The Top 12 system!

[Auelaen]

<DIV>Basically, the top 12 idea is that the 12 people with the most status points in the guild would be the ones contributing to the guild exp and level. If a contributor leaves the guild, the person in 13th place would replace him. If a contributor goes inactive, another guild member will eventually pass him/her up. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let's face it, the new guild system on test gives a huge advantage to large guilds over small and medium ones with the cap set a 24.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The idea of removing or greatly increasing the current cap will really hurt casual and family style guilds with inactive or casual members.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, the top 12 system  keeps a good balance between small, medium, and large guilds, as well as keeping a balance between family style and hardcore guilds. </DIV> <DIV>This game was sold as one that would appeal to both casual and hardcore players. The top 12 plan would keep a good balance for both types of players. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Advantages of the top 12 system:</DIV> <DIV>1.) It keeps an even balance between small, medium and large guilds.</DIV> <DIV>2.) It does not punish family guilds for having inactive or casual players.</DIV> <DIV>3.) The guild exp lost from a person leaving would be reduced, since it would be replaced by the 13th ranked person.</DIV> <DIV>4.) All players would then have the potential to donate to the guild based on merit.</DIV> <DIV>5.) It would not be abused by cycling patrons.</DIV> <DIV>6.) It would still take work and be an accomplishment to be a high level guild. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Post your thoughts here on the top 12 system. What you think is good about it, and even how it could be made better =P.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Auelaen on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:39 PM</span>

[DarkLegacy2005]

<DIV>two thumbs up</DIV>

[Bo]

good idea <div></div>

[Andre]

<P>Oh,this argument "Large vs Small" guild are odler as whole worlde ( atleast eq2 ). Huge guilds are already 30 just because of enormuos amount of slayed epics <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And lowering cap to 6 people is a help hand to small guilds.</P> <P>Two tumbs for this update!</P> <P> </P>

[Aladiah]

I like this idea

[Ashare]

I'm totally AGAINST this idea. Btw it's one one of the most stupid ide i've ever seen, making large guilds totally useless AND screwed because it would be more interesting to creat 10 12 members guilds worgink togehter than one 120 guild. Larger guilds with MORE ppl working on guild status SHOULD level faster than smaller guild working irregularily on status sorry. In the REAL world, you can't hope to be as famous as a 200 active ppl group working a lot when you are 3 ppl working one lonth a year.... it's the same with guilds, being a large guild well managed with a lot of people working on guild status should not be a punishment but a reward. Those guilds DESERVE to reach faster the lvl 30. Like ppl who plays 12h/day deserves to reach faster the lvl50 than ppl playing 1h/week. It's just because you know the actual system is better suited for YOUR types of guilds(small ones and middle ones) than you don't want it to change..... <div></div>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ashareth wrote:<BR>I'm totally AGAINST this idea.<BR><BR><BR>Btw it's one one of the most stupid ide i've ever seen, making large guilds totally useless AND screwed because it would be more interesting to creat 10 12 members guilds worgink togehter than one 120 guild.<BR><BR>Larger guilds with MORE ppl working on guild status SHOULD level faster than smaller guild working irregularily on status sorry.<BR>In the REAL world, you can't hope to be as famous as a 200 active ppl group working a lot when you are 3 ppl working one lonth a year.... it's the same with guilds, being a large guild well managed with a lot of people working on guild status should not be a punishment but a reward.<BR><BR><BR>Those guilds DESERVE to reach faster the lvl 30. Like ppl who plays 12h/day deserves to reach faster the lvl50 than ppl playing 1h/week.<BR><BR><BR>It's just because you know the actual system is better suited for YOUR types of guilds(small ones and middle ones) than you don't want it to change.....<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have to agree here.  <FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>Sony, please <STRONG><U>do not</U></STRONG> implement this.</FONT>

[TD_]

<P></P> <HR> <P>I'm totally AGAINST this idea.<BR><BR><BR>Btw it's one one of the most stupid ide i've ever seen, making large guilds totally useless AND screwed because it would be more interesting to creat 10 12 members guilds worgink togehter than one 120 guild.<BR><BR>Larger guilds with MORE ppl working on guild status SHOULD level faster than smaller guild working irregularily on status sorry.<BR>In the REAL world, you can't hope to be as famous as a 200 active ppl group working a lot when you are 3 ppl working one lonth a year.... it's the same with guilds, being a large guild well managed with a lot of people working on guild status should not be a punishment but a reward.<BR><BR><BR>Those guilds DESERVE to reach faster the lvl 30. Like ppl who plays 12h/day deserves to reach faster the lvl50 than ppl playing 1h/week.<BR><BR><BR>It's just because you know the actual system is better suited for YOUR types of guilds(small ones and middle ones) than you don't want it to change.....</P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>Totally 100% agree. First person who's made sense in a long time on this board.<BR></P>

[Mycka]

<DIV>Ashareth, if I understand you, you want YOUR type of guild to be advantaged for whatever reason (yeah being a lot in a guild is so much more deserving than being a few!).</DIV> <DIV>And you DON'T want , like it was suggested, to give EVERY guilds the same chance to reach lvl 30, is that right?</DIV> <DIV>How nice of you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now tell me, what's preventing the guild of 200 ppl to have 12 very dedicated persons making their guild reach lvl 30 faster than the small guild of 12 ppl? Why should 200 persons playing 2h/day deserve to reach lvl 30 faster than 12 persons playing 10h/day?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No type of guild deserve anything more than any other type of guild. Just "work" harder than the others and you'll get more rewards than them. Recruiting a lot of people does not mean "working" hard to me.</DIV>

[Gorkk00]

