A simple and fair Patronage solution

[emr]

Every member of a guild gets a get the same percent of status (maybe 10%) recorded  as contributed but the program only counts the highest 12 players  to determine the guild's level.    This eliminates the problem of patron swapping abuse.    Bigger guild  do not get a unfair advantage.  If a member leaves a guild his contributed pool travels with him and the 13th is now counted.   If a player  is inactive a guild another player can pass his total  and the guild starts to level again. Now to avoid currently guilds levels from changing wildly when this is emplaced the following needs to be done.   On the day it hits live all guilds current levels are recorded.   This now become the frozen base level for each guild.   The players contributed pools are calculated on that day also as 10% of the total status they have earned up to that point in the game.  If the top 12 players total does not equal the current guild level  then the guild remians at it current level.  When  the top 12 players  total exceeds the recorded guild level that become guild level and the freeze on guild level is off.

[Vulking]

Question for you.  How does this work if a guild has less than 12 ppl?

[Kirotaan]

I like this idea in some respects.  It's solid but the only problem is people won't do anything if they are not in the top 12.  I probably wouldn't I would lazily go about my HQs (though I am kinda lazy about them right now) and I would just put things off maybe not pickup writs etc.  The new patron changes will be interesting when they go live. <div></div>

[Tockl]

<P>Exact idea, just give reduced values to the people below the top 12.  All will be able to actually contribute and all can climb the ladder.<BR>13-24 make the value applied to guild xp 30% of their SP.<BR>25+ make 5%.</P> <P>Everyone counts, but the top dogs count the most.  Anyone can work towards the top.</P> <P>Yes, I am a broken record. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Gipp Hedgehogg</P>

[beylanu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kirotaan wrote:I like this idea in some respects.  It's solid but the only problem is people won't do anything if they are not in the top 12.  I probably wouldn't I would lazily go about my HQs (though I am kinda lazy about them right now) and I would just put things off maybe not pickup writs etc.  The new patron changes will be interesting when they go live. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Hi Guys, Sorry for trolling your boards, as I don't play on test.  However I stumbled upon this thread and this is VERY much like the idea that Miroz and Co. offered awhile back.  Personally I don't care who gets credit for what.  I just want to play a good game and see that the game remains "good."</span> I too like this idea very much.  I wanted to post here to respond to Kiro's question. If people are not in the top 12, then they STILL should work their butts off.  To me this system allows for the 13th person to overtake the 12th person.  By hard work and competition, anyone can be in the top 12.  It's not a "flag" that the guild leader/officers place upon people that determines whether they can participate or not. It's by sheer will. There is another important concept.  What happens when a person in the top 12 leave the guild?   As discussed before in the old thread, the guild would lose their contribution.  All of it. But...since that person leaves, he/she no longer takes a spot in the top 12, of course.  What that means is whoever was in the 13th spot, is now counted.  His contributions count.  That means the guild does not lose everything that the departing member earned.  What the guild loses, is the difference in contribution between the departing member and the 13th member.  To me, that represents the "soft" landing that many of us have been looking for. Furthermore, that soft landing is why people who are NOT in the top 12, should continue to earn points as well.  They represent the backup points, should the guild experience a loss at the high end.  Does that make sense? <div></div>

[beylanu]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Hammarus wrote:Question for you.  How does this work if a guild has less than 12 ppl? <div></div><hr></blockquote></span>For guilds less than 12 people, the divisor will still be 12.  This prevents a 1-person guild from powerleveling a guild.  The divisor is ALWAYS 12.  There is no patron flag.  edit..sorry, this reply was meant as an addition to my other post.  It was an additional detail to the concept from Miroz that I had mentioned.  I did not presume to know how the OP would respond to this question, as his ideas might be a bit different. <div></div><p>Message Edited by beylanu on <span class=date_text>07-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:16 AM</span>

[cooper9280]

<P>This sounds like a very fair and equitable solution to me.  Well thought out and should actually be workable.  I hope that it flies.</P> <P> </P>

[Elan Morin Tedron]

<P>I am not playing on Test (yet) but as guildleader myself I have been following the discussions here closely, and I must say this is the very best option i heard sofar! I really hope this idea gets some dev attention... veru well thought out, like the idea for peeps lower on the ladder being able to take over the peeps higher... gives a nice competition facet to it, and we all like those right <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> also like the fact that EVERYONE will be able to participate in lvling the guild.</P> <P> </P> <P>Very good idea, devs please take a good long look at this <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[Tockl]

