The KGB Oracle Forums KGB National Announcements, News, and Help The KGB Sentinel Proposal: Creation of the UGC

Those of you who know your KGB history (read the archives if you dont) have heard of the PGC. At the time it was called the Pacific Guilds Coalition. Three powerful Guilds on UO's Pacific shard formed a coalition that was lead by the leaders of each guild.

The reason why I bring this up is the thought of our presence in some of the upcoming games we all long for. As you can imagine, size will matter and KGB in its current state cannot be prepared to grow quick enough to compete. Many of you remember the success of the coalition called COS or Covenant of Swords in Shadowbane. This coalition consisted of many small groups with common goals, working together to achieve them.

What I am proposing is a new organization called the United Guilds Coalition or UGC. This would consist of member guilds with the leadership of each guild serving on a coalition council. Decisions would be made by majority vote. We would have a guild membership process much like our own.

I would build another website much like KGB's to accomodate this oraganization. It would have its own news and message boards.

It is my hope that we can then invite our former allies and friends to this coalition and have a nice head start when a game Darkfall is released.

As I write the New Constitution I think this may be a time to get prepared so we have a good chance at once again being a top competitor in some of the new worlds on the horizon.

Please share you opinions and ideas on this subject.

This is probably a good approach. Over the years, KGB has gone through repeated boom and bust cycles. It seems that once the size of an organization reaches a critical mass, internal political pressures cause the organization to fly apart, like a Uranium atom undergoing a fission reaction.

By participating in a coalition, with each group possessing it's own leadership, hopefully we can break the vicious cycle.

Exactly my idea Senator,

I am trying be proactive in our approach ot the future and a game like Darkfall. In the new constitution (Which you helped with, and thank you), I have controls and new guidelines for faction leadership. Keeping an active leadership and autonomy in our own organization gives us the best of both worlds.

In the past, to compete, we have been forced to get so big that we lost our identity. This way we can still handle membership our way, and yet align with like guilds in a powerful alliance.

Dont ever forget the example of COS in shadowbane. If they could have just held it together, they would have never been challenged.

Any alliance with KGB is going to be a favorite target for former member guilds and lamers alike all over the internet. We will be constantly challenged and this will offer me some of the politics and issues that I love to deal with.

Well, it will alter the nature of the cycle anyway.

EVE and SB both have in-game mechanics to cover this type of thing, Darkfall and other pvp games likely will as well.

I really don't think this is a good idea..
We have absorbed so much of our allies from old and friends I really don't see something like this working in todays games..
There will be so much differences of opinions and things I just can't see it working..
Just like when we went to Gawaine DAOC cuz Csky and Xlords were going there well they didn't stick around too long and we were stuck in a snowy land that didn't really fit who KGB were. We'd of been much better in Albion,but that's the past.

I think we need to focus on all of us getting use to being together in one faction and I don't think when we first step foot into a new game we should have a coalition..

As you know I've said in past games we need to work on the internal in games before we recruit/run a coalition.

KGB has alot of internal work imo since we will all be meshing together from SB and other lands.

Elph, I think the problems you describe are more a function of the piss poor pvp environment offered by faction type games, like DAoC and WoW. In a free for all game, like SB, Eve, and hopefully Darkfall, alliances are much more important, because it isn't you against another side, it's you against the entire world. Almost everyone is potentially an enemy.

One cautionary tale must be told comes directly from our experience in ShadowBane, however. There, we saw the case where once serious pressure was applied to the alliance, alliance members started to melt away. At one point during the siege of an allied city, and I vividly remember that extended mass battle, almost the only alliance names in sight belonged to the KGB. We died so many times defending the allied city by ourselves that eventually some of us threw ourselves into the ranks of the enemy almost naked, because our armor had been destroyed in previous engagements.

In the long run, that fight served the KGB well, because people on both sides were impressed that even in the face of hopeless odds, the KGB would stand and fight and die with honor. Repeatedly.

Long live the KGB.

I have to say that Owain missed one important thing that a coalition offers.

In addition to safety, security and even some power to wield, forming a coalition means that you are not just one guild. In fact what you would be doing is building your own community of sorts.

I don't know about anyone else but the social aspect of MMO's is one of features that draws me to play them.

