Good Jod Devs. Love the way you are going with Guilds

[Keegant]

<DIV>Good job with the getting rid of patrons.</DIV> <DIV>Ya, what is on test needs to be altered a little, but you can't get perfection without practice. The cap of 24 needs to be raised or removed, which I am sure you will do and somthing needs to be done about inactives, like make accounts that have not been logged into for 14 days not count till someone logs in again. Other than that what I see is a change that goes to what many were proposing a few weeks ago and that was to get rid of patrons which was just hurting most guilds. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its too bad that some people need to cry every time you make a good change that has a minor flaw. They just need to pull up thier diapers and drive on. The current system is a pain as chosing and making patrons is too big a deal. I saw it posted that the 20 bigest guilds in the game have not reached lv 30. This is a flaw with the patron system. These guilds dont want to exclude people by not making them patrons, so they end up with over a 100 patrons and this leads to very slow leveling. Or they can make 12 people patrons and that leaves most of the guild not contributing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The biggest thing everyone needs to realise is that another guild removing everyone but 6 accounts then power leveling does not affect them. Ya that other guild is now lv 30 with their big sence of accomplishment  for all the "work" they did, but them being lv 1 or lv 30 makes no difference to someone not in their guild. A character having a easy way to level does affect other players so that should be taken into consideration, but a guilds lv doesnt affect anyone not in that guild.</DIV>

[Fallien]

Ever hear of the saying if something is not broken dont fix it?.....The patron system is not broken why should it be fixed nothing wrong there are plenty of lvl 30 guilds on all the servers...

[tek2]

<DIV>not a bad idea, I dont think the max of 24 should be set in stone though, maybe in the new guild window allow the guild leaders to set the maximum number of dividends.</DIV> <DIV>But i do have one question, if the max is 24 and you have a large guild with 50 unique accounts how are the 24 people picked? does it go by status count so the people with top 24 amount of status get used? im hoping so</DIV><p>Message Edited by tek2k5 on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:10 PM</span>

[TinyTi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fallien89 wrote:<BR> Ever hear of the saying if something is not broken dont fix it?.....The patron system is not broken why should it be fixed nothing wrong there are plenty of lvl 30 guilds on all the servers...<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>A small chunk of moaners on these forums been complaining about it for months. I guess they finally caved into their demands. </P> <P>But I agree with ya, It didnt need to be changed and just something unnessary. </P>

[Belizarius]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> tek2k5 wrote:<BR> <DIV>not a bad idea, I dont think the max of 24 should be set in stone though, maybe in the new guild window allow the guild leaders to set the maximum number of dividends.</DIV> <DIV>But i do have one question, if the max is 24 and you have a large guild with 50 unique accounts how are the 24 people picked? does it go by status count so the people with top 24 amount of status get used? im hoping so</DIV> <P>Message Edited by tek2k5 on <SPAN class=date_text>07-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:10 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ROFL.  You just don't get it, do you?</P> <P>The way it has been released on test, <EM><STRONG>every single member</STRONG> </EM>can/will contribute to status.  There is no selecting who or how many contribute.  But contributions will never be divided by more than 24 no matter how many members are contributing.</P> <P>So, if a guild has a membership of say 100 accounts (it really doesn't matter how many after the first 24), and 50 of them are actively contributing, they will level up twice as fast as a guild with 24 accounts, all of whom are contributing to the same degree.  Got it now?  Do you still like it?</P> <P>Capping the divisor at 24 is a <EM><STRONG>terrible</STRONG> </EM>idea, unless you are a member of a large, lazy guild.  This is not my idea of a minor flaw.  The effect, if it goes live even for a few days, is probably irreversible.</P> <P>Just because some guilds are too incompetent, apathetic or lazy to manage their patronage/status, why should it be handed to them on a platter?</P><p>Message Edited by Belizarius on <span class=date_text>07-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:31 PM</span>

[CherobylJ]

<P>Thye just need to stop &*(* with the patron system.  It gets worse with every interation and makes the game less fun to play for those of us who work hard on guild points every night.  This divisor cap nonsense is the ultimate cave to the "i'm too [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] lazy to motivate my guild to work on guild level".  Hey now all you need to do is zerg high on unique accts...with a cap of divisor of 24 there is no downside to being a mega fat with members inefficient guild</P> <P>But I guess they really dont give a crap about the opinions of peeps who actually play this game every night.</P>

[Oghi]

<DIV>I like the change as well.   Guild status should be determined by the combined efforts of a guild's members, not by being clever at metagaming the rules.  I suspect that the 'cap' should be higher than 24, but the overall direction here is nice.</DIV>

[Keegant]

<P>I keep seeing this if its not broke dont fix it. </P> <P> </P> <P>HOW IS IT NOT BROKE RIGHT NOW?</P> <P> </P> <P>There are guilds with 100 or more players and TWELVE of them are contributing to the guild. That is broke. That guilds level refelcts the work of 12 not the work of the whole. The people that are not patrons don't deserve the level that they have as a guild because they didnt contribute to it. The new way makes it so that everyone can contribute. No one is left out.</P> <P> </P> <P>Face it the patron system is a good idea in concept but what resulted from it was most guilds only having a small percentage of its members contributing to their guild level, and the ones that did make most of their members patrons got screwed hard by it, as is evidence by the 20 biggest guilds not being lv 30. That is broke.</P> <P> </P> <P>Once again, good change Devs, clean it up a little and it will be a great change.</P>

[Tockl]

<DIV>Overall the idea isn't terrible, but the cap of 24 is horrible.  </DIV>

[Mor]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Keegantir wrote:<BR> <P>I There are guilds with 100 or more players and TWELVE of them are contributing to the guild. That is broke. That guilds level refelcts the work of 12 not the work of the whole. The people that are not patrons don't deserve the level that they have as a guild because they didnt contribute to it. The new way makes it so that everyone can contribute. No one is left out.</P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>If only twelve people are contributing then your leaders should be fired. Period.  There is no reason to do this.  None.  Nada.  Nil.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P>Face it the patron system is a good idea in concept but what resulted from it was most guilds only having a small percentage of its members contributing to their guild level, and the ones that did make most of their members patrons got screwed hard by it, as is evidence by the 20 biggest guilds not being lv 30. That is broke.</P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>Why should having 100 make you entitled to being level 30?</FONT></P> <P> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Naud]

<DIV>The cap of 24 needs to be raised or removed, which I am sure you will do and somthing needs to be done about inactives, like make accounts that have not been logged into for 14 days not count till someone logs in again. </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV>How is this fair to someone who pays the same amount of money as everyone else in game and can only play a few hours a week?  Worse yet, people that have station access and play several games at one time.... this is a past-time not a career for some of us.  If someone wants to log on and play 3 days straight and contribute to the guild as a patron then not show up for 2 weeks because he got deployed or went on vacation then why should'nt they be able to without a repercussion?  New update will hurt the casual players in casual guilds.  If a guild only has 4 hard-core players (and writ takers) why should they have to sacrfice their own time to do the writs if they are only going to get half of the GSP?  Only fix for this patch if it goes live is some sort of xp bonus for the people contributing thier time for writs.  I mean really come on here, they are forcing the faction base in the Expansion why should'nt the players writs and faction be justly rewarded?  my 2c.

[NUKER 1]

if a guild has alot of members and alot of them contribute... they should level faster....

