Forums » General Guild Discussion

Guild Discussion

  • September 18, 2016 7:51 PM PDT

    Trox said:

     

     

     

    Another thing I like from BDO that I wouldn't mind seeing in Pantheon (and other MMOs at that) is that if the Guild Leader goes MIA for a time period (BDO has it set to 5 days) then the officers can remove them as Leader and appoint a new one. That way the guild can continue on without having to reform or try to get the GMs to switch it around.

     

     

  • September 18, 2016 7:53 PM PDT

    Like this idea, but 5 days is way 2 short.  Would love to see it at 15 or 30 days.

    • 35 posts
    October 4, 2016 2:35 AM PDT

    Thanks for pointing me to this Kilsin.. you have some great ideas there. (Actually you pointed out just about all of mine!)

    Kilsin said:

    • Name/Level/Class/Location/Crafting/Diplomacy/Harvesting descriptions and levels (Tab/Toggle)

    I would like to expand on this to include gear, key and epic-quest progression. The more information that can be imput by each individual player about it's toon is more that's taken off a GL/officer's plate. Tunare knows they already have enough to do to properly set up a raid!

    Kilsin said:

    • Find a Guild list/tab/page - Advertising and easy to use interface for anyone to search for any guild and see if any recruiters are online...ask questions or just enquire about Guild needs

    It would also be nice if a recruitment app could be filled out in-game and in-game mailed to the officers.

    Kilsin said:

    • Permission system - preferably with a lot of toggle options for different ranks

    Including the use of certain tabs of a guild bank (assuming we have multiple tabs/banks) so that crafters can deposit consumables and raiders can withdraw them.

    Kilsin said:

    • Points/DKP system (Tab) - This can be just a blank box that can be written in for Dkp or similar

    Don't forget about us EPGP users!!


    This post was edited by Panda at October 4, 2016 2:41 AM PDT
    • 1631 posts
    October 9, 2016 8:24 AM PDT

    A couple of ideas here:

    Some people have wanted a way to tag alts of a guild.  How about if a character gets invited into the guild, there is a page or option someone in the guild controls that allows that player to auto-invite his own alts on his account into the guild, which are automatically tagged by the system as his alt.  The character that was initially invited would be the main, and any alts he chose to bring along would be "alts" in the guild tools.  People with the proper permissions (guild leader, officer) could change an alt to a main.  Thus everyone would automatically know who's main an alt was, and it would always be accurate.

    For people with multiple accounts, the invited character would initially be marked as a main, but could be devoted to an alt, so every character on that account would be an alt.

    Another is guild faction.  Activities partaken by the guild's members would have effects on the guild as a whole.  Something like 1% of all faction changes each member gets through adventuring would apply to the guild as a whole.  Basically not only would individual characters be known by the factions as friendly or hostile, but it could effect entire guilds.  I would say it would not be a big change, but if your entire guild decides they want to be aligned with a particular faction (to do quests, or be able to travel through it, or whatever), then it would make it easier for the members to do so by allowing the guild itself to modify the individual member's faction ratings.


    This post was edited by kelenin at October 9, 2016 8:26 AM PDT
    • 126 posts
    November 1, 2016 11:41 AM PDT

    kelenin said:

    A couple of ideas here:

    Some people have wanted a way to tag alts of a guild.  How about if a character gets invited into the guild, there is a page or option someone in the guild controls that allows that player to auto-invite his own alts on his account into the guild, which are automatically tagged by the system as his alt.  The character that was initially invited would be the main, and any alts he chose to bring along would be "alts" in the guild tools.  People with the proper permissions (guild leader, officer) could change an alt to a main.  Thus everyone would automatically know who's main an alt was, and it would always be accurate.

    For people with multiple accounts, the invited character would initially be marked as a main, but could be devoted to an alt, so every character on that account would be an alt.

     

    Thats really a great idea....

    I know I, personally, am an altaholic. But, I do not want all my alts in the same guild...some I want to have guildless. this would be perfect to have it so no one sees my alts but me, and I can decided what ones to have and be seen in that guild.

    Love it!

    • 1826 posts
    December 10, 2016 7:55 PM PST

    A lot of pepole here are against multiple guilds, but I am all for it. I have a wife and 5 kids that play together. I enjoy raiding and I enjoy hanging with friends.

    I like to have a safe place for my family, so we usually have a family guild. I usually join a large casual guild at first and make a lot of friends, usually with an 18+ crowd. I hate to abandon them all when it's time to get serious and start raiding.

    Whether its multiple guilds, social circles, whatever you want to call it, I need to be able to have all three components in my game to make it enjoyable. 

