A FRESH look at the guild status system.

[Belizarius]

<DIV>Yes, there are drawbacks to the patron system.  It would be nice if all guild members could contribute something to guild status.</DIV> <DIV>Yes there are drawbacks to all the alternatives I have seen so far as well.  Top 12 gives little incentive for the member who ranks 30th.</DIV> <DIV>The system currently on test WILL give big guilds a huge advantage over small-medium guilds, and a lot of people are upset by that (me included).</DIV> <DIV>Removing the cap however, will make it very hard on those same large guilds, I think unfairly so.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is my fresh (?) proposal.  See what you think.</DIV> <DIV>Forget about counting active accounts (too easy to exploit with a few accounts and lots of alts).  <EM><STRONG>All</STRONG> </EM>member <STRONG><EM>characters</EM></STRONG> are counted.  As you will see, having lots of alts or inactive accounts really won't hurt you under my system either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How your contribution gets divided, depends on your character's <EM>personal</EM> (not contributed) status, and how that <STRONG>ranks</STRONG> within your guild, at the moment you do your handin/quest completion.  Alternately, you could base the rank on contributed status /shrug.  Not too fussed either way.  I think personal status might be a better bet though.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, if you are in the top 6 of your guild, your contribution is divided by 6.  (At first I was going to say top 12/12, but the system now on test has gone with 6, as a pacifier to tiny guilds /shrug.  People will probably complain if I revert back to 12 LOL)</DIV> <DIV>In you are not in the top 6, it's divided by your rank.  <STRONG>No caps</STRONG> on the rank.  If your personal status ranks you 20th in the guild, then divide by 20 and so on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What does this mean</DIV> <DIV>1) all members can contribute to guild status.</DIV> <DIV>2) bigger guilds have an advantage, but not an unbalancing one.  The marginal benefits diminish as you get bigger, but don't disappear.</DIV> <DIV>3) Very small guilds get the same benefit under this system, as with the system now on test. (That's just me trying to please everyone.  Can leave it at 12 for all I care).</DIV> <DIV>4) no more managing patrons.</DIV> <DIV>5) The harder your work on your personal status, the more efficient your contributions to the guild will become.  A little incentive for people who attain a lot of status.</DIV> <DIV>6) The problems/exploits of alts/inactive accounts should be a non-issue.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Comments/criticisms please.</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Belizarius on <span class=date_text>08-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:50 PM</span>

[Lonw]

I've always thought taking the TOP x number of characters' SP into account ONLY is the best way to go. It eliminates the ability to make alt HQ bots, unless they put in lots of effort. It also creates a wonderful atmosphere of friendly rivalry. If the guild UI identified you as a patron (ie notes you are in the top 12 or whatever) automatcially, you know you gotta work hard to keep it with the non-patrons snapping at your heels to get that tag. And non patrons know who they gotta out-SP to get that Patron tag. Also, one character leaving the guild creates less of an impact (next highest SP just shuffles up), though Sony seem happy to remove guild status loss anyway so it's less of an issue. <div></div>

[TheDragon]

<P>Either the original post's outline or the first reply's post would be MUCH better methods to handle guild xp than what's currently on test.</P> <P>In either case, I would feel the balance between all types of guilds and work needed to obtain guild lvls equitable.</P>

[Belizarius]

<P>I'm not convinced by the simple 'Top 12' system.  I don't see a lot of incentive for the 20th ranked member to work on status.  They have to work their butt off just to get into the top 12, and when they finally do, guild status only goes up by a fraction.</P> <P>Let everyone contribute.  But the more personal status you have, the more effective your contribution will be.</P> <P> </P>

[Urbanna]

<span><blockquote><hr>Belizarius wrote:<p>I'm not convinced by the simple 'Top 12' system.  I don't see a lot of incentive for the 20th ranked member to work on status.  They have to work their butt off just to get into the top 12, and when they finally do, guild status only goes up by a fraction.</p> <p>Let everyone contribute.  But the more personal status you have, the more effective your contribution will be.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>If you're guild member number 125 and brand new to the game....you will NEVER be able to catch up in your system and provide a real help to the guild...your contribution is simply far too diluted. Your idea just takes the top 12 and adds a small 'moral comfort' for new players and completely negates huge guilds' effectiveness compared to small/medium guilds.</span><div></div>

