The Guild Hall Feedback Thread

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Bozidar wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

It's hardly trolling to ask for background into your perspective.

actually, it is.  The devs have asked us to stop with the back and forth with each other and just give feedback of our own.  if the devs feel the need to ask questions to ascertain a players background or perspective, they can do so.

I don't think a communistic, administrator-centric approach is one we need to honor. Nonetheless, responses like yours are those that detract from focusing in on actual, meaningful feedback. Keeping the primarily relevant things in mind like active player accounts, general levels of those active, playstyles, comparative playtimes, guild level, and guild history, are things directly conducive to construing value out of faceless voices shirking upkeep.

[Bozidar]

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

Bozidar wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

It's hardly trolling to ask for background into your perspective.

actually, it is.  The devs have asked us to stop with the back and forth with each other and just give feedback of our own.  if the devs feel the need to ask questions to ascertain a players background or perspective, they can do so.

I don't think a communistic, administrator-centric approach is one we need to honor. Nonetheless, responses like yours are those that detract from focusing in on actual, meaningful feedback. Keeping the primarily relevant things in mind like active player accounts, general levels of those active, playstyles, comparative playtimes, guild level, and guild history, are things directly conducive to construing value out of faceless voices shirking upkeep.

I have no idea why you insist on writing like that, it doesn't add any value, it just makes people ignore you.  You could have just as easily said: "It would be valueable for people to post their playstyle, including their guild level, history, and playtimes, so the devs dont have to look it up or infer it".  Yes, that would add value, and suggesting that to those reading is a great suggestion.  But turning every single post into a discussion about that poster just drags the FEEDBACK down.

The devs asked us to stop with the back-and-forth with each other.  You choose to not "honor" that request, so be it, your choice.

But having read every single post in this thread, and having to skim past hundreds of "you're a small/solo guild!"/"It's just for raiders like you!" posts, i'm rather sick of the discussion.  I dare say the devs have an outside shot of being more sick of it than I am.

If we could keep the topic to FEEDBACK since we're in the FEEDBACK thread, that'd be great.  I think some of the things that have been brought up here have been phenominal, and the dev interaction amazing.  This discussion is hurting that.

Note: FEEDBACK does not mean Discussion.

[Elquinjena]

Maybe this was asked before, if so forgive me...

 but

would it be possible to have a payment list, instead of, when rent is due, having to pay it all in one lump sum.

For hall, and each extra have a payment button for it..  add it to the current house payment window.I remember reading that if a person pays for the weekly upkeep, if the escrow is low, the diff then is pulled from the person paying the upkeep.Being able to pay for the upkeep of the hall its self and then using what is left in escrow to pay for each amenity separately. If there is not enough, that Amenity becomes inactive.  This way the most important things can be kept active and open.It also does not force payment out of the person hitting the pay upkeep button if the escrow is too low to cover everything.I could also see this as a railying point for the guild. Members go to use this or that Amenity, and its not working, nice gentle reminder that the escrow needs more. This would open up the option to allow a person to take on the upkeep on a single Amenity.  Maybe the whole guild might not wish to spend status and coin on an Amenity, but a few really want it. They could then pop in and pay just for that one Amenity. This way their status and coin is going towards something they feel very strongly about having in the Hall. shrug....just an idea

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Bozidar wrote:

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

Bozidar wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

It's hardly trolling to ask for background into your perspective.

actually, it is.  The devs have asked us to stop with the back and forth with each other and just give feedback of our own.  if the devs feel the need to ask questions to ascertain a players background or perspective, they can do so.

I don't think a communistic, administrator-centric approach is one we need to honor. Nonetheless, responses like yours are those that detract from focusing in on actual, meaningful feedback. Keeping the primarily relevant things in mind like active player accounts, general levels of those active, playstyles, comparative playtimes, guild level, and guild history, are things directly conducive to construing value out of faceless voices shirking upkeep.

I have no idea why you insist on writing like that, it doesn't add any value, it just makes people ignore you.  You could have just as easily said: "It would be valueable for people to post their playstyle, including their guild level, history, and playtimes, so the devs dont have to look it up or infer it".  Yes, that would add value, and suggesting that to those reading is a great suggestion.  But turning every single post into a discussion about that poster just drags the FEEDBACK down.

