If patron status changes go live it will ruin the guild system

[ThramFalc]

<DIV>I appreciate SOE's attempt to keep guilds from deleveling, but the changes currently on test are not the answer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Large guilds will swap patrons in and out and reach level 30 in no time.  Small guilds will be largely unaffected except with regards to morale.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My guild is currently level 26 and second on our server.  We only have about 20 members and 10 active patrons.  This change would leave us in the dust as the 200 member guilds breeze past us in guild level without even trying.  Heck, a 500 member guild could level from 1 to 30 in a week or so I bet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guild levels will become trivial.  Smaller guilds that have worked hard for so many months will become angry and droves of players will quit the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All this said, I know this is just a change on test and there is a good chance it won't go live.  I am a little worried that this change even made it to test because it is so obviously flawed it shouldn't have even been suggested.  I hope the devs have other reasons for testing this system and that they didn't really think it was a good idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think a debt system is a much better idea.  I also think the suggestion of counting the status of the highest 12 members is a good idea, but would need a great deal of tweaking and testing before it is implimented.  I really hope one of these ideas goes live and that other, faulty, systems never get close to making it to live servers. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even a week of the current test system on live servers would all but ruin the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Please SOE, keep the guild system from <EM>favoring</EM> guilds of any size!</STRONG></DIV><p>Message Edited by ThramFalcox on <span class=date_text>07-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:36 PM</span>

[Thesp]

<P>It changes guild leveling from a function of the leaders ability to manage and motivate patrons to merely a function of time. I too think that making this change is a bad move. IMO, this is a monumental fundamental change to the entire guild system, one that I'm not sure is needed. Personally I felt it was perfectly acceptable that guilds follow a different progression pattern than player characters. Its logical because guilds and characters are two entities that are completely different, therefore differing paths of progression was warranted, IMO.</P> <P>With this new system, all guilds will eventually reach level 30, some may just take longer. In the current system, attaining level 30 is a challenge that is no small feat to accomplish and keeping level 30 is almost equally as challenging (afterall, you do have to keep you guild members motivated and active).</P><p>Message Edited by Thespar on <span class=date_text>07-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:54 PM</span>

[Besual]

At the first look the changes look good but when you think about it again I can understand your arguments. Losing a patron should still result in the lost of some guild XP. It makes even sense in the roleplaying aspect: a hero (the patron) left your guild or doesn't support the guild anymore. Of course will the fame of the guild get a scratch. But insteed of losing 100% of the XP from this patron the guild could only lose 10-50%. This would prevent permanent patron switching without causing to much harm to the guild. <div></div>

[Encantador]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Besual wrote:<BR>At the first look the changes look good but when you think about it again I can understand your arguments. Losing a patron should still result in the lost of some guild XP. It makes even sense in the roleplaying aspect: a hero (the patron) left your guild or doesn't support the guild anymore. Of course will the fame of the guild get a scratch. But insteed of losing 100% of the XP from this patron the guild could only lose 10-50%. This would prevent permanent patron switching without causing to much harm to the guild.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>No, it does not make sense.</P> <P>If the guild is the entity that holds the status then one 'hero' leaving should not affect the reputation of the 35 remaining heroes and the 100 other members.</P> <P>If the player holds the status (i.e. the fact he is a hero is important) then if a guild gets a minus for them leaving then a guild should get a plus for a 'hero' joining the guild.</P> <P>To argue that a guild should lose status when a hero leaves but not gain status when one joins is illogical.</P> <P>Personally I would like to see players being able to transfer their status between guilds along with status decay similar (but much less harsh) to how it was originally.</P> <P> </P>