Just re-read original post one more time, and wanted to pull out a couple things.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> emras wrote:<BR>The players contributed pools are calculated on that day also as 10% of the total status they have earned up to that point in the game. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>If this says what I think it says, I LIKE it.  If there was a way to allow all status ever gained to count for the amount a patron has, I think it would really kick-start people wanting to help their guild out more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, I am still not sure about people taking their status with them.  Right now guilds suffer when people leave, and not at all vice-versa.  This will only make it easier for people to leave, as guilds will actually court them for the status they can bring.  You could feasibly have a guild go from inception to level 30 in a day, if the recruiters were persuasive enough.  ALL guilds should have to work for their status.  The individual contributions were for the guild they were a part of, not for them to carry around.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm still fine with the guild losing the status of a person leaving, but would actually prefer too see some sort of pool where a % of that status remains.  Personally, I would like to see some sort of personal SP debt when a person leaves, that they can then carry to another guild.  If Joe Guildhopper leaves a guild for greener pastures, there should be a negative status similar in penalty to him as to his old guild.  Allowing #13 to move to the #12 spot makes that gap MUCH smaller than before, but it is nonetheless there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, how about allowing members 13-5,000 to have their amounts count for somtheing, albeit small?  100 people at 5% would be the same as having 5 more normal patrons.  Or what about 2%?  A guild of 312 would have equivically 18 patrons.  This does mean large guilds will have advantages, but in my small guild of 20, I'd love to see numbers 13-20 feel that their numbers count now, and not just for when/if someone leaves.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gipp<BR></DIV>

[Elan Morin Tedron]

<DIV>I'd say that the numbers aren't the most important thing about this idea, the idea itself is the core of this post. I really would like to see a dev respond to this and hear what they think of this solution.</DIV>

[Xekutor]

<span><blockquote><hr>emras wrote:Every member of a guild gets a get the same percent of status (maybe 10%) recorded  as contributed but the program only counts the highest 12 players  to determine the guild's level.    This eliminates the problem of patron swapping abuse.    Bigger guild  do not get a unfair advantage.  If a member leaves a guild his contributed pool travels with him and the 13th is now counted.   If a player  is inactive a guild another player can pass his total  and the guild starts to level again. Now to avoid currently guilds levels from changing wildly when this is emplaced the following needs to be done.   On the day it hits live all guilds current levels are recorded.   This now become the frozen base level for each guild.   The players contributed pools are calculated on that day also as 10% of the total status they have earned up to that point in the game.  If the top 12 players total does not equal the current guild level  then the guild remians at it current level.  When  the top 12 players  total exceeds the recorded guild level that become guild level and the freeze on guild level is off. <hr></blockquote>Excellent idea (keep it simple).  I think it is not unreasonable that a patron takes status with them, they earned it themselves.  And if a number of high powered people get together, it seems reasonable that such a guild would be viewed as high level.   So a new guild could become 30 overnight.  So be it, they earned it.  Use the current top 12 guildmembers for guild status. Even if I am not in the top 12, I will continue doing HQs because they are fun, add status which I will be able to use eventually to buy things, and could someday contibute to my guild if other patrons leave. Regards,     Xekutor, 40 SK, Lucan D'Lere </span><div></div>

[Collectall3]

<DIV>I like this idea alot since it allows everyone who wants to the chance to participate</DIV>

[Tockl]

<DIV>I do hope the devs see this.  Although I (obviously <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) prefer the idea of allowing everyone lower than the top 12 to contribute at a MUCH calculated lower rate, I would be satisfied with allowing them to accumulate status for future contributions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gipp</DIV>

[Kirotaan]

I do happen to like the idea of having the people below 12 (since thats a magic number) being counted as well (just not as much) <div></div>

[Ada]