    If strong raiding teams did not require you to join their guild in order to raid wth them, that would also solve the problem.

    • 762 posts
    December 11, 2016 8:59 PM PST

    Beefcake said:

    A lot of pepole here are against multiple guilds, but I am all for it. I have a wife and 5 kids that play together. I enjoy raiding and I enjoy hanging with friends.

    I like to have a safe place for my family, so we usually have a family guild. I usually join a large casual guild at first and make a lot of friends, usually with an 18+ crowd. I hate to abandon them all when it's time to get serious and start raiding.

    Whether its multiple guilds, social circles, whatever you want to call it, I need to be able to have all three components in my game to make it enjoyable. 

    If strong raiding teams did not require you to join their guild in order to raid wth them, that would also solve the problem.

     

    Yup and there is many reasons why it wont work for a hardcore raiding guild. Meaning that a social guild-casual will have allowances for multi guilds and it will be fine. Much like your steam group system.

    Raiding guilds and the membership usually have been known to block those in other guilds for the simple fact, Player gains. One persons gains are above others. If a main joins and plays with others in that guild, another hops on demanding someone group up, if not found logs off to another character and joins in on another guild they are assicoated.

     

    Tracking loot, tracking points, and tracking what leaves the guild and gets transfered to another guild doesnt fly with loyal membership.

    Its rather tough as it is, when someone works rather hard looses out to another that just plays casual and wins. Mostly for the dedication of time one puts in.

     

    This is where the antisocial part comes from. Your blocked from doing any group activities with others because you tend to be casual and never show up when its time. Others invest in the time yet you are not able to, usually playing another character in another guild. It really boils down to hardcore raiding guilds and casual - social guilds. Its the nature of the beast.

     

    and raid strats are another thing, officers, members put so much effort into higher end raids, and then someone copies and pastes it to another guild. Within 1 week they completed your raid. Multiguilds just do not belong to high end raiding guilds.


    This post was edited by Crazzie at December 11, 2016 9:01 PM PST
    • 762 posts
    December 11, 2016 9:04 PM PST

    Panda said:

    Kilsin said:

    • Points/DKP system (Tab) - This can be just a blank box that can be written in for Dkp or similar

    Don't forget about us EPGP users!!

     

    Do you have some info on this epgp system? not sure what the loot system is.

    • 24 posts
    December 27, 2016 8:55 PM PST

    One thing to be careful with- especially if Pantheon allows multiple guilds- is that Guild Perks cause people to look cross-eyed at you if you aren't 'pulling your weight' or if you spend time in another guild and aren't 'contributing enough' to said perks.  Guilds shouldn't be causes of strife.

    • 1826 posts
    December 28, 2016 12:47 PM PST

    Morr said:

    One thing to be careful with- especially if Pantheon allows multiple guilds- is that Guild Perks cause people to look cross-eyed at you if you aren't 'pulling your weight' or if you spend time in another guild and aren't 'contributing enough' to said perks.  Guilds shouldn't be causes of strife.

    Even in one guild, if you are not contributing or your are using your guild to benefit non-guildies, you should be slapped.

    • 3199 posts
    December 31, 2016 7:28 PM PST

    Don't like multi-guilds,  but then I come from the days where you didn't guild hop etc.    Yes there should be an allowable "process" for someone to apply to a guild..get the once over from guild leaders/officers,   say a month's probation..where grouping etc takes place with guild members.   In Guild Wars (the first one) our  guild members actually got to vote on each person applying to guild at the end of probation.   We had something like 135 members eventually...as a joke we made it a prerequisite to have a sense of humor,  jokes and pranks welcome  hehehe

    As for guild levels,  I helped level guilds in Rift and EQII by crafting and doing the quests.   It becomes long and tedious if noone else is helping,  so if there are no guild levels,  that's fine by me I can work on other things.  :)

    • 6 posts
    February 21, 2017 1:57 PM PST

    Fairchild said:

    I hope that there is a minimum number of characters required to create a guild and you need to gather those members and speak to someone to create it. 

    Could you explain your reasoning for this? 

    I play games with 2 to 3 friends and in mutiple games we can not create a guild or if we can create a guild it limits the use of guild features based on number of members. 

    It should only take 1 person to create the guild and I don't think it should cost anything.  I shouldn't have to get 10 people I don't know to create a guild and then kick them out. 

    There should not be a member requirement to access guild functions. Paying x gold for access is fine.  For an example in ESO, you have to have 10 members to get a guild bank, why?

     

    I am also for guilds not being account tied.  Alts should be allowed to be in their own guild if you want.  I am not for a character being in multiple guilds. 

