Massive flaw with update 13a

[ThramFalc]

<DIV>Removing patrons and dividing status by number of unique accounts is a great idea!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Having this denomenator capped at 24 is a game breakingly awful idea!!!</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Picture a guild of 500 people... all earning status/24 for their guild.  Lets say they all do the jboots heritage quest (it can be done by low levels with a high level guide so its easy to farm even if your guild is filled with level 15 players).  Each jboot quest will earn around 60,000 / 24 = 2500 guild status.  500 people earning 2500 status amounts to 1,250,000 status... this is about level 28.  Level 28 just because everyone did jboots... this is horribly wrong.... everyone ends up doing jboots anyways so this just gives everyone incentive to form one massive guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE devs, you now have the perfect opportunity to show you don't favor guilds of any size.  <STRONG>Remove the cap of 24 entirely and let that number equal total accounts no matter how many there are.</STRONG>  If everyone pulls their weight equally in a guild, this should have no effect.  Keeping this cap does nothing but hand level 30 to large guilds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Large guilds already have the benefit of being able to raid more effectively.  They can even split up and raid multiple instances for more loot.  There is plenty of incentive to be in a large guild without guild level being one of them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the cap is removed, all guilds will be on a level playing ground and guild level might actually mean something once again!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, it would be nice to have an option to not include inactive players... I would hate to deguild someone just because they are taking a break for a while.</DIV>

[jaythedogg]

No, that would be a horrifying experience! What about this: Guild with 100 unique accounts... only 25ish are willing to do anything status related.. Those 25 are penalized a denominator of 100 just ebcause of your theory? Very bad, Jboots quest done by all 25 would even get them level 5. Heck, if that even. It is bad enough the way they wanna make it minimum 6 max 24, as we are juts now getting our patrons down to 12, so we can achieve something instead of doing an HQ & receiving .3% guild status, having a cap at 24 will mean, for us, doing a standard 40+ HQ will net MAYBE 1% exp. Writs won't even register a full .2% I don't agree with this one little bit, we make patrons so patrons can do the job & we can utilize the percentages, this basically forces all average guilds into a denominator of 24 as opposed to the 12-13 which is ideal. So what is it SOE? First you make it so we cannot lose status under normal circumstances, now you are trying to make it where it is a HUGE pain to even gain a level? Sorry, not a very good idea IMHO. <div></div>

[emr]

HUH?   What is going on ?  This new system is so flawed as to be laughable.  Is it april 1st?  What is wrong with my proposed system? Every member of a guild gets a get the same percent of status (maybe 10%) recorded  as contributed but the program only counts the highest 12 players  to determine the guild's level.    This eliminates the problem of patron swapping abuse.    Bigger guild  do not get a unfair advantage.  If a member leaves a guild his contributed pool is gone with him and the 13th is now counted.   If a player  is inactive a guild another player can pass his total  and the guild starts to level again. Big guild will still have an advantage but a small one (they can complete writs and HQ easier then a small guild).  Little and casual guild will still be able to make level 30 someday. Guilds are not penalized too much if a patron becomes inactive.   When mains are nolonger played alts can take over the job of leveling  guilds.

[ThramFalc]

<P>The highest 12 system is also acceptable.  As for lots of members not doing anything status related... that should logically reflect on your guilds standing.  A guild where everyone is working for the same goal should be able to achieve more.  No guild will be perfect but removing the max of 24 will set apart close nit hard working guilds which I don't think would be a bad thing.</P> <P>The main point is that the 24 max doesn't work.  It CANNOT go to live.  We can debate the merits of no max, but I personally like the idea.  </P> <P>All these options are better for the game than the new system on test as it currently stands.  Not an opinion.. simply fact based on the numerous scenarios pointed out by more than just me.  Even keeping patrons would be better for the long term stability of the game and the guild system.</P>

[Tuved2]

:smileysad:More Dumbing down of EQ2

[Jaas]

<P>I suggest:</P> <P>Each account in a guild decides if they want to contribute or not. If your a contributor the guild denominator goes up by 1, with no max. If you don't want to contribute you can get personal status but no guild status (not helping or hurting). I suggest a cool down time after you click off your contribution flag to stop people from clicking in just before completing a heratage quest then clicking out.</P>

