New Guild Status System [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Nebtwee

07-28-2005, 09:17 AM

<P>As noted above, there are 2 major flaws with this system. One, is the cap. It has been discussed above, nuff said.</P> <P>The other flaw I see, is the number of unique accounts being brought into consideration. I mentioned once that I started the guild with almost 40 players right over we opened. Almost 99% of those players know each other from real life, and have gamed with each other for close to, if not over 10 years. When several of them went to try out WoW, they took a lot more with em. So, I was stuck with about 75% of membership being inactive.</P> <P>I pruned the guild quite a bit (against my better decision) to at least get the list of members down to something active. Anyone over 90 days went ahead and got booted. Then SOE allowed us to change our ranks, so I added an Inactive Rank, and let them move over to that rank from member.</P> <P>Now I have a lot of folks in inactive. If they goto this new system, they is it going to be ACTIVE Unique accounts/Characters? Please don't start dividing my gsp by folks that have not been around for 90+ days. May as well go back to the old system for me and remove status with patrons. THAT would work better for me.</P> <P>Arcane Masters has a long running history. Even in our old lands, we are still on the roster as inactive patrons, and can always come back one day if we so desire. This new system forces us guildleaders to start removing folks, and only keeping totally active folks. Are we TRYING to just make sure inactives don't come back? Because they will. I already have 2 back from WoW, and expect more back in time. I hope I am not too late in giving them the boot already due to not having a rank to put them in and trying to keep roster clean. Please don't force me to remove the rest of them.</P> <P>Please allow somehow to make unique accounts/chars, not reflect inactive in the calculation. Make an Inactive checkbox like Patron. If char is flagged inactive, that player cannot ear status (psp for that matter, makes no difference) and the calculation will not use +inactive. Allow a minimal timeframe between changing +inacitve flag as well if needed, say 30 days. Have it buried into the chars data information, so it reflects that way across the board, even if they try and disband and rejoin just to bypass it. But PLEASE, allow +inactive to not be counted towards gsp calculation.</P> <P> </P> <P>/edit:</P> <P>Also, this new system pretty much forces folks to do writs, whereas before, it was whomever wanted to, and the guild allowed, and trysted those folks to do them. Now, do I need to scream at folks to do writs? Bad bad bad.</P> <P>All in all, I see this change as just totally not working.</P> <P>Thank you.</P> <P>Noonga</P> <P>Arcane Masters of Antonia Bayle.</P><p>Message Edited by Nebtwee on <span class=date_text>07-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 PM</span>

lotteria

07-28-2005, 10:51 AM

<DIV>The current system's flaw can be minimised by increasing the 1 week period to 4 weeks. The new system on test will destroy the whole guild system, period. First Wrath of Fury, now this guild system, we really need have someone who can use their head in the dev team. </DIV>

Prrasha

07-28-2005, 10:51 AM

Yes, the "number of accounts" method seems to be a bad decision both in-game, and for SoE's bottom line.I'm in a small (8 active players at the moment) guild, with 10 or 20 currently-inactives. Most of those took off 3 or 4 months ago to go play WoW; some are back playing EQ1 (though I didn't play EQ1, I understand that a good number of our guildies were guildies there). Others just have serious life/family/school/work commitments, and only show up one or two weekends per month.If this change goes live, we'll have to de-guild everyone but the 7 actives, or watch our advancement grind to a halt.For those who are temporarily AFK... Well, there's nothing like rolling out the welcome mat for them when they come back from other games... seems that SoE is trying to keep their former customers away.For those who only play infrequently... guilds are supposed to be a social structure, right? Matching guild tags in groups shows camaraderie... /guildsay is more convenient than setting up a channel... the "events" page of the guild window lets you see what friends have been doing if you're not online at the same time... Now that's all gone for the casual gamers. It gets really easy for them to decide to not spend the 15 bucks a month when someone decides to take a good portion of the fun out of their experience.With this change, there's two models left for the game. Solo'ers who could just as well be playing a non-online game, and ginormous guilds who will, as mentioned above, all be level 30 about a week after this goes live.Our little group of friends just got hung out to dry, and, based on my highly-unscientific "/who all guildname" technique when I see a new tag flying over someone's head, there's a lot of little guilds in the same sinking boat with us.

Twoof

07-28-2005, 10:57 AM

So why this change? what was exactly wrong with the old patron system? The only thing I can find, is that large guilds abuse the patron tag to powerlevel different members all the time? Just do something about that then, but please don't ruin it for all guilds it is working fine for.... The idea of the highest 12 statuses in the guild determine the guild level sounds way better to me. <div></div>

Pathin Merrithay

07-28-2005, 11:14 AM

<P>I have very rarely been so completely and utterly stunned with a decision that I'm actually forced to consider the wisdom and thought processes behind the Dev Team. I don't always agree with changes, don't always like them, but it is very rare that I actually sit down, flabbergasted. If the Patron system is going to be removed (Which very much seems where the new guild system is going; an addendum for another thread... What is the idea behind such a dramatic change this late in the game... 7 months?!) -how- can this be the best idea they could come up with to replace it? A 24 cap? It's been explained far more eloquently then I can manage by above posters, but this can -only- benefit guilds with huge numbers, and severely penalizes those with small. In the last two changes, the Dev Team has taken the relatively even playing feild for Guilds that came with the Patron system, and completely borked it... And I'm speaking from the position of already being in a GL 30 guild.</P> <P>Please, on hands and knees if I must, look at the game and the system you created. You've already placed a dramatically abusable system in place with the last change. By making this next one, you're basically kicking your player base while they're down, and I cry shame on you. Shame on you for not being more considerate and not fully thinking this idea through. The Test server is Test for a reason... Use the time you have before the next update and -change- your decision.</P>

Belizarius

07-28-2005, 12:06 PM

<P>Bad change, bad bad change.</P> <P>To describe our own situation, our Qeynos based guild with about twenty-something fairly <STRONG>active</STRONG> members has been in a friendly guild level race with a much larger Freeport based guild ever since the game was released (they have about 3 times the active player base). They are now 27, we are 26, so it's been close all the way. The rivalry has been fun. Keeping up with them has been a motivation for us, a chance to prove that size doesn't always matter.</P> <P>With this change, it will be a no contest. One area of the game where small guilds could 'compete' with bigger guilds will be killed off. I thought EQ2 was supposed to be friendly to smaller guilds.</P> <P>Either only count the guild's top 'n' status earners as contributing, or divide status contributed by all active member accounts. But don't turn EQ2 into more of a big guild game.</P> <P>Big guilds should not be able to simply 'Zerg' their way to guildlevel 30.</P> <P>Is there anybody out there at all, who thinks that this change is good for the game?</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Belizarius on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:10 AM</span>

Tochy

07-28-2005, 12:07 PM

<DIV>Removing the actual "Patron" system is maybe the worse thing you will done so far, lots of peoples works really hard to gain there status, lots of guilds were creating around this system, sometimes painful, sometimes enjoying. You are going to remove it like an annoying fly ... something smart from you would be to tell us Why ? What brainstorming lead you to this conclusion ? Anyway I have maybe an idea and that's not really a smart one.</DIV> <DIV>If things are getting so worse, why don't tell everybody that EQII is close and to come back for EQIII with new rules and new systems.</DIV> <DIV>That system is totaly unfair, living Zerg guilds to have all the benefits to be so large in EQII ... what left to the small one ?</DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV>What say you ?</DIV>

Ellrin

07-28-2005, 12:26 PM

yeah lets all panic about the HUGE number of 500 player guilds :smileyindifferent:

Tanaric

07-28-2005, 12:45 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Victicus7 wrote:<BR> <DIV>-------------</DIV> <DIV>We have removed the concept of patrons from guilds. Earned status is now divided by the number of unique accounts in your guild (minimum of 6, maximum of 24).</DIV> <DIV>-------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Maybe I have missed something here, but what is going to stop a guild of 500 members from blowing through all the guild levels in a couple weeks?</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It would seem under this system, the more people the better. I thouhgt the entire patron system was meant to keep very large guilds from powerleveling extremely fast. Now that patrons may be gone, I think i have lost all hope in the guild status system. It will no longer be an accomplishment to level your guild, but rather a competition of who can recruit the most members.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Realistically, a guild of 40 would maybe have 10 to 15 people do a writ in one day (a very good day). A guild of 500 could easily have 50-100 people do a writ in one day, and get the exact same rewards as the guild of 40.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is something very wrong there, and I really hope this new guild status system gets tested very well, as it could really destroy the entire system.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Maybe I have missed something, but if a 500 member guild chooses to do that, how does it negatively affect you? If you wish to progress to level 30 with your own guild of friends, this change makes it far more realistic for you to do so. If you want all the ub3rl3wt benefits immediately, you have the choice of joining a large, soulless, boring guild to do so. Either way, you'll play the way <STRONG>you</STRONG> wish to, and they'll play the way <STRONG>they</STRONG> wish to. Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding the benefits of a level 30 guild (my guild is level 3 at the moment, and I'm happy with that), there isn't some finite resource pool that multiple level 30 guilds thin for everybody.</P> <P>If you're worried about losing your "elite status," well, you're a little childish; this is a game. But along with that, you'll always be able to say that you grinded to 30 back "when it meant something" (in your words, not mine). Of course, people like me will think you're damned foolish for spending so much time with a ridiculously unforgiving system, but hey: that's the price of status, isn't it?</P> <P>Finally, SoE clearly researched the changes they are making before they made them. For every visible complaint about this change here on the forums (what, maybe 100 people, from all servers <STRONG>combined</STRONG>?), there are likely 2, or 3, or 100 invisible complaints made through in-game help systems, email, or chat. As I've said before, forum dwellers are, generally, the vocal minority. A lot of people are going to be thrilled with this change, and while I respect that you feel you're losing something in this, most others feel the opposite way, and the sacrifice is necessary. Even if everyone complaining about this here on the test forum were to leave EQ2, this change likely prevented equally many (quieter) players <STRONG>from</STRONG> leaving.</P> <P>I, for one, think it's a great change, and I look forward to seeing it on Live.<BR></P>

Pathin Merrithay

07-28-2005, 12:48 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ellrin wrote:<BR> yeah lets all panic about the HUGE number of 500 player guilds :smileyindifferent:<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm quite certain that they were using '500 players' to make a rhetorical point, but the fact remains, the more players you have, the more beneficial this is for you. The smaller your guild, the worse off you are. However, for the sake of argument...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From EQ2Players.com</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are currently 44 guilds with more then 200 players. (That's a pretty signifigant number in my opinion. 2 Large scale guilds per server more or less) Of those guilds, -none- of the top 20 in population have yet gotten to Guild Level 30. A few are close yes, but most are, in fact, still quite a distance off (Pre-25 for my purposes) If you don't think this is going to impact these high populations guilds in a dramatic way, please offer up something I'm missing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is now signifigantly -less- advantage to being in a smaller guild... Because this is indeed a competition. There are a limited number of players that can do Heritage quests, that have access to the highest exp writs, etc etc. Smaller guilds will find it very hard to compete against the draw of joining a larger guild, and they're now on signifigantly uneven footing in the guild level race.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Pathin Merrithay on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:54 AM</span>

Tarryn

07-28-2005, 12:58 PM

<P>I don't care so much about mega-guilds dinging 30 in 20 minutes flat. What bothers me is the problem with aforementioned inactive players.</P> <P>I'm part of a "family" type guild. We have a goodly number of members who play quite infrequently. It sounds as though this change will bring our progression down to a crawl. Most of my guildies were guilded with me in EQ1, some of us have been together for over five years. There's no way we're going to guildremove people even if they've been inactive for a long time. I've always considered those types "members emeritus," and I don't want us to be penalized for keeping our inactive friends on our roster.</P> <P>If this change is inevitable, perhaps members who haven't logged in within say 10 days or somesuch wouldn't count against your progression? That would make this far more palatable for us...</P>

Jan It

07-28-2005, 01:02 PM

Another game issue that would need a degressive approach IMO. Every additional account should give diminishing return on guild status, but not to full effect. E.g (these numbers only describe the approach, they are not in any way thought through on on the scaling).: 6 accounts = 1/6th 24 accounts = 1/24th 48 accounts = 1/36th 96 accounts = 1/48th and so on. It´s seems we´re simply stuck with linear approaches for all and everything of the game. Is this because of the potential server load maybe? Oh, and to those calling for a total remove of the cut at 1/24th, that approach would stop guilds from inviting new/little time/low level players because they slow down guild advancement too much. You really want that? <div></div>

CasombraHellstalk

07-28-2005, 01:29 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Victicus7 wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CasombraHellstalker wrote:<BR> Since the change our medium sized guild hasn't leveled any faster than before.... the HUGE difference that it made for us was to get rid of the patrons that were not doing thier parts, patrons that had left the game. and people that had too many RL commitments to actually help out in the patron department much anymore. We were able to then put in new patrons that were willing to do thier part as patrons. So I really don't see why this is such a worry, I myself have not seen any other guilds taking advantage of the system.. but if they do why punish everyone over a few unscrupulous players that would USE the system as it was not intended. Anyway you look at it there will always be a few players that will abuse anything they can no matter how good or bad a system is.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The NEW guild status/patron change is on the test server currently, so I do not understand how a guild on Everfrost is effected by it... yet. <P>Message Edited by Victicus7 on <SPAN class=date_text>07-27-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:16 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Gee did you ever think that I play test server now and then to see how changes will affect the play on the normal servers?<BR>

imbitten

07-28-2005, 02:02 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Victicus7 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> imbitten wrote:<BR> <DIV>Granted they can climb the ladder quickly IF everyone contributes status, which for the majority of guilds is highly unlikely.<BR> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, lets say a guild of 50 people all do one writ a day... thats right, all 100% of the guild does 1 writ a day.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another guild has 200 members, but only 100 members do 1 writ a day, meaning 50% of their guild is helping progress the guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The guild that only has 50% of their roster helping the guild gains exp twice as fast as the guild that has 100% of the roster working to progress the guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in a larger guild, each individual member will have to do less work than a member of a smaller guild. Meaning larger guilds will have room to be lazy, yet still progress at a very fast pace.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So no, not everyone in a larger guild has to contribute for them to rise in guild levels at a pace much faster than smaller guilds.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>ok i see your point here, that makes sense. </P> <P>But on the other hand most (well to my knowledge) guilds of oh say 100 members that would make them at least 50 account guild as i doubt seriously that there would be 100 individual people in said guild it would be more along the line of 3 or more alt characters per account with only a primary actually doing writs, heritage etc, eventually yes the alts would start doing heritage quests. i belong to a 200 plus guild of which are actually only about 60 accounts of which 20 of those are inactive in hopes that maybe some day they will return. And we arent a power leveling guild either. This is on live on test I belong to a 100 plus guild and there a few dedicated members in it that have chain writted themselves to death. but the other members are not allowed to contribute except as support and personal status, (which i think is wrong, if someone goes to the trouble to complete writs they should be able to contribute to the health and welfare of the guild aka level)</P> <P>so there needs to be a happy medium of some kind, but we all know that there is no way to make everyone happy.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by imbitten on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:04 AM</span>

scat

07-28-2005, 02:08 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jan Itor wrote:<BR>Another game issue that would need a degressive approach IMO. Every additional account should give diminishing return on guild status, but not to full effect. E.g (these numbers only describe the approach, they are not in any way thought through on on the scaling).:<BR><BR>6 accounts = 1/6th<BR>24 accounts = 1/24th<BR>48 accounts = 1/36th<BR>96 accounts = 1/48th<BR><BR>and so on. It´s seems we´re simply stuck with linear approaches for all and everything of the game. Is this because of the potential server load maybe?<BR><BR>Oh, and to those calling for a total remove of the cut at 1/24th, that approach would stop guilds from inviting new/little time/low level players because they slow down guild advancement too much. You really want that?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>A degressive approach sounds like quite a good idea to me. And to further develop this idea:</P> <P>Why not using such a degressive method for the number of <STRONG>patrons</STRONG> in a guild? I. e. keep the patron checkbox, but replace the linear cap at 12 by some degressive approach. Imo, that wohld work well for both larger and smaller guilds and nobody would need to face serious problems with inactive chars.</P> <P>I rally dislike the new system. It will hurt my guild badly.</P>

Telcontari71

07-28-2005, 02:51 PM

<DIV>I have a guild all my server called dragon slayerz. 400 odd members.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lets say 200 of them did the Jboots run. Can anyone calculate how many status points and levels it will give them from doing one quest?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just really sad the game is being skewed in favour of big guilds. I do not want a big guid. I am a GL of a small guild. We have about 20-30 active memebers plus about 50 alts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NImrodel</DIV> <DIV>GL of Ascended Heroes on Runnyeye</DIV>

Boat Meadow

07-28-2005, 03:29 PM

<P>I have to agree with those that say this is a horrible change for those of us in small casual guilds. I too will be faced with the decision of removing semi-active members or non-active members. We have only had one member leave to go to WoW and I keep telling him he is welcome back and still in our guild. This change goes in place and I have to dump him. If he does come back it certainly doesn't feel like I have left out the welcome mat. We also have several members who pop on just a couple times a month - it's fun to team up with them when they do have time, but with this change we would have to dump them. Or, we decide friendship is more important than leveling the guild (which in my mind it is) and just abandon leveling the guild. It's taken us a long time to get to level 15... I guess we'll just sit there once this change goes in place. We haven't even worked up to 12 active patrons yet - we grow organically - right now we probably have 9 or 10. So their work is divided by 12 now (I'm OK with that since it's been the way of the game from the start), and with this change their work will be divided by 24 since we do have many semi-active non-patron accounts. So it will take us twice as long to level. I don't know about the others, but I don't feel like we are blazing along as it is. </P>

Tochy

07-28-2005, 05:24 PM

<P></P> <HR> <P>Just really sad the game is being skewed in favour of big guilds. I do not want a big guid. I am a GL of a small guild. We have about 20-30 active memebers plus about 50 alts.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>If you have 50 Alts with 20-30 Main you can guild in those 50 guys, do the 2-3 first Heritages with them , the easy ones (cool 100-150 quest more for you for still only 20-30 main) and remove them after. All benefits for you.</P> <P> </P> <P>Ahhh ... "Always loves SoE"</P> <P>Message Edited by Tochyao on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>06:25 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Tochyao on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:25 AM</span>

Avail

07-28-2005, 05:34 PM

I think patrons should remain, but the maximum patrons allowed should be removed. Instead, allow guild leaders to tie patronage to ranks. This would allow guild leaders to still control the numbers and allow active members to contribute without inactive members penalizing the guild. If someone becomes inactive, just demote them to a non-contributing rank and they stop counting against your guild xp. The only problem I see with this is, if a guild has 100 people all of a contributing rank, then their experience would be divided by 100. So there might still need to be a cap of some type on the dividing if they want a guild to be able to allow all of it's members to contribute noticibly even if it's a huge guild.

imready2go

07-28-2005, 05:53 PM

<P><FONT size=2>Is it time to call into question the entire guild level concept in EQ2? (A radical idea, but indulge me as I meander for a bit.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>There is no doubt that a lot of people have worked their butts off to raise the level of their guilds, but let's forget that for just a moment and concentrate on the here-and-now. We all respect the work that everyone has put in, but let's pretend for a instant that we're starting from scratch and creating a whole new system. (Sony seems more than willing to ignore the efforts people have put in, so we'll pretend we can too.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>Is there really a point in leveling a guild?</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>As the guild levels, the guild gets access to a few quests and zones, plus some other perks like clothing and TS equipment and eventually flying carpets and such. OK, but we could easily have been granted access to those same things through some other means (quests, cash, whatever). Guild level doesn't really have any true connection to those perks. Honestly, why should guild level determine whether or not I can, for example, use a tier 3 forge in my room? These perks just seem to be a bone thrown to the guilds to make them feel like they've accomplished something by leveling, not a real reward for reaching a particular goal.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>Ok, what else does a guild get by leveling? Reputation, not just amongst the other guilds on the server but also within the game. Ah, isn't that what Sony originally touted as the main goal for a guild? From the FAQs:</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>""Guilded" players of the same city may ally themselves with any of the faction groups within their home city in order to gain experience and levels for the guild as well as personal status. This translates into rewards from not only the faction, but also <U>the city itself</U>."</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>"Certain rewards (such as titles) will bestow recognition upon individuals and will alter the behavior of faction NPC’s towards an individual."</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>"The same can be said for what organizations you ally yourself to, going forward we are going to greatly expand upon the storyline we have begun in Qeynos and Freeport. The conflict between these two powers will take center stage and player <U>guilds</U> will be the organizations that wage this “Cold War”."</FONT></P> <DIV><FONT size=2>And where has this actually occurred? A player can complete writs and gain faction with a particular group and thus unlock some additional perks. So, how does guild level factor into this? Can't a player complete writs at their leisure and unlock rewards without the guild being a certain level? Again, what's the real connection? And where is the expansion of the storyline that Sony talked about? I remember when the first guild hit level 30 and immediately posted a forum thread wondering why they couldn't talk to the Queen!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>We all thought that the reputation of a high-level guild would mean something other than a few perks, but that has never truly been realized in-game.</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>So, where are we? Leveling a guild provides a few perks that could have easily been designed and handled differently (and had nothing to do with guild levels). Leveling means little more than "bragging rights". But, honestly, a guild is far more likely to brag that they, for example, were the first to kill Venekor than to brag that they're a higher level than someone else. So even a basis of bragging rights is questionable.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff size=2>From the EQ2 Manual:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>"</FONT><FONT color=#231f20><FONT color=#ffffff>Guilds are associations of players that cooperate to achieve many </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>common goals. These associations can be small groups of friends, </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>organized Artisans, or enormous “über guilds” that tackle some of </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>the biggest challenges Norrath has to offer."</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Where are levels even mentioned? It would seem that the whole concept of guild level was an afterthought at Sony, a very poorly implemented afterthought at that (as all these threads can attest).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Perks can be gotten through other means. Faction status is detemined by doing writs, which have nothing to do with guild level. There seems to be no obvious reason to even design guild levels into the game other than the never-implemented "rewards from the city itself". (Read the threads from those whose guilds reached level 30 and ask if it was worth the effort of reaching that level, worth all the time spent.)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Is it time to just do away with guild levels and let guilds be the "associations of players that cooperate" they were meant to be, with bragging rights determined simply by word-of-mouth publicity? (We all know who the "best" guilds are - do we need a level number to tell us this, especially since the best guilds aren't necessarily the highest level guilds?) Obviously, it would understandably cause all hell to break loose if news of this type of change came down, but it would hardly be a big surprise (can you say combat revamp 9 months into the game?) I'm just not sure I see any reasonable basis for including guild levels in the game design. If you can see a reason, please let me know.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks for letting me babble.</FONT></DIV>

Ishii

07-28-2005, 06:46 PM

<P>Agree with the majority that the cap on accounts has to go. Otherwise you will find smaller guilds kicking people from their ranks just so they can attain a lower account number and larger guilds having a field day with their leveling.</P> <P> Is it hard to get to level 30? Yes. </P> <P>Was it designed to be that way? Yes.</P> <P>You've already taken away the Decay of Experience ( a good thing).</P> <P>And taken away penalties for a patron deguilding ( a bad thing). High pointed patrons arguably contribute the most amount of dedicated time towards the single goal of leveling their guild. If they leave said guild... Why did they do it? Could it be that the guild leader lost sight or no longer cared about the direction of the guild? Perhaps a mass recruitment of idiots made the guild an uncomfortable place to be anymore.</P> <P>Everybody has a different play style and can contribute on different levels to a guild. Helping with quests. Tradeskilling combines for guildmates. Writ grinding...</P> <P>But to do away with patronage AND cap the max AND count all accounts. Bad news. </P> <P>Personally my guild is very very small and this change won't monumentally affect us. There are 9 of us RL friends. However a few of us dual box and there are 13 accounts in the guild. Our guild is 17 and it's taken a lot of effort to get there. Our mains had all been in previous guilds and completed approx 16 heritages each already. Experience gone and lost forever.. That's a heap a lot of writs invested to get to 17. I'd love to get to 30 but I'm not about to tell my friends that we are gonna dump their alt accounts from the guild to maximize our experience.</P> <P>I'd be interested to know how many guilds have 6 or less accounts in them... That are over 3 weeks in creation. I could see smaller guilds manipulating this 6 lower end cap by deguilding any extra accounts before a heritage turn in. Heck it would make a monumental difference even in my guild.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>1 (51,000) Heritage ( Foomby bag) turn in with 6 accounts =8,500 status</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>That same heritage with 13 accounts =3,923 status</FONT></P> <P>And that's just 1 very low example. Imagine if a full group did turn ins while some of the other accounts patiently awaited to be reinvited after final turn in. Might even be a big enough difference to tempt me to play with the system.</P> <P>Keep it the way it was. </P> <P>Fix the things that are REALLY broken like Fury -Vs-Warden that Moorguard promised since LU8 </P> <P>Or any of the other multitude of broken classes and quests.</P> <P> </P>

Eileah

07-28-2005, 06:51 PM

<P>"And there was much discussion across the lands of Norrath".........</P> <P>Does it have to be a min/max? Is there a way to base it on the % of unique accounts? </P> <P>The problem we have now is that innactive people or people that choose to not earn guild status (gasp) are DEAD WEIGHT to those of us that do earn guild status.</P> <P>It has always been a choice to earn status for the guild, or to earn personal status, with this change it will force people to pull their weight as a divisor of guild status.</P> <P>I would much rather see it set as a % which would allow for those who do not want to earn status but still be in a guild, or to have a new rank of "innactive" that would denote players who are in the guild but not actively playing and therefor not counted towards the division of status, such a rank could have 30 day change period so it could not be abused if needed. An innactive member would not be able to spend their SP or earn status, basically would be a limbo state of neither benefit or detriment of or to the guild.</P> <P>Every guild has members that do not earn status and this is their right, or it used to be, to set it in stone with hard numbers causes those people to either change their playstyle or get the boot from guild.</P> <P>Please find a more flexible way to determine your divisors for status distribution that doesn't penalize guilds with innactive or non status earning players.</P> <P> </P> <DIV>Edit for typos</DIV><p>Message Edited by Eileah on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:54 AM</span>

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 06:59 PM

<P>I am a guild leader of a small but active guild. When I say small, I mean we only have at best 14 patrons. Under this new system it sounds as if it will be even harder for me and my guild to level now! Why this drastic change? Please tell me the smaller guilds will still be able to get to level 30?? I know getting to level 30 at the size of my guild will be hard, but now you make it seem like it will be impossible!</P> <P>:smileysad:</P>

Cecil_Stri

07-28-2005, 07:00 PM

Uncapping it would be destroying big guilds.. and even mid size guilds. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For example.. the red knights of norrath. If half of the 600 people they have weren't alts.. then they would get 166 per jboots run..... Thats a 5th of a writ</DIV> <DIV><BR>A writ would give 13 exp. You are saying things like... well if all of them work together... ect ect</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FAT CHANCE... any idea how hard it would be to get a guild that large to do anything.... Thats why they are so frowned apon cause it woudln't be possible.. its pretty much a glorified chat room, but the few people that do want to progress the guild would be totaly screwed.</DIV> <DIV><BR>If 300 people work together to level a guild (all of em) that is a feat on its own. and 300 people did the work at a 4th of the exp as a 6 person guild did. So the time and effort got put into it... whats the big deal?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Cause they can get it done faster if by the slim chance the guild leader can organize such a mob? If he can make a massive effort to do such a feat.. then he should be welcome to guild level 30 status with open arms.. cause its much easier just to get 6 of your friends together and grind em at 4x the exp</DIV><p>Message Edited by Cecil_Strife on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:02 AM</span>

Maeldir

07-28-2005, 07:07 PM

<P>Easy fix.</P> <P>Use the guild rank system to create an inactive / non productive rank. Allow us to flag this rank as not contributing to guild XP and not counting toward the divider. Since they wont contribute to status, they won't count toward the divider. This would allow people to be inactive and NOT hurt the guild. This will make sure people do not abuse this by flagging a ton of people inactive to speed level, since they wouldnt earn status.</P> <DIV>What do you think?</DIV>

Storm_Runner

07-28-2005, 07:17 PM

<P>I've got to say that I really don't like the proposed changes to guilds that will go live in LU #13A. Here's what I would do. Change the way a guild member gets patron status. Make being a patron not something that is bestowed by a guild officer but something that a person wanting patron status has to earn. Make becoming a patron the reward (the only reward, no XP, no loot, just patron status) for doing a series of somewhat challenging and tedious quests. Kind of like an access quest or the betrayal quest. That way someone who wants to be a patron will put forth the effort and someone who isn't willing to work for it won't want to put in the time and work required to get the title of patron. The patron quests would have to be scalable with the difficulty depending on your adventurer level that way it would be a challenge whether you're a level 10 fighter or a level 30 warlock. Because lets face it...not everyone joins a guild at the same level. In order to weed out inactive patrons what I would do is create a new kind of status points (call them patron points). If you don't do something to earn status for the guild on a regular basis (say once a week) you lose a set number of patron points. If your patron points drops to 0 you lose patron status and will have to repeat the patron quests over again to get it back. Say you start out with 20 patron points...you lose 5 a week for inactivity until you reach 0. That should be generous enough that real life interference (vacations, out of town on a business trip, etc.) won't cause you to lose patron status. But...before you can start earning status for the guild again you have to bring your patron points back up to the max (20) by doing writs. Writs will be worth their regular guild status points and 1 patron point, but you only get the guild status points if your patron points are maxed out. This should make being a patron something that only those who want to work for the privilege will have. Any feedback on this idea would be appreciated.</P>

Sabbi

07-28-2005, 07:18 PM

I'm so confused. I'll give a few examples here and maybe you guys can help me understand this a bit better. Correct me please if I get anything wrong. Doing this in terms that a blond can understand, which would be me lol. Guild A - 200 members but only 100 are actual "unique" accounts (which i am assuming means individual accounts) 50 of these accounts are active, so that would mean no matter what they fall into the 6-24 account range? Guild B - 40 members, lets say 20 actual accounts All 20 are active members for the most part, they still fall into the 6-24 account range, Guild C - 8 members, 2 accounts Doesnt fall into the 6-24 individual account range but with 6 being minimum, all their experience is divided by 6 Now say Guild B, which is alot like mine has 20 active accounts, all our guild experience will be divided by 20 right, where as Guild A would be divided by 24, and Guild C by 6? Doesnt this make it harder for smaller guilds like Guild C to advance because in theory they have to do 3 times the work? Now say Guild B with their 20 active accounts, suddenly for some reason, 5 of those accounts just sit there with people who either left or cant play and contribute as much as they used to. Because of those 5 inactive accounts, Guild B still has their guild experience earned divided by 20. So basically when all is said and done, unless you have a guild that has way over 24 active individual accounts, any other guild is going to have to do more work to keep their guild experience up to par, especially if they all of a sudden have inactive accounts? Doesnt this also mean that SOE is basically pressuring smaller guilds to drop people from their rosters to so called "eliminate the dead weight"? Doesnt this basically also kill guilds that are family and friends but who also want to level their guild? My guild has approximately 40 members, as far as active accounts, maybe 17-20 at this point since it's merger with our sister guild. Alot of us are old friends from the days of EQ along with family and some new friends playing. We are casual, we like to have fun, we do writs and heritage quests at our own pace. We just dinged guild level 21 yesterday. We'd like to get to 25 soon (apparently the level 20 horses were just a teaser for some of the new members and they want the level 25 ones now lol). What do these new changes hold in store for us and for guilds that are even smaller? <div></div>

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 07:25 PM

Not only that but what's the deciding factor in the active accounts or alts? What decideds whos a main account and who and alt? I have a very active account but I have 1 main and 9 real alts. I make use of all 10 of my toons, but will that be counted against me. A few more details in all this would be SUPER.