The devs asked us to stop with the back-and-forth with each other.  You choose to not "honor" that request, so be it, your choice.

But having read every single post in this thread, and having to skim past hundreds of "you're a small/solo guild!"/"It's just for raiders like you!" posts, i'm rather sick of the discussion.  I dare say the devs have an outside shot of being more sick of it than I am.

If we could keep the topic to FEEDBACK since we're in the FEEDBACK thread, that'd be great.  I think some of the things that have been brought up here have been phenominal, and the dev interaction amazing.  This discussion is hurting that.

Note: FEEDBACK does not mean Discussion.

Sorry Bozidar, but aside from what you feel you've adequately separated into white and black, remains the grey. When a contributor here fails to provide circumstantial details, it is the burden of the typical attendees here, to hone in on their background and the meaning that can be gleaned from the sentiments they speak of. Developers don't have time to be active participators in the process of feedback, and thoroughly understanding positions -- yup, discussion -- is part of feedback. You have provided nothing here aside from reclusive talking points that ignore integral information relative to Bratface's stance. I suggest you not speak further until substance on the guild hall material herein is able to be developed on your end. Pocket the partisanship and sit firmly upon your slanted sight, but be ready to talk feedback and not do as you are, trolling on others while providing only a self-serving smokescreen to details which deserve to be seen.

Elquinjena wrote:

Maybe this was asked before, if so forgive me...

 but

would it be possible to have a payment list, instead of, when rent is due, having to pay it all in one lump sump.

For hall, and each extra have a payment button for it..  add it to the current house payment window.I remember reading that if a person pays for the weekly upkeep, if the escrow is low, the diff then is pulled from the person paying the upkeep.Being able to pay for the upkeep of the hall its self and then using what is left in escrow to pay for each amenity separately. If there is not enough, that Amenity becomes inactive.  This way the most important things can be kept active and open.It also does not force payment out of the person hitting the pay upkeep button if the escrow is too low to cover everything.I could also see this as a railying point for the guild. Members go to use this or that Amenity, and its not working, nice gentle reminder that the escrow needs more. This would open up the option to allow a person to take on the upkeep on a single Amenity.  Maybe the whole guild might not wish to spend status and coin on an Amenity, but a few really want it. They could then pop in and pay just for that one Amenity. This way their status and coin is going towards something they feel very strongly about having in the Hall. shrug....just an idea

I STRONGLY support dividing payment as Elquinjena suggested. If you read this, please quote and voice likewise, as my overview* is now at the character limit for each post. Locking guilds out due to an inability to pay for their amenities, as opposed to their guild hall, is something I do not consider in any fond light.

*Know each overview version has additions, so if you've read it before, consider reviewing it again to ensure you've percolated new material throughout your thinker. If you've missed it, it's on the page before this one, page 82, and I incorporated her suggestion, although that will be the last thing I will be able to add without splitting it into two posts.

[Bozidar]

Devs - The monitary eskrow account, is that something that can be withdrawn from by trustees?  Is there an exposure of someone who's been made trustee robbing the account and running off with it?  Obviously the status is deposite only, but what about the coin?

btw, ^^ Celery - i'll keep my own council on when i will and wont contribute.  as an active subscriber and guild leader this thread has been invalueable to me both in terms of what i've read, and in my right as a customer to share my opinions (80 pages ago).  If my asking you and others to do as the mods/devs have asked us to offends you in someway then i'm heartly sorry for that.

[Eveningsong]

Housing escrow accounts cannot be withdrawn from, so theft is not going to be an issue.  Someone possibly donating more than they meant to and being sad they can't get it back might be an issue, heh.  Also, if someone leaves the guild, they have no way to get any remaining donations back from escrow.

[Bozidar]

Eveningsong wrote:

Housing escrow accounts cannot be withdrawn from, so theft is not going to be an issue.  Someone possibly donating more than they meant to and being sad they can't get it back might be an issue, heh.  Also, if someone leaves the guild, they have no way to get any remaining donations back from escrow.

hmm... so what if that happens?  what if a guy puts in 200 plat when he meant to put in 20?  he's up the creek?  can he petition the gms about this?