    • Moderator
    • 8593 posts
    February 21, 2017 6:20 PM PST

    There are no multi-guilds in Pantheon, we have stated previously that you will be able to pick and choose between any guild but once you select a guild to join, you will only be able to join one guild only until you decide to leave and join another one.

    • 264 posts
    February 21, 2017 7:14 PM PST

    Kilsin said:

    There are no multi-guilds in Pantheon, we have stated previously that you will be able to pick and choose between any guild but once you select a guild to join, you will only be able to join one guild only until you decide to leave and join another one.

    That's per toon, yes? A different toon could join another guild? This isn't an accout-tied thing.

    • 101 posts
    February 23, 2017 10:25 PM PST

    Are guilds going to be hindered by race/alignment restrictions?

    Re-read page 1 saw what Kilsen said, my apologies.


    This post was edited by Nolvu at February 23, 2017 10:35 PM PST
    • 105 posts
    February 25, 2017 10:28 AM PST

    Wandidar said:

     

    One thing I would love to see come back from EQ - the notion of having to actually apply and earn your way into a guild... because name was critically important - yours AND your guild's...  Because by having a guild tag on, you represented your guild.

     

    In my guild - you needed to apply - and you had to have a sponsor within the guild.  A sponsor was a member in good standing who would vouch for you.  Apps with sponsors were tagged and were on probation for a month.  In that month, you had to gain 15 positive votes from members including 3 officer votes.  Most guild members would not vote for you if they did not group with you.   Officers definitely would not vote for you if they did not group with you - AND talk to you for a while.  I was an officer and I would spend an entire night with an app grouping, talking, etc... and then continue to chat with them over the course of at least a couple weeks before I would vote for them.  Getting in the guild MEANT something.

     

    NOW - I know that what I'm talking about goes beyond any guild system implemented in the game... it is just me sort of wistfully thinking back and hoping Pantheon ends up being THAT game - meaning "the MMO where people start caring about their name and their reputation again"

     

    I highlighted the part that I want to reply to. I believe that what you're talking about was less a function of guild implementation itself, and more a product of server sizes. I recall back on original EQ the server sizes... well I don't know specifically what they were, but they must have been pretty small compared to today's server sizes. What makes me say that? Well, you knew everyone. If not personally, you had a friend who had grouped with them beore. Or you'd heard about them through chat. Or you'd seen them in chat. Or... something. With server sizes the way they are today, you could never reach a point where you had heard of or talked to everyone. Back in vanilla EQ everyone on my server knew who the top guild was. It wasn't an ego thing, you see all sorts of people in games these days claim to be "a top raiding guild" but no one had ever heard of them, and when you ask their accomplishments it seems pretty paltry. Everyone on the server I played on knew who Inner Circle was. They also knew, without being told, that it was the top raiding guild on that server. The guild I was in was a well known guild, but not known for raiding (we were "a casual raiding guild, meaning we didn't have the time to dedicate to raiding 5 nights a week, but we'd raid on the weekends, and be moderately successful), but rather were known for being friendly, out going, inclusive, and "proficient". There was a monk, in another guild, named Shaq Fu. Shaq wasn't in IC, but rather in Black Tower. BT was the second highest raiding guild. Shaq, however, was known across the server as the single best monk, and the absolute best puller for plane of Hate. You simply can't build that kind of reputation when there are 100k people on a server. On the other hand, on a much smaller server, it becomes possible for reputations to grow, and be built. For deeds to become known. For firsts to matter. And not just because of system messages going "blahblah has done such and such." Those, to me, seem like an artificial way of creating the sort of ... intimacy(?) we had simply by virtue of server size. And while this reply maybe doesn't directly go into the category of guild implementation, I feel like it still belongs here because one of the most important aspects of guild building is making guild reputation matter. And guild reputation can't matter when your server sizes are too large for people to know who and what the guilds are. So, for the love of guilds, make the server size reflect the need for community.

    • 105 posts
    February 25, 2017 10:35 AM PST

    cladari said:

    I would like to see an automatic guild log that logs guild events like the system Rift has. I would also like to see a "wall" system, again like Rift has, that can be written to and keeps a rolling history. Both of these features are very handy.

     

    Highlighted the part I'd like to comment on. I like the idea of a wall, or message board. Actually, having a couple of them. One would be to members, which can be posted on by Officers and Leader(s). Like an expanded MOTD system. Why? Because website participation is never 100%. If you have things you need to communicate to all of the members having a place in game to put it is paramount. Sometimes you'll have more things than can't be communicated in a single MOTD. Thus, a wall. The second would be a wall for the leader(s) to communicate to the officers. The leader(s) would be the only ones who can post to it, and only officers can read it. Same reasoning as the member wall, but with the added bonus of some confidentiality. Third would be a wall that the officers can post to, which can only be seen by the officers and leader(s). 

