IDEAS FOR RYZOM

With all the arguments listed here so far I, too, fail to see how this proposal would facilitate more/easier interaction or roleplay.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm understanding part of what you mean: As the character Irfidel is a guildless loner, despising anyone who tries to "organize" him, Irfidel has no direct access to all the obvious guild benefits. I as a player of course have no guild chat, don't use any guild's teamspeak etc. As I - as a player - love interaction with many of the regulars a lot, I often consider if the toon should join a guild. As a wandering neutral, feeling affiliation with the rangers goals there would be a few obvious options. However it just doesn't fit the character, so it won't happen.

There's still enough interaction for me as a player: Whenever someone logs on, friends of the character get a message in their chat windows. We can all configure this to be fully open (my case), or just for guildies, or for noone (full privacy protection). Lots of people allow Ryzom to show this message to anyone. And I can see in the friendslist all I like to interact with. So I can just /tell them if I'd love to interact in the game - and so can they.

Overall I don't feel restricted as a player even though there cannot be a guild for my character. I believe _especially_ the roleplay arguments in this thread speak against the proposal.

so really the purpose of the guild fame is to purposely limit who can join, and then if a member of such a guild wants to be of the political system for that civ, they need to have your own personal civilisation fame high enough etc etc

i appreciate feylin's explanation, i can see why limits would preserve the roleplay aspect and perhaps allowing 2 civs to join would dilute that idea but i still think it would not be such a horrible idea =)

the guilds would still remain small, there would be enhanced interaction (yes yes sure you can be friends with anyone but what's the harm, in one more?)

Irfindel, perhaps for you there is "enough" interaction, perhaps for me i want some more, i feel it has validity. if i have a treaty for however many years i would permit/welcome/invite/wish my ally to join me in my place of power, that's all i'm saying. right now those "numbers" serve little purpose and they could do more.

dispute as you will

If anything, I think Eruv has raised an interesting point: what if politics change? Aligning with the Empire gets you a high cap with the Theocracy (75), but at this very moment, relations are kind of strained due to a months-old ambassador conflict. The desert people have collaborated more fruitfully with the trykers so far (water delivery) than with the zorais (water wells project, or what was under discussion) - yet a fyros citizen's fame is capped at 25 with the tryker. Why? Maybe a more fluid approach to fame caps would be interesting, albeit difficult to code and questionable in the end.

a bit more fluidity with the fame caps would be great , there are many minds out there would could devise a system worthwhile and yes it would require work to implement so i have not suggested a more complex idea, in my experience simpler ideas are easier to implement

- 2 civs per aligned guild is all i'm saying, it would be nice to have something more complex but i would not hope for it there are many other things to tend to

As alliances shift, the next request would likely be to fully control guild allegiance: Someone would argue that maybe one nation has turned against the other three, so a guild wants to accept anyone of those three nations... Overall this is a rather complex topic.

I guess I'm so hesitant about this idea because guild politics are not nation politics. So why should it actually have to be strictly aligned to nation fame. And now having said that, maybe I'm actually thinking that guilds should not have any fame/nation/religion restrictions.

How would that feel? If simply anyone could join any guild? Guilds could implement their own voluntary membership policy. Would that be a good thing?