ThramFalc

07-28-2005, 07:30 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Maeldir wrote:<p>Easy fix.</p> <p>Use the guild rank system to create an inactive / non productive rank. Allow us to flag this rank as not contributing to guild XP and not counting toward the divider. Since they wont contribute to status, they won't count toward the divider. This would allow people to be inactive and NOT hurt the guild. This will make sure people do not abuse this by flagging a ton of people inactive to speed level, since they wouldnt earn status.</p> <div>What do you think?</div><hr></blockquote>This is exactly what the patron system does... People with an innactive tag in your example are basically just non-patrons. This is why the patron system was in place to begin with... the devs seem to have forgotten this.</span><div></div>

Thicket Tundrabog

07-28-2005, 07:31 PM

Yoicks. I'm a player that has liked almost all the EQ2 changes made by SoE. I liked the recent patron/guild status changes that went live. I don't like the current patron/guild status changes on Test Server at all!! My guild has many inactive players that return from time-to-time to play EQ2. While we are a casual, family-style guild, many of these players have been with the guild since the early days of EQ1. This is more than 5 years!! Most of the inactive players have Station Service accounts and are playing EQ1 or SWG. If these changes go live, we have the following major choices. 1. Deguild long-time guildmates so that we can maximize speed of guild progression. 2. Suffer from major guild status slowdown. 3. Give up on guild status progression. Number one won't happen, number two will be too discouraging, so my guild will end up with option three. Please don't do it!! <div></div>

Raahl

07-28-2005, 07:33 PM

<P>So what most of you are saying is that "Player A" should contribute to his guild more than "Player B", because Player A is in a smaller guild?</P> <P>You say it's not fair that larger guilds level more quickly than smaller guilds?</P> <P>Sigh.</P> <P>I understand the need to make smaller guilds competative, I have yet to see a truely fair solution suggested.</P>

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 07:35 PM

Yah at this point I think of trying to get to guild level 30 now and I want to bawl. We are a small family type guild who does not mind going slow at things. This will kill our progression to 30 now I have a feeling. I woulf like some more real info from the devs on why they are doing this. Also more info on how the system works in detail, I think we are owed that much!

Korizan

07-28-2005, 07:38 PM

Actually as I skimmed over this some things seemed to have been dropped. THe key to the forumla is UNIQUE Accounts So a Guild of 36 might in reality be a Guild of 6 As in the rest are just alts.... So it is a matter of keeping EVERYONE active not just those select ELITE Patrons. Now for those who say what about a Guild with 500 and power leveling. Well in numbers there comes strength and if they can get all 500 to put forth that kind of effort then they DESERVE the Title of a Level 30 Guild. So why cap well I believe the limit on a Raid is 24 and if your guild can be a Raid unto itself then it is a true Guild. Not Group not band of comrads but a Guild .... And as a Guild you get benefits one being with that 25 member you can afford to have someone off for a week without effecting the effort. So I see nothing wrong with the new system it will help some and hurt others but I think the plan is sound. BY the way my Guild is very small and wonse we filter out all the Alts it has only 10 members or so but I welcome the change. I never liked the Patron thing anyways as I have seen and heard of to many players that could care less to get involved because "what is the point only the patrons get anything out of it" This system promotes a true Guild spirit as EVERYONE can make a difference.

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 07:39 PM

What I ask you is a unique account? I may have missed how they figure that one out. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

seabhac

07-28-2005, 07:47 PM

A unique account is the account that holds your characters. For example, my account has all 6 character slots filled. 3 of those charcters are in the same guild. Even though I have three characters in the guild, they are on 1 unique account. That's how you can have a guild of 36 characters, but only 6 unique accounts. If I guild all 6 of characters, there would still only be 1 unique account. A guild of 500 characters could conceivably have only 84 unique accounts (500/6 and some change). Or it could 500 unique accounts if no one brings their alts into the same guild. hoep that clears it up. <div></div>

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 07:49 PM

<P>That does make a little more sense to me now. Thank you for clearning that up for me dear!</P> <P>*hugs*</P> <P>Still does sound like smaller guilds are getting the shaft more so than before though...</P> <P>:smileysad:</P>

ThramFalc

07-28-2005, 07:59 PM

Removing the cap won't favor small guilds... It will make things equal. If everyone in a guild does 1 heritage then the guild will gain a certain amount of experience regardless of how big it is. Inactive players will affect guilds the same as well on a % basis. Its totally fair. As it stands on test any members over 24 will just give a guild more and more ability to be lazy and level up just as fast or faster than guilds with 24 or less accounts. Also, none of these systems stop people from buying heritage quests and status by guilding some newb for a week, paying a few plat, then deguilding him. I'm beginning to think the top 12 system is the best idea we have come across. Removing patrons altogether with no cap of 24 n acounts is #2. The old old system is #3. The current live system is still better than this test system tho. <div></div>

Sabbi

07-28-2005, 08:00 PM

If you have a guild with 50 active accounts, half of those people can not do anything and it's not penalizing the guild because no matter what they will still have their experience divided by 24. If you have a guild with 17 active accounts and 5 of those accounts just sit there, 12 people now have to compensate for those other 5 accounts for what ever reason. Their experience is still divided by 17 even though only 12 are doing things to contribute to the guild. That leaves you 2 choices, suck it up and do more work to compensate for those 5 or deguild them so your experience is divided by 12 and possibly lose friends and family or other members because of it. <div></div>

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 08:00 PM

<DIV>Now I also wonder does this factor in how active the persons account is? Like say they have real life issues and they are gone for a month or more. Does that mean they somehow don't count as a unique account anymore. Or because they are an account and there, that's what matters? I'm sure this is a silly question again. But I'm really trying to get all the info I can for my guild atm.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

Laccy

07-28-2005, 08:03 PM

<DIV>If the system was broken enough before to require a "fix" now with #13, it's even more broken now. Why this change?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now in order to benefit from GSP gain in my guild I have to remove members until I'm left with 6 active accounts, have a quest completed, and re-tag the de-guilded members. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guilds that have already reached level 30 won't be bothered by this change until guild levels are increased (if they are increased).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So why introduce this handicap now? What was broken before? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Laccy

07-28-2005, 08:06 PM

<DIV>Gigglet, your "unique" account is the one for which you pay SoE. While the account is paid for it remains active. This is what is meant by an "active" account.</DIV>

Gigglet

07-28-2005, 08:07 PM

<P>Ah ok thank you Laccy! I'm sure I sound so silly here, but this is my first SoE game. So some of these terms are new to me.</P> <P>*hugs*</P> <P><img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

Sabbi

07-28-2005, 08:08 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Gigglet wrote:<div>Now I also wonder does this factor in how active the persons account is? Like say they have real life issues and they are gone for a month or more. Does that mean they somehow don't count as a unique account anymore. Or because they are an account and there, that's what matters? I'm sure this is a silly question again. But I'm really trying to get all the info I can for my guild atm.</div> <div> </div> <div><img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><hr></blockquote>As long as that person remains in the guild, with their main or alts, they are still considered an active account. Doesnt matter if they took a break for a month or quit, as long as they are in the guild they remain so called "active".</span><div></div>

Mor

07-28-2005, 08:10 PM

As implemented in LU#13a, I agree the changes stink. It is a big penalty to small or medium sized guilds -- especially those with members in the military. However, if they removed the cap altogether, I'd be ok with it. Penalizing all guilds for having x% of inactive members seems fair and reasonable.

Sean Leclair

07-28-2005, 08:17 PM

so let me see if i have this right. as of now a lvl 50 writ gives up to about 400 guild status, a lvl 10-20 gives about 100 and thats with no more then 12 patrons. so if my guild has only 24 seperate account members then ill now get 200 GSP for lvl 50 writs and 50GSP for lvl 10-20? and the new status items? you would get about 4 GSP for a tier 2 one, it would take about 200 of those alone to see the guild % move up even like .1 so yea having 500 members would be nice and all if everybody that was a member did writs and heritages but thats not going to happen since there isnt very many huge guilds let alone ones with all active members. this new change looks so horrible i dont even wanna contribute to my guild anymore since almost all changes that hit test that are this big almost always go live. <div></div>

Sunrayn

07-28-2005, 08:21 PM

<DIV>In my guild on test we have 15 accts. Of those, only 6 accts are active in doing writs and heritages. That is why only those 6 accts were patrons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have already sent out an ingame mail to all members. In a few days, our guild will be down to only those 6 people, the rest will be considered dead weight and deguilded unless the other 9 people start contributing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You need to rethink this SOE, what you have come up with is the wrong answer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sunrayn--GL of The Noble Kindred, Test server</DIV>

Auelaen

07-28-2005, 08:30 PM

<DIV>This new system is definitely not one of SOE's better ideas. As a leader of a larger family style guild, it is clear to me that this will really be an advantage to large, and especially huge guilds. The idea of rewarding zerg guilds like this is absolutely unfair to the common guilds and is definitely a step backwards. However, I don't think that removing the cap is the solution. I would say the fairest sollution is the Top 12 idea. This one has been floated around for a bit and seems most logical. The 12 highest (or some number around there) are automatically the contributors. If a contributor leaves the guild, the 13th place person replaces him, greatly reducing the damage done by a patron leaving. This keeps all guilds on an even playing field, leaves very little room for exploitation. Until this can be done, I think what is currently on live is much better than this test idea.</DIV>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 08:36 PM

YOu know it is amazing how many poeple are getting hot over this. Some people stating they will deGUILD a person if they are inactive for to long or are not pulling the wieght. All I can say is am happy I am NOT in your Guild. People are expected to provide undieing loyality to a Guild but at the same time you take a little break and you are out ? WOW !!!!! And as one stated what about military members or any type of RL issues.... It happenes the players are not happy about it I am sure but to kick them for it well that is just sad... All I can suggest is to those who are more casual players is make very sure about the Guild you are joining and make sure they don't give you the shaft for having a RL issue. At the same time lets face the facts all. If your Guild is on 40 hours a week and is all about making the levels then you will. If your guild is filled with casual players that only do writs every other week then you will level slower. Should those 2 Guilds be the same level at the end of the month ? NO So make a choice if you are a casual player then join a casual Guild which is in no hurry to level. If you want to level everyday and put forth the effort to do that then join a Guild that wants to do the same. And yes I still support the new system as makes EVERYONE responsible for the Guilds level.

Gornd

07-28-2005, 08:37 PM

<div></div>This entire guild system has been undeveloped from the time it came out. The concept of the guild levels we can most easily see. However, the implementation is all evolving around the a "grind" type system. Everquest is about questing and overcoming mobs. I think we all can agree that heading to Everfrost to mindlessly kill wolves or spiders for hours on end is a ridiculous system to seperate "guilds". Instead, I propose you throw away the current system, remove the grind, and instead base guild levels off events the guild does. Have a ladder type system with multiple paths in which one (or a combination of events) moves your guild to the next level. As a high level example: Killing Zalak or Drayek + a guild only raid event issued by the city = the step to 19-20 or something. The guilds in Everquest level now by *status*. Keep the idea of guild status the same, but change it so actual events we do give the right status... and not the people or the wolves we kill. The hard work and dedication needed to get a guild is still there, and we have eliminated all problems associated with patrons/grinding etc. Gorndax Leader of Legacy Unrest *Editted for spelling* <div></div><p>Message Edited by Gorndax on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:38 AM</span>

Sabbi

07-28-2005, 08:50 PM

Some people actually like doing writs and there are alot of guilds that dont raid so these "event" type things wouldnt be any good to the more casual guilds. <div></div>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 08:55 PM

<div></div>Grinding is by far the slowest way for a GUild to make status points. Either by killing or tradeskilling A Guild can work together and do Heritage Quests. They can also Kill certain Raid mobs for Status points. I like the this sytem the best simply because it allows a Guild of ANY size to level. Making it a strickly Raid or even Kill this mob is no different then Grinding except it would hurt most small Guilds. Basacilly as it stands now you can get status points for just about anything you do in EQ Except. Individual player levels and harvesting. THese 2 I would hate to see implemented as they would casue more problems then good. <p>Message Edited by Korizan on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:56 PM</span>

Shasroh

07-28-2005, 09:04 PM

<DIV>This new update just makes things worse, i thought that LU12 was bad, with allowing removal of people after a week and not loseing status. This was after going thru removing all the inactive patrons and LOSEING the status they had contributed, well over 400k worth and battleing thru that. Now they are makeing it even harder to lvl up. OK so at guild lvl 24, a writ at lvl 50, will provide the guild with about .25 gsp...with 14 patrons, make that 24 patrons, and your looking at about .1% gsp...so to get 1% worth of xp means 10 writs. Now my guild has about 25-30 active unique accounts. and we are leveling up just fine with how the patron system was pre LU12.</DIV> <DIV>Now lets say you have a guild with 75 unique accounts, and only 30 of them produce guild xp. your still gaining more xp for your unique accounts than a guild with 24 unique account all doing writs. I think this hurts the system, and makes leveling up a much larger grind for small guilds, and will make writs even harder to do, as it stand writ mobs are over camped, now if you get larger guilds doing it, where are the writ mobs for us smaller guilds? </DIV> <DIV>The raid cap was put at 24, to promote smaller guild being able to accomplish high end content, no? so why favor large guilds by makeing this change all of a sudden? go back to the old patron system pre LU12, it was fair.</DIV>

Meniphisto

07-28-2005, 09:08 PM

<DIV>Personally, I love this change. With the way the system is now, I cannot help my guild level at all. Why? Because killing 24 blue mobs takes about 30 mins. 30 minutes for one little writ? To me, its not worth the time or the effort, because we have guildies who can solo much faster then me and can do several writs in that time frame. So where does that leave me? It leaves me down in my tradeskiller's hole, unable to help my guild grow in levels. Sure, I could do more heritage quests (currently have 4 left), but before I would complete them I have to make sure that someone else is un-patroned and I am patroned, then I have to wait a week.<BR><BR>Now with the theory of a 500 member guild. If a guild has 500 players, more power too them! You complain that they can "abuse" the system by having everyone go through the JBoots quest and going from guild lvl 1 to 30 in less then a week. But my question is, whats to stop smaller guilds from abusing the system as well?<BR><BR>With the way things are in test, only "unique" accounts matter. So if I have a guild with only 6 "unique" accounts, whats to stop those 6 people from creating an alt, completing the JBoots quest, waiting a week, deleting the alt and starting again? Absolutly nothing, and they will level a lot faster then that 500 member guild because their GSP is only divided by 6, not 24.<BR><BR>And to those of you who are saying that "We're a family guild, but we'll have to start de-guilding member who aren't active enough so we can level much faster", do you not see the hypocracy in those statements? If you really are a family guild, then you should value your members more then your guild level. And if all you really care about is your guild level, why aren't you 30 already? Spend more time doing writs then complaining up here, and your guild should level faster.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are really very few rewards for being in a higher guild. They include buying horses cheaper, getting new clothing (not gear, because they dont have decent stats on them), buying tradeskill equipment for your house, buying "novelty items" like a house mailbox", getting a flying carpet/spirit steed, being able to make Wyrmsteel, and bragging rights. None of those things actually make you a better player, just makes things a tad bit easier.</DIV>

Ashare

07-28-2005, 09:19 PM

I'm happy to see i'm not the only one to think it's a fair modification. Is it hurting small guilds that have only half their players contributing? YES and it's FAIR. If you can't, for any reason, have all people contributing, you should not be able to level as fast or faster than a guild that can have twice ot three times players actively contributing. It's the greatest guild for my guild ever. We had since the beginning the problem that we have more active players and highly involved players than the possibility to make patrons with any rentability(after 24 patrons the ratio time invested by players/status gained is rubish). Now, instead of having half the heritages done that don't contribute to status, all will count, the same with writs. We are 130 in the guild, that are something like 60 accounts. We cill level faster, and it's NORMAL, because our guild leaders have done what it was needed for all people in the guild to help with status. Non-patrons still do every heritages because we like it, we help patrons as soon as we can, we have high level players grinding writs. We deserve the lvl 30 guild. I don't see why a guild with half our players and 1/4 of contributing players should be able to level faster.... As for now, a 6 players(unique accounts) guild with 6 contributing players(writs, heritages) no matter the char they play, will still level FAR MORE FASTER than a 24 contributing players guild with 48 accounts. It will take 48 ppl to gain xp as fast as 6 players guild. (if i didn't made a mistake calculating) and that is a small guild NERF??? Let me laugh!<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

Almeric_CoS

07-28-2005, 09:22 PM

<DIV>A cap of 24 definitely gives too much advantage to the giant guilds. On the other hand, fully uncapping this would make it hard for "family" guilds who want to work and gain levels, but also want to keep their casual members around without resenting them for being dead weight.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personally, I'm at a point where I'm in favor of doing away with the actual Patron flag, because it causes too much drama in guilds. People want to contribute, but if they don't contribute enough then they're weighing down the guild, so you take away their flags but then they get mad because they feel they aren't needed or wanted, etc...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So how about a compromise? Instead of a hard cap, why not put in a dynamic cap of, say, 80%? When getting status, your guild exp will be derived from 80% of the accounts in your guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Will this harm those giant, 500-member guilds this thread loves to bring up? Yes. But do I care? No. EQ2 wasn't designed for 500-member guilds. If you want a game where size matters over substance, go play EQ1, or DAoC, or any one of a bunch of other games out there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I LIKE my guild being medium-sized, and even at 80% we'll probably level a little slower than we do now, but we'll all be a lot less stressed about who can and should do what for exp, and that'd be a nice change.</DIV>

Mor

07-28-2005, 09:24 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Ashareth wrote: As for now, a 6 players(unique accounts) guild with 6 contributing players(writs, heritages) no matter the char they play, will still level FAR MORE FASTER than a 24 contributing players guild with 48 accounts. It will take 48 ppl to gain xp as fast as 6 players guild. <div></div><hr></blockquote></span>Huh??? <div></div>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 09:31 PM

<div></div><div></div><div></div>YUP you got it almost 6 unique means 6 writs 48 unique means 24 writs for the exact same amount of experience I can see the six going faster as it is easier to get 6 doing something then 24 consistantly. In most cases that is <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> A Last little bit of food for thought. Take 6 select 50's who form a good group. Who also have never done any Heritage quests. Have them form a Guild What level do you think they would be if they blew through all the Heritage quests in 2 or 3 weeks ??? 25 or maybe even 30 ???? Can you say small levels Guilds could Rule ? Thoeretically of course <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> How are them Apples <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><p>Message Edited by Korizan on <span class="date_text">07-28-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:40 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Korizan on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:47 PM</span>

Fippi

07-28-2005, 09:37 PM

<DIV>Bad bad change IMO. Leave it the way it is PUH-LEASE. If the patron switching is causing problems, make it a month. This is a rediculously bad idea.</DIV>

Mor

07-28-2005, 09:38 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Korizan wrote:<div></div> I can see the six going faster as it is easier to get 6 doing something then 24 consistantly. <hr></blockquote></span>As the system stands today, there is absolutely no reason to have more patrons than are actively contributing. So if your numbers are in anyway based on inactive patrons, I reject your argument. <div></div>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 09:47 PM

<div></div>We are not talking about patrons. Patrons allowed Guilds of anysize to use a limited number of people to POWER LEVEL a Guild to 30. Nobody else even as to show up. So essentially you where a Guild of 6 / 12 / 18 or however many Patrons there where. Everyone else got a free ride. Now EVERYONE must pull there weight. Which even you want to play a little RP YOu have one member who is a pillar of the community and the other is a drunk on the street. Your presteage should not reflect just to pillar of the community as it does now. OR with #13 Rather then the sum total of all. ( this guy is a pillar but the Guild preseage is offset by this bum. Not sure if that answers your agruement or not ?<p>Message Edited by Korizan on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:53 PM</span>

Mor

07-28-2005, 10:01 PM

Well, Ok. An RP argument can be made. Why, then is it ok for one guild to have 20% bums at no extra cost when another is penalized for having even 5%? If all guilds were being penalized at the same rate, I really would have no problem with the change. The way it is on test now, they've just changed the number that has to show up from 12 to 24. As you put it, everyone after that gets a free ride. <div></div>

Raahl

07-28-2005, 10:04 PM

<P>Here's a possible solution to the problem.</P> <P>1. Make the Journey's Half the Fun level restricted for each run. That way no level 15 is going to run Feerrott.</P> <P>2. Use the following calculation to calculate how many status points a character will contribute to the guild for a heritage quest. HQ Status Points/(SQRT(# Accounts)*5) </P> <DIV>HQSP = Heritage Quest Status points</DIV> <DIV>#Acc = Number of accounts in guild</DIV> <DIV>#MCHAR = Maximum number of characters (not including Station access)</DIV> <DIV>#GSP = Number of status points added to the guild status points per character.</DIV> <DIV>#MGSP = Maximum status points added to the guild status points if all the characters do the heritage quest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><STRONG><U>HQSP</U></STRONG> <STRONG><U>#Acc</U></STRONG> <U><STRONG>#MCHAR</STRONG></U> <STRONG><U>#GSP</U> <U>#MGSP</U> <U>MGSP Equation </U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>60,000 100 600 ~1200 ~720,000 (60,000/50) x 600</DIV> <DIV>60,000 50 300 ~1697 ~509,116 (60,000/35.35533906) x 300</DIV> <DIV>60,000 6 36 ~4898 ~176,363 (60,000/12.24744871) x 36</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>My thoughts are that this will allow smaller guilds to still compete with larger guilds without cheapening player contributions to large guilds, too much.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note: In the 6 account guild, each character is contributing 4 times the number of guild points for each Heritage quest than a character in the 100 account guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I off on my calculations any?</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:23 AM</span>

Rene

07-28-2005, 10:12 PM

<DIV>I find it humorous that people who are not in small family guilds have the nerve to tell me how I feel / should feel about my members. As I have stated previously when the patroning system was changed last update, I am in a guild of about 40 people who came over together from EQ1, about 75% of them left in the first 4 months to WoW, or back to EQ1. Of those 30 people about a 3rd of them come back every now and then to play for a bit and to say Hi. A few have all access accounts and pop in on weekends just to cruise around a bit and chat. Should they have to feel that they are holding the guild back because they are not actively Playing? I find this change to make no sense. I don't even care if large guild can level to 30 or whatever. Currently large guilds have a much better pool to pick their active patrons anyway and none of it affects me at ALL. I care about the people in my guild, and for the patrons who have currently worked hard with limited resources to get where we are now. I dont want them to feel that their continuing contributions are lessened because we have friends who do not play anymore. I have not seen any clarification about "unique accounts" being current paid for, or active etc. So I am having to assume they mean Unique in the guild, with no other exemptions. </DIV> <DIV>So we now have 40 unique accounts in our guild, with about 12 active players. Guild Status rewards based on guild level are purchased with <U>Personal Status Points</U> so people who have not done writs, HQ, cannot purchase them regardless of what the rest of us contribute. I will have to work 2 x as hard to continue progressing at the same rate as I would have with the patron system, and this is because I choose to keep inactive friends names on the roster so should they decide to return, they will receive a hearty welcome. This places people in a very bad position of choosing friendship vs game advancement. The current system of being able to remove patrons is in my opinion a very good compromise. I would lengthen the time a patron must be active after contributing to a month. This would help stop exploiting the system, and still allow people to change guilds, take a break from the game, etc.. with damaging their current guild, but without the loop hole of running 8 alts a week through jboots.</DIV> <DIV>I see this proposed system as punishing guilds with a small active player base, and a larger roster of casual players. Yesterday two old friends from EQ1 logged on and I immediately invited them to join. They said they will just be messing around in game when they are not raiding in WoW.. If this proposal goes through I would have had to take pause.</DIV> <DIV>Please reconsider this change before pushing it to Live.</DIV>

Raahl

07-28-2005, 10:16 PM

<P>Things to keep in mind when looking at my above example.</P> <P>The 600 character guild is only getting roughly 4 times more guild status points than the 36 character guild, if all characters participate. </P> <P>The 600 character guild is roughly 16 times the size of the 36 character guild.</P> <p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:18 AM</span>

Birkenstocky

07-28-2005, 10:19 PM

This is my problem .. the game was launched and huge discussions made it very clear that going over 12 patrons if every single one wasn't active would hurt you, just by the simple math of it all. So in my guild we cut our losses at appropriate times .. depatroned those that were no longer active, took the loss of guild status to maintain the most productive balance we could. Then SOE comes along and says hey depatroning will no longer hurt you .. okay fine I took that kick in the head even though we had lost alot of status by trying to keep a 'clean roster'. Now a week later they are telling me that every 'hit' we ever took by trying to play into their guild status system was a waste of our time and efforts and 8 months later all the rules are changing. I mean come on they want to change every class, now they want to change every guild. So we been paying 8 months of subscriber fees so they can invent a new game ..what is that about? Is this EQ3 .. sure seems that way.

Khims

07-28-2005, 10:22 PM

<DIV>I have 100% faith that the devs can come up with something better then removing the cap. Removing the cap is the single most un thought out idea i have ever heard from a player.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>6 person guilds would dominate getting 800 status per writs (could easily grind out a guild level a day with that) While guilds that have 24 get 200 i status add another 12... 100.. so on and so forth.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Writ grinding would be so tedious with so little gain.... a good size guild (discounting the large guilds) would just have to give it up </DIV>

Mor

07-28-2005, 10:35 PM

No, actually, they wouldn't. THey'd just have to get the same % of people doing the same amount of writs as the smaller guild would. <div></div>

Tige

07-28-2005, 10:37 PM

<P>I have to put in my word here though I know many won't like it...</P> <P>I like the idea of a cap. Is it at the right number, I do not know. Is it the best solution? prob not. But with this in place, all the member in our guild can participate. We have about 60 to 70 unique people in our guild. Over 100 including alts.</P> <P>There has been so many times I have to turn down a user that wanted to help the guild that wanted to be a patron. But with the curent system, there is no way I would make over 30 people as patrons. Getting like 100 points per writ made it feel useless to do and gave no feeling of acomplishment.</P> <P>People here have mention if a guild of 500 can get to lev 30 in one day. My word to that is this..One, how many guilds are at that range? From all the servers, how many 500 members guilds are there? Now there are sure lots of 100 user guilds, but again how many are Alts in the guild? Next, what is the big deal if they got to level 30 fast? There is really no benifit of getting at level 30 from what I have seeing. Get there fast and you don't have 60 plat for the Horse or Carpet. Yea cool, I have a fancy title in front of my name. Ok I have some fancy clothes to show off to some people. Is this what many of you are really complaining about? A level 30 guild isn't going to bring people into it, it's the reputaion of that guild and what they do makes them good.</P> <P>I have seen a guild with 11 patrons get from lev 22 to 30 in just over a month. How so? very simple. The patrons did writs just about every day non stop and were gaining levels left and right. Anyone one can do this if your users are active.</P> <P>Some talk about not active people. How many of you manage youe user base? Anyone in our guild that hasn't logged on in 30+ days I boot from the guild. If that user comes back one day, they know they can come back in the guild if real life stuff took over. But odds are that if they aren't on in over 30 days, they went some place else to play. To keep a live guild you need to manage your people. Recruit people if people are becomming inactive. What is the point in having a guild of 30 people when 25 of them are inactive?</P> <P>With over 60, 100 with alts, people in our guild we are consider a casual family type guild. We aren't die hard players. We aren't die hard raiders. We play and help each other and some can only be on for about 2 hours. But all of us are active and I make sure I keep nothing but active people in the guild.</P> <P>The people that are complaining here, I feel you need to manage your guild a little better if you are the leaders of them. Need to keep the players happy in your own ways. Have to get to them and have them feel they want to help the guild. I find many may join a guild for their own benifit and not just for the guild. If the people like the guild, they would want to help. They speak up in the guild and they offer their help with in the guild to others.</P> <P>But if your people are active, you can level the guild just as fast as any others the way it is now. Small guilds can take their 6 and do lots of HQ's and writs. They will get maximum amount of points for the guild. Ran out of HQ's? then all they do is drop a members for the time being, make an alt, get to a certain level and crank out some HQ's. Drop them when done and bring back the main. Or drop out the main, bring in the Alt, then bring in the main and the alt may be counted towards the guild XP now. Not sure how alts are counted for HQ's if they are at all if brought in later.</P> <P>But doing a writ that gives 4,000 status with a 6 person guild will give you about 667 XP points. A guild with 24+ people will give only 167 XP points. So this I can see maybe hurting more of the middle man than smal guilds and large guilds. But again, if all your players are active, you will move at a rate that be happy.</P> <P>But remember, there is no benifit what so ever to get a guild up to level 30 in a week or 2 months. It's just a feeling of acomplishment towards the players that work with the guild.</P> <P>Those who think it isn't fair, why do you care if a guild gets to 30 before you do? What is your rush? You are happy with the small player base in your guild. So why care? If you want to be bigger, you will make that happen one way or another by recruiting. A large guild doesn't have anything to benifit but having more of a social crew, being able to raid easier. Those who choose to be small can't do this now if less than 24 people and rely on other friend guilds. Those who have HUGE guilds may have to worry about having to many who may want to raid and turn away people. So in either way it is a double standard how you look at it and gain no benifit to either side.</P> <P>How does a large guild benifit by hitting 30 before others? How does a small guild benifit hitting 30 before others? They don't excpet for bragging and personal gain among them selfs as an acomplishment.</P> <P> </P>

ThramFalc

07-28-2005, 10:39 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Khimson wrote:<div>I have 100% faith that the devs can come up with something better then removing the cap. Removing the cap is the single most un thought out idea i have ever heard from a player.</div> <div> </div> <div>6 person guilds would dominate getting 800 status per writs (could easily grind out a guild level a day with that) While guilds that have 24 get 200 i status add another 12... 100.. so on and so forth.</div> <div>Writ grinding would be so tedious with so little gain.... a good size guild (discounting the large guilds) would just have to give it up </div><hr></blockquote>They don't have to keep the min of 6... 12 or 18 would work too. And remember its all % based. As long as the same % are contributing there is no difference. If a large guild is filled with slackers then why should they outlevel a small guild of commited members? A guild of 12 <i>might </i>be able to organize themselves better and thus level faster, but they won't be able to raid nor earn status from raid encounters which adds up pretty fast. There are plenty of incentives in game for large guilds. This system should be the 1 thing that doesnt favor guilds of any size.</span><div></div>

ThramFalc

07-28-2005, 10:41 PM

I get a kick out of the posts from people in guilds with over 50 unique accounts saying the system is fair. Of course you think that... it favors your guild and allows you to be lazy and still outpace everyone else. Lets try to be at least a little objective here. <div></div>

Tige

07-28-2005, 10:57 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThramFalcox wrote:<BR>I get a kick out of the posts from people in guilds with over 50 unique accounts saying the system is fair. Of course you think that... it favors your guild and allows you to be lazy and still outpace everyone else. Lets try to be at least a little objective here.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>How you figure being lazy? If everyone is playing and working, how would you call that lazy?</P> <P>I still wil lsay this, why does it bother people if a guild is leveling faster than them? If a guild has 100 people, 200 people or more, then props to the leaders going out and getting the people. Larger guilds tend to have a fast turn over rate too depending how they manage the players.</P> <P>Smallers guilds can group easier if they are all on at the same time and get more points for the HQ's and writs. I have seen smaller guilds level faster than bigger guilds and it provided them no benifit what so ever than bragging rights.</P> <P>If no one in a large guild isn't doing HQ's or Writs, how are they out pacing everyone else? Gota have people to do the stuff first. Numbers don't mean crap if no one is doing them.</P> <P> </P>

Meniphisto

07-28-2005, 10:59 PM

<DIV>After reading all of the posts here, I feel that I am missing some information. First off, why is getting your guild up to level 30 so important? Secondly, what does it matter if a larger guild beats your smaller guild to level 30?<BR><BR>I am requesting this information because I just don't understand it. I am in a medium/large guild who is currently level 25 due to a lot of hard work, and I really wish to help contribute to the guild instead of competing against those who can be out doing writs all the time, so I really don't see the problem with this change. In fact, I love it. But because of this fact, my opinion is a tad bit bias. So please, could someone answer those questions?</DIV>

Tige

07-28-2005, 11:04 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meniphisto wrote:<BR> <DIV>After reading all of the posts here, I feel that I am missing some information. First off, why is getting your guild up to level 30 so important? Secondly, what does it matter if a larger guild beats your smaller guild to level 30?<BR><BR>I am requesting this information because I just don't understand it. I am in a medium/large guild who is currently level 25 due to a lot of hard work, and I really wish to help contribute to the guild instead of competing against those who can be out doing writs all the time, so I really don't see the problem with this change. In fact, I love it. But because of this fact, my opinion is a tad bit bias. So please, could someone answer those questions?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That is my point also. There is no benifit to being to level 30.</P> <P>For all that I know, getting a guild to level 30 grants you this....</P> <P>A chance to buy a 60 Plat Magic Carpet or Horse that moves at a 48% speed increase. How many people on your server or in your guild have 60+ Plat on them??</P> <P>Buying the title Dame or Sir to be put in front of your name for so much plat.</P> <P>Being able to buy some fancy clother to give you that COOL factor among the people.</P> <P>Other than those three, there is no benifit what so ever to get a guild to level 30 other than to say...<FONT size=5>WE DID IT!!</FONT></P> <P>Unless there is something else I missed or don't know, I see no advantage. The guild on our server that hit level 30 first had about 35 members. They were out doing writs every single day non stop. I figure once they hit 30 people may flock to join them. I have only seen 2 people join them in the last 2 weeks since they hit level 30, maybe afew more. In fact, the people I saw doing writs all the time are standing around bored now with nothing to do most of the time till most of their players come on to raid. Even then, they need to pick up other players from other guilds to fill a full raid.</P> <P>So I feel there is no point in getting there right away.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Tigerj on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:10 PM</span>

z2xm

07-28-2005, 11:08 PM

<P>Meniphisto- there are several reasons to want to progress as quickly as possible. For instance every 5 levels or so new clothing options are opened up as well as discounts on housing and horses. Also you can purchase tradeskill equipment for your room that are capable of making increasingly better equipment until finally at level 25 or 30 (sorry forgot) you can purchase one equal to the equipment found in the tradeskill zones. Another example, I recently purchased the level 25 price reduced horse. It cost 5p 50g instead of 9p+ so there are many reasons such as these. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>As far as this new system goes it is pretty rediculous. They came out with a system that was unfriendly to pretty much everyone, then they changed their broken system but went to far, now they are trying some quick fix again. I would think that all of these posts mean nothing since there have probably been at least a dozen decent ideas posted in various threads and probably 3 or 4 that are much better then any system that has been, is or will be in the near future implimented. It is kind of sad really. </P>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 11:09 PM

To Meniphisto "FIrst off" - No real reason you get some advantages but nothing incredable <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> "Secondly" - None at all <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And lastly I like the new system for the same reson as you. Everyone can contribute to the Guilds success <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> BUt this is the main arguement of many who are against it as it will require everyone to help advance the Guild now. Most don't like this for various reasons.