One guild is not only an isolated military target but also remains isolated socially in a free for all PVP setting.

I remembered 2nd PGC very well...It was so fun....Why? Because UO was a game where single person, small group can fight without the hetic of organizing 1 batalyon. I always like to fight alone or in a small group, but with todays online game has eveolved it would be impossible to do that. Numbers now play a great role including the armed forces management.

I believe this is a good idea AS LONG AS we are placed as Chairman of the coalition. The remaking of the constitution will give us the agility to play in the coalition part.

I like Jet and owain ideas and in fully supportt it for the upcoming game. Good idea and good draft for everyone who involved in it.

I think people are misinterpreting my position. After all, did I not say, "In a free for all game, like SB, Eve, and hopefully Darkfall, alliances are much more important, because it isn't you against another side, it's you against the entire world. Almost everyone is potentially an enemy."

Alliances are important, but you count on them too heavily.

On one hand, you may find an ally like England, who will stand with you in the heart of the fire itself.

On the other hand, you may find yourself in a conflict allied with France...

I am not against an alliance but I am against one on this scale as KGB isn't always filled with active top leadership like Jet works alot and he can't commit all of his time and this would take a tremendous amount of time

I helped start out the SB faction and if anyone was there from the very day we created chars on treachery everyone will know what I am speaking about there could've been no way we could've had something like this without making KGB look like big asses.
We had alot of inner turmoil and lots of inner fighting

I know alliances are crucial but I think the focus needs to be on KGB And not some massive alliances with other guilds that we would be in charge of. KGB needs to fix and maintain KGB first not some massive alliance.

There are many who have issues with what KGB has to offer, some waiting a long time to receive their emails/websites etc.

I just dont hink that going into a game blind with an alliance like jet is wanting is a good idea straight from the get go.

I do have concerns as well.

I like the idea of having an alliance, and it worked really well when we were on Vengence SB. We worked hand in hand with our allies, listened to them, and they helped us just as much as we helped them. That is a way to build a relationship.

I know that WOW is a different game, but there were so many issues with leadership and allies that we had in that game. We felt like we were pushed around, which I personally did not feel. There were times that we were in TS and there was blatant disrespect shown to other guilds. We burnt so many bridges in that game that I feel that we could never mend them with those guilds. I feel that sometimes we believe we are so uber and know everything, and every other guild are just a bunch of retards that they dont know anything. At times during WOW i was very embarassed how things were handled, and if this continues it is even going to be harder for us to form alliances, and it will be us against everyone, not like it isnt already like that for the most part.

sounds shinny.

Not a bad idea. I would say go for it. Of course we will need to make sure KGB as a single Guild still runs as normal. So that there would be little to no problems should the coalition break up, and then we would return to our standard KGB guild.

Basicly be careful not to put to much effort into a coalition and then let things in side the guild begin to slide.


I wonder if maybe a less controled type of alliance will be better. More of a community... then an alliance. You find that any combination of groups who use the same Ventrilo channels and communicate often tend to be friendly to each other. Not because they are forced by some prior alliance agreement, but because they become friends, or atleast friendly.

I would like to see,... maybe not an alliance(or possibly so) but some sort of way to open up communication between "old school" guilds with semi-like-minded members. Starting with just a common forum and common Ventrillo services could easily lead to the most succesful alliance ever seen.

Good point Bishop, that's sort of the way I see it as well. A friendly community. About the importance of the alliance and the guild and all of that... definitely guild first. Additonally though I'd like some kind of safeguard to make sure guilds are pulling their weight in the alliance, and not going into other guilds' jurisdictions (like commanding other guilds' members what to do unless those members specifically go to fight in that Guild's party.)

I agree with Owain, and his point seems to be reinforced in games that are able to support this type of organization.

While i do think that this is good to discuss, i dont think that we should put a huge emount of time and resources into it before the next big wave of games have even begun beta. I think that with our past ties, weather friendly or unfriendly, and with our current communication in the games we currently play, as well as forums, that we will not likely be left out in the cold by ourselves.

