Proposed solution to the guild status change issue.

[Kaalenarc]

OK  - after two or three days of debating back and forth with (mostly) rational people . (and a few trolls)

 I have an idea and I wanted a separate thread because I didnt want to debate the change  - apparently it IS moving forward. So I would instead like to propose the following two modifications.

 

1.) Because smaller teams (6 people or so) will have an exceedingly difficult time leveling up, Id propose a system , for ALL guilds, of "diminishing returns" insted of a straight 5% from level 1 to 60.

 

Id do it like so :

 

1.) From GL 1 to 10  20% of Personal status earned is contributed as GSP

2.) From GL 11 to 20 15% of Personal status earned is contributed as GSP

3.) From GL 21 to 30 10% of Personal status earned is contributed as GSP

4.) From 30 on its a flat 5%

 

This would at least allow the smaller teams to have a reasonable shot at guild level 30 , where most of the really good perks kick in. At that level,  all housing is available as are some of the nicer , but not the fastest, horses.

 

****

 

Now - my second idea is for a "guild to guild mentoring" system where any guild, having reached the guild cap, can have the option of donating HALF of its post-cap earned GSP to ONE other team of lower level.

 

For example - Team A has 100 members and is level 60. Team B has 5 people and is level 31, earning 5% GSP.

 

Team A could mentor Team B. Anything Team A does to earn status 2.5 % goes to the mentored team. So in effect - those 100 people  - with nothing left to gain anyway since they are capped, can assist a smaller team.

 

I would put some limits on it. Team A could mentor one guild only at a time and either side could end it at will.  Also this would not affect the GSP rating of the members of either team - only the level progress bar of the team being mentored.

 

What do you all think?

 

(NOTE - normally I post in yellow text, but apparently that makes me "ranting" so I will leave this one in white)

 

Thoughts?

 

Oh and PLEASE - the presumption in this thread is that the change is going through. For purposes of this discussion  - this is an idea about what could be done IF it goes through.

[Jaroth Cloudwalk]

I would rather see a straight 5% across the board and normalize the GSP needed for each level to account for the diminishing returns.  I like the idea of mentoring, but I would do something similar to what is in place for individual mentoring.

Team A mentors Team B and the following happens:

1)  Team A earns 2.5% toward their own guilds GSP.

2)  Team B can gain up to 2.5% of Team A's contributions.  The would have to match these GSP contributions at some fractional level.  Think of it as Guild Vitality.

Message Edited by Jaroth Cloudwalker on 11-09-2006 01:21 PM

[Kaalenarc]

---

Jaroth Cloudwalker wrote:

I would rather see a straight 5% across the board and normalize the GSP needed for each level to account for the diminishing returns.  I like the idea of mentoring, but I would do something similar to what is in place for individual mentoring.

Team A mentors Team B and the following happens:

1)  Team A earns 2.5% toward their own guilds GSP.

2)  Team B can gain up to 2.5% of Team A's contributions.  The would have to match these GSP contributions at some fractional level.  Think of it as Guild Vitality.

Message Edited by Jaroth Cloudwalker on 11-09-2006 01:21 PM

---

I think no one would mentor if their guild wasnt maxxed out hence I left it as 60 only - but still , its an interesting thought...

[Jaroth Cloudwalk]

I agree that Team A may be at GL60.  I would still say that no more that 2.5% of their contributions should go toward Team B and that Team B should have to match it at some fractional rate.  This would allow a Guild to mentor before GL60 if they chose and would not allow a GL60 Guild to power level a smaller Guild without them contributing to that effort.

[Razorbak]

As to the idea of basically guild to guild mentoring to funnel excess guild xp, I don't really like the idea too much.  The whole point of guild level is to measure what the guild member contribute to that guild.  It would trivialize it if max level large guilds just went around PLing other small guilds.  Plus I really wouldn't like to see chat messages of "Uber guild XYZ will mentor and PL your guild for Xplat per guild level".