Mor

07-28-2005, 11:09 PM

<span><span><blockquote><hr>Tigerj wrote:<p> But with this in place, all the member in our guild can participate. We have about 60 to 70 unique people in our guild. Over 100 including alts. </p> <p><font color="#ccccff"> Actually, even without a cap, all members of a guild can contribute if the patron system is removed. The cap irrelevant. </font></p> <p><font color="#ccccff"> </font></p> <p>There has been so many times I have to turn down a user that wanted to help the guild that wanted to be a patron. But with the curent system, there is no way I would make over 30 people as patrons. Getting like 100 points per writ made it feel useless to do and gave no feeling of acomplishment. </p> <p> <font color="#ccccff">Well, isn't helping out your guild the accomplisment in and of itself? If your members are happy and active, they should want to contribute their share. Maybe you should manage your "user base"?</font></p> <p>People here have mention if a guild of 500 can get to lev 30 in one day. My word to that is this..One, how many guilds are at that range? </p> <p><font color="#ccccff">None, it is theoretical. </font> </p> <p>What is the point in having a guild of 30 people when 25 of them are inactive? </p> <p><font color="#ccccff">As a theoretical argument (which you reject as unrealistic), this is almost as bad. </font> </p> The people that are complaining here, I feel you need to manage your guild a little better if you are the leaders of them. Need to keep the players happy in your own ways. Have to get to them and have them feel they want to help the guild. I find many may join a guild for their own benifit and not just for the guild. If the people like the guild, they would want to help. They speak up in the guild and they offer their help with in the guild to others. <font color="#ccccff">Aside from the ponitificating, is there a relevant point being made here?</font> <p>But if your people are active, you can level the guild just as fast as any others the way it is now. </p> <p><font color="#ccccff">And if the cap were thrown out, yours could too. </font></p> <p>Small guilds can take their 6 and do lots of HQ's and writs. They will get maximum amount of points for the guild. Ran out of HQ's? then all they do is drop a members for the time being, make an alt, get to a certain level and crank out some HQ's. Drop them when done and bring back the main. Or drop out the main, bring in the Alt, then bring in the main and the alt may be counted towards the guild XP now. Not sure how alts are counted for HQ's if they are at all if brought in later. </p> <p><font color="#ccccff">This is like my suggesting to you that you drop out every member over 24 and rotate them back in when they want to do writs. Is there a reason you don't want to do that? </font></p> <p>But doing a writ that gives 4,000 status with a 6 person guild will give you about 667 XP points. A guild with 24+ people will give only 167 XP points. So this I can see maybe hurting more of the middle man than smal guilds and large guilds. But again, if all your players are active, you will move at a rate that be happy. </p> <p><font color="#ccccff">And if you're in a large guild, you can progress every bit as fast as a small guild if you have the same percentage of active people.</font> </p> <p>Those who think it isn't fair, why do you care if a guild gets to 30 before you do?<font color="#ccccff"> </font></p> <p><font color="#ccccff">Why do you? Why do you feel it's fair to give large guilds a substancial advantage over small guilds? </font></p> <p> </p></blockquote></span> </span><div></div>

Meniphisto

07-28-2005, 11:17 PM

<P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> z2xm wrote:<BR> <P>Meniphisto- there are several reasons to want to progress as quickly as possible. For instance every 5 levels or so new clothing options are opened up as well as discounts on housing and horses. Also you can purchase tradeskill equipment for your room that are capable of making increasingly better equipment until finally at level 25 or 30 (sorry forgot) you can purchase one equal to the equipment found in the tradeskill zones. Another example, I recently purchased the level 25 price reduced horse. It cost 5p 50g instead of 9p+ so there are many reasons such as these. <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I guess I still dont understand, with just these reasons. With the horses, you get all of the discounts at level 25. No more after that. It really isn't that hard to get to level 25 if that is your goal. And tradeskill equipment in your room? What really is the point of it? You seperate yourself from the traidskill community that lives in those holes (I mean, who does giggle to themselves when someone smacks themselves with a saw? ^_^). But wait, you still have to go down in there to buy your fuel, so your not saving yourself anything.<BR><BR>Unless you wish to use the plague as a reason for tradeskilling in your room. Hehe, you couldn't go 5 feet in there without getting sick, but I think that made it more fun :smileytongue:</P>

Tige

07-28-2005, 11:26 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morie wrote:<BR><SPAN><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ccccff>Actually, even without a cap, all members of a guild can contribute if the patron system is removed. The cap irrelevant.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ccccff><FONT color=#ffff00>But as it stands now, this is what we have to work with untill something better comes along to make it more fair for all people.<BR></FONT></FONT></P> <P><BR><FONT color=#ccccff>Well, isn't helping out your guild the accomplisment in and of itself? If your members are happy and active, they should want to contribute their share. Maybe you should manage your "user base"?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>People in my guild are happy and help out for what they can do. But many want to help level the guild. They want to feel important to them selfs that they see that bar moved cause they finish an HQ. It's not the same to them helping one complete an HQ for a patron than if they were a parton also. They want to give the guild XP, and it saddens me when I have to many and have to turn them down. I manage my user base ever day to the best of my ability.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ccccff>None, it is theoretical. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So then why ever bring it up when it isn't even a fact? People are basing judment on Therory before fact of actual use.</FONT><BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ccccff>And if you're in a large guild, you can progress every bit as fast as a small guild if you have the same percentage of active people.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>That is correct, so what is the problem here? Active users = Guild level</FONT><BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ccccff>Why do you? Why do you feel it's fair to give large guilds a substancial advantage over small guilds?<BR></FONT><FONT color=#ccccff><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>I can care less to be honest. I just find it funny when people argue over something as to get a guild up to level 30 when there is nothing at level 30 but some bragging rights. Smaller guild choose to be small. Big guilds choose to be big. Where do I even say this gives a big guild an advantage? If anything I feel a guild of 6 has a better advantage.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 11:33 PM

So this boils down to one or 2 options. Both use the new system for figuring out the % of points you get per writ. I think the new system is alot clearer then the old one and better.. 1 use the new system but. Allow Guild leaders to determine who can contribute ? So 6 marked for patron so 6 is the divider and only those provide the status points I think this system would be abused like the current one is.... 2 find some method to mark a person as inactive ???? THat is really what we are talking about is it not ? How do we not get penalized for inactive players ? Talking Guild and that person we all have Real LIves to tend to as well Automatic ... you don't log on for a week you are inactive till you log in again Date system mark someone inactive from date to date can't be changed and must run the course ? Would something like this make everyone happy (well close to everyone ? ) Basically the system has to be simple folks and fair. ? <div></div>

Mor

07-28-2005, 11:37 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Tigerj wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Morie wrote:<span><span> <blockquote> <p><font color="#ccccff">Actually, even without a cap, all members of a guild can contribute if the patron system is removed. The cap irrelevant.</font></p> <p><font color="#ccccff"><font color="#ffff00">But as it stands now, this is what we have to work with untill something better comes along to make it more fair for all people.</font></font></p> <p><font color="#ccffcc">No. As it stands now we still have patrons. Making it fair for all people would mean removing the cap.</font><font color="#ccffcc"> </font> </p> <p><font color="#ccccff"> </font></p> <font color="#ccccff">None, it is theoretical. </font> <p><font color="#ffff00">So then why ever bring it up when it isn't even a fact? People are basing judment on Therory before fact of actual use. </font></p> <p><font color="#ccff99">I didn't. I just found rejecting someone's argument as unrealistic and following it up with an equally unrealistic hypothetical as humorous if hypocritical. </font></p> <p><font color="#ccccff"> And if you're in a large guild, you can progress every bit as fast as a small guild if you have the same percentage of active people.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">That is correct, so what is the problem here? Active users = Guild level </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00"><font color="#ccff99">Agreed. However, the % of active users can be much, much smaller for a large guild. That is the problem with the cap.</font><font color="#ccff99"> </font> </font></p> <p><font color="#ccccff">Why do you? Why do you feel it's fair to give large guilds a substancial advantage over small guilds?</font><font color="#ccccff"></font><font color="#ffff00"> If anything I feel a guild of 6 has a better advantage. </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00"><font color="#ccff99">With the cap in place, having one person inactive in a 10 person guild creates a 10% penalty. That's just one person. In a 100 person guild, having 75 inactive members has 0 penalty. Explain to me how that is an advantage?</font> </font></p> </blockquote> <div></div> <hr> </span></span></blockquote> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Gorkk00

07-28-2005, 11:41 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Pathin Merrithay wrote:<div></div> <div>From EQ2Players.com</div> <div> </div> <div>There are currently 44 guilds with more then 200 players. (That's a pretty signifigant number in my opinion. 2 Large scale guilds per server more or less) Of those guilds, -none- of the top 20 in population have yet gotten to Guild Level 30. A few are close yes, but most are, in fact, still quite a distance off (Pre-25 for my purposes) If you don't think this is going to impact these high populations guilds in a dramatic way, please offer up something I'm missing.</div><hr></blockquote>They likely don't have more than 200 players (physical people behind their screens), but 200 characters, which is most likely like 100 accounts. Guild of 24 accounts can have up to 144 characters in it. Now back to several things here. Jan Itor has a great idea imho (i thought about the same before reading it): having the number counting for calculation grow slowly with the number of accounts. Why? Because with the same proportion of active players, a larger guild should have a better reputation than a smaller guild. Still a large guild with few active people should not level faster than a small active guild. I've developed that in other threads. Still i read about inactive players (people who have gone for other things in RL, or just stopped playing for a while). I understand that i could be harsh to remove them from gulid, and having some kind of detection of whether an account is active or not would help. Something like that: if no character of an account has been played in the past 15 or 30 days (limit to determine), this account won't count for the number of current accounts in guild (though, if somebody has 2 char on his account in a guild, stopped playing them, and has a 3rd char on the same account but unguilded or in another guild that he plays, he should still count as active account in the first guild). In addition, accounts that are suspended should immediately be counted off the number of accounts in guild. Such a feature combined with the return ratio of SP increase decreasing with the increase of accounts number (eg. Jan Itor's idea) should fix any issue people have with these changes, and help having a better sense for guilds (patron system had really no sense, and it's very good that it's gone). PS: I really don't like the idea of only the 12 best contributors counting for guild levels with everybody contributing. The author of the idea said that for example if you're tired of playing a char which is in the top 12, you'll get an alt and continue contributing to guild level... But you'll need to get to as much status than your previous char had contributed to help the guild level, that is plainly wrong imho, specialy when you consider the amount contributed by the top status contributer (see on eq2player).</span><div></div>

Prrasha

07-28-2005, 11:43 PM

I think some of the comments here about small/family guilds may be missing our point... We don't see it as a 'race'. I don't really care if UberRaidGuild4 makes it to level 30 tomorrow. Even if they were created yesterday. Our guild started last November. We made level 11 last week. We obviously ain't racing anyone. But, we're playing a game to have fun. Advancement of the guild is part of that fun, just as advancement of our individual characters is part of that fun. Again, we have 8 active accounts and 20 or so inactive/barely-active ones. If I want to get together with the rest of our active members to work up to 15 or 20 or 25 for the guild rewards, I'm taking a 67% XP hit (8 active accounts, but divide by the cap of 24 for all the inactive ones). With the patron system, we're only taking a 33% hit (due to the 12-patron-minimum divisor.) Suddenly, I have to work twice as hard when nothing in my guild changed... So, the choices are, as mentioned before (1) quit leveling our guild, (2) level at half of our current speed, which already ain't quick, or (3) deguild the other 20 accounts. Since a "family" guild of 24 active people and 50 inactives isn't penalized, and a "family" guild of 2 actives with 4 inactives doesn't face these lousy choices, why are we forced into this? These 20 accounts aren't lazy people. They aren't freeloaders. They're our friends. They just happen to be off playing EQ1 or WoW, or raising their newborn kids, or taking horrendous loads of college courses. If my RL-friends decided to move to Arkansas, I wouldn't disown them. I wouldn't lock my doors if they came back to visit. Why do I have to do this to my EQ2-friends if I want my guild to gain a level every month or so? I don't think removing the cap at either end is the solution... it just makes it worse by extending our problem to include the "family" guild of 6 with 4 inactives and the "family" guild of 75 with 50 inactives. The patron system was abusable. This system is more abusable. What are we gaining here? <div></div>

Korizan

07-28-2005, 11:46 PM

After thinking about it for a bit that would work Use the new system BUT add the following IF you don't log on for a week you are considered inactive and no longer count in the formula. You can log on for 2 hours per week and maintain the inactive status. You can NOT earn point s for the guild while inactive. A counter will show you your time left on inactive status THis would allow some to log off for a bit and not hurt the guild. you could log in and say hi or reup your selling for the day and not disrupt anything. After you are online for 2 hours you are active again and can contribute. Would this solve the issues ?

Furi

07-28-2005, 11:46 PM

<P>I REALLY don't like this change. I think it's a slap in the face to small and/or casual guilds. As one of the leaders of a small, casual, family style guild this is going to hurt us, ALOT. Right how we only have 8 people tagged as patrons as they the only people who regularily contribute anyway, and we are taking a hit there because we still have to divide by 12. Fine, I understand the reasoning behind the patron system and all that, so I'm not complaining about that. But we probably have 20 accounts in the guild right now. We have inactive members for reasons varying from school, to the military to getting married and buying a house. These are people I'm friends with, some of which I have traveled across half the country to meet with in person. And now SOE wants me to either boot them out of the guild while they are gone, or I can just flush that much more xp down the toliet per writ/HQ done if I don't boot them. I don't like either option, and I pray that I never have to make the choice on which I am going to do.</P> <P>Yes, getting to 30 should be hard...the game has been out almost a year and we are still in the 1xs. But it is a goal. It's a goal that I bet most or all guilds out there have, not matter what their size and makeup. Implimenting this will make it many times harder for those smaller, casual type of guilds to actually achieve that goal, and that's bad, because that's the majority of the playerbase.</P> <P>Seems like everyone who is arguing for the change is talking about scenarios that always involve a small number of power-gamers being able to level up a guild at the same rate as a larger one. Well yeah, they can...but again...THAT IS NOT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERBASE! Those powergamer individuals are generally in larger raid guilds that are likely already within striking distance of 30 if they aren't there already. All this change will do as I see it is make it infinately easier for all of the large guilds that aren't to 30 yet to finish the charge, and leave all the little family guilds having to choose to either merge, or to never actually achieve one of their goals.</P> <P>Don't penalize the smaller guilds for having inactive people SOE!</P>

SavinDwa

07-29-2005, 12:00 AM

<P>I've read about 50% of the posts in this thread. If we ignore the few that seem to be posted by people who would realy really gain from the change the net consensus seems to be a "thunbs down" on the change.</P> <P>I've spent a few hours thinking about this change and it seems to have some terrible flaws in the system:</P> <P>1) The maximum limit of 24 active accounts means that guilds over about 100 accounts proabably can stop worrying about the structure of the system and pump out the status points. Even if only 25% of their members are active who cares -- it will only divide by 24 anyway. However, guilds with 10-20 active accounts are going to need to watch who is playing and who is not, just like they do today. However, now instead of just depatronizing them they have to remove them from the guilkd altogether. So lets watch this in action -- someone gets sick and goes into hospital. 4 weeks later they come and a few days later they think "lets get back on line and see my freinds" to their shop they have been kicked out of the guild. They don't know why and are hurt.</P> <P>Let me put this another way ... Since SOE thinks that inactive players should impact a guilds status accumulation and that the only solution is kick the player out of the guild -- lets make it a feature. ANy account that is dormant for more than 3 weeks is automatically deguiled from all guilds. See .. now its a feature. Anyone who thinks that is a stupid feature should not be to happy about the new guild system.</P> <P>2) Basing the guild status on accounts rathe than characters is an interesting idea. Lets ignore the potential for exploits for a moment. EQ2 is a role playing game, so some people may want to keep secret that they have two characters. In large guild its very possible that the leaders have no idea how many "accounts" they have in their guild. This means they may kick someone out because they have not played in 3 weeks ... and they just kicked a character out of a person that has another character in the guild -- so no change to the number. In my opinion, if the guild is going to bebased on number of accounts then it should also be possible for a guild leader to know which characters are on the same account. If we think this is a bad idea .. then so is this change. [Note, from my guilds perspective I would to change from patron characters to patron accounts -- but that is beecause we all know each others alts anyway.]</P> <P>QUESTION!!!!</P> <P>Why was this change made? What problem does it fix?</P> <P>let me take a stab at the premise behind this:</P> <P>"The major reason for some characters playing more than others is its the same people playing different alts"</P> <P>If this were the only reason the change might make sense. But its not the only reason.</P> <P>In my guild we have people that maybe log on once a week, or go play WoW of CoH for 3 weeks and come back. SOE should love these people, they pay money and don't use the system!! The patron system allowed the guild to deal with this. Now the guild can still deal with it but it needs to kick the people out .</P> <P>The real problem is that the new system means that small guilds (large ones will love the change anyway) need to kick any person that does not play often or does not to writs and heritage things out of the guild. Before they were just not made a patron, now they are out of the guild. Guilds will not want casual gamers, unless they are so large that they have at least 24 active accounts doing writs anyway.</P> <P>The one "nice" feature of the change is that it would allow people that really turn out writs to "patron" all of their accounts and have it only count as 1. But the negatives that come along with the new system are huge.</P> <P> </P> <P>My suggestion would be to leave the system the way it is now on live. A nice feature to add would be:</P> <P>If a player has more than one character on the same account with patron status it only counts this as 1 for the purposes of the patron count.</P> <P>From the point of view of who can exploit the system to drive to level 30 the fastest .. who cares. </P> <P> </P> <P>Now let me get selfish and look at this change from my own guilds point of view. We are quite small in EQ2 we probably have 14-16 accounts really active and doing writs and stuff. At the moment we only have one character as a patron per person. We have another 15-20 accounts that either don't do writs, or play 3 hours a week, or once every two weeks etc. We have another 15-20 accounts of people who might come back but are elsewhere (in Iraq, work related, in another game, etc). The current system allows us to work with very easily. The new proposed system would have us deguild everyone bu the 14-16 active accounts. We would therefore change to a new chat channel and stop using guild chat. We would lose all the info about how people are doing for the ones expelled, the ones expelled would lose all access to information about others.</P> <P>I guess if this goes live we will "exploit" the system to get around this. We form two guilds, one where all the characters are and one where a very few are who are leveling the guild like mad. Once we get in to level 30 we kill the other guild and invite everyone back. Hmmm .. perhaps SOE can just set our guild level to 30 now and avoid us having to act stupidly to get around the game.</P> <P>So lets see... only 6 accounts active in the guild at once. I bet we could find a way playing with alts etc to generate 100k writs a week. We each have at least 3-4 alt characters at level 20 or higher. So its easy to see 6 characters doing 2 heritage and 10 writs in a week. At 100k guild status a week we will get to 30 pretty fast and once we are there to hell with writs.</P> <P>Conclusion ... bad idea.</P>

Raahl

07-29-2005, 12:02 AM

Why does one guild care what level another guild is or how fast it levels? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:04 PM</span>

Furi

07-29-2005, 01:06 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> Why does one guild care what level another guild is or how fast it levels? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Raahl on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:04 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Do you care how fast you level compared to someone else?</P> <P>How about we take your vitality away, but let everyone else still have it? Would you be against that?</P> <P>For me, and I think alot of the people that are against this change, it's not about how fast this guild or that guild levels, it's the effort put into those levels. Large guilds will have a very easy time leveling under this system, smaller, family-type guilds will have a harder time leveling. Putting the change in as currently designed essentially makes guild level no longer a function of effort, but a function of numbers. That is the problem as I see it.</P>

Pathin Merrithay

07-29-2005, 01:17 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> Why does one guild care what level another guild is or how fast it levels? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Raahl on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:04 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Do you care how fast you level compared to someone else?</P> <P>How about we take your vitality away, but let everyone else still have it? Would you be against that?</P> <P>For me, and I think alot of the people that are against this change, it's not about how fast this guild or that guild levels, it's the effort put into those levels. Large guilds will have a very easy time leveling under this system, smaller, family-type guilds will have a harder time leveling. Putting the change in as currently designed essentially makes guild level no longer a function of effort, but a function of numbers. That is the problem as I see it.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well said. </P> <P>I've seen a few posts asking what the advantages are for levelling up a guild... And when examples were given, they dismissed them out of hand. Well, I'd ask you then, why level up at all? What does it matter of you get to levelk 50, or even 40 except for 'bragging rights?' as it was so delicately put? I mean, you can fight monsters just as easy at level 10 as you do at level 50, they're just different ones. *sarcasm off*</P> <P>Levelling to 30 is a matter of no small amount of prestige. There are tangible benefits because my character is -unique- on a server with thousands of other players. I can purchase items so I can Tradeskill in my room if I'd like to. I can get horses at discounted rates. Add onto that, the potential benefits that may be coming with an expansion. Argue for or against this change if you'd like... But lets drop the idea that levelling up a guild doesn't give benefits.</P>

Meniphisto

07-29-2005, 01:28 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SavinDwarf wrote:<BR> <P>I've read about 50% of the posts in this thread. If we ignore the few that seem to be posted by people who would realy really gain from the change the net consensus seems to be a "thunbs down" on the change.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ok, I am one of those people who are for this because yes, I would gain something from this change. I feel very offended by you saying that my posts on this subject should be ignored. My voice counts just as much as yours does, and just because I fail to see why guild levels are soooo important (there has yet to be any post on why a larger guild leveling faster then a smaller one is bad) does not mean that I get to be ignored.<BR><BR>However, you are right on one aspect. According to this forum, the majority are against this change. The fact of the matter is though, the forum majority unfortunitly does not matter to SoE. The proof for this can easily be found in the nerfing of mana regen items and the mystic "silent nerf" just to name a couple.<BR><BR>Players from smaller guilds continuously are complaining that in order to continue to grow, they will need to remove in active people. Why is that? Why can't you just invite more people to your guild, so that way you'll have more people contributing? If your guild level is so important, why not make it a requirement for people in/wanting to join your guild to do writs or heritages?<BR><BR>Unfortunitly, whenever SoE implements a huge change in this game (remember please that this is just a game), not everyone will like it. I have yet to see one big change (besides adding imbued items) that has not created a huge amount of complaints on this forum. Your right though, for some of you, this just isn't fair. But let me tell you something, there is a lot of us out here who thing that the way the guilds are that is very unfair.<BR><BR>You want to talk about a majority of players? As of right now, only 12 players in a guild are normally patroned. That means on 12 people out of how knows how many can do anything for the guild. To all those other people who can't do anything for the guild, is this fair? Is it fair that they have to sit around while others complete writs for guild xp? No. Is it fair that larger guilds with more players can now level up faster then smaller guilds? I don't know. Maybe once someone tells me why a guild with 100 people leveling faster then a guild with only 12 is unfair, then I'll be able to answer that.</DIV>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 01:31 AM

This idea is, for lack of a better term, horrible. SOE, it almost seems like you don't stop, think, and consider before making changes. This is very unsettling for the players I have talked to so far on this. First, you remove status loss when someone leaves, but don't consider the consequences, then you put a band-aid one week timer on patrons to help fix the problem. This idea benefited all guilds, but larger guilds to a larger extent. I think most of us could live with that for the most part. Now, instead of building on that, you come up with an idea that not only benefits larger guilds, but <font color="#ff0033">really</font><font color="#ff0033"> </font><font color="#ff0033">hurts the smaller guilds. <font color="#ffffff">While I <b>LOVE</b> the idea that alts do not count toward the cap, forcing each account to count toward the cap is very bad indeed. </font> </font><font color="#ff0033"><font color="#ffffff">Do guilds lose status in the new system when someone leaves? That was not clear in the update notes. If they do, this is causes me even further confusion, and generates a lack of confidence, on where SOE is trying to go with the guild system. </font></font><font color="#ff0033"> <font color="#ffffff">I want to have casual players in my guild. I want to have folks in my guild go away for a while and then come back, and still be in the guild. As it stands with this new idea, allowing these things will severely hurt the contributions of the rest of the members. With this new system, when someone in a small guild is not contributing, they are hurting the guild's advancement just by being there. This is just plain silly. A guild of 50+ members will not be hurt by this, any guild with 24 active contributors will be all set. <b>As far as giving large guilds such a huge advantage, there are solutions besides having a fixed cap or no cap. How about having the divisor be one for each 2 accounts, with a minimum of 12? So, a guild of 48 would have a cap of 24, but a guild of 200 would have a cap of 100. This also helps solve the problems outlined above. for each serious status contributor, there can be one member who is not so serious.</b> </font></font><div></div>

Crotal

07-29-2005, 01:34 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meniphisto wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR><BR>Players from smaller guilds continuously are complaining that in order to continue to grow, they will need to remove in active people. Why is that? Why can't you just invite more people to your guild, so that way you'll have more people contributing? <BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Because some people are selective about who they actually want to be guilded with. Those who value guild reputation do not have open door policies, or active recruitment. Its rather nice not having a lot of idiotic banter in guild chat. Its very nice not to have to deal with in guild drama, or guildmates acting like [Removed for Content] and [Removed for Content] other players off.</DIV>

Tige

07-29-2005, 01:34 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pathin Merrithay wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> Why does one guild care what level another guild is or how fast it levels? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Raahl on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:04 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Do you care how fast you level compared to someone else?</P> <P>How about we take your vitality away, but let everyone else still have it? Would you be against that?</P> <P>For me, and I think alot of the people that are against this change, it's not about how fast this guild or that guild levels, it's the effort put into those levels. Large guilds will have a very easy time leveling under this system, smaller, family-type guilds will have a harder time leveling. Putting the change in as currently designed essentially makes guild level no longer a function of effort, but a function of numbers. That is the problem as I see it.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well said. </P> <P>I've seen a few posts asking what the advantages are for levelling up a guild... And when examples were given, they dismissed them out of hand. Well, I'd ask you then, why level up at all? What does it matter of you get to levelk 50, or even 40 except for 'bragging rights?' as it was so delicately put? I mean, you can fight monsters just as easy at level 10 as you do at level 50, they're just different ones. *sarcasm off*</P> <P>Levelling to 30 is a matter of no small amount of prestige. There are tangible benefits because my character is -unique- on a server with thousands of other players. I can purchase items so I can Tradeskill in my room if I'd like to. I can get horses at discounted rates. Add onto that, the potential benefits that may be coming with an expansion. Argue for or against this change if you'd like... But lets drop the idea that levelling up a guild doesn't give benefits.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>At level 30 it doesn't.. level 25 is the stop line of any benefit. Anything pass level 25 there is nothing to gain for at this time. Unless you want to spend on a 60 plat Horse or Carpet that goes 8% faster over the 5 plat guild level 25 Horse.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is a difference leveling up your charcter than the guild. At level 10, you can't raid and get a group of 24 people together and kill something big. Even today look at the level 50 people, they will say there is nothing to do, they are bored.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you level your guy, you gain something at each level, Spells, Abilities. When a guild levels, it doesn't gain anything except every 5 levels, which is nothing compare to your guy leveling. Every guild gets the same thing. There is only 1 guild, but there are many classes. Even the raids every 5 levels from the guilds leveling are pointless and do nothing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why go raid and get all fable gear? For many it is an Ego trip for them to show off to people and say..Look what I have and you don't!! Then those same people cry and say the mobs are easy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So it is pointless to get your guild at level 30 cause there is nothing there to gain and does nothing for you or for the guild. Level 25 is the cut off and you can get a horse at 4 plat cheaper and get a full trade skill tables for your house.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Leveling up your guild to 30 doesn't give any benefit. Level your guild up to 25 does. The point here was getting to level 30, not 25.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But even still, it doesn't do anything for the guild. It just gives the benefit of the players. What does the guild gain at being level 30? Does a level 30 guild make it better than a level 20 guild? A level 20 guild can still do the same things a level 30 guild can if all the players are lev 50. They want a 9 plat horse? If they want it bad enough they wil lsave for it instead of waiting for the guild to get to level 25. 4 Plat isn't a big deal to many and many know how to make it fast when high. Keg in the house? Only those that benefit are those who trade skill and have many alts that do many things. Still can't get it if you done no HQ's or Writs, need 500,000 personal status points to even buy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If it were something like, Get the guild to level 30 to grant access to a new zone, then it benefit the guild as they can explore it first before others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can be not in a guild and pretty much do everything a person in a level 30 guild can.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raid - No problem, always pick ups here and there</DIV> <DIV>Trade Skill - Done it since level one in the Trade Skil area. Nothing new there.</DIV> <DIV>Title - So I don't have a name Sir in front of my name that cost like 10 plat. I can always get that Destroyer title.</DIV> <DIV>Horse - My guy has SoW, woul dnever need it as I can run faster with SoW + Jboot + Wolf Totem (54%) and at a MUCH cheaper cost</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Tigerj on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:52 PM</span>

Mor

07-29-2005, 01:36 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Meniphisto wrote:<div>You want to talk about a majority of players? As of right now, only 12 players in a guild are normally patroned. That means on 12 people out of how knows how many can do anything for the guild.</div><hr></blockquote> As of right now, any guild leader that isn't rotating patrons should have their head examined. There is simply no reason anyone who wants to contribute under the current system cannot. </span><div></div>

Tige

07-29-2005, 01:39 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morie wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meniphisto wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>You want to talk about a majority of players? As of right now, only 12 players in a guild are normally patroned. That means on 12 people out of how knows how many can do anything for the guild.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As of right now, any guild leader that isn't rotating patrons should have their head examined. There is simply no reason anyone who wants to contribute under the current system cannot.<BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Correct..with the curent system, it's what I do..As soon one becomes a week old, off patron status they become so I can keep it down to 12 as much as I can.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But with so many that are doing HQ's at times, you just can't tell a player.."Hey, don't complete that HQ now or it will hurt the guild". I won't tell a person how to play during their time. So I just make them a patron and eat a little XP cause now I have 20 Patrons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Tigerj on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:40 PM</span>

Meniphisto

07-29-2005, 01:40 AM

<DIV>You're absolutly right about that. Leveling up your guild does have benifits, but that hasn't answered the question that we are asking. <STRONG>Why is it unfair if a larger guild can level up faster then a smaller guild?</STRONG><BR><BR>The xp comparison actually works against your stance on this though. Tell me, what takes longer? If you only solo or do small groups with the same people to get to level 50, or if you are always with a full group with a wide verity of people (same level) to reach level 50? The full group should level faster, unless the soloer spends a lot more time into it.<BR><BR>Now, are you saying that your character no longer becomes "unique" if everyone around you can buy a horse for the same amount, or that they can tradeskill in their own house? No! Your character is unique because you play them, you put a personality into them that no one else can. You cast your abilities and equip them different. Being able to get "perks" does not make you "unique".<BR><BR>You ask why I leveled up to 50? I did it because my friends were always above me in levels, and I wanted to catch up to them to group with them. I also wanted to raid. Don't you think guilds are like this? You see that your rival or alliance guild is now one level ahead of you. Won't you want to push up competition to become higher then them? I know that I do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now there isn't any special "guild level 30" raid mob, nor is there any new abilities you get from going from guild lvl 25 to 30. You aren't allowed any new weapons or armour or jewelery. So please, explain to me why my guild who has 50+ players in it can't reach level 30 before your guild who only has 12?</DIV>