[a6eaq]

I for one love the idea of allowing everyone to contribute to the advancement of the guild!  Sure the cap of 24 unique accounts has a lot of you up in arms.  If I were in a midrange guild I would be as well.  After all theis cap only truly benefits the large and small guilds.  I am in a large guild with over a hundred members and yes those of us that are patrons GRIND writs and Heritage quests in an attempt to reach lvl 30.  We tried to have most of our members listed as patrons and we saw our levels slowly grind down to crawl due to the division of experience of the current system while the smaller (say under 50ish members) guilds steam rolled past us!  Does this mean we were slackers?  NO!  And if any of you crybabies out there think so YOU do not understand the CURRENT system!  The current system actually hamper large guilds.  It forces us to limit our Patronage and this DOES make members feel as if they are not allowed to contribute.  If large guilds had everyone listed (say 185 members) as a patron then guild advancement would be unbelievably slooow.  This new change to guild status is in no way perfect.  I would like to see SOE set the dividing number by the ACTUAL number of seperate accounts in that guild.  I know this is practically impossible from a programing stand point, but this would make it a little more fair for the midnumbered guilds, at least I think.  It would keep us large guilds from plowing everyone out of our way and give the mid-range guilds the same, or close to it, advancement speed.  This my humble opinion by the way.  I think that all guilds, reguardless of size and number of patrons, should have the exact same opportunity to level at the <STRONG><U>same</U></STRONG> pace.  That is not the way the current system is set up, and it is not the way the new system appears to be set up either.  Being in a large guild this change benefits me so I am happy, yet I understand how many of you feel.  My final thought is does it really matter unless you are a hard core grinding guild that wants bragging rights if other guilds will now level faster?  After all, until true guild halls are introduced into the game WHO CARES!

[Heiro]

<DIV>Just a few thoughts on this issue.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Large guilds, with numerous people contributing to the guild status should be rewarded accordingly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Small guilds with everyone contributing should also be rewarded accordingly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This change.. does that.  plain and simple.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dont like the fact that "An_Uber_Guild_001" is gaining more status points than "A_Casual_Guild_001" ?  Why?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>More people doing feats of epic proportion should net a larger amount of status.. plain and simple.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fact that now everyone can contribute to your guilds stats should be the thing that people would be happy to hear.  I know that I personally am glad that guildmembers completeing their heritage quests now contribute their status to the guild.  I am also glad that everyone can have an impact on their guild lvl by either contributing or by slacking. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If your that concerned about your guild level, and are worried that you have too many slackers in your guild,  then perhaps its not the accumulation of guild status that you should be evaluating, but rather your recruitment/membership guidelines.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Worried about a guild recruiting too many hardworking people and wishing to have them penalized because you dont have as many hardworking people in your guild, is just foolish.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Writs are simple to do, and most can be completed just by normal exp-ing in the appropriate zones.  And now everyone who wants to help the guild level, can... and will... and will be rewarded for it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you cant level your guild because of too many inactive people, then thats a guild issue, not a patron/experience issue.  If you are worried about the bigger guilds levelling faster than your smaller guild because they have more people working hard, then perhaps you need to recruit more people.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is nothing wrong with smaller guilds existing, there is nothing wrong with smaller guilds wanting to gain guild levels, there is nothing wrong with smaller guilds wishing to remain small. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is nothing wrong with larger guilds existing, there is nothing wrong with larger guilds wanting to gain guild levels, there is nothing wrong with larger guilds wishing to remain large.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> ( look... copy/paste changing the word small to large)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fact of the matter is ... the more people working towards something, the faster it should get done.. plain and simple.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With so many different ways to contribute status to the guild (writs, tasks, quests, epics, raids, loots),  it just makes sense to not punish the individual and let everyone contribute regardless of what size guild they choose to join.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[CasombraHellstalk]

<DIV>I agree... the patron system needs to be changed and has needed it for 9 months but I do agree with one thing.... that for inactive ppl that have not been active for x amount of days should be excluded from the divisor. Why I say this is I have a few players in our guild on Everfrost (and before I get flamed on why I would be posting in the test server section I would like to say I DO play test now and then to see how it will affect live servers and I like to see what others are experiencing on test as well) that are in the military... they do play as they can but of course sometimes they sent out or moved and have a period they are unable to log in. One of our players is stationed in Iraq and he was unable to play for 60 days for military reasons and he was away from any internet. Now tell me.... is it right for the guild to have to guild remove these players just so we don't get stuck with inactive accounts in the guild and therefore it drags us down from leveling the guild? No I would not do that no matter how much it affects us because we CARE about our guild members and feel that those members like the ones I have mentioned DESERVE to have something to come back to..... therefore please concider this as an option SOE that when some accounts become inactive say 14 days that they will not be counted towards the 24 divisor.</DIV>

[Heiro]

<P>If the guild has more than 24 people, then the occasional inactive player wont even factor in to the equation.</P>

[Rene]

<DIV>Isn't there a current divisor cap of 36?  like GSP gained = Status Points / Number of Patrons ( if between 12-36) or 12 if less , 36 if more.  </DIV> <DIV>From last November when we, as a guild were trying to figure how guild exp works, I could have sworn 36 was the max.  </DIV>

[Dorma]

<FONT color=#66ff00>This change stinks,  it doesn't give members a choice,  it forces them to be patrons,  and not every member wants to be a patron or has the time and committment to contribute on a regular basis.  For those members that did want to be patrons,  it only slows them down by adding to the division from the people that didn't want to be patrons.  When this goes live,  we'll be kicking old freinds of many years that came from EQ 1 also,  because they haven't logged in in a month.  Some of our members are even overseas on military duty,  and have been inactive for some time,  now this change is going to force us to remove members that are inactive because they are dragging down guild experience.  Since live update 12,  every member could contribute to the guild if they wanted to by rotating patrons or going above the 12 patrons number,  the only thing stopping all members from contributing right now is guild leadership.  IMHO,  the system is not broken as it is,  it could be tweaked,  maybe make rotation times longer,  but it is not broken.  Everyone can contribute as it stands if they want to.  This change will force all members to contribute,  and drag down your current patrons that already contribute regularly.  SOE,  get your head out of your [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot],  this change is not needed.</FONT>

[Keegant]

<P>If you dont want to be part of the guild, then don't join one. The best part about this change is it forces the pugs that just want to ride on the coattails of 12 other people, to actually do somthing. A guilds status/level SHOULD include those that do nothing as well as those that work their butts off. </P> <P> </P> <P>I know we are talking about a game and relating it to real life can be silly, but lets look at this. A cop does not want what he does to be part of the reputation of the police force that he is part of so he goes out drinking and getting in fights, and doesnt care to do anything while at work. The reputation of the force as a whole will be brought down by this person.</P> <P> </P> <P>For the roleplay aspect a city is not going to look at only the 12 people you put forth to be looked at. They are going to look at what every member of the guild does.</P> <P> </P> <P>Ok keep the old patron systems, but only patrons can have the guild tag under thier name and use guild chat, because they are the only ones contributing. Everyone else is freeloading.</P> <P> </P> <P>Side note, I saw on another thread someone talking about rotating patrons. My opinion on this is that if you want to lower your guild to doing this then go ahead and have the HUGE sence of acomplishment that comes with twiking the rules to make somthing easy. I personally will not do this because I feel that it is an exploit of a rule that was put into place to fix a different problem. I hope you feel proud of yourself for getting that extra xp the cheaty way.</P>

[sheshirep]

This change makes me sad.  I have about 24 unique accounts in my guild.  So do I add 100 more people to my small family guild?  Or do I start kicking out the people that can only play one day a week or less?  Unfortunatly, I think we might have to kick people out, and thats why I'm sad :smileysad:  I definitly think the cap should be higher, 24 isnt a very big guild, and it feels to me like the smaller guilds are being penalized.

