Old Patron Woes and Preventing New Patronage Exploits---A Simple Solution

[TheSpin]

<DIV>I am the leader of a medium sized guild and I really hope something is changed to allow more members to work on guild exp.  People can lose interest in their guild if they can't contribute something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I believe the solution is quite simple for allowing more people to have thier shot at patronage without giving big guilds too huge an advantage.  Here is my sugguestion:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1)  The number for optimal patronage stays the same (1/12 if < 12 and then denominater equals # of patrons if over 12)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2)  If a patron ceases to be a patron the status they earned is still valid and the guild loses no exp</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*3*  If an x-patron wishes to be patron again, he has to START OVER and then the guild loses exp and his status is reset to 0</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4)  Optional---Guilds Never Lose a level, but they have to make up for lost experience if the lose status</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This way people can have their shot at patronage and if they make an alt they decide they like playing more, or if they are burnt out on the patron thing (or perhaps completed all the heritage quets) they can leave that characters status up without hurting the long term exp gain of the guild.</DIV>

[Eadric]

<DIV>That's not too bad, actually.</DIV>

[MillsFairchild]

<b>How about guild status debt?</b>  It would work just like adventuring xp debt.  Someone leaves and the guild lvl stays where it is - but the guild incurs status debt which must be made up before advancing guild xp any further.  This would prevent people from exploiting the patron system without fear of losing status, and still provide guilds a way to make up the loss without losing a level. The debt could even decay over time... maybe 25,000/week or something. It ties into the OP idea of not losing guild levels, but I think it makes sense to mirror the way adventuring xp works. <div></div>

[TheSpin]

<DIV>Guild EXP debt would work in the system I outlined.  It could just be a way to see how much extra experience is needed to make up for someone leaving the guild or starting their patronage over</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and I didn't cover losing a patron as a member in the first outline....you could either take away his status (makes more sense probably) or keep track of how much status he gave and list it once again if he joins the guild.</DIV>

[z2xm]

<DIV>Except that if you use Guild xp debt it should work just as character xp debt does, ie your current xp is not frozen, but half of your xp gain goes towards the debt and the other half advances you forward.  Moorguard already stated that it seemed weird that the guild model is seperate from the character model.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>While the concept of guilds losing levels when patrons leave makes sense in a practical way, it's also different from other progression models we have in game. Your character doesn't lose levels when you die or fail a crafting combine, so it seemed strange to have the same thing happen to a guild, especially when guilds in our game are intended to advance just like characters do.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kenazeer]

<P>I really hope they can implement a fair system that somehow does not include guild debt. The joy of not losing a level would be there, but so too would the demoralizong effect of a huge debt burden. If they do implement a debt system, I hope it is not so burdensome as to have the exact same psychological effect as the current system. How about soemthing like....</P> <UL> <LI>There is no loss of status or guild debt when a person is de-patronned</LI> <LI>If a person is added to patronage status <STRONG>all</STRONG> guild experience gained for the next 48 hours is accrued at 75%(or some other %) of actual value.</LI></UL> <P>Would allow guilds to remove and add people with a slight penalty, but would also enact enough of a penalty that it would not be done casually?</P> <P> </P>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>TheSpin wrote:<div>I am the leader of a medium sized guild and I really hope something is changed to allow more members to work on guild exp.  People can lose interest in their guild if they can't contribute something.</div> <div> </div> <div>I believe the solution is quite simple for allowing more people to have thier shot at patronage without giving big guilds too huge an advantage.  Here is my sugguestion:</div> <div> </div> <div>1)  The number for optimal patronage stays the same (1/12 if < 12 and then denominater equals # of patrons if over 12)</div> <div> </div> <div>2)  If a patron ceases to be a patron the status they earned is still valid and the guild loses no exp</div> <div> </div> <div>*3*  If an x-patron wishes to be patron again, he has to START OVER and then the guild loses exp and his status is reset to 0</div> <div> </div> <div>4)  Optional---Guilds Never Lose a level, but they have to make up for lost experience if the lose status</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>This way people can have their shot at patronage and if they make an alt they decide they like playing more, or if they are burnt out on the patron thing (or perhaps completed all the heritage quets) they can leave that characters status up without hurting the long term exp gain of the guild.</div><hr></blockquote></span>A player may max out all HQs, get tired of writs, and then change to an Alt. This is something that is a huge boost in game playability IMO that this new system is giving us. But, keep in mind, as expansions and new LU features come out, there will be new HQs, new ways of generating status, and it would be very nice if player would be able to switch back to their main w/o the guild losing status. Given that, I would have to say that #3 above would be very unwelcome to me. One solution, and this is something I think would be an awesome addition, is that all patrons from a single account in a single guild count as one patron w/ respect to the GSP divisor.  If you think about it, it is impossible for me to play two chars from the same account at the same time, so making them count twice in the divisor does not accomplish the intent of the divisor. If this is done, it makes sense to implement #3 also. <div></div>