Dejah

07-29-2005, 01:45 AM

<DIV>Let's say the average guild has 1/3rd (made up for example) of it's members as semi-active--that is players who don't play enough to do writs or simply choose to spend their time on other activities. Here are some numbers with how this would work out using the system that is currently on test: </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>note: these numbers assume that even if the guild had over 12 active players, they never went over 12 patrons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>* Status from all active players earning 1000 status.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Status = (# active) * 1000 / (Divisor)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>#oM = # of Members</DIV> <DIV>#oA = # of Active Players</DIV> <DIV>OldDiv = Old Divisor (under old system)</DIV> <DIV>NewDiv = New Divisor (under system currently on test)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">#oM | #oA | OldDiv | NewDiv | Old Status * | New Status | Results</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">----+-----+--------+--------+--------------+------------+----</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">3 | 2 | 12 | 6 | 166 | 333 | 100% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">6 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 333 | 666 | 100% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">9 | 6 | 12 | 9 | 500 | 666 | 33% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">12 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 666 | 666 | 0% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>15 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 833 | 666 | 20% worse </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>18 | 12 | 12 | 18 | 1000 | 666 | 33% worse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>21 | 14 | 12 | 21 | 1000 | 666 | 33% worse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>24 | 16 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 666 | 33% worse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>27 | 18 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 750 | 25% worse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>30 | 20 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 833 | 16% worse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>33 | 22 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 916 | 8% worse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">36 | 24 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1000 | 0%, no change</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">39 | 26 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1083 | 8% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">42 | 28 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1166 | 16% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">45 | 30 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1250 | 25% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">48 | 32 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1333 | 33% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">51 | 34 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1416 | 41% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">54 | 36 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1500 | 50% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">57 | 38 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1583 | 58% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">60 | 40 | 12 | 24 | 1000 | 1666 | 66% more</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>As the data shows, using the ratio 1/3 of guild members means guilds of with 15-33 get the shaft. Particularly guilds with 18-24 players.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here's another chart to show how these numbers change based on my assumed ratio.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perc = Pertentage of guild members who don't do writs.</DIV> <DIV>Lower Range = The lower guild size where the new system starts to get worse for guilds</DIV> <DIV>Upper Range = The upper guild size where the new system starts to get good again</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">Perc | Lower Range | Higher Range</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">-----+-------------+----------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">10% | 15 | 24</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">20% | 15 | 27</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">30% | 15 | 33</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">40% | 15 | 39</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">50% | 15 | 45</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">60% | 15 | 54</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">70% | 15 | 78</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New">80% | 15 | 117</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>This chart can give you a good idea how your guild will be affected under the new system. First, figure out what percentage of your guild is willing to do work for status, then look at your guild size. If it falls in the above range, then you'll be worse off under the new system. From the data I've seen, it's the worst having between 15 and 24 members in your guild, no matter how many people are active the worst results always happens for guild sizes in that range.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EDIT: changed bottom of #oA column from 34, 34, 34, 34, to the correct, 34, 36, 38, 40</DIV><p>Message Edited by Dejah on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:00 PM</span>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 01:50 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Crotalus wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Meniphisto wrote: <div>Players from smaller guilds continuously are complaining that in order to continue to grow, they will need to remove in active people. Why is that? Why can't you just invite more people to your guild, so that way you'll have more people contributing? <hr> </div></blockquote> <div>Because some people are selective about who they actually want to be guilded with. Those who value guild reputation do not have open door policies, or active recruitment. Its rather nice not having a lot of idiotic banter in guild chat. Its very nice not to have to deal with in guild drama, or guildmates acting like [Removed for Content] and [Removed for Content] other players off.</div><hr></blockquote>Exactly. I and others in my guild have made some very hard decisions in order to get this type of environment. I don't think it is fair to have 13 active contributors, and the rest of my good friends causing the contribution of those 13 to be almost halved. And I don't think it is fair to have to add more serious contributors just to level at the same pace we are leveling now. If larger guilds level faster, so be it. I really don't care much about that, but there are better ways to solve this problem. As I suggested in another post, make the divisor equal to 1 / 2 the number of accounts. Or, 1/2 of the number of accounts for the first 50, and 1/4 for any above that. Either of these should be better than a one to one ratio, and a cap of 24. </span><div></div>

Gillys

07-29-2005, 01:57 AM

This change just doesn't seem right. I cast my vote for guild level being based on the top 12 status point earners. A guild doesn't earn experience like a player, only reflects what the top 12 (or 6 or 24) earners have pooled together. Guild level doesn't have to be updated minute by minute, maybe once a month or once a week, whatever they want to try out. I don't care much for the current system and I think this new one on test is worse. It deviates radically from the idea of leveling the playfield between different sized guilds. <div></div>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 02:11 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Meniphisto wrote:<div>You're absolutly right about that. Leveling up your guild does have benifits, but that hasn't answered the question that we are asking. <strong>Why is it unfair if a larger guild can level up faster then a smaller guild? <font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2">I agree, I t<b>hink it ma</b>kes some sense for a larger guild to have an advantage. Before the recent changes, and those proposed on test, the advantage was strictly one of stability. Now, on the live servers, the advantage is also one of growth, while all guilds have been granted stability. Not bad, I think it is better than what we have had since launch. But now, on test, the growth advantage to larger guilds seems much bigger. No need to rotate patrons weekly. No need to manage anything like that. I think some way of limiting this is warranted. If a guild of 100 levels twice as fast as a guild of 12, then I think that is reasonable.<u> [Edit: After reading a lot of posts here, I must revise my statement. Leveling twice as fast is not reasonable. In fact, I do not have an opinion on what would be, except that it should be less significant than other factors like guild management] </u>But to level 5 times faster seems a bit over the top in deviating from the "all guilds should have the same chance to advance" philosophy we all have been brought up in.</font><font face="Arial"> </font></font></strong> </div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:07 PM</span>

Kain Hammersmith

07-29-2005, 02:20 AM

<DIV>I deleted my original post due to the fact that no matter what I say there will be some child blasting my comment, I guess that monitor in front of you gives you the nerve to trash everyone.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kain Hammersmith on <span class=date_text>09-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:53 PM</span>

Rene

07-29-2005, 02:26 AM

Large Guilds already have an advantage. You are much more likely to find 12 people who will grind the heck out of writs and or TS Tasks from 100 people, than you are from 20. Personally I could Care Less how fast another guild levels. I just dont want one of my good friends to feel wierd about having her kid guilded who only plays for a couple hour a week on weekends. Having friends in a guild who are not as active as the regulars should not punish contributers. Under this system on test it does. Despite what you will see on the message boards the majority of players in game are not lvl 50 power gamers who raid and are all in fabled. They are folks who are playing along at their own slow pace and many dont even know about or read these boards. I do not want to have my future work toward guild progression lessened because I choose to be in a smallish guild that allows very casual player/friends to be members.

Mor

07-29-2005, 02:40 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Screamin' 103 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Meniphisto wrote:<div>You're absolutly right about that. Leveling up your guild does have benifits, but that hasn't answered the question that we are asking. <strong>Why is it unfair if a larger guild can level up faster then a smaller guild? <font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2">I agree, I t<b>hink it ma</b>kes some sense for a larger guild to have an advantage. <font color="#ccffff">But that goes against all the promises and philosophy to date. Guilds in EQ2 were not supposed to be the monster guilds we saw in EQ1. The idea was to base it on smaller, guilds that could stustain a raid force for encounters requiring 12-24 -- not the 80+ we saw in EQ1. It's also quite likely the result of this will be that larger guilds will get larger as those interested in status items will leave as small to medium sized guilds are slowed down in progression. </font> Before the recent changes, and those proposed on test, the advantage was strictly one of stability. Now, on the live servers, the advantage is also one of growth, while all guilds have been granted stability. <font color="#ccffff">How on earth does this give small and medium guilds stability?</font><font color="#ccffff"> </font> Not bad, I think it is better than what we have had since launch. But now, on test, the growth advantage to larger guilds seems much bigger. No need to rotate patrons weekly. No need to manage anything like that. <font color="#ccffff">So, we should penalize small and medium sized guilds to make your rotation schedule easier? Is there anything else we can do for you today sir?</font><font color="#ccffff"> </font> I think some way of limiting this is warranted. If a guild of 100 levels twice as fast as a guild of 12, then I think that is reasonable. But to level 5 times faster seems a bit over the top in deviating from the "all guilds should have the same chance to advance" philosophy we all have been brought up in.<font color="#ccffff"> </font><font color="#ccffff"> </font><font color="#ccffff">This bears repeating: the same chance to advance. If you remove the cap, you'll have that. The system will then penalize all guilds equally.</font> </font><font face="Arial"> </font></font></strong> </div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Pathin Merrithay

07-29-2005, 02:55 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tigerj wrote:<BR> <BR><BR> <DIV>At level 30 it doesn't.. level 25 is the stop line of any benefit. Anything pass level 25 there is nothing to gain for at this time. Unless you want to spend on a 60 plat Horse or Carpet that goes 8% faster over the 5 plat guild level 25 Horse.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Funny, the title in front of my name tells me differently. It makes me a -unique- character on my server because I was the first to get it and I remain one of only 3 or 4 others to have it. You may not see the reward or gain in that, but that's your failing. Being known on a server means I'm asked into groups, invited to raids, offered opportunities that a less well known individual would be. </EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Not to mention you're also forgetting the outfits, and the various level 30 room item rewards, which give server first discoveries, can reduce status rent in your apartment, and in general are just fun to play around with. Just because you fail to see the benefits these provide doesn't mean that they aren't there.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is a difference leveling up your charcter than the guild. At level 10, you can't raid and get a group of 24 people together and kill something big. Even today look at the level 50 people, they will say there is nothing to do, they are bored.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you level your guy, you gain something at each level, Spells, Abilities. When a guild levels, it doesn't gain anything except every 5 levels, which is nothing compare to your guy leveling. Every guild gets the same thing. There is only 1 guild, but there are many classes. Even the raids every 5 levels from the guilds leveling are pointless and do nothing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why go raid and get all fable gear? For many it is an Ego trip for them to show off to people and say..Look what I have and you don't!! Then those same people cry and say the mobs are easy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Ummm... yeah. Or, you know, they could be trying to get fabled gear because the stats are so much better then standard gear. I know I wear mine because I'm showing off and not for the insane stat boosts/damage sheild.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So it is pointless to get your guild at level 30 cause there is nothing there to gain and does nothing for you or for the guild. Level 25 is the cut off and you can get a horse at 4 plat cheaper and get a full trade skill tables for your house.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Leveling up your guild to 30 doesn't give any benefit. Level your guild up to 25 does. The point here was getting to level 30, not 25.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Again, incorrect. There are benefits, you just aren't seeing them.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Tigerj on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:52 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Above post clipped to grab the relevant bits and to decrease the sheer length of back and forth replies.</EM></STRONG></DIV>

07-29-2005, 03:09 AM

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>Ok..ok..Did any of you actually read the update notes... This is good not bad.You are saying that its going to be divided by the amount of total people in guild which is wrong. It by the total unique accounts. Like i have 2 characters in my guild. That means it will only add +1 to the division not +2. You can have 6 players in the guild, with each person having 6 alts totallying 36 players in guild. So that would be 6 real players. Unique accounts, meaning it will be divided by 6, not 24. Say there are 20 people in guild. 10 are unique accounts, 10 are alts. So then the divisor would be at 10. Not 20, not 24, not 6, but 10. I cant see how this is going to hurt any guild really other than ones below 6 players or more than 24. If you have below 6 your gonna need to work a bit harder, and if your higher than 24 your gonna need more or equal for 24 people doing writs to get the same amount of xp. I love it, plus everyone will be able to contribute with one of there characters in that specific guild.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<p><strong><font color="#ffcc00">*** Guild Status ***</font></strong></p><p>- We have removed the concept of patrons from guilds. Earned status is now divided by the number of unique accounts in your guild (minimum of 6, maximum of 24).</p><p></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p>You do all see the word "Unique" Correct? Or am i imagining a word that moorgaurd did post in the update notes?</p><div></div><p>Message Edited by B3AN on <span class="date_text">07-28-2005</span> <span class="time_text">04:10 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by B3AN on <span class="date_text">07-28-2005</span> <span class="time_text">04:14 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by B3AN on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:15 PM</span>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 03:32 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>B3AN wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>Ok..ok..Did any of you actually read the update notes... This is good not bad.You are saying that its going to be divided by the amount of total people in guild which is wrong. It by the total unique accounts. Like i have 2 characters in my guild. That means it will only add +1 to the division not +2. You can have 6 players in the guild, with each person having 6 alts totallying 36 players in guild. So that would be 6 real players. Unique accounts, meaning it will be divided by 6, not 24. Say there are 20 people in guild. 10 are unique accounts, 10 are alts. So then the divisor would be at 10. Not 20, not 24, not 6, but 10. I cant see how this is going to hurt any guild really other than ones below 6 players or more than 24. If you have below 6 your gonna need to work a bit harder, and if your higher than 24 your gonna need more or equal for 24 people doing writs to get the same amount of xp. I love it, plus everyone will be able to contribute with one of there characters in that specific guild.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, we read the notes. And we thought about it. And we came up with accurate assessments of the problems this will cause. No one is saying anything like what you are claiming they are saying, as far as I have seen. Under the system on test, If I have 24 unique accounts in my guild, and only 12 are actively doing writs/HQs with their various characters, the divisor will be 24. Under the live system, the divisor is 12. 12 = good. 24 = bad. Q.E.D. </blockquote></span><div></div>

Raahl

07-29-2005, 03:43 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> Why does one guild care what level another guild is or how fast it levels? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Raahl on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:04 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Do you care how fast you level compared to someone else?</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I level at my own pace and do not care that others have surpassed me. BTW I level really slow. :smileywink:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>How about we take your vitality away, but let everyone else still have it? Would you be against that?</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Of course I would not want that, So why should I produce less status for my guild than someone else?</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>For me, and I think alot of the people that are against this change, it's not about how fast this guild or that guild levels, it's the effort put into those levels. Large guilds will have a very easy time leveling under this system, smaller, family-type guilds will have a harder time leveling. Putting the change in as currently designed essentially makes guild level no longer a function of effort, but a function of numbers. That is the problem as I see it.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:46 PM</span>

Swordmage

07-29-2005, 03:50 AM

<DIV>As with many other guilds presented here, my guild is a moderate size family guild with a lot of old friends that have wandered away to other games, or are on break for RL reasons. At the moment we have about 65 accounts, about 25 of which have been inactive (no toon logged on) for at least a month. It is the nature of our guild that we wish to retain these players on the hope and/or expectation that they will return to EQ2 and to us.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I really think there needs to be an <STRONG>automatic, behind-the-scenes</STRONG> way of not counting those 25 inactives when calculating the guild contribution of an individual status event. Obviously, for us, the 24 member cap in the calculations would be wonderful, but if we were half this size with the same ratios of inactive members, it wouldn't be.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason I mention an automatic mechanism is that any system that ties to guild ranking or inactive flagging just screams potential exploit and also, in the case of ranking, overloads a useful mechanism in ways that may make it less useful for its prime purposes. A simple system that eliminated accounts from the pro-rating cacluation if all the guilded toons of that account have been off line for more than 2 weeks (to come up with an arbitrary number) solves our problem</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>For me, this isn't primarily about the race to level 30 (not that it isn't a consideration), it is about establishing a system for guild status that is inclusive in ways that the old system wasn't while not creating mechanisms that force guilds to have to choose between friendships and level.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>As a guild leader, I have felt the conflicts that the original patron system caused between allowing each member to contribute to the guild level if they choose and optimizing the contribution of the most active contributers through limiting the number of patrons. This new system, independent of the significant question of max and min caps on the pro-rating calculation, introduces a new conflict, which is just as difficult. It is the trade off between eliminating dead wood and maintaining a place for the inactives to return to. Adding a mechanism to ignore that dead wood in the calculations solves this new conflict (at least to a great extent)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note: I am aware that I am isolating one aspect of the problem, while not addressing other significant issues. I think what I suggest fits in with whatever is decided for issues such as caps or their removal, linear vs non-linear pro-rating calculations, etc.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Swordmage on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:58 PM</span>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 03:52 AM

<div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Screamin' 103 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Meniphisto wrote:<div>You're absolutly right about that. Leveling up your guild does have benifits, but that hasn't answered the question that we are asking. <strong>Why is it unfair if a larger guild can level up faster then a smaller guild? <font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2">I agree, I t<b>hink it ma</b>kes some sense for a larger guild to have an advantage. <font color="#ccffff">But that goes against all the promises and philosophy to date. Guilds in EQ2 were not supposed to be the monster guilds we saw in EQ1. The idea was to base it on smaller, guilds that could stustain a raid force for encounters requiring 12-24 -- not the 80+ we saw in EQ1. It's also quite likely the result of this will be that larger guilds will get larger as those interested in status items will leave as small to medium sized guilds are slowed down in progression. </font></font></font></strong><span><span><span><strong><font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#99ffcc">Respectfully, whether it makes "some sense" or not has nothing to do with the promises or philosophy to date. But, I should have stressed that if there is an advantage, it should not be large, and later in my post, I do address this, and the original philosophy we have been running with to date. I also should have pointed out that, while it makes "some sense" to me for a larger guild to level faster, I am not in favor of it. I don't really care that much, but I would prefer the system not give larger guilds any advantage, I was simply pointing out that I can see that it makes "some sense" from an RP point of view. [Edited] I also agree slowing down a small / medium guild, which is what this change will do, is a bad thing. I never meant to imply otherwise.</font></font></font></strong></span></span></span> <strong><font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2"> Before the recent changes, and those proposed on test, the advantage was strictly one of stability. Now, on the live servers, the advantage is also one of growth, while all guilds have been granted stability. <font color="#ccffff">How on earth does this give small and medium guilds stability?</font><font color="#ccffff"> </font> <font color="#99ffcc">If Patrons leave, the guild does not lose levels. That is stability in my book. Since it is unclear whether guilds lose status on the test servers now, my comment was not meant to apply to the new changes, but to the LIVE servers. Which is what I said. </font> Not bad, I think it is better than what we have had since launch. But now, on test, the growth advantage to larger guilds seems much bigger. No need to rotate patrons weekly. No need to manage anything like that. <font color="#ccffff">So, we should penalize small and medium sized guilds to make your rotation schedule easier? Is there anything else we can do for you today sir? </font></font></font></strong><span><span><span><strong><font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#99ffcc">Hmmmm. I think you really missed the tone of my post. I don't like the changes on test. I don't like the fact that small and medium sized guilds are gettting reamed. The comment I made above was <b>criticism</b> of the new changes. I am kindof at a loss to understand how that was not obvious. My guild has 12-15 active players. And I like it that way <span>:smileywink: I love this language, btw. You can call someone "sir" and really mean something totally different <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></span></font></font></font></strong></span></span></span> <strong><font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#ccffff"> </font> I think some way of limiting this is warranted. If a guild of 100 levels twice as fast as a guild of 12, then I think that is reasonable. <u>[Edit: I edited my OP to indicate I no longer think a 2 to 1 advanatge is reasonable ]</u> But to level 5 times faster seems a bit over the top in deviating from the "all guilds should have the same chance to advance" philosophy we all have been brought up in.<font color="#ccffff"> </font><font color="#ccffff"> </font><font color="#ccffff">This bears repeating: the same chance to advance. If you remove the cap, you'll have that. The system will then penalize all guilds equally.</font> </font><font face="Arial"> </font></font></strong><span><span><span><span><span><span><strong><font color="#ff9900"><font color="#66ccff" face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#99ffcc">Only removing the cap just hurts everyone. A better solution is to allow every other account to contribute to the divisor, no cap. Or, let the first 6 or 12 account count to the divisor, then every other account after that. I don't think it is fair, or prudent, to cause causual players in my guild to feel like they are dragging us down just by being members.</font></font></font></strong></span></span></span></span></span></span> </div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class="date_text">07-28-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:58 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class="date_text">07-28-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:13 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:09 PM</span>

Tige

07-29-2005, 04:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pathin Merrithay wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tigerj wrote:<BR> <BR><BR> <DIV>At level 30 it doesn't.. level 25 is the stop line of any benefit. Anything pass level 25 there is nothing to gain for at this time. Unless you want to spend on a 60 plat Horse or Carpet that goes 8% faster over the 5 plat guild level 25 Horse.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Funny, the title in front of my name tells me differently. It makes me a -unique- character on my server because I was the first to get it and I remain one of only 3 or 4 others to have it. You may not see the reward or gain in that, but that's your failing. Being known on a server means I'm asked into groups, invited to raids, offered opportunities that a less well known individual would be. </EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Not to mention you're also forgetting the outfits, and the various level 30 room item rewards, which give server first discoveries, can reduce status rent in your apartment, and in general are just fun to play around with. Just because you fail to see the benefits these provide doesn't mean that they aren't there.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00>If you think having the title Sir in front of your name gets you into groups you then I feel sorry for you. People ask you into the groups cause they see you, they play with you, you have made friends on the server, you are highly an active player and group with many different people and have a great attitude towards others.. I get ask to lots of groups on my server and I have no title in front of my name. They ask me cause they know me and know how I play. So you happy to be the first, here is a cookie for your acomplishment. I have server firsts with my guy too, but I don't go around bragging it ans showing it off to people as many can care less what I have done in the game. Also no one can see your server firsts if you don't have the added extra feature. Then it's a matter who even looks at your guy to see what you have goten server first.</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes the outfits, again that doesn't do anything but have lots of fancyness. Items for your house if you happen to have a luxery house to reduce rent. But again, it isn't needed to get these things now at level 30. What benefits are for the GUILD at 30 besides a few items for some people that are mostly just fun items?</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00>Is it cool to have? Sure is. But does it really affect how you play the game? Not at all.</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is a difference leveling up your charcter than the guild. At level 10, you can't raid and get a group of 24 people together and kill something big. Even today look at the level 50 people, they will say there is nothing to do, they are bored.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you level your guy, you gain something at each level, Spells, Abilities. When a guild levels, it doesn't gain anything except every 5 levels, which is nothing compare to your guy leveling. Every guild gets the same thing. There is only 1 guild, but there are many classes. Even the raids every 5 levels from the guilds leveling are pointless and do nothing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why go raid and get all fable gear? For many it is an Ego trip for them to show off to people and say..Look what I have and you don't!! Then those same people cry and say the mobs are easy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Ummm... yeah. Or, you know, they could be trying to get fabled gear because the stats are so much better then standard gear. I know I wear mine because I'm showing off and not for the insane stat boosts/damage sheild.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00>Stats are nice to have, yes. But it isn't needed to play the game with standard Quest and Player made gear. It just makes that mob easier to kill is all. Thus a guild with all Fable rips through an encounter and then states it is easy now. I have no Fable gear, but yet people I am with can kill Darathar with ease. I feel it comes down to how well the player plays that character. An extra few STR or Wis, or INT off that Fable isn't going to make a world of a difference when a Mob hits you for 3,000 points.</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So it is pointless to get your guild at level 30 cause there is nothing there to gain and does nothing for you or for the guild. Level 25 is the cut off and you can get a horse at 4 plat cheaper and get a full trade skill tables for your house.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Leveling up your guild to 30 doesn't give any benefit. Level your guild up to 25 does. The point here was getting to level 30, not 25.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Again, incorrect. There are benefits, you just aren't seeing them.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ffff00>I still</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00> see no benefit at lev 30 compare to 25. If anything level 25 is much better hitting than level 30. I see level 30 as nothing but a few fun items for people and reading on many that have hit level 30, it's nothing to get excited about. Many guild that want to hit level 30 is cause they want the Magic Carpet. Cool if you want to spend the 60 plat for it. Cool if you like to look fancy. But still servers no benefit in playing the game than one guild not at level 30 but you move at 8% faster speed that is hardly noticed.</FONT></EM></STRONG><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Above post clipped to grab the relevant bits and to decrease the sheer length of back and forth replies.</EM></STRONG></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Pathin Merrithay

07-29-2005, 04:24 AM

<P>Well, I can't do much more then that as far as presenting what I see as the benefits. If you don't see the advantage that increased prestige, better statted equipment, and recognition across a server gets you then I won't argue the point further because it seems to be a waste of breath. Suffice it to say that for many of us, it is there.</P> <P> </P> <P>As an aside though, if you do ever win the roll for Fabled equipment though, can I have it? Since you don't acknowledge a difference and it doesn't really matter to you how fast a MOB dies or anything. I mean, what possible advantage does getting through an encounter quickly provide...</P>

ObsidianNightmare

07-29-2005, 04:32 AM

<DIV>I hope this stays on test and dies there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have a medium sized, family type guild. We have achieved L20 but it was a struggle. We were at 15 about 3 months ago, then our big status gainers left for more uber lands and disagreements with the leaders at that time. We dropped 5 levels to 10. In past 2 months we've gained 10 levels to achieve 20. Now looking into the math on this.. We have about 32 unique members... with alot of alts that brings us to 72ish. But, we only see about 5 of the same people on at any given time and 10 if we're lucky. Why? Because with smallish to medium sized guilds, the people in them are generally NOT POWERLEVELERS. We have lives that consist of WORK, FAMILIES and MILITARY life that could only allow some of us to play a maybe 5 - 10 hours a week. WHile some of us have time to play all day long, its not enough to consider this change is any good for us.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You gave us a guild system that was horrible to say the least but we learned to live with it. You changed it to have a 12person hotnumber. We were arlready there so we were still okay with it.. We were progressing nicely even though we only have 6-8 people who want to give status at any length of time and really only 3 power status contributers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With that we may reach GL30 in 3 - 4 months... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You changed it again so we could allow for some people to actually try and see if patronage was for them.. Now.. before we can even organize around that.. YOU'RE CHANGING it AGAIN.. why? who are you catering to? Obviously its not the medium sized guild.. becuase we are going to suffer. We will be taking alot longer to reach gl 30 than a large or small guild. Why? Because we have people in our guild that are loyal to our guild but for whatever reason, are not too active every day or are taking a game break.. Do I kick them out? NO!!! Thats stupid.. thats like saying hey.. you're really not working out here, we're going to have to ask you to clean out your desk. THIS IS A GAME.. NOT A JOB... but i guess the only way to progress is to become so small that we alienate the people who have played with us for months but are just enjoying LIFE right now and will be coming back later. We want them to come back to progression.. not stagnation and thats what you're giving the medium guilds.. STAGNATION. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or I could go on a recruitment rampage and look for more people who want to contribute status.. generally.. my guild likes for people to come to it. We find our players through grouping and through them passing on to their friends to come join us.. We don't wish to become a large exploded guild just becuase we want to see progression. We like our group of people and for the guild leaders and officers to deal with the mega amount of questions they're going to get from a lot of n00bs so that we can start progressing in guild status again. its not worth it. Your disheartening a LARGE portion of your guild communities becuase we will be more staganat than a small guild or a large guild.. to me. that math just doesnt make any sense. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To me.. thats saying that you'll make it easier for a small guild to level but much harder for the guilds that contain members that have stuck around through thick and thin. the loyal groups who stay together no matter what. The ones who have put in the time when they only have certain amount of hours and want to enjoy the game with a group of people who they enjoy playing with rather than a large mishmosh of strangers. What happens now. They have to watch their status bar move like molasses becuase we don't want to kick anyone out. Because thats not fair to the people who have put in the time and will be coming back.. Chances are when some come back others will be gone for a while.. thats the life of a medium sized guild. But you're saying thats not how we should play.. Only small and only large. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You also removed something that I thought was great.. The chance for a GL30 guild to FALL.. you are allowing them to keep their status even though they may only have 1 member left after they fall.. Thats a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] shame. Bring that back.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Whats a better solution? Tier your dividing factor. Figure out a factor that will change with guild membership so that if you have a large guild they have to work just as hard as a small guild or a medium guild if not harder. Don't just cap at 24.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Honestly I want to know why you're changing the system once again and who you're catering to? Good luck with alienating a large portion of your community and making this game easier and easier for people who don't want to try a challenge.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway.. I had a much better post than this but of course i lost it after i hit submit.. so I had to figure out everything i typed again and now my brain hurts... maybe i'll revise this later but i think you get what I'm trying to say.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Phthalo Lonebow</DIV> <DIV>Co-Leader of Ancients of the Aegis</DIV> <DIV>50 Swashbuckler/45 Provisioner</DIV> <DIV>Nektulos</DIV> <P>Message Edited by ObsidianNightmare on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:34 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by ObsidianNightmare on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:54 PM</span>

Tige

07-29-2005, 04:41 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pathin Merrithay wrote:<BR> <P>Well, I can't do much more then that as far as presenting what I see as the benefits. If you don't see the advantage that increased prestige, better statted equipment, and recognition across a server gets you then I won't argue the point further because it seems to be a waste of breath. Suffice it to say that for many of us, it is there.</P> <P> </P> <P>As an aside though, if you do ever win the roll for Fabled equipment though, can I have it? Since you don't acknowledge a difference and it doesn't really matter to you how fast a MOB dies or anything. I mean, what possible advantage does getting through an encounter quickly provide...</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually I don't roll for Fable stuff most of the time. I rather have my members get it than I to keep them happy in the guild. If you were in my guild and of the same class, odds are you would get it before I would unless you wern't there.</P> <P>Any Master Spells I get, I give away into the guild, I do not sell to the people in the guild. I feel Spells are better than most gear in the end.</P> <P>No advantage of getting through a Mob quickly. It just make it boring for those later on that do it. Doing it to slow can be boring also. But having you keep on your toes most of the time keeps it fun. This is what I am finding the people in my guild to like. If a healer is there, and only heals maybe one time, do you call that fun? Many won't.</P> <P>But that isn't for this discusion here and is off topic.</P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Tigerj on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:42 PM</span>

Belizarius

07-29-2005, 04:42 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Why does one guild care what level another guild is or how fast it levels? <DIV><BR> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You may not care, but for me, it's an amusing part of the game, and has been since launch.</DIV> <DIV>I played in a huge EQ1 guild, the players from that guild went on to form several guilds on the same server in EQ2, some big, some small. We keep in touch and we've had a guild level rivalry going on for the last 8 months. This will kill it, big guild wins hands down. Once less aspect of the game to enjoy. Yes, I enjoy thumbing my nose in game at rival guilds that are twice our size with half our status. And I look forward to doing the same from my flying carpet when we get to 30.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The principle behind guild status was supposed to be that guild size didn't matter.</DIV> <DIV>The other game content has been built around only needing 24 active players to be competitive. This is a major deviation from that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm not opposed to removing the Patron system, which has it's own problems. But capping the divisor at 24 regardless of guild size is very dumb. Please find a better way.</DIV>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 04:43 AM

<span><span><blockquote><hr>ObsidianNightmare wrote: <div> </div> <div>Anyway.. I had a much better post than this but of course i lost it after i hit submit.. so I had to figure out everything i typed again and now my brain hurts... maybe i'll revise this later but i think you get what I'm trying to say.</div> <hr></blockquote> </span></span><span>Wow, you typed that all in twice? /bow and /agree</span> <div></div>

ObsidianNightmare

07-29-2005, 04:56 AM

Ya i forgot the next to last paragraph and just added it.. so read that too <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Phthalo Lonebow</DIV> <DIV>Co-Leader of Ancients of the Aegis</DIV> <DIV>50 Swashbuckler/45 Provisioner</DIV> <DIV>Nektulos</DIV></DIV>

lils

07-29-2005, 06:20 AM

<P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>I think what a lot of people here forget is a very important thing to run a guild, motivation and support of your members.</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>As a guild leader of a rather large guild, I have to deal with this on a daily basis. I have to tell my members, hey sorry, you can't contribute to the leveling of the guild, because we can't have as many patrons as we want. And I know that this isn't only frustrating for my members, but also for me.</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>Also the rotating of patrons doesn't really work if you have a guild with a couple hundred people, with an optimal amount of 12 patrons, that would take months till everyone could be rotated, and you can't just tell your members, oh hey, don't do that heritage yet, your turn will be in november!! </FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>I like the idea of being able to have my members happy and motivated, because they are allowed to contribute to the guild they are proud of, to the guild they wear the nametag of, and to the guild they share with their friends, and I think in the end, that will make a lot more people happy.</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>Honestly I don't care if we hit level 30 in one month or in half a year, we will get there some time, but I do care about my members having fun being part of the guild, being proud of what they achieved with and for the guild and enjoy the environment we have. And with the current patron system, that's a lot harder for a big guild than it is for a small one, because it is a lot easier to pick 12 patrons in a guild with 20 or 30 members than it is in a guild with 200 or 300 members.</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>I think this change is not to the bad of any guild, quite the oposit, because it will make every single member of a guild, be it small or be it big a valuable member, a member that can contribute and be proud and will finally get rid of a two class system that is really not needed in a game we all play mainly to have FUN!</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#999999></FONT></EM></STRONG> </P> <CENTER><IMG src="http://www.lili-s.com/liefjesmall.gif"></CENTER> <P> </P>