I'm totaly AGAINST this idea, for the reason i gave in another thread and are basicaly the same as Ashareth's. <span><blockquote><hr>Myckael wrote:<div>Ashareth, if I understand you, you want YOUR type of guild to be advantaged for whatever reason (yeah being a lot in a guild is so much more deserving than being a few!).</div> <div>And you DON'T want , like it was suggested, to give EVERY guilds the same chance to reach lvl 30, is that right?</div> <div>How nice of you.</div> <div> </div> <div>Now tell me, what's preventing the guild of 200 ppl to have 12 very dedicated persons making their guild reach lvl 30 faster than the small guild of 12 ppl? Why should 200 persons playing 2h/day deserve to reach lvl 30 faster than 12 persons playing 10h/day?</div> <div> </div> <div>No type of guild deserve anything more than any other type of guild. Just "work" harder than the others and you'll get more rewards than them. Recruiting a lot of people does not mean "working" hard to me.</div><hr></blockquote>Yeah what you want is your medium guild where not all people are working hard on guild status level as fast as a big guild with lots of people working hard... What will you ask for next time? Oh yeah I know, the same thing for player xp. If I translate what you ask here (nearly all guild will level at the same path, as long as there is 12 people working, whereas all members work hard on it or not) for players, it'll be something like that: "hey, i sit all day long in my room, let me level as fast as somebody who is grinding xp all day long!". Sorry but it's plainly WRONG! With the same proportion of hard working players in a guild, larger guilds SHOULD level faster, it just doesnt make sense that a guild of 6 people working hard get the same reputation than a guild of 120 people working hard: they've done much less great things for the city! Though it makes no sense either than a big guild (say 100 players) with very few of them contributing (12) level as fast as a guild of 12 players all contributing, as they're not as dedicated to the city either. How can you expect thant 6 people working hard for the city have the same reputation than 120 people doing the same? You decently can't. Still if in the 120 people guild there is only 6 people working hard, then the group of 6 working hard shall have a better reputation ('cause hey, in the 120 people group, 6 are working while the othere 114 are just rolling their thumbs up!). That's the all idea of the suggestion which follows, and that's why the top 12 members contribution is plainly a bad idea... I'll point to a suggestion that illustrate well the idea of larger guilds leveling faster than small guild with the same dedicacy, but slower than small guild with a better proportion of dedicated members. <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=22560#M22560" target=_blank>Here's the post</a>. That's an idea I had too (but in this post it's well presented imho) and others have suggested, and that will be much better than this silly idea of the top 12 only contributing to guild level... Raahl wrote: </span> <blockquote> <p>Here's a possible solution to the problem.</p> <p>1. Make the Journey's Half the Fun level restricted for each run.  That way no level 15 is going to run Feerrott.</p> <p>2. Use the following calculation to calculate how many status points a character will contribute to the guild for a heritage quest.  HQ Status Points/(SQRT(# Accounts)*5) </p> <div>HQSP = Heritage Quest Status points</div> <div>#Acc = Number of accounts in guild</div> <div>#MCHAR = Maximum number of characters (not including Station access)</div> <div>#GSP = Number of status points added to the guild status points per character.</div> <div>#MGSP = Maximum status points added to the guild status points if all the characters do the heritage quest.</div> <div> </div> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <div><strong><u>HQSP</u></strong>     <strong><u>#Acc</u></strong>     <u><strong>#MCHAR</strong></u>   <strong><u>#GSP</u>         <u>#MGSP</u>     <u>MGSP Equation                  </u></strong></div> <div>60,000     100           600        ~1200    ~720,000    (60,000/50) x 600</div> <div>60,000      50            300        ~1697    ~509,116    (60,000/35.35533906) x 300</div> <div>60,000       6              36         ~4898    ~176,363    (60,000/12.24744871) x 36</div> <div> </div></blockquote> <div>My thoughts are that this will allow smaller guilds to still compete with larger guilds without cheapening player contributions to large guilds, too much.</div> <div> </div> <div>Note:  In the 6 account guild, each character is contributing 4 times the number of guild points for each Heritage quest than a character in the 100 account guild.</div> <div> </div> <div>Am I off on my calculations any?</div> </blockquote> <div></div>

[Tockl]

<P>Great idea.  This would still be better for large guilds, because their top 12 will likely be higher than the top 12 of a casual guild.  Drawing on a pool of 200 vs 20, you have a MUCH better chance of having patrons with far higher status.</P> <P>I'd love the devs to do something like this.</P>

[korruptidsoul]

<P>Quote</P> <P>Now tell me, what's preventing the guild of 200 ppl to have 12 very dedicated persons making their guild reach lvl 30 faster than the small guild of 12 ppl? Why should 200 persons playing 2h/day deserve to reach lvl 30 faster than 12 persons playing 10h/day?</P> <P>End Quote.</P> <P> </P> <P>Because they have 200 people? I mean get real. There is no other way for this to be. I come from a medium sized guild of about 50 players or so and even I see this. If you guild chooses to be a small "family" style guild then great. You will be more adept at grouping together than some of the larger guilds. You can form a tight nit guild that play off of each other well and know each others strengths and weaknesses. But there is a downside to small guilds, and you are looking at it in this forum. You WON"T nor SHOULD be able to outlevel a guild with 10x your members. </P> <P>Look at it from a ROLEPLAY standpoint first. Throughout history (RL and fantasy) it's the large guilds that get the glory, not the small unheard of. Infact, most of the small guilds are either obiterated or obsorbed by the larger guilds. On what basis do you feel that SOE is obliged to make it easier or at least "the same" for small guilds to level at the same pace as larger ones? Because SOE said they would make this game enjoyable for Hardcore and Casual players? I think they have. They didn't, however, say that the game would put these two types of players on even terms. I fail to understand the logic of anyone saying they are entitled to the same rewards, IN THE SAME TIME FRAME, as those that put forth a greater effort.</P> <P>Finally, I just would like someone to please explain to me why anyone even cares?!?! I mean really. Joe Blow gets to lvl 50 faster than me. Or Suzy Rottencrotch's guild made it to 30 before mine.  Big freaking deal! So what, now that they are higher than you, you will no longer enjoy the game?!? Play the game for what it is. A game. A means of enjoyment. Get to your goals at your pace and quit worrying about everyone else for crying outloud.  And for those that say, "Well my goal is to be the first one to 50 or to get my guild to 30 first", get more realistic goals, and stop trying to get everything handed to you just because you can't dedicate the time that others (myself EXCLUDED) can.</P> <P>Guild xp is easy enough for everyone now. Leaders manage your guilds properly and get people involved and all the whining about this change will go away. If your guild can't get the job done as is, evaluate your members and fix the problem, don't expect SOE to do it for you.</P>