[Spag]

<DIV>What if they set the divisor to 1/2 the total number of unique accounts, and raised the cap to 36?  This still benefits smaller guilds as the 24 person guild is still better off than it is today, and the larger guilds are still benefitted as well, as more can contribute without too much of a penalty.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Allow each Guild to choose which system they prefer, the unique accoutn system, or the patron system.  </DIV>

[Ildarus]

<FONT color=#cc0099></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Dormant wrote:<BR><FONT color=#66ff00>This change stinks,  it doesn't give members a choice,  it forces them to be patrons,  and not every member wants to be a patron or has the time and committment to contribute on a regular basis.  </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Why does the change force people to be patrons?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>--Most guilds have more than 12 patrons and a lot actually have more than 24.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>--If you only have 12 patrons and have way more members than that then you aren't worried about making people feel part of the guild, your are worried about the perfect math. Why be part of a guild if you are not made to feel like you are helping the guild.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ff0000>--The maximum divisor is 24. Chances are pretty good that if you have more than 100 people in your guild you have more than 24 unique accounts. If you are a guild of 50, chances are pretty good you have less than 24 accounts and your divisor will be less than 24 which equates to more GSP per writ or HQ. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>--This now gives the unique accounts that currently have a patron and have multiple alts to play those alts without fear of being condemned because they aren't trying to gain SP for the guild because now they can do it with there alt as well.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>--The players that are active players and aren't currently patrons, and there are a lot, will now be able to contribute.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>--Yes, Some accounts will not help the guild, but all in all I think more people in the guilds will participate in writs an HQ than will in the current guild system.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>For those members that did want to be patrons,  it only slows them down by adding to the division from the people that didn't want to be patrons.  When this goes live,  we'll be kicking old freinds of many years that came from EQ 1 also,  because they haven't logged in in a month.  Some of our members are even overseas on military duty,  and have been inactive for some time,  now this change is going to force us to remove members that are inactive because they are dragging down guild experience.  Since live update 12,  every member could contribute to the guild if they wanted to by rotating patrons or going above the 12 patrons number,  the only thing stopping all members from contributing right now is guild leadership.  IMHO,  the system is not broken as it is,  it could be tweaked,  maybe make rotation times longer,  but it is not broken.  Everyone can contribute as it stands if they want to.  This change will force all members to contribute,  and drag down your current patrons that already contribute regularly.  SOE,  get your head out of your [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot],  this change is not needed.</FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[zhiDarkivel]

<P>I think what has many people in smaller guilds concerned is not that a large guild will be able to level quickly, per se.  It's the ripple effect it will cause.  The fast levelling of the larger guilds will force Sony to make more status points necessary to level a guild.  Thus making it more difficult for smaller guilds.</P> <P>No, I'm not saying small guilds should have it *just* as easy as large ones.  All I ask is that the smaller, casual guilds get to still play the game.  This was supposed to be the game for people who could only play more casually -- it wasn't supposed to be the game where you had to devote 40 hours a week to get anywhere. </P>

[Keegant]

<P>I come from a small guild, less than 15 accounts, and I love this change. I don't care what a big guild can do as they are not my guild. I only care that now our alts can do stuff for the guild, while not having to use the rotation exploit.</P> <P> </P> <P>The main reason that I like this is that it forces the pugs to contribute, because they no longer have the excuse of not bing a patron. The second main rason is that it gets rid of the stupid metagaming that forces guilds to exclude people from contributing to the guild.</P>

[Splatterpunk28]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tockley wrote:<BR> <DIV>Overall the idea isn't terrible, but the cap of 24 is horrible.  </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>/agree</P> <P>This is really approaching the last straw though.  They keep rewriting everything they said EQ2 was going to be.  Let's revisit.  EQ2 was being promoted as a beautifully designed game in which people would need to work together to accomplish amazing feats.  They said it was NOT for solo'rs.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Yet due to demand, they spent massive time adding in solo content instead of fixing bugs.  They rewrote class spells/combat arts so that classes could solo better (which completely threw everything out of whack even more so.) </FONT>They said crafting was going to require folks to work together.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Yet they dropped that idea months after release and I'm not even going to touch how messed up the crafting world is.  </FONT>They said they wanted people working together in SMALL numbers -- requiring real strategy to defeat foes (hence 24 raid limit).  They said that guilds around the size of 40members would be ideal -- anything larger would, if anything, HURT their status.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Yet the new guild system in test promotes the exact OPPOSITE.  This is what bothers me most about their new system -- it's completely contrary to what EQ2 was supposed to be about.  </FONT>They said we would have "families" for those opting out of being in the same guild; a way to connect folks with different playstyles.  <FONT color=#ffff00>This never happened, but that information wasn't realeased until after the game was (refused to answer the simple question in the forums of if it was going to be patched in later or not.)  </FONT>They've completely rewritten spells and combat arts, now the entire mechanics system is being rewritten.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Who knows what this will look like.  Folks that don't quit or start different classes will most likely have to upgrade different spells and try not to think about what a waste it was upgrading what they did.  </FONT>God, the list goes on and on.</P> <P>So the original poster thinks people are crybabies because they aren't getting what was advertised to them?  Imagine buying a bar of soap, bringing it home, geting in the bath, unwrapping it and --- viola -- fritos!  It's ridiculous. The worst part about it is the fact that all these things have happened AFTER we bought it, AFTER we've invested time, AFTER they "revisited" what they promoted.</P> <P>I agree that the new guild system isn't bad; if they get rid of the cap, I really can't complain too much about it -- probably better than it was originally.  But why have they chosen to change it?  Why are they one by one, rewriting this entire game?  And who is benefiting from it?  Everything that was supposed to be unique, they've abandoned for status quo.  </P> <P>It seems to me the folks they are catering to are the very folks that will leave them in a heartbeat for the next new game.  Successful business is about customer retention; they seem to be focusing on new customers and screwing the existing ones over and over -- which leads to short-term customers, bad reviews and bankruptcy.</P> <P>Oh well, getting off topic -- my rant is over.</P>

[Larri]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Keegantir wrote:<BR> <P>If you dont want to be part of the guild, then don't join one. The best part about this change is it forces the pugs that just want to ride on the coattails of 12 other people, to actually do somthing. A guilds status/level SHOULD include those that do nothing as well as those that work their butts off. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Agreed 100% that everybody should contribute to guild status.  However, I have a question as to why we need a 24 account cap?  Why shouldn't the divisor be the number of chars/accounts in the guild?  Not even half, but 100% of the chars/accounts?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I haven't seen an explanation of this 24 account so far.  Why not 36, 48?  Or 10, 20, 30?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another question is... it is not that hard to foresee that guilds will only choose 12 patrons in the existing patron system.  What have the dev not foreseen when they implemented this 12 patron system?</DIV>

[SavinDwa]

<DIV>Keegantir,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have to confess I truly hate these "party political broadcast posts".  This is not Washington DC and we don't need lobbyist, we need people who are willing to think about the greater good.  Your post basically says "Rah Rah SOE, well done, I like the change.. anyone who disagrees is stupid".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hmm... Many others have made some very very good observations about the kind of problems that will be caused by this change. In particular it really favors large guilds and hurts guilds with a mix of acasual and power gamers.  If you want to be taken seriously by everyone, Including SOE who are not quite as stupid as you may think and will pay little attention to a post like yours, you need to refute the points made by others.  But just in case you really have read the other people's opinions and just forgot to explain why they are wrong .. I await patiently ..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why do you think the new system will not hurt guilds with a mix of power and casual gamers?  By the way, the consensus so far is that they represent the bulk of the guilds out there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you don't have an answer then why should anyone treat your post seriously?  Its just a bunch of lobbying by a self serving person who thinks that the change will be good for his guild and to hell with everyone else.  So ... I am not treating your post with any credability or respect until I see that you at least treated other people's post with the same lvel of respect.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>in the meantime I will just treat this as another piece of flotsam and spam</DIV>

[Silverpaws]

<P>I am one of several leaders of a "huge" guild on Mistmoore.  We have approx. 350 members.  We average around 5-7 heritages a night now.  However, under the current system, we have capped our patrons at 20, so not to belittle the points that we receive.  So in reality, out of those 5-7 heritages a night, we probably get 1 or 2 that are for guild status.  Sometimes, we get no points for days just due to heritages being done by non-patrons.  </P> <P>As a leader, I am supposed to feel sorry for the smaller guilds?  I am supposed to tell my hard working people that their points dont count, but someone elses in the guild does with no real explanation?  Am I supposed to slow my progression down of my guild because I have more people?  </P> <P>I thought if you have more people, you have more ability to complete things, more groups, more choices for groups, more crafters for creating guild items, more money for purchasing items from each other, more spells, more zones you can travel, more people you can meet, more laughs you can have.  Its a game right?  More fun, the more I log in?</P> <P>Oh yes, but the smaller guilds.  Poor them.  They choose to stay small, because those big bad huge guilds are just big old meanies that dont care about their players and just power level thru the game.  Whatever!  We have a community, where we have crafting officers, we have guild events, we have guild vaults, murder mysteries, heritages nights, crafting events.  We dont just sit there and plow thru levels so we can be "leetzor" and wear are purty little outfits.  We care about each other.  We share our information on our forums, we assist lower level people to complete quests, regardless if its for experience or points.</P> <P>I guess I have seen both sides of this issue.  And honestly, SOE was wrong for saying that EQ2 is going to be small guild based.  Yes, small guilds can progress thru the game.  Yes, they can accomplish the same as a huge guild, given time.  But a guild of 24 people, try getting them on all in one night to kill some tough raid encounters.  Or try getting them all to the same level as the same time so everyone can group with them.  Every single small guild I have seen, has been merged with another guild if they wanted to progress past level 25.  </P> <P>Sorry guys, but small guilds are just that, small.  They will progress slower due to lack of one single thing.  Resources.</P> <P>Denuve, of the the proud leaders of Mistmoore Eternal Knights</P> <P>EQlive player since 1999</P>