     

    This would allow for more communication in game. I'm not opposed to using third party websites at all. In fact, I think that they're basically mandatory for any serious guild. However, I also feel like there should be a certain amount of overlap, where, in guilds that utilize (and whose members utilize) the website more, they can rely on in game functionality less, but also where, in guilds thhat utilize (and whose members utilize) the website more, they can rely on in game functionality more. 

    • 105 posts
    February 25, 2017 10:57 AM PST

    Amsai said:

    I like this thread, has a lot of solid ideas. I will say I am not really that concerned with the multiple Guilds thing, but thats probably to be understood as I come from a FFXI background. That being said I understand some of the issues that come up with that, so its not a make or break issue for sure. However, I would like some type of organized group thats more than a friends list but maybe less than a Guild. FFXI had Linkshells instead of guilds and the endgame community policed itself. So yes it was frowned on to have more than one endgame guild, but people usually had several social/other guilds. And very often endgame guilds had social counterpart guilds or "Orientation" type guilds where the Vets got to know the newbies a bit before that upgraded them to full member status. So I would love to have something like this.

     

    My primary reason is I dont want to join a social guild early on and later on want to do endgame activities and have to leave my guild because of a 1 guild rule. As Im sure many of you know, over a year or more, guild members can become very close, so I wouldnt want to ditch them just because I want epic adventure. You could fall in early on with a great group of people, only to discover later on that all they really want is more casual gaming or leveling Alts. And this is precisely what did happen to me in FFXI. I was with a guild for about 3 years and when I was ready to do endgame, no one else really wanted too (about 40 members). Luckily I didnt have to ditch them to do endgame. I just kept them as a social guild and joined an endgame guild that was recruiting. Eventually over time the endgame guild  also became my primary social guild too. But I never quit the other guild  and still would hang out with them and help with things from time to time as well.

     

    So either have a guild specify its purpose endgame, social, everything, etc. Or have the 1 Guild rule, but allow for smaller organizations like a Fellowship or Club.

     

    I think having a place in the guild recruitment process where a guild specifies their purpose is good, I also think expanding on that in the "About Us" section (which I think should be part of the guild recruitment tab) is even better. However, I don't think that will always resolve issues of outgrowing a guild, and you know what? That's okay. Your tastes are going to change as you play. You might outgrow a guild, or your guild might outgrow you. I don't think multiple guilds are the solution. They divide (in my opinion) your time and loyalty too much. I had a great friend in vanilla EQ, Achenar Starpyre. He was a wizard. He ended up outgrowing our little casual raiding guild (we progressed much slower than he did) and moved on to a larger raiding guild (actually the top raiding guild on the server, because Achenar was a badass). He maintained a close relationship with our guild, and the friends he had made there. However, the majority of his time was dedicated to doing things with his new guild. If he was on he was almost always in tells with folks from our guild. Sometimes we'd even throw up a chat channel and all hang out there with him. When we needed him, he was there. A friend of ours, from within our guild, had been part of a really really bad attempt to raid Fear. After 10+ hours of attempted corpse recovery, people were on the verge of calling it an unmitigated failure, and were seriously concerned about getting their bodies back. Achenar happened to pop on at that time. One quick tell later and the entirety of his new big raiding guild showed up, broke fear, got everyone who was still on and attempting corpse recovery back to their bodies, proceeded to clear fear, and gave the quest items to those people who had been there for the failed raid. Could all of that have still been accomplished with Multiple Guilds? Maybe. Maybe not.

     

    Why maybe not, you ask? Because with multiple guilds you often find (or I have often found) that people feel less allegiance to one another, and to their guilds, or at least some of their guilds. Example, you're in two guilds, one of them is your casual, fun, friendly guild. The other is your raiding guild. You and the folks in your casual guild are all super close, great friends, spend all your non-raiding time with them. Opposed to that, you really only spend time with your raiding guild... well, while raiding. The bonds within your hardcore raiding guild aren't nearly as tight as they are with the family you've formed within your casual guild. Thus, when you turn to your raiding guild and say, "Hey, this friend of mine from my casual guild needs a hand...." they're less likely to jump in and help out, because they don't have that same connection to you that they have when, for the last 6 months, you've been spending the majority of your time with them, because, well, loyalty to the guild you have. 