[Dr. Dr]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> korruptidsoul wrote:<BR> <P>Finally, I just would like someone to please explain to me why anyone even cares?!?!</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>And yet, obviously, you do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is a great idea.  Some are just too short-sighted to see it.<BR></DIV>

[Tockl]

<P>I propose a system in which as long as a guild has less than 20 members, it gets triple patron xp.</P> <P>I mean, who cares, right?</P>

[Kirotaan]

You know petitions are <u>not</u> allowed in the forums right? <div></div>

[Tockl]

<P>Although true that petitions are not allowed, it is unlikely the OP created this in direct opposition to the rules.</P> <P>Despite the error, thoughtful discussion requires much more intelligence than gimpy insults. :smileywink:</P>

[Korizan]

Okay ther are some issues with this method. lets say the top 12 all have 20K to 50K of status not uncommon SO a new person would then have to get 20001 status points to get ahead of the bottom one. THe guild would not see any exp till that person hits that magic number. Then the GUild would see a huge jump in status and the cycle would begin again. Now if the person that was kicked did another writ then all there new points would count. THat would be a first class nightmare to have to program and get it right. Let alone your GUild stats points would not go up smoothly but in jumps. Basically it is a modify one the current system and any guild can do this now by simply adding and removing patrons selectively. It is basically the same system we have now with  a twist No real net gain <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Auelaen]

<DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>I'm totally AGAINST this idea.<BR><BR><BR>Btw it's one one of the most stupid ide i've ever seen, making large guilds totally useless AND screwed because it would be more interesting to creat 10 12 members guilds worgink togehter than one 120 guild.<BR><FONT color=#66ff00><STRONG>This game was not made for 120 member guilds to rule the game. Raids are capped at  24 for a reason, 1 group mobs can't be killed for loot by 2 groups. This game was designed for the concept of small and medium guilds, not zerging guild. </STRONG></FONT><BR>Larger guilds with MORE ppl working on guild status SHOULD level faster than smaller guild working irregularily on status sorry.<BR>In the REAL world, you can't hope to be as famous as a 200 active ppl group working a lot when you are 3 ppl working one lonth a year.... it's the same with guilds, being a large guild well managed with a lot of people working on guild status should not be a punishment but a reward.<BR><STRONG><FONT color=#66ff00><FONT color=#66ff00>In the current system is has nothing to do with a smaller guild on test working irregularly. Very large guilds could complete 2 hq's per member and already be 30. That means a large guild of people who do 2-3 HQ's and each member does very little work, will be drastically ahead of medium guilds who may complete the majority of HQ's and writ.</FONT> </FONT></STRONG><BR><BR>Those guilds DESERVE to reach faster the lvl 30. Like ppl who plays 12h/day deserves to reach faster the lvl50 than ppl playing 1h/week.<BR><FONT color=#33cc00><STRONG>This is not an even comparison. You are saying because a guild is large it should be level 30. Wrong, it is because a guild is good it should be level 30.</STRONG> <STRONG>When a player plays 12 hours a day, yes they deserve to be 50 before one that plays an hour a week. However, recruiting every newbert the gets off the Isle is not equivalent. This is Quality vs. Quantity, not Quality=Quantity.</STRONG></FONT><BR><BR>It's just because you know the actual system is better suited for YOUR types of guilds(small ones and middle ones) than you don't want it to change.....</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33cc00><STRONG>Okay, nope. The guild I lead has over 130 members, and about 60 different accounts. Granted, it is not a 300 member guild, but the system as it stands on test will be great for us. However, I can actually recognize that this system is unfair to the other types of guilds. I just do not feel entitled to a cookie because I was able to recruit more players than other guild leaders. </STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With the same proportion of hard working players in a guild, larger guilds SHOULD level faster, it just doesnt make sense that a guild of 6 people working hard get the same reputation than a guild of 120 people working hard: they've done much less great things for the city! Though it makes no sense either than a big guild (say 100 players) with very few of them contributing (12) level as fast as a guild of 12 players all contributing, as they're not as dedicated to the city either. How can you expect thant 6 people working hard for the city have the same reputation than 120 people doing the same? You decently can't. Still if in the 120 people guild there is only 6 people working hard, then the group of 6 working hard shall have a better reputation ('cause hey, in the 120 people group, 6 are working while the othere 114 are just rolling their thumbs up!). That's the all idea of the suggestion which follows, and that's why the top 12 members contribution is plainly a bad idea...</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Look at it from a ROLEPLAY standpoint first. Throughout history (RL and fantasy) it's the large guilds that get the glory, not the small unheard of. Infact, most of the small guilds are either obiterated or obsorbed by the larger guilds. On what basis do you feel that SOE is obliged to make it easier or at least "the same" for small guilds to level at the same pace as larger ones? Because SOE said they would make this game enjoyable for Hardcore and Casual players? I think they have. They didn't, however, say that the game would put these two types of players on even terms. I fail to understand the logic of anyone saying they are entitled to the same rewards, IN THE SAME TIME FRAME, as those that put forth a greater effort.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00><STRONG>Ok, roleplay point of view. You have 300 members using the resources and housing that is provided by the city. Queen Antonia/Lucan would and should expect more from you guys than a group that is only using up resources for 30 people. </STRONG> </FONT><FONT color=#66ff00><STRONG>As far as your history goes, wrong on large guilds get the glory. Sure we look at the Roman empire because it was huge. But the key events in history are when the huge armies get defeated by the small outnumbered groups. The big armies going in and rolling over small groups is seldom remembered, and when it is, it is not fondly. In EQ1, the best guilds like Cestus Dei were not zerg guilds. Zerg guilds had very little skill and would just throw bodies at a mob til it died. It is not an accomplishment to do with 120 what could be done with 60. </STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#66ff00>Secondly, with the top 12 system, Hardcore guilds will still beat casual guilds to the level cap. Their 12 best playing daily will outrun the 12 best of a casual guild that may only play 2-3 times a week. </FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#66ff00>The balance between hardcore and casual I cited was that casual family style guilds would not be punished because of members that maybe play once every other week, or are gone for awhile due to RL issues etc. </FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#66ff00>It has been obvious that SoE has made attempts to balance the needs of hardcore players and casual players. Case and point, the vitality system. </FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#33cc00></FONT></STRONG> </DIV></DIV>

