Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 152

Thread: Large Player Structures - Organisations!

  1. #21
    N. 2 is the way to go, no doubt.

    Your most important goal has to be to create a solid system free from all the problems a players guild has.
    Story related names are very important to do that becouse of the confusion they could create if left to players guilds.
    Needless to say, when ppl choosed those names for their guilds they already knew they were taking a story name, they can't complain now.
    Also every good rplayer will welcome those changes even if they mean that he needs to change his guild name.


  2. #22

    I say take back the names

    Make changes if needed and put in better checks to insure it doesn't happen again.

    Many players jumped in and created guilds using the names, knowing full well that the original intent was to allow players to either join a guild or join an organization within the story line. They did this knowing that they could be forced to change it later, or perhaps wanting the confrontation between the "evil" Funcom and their "good" guild. What motivates some players to deliberately choose one of these org's names could be anything from adoration, intrigue, to flat out brashness or contempt. No matter what the motivation or intent - it's time to set things right. Many players would like to be in Omni-Pol, or Omni-Med, or The Sentinels, but want to be a part of the GAME's org, not another player's org. Fix it now and let's move on to the next issue...

  3. #23
    I see it down between option one and two...two would really be the best option though (was surprised FC never protected certain names in the first place). I wouldn't be surprised to see members of say "Omni-Pol" change and join the true "Omni-Pol". Will it mean the overall leadership would change. Yes, but there would be a good chance that the staff of the old organisation would tend to operate as they used to, even with taking orders from above. Am figuring these organisations will run something like the Vandelmar Consortium has been, so really don't see it as a problem.

    Option one has its appeal in the lack of real altering of things, and what seems to be relative easyness to accomplish. But its a cheap fudge which it seems reading this many users don't want.

    As for buildings. I really can't wait for these as our Guild HQ is way too cramped these days...and looking for a move has been a few probs finding something that fits our needs, so a proper guild HQ will be a great addition (and long overdue). It would be nice though in the future though for guilds to be able to afford different designs of places, bigger ones etc which the rent goes up on. So a guild with 20 members can afford a neat little places, while the monster big 300-500 member organisations get a huge place with a hall, canteen and other fitting things like lesson rooms. Surely its not that difficult to poach some of the rooms from missions for this purpose? Special rooms would be useful too, kinda like a walk in bank where people can leave weapons and armour for other guild members to use and access to the room could be set to a predefined rank. Well, just a few ideas.

    - Nya
    Major "Nyadach" Prabel
    Neutral and proud of it!

  4. #24

    Lightbulb GM-run story clans are the way to go

    When the game first launched a large group of us wanted to join the Knights, based on the description given in the game manual. When it was obvious that wasn't possible, we decided to form a clan to get organized for the time (we thought it would be September of last year, oh well) when the NPC clans would be opened. We did this because we did not want to fall behind the "established" player clans when teh NPC clans finally opened up. From a role-playing standpoint I served as Lord Galahad's "steward", handling the day-to-day operation of the clan until his return from planning sessions with the Council of Truth.

    As the leader of that clan, I can say emphatically that I strongly support Funcom taking back the names and creating GM-run story organizations. It has been in our charter from the beginning that we would play as the Knights, and would disband and join the "real" Knights when that option became available.

    I'm glad to see the majority of people on this board agree with that! Please, Funcom, make it so!


  5. #25

  6. #26
    What About Neutrals?
    Entertainer and Rubi-Ka Trotter

    Feel free to visit:
    Olie's Arul Saba Store - Gems and Bracer
    Free Champagne and refreshements

  7. #27
    Good article, now some comments...

    The inclusion of organisations is a no-brainer, no offense intended. All the reasons listed point to this being obvious, so the sooner the idea is implemented the better. Personally, I'd suggest adding it to the character creation level, using the same format as the profession choice stage.

    Besides bringing players together, organisations would ideally have their own unique pros and cons. Another possibility is that some professions are better suited than others for certain organisations - doctors and Omni-Med, for example. Of course, that's not to say that Omni-Med doesn't require or want the likes of soldiers, crats or whatever. Every organisation should require a good mix of other professions to function, carry out specific tasks or special operations.