[Tockl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Urbannaja wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belizarius wrote:<BR> <P>I'm not convinced by the simple 'Top 12' system.  I don't see a lot of incentive for the 20th ranked member to work on status.  They have to work their butt off just to get into the top 12, and when they finally do, guild status only goes up by a fraction.</P> <P>Let everyone contribute.  But the more personal status you have, the more effective your contribution will be.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>If you're guild member number 125 and brand new to the game....you will NEVER be able to catch up in your system and provide a real help to the guild...your contribution is simply far too diluted. Your idea just takes the top 12 and adds a small 'moral comfort' for new players and completely negates huge guilds' effectiveness compared to small/medium guilds.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Exactly.  It isn't a bad idea.  It's even actually one of the better ones out there.  Person 125 will NEVER be able to catch up, whereas in even the top 12 system, people are on equal footings as far as heritages/writs counting the same.</P> <P><STRONG>However</STRONG>, make a way so people can catch up, and I love it.</P> <P>Everyone is divided by 12, the way they are in the current system with 12 patrons.  The top 10 vaules are calculated at 100% shown.  The next 10 are 50% shown.  The next 10 are 15% shown, etc...</P> <P>The most common argument argument I hear against this is that most players won't be able to understand it.  "Why when Bob did JBoots did guild xp jump 5%, and when I did it only jumped 1%?  The numbers were the SAME!"</P> <P>Personally, I think the average person needs to understand far more complicated things in this game than this.  I think it would work fine.</P>

[Urbanna]

<span><blockquote><hr>Tockley wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Urbannaja wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Belizarius wrote: <p>I'm not convinced by the simple 'Top 12' system.  I don't see a lot of incentive for the 20th ranked member to work on status.  They have to work their butt off just to get into the top 12, and when they finally do, guild status only goes up by a fraction.</p> <p>Let everyone contribute.  But the more personal status you have, the more effective your contribution will be.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>If you're guild member number 125 and brand new to the game....you will NEVER be able to catch up in your system and provide a real help to the guild...your contribution is simply far too diluted. Your idea just takes the top 12 and adds a small 'moral comfort' for new players and completely negates huge guilds' effectiveness compared to small/medium guilds.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Exactly.  It isn't a bad idea.  It's even actually one of the better ones out there.  Person 125 will NEVER be able to catch up, whereas in even the top 12 system, people are on equal footings as far as heritages/writs counting the same.</p> <p><strong>However</strong>, make a way so people can catch up, and I love it.</p> <p>Everyone is divided by 12, the way they are in the current system with 12 patrons.  The top 10 vaules are calculated at 100% shown.  The next 10 are 50% shown.  The next 10 are 15% shown, etc...</p> <p>The most common argument argument I hear against this is that most players won't be able to understand it.  "Why when Bob did JBoots did guild xp jump 5%, and when I did it only jumped 1%?  The numbers were the SAME!"</p> <p>Personally, I think the average person needs to understand far more complicated things in this game than this.  I think it would work fine.</p><hr></blockquote>As I posted in another similar thread...a way to let people catch up would be to simply reset the top 12 every month or so. That way EVERYONE will get a chance to catch up and be in the top 12...there'd be no stagnation...and after each reset it would be a new competition for top honors within the guild...</span><div></div>

[ErroneousFr]

