How Orgs 2.0 at Citizencon Will Force Existing Organizations to Change

[@jch1386]

Disorganization is honestly the entire reason Raid Finder was put in for WoW back in the day - People wanted the armor skins and gear effects without needing to deal with people on a more social level. The difficulty was much, much lower than regular raids because of this lack of organization. As a more or less solo player, I do really like this concept, however I think they'll roll things back a bit so that orgs don't start at zero if they change guilds. Remind me in 5 years, I guess lol.

[@felian9562]

For the solo players, Dis-organization is a valid option to get the bonuses. But the other way around, large orgs having to split up to get all guild bonuses, will hinder their ability to share effort and rescources for the spacestation.

[@Hackslu]

This is my favorite Independent KZbin Operator on the Normandy - Thanks for sharing, so we can consider it before we publish our org and ideas for it ;)

[@RafaelMartins-e6b]

"dis-organization" should be the name of what I have because I cannot keep my life together 🤣

[@koruzarius8071]

Back in my WoW days I had a personal guild just for my wife and I, but I ended up taking one character and joining a big disorganized guild to get a bunch of Bind To Account items because it was simply impossible to unlock them with a guild of 2. So total respect for the idea of disorganized orgs.

[@Temprasphere]

Great idea with disorganisations. Keep up the great work

[@ToastyMcGrath]

I like this system. It's cool when orgs in games have a meaningful gameplay role, and have to make internal decisions. Most games use a "dis-organization" style.

[@Kurisu2019]

When CIG announced the bonuses to guilds, I first thought "there is going to be a lot of salt from players who don't want in a guild." and was surprised how muted they were. The Dis-Organization is something I am sure a lot of solo operators have already thought of, as there are a lot of single person guilds already out there.

[@iFlub.]

Thanks for the speculation Ray! Let's be honest, disorganization is the structure of most organizations anyways.

[@ohyeah2816]

I started playing around with my Polaris, and I’m going to give my mate a tour when it gets into PU. That’s the limit of my gaming. I’m just looking forward to all the promise coming to this game…and hoping I live to see it.

[@therealearlgrey]

Another interesting video. As I'm rather disorganised, the idea of disorganisations sounds good.

[@MarkoRonkainen]

Disorganization sounds kinda chaotic... I like it!

[@sc_cintara]

I am in the CORP, from where you took that screen shot. Yes, we are a huge org (14k+ members) and therefore we are forced to split into departments, it is impossible to organise otherwise. If CIG stick to the plan of letting an org only affiliate with a single guild, we could simply start a sub-org for each guild, each of the sub-orgs run by the respective departmental head. That way our members can switch to whatever guild they like, but still be within the CORP (well, one of our subsidiaries, that is).

[@RaysGuide]

Which was exactly what I said you'd be having to do

[@sc_cintara]

@@RaysGuide Sorry, I missed that detail. Still, it isn't all that big of an issue is it? I mean, it is a small administrative thing to do. I am sure most orgs will do something similar, even quite small orgs with just a few hundred members? Such a small org doesn't really need the departments for organisational reasons, but wouldn't they do it just to gain access to all the guild bonuses?

[@meowi3108]

dis-organization or organization? this is the question! hopefully future info will help us decide :)

[@NomadicHavoc]

You had me at dis-organization

[@sotoa1]

First time anyone said disorganization in that way. Pretty interesting suggestions.

[@3769Chris]

The idea of dis-organizations is great. There are only a couple of orgs that I am affiliated with and this will let me get org bonuses for each faction.

[@Spectemus]

Our org is currently in discussion about adapting to the new change. Our strategy so far is to have campaigns depending on what the orgs focus is. If we’re building a base, we align with an industrial org, if we’re in a combat campaign, we align with the merc guild. Realizing that rep changes every change. This creates “seasons” for the org and a focus that we can work on for a time as a departmentalized org. Though, CIG will probably change this a lot by the time it comes out. We’ll see what the final iteration looks like.

[@WookieeRage]

Interesting topic. I'm sure as is this could lead to changes with orgs, perhaps allowing for the creation of subdivisions. Maybe a dis-organization in its own way.