Fallien

07-29-2005, 06:36 AM

<DIV>This new system is very disapointing i do hope it does not make it past the test. Have you ever heard of the saying if something is not broken dont fix it? The patron system is fine and you can see by the number of 30 guilds on different servers, why take away all the hard work that people have done so far and then just throw it out? I am not a fan hope it does not make it past test...:smileymad:</DIV>

Derinius

07-29-2005, 06:56 AM

<DIV>I don't think I can comment on whether or not this change would be good for the majority of people but I'm trying to see how it would affect my guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We have 9 accounts. We are all people who know each other irl and are very casual players. We have no intention on raiding or gaining any outside members though that may change over time. We have all been playing since EQ2 was released and are currently Guild level 11 (about 10% in)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Under the current system, when we do a writ or heritage quest, our GSP is divided by 12. Under the new system, our GSP will be divided by 9. Unless I am missing something, this new system would be better for us in that respect.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Under this new system, I also don't have to worry about any alts we have needing to be patrons for them to gain guild xp.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, sounds good to me.</DIV>

Auelaen

07-29-2005, 10:14 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gorkk00 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR><BR>PS: I really don't like the idea of only the 12 best contributors counting for guild levels with everybody contributing. The author of the idea said that for example if you're tired of playing a char which is in the top 12, you'll get an alt and continue contributing to guild level... But you'll need to get to as much status than your previous char had contributed to help the guild level, that is plainly wrong imho, specialy when you consider the amount contributed by the top status contributer (see on eq2player).<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The player would not have to catch an alt up to your previous char, just catch it up the person that is ranked 12 in the guild. If it is THAT hard to do, then you are probably in one of the two following situations:</DIV> <DIV>A.) You have 12 patrons that are doing very well, have done almost all HQ's and your guild is probably in the mid to high 20's.</DIV> <DIV>B.) You are a casual player who does not really have the time to catch an alt up to the 12th lowest contributor.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For situation A: if your primary concern is contributing to the guild, then you will take time to do writs and whatnot on your main. In the case of scenario B your contributions to the guild would be minimal and with several of the systems even negative to your guild (unless all you do is writs and HQ's, which would make this a very sucky game). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now I am sure that the top 12 system may not be flawless for every EQ2 player, but in my opinion it is the best system proposed so far. It keeps a good balance between small medium and large guilds, as well as keeping a balance between family style and hardcore guilds. The system currently in test would greatly favor large guilds over small and medium ones. The idea of removing the cap would greatly favor hardcore guilds over family guilds. It would also make players feel like they are forced to log in if they want to get anywhere. This is a game, it should not feel like a job.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For those of you who feel that large guilds are entitled to the advantages of the test system: Recruiting every newbert that gets off the Isle is not an accomplishment. Just like EQ1, doing something with 120+ members is not an accomplishment, it is zerging. I am not trying to flame large guilds, since I am the leader of a moderately large one myself. I just dont think there should be a sense of entitlement because you have 120 people to pull the weight with you. This game was sold as one that would get rid of zerging, and one that would appeal to both casual and hardcore players. The top 12 system would keep that balance. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anywho, I liked the way I wrote it the first time better, but the webpage error'd and lost it. But this gives the basics.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Tochy

07-29-2005, 10:17 AM

<HR> <STRONG><EM><FONT color=#999999>I think this change is not to the bad of any guild, quite the oposit, because it will make every single member of a guild, be it small or be it big a valuable member, a member that can contribute and be proud and will finally get rid of a two class system that is really not needed in a game we all play mainly to have FUN!</FONT></EM></STRONG> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P> Not for small and medium guild this system will make the inactive/casual players none a valuable member. That will put casual players , not really loving doing CT or all HQ, who then didn't choose to be patrons, in a situation where they will slow down the guild. ( ex: Guild of 20 Player, 20 Active acount, 15 players who can do CT and all the heritages. Before they needed to do it for 15 Patrons, now they will have to do it for 20 Active Account). The old system with "Patron" was totally fair, now is really unfair.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>As a guild leader of a rather large guild, I have to deal with this on a daily basis. I have to tell my members, hey sorry, you can't contribute to the leveling of the guild, because we can't have as many patrons as we want. And I know that this isn't only frustrating for my members, but also for me.</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>Also the rotating of patrons doesn't really work if you have a guild with a couple hundred people, with an optimal amount of 12 patrons, that would take months till everyone could be rotated, and you can't just tell your members, oh hey, don't do that heritage yet, your turn will be in november!! </FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999>I like the idea of being able to have my members happy and motivated, because they are allowed to contribute to the guild they are proud of, to the guild they wear the nametag of, and to the guild they share with their friends, and I think in the end, that will make a lot more people happy.</FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <P align=center><EM><STRONG><FONT color=#999999></FONT></STRONG></EM></P> <HR> <P>You was doing wrong, why did you say "no" to a member who was really motivated to be a patron ???? Because to have only 11 Patron ? But that's totaly wrong. Yeah having a lot of patrons means gaining less points with one CT but if they are all really motivated and doing there job : 11 Active Patrons do the same things then 20 Active Patrons That was the only difficulty in this system, finding peoples that will understand that being a "Patron" is something important for your guild, for all the other patrons. its maybe because lot of guilds was doing like this, " no more patrons ", that SoE choose : " Ok that's too difficult for them, let's make it easy *sigh*"</P> <P>At the begining SoE told everywere that EQII wasn't oriented to big size guild, but more for small/medium friendly guild, and reputations was a goal for those guildes.</P> <P>The benefit to be a guild lvl 30 ? Well i can say the same thing for being lvl 50 ... raid -> gaining loots -> doing the same raids agains -> more loots -> doing again again the same raids -> again , again, again ... Bringing you guild lvl 30 , that was an objectif, a goal in your guild, rewards ? not importants. What was important that you was able to meet all your friends in an IRL meeting, drinking a beer and tell :" Hey guys we deed it, great job all of you, that was hard but that was fun". Now that another thing SoE blow off. Going to lvl 30 is like killing a big boss in a raid, a long raid maybe, who cares if that Big Boss drop 2 rusty weapons ? You did it and all of you are happy about this 3hours fight for 2 rusty weapon, that will make stories to tell next meeting.</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Tochyao on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:23 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Tochyao on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:39 PM</span>

Victicu

07-29-2005, 10:20 AM

<DIV>The problem is not the fact that they might be removing patrons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem is leaving the divisor capped at 24.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By capping the divisor at 24, it creates such an obvious imbalance for larger guilds. I find it completely ridiculous that this change has even made it to the test server.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If removing patrons would make people happy... so be it!! thats perfectly fine</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But there must be another solution than capping the divisor at 24. It just will not work.</DIV>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 10:48 AM

<DIV>Um, what does it matter? If the 500 person guild gets to level 30, hoorah for them. They are obviously doing something right to maintain those numbers. Wouldnt you know... it doesnt affect you at all if you are in another guild. Oh wait? Its bad for small guilds... well lets see. In the 'current' system you gain status from your say, 12 patrons out of a 30 account guild. Well... now you have double the writ givers at half the contribution. Which brings me to my next point... what does it matter? I would much rather worry about my guild being happy and content with the guild then whether or not I contributed 2000 in the old system but only 1000 in this new system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its a waste of breath... this new system is obviously much better then the old. Take this for example... In the real world, the unions(ie. guilds) you hear about most are those that are huge. So Numbers = Fame which in game terms would = status. So... it would be safe to say that it would be much more reasonable for a large guild to be level 30 then a small guild, just because they have more resources to pull from. Which any strategist would tell you is the key to any battle or competition. You want the cat and lion to fight on the same terms yet they are two totally seperate beasts. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A guild with 500 members should wipe the floor of any guild with 30 members, case closed. There is no situation in which a 30 person guild is going to out perform a 500 person guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another example... if a 500 person guild did 500 writs, ie. completing 500 jobs for the city and the 30 person guild did 60 writs.... then looking at names, Guild A: 500, Guild B: 60.... Guild A wins. You are looking a guilds as a collection of members when you should look at it as a sole entity. It is A brotherhood... only 1. Not a union of men and women. What they accomplish they accomplish TOGETHER. 500 people will always be able to do more work then 30, and if those 500 people banded behind a name, that name would rise in fame faster then the name the 30 people band behind. Even in real life this happens. Granted, there are exceptions but those are just that... exceptions. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your guild of 30 will rise to level 30 in its due time and you should take solice in the fact that all your members can contribute instead of complain that a guild of 500 will have it easier. Stop pointing fingers at others trying to level the playing field and recognize that it is leveled. If you want the ability of the guild of 500 to level in a week... get a guild of 500. Asking that a guild of 30 have the same power as that of 500 is to rule out common sense. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With this in mind... I leave one final example:</DIV> <DIV>If a group of 30 people were gathered and a group of 500 people were gathered, and both told to build the same type and size of house, seperately... would you not expect the group of 500 to finish first? In the same mindset, would you not expect a guild of 500 to hit 30 first?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: Grammatical errors</DIV><p>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:49 PM</span>

Tochy

07-29-2005, 11:00 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Um, what does it matter? If the 500 person guild gets to level 30, hoorah for them. They are obviously doing something right to maintain those numbers. Wouldnt you know... it doesnt affect you at all if you are in another guild. Oh wait? Its bad for small guilds... well lets see. In the 'current' system you gain status from your say, 12 patrons out of a 30 account guild. Well... now you have double the writ givers at half the contribution. Which brings me to my next point... what does it matter? I would much rather worry about my guild being happy and content with the guild then whether or not I contributed 2000 in the old system but only 1000 in this new system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its a waste of breath... this new system is obviously much better then the old. Take this for example... In the real world, the unions(ie. guilds) you hear about most are those that are huge. So Numbers = Fame which in game terms would = status. So... it would be safe to say that it would be much more reasonable for a large guild to be level 30 then a small guild, just because they have more resources to pull from. Which any strategist would tell you is the key to any battle or competition. You want the cat and lion to fight on the same terms yet they are two totally seperate beasts. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A guild with 500 members should wipe the floor of any guild with 30 members, case closed. There is no situation in which a 30 person guild is going to out perform a 500 person guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another example... if a 500 person guild did 500 writs, ie. completing 500 jobs for the city and the 30 person guild did 60 writs.... then looking at names, Guild A: 500, Guild B: 60.... Guild A wins. You are looking a guilds as a collection of members when you should look at it as a sole entity. It is A brotherhood... only 1. Not a union of men and women. What they accomplish they accomplish TOGETHER. 500 people will always be able to do more work then 30, and if those 500 people banded behind a name, that name would rise in fame faster then the name the 30 people band behind. Even in real life this happens. Granted, there are exceptions but those are just that... exceptions. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your guild of 30 will rise to level 30 in its due time and you should take solice in the fact that all your members can contribute instead of complain that a guild of 500 will have it easier. Stop pointing fingers at others trying to level the playing field and recognize that it is leveled. If you want the ability of the guild of 500 to level in a week... get a guild of 500. Asking that a guild of 30 have the same power as that of 500 is to rule out common sense. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With this in mind... I leave one final example:</DIV> <DIV>If a group of 30 people were gathered and a group of 500 people were gathered, and both told to build the same type and size of house, seperately... would you not expect the group of 500 to finish first? In the same mindset, would you not expect a guild of 500 to hit 30 first?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: Grammatical errors</DIV> <P>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:49 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> No, because EQII wasn't for Big Sized Guild, and if Guild wanted to be sooo large then they have to accept the bad points for that . Anyway I can't say hoorah to a guild where everybody needed to do only JBoots Quest to up 30 where another one needed to do all the HQ, putting lot of times to do the same thing.<BR>I don't care if a guild is big or not, the thing that is bad here it's SoE make it easy to a group a people. The old system was a large better, why your 500 members guild didn't put them in 500 Patrons ? That was fair, you are a guild of 30 then do 30 Patrons if you like, you are 500 , then do 500 patrons. And I can say you that I would have really more respect to a guild with 500 patrons who dinged 30, because that means they was really nice managed.

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 11:13 AM

<DIV>My point is what does it matter if another guild dings 30? How does that affect YOUR guild? If the guild of 500 decides to go the cheap way and rush it to 30... who cares? Does it really matter that much if ANOTHER guild hits 30? Its not like every server only has 5 open lvl 30 guild spots, and once those are taken no more guilds can reach 30. Oh it berates it... well another point, who cares? If you earned it the 'noble' way... then how does it berate hitting level 30? I mean really people, there has to be a cap, and 24 seems as logical to me as any. Its a sound number within the eq2 game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another thing... you organize 500 people to do JBoots, THEN you can belittle it. I think any guild that can organize more then 100 people to do the same heritage quest together should earn level 30. Do you have any idea what kind of management that would take? I would applaud that. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: Typos</DIV><p>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:14 AM</span>

wr4ithd0

07-29-2005, 11:55 AM

<P>First off, I come from a large guild of 180 characters (120 Active) all pretty much casual, running about 40 patrons. This change will help a little bit, but not enough to break open the champagne.</P> <P>What I wanted to comment on is what really seems to be hypocracy on the boards. I see posts about comradarie and guildies being RL friends and this and that, yet in the same sentence folks say its too bad they will have to guildremove these 'friends'. Sheesh, what type of friend are you? 'Sorry pal, you were slowing everyone up from getting to GL30, think of it for the good of the guild.' IMO that's pretty sad when a guild's 'advancement' means more than the members within it. Then again, that's why we are only GL17, but truely a group of friends.</P>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 12:03 PM

<DIV>Nicely said... and while I may not agree that this is the best method, I am getting sick and tired of everytime SOE posts a new thing about guild status 100 posts pop up about how someone else is going to hit 30. Not to mention these statistics about 500 people guilds hitting level 28 by doing Jboots is ridiculous. This is for two reasons:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Very few guilds have over 200 members... and I doubt any have 500, but i could be wrong</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Like I said above, you organize over 100 members to do the same HQ in a reasonable amount of time, you deserve the whole 250,000 gsp you are going to get. Hey! Only 500 more people doing JBoots and you will have Guild level 30... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Those kind of numbers for people are insane and no where near realistic. Like I said though, if a guild grinds through doing JBoots 600 times, then they probably deserve guild level 30. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention true balance would mean that a 500 person guild should level faster then a 30 person guild... not that they level evenly. More people working towards the same goal normally get done sooner. I hope that would strike most of you as common sense. I hope...</DIV>

Tochy

07-29-2005, 12:11 PM

<DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>What I wanted to comment on is what really seems to be hypocracy on the boards. I see posts about comradarie and guildies being RL friends and this and that, yet in the same sentence folks say its too bad they will have to guildremove these 'friends'. Sheesh, what type of friend are you? 'Sorry pal, you were slowing everyone up from getting to GL30, think of it for the good of the guild.' IMO that's pretty sad when a guild's 'advancement' means more than the members within it. Then again, that's why we are only GL17, but truely a group of friends</P> <P></P> <HR> <P> Where did you see that I will guildremove this member ? I have never said no to a motivated member to be a patron because we already have 11 and I will not remove a member because he is slowing down the guild with this LU#13, more over when it's SoE fault. I just put in light the feeling that member will have after this patch, every time the others will do HQ, CT etc ... even when they will not say him anything wrong, he will have in mind and heart that he is slowing down by his presence. That 's not a drama, just a bad feeling SoE is creating.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Tochy

07-29-2005, 12:30 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Nicely said... and while I may not agree that this is the best method, I am getting sick and tired of everytime SOE posts a new thing about guild status 100 posts pop up about how someone else is going to hit 30. Not to mention these statistics about 500 people guilds hitting level 28 by doing Jboots is ridiculous. This is for two reasons:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Very few guilds have over 200 members... and I doubt any have 500, but i could be wrong</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Like I said above, you organize over 100 members to do the same HQ in a reasonable amount of time, you deserve the whole 250,000 gsp you are going to get. Hey! Only 500 more people doing JBoots and you will have Guild level 30... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Those kind of numbers for people are insane and no where near realistic. Like I said though, if a guild grinds through doing JBoots 600 times, then they probably deserve guild level 30. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention true balance would mean that a 500 person guild should level faster then a 30 person guild... not that they level evenly. More people working towards the same goal normally get done sooner. I hope that would strike most of you as common sense. I hope...</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Saying 500 members is just to show Zerg/Very Large guild, but with 200 members that's works too ... or just 50 members who can use a nice trick "Let's create alts, up them to 15 and do Jboots, that will be +250 HQ points for us"</P> <P>I totaly disagrea with that a guild who just do Jboots xxx times desearve the lvl 30, that's not even close to do all the HQ ... what are Jboots ? be lvl 15 min, group with a scout and a priest to rez and take 30 min. Whoo that's hard. "Followers of my guild, the only thing that I impose you to be with us it's to take 30 min to follow those 2 guys in Norath, just stick and watch the beauty of the lands"</P> <P>Why I care that there is other who can do the same thing fingers in the nose ? Well because that is removing the principal interest to do it, the challenge, not only against the other, but with your guild , the challenge to organize your patrons and your fellowship. Because like it is said before, gaining lvl 30 is not for the rewards, but just all the hard way to go there. "Hey guys I did it, I was able to cut that piece of wood with my knife whoo ... heu well you know you can get this axe right there and do the same thing in few sec". </P> <P>Lvl up to 30 a guild will no longer be a question of organisation, but just of numbers. We already have in the roster the "Large Guild", the "More Fighters" , the "More Scout" etc ... what left them to put for large guild hmm "More Quest" well maybe they can put the cap to 24 Active acount for that one too, and other too.</P> <P>Message Edited by Tochyao on <SPAN class=date_text>07-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:38 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Tochyao on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:40 AM</span>

Pathin Merrithay

07-29-2005, 12:48 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Nicely said... and while I may not agree that this is the best method, I am getting sick and tired of everytime SOE posts a new thing about guild status 100 posts pop up about how someone else is going to hit 30. Not to mention these statistics about 500 people guilds hitting level 28 by doing Jboots is ridiculous. This is for two reasons:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Very few guilds have over 200 members... and I doubt any have 500, but i could be wrong</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Yes, you are wrong here. There are guilds with over 500 members, and actually, a pretty good number of guilds with over 200 members. Over 40 in fact, with several dozen more in easy striking distance of this number.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Like I said above, you organize over 100 members to do the same HQ in a reasonable amount of time, you deserve the whole 250,000 gsp you are going to get. Hey! Only 500 more people doing JBoots and you will have Guild level 30...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>You've done the j-boots quest, right? Get an Evacer and you can quite literally knock it out at level 15 now in the matter of 2 hours. If you think I couldn't organize groups of 6 and get this done multiple times throughout a guild with relaitive ease... Well, I think your underestimating most guild leaders organizational skills.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Those kind of numbers for people are insane and no where near realistic. Like I said though, if a guild grinds through doing JBoots 600 times, then they probably deserve guild level 30.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Most people do the heritage quests at some point. The items are, in many cases just too good to pass up, and they're a decent profit even if you don't use them. You don't need 600 people doing j-boots, just 100 or so doinga handful, which is exactly what they'd do anyway. Boom, level 30 with almost no effort. Maybe I'm underestimating people here, maybe they don't care about the challenge inherant in aspects of MMORPG's. If I'm in the minority, then I'll accept that, but I don't think I am. I don't think SOE should dumb down the game so everybody can get anything they want just beause they complained about it long enough. Guild Level 30 should represent a serious accomplishment... Not an inevitibility that all large guilds reach. (And this patch does favor large guilds over smaller ones... Another inherant flaw handled far more eloquently elsewhere in this post.)</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention true balance would mean that a 500 person guild should level faster then a 30 person guild... not that they level evenly. More people working towards the same goal normally get done sooner. I hope that would strike most of you as common sense. I hope...</DIV> <P><STRONG><EM>Again, I respctfully disagree. I thought guilds should have fair opportunity to level on even ground as larger counterparts, which is what the patron system allowed for. This is a complete removal of that system, and the balances that made the system equitible to guilds that wanted to be very large, or those that wanted to retain a family feel.</EM></STRONG><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Raahl

07-29-2005, 04:50 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR> <DIV>My point is what does it matter if another guild dings 30? How does that affect YOUR guild? If the guild of 500 decides to go the cheap way and rush it to 30... who cares? Does it really matter that much if ANOTHER guild hits 30? Its not like every server only has 5 open lvl 30 guild spots, and once those are taken no more guilds can reach 30. Oh it berates it... well another point, who cares? If you earned it the 'noble' way... then how does it berate hitting level 30? I mean really people, there has to be a cap, and 24 seems as logical to me as any. Its a sound number within the eq2 game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another thing... you organize 500 people to do JBoots, THEN you can belittle it. I think any guild that can organize more then 100 people to do the same heritage quest together should earn level 30. Do you have any idea what kind of management that would take? I would applaud that. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: Typos</DIV> <P>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <SPAN class=date_text>07-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:14 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Agreed!</P> <P> </P>

neofit

07-29-2005, 05:47 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Telcontari71 wrote:<div> </div> <div>Just really sad the game is being skewed in favour of big guilds. I do not want a big guid. I am a GL of a small guild. We have about 20-30 active memebers plus about 50 alts.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>NImrodel</div> <div>GL of Ascended Heroes on Runnyeye</div><hr> Yeah, like the Boss said. Anyway, I remember how it was back when Guild Status Points were decaying. Doing writs was a necessity, it was a second, non-paying <b>job</b>, otherwise you start losing guild exp. Now if these changes go live doing writs will become a <b>job</b> again, unless you happen to be the official 25th+ distinct account. I am not paying to use my limited free time to go to work on writs or anything. </blockquote></span><div></div>

Mor

07-29-2005, 06:03 PM

<P>Lils, if you do the math, there is still a slight (very slight) advantage to having 24 active patrons, provided they are very active.</P> <P>12 patrons: 40000/( ( 12 + 1 ) * .91 ) = 3381 per completion. Multiplied by 12 = 40572</P> <P>24 patrons: 40000( ( 24 + 1 ) * .91 ) = 1758 per completion. Multiplied by 24 = 42192.</P> <P> </P> <P>And with the ability to remove patrons that are inactive, there is absolutely no good reason to keep people who want to contribute from contributing. </P>

Mor

07-29-2005, 09:04 PM

A guild with a large number of very active patrons already can out level a guild with a small number as the system stands today. Why further penalize small/medium sized guilds? To turn your question around, what difference does it make to the large guilds if the small/medium sized guilds can still get to 30 in less than a year? <div></div>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 09:13 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pathin Merrithay wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Nicely said... and while I may not agree that this is the best method, I am getting sick and tired of everytime SOE posts a new thing about guild status 100 posts pop up about how someone else is going to hit 30. Not to mention these statistics about 500 people guilds hitting level 28 by doing Jboots is ridiculous. This is for two reasons:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Very few guilds have over 200 members... and I doubt any have 500, but i could be wrong</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Yes, you are wrong here. There are guilds with over 500 members, and actually, a pretty good number of guilds with over 200 members. Over 40 in fact, with several dozen more in easy striking distance of this number.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>Over 40, out of how many? There are 400+ guilds in my server last time I looked, and that was months ago. One server... 400+... So these zerg guilds you talk about are truly the minority. </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Like I said above, you organize over 100 members to do the same HQ in a reasonable amount of time, you deserve the whole 250,000 gsp you are going to get. Hey! Only 500 more people doing JBoots and you will have Guild level 30...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>You've done the j-boots quest, right? Get an Evacer and you can quite literally knock it out at level 15 now in the matter of 2 hours. If you think I couldn't organize groups of 6 and get this done multiple times throughout a guild with relaitive ease... Well, I think your underestimating most guild leaders organizational skills.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>Quote: Reasonable amount of time... it takes 50 hours per 250,000 gsp using your method of shooting out one group at a time. Granted multiple groups and what not... it still comes down to WHO CARES IF THE OTHER GUILD HITS 30?</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Those kind of numbers for people are insane and no where near realistic. Like I said though, if a guild grinds through doing JBoots 600 times, then they probably deserve guild level 30.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Most people do the heritage quests at some point. The items are, in many cases just too good to pass up, and they're a decent profit even if you don't use them. You don't need 600 people doing j-boots, just 100 or so doinga handful, which is exactly what they'd do anyway. Boom, level 30 with almost no effort. Maybe I'm underestimating people here, maybe they don't care about the challenge inherant in aspects of MMORPG's. If I'm in the minority, then I'll accept that, but I don't think I am. I don't think SOE should dumb down the game so everybody can get anything they want just beause they complained about it long enough. Guild Level 30 should represent a serious accomplishment... Not an inevitibility that all large guilds reach. (And this patch does favor large guilds over smaller ones... Another inherant flaw handled far more eloquently elsewhere in this post.)</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>Thats like saying level 50 is an inevitability. It isnt... and guild level 30 isnt either. But lets step back for a second... IF.... IF there were no restriction on the maximum number of accounts, ie instead of 24 it goes as high as it needs... then the large guild would be screwed. Why? Well... </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>30 person guild does JBoots once per person(30 times)... hence GSP = (60000/30)x30 = 60000 GSP</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>500 person guild does Jboots once per person(500 times).... hence GSP = (60000/500)x500 = 60000 GSP</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>So using your equation that you can pop out a group every 2 hours... and assuming they both use one group to be fair.... and they have 2 spare people in the group for healing and evac...</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>30 person guild's time = (30/4)x2 = 15 hours</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>500 person guild's time = (500/4)x2 = 250 hours</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF STATUS. Thats crazy. BUT... BUT... if they use this new system... here's the change in status...</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>30 Person Guild GSP = (60000/24)x30 = 75000 GSP</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>500 Person Guild GSP = (60000/24)x500 = 1250000 GSP</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>They did 250 hours worth of work, and you did 15 hours... I think that seems fair. More work gets more done. On another note.... if a writ gets you say 5000 status for simplicity... and you used the system with no cap... </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>Guild Status Contributed Per Writ is then:</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>30 Person guild = 5000/30 = 166 GSP</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>500 Person Guild = 5000/500 = 10 GSP</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>So the big guild has to do MORE work to get things done...</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>My point is that you are looking at this the wrong way. You want equality but all I hear is cries for big guilds to be taken down. Before I continue... I am not part of a huge guild, but I am not part of a small guild either. There has to be a cap somewhere, and 24 seems to be the logical number in eq2 terms... its very predominant. </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT color=#ff0000>This is crazy though, you complain that a zerg guild can pop out guild level 30 fast... but ya... they did more work hours then you. If your small guild of 30 did 250 hours of work... you would be in the same place. Being a large guild lets them split that work load between a lot of people. </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention true balance would mean that a 500 person guild should level faster then a 30 person guild... not that they level evenly. More people working towards the same goal normally get done sooner. I hope that would strike most of you as common sense. I hope...</DIV> <P><STRONG><EM>Again, I respctfully disagree. I thought guilds should have fair opportunity to level on even ground as larger counterparts, which is what the patron system allowed for. This is a complete removal of that system, and the balances that made the system equitible to guilds that wanted to be very large, or those that wanted to retain a family feel.</EM></STRONG></P><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>YOU DO HAVE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.... you both must do the same amount of work to get to the same place... THEY can just spread it out amongst more people. How is that THEIR fault? If you want your family style guild, so be it but know that you must do more work PER person to get the same place as the huge guild. Is that wrong? NO. Live with the fact that things are not perfectly fair and equal. Asking a 30 person guild to level as fast as a 500 person guild because the 30 person guild is smaller is like asking SOE to let mages tank. ITS CRAZY. Im sorry, but life isnt like this. You want the 30 person guild... to have the same speed as the 500 person guild.... YET THE 500 PERSON GUILD DOES 17x THE EFFORT. Oh, but they have 500 people to split it through.... oh darn... Well if you want that kind of advantage recruit... but you dont, you want that 'family' style guild... and thats fine. What you are asking though is for:</FONT></STRONG></P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>A) Making the huge guild's contribution per person mean [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] (IE. 10 gsp per writ? CMON!)</FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>B) Make it so the 30 person guild accomplishes as much as the 500 person guild... which isnt near fair. They have more resources to pull from and they should be allowed to use their resources, just as you are allowed to in your family style guild. </FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></STRONG> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>Getting guild level 30 is still a challenge, just that 500 person guild has 500 people to split that challenge through. That doesnt sound wrong to me at all. Sounds like common sense to me. </FONT></STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>500 People getting something done faster then 30 people... never... /sarcasm off</STRONG></FONT></P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

Chog

07-29-2005, 09:30 PM

<P>This is a really dumb idea. The beauty of the patron system is that you no longer had to split friends along uber-nonuber lines. My friends who play once in a while, casually could be in the same guild as me, we could play together, we could keep in touch. Now I'm going to have to unguild ALL of them. That sucks [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].</P> <P>I'm going to have to create a second guild and move everyone to the second guild. When someone is about to complete a heritage quest or some significant amount of status, I'll guild them in the "main" guild and then deguild them as soon as they are done. Then, right before a raid, we'll guild everyone up in the main guild.</P> <P>Removing the cap of 24 is also a really dumb idea. I'm never going to have more than half a dozen people in my "main" guild, at least not when anyone is earning status. Leaving the cap at least allows a guild to have casual players, at least if it's big enough (mine is not).</P> <P>Keep the patron system. Spend some time giving some real thought and analysis to how it should work. Then do it right the first time.</P> <P>I would have thought you guys would have learned your lesson about major, poorly-thought-out changes.</P>

lils

07-29-2005, 09:36 PM

<DIV align=center><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#999999>Morie <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I sort of agree with you, but it is a lot harder to keep 24 patrons active and motivated than it is with 12.</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV align=center><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#999999></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV align=center><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#999999>And just to clarify something, I never said we only have 12 patrons, we actually have a lot more than that, because the moral of our guildies is important. Still we need to balance it out a bit, or the people that are patrons get frustrated too, when the guild exp they gain is barely making the exp bar to moving, so the current patron system is a permanent try to balance out things.</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV align=center><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV align=center><STRONG><EM><IMG src="http://www.lili-s.com/liefjesmall.gif"></EM></STRONG></DIV>

Mor

07-29-2005, 09:36 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pathin Merrithay wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote><blockquote><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">YOU DO HAVE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.... you both must do the same amount of work to get to the same place... THEY can just spread it out amongst more people. </font></strong></p> <p><font color="#ffffff"><strong>Actually, not with what is on test. As you have just pointed out, without a level cap it would be the same amount of work spread out among more people. But with the cap, it isn't. </strong></font></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"> </font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">How is that THEIR fault? If you want your family style guild, so be it but know that you must do more work PER person to get the same place as the huge guild. Is that wrong? NO. Live with the fact that things are not perfectly fair and equal. Asking a 30 person guild to level as fast as a 500 person guild because the 30 person guild is smaller is like asking SOE to let mages tank. </font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">Well, aside from the false analogy... I don't think anyone is asking that they level at the exact same pace. They don't with the current system either. But this is a huge penalty for smaller/medium sized guilds in addition to a huge bonus to the large guilds. Now, this may be a whole new direction that they envision for the game, but large EQ1 type guilds were not part of the original plan for EQ2. </font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">Let me ask you this: why should a guild with 75% of it's roster inactive be able to out level a guild that has 10% of it's roster inactive? Doesn't that seem crazy? Unless the reward is size just for size's sake -- not dedication -- that's what the level cap does. </font></font></strong></p> </blockquote><blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 09:37 PM

<DIV>Wow, I'd hate to be ur friend... caught between brotherhood and guild level 30... hmmm.... brotherhood was always the first choice imho.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chogra wrote:<BR> <P>This is a really dumb idea. The beauty of the patron system is that you no longer had to split friends along uber-nonuber lines. My friends who play once in a while, casually could be in the same guild as me, we could play together, we could keep in touch. Now I'm going to have to unguild ALL of them. That sucks [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].</P> <P>I'm going to have to create a second guild and move everyone to the second guild. When someone is about to complete a heritage quest or some significant amount of status, I'll guild them in the "main" guild and then deguild them as soon as they are done. Then, right before a raid, we'll guild everyone up in the main guild.</P> <P>Removing the cap of 24 is also a really dumb idea. I'm never going to have more than half a dozen people in my "main" guild, at least not when anyone is earning status. Leaving the cap at least allows a guild to have casual players, at least if it's big enough (mine is not).</P> <P>Keep the patron system. Spend some time giving some real thought and analysis to how it should work. Then do it right the first time.</P> <P>I would have thought you guys would have learned your lesson about major, poorly-thought-out changes.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>