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Bozidar wrote:

Devs - The monitary eskrow account, is that something that can be withdrawn from by trustees?  Is there an exposure of someone who's been made trustee robbing the account and running off with it?  Obviously the status is deposite only, but what about the coin?

btw, ^^ Celery - i'll keep my own council on when i will and wont contribute.  as an active subscriber and guild leader this thread has been invalueable to me both in terms of what i've read, and in my right as a customer to share my opinions (80 pages ago).  If my asking you and others to do as the mods/devs have asked us to offends you in someway then i'm heartly sorry for that.

Not offended, simply pointing out the flaw in attempting to dole out your own self-concerned suppositions as those of the developers. They employ administrators here, those of whom have the capacity to edit and delete posts as well as PM. Attempting to micromanage people will only show your inability to display due tolerance. There is a fine line on what is feedback relative to a topic and what isn't, and here, developers have suggested discussion relative to back-and-forth bickering are best left squashed. Acting as though discussion isn't feedback is a misinterpretation you only needed clarified, so here I am.

(P.S. Jesdyr, hypocrisy and contradiction are often present in everyone on multiple occasions. Please consider your advice and then reflect upon your comments. I have issues with none.)

Bozidar wrote:

Eveningsong wrote:

Housing escrow accounts cannot be withdrawn from, so theft is not going to be an issue.  Someone possibly donating more than they meant to and being sad they can't get it back might be an issue, heh.  Also, if someone leaves the guild, they have no way to get any remaining donations back from escrow.

hmm... so what if that happens?  what if a guy puts in 200 plat when he meant to put in 20?  he's up the creek?  can he petition the gms about this?

Moot question, as of course this can be petitioned. You'd simply have to wait for this to occur to understand what SOE's CS approach to the matter would entail.

- - > E D I T < - -

Better yet, submit five platinum to your own house escrow and say you meant to submit 50 gold, not 500. Then make a petition and tell us the results. Yes, I sanction "white lies" for experimental, communal gain, so long as none beyond a willing individual are subject to penalties.

[Jesdyr]

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

 so here I am.

I know I know .. this isnt the place .. But I find your posts annoying. You waste everyone's time by drawing out a simple statement into a 500 word essay. Often your typing goes off on tangents and it makes it unreadable. combine that with your obvious attempt to STAND OUT. It is no wonder you are getting the reaction you are. The ideas you post might be great, but I stopped reading them long ago. If you have a problem with someone (or this post) pls just send a PM. As said, if the devs want more information they will ask for it.

[Bozidar]

the problem with your "test" is that my home is personal, while the guild hall will be communial property.

A player may be able to get cash out of their own personal housing from a GM, but will the GMs have the tools to make sure that a player claiming to have put 500 play instead of 50, actually did?

I dont mean to make it sound like they're incompitent, but i've seen some GMs do some rather silly things in the past, and would like to be sure that making someone a trustee of our guild hall isn't literally handing him the keys to the castle.

[Jesdyr]

Bozidar wrote:

 but will the GMs have the tools to make sure that a player claiming to have put 500 play instead of 50, actually did?

There is always a log of these things. I dont think Anyone can answer this question and even if one GM refunded someone once does not mean that another GM would do it for someone else. This is just like ANY customer service. Sometimes the person on the other end will go above and beyond, sometimes they wont. By default I think the answer would be "Sorry, be more carefull next time" however most GMs might do more.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Suffice to say, points that have risen anew are that of altars and guild hall lockout and payment, relative to being afforded the ability to pay for guild hall and amenity upkeep separately, as to ensure the functionality of the guild hall despite potential shortcomings for any certain amenity and dues involved therein. My overview, on page 82, covers this and near all suggestions spoken of, aside from things like status-to-coin exchange, seeing as options for such a thing are readily available.

[Grospieds]

Jindrack wrote:

Adeyia@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Going back to my previous observations about this being funded by Personal Status rather than Guild Status, I was wondering the following:1. Why the decision to use SP rather than GP to fund amenities ? I think this is a good choice, but some people may disagree.