[Tockl]

<P>I don't think you understand what the OP meant.</P> <P>Only the top 12 count.  All others have status shown.  If #12 has 20,000 and someone else gets to 20,001, the total guild xp jumps by 1.  If the one bumped down finishes a writ before the new #12 does anything, total guild xp jumps by writ vaule - 1 (and he moves back up into the #12 slot).</P> <P>Programming this would be quite simple.</P>

[Tockl]

<P>My post was in response to Korizan.  Auelaen gets 3 thumbs up from me!</P> <P> </P>

[moonpup]

Frankly, I dont see what is wrong with the current system.  It aint broke, so why go on messing with it?  Points are divided by the number of folks contributing.   How could anything be more fair than that to both the large and small groups?  If they want to put in a minimum number for the divisor fine, but there should not be an upper cap. If they are going to implement this kind of a change, why even have the points divided at all?  Just make it total points and be done with it. Honestly if the devs are going to mess with the system perhaps they could do something like add in debt.  Quests that must be completed within a period of time or incur a debt.  That would make much more sense than messing with a system that is working just fine right now. ( wickedguild.com) <div></div>

[Gorkk00]

<span><blockquote><hr>moonpuppy wrote:Frankly, I dont see what is wrong with the current system.  It aint broke, so why go on messing with it?  Points are divided by the number of folks contributing.   How could anything be more fair than that to both the large and small groups?  If they want to put in a minimum number for the divisor fine, but there should not be an upper cap. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Mind you, it was broke. With the points divided by the number of folds contributing, that means that 60 people working (let's say to simplify that all do the same thing) won't get a better reputation (status) than 12 people working. It's like saying that a company should not have more benefits when selling 100 items with 10 employees than another selling 10 items with 1 employee. Same item value, same empoyee wage => company selling 100 with 10 will have 10x the benefit of the one selling 10 with 1. To stick with this example, the idea of having the dividers increase slowlier than the accounts but still increasing would translate in my example as organisation costs, thus making the biggest company only have 5x or so the benefit of the smallest one. With this system, if you everybody in your guild work the same, then you'll have the exact same guild status no matter how many you are (as long as you're at least 12), which is, again, PLAINLY WRONG!</span><div></div>

[Mor]

Gorkk, 60 people working hard will have an advantage over 12.  Do the math! <div></div>

[Gorkk00]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:Gorkk, 60 people working hard will have an advantage over 12.  Do the math! <div></div><hr></blockquote>I didn't say it won't with what's on test right now. I just said it currently doesn't with the patron system. You should read posts before answering. [Edit] And if you were talking about this top 12 contributors idea, well, show me the math, cause any number of people over 12 working hard will give the same amount to guild...</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Gorkk00 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:17 PM</span>

[Eono]

<DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT size=1>As the co-leader of a small family guild (level 22, 20 members) I’d have to say I am against the Top 12 idea.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>This system as with many others does not reward present hard work but rather rewards past hard work which is flawed in its concept. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>Hypothetical Example if we were in the Top 12 system: The top 6 contributors in my guild each have 100k+ contributed status. All 6 decide they have done there share of the work and are going to drop to 1 writ per week (mind you all 6 are now level 50 from their past hard work). Members who rank 13-18 regularly run writs and actively work toward HQ completion yet they cannot break into the Top 12 because the cushion is too large (members 7-12 regularly contribute also). </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>This in essence does not reward the top 12 (they received their reward when the guild dinged levels directly related to their hard work) and it penalizes those outside the Top 12 because their hard work does not count until they break into the Top 12. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>Interesting enough, if I’m understanding the concept of this proposed change it would seem to me this system actually makes it harder for smaller guilds by simply forcing the 13th member to equal the 12th members contributions before his/her contributions even began to count. (Basically if member 12 is at 50k contributed then member 13 has to work to 50.01k contributed to be considered at 0. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=1>I apologize if I misunderstand the logistics but if I understand it correctly this system would place any member below the 12th in a negative status contributed state until they equal the 12th member wherein their contribution starts at 0.)</FONT></P></DIV></DIV>

[Dr. Dr]

<DIV>You do misunderstand.  Their status would show as whatever it is, but would not be actively counted unless they were in the top 12 highest contibutors.</DIV>