<P><FONT size=2>I posted this in another thread but this thread seems to have more intelligent debate than complaint so I'm posting the thought again:</FONT></P> <DIV><FONT size=2>I'd like to flesh out the sliding scale option a little more. Why not have something along the following lines:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT size=2>1st x guild members count 100% (where x is 12 say)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>2nd x guild members count 75% </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>3rd x guild members count 50% etc. etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>members at the end of the scale add no less than 10%.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2>Adjust the percentages as needed to achieve balance. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>This way everyone's contribution counts but there is an element of getting lost in the noise if the guild is very large. </FONT><FONT size=2>A member's position in the rank is determined by their contribution and how active they are. It would be fairly easy to determine an "activity factor" based on login activity and playing time (all of which is currently recorded). People only remember what you did last so I think there has to be something akin to status decay but it should be something that does not impact a reasonably active guild and can be easily undone by a guild member becoming active again.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>For ex-members their contribution no longer increases and will eventually become less important. How you handle new members who already have status is another matter. I like the idea of their status counting but perhaps they start at the bottom of the scale, i.e., 10% even if the guild is small, and they work their way up as time progresses. After a while a star player is recognized for who they are, what they have done and who they are associated with, few remember who they were with in the early days.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thoughts?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Dythn,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Oggok Fury</FONT></DIV>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>Urbannaja wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Tockley wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Urbannaja wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Belizarius wrote: <p>I'm not convinced by the simple 'Top 12' system.  I don't see a lot of incentive for the 20th ranked member to work on status.  They have to work their butt off just to get into the top 12, and when they finally do, guild status only goes up by a fraction.</p> <p>Let everyone contribute.  But the more personal status you have, the more effective your contribution will be.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>If you're guild member number 125 and brand new to the game....you will NEVER be able to catch up in your system and provide a real help to the guild...your contribution is simply far too diluted. Your idea just takes the top 12 and adds a small 'moral comfort' for new players and completely negates huge guilds' effectiveness compared to small/medium guilds.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Exactly.  It isn't a bad idea.  It's even actually one of the better ones out there.  Person 125 will NEVER be able to catch up, whereas in even the top 12 system, people are on equal footings as far as heritages/writs counting the same.</p> <p><strong>However</strong>, make a way so people can catch up, and I love it.</p> <p>Everyone is divided by 12, the way they are in the current system with 12 patrons.  The top 10 vaules are calculated at 100% shown.  The next 10 are 50% shown.  The next 10 are 15% shown, etc...</p> <p>The most common argument argument I hear against this is that most players won't be able to understand it.  "Why when Bob did JBoots did guild xp jump 5%, and when I did it only jumped 1%?  The numbers were the SAME!"</p> <p>Personally, I think the average person needs to understand far more complicated things in this game than this.  I think it would work fine.</p><hr></blockquote>As I posted in another similar thread...a way to let people catch up would be to simply reset the top 12 every month or so. That way EVERYONE will get a chance to catch up and be in the top 12...there'd be no stagnation...and after each reset it would be a new competition for top honors within the guild...</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I practice, I think this just ends up mimicking the current system on the live servers, with a one month rotation instead of a 1 week rotation. I am not saying that is a bad thing, though. And, it would be an improvment if total guild contribution for each player is maintained, so if this month I contrubute zero, next month I contribute 5000, and the following month, 7000, I have a total listed of 12,000. That way, those players who hae contributed but end up at the 13th spot don't get discouraged seeing a big fat zero that month. It is also human nature that this type of competition could cause problems, especially in large guilds where there are 24+ players all close to being in the top 12. The desire to be in the top 12, and be seen as contributing, to be seen getting all the accolades, could, and will in some cases, cause players to be less cooperative with their friendly competition. This could cause some headaches for guild leaders who, in the current system, have everything running smoothly. </span><div></div>

[Zapo_Stormlight]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ErroneousFrog wrote:<BR> <P><FONT size=2>I posted this in another thread but this thread seems to have more intelligent debate than complaint so I'm posting the thought again:</FONT></P> <DIV><FONT size=2>I'd like to flesh out the sliding scale option a little more. Why not have something along the following lines:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT size=2>1st x guild members count 100% (where x is 12 say)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>2nd x guild members count 75% </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>3rd x guild members count 50% etc. etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>members at the end of the scale add no less than 10%.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2>Adjust the percentages as needed to achieve balance. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>This way everyone's contribution counts but there is an element of getting lost in the noise if the guild is very large. </FONT><FONT size=2>A member's position in the rank is determined by their contribution and how active they are. It would be fairly easy to determine an "activity factor" based on login activity and playing time (all of which is currently recorded). People only remember what you did last so I think there has to be something akin to status decay but it should be something that does not impact a reasonably active guild and can be easily undone by a guild member becoming active again.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>For ex-members their contribution no longer increases and will eventually become less important. How you handle new members who already have status is another matter. I like the idea of their status counting but perhaps they start at the bottom of the scale, i.e., 10% even if the guild is small, and they work their way up as time progresses. After a while a star player is recognized for who they are, what they have done and who they are associated with, few remember who they were with in the early days.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thoughts?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Dythn,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Oggok Fury</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I love the OP idea.  Your idea however still gives an advantage to a large guild over a small one.  The system should be fair for all guild sizes.  If a member of a large guild feels hes lost in the noise as low man on the totem pole then he can join a small guild and be the big man on campus.</P> <P>The OPs idea provides a guild to guild fairness.  Your point seems to be give the low man a fighting chance over others in the guild.  However the Guild System is not a Player vs Player in the guild system it is a Guild vs Guild system.  If he wants to be a bigger contributer overall then can either outperform and move up thus increasing his gains or leave the guild and join a smaller one where his current output provides a much bigger boost to the guild.</P> <P>Overall if the OPs idea goes through all guilds can maintain current grind output.  The only real problems are for the new player joining a guild.  Well let them join the small ones.</P> <P> </P>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>Belizarius wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div>Here is my fresh (?) proposal.  See what you think.</div> <div>Forget about counting active accounts (too easy to exploit with a few accounts and lots of alts).  <em><strong>All</strong> </em>member <strong><em>characters</em></strong> are counted.  As you will see, having lots of alts or inactive accounts really won't hurt you under my system either.</div> <div> </div> <div>How your contribution gets divided, depends on your character's <em>personal</em> (not contributed) status, and how that <strong>ranks</strong> within your guild, at the moment you do your handin/quest completion.  Alternately, you could base the rank on contributed status /shrug.  Not too fussed either way.  I think personal status might be a better bet though.</div> <div> </div> <div>Anyway, if you are in the top 6 of your guild, your contribution is divided by 6.  (At first I was going to say top 12/12, but the system now on test has gone with 6, as a pacifier to tiny guilds /shrug.  People will probably complain if I revert back to 12 LOL)</div> <div>In you are not in the top 6, it's divided by your rank.  <strong>No caps</strong> on the rank.  If your personal status ranks you 20th in the guild, then divide by 20 and so on.</div> <div> </div> <div>What does this mean</div> <div>1) all members can contribute to guild status.</div> <div>2) bigger guilds have an advantage, but not an unbalancing one.  The marginal benefits diminish as you get bigger, but don't disappear.</div> <div>3) Very small guilds get the same benefit under this system, as with the system now on test. (That's just me trying to please everyone.  Can leave it at 12 for all I care).</div> <div>4) no more managing patrons.</div> <div>5) The harder your work on your personal status, the more efficient your contributions to the guild will become.  A little incentive for people who attain a lot of status.</div> <div>6) The problems/exploits of alts/inactive accounts should be a non-issue.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Comments/criticisms please.</div> <div><span class="time_text"></span> </div><p>Message Edited by Belizarius on <span class="date_text">08-03-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:50 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I like this. Perhaps It should be based on earned personal status, not current status, since status can be spent. Also, the question arises whether it is personal status earned while in the guild, or just personal status accumulated historically. If the latter, then someone entering a guild could be in the top six from the start. I don't claim this is a problem, it is just an observation. I see one potential problem with this solution:  If the top 12 contributors finish all HQs, and decide not to do writs, then the effective average divisor becomes very high, since the smallest divisor of anyone contributing is 13.  By the time folks start to catch up, they will be done their HQs as well. this gets us right back to the current patron system, but w/o the ability to rotate unless folks leave the guild. Regardless, a lot of the ideas that have been discussed have advantages, but they have the disadvantage of being very different from what is on test now (LU13a) Anything the devs do will probably be just a tweak of that. My guess is, they will raise the cap, or make it variable, and that is about it. <span>:smileyindifferent:</span> </span><div></div>

