Proposed Removal of Guild Leader Unfair Theft!
Ubisoft should not cave in to the clamor for automatic removal of absentee guild leaders.
(1) How can the game take away an asset bought and paid for by a player i.e. the guild leader. Gems for guild house; gems for memberships.
(2) Best moments of the game have been the two periods where we have had to leave our guild because a leader went missing! Drama! stress! Who goes ? who stays. it was awesome.
(3) Let non-leaders simply break away and form their own guilds and invest their own gems and currency.
(4) Otherwise, players get to stay in a guild for nothing and get control for nothing?
(5) Those remaining players - if they are all that cozy with one another - will have no trouble breaking away and forming their own guild!
(6) And in those guilds where there was a 'buy-in" well, the current Ubisoft rules cover that" caveat emptor! what ever the buy-in was it was for the benefit of being in THAT specific guild for that specific period of time. Fee paid ; benefit received.
IF Ubisoft is going to cave in to the clamoring masses - they should allow for TWO different forms of guilds; Independent and Communal. Removal of an absentee guild leader should ONLY be allowed in communal guilds and Ubisoft should ESTABLISH a guild fee paid for by the members. Only when sufficient funds have been pooled should the communal guild be allowed to form. Independent guilds should continue as is. Guild leader foots the bill - no automatic:mad: removal. Period.
My proposal for the way the Guild's should be changed.
I hope the Devs read this but since this game is based upon a medieval society, shouldn't the guild and the way it is structured be ran in a similar fashion?
I did some research and what I found was that for an apprentice to join a guild they had to pay a fee of some kind to the guild along with their application for acceptance. Many guilds used gold (silver and gold coins were in common usage so this was a monetary fee) and it is from this common storing of gold that the word "guild" was derived in the first place. In game a combination of gold and a certain amount of specific resources to be set by the guild's founder. An apprentice was a person who was accepted into the guild and performed basic tasks and techniques until it could be ascertained whether or not they could be entrusted with the guild's secrets. This phase could be done by seeing how active a player is, if they complete their guild quests regularly, if they pay their regular dues, etc. But would be prohibited from traveling to another member's island to buff or aid or assist them directly.
If they proved themselves trustworthy having mastered the duties of the apprentice, they were then promoted to journeyman, a word derived from the French jour and journee (with an ' over the first e) which basically referred to them being a "day" laborer. It was at this level that they were taught the secret techniques of their craft, and sent on journeys to work and learn under different master craftsmen, often on a day-by-day basis. It is at this point that a player could then (in addition to what they were already doing as an apprentice) be allowed to "journey" to another guild member's island to buff their supplies or perhaps help in speeding the training of soldiers for them or assist the other guild members in other ways. There could potentially be additional guild quests offered at this level that required group participation among the guild members similar to the adventures that utilize multiple players to complete but are related to not only military campaigns but also the completion of major construction projects that require a variety of resources from multiple players to complete. In addition a journeyman would have a Masterpiece Quest they have to do at that point before they would be permitted to be eligible for Master craftsman level.
The Masterpiece that they complete would be the property of the guild and was historically used to show off the guild's skills to prospective employers who would hire the guild's workers to complete their projects. I'm sure something could be done with the masterpieces owned by the guild on guild against guild quests of some kind.
The final level, Master Craftsman, was the highest level anyone could reach and all of this level were equals. They would regularly nominate and second proposed officers and then elect officers by ballot from the nominations from among themselves. These were for a specific length of time but the officer could be removed for bad behavior in accordance with the guild's bylaws (also discussed and approved by nomination, seconding the motion, and then by voting) ... this could also be if the chosen leader goes MIA for an extended period of time which would amount to forsaking the duties of their office. Also to obtain the level of Master Craftsman a donations of goods and resources was also often required in addition to the regular membership dues paid by all players.
At the Master Craftsman level perhaps a specialized skill event chain could be implemented where the products from the members of a particular guild have different qualities than those produced by other guilds creating a guild trademark where the steel swords produced by Guild A were more flexible and of a superior quality of steel than those of Guilds B and C resulting in a greater hit point damage when used in battle by players, (whether they were members of the guild or not) just because they had acquired those swords for their soldiers from that guild in the trade office. This would also make those resources from that guild potentially more valuable that other players would pay more for because of the superior quality compared to other resources produced from different players.
Only the Master Craftsmen are permitted to vote in the guild's affairs and it is the Master's level that can accept an Apprentice into the Guild, and then raise an Apprentice to a Journeyman and then a Journeyman to a Master Craftsman. However there must be at least 3 active Master Craftsmen in the guild to form a quorum for this restrictive vote. If there is not at least 3 Master Craftsmen then there must be at least the Guild founder (or a Master Craftsman) and 4 others of Journeymen level or above with the Guild founder or Master Craftsman having the deciding vote if the guild founder is not active and at Master Craftsman level). If this requirement is not met then the voting is open to all guild members with the Guild founder (or highest ranking guild member) having the deciding vote in a tie, unless otherwise specified by the guild's bylaws (which can be adjusted to a limited degree on the guild management window that is accessible by the players.
The membership dues would increase for each level (apprentice, journeyman, master craftsman) and to apply for each level required the fulfillment of certain tasks and an accompanying application fee paid to the guild. Each level contains all the requirements and duties of the level that came before it so as a person advances their duties and requirements increase. If a person leaves one guild, they have to start over as an apprentice in another and rework their way up (unless the new guild agrees in their bylaws to accept newcomers in to their guild at the level they had attained in a prior guild).
I think the guild should be revamped to follow something like a real historic guild as outlined/proposed above. This would permit a means in some ways anyway to replace guild leadership, creates a collective ownership and direction over guild resources while still providing for a leadership structure. Addresses the problem of absentee guild leaders. As well as enhancing the Guild Levels themselves.
When the guild format is changed to this or something similar, I think each player (regardless of where they are in their existing guild, they have to start at apprentice and work their way up so that everyone is on common footing and no one has an advantage because of their prior arbitrary placement that varies from guild to guild). That way it is fair to everyone and no one can say to a higher member "this isn't fair, you didn't have to donate all these resources and do all this to get to your position, why should I have to do all this?".