[Mor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gorkk00 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:Gorkk, 60 people working hard will have an advantage over 12.  Do the math! <hr></blockquote>I didn't say it won't with what's on test right now. I just said it currently doesn't with the patron system. You should read posts before answering. [Edit] And if you were talking about this top 12 contributors idea, well, show me the math, cause any number of people over 12 working hard will give the same amount to guild...</span><p>Message Edited by Gorkk00 on <span class="date_text">07-29-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:17 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> </span>I have read your post.  And I am talking about what is currently implemented on Live.  Maybe you should take your own advise about reading.... Once again, here is the advantage:  12 patrons:  40000/( ( 12 + 1 )  * 0.91 ) = 3381 per turn in.  Multiplied by 12 = 40572 GSP 24 patrons:  40000/( (24 + 1 ) * 0.91 ) = 1758 per turn in.  Multiplied by 24 = 42192 GSP So, the advantage already goes to large guilds with lots of active patrons.  And it's an even bigger advantage if you rotate.  What all the test system does is give large guilds an even larger advantage than they already have by penalizing small and medium sized guilds.  <div></div>

[Mor]

The top 12 system would not be a bad idea if it had been implemented before LU12.  However, it would be difficult to implement retroactively.  <div></div>

[Eono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dr. Drug wrote:<BR> <DIV>You do misunderstand.  Their status would show as whatever it is, but would not be actively counted unless they were in the top 12 highest contibutors.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Perhaps I do misunderstand but your clarification adds little to allievate it. The visibility of status was neither addressed by myself nor the original poster as it really doesn't matter, yet their status not actively counting until their in the top 12 is exactually what concerns me as I stated in my post. If number 12 has 100k status number 13 can grind all he/she wants yet their hard work doesn't pay off until they reach 100,001 status and even then the first 100k doesn't matter, just the 1 above number 12 so the guild doesnt gain 100,001 status contributed only 1, neither the guild nor the member striving to be in the top 12 gain from their hard work.

[Silverpaws]

<DIV>oops. wrong thread</DIV><p>Message Edited by Silverpaws on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:05 PM</span>

[Dejah]

<DIV>A petition eh?:smileysurprised:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ibl</DIV>

[Salat]

<DIV>Not a bad idea, but it kind of discourages new members to even try.  All 12 members have over 50,000 status, and the new member would have to grind HQs and writs until they hit 50,001.  And that is if the top 12 doesnt continue to do them.  So, what incentive is there for the new member to do weeks, and weeks, of grinding writs to catch up on that gap?  Basically, its what we had before.  If you are not one of the top 12 writ grinders, then what you do matters little.  So, go grind out writs for personal status, but the writ giver I guess doesnt care what your guild name is.</DIV>

[Screamin' 1]

Here are a few thoughts on this: One problem I see with this system is that, to join or become more active in a guild with 12 already active players offers little in the way of contributing options for the new member. This is the same problem with the patron system the way it is now. The only benefit to the top 12 idea is that it almost eliminates large guild advantages, although the top 12 contributors in a large guild would have more resources at their disposal. Imlementing this top 12 system would change the level of a lot of guilds. The system on test has its own problems. It forces casual players to contribute, or drag down the rest in small/medium guilds, and the advantage to larger guilds is way out of proportion than even the current live system. While I and others don't really care much about this, there are clearly many who do, and many of their reasons are valid. If the system on test was changed to remove the cap, and somehow allow the divisor to account for causal players, it might acutally work to the smaller guilds' advantage. Without a cap, larger guilds might be more hampered, because they might have a tendency to have a lot more inactive players as a percentage of total membership. <div></div>

[Gertack_v2]

A better compromise than only ever taking the top 12 would be that it makes the highest contributing people patrons until it gets down to the people who would reduce the others' status by more than they would contribute if they were a patron.  So if you have someone who would contribute 1,000 guild status but by increasing the patron divisor would remove more than 1,000 total guild status from everyone else, they wouldn't be included in the guild level equation. This would work better if everyone had their guild status tracked from day 1, however. <div></div>

[Screamin' 1]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Gorkk00 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:Gorkk, 60 people working hard will have an advantage over 12.  Do the math! <hr></blockquote>I didn't say it won't with what's on test right now. I just said it currently doesn't with the patron system. You should read posts before answering. [Edit] And if you were talking about this top 12 contributors idea, well, show me the math, cause any number of people over 12 working hard will give the same amount to guild...</span><p>Message Edited by Gorkk00 on <span class="date_text">07-29-2005</span> <span class="time_text">06:17 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> </span>I have read your post.  And I am talking about what is currently implemented on Live.  Maybe you should take your own advise about reading.... Once again, here is the advantage:  12 patrons:  40000/( ( 12 + 1 )  * 0.91 ) = 3381 per turn in.  Multiplied by 12 = 40572 GSP 24 patrons:  40000/( (24 + 1 ) * 0.91 ) = 1758 per turn in.  Multiplied by 24 = 42192 GSP <font color="#33ccff">Illuminating, I did not know that "+1" was in there. Is this the same for writs too? This advantage is, in my opinion, one of those theoretical values that is never reached in reality. Since getting 24 folks to generate GSP as consistently as 12 is harder in most cases, and since the GSP advantage is basically about 4%, it seems that 12 is still a more efficient number in reality. A 4% advantage hardly seems to be much of a big deal . If it takes a group 50 weeks to get to level 30, it will take the other 52 weeks. Of course, the real advantage on the live servers, that of rotating patrons, is far more significant. </font><span><blockquote><hr></blockquote></span> So, the advantage already goes to large guilds with lots of active patrons.  And it's an even bigger advantage if you rotate.  What all the test system does is give large guilds an even larger advantage than they already have by penalizing small and medium sized guilds.  <font color="#33ccff">I want to stress that two different effects are occuring on test. One, large guilds are getting a huge boost in GSP productivity due to the 24 dvisior cap. Two, small/medium guilds will LOSE GSP productivity as less active accounts are basically forced to be patrons whether they want to or not. Personally, it is the second item that causes me the most concern, but the first item is clearly of concern to a lot of folks. It is the first item that is really giving the large guilds the bigger advantage. But to also make smaller guilds level more slowly than before is just adds to the  demoralizing nature of this change. Not even the fact that I will be able to generate GSP with my alts makes up for it.</font> <hr></blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:42 PM</span>