[Vanra]

I have a character on test, however he is not guilded. I would, however, like to say that this idea is so incredibly ridiculous in my opinion, that I don't even know how to put it clearly to everyone. Perhaps I don't understand the situation fully. I simply don't see why someone in a smaller guild who doesn't want to consistently contribute to improving the guild status levels should  penalize those who take the responsibility and put forth the time and effort to level the guild. This is definitely a bad move for guilds with, say over 24 actve accounts, but only 12 people willing to do status contributing activities. It simply doesn't seem fair to me. On the other hand, say you have an enormous guild of 300 people, all of whom do status contributing activities, and the points are only divided by 24. I completely agree with the title of this thread in saying that I feel this system is so flawed, that I don't see how it could have possibly been considered an option in its current state, much less an ideal solution. I enjoy the idea of patrons. Those in a guild who are willing to take their time and effort to contribute are given the opportunity.  The only recourse I see coming out of this is massive guilds with lots of active accounts will level dramatically faster while smaller guilds hurt more and more, depending on the number of people they have to contribute. I like the patron system. This system is moving in steps further back than where we were in the first place. That's' just what I think. <div></div>

[Arfiniel]

I foresee guilds demoting all but 6-12 of their members to alt status... this is really sad.

[Kenazeer]

<DIV>The problem with this idea is that it would force guilds to be one of either two flavors. I enjoy having casual/social people right along side the raider/writters. Whatever system they implement should not force an either/or situation upon guilds.</DIV> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:47 AM</span>

[Avail]

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.

[Lyrus]