<P>Here is a link to a very similar suggestion back in February:</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=gld&message.id=10567&page=1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=gld&message.id=10567&page=1</A></P> <DIV>I am shocked that the developers would put a system on test that is so ripe for abuse.  The above solution would soften the blow of member loss without making guild status a trivial pursuit.  My first thought on reading the patch notes was "Yay!  Now I can remove my old main character as patron and patronize my new main without hurting the guild", but then came the abusive thoughts: "hmm, now we can remove all patrons but the top 11 and add/remove the 12th as needed when people finish writs or heritage quests, or whatever.  Yikes!"   The top 12 method would allow me to still change my patron activities from my old main to my new one without much damage to the guild, but without allowing for massive abuse.</DIV>

[emr]

<div></div>Personnally I hate that all members status does not contribute to guild level as I feel that all members should feel an important part of the guild.   However the developers feel it would give large guild too much of an advantage.   I am in a small guild with only  about  12 active players and I do not feel the large guild getting to level 30 faster then my guild impacts my gameplay/enjoyments or my guild's at all.  However the Developers do so we had to live with their belief.   Given that, I feel just having the top 12 (or what ever number) contribute under my system would work well.  And since it would foster competition be counted in the top 12, guilds would benefit. I would really like to see this type of system and think it would work well.<p>Message Edited by emras on <span class=date_text>07-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:38 PM</span>

[Jadr]

Any system that reduced everybody but the top 12 in a guild to the status of second fiddle isent really a great soloution. the problem here is heratage quests. If to level a guild to 30 you had to do 30million writs, i dont think any one would care that som,e guilds had 1 person doing all 30mill and another have 30mill people doing 1 each. But people dont like the idea some guilds will level to 30 just on heratage quests alone. Forcing small guilds to do mind numbing endless writs and allowing other guilds to buypass that wit ehratages just because there large is admitadly probably too big a perk for large guilds. However, the way to fix this is not to keep trying to force large guilds to take the path of least reistance, (or in this case most fun.) but to take the grind out of small guilds and make leveling up guilds entertaining in and of itself. Now progress is being made here, reverse writs, more heartage quests, status from raids. Hopefully DoF will build on all these aspects and the painfull 12 man writ grind will be gone for ever. <div></div>

[Vidar64]

<P>I kind of like the idea that everyone has guild status, but only the top group is used to determine level.  One possibility to get more people in the guild involved, however, would be to expand the number past the minimum of 12.  I'd like to see the number variable between 12 and 24.  How's this for a formula...</P> <P>CGS = CPS / n (min 12, max 24)</P> <P>CGS - Contributed Guild Status</P> <P>CPS - Current Personal Status</P> <P>n - number of people in the guild (minimum of 12, maximum of 24) - also the top number of guild members that the game will look at when determining guild level.</P>

[Drtydog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jadrax wrote:<BR>Any system that reduced everybody but the top 12 in a guild to the status of second fiddle isent really a great soloution.<BR><BR>the problem here is heratage quests. If to level a guild to 30 you had to do 30million writs, i dont think any one would care that som,e guilds had 1 person doing all 30mill and another have 30mill people doing 1 each. But people dont like the idea some guilds will level to 30 just on heratage quests alone.<BR><BR>Forcing small guilds to do mind numbing endless writs and allowing other guilds to buypass that wit ehratages just because there large is admitadly probably too big a perk for large guilds.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You already have the problem of some being second fiddles in the guild Patron tag system and this is the problem.  I agree with you the problem with the guild system is that everyone wants to participate and feel like they are contributing but guild leaders penalize the guild by allowing casual gamers to be patrons.  So, a Patron is normally a non casual player.  It shouldn;t be this way.  </P> <P>I think the OP has an excellent idea.  SOE has got to find a way to allow ALL guild members to contribute and feel important etc...at the same time not giving large guilds an unfair advantage over smaller guilds.  I think the OP has an excellent start and I will SOE would consider it.</P> <P>Another thought, just adding to the OOP's idea, is instead of 12 toons calculating the guild level have it floating.  Say 12 or the top 10% of the guild.  so if you have 300 members then the top 30 player's points determine teh guild level instead of just 12.  </P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by buoymarker28 on <span class=date_text>07-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:06 AM</span>

[beylanu]