[Dazzler_Twodir]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> encanta wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Besual wrote:<BR>At the first look the changes look good but when you think about it again I can understand your arguments. Losing a patron should still result in the lost of some guild XP. It makes even sense in the roleplaying aspect: a hero (the patron) left your guild or doesn't support the guild anymore. Of course will the fame of the guild get a scratch. But insteed of losing 100% of the XP from this patron the guild could only lose 10-50%. This would prevent permanent patron switching without causing to much harm to the guild.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>No, it does not make sense.</P> <P>If the guild is the entity that holds the status then one 'hero' leaving should not affect the reputation of the 35 remaining heroes and the 100 other members.</P> <P>If the player holds the status (i.e. the fact he is a hero is important) then if a guild gets a minus for them leaving then a guild should get a plus for a 'hero' joining the guild.</P> <P>To argue that a guild should lose status when a hero leaves but not gain status when one joins is illogical.</P> <P>Personally I would like to see players being able to transfer their status between guilds along with status decay similar (but much less harsh) to how it was originally.</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That would just encourage the raid guilds to steal more patroned players.</P> <P>Our guild lost a bunch of patrons because the raid guilds seem to come looking for you when you hit 50.</P> <P>We've dropped from 23 to 17 in the last week and the raid guilds are some of the highest level ones on the server.</P> <P> </P> <P>Those guilds don't make thier own level 50s they take them away from others.</P> <P>Hopefully when they change the system and fix the back status problem any lost status from patrons jumping ship comes back as well.</P>

[Ildarus]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThramFalcox wrote:<BR> <DIV>I appreciate SOE's attempt to keep guilds from deleveling, but the changes currently on test are not the answer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Large guilds will swap patrons in and out and reach level 30 in no time.  Small guilds will be largely unaffected except with regards to morale.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My guild is currently level 26 and second on our server.  We only have about 20 members and 10 active patrons.  This change would leave us in the dust as the 200 member guilds breeze past us in guild level without even trying.  Heck, a 500 member guild could level from 1 to 30 in a week or so I bet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guild levels will become trivial.  Smaller guilds that have worked hard for so many months will become angry and droves of players will quit the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All this said, I know this is just a change on test and there is a good chance it won't go live.  I am a little worried that this change even made it to test because it is so obviously flawed it shouldn't have even been suggested.  I hope the devs have other reasons for testing this system and that they didn't really think it was a good idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think a debt system is a much better idea.  I also think the suggestion of counting the status of the highest 12 members is a good idea, but would need a great deal of tweaking and testing before it is implimented.  I really hope one of these ideas goes live and that other, faulty, systems never get close to making it to live servers. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even a week of the current test system on live servers would all but ruin the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Please SOE, keep the guild system from <EM>favoring</EM> guilds of any size!</STRONG></DIV> <P>Message Edited by ThramFalcox on <SPAN class=date_text>07-18-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>07:36 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I am going to make an observation that some people are not going to like. About the only people complaining about the new guild system on test are the ones that belong to a guild that is already in the upper 20's or even level 30 already.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The guilds that have lots of members and are a casual guild are the ones that get hurt by the current system. We group and help raise a characters level and then when they hit a high enough level they leave the casual guild and knock us down two or three levels. I ask, where is the fairness in that? This is a game and not RL. Why should the Casual guilds pay a penalty because someone decides we don't spend as much time as they would like raiding and leaves for a raiding guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I believe this all comes down to people who take this game to seriously and think it is supposed to be work. This game is supposed to be about having fun. Losing guild levels because someone decides they want to joing another guild is not fun. They should pay the penalty. They are the ones that joined a casual guild, when they really wanted to play in a raiding guild and needed a stepping stone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/rant off</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry this is just a very frustrating subject for me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Dureck_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> <BR> <DIV>I am going to make an observation that some people are not going to like. About the only people complaining about the new guild system on test are the ones that belong to a guild that is already in the upper 20's or even level 30 already.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The guilds that have lots of members and are a casual guild are the ones that get hurt by the current system. We group and help raise a characters level and then when they hit a high enough level they leave the casual guild and knock us down two or three levels. I ask, where is the fairness in that? This is a game and not RL. Why should the Casual guilds pay a penalty because someone decides we don't spend as much time as they would like raiding and leaves for a raiding guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I believe this all comes down to people who take this game to seriously and think it is supposed to be work. This game is supposed to be about having fun. Losing guild levels because someone decides they want to joing another guild is not fun. They should pay the penalty. They are the ones that joined a casual guild, when they really wanted to play in a raiding guild and needed a stepping stone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/rant off</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry this is just a very frustrating subject for me.</DIV> <DIV><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You are wrong.   Some of us LIKE the effort it takes to keep a group together and work towards a goal.  Personaly<BR>if you can't keep guild memebers from leaving , then you are doing something wrong.   The idea is to form a guild<BR>work towards improving the guild and the PLAYERS.   <BR></P> <P>Casual Guilds should have to work just as hard at gaining and keeping Guild levels as the hardcore guilds.   <BR>These "Hardcore Guilds" have worked hard, and taken some serious  set backs, made some hard decisions on removing patrons AT A LOSS OF STATUS.  They should be REWARDED with the Guild level they worked so hard to attain.   <BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Canthalion Autumnleaf<BR>LvL 46 Paladin<BR>Co-Leader Order of the Phoenix<BR>Guild level 19 - lavastorm.</FONT><BR></P>