[Gorkk00]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:<span></span>Once again, here is the advantage: 12 patrons:  40000/( ( 12 + 1 )  * 0.91 ) = 3381 per turn in.  Multiplied by 12 = 40572 GSP24 patrons:  40000/( (24 + 1 ) * 0.91 ) = 1758 per turn in.  Multiplied by 24 = 42192 GSPSo, the advantage already goes to large guilds with lots of active patrons.  And it's an even bigger advantage if you rotate. What all the test system does is give large guilds an even larger advantage than they already have by penalizing small and medium sized guilds. <hr></blockquote>Where do you take this formula from? Share your sources. Mine is SoE Worlds magazine published by SoE. The article I refer to is called "</span>Maximizing Guild Experience - Do the Math". In this article you can read:<p>"There are several things you can to increase the rewards that you reap when you complete City Writs and Heritage Quests.  First, 12 is a magic number.  Every time you complete a Writ or Heritage Quest, you receive a certain amount of Personal Status points.  If you are a Patron, after you receive your Personal Status, that Personal Status figure is used to calculate the amount of experience that the guild receives.  The formula is:</p><p>   Personal Status Amount divided by the number of Guild Patrons.</p><p>                           or</p><p>   Personal Status Amount divided by 12</p><p>...whichever is higher.</p><p>For example, lets say you do a Heritage Quest worth 36,000 Personal Status.  You will receive the whole 36,000 Personal Status points.  If you are a Patron, your guild will receive 36,000 experience points divided by the number of Patrons in the guild, or divided by 12 if you have 12 or fewer Patrons in the guild.</p><p></p><hr><p><font color="#ff9900">Personal Status </font>   |    <font color="#ff9900"># of Patrons in the Guild</font>    |    <font color="#ff9900">Guild Experience Received</font></p><p></p><hr>      36,000                                     6                            36,000/12 = <font color="#ff9900">3,000</font> <p>     36,000                                   12                           36,000/12 = <font color="#ff9900">3,000</font></p><p><span class="time_text">     36,000                                   24                            36,000/24 = <font color="#ff9900">1,500</font></span></p><p><span class="time_text">     36,000                                   36                           36,000/36 = <font color="#ff9900">1,000</font></span></p><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><hr><p><span class="time_text"> "As a result, if you have 12 or fewer members, you might as well make them all Patrons"</span></p><p><span class="time_text">"Once you reach 12 Patrons, every additional Patron you add will add to the denominator in the guild experience formula.  This means that guilds with 12 Patrons or more will want to make sure that all Patrons are actively completing Writs and Heritage Quests.  For guilds with more than 12 Patrons, a Patron who isn't contributing experience is actually costing the guild experience because they are subtracting from the amount of experience others are contributing."</span></p><p><span class="time_text">"If you have more than 12 Patrons and some are not actively contributing to guild experience, you may want to remove their Patron standing.   If you do so, however, be aware that any guild experience they have completed in the past will be lost, and your guild will lose one or more levels.  All guild members will do well to make sure that guild Patrons are appreciated for their efforts on behalf of the guild."</span></p><p><span class="time_text">So, without quoting your sources, you're just telling i'm wrong and the formula is what you show off, basicaly saying that what SoE put in their magazine is bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] and you know better than anybody else? So please, show your sources, then I may consider what you claim as being accurate (the formula is so ugly that it doesn't make any sense... status divided by (1+max(12,number of patrons))x0.91? Common! Why bother with the 0.91 and not have 0.9? If this formula is accurate, then it's one more proof that the current patron system is crap... I would have understand somehow a formula like (1+max(12, number of patrons)), but this factor gives away any sense of this formula... So, give your sources, and if i'm wrong, then i'm wrong, but 'till I see official words from SoE saying this is the formula and not what they wrote in their magazine, i won't believe it.</span></p><div></div>

[Mor]

<div></div>The formula was also published in SOE's magazine.  Log in and try it. You'll see it's not a even divisible number. Edit:  I should also point out that the number .91 is not exact either, but the gist of it is that  there is a value less than 1 which makes the difference. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Morie on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:21 PM</span>

[Mor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Screamin' 103 wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><font color="#33ccff"> This advantage is, in my opinion, one of those theoretical values that is never reached in reality. Since getting 24 folks to generate GSP as consistently as 12 is harder in most cases, and since the GSP advantage is basically about 4%, it seems that 12 is still a more efficient number in reality. A 4% advantage hardly seems to be much of a big deal . If it takes a group 50 weeks to get to level 30, it will take the other 52 weeks. Of course, the real advantage on the live servers, that of rotating patrons, is far more significant. <font color="#ff6633">Agreed.  But  even without rotation, just being able to depatron people who are afk makes a big difference as well.</font> </font><span><blockquote><hr></blockquote></span> So, the advantage already goes to large guilds with lots of active patrons.  And it's an even bigger advantage if you rotate.  What all the test system does is give large guilds an even larger advantage than they already have by penalizing small and medium sized guilds.  <font color="#33ccff">I want to stress that two different effects are occuring on test. One, large guilds are getting a huge boost in GSP productivity due to the 24 dvisior cap. Two, small/medium guilds will LOSE GSP productivity as less active accounts are basically forced to be patrons whether they want to or not. Personally, it is the second item that causes me the most concern, but the first item is clearly of concern to a lot of folks. It is the first item that is really giving the large guilds the bigger advantage. But to also make smaller guilds level more slowly than before is just adds to the  demoralizing nature of this change. Not even the fact that I will be able to generate GSP with my alts makes up for it.</font> <font color="#ff6633">Agreed.</font> <hr></blockquote> PS  Not sure if it applies to writs or not.  I assume it does. </span></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Urbanna]