1.  As mentioned, guild status is nothing more than guild experience and most likely if it was in a form that could be spent would probably de-level the guild, something we decided against way back when Game Updates were called Live Updates and only had one digit.

could you reconsider to give players the possibility to de-level their guild to lower the cost and / or the rent of a guild hall ?

a level 50-60 guild with 6 active T8 players have the right to buy a T2 hall and about 15 amenities. but with only 6 players they can't afford the rent.

a level 50-60 guild with 24 active T8 players have the same right, and probably can pay regularly for the rent.

the possibilty to de-level the guild wouldn't be interesting for the 24 players guild. they would continue to grow in level and maintain a T2 hall and 15+ amenities. The guild with 6 players could use the option of transfering "guild experience" to the guild-hall escrow, or other mecanism. that would offer this guild a choice between different path :

 * buy a tiny guild-hall (T1 and 3-4 amenities), and continue to increase the guild level to get the existing bonuses for guilds.

 * convert some guild experience to be able to buy and maintain a nicer guild hall (maybe T1 with lot of amenities, or T2 with a few amenities).

 * seriously de-level the guild (10-20 levels), to get a nice T2 hall with nice amenities, at a weekly cost very very reduced or canceled.

Rothgar wrote about the loyalty of guild members towards their guild. Finding a way to allow old group sized guilds to maintain the same guild hall as a young raiding sized guild of the same level would be a nice way to show guild hall are about reward versus number of players in the guild.

[Qandor]

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

*Know each overview version has additions, so if you've read it before, consider reviewing it again to ensure you've percolated new material throughout your thinker. If you've missed it, it's on the page before this one, page 82, and I incorporated her suggestion, although that will be the last thing I will be able to add without splitting it into two posts.

Well here's an idea. rather than continually repeating that entire list over and over again as if it was some type of consensus, which it is not. Why not just post what you want to add. Perhaps people might actually read it then. I know I no longer read it.

[Qandor]

Just a crazy idea but since we seem to have bonus experience weekends quite often, why not have a bonus status weekend to get people working towards their guild halls? Not sure it is technically feasible but it might be well accepted. Just a thought.

[KnightsShadow]

Forgive me if this has been posted already...its been hard to keep up with 83 pages of this thread.  I come from a small guild of hard working folks.  These folks have jobs that can keep them away from playing for extended periods of time.  We actually enjoy being small, so I have no complaints there.  The thing I am worried about is the cost of these halls.  I know that this has been covered in depth from what I have seen of the posts, but I have a slightly different view.  As I am sometimes the only person on from time to time I find it tough to swallow to think that I must foot the entire (and HUGE) bill of having a guild hall if that is what I would like.  We have worked very hard to get to the level we are.  In my opinion, we have had to work a lot harder since we have chosen to remain a small guild.  How does this factor in to the price of the halls?  Is there any way that the price and upkeep can be scaled to guild size?  I appreciated the drop in price that I have seen already, but to be honest, while not wishing that we have the tier 3 (which is WAY out of price range for us now) the tier 2 is still too hefty a price to have to foot with our meager membership.  We would like to have the same conveniences that are afforded in a guild hall, just cant afford to empty the bank doing it.

We have been waiting eagerly, as everyone else has, for the guild halls.  I just hope they dont get left to those that can play 24/7 and/or are part of huge raiding guilds.  Thanks bunches!!

[Eveningsong]

FYI, the live quests for the next game update are a great way to rack up status fairly quickly. Pick a tier and type of item you want to harvest (eg. tier 2 wood) and go harvest an average of 20 items (note items not pulls) and return for a relatively nice status award. Anyone with status concerns should be able to increase their status pool quite quickly and easily repeating the quests, plus you get a couple of nice house rewards and a title after doing 10, 20 or 30 of the quests .  As an example, I believe my Test toon was getting around 10K status for T6 harvests.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Qandor wrote:

Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:

*Know each overview version has additions, so if you've read it before, consider reviewing it again to ensure you've percolated new material throughout your thinker. If you've missed it, it's on the page before this one, page 82, and I incorporated her suggestion, although that will be the last thing I will be able to add without splitting it into two posts.

Well here's an idea. rather than continually repeating that entire list over and over again as if it was some type of consensus, which it is not. Why not just post what you want to add. Perhaps people might actually read it then. I know I no longer read it.

If you feel you've amassed a comfortable understanding on terms of an overview of this entire thread, then by all means, ignore my posts on the overview. Version 3.0 added bits on modifying the Stable Hand, Guild Cloak Designer, and a "Team Uniform", "Magical Uniformity", "Alternate Advancement", and "Artisan Avenues" amenity, among minor modifications and edits throughout. Not that I typically condone discluding discourse where it may be due, but...