[Tockl]

<DIV>_________________</DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV>I am going to make an observation that some people are not going to like. About the only people complaining about the new guild system on test are the ones that belong to a guild that is already in the upper 20's or even level 30 already.</DIV> <DIV>________________</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Level 23 guild, with MANY months to go from level 30 at the current rate.  The minute we lose our top patron we will be level 18 or so.  I am about as against this new system as I could be.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gipp</DIV>

[Thesp]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ildarus wrote:<BR> <BR><BR> <DIV>I am going to make an observation that some people are not going to like. About the only people complaining about the new guild system on test are the ones that belong to a guild that is already in the upper 20's or even level 30 already.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I don't know why they would complain, a guild that is in their low-mid 20s benefits alot by this change as they probably have some "dead weight" patrons that they would like to remove but don't want to lose the extra level or two. Thinking from a purely selfish perspective, this change would be great to my guild (level 22 atm), we could swap out people as they complete HQs. But thinking of the game as a whole and looking at the big picture, I think this change is bad for the guild system.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The guilds that have lots of members and are a casual guild are the ones that get hurt by the current system. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>By taking away the inherent advantage of having more members, it puts small and large guilds on an even playing feild. If thats "hurting" the large guilds, so be it, they shouldn't be on the fast track to level 30 just because they have hundreds of members. Casual guilds actually benefit from the current system, even moreso than they would from the proposed system because they can choose their top 12 players and run with them and not have to worry about the once a week player holding them back.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We group and help raise a characters level and then when they hit a high enough level they leave the casual guild and knock us down two or three levels. I ask, where is the fairness in that? This is a game and not RL. Why should the Casual guilds pay a penalty because someone decides we don't spend as much time as they would like raiding and leaves for a raiding guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the patron system and guild levels. This is a trend that has been with guilds for many years in many different games.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I believe this all comes down to people who take this game to seriously and think it is supposed to be work. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>What good is accomplishment if it takes no "work" to attain? I also think you mistakenly use the term "work" when instead you should say "effort".</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This game is supposed to be about having fun.<FONT color=#ffff00> Fun isn't fun if theres no chance of hard times, it makes you accomplishments that much more "fun" when you could have lost but instead you persevered.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Losing guild levels because someone decides they want to joing another guild is not fun. <FONT color=#ffff00>Perhaps if you changed something about your guild, less people would leave. Or maybe you could just not make them a patron and then it doesn't matter if they leave or stay.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They should pay the penalty. They are the ones that joined a casual guild, when they really wanted to play in a raiding guild and needed a stepping stone. <FONT color=#ffff00>People want to experience all facets of this game, so why do you begrudge them that opportunity? If a guild is nothing more than a chat channel, what point is there to stay, they can get that from the serverwide trader channel.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/rant off</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry this is just a very frustrating subject for me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>First of all, you're taking your aggression out on the wrong issue, guild leveling has nothing to do with people leaving a chat channel guild for a guild that actually keeps them active. Second, if so many people want to leave your guild, perhaps you should look internally rather than blaming your problems on external factors.</FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Aienaa]

<DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>We group and help raise a characters level and then when they hit a high enough level they leave the casual guild and knock us down two or three levels. I ask, where is the fairness in that? This is a game and not RL. Why should the Casual guilds pay a penalty because someone decides we don't spend as much time as they would like raiding and leaves for a raiding guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the patron system and guild levels. This is a trend that has been with guilds for many years in many different games.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#66ffff>It has everything to do with the Patron System and Guild Levels...  If one of your long time members is a Patron and chooses to leave the guild to join another guild, for what ever reason, they have a serious impact on your guild's status level...  How were you suposed to know that this person who joined you at level 5 and leveled up through 50, would 1 day leave the guild to join another one or quit the game??</FONT> </FONT><FONT color=#66ffff> I am a guild leader and have seen this happen many times...  People that were all about the guild in the beginning, so you make them a patron... then after months of leveling and gaining status for the guild, they choose to leave the guild for 1 reason or the other... Be it for another guild, or quitting the game or what ever else......</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff>The guild I run is the 3rd highest on my server...  the top 2 guilds are always recruiting from lower guild to replace members of thier that quit for what ever reason...  Who do you think they try recruiting from first?  the next lower guild, or someone that just hit 50 and doesn't have the good gear??  Of course they are going to try to recruit the people that more closely matches thier own skills / abilities and gear..  So the try recruiting from my guild...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff>Now, if the person they do manage to recruit happens to be a Patron of my guild, then that directly influences the guild level of my guild... So, recruiting can and will effect guild levels...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Losing guild levels because someone decides they want to joing another guild is not fun.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Perhaps if you changed something about your guild, less people would leave. Or maybe you could just not make them a patron and then it doesn't matter if they leave or stay.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>And Perhaps if you changed something you would lose more people due to the change...  You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time...  By using your line of thinking, I should never patron anyone because there is the possibility that they might leave... I'm sure that doesn't help much with guild level...  Thanks, try again...</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>They should pay the penalty. They are the ones that joined a casual guild, when they really wanted to play in a raiding guild and needed a stepping stone.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>People want to experience all facets of this game, so why do you begrudge them that opportunity? If a guild is nothing more than a chat channel, what point is there to stay, they can get that from the serverwide trader channel.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>And why should they penalize thier previous guild because they want to experience all facets of the game...  It's nice to know that you don't think the person leaving should have some kind of penalty, but they guild they are leaving should???  Let me join your guild and earn 100k guild status and then leave so I can laugh at you when your guild loses 3+ levels and tell you that I just wanted to experience the many facets of the game....</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> Sorry this is just a very frustrating subject for me. <P><FONT color=#ffff00>First of all, you're taking your aggression out on the wrong issue, guild leveling has nothing to do with people leaving a chat channel guild for a guild that actually keeps them active. Second, if so many people want to leave your guild, perhaps you should look internally rather than blaming your problems on external factors.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>This is not limited to "chat channel guilds", it happens to every guild... And I am sure all the people around like your slandering of thier style of guild...  beyond that though... </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>People come and go in all the time in games like this...  It happens to the casual guild and it happens to the hardcore guild...  There are many different reason that people leave either 1 guild for another, or quit the game...   It is NOT always internal factors like you like to throw at every one....  I very nearly quit the game a while back because my work hours changed...  As I said before I am a guild leader, and I am also a Patron...   </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>Why should my guild suffer the los of exp because I can no longer play at the same times as my guild?... </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>Should I stay in my guild and never have anyone available to play with and never be able to raid because I work a different schedule?...  Or </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>Should I seek out a guild that raids around the time that I can play?.... </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>If I should seek out a guild that raids at the time I can play, should my guild suffer because I want to be able to raid, but can't raid at the same times they do?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>You just assume that everyone that leaves a guild does so because thier is things that they do not like about the guild, but that is not always the case...   </FONT></P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 50 Assassin - Kithicor</P>

[ThramFalc]