     

    Did it suck when Achenar left us? Yeah, a bit. But it was the right move for him, and while we didn't get to spend as much time with him, we never lost that connection. Not only that... but his moving on was also a bit of a prod in the direction we needed to go. We had been hovering on the border between casual and hardcore for a while, and this didn't exactly push us over to the "hardcore raiding guild" like, it did prompt us to start taking things a little more serious. Stepping up our raiding schedule a little, and pushing ourselves to get more equipped so we could do more. Without that little kick in the butt to evaluate ourselve? We probably would stayed stagnant, until such time as really we were nothing more than a glorified chat channel. With multiple guilds? Eventually that guild would have been a guild that people joined, worked with through the first 30 or 40 levels, and then ignored. So there are a few reasons I'm against multiple guilds. I feel like it doesn't promote the same type of loyalty. I feel like it creates a situation where guild growth becomes unimportant. Where, in fact, having goals or purpose becomes unimportant. I can see where you're coming from, but, I wanted to throw out a different perspective. Just my 2 coppers worth.

    • 105 posts
    February 25, 2017 11:03 AM PST

    Beefcake said:

    Morr said:

    One thing to be careful with- especially if Pantheon allows multiple guilds- is that Guild Perks cause people to look cross-eyed at you if you aren't 'pulling your weight' or if you spend time in another guild and aren't 'contributing enough' to said perks.  Guilds shouldn't be causes of strife.

    Even in one guild, if you are not contributing or your are using your guild to benefit non-guildies, you should be slapped.

     

    Yeah, but multiple guilds just compound the issue. Now you have to make sure you're pulling your weight for all the guilds you're in. And then you end up with one guild saying, (ala GW2) "You have to rep us 90% of the time!" and then another saying, "You have to rep us 50% of the time!" and now you're in an impossible situation. Heck, enough people have trouble contributing to a single guild that when suddenly they have to contribute to multiple guilds they are most certainly going to fail at least one of them. The only situations where I've seen multiple guilds work was when one was just a crafting guild, and the other was your actual guild. The folks in the crafters guild basically just shared recipes/components with one another, stocked their guild bank with recipes and components, and did literally everything else with their actual guild. Which really meant that the crafters guild was nothing more than a component bank for people to craft items for their actual guild. The only thing members of the crafters guild were expected to do was put their components into the shared guild bank, so everyone had access to everything. even that people couldn't manage to do, because they were hoarding their stuff while taking from the guild bank. 

    • 105 posts
    February 25, 2017 11:17 AM PST

    So, I'm new here, and have posted a ton of stuff in a very short period of time. Sorry about that. I was waiting for my tax returns to come back before I joined up and had pretty much been saving tons of thoughts to post as soon as said tax returns came back. 

     

    A few final thoughts on guild implementation.

     

    The creating/naming ranks thing. What I've seen out of most other games is that the guild rank system either gives too few options, or too many, and which it is depends not on the game, but on the guild. Some guilds are fine with three ranks, Member, Officer, Leader, other guilds want 8 or 9 ranks. Regardless of how many ranks you put in the game, you're not going to make everyone happy. Thus, the solution is to go with a minimum (say 3 or 4) and then give guild leaders the option to create new ranks, with new permissions and new names. No upper limit, as many different ranks as they want, hell if they wanna go full stupid and make a rank for each individual, fine, whatever. If they wanna go full minimalist, member, officer, leader, fine whatever. 

     

    Absentee Guild Leader/Founder. So, I've seen folks mention a couple points like this, and wanted to simply show my support for ideas ergarding absenteeism. If the leader/founder is absent too long, even if there are others in place with the power to do what the leader/founder does, I feel like removing them from a position of power is crucial. I had, in one game, a leader who had gone absent for 6 months. While he was gone there were two officers that were considered to be the leaders in his absence. During his hiatus the guild had grown and expanded and started moving in a direction more towards a raiding guild. It was what the guild, as a whole, had wanted. Upon his return (6 months later!) he hated the changes that had been made, started kicking officer who had been part of the changes, kicking members who disagreed with the kicking of the officers, and essentially left the guild as a husk of its former self. A new guild had to be created, there were people missing, there were .... well there were just a lot of problems, all of which came about because one guy who had decided to leave for 6 months didn't like the way things had been run while he was gone. I understand real life happens. There is no getting around that. However, I feel like, when it does happen, if you're absent that long, it shouldn't be possible for you to come back with the ultimate power to undo the will of your members. Another mmo I played had an absentee policy. If you were absent for 30 days leadership passed to the most next senior officer who had been active during the last 30 days. (it determined seniority by how long you had been an officer, not how long you had been a member). When the (former) leader returned, they were now a member, and even a GM couldn't/wouldn't return them to power. The only people who could give them back their power would be the new leader. I feel like this is a positive way to approach this situation. It means that an absentee leader isn't going to grind the guild's growth to a halt, and that any growth a guild has while the leader is gone can't be undone. Is it entirely fair to the leader? No. Is it fair to the majority of the guild? Yes.