[@JoelBondoux]

Orgs can be quite a challenge to maintain so I love this idea of the Dis-Organized org!

[@MersageSW]

I want to create an org that supports independence. Do you want to create it with me? Think of it like the Banu with their independent ship groups connected by one Banu network.

[@StoneHiro]

Being a solo player, dis-orgs would be a fantastic add.

[@Sludgebuster]

Our org is already thinking about this: Our concern is we want, as a body, to do Everything really... So the Departmentalized org is our archetype. Our thinking with the current wording is to have a bunch of separate sub-orgs affiliated like the big aliances of EvE... your Dis-organziation sounds interesting

[@celestial002]

I feel like this is the way to go with an already large org, figure out what branches would have roughly how many members (like a discord poll) and just make them all associated and allied orgs. I'm sure we'll see allied orgs anyway, a mining org might have an agreement where they always outsource security contracts to a completely unrelated PMC. I feel it may even be beneficial for orgs to be split up by division because of any benefits for being allied orgs.

[@mikecroper8422]

An interesting and a legitimate 'call' on how the presently largest orgs may have to reorganise themselves. It's early days as yet and all these parameters might change before this system comes to the live PU but, if they are implemented as presently offered, things are going to need to change.

[@MagicM03]

Some interesting food for thought here. Organisation (and Disorganisation) is going to be key but even that will be difficult as we know how CIG like to change plans on us!

[@bloodstoneoperator5372]

I love the independent disorganization idea.

[@DocFrost42]

The idea of dis-organizations makes me think of the classic "guild of misfits" just random op strangers coming together with the possibility of becoming bffs

[@victusvanzant7454]

Disorganization is definitely a curious concept.

[@stormwolf3255]

A Dis-organization is about as close as I'm going to get to an org that has more than a handful of members as I have very little time to commit these days. Just so long as we are able to join different orgs and switch representation as necessary then a loose affiliation of people with the same general aims but no 'boss' sounds fine to me :)

[@melsy2]

Disorganization sounds like the way to go for solo players need

[@marinosbitter]

It's a good idea to have the dis-organisations, I do think this should (eventually) be a thing managed by the game itself and preferably to have it so there isn't a (large) downside to a wide org

[@nickstinger4709]

Someone finally talked about this.

[@Reurbo]

I believe there will be guild bonuses you can earn individually/solo but if you are in an org which is affiliated to the same guild, you'll get additional bonuses on top of whatever your personal rep is for that guild. This way, you could personally have multiple guilds rewards from rep with them, and by joining an org aligned with the guild those rewards would stack. Hypothetically, if you have a good rep with the industrial guild and get an 8% discount on parts for mining that maxes out at 15% at the highest rep, you're still able to have a lot to earn and work for yourself as a solo player, however, you then join an org who has a high rep in the same guild. Now, on top of your reward level you get an added 10% discount on all mining part and refining related sales. This way as a solo player you're still getting something while the game encourages you to join an org to gain additional boost in those rewards. I could also see high-tier items, including blueprints, being locked behind guild rep such as space station blueprints requiring your personal and guild rep with the industrial guild needing to both be maxed before being able to purchase those blueprints. For the blueprints to build your own Bengal, needing personal and mercenary guild rep to be maxed out for the guild to allow you to buy the blueprints.

[@dyslexicmike1929]

Many years ago I found a dis-organization type that was geared towards and named after the lone wolf playstyle. I thought it was a very good idea then and maybe I'll go track them down and see if they're still around now.

[@inGraffitiWetrust]

smacked like and did sub :D you called me kinda cool! (atm i play lot of solo even tho ill run a org.. unless 2.0 org ruins it)

[@morgandyoung]

Good attempt at organizing the disorganizations.

[@Graytalon]

Dis-organization is the only true method of getting things done. I know, just yesterday, I thought about cleaning out the chicken coop, but my dis-organized way of doing made it go much faster.

[@andrewfanner2245]

Frontier Consolidated 00:30 - 00:50, Overdrive event, in the mess hall of the CO's Hammerhead.