<div></div><div></div>Here are my thoughts on the matter to prevent what I'll call the Alt-Zerg phenomenon that everyone is worrying about in regards to running large numbers of alts through the Jboots runs, earning huge amounts of guild status for no risk, high reward (60 gold plus guild status). The simplest fix, that I see, is to make the run givers for each zone only respond to the person when they're at an appropriate level. As an example, for the feerott run, make the minimum level to do it be 32. Now, you've thrown a speed bump into what can potentially destroy the economy and the guild level system. With the easiest heritage quest prevented from being exploited, I think that the 24 cap is quite fair. The way I see it, is the maximum number of people you can have grouped to kill a writ mob is 6. Let's take for example, pioneers There are only a set number of pioneers, and there can only be so much competition on Pioneers before either all but 1 group leaves, or the amount of guild status entering the game at that point is slowed dramatically as the kills are being spread out very thinly. This in turn promotes competition, which is never really a bad thing until it goes sour, but then again, competing for mobs also encourages teamwork as well in many instances where solo players from different guilds form up to share the same mob. So, realistically speaking, unless you have a group of people in every level range killing the most accessible writ mobs into a state of permanent lock down, larger guilds aren't going to level faster at any given moment than the rest of the guilds out there because the mobs are in a set location and in limited numbers. As a side note, I'd like to add there will always be people not interested in leveling the guild or doing writs. That became quite apparent to me when I founded my guild. When the patron system gets scrapped, the same people who were never interested in doing writs, are still not going to be interested in doing writs. Some things will never change. In conclusion, if you revamp how the The Journey is half the fun heritage progresses to prevent low level characters from finishing it to stop alt swarms of status, scrapping the patron system and putting a cap at 24 is A-OK with me. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Lyrus-D on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:02 AM</span>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThramFalcox wrote:<BR> <DIV>Removing patrons and dividing status by number of unique accounts is a great idea!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Having this denomenator capped at 24 is a game breakingly awful idea!!!</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Picture a guild of 500 people... all earning status/24 for their guild.  Lets say they all do the jboots heritage quest (it can be done by low levels with a high level guide so its easy to farm even if your guild is filled with level 15 players).  Each jboot quest will earn around 60,000 / 24 = 2500 guild status.  500 people earning 2500 status amounts to 1,250,000 status... this is about level 28.  Level 28 just because everyone did jboots... this is horribly wrong.... everyone ends up doing jboots anyways so this just gives everyone incentive to form one massive guild.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE devs, you now have the perfect opportunity to show you don't favor guilds of any size.  <STRONG>Remove the cap of 24 entirely and let that number equal total accounts no matter how many there are.</STRONG>  If everyone pulls their weight equally in a guild, this should have no effect.  Keeping this cap does nothing but hand level 30 to large guilds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Large guilds already have the benefit of being able to raid more effectively.  They can even split up and raid multiple instances for more loot.  There is plenty of incentive to be in a large guild without guild level being one of them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the cap is removed, all guilds will be on a level playing ground and guild level might actually mean something once again!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, it would be nice to have an option to not include inactive players... I would hate to deguild someone just because they are taking a break for a while.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Hmm.  Lets think about your Idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a guild of 500 characters has only 100 accounts from your example they would get.  (60,000/100) * 500 status points?  Or 300,000 if all 500 characters did the JBoots?  Where if only 250 of the characters did it they would get 150,000.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So if a guild of 50 characters has only 10 accounts they would get (60,000/10)*50 or 300,000.  If only 25 did the quest they would get 150,000</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So if a guild of 30 characters with 6 accounts they would get (60,000/6)*30 or 300,000. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So to max out your status generation you would need 6 Station Access accounts, 60 characters.  (60,000/6) * 60 = 600,000 status.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>Recap</U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>LU 13a way</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>600 characters/100 accounts = 1,500,000 status  (60,000/24) x 600</DIV> <DIV>144 characters/24 accounts = 360,000 status  (60,000/24) x 144</DIV> <DIV>60 characters/10 accounts = 360,000 status  (60,000/10) x 60</DIV> <DIV>36 characters/6 accounts = 360,000 status  (60,000/6) x 36</DIV> <DIV>500 characters/50 station accounts = 1,250,000 status  (60,000/24) x 500</DIV> <DIV>240 characters/24 station accounts = 600,000 status  (60,000/24) x 240</DIV> <DIV>100 characters/10 station accounts = 600,000 status  (60,000/10) x 100</DIV> <DIV>60 characters/6 station accounts = 600,000 status  (60,000/6) x 60</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Your way</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>600 characters/100 accounts = 360,000 status  (60,000/100) x 600</DIV> <DIV>60 characters/10 accounts = 360,000 status  (60,000/10) x 60</DIV> <DIV>36 characters/6 accounts = 360,000 status  (60,000/6) x 36</DIV> <DIV>500 characters/50 station accounts = 600,000 status  (60,000/50) x 500</DIV> <DIV>100 characters/10 station accounts = 600,000 status  (60,000/10) x 100</DIV> <DIV>60 characters/6 station accounts = 600,000 status  (60,000/6) x 60</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So your way it makes having a very large extremely active guild worth the same as a very small active guild.   So 10 people working hard can achieve the same as 100 people working hard?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Should a guild of 100 players only produce the same amount of status as a guild of 10 players?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion the answer to that question is NO!  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lyrus-D wrote:<BR> Here are my thoughts on the matter to prevent what I'll call the Alt-Zerg phenomenon that everyone is worrying about in regards to running large numbers of alts through the Jboots runs, earning huge amounts of guild status for no risk, high reward (60 gold plus guild status). The simplest fix, that I see, is to make the run givers for each zone only respond to the person when they're at an appropriate level. As an example, for the feerott run, make the minimum level to do it be 32. Now, you've thrown a speed bump into what can potentially destroy the economy and the guild level system. With the easiest heritage quest prevented from being exploited, I think that the 24 cap is quite fair. The way I see it, is the maximum number of people you can have grouped to kill a writ mob is 6. Let's take for example, pioneers There are only a set number of pioneers, and there can only be so much competition on Pioneers before either all but 1 group leaves, or the amount of guild status entering the game at that point is slowed dramatically as the kills are being spread out very thinly. This in turn promotes competition, which is never really a bad thing until it goes sour, but then again, competing for mobs also encourages teamwork as well in many instances where solo players from different guilds form up to share the same mob.<BR><BR>So, realistically speaking, unless you have a group of people in every level range killing the most accessible writ mobs into a state of permanent lock down, larger guilds aren't going to level faster at any given moment than the rest of the guilds out there because the mobs are in a set location and in limited numbers. As a side note, I'd like to add there will always be people not interested in leveling the guild or doing writs. That became quite apparent to me when I founded my guild. When the patron system gets scrapped, the same people who were never interested in doing writs, are still not going to be interested in doing writs. Some things will never change.<BR><BR>In conclusion, if you revamp how the The Journey is half the fun heritage progresses to prevent level 3 characters from finishing it to stop alt swarms of status, scrapping the patron system and putting a cap at 24 is A-OK with me.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Lyrus-D on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:29 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is a great idea!  Any heritage quest that does not require any killing and that all characters (regardless of level) can get to need to have minimum level requirements put on them.  Prior to the last patch the access quests limited lower level characters from doing this. <BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:59 AM</span>