Rothgar wrote:

I've been trying my best to read every post in this thread looking for bits of feedback but it has really turned into a lot of bickering lately.  I hate to pull the 'moderator' card, but the point of this thread is to provide constructive feedback for the dev team.  Whether your feedback is "upkeep is too high" or "upkeep is fine as it is" we want to hear it.  But what we don't need are the same people posting the same feedback over and over again.  We also don't need people trying to convince other's that their opinions/feedback is incorrect.  This isn't a debate forum, its a forum to let your voice be heard.There have been some great suggestions and very constructive feedback to help us make certain amenities better, like the supply depot.  Thats the kind of thing I really like about this communication between you guys and the dev team.  So once again, I'm asking for you guys to try to keep this train on the tracks so we can make the launch of guild halls as successful as possible.

Aside from all of that, reviewing pretty much everything aside from disagreements on content viability throughout the tiers is that which is done in my overview, coupled with my own points and extrapolations on other suggestions, such as multi-faceted permissions, dues, and guild hall skirmishing. I never act as though it is a consensus. My apologies Rothgar, for impulsively confronting what may seem to be debate, I merely aim to emphasize the ease with which considering this thread's constructive contents can be done. The reason I link to Rothgar's user profile when I quote him (and in this case, his message history), is so that players can review where he has commented, to see what issues have been touched upon in some official sense, as having an audience most familiar with the goings on as of late, I feel, would enable them to provide acute feedback.

[Jardon]

I just want to know who put Serili in charge of keeping the "so called" summery of this thread?

So s/he summerize the thread with his/her slant on every suggestion.

If I may be so bold, please let the devs decide what more information they want on specific feedback, and ask the person that gave the feedback.

I for one don't need someone elses summary of what "everyone" else has said.

[Caethre]

Kendricke wrote:

Zorastiz@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Maybe there should be some sort of scaling based on guild size or something, I don't know but in my mind if you have worked as hard for 4 years in a small guild as a guy in a large guild then why wouldn't all things be somewhat equal?

Why scaling?  Look, we all make choices. 

For a long time, my guild chose to be Qeynos only.  It was our choice, but we knew it came with consequences.  We knew it would make raiding harder on us, but we stuck to our guns.  Eventually, we changed to allow Freeport/Neriak classes as well.  We chose to adapt. 

Right now, you have a choice.  You can choose to increase your guild's size.  It's up to you.  It's not on SOE to determine how large your guild is.  If you want to remain smaller, that's an available option.  However, you have to accept the consequences of that choice.  That choice really matters.  If you want to stay smaller, it means less guildmates to share the load.  Basically, there's a 1,000 pound cart that needs to be pushed.  I bring 60 people to push and pull it and you bring 6.  We're both pushing the same load...but each of my members has 1/10 the weight to carry.  It's not the cart's fault that you have less people pushing.  It's just your choice.

OOC.

I don't think there should be scaling either, the size of that cart is the size of that cart, and small guilds should have to work harder, and tiny ones work hardest of all, yes, that part is the choice you speak of.

However, where this kind of argument always fails, Kendricke, is in the ongoing implication that players should not give feedback requesting further changes (or at least, changes that you do not agree with).

To use your analogy (a reasonable one, given its simplicity): whilst the size of a guild is undeniably a choice to be made by the players, the size of that cart is still up for debate. It is never an unchangeable deal. You want it to be a 1000 lb cart, clearly, so you rigidly defend the status quo, as that suits your guild. Someone like Gaige wants it to be a 5000 lb cart, so him and his buddies can push it, but most in other playstyles cannot (the obnoxious elitist entitlement perspective - wanting it "just for us, keep those proles away from our content" ). Me, I'd like to see it as a 200 lb cart, where more folks will be able to push it than they could with it at 1000 lb, making it more accessible to a larger slice of the playerbase than it would be at 1000 lb (probably still too much for my tiny guild, but this isn't about me, even if some like to try to make things personal). Now, it is true, some folks might want it to be a 10 lb cart, so that literally anyone can push it on their own, given even a little bit of work.

All these views have their perspectives and their pluses and minuses. There is a trade-off. The easier it is, the more players will see the content. However, it is undeniably true that something worked for is more fun than something given for free, as gamers tend to delight in achieving things, and keeping as many people as possible in that 'fun' belt would be the best plan.