If darkfall, or whatever game we dcide to play, has half as good of an alliance system as in EVE (which isnt perfect, but still works pretty damn well) then we shouldnt have too much to worry about. Because of the amount of gamers that agree with the goals that KGB usually has, it isnt too hard to make new friends, or to renew old alliances, and even make fiends out of old enemies. I mean its not like we have been the type of guild that EVERYONE hates because of how we play, if anything we might be the ones who people admire a little, because of the way we act. If you look at the darkfall boards, we had alot of haters and also alot of old friends that look forward to being allied, one way or another.

I think that we could start contacting some of our old friends and enemies to see what they think of the idea, and also just to see where we stand in their books so we can know what to expect. But i just dont know how much you can actually accomplish before the game has been played by anyone because of the lack of knowledge about how it works. Either way, we have a little time to decide, because i boubt DFO will be released in the next few months

Along the lines of what our BOS boys have already said... I like the idea of the UGC because as you've pointed out Jet, it's what made CoS gods of the server and we were just one of their puppets.

I'm not exactly sure how their alliance worked but for the UGC, preserving the internal structure, decision making power and ranks is critical for KGB, as well as any of the guilds that join the UGC.

We should focus on making it so that being a part of the UGC is not "combining" with a zerg army but rather you're signing up to be a part of a community that helps one another in times of need. When one guild is attacked the other guilds in the community mount up to help defend. Otherwise the guilds are basically ran as they always have been, they plan their events as they normally would, they do promotions as they normally would, they even pick fights with non-allied guilds if they want to.

Each guild must be left the freedom to start wars with new guilds if they wish, as well as plan PvE events or do internal promotions... the last thing we want is the UGC to be like "big brother" where if any guild in the alliance wants to go to war with another guild they must first submit in duplicate 5 different forms. These forms are then organized and lost then refound and filed away. After filing is completed all 10 guilds of the UGC sit at a table and vote "Heads Up 7-Up" style if Guild X of the UGC should be allowed to go to war with Guild Z. This we need to avoid.

Of course if we let guilds in the UGC be so free in what they do... how do we keep the alliance from getting misused? Simple. We kick out anyone that seems to go to war too often, kick out anyone that causes us to "mount up" and go defend them too often. Basically anyone not pulling their weight gets removed. And to remove people you need a chairmen like rank. I'm not sure if it should be KGB 100% of the time or we could let the chairmen rank rotate, with people voting which guild has a person in the chairmen spot.

A very good way to avoid having to remove any guilds is to only allow in guilds of equal strength or make two seperate catagories in the UGC... first catagory is: your a guild of roughly equal strength to KGB and so you can have more voting power etc, allowed to plan more events. Second catagory is a lesser one: smaller guilds that just want the protection but dont care much to have much say in the political dealings would join here. By being in this catagory there would be no cofusion, any time they fussed about not having a say in things we'd simply point out that they are in the lesser catagory of allied guilds. And of course if some small guild joins just to have us defend them from daily pk attacks... we kick them out since they definitely aren't pulling their weight.

Uhmmm, sorry Raek but the fastest way to ensure the destruction of an alliance, is to have its own individual member guilds wokring at cross-purposes, have different sets of standings, and set their own diplomacy. And why on earth would guild X want to save guild Y's ass when Guild Y set its own diplomacy, started its own little wars, and is getting its own little ass handed to it without taking guild X into any kind of consideration? If I were leading guild X I would tell guild Y to go grasp a clue from somewhere. As would most of long term successfull guilds out there.

Internal promotions and etc are of course different, as well as guild events. That is typically an understood, but then again there should be no reason not to be including your alliance-mates, who are presumably your friends in fun stuff the guild cooks up.

But the whole purpose of an alliance is to have one bloc of standings with the rest of the game, and work TOGETHER to achieve some goals- usually oriented in real pvp games around the control and use of in-game resources.

When it comes to diplomacy, people will also want to know how they stand with the whole alliance.

Not just 1 chairman, maybe a "security council" like in the highly ineffective U.N. :P

Yeah often small guilds will be a group of RL friends, so together they can actually fight pretty well. 5 guys aren't going to help us destroy 500, but they do contribute sligthly.

That's a good idea though, the protection category, and then the policy-making category.

Thing about the alliance though is I see it as more of a way to defend our community. I didn't see it as a way to make offensives.