The "only top 12" members counting towards guild level is actually a method to EVEN the playing field between large and small guilds.  Take guild A with 20 members vs guild B with 100 members.  All guild A has to think about is...are the top 12 members of my guild as hardworking as the top 12 members of guild B?  If so, then the guilds will be SAME level.   Who cares that the remaining 88 members of guild B are more hardworking or less hardworking than the remaining 8 members of guild A?  This allows for the system to negate the advantage that larger guilds have, when it comes to guild level. What guild B has as an advantage is a "possibility" of a softer landing, if their top members start leaving.  But that is a small advantage, and only comes as an advantage if the members not in the top 12 actually do work.  In both cases, if the remaining 88 members of guild B and the 8 remaining members of guild A continue to work for status, both guilds have a soft landing should a few of the top 12 decide to leave. So I repeat, larger guilds DO have an advantage.  But it doesn't manifest itself unless 1) non top 12 members continue to work for status  AND 2) top 12 members start leaving.  As a member of a small guild (less than 20), I can live with those advantages. <div></div>

[Eorendil]

I really like where you guys are going with this.  I really like the top 12 idea and the remainder of the guild contributing at a reduced amount. <div></div>

[Dureck_]

I liked this idea the first time i saw it. <BR><BR><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Canthalion Autumnleaf<BR></FONT> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>LvL 46 Paladin<BR>Co-leader Order of the Phoenix<BR>Guild Level 19 - lavastorm</FONT><BR></DIV>

[Ashlian]

<DIV> <P>I like this idea only if they can't do a vesting method. My guild only has about ten actual people, two of us have four of our patron characters. My problem with it is that there is still no method to continue earning status outside of writs, because as soon as one of our patron characters finishes all their heritage quests, there is nothing left to do but those mind numbing writs. If they wanted guilds to only attain a level past 25 if they were willing to invest, not time and effort alone, but hours of essentially boring effort killing the same mobs over and over, I think that's a pretty stupid system to begin with. And besides the sheer boredom of writs, it's pretty tough for my guild to get a full group together to do more exciting things as it is, most of us would rather endure electric shock therapy than be forced to do writs given the limited time we have to play together.</P> <P>If they're going to add in more heritage quests so that we can continue to work past 25 with our current patrons, well and good. I would still prefer to see a system whereby all my efforts (and currently I'm the top status contributor in my guild) are not leading to a brick wall if I don't move on to the single most boring experience in EQ2.....the writ. In a guild as small as mine, it takes a lot of effort just to get six of us in one place at one time to pursue something like heritage quests, and we still don't finish a lot of them until the mobs are significantly lower level than I'm sure a bigger guild could handle them at. In example, I solo'd Varsoon to finish Manastone :smileytongue: I'm sure any guild with more people could have done that at a far lower level than I did. My guild is almost entirely RL family and friends....we don't recruit anyone who won't truly fit in. </P> <P>I still prefer a vesting method for this reason, because once my main has finished all her heritage quests, I would like my cleric to take over. With vesting, no one could hotswap patrons because there would be no inherent advantage to trading someone in before the person they are replacing had vested all or most of their status (status vested at something like 10 percent a week seems fair). This allows everyone to contribute, too, as new patrons can take over from older patrons....it is essentially like the current system except that you have the option to substitute a new LONG TERM patron when necessary. A short term patron wouldn't work because if they didn't stay a patron long enough to be vested fully (10 percent a week would be two and a half months of remaining a patron for full vesting), then the guild doesn't get all the status. This allows guilds who hate writs to continue progression, while guilds that have patrons willing to do writs in addition to heritage will still progress much faster.</P> <P>I agree the top 12 is a much simpler solution for them, and if that's all we can get, I support that over the patron free for all, but it doesn't fix a lot of the problems people are bringing up about not everyone being allowed to contribute. Or what happens after the screeching halt at 25 when the heritages run out. </P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 42 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore</P></DIV>

[Speak]

<DIV>Frankly I am unsure why there is so much concern with the changes.  The current system locks people in for, well literally years as patrons. Yet many time non-patron members contribute in combat to help patron's do group writ encounters, provide resource support etc.   Having the ability to rotate members in and out is really a good thing. Now you no longer have to count on the work of a few members.  And if these members grow faster then the guild's average level, and want to take off and join a raid guild, no one is hurt.  In fact I would make the system very simple, do away with patrons altogether, and have the work of all members count.  Sure larger guilds will be leveling faster, so what?  The patron system as described in early beta was to be a competitive system between guilds, this was idea went  away  just as the guild functions were released.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes some people will think, wow look at all that work I wasted.... well not really, your guildmates are aware of the work you did, and I am sure they apprecite it. But serious, the Patron system is not a good working system.  If you want to reduce the arate of growth, the be simple, lower the number of points per writ, or quest, require a master quest to be completed between levels etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Speaker</DIV>