[WAPCE]

There is already a minimum level requirement of 15 to pick up the JBoots quest. Even if people did want to zerg it through 15 levels and the JBoots quest, they're going to have a helluva time getting through Feerrott.

[Lyrus]

It's easy enough to have a guild member grey out the zone, making it completely safe to run through. <div></div>

[Mor]

Um... a level 50 cannot grey out the Feerot for a level 15.  <div></div>

[Ragin_Goblin]

<P>Think about this. If you are in objection of this change based on the fact that it will penalize your guild because someone doesnt like doing writs or HQ's then you have an internal challenge within your guild to promote activity. This is not SOE's problem. The way I see it you either accept the way things are (which is what you are doing now <because you currently dont get penalized&gt<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, promote activity within your guild (GL's and Officers take charge and grab up a handful of those un SP active ppl and go do a writ <with a group those solo writs only take about 10mins tops&gt<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, or the alternative is to remove those players from the guild. </P> <P>There are casual players who have no interest in grinding for SP and there are those who do. </P> <P>You cant have your cake and eat it too. Be a leader. Take charge of your guild and either find ways to inspire your ppl to build SP or make a tough decision and cut the ones who dont want to do it.</P> <DIV>Leading a guild with more than a handfull of ppl is hard work. Everyone has different tastes and play styles. You cant just sit back and watch the SP roll in then complain about it when SOE makes a change that will penalize you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With what we currently have there is really nothing promoting an active guild to grind thier way up to 30 (oh wait discounted horses <big deal we have a transportation system that eliminates the need for them> and titles <woo woo&gt<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. The XP is going to require activity and organization within a guild because of the way the faction system is set up (this is just based on what I have heard and read). If you start organizing and promoting activity now it will be much easier later on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just my 2c worth</DIV>

[msheaf]

<DIV>To expand on what Morie is saying a level 50 will gray out everything to a level 15 in Feerot but the level 15 will still get aggro from the grays. I've had it happen before. I had my 22 conjuror in Zek delivering food/drink to a 30 something friend. While everything was gray they still had the red aggro outline and did jump me at one point.</DIV>

[Mor]

Well there is the grey aggro stuff too <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  But I believe the group average of  32.5 (1 level 50 and 1 level 15) will create an unpleasant surprise for an unsuspecting level 50 traveling through the Feerot.  <div></div>

[emr]

LOL Our guild record for lowest level completion of Jboots is lvl 27. As soon as my mage get to 18 level and as I can recieve the quests I will do it at 18th level.   As for a level 50 have a hard time in Feeroot by grey aggro you are so wrong.   My Paladin has no fabled equipement or Legendry other then HQ stuff and I have no problem training huge numbers of mobs on Jboot runs.  Some of of our recent Jboot runs have even been by level 50 wizards.  In fact the run for the level 27 was accompanied only by a level 50 wizard.