[Nabu_g]

i might be wrong becasue it does not make sense to me but what if guild member ranked 7 has 10 points more that guild member ranked 8 if they both work on the same writs and hertiages at the same time after a short period guild member 7 will have contribed more to the guild and they are seperated by alot more even though they did they same amount of work could someone explain this noone could move up the ladder without killing off the person above them <div></div>

[Nianq]

<P>Personally I like the current patron set up. However, since SOE seems determined to scrap a good thing and since I hate the system now on test I'll admit I like this suggestion better than most I've seen. </P> <P>If I understand this proposal correctly then the top 6 members would have their PSP / 6<BR>#7 would have his PSP earned divided by 7<BR>#12 would have his PSP earned divided by 12<BR>#24 would have his PSP earned divided by 24<BR>#50 would have his PSP earned divided by 50<BR>#100 would have his PSP earned divided by 100<BR>#250 would have his PSP earned divided by 250</P> <P>For this to work Im guessing it would be based off the member's Personal SP since joining the guild. I'd guess the Status column on the guild window would have to be changed to PSP rather than GSP so people could see where they stand. Also I'd think that this displayed PSP would be reset on leaving a guild but the actual PSP as shown on the Persona window would remain. This wouldn't show how much is being contributed so the "Why was my Jboots worth less than Joe's?" wouldn't be as common cause it wouldn't be seen as much. </P> <P>Also I see several people commenting on how it everyone starts at 0 then it would take too long for a new member to contribute meaningfully. However, that ignores the fact that many people don't do writs or HQs. I've been tracking my guild's status since March and I can tell you that only 2/3s of the guild have done 1 writ and only 1/4 have more than 10k status according to the EQ2 Players roster and of that 25% only the patrons do writs on a regular basis. So, if there were 300 characters in the guild then as soon as a new member did one writ theyd jump from rank 300 to 200. If they do a few HQs they'd be ranked at 75. Now i'll admit that having your writs divided by 75 isn't a whole lot of GSP but then you arent working as hard as the people on the top that are having their status divided by 6. </P> <P>This system would allow large guilds to level faster than smaller guilds but it wouldn't be as dramatic as the system on test. Personally I feel that the only way to have the equallity SOE promised when EQ2 went live is to keep patrons in the game and have the PSP earned by patrons divided by the number of patrons. Now if they wish to lower the floor to 6 instead of 12 fine it's still leaves the speed of a guild's leveling dependant on how much the guild wants it and how hard they're willing to work for it, instead of how big they are.</P>

[ErroneousFr]