[Larri]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Silverpaws wrote:<BR> <P>I am one of several leaders of a "huge" guild on Mistmoore.  We have approx. 350 members.  We average around 5-7 heritages a night now.  However, under the current system, we have capped our patrons at 20, so not to belittle the points that we receive.  So in reality, out of those 5-7 heritages a night, we probably get 1 or 2 that are for guild status.  Sometimes, we get no points for days just due to heritages being done by non-patrons.  </P> <P>As a leader, I am supposed to feel sorry for the smaller guilds?  I am supposed to tell my hard working people that their points dont count, but someone elses in the guild does with no real explanation?  Am I supposed to slow my progression down of my guild because I have more people?  </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You still have not answer the question... why limit the account cap to 24... but not 350, or whatever number of accounts your guild have?  That is actually the central point that people are against in this change.</P>

[Kizee]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Silverpaws wrote:<BR> <P>I am one of several leaders of a "huge" guild on Mistmoore.  We have approx. 350 members.  We average around 5-7 heritages a night now.  However, under the current system, we have capped our patrons at 20, so not to belittle the points that we receive.  So in reality, out of those 5-7 heritages a night, we probably get 1 or 2 that are for guild status.  Sometimes, we get no points for days just due to heritages being done by non-patrons.  </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You shouldn't be losing any status points with the last change that was made to the patron system. Rotate out the patrons once and week and you would level just as fast (if not faster because you have more people) than a small guild.</FONT></P> <P>As a leader, I am supposed to feel sorry for the smaller guilds?  I am supposed to tell my hard working people that their points dont count, but someone elses in the guild does with no real explanation?  Am I supposed to slow my progression down of my guild because I have more people?  </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This game was ment for smaller raids/guilds. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In EQ1 you needed a 350 person roster because you needed 100+ people to throw at MoBs to kill them. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In EQ2 the raid limit is capped at 24 so you wouldn't need to have these huge guilds.</FONT></P> <P>I thought if you have more people, you have more ability to complete things, more groups, more choices for groups, more crafters for creating guild items, more money for purchasing items from each other, more spells, more zones you can travel, more people you can meet, more laughs you can have.  Its a game right?  More fun, the more I log in?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>More fun if you like the big guilds. Yes, they can do more things but you also have more of a chance to get jerks and lootwhores that totally ruin your play experiance.</FONT></P> <P>Oh yes, but the smaller guilds.  Poor them.  They choose to stay small, because those big bad huge guilds are just big old meanies that dont care about their players and just power level thru the game.  Whatever!  We have a community, where we have crafting officers, we have guild events, we have guild vaults, murder mysteries, heritages nights, crafting events.  We dont just sit there and plow thru levels so we can be "leetzor" and wear are purty little outfits.  We care about each other.  We share our information on our forums, we assist lower level people to complete quests, regardless if its for experience or points.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There are some nice big guilds but some people, like me, enjoy being in a smaller family type guild.</FONT></P> <P>I guess I have seen both sides of this issue.  And honestly, SOE was wrong for saying that EQ2 is going to be small guild based.  Yes, small guilds can progress thru the game.  Yes, they can accomplish the same as a huge guild, given time.  But a guild of 24 people, try getting them on all in one night to kill some tough raid encounters.  Or try getting them all to the same level as the same time so everyone can group with them.  Every single small guild I have seen, has been merged with another guild if they wanted to progress past level 25.  </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>My guild has never merged and has less than 24 people. We are closing on on guild level 29 (20% to go) so your reasoning is flawed. :p </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You don't need alot of people...just dedicated people that wan't to accompish a common goal.</FONT></P> <P>Sorry guys, but small guilds are just that, small.  They will progress slower due to lack of one single thing.  Resources.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>IMO the bigger guilds should have some penelty for something. The have so many perks and no drawbacks.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Larger guilds can:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>1.) Field a exp group any time it wants.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2.) Raid any time it wants</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>3.) Equip thier people faster because of multiple raid groups running all the raid mobs.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>4.) Get status for defeating the status giving x4 mobs.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>5.) And after this patch...level thier guild faster than small/medium guilds can.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There should be something a small guild can shoot for since we have problems fielding the people we need to do any of the big stuff. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>My guild has been pretty depressed with the changes they have made to the patron system thus far. They worked very very hard to acchieve the level they are at now and SOE keeps changing the rules....trivializing all the work they did.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quit trying to fix stuff that's not broke SOE. :smileymad:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Denuve, of the the proud leaders of Mistmoore Eternal Knights</P> <P>EQlive player since 1999</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Rene]

<P>    I dont agree with that characterization of how smaller guilds view larger guilds.  You are taking words from a very small minority of posts.  For the most part people in smallish guilds have said " We don't care how fast you level".  If your guild is popping out 5-7 heritage quests per night, then that is awesome and to be comended for the team effort.  The point is that this proposal would <U>Force</U> casual players in my guild and many others to do writs, HQ,  etc.. or feel as if they are dragging down their friends in smaller (read 13-50) player guilds. </P> <P> In response to two previous posters: In the lovely little family of people I came over from EQ1 with, we do not refer to our non patrons as <EM>Pugs</EM> or <EM>Freeloaders</EM>.  We call them, Friends, Children of active members, Military Personel we all think about on a nightly basis, hoping they are safe, expecting mothers or too hardworking folks who just have a little time to log in and let off some stress and say Hi.  People play this game for different reasons and should not be pigeon holed into playing it to level a guild.</P> <P>As to the claims and mentions I have seen in various posts ( there is one on page one of this thread in fact) that in real life in an organization people do not just look at the efforts and notariety of the top 12-24 people and everyone gets that prestige.  I would encourage you to look at a football team.  The New England Partiots have quite a few people on their roster who did little or nothing last year, other than provide support and high fives and yet they were still able to go to their status merchants and get their shiny SuperBowl rings ( note: I am not a Pats fan, but sadly I would have had to go back to the early 80s to use the Raiders as an example).  The other side of that is that this is indeed Not real life, and the current system allows people in guilds to contribute as they want to.  To play the game in their own style and be able to do it with friends, and not to feel guilty about their desire to never play a class past 20, never do a writ or a quest.  And regardless, a person who is not earning personal status cannot take advantage of the rewards that guild level brings, because they all require status.  If they have status, then they could have been a patron and contributed to GSP, and that is just poor communication with guild leadership.  Again, I think this is a horrible idea, and with so many legitimate non knee jerk problems people have with this, I am actually shocked that no Sony person has chimed in with their thoughts.  I have been an avid supporter of a lot of the changes they have made, and seen the need for them.  Even the class balancing coming up ( and trust me as a Leather Priest I am not excited about that), I still see the reasoning for it.  This one just boggles me. </P>