[@Aero_Yuki]

Another worry for very large orgs and this concept of a dis-organization is that we don't know if there will be limits on the number of players who could join each org. Considering the end game of 1.0, if a limit existed it would need to be very large. I don't recall if they said we would need to level our orgs, but could membership caps be tied to org level? If so, then what to do with established large orgs?

[@Arbyfig]

I am part of a departmentalized org, but also from what I see in other games, it would probably not be a big deal, I play star trek online and orgs there are fleets, and fleets can group up to be armadas, but the current fleet-organization I am with is so large they encompass 8 fleets and so the fleet is technically also just a department in this case, and everything is linked together on a central discord server.

[@Extrasolar_XSLR]

As a small (by intention) org owner, I was both excited for then worried when the org details dropped. We’re definitely not going the route of disorganization, but we’ll have to move to an org alliance because of this info. We are primarily explorers with departments for security and logistics. I feel (as do my org mates) that pursuing just the Academy of Science guild would be unfair to members who want to pursue a focus on our two branches.

[@wesflash1]

Many orgs cater to so many types of play, they are a bit of a dis-organization. I like the Independent org idea, as there will be some hardcore players that play many hours daily and can be apart of a big organization, but there will be many solo players that want a minimal binding to a group and that Independent idea sounds really good for them.

[@Challenge72]

The setup benefits large, specialized orgs to the exclusion of all others. IIRC, the idea of a Reputation based system meant an open system where you earned rep with a range of companies/guilds, whatevers. Once your Org allies with a guild, you only gain rep when you and your mates work for that one. This is a Hurston lifetime work contract on steroids! I'm sure they think it will give different orgs to specialize and work together. I think it will just make for more and bigger raids. Solo players were never considered for this system.

[@neilburns7381]

i like the disorganization idea

[@Kittykittybangbang2]

Disorganization, my favourite type of organizing. :-) I suspect SC org tools will go through a few more changes before we get to 1.0.

[@RaysGuide]

I certainly expect them to. I doubt this will be my last discussion on the topic.

[@brymcfly_]

The problem with the whole guild system is that it works against medium-large orgs that are multi-divisional and that just seems like counter productive for the goals for community play. I foresee this coming up and them changing features in order to be more beneficial to well-rounded groups

[@RamzUchiha]

I have kind of been assuming we would end up with something like Disorganization I liked hearing someone else with a similar take.

[@AlphaCitizen]

Guess I'm not the only who realized this. I've been in meetings with other leaders for hours laying out our response to single guild org structure. No spoilers though

[@yawnbox]

I am wondering: Since CIG has allowed Orgs to select two specialties, perhaps they'll allow Orgs to join up to two Guilds. But then, I'd think, that would fracture people even more, because they might like one but not the other. So maybe one Org to one Guild is the better idea, and people can just have multiple orgs to join. Has there been any more disclosure about this topic since CitizenCon?

[@BrushKestrel]

CIG are hoping that forcing orgs to specialise will make sure they can't "do it all". However, we *already* have "org pairs" (one lawful, one unlawful) that are the same org outside the game, and some of those date from back before there was a hangar module. The bigger orgs will just register all of their departments as orgs. And it will force amorphous orgs to become departmental. The "dis-organisation" you suggested depends on achieving high rep with a guild and keeping it. And one of the sneaky ways to attack such an org will be to join and damage the org/guild reputation. If you want to run one, you'll need a good way to identify who has damaged that reputation, so they can be corrected or ejected. With a proper social org that regularly plays together, you'll get a good feel for who is a likely culprit over time, but for a true "dis-organisation" where everyone is an atomised individual, you are going to need in-game analytics tools to do it ... which will depend on CIG implementing them to that quality level. I suspect CIGs tools for a "dis-organisation" will not be good enough to protect that critical rep from such attacks fpr a large org with open membership -- so as a result what you'll actually see instead is a plethora of much smaller orgs, possibly right down to single players.

[@RaysGuide]

As I said, the one rule in a dis-organization will be don't do anything to screw up the guild reputation. Now a good question will be whether the org leadership can kick and ban players, but they certainly will demote you to whatever is the lowest of the ranks. Then there is the question of how much a handfull of bad actors can drag down an org of many hundreds of diligent independent operators. And a final factor is that although the missions come fhrough the guild they are created by the factions. And if your faction rep has been destroyed you won't be offered the missions to fail in the first place.