<span><blockquote><hr>Salat wrote:<div></div> <div>Not a bad idea, but it kind of discourages new members to even try.  All 12 members have over 50,000 status, and the new member would have to grind HQs and writs until they hit 50,001.  And that is if the top 12 doesnt continue to do them.  So, what incentive is there for the new member to do weeks, and weeks, of grinding writs to catch up on that gap?  Basically, its what we had before.  If you are not one of the top 12 writ grinders, then what you do matters little.  So, go grind out writs for personal status, but the writ giver I guess doesnt care what your guild name is.</div><hr></blockquote>I have an idea about this: Reset everyone's 'contributed status per account' once every month (or whatever to keep the rotating patrons from being easily exploited...), then begin recalculating the Top 12 each new cycle. This would make huge guilds with a ton of active players still lvl much quicker. New players to both large and small guilds still have a chance at contributing (no weeks and weeks of grinding, unless it's in a heated race to be in the top 12) </span><div></div>

[beylanu]

For what it's worth, I'm gonna throw my support behind this system.  I very much like the top 12 guild member idea over what we currently have.  In fact, I like the top 12 guild member idea over every revision of the guild/patron system since launch. As stated above, this system does not help encourage new members into an already established guild.  However, keep in mind that being in a lvl 25-30 guild means almost nothing, if you don't have the status points to purchase the rewards.  Isn't this incentive to slowly work towards those points? If you join a lower level guild, you have a greater chance to be counted in the top 12.  However, you don't have access to the higher level guild rewards, yet. If you join a higher level guild, you have a long way to go before cracking the top 12.  But, you know the higher level rewards are already available, once you get the points. Seems like a pretty nice system to me.  <div></div>

[Ildarus]

<P>This thread looks like all the ones that were done when they did the last change to patrons by making it so the guild didn't loose status when a patron left. </P> <P>Give it up!! It will go through despite all complaining here. They have already put a lot of thought into this before putting it live. This is a major change to just throw out and see what happens.:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>I don 't understand where this gives the larger guilds any advantage. If anything it puts guilds on a more even playing field. Guilds are supposed to be about people getting together and having fun. In the process they can complete quests and raise guild level to get some great stuff. Now everyone in the guild can take part in giving the guild status. </P> <P>If it is a guild of friends and comrades having fun this is great. I guess if its all about the big prize then you may not like this. If that is the case kick everone out of your guild except for your top 6 producers and have at it. You can get to the big prize quicker and not have all your comrades to share it with. :smileysad:</P> <P>What happened to this game being fun? Why is everything a constant [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] session? If there were as many problems as everyone complained about on these boards the game wouldn't be playable.</P> <P>You no what really sucks? There is useful information in these forums, but we have to wade through all this [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] to find it.</P> <P>/rant off</P> <P> </P>

[Mycka]

<DIV>You guys seem to forget something: personal status point. What's the point in being in a lvl 30 guild if you don't have any? correct: no point.</DIV> <DIV>Even if you're not in the "top 12", why wouldn't you work hard for your own status point? You'll get nothing if you don't when your guild will hit 30. And you might actually get in that "top 12" if you work hard enough.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you just joined and the #12th contributor already has 80k, you still should work for yourself if you want to benefit from that lvl 30, and your Guild Points will still show, so the other people will know you worked hard too. BTW I'm all for players keeping a part of their GP if they join a new guild, or even guildless players to still gain a little % of GP that could benefit the next guild they'd be joining. They indeed didn't work for that new guild when they did, but their personal reputation should have a little effect on their new guild reputation if they already had a lot of GP. This probably would help those poor new members being motivated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the players in the Top12 are the only ones working hard for a large guild, then only those 12 will be able to buy a title, clothes, or anything else if they can afford it. It's not unusual to see members of a lvl 30 guild doing writs, these people just realised they didn't gain anything besides the fact that they're in a lvl 30 guild (wow! /irony off).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And even with only 12 players, it's not that easy to get them all to play at the same time, and the others can also do writs/heritages with them, and indirectly help the guild lvl faster, not with their GP, but by making things go faster.</DIV> <DIV>It could even become a friendly race between members to be in that top 12, and then making the guild level faster because of the motivation from it.</DIV>

[Tockl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Myckael wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It could even become a friendly race between members to be in that top 12, and then making the guild level faster because of the motivation from it.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Add a way for the status gained by those under the first 12 to count (albeit a small amount), and you have about the best solution I've seen so far.</DIV>

[Dr. Dr]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ildarus wrote:<BR> <P>I don 't understand where this gives the larger guilds any advantage.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Obviously.</DIV>

