12 Patrons and the changes

[Evadne]

Ok, with the 12 patron divisor any over 12 increased the divisor for the guild xp earned.  Now, since you cannot lose xp, the point of the divisor goes away.  Why? Because it is just a hassle but you can turn patron on and off for any over the 12 mains.  Give everyone the power to patron themselves, they only turn on their patron status when they are about to finish a quest, heritage or other.  Then with the xp added to the guild, they turn it off. It is a technicality really.  Keep your main patrons at 11, let the 12th be for everyone else.  So, the guild never has to have more than 12 patrons at a time.  Which is just a technicality.  Why not have anyone who does status quests, heritages, and so on just earn xp for the guild straight out. If you are in the guild, the npcs of the world know it, as you do work for them, the guild earns status and standing.  ~Eva <div></div>

[WuphonsReach]

With this change, they should simply do away with the whole patron system. Just make it so that anyone who completes a writ / heritage quest has the status points divided by 12 and added to the guild point total.I'm extremely dissapointed by this change to the guild status system.This completely removes:- The need for guild leadership to make the choices as to who will make a good patron over the long term.- The need for guild leadership to take into account the desires / wants / needs of their patrons (accountability). A guild leader could now basically trick a bunch of people into joining the guild, completing HQs, and then boot them without suffering *any* negative consequences.- The balance between having too many patrons and too few patrons, and the whole small vs large guild issue. Now, small guilds are at an even larger disadvantage because the larger guilds can game the system, playing "pass the patron baton" in order to maximize the amount of guild standing gained from completing a writ/HQ.

[Evadne]

The old system penalized the guild---people in that guild--when someone left, the new system runs the risk of individuals being harmed by a guild. Now, the guild would rapidly get a bad reputation for kicking members after using them for guild xp.  No one would want to join. I personally think, it is too harmful when people you trust leave your guild in the old system. People don't generally do heritages alone.  And they benefit from the quest themselves.  But when in a guild, the guild earns status. If you choose a guild that is not trustworthy is it not the same as a guild leader choosing a player that is not trustworthy? A shame to be sure. Primarily my concern is, why have the patron system at all?  If you choose to add a member to your guild and they choose to do status building activities, the guild should grow in notoriety and so on....as should the character. Your personal earn status should be accessible and usable when you move on. ~Eva <div></div>

[EtoilePirate]

I think at this point they should just tier the penalty.  6-25 members of the guild?  15% of your SP goes to GL.  26-50 makes it 13%, 51-75 makes it 11%, and so on.  I just pulled these numbers out of my butt for the sake of argument, but it's basically an extension of what goes on with patronage now.  This way would block cheating with de-patroning/re-patroning and would make a more even playing field, where its to your benefit to have all your guild members earning status no matter how many of them there are. <div></div>

[WuphonsReach]

Now that I've had some sleep.Abuse will run rampant if the change goes live as-is. Some possible ways to combat abuse:- implement a delay on patronship before it takes effect, 72 hours or 7 days at a minimum- make it so that players cannot be re-patroned more then every 2 weeksEven those changes will still allow the system to be gamed and a level 30 guild will become nothing difficult to achieve, but merely a formality....As to the "never lose guild level", the devs have fallen into the trap of thinking that guild levels are related to "experience" rather then being a "prestige" thing. You never lose experience, but prestige is ephemeral and can be lost in an instant unless you take steps to guard it and preserve it.Was the current system difficult? You bet. But it was also the best middle ground between penalizing small guilds who could only scratch together 12 patrons and letting large guilds rocket up through the levels due to sheer numbers. The current system made getting to 30 difficult, but achievable for all of the differently sized guilds (my old guild on Lucan was one of the top guilds, yet we only had about a dozen players online at peak times). Plus, the current system ensured that staying at level 20/25/30 was not automatic, it required on-going care and feeding of the guild. Was it sad when you lost a guild level? Yes, but not the end of the world for an *actively managed* guild. Guilds that were viable quickly put an action plan into place to recruit more patrons to replace those that left, and quickly re-earned the lost prestige. When you joined a 20+ or 25+ or level 30 guild, you could be assured that here was a guild that was vibrant, stable, and well managed. A poorly run (meaning guild leaders who were not leaders, or meglomaniacs, or abusive towards members) guild should not retain status level.It removed the abuse issue. There were very few ways to game the system, and none of those methods were really worth it. Further, gaming the system didn't get you much of advantage over guilds who took the slow-n-steady method. You might get to 20/25/30 sooner, but you were more likely to flame out spectacularly if the guild was mismanaged. Look through the posts in the guild forum. Look at the sheer number of flawed proposals and how easily they were able to be cheated/gamed. There's a multitude of reasons that Kendricke, Zotar99 and a few of the rest of us have picked apart and shot down all of the proposed changes to the patron system that have been advanced.Lastly (and this goes back to the "prestige" thing). The original design of EQ2 stated that guild level would never be game breaking, but merely a "meta game" for those who wished to compete in this area. Since there is nothing game-changing about the rewards at 20/25/30, it's an *optional* part of EQ2. Therefore, difficulty of acheiving level 30 shouldn't need to be changed. Enough guilds were reaching the 25+ level that it's apparent that the system works. Those guilds opted-in to playing the meta-game and figured out how to advance in it.