[Landrethi]

<div></div>I'll probably get 1-starred for this but that's ok <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 1) The "patron" system as it exists should go away. There should be no such thing as being "patroned" or "de-patroned". ALL members of a guild contribute equally to the status of the guild.  All members are representatives simply by virtue of the guild tag showing up. How they behave and what they do reflects on the guild. Any status they get should count toward the overall guild status 2) All status should be personal status and should travel with the player, coming or going. Another poster on another thread said this (don't remember who but you know who you are if you read this): its like the Knights of the Round Table. If Sir Lancelot, who is a major status contributor by his deeds, were to leave the fellowship, the entire fellowship would be diminished in the eyes of the community. By the same token, if Sir Lancelot were to join the competing fellowship known as the Knights of the Hexagonal table, that groups status would be greatly improved because no matter what group he belongs to, Sir Lancelot is a great guy.           2a) All status gained by any member of the guild should contribute toward the status of the guild. This would be equal for all members. So pick a number, like say 10% of their personal status would count toward the aggegrate guild status           2b) If a member leaves the guild or gets kicked out, the guild status would fall by that much. If that same person gets picked up by another guild, their accumulated status would immediately contribute to the new guild.           2c) Losing guild status/level is a natural part of losing members. If your top 5 status people leave because they're disgusted with the guild, you darn well should lose status and levels. By not penalizing the guild for losing good members, you are in effect rewarding poor management. 3) Guild members would feel more included if what status they can build would contribute to the overall guild. The friendly competition between members for who contributes the most status would be based on their own internal ranking - just sort the guild window by status points. If you want to move up your list, do more work. Don't care? Don't work at status things. But don't hold back those members who would LIKE to contribute but can't because they aren't a "patron". Honestly, which would be more fun - a guild where everyone who wants to contribute can, with no stupid divisor penalty, or a guild where only a select few can contribute and the rest of the members just sit around and watch? 4) By doing it this way, there are no exploits that I can see. Guild status or levels come and go as your members do. All members could contribute to whatever extent they wish - every little bit would help. Leaders and guild management would be able to encourage players to do even small writs or HQs to contribute any status they could, which would ultimately encourage all members to pitch in for the guild status. But the leaders couldn't get complacent - if they don't manage the personalities effectively, some members could leave and take their status points elsewhere. 5) If players have alts that do HQs or writs, their status would contribute just like all the others. So if its a small guild of people but they have numerous alts that they play, even those would contribute status Just my 2 copper L <div></div><p>Message Edited by Landrethian on <span class=date_text>07-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:22 PM</span>