Mor

07-29-2005, 09:39 PM

Yes and no, Lils. Having just 12 patrons can create a lot of burnout. Especially on that stretch from 25 to 30. But yes, organizing 24 can be hard. I agree. <div></div>

Naud

07-29-2005, 09:39 PM

<DIV align=center><FONT size=4><STRONG><U>Bottom Line</U></STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT size=1>Just like real Life the middle men get the shaft. This update is good for the small and big guilds but us middle size guilds will suffer : /</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT size=1>Voting NO on 13a.</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT size=1>Additionally, just like SOE to implement a good change just to take it right back not even a week later.... thanks alot to the guilds who utilized the game mechanics for their benefit as it was unintended. And this change lets us know it!</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=center><FONT size=5><STRONG><U> NOTE TO SOE: Haven't ya learned yet, give them an inch and they will take the whole mile!</U></STRONG></FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Naud on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:52 PM</span>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 09:46 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morie wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pathin Merrithay wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>YOU DO HAVE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.... you both must do the same amount of work to get to the same place... THEY can just spread it out amongst more people.<BR></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff><STRONG>Actually, not with what is on test. As you have just pointed out, without a level cap it would be the same amount of work spread out among more people. But with the cap, it isn't. </STRONG></FONT></P><FONT color=#ffffff><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ffffff><STRONG> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>They do the same amount of work! I mean cmon! Just because they can 'spread the wealth' means they can level faster then the 30 person guild. Back to my original post... what does it matter if the 500 person guild levels faster then your 30 person guild? shouldnt it be about brotherhood, not levels? Does guild level 30 bestow upon your members the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Slay whole dragons with a sneeze? No, its merely cosmetic. Oh ya, they get a flying carpet.... oh [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. </FONT><BR></P></STRONG></FONT> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><BR></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>How is that THEIR fault? If you want your family style guild, so be it but know that you must do more work PER person to get the same place as the huge guild. Is that wrong? NO. Live with the fact that things are not perfectly fair and equal. Asking a 30 person guild to level as fast as a 500 person guild because the 30 person guild is smaller is like asking SOE to let mages tank.<BR></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff>Well, aside from the false analogy... I don't think anyone is asking that they level at the exact same pace. They don't with the current system either. But this is a huge penalty for smaller/medium sized guilds in addition to a huge bonus to the large guilds. Now, this may be a whole new direction that they envision for the game, but large EQ1 type guilds were not part of the original plan for EQ2.<BR></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff>Let me ask you this: why should a guild with 75% of it's roster inactive be able to out level a guild that has 10% of it's roster inactive? Doesn't that seem crazy? Unless the reward is size just for size's sake -- not dedication -- that's what the level cap does.<BR></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00>25% of 500 = 125... </FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00>90% of 30 = 27...</FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00>Still more people... working towards the same amount of 'hours worked' as the small guild. Large guild... should then level faster. </FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00>And how does it penalize your small guild? I would think it would be more family like and in the spirit of brotherhood if EVERYONE contributed. I would feel more attached to a guild if I contributed 30000 gsp over the period of my leveling then if I had nothing to contribute. </FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT color=#ffff00>On a side note, I do not believe this is the best choice the DEV's made... but it is better then what they had imho. I only wish that if they do this, they return to having status leave with members... ie. if a member contributed 50000 gsp when they leave the guild loses that status. Guilds need to flow, from birth, sustenance and then decay. </FONT></FONT></FONT></STRONG></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Fael

07-29-2005, 09:49 PM

<P>This is Sony doing what it does best:</P> <P>Take the hard work and hundreds of hours of playtime and trivialize it.</P> <P>They did it with the robe of the invoker which many folks camped of weeks. They did it with GEBs which was also not an easy quest involving countless hours of work. </P> <P>Sony appears to delight in thumbing it's nose at its players by making all the hours and work mean NOTHING.</P> <P>Now they are taking the hundreds or even thousands of hours invested by players to reach a goal (guild level 30 in this case) and making it totally meaningless.</P> <P>To tell the truth, it's what I have come to expect from Sony, and to date I have not been let down.</P> <P>Now to answer the question asked over and over again....why is reaching level 30 important aside from the rather dubious benefits?</P> <P>It is a goal that until now, was attainable by any guild, large or small. The playing field was completely even. Many guilds lack the numbers to raid the mobs they would like to at this point, and although most will eventually reach that goal, it is not one that is attainable for many guilds who do not have 24 active players. My guild falls into that category. So we chose a goal that was attainable....to reach level 30 as a guild as quickly as we could. That meant that we had 12 dedicated players willing to devote the time and effort into doing endless writs. We reached our goal of being the first guild on the server to be level 30. Now Sony, in it's infinite wisdom, following an established pattern of nerfs, wants to trivialize this accomplishment (and yes, I do consider it an accomplishment.)</P> <P>Most of us playing this game set goals for ourselves just as we do in rl. That what makes the game fun for us, setting and reaching goals. Each time the goals we reach are trivialized by Sony implementing changes "for the good of the community" the games becomes less fun and more frustrating, and it's only a matter of time before the reduced "fun factor" will result in many folks seeking out other games to play.</P> <P>This change will imo ruin the guild structure altogether. Why even have guild levels? why even have patrons?</P> <P>My two copper...</P>

Raahl

07-29-2005, 10:00 PM

<P>Wow I just crunched the numbers here and I have to say that small dedicated guilds will have no problem leveling!</P> <P>Guild A (6 Account guild, 36 characters) - 60,000/6 = 10,000 per heritage quest.<BR>Guild B (24 Account guild, 144 characters) - 60,000/24 = 2500 per heritage quest.</P> <P>6 characters of each guild turn in a heritage quest.<BR>Guild A - 60,000 guild status.<BR>Guild B - 15,000 guild status.</P> <P>So for Guild B to match Guild A's 60,000 status, 24 characters would have to perform the heritage quest.</P> <P>If all characters in each guild perform the quest. Saying the quest takes 2 hours.<BR>Guild A - 36 x 10,000 = 360,000 for 12 hours of work (6 accounts x 2 hours)<BR>Guild B - 144 x 2,500 = 360,000 for 48 hours of work (24 accounts x 2 hours)</P> <P>So Guild A is producing the same amount of status in 1/4 of the time. </P> <P>If Guild A was a hard core guild they could make <FONT size=5><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>1,440,000</FONT> </STRONG></FONT>guild status in the time it takes Guild B to make 360,000.</P>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 10:06 PM

<DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Another point... how does this hurt small guilds? It helps them in all entirety... example:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>In a 20 account guild, they all do JBoots, and get 60000 status</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>In a 500 account guild, it would take 24 people doing the same quest to get the same GSP...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>In a 6 account guild, they all do Jboots, they have 60000 gsp... </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Time wise(2hours/grp):</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>6 account guild = 2 hours</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>20 account guild = 7 hours</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>24 account guild = 8 hours</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Someone point out where that hurts small guilds? Oh, and if you point out that the small guild has to be fully active to reap the benefits then let me say this. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Old old school system (patrons left with status): I bet you I could find 12 hardcore players that will crunch out status 8 hours a day a lot easier within a guild of 500 then within a guild of 20. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Old school system (patron status stays after a week): Just rotate... just rotate... and with 500 people, you have a lot more to grab from... but then, not everyone feels like a team player. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>New system (everyone contributes): 500 person guild still holds the advantage</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>My point is, the 500 person guild ALWAYS had the advantage. Its inherit that numbers = power and with that you can level faster. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I have to go donate plasma, bbl to rant, [Removed for Content].</FONT></DIV>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 10:06 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> <P>Wow I just crunched the numbers here and I have to say that small dedicated guilds will have no problem leveling!</P> <P>Guild A (6 Account guild, 36 characters) - 60,000/6 = 10,000 per heritage quest.<BR>Guild B (24 Account guild, 144 characters) - 60,000/24 = 2500 per heritage quest.</P> <P>6 characters of each guild turn in a heritage quest.<BR>Guild A - 60,000 guild status.<BR>Guild B - 15,000 guild status.</P> <P>So for Guild B to match Guild A's 60,000 status, 24 characters would have to perform the heritage quest.</P> <P>If all characters in each guild perform the quest. Saying the quest takes 2 hours.<BR>Guild A - 36 x 10,000 = 360,000 for 12 hours of work (6 accounts x 2 hours)<BR>Guild B - 144 x 2,500 = 360,000 for 48 hours of work (24 accounts x 2 hours)</P> <P>So Guild A is producing the same amount of status in 1/4 of the time. </P> <P>If Guild A was a hard core guild they could make <FONT size=5><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>1,440,000</FONT> </STRONG></FONT>guild status in the time it takes Guild B to make 360,000.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I am glad I am not the only one who sees this</DIV>

Mor

07-29-2005, 10:16 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Morie wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> DarkLegacy2005 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pathin Merrithay wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">YOU DO HAVE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.... you both must do the same amount of work to get to the same place... THEY can just spread it out amongst more people.</font></strong></p> <p><font color="#ffffff"><strong>Actually, not with what is on test. As you have just pointed out, without a level cap it would be the same amount of work spread out among more people. But with the cap, it isn't. </strong></font></p><font color="#ffffff"><strong></strong></font></blockquote> <blockquote><font color="#ffffff"><strong> <p><font color="#ffff00">They do the same amount of work! I mean cmon! Just because they can 'spread the wealth' means they can level faster then the 30 person guild. <font color="#ffffff"> No the work stops being spread out after 24. That's the problem.</font> </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00"> </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Back to my original post... what does it matter if the 500 person guild levels faster then your 30 person guild? shouldnt it be about brotherhood, not levels? Does guild level 30 bestow upon your members the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Slay whole dragons with a sneeze? No, its merely cosmetic. Oh ya, they get a flying carpet.... oh [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. </font></p> <p><font color="#ffffff">Well, then why do you care if the smaller/medium sized guilds can now get to 30 in less than a year? What difference does it make to you? </font></p> </strong></font> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">How is that THEIR fault? If you want your family style guild, so be it but know that you must do more work PER person to get the same place as the huge guild. Is that wrong? NO. Live with the fact that things are not perfectly fair and equal. Asking a 30 person guild to level as fast as a 500 person guild because the 30 person guild is smaller is like asking SOE to let mages tank.</font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">Well, aside from the false analogy... I don't think anyone is asking that they level at the exact same pace. They don't with the current system either. But this is a huge penalty for smaller/medium sized guilds in addition to a huge bonus to the large guilds. Now, this may be a whole new direction that they envision for the game, but large EQ1 type guilds were not part of the original plan for EQ2.</font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">Let me ask you this: why should a guild with 75% of it's roster inactive be able to out level a guild that has 10% of it's roster inactive? Doesn't that seem crazy? Unless the reward is size just for size's sake -- not dedication -- that's what the level cap does.</font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffff00">25% of 500 = 125... </font></font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffff00">90% of 30 = 27...</font></font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffff00">Still more people... working towards the same amount of 'hours worked' as the small guild. Large guild... should then level faster. </font></font></font></strong></p> <p><font color="#ffffff">Why should sheer numbers alone -- not numbers of active people, but just sheer numbers alone benefit anyone? You speak of fairness, but how can that be fair?</font><font color="#ffffff"> </font> </p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffff00">And how does it penalize your small guild? </font></font></font></strong></p> <p><font color="#ffffff"><strong>Because guilds with more than 12 but under 24 people are going to recieve fewer status points per quest than they do under the current system. </strong></font></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffff00"> I would think it would be more family like and in the spirit of brotherhood if EVERYONE contributed. </font></font></font></strong></p> <p><font color="#ffffff"><strong>But the system you are in favor us doesn't reward this at all -- all it rewards is a large number of accounts. Activity isn't a factor. </strong></font></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffff00"> I would feel more attached to a guild if I contributed 30000 gsp over the period of my leveling then if I had nothing to contribute. </font></font></font></strong></p> <p><strong></strong> There is absolutely no excuse for having anyone who wants to contribute to not contribute under the current system. None. </p></blockquote><blockquote> </blockquote> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <hr> </blockquote></span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span> <div></div>

Mor

07-29-2005, 10:18 PM

Yep, guilds with less than 12 people will benefit just like the 200 person guilds will. It's the small to medium sized guilds that will be hurt. <div></div>

DarkLegacy2005

07-29-2005, 10:23 PM

show me the numbers... I want to see in your opinion how it 'hurts' medium and small sized guilds... All I can see is benefit all the way around.

Meniphisto

07-29-2005, 10:50 PM

<DIV>I have to say that I am so glad that I am in my current guild, and not some of yours. The idea that you call yourself a "family" guild makes me laugh. Tell me, how is it family if your willing to put your guild level above your friends? "I'm friends with all my guildies, and now I have to unguild them so we can level faster" [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]? I thankfully don't have any friends like that, and I doubt I will ever.<BR><BR>Does having a title in front of your name make you feel better? Then why don't you just join a level 30 guild? "But I would leave behind all my friends" The friends you were willing to dump? Are your friends worth less then the opertunity to buy a flying carpet for 60 plat? Or perhaps a new dress that looks snazzy? If so, then I really pitty your friends.<BR><BR>The problem is, (you are right in this aspect) that this new system is not fair to some guilds. But guess what? The old system wasn't fair either. The so-called "Top 12" system is unjust too! Is it fair to go up to someone who is currently ranked #12 and tell them that all their hard work is now worthless because someone did one more writ then they had? Or how about newer memebers? I was the top guild status contributer to my old guild, but I had to leave do to play times (I was never able to group with anyone) so I switched to my new guild. Some of the top people have GPS well over the 100k's. Im sorry, but I really don't see the point of doing hundreds of guild writs just to try to catch up to them. And what about all of those writs that I do to try to catch up? Absolutly worthless unless I pass someone, then all their hard work is worthless.<BR><BR>I, personally, would love to see an end to the guild level system as it is. I kind of like the idea that in order to gain your "benifits" you have to do something for the city. Like the guild raids that are handed out. But then again, that would be unfair to all of those smaller guilds that don't have time for raids, or just wont raid. <BR><BR>I still have yet to see a reason why one guild leveling faster is unfair. There is no reason why my larger guild should have to pump out writs like crazy to keep up with smaller guilds, just like there is no reason why your smaller guild should have to do the same to keep up with mine. Which-ever guild has more people doing writs faster then the other one should level faster.</DIV>

Mor

07-29-2005, 11:04 PM

Ok, 14 person guild, 12 active patrons (seem like reasonable numbers, but they are arbitrary): On live, status for a single HQ = (40000/( ( 12 + 1 ) * .91 ) ) = 3381 On test, status for a single HQ = 40000/14 = 2857 In fact, even if there are ZERO inactive people (how many of you have guilds that never have people that are on vacation?), status is still lost albiet its far smaller.

Furi

07-29-2005, 11:10 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR> show me the numbers... I want to see in your opinion how it 'hurts' medium and small sized guilds... All I can see is benefit all the way around.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ok.</P> <P>Small guild...25 accounts, 1/5 of them inactive.</P> <P>Everyone who is active completes 1 writ for 3000 status each = (3000*20)/24=2500 guild status gained</P> <P>Large guild...80 account, 1/5 of them inactive.</P> <P>Everyone who is active completes 1 writ for 3000 status each = (3000*64)/24=8000 guild status gained</P> <P>Now everyone who is active in the guild has done exactly the same amount of work to advance the guild...ie one writ. However said large guild has gained more than triple the amount of guild xp simply because they are a large guild.</P>

Gorkk00

07-29-2005, 11:11 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pathin Merrithay wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote><blockquote><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">YOU DO HAVE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.... you both must do the same amount of work to get to the same place... THEY can just spread it out amongst more people. </font></strong></p> <p><font color="#ffffff"><strong>Actually, not with what is on test. As you have just pointed out, without a level cap it would be the same amount of work spread out among more people. But with the cap, it isn't. </strong></font></p> <p><font color="#ffffff"><strong><font color="#00cc00"><b>Common man, did you at least read carefuly what he wrote? When YOU talk about same amount of work it obviously means same amount of work / person (it's the only thing removing the cap would do). When HE talked about same amount of work, it meant same amount of manworking-hour (eg. 1 people working 50h or 25 working 2h each or 50 working 1h each). Removing the cap would be asking for larger guilds to do more work for the same thing... Without a level cap it would be much more hours of work for larger guilds (cause still the same amount of hours of work per person but more people), and WITH the cap it allows to spread the amount of work between the members. With the cap, any guild over 24 accounts will need the same amount of work to get a level, but it'll be spread among all accounts, so the more there is accounts, the less EACH account has to work. Guilds with less than 24 accounts will have less work to do than those with more, but of course will have less people to spread it among.</b></font> </strong></font></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"> </font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">How is that THEIR fault? If you want your family style guild, so be it but know that you must do more work PER person to get the same place as the huge guild. Is that wrong? NO. Live with the fact that things are not perfectly fair and equal. Asking a 30 person guild to level as fast as a 500 person guild because the 30 person guild is smaller is like asking SOE to let mages tank. </font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">Well, aside from the false analogy... I don't think anyone is asking that they level at the exact same pace. They don't with the current system either. But this is a huge penalty for smaller/medium sized guilds in addition to a huge bonus to the large guilds. Now, this may be a whole new direction that they envision for the game, but large EQ1 type guilds were not part of the original plan for EQ2. </font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">Let me ask you this: why should a guild with 75% of it's roster inactive be able to out level a guild that has 10% of it's roster inactive? Doesn't that seem crazy? Unless the reward is size just for size's sake -- not dedication -- that's what the level cap does. </font></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#00cc00">Let me ask you this: why a guild of 6 accounts should be able to level as fast as a guild àf 200 accounts (which would be the effect of just removing the cap)?</font> </font></font></strong></p> </blockquote><blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Victicu

07-29-2005, 11:13 PM

<DIV>Heres a question for you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am in a medium sized guild, why should I work 5 times as hard to level my guild than a person in a 200 member guild?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We both get the EXACT same rewards for guild levels... yet the average member of a medium sized guild will have to work MUCH more than the average member of a large guild.</DIV>

Mor

07-29-2005, 11:19 PM

Meniphisto

07-29-2005, 11:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR> <P>Ok.</P> <P>Small guild...25 accounts, 1/5 of them inactive.</P> <P>Everyone who is active completes 1 writ for 3000 status each = (3000*20)/24=2500 guild status gained</P> <P>Large guild...80 account, 1/5 of them inactive.</P> <P>Everyone who is active completes 1 writ for 3000 status each = (3000*64)/24=8000 guild status gained</P> <P>Now everyone who is active in the guild has done exactly the same amount of work to advance the guild...ie one writ. However said large guild has gained more than triple the amount of guild xp simply because they are a large guild.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Now, lets go back over those numbers. <BR><BR>20 people doing 1 writ = 2500</P> <P>64 people doing 1 writ = 8000</P> <P>20/64 = 33%</P> <P>2500/8000 = 31.25%</P> <P>Seems to me that there is only a little bit of difference between those numbers. The only difference is that the 20 people guild get a small disadvantage, one that is only 1.75%! So is it fair that my guild has 64 people doing writs getting 2/3 more exp then your guild who only has 20 people doing writs? <BR></P> <P>Just for fun sake, lets examine those numbers again:<BR></P> <P>"(3000*20)/24=2500 guild status gained" so then we do 2500/20 = 125</P> <P>so each member of your guild only gets 125 GPS for each writ</P> <P>"(3000*64)/24=8000 guild status gained" so then we do 8000/64 = 125<BR><BR>Guess what? Each person is getting the same amount of GPS then the other is, only difference is that there are more people in the 80 person guild doing them. Seems fair to me.<BR><BR></P> <P>*edited for more number crunching ^_^*</P></BLOCKQUOTE><p>Message Edited by Meniphisto on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:27 PM</span>

Dejah

07-29-2005, 11:38 PM

Furi

07-29-2005, 11:46 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meniphisto wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR> <P>Ok.</P> <P>Small guild...25 accounts, 1/5 of them inactive.</P> <P>Everyone who is active completes 1 writ for 3000 status each = (3000*20)/24=2500 guild status gained</P> <P>Large guild...80 account, 1/5 of them inactive.</P> <P>Everyone who is active completes 1 writ for 3000 status each = (3000*64)/24=8000 guild status gained</P> <P>Now everyone who is active in the guild has done exactly the same amount of work to advance the guild...ie one writ. However said large guild has gained more than triple the amount of guild xp simply because they are a large guild.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Now, lets go back over those numbers. <BR><BR>20 people doing 1 writ = 2500</P> <P>64 people doing 1 writ = 8000</P> <P>20/64 = 33%</P> <P>2500/8000 = 31.25%</P> <P>Seems to me that there is only a little bit of difference between those numbers. The only difference is that the 20 people guild get a small disadvantage, one that is only 1.75%! So is it fair that my guild has 64 people doing writs getting 2/3 more exp then your guild who only has 20 people doing writs? <BR></P> <P>Just for fun sake, lets examine those numbers again:<BR></P> <P>"(3000*20)/24=2500 guild status gained" so then we do 2500/20 = 125</P> <P>so each member of your guild only gets 125 GPS for each writ</P> <P>"(3000*64)/24=8000 guild status gained" so then we do 8000/64 = 125<BR><BR>Guess what? Each person is getting the same amount of GPS then the other is, only difference is that there are more people in the 80 person guild doing them. Seems fair to me.<BR><BR></P> <P>*edited for more number crunching ^_^*</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Message Edited by Meniphisto on <SPAN class=date_text>07-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:27 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Since alot of you seem to like numbers so much...and trying to manipulate them so lets do some more numbers....wheeee!</P> <P>I know this number is a little high, but not by much...</P> <P>It takes 2000000 guild xp to get to level 30.</P> <P>We'll keep using the 3000 status writ from above, which yields 125 GSP with 24 or more accounts.</P> <P>We'll ignore heritages for the sake of this example as well, but really all they are is big writs for the purposes of guild xp anyway.</P> <P>So, it takes 16000 writs to get to guild level 30.</P> <P>A guild with 20 active people will have to complete 800 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</P> <P>A guild with 64 active people will have to complete 250 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</P> <P>So why should player A, who is a member of the smaller guild, have to work 3 times as hard as player b, who is a member of the larger guild, to achieve the same objective?</P>

Naud

07-29-2005, 11:46 PM

<P>The Good The Bad & The Freakishly Ugly;</P> <P>We have over 24 accounts in our guild, about 50 members in the guild 22 "actives" (and by actives I mean they log on every now and again to play) 10 who are on every day weather it be to adventure or craft and the rest are alts or people on "break". There are 2 -5 people who do writs on a regular basis but majority of our players only come on to play about 3 hrs a day if that. As of now we have 16 Patrons and earn close to .6% each writ completed. OK up our divisor to 24..... All I have to say is it's BOGUS! After all that hard work balancing out the current system and working to create a fair but progressive system with all of my brothers and sisters has been for nothing. The current system does allow everyone to contribute, although maybe a little less as you add your patrons up but it works well for those guilds who have a majority of casual players only completing heritages once or twice a month. So why would our same 2-5 people keep doiong the same writs for only a % of GSP? They won't, and as for more people completing them.. ofcourse that makes sense, but for casual player the last thing they want to do is feel obligated for a past-time they are supposed to be enjoying. My 2c</P>

Nianq

07-29-2005, 11:50 PM

<P>It's called "Dumbing down" They did the same thing in EQ. first they moved starting spawn points to in front of your guild leader. Then they said OK no exp loss or corpse runs till you ding 10 instead of 5. Then you started with a bag of food. Then you got a tutorial that resulted in decent armor, and a charm with stats my lvl 50 shammy was jealous of. And thats to say nothing of the auto Sense Heading of 200 or the POK stones and the travel gnomes giving instant access to anywhere. The boats dont even run anymore. <BR><BR>You just wait, it wont be long untill you'll get all your skills maxed as soon as you ding. And then they'll give you a full set of the lvl 20 AQs upon completion of your subclass quest. Exp debt will be done away with. all combines will automatically be pristine, you'll never fizzle or get interupted, and you will be able to buy whatever you want no matter what your guild level or faction standing (just like artisan societies) </P> <P>Why work for anything anymore? Lets all just [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] and moan about how lazy we are and eventually they'll cave and give us the world on a silver platter. Who cares if it demeans the accomplishments of all those that actually EARNED it. I pay my $15/month. So what if i dont care enough to play more than 3 hours a week. My money's just as good and my 3 hours a week is worth just as much as your 40 hours a week. I demand to be given everything that the most accomplished character in the game has or I'm going to complain about how unfair this game is to the casual players.</P> <P>.....</P> <P>um sorry about that last paragraph it just kinda slipped out. Anyhow, I've posted this elsewhere but here's my idea for guild status</P> <DIV> <DIV>I think patron status should become permanent over time. I think it would've been better to make the permanence of the status dependant on when the status was earned, not when the member was patronized. I would've liked to see patron status earned in the past month be lost with the patron that earned it but anything earned before that made permanent. I would also have it set up so that if a patron left they would lose double what the guild loses. I think this is fair. After all when the patron leaves, the guild loses all of the status that patron contributed last month, but this is at most 1/6 of the personal status the patron earned that month. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So lets say I have a guild with 20 patrons.</DIV> <DIV>Gus has earned 1,000,000PSP and 50,000GSP of this 400,000PSP and 20,000GSP was earned in the last month.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Bob has earned 1,000,000PSP and 50,000GSP of this none was earned in the last month.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Joe has earned 1,000,000PSP and 50,000GSP of this all was earned in the last month. <DIV>Frank has earned 1,000,000PSP and 50,000GSP of this 200,000PSP and 10,000GSP was earned in the last month.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gus wants to move to a guild that raids more often. The guild will lose 20,000 status when Gus leaves but Gus will lose 40,000 status. Gus decides that 40k isn't that much considering he earned 400k that month and the guild can easily replace the 20k they will lose, so he goes ahead and switch guilds. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The officers of the guild notice that Bob is inactive and hasn't done a writ in three months. This is slowing down the guild's progression so they depatron him. Since he has not contributed anything in the last 30 days neither him nor the guild loses any status.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joe also wants to switch guilds. Joe looks and sees that if he leaves he will lose 100,000 status points and the guild will lose 50,000. Joe has no interest in a house or a horse so doen't care about the status but he doesn't want to hurt the guild so he stops doing writs and heritage quests for a month and leaves when the guild will not lose any status. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Frank has a RL friend in another guild and wants to switch guilds. The guild will lose 10,000 status when Frank leaves but Frank will lose 20,000 status. Frank is saving up for a flying carpet and doesn't want to lose the 20k. So he stops turning in heritage quests and waits for a month to switch guilds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Doing this would virtually eliminate the rotating patrons and exploits. Well you could still use a rotating patron schedule if you really wanted to but you'd have to go a month with no status gain so I doubt it would be worth it. Also patrons will be less likely to engage in guild hopping as they will be penalized as well. However, this still allows inactive patrons to be removed without harming the guild or the patron. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, I have yet to see anything wrong with the current formula of GSP = PSP / the larger of 12 or # of patrons. This is a good formula that keeps guilds on a level playing field. "Oh woe is us. we only have 9 patrons and our PSP is being divided by 12." So what, that keeps you from having an advantage over the larger guilds. "Oh woe is us. Our PSP is being divided by 50" So what, that's what keeps you from having an advantage over the smaller guilds. "Oh woe is us. We're a casual guild and cant level" Liar, you just dont want it bad enough. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Im in a casual guild we have 67 members, an average lvl of 34/16, and I doubt we have more than 10 members who play 20 hours a week and they aint all patrons. We have never had more than 24 patrons. as of the LU12 we have 12 patrons untill #13 gets back from his honeymoon and #14 takes care of some medical issues. I depatroned 20 inactives before LU12 and only 3 after (including the forementioned #13 and 14). We were level 24.80 when I went to bed last night. How did we do this? simple: Our patrons want carpets, crafting stations, and new paintings and they are willing to <U><STRONG>work for them</STRONG></U>. However, when they heard about this no more patron business in testing they forgot all about those things. Now they just want to hit 30 before this goes into effect so they can say <U><STRONG>we earned it</STRONG></U>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do I like the status loots? no, because it lets guilds buy lvl 30 on the broker. Yet at the same time, yes because it lets nonpatrons contribute by giving the loot to a patron for the turn in thereby instilling greater pride for the non patrons. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Honestly i think SOE needs to just STOP [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ING WITH IT. You can't make everyone happy. No matter what you do, the majority of people will hate it. So just leave it alone. Is it running at optimal efficiency? No. Does it need tweaking? Maybe. Is it broke? NO. So put down the freaking sledge hammer. There's a fly on your nose and you're using the wrong tool. My car doesnt run at optimal effeciency but that doesnt mean Im gonna send it to the scrap heap. MY job aint the best but i'm not going to quit. My 2 year old likes to throw tantrums when he doesn't get his way and this is very annoying but I'm not gonna kill him and try for a better model. Nor an I going to cave in and let him have all that candy or the milk he's allergic to or let him play with a chainsaw. It's my job to make him a decent member of society. It's not my job to cater to his every immature whim. In the same way it's not SOE's job to cater to the immature whim of the whiny, lazy masses. Nor is it the job of the whiny lazy masses to dictate policy to SOE. Would I like to see my proposal for changes to patrons be accepted? Sure. Will I get upset ifit's not? No. I'm not a developer for EQ2. Nor do I sign their paycheck. I'm just a guy with an idea. It's up to them to decide if it's a good idea or not. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To the immature, whiny, lazy masses: "Grow up. Get some dignity. Stop begging. Go earn what you want. Stop being the whiny, lazy masses. Don't get so discouraged when the road is tough. You've got your hand out, so put a tool in it and get what you want. If you don't want it bad enough to work for it then you didn't want it in the first place. If you earn what you want you'll feel a whole lot better about yourself"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To SOE: "Get a back bone. You built a good game with a good guild system. Yes it has bugs but don't get discouraged and scrap it because of a few loud mouths in the whiny, lazy masses. They're worthless and their opinions are worthless. You stick with what you built and don't let them make you tear it down. If they throw a fit and leave, so what; we're better off without them."</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>

Meniphisto

07-29-2005, 11:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR><BR> <P><BR>Since alot of you seem to like numbers so much...and trying to manipulate them so lets do some more numbers....wheeee!</P> <P>I know this number is a little high, but not by much...</P> <P>It takes 2000000 guild xp to get to level 30.</P> <P>We'll keep using the 3000 status writ from above, which yields 125 GSP with 24 or more accounts.</P> <P>We'll ignore heritages for the sake of this example as well, but really all they are is big writs for the purposes of guild xp anyway.</P> <P>So, it takes 16000 writs to get to guild level 30.</P> <P>A guild with 20 active people will have to complete 800 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</P> <P>A guild with 64 active people will have to complete 250 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</P> <P>So why should player A, who is a member of the smaller guild, have to work 3 times as hard as player b, who is a member of the larger guild, to achieve the same objective?</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Hold on a sec, am I seeing this correctly? You are asking why its unfair for player A to do more work then player B? The way Im seeing those numbers, they count against you. For everyone 1 person doing a writ in Player A's guild (Guild A) there is 3 people in Player B's guild (Guild B). Doesn't it make sesne that if 3 people are doing something they are going to go faster then 1 person?<BR><BR>Take the BBC heritage quest for example. Which will go faster? You killing 1000 mobs by yourself or 3 people? The 3 people will, because they can work 66% faster. </P> <P>Thats why.<BR></P>

Ravenmi

07-29-2005, 11:56 PM

<P>Throwing in my voice on the subject to say I strongly oppose this change. This is the worst idea yet and it needs to be killed bad in its current form.</P> <P>The cap needs to go, no diminishing returns junk, it needs to be even. That junk about larger guilds not wanting to take in new members because it would make it harder for them to level up is bs. It will be the same as it was before, one new member, one higher mod, one more member contributing, it all stays even.</P> <P>The idea of all accounts counting is also a bad idea. There needs to be a timer like others mentioned. If someone hasn't logged in withinin 3 or 4 weeks they should stop counting until they log in again.</P> <P>Even this still makes it harder for guilds to keep casual players around.. the types that only log in for a few hours ever couple of days. The ones that don't have time to really help with writs etc. Right now that works out fine, not a patron, not a problem, play at your own pace. But if they start counting all of a sudden, things are going to have to change, they aren't going to be happy and maybe the little time they get to play isn't worth it anymore. </P> <P>Don't make this huge mistake, the current system is better then this crap. Increase the time to 2-4 weeks on swapping a patron.. something but don't do this.</P>

