

[misterretro]

Originally posted by Dominata
I'm not saying anything about their chances or if they are being productive or not. All I'm saying is that no group of players have the right to tell others to participate in the bot or not.

Sure, its thier choice to use the bot. I can't force you to use the bot, but i think SHOULD if you do camelot. If not, you're not bieng a team player, and thats all there is to it. If youre in the lair and not on a kill team, well...you're going to look like a ninja to everyone on the bot, and you take that risk.

[Mercatura]

Today, any omni over 130 is welcome to join the bot at raids for a chance at loot. I've seen lower levs on the channel just don't expect to enter the raffles and win, cause many other people there will raise hell, me included. If you wanna ***** about the level req, don't do it on the bot. (Personally I know a number of people want it to be higher, my vote would be 140 or 150...anyways this is neither here nor there)

The "rules" are pretty simple and more about beating clanners than exercising power over other omnis. "Admins" are not on a personal power trip, they're there to get omni to win. Staying in the box room (or charging it in groups and not sitting on your butt in 100%) does work. Staying (or not) in a certain playfield when everyone else does work. It only takes a few people to screw it up, which is why you get "shouted at". Its not really shouting, chat is only 11 lines long and rarely does anyone scroll back up. It blows by fast if you leave 4 bots and org chat open.

Its pretty simple, it gets spammy but just try to read the lines that matter.

Then again anyone who comes to the forums and can post a rational though probably isn't one of these people:

[bot]Now Raffling for Heavy Padded Coat etc etc
[player1]whats this for?
[player2]what are we raffling for?
[player3]I just got here 2 minutes ago, why can't I enter this?
[player4]what are we raffling?

Player3 usually "forgets" to mention the first part though.

[Ashuras]

IMO, this complain about is damm stupid.

My guild is a damm small one. Our active players hardly forms 2 full teams. But we have a lot of fun. It's a social guild.

Are u trying to suggest that we disband due to your PVP concerns ?

So wat if u limit the minimum guild size ? People who want to spy can easily get 100 alts to form a spy guild if they want to.

Size of a guild should not matter.

I don't understand all this concern about spying either. If u want to keep something secret, u should never use a "public" channel, but instead create one where u only invite people u trust.

Even if FC limits one faction per account (which I think is a dumb thing to do.. I hope they never do it) Those who are hardup on spying would definitely not mind paying for another account just for that. (I'm paying for an extra just for twinking).

[____________Dominata]

Please people, read my posts carefully. I'm sorry if I'm not clear enough on this.
When I finally go to Camelot I will of course be in on the bot, I know about the new one and I like it. I have been recommended the bot by a very dear friend of mine who I trust totally, so of course I will use it.
We even have the way it works and how to join posted in the members section on our forums.

This isn't about me however, it is about every persons right to play the game as they see fit, within the rules set by the developers without being called names. Looting in missions while you're friends dies is another matter entirely, but Camelot is a free for all.
Loyalty in Camelot means squat, I'm sorry to say, since there are people on both sides who have looted the same items several times and then put them up for sale to make gobs of creds. True loyalty is when you get your hands on things you already have or doesn't need, you pass entirely or give them to friends in need.

I do think that some "admins" are on a powertrip on the clan side. There is a Camelot post here on the forums that was hilarious and sad to read at the same time and you can find it here.
That is about power, a sad form of power but power nonetheless.

So to sum it all up. Personally I have nothing against bots as long as they are fair, but I defend every persons right to stay outside that system if they have no wish to be part of it. Ok?

[assassimon]

I don't care about all small guilds, but the lvl 2 toons that create guilds and start spamming clan leader chat with n00b questions or begging is abit annoying...

Maybe should need 20+ members in guild before they get access to clan leader chat.

[Mercatura]

BTW, Omni doesn't raffle Morgan on chat.

Everytime I've been there, a bunch of MAs + some friends go up and kill her, and somebody gets loot.

If there wasn't some kind of order and "casual" agreement between all omnis there (a fair number are in the Alliance, but not all) then it would just plain suck. Everyone would form damage teams, and veteran clanners would run in and slaughter them one by one at whim.

[Thorlicious]

In januar i took over the leadership of the first org i was in, and due to the fact that i only played first person shooters in hte net before i didn't really have much experience regarding MMORPG orgs, so i used the leaderchat also to get in touch with other leaders and hear how they handle it (are there org rules for you, since your guild expanded do you still like it as much as you started the game? etc. etc.)
yes i also know how annoying some peeps can be in leaderchat, but if they asked gently and i wasn't busy i used to reply to them

So maybe they should just make a new system with org leaderchat? dunno, maybe make it lvl 100+ or checked on the amount of ppl you have inside your org, taking the chat away isn't really gonna help it, since not all ppl who start this game make a lvl 2 toon and start spamming and begging on the leaderchat.

and it is my humble opinion that the leaderchat is also there for those questions/discussions, for your usuage an "OmniTowerBot" might be suited better tho

[Cz]

How about a level requirement on the leaders channel? Or several leaders channels, each with a level limit, like the trade and team channels? Say 0, 50, 100 and 150 limits? That way the high level leaders get some privacy if they want, but can still check in on the lower level ones and help out if they choose to.

Give me your opinions and suggestions, and I'll bring it up with Gaute.

[assassimon]

Originally posted by Cz
How about a level requirement on the leaders channel? Or several leaders channels, each with a level limit, like the trade and team channels? Say 0, 50, 100 and 150 limits? That way the high level leaders get some privacy if they want, but can still check in on the lower level ones and help out if they choose to.

Give me your opinions and suggestions, and I'll bring it up with Gaute.

Sounds good to me, but make the level req average lvl of guild not of the leader.

Some guilds with alot of lvl 150 toons only have a lvl 80-90 leader.

[Cz]

Originally posted by Azzazzimon
Sounds good to me, but make the level req average lvl of guild not of the leader.

Some guilds with alot of lvl 150 toons only have a lvl 80-90 leader.

I'm not sure whether that is preferable for the guys making it though. The chat server might not have access to that information, as it only gets info about the character requesting access to channels, and no info from the database tables containing membership lists and levels of all the others.

Of course, everything can be coded, but it's a matter of resources and network load.

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Cz
How about a level requirement on the leaders channel?

No. A level 20 org leader may be just as intelligent, if not more, than a level 200 leader. The level 20 leader may have more to offer to leader channel than a level 200.

Besides, this is a role play game, or have we forgotten that? The level 20 leader is too busy role playing instead of leveling, so why should their word be of any less value?

Also, how about experience. A level 20 leader may have run their org for 8 months, while a level 200 just starting their organizatoin has no experience. The level 200 could benefit from the level 20s wisdom.

Originally posted by Cz
Or several leaders channels, each with a level limit, like the trade and team channels? Say 0, 50, 100 and 150 limits? That way the high level leaders get some privacy if they want, but can still check in on the lower level ones and help out if they choose to.

If anyone wants privacy from annoying ppl, then /ignore <annoying person>. Or, if they find the channel is annoying, then turn it off.

Being higher in level doesn't make you smarter than anyone else, just means you spent more time leveling. So why are you even entertaining the idea of seperating the levels? Stop catering to higher levels and treat everyone equally. Remember, the level 20s money is just as good as the level 200s.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Argulace_MoK


I wont resort to telling you to buggar off, however I shall take a slightly different tone with you from now on.

Apparently your short sidedness does not allow you to see the future problem of this "open guild creating" policy.

Read about the expantion Boci, then tell me how acceptable it is for the clan to make an alt so they can listen to our strategy and know what we are doing before we do it.

Want to make a small chat group? Get a bot.

Arg

Want to control who's on your 'leaders chat' to keep out "spies" and "babies"?

Get a bot

[Jynne]

Cz, while we're on this topic: what about giving org rank 1 people (as leader is rank 0) read-access to the leader channels?

That will let officers monitor the channel for news and get calls for help when their leaders are off-line, for example. I feel this would be useful for the booster pack.

It might also limit leaders being stupid, since some of their own people could see it then.

[Rizla]

im with Jynne on this-maybe that way Antiy woulda shut up months ago!

edited for spelling haha

[Argulace]

Originally posted by Mercatura
People could just use 2 accounts to spy. Limiting chars on 1 account in any way would be pointless, and piss a bunch of people off.

Hmm, all guilds under 500 members should be disbanded! j/k

It doesnt effect ANYONE except people with clan alts in leader chat for omni and people with omni alts in Clan leader chat.

Nobody else is effected.

I'm just suggesting that out of all the people in the game, at least the leaders should be kept honest.

Arg

[Cz]

Cemetarygate, where on Rubi-Ka did you pick up the notion that my questions had anything to do with people being intelligent or not? My personal opinion is that we have too many channels already, but that can't stop me from throwing out questions - sometimes perhaps poorly considered ones, but hey, I'm busy - to fuel a discussion.

My concern was how to prevent those level 1 characters made by opposing players from listening in on the leaders' chat without forcing people to use bots or temporary chat groups. Maybe that is still the best option though?

Unfortunately I don't think we store the data on how long a leader has led an organisation. And running an org for long doesn't mean you necessarily run it well. Use member count maybe? Total levels in the org?

Level is also what gives you titles and shows power, and thus status among the clans and in Omni-Tek, so role-playing wise it wouldn't be too off-target to use it like that.

And though I agree that catering only to high level players isn't a good thing, the high levels should have benefits. If not, many people wouldn't play these games at all.

Jynne, I'll check whether partial access is supported in the chat server code today. If it is, such a change should be easy to do, though I guess we need a separate discussion on it. After all, with the current org system - where the leader can have as many rank 1s as he wants - we can get quite a lot of people listening in on that chat.

[Treonaut]

That is why UO was always so good. No levels at all. I am sorry EQ was invented to lead us to this place. Someday a new game will come that will look at a character and not at a false indicator showing eyes to screen time. But, its all opinion. Some people think level means you are smart or good at a game. Not me, though. I rather play next a good player than a long player.

[Argulace]

Originally posted by Hildegaard
Whoa, Argulace

I can respect your vision of the game, but that's not everybody's vision. Nor do you have any right to shove your vision down anybody else's throat.

You have something of a reputation for arrogance, and threads like this clearly demonstrate why you have that rep.

What gives you the right to say that somebody else's guild should be disbanded?

Who died and made you lord king of the universe?

Hehe, umm... Well Hildrgaard I'm not sure I have ever met you in the game. So, if you want to know me, just ask and I'll be glad to meet you.

I assure you that rumors of my tyrancy are greatly over exaggurated.

Who's jamming anything down anyones throat here? Not me, this is an open discussion on a public forum. I fail to see your point except that you see an opportunity to insult someone and you did. If thats the case, I hope ya feel better now

What gives me the right? I'll tell you what.

I'm a guild leader and guild leaders decide guild leader things. As a leader, I am tired of constantly having to mute leader chat because I know I miss important things between all the BS that goes on there.

Not to mention the security issues surrounding the problem of having both clan and omni leaders with alts in eachothers leader chats. This will be especially important later, when the booster pack releases.

Arg

[Darkbane]

I remember long before the game launched, thinking exactly threse questions, how would FC prevent you having toons on both sides. I quickly realised that basically, they couldn't.

It takes 6 people to form an org. It should take 2 people minimum to maintain one (ie if an org ever reaches 1 member, it should automatically be disbanded).

Beyond that, anything is reasonable.

Spamming leader chat is a social issue, not a game issue. Puting a level limit on leader chat is probably not a bad idea though. Say about level 30. You'd still be able to form an org below that, but the leader wouldn't get access to leader chat until they reached 30.

Multiple channels for different levels on the other hand isn't a good idea, there are already probably too many.

[Argulace]

Originally posted by Cz
How about a level requirement on the leaders channel? Or several leaders channels, each with a level limit, like the trade and team channels? Say 0, 50, 100 and 150 limits? That way the high level leaders get some privacy if they want, but can still check in on the lower level ones and help out if they choose to.

Give me your opinions and suggestions, and I'll bring it up with Gaute.

I'm not sure a level restriction is in order here. I certainly don't want to push for such a thing. It is true that level is not any indication of your experience as a leader.

I was level 20, I had 4 years leading online gaming organizations at that time.

I'm sure that I'm no special case in that arena.

This is more about WHO is supposed to be and who isn't supposed to be in leader chat.

Level restriction, definately isn't the way to go.

Arg