Perhaps they can rework the xp tables so that small guilds can get to level 15 easier for cloaks and maybe make it a little easier for 30.

[Tuppen]

I would leave it like it is currently on live.  Was anyone really complaining?  People only started debating this issue when they announced it in the beta notes.  Seems to me that it was not broken.  Why try to fix it?  So what if a large guild exploits to get to level 60 by booting all but 6 members and turning in tons of status items.   How did that hurt me as a player in another guild? 

 

It didn't. 

 

So they get the rewards a bit faster by deguilding most of their membership.  Does it really matter that they get new horses or guild emblems faster?  No.  Not really.

 

And for the record, I am in a guild with over 60 unique accounts.  We are a casual guild and have levelled naturally to level 46.  We were about to ding 47 last night.  This change would help our guild, but I don't believe that the change is the right thing to do. 

Message Edited by Tuppen on 11-09-2006 03:54 PM

Message Edited by Tuppen on 11-09-2006 04:04 PM

[EtoilePirate]

---

Tuppen wrote:

I would leave it like it is currently on live.  Was anyone really complaining?  People only started debating this issue when they announced it in the beta notes.  Seems to me that it was not broken.  Why try to fix it?  So what if a large guild exploits to get to level 60 by booting all but 6 members and turning in tons of status items.   How did that hurt me as a player in another guild? 

 

It didn't. 

 

So they get the rewards a bit faster by deguilding most of their membership.  Does it really matter that they get new horses or guild emblems faster?  No.  Not really.

Message Edited by Tuppen on 11-09-2006 03:54 PM

---

This is my position, as well.  I don't really care what another guild does, I care what my guild is able to do, and this change makes it so that my legitimately small guild is going to remain stuck in the mid-40s for an exceedingly long time.

[Jaroth Cloudwalk]

A possibility to help minimize the effect of Guild mentoring would be to only allow a Guild to be mentored until it hits GL30.  This would make it possible for small Guilds to get help leveling.  I personally would rather see some form of diminishing returns system than mentoring. 

Message Edited by Jaroth Cloudwalker on 11-09-2006 01:59 PM

[VerianDarkstar]

 

IF the current change does go live (which you know that I disapprove of, but I won't go into that here), then a system of diminishing returns could ease the pain for the small guilds .  I agree that level 30 is the key -- small guilds have to be able to get there with a reasonable level of effort, or they'll probably just give up and then they won't get to experience some of the cool content that keeps people interested in the game.  I know that if the six-person guild I'm going to be starting next week could get to level 30, I'd be pretty darn happy. 

I was originally going to agree with Jaroth that, if the developers want to institute this, it would probably be more simple to just adjust the amount of experience required to level accordingly.  However, I realized that there is a potential problem with that.  It will cause some guilds to instantly level up (perhaps multiple times) because their current amount of experience will exceed the revised threshold to gain a new level.  Depending on how significant the revisions are, guilds could instantly gain more than one level.  I don't know if that's a problem or not, but it needs to at least be considered. 

As for the guild mentoring idea -- it is certainly novel and I think it has some merit, but I wonder how it would play out.  Would it result in lower-level guilds begging and pestering the lvl 60 guilds to "pick me! pick me!"  We all know how much fun dealing with beggars can be.  As a guild leader, are you REALLY sure you want to deal with that?  :smileywink:  It would encourage guild-to-guild interaction, which I guess is good, but it's hard to see what criteria lvl 60 guilds would use when choosing a guild to mentor.  If the lvl 60 guild chooses to mentor a small guild that has members who are friends with the large guild ... well, there is a good chance the small guild members would just join the large guild, right?   Maybe the lower level guilds could do something for the lvl 60 guilds -- like collect resources or something -- but I really don't think lower level guilds are going to have much to offer in return.  And there is the downside that it introduces a whole new mechanic to the guild leveling system -- it seems that a whole bunch of different mechanics have been tried since the inception of the game, and that some people are losing patience with the constant changes (just my observation -- as a relatively new player here, I wasn't around for most of those changes).  Anyway, if you promise that your guild will pick my new guild as its mentee, you have my vote  :smileyvery-happy:

[Gertack_v2]

- Use a 30-day (perhaps weighted) average of the number of accounts in the guild whenever the account number should go down.If you want to boot everyone to get down to 6 accounts, you'll have to wait 30 days for the number to drop down to the 6.