You see, say KGB is at war with guild A, our allies B and C are at war with guilds D and E, respectively. If it goes on like that we'd technically be fighting the whole server. For offensive campaigns I would see it as more of a decision of who to war. We invade their territory and then split it up equally. That way our alliance is only fighting a few guilds at once.

As far as guilds in the alliance go, obviously our friends need to be chosen carefully. We assuredly do not want guilds that cant/wont pull their own weight. We are not an MMO babysitter service.

By the same token size is not necesarrily an indicator of power/effectiveness. Many successfull alliance do NOT allow small guilds in, it simply dilutes the overall leadership structure,creates to many chiefs, makes it more of a political hassle , etc.

On the other hand, some alliances are comprised largly of smaller guilds. Some are even successfull. Another factor is the level of specialization, highly specialized guilds can be included in otherwise large-guild only alliances. It depends.

There are plenty of small guilds out there that are great. Alot of the time they are very tight knit groups of players that perhaps are all friends IRL, work well together or have played previous games together etc etc. Some of these small guilds I would rather have in my alliance than many of the large guilds out there.

I agree with derid... size is not an indicator of power/effectiveness. I've said this in another post and I'll say it again here, I've seen small groups WTFOWN larger groups time and again so can we please stop this GD zerg mentality. Yes there are some MMO's out there that are just a #'s game, well find a way to work around out and use it to your advantage.

Also IMO Raek I wouldn't use KGB as the norm, if they arnt as big as us, if they dont do things our way, etc etc etc. I'm sure we have plenty of room for improvement. Another thing you cant just have guilds in an alliance just running around doing whatever they want. Guild A attacks Guild X and X is friendly to B and A and B are in alliance together. Uniform ideas, enemies and friends.

Derid, Hydr, I can see you favor the "fill out in duplicate 5 different forms for the ability to take a shit" alliance type vs the "community" that pulls its own weight and has the freedom to do what it wants that I'm suggesting.

That's cool, we're all welcome to have our own opinions. But this is a game and the fastest way to suck the fun out of a game is to have people controlling your actions. If I was a guild in this UGC and was having problems with a neighboring guild and so wanted to war them but couldn't unless I went through all the official channels getting the "ok" from big brother KGB, then i'd up and leave the UGC and say so long suckers, enjoy your bureaucracy.

At most a guild in the UGC should only have to "listen" to the opinions of the other members. They can choose to ignore it though... and what keeps this in balance? Like I said before, if they go against what guilds we think they should be at war with AND on top of it can't handle taking care of themselves in these wars we don't support... then we kick them out. That's the checks and balances, but only works if the chairmen or whatever leadership committe we have, has the Balls to kick people out.

I should also mention I know of the power small elite groups can provide. I've lead, been part of, benefited from, allied with, saw with my own eyes as a spectator their power. My main message was, guilds should only stay a part of the UGC and have the freedom to do what they want as long as they pull their own weight. Pulling your own weight can be done in many ways, be it by having 500 members and able to win through numbers alone, or be it because your guild has 20 super active well trained pvpers and if even 10 of them are online those 10 guys can pull their weight by killing an enemy group of 50.

Id like to see a UGCommunity form with the possibly of developing into a UGCoalition in the future.

I have no problems with small guilds being part of the alliance, and indeed, the KGB does have a long tradition of defending the little guy. If they intentionally start a fight with the idea that the alliance will back them up, consideration should be given to cutting them loose, but if they are being attacked because they look like low hanging fruit, ready to be plucked, then the fist of the alliance should land hard. Smaller guilds can be unstable, and we have frequently picked up new members from guilds who were formerly under our protection.

We cannot fight the whole world, but we should try to police our own neighborhood.

no no, that's officer chat you're thinking about :P

"Derid, Hydr, I can see you favor the "fill out in duplicate 5 different forms for the ability to take a shit" alliance type vs the "community" that pulls its own weight and has the freedom to do what it wants that I'm suggesting."

Hmmm. Noone said anything about bueracracy. Just simply, if you dont even have the same diplomatic standings in an alliance, it wont be effective in a real PvP game. Pretty soon there is drama about who is doing what, whos friends with who... it gets ugly.

If guilds dont want to stay on the same page and work together, the alliance will fail, period. It isnt about asking permission, its about being cohesive. It isnt about filing forms, its about the respective guild leaders and members deciding what to do as an alliance.