Screamin' 1

07-29-2005, 11:57 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Meniphisto wrote:<div>I have to say that I am so glad that I am in my current guild, and not some of yours. The idea that you call yourself a "family" guild makes me laugh. Tell me, how is it family if your willing to put your guild level above your friends? "I'm friends with all my guildies, and now I have to unguild them so we can level faster" [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]? I thankfully don't have any friends like that, and I doubt I will ever. <font color="#33ccff">I don't think this is what folks have been saying. The argument is, on test, we now have only two options: Level SLOWER than we have been leveling, or boot the more casual members of our guild who are not into writs and such.</font>I still have yet to see a reason why one guild leveling faster is unfair. There is no reason why my larger guild should have to pump out writs like crazy to keep up with smaller guilds, just like there is no reason why your smaller guild should have to do the same to keep up with mine. Which-ever guild has more people doing writs faster then the other one should level faster. <font color="#33ccff">Ummm. Isn't the last sentence an explanation of why you need to do more writs in a smaller guild to keep up? There is really no argument that makes sense to defend a divisor cap of 24, except from those who are in large guilds who want a big boost. I have stated before that it makes sense that a larger guild levels faster, but I will qualify that by stating that the degree of increase should be moderate at most, and should not come w/o the need for superior guild management. The cap just hands large guilds a big old prize. There is no penalty for randomly inviting 50 players into your guild, if they don't produce, you lose nothing. That just makes no sense to me. </font></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Screamin' 1

07-30-2005, 12:05 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Meniphisto wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Furiel wrote: <p>Since alot of you seem to like numbers so much...and trying to manipulate them so lets do some more numbers....wheeee!</p> <p>I know this number is a little high, but not by much...</p> <p>It takes 2000000 guild xp to get to level 30.</p> <p>We'll keep using the 3000 status writ from above, which yields 125 GSP with 24 or more accounts.</p> <p>We'll ignore heritages for the sake of this example as well, but really all they are is big writs for the purposes of guild xp anyway.</p> <p>So, it takes 16000 writs to get to guild level 30.</p> <p>A guild with 20 active people will have to complete 800 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</p> <p>A guild with 64 active people will have to complete 250 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</p> <p>So why should player A, who is a member of the smaller guild, have to work 3 times as hard as player b, who is a member of the larger guild, to achieve the same objective?</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Hold on a sec, am I seeing this correctly? You are asking why its unfair for player A to do more work then player B? The way Im seeing those numbers, they count against you. For everyone 1 person doing a writ in Player A's guild (Guild A) there is 3 people in Player B's guild (Guild B). Doesn't it make sesne that if 3 people are doing something they are going to go faster then 1 person?</p> <p><font color="#33ccff">In a way, it makes sense, if you are not thinking about the fact that this is a game, and the players in the game should bascically have the same benefits if they put the same amount of time and skill into it. The point is that player A and player B do the </font><font color="#33ccff"><b>***same work</b></font><font color="#33ccff">***, but because player A is in a smaller guild, his guild levels 3 times slower. Are you actually implying that is fair?. BTW, 3 times is a conservative number.</font> </p> <p>Take the BBC heritage quest for example. Which will go faster? You killing 1000 mobs by yourself or 3 people? The 3 people will, because they can work 66% faster. </p> <p>Thats why.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

Furi

07-30-2005, 12:11 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Meniphisto wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR><BR> <P><BR>Since alot of you seem to like numbers so much...and trying to manipulate them so lets do some more numbers....wheeee!</P> <P>I know this number is a little high, but not by much...</P> <P>It takes 2000000 guild xp to get to level 30.</P> <P>We'll keep using the 3000 status writ from above, which yields 125 GSP with 24 or more accounts.</P> <P>We'll ignore heritages for the sake of this example as well, but really all they are is big writs for the purposes of guild xp anyway.</P> <P>So, it takes 16000 writs to get to guild level 30.</P> <P>A guild with 20 active people will have to complete 800 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</P> <P>A guild with 64 active people will have to complete 250 writs per person to attain guild level 30.</P> <P>So why should player A, who is a member of the smaller guild, have to work 3 times as hard as player b, who is a member of the larger guild, to achieve the same objective?</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Hold on a sec, am I seeing this correctly? You are asking why its unfair for player A to do more work then player B? The way Im seeing those numbers, they count against you. For everyone 1 person doing a writ in Player A's guild (Guild A) there is 3 people in Player B's guild (Guild B). Doesn't it make sesne that if 3 people are doing something they are going to go faster then 1 person?<BR><BR>Take the BBC heritage quest for example. Which will go faster? You killing 1000 mobs by yourself or 3 people? The 3 people will, because they can work 66% faster. </P> <P>Thats why.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm not discussing speed, I'm discussing effort.</P> <P>Lets take the BBC heritage again.</P> <P>What if you had to kill 3000 mobs because you are from Quenos, but I only had to kill 1000 cuz I'm from Freeport? Would that be fair?</P> <P>We both got the same result, a completed BBC, but you had to work 3 times harder for it merely because you chose to live in lala land whereas I chose to live in a real city.</P>

Keetarr

07-30-2005, 12:20 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ravenmist wrote:<BR> <P>Throwing in my voice on the subject to say I strongly oppose this change. This is the worst idea yet and it needs to be killed bad in its current form.<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>AMEN!! I couldn't have said it better myself.</DIV>

Raahl

07-30-2005, 12:26 AM

I'll answer your question with a question. :smileytongue: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why should you be allowed to earn 5 times more status points than another player for the same work?</DIV><p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:27 PM</span>

Furi

07-30-2005, 12:45 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> I'll answer your question with a question. :smileytongue: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why should you be allowed to earn 5 times more status points than another player for the same work?</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Raahl on <SPAN class=date_text>07-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:27 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>That's a very good and fair question...and really gets to the heart of the matter, as both sides of the arguement aren't fair to someone in the grand scheme.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You've got my side, which is the why should the average player in a small guild have to put in 5 times the effort to level their guild to 30 compared to the average player in a large guild?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And then there is your side of, why should someone in a small guild get more guild xp than someone in a large guild for doing the same thing?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Same coin...2 sides...both tails. :smileysad:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't know what the answer is, but I firmly believe that the system currently on test isn't it.</DIV>

Pathin Merrithay

07-30-2005, 01:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>Getting guild level 30 is still a challenge, just that 500 person guild has 500 people to split that challenge through. That doesnt sound wrong to me at all. Sounds like common sense to me. </FONT></STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>500 People getting something done faster then 30 people... never... /sarcasm off</STRONG></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You need a serious adjustment to your common sense then if you don't then see how this is exactly my point. In this game, people will travel the path of least resistance. Large scale zerg guilds will become more common because THIS SYSTEM FAVORS THEM. Guild level 30 is NOT in fact a challenge if all you do are a zerg through few pathetically simple HQ's to get there. The patron system was established to give casual guilds the opportunity to level just as fast as large scale guilds, so that there would be an advantage and rewards to being within one, without having to resort to joining a massive guild to be GL 30 if that's what you wished. You just don't understand the point being made.<BR>

Meniphisto

07-30-2005, 01:09 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Furiel wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Same coin...2 sides...both tails. :smileysad:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't know what the answer is, but I firmly believe that the system currently on test isn't it.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I think you've hit the nail on the head there. So far, there is no equal ground. I like the newer system because I can actually help my guild level even though Im not one of the top 12 writ-doers. You dont because a bigger guild's writs count for more then a smaller guild's.<BR><BR>Unfortunitly, no system created by either players or devs can seem to fix this problem. Perhaps if guild xp was based on the number of active guild-mates... but then we come to the argument of what does "active" mean.<BR><BR>So for now, we can only hope that SoE comes out with a better idea. Old system = people being screwed over. New system = people being screwed over. Top 12 system = people being screwed over. I guess then logically: SoE does something to change guild status = people being screwed over.</DIV>

Furi

07-30-2005, 01:10 AM

Gorkk00

07-30-2005, 02:44 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Screamin' 103 wrote:<span> <blockquote><p><font color="#33ccff">In a way, it makes sense, if you are not thinking about the fact that this is a game, and the players in the game should bascically have the same benefits if they put the same amount of time and skill into it. The point is that player A and player B do the </font><font color="#33ccff"><b>***same work</b></font><font color="#33ccff">***, but because player A is in a smaller guild, his guild levels 3 times slower. Are you actually implying that is fair?. BTW, 3 times is a conservative number.</font> </p></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Ok great! Let's apply this logic to leveling: "I'm soloing all the way up, but i play 6 hours a day. So, to be fair, SoE shall let me level as fast as somebody who plays in group only 6 hours a day (i do the <b>***same work***</b> than those grouping, i should not level slower just because i don't want to socialize and am only soling)". Bravo you killed grouping! Even if SoE intended that casual players have fun in this game too, and that small guild can be efficient too, that does not mean that they should be as efficient as larger guilds. This game is supposed to give incentives to people to socialize and play with lots of others. If each people in larger guild needs to do the same work than in smaller guilds, what you will have is large guilds splitting in several small guilds and setting a chan for raid organisation and discution between friends, etc. One of the guild will have all the best contributors, then others will have less motivated contributors and people who don't want to contribute. Then when first one will have grinded to level 30, they'll merge the guilds back... Why the heck would people motivate 50 people to do writs on a regular basis when they could level as fast (if not higher, because there will still be 12 of those 50 more efficient than the others, except if the 50 plays all day long together doing the same things) by taking only the 12 more efficient apart? If whatever the number of member in a guild, each member as to do the same amount of work to advance, it removes a part of what makes a guild: gathering people having the same goal <b>to be more efficient</b> (and in that case it would be more efficient to have the 12 more efficient players separated from the others, and would be less efficient to gather).</span><div></div>

ThramFalc

07-30-2005, 03:32 AM

I think the min divisor needs to be 12... no sense in doubling the amount of guild experience some people can get. This takes away the benefit to tiny guilds and keeps everything basically as it is now. I still think removing the upper cap is the best idea. I think it should be effort per person that matter when leveling a guild not total effort. This is the way it has been since launch and changing it changes the entire focus of the game. If its total effort, everyone will just want to be in the biggest guild possible... entire servers can just form one guild... doing otherwise would be gimping yourself. SOE committed early on to keeping EQ2 focused on smaller groups and guilds. We were all told that the guild system would not favor guilds of any size and this is why patrons were created. The entire game is set up in a way that having more than 30 people online at a given time isn't really necessary. Why create a system where guilds will want to have 100 members so they can level fast but only 24 when they want to raid. Its contradictory. And for those that wonder why I care about other guilds getting level 30 in a week... Would you care if 50% of the people on your server were handed the best gear while you were left to work for it on your own? Part of the reason we all play MMOs is because rewards actually are meaningful due to the relative strength of your character or guild to those around you. If we all just wanted to experience content solely for ourselves with an added chat room we could play any RPG with AIM open in the background. When I beat a console game it means nothing to me... when my guild has a successful raid or levels up I feel a sense of accomplishment. If our guild existed in a vacuum on a server I do not think that sense of accomplishment would exist for anyone. <div></div>

ThramFalc

07-30-2005, 04:59 AM

<P>To expound on the entire server guild thing...</P> <P>If the ideal setup is for every player on a server to be in the same guild, then I am sure more than a few people will attempt to achieve this. Once in the guild players can split up however they see fit. They can have seperate non-station players websites and forums. people will turn off guild chat or maybe use it as a server wide chat. They will make channels to facilitate new guild chat with the people in their group of players.</P> <P>Everyone will receive the benefit of a level 30 guild and can then go about their business as if nothing happened. Only downside is everyone will have the same guild tag... a small price to pay. </P> <P>End result: death of the guild system in EQ2.</P> <P>To those of you who like the cap of 24... this is what you are asking for.</P>

DarkLegacy2005

07-30-2005, 05:01 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThramFalcox wrote:<BR> <P>To expound on the entire server guild thing...</P> <P>If the ideal setup is for every player on a server to be in the same guild, then I am sure more than a few people will attempt to achieve this. Once in the guild players can split up however they see fit. They can have seperate non-station players websites and forums. people will turn off guild chat or maybe use it as a server wide chat. They will make channels to facilitate new guild chat with the people in their group of players.</P> <P>Everyone will receive the benefit of a level 30 guild and can then go about their business as if nothing happened. Only downside is everyone will have the same guild tag... a small price to pay. </P> <P>End result: death of the guild system in EQ2.</P> <P>To those of you who like the cap of 24... this is what you are asking for.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This notion is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]... how many people would leave their guild to join a higher level guild? I honestly doubt you would! Stop crying armaggedon, it isnt anywhere near this. </DIV>

ThramFalc

07-30-2005, 05:36 AM

<P>Also of note... SOE obviously favors the effort per person approach or the divisor would not change between 6 and 24. If they listed to all the pro cap people they might as well just have the divisor be some arbitrary static number and forget about it.<BR><BR>SOE is outright telling us that guild levels are dependent on the efforts per person in each guild... not the total of all members combined. They have told us this since the beginning because of how the system was set up. This is an undisputable fact.</P> <P><BR>All the cap of 24 does is change the rules when you have more than 24 people. One set of rules for one group another set for another group... it makes no sense. The rules need to be consistant for guilds of any size. </P> <P>Whats the logic behind a cap of 24 anyways? Why not make it 23? Or maybe 22 makes more sense... Or perhaps 30 since a solid raid guild will probably have more than 24 accounts. This is a slippery slope SOE needs to avoid.</P> <P>A minimum makes sense because a 12 divisor has always been in place. A minimum of 12 should remain. Had the system started with a 6 divisor as a possibility then 6 would be fine, but we can't all of a sudden give people twice as much guild experience per writ or HQ than was ever possible before.</P>

Gorkk00

07-30-2005, 06:10 AM

Everquest II is a Roleplaying Game, and as such, SoE tries to give him lot of roleplaying sense. And it has ABSOLUTELY no roleplaying sense that whatever the number of people are in guild, the work of 12 will determine their reputation. If it were only for roleplaying sense, every single person in guild will give the same amount of reputation to the guild, "patron" or not, and regardless of the number of players in it (and "patron" makes really no sense). That's why i'm not in favor of letting the 24 cap as is. But still for the reason above, i think the current system is not good (the one on live), and just removing the cap would not be good. A divider increasing slowlier than the number of accounts, combined with an inactive account feature would be the solution, allowing to give guilds a better ropleplay sense without favorising too much big guilds. What you all ask with having effort/member constant in every guild regardless their size in order to level is like asking for soloing xp being the same as grouping xp and soloing loots being the same as raiding loots. SoE stated they planned to make guild leveling more like player leveling, and i'm pretty sure that's one of the way they try to do it now ("fixing" then the previous aberration of small guilds and big guilds leveling with the same effort/member - which was the case for the patrons, except it was only effort/patron). As for changing the rules after 9 months? Better late than never i guess. That's what they do with game mechanics (combat change), so it makes lot of sense to make change to guild system too if they feel it needs improvements (and obviously they feel like that). As for the "there will be only one guild on an entire server": well, most people in guilds are not here to be in a guild level 30, or there would already be one guild on each server, at least on server where there is already a level 30 guild. It's not the case. Guess what? People in guilds consider their guild as a family, and people in their guild as friends. And when there is some jerk who came in by mistake, he's booted off. By the way, I bet that most of you would not leave your current guild to make such a unique server guild, will you? Bottom line, it's not because one small thing need to be adressed that the entire system is wrong. For these changes, the small thing is the 24 cap, and it needs to be adressed before going live, but not by simply removing it. Why did they put a cap of 24 and not 23? I guess it's because it's the max number of players in a raid. But why did they previously put 12 as a low cap? And here the low cap of 6 makes sense, as it's the number of people you need to create a guild. For the cap being calculated on number of accounts in guild (though inactive accounts should be adressed before going live), it makes A LOT of roleplay sense (where patron system had none). There's no reason why a guild with 10% of its member working on reputation can level as fast as one with 100% of its member working on reputation (currently this is the case, even with patron "hotswapping").

DarkLegacy2005

07-30-2005, 10:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Gorkk00 wrote:<BR>Everquest II is a Roleplaying Game, and as such, SoE tries to give him lot of roleplaying sense. And it has ABSOLUTELY no roleplaying sense that whatever the number of people are in guild, the work of 12 will determine their reputation. If it were only for roleplaying sense, every single person in guild will give the same amount of reputation to the guild, "patron" or not, and regardless of the number of players in it (and "patron" makes really no sense).<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I agree with this... every person in a guild should contribute something to the guild.</FONT></P> <P><BR>That's why i'm not in favor of letting the 24 cap as is. But still for the reason above, i think the current system is not good (the one on live), and just removing the cap would not be good. A divider increasing slowlier than the number of accounts, combined with an inactive account feature would be the solution, allowing to give guilds a better ropleplay sense without favorising too much big guilds.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I like the idea of ruling out inactive accounts, thats a nice step in the right direction. No sense in penalizing a guild for wanting to hold on to that member who left on a tour of duty(we have a few in our guild atm). </FONT></P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ffff00>I think the divisor should stay the same, now whether its a cap of 24 or 250... I think it should be static. A sliding scale would be far to confusing and arbitrary. Where do you draw the line... and why? Not to mention someone will always find the 'sweet spot' that garners the best xp and profess on the forums that its an exploit( ex. the topic in testing feedback on how to get a level 30 guild).</FONT> <P><BR>What you all ask with having effort/member constant in every guild regardless their size in order to level is like asking for soloing xp being the same as grouping xp and soloing loots being the same as raiding loots. SoE stated they planned to make guild leveling more like player leveling, and i'm pretty sure that's one of the way they try to do it now ("fixing" then the previous aberration of small guilds and big guilds leveling with the same effort/member - which was the case for the patrons, except it was only effort/patron).</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Nicely said and my point exactly. If you want to be in a small guild know that you will effectively be 'soloing' in comparison to larger guilds. </FONT><BR><BR>As for changing the rules after 9 months? Better late than never i guess. That's what they do with game mechanics (combat change), so it makes lot of sense to make change to guild system too if they feel it needs improvements (and obviously they feel like that).</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I am relieved that SOE is constantly changing things... if they didnt change things it would send a sign to me that this game is going downhill. The fact that they continue to invest time and money into it shows that it is a growing and prosperous game. Not to mention, change isnt always for the worst. Granted things may come in steps and those steps might be hard for some and easy for others, normally change is for the better. </FONT><BR><BR>As for the "there will be only one guild on an entire server": well, most people in guilds are not here to be in a guild level 30, or there would already be one guild on each server, at least on server where there is already a level 30 guild. It's not the case. Guess what? People in guilds consider their guild as a family, and people in their guild as friends. And when there is some jerk who came in by mistake, he's booted off. By the way, I bet that most of you would not leave your current guild to make such a unique server guild, will you?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I doubt SOE could instigate any guild setup that would entice people to create one super guild. There are far too many people on a power trip who want to lead and far too many who would insist on not being a part of that guild. It would never happen. In laymen's terms, I agree with this.</FONT><BR><BR>Bottom line, it's not because one small thing need to be adressed that the entire system is wrong. For these changes, the small thing is the 24 cap, and it needs to be adressed before going live, but not by simply removing it. Why did they put a cap of 24 and not 23? I guess it's because it's the max number of players in a raid. But why did they previously put 12 as a low cap? And here the low cap of 6 makes sense, as it's the number of people you need to create a guild.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I think 12 was chosen to entice people to actually invite beyond their small group of friends, and 24 is a logical number because it is of raid size. I would assume any number though, divisible by 6, would be a sound number for SOE to use, just because it makes sense within their game structure. 6 and 24 are used quite often within the game... ie. AQ's anyone?</FONT></P> <P><BR>For the cap being calculated on number of accounts in guild (though inactive accounts should be adressed before going live), it makes A LOT of roleplay sense (where patron system had none). There's no reason why a guild with 10% of its member working on reputation can level as fast as one with 100% of its member working on reputation (currently this is the case, even with patron "hotswapping").<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I agree, the patron system made no sense within the game. I also agree with the cap calculation taking out inactives. As far as the 10% guild leveling as fast as the 100% guild... its all a number crunch game at that point. You can twist it anyway you want but somehow that guild with 10% is going to have leverage under certain circumstances. </FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

DarkLegacy2005

07-30-2005, 10:16 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pathin Merrithay wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>Getting guild level 30 is still a challenge, just that 500 person guild has 500 people to split that challenge through. That doesnt sound wrong to me at all. Sounds like common sense to me. </FONT></STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>500 People getting something done faster then 30 people... never... /sarcasm off</STRONG></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You need a serious adjustment to your common sense then if you don't then see how this is exactly my point. In this game, people will travel the path of least resistance. Large scale zerg guilds will become more common because THIS SYSTEM FAVORS THEM. Guild level 30 is NOT in fact a challenge if all you do are a zerg through few pathetically simple HQ's to get there. The patron system was established to give casual guilds the opportunity to level just as fast as large scale guilds, so that there would be an advantage and rewards to being within one, without having to resort to joining a massive guild to be GL 30 if that's what you wished. You just don't understand the point being made.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I think you fail to see my point. What was being asked is that 500 people do the same amount of work per person to get just as far as a 30 person guild. Thats THE only way that a small guild can level AS fast as a huge guild. But then that destroys the concept of large guilds. They have to do a lot more work to get just as far... but isnt that what you are complaining about for small guilds?</P> <P>What is in place now does not hurt small guilds at all, it in fact helps them. Everyone now contributes instead of the group of patrons. The idea that there is no cap destroys large guilds and does nothing to small guilds... nothing. Medium sized guilds (ie 30+) will also feel the short end of the stick because now they contribute less per person. The only guilds that will garner an advantage to no cap will be those that are unaffected, ie those between 6 and 24 members.</P> <P>There will always be that zerg guild and know that i will not be a part of them, but I do vouch for their existence. My point is though that they should not be punished because you do not care for their guild style. Having no cap on the patron number will punish them. You may think having 500 people do JBoots is a near inevitability but that is 500 people that must complete it to get the same effect in this 'no cap' system theory as 30 people completing it in a 30 person guild. THAT is not fair. That is saying there is no power in numbers when there are. </P> <P>I feel for you, I want there to be a strong small - medium sized guild base, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And because that line is chosen at 24 does not destroy your guild. I know that my members of the guild I am a part of will not leave it for another guild that is guild level 30. Just because my guild has not hit 30 nor 25 does not in any way threaten our player base. We are strong in numbers and in friendship because of the community we foster, not because of the level we are. </P> <P>If the guild of 500 zergs its way to 30 then so be it, but know that your guild of 50 will always be more player friendly. That is more valuable to me then any guild level, and any guildmate of mine who views guild level with higher regard then the friendship of his guildmates can go ahead and join that zerg guild, because i dont want them.</P> <P>Your casual guild will level fast, because now instead of pulling from 12 players, you pull from 50. 50 people will be able to accomplish things that 12 could never have seen possible. </P> <P>And btw, the system has always favored large guilds, get over this new adjustment, its no different. </P>

Dar

07-30-2005, 03:43 PM

This is another step in the right direction but please put something in so that the inactivates (not logged on for x days) don't count towards the divider. D. <div></div>

Falc618

07-31-2005, 02:38 AM

I think this change is horrid. First of all, as many people have already stated, what would stop some large guild from leveling extremely fast because of the 24 cap when most guilds in the game are still working towards 30, and this has been for 8 months. Secondly, removing the patron system I think is a bad idea as well. There are some guilds that have players who cant play a lot or are away for a long period of time. Some hardcore raiding guilds will kick players who are inactive for a week, but most guilds will not do that. I am a leader of a level 24 guild and we have mainly level 50s, but there are some people who we have that dont contribute a lot and dont play a lot, but at least they can feel they are part of something. By making it per account and removing the patron system, most guilds will be faced with the option of kicking out players who dont play much, making it near impossible for them to find a guild, or letting the whole guild suffer by having another "patron" who essentially isnt contributing. There needs to be an option for the guild to allow who wants to contribute to do so, but still allow players who dont feel they can contribute regularly to still be in a guild. Otherwise this is just tailoring to the large hardcore guilds only and hurting the regular guilds when the current system isnt broken at all.

Cecil_Stri

07-31-2005, 05:43 AM

<DIV>People are acting like the people with alot of people in the guild are just gonna dominate... truth is... very few guilds have alot of people in them.</DIV> <DIV><BR>And the ones that do are filled with inactive accounts and alts. Our server has 2 of the largest guilds on it... yet the are 2 of the least seen guilds.. cause they are all just randomly invited people that didn't stick around.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>......</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sorry but this change may have its problems but it seems to me like it will makes guilds work together insteed of forming groups of people in the guild that are supposed to grind for everyone else. </DIV>

Zenshi

07-31-2005, 02:09 PM

<P>I like the proposed changes.</P> <P>I do get a good laugh from the ppl who say "oh noes!!1! everyone will drop all but 6ppl for max gain!! it's teh end of da world!!!" Well, my guild isn't going to do that. Infact we wont be making any changes to how our guild runs (currently 29 patrons - ie, everyone's acct already has at least 1 patron toon on it)</P> <P>I really wish the Devs would make the Guild Raids actually -worth- doing. </P> <P>Given enough time all guilds would be level 30 anway. All this change does is move the time table up a bit.</P> <P>It's cool that ppl are so passionate about eq2... but c'mon. What does guild lv26+ really do for ya other than 2 really expensive mounts and new clothes.... NOTHING.</P> <p>Message Edited by Zenshi on <span class=date_text>07-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:11 AM</span>

Leorange

07-31-2005, 02:32 PM

<DIV>I vote <STRONG>Ney</STRONG>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why? We have just implemented a perfect "patronship on demand" system*.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This works fine, we have 12 patrons top at any time, while [Removed for Content] members interact</DIV> <DIV>a lot more while 'passing on' their patronships. It was worth the time working out</DIV> <DIV>a system to tackle the changed patronrules. Now don't change it right away, please.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Furthermore I don't like to work to a point (ie lvl22) and then find out the level</DIV> <DIV>can be reached in days by 'over exploiting' Norrathian guilds. But ey, even if you do</DIV> <DIV>find a solution to the 24 cap, my 2 pec goes to</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>don't </STRONG></DIV> <DIV>:smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1><EM>* system is explained on our website groenedraeck.com, under About Us > EQ2 > Patronship [E]</EM></FONT></DIV>

Aristac

08-01-2005, 03:15 AM

<P>Not sure if the devs read this or if they even care. I hope they do, though.</P> <P>If something is not broken, why "fix" it? My refrigerator runs great. Should I overhaul it? My car runs even better...should I have the engine rebuilt?</P> <P>The logic of this escapes me, but my response to it going live onto the other servers does not.</P> <P>A lot of people have been leaving the game and they may or may not come back. If this "fix" to the guild system goes through, I will be leaving and not coming back.</P> <P>The people who want this change are in the minority. Why [Removed for Content] off the majority?</P>

WodinAu

08-01-2005, 06:18 AM

Well as a leader of a small guild of approx 30 members and 24 accounts I really like this idea. But I admit there are 2 flaws with the system.. 1. the 24 cap means big guilds will advance more than smaller guilds. Obvious 2. Inactive accounts will in effect hurt the guild earning GSP <u>Simple solution:</u> <b>Remove the Cap</b>. Slows larger guilds and helps smaller Alt based guilds - My Oppinion = Fair Now you all talk about having an fair/even system so shouldn't that include having all guilds advance at the same rate no matter how many accounts are involved. By lifting the cap you will make it just as hard for 500 guild members to advance as a guild of 50 members. Although keep in mind we are talking accounts not members. <b>Inactive Mark</b>. Allows Guild Leaders to set those inactive accounts as such so the don't count as active - Also Fair All this is is the switch of the current patron system. But I would suggest that it can only be activated on accounts that have been inactive for maybe 30 days minimum. The problem is with those that use Alts. I use 10 alts <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I have a few in the Guild and dont always concetrate on one. But from time to time I will spend a few weeks on the one Alt. So my other 2 are inactive. To accomplish the above 'Inactive Mark' idea you need to define what ACCOUNTS are inactive not players. So here creates another flaw (I don't think it is but you might). 6 Accounts with 6 alts each all doing writs can advance well under the NO CAP system but it would be hell boring for those playes as they would need to complete the same writes 6 times a day ... No thanks Anyhow that is my 2c. Fo me I hope the system can be implimented but it needs to be fair. <div></div>

DarkLegacy2005

08-01-2005, 08:11 AM

<P>Taking out the cap is a bad idea... do the math yourself. That means if one guild had 20 people, and another had 100 people, the 100 person guild would need 5 ppl doing the same quest to equal the same amount of status the 1 person in the guild of 20 did.... but in reality it should be that the 100 person guild just spreads around the workload of the 20. </P> <P> </P> <P>In other words, its much easier to motivate one person to a writ then it is the convince 5 people to do a writ. Now I agree huge guilds should be let loose to sneeze and ding level 30, but taking away the cap makes having any size of guild over 24 have an even harder time.... and thats not just hurting large guilds, thats hurting the crop of medium sized guilds.</P>

dejahtho

08-01-2005, 08:30 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>WodinAu wrote: <u>Simple solution:</u> <b>Remove the Cap</b>. Slows larger guilds and helps smaller Alt based guilds - My Oppinion = Fair Now you all talk about having an fair/even system so shouldn't that include having all guilds advance at the same rate no matter how many accounts are involved. By lifting the cap you will make it just as hard for 500 guild members to advance as a guild of 50 members. Although keep in mind we are talking accounts not members. <hr></blockquote>please explain to me how penalizing a big guild for having a lot of members is fair. it's not fair at all. why should a big guild have to work harder than a small guild for the same rewards? you want a big guild with big guild perks? recruit. but don't think that because you choose to have a small guild that you deserve something for it. you don't. </span><span></span> <span> there are exactly 2 guilds worldwide that have 500+ members. they should get to 30 before a guild of 50. that's just common sense. the idea of a guild of 50 getting to lvl 30 at the same pace as a 500 person guild is absurd. </span><div></div>

EQ2Playa432

08-01-2005, 10:01 AM

<A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=22949" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=22949</A>

DarkLegacy2005

08-01-2005, 11:23 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EQ2Playa432 wrote:<BR> <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=22949" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=22949</A> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Your idea has been brought up before and shot down just as fast... The problem with an idea of top 12 is that once someone works their [Removed for Content] off to beat the 12th place... they contribute like 3 GSP to the guild... which gets the guild no where. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: I too thought the top 12 system brought up by Auelean was a good idea until someone brought up that point and now I am against it.</DIV><p>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <span class=date_text>08-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:23 AM</span>