[@Bogie-AGB]

Disorganized Orgs sounds like it would have issues for the single player. Perhaps allowing the joining not only of multiple orgs, like we do now, but getting the buffs from those orgs (except no stacking).

[@Lokdin-nh6gw]

Dis-organization is a good principle, but what would you do about leadership within? Someone has to accept new members and dole out punishments if the rep with the chosen guild is damaged. As a primarily solo player it would be nice if we could have standing with all the guilds individually, listening to the clip you had makes me think that they are wanting someone to lock into a certain play style and ship type instead of being a jack of all trades.

[@-DarkFox-]

I’ve always been a player who thrived in dis-organization

[@TheRealFreakaros]

it all depends on how good the guild perks are gonne be, i wouldn't beat an eye for 3% or whatever tbh, no dis-organisations needed. But i can see the problems for min-maxers and for bigger orgs with many divisions.

[@rhetor4mentor13]

I'm quite baffled about 2 things: being only able to align to one guild at a given time, and all criminal gangs somehow being under the same banner which removes much of the scope for belligerence between competing factions. This really pushes down the dynamics to simple blue vs red and single career focuses. Why? Also, what about orgs whose defined goal would naturally imply touching at many distinct career paths and thus guilds (edit: you refer to them as Departementalized corporations)? For instance, a resource extraction org specialised for ventures in highly risk environments. Of course they'd have incentives to have medic, security, scouting, defense sections and extensive logistic operations, that all support the "core" goal of the org. What then? Each department would become its own org and alliances would have to be formed...between what are essentially departments/pillars of a same org that would have everything in silos by design?

[@RaysGuide]

Remember that the Guilds are above the factions, and the factions are all still in competition with each other. You know those scenes in Gangster movies where the heads of all the Families sit around a table and be all cordial with each other even though you know in the third act they are going to be slaughtering each other? That's what I think the Council is like,

[@rhetor4mentor13]

@@RaysGuide That's a good analogy. I suppose the idea would be that aligning to gang X and attacking Y would not penalise any reputation to the Council, and what would affect the council is purely related to attacking UEE/lawful interests. We'll hopefully get more clarity on this in coming weeks. Thanks!

[@RobRoberts3rd]

I didn't realize that they indicated that the Organization's could only affiliate with one Guild at a time. I was under the impression that as long as the guilds were aligned with each other such as both lawful and not in conflict then an Org could be affiliated with more than one. Those clips do seem to indicate that an org can only affiliate with one guild at a time. I think CIG should reexamine that, It will really limit what an Org can be to each player and further separate players who have different play styles. I really like being part of an org that has a variety of different people with different interests. If they don't change it I can see a Dis-Organization Org really benefiting the Solo players who want to play independently and still get the guild benefits that go with being in an Org.

[@arrclyde4325]

I would say it comes down to multi org membership. Larhe orgs can make alliances and put their devisions into single orgs. Each member is part of each org but has to chose a main org (as already shown on the webside). So each member is in all org subdvision orgs as a main org and secondary to all the other orgs. That could mean that if you represent your other orgs you lose the "main org bonus" for reputations. Lets be honest: switching org representation isn't and should not be a "multiple times a day" thing. Everybody is doing best what they are most interested in within the apripriate sub division org. Only for large goals they would beed to switch org representation.

[@jordanmickelson8880]

Dis-organization is the only thing that will help more rounded playstyles from the day 1 monopoly of these massive organizations. I know the Orion mining ship is still in concept but that bad boy will generate 100m auec per load of haddanite. That is an incredible advantage once 1.0 comes out, these orgs will be quintillionaires+ buying up massive amounts of land to the point where members whole job is just putting down land claims on resource deposits in high sec space to be strip mined by another team.

[@Midnightpr0wl3r]

My life is Disorganized so joining a Disorganization sound about right for me.