[ctrcivic]

I like the setup now that if  patron leaves a guild the guild keeps the status. My only concern is it getting abused.. Maybe some sort of guild xp debt if patron leaves.. I like the number of 12 and if you want more you can have more and it gets divided by that number so  larger guild can have 18 patrons as they wish ... the new idea of loosing the patrons is Stupid in my opinion. Perhaps SOE should consentrate more on combat changes... something more important than guild stuff

[Mor]

I myself have run the Feerot for a level 27 just this week.  The claim was that there would be no aggro for a level 15 if he was in the zone with a level 50.  My point was, that it is simply not true.   It certainly an acheivable goal, but that level 15 is not going to go strolling throught Feerot himself while the level 50 goes afk on the dock. <div></div>

[Gorkk00]

<div></div>Yeah, and you could do it solo at level 32 (minimum level for access before recent changes when you're not an hih level artisan) if you were a dirge thanks to dirge speed buff (i know i did it). So what? Some classes usualy get lots of aggro, and if there is grey aggro, they'll have it (enchanters for example), so it limits here the ability to do JBoots at very low level (which has to be at least 15 anyway).Actions of everybody in a guild should count toward their reputation. Take a guild of 1000 members with only 12 doing great things: there would not have more reputation with the inhabitants than a guild of 12 people doing great things. But a guild of 1000 members with 1000 members doing great things should definitely have a better reputation than a guild of 12 people doing great things (hence in the game more reputation means a higher level). Big guilds leveling faster (at same proportion of active members) is quite normal, regarding the RP. Currently big organised guilds (then with 12 patrons, but only 12 people contributing) will level at the same pace as a guild of 12 active people. Big guilds with only 12 people contributing should even level less fast than a small guild of 12 active people, but big guilds of active people should definitely level faster than small guilds of active people.The new system on test is quite good imho, except for the 24 cap. But it should not be just removed, but more likely something like, from 24 to 36 accounts, it's 24, for 36 to 48 it's 30, for 48 to 60 it's 36, etc. (maybe with other figures, they're just here to illustrate my idea). With such a "cap", huge guilds with few active people will level slowlier than small active guilds, but huge active guilds will still level faster than small active guilds. Still, having a writ count for nearly nothing for a huge guild will definitely hurt the motivation to do them for members, and that would be bad too (but still better than with dividing by numbers of accounts in guild <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />).As <a target="_blank" href="../view_profile?user.id=53545"><span>Ragin_Goblin</span></a> said, lead a big guild is a hard work, and it's your job to decide if you want your guild to focus on SP grinding or not. If you want it to level, then you have to motivate your members to contribute or remove some of them if they really don't want, as they don't fit in a guild focusing on leveling. If you don't focus on leveling, why would you level as fast as a guild who does? With the same thinking, we'll soon have: hey, i'm sitting all day long in my room, but i want to level as fast as people grinding xp all  day long, let's get 10% xp per hour doing nothing...<div></div>

[Birkenstocky]

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.

[Raahl]

<P>I posted this in another thread.  Here's a possible solution.</P> <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>

[Brorin]

It is true that a level 50 can group with a level 15 to gray out most of Feerrott.  There would still be aggro because the range is so high.  However, a level 15 cannot get quest credit while grouped with a level 50, isn't that correct?

[Gorkk00]

Yeah Raahl good idea. The formula might be kinda efficient, this would require some testing i guess <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. That's really close of what i thought about and Jan Itor's idea <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I had something like that in mind (eg. the number by which status is divided being in SQRT of number of accounts in guild - in your suggestion it's 5*SQRT). Though i'd still add to this the inactive account feature (i saw another suggestion for the inactive accounts in another thread, which was like "if you logged - all chars of account summed up - less than 2h in a week, you're considered as inactive, thus not count as an account in guild, nor can you contribute to guild while inactive, allowing then people not playing to pass and say hello from time to time and get their offline selling up again", which shall be considered too, though 1 week might be short, 2 weeks would be better I think). <div></div>

[Raahl]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gorkk00 wrote:<BR>Yeah Raahl good idea. The formula might be kinda efficient, this would require some testing i guess <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. That's really close of what i thought about and Jan Itor's idea <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>I had something like that in mind (eg. the number by which status is divided being in SQRT of number of accounts in guild - in your suggestion it's 5*SQRT). Though i'd still add to this the inactive account feature (i saw another suggestion for the inactive accounts in another thread, which was like "if you logged - all chars of account summed up - less than 2h in a week, you're considered as inactive, thus not count as an account in guild, nor can you contribute to guild while inactive, allowing then people not playing to pass and say hello from time to time and get their offline selling up again", which shall be considered too, though 1 week might be short, 2 weeks would be better I think).<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>With what I purposed if Sony wanted to speed up or slow down guild leveling they would only have to change the "x 5" to something lower or higher.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as inactive accounts, here's my suggested solution<FONT color=#3366ff> (probably already suggested)</FONT>.   Accounts become inactive if they have not logged in for 30 days or more.  Once the account is logged into, the timer is reset and they are now active again.</DIV>