[Kenazeer]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Landrethian wrote:<BR> I'll probably get 1-starred for this but that's ok <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>1) The "patron" system as it exists should go away. There should be no such thing as being "patroned" or "de-patroned". ALL members of a guild contribute equally to the status of the guild.  All members are representatives simply by virtue of the guild tag showing up. How they behave and what they do reflects on the guild. Any status they get should count toward the overall guild status<BR><BR>2) All status should be personal status and should travel with the player, coming or going. Another poster on another thread said this (don't remember who but you know who you are if you read this): its like the Knights of the Round Table. If Sir Lancelot, who is a major status contributor by his deeds, were to leave the fellowship, the entire fellowship would be diminished in the eyes of the community. By the same token, if Sir Lancelot were to join the competing fellowship known as the Knights of the Hexagonal table, that groups status would be greatly improved because no matter what group he belongs to, Sir Lancelot is a great guy.<BR><BR>          2a) All status gained by any member of the guild should contribute toward the status of the guild. This would be equal for all members. So pick a number, like say 10% of their personal status would count toward the aggegrate guild status<BR>          2b) If a member leaves the guild or gets kicked out, the guild status would fall by that much. <FONT color=#ff0000>If that same person gets picked up by another guild, their accumulated status would immediately contribute to the new guild.<BR></FONT>          2c) Losing guild status/level is a natural part of losing members. If your top 5 status people leave because they're disgusted with the guild, you darn well should lose status and levels. <FONT color=#ff0000>By not penalizing the guild for losing good members, you are in effect rewarding poor management.<BR><BR></FONT>3) Guild members would feel more included if what status they can build would contribute to the overall guild. The friendly competition between members for who contributes the most status would be based on their own internal ranking - just sort the guild window by status points. If you want to move up your list, do more work. Don't care? Don't work at status things. But don't hold back those members who would LIKE to contribute but can't because they aren't a "patron". Honestly, which would be more fun - a guild where everyone who wants to contribute can, with no stupid divisor penalty, or a guild where only a select few can contribute and the rest of the members just sit around and watch?<BR><BR>4) By doing it this way, there are no exploits that I can see. Guild status or levels come and go as your members do. All members could contribute to whatever extent they wish - every little bit would help. Leaders and guild management would be able to encourage players to do even small writs or HQs to contribute any status they could, which would ultimately encourage all members to pitch in for the guild status. But the leaders couldn't get complacent - if they don't manage the personalities effectively, some members could leave and take their status points elsewhere.<BR><BR>5) If players have alts that do HQs or writs, their status would contribute just like all the others. So if its a small guild of people but they have numerous alts that they play, even those would contribute status<BR><BR>Just my 2 copper<BR>L<BR> <P>Message Edited by Landrethian on <SPAN class=date_text>07-15-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:22 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Only a twit would one star someone for simply not agreeing with them.</P> <P>However, I very strongly disagree with the statements I have highlighted in red above. </P> <P>I think their would be even more oppurtunity to exploit the system than is currently proposed if all one had to do was add a high personal status member to gain guild status.</P> <P>Losing members <STRONG>may</STRONG> be the result of poor management, but this is not always the case. As a matter of fact I would bet that the top two reasons people leave guilds are dissatisfaction with the game and to join a more active guild. These are simply matters of personal tastes.<BR></P> <P> </P>

[Kirotaan]

Kanazeer i agree with you on that note.  I like my guild but because I want to go to a more active guild I don't think my current guild should be hurt by my choice to leave.  I also don't think the new guild should get my status till i actually do work for them.  Good point <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  SP is personal GSP is guild <div></div>

[Landrethi]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote: <blockquote><hr> </blockquote> <p>Only a twit would one star someone for simply not agreeing with them.</p> <p>However, I very strongly disagree with the statements I have highlighted in red above. </p> <p>I think their would be even more oppurtunity to exploit the system than is currently proposed if all one had to do was add a high personal status member to gain guild status.</p> <p>Losing members <strong>may</strong> be the result of poor management, but this is not always the case. As a matter of fact I would bet that the top two reasons people leave guilds are dissatisfaction with the game and to join a more active guild. These are simply matters of personal tastes.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>True you could add a high status person that would immediately elevate the new guild - but why is that bad? In the example I gave, it makes sense that if you recruit a star, your group standing elevates accordingly. But it would drop just as quickly if said superstar leaves - that would only be fair. If I were able, as a new guild leader, to recruit the top 10 status people from different guilds, then my guild would rocket to lvl 30, but if I don't give those stars a reason to stay (regular raids, etc or whatever it is they look for to have fun in the game), then they could pack up and leave me just as quickly as they joined me. I have to agree with you that losing members isn't always a result of poor management. Hasty generalization on my part based on some admittedly sour personal experiences. However, why should a guild retain the status contributed by a star member when that member leaves for some other guild? Yes its inconvenient but what logic is there in retaining the prestige (status) by having certain members when those members chose to leave? On that same point, how do you feel about point #3 as a mitigating item for losing status for members that leave? L </span><div></div>

[Landrethi]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kirotaan wrote:Kanazeer i agree with you on that note.  I like my guild but because I want to go to a more active guild I don't think my current guild should be hurt by my choice to leave.  I also don't think the new guild should get my status till i actually do work for them.  Good point <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  SP is personal GSP is guild <div></div><hr></blockquote>You don't think that all your hard work shouldn't go with you when you move to another guild? To me its sort of like NBC losing Letterman to CBS - NBC lost some "status" and CBS gained some status, merely by Dave changing. He brought a bunch of clout with him, he didn't have to start from scratch</span><div></div>

[Kenazeer]

<P>I agree with you about encouraging/enabling guild members to participate, but I dont know how you could completely do away with the divisor without encouraging zerging for guild exp. It would great fun to be able to do what you can and have it count without having to worry about meeting x number of writs.</P> <P>As far as taking exp to a new guild....</P> <P>Yes the individual does carry some amount of prestige, but not all. Think of it like Ford when Henry Ford left.....they sure didn't stop buying cars. I just think taking accumulated status with you to another guild would only encourage exploitation, which is what many threads the last couple days are worried about.</P>

