Clans

[mausgang]

Perhaps this is a little weird, coming up with two suggestion threads in a row, and perhaps this one won't be as controversial as the laser rifle. Anyways, I have two points to this suggestion
1) that there be a section in the forum for clans to form, recruit, and challenge each other.
2) that with the registration online, clans could be made more official, so if somebody joins a clan, it goes under their name or something on the gameplay.
I'm saying this because I announced that I would be attempting to create a clan about a week before IA went down, so this is fresh in my mind.

 

[poiuyt580]

1. http://forums.legionsoverdrive.com/forums/competition/
2. I agree +1, and a system so a person can join up to 3 clans? Also, a clan system would consist of a leader and members I guess. No co leaders or ranks.

 

[57thRomance]

and a system so a person can join up to 3 clans?

No. Just... just no. That's not how a clan works (or at least how a clan SHOULD work), especially when talking about multiple clans playing one game.

Also, a clan system would consist of a leader and members I guess. No co leaders or ranks.

It's not your responsibility to determine the levels of a "clan system" unless it's your clan.

 

[poiuyt580]

No. Just... just no. That's not how a clan works (or at least how a clan SHOULD work), especially when talking about multiple clans playing one game.

It's not your responsibility to determine the levels of a "clan system" unless it's your clan.

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.
I didn't mean that the levels in a clan couldn't be decided, I meant that in the registration clan system the system would support a clan leader and members. Also, I didn't actually mean that a single person only ever join 3 clans. I was thinking more along the lines of clan alliances - a single user can join 3 clans at once.

 

[57thRomance]

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.
I didn't mean that the levels in a clan couldn't be decided, I meant that in the registration clan system the system would support a clan leader and members.

Alright, that makes more sense to me. I guess you're referring to a BFCL type of registration?

 

[mausgang]

I would think that any organizational structure inside a clan would be determined by the leader. Alliances would make sense, but why would you need to be in 3 clans? Wouldn't one be good enough?

 

[NightHawk043]

From what I can understand of what poiuyt580 was saying, in that the need for a player to be able to join up to three clans at once, in case of alliances, I'm not sure I completely agree.
Running on the assumption that they do go ahead and create a more official clan system, presumably with each clan being listed and there being some kind of section on the website to access site settings, I would suggest that rather than a player joining those three clans, there be an option for those clans to temporarily be listed under the one banner (temporarily meaning that any clan could go back to being separately listed at any time). Furthermore I would suggest that there also be an option to permanently merge your clan with another (with the permission of the other clan obviously).

As for individual clans themselves, I would make the suggestion that every clan requires a minimum of say, 7 people, to be created (it could be set up so one person puts in an application for a "clan pending activation" and the other 6 people must send in an application to the founder, which must be accepted before the clan is activated). If the number drops below the 7 people, then the clan will go back to an inactive state, at which point the clan tags will be removed from the player's names (however they can't join a new clan until they leave the inactive one) and they can no longer earn stats/be challenged to a clan war/match. Making the clan inactive rather than outright deleting it immediately would prevent all stats etc being lost on one player suddenly leaving.
Obviously the players would have to have separate IP's to prevent one sole player founding a clan.
A final condition would be that an inactive clan (or clan pending activation, I suppose they could be put under the same group) will only remain for a time period of say 30 days, before it is permanently deleted.

 

[poiuyt580]

From what I can understand of what poiuyt580 was saying, in that the need for a player to be able to join up to three clans at once, in case of alliances, I'm not sure I completely agree.
Running on the assumption that they do go ahead and create a more official clan system, presumably with each clan being listed and there being some kind of section on the website to access site settings, I would suggest that rather than a player joining those three clans, there be an option for those clans to temporarily be listed under the one banner (temporarily meaning that any clan could go back to being separately listed at any time). Furthermore I would suggest that there also be an option to permanently merge your clan with another (with the permission of the other clan obviously).

As for individual clans themselves, I would make the suggestion that every clan requires a minimum of say, 7 people, to be created (it could be set up so one person puts in an application for a "clan pending activation" and the other 6 people must send in an application to the founder, which must be accepted before the clan is activated). If the number drops below the 7 people, then the clan will go back to an inactive state, at which point the clan tags will be removed from the player's names (however they can't join a new clan until they leave the inactive one) and they can no longer earn stats/be challenged to a clan war/match. Making the clan inactive rather than outright deleting it immediately would prevent all stats etc being lost on one player suddenly leaving.
Obviously the players would have to have separate IP's to prevent one sole player founding a clan.
A final condition would be that an inactive clan (or clan pending activation, I suppose they could be put under the same group) will only remain for a time period of say 30 days, before it is permanently deleted.

This. Except what if some people want a clan of, say 5 people, since they are friends who play together for fun?

 

[NightHawk043]

I was only saying 7 as an example number. (I picked 7 because most clan scrims are 7v7, so that way each clan would have enough people to play in one of the aforementioned matches).
There's no reason why it couldn't be 5, to include the casual friends who don't want to play competitive matches. I was suggesting a minimum to prevent every new player from creating a clan (that no one else would ever join) and it doing nothing but taking up data space.