[Spag]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Silverpaws wrote:<BR> <P>I am one of several leaders of a "huge" guild on Mistmoore.  We have approx. 350 members.  We average around 5-7 heritages a night now.  However, under the current system, we have capped our patrons at 20, so not to belittle the points that we receive.  So in reality, out of those 5-7 heritages a night, we probably get 1 or 2 that are for guild status.  Sometimes, we get no points for days just due to heritages being done by non-patrons.  </P> <P>.....</P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV>This proposed change is going to be good for larger guilds no matter how it rolls out.  The point people are trying to make here is not to hurt the smaller guilds in the process.  Lets say guilds of 20 unique accounts.  Instead of being able to choose the 12 most active people to contribute to keep the divisor down, they will now be forced to use a divisor of 20, or kick the lesser contributors from the guild to maintain the same rate of leveling we have now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have a large guild, good for you.  Your getting a change for the possitive.  Do you want to stifle the growth of smaller guilds in the process to make yourself feel better?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Without making it possible for guild leaders to choose which system they want, a gap will grow between the small guilds and the Large guilds.  Small guilds would not grow into larger guilds without taking a huge hit on GSP while growing from 12 accounts to say 36 or 48 accounts, where you start to make up for the automatic divisor.  Small guilds will have to atleast tripple in size to achieve balance while growing.  That does not seem right to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am in a small guild, and while I dont want the world handed to me, I do want there to be a reason to grow.  We have about 15 unique accounts, and currently have 12 patrons.  Some members contribute regularly, some members have not yet contributed as they are working on other things.  I find many players do not start contributing until they reach late 20s early 30s.  If this change goes in place the way it is planned, we will be forced with a decision, to maintain our current progress.  Either trim the fat, which means either kick players that are not contributing, or open up just start inviting anyone and everyone into our guild just to get over the hump.  Does that seem right?</DIV> <P>(Edited to reflect the post I was replying to)</P> <P>I also wanted to add, that how fast a larger guild levels, does not bother me.  Just don't make it harder for my smaller guild to grow, or gain GSP.  Its hard enough to grow as a guild, we don't need new hurdles.</P><p>Message Edited by Spagma on <span class=date_text>08-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:20 PM</span>

[Keegant]

<P>Splatterpunk, If you want a game that is "as advertised" and that stays that way, go play a playstation game where the game doesn't change. I personally bought a online game so that the content can be updated to make the game better. People that have been playing with the system as is are opposed to just about any change, but new people that come in after a change will enjoy the game more for it without even realising it.</P> <P> </P> <P>SavinDwarf, You probably wont read this as it apears that you did not read the whole thread, just the title, but here goes. I made this tread because of the [Removed for Content] that there were so many threads bashing this great change and I felt that SOE needed to see that some people support them on this issue. As much as some of you hate this change, I hate the current system for the reasons I have posted above. This was not a pro SOE "party political broadcast post". For many things I don't like what SOE is doing. Mainly taking so long with the combat revamp and the crafting issues. Also I think they are terrable on fixing bugs. I just wanted a thread on this subject that they could read to see that some people support them on the guild changes.</P> <P> </P> <P>To those that complain about how your casual players are draging you down I say, then if you are in a casual guild, you should not expect to level as quick as a dedicated (notice I did not say hardcore) guild. Thinking that you should get the same benifit from playing this game 5 minutes as someone that plays it for 5 hours is one of the main things I see wrong with this game. I have some casual players in my guild and I do not expect to level as quickly as some other guilds, but the point is that those casual players can help contribute to the guild, instead of watching others do it. They are going to finish a writ or HQ every now and then, and with this change, when they do it will go torwards the guild. I DO NOT CARE IF MY GUILD LEVELS AT 70% PRE CHANGE SPEED BECAUSE OF THIS. The point is that now the whole guild is contributing and that will make the game a better expierence for more players. So what if you are leveling a little slower, it is more fun for all. If you want to level quicker, jump ship on that casual guild and go join a leet power leveling guild.</P>

[Mor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Keegantir wrote:  <p>To those that complain about how your casual players are draging you down I say, then if you are in a casual guild, you should not expect to level as quick as a dedicated (notice I did not say hardcore) guild. </p> <p><font color="#ccffff">The problem is that many (possibly most) guilds have players that that fall under both categories.  This will force guilds to choose between them.</font> </p> <p>I have some casual players in my guild and I do not expect to level as quickly as some other guilds, but the point is that those casual players can help contribute to the guild, instead of watching others do it. They are going to finish a writ or HQ every now and then, and with this change, when they do it will go torwards the guild. I DO NOT CARE IF MY GUILD LEVELS AT 70% PRE CHANGE SPEED BECAUSE OF THIS. The point is that now the whole guild is contributing and that will make the game a better expierence for more players. So what if you are leveling a little slower, it is more fun for all. If you want to level quicker, jump ship on that casual guild and go join a leet power leveling guild. </p> <p><font color="#ccffff">You can do this now.  What is stopping you?</font> </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Xeblikaa]

<P>I've read a ton of these threads and I agree that having a cap of 24 is totally unfair to small guilds, i have not seen this suggestion, but i have the very simple soluton to this problem!</P> <P>The cap is a % of unique accounts.  Done!</P> <P>Say it's set to 25%</P> <P>Guild of 500 divided by 125</P> <P>Guild of 100 divided by 25</P> <P>Guild of 20 divided by 5</P> <P>Perhaps it can be tweaked to prevent any kind of exploits but why not do this?!</P><p>Message Edited by Xeblikaa on <span class=date_text>08-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:00 PM</span>

[Keegant]

<P>Morie, how can I do that now? I assume you mean make all guild members patrons. The thing is that ever though there are only about 15 or less unique accounts in the guild there are around 50 chars due to alts. I don't want the work of 15 divided by 50. I guess there is a way to do it and that is to use the rotation exploit, but we are not going to do that. The no loss of xp for removing a patron was put in to keep guilds from losing xp when they lose players, not so that the guild could pick and chose who are patrons each week. The only thing that would make be remove a patron that is still in the guild is if they went inactive, but that is not rotating patrons.</P> <P> </P> <P>As I said in the OP, I disagree with the cap being 24, but I do not think it should be over 48 ( there are very very few guilds in the game with over 48 active accounts anyway), and also inactives need to be excluded somehow, though what someones definition of an inactive and what someone elses definition is entirely different. I have seen numbers as high as 30 days not logging in and as low as 2 day. I am happy with somewhere in the middle of 7-14, but logging on, even for 5 min, resets the timer to 0 and makes them count again.</P> <P> </P> <P>I just hope that SOE is reading this and the other threads and takes most of this into consideration. I definetly dont want them to scratch the idea, like a few people do, but I hope that it does not goto live the way it was originally proposed to test.</P>

[Ashlian]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Keegantir wrote:<BR> <P>Morie, how can I do that now? I assume you mean make all guild members patrons. The thing is that ever though there are only about 15 or less unique accounts in the guild there are around 50 chars due to alts. I don't want the work of 15 divided by 50. I guess there is a way to do it and that is to use the rotation exploit, but we are not going to do that. The no loss of xp for removing a patron was put in to keep guilds from losing xp when they lose players, not so that the guild could pick and chose who are patrons each week. The only thing that would make be remove a patron that is still in the guild is if they went inactive, but that is not rotating patrons.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It's not dividing the work of 15 by 50 if you have someone dedicated enough to earn a lot of status points on more than one character. If they're doing the work of two people, count them twice. Currently, my small guild has one person with two accounts who is FOUR of our 12 patrons. He completes heritage quests with a pair of characters he two boxes together. Should we count him as four people? Heck, yeah. Add all his heritage quests up and no one else even comes close, and I include myself (the guildleader and I trade top status contributor pretty frequently - our four alt friend doesn't, but his overall contributed status is much greater than ours). </P> <P>I was heavily for vesting, the change to patron removal would have been perfect if they'd just made the vesting period longer. I don't consider the rotation an exploit....it's the only way our guild would progress in the 20's, because most of us would rather be shot than do writs in our limited playtime. Writs just are not fun. But we wouldn't be trading people out every week. Not even every month. I don't like the no patron system at all, at the current time we can tell people they're free to not play for months at a time, or to play very limited hours. We'll still do that, but now it will drag the overall guild progression down. Bad idea from most perspectives. There has to be a happy medium between only 12 people's efforts counting and this forced equality.</P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 43 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore<BR></P>