[Kirotaan]

<span><blockquote><hr>Landrethian wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kirotaan wrote:Kanazeer i agree with you on that note.  I like my guild but because I want to go to a more active guild I don't think my current guild should be hurt by my choice to leave.  I also don't think the new guild should get my status till i actually do work for them.  Good point <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  SP is personal GSP is guild <div></div><hr></blockquote>You don't think that all your hard work shouldn't go with you when you move to another guild? To me its sort of like NBC losing Letterman to CBS - NBC lost some "status" and CBS gained some status, merely by Dave changing. He brought a bunch of clout with him, he didn't have to start from scratch</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Why would the work i do for one guild make another guild look better when I move?  I did it for the guild and I got personal status which DOES travel with me.  </span><div></div>

[some_perso]

<P>I have an alternate idea myself.</P> <P>A.) Like many others suggest, just get rid of the whole patron/depatron thing.  If you get rid of guild status loss everyone will just abuse it so that patroning becomes meaningless anyways.  Just make it so everyone in a guild contributes when they gain status.</P> <P>B.) Set a flat amount of guild status given by heritage quests, writs, and contested mobs.</P> <P>C.) Get rid of any penealty to a guild for loseing a member.  Also allow a member switching guilds to be able to give up to 20% of the amount of guild status they earned in a previous guild to there new guild, but to avoid abuse, have this tooken from there personal status (thus avoiding the need to penealyze there former guild) and only allow this to happen slowly over a 60day period of being with that guild.  Also only allow a person to do this once to the same guild (so they don't just constantly leave and rejoin every 60days to abuse the system).</P> <P>D.) Re adjust guild status needed to lvl so it will work by a sort of organizational teir system.  </P> <P>      Have it so guild lvl's 1-10 can be accomplised by just doing writs (primarily soloable, thus no organization required).  Although writs will always yeild guild xp they will only give significant amounts through these lvls.  Maybe they could add at least one solo writ to each faction for any given lvl.</P> <P>      Guild Lvls 10-20 can be easily accomplised by doing heritage quests, (primarily groupable, thus organization required and at many points challenging).  Although heritage quests done by anyone in a guild would continue to yeild some status in the 20+ range it would not be very signifcant but much better than a writ.  </P> <P>      Guild Lvls 20-30 would require Raiding, (primarily 3-4 grouped, thus much organization required).  Although zerg guilds can have an advantage at writs and heritage, they cannot simply zerg raids.  Thus a lvl 30 guild would have to be very well organized and not simply zerg.  To give raiding more significants to the idea of gaining preistiege with your city, they could redesign the Writ Raid system to be scaleable but only for ppl between lvls 40-50 (with mentoring not allowed) and primairly for guilds lvl 20+.  These raids would provide more status than killing a contested mob or raiding one of the many other zones but of coarse would only be doable once a week (thus allowing guilds with a cauall base to be behind, but not incredibly behind guilds with a hard core raid base).</P> <P>This way if there's a zerg guild they can only take advantage of it up to lvl 20, then they'd need to be able to do raids to get any higher.  Also guild lvl would be more related to adventure lvl, a guild composed of lvl 1-20's would mainly only be able to do writs, a guild mainly 20- low 40s would mainly do heritage, and a guild 40+ would mainly raid.  That way if a bunch of 50s formed there own new raid guild they wouldnt find it to hard to get up to guild lvl 20 because a writ raid would give an extremely large amount of guild xp at guild lvl 2 or 3.</P>

[Sonnyjim_Grumblestump]

Simply adding my voice to the side of the argument that respects the patron system, and I do not think it should be removed or otherwise dumbed down. What Sony did with the parton system allows for non-zerg guilds to compete (as far as guild level) with larger guilds and accomplish something if they work hard. I am impressed with the OP's idea, and think it could work. I was also originally against Guild Status Debt, but am rethinking it with the suggested 'debt decay' part added.. so that the debt is significant, but not something that couldn't be worked off over a LONG period of time. Such a setup could work. I like that Guild level is something we (as a smaller guild) can challenge ourselves to attain. As it stands I am against the changes on test, as they stand now with potential abuse. Thanks for the discussion all! <div></div>

[Tockl]

<P>I think SP debt should be for the patron leaving only.  Paying off debt can be more depressing than just regaining that xp, even if its in practice identical.  Leaving a guild should hurt the person more than the guild.</P> <P>I still believe everyone should be patrons, but only have penalties on the people OVER the original 12 (or whichever number).  The highest contributors count as before, and the ones lower count at reduced percentages.  The more people, the larger the reduction as you get farther down the line.  The first 12 are merely the highest contributors, something any guildie can attain by dedication.</P> <P> </P>

[Auron_ff10]

Theres one problem with making any major changes to the guild system here... it will leave many guilds at an advantage or disadvantage depending on whether it makes it easier or harder to generate guild xp compared to current guilds thst have already reached the cap under the current system.