    Another point to consider is what is the purpose of the organisation beyond the basic idea of bringing players together? Missions specific to an organisation are another idea. And it's worth bearing in mind that if a department becomes large and powerful, with players carrying out contentious missions, then there is all likelyhood that clan and/or neutrals will target their operations. Or for that matter, other Omni departments. Essentially, each department should have it's own sphere of influence, short and long term goals, ongoing political/interdepartmental issues and so on. Anything which can involve the player more has got to be a good thing.

    I'd suggest departments have their own sub-departments, which is where player created guilds come in, with their own unit. For example we could have Omni-InternOps/Office of Field Operations/Inquisitors. Where Inquisitors would be the player guild. Or whatever.

    Regarding player guild names which conflict with the game world/story line, I'd go with taking them back so the game world is consistent. Offer guilds the option to join the 'real' department if they share the same ideologies or else they are required to change their name. The 'company' naming is also a good idea worth pursuing.

    "Forcefully taking back the appropriate story names - making stronger checks on names when people make new organisations. Removing the players' ability to have "Departments" on the Omni-Tek side - assign these as the "story level" of the Omni-Tek structures. Run the structures with specially selected players / Funcom employees."

    Also worth bearing in mind, imho.

    "The key question is: What does it mean to be part of the story-endorsed structures?

    First off, it would increase the likelihood of being forced into certain types of behaviour. You might have to have an open recruitment policy, or maybe the total opposite."

    Depends on how well implemented the structures/organisations are created and maintained. Forcing players into a certain type of behaviour is going to be kind of difficult. There is no concept of good or bad, right or wrong in AO so Omni can go to Harrys restricted areas, wax all the neuts in the buildings and not have to worry about repercussions, or being banned/outlawed or hunted by neutrals. There are no 'wanted' posters out there for players who rack up lots of kills against omni/clan/neut territory, after all. Now perhaps these are things worth considering.

    "We would expect more exemplary individual behaviour too. A more friendly, sharing nature - more focus on role-playing than power-levelling etc."

    An absolute must. Personally, I get very bored of hunting out at the mines/pipes just for the sake of levelling, preferring instead to do missions. Guessing I'm in a minority here, however. This would be overcome when organisations are implemented - it creates instant guilds, and all the benefits of common goals bring with it.

    "If you have any ideas for other perks and responsibilities - please share! We are listening!"

    Hmmm... we shall see.

    "We have promised to, and are in the process of, implementing organisation headquarters. For the time being, they will have to be located in the cities around the world. We have some ideas to share with you in this matter. "

    One HQ in a major city, supplimented by organisation only access to wompa or grid terms allowing one way access to the HQ. Quick jaunts such as these should be a benefit of being part of an organisation, after all.

    HQ's would also ideally be home to bars and other facilities, perhaps with org/dept specific items, only available at HQ and to organisation members alone. Inclusion of a firing range, as currently found at the start of the game, would also be interesting - instead of the current omni/clan/neut zones, perhaps areas which mimic a small settlement or building would be useful? Or the inclusion of several different settings, perhaps?

    "The OHQ will contain some indoors and some outdoors areas, all in one playfield. There will, for the time being, only be one standard of OHQ per side. Possibilities of upgrades are being considered."

    I like the idea that HQ's would need the room to expand their 'office space' as they grow with more players joining. I'm for keeping organisations in seperate buildings or even cities, especially in laggy areas.

    "The OHQs will contain an option to upload to the Grid, but not to download. The OHQ will be more or less like an org. apartment - a place to gather and talk shop without other people barging in, as if you hold your org. meetings in a backyard / high-rise. It will have the option to apply fixtures / furniture - and more than ten units."

    Not sure about this issue of grid acccess. One of the benefits of orgs would be to have grid terms which give direct access to HQ in various cities. HQ still has grid access, but org grid terms can only be used by org members.

    Overall, organisations, HQs and so forth is a no brainer screaming to be implemented - the only problem I have is whether Funcom has the resources to work all these features in effectively, given the other issues and problems currently ongoing... dare I say, neglected?