You'll have to bias it such that adding accounts immediately raises the account number (unless it is compensating for someone who left in the past 30 days) so you don't get a guild of 6 dumping 300+ people in for quick status.

[Zcore24]

I'm reposting this from the beta boards for those with no access to itAll this change does is hurt small guilds who did not 'exploit' the loophole. The current system was put into place so it was an even playing field which the devs came close to doing...a larger guild earned more...it was slight, but more, see example calculations below.For ease of calculations...assuming level 70 charactersGuild of 6each writ is worth ~8500, you can get 4 writs so with 6 guildies doing writs you can earn ~34,068 in GSP(8,500 x 4) x 6 / 16.7%Guild of 15each writ is worth ~8500, you can get 4 writs so with 15 guildies doing writs you can earn ~34,170 in GSP (8,500 x 4) x 15 / 6.7%Guild of 24 each writ is worth ~8500, you can get 4 writs so with 24 guildies doing writs you can earn ~34,272 in GSP (8,500 x 4) x 24 / 4.2%Is it our fault the big guilds did not have 24 active participants doing writs all the time?After changesGuild of 6each writ is worth ~8500, you can get 4 writs so with 6 guildies doing writs you can earn ~10,200 in GSP(8,500 x 4) x 6 / 5%Guild of 15each writ is worth ~8500, you can get 4 writs so with 15 guildies doing writs you can earn ~25,500 in GSP (8,500 x 4) x 15 / 5%Guild of 24 each writ is worth ~8500, you can get 4 writs so with 24 guildies doing writs you can earn ~40,800 in GSP (8,500 x 4) x 24 / 5%Who has the advantage now? This change just plain stinks. I've read a couple of good posts around that could've closed this loophole.

Message Edited by Zcoretri on 11-09-2006 02:16 PM

[Writer Cal]

If there must be a change, I'm all behind this diminishing returns concept.  It would stop the exploiting of a previously capped guild booting most of their members to powerlevel to the new guild cap while still giving the little guys a chance at some of the decent mounts and houses.  Sounds great!

[Iglind]

I spent too much time writing, a really big post timed out, its gone. Lucky you Kaal. That may be just as well. And i'm certainly not going to be in this topic accidentally bumping this 'large guilds should rule' solution (?!?) wich also incidentally has some 'small guilds can beg for help from large guilds' mixed into it. It really makes it shine though how Kaal think things should be.Large guilds.No small guilds past GL 30 they are not really worthy.Egoism, Elitism, Jealousy i dont know what it is. This isnt even about the numbers, its about long term group goals suddenly being changed in a very demoralizing way. Not to the large guilds, but the small ones.Better stop writing, so this tiny post doesnt 'time out' aswell. :smileysad:

[su]

Im in a small guild been lv 21 for like 8 months now i could care less about lving it.. yeah i would like my guild lv 30 but hey with only 2 people in it what can u do..

 

I refuse to join another guild just to get kicked out or have some 15 year old boy scout boss me around. I am a grown man! I have been in large over 100+ people guilds on eqoa and other online mmo rpgs and i did not like it at all.. Being told what  gear you have to have what lv you have to be in so many weeks or get booted..

I have a 4 year old and a wife and a house to pay off so In the adult world that means work first play when u have time.. I play when i want and how i want and i dont need no 12 year old kid telling me how to play the game i pay 4 with the money i work 4 .