What is the benifit of being in an alliance that requires you do go defend someone constantly because they are dumbasses? What if the respective guilds in the alliance can't coordinate defenses because theyre all caught up in their own thing? Its not a chance, its a garuntee unless the alliance works cohesivly.

Honestly your better off just mass recruiting in that scenario. The successfull alliances that hold territory are going to be the ones that work as a group for the common interest. Not the ones with guilds that just do whatever they want, and expect backup when they get in trouble.

Having guilds that communicate, but do whatever they want, is just having friends IMO. Friends can be a good thing to have, but it doesnt need its own name. Having friends is good. Friends are just friendly though, an alliance works together.

Maybe we could ally ourselves to a few established well organized guilds, like we did with CoS in later years of SB, that was easy enough we would meet up for the big fights and do well. We could protect any little guys we wanted, but not include them in the alliance necessarily, there will probably be some conflicts of interest somewhere though. But an alliance for major events should work well enough, especially if we are allied to well organized guilds.

bad day to pick on Elph :O

Lot of good thoughts here. I have to agree with Raek that this type of alliance should be one based on valued opinions and 360 degree respect. However I also have to agree that in such an alliance, diplomatic goals must be aligned or you will insure failure. How this is accomplished is simple in theory, but very hard in practice. You must set clear standards and values for member states, and anyone wishing to join who doesnt display that set of standards and values simply cannot join.

What you hope to end up with is a group of very like-minded people who will work together naturally , rather than having to be forced to, as in a beuracracy, or coerced to, as in a system ruled only by opinions. In doing so you make it so that policies are easy to draw and enact, because most of the time 90% of the guilds will agree and work together wholeheartedly.

Now of course, even like minded people will have disagreements, and this is where valued opinions and 360 degree respect come into play. If guild A wants to war guild B, but its clear to the rest of the alliance that guild B has lots of friends who will smash guild A without the intercession of the alliance, drawing the alliance into some unwanted and prolonged struggle, then guild A should respect everyone's opinion and either not war, or war and die alone. In the latter case, it may eventually lead to that guild's dismissal from the alliance. Even though this may seem like something that will happen every day as it has in games like SB, if only guilds that meet the alliance standares are invited, it should, in fact, be rare.

Having said all that, I think alliances/coalitions/whatever you want to call them are a good thing, especially in large free for all pvp games. I think JetStar would be perfect for setting up and guiding such a group, and I think the KGB would be a good model to emulate when setting standards for the alliance.

Quote:

---

I know alliances are crucial but I think the focus needs to be on KGB And not some massive alliances with other guilds that we would be in charge of. KGB needs to fix and maintain KGB first not some massive alliance.

---

I do not however think that we should be the primary focus of any alliance, and certainly I do not think that the KGB should attempt to form a coalition with ourselves as its head. Everything needs to be balanced. Large decisions that affect everyone should be made by all the component guilds and their leaders/members, and everyone should be left to deal with their own internal politics. Wars should be fought together, with everyone contributing equally in terms of the resources they have available to contribute. And no member should ever be left to the dogs unless their own actions, against the rest of the alliance, brought that fate on them. Guilds that do not contribute or, after joining, prove that they do not live up to the values stated should be dismissed.

As for small guilds, I dont have much to say. I will say that I have seen small groups of very well organized people whip the crap out of many times over superior forces. If they want in, are able to contribute, and meet the set standards, then they should be let in. You just never know what guild of 10 may have the best pvpers, or individual LEADERS, who could potentially contribute more to the alliance than most of the larger guilds.

Discuss.

pgc worked great in uo but remember it was just started to fight a big group then it was broke apart. the last pgc even we still where not even done with the war when the leaders broke it off on both sides. shoot right after the move to sp we still fought the same guilds those of us that stayed on pacific.

Be wary the ghosts of the past, warriors lost to ruinous time.

I have been reading your discussions on this topic, and there is much wisdom in many of the arguments for and against the alliance of guilds.

I was a member of CQ for over 5 years and I am very knowledgeable in it's workings leading up to SB and COS. Though my playing time and resources tapered off not long after SB release I did beta and remained informed of some of our progress within SB.