[@Storm-Cleaver]

Orgs and disorganization is a big part of why I'm hesitant to take any leadership positions in an Org in SC even when I'm the one running two Discord servers. But then when I _do_ anything in-game, it's usually with the Yacht Club, and only occasionally with others. And since the Org I founded for real-life family and friends is my obvious Main, I can't really have any other be anything but an affiliate... so, unless Org Leaders can Represent _someone else's_ Org... I won't actually be Representing the Org that I'm most active with. The (dis-)Organization that I actually run will probably be focused on Exploration since almost everyone in it is either a parent or a pre-teen, and absolutely casual.

[@RaysGuide]

I've never had the itch to lead an org. Just too much headache.

[@brentmellinger]

6 Org slots means a player can join an org for each of the affiliations. I expect many will join one or two proper Orgs and the rest of the slots be dis-organizations.

[@cmdr_thrudd]

Disorganisation is the natural state of most mmo player groups :D

[@FredFenster]

Dis-organizations might be commonplace unless we can choose more than one guild to work with.

[@celestial002]

I almost feel like a disorganization should be unnecessary the benefits to an org should be structured in such a way that it only benefits organizations not the individuals. Things such as special lucrative operations or discounted bulk purchases of common gear for PMCs. Free cargo loading at specific stations when doing org work for the transport guild. "This money wouldn't come out of the pilots pocket anyway" or priority refining for the org's mining haul. If things are done correctly the org should be wealthy, paying the costs, incurring the risks, and taking a large sum of the profits. The org would then pay it's members a salary or cut of whatever operation they were involved in. For example: a large, reputable PMC would get multi-million UEC contracts to let's say take down a semi-powerful crime syndicate and their leader (possibly a comparatively powerful pirate org but let's not get our hopes up). A solo Bounty hunter isn't going to get a contract like this, only an org with the resources to throw at it would get this assignment. Imagine getting excited because your maxed out guild level gave you a 4mil contract to take out this important crimelord, only to pull up to their mobile operations base which happens to be a fully manned kraken defended by a small fleet. On the other hand imagine being an org with 60k players with fleets at the ready and your biggest operations are "go here fight 1 hammerhead". It seems much more immersive and fun to me if Org benefits only benefit the org as a whole and a more prosperous org makes it's members wealthier whereas an independent operator or small crew get's increasingly lucrative and dangerous contracts that are still reasonable (for example Boba Fett would get lucrative contracts for key targets because of his rep but he isn't going to be sent to the rebel base on Hoth by himself) I think there's also some room in here for simply how something can be handled a lone bounty hunter might have to wait until the target is vulnerable whereas an org has the resources and manpower to attack a fortified position. Anyway I hope they figure out a good way to make orgs and independent operators feel unique and rewarding in different ways without the need for players to create a disorganization to reap benefits they can't obtain otherwise. Edit: In hindsight 60k is kind of outrageous.

[@Bob-jy6hm]

Disorganisation org sounds funny. Just the image of simplicity contrasted against the actual orgs

[@marcjensen9080]

A dis-organization won't be thing. With the ability to have multiple orgs we can just connect to whatever orgs we need for whatever bonuses they give. And that brings me to the huge org with "tough decisions" to make. These will likely just become meta orgs with their various divisions represented by an org for each subset.

[@seotenin]

lol The Dis-organization org actually makes sense.

[@Merciful_Angel]

I think 'disorganization' is my org's natural state, even if we are a departmentalised org.

[@jimashby43]

Thanks Ray 😊 having a hard time understanding all the babble.

[@aaronpaul5990]

Honestly it is one of these points that i have the gut feeling will change once they tried it in game ... having yourself limited to one specific style as org or Disorganization or independent org or whatever limits your available gameplay and will kill it for a lot of org players if it has as a significant impact. No matter what was said on this presentation having to choose early and having to stick to it sounds dumb. But maybe you can switch between the guilds without any repercussion or losing the already earned benefits. In that case you would be able to grind different Guilds reputation with your guild when ever you want to and switch back to a differnt one.

[@RaysGuide]

But the key there is that you aren't limited to one specific style because you can belong to multiple orgs and then change representing between them as you are doing different roles

[@MersageSW]

I have an idea for an org with all members remaining independent and viewed as peers. The organization's structure is flat. You play when you want, how you want, and with who want. You remain fully in control of your ships. You will have the organization as a network to find trusted crew members on demand. If you would like to help me create and grow it, leave a comment here and we'll get started.