     

    There was something else I wanted to say... but I just drew a complete blank. Thanks to anyone who took the time to read all this mess. I'm pretty sure my thoughts were a bit disjointed, but if you managed to make sense of it all and not go cross eyed from the walls of text, I salute you.

    • 3199 posts
    February 25, 2017 2:32 PM PST

    THIS:    "Absentee Guild Leader/Founder. So, I've seen folks mention a couple points like this, and wanted to simply show my support for ideas ergarding absenteeism. If the leader/founder is absent too long, even if there are others in place with the power to do what the leader/founder does, I feel like removing them from a position of power is crucial. I had, in one game, a leader who had gone absent for 6 months. While he was gone there were two officers that were considered to be the leaders in his absence. During his hiatus the guild had grown and expanded and started moving in a direction more towards a raiding guild. It was what the guild, as a whole, had wanted. Upon his return (6 months later!) he hated the changes that had been made, started kicking officer who had been part of the changes, kicking members who disagreed with the kicking of the officers, and essentially left the guild as a husk of its former self. A new guild had to be created, there were people missing, there were .... well there were just a lot of problems, all of which came about because one guy who had decided to leave for 6 months didn't like the way things had been run while he was gone. I understand real life happens. There is no getting around that. However, I feel like, when it does happen, if you're absent that long, it shouldn't be possible for you to come back with the ultimate power to undo the will of your members. Another mmo I played had an absentee policy. If you were absent for 30 days leadership passed to the most next senior officer who had been active during the last 30 days. (it determined seniority by how long you had been an officer, not how long you had been a member). When the (former) leader returned, they were now a member, and even a GM couldn't/wouldn't return them to power. The only people who could give them back their power would be the new leader. I feel like this is a positive way to approach this situation. It means that an absentee leader isn't going to grind the guild's growth to a halt, and that any growth a guild has while the leader is gone can't be undone. Is it entirely fair to the leader? No. Is it fair to the majority of the guild? Yes.  - end quote

     

    I've seen a couple cases of long-time absent guild leaders in a couple of games I've played over the long years I've been online.    What ends up happening is an angry guild leader a bunch of officers etc being booted,  all our hard work (specially if you've spent  a lot of time levelling the guild with crafting and other things that increase guild level)     People get upset about the absolute waste of their time,  upset at the guild leader for having been away so long, and upset that he or she has come back and in a fit of anger has been destroying what the guild has been building in their absence.    I DO think some sort of system should be present,  that taps into the guild leader's absence,   say at maximum 3 months,  and if no logins from that account,  the leadership automatically shifts to the person with the highest officer rank.    If the guild leader does come back,  well then they can work it out with their officers and membership...possibly put it to a vote to make it more "democratic"   ..after all these people have remained,  worked on things that benefit the guild,  therefore should have a say on who should lead them,  if there was a prolonged absence that caused this in the first place.

     

    • 3200 posts
    February 25, 2017 5:12 PM PST

    CanadinaXegony said:

    THIS:    "Absentee Guild Leader/Founder. So, I've seen folks mention a couple points like this, and wanted to simply show my support for ideas ergarding absenteeism. If the leader/founder is absent too long, even if there are others in place with the power to do what the leader/founder does, I feel like removing them from a position of power is crucial. I had, in one game, a leader who had gone absent for 6 months. While he was gone there were two officers that were considered to be the leaders in his absence. During his hiatus the guild had grown and expanded and started moving in a direction more towards a raiding guild. It was what the guild, as a whole, had wanted. Upon his return (6 months later!) he hated the changes that had been made, started kicking officer who had been part of the changes, kicking members who disagreed with the kicking of the officers, and essentially left the guild as a husk of its former self. A new guild had to be created, there were people missing, there were .... well there were just a lot of problems, all of which came about because one guy who had decided to leave for 6 months didn't like the way things had been run while he was gone. I understand real life happens. There is no getting around that. However, I feel like, when it does happen, if you're absent that long, it shouldn't be possible for you to come back with the ultimate power to undo the will of your members. Another mmo I played had an absentee policy. If you were absent for 30 days leadership passed to the most next senior officer who had been active during the last 30 days. (it determined seniority by how long you had been an officer, not how long you had been a member). When the (former) leader returned, they were now a member, and even a GM couldn't/wouldn't return them to power. The only people who could give them back their power would be the new leader. I feel like this is a positive way to approach this situation. It means that an absentee leader isn't going to grind the guild's growth to a halt, and that any growth a guild has while the leader is gone can't be undone. Is it entirely fair to the leader? No. Is it fair to the majority of the guild? Yes.  - end quote