Where should it be set? Well, it hasn't been finally decided, obviously, and that is why this thread is here. Who is right? /shrug No-one is, actually, it's a judgement call.

[Prrasha]

Qandor wrote:

Just a crazy idea but since we seem to have bonus experience weekends quite often, why not have a bonus status weekend to get people working towards their guild halls? Not sure it is technically feasible but it might be well accepted. Just a thought.

Because, in general, status is only a problem for the level 30-50 guilds, and even for them, the coin gain is going to be much much harder.  I doubt a "bonus plat weekend" would be viewed kindly by anyone (myself included.)

[Caethre]

bryldan wrote:

This is JUST A GUESS on my part but if you notice on the next patch they are putting in more of the fabled alters maybe just maybe they will allow those to be placed in guild halls so whoever is a part of that diety can pray etc etc. Of course i am sure the casual ppl would say this is no fair and they should start droping in instances but that will be another matter.

OOC.

In phase II, when guild hall status reduction items are added, I suspect SOE will have multiple ways of acquiring such items. Some may be raid-acquired. Obviously raiding will not be the only method, as there are plenty of non-raiding guilds out there who will have a need for such items.

Personally, I hope there are some crafted recipes created for this, probably for carpenters, if this were to be consistent with housing status reduction, tho the cost of production might be a *lot* higher per item of course.

Knowing Domino, I bet she has some ideas already in mind.

[Oh]

Prrasha wrote:

Qandor wrote:

Just a crazy idea but since we seem to have bonus experience weekends quite often, why not have a bonus status weekend to get people working towards their guild halls? Not sure it is technically feasible but it might be well accepted. Just a thought.

Because, in general, status is only a problem for the level 30-50 guilds, and even for them, the coin gain is going to be much much harder.  I doubt a "bonus plat weekend" would be viewed kindly by anyone (myself included.)

Neat idea but I would have to agree on the no don't do it. Basically status isn't a problem for the guild level it's more an issue of guild size. For example a guild with 100 folks in it will be able to rack up status much faster then a guild with 3 folks in it. Really that's the crux doesn't matter really if it is guild level 30 or guild level 80. I guess I should also make a mention that if everyone in the guild is lowlevel that also adds an extra complexity to the guild size.

[Ojojida]

Jardor@Antonia Bayle wrote:

I just want to know who put Serili in charge of keeping the "so called" summery of this thread?

So s/he summerize the thread with his/her slant on every suggestion.

If I may be so bold, please let the devs decide what more information they want on specific feedback, and ask the person that gave the feedback.

I for one don't need someone elses summary of what "everyone" else has said.

I trust the Devs to have a handle on this and I would not expect them to read posts from just one person. Rothgar has commented several times on suggestions related to different individuals so I trust in his ability to be consistent and review the thread and make his own determination.

If someone wants to try and sum it all up, let them. That does not mean that any one person has an angle on this whole thing and I'll continue to throw in my 2 cents worth when I feel necessary or (preferably) I have a decent idea to share with everyone.

[CyranoDK]

Feedback? Ok.It has been discussed within my guild (which, btw. is guildlevel 64 and has 35 unique accounts) and it is highly unlikely we will go for any of the guildhalls with the current price setup. Those upkeeps (especially on the amenities) are way to high for our playstyle.

[Kendricke]

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Kendricke wrote:

Zorastiz@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Maybe there should be some sort of scaling based on guild size or something, I don't know but in my mind if you have worked as hard for 4 years in a small guild as a guy in a large guild then why wouldn't all things be somewhat equal?

Why scaling?  Look, we all make choices. 

For a long time, my guild chose to be Qeynos only.  It was our choice, but we knew it came with consequences.  We knew it would make raiding harder on us, but we stuck to our guns.  Eventually, we changed to allow Freeport/Neriak classes as well.  We chose to adapt. 

Right now, you have a choice.  You can choose to increase your guild's size.  It's up to you.  It's not on SOE to determine how large your guild is.  If you want to remain smaller, that's an available option.  However, you have to accept the consequences of that choice.  That choice really matters.  If you want to stay smaller, it means less guildmates to share the load.  Basically, there's a 1,000 pound cart that needs to be pushed.  I bring 60 people to push and pull it and you bring 6.  We're both pushing the same load...but each of my members has 1/10 the weight to carry.  It's not the cart's fault that you have less people pushing.  It's just your choice.