[@jamesaspinall9248]

I can't help but think the roles for The Council and The Mercenary Guild sound like they should be swapped. So much Dis-Organization :)

[@RaysGuide]

I think that they are seeing the Council as being like those scenes in Gangster movies where the heads of all the households (or their consigliere) are all sitting around the table even though they hate each other.

[@jamesaspinall9248]

@RaysGuide agreed, but Mercenary sounds so much more as well. More than council at least :)

[@joesgotmore]

To be honest most orgs fall in the disorganization structure as most aren't huge orgs that need structure to function at all.

[@BR1ZZO]

Even with disorganization, it's still going to be a cluster fuck the way they have thrown this at us. 😅 so many dedicated organizations that are going to have to split or if they create "factions" with in orgs this could be solved and still allow the giants to progress. But I think if they have to split and individualsize it's going to hurt the players desire to org up if the benefits aren't massive.

[@RaysGuide]

The giants are going to be Alliances of orgs. The ones that thrive will be the ones that can manage good coordination between their alliance leaders.

[@Mike5Brown]

Dis-organization sounds like what I'm going to end up with, but I am worried that it'll be what a majority of people do and that caused a lot of problems in WoW.

[@jimashby43]

Every since I saw this I keep thinking of the Loner Guy, The guy works all day, comes home and wants to explore one day or a week. Then Mine a week, then Builds his personal Home for his use when he's not doing game missions. He may only play 4-6 hours a week. He will have no security without being a member of some group that protects the area from invaders. Question ❓ Is there even a place for those people? It's starting to bother me with some of the overall descriptions I'm getting through CIG. probably why I'm watching these videos, trying to put my head around it. They surely would not want to alienate anyone.

[@RaysGuide]

I think they will have two protections. The first is what I called in one video 'The fine art of being left alone'. Do PvE, mine in the Aaron Halo, etc. They can't harrass you if they can't find you. The second is that pissing off the Independent Operators will be inadvisable for no reason other than they won't buy whatever you are selling.

[@BrokenImmersions]

GrieferNet has already proven that Orgs need to change and continues to prove that daily.

[@GeekyMagpie]

Ray missed out on calling the disorganizations Freelancer orgs

[@justsomewhitewolf]

Dis-Organization allowing org gameplay for solo players? Like guilds? I like the idea of "independent" titles.

[@MersageSW]

I want to create an org that supports independence. Do you want to create it with me?

[@El-Gordo]

Im a shift worker so the time disorganization in my life means i can't regularly play with the same people. Im all over the timezones.

[@mjlee8013]

Lets say that i have 10 friends. Each of us makes org and invites the others, then each of us affiliates with diffrent guild. Check-mate CIG.

[@mattoverton5526]

Why wouldn’t each guild have a wide range of play styles but have one that is the focus. Miners working in less protected space will need a protection department as you note. It’s not hard to imagine how guild departments could offer guild bonuses that might suit the core play style but also have variety in the guild. Best extractor blueprints or intel on the hottest asteroid fields could be tied to providing services to those key assets. After all You wouldn’t want to give away the location by hiring space trucker guild members so you need some aligned hurlers. Sure there is a key drive you aren’t raiding bunkers of old but abandoned miner camps to scan equipment for new blueprints or rare parts. Indeed thinking about why guilds might want each play style as a support department is a great way to round out game to make it rich and competitive

[@RaysGuide]

Because if they do choose one that is the focus all the others lose out on their guild affiliation bonuses, so the route that they are encouraging, I think intentionally, is to have alliances and to have players belong to more than one org in the alliance, switching representation and they play one role in the alliance or the other.

[@mortenhumble6063]

It's definitely gonna be more hazzle running an org, but i am unsure independent Orgs vil solve it.

[@JustSayingitslore]

ORG Bank Account is needed

[@louieavi]

CIG is going to mess up the Org module. They need to brain storm on everything they want to include and focus and "finish" 10% of it. But instead they will start with 100% of it, change 50%, tweak 40% and add 35% more features to the overall deliverable before anything has been delivered and usable.