[Shunidar]

<P>I have to agree that the current system will be abused all to heck and back.  The 12 patron was an excellent compromise that allowed smaller guilds to contribute while forcing large guilds to work hard too in proportion to thier size.</P> <P>I propose that the loss of xp when a patron leaves is some kind of percentile.  Perhaps you loose 60 or 75% or that persons status when they leave, but if your highest patron leaves the game because he/she had something come up in real life, then your whole guild isn't decimated.</P> <p>Message Edited by Shunidar on <span class=date_text>07-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:50 AM</span>

[Fire&ice]

<DIV>When we die we don't lose levels, why not make it so that there is a "debt" of sorts if patrons are removed and/or deguild. That way, yes you won't lose the hard earned levels you have gotten, but you still have to work just as hard to get to the next levels as you work off that "debt". Just a thought /shrug :smileyvery-happy: (I will just have to think some more while I am stuck at work I guess :smileywink: )</DIV>

[Shunidar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fire&ice wrote:<BR> <DIV>When we die we don't lose levels, why not make it so that there is a "debt" of sorts if patrons are removed and/or deguild. That way, yes you won't lose the hard earned levels you have gotten, but you still have to work just as hard to get to the next levels as you work off that "debt". Just a thought /shrug :smileyvery-happy: (I will just have to think some more while I am stuck at work I guess :smileywink: )</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I like that idea.

[Evadne]

Also, I have to admit I am a little leary about "testing" the aspects of how this can be used and or misused. I value my guild too, and I would hate to hurt it level wise, xp wise or status wise to figure out what kind of disaster I can duplicate. ~Eva <div></div>

[Shunidar]

<DIV>I agree Eva, there is no way CoW will be moving patrons around and stuff to try and see what we can break.  The more I think about it the more this change just dosen't make any sense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another possible expliot would be what if you invited someone to your guild just before they finished thier DWB, and then kicked them right after?  In other words, you wold not even need to be a MEMBER of a guild to move guild status.  That right there screams unintended exploit.  I liked it better the way it was the more I think on it.</DIV>

[Grimsore]

What if a guild could only change a persons patronage once a week, or a day. I don't mean each person can change their patron status once a week, I mean the guild as a whole could only add someone to patron once a week. They could de-patron or kick someone from the guild as many times as they like. Seems like this would do away with 99 percent of the abuse issues or am i missing something? I do however see a preoblem with a new guild just created. They would need to patron more than 1 a week to get started. Maybe the 1 a week wouldnt take effect until a total of 8 or 12 patrons have been created.

[Shunidar]

<DIV>Those are good thoughts Grim, but it is a rare occasion for SoE to make changes that involve complicated rule systems... sorta.  For instance, when there was a definate imbalance between TS'ers, instead of giving all classes something they could refine and sell, they instead gave all classes the ability to make all thier own subs.  That was bigger change than what it could have been, but it also simplified the system.  I'm not saying SoE is opposed to making big changes, but thier pattern appears to be "id rather change the whole system to something completely different than tweak something that makes the game more complicated."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That being said, I'm all for a system that will not penalize guilds if a long time patron decides he/she needs to leave without leaving massive holes available for exploit.</DIV>

[WuphonsReach]

I think I would prefer to see a vesting system (out of all of the various proposals).It would only be a minor modification to the existing system, and there are 2 ways to do it:1) Simple to code- only keep track of a patron's "patron date"- points get added immediately to the guild level- if the patron de-patrons prior to 20 weeks, the guild loses 5% of that patron's standings points for each week shy of the 20 week mark- the penalty applies to all of the patron's standing, regardless of when it is earned- once a patron hits 20-weeks, the guild will never lose any of that XP- eliminates the patron shuffle abuse of the current change that is on Test- rewards guilds who have long-standing patrons- lessens the pain of patrons who pull up stakes- a patron who has been there 20+ weeks will vest their points immediately- downside is that once a guild hits level 30, they still don't de-level, so you will still end up with "dead" guilds that are level 30, but are no longer active- fairly simple to code, only requires a bit of math when a patron is removed to calculate the penalty amount2) More complex- keep track of when points are added- points get added immediately to the guild level- points vest at a rate of 10% per week from when the standing was earned- if the patron leaves, you lose only the non-vested points- a real PITA to code, huge database requirements to keep track of when points were earned