I am not wineing or complaning Just thought I would say, So what if your guild is  lv 30 lv 60 big woppty do the zones are so small and u can ride or port every where who cares how fast your horse is.. Id rather buy a 40% horse then spend 2 years of my life on a game trying to prove how uber i am..

I miss the old days where guilds didnt have a lv and every guild got same props big or small.

Good luck to all the guilds that have to prove something.

[Jrral]

My thought, if the problem the devs are trying to solve is a large mismatch in advancement rate for guilds (some large guilds being slow to level because of the large number of accounts and low percentage, others power-levelling by forming and then booting all but one or two accounts until they get to the level they want) is that a cap-and-floor would be the simplest solution. Say that any guild will get at least 5% status no matter how many accounts (the floor is 5%), and no guild will get more than 16.7% (the cap is 1/6th, exactly what it'd be for the guild with the minimum number of accounts to form a guild). This shouldn't be too hard to code, and it addresses both ends of the scale without penalizing the guilds in the 6-20 account range who're not exploiting anything, just trying to  progress normally.

[Lilj]

I have another suggestion. We remove guild levels influence in what you can buy of items, crafting stations and titles. We make it so guild level will have an influence on what guild raids the guild can do and nothing else.

We let all players be able to buy horses, houses, items, crafting stations, titles etc for plat and personal status. This way we all have to work equally hard for that 'Lady' title or that 5 room house. If the devs think some of the high lvl items will be too cheap, they can simply up the SP cost of them.

This will make us all equal. The larger guild can still gain access to the guild raids and they will probably also gain a little advantage in gathering a group to do writs, but I think most smaller guilds will be ok with that.

I believe this should remove the exploit. It will also remove those players that enroll for 5 minutes into a high level guild just to buy a house and a hose, and then leave again. 

It will also mean that when a player enroll in a guild it's because he wants to be there, not because of some guild level that can grant him goddies.

It means when you ride around with a baroness title, we will all know it's because YOU earned the right. It means hard work will be rewarded equally.

Perhaps in time there will be other reason for the guild level, but with this system it will be used for raids and bragging rights

 

[Zarador]

---

Iglindor wrote:I spent too much time writing, a really big post timed out, its gone. Lucky you Kaal. That may be just as well. And i'm certainly not going to be in this topic accidentally bumping this 'large guilds should rule' solution (?!?) wich also incidentally has some 'small guilds can beg for help from large guilds' mixed into it. It really makes it shine though how Kaal think things should be.Large guilds.No small guilds past GL 30 they are not really worthy.Egoism, Elitism, Jealousy i dont know what it is. This isnt even about the numbers, its about long term group goals suddenly being changed in a very demoralizing way. Not to the large guilds, but the small ones.Better stop writing, so this tiny post doesnt 'time out' aswell. :smileysad:

