Clan Improvements and Alliances


#1

We need the ability to partition off certain crafting stations and loot containers other than just not being accessible to recruits. We have players that need to be able to invite people to the clan, but they like to waste materials and do not like to farm.

  • Ability to assign role access level on crafting stations.
  • Ability to assign role access level on containers.
  • Ability to assign role access level on altars.
  • Ability to allow public access on crafting stations.
  • Ability to allow public access on containers.
  • Ability to create additional roles.
  • Ability to assign clan invite permission to individual roles.
  • Ability to assign dismantle permission to individual roles.
  • Ability to assign remove thrall from crafting station permission to individual roles.

Also, it would be great to have an alliance system, whereas:

  • Allied thralls do not attack friendly clans players or thralls.
  • Allies can allow access to particular gates and doors but not others.
  • Allies can allow access to containers.
  • Allies can allow access to crafting stations, perhaps without the ability to remove the thrall.
  • Friendly-fire reduced in damage like clan members, including structures to prevent inside griefing.
  • Automatically kick clan from Alliance if they destroy a structure belonging to another clan in the alliance.

Additionally, it would be real nice to have the following.

  • Increased range on friendly names above players or outline them in a green glow or something.
  • Identification of allied players, with said increased range.
  • Allow sharing of custom map markers with clan, perhaps with a dialog box to accept.
  • Allow sharing of custom map markers with allies, perhaps with a dialog box to accept.

#2

So agree with all the clan ideas, not so much alliances tho. I think they need to have private building for all members so they have a safe place that goes with them if they ever leave or get kicked.


#3

Clans should have independent control over their structures anyhow not the alliance. But I think you are referring to people joining clans. A very difficult situation to code for, maybe possible but that might leave structures built by members belonging to them after they left the clan which may have been part of the main base. Not sure something like that would ever happen.


#4

No alliances too easy to inside it would turn to that other survival game called ark


#5

I get the appeal for all your suggestions but with a small server of 40 people I think giving more options to regulate a clan will only grow the size of clans and allow for people to trust one another more. Because with controls they have less risk and more benefit towards working together. Meaning, larger clans, more alliances, more people working together, less pvp, less volatility, less risk, even larger monopoly clans who essentially own servers and this creates an all around blander game because nothing to do other than the PvE content.

The dynamic of not being able to trust people who are in your clan entirely because they have the power to undermine it or even destroy it makes things more interesting. You have to pick who you trust, carefully. All these authoritative controls regulate the power of the individual away from them to the collective might of the clan leadership.


#6

The single and only permission that I believe should be implemented for this game is access permissions for any container that has the ability to lock.

And if you must need a rational reason to justify this it would be this. A lock (pad lock, door lock, deadbolt, ect…) Has a key. A key can be coppied. That copy can be shared.
If the chest is clan property then the leader should have the ability to lock a chest (requiring “key” to open) and grant access (hand out a copy) to whom he pleases, if anyone at all.

NOTE: the key is metaphorical not actual.


#7

I have a group of guys that I have been gaming with for years, I trust all of them, we play several games together. But they lack an understanding of what it takes to get some items because they don’t farm.

Consider this, the chest is on a foundation and you have restricted access to it. The person dismantles the foundation underneath said chest. No log because they are in your tribe and your stuff is not even close to being safe.


#8

This happens with the current system anyhow… until they make the rest of the server angry and they wipe them.


#9

Yes it does, but it will get even worse. I have some ideas to counteract this and allow everyone to have more fun overall. (Auction house and bank in Set city, buy/sell goods from npc vendors and buy from players for (gold, silver, bronze, copper coins) where you can store coins in bank which is protected from raiding. You can use these coins to purchase what you need to get back on your feet after being wiped. But you must withdraw coins to spend them, so you’re vulnerable still. The bank only stores money, not items. So you can get started up again without losing everything.

Kelbec, the chest should require a physical key in game. Give players a key ring to hold keys. This adds an interesting dynamic of where a key could be stolen and used to gain access to a base or chest or vault. Allow locks to be changed but at a cost of resources. Keys shouldnt say where they work, only trial and error. The only clue should be the type and size of a key. Where a player should be able to tell if a key goes to a chest, vault or door and that’s it.


#10

I agree, however, I didn’t want to suggest a physical key because changing the system so dramatically would only invite in even more bugs to an already infested game. And bugs in the storage system of the game could be killer.