[emr]

I dislike the whole Patron thing.  The argument for having it was that large guild would have an advantage over small guilds.  I think large guilds will have an adavantage anyways because the more active players the easier it is to get HQ and writs done.   Small guilds under the present system are disadavantaged unless they have 12 very active patrons.  Many smaller guilds have a hard time getting a full guild team to work on a HQ or even complete access/hallmark quests.   The guilds that is really penalized under the current system is the small guild made up of non-hardcore players.  The Hardcore player will quickly advance, most get invited to join raiding guilds ( which hurts the small guilds again).   The casual player  have a hard time get teams for HQ and are the mostly to leave the game because of frustration.    But these are the largest group of players in the game. I do not see that eliminating the patron system completely would change the game.  It is not the that hard to reach level 20 in a guild,  10 players with 40K contributed is all you need.   To reach level 25 or 30 is much harder.   But if you look at the rewards they are basically all pretty fluff except the mounts.   However the mounts are very expensive.    5 pp is alot of money and 60 pp is unreachable for any casual player without years of playing.   Even if the guild of casual players makes to level 30 they are not going to be all rushing out and buying flying carpets, because they will not have the status points and especailly will not have the cash.  In my guild (a small casual player guild)  if we ever hope to reach level 30 we are forced to make players feel as second class members.  To deny them full benefit and pride of belong to the guild.  When a patron does a writ all members say gratz and cheer them on.   When non-patron does a writ nobody knows and they feel second class.  We run contests but the easiest contest to run and be able to track how you and your fellow contestant are doing  is using the guild events record.  But letting all members be patron ruins any chance of guild advances. I want to my guild to make level 30, but not to get a carpet or spirit horse.  Rather so I can get some pretty outfits to wear for next time I officate at a wedding.  I have been playing since the game was released.  My guild has exsted since November we are currently level 20.16.   I have a level 50 toon and bunch of alts level 15-25.  Combined I have about 3p to my name and one teir two mount.  A spirit horse is so very far away after many more years more of playing.  I have 900K status and many members of my guid have the 750K status for a carpet.  No member of my guild could afford a carpet  and it is likely even combining all our cash we could not buy a carpet.

[emr]

<span><blockquote><hr>Tockley wrote:<div></div> <p>I think SP debt should be for the patron leaving only.  Paying off debt can be more depressing than just regaining that xp, even if its in practice identical.  Leaving a guild should hurt the person more than the guild.</p> <p>I still believe everyone should be patrons, but only have penalties on the people OVER the original 12 (or whichever number).  The highest contributors count as before, and the ones lower count at reduced percentages.  The more people, the larger the reduction as you get farther down the line.  The first 12 are merely the highest contributors, something any guildie can attain by dedication.</p> <hr></blockquote>I like that idea</span><div></div>

[Gorkk00]