---

I will be honest as I have in the other posts, I feel the same way.  The system as it was initially changed designed, despite the nay sayers favored the larger motivated Guilds.  No longer was there a patron system that hurt Guilds with members that did not partisipate as well as artificial caps.  If you had a large Guild and the members were motivated to level the Guild, they could do so quite easily as they had the workforce to accomplish far more writs than the smaller Guilds. As I have stated on the diminishing returns suggestion, it needs to be reversed.  Imagine, from a Adventure standpoint if you did diminishing returns on Vitality? Everyone knows that the rough levels on a Guild are past 25.  You would have to be quite rich to be able to status buy your way to a 50 Guild which is the way it should be anyway.Here is my proposal:1. Set a base percentage on what SoE has determined in the past as a fair leveling platform for the smallest legit Guild.  We do this on NPC's as the difficulty on the lowest level of trash mob is set to the non-raid geared entry level player so they can still level and enjoy the game.  Obviously, that level is 15% as that was their minimum divisor. I honestly don't see how you can develope a system that says it takes a 15% contribution towards GSP to keep a small Guild in a fair leveling position, then say lets make it fair by making that contribution 5% across the board.2. Everyone, every guild gets 15% no matter the membership.  This allows small Guilds to continue leveling without change and larger Guilds to get 3x the status for extra partisipation, or equal status if they simply do the same amount of writs as the small Guild.  Small Guilds can't expect to be able to level as fast as 100 motivated players working at the same task can.  Large Guilds can't expect that 6 members could level without spending 75% of the time doing writs on what would amount to over 360 writs a level post 30. 3. Make Status Turn In's No-Trade.  The largest exploit being encountered is the purchase and turn in of status items by the stack.  There is no reason, being they earn "Personal Status" for the player awarded the item through a drop that the item can't be made No-Trade.  This would also reduce some of the BoT farming going on in some areas where I have wittnessed them being there day after day, every hour of the day and then selling off stacks by the hundreds. The three above suggestions allow the Larger Guilds to have a far greater incentive to push their members to go out and level as they gain over 3x the GSP on writs.  It allows the small Guilds to continue earning 15% and gaining benefits from a very high amount of personal contribution/partisipation.  It shuts down one of the largest exploits being used while kicking some botters off the field. I view it as a win/win.As far as recognition being based on a huge Guild ~vs~ a Small Guild, it's done all the time in RL.  Companies often throw retirement parties for that Janitor that was there every day for 30 years with a smile doing what they could even though it in no way compared to the job accomplished by the Ceo, it compared in the effort that was put forth.  I think that's how the rewards need to be viewed, not who did it better, or on a larger scale, but rather did they really try their best and do as much as they could.Aside: (ramblings of an old fart)...When I was a kid we had cereal boxes that offered what, at the time, appeared to be fantastic magical rewards that could change your childhood simply by possesing them.  They cost almost nothing, but required 25-100 box tops to be able to get.  In the end, you ate boxes and boxes of sugar coated frosted flakes and began to doubt that they were Greatttttt!!!!!! around box top 20.  Kids went around the neighborhood scavaging that box that was tossed with the treasured box top on it (silly adults).  In the end, all that scavaging and eating Tony's gruel....errr.....frosted flakes paid off when you got that final box top and a postage stamp.  Then they added a little perk that said you could send in say 10 box-tops and $1.00 to get the reward.  For most of us kids at that time, $1.00 was, well...it amounted to 20 lost trips to the penny candy store and was simply too much money to get their hands on.  Some kids of course found ways to earn the dollar, others had parents that could afford the dollar, so the system still worked because you could still get the item with 25 box tops.  The cereal companies knew this and kept the 25 turn in knowing there were kids out there that would still go through all the effort to get 25 box tops and that was a nice incentive on both sides.What if the cereal companies turned around and said from now on it's $1.00 or 75 box tops?  How many kids would drive their parents nuts for the $1.00?  How many kids would stop collecting box tops knowing that it takes far too many to purchase something of any value to them?  This of course never happened because the cereal companies realized, rightly so, for an incentive to remain an insentive, it has to be a reachable and realistic goal. Same goes with Marathon Runs.  There are runs made for the casual runner that can be accomplished with a great deal of effort. There are runs that the dedicated runner can do that the casual, no matter how well trained should not even attempt.  Then there are runs for the professional that we all watch on TV and admire.    Obviosuly the runs for all three can be accomplished by the professional, but the casual is limited to one run and the dedicated two runs.  Different levels open different avenues of opportunity.  With the base level being open to all three levels, there is no reason that needs to be scaled to the professional level.

Message Edited by Zarador on 11-10-2006 07:44 AM

[Kaalenarc]

---

Iglindor wrote:
I spent too much time writing, a really big post timed out, its gone. Lucky you Kaal. That may be just as well. And i'm certainly not going to be in this topic accidentally bumping this 'large guilds should rule' solution (?!?) wich also incidentally has some 'small guilds can beg for help from large guilds' mixed into it. It really makes it shine though how Kaal think things should be.

Large guilds.
No small guilds past GL 30 they are not really worthy.