Simply put COS was built on deception both by our own leadership and that of it's allies. Many core members were not aware of the activities of it's leadership or that of the other guilds. This deception is only part of the fractious nature of COS. Other issues which became even more of a problem was guild Identity, once you immurse yourself into an alliance your guilds identity can become diminished and fade, other problems become logistics for organization and mobilization of men and matierials, the problematic projection of force and become an issue also.

Getting people to the fight in a timely manner can cause alliances to splinter, not knowing whether you'll command full strength or be a hodge-podge of different people. You'll experience jelousy as members of other guilds or even those within your own guild want benefits and honors that have been set aside for spacific alliance members.

Like two spoiled children wanting attention from mom, factious fights and disabling logistics can be the undoing of an alliance.

My suggestion is making KGB.....FULL ON KGB first. Empower yourselves before any alliance is drawn up, learn the game, know all that you can, gain all you can build all you can and then when you have mastered not only the game but yourselves as well you'll be in a much stronger position to make proposals to others. But however you decide choose your allies wisely, for they become your reputaion as well as you ally and competition.

wow thanks for the advice !!

Nicely said Drakiis.

It would be ideal for us to offer such a UGC based on some of the aspects that have worked for us so well.

Providing a written "Ten Commandments" or "Constitution", while a punchline to some, makes it so everyone is on the same page and allows everyone to know they're as equal as the next guy.

Making sure the entire operation is transparent is key, particularly in this sort of environment.

I'd like to add that the loss of a guilds Identity is a bigger issue then most people would think, and it happens very easily and is a deceptively slow process which gradually tears away small pieces of the guild. CQ had this problem as could be seen in COS. If it were not for a select few CQ members being ever vigilant to the point of heroic in thier accomplishments, most people would never have heard of CQ, let alone even known that CQ built COS and had guided it's growth primarily.

The way I see avoiding such problems is
1. Mastery of Game
Which is pretty self explainitory, though many guilds half-ass it and begin an alliance before thier ready. A guild needs to be fully operational in game first and foremost. If I ask KGB how many of thier members would be playing in game XXX could you even answer that question for certain? No you couldn't, and since that is an unknown factor at this point it is important note that for a guild to lead an alliance and retain it's identity you will need maximum participation.

2. Establish Identity
This is the important point in game where through play the guild becomes known for thier gaming qualities. Such as Guild XXX are great role players, Raid leaders, and helpful, Or Guild XXX are cutthroat mercs, great pvp'ers, and smack talkers

3. Establish Presence
This is where the guild is out there, seen by all, everywhere and into everything heavily grping xp'ing. Maybe at this point many of the guild are working from the same staging areas and are well above the games learning curve.

4. Establish Power Base
Self explainatory, get a home or keep. If not a part of game design then continue from the same staging areas

5. Establish Relationships
Make friends AND enemies, but through these relationships is the alliance, and let me stress this very much. ENEMIES MAKE GREAT ALLIES! Though as a personal note I would be cautious in pursuing this option for this is a deep area for betrayal. You must know and get along with the guilds in question as if they were your best friend to keep betrayal to a minimum. One of CQ's tenents in the early days was that all members in the guild are family, all members have a say, and all could be heard. This mentality translated well into alliances, and help forge strong unions.

6. Establish Code of Conduct
This is mostly directed at each individual guild, but equally applies to the alliance also and it references the theme the alliance and the guilds in it are to take. Is your guild the Heavy Infantry or is it the Lightning strike force, perhaps siege masters or Walled defense force?

7. Establish Policy
Drawing up the laws by which the alliance abides to, the resposibilities and obligations of each guild within, how recruiting is handled, tithes, donations, dues for upkeep of things within game. Shops and businesses, property. Requests for help, ROE's etc..

8. Establish Alliance
Self explainatory

9. Propose Terms
Division of loots, resources and who is in charge of who

10. Consolidate Power

Sorry I got side tracked many times while writting this, much of it is out of context with other parts, and more then likely makes no sense in certain areas. I also understand that the order in which I have laid out things may or may not be ideal, and each description may be innacurate with what it was meant to describe. I'm sure none of this isn't something your leadership hasn't already considered and has at this point already discussed at great length.