<DIV><FONT size=2>Zapo wrote:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>I love the OP idea.  Your idea however still gives an advantage to a large guild over a small one.  The system should be fair for all guild sizes.  If a member of a large guild feels hes lost in the noise as low man on the totem pole then he can join a small guild and be the big man on campus.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>My response:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>I'm not sure why anyone would think that larger guilds would not have an advantage over smaller guilds, the larger guilds have more people gettng in the news! What I am thinking is that the advantage should not be a linear one. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>People join guild for various reasons, some like the small family, some like the large war band.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Keeping the debate going ...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Dythn,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Small member of a large-ish guild!</FONT></DIV>

[ErroneousFr]

<P><FONT size=2>I also like the OP system as it allows for everyone's contribution to be felt. I would prefer a cap on the rank though, something over the 100 mark.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>I'm still keen to see some form of decay brought back. Something based on activity. If you play for a few hours a week or more you would count as active. If you are inactive then the value of your contribution starts to decay. This also gives the new blood something to work at as their contribution becomes more important.</FONT></P>

[Belizarius]

<P>Thank you for the comments, everyone.  Keep it coming.</P> <P>To try to answer some questions raised.</P> <P>I personally prefer basing  the rank on individual's current total personal status.  This reduces (but does not eliminate) the issue of people being unable to 'catch up' in rank.  To be honest, if you join a guild and are ranked 125 in personal status in that guild, I don't see how you <EM><STRONG>can</STRONG> </EM>expect to be on the same footing as someone who is ranked 5 or 6 in the guild, without a lot of hard work.  You rank is meant to be earned not handed out for free.</P> <P>This system allows that people can play their alts and contribute status, but it generally won't have as much impact as with their mains.  I still think this is a good thing.</P> <P>I don't have any great objections to capping the rank at around 100 as proposed, although I think the actual difference either way is probably not significant enough to bother.  As mentioned my goal was to make it less efficient, but not impossible, to rely on alts to raise guild status.  If that works out, then generally mains will rank higher than alts.  Not so many guilds out there with >100 actual accounts, all of whom are interested in contributing status. It shouldn't take a new main too long to overtake most alts if they are interested in status.  /shrug</P> <P>In hindsight I also think that setting the initial tier to 12 instead of 6 is probably justified.  Because remember, we are using characters not accounts.  An initial threshhold of 6 as currently on test, mostly made sense because they were trying to count actual accounts rather than characters.  A guild with 6 actual accounts, each of whom plays 1 main and alt, can still run through HQs for all 12 chars and still do pretty darn well with an initial divisor of 12.  So I think 12 is still reasonable in this case.  Maybe I'm biased against 'tiny' guilds.</P> <P>I do realise that this system can be exploited, but to do so you have to actually deguild members, and the guild leader would have to research each member's current personal status (the guild window only shows contributed status doesn't it?).  I think that majority of players would find it not worth the hassle to work the exploit.  Plus most people don't like having their mains deguilded...  I suppose you could put some blocks in on instant re-guilding if you felt the need to discourage it further.</P>

[Zapo_Stormlight]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belizarius wrote:<BR> <P>Thank you for the comments, everyone.  Keep it coming.</P> <P>To try to answer some questions raised.</P> <P>I personally prefer basing  the rank on individual's current total personal status.  This reduces (but does not eliminate) the issue of people being unable to 'catch up' in rank.  To be honest, if you join a guild and are ranked 125 in personal status in that guild, I don't see how you <EM><STRONG>can</STRONG> </EM>expect to be on the same footing as someone who is ranked 5 or 6 in the guild, without a lot of hard work.  You rank is meant to be earned not handed out for free.</P> <P>This system allows that people can play their alts and contribute status, but it generally won't have as much impact as with their mains.  I still think this is a good thing.</P> <P>I don't have any great objections to capping the rank at around 100 as proposed, although I think the actual difference either way is probably not significant enough to bother.  As mentioned my goal was to make it less efficient, but not impossible, to rely on alts to raise guild status.  If that works out, then generally mains will rank higher than alts.  Not so many guilds out there with >100 actual accounts, all of whom are interested in contributing status. It shouldn't take a new main too long to overtake most alts if they are interested in status.  /shrug</P> <P>In hindsight I also think that setting the initial tier to 12 instead of 6 is probably justified.  Because remember, we are using characters not accounts.  An initial threshhold of 6 as currently on test, mostly made sense because they were trying to count actual accounts rather than characters.  A guild with 6 actual accounts, each of whom plays 1 main and alt, can still run through HQs for all 12 chars and still do pretty darn well with an initial divisor of 12.  So I think 12 is still reasonable in this case.  Maybe I'm biased against 'tiny' guilds.</P> <P>I do realise that this system can be exploited, but to do so you have to actually deguild members, and the guild leader would have to research each member's current personal status (the guild window only shows contributed status doesn't it?).  I think that majority of players would find it not worth the hassle to work the exploit.  Plus most people don't like having their mains deguilded...  I suppose you could put some blocks in on instant re-guilding if you felt the need to discourage it further.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Exactly by basing it off Personal Status people lower on the rankings have the real potential of moving up the list if the higher end people slack off.  Since Personal Status number are not divided they will equal out to those on the high end of the ranking if they did the same HQs and number of writs.  However one addendum.  A new catagory of Personal Status should be saved and recorded seperately ...that is Only the Personal Status gained while in the guild should be used for this ranking.  Thus if you leave the guild this recorded number would reset to zero when joining a new guild...ie basicly it will only show the amount of personal status gained while in the new guild.</P> <P>Then this new Guild Only Personal Status number can be used to rank the individual as to how much they have contributed (Effort not guild XP).  Thus if thier Effort Personal Status is higher than others they will be ranked higher.  Allowing them to contribute much more toward Guild XP.</P> <P> </P>

