THe fix to the new Guild system

[Korizan]

After reading all the various comments there is a simple fix. 99 % of the arguements appear to be on 2 lines of thought. 1 - We have inactive players and what are we to do about them and why should we be punished for keeping them on the roles. 2 -  Guilds  with more then 24 Unique Accounts have an advantage. Well I will deal with 2 first. If a Guild can consistantly get 30 or 50 people to do writs every week then the more power to them they are reaping the advantages of being in a big Guild. That is it stop complaining about it they have worked to get there Guild up in numbers and will reap the benefits. In numbers comes power and they deserve some benefits from it. End of this issue I am not going to even argue about this one as it is NOT a valid arguement. So let move on the the real issue. Getting  penalized for having inactive members. THis is wrong and should be fixed. THe solution is actually very simple. IF a player does not log on for a week then she/he is considered inactive and no longer counts in the formula In other words 12  accounts all active  works out to Writ / 12 - status points gained 12 accounts 10 active works out to Writ / 10 = status points gained Simple no hassle you can have Guild members leave for a month or 2 and return without hurting your Guild. So the question is how do you make this person active again. Simple again all they have to do is remain logged on for 2 hours and they will be active. Add in one more rule to prevent people from abusing it..... When you are in inactive state any writs you do will NOT count toward Guild status. That is it simple and easy. No worries about people going inactive. If they do but have a minute or 2 they can log in say hi and log out without effecting there status. As you can't get credit for any writs done under inactive status they can't abuse the system. I believe this issue is at the heart of cost complaints and this solution would fix it. Granted it might need a tweak here or there but what do you think ?

[Tockl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Korizan wrote:<BR>That is it stop complaining about it they have worked to get there Guild up in numbers and will reap the benefits. <BR>In numbers comes power and they deserve some benefits from it. <BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I for one am always impressed at how much work it takes to zerg content.<BR>

[Mor]

There is already a slight advantage for large guilds with lots of active patrons.   There is no reason to change this. <div></div>

[Gorkk00]

<span><blockquote><hr>Tockley wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Korizan wrote:That is it stop complaining about it they have worked to get there Guild up in numbers and will reap the benefits. In numbers comes power and they deserve some benefits from it. <hr> </blockquote>I for one am always impressed at how much work it takes to zerg content. <div></div><hr></blockquote>The hard work to get a big guild is simple enough: - either you pick anyone you meet, you'll have lots of people, sure => you most likely will have a bad atmosphere in guild and people won't stay, and it'll be know quite soon on the server, so you soon won't be able to recruit people except morons. You'll have a level 30 guild of morons, great! - either you carefuly pick the people you get in so that they fit in the guild, to keep you're guild a guild it's good to be in, and keep the way you wanted it to be (wanted a family guild? family doesn't mean small, there's big families. Family means everybody know each other, help each other, enjoy playing with each other) => that is hard work, and not easy to obtain. And still, there is the roleplay argument: a guild of 120 people working hard for the city SHALL have a better reputation to the city than a guild of 6 people working hard... And everybody's deeds in guild matters when it comes to the guild reputation. If you have a guild of 120 people but only 12 are working for the city, they won't have such a good reputation as a guild of 120 people working for the city, that's just common sense. As it has been pointed out (and not just thrown in like a fact) by many people who took time to think about it is: - inactive accounts shall not count toward the divider (then it's needed to define what will be an inactive account: imho any suspended account should immediately count as inactive, and others be inactive after a set amount of time without logging - say 15 days for example). - the cap of 24 needs to be changed, but it shall not be just removed (else a guild of 12 working people will level at the exact same pace as a guild of 120 working people which is plain wrong regarding the roleplay). The divider should be a non linear function of active accounts, say a function in SQRT(active accounts). People keep saying "hey, in my guild only 6 people over the 20 wants to contribute, i should not level slower than a guild of 6 where everybody contributes", that's plainly wrong... It's just like saying "hey, i'm only soloing the game, I should not level slower than people grouping all the way up". Some are even asking that bigger guilds level slower than smaller ones, which would be like asking for leveling faster soloing than grouping... Again, WRONG! If guilds with people who are not willing to contribute want to level fast, then these members don't fit with the guild spirit. If the guild spirit is to have lots of casual players who don't want to contribute at all to the guild level, then guild leader should not expect to level as fast as a guild which main goal is leveling. You can't have the butter and the money of the butter. People have to just stop saying this system is crap whereas, as is it's not worse than the current one, and with 2 minor tweaks it'll be far better!</span><div></div>

[Mor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gorkk00 wrote:<span> People keep saying "hey, in my guild only 6 people over the 20 wants to contribute, i should not level slower than a guild of 6 where everybody contributes", that's plainly wrong... <font color="#ccffff">Math is your friend Gorkk.  Under the current system there is an advantage to having lots of active patrons.    There's an even bigger advantage if you rotate patrons, but even if you don't  there is still an advantage. </font></span><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Gorkk00]

<span><blockquote><hr>Morie wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Gorkk00 wrote:<span> People keep saying "hey, in my guild only 6 people over the 20 wants to contribute, i should not level slower than a guild of 6 where everybody contributes", that's plainly wrong... <font color="#ccffff">Math is your friend Gorkk.  Under the current system there is an advantage to having lots of active patrons.    There's an even bigger advantage if you rotate patrons, but even if you don't  there is still an advantage. </font></span><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Oh, there is an advantage having 50 active patrons over having 12 active patrons? Absolutely none, as points contributed are divided by the max of 12 and the number of patrons. So 50 active patrons earning each 1000 status will give in the end 1000 status to the guild, and 12 active patrongs earning each 1000 status will give 1000 status too to the guild, which makes NO SENSE. And by the way, your comment has really nothing to do with what you quote... Rotate patrons? Oh yeah... "Listen X, we have 20 patrons currently with those who are completing heritages, so just wait a week (or more, cause there is already 10 people waiting) to complete your heritage, when the item won't be ever useful to you." Terrific. Maye in your guild you have only 20 people who wants to contribute over 200 people, but mind you in mine, we nearly all want to contribute, thus making waiting times if we don't want to loose the benefit of the completed heritages by the dimishing return of writs made by writ grinders during this week. And, like lots of others in the guild, i'm not grinding writ, but when i was a patron (we had 30 at that time) before LU12, I used to regularly take writs in city and complete it while adventuring (not seeking the mob i needed for these), and did not lots of writs a week, like maybe 4-5 only. When going tradeskilling I was used to take some tradeskill writs and do some of them. But hey, i won't ask a one week patronship for these now, 'cause it'll in fact hurt guild xp, so i don't do them any more, like most people in guild do. Just sticking with working on some heritages to have a max done the same week where i'll do some writs too, so that maybe i won't hurt guild xp during that patronage week... Gee, the patron system makes no sense for roleplay. When anybody in a guild do something for the city, why would it do absolutely nothing for the guild status when they are not a "patron"? That makes no sense at all... The best way to have a fast leveling guild right now? Take 12 level 50 players for the guild, make them patrons and grind writs. In group at level 50, chosing carefuly the writ they take (let's have the two groups take different mobs of course <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />), each group can take 4 writs in an hour, that is 48 writs per hour for the 12 people. Port back. Rinse and repeat. What about the other people in guild, who are not level 50 and don't play 12 hours a day? Well currently you can just say them "sorry friend you can't contribute, cause with our writ grinders, we'll loose guild status making you patron for a week while you complete your heritage and do a few writs". So yes, the patron system is completly broken.</span><div></div>

[Mor]

There is a modifier less than one on the divisor.  Maybe you should read up on the subject. <div></div>