[Ildarus]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dr. Drug wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ildarus wrote:<BR> <P>I don 't understand where this gives the larger guilds any advantage.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Obviously.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You missed my point. For everyone involved this is a win win. The large raiding guilds are going to level faster, which they would have anyways. THe small to medium guilds will raise faster now too because everybody will now contribute. The same goes for the guild that was created for the comaraderie. Everyone can now take part in the guild leveling.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Granted there are going to be those people that spend more time in game than real life that think everything in the game should be leveled as fast as possible. These people will form smaller guilds w/ all there alts and 5 other friends. Within in a month they will be level 30 guild. Great, everyone will be able to tell who these guilds are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lets just focus on how it will affect "our" guilds and quite griping. This way when it goes live we will know what needs to be done. Like I said in another post chances are pretty good this is going live whether we like it or not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>Another thing. In my opinion, no ones opinion means anything when they say it anonymously. If you have something to say stand behind it and let everyone in the game know who you are and post a signature of some kind. Your RL is still anonymous.</FONT></STRONG></DIV><p>Message Edited by Ildarus on <span class=date_text>07-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:37 AM</span>

[Raster]

<DIV> <P>Don't like.  Everyone should be able to contribute.</P> <P>I like the idea on test IF it allows an inactive account rank or <FONT size=3><FONT color=#ccffcc>only counts the status of active players</FONT>.</FONT></P> <P>Also I think the minimum # should be higher</P> <DIV> <P><STRONG><FONT size=1><FONT color=#ffffcc>*** Guild Status ***</FONT></FONT></STRONG></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc size=1></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc size=1>- We have removed the concept of patrons from guilds. Earned status is now divided by the number of unique accounts in your guild (<FONT color=#ffff00>minimum of 6</FONT>, maximum of 24).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc size=1>- Example 1: If you have 40 members in your guild (10 of which are alts) you'd have 30 unique accounts.<SPAN>  </SPAN>That's over the maximum cap of 24, so any new guild status earned would be divided by 24.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc size=1>- Example 2: If you have 4 members in your guild and you earn guild status, it will be divided by 6 (the minimum number).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc size=1></FONT> </P> <P>Example 3:  If you have 24 members in your guild (12-15 currently active/patron) it would be divided by 24.  Giving your guild 1/2 status per completion versus current.</P> <P>Example 4:  If you deguild all but the 6 most active it would be divided by 6.  Giving your guild 4 times more versus keeping all guildies or 2 times more status per completion versus current.</P> <P> </P> <P>Great for Small 6 player guilds or medium "family" type guild willing to drop a couple of the slow kids/grandparents off on the side of the road.</P> <P>Great for Large active 24+ player guilds.  I believe a bigger guild should have some advantage in leveling. </P> <P>Bad for my guild of 15 active with 24+ uniquie accounts.  We don't have a problem giving patron status to guildies who want it .. ie more casual/family.  Just hate to see us penalized because of it.  This change seems to be encouraging deguilding members who are not active.</P> <P> </P> <P>Questions I have:  What goal is this change trying to achieve?  Test notes should include reasons for any big changes so we can understand the logic and minimize the number of irrational or misinformed posts.</P></DIV></DIV>

[Suta]

<DIV>As I said before, this is the best idea to ever come from the community. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which usually means the Dev's won't use it <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[dopr]

<P>Let me guess your guild is at 12 players in size?  </P> <P>Basically problem they had with the guild system was the inability to allow everyone to contribute to the guild at their own pace.  PROBLEM SOLVED.</P> <P>At their own pace MEANS that some guilds will not advance as quick as others.  I am with a large guild now.  We have move 300 folks.  Only about 20 are full time players and I for one am NOT complaining about the 24 cap or any other cap.  The fact that I can once again contribute to the guild is wonderful and if you don't agree then become a follower YOURSELF and find out how it feels on the other side of the fence.</P> <P>As for some hokey system with numbers, please NO.  Any number is going to have a guild, smaller than that, any guild with casual players, or any guild that doesn't have that exact # of players or more playing hard, crying for mom.  </P> <P>So please stop playing with numbers and allow the system that will have everyone contributing AT THEIR OWN PACE feel as if they are part of something.</P> <P>And by the way, YES, if you have a guild that is a casual or family style you are not going to hit 30 as quick as all the die-hards.  Get over it the world still has injury, wheelchairs, and disease why should the game be any more fair than life.</P> <P> </P>

[Drtydog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Auelaen wrote:<BR> <DIV>Basically, the top 12 idea is that the 12 people with the most status points in the guild would be the ones contributing to the guild exp and level. If a contributor leaves the guild, the person in 13th place would replace him. If a contributor goes inactive, another guild member will eventually pass him/her up. </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Forget all the large guild vs small guild stuff..if i have 112 members in my guild that all want to "feel like they are contributing" and "work" toward level 30 what do i tell the person who jsut started playing?  "too bad bro, i know we've never lost a single member in the guild but hey you can hope someone gets [Removed for Content] off and leaves"  or i know how about this "let's all compete with each other and just do writs so my toon actually contributes"....</P> <P>A guild should BELONG to all members not the 1st 12 that hit 50 and have all the status points.!!!!!!</P> <P>The only fair way is to allow every member to contribute at thier own pace.  Yes, this means larger guilds will have an advantage, but you knwo what?  LARGE GUILDS ARE HARDER TO MANAGE<BR></P>

[SavinDwa]

<P>The "Top 12 System" and many of the others I've seen are nice ideas, perhaps even good.  However, don't we already have a very similar system?  Its called the patron system.  A guild could just keep their top 12 contributors as patrons.  No code change.  I'm still waiting for someone from SOE to explaing "what is the problem with the current guild status system that is on the live servers" ... I assume they are trying to fix a problem .. but I still don't know what this problem is.  The system currently on test seems to cause more problems that it corrects(?).</P> <P>The one thing that might be nice in the new system is the conversion from character to account based ...perhaps all we need to do in the current system on live is change it so that if you make someone a patron then you make all of the alts patrons as well and when calculating the number to divide by you use the number of accounts that have patron status in the guild rather than the number of characters.</P> <P>Until someone explains to me what is the huge problem with the current system on live my vote would be leave it alone .. its not perfect, but its workable.</P>