<P>Too many people argue for this change by pointing out that deleveling sucks.  I agree and I hope guilds never delevel but that doesn't mean this is the right way to do it.  The way it is now it is incredibly abusable and larger guilds are favored.  All you people in a guild under 50 people will be at a disadvantage.  Guilds under 20 people might as well give up.</P> <P>There are other solutions out there that will keep guilds from deleveling if a patron leaves without also allowing large guilds to reach level 30 in a matter of days.</P> <P>This thread was to discuss how the abuse would ruin the game, not to discuss the merits of deleveling or not.</P>

[Grifful]

<P>To start with I would like to say that my "gut feel" for this change is that it is a bad one.</P> <P>I sympathise with the comments about how much time it takes to level a guild, the feeling of responsibility that one should be contributing constantly etc and assuming that something should be done to alleviate the stress of those who have made these comments I do no think this change is the right way to go.</P> <P>I thoroughly agree that what will happen throughout all guilds that have more than 12 members is a patron swapping / Heritage quest hand in extravaganza.</P> <P>And I don't believe this will be a good thing no matter how many other good points people can see, and I have read quite a few made on these forums.</P> <P>I would like to just put forth a thought that I and a "virtual" friend came up with the other day whilst discussing this.</P> <P>If this system goes in as is, imagine if you will a "power tripping" guild leader. The guild reaches level 30 along with all the perks that come with it. Now do what the guild leader says or you're out of the guild.<BR>(true guild leaders currently have the ability to limit who can purchase status items at the moment but I'm sure you can see the point I'm trying to make)</P> <P><BR>This is indeed not a straight forward change and I do not envy those who have to make the decision on it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Personally I quite like the current system, gruelling as it is. <BR>I can't comment about guild decay as I entered the wonderful world of guilds after it had been removed.</P> <P> </P>

[Gladesto]

   This new system has, my guildies energized again...You heard right energized....There working agian hard as patrons...For awhile my guild was depressed...We have been stuck at lvl 20 for awhile...Why do you ask....Because the old system sucked....We had to purge people, who quit eq2 an left us hanging...Where a casual guild who shouldve been lvl 24....At the very least 26....Its because every time they did hertiages...We had to delete old members....This is a good thing not a negative thing...At least it has been in my guild....About time for soe to get it right...Now my theory is to add debt to some one leaving as  patron....Not a large amount mind you, but some form of it....This will not keep my guildies from going to a large, Raid force...Ive said it once ill say it twice...For up a alliance like the abcraid has...                                                                                                                                                                                                                           We have at least 20 guilds all casual...Raiding every night an tis been the most fun ive had in eq2...If your afraid to loose people to raid guilds...Do want antonayle bayle has done...Form a raid of 50 people 24 of them maybe 30....Of smaller guilds...It will keep them from quiting eq2 an maybe stop raid guilds from steeling your high lvl 50s....

[Aienaa]

<HR> <FONT color=#66ffff>If this system goes in as is, imagine if you will a "power tripping" guild leader. The guild reaches level 30 along with all the perks that come with it. Now do what the guild leader says or you're out of the guild.</FONT><BR> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P> and right now the opposite is true... the 12 Patrons say do what I want or I'm leaving and taking my guild status with me, have fun releveling the guild...</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 50 Assassin - Kithicor</P>

[Breed]