[Zapo_Stormlight]

<P>I am sorry to see this thread loose steam as so far I believe this to be the best option for guild status I have seen todate.  Esp. so if the ranking was done based on personal status gained while in the guild instead of based on the guild XP gained for the guild.</P> <P> </P>

[Belizarius]

<P>Thank you for the bump Zapo.  I still think it's the best system too *blush*!  I haven't seen any really convincing arguments against this system.  Maybe that's why the thread's gone quiet, as most forum posts tend to be negatives rather than positives...</P> <P>It <STRONG><EM>would</EM> </STRONG>be a little complex to code compared to others, but not incredibly so.  I think it would work out well for all guild sizes.</P> <P>Sadly, I have to agree with Screamin below<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Screamin' 103 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR><BR>Regardless, a lot of the ideas that have been discussed have advantages, but they have the disadvantage of being very different from what is on test now (LU13a) Anything the devs do will probably be just a tweak of that. My guess is, they will raise the cap, or make it variable, and that is about it. <SPAN>:smileyindifferent:</SPAN><BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I won't be at all suprised if SOE go with the system on test and bump it up to say, 36 cap.  Then again, you never know LOL.<BR>

[WodinAu]

Belizarius, I really like this idea. Much better than the other ideas floating around, including mine <span>:smileyvery-happy: Works well and gives everyone something to smile about Also allows the Larger guilds to still progress faster than the smaller guilds but not by the huge jumps as with the 'current' and 'on test' systems. Very nicely done.. Just hope the Devs take note before its to late <span>:smileywink:</span> </span><div></div>

[Crawflo]

<P>I would also like to add my backing to this system. I have been giving the problem some thought of late and it's not an easy problem to solve, this method is by far the most fair and practical I have heard.</P> <P>I don't like the current patron system as it means a person lives with pressure to do writs/heritage or guilt for holding up a patron place that they aren't using effectively, either of which are not welcome in a game we are playing for fun. I don't want to feel that the patron police are looking over their shoulders at me and judging whether i'm contributing enough or not, let me contribute but at my own pace, whatever that is.</P> <P> </P> <P>Crawdad</P>

[SavinDwa]

<DIV>Belizarius,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your guild idea is interesting, but unfortunately it does not address the major issues that many guilds are facing.  let me try and explain the situation that I believe is causing the problem.  With the exception of a few very hard core guilds most consist of people who have real lives and they fit EQ2 in when they can.  This means that most guilds have a mixture of players who can play anywhere from 5-40 hours a week.  To make matters worse, because real life comes first these hours can change.  A player may suddenly have a huge project at work and they drop their hours of play from 40 per week to 6 a week until the project is complete -- and the project might take 6-8 weeks.  Other players may get sick and stop playing for 3-4 weeks and when they return they are only playing 10 hours a week instead of the previous 30 hours a week.  Other players get sick and are forced to stay at home for 6-8 weeks and their hours increase from 10 hours a week to 40 hours a week.  Some players join the army and they really only manage to log on for about 2 hours once every 2 weeks just to say hello to everryone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The patron system gives a guild a mechanism to adjust for these changes in playuer style and unless you are a guild with over 24 very active accounts you will get hurt by the new system.  My guess is that the average guild consists of around 12 active accounts, 80% of the guilds have less than 24 active accounts.  Why do I think this?  because I bet SOE made the limit changes based on the stats telling them that the average guild size was much smaller than they originally planned for.  By the way, some players are crafters and have no way to generate the same level of status points as adventurers (heritage quests) and other players just hate doing quests.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So .... no matter what change they make I hope they leave the Patron system in, it gives guilds they flexibility to adjust to their players playing times.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the exploiters ... we are letting them win when the game has to be changed in a way that hurts all of the honest players and guilds out there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in summary....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Changing from character based to account based is good because it allows a player to swapo freely between alts without hurting the guild.</DIV> <DIV>Dropping the minimum divisor from 12 to 6 is good if there are a lot of guilds with less than 12 active accounts.</DIV> <DIV>Setting the maximum divisor to 24 is OK as long as SOE believes that large guilds were being unfairly hurt by the old system?  -- but if they leave the patron system in then this limit will really only impact a very few number of guilds because you would need to have at least 20 very active accounts or more for this to have an impact.</DIV> <DIV>Taking the patron system out is bad ... it takes choice away from the guild and gives them nothing in its place to help them adjust for the ups and downs of RL and the impact it has on people's play time.  The only tool left to the guild is to kick someone out unless they are one of those guilds with over 24 very active accounts .. in which case they don't have to care.  My vote would be to leave the patron system in but make it account based rather than character based.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This approach might mean that a guild will decide that some players are not patrons -- if the player is upset then they can either leave the guild or get the guild to change its mind.  Forcing the guild to make everryone a patron is not the answer ... why not take it a step father and force the guild to make everryone a leader?  In my guild some people are patrons and some are not, we have not had any arguments over it -- maybe its because we have known each other for so many years?   </DIV><p>Message Edited by SavinDwarf on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:55 AM</span>