[Nianq]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Keegantir wrote:<BR> <P>There are guilds with 100 or more players and TWELVE of them are contributing to the guild. That is broke. That guilds level refelcts the work of 12 not the work of the whole. The people that are not patrons don't deserve the level that they have as a guild because they didnt contribute to it. The new way makes it so that everyone can contribute. No one is left out.</P> <P>Face it the patron system is a good idea in concept but what resulted from it was most guilds only having a small percentage of its members contributing to their guild level, and the ones that did make most of their members patrons got screwed hard by it, as is evidence by the 20 biggest guilds not being lv 30. That is broke.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Ah i see. So it's SOE's fault that your guild leaders won't make more people patrons. And I notice that it's also SOE's fault that the non-patrons aren't sending their status loots to the patrons for the guild exp. From the begining SOE has said that this was to be a game about making informed choices. Choose your archtype , then choose your class, then choose a subclass. You only have concetration for a set number of buffs, you cant cast them all so will you use the 4 group buffs or three group buffs and an individual buff, and if you cast an individual buff who gets it? Should the scout start the HO or should the mage? Should I take the zombie master strike or the skeleton? </FONT><FONT color=#66ff33>Should we have 12 patrons or should we have more?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If you don't like that only 12 people are contributing in your guild then either speak to your guild leaders or change guilds. This is a decision made by the players not by SOE. SOE didn't force your guild to have only 12 patrons anymore than they forced me to become a mystic/tailor or to cast a stat debuff instead of a dot. If you don't have time to do writs or you don't care about status or guild level, why should you have to? Just becaus someone is not contributing to the guild doesn't mean they want to. Everyone in America has the right to go to college but not everyone does. Should the government force everyone to get a PhD? I don't know about you but I have no desire to have a doctorate. I have the right to go get a degree in law or medicine or even join the military. That doesnt mean i want to. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If you want to contribute status to your guild, great. Join a guild that will let you be a patron. But if you don't have time to contribute to your guild's standards for patron activity then don't be surprised when they fire you. Patronship is a job that doesn't have any perks. But like every other job it has responsibilities. If you got to work for McDonalds, or Microsoft, or Edward Jones, or your dad and never leave the break room you'll get fired. Likewise, if your guild decides that you are not meeting your responsibilities then they are fully justified in firing you and removing your patron status. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff33>Yes this is a game and you pay the same $15/month as all the other patrons but that's like saying I spend the same amount on gas commuting so I'm just as entitled to the promotion as the guy that works twice as many hours. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>So what if this is a game. Some people enjoy earning their rewards. If all you had to do was pay $15/mo and you'd be 50 in 3 months without ever getting on do you think It would be as much fun? Personally I'm proud of the fact that my casual guild of 68 members (probably 50 accounts) of which few if any play more than 20hr/wk is 25. Our patrons have worked hard for 25. They've earned it. We are prouder of our 25 than a guild with rotating patrons is of their 30. I'd bet money that i'm more proud of my level 28 mystic/30 tailor than a botter is of his 50/50 whatever. I take more pride in my 1p than an Ebayer is about his flying carpet. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Several guilds of all sizes have reached lvl 30. So it can be done. We hope to get 30 by the end of the month whethor this atrocity of a patch goes through or not. If your guild hasn't gone as far as you like then they either need to change their strategies, or you need to find a guild that wants it bad enough. If you aren't level 30 yet it's not SOE's fault, it's yours. You're the ones that haven't been working hard enough to get it. SOE hasn't been hacking your accounts and stealing your status. SOE hasn't bribed the writ givers not to talk to you. SOE didn't delete the writs from your journal. SOE hasn't made you spend your time doing other things. If you want something bad enough you'll go earn it. If all you want to do is [Removed for Content] and moan about how you don't have it, then you don't want it bad enough. And you don't deserve it anyways. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If you want a suit of T5 rare handcrafted armor and cant afford to buy it off the broker, do you [Removed for Content] and moan to SOE? Will they give it to you because you throw a fit like a spoiled 2 year old? Of course not. If you want a suit of rare armor you'll go out and either harvest for a few weeks to get the rares, or you'll start saving up your money untill you can afford to buy it. After all you aren't complaining to Congress that you don't work for a Fortune 500 company are you? Why should this be any different? </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>And why should everyone's actions count in the <FONT color=#66ff66>Optional</FONT> political metagame anyways? Does your opinion about Microsoft change based on how well their janitor cleans the toilet? Of course not. Do the actions of the ticket lady at the democratic convention make you think less of the democratic party? Doubtfull. Are these people important? Indubitably. But they don't effect the organization's political standing. In the same way guild followers are important to the guild but they shouldn't effect the guild's political standing. If they wanted to participate in the <FONT color=#66ff66>Optional</FONT> politics then they would become a patron (either in their current guild or by finding a new guild). Some people just like being a part of something good. Lots of people are happy being the water boy. They don't have to be on the field to be part of the team.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>And to say that non patrons dont deserve to benefit from the patrons work is wrong on so many levels. When you were born did your parents make you earn a clean diaper or a bottle of formula? Did they make you pay for a roof, food, and clothes? No? You mean to tell me that you benefited from someone else's work? Well how about when they got raises, did they make you keep wearing the old hand me downs? Wait you mean you benefited from that too? Well what about outside your family. Did you have to start your own nation and fight wars to protect your beliefs? Oh someone else did that for you too. Well how about education, did you have to rediscover electricity or did you just learn from the achievments of others? Did you pay the teachers' salaries? Oh, ok how about now that you're working for a good company with benefits, did you start the company and spend years of 90 hour weeks building it and ensuring it had a good reputation? Hmm benefiting from someone else's work there too arent you? Gee kind of a hypocrit aint ya. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>And are you saying that no non-patron in your guild has every grouped with the patrons to help them with the writs? No guild follower has every aided in completing a heritage quest? None of the non patrons make the guild a fun place to be so the patrons don't go to a different guild? None of the followers ever exp'ed with the patrons so that they could get to the higher level writs that give more status? No nonpatron ever helped slay an x4 status mob? Oh you mean the guild followers have done those things? Hmm looks like the guild level was their work too then doesn't it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Besides don't all of the benefits of being lvl 30 require status to buy? How is someone who's never earned status going to get those anyways? I mean sure they may have done a writ or two and they may have gotten a few heritage quests but if they were serious status earners the guild leaders would have made them a patron. So it's not like they'll be getting the full benefits anyways.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Oh yes and all 300+ member guild should most definately be lvl 30. I mean just because they've made poor choises about who should be patrons or about how many partons they should have is irrelevant. And why should it matter that they're a family guild that's not concerned about such things as the optional political meta game? Heck they may not even do writs or heritages and are just on line to have fun and hang out with their friends. Oh but they have 300+ members and they aren't lvl 30 yet so there must be something terribly wrong.</FONT></P></DIV>

[Ildarus]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xeblikaa wrote:<BR> <P>I've read a ton of these threads and I agree that having a cap of 24 is totally unfair to small guilds, i have not seen this suggestion, but i have the very simple soluton to this problem!</P> <P>The cap is a % of unique accounts.  Done!</P> <P>Say it's set to 25%</P> <P>Guild of 500 divided by 125</P> <P>Guild of 100 divided by 25</P> <P>Guild of 20 divided by 5</P> <P>Perhaps it can be tweaked to prevent any kind of exploits but why not do this?!</P> <P>Message Edited by Xeblikaa on <SPAN class=date_text>08-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:00 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This post right here is a fine example of people not understanding what a unique account is.</P> <P>A unique account is not a single character, a unique account is the sum of the number of characters from one Sony Account that is in a single guild. I have my main and 3 alts in my guild. That is a unique account but adds up to 4 characters in the guild.</P> <P>Unique Account = # characters that are part of the same guild that are also part of a SOE account.</P> <P>:smileyhappy:If you had station Pass you could have up to 12 characters in the same guild and it would only equal 1 Unique Account.</P> <P>IMHO that is where some of this confusion is coming from. People are posting without even understanding the basics of the update.</P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>Another thing, this change has made it to test and it will make it to live. The devs may tweak it a little bit based on what they learn from test but they will not do away with it. This was not done on a whim or without any thought. The true reason why SOE is doing this is unkown to anyone that is posting here and don't say you know unless you work for SOE and the development team. Anything else is speculation.:smileyvery-happy:</FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></STRONG> </P> <p>Message Edited by Ildarus on <span class=date_text>08-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:28 PM</span>