  8. #28
    Totally ignore the in-game structure and run the story organisations as something happening on the side on the web etc.




    Gaute, adding sh!t now will not make the game any less boring than it is now. But anyway player run orgs is a start. Personally option 2 sounds the most logical. Just take back the names and then use them for yourself. Then once you have that installed, add in guild apartments. Much the same way, you are able to use one building with 3 entrances to serve as the apartment for the entire gaming society. Just use one building as an apartment for all the guilds. We're humans. We want territory. Thus it would be logical to be able to allow our guilds to have their own space.. so to speak. With customizable options, such as adding stores and charging a fee to the org and the players for access to org stores.

    etc etc.

  9. #29
    I'm intrigued by the "coopt organizations option"..basically make them the true branch.

    I think I am in favor of this, as long as FC reserves the right to rename the org if it goes against the official charter.

    You would have a ready-made group of players, and the guild(s) would undoubtabaly grow once the word go out that you were actually going to do something with guilds.

    As a side note: OMNI gets cost bonuses because they are OMNI. It is still the case that CLAN get's guild bonuses?


  10. #30
    I would prefer a mix of #1 and #2.

    1. Change names of organisations that are too close or equal to the "company/conclave" names.

    2. Let organisations align themselves to the various "company/conclave" names.

    3. Individual players cannot become members of the company or conclave, only organisations.

    This would keep guilds/organisations in-tact.

    The problem I see with #2 is that if people can be both a member of a company and a guild, I could see a problem or conflict of interest. How many players really have time to dedicate themselves to two different groups?

    I recommend that entire guilds align themselves with one company or conclave. This would keep guilds in-tact while giving an extra bonus of alignment with a story group. Sort of a best of both worlds scenario.
    Mercenaries of Kai

  11. #31

    Arrow super-orgs

    LostLogic - that's pretty much what I was getting at with my previous post regarding 'super-orgs'. Existing orgs would 'align' themselves (ie join) one of the story 'super-orgs'. Existing orgs with 'misapproriated' names would have to pick new names or have them changed forcefully.

    I was also suggesting that there be a special super-org channel for org leaders who would act (with an ARK or two) as the board of directors or clan leaders council on behalf of their members.

    This allows FC to organise entire groups of orgs whilst the players get some input into the whole thing. Someone else suggested a super-org channel for all members, not just leaders, and maybe that would be a good idea too...
    Last edited by Darkbane; May 6th, 2002 at 20:13:12.

  12. #32

    Red face Go #1!

    Option 1 is great! I don't choose it because it's less of a hassle but because I like the idea of organizations, NOT individuals, coming together under the roof of story line organizations. Conclave or Company would NOT be confusing. All this focus turned onto the few organizations that chose to name themselves after the storyline organizations. What of it? If you talk about Omni Pol and you want to distinguish which one your talking about it's not that hard. Just say 'Omni Pol' for the organization and 'Omin Pol Comp.' for the Company or something of that nature. I would like the choice to ally my Guild with a storyline Clan Organization if I wanted to. Option 1 gives us that chance.

    I did have a question regarding the Org HQ's. It was mentioned that they would be placed near the entrances of cities. Does this mean we would have access to OHQ's from any city? Or would it be like the personal apartments where we can only access it from the place we chose in the beginning? Meaning it would only be available from a certain entrance in a certain city. How would members gain access? Just by being a member or would each member recieve a key upon joining? If so would the key dissapear if they left? I would hope so.

    Thank you for your time and I hope you read this.
    ArchPriest Katelin 'Lunayu' Saar - Former President of the Guild of Meta-Physics
    Former Council Member of the Council of Truth

    House Demonslap
    A little Anger never hurt Nobody...

    "It's called an Anger Manifestation not a Love Manifestation!"
    "And how does that make you feel?"