OOC.

I don't think there should be scaling either, the size of that cart is the size of that cart, and small guilds should have to work harder, and tiny ones work hardest of all, yes, that part is the choice you speak of.

However, where this kind of argument always fails, Kendricke, is in the ongoing implication that players should not give feedback requesting further changes (or at least, changes that you do not agree with).

To use your analogy (a reasonable one, given its simplicity): whilst the size of a guild is undeniably a choice to be made by the players, the size of that cart is still up for debate. It is never an unchangeable deal. You want it to be a 1000 lb cart, clearly, so you rigidly defend the status quo, as that suits your guild. Someone like Gaige wants it to be a 5000 lb cart, so him and his buddies can push it, but most in other playstyles cannot (the obnoxious elitist entitlement perspective - wanting it "just for us, keep those proles away from our content" ). Me, I'd like to see it as a 200 lb cart, where more folks will be able to push it than they could with it at 1000 lb, making it more accessible to a larger slice of the playerbase than it would be at 1000 lb (probably still too much for my tiny guild, but this isn't about me, even if some like to try to make things personal). Now, it is true, some folks might want it to be a 10 lb cart, so that literally anyone can push it on their own, given even a little bit of work.

All these views have their perspectives and their pluses and minuses. There is a trade-off. The easier it is, the more players will see the content. However, it is undeniably true that something worked for is more fun than something given for free, as gamers tend to delight in achieving things, and keeping as many people as possible in that 'fun' belt would be the best plan.

Where should it be set? Well, it hasn't been finally decided, obviously, and that is why this thread is here. Who is right? /shrug No-one is, actually, it's a judgement call.

I don't believe I ever stated, implicitly or otherwise, that other players should not provide feedback. If anything, I've only asked for more information from those providing feedback, so that there is more data involved in the discussion, in order that more intelligent responses may be formulated on both sides of the aisle.

You talk of judgement calls and I'd agree that judgement is very much involved. However, I'd say that it's hard to make proper judgements with limited information. It's hard to determine whether or not the cart is too heavy when many of those who are complaining about the size of the cart aren't also mentioning how many people they're trying to push the cart with in the first place or when they don't mention the size of the people they have available to push the cart.

Obviously my eighty level 80's will have a much easier time pushing any cart than a guild which only has three level 30's and a level 45.

[Ojojida]

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

bryldan wrote:

This is JUST A GUESS on my part but if you notice on the next patch they are putting in more of the fabled alters maybe just maybe they will allow those to be placed in guild halls so whoever is a part of that diety can pray etc etc. Of course i am sure the casual ppl would say this is no fair and they should start droping in instances but that will be another matter.

OOC.

In phase II, when guild hall status reduction items are added, I suspect SOE will have multiple ways of acquiring such items. Some may be raid-acquired. Obviously raiding will not be the only method, as there are plenty of non-raiding guilds out there who will have a need for such items.

Personally, I hope there are some crafted recipes created for this, probably for carpenters, if this were to be consistent with housing status reduction, tho the cost of production might be a *lot* higher per item of course.

Knowing Domino, I bet she has some ideas already in mind.

Humm... Interesting but why limit it to carpenters. Domnio seems rather creative so why not a little something that each TS class could contribute?

Tailor - Wall hangings, drapes

Armorer - a suite of armor statue

Weaponsmith - Coat of arms (think about the possibilites here) something along the guild cloak design concept maybe?

Scribe - stack of books (ok, I'm sure someone else can do better than that)

Alchamist - not sure but I was thinking 'mad scientist lab' type of thing. Cauldren, boiling beaker of liquid....

and so on. Seems like there is plent of opportunity for a little something for all the tradeskills.

[SnoesieQ]

Qandor wrote:

Pheep@Unrest wrote:

Lady Shai wrote:

HelixHibrow wrote:

Can someone explain to me the status amounts required to achieve the guild levels in question?

Level 30 = ???

Level 50 = ???

Level 70 = ???

no status required to purchase....

only the amenities require status as well as coin....the Hall only requires coin.