[Mor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Ildarus wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote><p><strong><font color="#ffff00">Another thing, this change has made it to test and it will make it to live. The devs may tweak it a little bit based on what they learn from test but they will not do away with it. This was not done on a whim or without any thought. The true reason why SOE is doing this is unkown to anyone that is posting here and don't say you know unless you work for SOE and the development team. Anything else is speculation.:smileyvery-happy:</font></strong></p> <p><strong><font color="#ffff00"></font></strong> </p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ildarus on <span class="date_text">08-02-2005</span> <span class="time_text">02:28 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>The Devs have said time and time again, not all changes on test will make it to live.   So unless you have a crystal ball or some inside information, I wouldn't be so certain.  </span><div></div>

[Splatterpunk28]

<P>I don't think this has anything to do with large guilds attacking small guilds or vice versa.  The point is that guild size should not matter.  If you have 250folks in your guild, good for you.  If a guild has 25good for them.  Can you explain to me how you think it's appropriate for the average memeber in the small guild to have do 10times as work much work as an average member in the large guild for the same amount of status?  No one's saying you should feel sorry for small guilds, tell us WHY you think this is fair or makes sense.</P> <P>The large guild already has advantages as pointed out by someone previously.  They have a larger pool of folks to make xp groups, for crafting, they can do raids by the fly, they have more assets since more people can contribute to the guild bank, when epic mobs are defeated the guild earns status, so you'll be receiving more kills more often...etc</P> <P>No one is complaining about any of those things.  What folks are complaining about is that once a guild hits 24 unique accounts they are maxed out.  So a guild of 250 or 300 or whatever -- everything combined is divided by 24.  There's no reason why you should get that advantage, NONE!  This is the opposite of what they said EQ2 would be about.  They said it was for smaller groups of folks.  Now I'm fine with it being equal, but to be the opposite of what they advertised is wrong.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>There should be no cap.</FONT> </P>

[TheDragon]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Splatterpunk28 wrote:<BR> <P>I don't think this has anything to do with large guilds attacking small guilds or vice versa.  The point is that guild size should not matter.  If you have 250folks in your guild, good for you.  If a guild has 25good for them.  Can you explain to me how you think it's appropriate for the average memeber in the small guild to have do 10times as work much work as an average member in the large guild for the same amount of status?  No one's saying you should feel sorry for small guilds, tell us WHY you think this is fair or makes sense.</P> <P>The large guild already has advantages as pointed out by someone previously.  They have a larger pool of folks to make xp groups, for crafting, they can do raids by the fly, they have more assets since more people can contribute to the guild bank, when epic mobs are defeated the guild earns status, so you'll be receiving more kills more often...etc</P> <P>No one is complaining about any of those things.  What folks are complaining about is that once a guild hits 24 unique accounts they are maxed out.  So a guild of 250 or 300 or whatever -- everything combined is divided by 24.  There's no reason why you should get that advantage, NONE!  This is the opposite of what they said EQ2 would be about.  They said it was for smaller groups of folks.  Now I'm fine with it being equal, but to be the opposite of what they advertised is wrong.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>There should be no cap.</FONT> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Amen.  Exactly what is on my mind.</DIV>

[Fela]

Patrons was a VERY good idea.  i love the way it works out.  Please, for the love of god devs, read these posts and see what the majority of people on the boards think of this!  PLEASE keep patrons.... <div></div>

[Ildarus]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morie wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ildarus wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>Another thing, this change has made it to test and it will make it to live. The devs may tweak it a little bit based on what they learn from test but they will not do away with it. This was not done on a whim or without any thought. The true reason why SOE is doing this is unkown to anyone that is posting here and don't say you know unless you work for SOE and the development team. Anything else is speculation.:smileyvery-happy:</FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></STRONG> </P> <P>Message Edited by Ildarus on <SPAN class=date_text>08-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:28 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The Devs have said time and time again, not all changes on test will make it to live.   So unless you have a crystal ball or some inside information, I wouldn't be so certain.  <BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well Morie, I guess you are right, but why shouldn't I open up my crystal ball just like everyone else. This I do know for a fact and that is the last guild change in LU#12 had everyone up in arms and they demanded it not go live and guess what it did and with only a minor tweak. Because of what is going on with these threads right now is probably why SOE is doing the testing on the combat changes on DoF Beta. Could you just imagine the flaming and number of threads once those changes become known.:smileysurprised:</P> <P><BR> Also want to add that I have seen in several posts people begging the devs to see what the majority want and stop the change. :smileyvery-happy: These forums are not the majority of players. The majority of players are playing the game and enjoying it every free chance they can get. These forums are for people who either have way to much time on there hands or spend a little time each day on their breaks or lunch at work and want to do something with the game so they read the forums. </P> <p>Message Edited by Ildarus on <span class=date_text>08-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:39 PM</span>

[Xeblikaa]

<DIV> <HR>  Ildarus wrote:</DIV> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xeblikaa wrote:<BR> <P>I've read a ton of these threads and I agree that having a cap of 24 is totally unfair to small guilds, i have not seen this suggestion, but i have the very simple soluton to this problem!</P> <P>The cap is a % of unique accounts.  Done!</P> <P>Say it's set to 25%</P> <P>Guild of 500 divided by 125</P> <P>Guild of 100 divided by 25</P> <P>Guild of 20 divided by 5</P> <P>Perhaps it can be tweaked to prevent any kind of exploits but why not do this?!</P> <P>Message Edited by Xeblikaa on <SPAN class=date_text><FONT color=#756b56>08-02-2005</FONT></SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:00 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This post right here is a fine example of people not understanding what a unique account is.</P> <P>A unique account is not a single character, a unique account is the sum of the number of characters from one Sony Account that is in a single guild. I have my main and 3 alts in my guild. That is a unique account but adds up to 4 characters in the guild.</P> <P>Unique Account = # characters that are part of the same guild that are also part of a SOE account.</P> <P><IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0>If you had station Pass you could have up to 12 characters in the same guild and it would only equal 1 Unique Account.</P> <P>IMHO that is where some of this confusion is coming from. People are posting without even understanding the basics of the update.</P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>Another thing, this change has made it to test and it will make it to live. The devs may tweak it a little bit based on what they learn from test but they will not do away with it. This was not done on a whim or without any thought. The true reason why SOE is doing this is unkown to anyone that is posting here and don't say you know unless you work for SOE and the development team. Anything else is speculation.<IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif" width=16 border=0></FONT></STRONG></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>First off i know exactly what a unique account is, i'm just posting round numbers to make the math easy</P></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ok so i didn't add the words "unique accounts" after "guild" so sue me. But if you read above i did say "unique accounts" not "members" don't assume just because i didn't say it specifically</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>using these numbers if each member contributed 10k status, using the divisor, it would still end up to be 40k for all of them</DIV> <DIV>now this method of course can be tweaked either way to allow fairness but this static cap has gotta go, i do like the idea of everyone able to contribute thou.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Xeblikaa on <span class=date_text>08-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:35 AM</span>