[Trei]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>why not just invert the current patron system + a few adjustments? - guild gets 100% gsp from patrons instead of having it divided by number of patrons - non-patrons be able to contribute gsp divided by number of patrons - no less than X% of guild members <u>must</u> be set as patrons - no more than 2X% of members are allowed to be set as patrons if guild has few serious guild levelers, set more patrons to earn more undivided gsp, at the expense of non patron contributions. if guild has many power gamer types, set <i>fewer</i> patrons so the divisor for non patrons is lower, albeit also with lesser undivided patron gsp. Any fundamental flaws with this? <b> edit:</b> or we can simply just leave the patron system as it is on live, but let non patrons help via status loot... <div></div> <p><span class="time_text">but i must say... i like Jaimster's way of inverting more than mine :p  - instead of current live patron system, allow members in new system to choose NOT to contribute and thus have their accnts NOT count towards divisor. </span></p><p>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:17 AM</span>

[Slain]

<P>Call me completely insane, but why do we even need this whole "patron" and/or "divide by" system?  Why can't SOE just make it so that every guild member can contribute to guild status, then simply make all guild status contribution opportunities have a set value?</P> <P>For example:</P> <P>Heritage quest that would normally grant 10,000 personal status points gets assigned a guild status point value of 1,000.  Anyone completing it gets 10,000 for themselves and 1,000 for their guild.</P> <P>Writs work the same way.  Complete a writ worth 500 personal status points, and 100 extra get added to the guild total.</P> <P>Status loot items are assigned static personal/guild point values (like 100/10, 200/20, etc.).</P> <P> </P> <P>I realize that this benefits larger guilds as they have more folks doing stuff and earning status, but isn't that more realistic anyway?  A large guild of people in a city like Qeynos is going to be able to curry favor with the local population easier than small groups of people (small guilds).   </P> <P>Honestly, look at what the rewards are for attaining higher guild level.  More/cheaper status items, cheaper horse prices, raids that few people actually bother to do, and crafting stations that can be housed in your guild hall.  There is nothing on that list that makes a guild at level 30 "uber" or gives them an advantage nobody else has on raids or anything.  So why the huge concern over sliding scales and keeping a balance?  Just make guild status a static figure with the more contributions over time you make the better off you are as a guild.  Who cares if some guild creates a bunch of HQ bots and PL's themselves to 30?  How does that effect the rest of us?  </P>

[Belizarius]