Egoism, Elitism, Jealousy i dont know what it is. This isnt even about the numbers, its about long term group goals suddenly being changed in a very demoralizing way. Not to the large guilds, but the small ones.

Better stop writing, so this tiny post doesnt 'time out' aswell. :smileysad:

---

Um  - thats not how I see it at all. Why do you persist in preceiving incorrectly my motivations when Im stating them so plainly over and over? Are you that obtuse? Should we scrap the entire player mentoring system so that low level players dont have to beg also? Jeez.

Given that I am a firm believer in equal rewards and a flat rate, and given that this change IS apparently coming, I tried to figure out a compromise solution.  In my scenario a 6 man lvl 60 guild could mentor a 12 man one of lower level. My idea is that rewards should be the same regardless of guild size. Thanks to your and others posts I came to see that that does put smaller guilds at a disadvantage  - especially without the artifical bonus they have been enjoying thus far.  I tried to come up with a complimentary, compromising solution that might satisfy everyone. 

All you seem to want to do is stomp your feet and throw insults and rail against change. Your comments about me are out of line and you owe me an apology. Im a pretty rational , civil guy, and Im engaging in a discussion here to reach a compromise solution.

Whats your bright idea? the DEVs apparently want a flat rate that does NOT factor guild size into the equation. Can YOU come up with a compromise solution that uses those parameters? Or are you simply going to complain and insult me some more? Drop the petty vitriol and lets work on a solution... /olive branch?

Message Edited by nobe on 11-10-2006 07:56 AM

[tweety1972]

The best Ideas sofar to come out of this discussion were

1.) remove guild level as a factor in purchasing titles and other perks presently given only to guilds of a certain level.

2.) base the raid content and cloaks (or other guild wide perks) on guild level

3.) remove the loophole of guilds removing members to level faster (many good suggestions already)

4.) remove all contributed guild status on the statistics boards and replace it with personal status

Then again that's just my opinion (and I don't belong to the 6 person or 100+ person guilds )

 

[tweety1972]

---

nobe wrote:

/snip

 Should we scrap the entire player mentoring system so that low level players dont have to beg also? Jeez.

Message Edited by nobe on 11-10-2006 07:56 AM

---

I say yes, other people are getting an "unfair advantage"

(yes that was sarcasm )

[Kaalenarc]

---

tweety1972 wrote:

---

nobe wrote:

/snip

 Should we scrap the entire player mentoring system so that low level players dont have to beg also? Jeez.

Message Edited by nobe on 11-10-2006 07:56 AM

---

I say yes, other people are getting an "unfair advantage"

(yes that was sarcasm )

---

LOL

[Arkturis]

---

tweety1972 wrote:

The best Ideas sofar to come out of this discussion were

1.) remove guild level as a factor in purchasing titles and other perks presently given only to guilds of a certain level.

2.) base the raid content and cloaks (or other guild wide perks) on guild level

3.) remove the loophole of guilds removing members to level faster (many good suggestions already)

4.) remove all contributed guild status on the statistics boards and replace it with personal status

Then again that's just my opinion (and I don't belong to the 6 person or 100+ person guilds )

 

---

1)  Guild rewards were put in to *gasp* reward hard working, organized guilds.  Removing the levels defeats the purpose of why they were ever included in the game.

2)  See #1.

3)  I see this new change as the fix to that loop-hole while making guilds equal across the boards.  BTW a guild is an organization.  How you decide to run it will determine how successful your guild is.

4)  Do rankings really matter?  If I wanted to, I could see how much personal status someone has or how much contributed guild status one has.

[missionarymarr]

---

nobe wrote:

---

Iglindor wrote:
I spent too much time writing, a really big post timed out, its gone. Lucky you Kaal. That may be just as well. And i'm certainly not going to be in this topic accidentally bumping this 'large guilds should rule' solution (?!?) wich also incidentally has some 'small guilds can beg for help from large guilds' mixed into it. It really makes it shine though how Kaal think things should be.