 

[mausgang]

I think that's a great idea except for the deletion after 30 days part. Having a minimum of 7 members before going active sounds good, but if they drop below for 30 days, or take 30 days to get above 7 members, I don't think its fair to delete them. The clans that are going to have that risk are clans that are just starting out. In order to vary the competition between clans and to create alliances (rather than having the clans merge, they could be separate clans under a 'Faction' where they are under a truce, and the Faction can earn reputation as well as the individual clans. If the clans are supported through the overdrive site, then clan reputation is a feasible option.) Anyways, back to my point. The smaller clans that are just getting started are the clans that are going to be under 7, and have a harder time getting back up. For example, more people will be willing to join 57th squadron or Neo rather than a fledgling clan that nobody's heard of. This problem would eventually go away if clan reputation is implemented, since a new clan, if they do well, will eventually be higher up on the radar of people looking for a clan to join. However, before that, people may not think "I want to join Ninja clan, they have no experience" and then the clan goes down the toilet because the 30 day period was too short. Variety is good, it allows for clans to have more competition, and in order to do that, it needs to be easier on the smaller clans.

 

[NightHawk043]

what I'm getting at with the minimum of 7 people to start and make the clan active, is that a clan should be created when a group of people get together and say, lets all start a clan.
If you don't have enough people, then you could do a similar thing to what's on most games and start a thread in the forums saying that you're starting a clan, and looking for at least 2 members for so and so area. Don't think that no one would want to join. It's a great feeling to join a new clan, and be there while you push your way to become well known and a big an powerful clan.
Anyway, the whole idea is, you should already have your 7 people Before the application is posted. It doesn't matter if it takes you 6 months, so long as you eventually have at least 7 active members at any one time.
My reasoning for if a clan becomes inactive, is that people will all the time leave the game without leaving clans or even telling anyone, they'll just stop coming. Now, if it's just an ordinary member then it's no problem, because the leader can just try to contact them and ask if they're planning on coming back (if not, then they can remove them from the clan), however, if it's the Leader that suddenly leaves, then everyone else has two main options. Talk to an admin, and ask if they can change who the leader is, (the Admin would obviously have to check that the person had really left, and a mutiny wasn't taking place)
or, they might do what I suspect most would do, leave the clan and find a new one.
Eventually, the number would drop below 7, and the clan would just sit there, inactive, and taking up data space.
Hence the deletion after a set time period. Doesn't have to be 30 days, could be 60, or 90, but it's the same kind of thing that happens with free email providers. "If it's not being used, why is it there"


What I'm finding amusing is how much detail we're going into here, considering such a feature would doubtless not be very high on a to-do list (though it is very cool and very useful, it's not critical to the game running).

 

[mausgang]

I can see where you're coming from with this clan thing, but if there are seven or fewer dedicated members who refuse to let the clan go, they can take over the function of leader and start recruiting again. If they have reputation, then maybe some people would wish to join. Perhaps a longer time period (two months or so) Also, more people are more than willing to not clan and instead just be in pugs and play by themselves. Data storage is cheap these days and getting cheaper. If there aren't many clans and a few clans have only a few people in it, then the amount of space that data is taking up probably won't be that big. I'm not a computer expert, but I'd be willing to guess that it couldn't be that vast of a space, and thus deletion wouldn't be necessary.

Also, yes, while this isn't critical to the game running, it is important for community, and ultimately, its the community that makes the game.

 

[NightHawk043]

deletion definitely wouldn't be necessary on the short term, but if Legions ever made it big, then in the long term it probably would be.
I agree that not everyone likes being in clans though, however not sure how that affects the debate

 

[mausgang]

It was a point towards the argument that there wouldn't be a lot of clans, and that only a minority percentage of those clans would fall below 7 members. I guess the reason I'm defending this is because I've just (literally, yesterday just) founded a clan. Still waiting for people to join, though.

 

[Uncannyguy]

How about having a maximum amount of members per clan? Something like twice the minimum, so that clans will fill up and therefore choices will be limited to clans that are "open". Could augment the reputation idea for smaller clans having more chance of becoming active.

 

[mausgang]

However, clans that are already really large, such as 57th would be incredibly decimated. Its good to have a larger clan because then you have back up people for competition. I'd say that the ideal number would be between 14-16 members, because then you can practice against each other as full teams, and while it would make other clans expand more readily, the larger clans would feel a bad squeeze and any new clan that has burgeoning popularity will then not be able to take any more members, so a lot of clans would lose for a small amount of benefit.

 

[Uncannyguy]

That is true maus. The major problem with this is we have no idea how many people will be playing L:O so it's hard to estimate clan limits and whatnot.

 

[mausgang]

Regardless, there are the large clans, and then there will be small clans. Also, there is a healthy ex-IA community that wants legions back and most of them will find this site eventually. Doing our part will help out this process, spreading the news around that this site exists and that legions will be back. Clan limitations could be decided by clan reputation, if that system gets used, the more reputable clans either getting more members or fewer members, whichever way makes sense. I would go for a more famous clan to get more members, as more people are either waiting to join back up and have to wait for their clan to gain enough reputation for them to join. As a clan's reputation increases, it would make no sense to have to kick out the people who helped the clan get there in the first place, so a higher limit for better clans makes sense, but only if there's going to be a member cap.

 

[NightHawk043]

To be honest, 57th wouldn't be very decimated, as they've divided themselves into separate divisions.
They could simply set up as (for example) [57th]-NA, [57th]-Eu, [57th]-As, and it's doubtful they'd run into any problems.
(They would just have to alliance those three separate clans under [57th], and Voila.)
If there were to be a Maximum limit, I'd probably put it no less than 20, which would allow for the big clans to have 2 main teams, with some reserves on side.

 

[mausgang]

20 sounds better than 14. I guess the same could be done for other clans that are in more concentrated areas. I guess I'm for the idea because then people might want to join my clan that I've started, but then I occasionally feel the other way. I guess its irrational, but 20 definitely sounds like a better limit.