[@celestial002]

dunno if maybe it was Dis-organization so just putting that in there lol.

[@SundayPriest]

Dis-organizations, hm.. interesting. Sounds like a workaround to a problem CIG should fix.

[@RaysGuide]

Things like Dis-Organizations exist in real life. For example in the US there is something called the Auto Club, or AAA. Early on they lobbied for road projects and such, but today it is just a matter of the roadside assistance and Auto Club discounts at various places. In the US medical care system there is something called IPA or independent Practitioners Associations, which is essentially a way for individual doctors to deal with the insurance companies as a group.

[@SundayPriest]

@@RaysGuide Thank you for the information on this, I really wasn't aware this was actually a thing. It is interesting to me how real world solutions trickle into games the more detailed/complex they become. I think the quanta/um economy would bring a lot of that type of solution finding for players as well. That will make the verse into such an interesting playground for players.

[@darkfae2002]

Dis-Organization or Dat-Organization, choose your fate

[@Jone991]

disorganisations might be a good idea but when someone wants to play solo they wont be joining any where.

[@RaysGuide]

Nor do they have to. Joining a dis-organization is like Delta SkyMiles. You're just there for the points as is everybody else.

[@UNBE4R4BLE]

Glad i held off from Org activity, the Disorganisation aspect would have been unwelcome angst

[@SolaAesir]

Disorganization helps a bit, but they're really just going to have to redesign Orgs all over again. Orgs 2.0 just isn't ever going to work given all of the other game systems orgs are eventually supposed to interact with.

[@3dVisualist]

The concept of a dis-organisation is such a good one. There are a lot of lone wolves (me included) that don’t have the dedicated and scheduled time for an org.

[@Loganzist]

how about a working game first?

[@Reset_Life-x9e]

Nah, I don't think so. It maybe that an Org will align with a faction, but that they will do the same thing that they do now. Since the missions will still be given, and someone will take them, try to perform them and get paid on an individual level. Or, it'll get reduced to an individual level, they can join a faction, perform missions, share them with others in the Org much like they do now. It's just that the individual will specialize and share with Org mates, and they'll gain rep with the faction. Other than that its too ridged, and top down, next you'll say that if you like doing bunkers you can't ROC mine, or salvage, or cargo haul.

[@RaysGuide]

Oh you can of course, but if you want the Guild Bonus while you do so you will be needing to be at least a peripheral member of an org.

[@Reset_Life-x9e]

@@RaysGuide didn't have them before (bonuses); don't need them now.

[@Krieghandt]

organised chaos (disorganized guilds) is the American way.

[@51ghardy]

Orgs are more or less organized. Guilds and orgs are disorganized sometimes.

[@TheModernVIkingNor]

So I guess this will force orgs to split up into multiple specialists. Instead of 1 huge org

[@RaysGuide]

Fortunately there are Alliances to facilitate joint operations

[@sanctred]

I’d argue they don’t have org 1.0 yet

[@b-l1969]

Dude you are giving them far too much credit for having a plan that they've thought out.

[@mj_darkstar]

Instead of Independent... consider 'Freelancer' or just 'Freelance.'? Freelance Operator.

[@LunaMoon0]

Your suggestion for independent orgs will not work, I think. Because ppl like power and to control other ones.

[@basicallybrokes]

I've been in a bunch of orgs and this is totally the case. People will seek power where there is a vacuum and having different orgs will encourage subdivision which will, in turn, lead to splintering.

[@MersageSW]

I want to create an org that supports independence. Do you want to create it with me? Anyone else want to join too? If so leave a comment and I'll create it.

[@LunaMoon0]

@MersageSW mayby If the gameplay IS there But only If its there

[@mwittstrom]

My org is part of an umbrella org to solve this problem. The umbrella org have many orgs under it and every org can do what they want and organize themself any way they want. But everyone can still use the umbrella org to find others to play with, or if you don't like the org you are a part of you can move to another. It's a bit of a social / lose alliance style to it. Works pretty well as subdivision and splintering is built into the structure and supported.

[@basicallybrokes]

@ that’s an alliance at that point and not an umbrella org. For it to be an umbrella org then someone has to still be in control of all the other orgs in some way.