Jaimster

08-01-2005, 06:11 PM

<DIV>Well I have just read everyone's posts in this thread and thought I would add my two cents too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I was first told about this change on the test servers, I thought that the "unique" account meant that you couldn't have a main and a lower level alt both be patrons and have status count. From what I understand, that is incorrect, unless everyone else is just wishful thinking, which is doubtful.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That having been realized, this change would theoretically be GREAT for my guild, which is quite small in actual accounts, but all the active players have at least 2 alts because we like our alts. We like to explore the possibilities of other classes or different allignments because, really, Fallen Gate gets a little old after 2 or 3 toons. Grinding out writs at level 40-something is just dull.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, having said that on paper it would seem that it would help us level faster, I still think it is a BAD idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree that if a guild has 100+ active members/accounts and they hit level 30 fast, good for them. I don't want to be in a guild that large. I like our small guild that consists of people who play regularly, even if it's just to log on quickly and say hello because we're all friends. As far as I'm concerned, if you a) don't let people who want to be patrons be patrons, that's just silly. They will leave and join another guild, or start their own with others who feel the same and b) if you were kicked because you hadn't been on for a month, even though everyone in the guild knows that the reason is because you're overseas or at home for summer vacation and the 'rents don't have DSL, you didn't want to be in that guild in the first place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While I am not averse to booting a member who didn't say boo, just left and hasn't been on in 55 days, our one major rule in our guild is that RL takes precedence over the game, and so we will deal with the fact that someone might be inactive for a while. No issues - that is how we are, how we started and we won't change that if this new change does go live. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem is with the people who don't want the pressure of being a patron - really - how much can you contribute to guild status points at level 12? I mean, yeah okay, writs - but at level 12 you're still learning to play your character, learning how to group, just trying to get a map that isn't blacked out 60%. If it's your 5th alt and you know the areas and spells like the back of your hand and you're only trying to generate status points, that's one thing. But for most, it's the adventure of the game, not killing 15 spiders in nek or 20 skellies in CL to get 200 gsp. In our guild, if that's what you want to do, fine... here's patron status, but if not, that's okay too. If you change your mind at level 25, welcome to earning GSP. But GSP isn't the only reason to join a guild - it's for the comraderie, to help others out with things you tradeskill, or maybe you're a quest junkie and get all sorts of good stuff that you can't use but give to guild members. Or maybe you group a lot and find some like minded people who are interested in joining the guild and who will fit in great...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While the patronage system isn't perfect, most of us have learned to live with it and how it works... but making it so everyone counts towards the GSP suggests that everyone plays for exactly the same reasons, and they don't. I don't care if someone else gets to 30 before ours... we are going to get there before someone else's too... I just like the goal of our guild to be to level as a guild. Everyone in a guild contributes in some way (and if they don't, why are they there)... why does it all have to be in the same way?? When lower levels join, the first thing they usually say is "Thanks... not sure what i'll be able to contribute though until I get higher" because there is this mindset that if you aren't contributing to guild status, you're not contributing at all, which I try to banish completely because I don't think it's true... and while some might argue, well now everyone will be able to contribute - how is that the case? Most are still going to have to be a certain level to start and finish HQ's, except now they don't get to relax and say, well let's just explore the game until I hit a certain level and can do HQ's, they're going to think they have to start doing writs at level 10! It doesn't matter that we will still say, no you don't have to... just have fun, this is a game. People who are in a guild with friends they either had, or gain once they join the guild, aren't going to want to let anyone down and if they can't play 4 hours a day, may end up feeling like they shouldn't even bother being there, even if no one else makes them feel that way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, my idea is this - we can choose options for everything else in the game, so why not be able to choose whether we want to use the current system or the new system (assuming it does go live).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It can be something that the guild leaders either decide on their own or that they discuss with everyone before hand and vote or something... and then they let everyone know up front before anyone new joins that, okay, this is the way we do it - are you comfortable with that? If not, maybe this isn't the guild for you...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The top 12 idea disturbs me greatly - while a healthy competetive spirit can be great, having too much competition can result in really bad guild morale - it's never fun trying to play catch up knowing that it's not going to happen....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think some of the people who are arguing about why getting to guild level 30 matters, or whether someone else gets there first, etc, etc, are forgetting that for some, hitting level 30 is the be all end all, for others it is simply a matter of "Look guys! we did it!" It shouldn't be an easy thing to accomplish for any guild - large or small, but no matter the size - it is a still a goal - some might find it more important than others, but I doubt any guild is going to hit 30 and say "Shoot, didn't mean to do that"...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the end of the day, we will all learn to live with any changes that are made, or we will stop playing EQ2. Maybe this is an attempt to retain and gain new players (as umm, all the servers are currently "Light") that is just misdirected. I don't think it was poorly thought out (note that they put in the status drops already which makes no sense if not everyone can contribute... i mean what do people really use PSP for at level 10?)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think it is a change more likely to dissuade casual players since on one hand, it makes it easier, and on the other, dismisses a lot of hard work that people have done to date as well as forces people into a role that previously they could choose to be in if they wanted the privelege and responsibilities or they could choose not to be in with no repercussions to the guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is a game, not a life... no one should think after a hard day at work (or a week of hard days), "OMG I need to get online to knock out those writs so no one boots me out of guild tomorrow"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess that was more like 4 cents.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

gna

08-01-2005, 06:24 PM

<P>To me : The new system will kill the progress of all average guilds. The guilds that are not ubber raiding guilds with a lot of Powergamers won't be abble to raise anymore.</P> <P>In my guild we have people who have a real life (and i'm sure in lot of guilds) soo people go in holidays, people have to be off for a while for their job, people aren't online everyday..) well then for the number of account we have, we have few people who are online often and can make a "patron" work.</P> <P>We are very aware in giving the patron status and all guild members know why we do that, soo we have now from 18 to 22 patrons. we try not to have more.</P> <P>Of course the current system allow exploits, with people who will be patron just to finish lot of HQs and then return to follower the time the progress in others HQs, ok SOE need to change that. But that new system is only good for big guilds. or very very small. But we all know even small guilds have more than 20 accounts well a lot of them. and they give patron to who can be. soo it's a management, that's something that let the leader work on the roster. And more, patrons know they have a mission, if there is no more patron status, you will see less people doing writs.</P> <P>What i think, doing a scale.</P> <P>Char is patron for 1 week, when he leave (patron status or leave guild), guild loose all the contrib. 2 weeks, guild keep 15%, 3 weeks, 25%... and make 2 months to keep the 100% or something SOE can try to define. that may prevent the exploit and keeping the patron management. You can also add a timer to be patron again.</P> <P>To tell you the truth that won't change that much things in my guild (cause we have from 18 to 22 patrons soo considering 24 is almost the same) but it can be realy bad for lot of guilds. and will only help big onces.</P> <P>As SOE tried to make a system that will keep smaller guild in the competition for the guild lvling, i think this idea is not the right one to set.</P> <P>That i can understand is that people in a guild can be frustated if they see they don't contribute in the guild XP. soo another idea :</P> <P>Set the non patron to have 25, 33 or 50% contrib when they gain SP. and 100% (of the initial % depending of the number of patrons) to the patrons. soo everyone contribute and everyone is happy <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> those who can do more are patrons (like right now) and those who play more occasionaly are happy to give a bit to the guild.</P> <P>Well all that to say that i'm agaist this patch. it will just kill the work of many people. And i think it's more easy to say to someone that he may not be patron to say someone he have to leave guild because he is not online enough.....</P> <P>Think SOE plz.</P>

graxnip

08-01-2005, 11:20 PM

<div></div><div></div>side effect - If this goes live everyone and their alt will have even more motivation than just the actual reward for heritages - making certain non triggered mobs even more of a PITA to camp than before - as it is now the waste of time it is to sit in some zones for hours slaughtering greys to get a named to pop is totally irritating, now add to that you will have more people coming by to take the same mob as you.. some are nice and will come back - some will be jerks and hover there waiting to snag the mob out from under you. combining grps is not an answer as guilds tend to be very xenophobic not trusting the play style of strangers. why invite this strange grp when we know we can take this mob and they might cause us to wipe cause they are idiots... also doing writs will be a constant pain as everyone will be camping the same mobs of which there will only be X up at any given time. they make this change more people will be participating in status quests - creating an insane pressure on the goals of these quests. then the devs will have to go back a month later and bandaid that after it flames up. suppose it can be solved by making these camped mobs triggerable (cmon who really enjoyed the 3+ hour camp time on ramanai, that is if you werent lucky and he just happened to be up as you passed by .. [Removed for Content] tee hee) .. and creating more quests for each writ giver thus spreading out the mobs over different zones and creatures. if triggered spawns takes the difficulty out of it - well up the lvl of the mob. - i love the scalability of the mobs in the splitpaw zones.. why couldnt the same theory be applied Edit - from my guild stand point - 30 players from eq1 most of which have gone to wow after the changes last Feb. We have about 6 active people atm all 6 are active patrons. - we dont care if larger guilds fly past us in level your bigger - np thats logical. - We were delighted at the recent changes of being able to remove patrons without deleveling the guild as well as n00king our inactive friends status.. so we now have 12 patrons - we are totally content - exp from writs is nice and heritages are awesome. At our current rate we can see us slowly gaining guild levels and we are fine with that - . After this change goes through all guild exp we get will be cut in half.. we arent going for lvl 30 by the end of the month or the end of the year.. atm we are lvl13 .. and we are eager to get mounts at lvl15.. im all for the larger guilds getting more guild exp, and faster levels.. I just dont want my current rate of exp to be dragged down to a very depressing rate in the process. and no deguilding our inactive friends is not an acceptable solution - they arent random people they are friends that we have spent 4 years in eq 1 with. so grats us on being screwed. <p>Message Edited by graxnip on <span class="date_text">08-01-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:30 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by graxnip on <span class=date_text>08-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:35 PM</span>

Splatterpunk28

08-02-2005, 01:33 AM

<DIV>This will:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Lift the burden of all writs/HQs from a select few onto the guild in whole.</DIV> <DIV>I can't say this is a bad thing, in fact, I think it's better than the system we have now. But now there's the problem of how this conflicts with content. A shadowknight contributing to a Qeynos based guild? Hmmm. Can a shadowknight contribute status to a Qeynos guild in test right now? It makes no sense. I guess my only answer to this would be to mark opposing allianced members inactive as I explain in my next point.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Guilds with any inactive or much less playtime than the average member will hurt the guild. Usually these folks are on the roster because they are friends -- this will cause huge problems for any smaller guild that wants to be competitive, yet retain a family-life infrastructure. I would suggest if an account is marked inactive then their account should not be considered. Additionally, any status they provide once marked inactive will not be given to the guild. To keep a system like I just suggested from becoming another way to exploit the system, there should be a rule that you cannot move from inactive to active or vice versa but once every 3months.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) Large guilds will very much benefit from this system and smaller guilds will be hurt. <FONT color=#ff0000>So here we are, back to EQ1; where all you need is an immense raidforce and you win. This is EXACLTY what they said they did NOT want to do in EQ2.</FONT> I can't say strongly enough how much I am against this. A guild with 250accounts vs a guild with 25. The guild with 25 will have to each do 10times that of the average member in the larger guild --- for the same status. My only suggestion for this is to lift the max limit and enact a system like I suggested in point 2 for dealing with inactive members. If they do what I suggested in these 2points, I would say it is a far superior system than it ever was. Well, not much different than it has been except now it would be "members" doing the work instead of "patrons". Though the difference is small it shifts the responsibility from a select few to every active member. LOL! They should just put it back to how it was, why change what isn't broken?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If they go forward with the system without making any changes, they might as well do away with guild status as it will become utterly meaningless. There is no benefit for them to enact a system such as this -- it will not draw more customers, it will do nothing but make a very large number of paying, playing customers ANGRY for having put their time and effort into a system that will no longer be viable unless they merge with other guilds and start kicking folks from their rosters that can't play everyday. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Actually, I take that back -- it will allow large guilds a means to hit level 30 in no time with little effort so whatever benefits they intend on releasing on expansion will be more accessible to a larger audience. In effect, trivializing the entire system -- dumbing it down -- and slapping everyone that's worked hard until this is implemented in the face. Honestly the most recent changes are doing a fine job of ruining it already. If this is the intent, please just remove the entire concept and make everything available on vendors to everyone as, yet again, the entire conceptual framework has been ripped apart and all the effort people have put into this aspect has been tossed aside. I'm starting to wonder if they just want customers to buy the game and move on to bigger and better things every couple months, because this is the audience they are catering to whereas they treat their loyal customers like crap.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Splatterpunk28 on <span class=date_text>08-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:59 PM</span>

Dejah

08-02-2005, 11:14 PM

<DIV>I've followed this thread pretty closely. I even posted some numbers early but I didn't mention how I felt over-all about this change. My feelings can be summed up in one sentance:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>If you want to make leveling a guild easier, fine; But don't make it harder for medium sized guilds while making it easier for very small and very large.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm in a guild with about 45 other people. On a good evening we have about 30 people on. We have 12 patrons, and on average maybe 5 people do one or more writs everyday. The reality of the situation is that we aren't going to get many more people doing writs. We have 12 patrons and can't even get them all to do a writ daily. With the new system our divisor will be upped from 12 to 24, and the number of writs being done is not likely to increase much, if at all. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So this change basically makes it twice as hard for us to level up. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't care if SOE implements changes that allow soime guilds to level easier than they currently can. But I don't think they should implement a system that makes it harder for ANY guilds. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My recommended solution is simple:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Remove the patrons system; Allow everyone to contribute; and Lock the divisor at 12.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, this would allow larger guilds to level up A LOT faster, but good for them; I'm not in a very large guild, and the thought of them reaching 30 before my guild does not bother me. My main concern is that the changes should not adversely affect any guild's ability to level to 30--making it easier is one thing, but don't make it harder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just my 2c (from a very biased source)</DIV>

DarkLegacy2005

08-03-2005, 10:54 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dejah wrote:<BR> <DIV>I've followed this thread pretty closely. I even posted some numbers early but I didn't mention how I felt over-all about this change. My feelings can be summed up in one sentance:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>If you want to make leveling a guild easier, fine; But don't make it harder for medium sized guilds while making it easier for very small and very large.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Ya I am sure it hurts you so bad that now you have 4 times the people contributing half the status per person(ie, 12 people before, 45 now)... Now it may be 1:30 in the morning here but that comes out to 2x the contributions... not to mention everyone gets around to doing an hq or two at some point in their toon's life. Yep, ouch alright.... /sarcasm off... think before you yell about hurt.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>I'm in a guild with about 45 other people. On a good evening we have about 30 people on. We have 12 patrons, and on average maybe 5 people do one or more writs everyday. The reality of the situation is that we aren't going to get many more people doing writs. We have 12 patrons and can't even get them all to do a writ daily. With the new system our divisor will be upped from 12 to 24, and the number of writs being done is not likely to increase much, if at all. </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>So you dont skip through levels every other day? Who cares? It shouldnt be about levels, should be about fun. Not to mention, with everyone in your guild now able to contribute, I am sure it will be easier to convince people to do a writ together. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>So this change basically makes it twice as hard for us to level up. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't care if SOE implements changes that allow soime guilds to level easier than they currently can. But I don't think they should implement a system that makes it harder for ANY guilds. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My recommended solution is simple:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Remove the patrons system; Allow everyone to contribute; and Lock the divisor at 12.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, this would allow larger guilds to level up A LOT faster, but good for them; I'm not in a very large guild, and the thought of them reaching 30 before my guild does not bother me. My main concern is that the changes should not adversely affect any guild's ability to level to 30--making it easier is one thing, but don't make it harder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just my 2c (from a very biased source)</DIV> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Locking it at 12 makes things far too easy. Basically just makes what they had and takes it to one more level of 'easy'. Instead of 12 people contributing 1/12 you now have 45 contributing at 1/12.... easy way out. Granted, 24 isnt much better and i would increase it if I was in SOE's shoes, its better then leaving it at 12. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Before you yell 'WHOA! higher then 24?!?!?' I would like to point something out. You no longer lose GSP so you will all eventually hit 30. They slow it down considerably seeing as how they just eliminated a huge factor in how difficult it WAS to get guild level 30.</FONT></P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Turb

08-03-2005, 01:22 PM

The current system is good for me.But I'd change two things:1. Make the 1 week rollout period 4 weeks2. Don't zero the patron's status contribution when rolled... if they come back, keep it as it was (since the guild points still count, why not display them?)The new proposal just seems to make a good system much much worse, and will cause casual players to be pushed out of guilds and hardcore players to leave semi-casual guilds.The one aspect that is nice is to consider alts in the scheme, i.e. account-based patronage, but how to do that without some level of exploitation is unclear. At least players can only play one char at a time <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Despa

08-03-2005, 04:51 PM

<blockquote><hr>Turb0T wrote:The current system is good for me.But I'd change two things:1. Make the 1 week rollout period 4 weeks2. Don't zero the patron's status contribution when rolled... if they come back, keep it as it was (since the guild points still count, why not display them?)The new proposal just seems to make a good system much much worse, and will cause casual players to be pushed out of guilds and hardcore players to leave semi-casual guilds.The one aspect that is nice is to consider alts in the scheme, i.e. account-based patronage, but how to do that without some level of exploitation is unclear. At least players can only play one char at a time <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>I agree....however I don't care whether the guild status points are displayed. Knowing I was a conributor to my guild status is enough. If the grace period was extended to 4 weeks it would be much more difficult for people to swap patrons in and out quickly as the current system stands.I think everyone's concerns about the max number for the proposed system are completely viable...and going the proposed route in some way seems to always leave someone out in the cold.The last guild change took a huge step forward, please don't take a step back.DespairedLevel 50 FuryCo-Leader of 'The Underlords'Befallen Server<p>Message Edited by Despair on <span class=date_text>08-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:53 AM</span>

Rene

08-03-2005, 07:34 PM

<DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ff00ff><SPAN>DarkLegacy2005</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff> Wrote </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>"</FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ff3300>Ya I am sure it hurts you so bad that now you have 4 times the people contributing half the status per person(ie, 12 people before, 45 now)... Now it may be 1:30 in the morning here but that comes out to 2x the contributions... not to mention everyone gets around to doing an hq or two at some point in their toon's life. Yep, ouch alright.... /sarcasm off... think before you yell about hurt.</FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>"</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is totally flawed reasoning. You are assuming ( incorrectly ) that the bottom 75% of said group will <U>each</U> average the same status income as each member of the top 25%. So your condecending attitude is unwarranted no matter how late it was. Think before you "Yell" at someone elses opinions. </DIV></DIV></DIV>

xBluefir

08-04-2005, 09:33 AM

<P>I haven't read every post on this topic, so I'm not sure if this has already been suggested <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</P> <P>Another possible 'fix' for this would be in keeping the 6 min and 24 cap as shown in this update, but have the 'privilege' of being counted as a patron in this equation assigned using those check boxes which give certain guild ranks permission to do certain things. For example, a guild can say only ranks of member or higher can contribute, or that only the senior members can contribute, etc... This way:</P> <P>- The little guilds still have the option of keeping the 12patron system going</P> <P>- The big guilds will still get to benefit (200 contributions/24 is very good)</P> <P>- With the new system (correct me if I'm wrong), it looks like initiates will be made patrons also. With a new recruit, the guild, or even the recruitie, may not want this responsibility put on them. If the initiate is not looking to start leveling the guild right away, little guilds (between 6 and 24 people), will just be given an extra divisor. With the suggested system, there is a way of helping this.</P> <P> </P> <P>Anyways, just a thought <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>

ThramFalc

08-04-2005, 09:50 AM

<P>Lots of good ideas in this thread. While I disagree with some of you who like the change, I think based on the tenor of this thread we can all agree that maybe this isn't the best solution.</P> <P>Lets hope it gets some tweaking before it goes live. While removing the cap would be fair becuase it would keep the equation the same for all guilds, I would even be open to other solutions wherein the divisor rises at some diminishing rate even though this would favor larger guilds. As long as the curve was smooth and didn't change for any size guild I would probably support it. </P> <P>And just to show I'm not favoring guilds of any size I will say that the minimum of 6 also isn't fair.... 12 has always been the minimum divisor... it needs to stay this way. While this may not be fair to guilds with less than 12 people I think SOE has made it clear from the start that guilds under 12 people might have a bit of a disadvantage so its not like anything would be changing.</P> <P>The top 12 system is better than whats on lu13 but not perfect. Lots of other ideas here are worth consideration too. No idea is without flaws but many seem to be better than whats in LU13 in its current state.</P> <DIV><STRONG>Basically we need a system where the rules are the same for everyone. Not a system where the rules change if you have over 24 members.</STRONG> <STRONG>Guild experience has always been based on contribution per patron and in the new system its contribution per</STRONG> <STRONG>account.</STRONG> But over 24 its all of a sudden just total contribution divided by 24. We can't have it be per person in some cases and combined in other cases. These two approaches to guild experience are 180 degrees from each other and cannot cooexist. SOE needs to pick one and stick with it. I don't think this is too much to ask for.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Belizarius

08-04-2005, 11:02 AM

<P>I have a system sketched out which I humbly submit combines the best of all worlds. See what you think. I only started a fresh thread so it wouldn't get buried in the other posts here...</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=23211" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=23211</A></P>

Ildarus

08-04-2005, 05:34 PM

<DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I removed post after re-reading Blackguards message. :smileysad:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is sad that they are making us wait that long. However, it does say as of this morning that they are still implementing the guild changes, so even after a week of a lot of people complaining about the guild changes the devs still plan on putting it into effect when the update goes live. :smileyvery-happy:</DIV><p>Message Edited by Ildarus on <span class=date_text>08-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:19 AM</span>

WodinAu

08-08-2005, 05:13 AM

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>dejahthors wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>WodinAu wrote: <u>Simple solution:</u> <b>Remove the Cap</b>. Slows larger guilds and helps smaller Alt based guilds - My Oppinion = Fair Now you all talk about having an fair/even system so shouldn't that include having all guilds advance at the same rate no matter how many accounts are involved. By lifting the cap you will make it just as hard for 500 guild members to advance as a guild of 50 members. Although keep in mind we are talking accounts not members. <hr></blockquote>please explain to me how penalizing a big guild for having a lot of members is fair. it's not fair at all. why should a big guild have to work harder than a small guild for the same rewards? you want a big guild with big guild perks? recruit. but don't think that because you choose to have a small guild that you deserve something for it. you don't. </span><span></span> <span></span> <hr></blockquote>Please explain to me how penalizing a small guild for not having huge numbers is fair.? I have been in 2 large guilds. 1 with over 200 members I left both because all I was was a number which sux as far as Im concerned. So why should, In your thinking, my guild which consists of other people with the same thoughts on Uber guilds be penalized Hmm? How do you see your bigger guild working harder? Example: Guild A with 100 accounts does 1 writ each in a day = 100 Writs Guild B with 25 accounts </span><span>does 1 writ each in a day = 25 Writs Using the above lets say each writ yelds 200 GSP each Guild A earns : 20,000 GSP Guild B earns : 5,000 GSP So with the 24 account cap in place: Guild A final GSP = 833.33 GSP Guild B final GSP = 208.33 GSP Without the 24 account cap in place: </span><span>Guild A final GSP = 200 GSP Guild B final GSP = 200 GSP To me that seems even steven wouldn't you say? And better yet all Accounts involved have done the same amount of work... Amazing really ! </span><span></span><span>Also why should you think that because you choose to ignore most of the members in your Uber guild you should deserve something for it? The GAME is about enjoyment.. what you suggest forces players like me to join bigger guilds to get the 'GOOD STUFF' so there goes my enjoyment.. I pay just as much as you, Probably more, to play the game so shouldn't my enjoyment count as much as yours? </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by WodinAu on <span class="date_text">08-07-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:15 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by WodinAu on <span class=date_text>08-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:51 PM</span>

dejahtho

08-08-2005, 05:29 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>WodinAu wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>dejahthors wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>WodinAu wrote: <u>Simple solution:</u> <b>Remove the Cap</b>. Slows larger guilds and helps smaller Alt based guilds - My Oppinion = Fair Now you all talk about having an fair/even system so shouldn't that include having all guilds advance at the same rate no matter how many accounts are involved. By lifting the cap you will make it just as hard for 500 guild members to advance as a guild of 50 members. Although keep in mind we are talking accounts not members. <hr></blockquote>please explain to me how penalizing a big guild for having a lot of members is fair. it's not fair at all. why should a big guild have to work harder than a small guild for the same rewards? you want a big guild with big guild perks? recruit. but don't think that because you choose to have a small guild that you deserve something for it. you don't. </span><span></span> <span></span> <hr></blockquote>Please explain to me how penalizing a small guild for not having huge numbers is fair.? I have been in 2 large guilds. 1 with over 200 members I left both because all I was was a number which sux as far as Im concerned. So why should, In your thinking, my guild which consists of other people with the same thoughts on Uber guilds be penalized Hmm? And also why should you think that because you choose to ignore most of the members in your Uber guild you should deserve something for it? The GAME is about enjoyment.. what you suggest forces players like me to join bigger guilds to get the 'GOOD STUFF' so there goes my enjoyment.. I pay just as much as you, Probably more, to play the game so shouldn't my enjoyment count as much as yours? </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by WodinAu on <span class="date_text">08-07-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:15 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>1. i don't particularly care how much you pay to play. by the same token, shouldn't my enjoyment count as much as yours? 2. your small guild isn't being penalized. your small guild is getting exactly what it is entitled to, small guild rewards. just like solo'ers get solo rewards, not raid rewards. unless you think that's unfair as well... 3. when a small guild gets to do a fraction of the work a big guild does to get the same benefit, the small guild is getting the reward, and the big guild is getting [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] upon. 4. if you want to level as fast as a big guild, do more writs. don't think you're entitled to do less because of your numbers. that's unfair, and selfish to boot. my guild has less than 50 members, btw. </span><div></div>

WodinAu

08-08-2005, 05:52 AM

<div></div><div></div>Edit read next post<p>Message Edited by WodinAu on <span class=date_text>08-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:16 PM</span>

WodinAu

08-08-2005, 06:15 AM

<div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>dejahthors wrote: <span>1. i don't particularly care how much you pay to play. by the same token, shouldn't my enjoyment count as much as yours? <font color="#ffff00">So your saying by making things fair for every Account you wil not enjoy the game??</font> 2. your small guild isn't being penalized. your small guild is getting exactly what it is entitled to, small guild rewards. just like solo'ers get solo rewards, not raid rewards. unless you think that's unfair as well... <font color="#ffff00">So you agree with EQ1 Power Guilds over the promise that EQ2 would not be like that? As for solo v raid rewards that is a different argument and unrelated.</font> 3. when a small guild gets to do a fraction of the work a big guild does to get the same benefit, the small guild is getting the reward, and the big guild is getting [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] upon. <font color="#ffff00">See my other post for an example of how this is not the case. And please remember I am talking about a per account workload</font> 4. if you want to level as fast as a big guild, do more writs. don't think you're entitled to do less because of your numbers. that's unfair, and selfish to boot. <font color="#ffff00">It is also unfair and selfish to think that because I choose to be in a smaller guild for GAME ENJOYMENT I should experience LESS than anyone in a Large Guild.</font> <span></span> </span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>On second thought your point on Raid v Solo is good for my argument. I will give you an example why in another post<p>Message Edited by WodinAu on <span class=date_text>08-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:35 PM</span>

WodinAu

08-08-2005, 06:58 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>dejahthors wrote:<span><blockquote><span><blockquote><div></div><span></span></blockquote></span></blockquote> 2. your small guild isn't being penalized. your small guild is getting exactly what it is entitled to, small guild rewards. <font color="#ffff00"> just like solo'ers get solo rewards, not raid rewards. unless you think that's unfair as well...</font> </span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span>Why do we Raid? Usually because it is required for <font color="#ffff00"><b>Guild</b></font> advancement. (And all Guilds get that) <u>It promotes Co-op play and community involvement.</u> (A Solo'er is not for this type of play. If they were they wouldn't Solo.) Which is also IMHO the main aim for Guilds. If you have a Guild of 100 accounts and the GSP are divided by 24 Acounts then only 1/4 of the guild need to complete writs As opposed to a guild of 24 Accounts where every account needs to be writ active to keep up. So Yay the small guild gets to experience the Co-Op community gameplay while the large guild doesn't but gets rewarded. By lifting the cap completely you encorage Co-Op play with all guilds. BTW I do believe that there should also be a Inactive Account option if the Cap were to be lifted but you neglected to quote that originally. <div></div>

Trei

08-08-2005, 07:14 AM

I would just like to ask everyone to take a closer look at and think deeper about the new guild related implementations since the last update or two, the new status loot in particular. They do add up. If there absolutely must be a compromise, how about this - Keep patron system as it is, but allow all members to still be able to contribute via the new status loot. But honestly, I don't see a need for one. <font color="#ffffff" size="2"></font><span><span> <i>["...</i></span></span><i><span><span><font color="#ffff00">It is also unfair and selfish to think that because I choose to be in a smaller guild for GAME ENJOYMENT I should experience LESS than anyone in a Large Guild.</font></span></span></i><span><span><i>..."] </i> Keyword being CHOOSE. You chose. With choice, comes consequence, always. That being said, in what way would you "experience LESS than anyone in a Large Guild" ? What "experience" do you mean exactly? Whatever it is, they just get to "experience" it sooner than you and your guild. Or maybe I have simply misunderstood your sentence and you really actually just meant that even though your guild is smaller, you should still level just as fast as a larger guild.</span></span><span><span> </span></span><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2"> </font></font><span><span>Can you, and should you get more adventuring exp in the same time frame hunting solo instead of being in a group? Is this argument related enough? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <span></span> </span></span> <div></div>

dejahtho

08-08-2005, 07:22 AM

<span>smaller guilds doing less work for the same reward is not fair for all. top end EQ1 guilds worked hard to get where they are. i've read all your posts in this thread and i dont agree with them. reading them again isn't going to change my mind. you chose to be in a small guild, just like i did. you want big guild perks, go join one. i'm leaving this thread now because it's become too much repetition. </span><div></div>

WodinAu

08-08-2005, 07:41 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Trei49 wrote:<BR>If there absolutely must be a compromise, how about this -<BR>Keep patron system as it is, but allow all members to still be able to contribute via the new status loot.<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>I like this idea :smileyhappy:</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>And to just clarify I am not so much wanting guilds to all advance at the same time as much as I'd like to see all accounts have an even status</P> <P>The comment. 'You want big Guild rewards go join one' does not wash.. it is a copout answer.</P> <P>But as is it is still pinned for the update so really we don't get a CHOICE to start with.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><SPAN><SPAN> Can you, and should you get more adventuring exp in the same time frame hunting solo instead of being in a group?<BR> Is this argument related enough? <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0><BR></SPAN></SPAN></P> <HR> <BR>Well you don't unless you hunt higher level Mobs. Which is why you hunt in groups for XP. So inturn promoting the Co-Op Community I mentioned. <P></P> <HR> <P>The problem with the cap is Guilds of sizable Accounts will be more likely to recruit new members as they level faster and gain access to the so called 'Good Stuff'</P> <P>A small account guild (especially new guilds) will attract less members because it would have access to the better gear. Its human nature for players to go for the Shiney things over Quality Friendship (In most cases).</P> <P>So how then does a smaller account guild grow?</P> <P>They don't cause the general concensis is 'Want Big Guild Stuff join a Big Guild'</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>The thing to remember is on most occasions a large guild will churn out a sizable number of writs in a day. My earlier numbers were an example of equal.</P> <P>Our guild (25 accounts) may in a day complete 10 writs at a guess. That is with the 12 Patron system now.</P> <P>With the new system it will probably go up as we have more members wanting to contribute.</P> <P>Same as a 100 account guild. I am sure if they took the time to ask their fellow guildies there would be alot waiting in the wings for a chance to help.</P> <P>So with that in mind and a percent comparison a larger guild will still level faster without the cap. Keep inmind this would not work without an 'Inactive Account' option</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by WodinAu on <SPAN class=date_text>08-07-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>09:07 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by WodinAu on <span class=date_text>08-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:07 PM</span>

Trei

08-08-2005, 10:44 AM

<div></div><div></div><div></div>another brainstorm... how abt this.. Keep the patron system but modify it so that only Patrons get to contribute 100% gsp undivided. All other members' contribution is divided by the number of patrons you have. <strike>There must of course be a cap..... perhaps take que from current test and say... 12 if below 24 members, and 24 if more than..? (not sure if they need to be unique accnts or not, for this idea.... let me chew on it a little more later today)</strike> <strike>Or does it sound like total nonsense? <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></strike> Ok I got it hehe.. minimum number of patrons required = 20% of guild size maximum number of patrons allowed = 40% of guild size ie: guild of 10 must have at least 2 patrons or no gsp will be earned, but can choose to have up to 4 patrons total. 2ie: guild of 50 must have at least 10 patrons and can have up to 20 max. wat ya think? <span>:smileyvery-happy: numbers are negotiable hehe.. </span><span></span> <div></div><p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span class="time_text"></span>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class="date_text">08-08-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:39 AM </span></p> <p> </p> <p>add-ons --> <span class="time_text"></span></p> <p><span class="time_text">pros of this idea: </span></p> <p><span class="time_text">- doesn't matter if you are big or small guild, caps are in % of size. </span></p> <p><span class="time_text">- if you are in a guild with more inactive members than active contributors.. set more patrons to take advantage of undivided gsp, if vice versa then set LESS patrons and let all non-patrons have a smaller divisor thus contributing more. </span></p> <p><span class="time_text">- with divisor being once again selectable, inactive members of family/closeknit/friends guilds are no longer 'burdens' .</span></p> <p>- overall more control and flexibility for different types of guilds <span class="time_text"></span></p> <p><span class="time_text"> </span></p> <p><span class="time_text">cons of this idea: </span></p> <p><span class="time_text">- er... it counts total members instead of total unique accounts... ? not that it actually matters anyhow... </span></p> <p><span class="time_text"> </span></p> <p><span class="time_text"> </span></p><p>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class=date_text>08-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:57 PM</span>