Large guilds.
No small guilds past GL 30 they are not really worthy.

Egoism, Elitism, Jealousy i dont know what it is. This isnt even about the numbers, its about long term group goals suddenly being changed in a very demoralizing way. Not to the large guilds, but the small ones.

Better stop writing, so this tiny post doesnt 'time out' aswell. :smileysad:

---

Um  - thats not how I see it at all. Why do you persist in preceiving incorrectly my motivations when Im stating them so plainly over and over? Are you that obtuse? Should we scrap the entire player mentoring system so that low level players dont have to beg also? Jeez.

Given that I am a firm believer in equal rewards and a flat rate, and given that this change IS apparently coming, I tried to figure out a compromise solution.  In my scenario a 6 man lvl 60 guild could mentor a 12 man one of lower level. My idea is that rewards should be the same regardless of guild size. Thanks to your and others posts I came to see that that does put smaller guilds at a disadvantage  - especially without the artifical bonus they have been enjoying thus far.  I tried to come up with a complimentary, compromising solution that might satisfy everyone. 

All you seem to want to do is stomp your feet and throw insults and rail against change. Your comments about me are out of line and you owe me an apology. Im a pretty rational , civil guy, and Im engaging in a discussion here to reach a compromise solution.

Whats your bright idea? the DEVs apparently want a flat rate that does NOT factor guild size into the equation. Can YOU come up with a compromise solution that uses those parameters? Or are you simply going to complain and insult me some more? Drop the petty vitriol and lets work on a solution... /olive branch?

Message Edited by nobe on 11-10-2006 07:56 AM

---

Then you know what if you do really want to solve this fairly. Forget your diminshing returns system. Keep things the way they are on live now except code in as someone else has suggested a 30 day limit on dropping members. If your guild will drop below 24 members by dropping any members then you can't get the extra divisor for 30 days. This keeps the fair system we have on live and closes the exploit. This is no matter any other idea the proper way to fix an exploit. Unforunately I am not sure the devs are willing to look at any solution which will actually involve programming which is why we have the solution on test. Therefore even your idea you feel is so hot is not going to happen because it would take work.

I am glad you are looking for solutions but I do believe the above is the best solution. I definately do not like your attitude that comes off like a small guild doesn't deserve to get above 30 anyways. Can you at least acknowledge that the best solution to any exploit is to close the exploit.

[Ronin SpoilSpot]

I'm not sure exactly what problem the designers are trying to solve with the change, so I can't say whether it's a good solution, or what would be a better one.On the other hand, I have long considered it a problem that there is so much content that is unavailable to unguilded players: Faster horses, five room appartments, titles, even just the simple placeables of the city merchants. In the beginning, even status points were restricted to guilded players. They changed that, and I think it's time to change the rest too.Anyone can buy a three room appartment it they accumulate enough status and gold. Guild members can get a rebate, but the room is available to everybody. Not so for five room appartments. If you want one, you have to join a guild, whether you want to or not. It's not like you can work harder and collect more gold or status. No guild, no five room appartment.It's simply discriminating to unguided players, and for no good reason. And it makes players join guilds for the effects, and not for the guild itself, which I think is the wrong thing to promote. We already see people pay a high level guild to join them for a moment of shopping.Is that what we want guilds to be? I don't say that guilds should not get perks at all, but make them guild-related perks. Guild raids, guild banks, guild channel, guild capes, etc. They can even keep their rebates for some things, although I would prefer not. I'd much rather give rebates based on faction or something else that everybody can work their way up to. After all, why should the people of Qeynos trust someone in a guild more than his unguilded friend with Ally faction with all five factions of the city /RS

[tweety1972]

---

Arkturis wrote:

---

tweety1972 wrote:

The best Ideas sofar to come out of this discussion were

1.) remove guild level as a factor in purchasing titles and other perks presently given only to guilds of a certain level.