     

    I've seen a couple cases of long-time absent guild leaders in a couple of games I've played over the long years I've been online.    What ends up happening is an angry guild leader a bunch of officers etc being booted,  all our hard work (specially if you've spent  a lot of time levelling the guild with crafting and other things that increase guild level)     People get upset about the absolute waste of their time,  upset at the guild leader for having been away so long, and upset that he or she has come back and in a fit of anger has been destroying what the guild has been building in their absence.    I DO think some sort of system should be present,  that taps into the guild leader's absence,   say at maximum 3 months,  and if no logins from that account,  the leadership automatically shifts to the person with the highest officer rank.    If the guild leader does come back,  well then they can work it out with their officers and membership...possibly put it to a vote to make it more "democratic"   ..after all these people have remained,  worked on things that benefit the guild,  therefore should have a say on who should lead them,  if there was a prolonged absence that caused this in the first place.

     

     

    I agree with all of this.  Unless someone is involved in some sort of horrible accident, it's not really acceptable for someone in a leadership position to disappear for an extended period of time.  With todays technology, it's so easy to get in touch with people, and arrangements should be made ahead of time before any extended absence.  People should be made aware of what's going on and what the contingency plan is.  I'm sorry to hear about the bad experiences you had in other games.  I have heard similar stories to yours many times and agree that there should be some sort of policy on dealing with that kind of issue.

    • 1826 posts
    February 25, 2017 5:14 PM PST

    I think it comes down to who owns the guild, the founder or the current members?

    Especially when it comes to guild halls and other perks that the founder purchased. Or if the current members purchased the perks?


    This post was edited by Beefcake at February 25, 2017 5:16 PM PST
    • 105 posts
    February 25, 2017 11:50 PM PST

    Beefcake said:

    I think it comes down to who owns the guild, the founder or the current members?

    Especially when it comes to guild halls and other perks that the founder purchased. Or if the current members purchased the perks?

     

    There are two very important equations in life. Time = Money and War ≠ Change. That second one I had to include just because gamer. The first one, however, is relevent here. Before I get to that however, I really, really hate the idea of upgradable guild hall/perks/stuff. Okay, to an extent a guildhall that can be upgraded to include certain benefits might be okay. Like if you wanted crafting stations, a trash vendor, bank access, I wouldn't argue too loudly (though I should note, even those tiny things, I'm against, I'll explain why momentarily). I feel like, putting those things in the guild hall discourage people from being out in open social space. You know... where the rest of the community that your guild is a part of is at. When you provide even those simple features you end up with the crafting areas in cities being ghost towns, or the sole domain of the newbs.

    Another reason I despise guild perks and benefits is this: People stop joining guilds for the community and sense of comradere and instead join for the perks. Sure, you might eventually make friends there, in fact, you probably will, but you end up with a lot of people who are shopping for the "best" guild instead of the guild they'll enjoy the most.

    Also, it gives a skewed perspective on what a guild accomplishes. Take for instance two guilds. In one of them, you have a majority of players who spend their time farming for the gold/materials needed to upgrade their guild. They have a beautiful well appointed level 67 guild hall, with all the perks and benefits. Bonus xp, bonus health regen, bonus mana regen, bonus gold, higher item drop rate, etcetc, the list of perks that games have included as guild benefits is enormous. They've not started raiding, and most of them aren't even geared for raids yet. On the other hand you have a smallish guild of highly skilled players who basically spend their time grinding for gear for raids, and raiding. They've cleared half the raids in the game, have some of them on farm status, and are well on their way to beginning the other half of the raids. They have put very little time or effort into collecting the materials needed for upgrading their guild hall, and have a pathetic level 23 hall, with almost none of the perks unlocked. At first glance, which guild looks like the better guild? Yeah, that'll give you a skewed perspective.

     

    But that doesn't address your point of guild ownership, which brings me back to that equation. Time = Money. So within our make believe guild you have a handful of people, including the guild leader/founder who each put in about 20 hours a week farming gold and materials for upgrading the guild. At the same time you have a handful of people who put in roughly 40 hours a week recruiting, playing with new recruits, playing with potential recruits, advertising for recruitment, interviewing recruits and generally doing everything that is needed to grow and expand guild membership. You also, at that time have another group of people spending about 50 hours a week working on gear grinding, not for themselves, but rather to help get the rest of the guild geared for raids. Another smaller group is spending their extra time learning all the raids, the ins and outs, what's necessary to be successful in what raid, what to expect from different boss fights, what to expect as you progress through a raid, what classes are going to be necessary, what classes are going to be fluff, what classes might even be detrimental in certain situations. 