I think he wants how much status a guild needs to achieve to get to the stated levels, not the guild halls.I honestly dunno that one, tho I have seen many threads here and there, so you may want to go searching, Helix.

I can help with some of that. To achieve a guild level of 30 requires 1,650,000 guild status (16,500,000 personal status). A guild level of 50 requires 3,800,000 guild status (38 million personal status). It ramps up sharply after that but we are only 56 currently so cannot provide numbers beyond that. A guild level of 56 requires 6,600,000 guild status.

Earning status is a mixed bag currently. There are some very good ways to earn it and some very inefficient ways to earn it. Killing names and writs (both crafting and adventure) are very good ways to gain status. Heritage quests are no longer a very good way to gain status. A T7 heritage quest might yield 60,000 status and take considerable time to do. A level 80 character can earn equivalent status doing writs in under 20 minutes. Dropped status items are the worst of all. A full stack of T8 status items yields only 16,000 personal status while a writ can earn the same in minutes.

Dropped status items really need to be re-evaluated in my opinion. Going back to release when max guild level was 30, a dropped status item which yielded 500 was significant. However now, [Removed for Content] guild levels going as high as 80, a T8 status drop yielding a mere 800, pales by comparison. A level 80 guild requires, most likely, close to 10 times the status that a level 30 guild does and yet status drop items have at most doubled in value if you include the T9 drops which yield 1,000 status. Higher level dropped status items are of little value to higher level guilds. All personal opinion of course. Your mileage may vary.

I have tried to stay out of the discussions about upkeep for the most part, because a/ I think upkeep is a good thing b/ I think the upkeep is achievable even by a small guild of lower level characters.

However, IMO the status purchase price of some of them is much too high. Finding this post confirmed that it wasn't just me who couldn't add up. Some of the amenities I can understand - statues, guards, strategist.

But a bank and broker?

If you give people the choice to place whatever amenities they want in the guild hall, then they should also be able to choose within reason.

An example, for a tradeskill oriented guild.

Banker(Purchase: 25p, 0g + 5,000,000 status)Broker(Purchase: 25p, 0g + 5,000,000 status)Supply Depot(Purchaset: 25p, 0g + 5,000,000 status)Rush Order Agent(Purchase: 10p, 0g + 2,000,000 status)Translocation Beacon(Purchase: 1p, 0g + 250,000 status)Portal to housing(Purchaset: 10p, 0g + 2,000,000 status)Creature Conjuror(Purchase: 5p, 0g + 1,000,000 status)

Purchase:151p, 20,250,000 status points :OUpkeep: 2p 52g 160,000 status(yeah, I threw the creature conjuror in there for fun, it's not very expensive and will provide some exercise between writs

But - for a lvl 30 guild... even if every single member who has contributed to levelling the guild to 30 are still in the guild, hasn't spent any status and are willing to donate 100% of their personal status, this is still not enough.

You can say that if a guild want those amenities, they should knuckle down and do the status to get them, but - then the guild will level... and unlock MORE slots, which they again don't have the ability to buy amenities for.

I'm not going to do more math and long lists and suggestions, especially since we don't all (the players) have access to the status amount per guild level in black and white. (not to mention a complete list of amenities, as has been pointed out before)

I am going to ask that the amount of status it takes to level a guild is taken into consideration. Perhaps this is an oversight because the halls were not planned to be available for guild level 30, I don't know.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Oops.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Jardor@Antonia Bayle wrote:

I just want to know who put Serili in charge of keeping the "so called" summery of this thread?

So s/he summerize the thread with his/her slant on every suggestion.

If I may be so bold, please let the devs decide what more information they want on specific feedback, and ask the person that gave the feedback.

I for one don't need someone elses summary of what "everyone" else has said.

It isn't my slant on every suggestion, simply put, I tend to contend with input through incorporating it within the scheme of things already known, to give developers or other players material to imagine their own feedback upon brainstormed ideas, insofar. Such is done as to amass a feasible roster of  potential reformation, available as a compilation to any who can contemplate the concepts found and then construct.

Ojojida (shows as Dalmory when replying, lol), I think that placeable items for living quarters are best kept to Carpenters, and that is likely to be the sentiment of Domino as well as the predominant portion of the populace. However, with a tinge of guild hall content, I welcome new recipes for our carpenters at any extent.