<span><blockquote><hr>ThramFalcox wrote:<div></div> <div>I appreciate SOE's attempt to keep guilds from deleveling, but the changes currently on test are not the answer.</div> <div> </div> <div>Large guilds will swap patrons in and out and reach level 30 in no time.  Small guilds will be largely unaffected except with regards to morale.</div> <div> </div> <div>My guild is currently level 26 and second on our server.  We only have about 20 members and 10 active patrons.  This change would leave us in the dust as the 200 member guilds breeze past us in guild level without even trying.  Heck, a 500 member guild could level from 1 to 30 in a week or so I bet.</div> <div> </div> <div>Guild levels will become trivial.  Smaller guilds that have worked hard for so many months will become angry and droves of players will quit the game.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>All this said, I know this is just a change on test and there is a good chance it won't go live.  I am a little worried that this change even made it to test because it is so obviously flawed it shouldn't have even been suggested.  I hope the devs have other reasons for testing this system and that they didn't really think it was a good idea.</div> <div> </div> <div>I think a debt system is a much better idea.  I also think the suggestion of counting the status of the highest 12 members is a good idea, but would need a great deal of tweaking and testing before it is implimented.  I really hope one of these ideas goes live and that other, faulty, systems never get close to making it to live servers. </div> <div> </div> <div>Even a week of the current test system on live servers would all but ruin the game.</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>Please SOE, keep the guild system from <em>favoring</em> guilds of any size!</strong></div><p>Message Edited by ThramFalcox on <span class="date_text">07-18-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:36 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>If you think that 1.9 million guild status points can easily be obtained in a week without lifting a finger you are very much incorrect.</span><div></div>

[Breed]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dazzler_Twodirks wrote: <blockquote> <hr> encanta wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Besual wrote:At the first look the changes look good but when you think about it again I can understand your arguments. Losing a patron should still result in the lost of some guild XP. It makes even sense in the roleplaying aspect: a hero (the patron) left your guild or doesn't support the guild anymore. Of course will the fame of the guild get a scratch. But insteed of losing 100% of the XP from this patron the guild could only lose 10-50%. This would prevent permanent patron switching without causing to much harm to the guild. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>No, it does not make sense.</p> <p>If the guild is the entity that holds the status then one 'hero' leaving should not affect the reputation of the 35 remaining heroes and the 100 other members.</p> <p>If the player holds the status (i.e. the fact he is a hero is important) then if a guild gets a minus for them leaving then a guild should get a plus for a 'hero' joining the guild.</p> <p>To argue that a guild should lose status when a hero leaves but not gain status when one joins is illogical.</p> <p>Personally I would like to see players being able to transfer their status between guilds along with status decay similar (but much less harsh) to how it was originally.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>That would just encourage the raid guilds to steal more patroned players.</p> <p>Our guild lost a bunch of patrons because the raid guilds seem to come looking for you when you hit 50.</p> <p>We've dropped from 23 to 17 in the last week and the raid guilds are some of the highest level ones on the server.</p> <p>Those guilds don't make thier own level 50s they take them away from others.</p> <p>Hopefully when they change the system and fix the back status problem any lost status from patrons jumping ship comes back as well.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Steal? Your guild patrons are being taken against their will? Wow man...you should like, call someone about that! Kidnapping's not specifically ruled out in the EULA, but I imagine it's still a crime. "Sony!! My patrons are being kidnapped from my guild and put to work in the Uber-mines, grinding out writs against their will!"</span><div></div>

[Breed]

<span><blockquote><hr>Aienaa wrote:<hr> <font color="#66ffff">If this system goes in as is, imagine if you will a "power tripping" guild leader. The guild reaches level 30 along with all the perks that come with it. Now do what the guild leader says or you're out of the guild.</font> <div> <hr> </div> <p> and right now the opposite is true... the 12 Patrons say do what I want or I'm leaving and taking my guild status with me, have fun releveling the guild...</p> <p>Gwern - 50 Assassin - Kithicor</p><hr></blockquote>Which of thse is the cart leading the horse?</span><div></div>

[Grifful]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aienaa wrote:<BR> <HR> <FONT color=#66ffff>If this system goes in as is, imagine if you will a "power tripping" guild leader. The guild reaches level 30 along with all the perks that come with it. Now do what the guild leader says or you're out of the guild.</FONT><BR> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P> and right now the opposite is true... the 12 Patrons say do what I want or I'm leaving and taking my guild status with me, have fun releveling the guild...</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 50 Assassin - Kithicor</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ah yes, but if the patrons leave the guild they don't get to take their hard earnt status with them so both parties lose.</P> <P>It pairs up with the suggestion that has been made that people should take their status with them should they choose to leave.</P> <P>Both that and the new system, that seems to have gone ahead and been put into place, gives one side a bit more power.</P> <P>Thats all I was trying to say <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>