English

As I already said a few times Aru, if people want to suggest removing guild restictions that should be posted in ideas for Ryzom. But currently guilds do have restrictions.

In regard to what is a guild in Ryzom, we are probably more like a tribe- webster's has three possible definitions of a tribe: (the first fits what we call guilds in Ryzom)

: a group of people that includes many families and relatives who have the same language, customs, and beliefs

: a large family

: a group of people who have the same job or interest

I would suggest that the guild structure as currently implemented parallels the concept of "sept", a tightly bound subdivision of a clan or tribe.

Clearly the game initially intended to encourage players to make divisive choices with consequences as to things like politics and which teleport pacts you got to use.

The rise of the un-aligned class already put stress on that model, and the institution of the Marauders as a playable orientation stressed it in ways that were not foreseen. The lack of speedy coding and adaptation meant that what was, in concept, a bug, went uncorrected long enough for some players to see it as a feature.

The concept that choices have consequences, however, suggests that allowing Marauders into aligned guilds remains a bug. It makes being a Marauder free of certain consequences that Kami and Kara and Nation aligned have to accept.

As Placio points out, a suggestion that guilds be given total control over their membership should be submitted to the Ideas forum since it represents a far greater change in code and play than extra room in GH's or multi-selection for trading.

Myself, I would like to see neutral guilds be allowed to take any members but retain the restrictions on aligned guilds.

A possible fix

But can someone aligned to, say, a nation really be a member of a guild which claims neutrality as a whole? In the course of a war, that member has sworn to a nation and has to take up weapons to fight for it. In fact, it could be that two members of a neutral guild aligned to different nations may have to fight each other in such a situation. The claim of neutrality of the guild, or rather of the representatives of the guild, would be just a joke then.

I am unsure about the topic. I fail to see that obtaining citizenship includes the obligation to engage in violent acts against homins of any other nation (same with cult, btw.). Technically spoken, that would create an obligation for PvP which does not exist in Ryzom.

To me, the concept of granting neutrals access to aligned guilds seems more odd than the other way round. But just my .02 dappers worth.

i've read every word of this thread, love virg's idea post, since it was suggested over and over (saved me doing it virg, cause i would have most riki-tic)

love that someone brought up one of my favorite things to make a point related to ryzom: SANDBOX. virg's idea would without a doubt put the sand back in the box.

couldn't miss that cookies got mentioned a few times, that was nice and i thank those that did. like someone said in relation to cookies: we have to recreate and rejoin our chat channel every server reset, and we have no guildhall that all members can use the "leader" (currently me) has limited control on some aspects of who is a member and who's not; fortunately everyone that's a member sticks to the "rules". do these facts hurt cookies, yes they do: often members get tired of having to rejoin the channel and stop because it get's to be a real pain when there's several resets in a very short time. there's a dependency on each member to work harder to help eachother or new players with gear and items because our storage is limited (that's another reason i have close to 100 f2p alts {20 accounts for those that find the number 100 high}) sure we make due, but that's because we don't have a better option.
but i'll not drone on about cookies.

now for the person that said that a cookies style option would ruin the game, i beg to differ, i agree with arugula's post using real world examples. let's face the fact that in many places the world is full of mixed peoples that often get along just fine together.

there was someone that said guild members would have to fight with eachother for outpost wars: true. but cookies has been doing that for a few years now and we're all still friends, in fact sometimes we kill eachother at outpost wars AND laugh at eachother on teamspeak WHILE we're fighting at the op. it's a game and should be fun, and we (cookies) have fun together even when killing eachother (and rubbing it in while we do it, but always in good fun)

if a guild could be neutral and the members of said guild could be aligned how they way, i see no harm, the guild would stand for no one single view as neutral, yet could have members of all views (there's this thing i have learned about called the "united nations" that seams to do that in the real world, it's not always perfect, but then again what is?)

it's a shame that we see more and more players leaving the game, and while we see a few new players, it's upsetting to see people leaving after years of loyalty and dedication.

if they (WG) want to stick to what ryzom claims to be, sandbox, there's much work to be done to make it truely so, and not all of it is super hard. but in the end the more "rules" the less sandbox and more "fixed" the game becomes. we're loosing what ryzom was for something that's worse. i can deal with bugs, and i can make due with things the way they are, but after 4+ years of mara's not be restricted from guilds it's like bittty said (i think) the door's been open way to long to close it now, cause the horse is long gone.

i'll give those that aren't used to me a brake, but for those that are used to me, just know that i wanted to say much more then i have already..... and that's my 30 dappers.

talk