    All of these people are putting time into the guild. And if Time = Money, and Money = Ownership, how do you determine who has invested the most in the guild? Is it the guild leader for spending his tiem farming gold and materials and purchasing the perks? Is it the recruiters who spent their time growing the guild, when they instead could have been spending their time doing... anything else? Is it the guys working to help others get geared, when they themselves are already geared? Is it the guys pouring through countless raid walkthroughs and youtube videos of different raids when really, after the first video, it became mind numbingly boring?

    Is the investment of gold/materials somehow inherently worth more than all the time and energy that everyone else puts into growing and progressing a guild? Realize, a guild founder can create a guild, maybe he even saved all his gold and mats for the last year, so he can create the guild and immediately purchase all the perks and benefits available, but without people recruiting, without people learning and leading raids, without people teaching others how to raid, without people getting geared, all you're going to have is a very spiffy guild hall, and no guild.

     

    Would it suck to create a guild, put a bunch of money into it, and then, after leaving for 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, a year, come back and find that you're just an average guild member? Absofrigginlutely. Would it suck even more to have an absentee guild leader come back and undo all the hard work that everyone put in while he was absent? Yes. Yes, indeed. 

    I'm not sure what the magic number is for how long a guild leader should have to be absent before they're demoted to member, I'm not sure anyone knows that magic number. A good minimum sounds like 30 days. That's somewhere to start. I'd say being absent 6 months is before being demoted is pushing it. 30 days? 3 Months? 4 months 5 days 7 hours, 22 minutes and 13 seconds? Maybe. Maybe.

     

    Anyway, as always, just some thoughts.

     

    Edit: P.S. Holy poop I didn't even realize that this ended up being another giant wall of text, I am so sorry folks.

    TL;dr: Time is money, if people have invested time into the guild, that should be just as good as a guild leader investing money.


    This post was edited by Reafwalk at February 25, 2017 11:52 PM PST
    • 149 posts
    April 5, 2017 9:28 AM PDT

    I have a question to ask that harkens back to the EQ days of old but also to the evolution of MMOs and guilds to present day. It's no secret that I am a casual player and have absolutely zero aspirations to be in a raiding guild or a playtime intensive guild. To each their own. But discussions are always regarding "guilds doing content" ergo "guilds only adventuring with guilds."

    Now I totally understand how anyone can play as they choose all the way from exclusively adventuring only with guildmates to PUGs.

    And here is the question:

    Will high end content be available to multiple players playing together from different guilds?

    Allow me to explain, further.

    Just because I am casual doesn't mean that I won't want to experience hegh-end content. Every once in a while I just may have the ability to play for an extended period of time and be able to pursue an opportunity to do high end content. If content seems to be "guild locked" or "only for guilds to tackle" how can someone not from the guild participate? How can a couple of smaller guilds team up to tackle high end content knowing that there are different guilds at play? How can someone even meet others from an outside guild if players of a guild only team with other guildmates? Not arguing for or against people or guilds to be inclusive and exclude all others - just wondering if content is going to be from the point-of-view of "inclusive only and exclude all others."

    Here are examples of what I deem high-end content from the EQ days of old (I had left EQ just after Velious expansion release - just for a frame of reference): I was able to be involved in raids (at the time) on Nagafen and on Vox and the make-up was multiple guilds - different people participating from different guilds - I suppose a PUG although there was a week of planning to get everyone lined up to go tackle the beasts at a set time. One of the Planes (the one that had the Maestro) I was involved in raiding that about three times (had to get a Rogue epic quest item and had to get a bard epic-quest item) again as part of multi-guild groups - just an assortment of players from guilds that on their own did not have a high enough number available to tackle it alone. I was also able to get all the way through Kedge Keep. After Kunark I did some adventuring in Howling Stones (after getting some sort of zone-in stone/key quest) and some adventuring in Old Sebilis (again some quest key to obtain before being able to enter). I understand if these things are not considered high-end content by today's standard. This is my frame of reference.

    It seems that Pantheon will be designed such that it is possible for a group of folks from differing guilds (or even guildless) to participate in all of the content that is created. Possible doesn't necessarily mean that it actually will happen just that there is nothing in the code to prevent a random assortment of players or an assortment of players from a couple of guilds working closely together to try to experience. However, with so much discussion centered around "guild-centric" playing experiences, I am wondering how smaller guilds and independent (lone wolf) types of players fit into the world of Pantheon from the perspective of "competing guilds" philosophy of players that I read a lot of posting on various subjects.

    Just curious.


    This post was edited by muscoby at April 5, 2017 9:31 AM PDT