[Lyrus]

The point of why it's exploitable is because the run is still doable at the level the quest is granted, and since it requires no killing whatsoever, level range doesn't matter. <div></div>

[ThramFalc]

<span><blockquote><hr>Brorin wrote:<div></div>It is true that a level 50 can group with a level 15 to gray out most of Feerrott.  There would still be aggro because the range is so high.  However, a level 15 cannot get quest credit while grouped with a level 50, isn't that correct? <div></div><hr></blockquote>Incorrect.  A low level player will not sufficiently gray out anything in the feerrott.... there seems to be a floor on how low group average can go.  Also, the other player will get quest credit since its location based and not quest based.  I've done this before... trust me when i say its very easy.</span><div></div>

[Screamin' 1]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>emras wrote:HUH?   What is going on ?  This new system is so flawed as to be laughable.  Is it april 1st?  What is wrong with my proposed system? Every member of a guild gets a get the same percent of status (maybe 10%) recorded  as contributed but the program only counts the highest 12 players  to determine the guild's level.    This eliminates the problem of patron swapping abuse.    Bigger guild  do not get a unfair advantage.  If a member leaves a guild his contributed pool is gone with him and the 13th is now counted.   If a player  is inactive a guild another player can pass his total  and the guild starts to level again. Big guild will still have an advantage but a small one (they can complete writs and HQ easier then a small guild).  Little and casual guild will still be able to make level 30 someday. Guilds are not penalized too much if a patron becomes inactive.   When mains are nolonger played alts can take over the job of leveling  guilds. <hr></blockquote>I agree, the new system is flawed. The 12 highest patrons idea It is a great idea, if it had been done since day 1. Here's the problem. What will happen to guild levels if we switch to this system? There are many guilds with more than 12 patrons. They will all lose status. Perhaps there is a clever way to avoid this, but it could be complicated, and probably buggy. [Edited] I should point out too that the Top 12 patrons system could be even better if the patron status applied to an account, not a character. The one drawback to the current top 12 patron system compared to the update on test is that the update on test makes all a players 'toons viable status contributors. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:39 PM</span>

[Gorkk00]

<span><blockquote><hr>Raahl wrote:<div></div><div>With what I purposed if Sony wanted to speed up or slow down guild leveling they would only have to change the "x 5" to something lower or higher.</div> <div> </div> <div>As far as inactive accounts, here's my suggested solution<font color="#3366ff"> (probably already suggested)</font>.   Accounts become inactive if they have not logged in for 30 days or more.  Once the account is logged into, the timer is reset and they are now active again.</div><hr></blockquote>Yeah that's what i thought about too (1 week would be really too short <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />). I'd add though an automatic inactive flag for suspended accounts.</span><div></div>

[jefst]

<DIV>Personally, I think a flat rate with no dependance on membership is the fairest across the board.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The original system didn't work because it was far too erratic which made it very difficult for the majority of guilds to reach the upper levels much less achieving 30. The current live system alleviates the detrimental effect, but creates a large desparity in leveling if guilds use patron rotation. All guilds benefit from rotating their patrons, but larger guilds can make better use of HQs while doing so. The current Test system really doesn't do much to change that situation. Someone already outlined how to use a second "farm-type" guild to rotate accounts and keeps your numbers based around the minimum denominator of 6.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now personally, I feel that larger guilds should level faster. I'm sure there are people that disagree, but I think a majority of folks would agree that more resources should reflect in more progress. There is really no system that can be implemented that is anything like the current attempts (total exp divided by some number, but we'll put a cap on what that number can be, etc) that can't be min/maxed, and will likely favor large guilds over small ones to extreme levels. Reducing that disparity would involve using formulas that only a math major could love (square roots, cube roots, etc).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, larger guilds will level faster using a flat rate system (say 1% contribution to guild exp for simplicity). If a guild of 100 individual people can get all 100 out doing writs, they deserve that. The reality is that moving that many people in the same direction is a pain in the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. It's much easier for a guild of 25 to get all 25 contributing... that's just human nature.</DIV>

[Nolrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>ThramFalcox wrote:</P> <P>Picture a guild of 500 people... all earning status/24 for their guild.  Lets say they all do the jboots heritage quest (it can be done by low levels with a high level guide so its easy to farm even if your guild is filled with level 15 players).  Each jboot quest will earn around 60,000 / 24 = 2500 guild status.  500 people earning 2500 status amounts to 1,250,000 status... this is about level 28.  Level 28 just because everyone did jboots... this is horribly wrong.... everyone ends up doing jboots anyways so this just gives everyone incentive to form one massive guild.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And if the guild had 50000 people, imagine how many status points that would be.  Wow.</P> <P>How many guilds do you think have 500 people in them? <BR></P>

[Zkinea]

<P>I know everyone is posting like crazy about unfair advantages with 500 plus member guilds but I think you are all panicking without looking at actual numbers. </P> <P>First let me give you our guild background. I am the leader of a family guild on Najena called Rage. We are currently level 22 and we have 29 patrons. We have experienced losing almost 2 levels when patrons have left under the old system. We have also lost points by removing patron status from inactive members in order to try and maximize our points under the old system. The changes in update #12 solved that problem for the future. We are not zerging our way through levels. We have struggled with the patron system not because it doesnt allow us to level faster but rather because we have been trying to balance what is best for the guild as a whole and what is best for the people in the guild. All of our members are proud of being in our guild because we are friends and try to help each other and they want to participate in helping the guild level but are torn because they dont want to penalize the guild by having too many patrons. The changes proposed in test update #13a will help us. </P> <P>If you look at the number of members only you are not getting an accurate picture. </P> <UL> <LI>There are only 2 level 30 guilds on our server. Everyone complained that the last update would make it so easy for guilds to level to 30 but our server only saw an increase of 1 guild getting to 30</LI> <LI>One of the level 30 guilds has 133 members with an average level of 35 and the other has only 57 with an average level of 44.</LI> <LI>But even average member level doesnt seem to determine guild level because none of the top 4 guilds in terms of average member level  are level 30 yet</LI> <LI>The top guild on our server has 599 members but is level 27. The next highest guild in terms of members has only 254 and is level 22</LI> <LI>Rage is ranked at number 13 in terms of number  on our server  having 146 members. </LI> <LI>Of these 146 members there are 61 unique accounts. </LI> <LI>Of these 61 unique accounts 18 havent logged on in 30 days. </LI></UL> <P>So what is my point?</P> <P>I think some of you are lumping together guilds in categories by one criteria that is just not accurate. Just because a guild is large does not mean that they are using their numbers to zerg. We formed our guild on November 15th and have been working hard slowly to get to where we are. You might say we have an advantage over a guild that only has  12 members because we had more people to work on status. But that doesnt mean the people in the guild havent worked hard to get there. Our guild hasnt hurt anyone to get where we are. We havent prevented anyone else from getting there. </P> <P>You say that a small guild shouldnt be penalized because they are small but yet you want to penalize guilds of medium to large size. There are both advantages and disadvantages of different sized guilds. </P> <P>There is no way to equalize guilds unless you want to force guilds to all have the same number of members and those members must all level at the same pace and all do the exact same things in order to progress. </P> <P>I personally dont know how SOE can ever figure out what the proper course of action is because everytime they respond to the outcries (Get rid of patrons!!)  they get more outcries from others because they are not doing it the right way!</P> <P>Everyone needs to relax and have fun with their friends and stop worrying about what is fair and not fair. The game is what you make of it. </P><p>Message Edited by Zkinea on <span class=date_text>07-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:47 AM</span>

[Cecil_Stri]

<DIV>Oh no!</DIV> <DIV><BR>The 3 500+ guilds on all servers that have mostly inactive accounts are gonna rule norrath!</DIV>