I agree with lots of what Landrethian said, but with some disagreement: - yes, part of the reputation of the guild comes from its star, but when this star has gained its status within the guild, it benefits the guild too, even if then the star leaves. - when this star leave and join another guild, the prestige of the new one will increase, but will not be as if this star had done all his deeds within this guild. So I'd rather see something like (figures needing to be thinked about): - all people (well more likely all full members, not recruits) participate to guild status (with no penalty of having lots of members), like suggested by Landrethian (no more patrons - lots of people would like to participate to raising the guild status, but won't because they can be as active as others and there is already lots of patrons... that sucks imho) - each time somebody do something which give him status, part of it will be added to guild status (like currently for patrons), prolly a slower amount than currently. - one somebody leaves the guild, part of the status he brought to the guild stay with the guild (i'd say 50%), and the other part (50%) leaves with the character. - when this guy joins another guild (maybe after like a period or when he becomes a full member of it and not only recruit), these 50% goes to new guild status. This part of status will always stick with the character, so if he leaves for another guild it'll leaves with him and be added to the new (third guild) one status. - all status gained in guild 2 by this member will act like status he earned in first guild: when he earns status, part of it go to guild, with 50% of it staying forever with the guild, 50% of it going with him. - if someone gains status unguilded, then 50% of the portion he would have given to a guild if guilded will stay with him if a joins a guild. (here some thinking about the figure is needed, maybe 80% stay with the guild, 20% goes with the player, preventing them largely recruiting high end guild to progress too fast just by recruiting, and smaller ones who loose their members attracted by money or anything else from loosing all their deserved status. I think in no case a greater portion than 50% should go away with the player). Maybe it'll be clearer with a few examples: when a player gains status, 10% of it will be added to his guild status. - player A is unguilded. He gains 10000 status. If guilded he would have provided 100 status to his guild. - player A joins guild 1: 50% of the status above is added to Guild 1, so 50. - while in guild, player 1 gains for 20000 status. This adds 200 status to Guild 1. (so 250 in all). - then player A leaves guild 1. Guild 1 will loose the status player 1 give when joining, and half of what he gained while in guild, that is it'll loose 150 and keeps 100. - player A then joins guild 2: this adds 150 to guild 2. - player A earns 30000 status. 300 for Guild 2 (450 in all). - player A leaves, guild 2 loose the 150 player A added on join and half of what he earned (150 more), sot looses 300 in all, and keeps 150. If player A joins a new guild he'll come along with 450 status for the guild. At the end, each guild will have gained half of player A contribution when in the guild. This won't prevent guild leveled down, but will remove part of the frustration of guilds who had helped a lot their members with heritages and writ to loose everything one of their members gained when he goes away. With Landrethia's example: Another poster on another thread said this (don't remember who but you know who you are if you read this): its like the Knights of the Round Table. If Sir Lancelot, who is a major status contributor by his deeds, were to leave the fellowship, the entire fellowship would be diminished in the eyes of the community, but still will look better to the community than if Sir Lancelot had never been part of the Knights of the Round Table and done all these things while a member of it. By the same token, if Sir Lancelot were to join the competing fellowship known as the Knights of the Hexagonal table, that groups status would be greatly improved because no matter what group he belongs to, Sir Lancelot is a great guy. Still their new status would not be as high as if Sir Lancelot had been a member of the Knights of the Hexagonal Table from the beginning and had made all contributions to the community as a member of it. <div></div>

[Moontayle]

Option 4 is one that has been entering my mind as of late. It makes a lot of sense and it would fit with the current setup very nicely. You can't lose a level but if you willy-nilly remove people before you level then you lose the status appropriate. You need more status per level when you get higher anyways so it would be a lot harder to abuse, though admitedly still abuseable.

[linkedlinked]

<span><blockquote><hr>Landrethian wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kirotaan wrote:Kanazeer i agree with you on that note.  I like my guild but because I want to go to a more active guild I don't think my current guild should be hurt by my choice to leave.  I also don't think the new guild should get my status till i actually do work for them.  Good point <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  SP is personal GSP is guild <hr></blockquote>You don't think that all your hard work shouldn't go with you when you move to another guild? To me its sort of like NBC losing Letterman to CBS - NBC lost some "status" and CBS gained some status, merely by Dave changing. He brought a bunch of clout with him, he didn't have to start from scratch</span><hr>Yeah... but NBC still has a better reputation due to the years that they had Letterman which, arguably, it wouldn't have had were Letterman not there in the first place. Guilds can't lose ALL status just due to a member leaving. That's like saying that the round table became a repute-less peice of sh*t right after Arthur died. They kept on going, arguably less respectable, and still had the "We used to be cool" effect going for them.</blockquote></span>

[EQ2Playa432]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MillsFairchild wrote:<BR>How about guild status debt?  <BR><BR><STRONG><EM>It would work just like adventuring xp debt.  Someone leaves and the guild lvl stays where it is - but the guild incurs status debt which must be made up before advancing guild xp any further</EM></STRONG>.  This would prevent people from exploiting the patron system without fear of losing status, and still provide guilds a way to make up the loss without losing a level.<BR><BR>The debt could even decay over time... maybe 25,000/week or something.<BR><BR><STRONG><EM>It ties into the OP idea of not losing guild levels, but I think it makes sense to mirror the way adventuring xp works.<BR></EM></STRONG> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Good Idea! That would definetly tie in good with the OP's idea, which I also agree with.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Edit: Spelling)</DIV><p>Message Edited by EQ2Playa432 on <span class=date_text>07-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:00 AM</span>