<P>SavinDwarf:</P> <P>For the record I would class myself as a casual player (about 15 hours per week average).  Certainly not hard-core, and not in a hardcore guild.</P> <P>I play in an off-peak time zone, hence we know most of the other guilds that are also based in our time zone.  My guild is probably ones of the smaller guilds in our time zone, yet we have more than 24 active accounts.</P> <DIV>So I'm curious about the figures you quote for guild sizes.  But I don't think we should be looking at the average guild size per se, rather the size of guilds that the majority of players belong to.  I'm betting that the vast majority of <EM><STRONG>players</STRONG> </EM>are in guilds with <EM><STRONG>more than</STRONG> </EM>12 active accounts.  I also suspect there are a significant percentage of players in guilds with more than 24 active accounts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with you that the system on test will favour guilds with more than 24 active accounts, what's more the advantage is linear.  I guess neither of us are happy with that proposal.  But the Patron system also is causing people a lot of headaches.  Juggling patrons based on players being off sick etc is just one more hassle for the guild leaders.   And, for the players who are in larger guilds, their opportunity to contribute status to the guild either does not exist, or requires intense micro-managing (aka exploit).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My proposal allows everyone to contribute, attracts no penalties for having alts or casual players guilded (I would have thought you would enjoy that), eliminates the micro-managing (and a lot of the potential exploit), gives larger guilds only a diminishing (non-linear) advantage over small guilds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For Slainte- why should we care about larger guilds guild levels?  Plenty of reasons!</DIV> <DIV>1) For many of us, guild level rivalry is a part of the game!</DIV> <DIV>2) it does give one more reason for players to desert smaller guilds and join larger guilds, if those guilds get the benefits of higher levels sooner.</DIV> <DIV>3) There is <EM><STRONG>no logic</STRONG> </EM>that says having more members means you should have higher guild status, if you have a think about what status really is.  Status is a <STRONG><EM>social ranking</EM></STRONG>.  Guild Status can just as easily be interpreted as coming from the <STRONG>average social rank</STRONG>, of your members, not the <EM>sheer quantity</EM> of them.  Having a bunch of members who have earned a little bit of status each, should really make your guild <EM>lower</EM> status than one with fewer members and higher status earned per member.</DIV>

[Lonw]

The only drawback I can see to Bele's system is guilds forbidding people to overtake certain people in the rank list, esp when they are close to several HQ completions. Or saying "Bele is number 10. This week we will concentrate ONLY on completing Bele's HQ's, no one is allowed to do any HQ's until he has finished to get maximum bang for buck." Depending on how the ranking system works, they may also deguild all patrons higher during the handin time. For example, say a guild is running 10 people through Deathfist Citadel, doing both HQs. Thats 20 HQs. However, these people are ranked between 10 and 40. When they are ready to begin the final handins, the guild leader deguilds as many people above them as possible so that their ranks are bumped up and they contribute the most AT THE TIME OF HANDIN. A lot of trouble? Aye. Will power gamers still do it? Oh aye... For Bele's system to work, a more meaningful penalty for deguilding has to be put in. Still like my top 12 (or whatever) people regardless count only system, but thyen I'm biased <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Belizarius]

<P>I would actually suggest NOT making the personal status rankings easily visible.  If someone wants to poll every member (who may or may not be online) for their personal status and work it out by hand, fair enough, but the effort involved would be a deterrent.  The bigger the guild the bigger the deterent.  Given that all members will still contribute status anyway, the marginal benefit of deguilding any one member would be marginal.  So you'd have to have mass deguildings  to gain from the exploit.  And put up with all those members hassling their officers for mass reinvites.  Doable?  Yes.  Appealing? Not really.</P> <P>You could perhaps introduce other rules such as</P> <P>- Must be a member for a week before status can be contributed</P> <P>- Takes a week for deguilded players to be dropped from the ranking</P> <P>- Contributed status is lost if a member deguilds within a week of earning it.</P>

[Lonw]

If it can be exploited for personal/guild gain, it will be, regardless of the effort. Sad, but true. Hiding the rankings will be a deterrant, but far from insurmountable. A guild leader can keep track of HQ's and writs with the guild window fairly easily and make a judgement call on relative positions. Keeping ranks for a week or so after deguilding is probably the best solution but then some GL's will ask members to take one for the team for a week. I guarantee you will see "off-guilds" or "holiday guilds" created, where those deguilded for a week or 2 from the same guild congregate, while 20 alts mass finish HQs. Course, that's just the hard core exploiters. Stupid, aye, but then if some people see the slightest way to rort the system, they will take it. <div></div>

[xIC]

<P>I like the new system and here is why.  At this stage of EQ many guilds have merged into larger guilds or into more active guilds and things are slowly funneling down to a slightly smaller amount of larger guilds.  What causes this is that those people who are in guilds are there because of grouping.  In my old guild everyone wanted more people to group with so we merged once and when that didnt work we went our seperate ways to join larger guilds.  The guild im in now owns and has 50-60 actives.  Its easy to get a group ofr the most part and many have come from busted guilds them selves.   I had 60k of status contributed to my old guild but can't contribute anything to my new guild cause the original members have top status holders as patrons.  Actually we jsut did away with osme of this, but point is if i become a patron I penalize the member who was there from day 1.  I love my current guild and would love to contribute on the same basis as those that have been there.  I know this may unbalance it towards smaller guilds, but at this stage in the game the guilds that are remaining are becoming larger or will be in the long run anyway.  I know many dont like this point but im not out to flame others.  THis is just my 2 cents and just that.  I know others have different opinions and im not saying anyone is wrong or right. </P> <P>Demonslayor</P>