2.) base the raid content and cloaks (or other guild wide perks) on guild level

3.) remove the loophole of guilds removing members to level faster (many good suggestions already)

4.) remove all contributed guild status on the statistics boards and replace it with personal status

Then again that's just my opinion (and I don't belong to the 6 person or 100+ person guilds )

 

---

1)  Guild rewards were put in to *gasp* reward hard working, organized guilds.  Removing the levels defeats the purpose of why they were ever included in the game.

Your house should be chosen on your PERSONAL status not what guild you belong to. Crafting tables should be based on your TRADESKILL status not guild status. Etc... are we getting the point of the unfair setup that has been used lateley?

2)  See #1. These should be the only things that count with guild level since they are guild related not person related.

3)  I see this new change as the fix to that loop-hole while making guilds equal across the boards.  BTW a guild is an organization.  How you decide to run it will determine how successful your guild is.

It should not be impossible to level tho and as proposed it will be. Make the scale closer to the current rate and we are much better off than at present with the 5% change

4)  Do rankings really matter?  If I wanted to, I could see how much personal status someone has or how much contributed guild status one has.

These were the loudest complaints I have read sofar. If you do not mind that is fine but many who argue that this 5% is fair bring up those numbers so they should be reset to personal status.

---

[Krooner]

---

tweety1972 wrote:

---

Arkturis wrote:

---

tweety1972 wrote:

The best Ideas sofar to come out of this discussion were

1.) remove guild level as a factor in purchasing titles and other perks presently given only to guilds of a certain level.

2.) base the raid content and cloaks (or other guild wide perks) on guild level

3.) remove the loophole of guilds removing members to level faster (many good suggestions already)

4.) remove all contributed guild status on the statistics boards and replace it with personal status

Then again that's just my opinion (and I don't belong to the 6 person or 100+ person guilds )

 

---

1)  Guild rewards were put in to *gasp* reward hard working, organized guilds.  Removing the levels defeats the purpose of why they were ever included in the game.

Your house should be chosen on your PERSONAL status not what guild you belong to. Crafting tables should be based on your TRADESKILL status not guild status. Etc... are we getting the point of the unfair setup that has been used lateley?

2)  See #1. These should be the only things that count with guild level since they are guild related not person related.

3)  I see this new change as the fix to that loop-hole while making guilds equal across the boards.  BTW a guild is an organization.  How you decide to run it will determine how successful your guild is.

It should not be impossible to level tho and as proposed it will be. Make the scale closer to the current rate and we are much better off than at present with the 5% change

4)  Do rankings really matter?  If I wanted to, I could see how much personal status someone has or how much contributed guild status one has.

These were the loudest complaints I have read sofar. If you do not mind that is fine but many who argue that this 5% is fair bring up those numbers so they should be reset to personal status.

---

---

No It shouldnt. 

Anyone can purchase a house.  If you want a 5 room house fine you can pay the plat to but it.  If you belong to a guild that has earned status by assisting the city and gaining levels then your house will be cheaper based on your status.  Its the same for mounts.  If you want that cool mount you can pay the X amount of plat for it.  If you belong to a guild that has earned status doing city writs and such then your going to pay less. 

 

[Midomiko]

---

Warbird1 wrote:

 

No It shouldnt. 

Anyone can purchase a house.  If you want a 5 room house fine you can pay the plat to but it.  If you belong to a guild that has earned status by assisting the city and gaining levels then your house will be cheaper based on your status.  Its the same for mounts.  If you want that cool mount you can pay the X amount of plat for it.  If you belong to a guild that has earned status doing city writs and such then your going to pay less. 

 

---

Actually no you can't.  All 5 room houses in either city have this little note on the bottom of their purchase window saying clearly that they require a level 30 guild to buy.  There is no "cheaper with guild status, more expensive without the guild" option on those.

[Gallenite]

Please continue this discussion in the new thread, after reading the first message there. Thanks.

 

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=67334