[Ildarus]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xeblikaa wrote:<BR> <DIV> <HR>  Ildarus wrote:</DIV> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xeblikaa wrote:<BR> <P>I've read a ton of these threads and I agree that having a cap of 24 is totally unfair to small guilds, i have not seen this suggestion, but i have the very simple soluton to this problem!</P> <P>The cap is a % of unique accounts.  Done!</P> <P>Say it's set to 25%</P> <P>Guild of 500 divided by 125</P> <P>Guild of 100 divided by 25</P> <P>Guild of 20 divided by 5</P> <P>Perhaps it can be tweaked to prevent any kind of exploits but why not do this?!</P> <P>Message Edited by Xeblikaa on <SPAN class=date_text><FONT color=#756b56>08-02-2005</FONT></SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:00 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This post right here is a fine example of people not understanding what a unique account is.</P> <P>A unique account is not a single character, a unique account is the sum of the number of characters from one Sony Account that is in a single guild. I have my main and 3 alts in my guild. That is a unique account but adds up to 4 characters in the guild.</P> <P>Unique Account = # characters that are part of the same guild that are also part of a SOE account.</P> <P><IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0>If you had station Pass you could have up to 12 characters in the same guild and it would only equal 1 Unique Account.</P> <P>IMHO that is where some of this confusion is coming from. People are posting without even understanding the basics of the update.</P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>Another thing, this change has made it to test and it will make it to live. The devs may tweak it a little bit based on what they learn from test but they will not do away with it. This was not done on a whim or without any thought. The true reason why SOE is doing this is unkown to anyone that is posting here and don't say you know unless you work for SOE and the development team. Anything else is speculation.<IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif" width=16 border=0></FONT></STRONG></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>First off i know exactly what a unique account is, i'm just posting round numbers to make the math easy</P></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ok so i didn't add the words "unique accounts" after "guild" so sue me. But if you read above i did say "unique accounts" not "members" don't assume just because i didn't say it specifically</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>using these numbers if each member contributed 10k status, using the divisor, it would still end up to be 40k for all of them</DIV> <DIV>now this method of course can be tweaked either way to allow fairness but this static cap has gotta go, i do like the idea of everyone able to contribute thou.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Xeblikaa on <SPAN class=date_text>08-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:35 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Xeblikaa, this is a forum, no one can read your mind. You need to be specific and write your posts so no one has to assume.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One thing I am learning about these forums is that it is all about opinion and assumption. No matter what I write or anyone writes there will be some that agree and some that won't. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One thing that is becoming a major pet peave of mine is the anonymousity of these posts. It is one thing to keep your RL anonymous, but IMHO no one should take anyone seriously in these forums when they can't even post their in game name and server. </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Ildarus on <SPAN class=date_text>08-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:06 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Ildarus on <span class=date_text>08-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:07 AM</span>

[Spag]

<DIV>In either case, the divisor needs to be a smaller % of the number of unique accounts.  If it goes live the way it is, it screws over the smaller guilds with more than 12 unique accounts.  Either let us choose which system we want, or reduce the % for the divisor.  Don't force us to choose between leveling efficiently and having friends and family in the guild that do not contribute to guild status.</DIV>

[Keegant]

<P>Actually Felano, if you did a count on people on all the threads on this issue, you will see that the majority of posters are againt the patron system. They just can't agree on a better system to replace it, nor can they agree on the fine points of the system that SOE proposed. There are actually very few people that want the patron system kept in place. That and as was said, posters on these forems represent a small percentage of players, and it is usually the more dedicated players that post here.</P> <P> </P> <P>The system that SOE has on test right now will prolly goto live. Lets just hope that it is adjusted before then to fix some of the flaws that have been pointed out on the boards.</P> <P> </P> <P>On a side note, I don't think there are more than 5 guilds in the entire game with more than 100 unique accounts. But that is just a guess.</P>

[eq2mik]

<DIV>What I can't figure out is, why is there a hard cap at all? why isn't the divisor some percentage of the total number of live accounts in your guild, that percentage reflecting the number of inactive accounts and/or average number of alts in the game?  something like</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>X%  *  (real accounts in your guild - inactive accounts in your guild)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where X is some fudge-factor that sony thinks represents a reasonable guild growth rate over time.  For guilds with 6 unique accounts, the divisor is 6, so X = 1.  Therefore, for a guild with 60 unique accounts, the divisor should be 60, with 100 UA, the divisor should be 100 and so on.  Maybe X could be scaled slightly, as in 50-100 UA X = 1/2 or maybe 3/5 and 25-50 UA X = 3/4 or maybe 4/5,  and 6-25 UA  X = 1, something along those lines.  That would mean guilds would grow at a more fair rate, larger guilds would still grow faster than smaller ones, while preventing guild levelling from being trivial for large raiding guilds while not making it impossible for medium sized fun guilds.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't want Sony's goal to be to turn this game into another eq1 massive war-guild experience! Not all of us want to be in a large hardcore raiding guild, but we still want our guilds to grow and reach level 30 so we can buy nice horses and other items.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any time you have a hard cap like 24 it's going to be less helpful to some guilds (ones with 25-30 accounts) and more helpful to others (guilds with 100+ accounts) but a percentage spreads the benefit across the board.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By my own logic I can only figure 1 reason why Sony would place a cap of 24 on the new system: they deliberately want to prevent smaller guilds from reach level 30, so they don't have all the guilds crowded at the top, with larger guilds wondering why they have to share the coveted top-10 spots with guilds 1/10 their size.  That would mean Sony does in fact want to encourage larger guilds and discourage smaller ones, which is contrary to what I want to see in this game.  I want to see lots and lots of smaller guilds that cooperate to do big things through alliances.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by eq2mikey on <span class=date_text>08-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:10 AM</span>

[Brackin]

<P>What the fuss is about is, I have no real clue ... I have never been in a guild that made level 30 ... mine is level 20 at the moment... we have 135 members but maybe 30-40 seperate accounts .. rest are alts, with most of us having 3 or more alts guilded. We are not a raiding guild, but a guild of folks who enjoy chatting and doing things together when our schedules permit.</P> <P>I dont see why anyone is concerned that guilds can now level to 30 faster than they can ... who cares? How does that affect you or your own guilds? Sure, the ones who are level 30 now like the idea that they are in an exclusive grouping of guilds that is probably going to grow larger. But so what?? If you are getting the benfits of being a level 30 guild under the old system, how does it affect you that there are others out there getting the same benefits? </P> <P>Maybe I am missing something ... Does the number of level 30 guilds on a server change the benefits received by each of those level 30 guilds? You already have several tiers of guilds built into the game based on playstyles and accomplishments/kills. People can still get their obligatory "my guild is better than your guild because... " battles going without level being a bargaining chip... </P> <P>No one liked the idea of losing status points when a patron suddenly left the game or changed guilds. So, they changed it so no status points are lost for inactive/departing patrons.</P> <P>Biggest change I see is maybe seeing more "guildjumping" in the game and competition for members rising because now there is no penalty for leaving a guild if you are a patron .. maybe these guilds are worried some of their members may "jump ship" now that penalties are removed for doing so... I am already seeing some of this on Neriak.</P> <P>In any case, give this a chance and see how it works out. I did not mind the old system since I am a "lets log in and have fun" kind of player and will be no matter what changes the game devs put in.</P>

[Keegant]

<P>To expand on my above statment of there only being 5 guilds in the game with only 100 accounts.</P> <P> </P> <P>After looking into it I think there is actually closer to 10, maybe as high as 15-20.</P> <P>Ok looking at the # of members on the top 100 guilds, looking for guilds with more than 100 acounts.</P> <P>The bare minimum that you have to divide members by to get accounts is 2. There are 46 guilds that fit into this catagory of having 100 accounts when dividing members by 2.</P> <P>If we divide by 3 we get 11 guilds.</P> <P>If we divide by 4, we only get 4 guilds with over 100 accounts.</P> <P> </P> <P>I think it is somewhere around 3 chars/account on average, with a few in the range to be counted that are as low as 2, so that leaves no more than 20 guilds with more than 100 accounts.</P> <P>Also many accounts are inactive, so even though they may have over 100 accounts, how many of those are active?</P> <P> </P> <P>The reason I am posting this is because I keep seeing people post about how guilds with 200 accounts will dominate, but I dont think that there is a guild in the game with even 100 active accounts, and if there is you are looking at 1-3 guilds tops.</P> <P> </P> <P>I would say, and this is just speculation, that there is less than 50 guilds with more than 50 active accounts.</P><p>Message Edited by Keegantir on <span class=date_text>08-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:19 AM</span>

[Naud]

Spagma Wrote: <DIV>Allow each Guild to choose which system they prefer, the unique accoutn system, or the patron system.  </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV>There ya have it a winner for all us!