[TheSpin]

<P>I like this idea very much, even better than the one I posted myself.  </P> <P>The one reply someone added about everyone status counting, but only the top 12 getting full credit was also a very good idea to keep everyone motivated.</P> <DIV>This system would allow every single member to contribute in some way, and it makes sense if everyone is able to contribute because that's they way something like this would work in RL.  If there was some business or guild etc everyone's hard work would be noticed, not just the people who carry the 'patron flag'.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this is honestly the best solution I've seen so far, it's simple and would work wonderfully.</DIV>

[Ciarr]

<P>5 stars from me </P> <P>I seriously hope SOE will take their time to implement some kind of dynamic system like that. The one which is on the test is going to be a disaster and the current patron system is not really working.</P> <P>personally I was thinking about somthing like:</P> <P> (sum(top1..12))/12+(sum(top13..24))/120 </P> <P>or</P> <P>sum(topN*wN)/210 where wN=(21-N) </P> <P>which basicly translates as top one contributes 100% of his points 2nd the best 95% 3rd 90% and so on up to 20th which adds 5%</P> <P>the idea was to let more people contribute without affecting small/larg guild balance (in both cases people outside top 12 contribute no more than about 10% of guild xp)</P> <P>SOE devs please read this thread.....</P>

[Tockl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ciarrai wrote:<BR> <P>5 stars from me</P> <P>I seriously hope SOE will take their time to implement some kind of dynamic system like that. The one which is on the test is going to be a disaster and the current patron system is not really working.</P> <P>personally I was thinking about somthing like:</P> <P> (sum(top1..12))/12+(sum(top13..24))/120</P> <P>or</P> <P>sum(topN*wN)/210 where wN=(21-N)</P> <P>which basicly translates as top one contributes 100% of his points 2nd the best 95% 3rd 90% and so on up to 20th which adds 5%</P> <P>the idea was to let more people contribute without affecting small/larg guild balance (in both cases people outside top 12 contribute no more than about 10% of guild xp)</P> <P>SOE devs please read this thread.....</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>A new twist, I like it.  You could easily work it to include patrons down to several hundred, and still have those outside the 12 contribute no more than 10% of guild xp (or whichever number proves to be best).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gipp Hedgehogg</DIV> <DIV>Not an Iskar</DIV>

[Suta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> emras wrote:<BR>Every member of a guild gets a get the same percent of status (maybe 10%) recorded  as contributed but the program only counts the highest 12 players  to determine the guild's level.    This eliminates the problem of patron swapping abuse.    Bigger guild  do not get a unfair advantage.  If a member leaves a guild his contributed pool travels with him and the 13th is now counted.   If a player  is inactive a guild another player can pass his total  and the guild starts to level again.<BR><BR>Now to avoid currently guilds levels from changing wildly when this is emplaced the following needs to be done.   On the day it hits live all guilds current levels are recorded.   This now become the frozen base level for each guild.   The players contributed pools are calculated on that day also as 10% of the total status they have earned up to that point in the game.  If the top 12 players total does not equal the current guild level  then the guild remians at it current level.  When  the top 12 players  total exceeds the recorded guild level that become guild level and the freeze on guild level is off.<BR><BR><BR> <HR> <P>This is the best suggestion I have seen from the community so far for these reasons:-</P> <P>1) It prevents guilds from going down in levels</P> <P>2) It puts small and large guilds on the (roughly) same fair playing field for guild levelling</P> <P>3) It lets EVERYBODY in the guild realise that they are helping the guild in one form or another, and that their contributions WILL count should they make it into the top diviser number.</P> <P>4) It prevents patron swap-out abuse, something that seems strikingly obvious SOE just does not care about at this time.</P> <P>Under the system you proposed getting to level 30 would now be both fair and genuine. (Genuine as in no abuse like you now can in SOE's current "Join now get a free level 30 guild in 1 week" system.)</P> <P> </P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>