  13. #33


    Originally posted by Davesbane
    Who cares about GM ran clans or departments? Are GM ran departments gonna be there on a day in day out basis for your members, to help each other, get to know each other, and sacrifice for each other?? I think not!!!! However if in a player ran organization will you get to take part in the day to day events, meet people, team with people, share experieriences with people of common ideals and goals?? YES!! We don't need or want in my opinion a GM ran guild (why not just call yourself the "Dictators" and we will all belong to that guild) why don't you try to concentrate on involving the guilds that are here already? The same guilds that have stuck it out through all of your fumbles with patches and inept coders?? The same guilds that day in and day out tell their members "soon we will have a labeled backpack, nevermind there is no story". Maybe the story is just not flexible enough? tell me?? been waiting?? over a year now. All I can say if this is a story someone shake tolkien and tell him he is wrong, all you have to do is say it's great and never say what or where and the masses will believe you. If it was not for the eye candy, and the Great people in my guild I would have long been gone by now. and all i can say is on july 15th SWGQ comes out for beta and me and my clan are moving unless we get some story going cause as of now after level 100 this game blows!!!!!!!!!!!!

    -4 points for improper use of punctuation
    -3 points for allergy to return key
    -1 point for spelling

    c u later. i would say its a shame to see you go, but i wont.

    back on topic, ill assume that this is all rk1?
    My lungs arent blackened by tar, they're blackened by SIN!

  14. #34
    I'm with lostlogic and darkbane...

    Each organization out there "applies" to "slot" into one of the GM created "departments".

    All the members of that organization are now members of that Department, and answer to their supes first, who then answer RP-wise to the GM-run "department heads"

    Individuals cannot join a department, unless they first join (or form their own) division withing the department.

    Names don't have to be changed...offhand I know of few that would conflict anyway (Omni-Pol being one, for example), and those that do, I think, would carry on into this without problem, but would likely raise hell if they had to change their name.
    General Hershel "Kasimir" Jurik

    President of Division 9 R.S.G.E


    Braumiester of the Pagan Bartenders, wielder of dual SSo8s

    Stealer of hearts, creds, and anything not nailed down!

  15. #35
    Whew, what an article!

    Now, on to my opinions...

    First, I think I have to agree with option 2. HOWEVER... if this were done, there would have to be a serious committment on the part of Funcom to running the organizations. You can't have a guild, aligned with Omni-Pol, running around MMD or somewhere randomly killing neutrals. There would obviously be some backlash from the head organization as to this kind of atrocity. This would be very difficult for some people to handle I think, because they will view it as nothing more than FC clamping down on their style of play. But I personally think that should be one of the consequences you accept when you join. Funcom would also have to have whoever was heading the org on at least once a week, if not more often. RP should be encouraged, not enforced, but it should be permissible to require it to join a certain org.

    Second, as far as Guild housing goes...
    I like most of the ideas there, and the promises of what's still to come. What I don't understand is why grid access to download to a guild house is so difficult. All it would have to be is a node in the grid called "Guild House", and when a player enters that node, it does an additional check(in addition to comp lit). Have it check comp lit and Organization name. You could then have it grid you to your organizations house. Of course, this would require some restraints on player named orgs, because you can currently have as many of the same as you want.

    Also, with the guild housing, why are options of larger/upgradeable housing only being "considered"?? I thought I remembered it specifically stating on the box that this option would be there. I'm not going to scream and yell false advertising, but I am curious as to why this wouldn't be a viable option.

    Catch ya planetside.
    101 Opi MA RK1
    In Search of a Friendly Helpful Guild

    53 Sol Engie RK1
    President of NFC

    Catch ya planetside...

  16. #36
    Originally posted by Kasimir
    Individuals cannot join a department, unless they first join (or form their own) division withing the department.
    That is just completely wrong with respect to the goal of these organizations. Totally and completely against one of the things that FunCom is trying to achieve with this.

    My assumption is that this is noted by a player who is a member of a well functioning and stable player-run guild and perhaps comes from another MMORPG where guilds were basically the entire social structure.

    One thing that FunCom is trying to do with these Official Story Groups is to provide an option for those players who don't have the time or willingness to deal with a player-run organization to feel that they are part of a Story Group as well. Being in a player-run guild should NOT be a requirement to work for Omni-Med or Omni-Pol or The Sentinels.

    Being in a player run guild is NOT everybody's cup of tea. Sure, I like mine. But, there's always the guy from Spokane who simply wants to be a Spy for InternOps and not have to deal with the headache (for him) associated with a guild.

    InternOps is going to be around for at least 4 years. Very few player-run guilds are. The Story guilds absolutely MUST be distinct from any player-run guilds yet not mutually exclusive. If a player-run rebel clan decides to go pledge themselves to the Eco-Warriors, then this is fine and they should bear the label proudly.

    However, the lone Adventurer who comes out of the wilderness and decides to join up with the Eco Warrior's cause should not be 'forced' to join up with some arbitrary player guild simply to be able to do so. It's just not fair to a huge portion of the game's population to freeze them out of the Story Orgs by requiring they submit to some player org.

    Why should I join Omni-Pol and have to take orders from some other player? That's simply not right. Ivan Sergeyich is the Chief of Omni-Pol. He and Phillip Ross are the only persons who legitemately can tell me as a member of Omni-Pol what to do. Not some other 'player' who pays no more than the same 12.95 a month I do.

    Of course the previous paragraph is a slight simplification of the situation. But, the core of the issue is outlined there.

    Eva Pouras is the Head of Omni-Reform. Not "Hans Ikillzju Vein"

    Rita Prestin is the COO of Omni-Med. Not "Shirley Healsalot Semen"

    "Janus" is the Chief of Omni-Internops.

    etc., etc.

    Each of these people have an important part in the upcoming story and/or has contributed to what little story we've had to date. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Ms. Rita or her underlings had more than a little to do with the foul business that is going on in the Biomere in TLR. At a minimum it was HER experiments that largely resulted in the abominations that are roaming the countryside. Not "Shirley Healsalot Semen".

    Don't forget that these are Story Organizations and not just another layer for the guilds. They are supposed to be ways for everyman and everywoman who plays the game to be part of the political structure as shaped by the ongoing Story. When the Story calls for a group to lose a battle or have its leader perma-killed, it's the Story Group at FunCom that will gladly lose or perma-die. EVERY player wants a chance to grieve at the loss of Ruth Montezuma, strong-willed leader of New Dawn when some Duster perma-kills her in the Outzone.

    Not allowing a player into New Dawn unless they subscribe to some player-run guild will alienate many of those who simply wanted to join New Dawn.

  17. #37

    Take them back!

    I think any 'official' organization in AO should be influenced by player input but under the direct control of Funcom.


    P.S. Overall I think name enforcement in AO is very poor. To facilitate the storyline and environment needed for good roleplaying I think its important that standards be set.

  18. #38
    I like the idea of orgs only becoming company based...we have for the last year been building up guild individuality....shame to see Funcom take that away because they decide a year later they wanna add some stuff.
    147 Mp Nodamp
    O_O i am king of faces!

    Forevah eating forbidden popcorn! @_@
    Directions: go dis way ---->
    den dis way <----
    den dis way <-------> and see if u survive O_o

    Heya MikesterG! x_O

    Dey tink im funny...dey really do..dey also tink im insane, sick, wierd, and in need of more medicines than i take

    Dun worry Guys! I can keel dis Ace easy! *sends Nodie*! know dat ace enforcer dat ju said not to mess wif?
    yeh, dat pweez X_X

  19. #39
    I like option 3
    "Endorsing the existing story-named organisations, let people keep their names on a first-come-first-serve basis. Let players have complete control on leadership / elections etc., but set a "story-org" standard which these player orgs would have to follow or face the possibility of having their names changed. (Or whatever.)"

    I think this does a lot to get people more involved in the story rather than feeling like spectators.

  20. #40

    Arrow Options

    For option #3 to work, FC will have to discuss with the relevant orgs what FC expect of them in terms of behaviour etc. and those orgs must ensure thier members fulfil their end or risk being thrown out (lest FC throw the org out...)

    If the orgs are serious, then it *could* work...

    In reality, I suspect a mix of the options will actually happen.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts