I didn't like the idea when guilds revolved around raiding where you have to gather up a big pile of people to do one job. I believe it would be healthy if members of the guild can contribute and do their part by grouping (or at some extent solo). You can kill two birds with one stone if VR does some kind of guild progress where it needs resources that a group can farm. Say you need different shards scattered all over Terminus so you need a group in King's reach, and one in each other continents. You can even make a few dead zones have it just to encourage players to group there to contrinbute to their guild's progress. Now suddenly you give more reasons for people to go to those zones/dungeons.
You make it sound sort of like the 'guild' has a progress meter that you are trying to raise with your example. Are they trying to get mats for crafting? That will already be in game. Collect shards for...what exactly? This needs to be thought through a bit more, as your example lists nothing being accomplished / goal achieved.
Not really a huge fan of 'leveling up' guilds if there isn't also a way to lose progress. Because sooner rather than later guilds will just have everything unlocked and players will never have to look back. A kind of upkeep should be required at the very least if such a system is implemented.
Something that could potentially be interesting and immersive is to involve player guilds in the reputation/faction system somehow. Where long time members have modified NPC reactions based on their guild's standing with certain factions. It would be a good way to establish a guild's place in the world and naturally attract players looking for similar faction affiliations, instead of having ogre dire lords and dwarf paladins go hand in hand because it's convenient. Faction reputation is also a two-way street, since some factions might like you for your actions while others will despise you for them. No upkeep would be necessary here unless the reputation system itself requires it too.
As a game focused on socialization Pantheon shouldm and will, have things built in to encourage both joining groups and joining guilds. It will also try to make both grouping and managing guilds both easier and more sophisticated than many MMOs. I believe this objective is clear although we do not yet know the details of how it will be implemented. Having a better system for managing guilds and encouraging guild membership than the average MMO will not be difficult, my cat could groom herself and spit out a better system than many games have. And the cat has been *dead* for 30 years.
I agree that encouraging guild activities - not just raiding - is a big plus. One way to do this is large crafting projects that go best when many members participate. In Vanguard this involved primarily building a guildhouse but there are many other possibilities. Vanguard had ships that could be crafted - perhaps Pantheon will as well and a guild could build a large ship. Perhaps the ship can be the guildhall the way spaceships were "housing" in SWTOR.
Guild ranks with increasing ranks unlocking amenities would seem to be a good fit. Various games have a wide assortment of systems for raising guild rank - harvesting, crafting, kills by members, xp earned by members, bosses killed by members, length of time the guild has been in existance, number of members and the like. Some of these I like some I do not but there are many possibilities. Likewise many games have differing types of amenities ranging from increased size of guild houses, improved guild titles, unlocking guild officer chat, crafting bonuses, xp bonuses, adventure buffs, teleports to and from the guildhouse etc. Again some would work better in Pantheon than others.
I would urge VR not to make it too advantageous for a guild to become very large. There are enough reasons that guilds want to grow - giving bonuses for pure size encourages highly annoying spamming of recruiting ads, blind guild invitations (for the love of all Gods give us an option to auto-decline guild invitations without even seeing them), preference for quality over quantity and like undesirable things.
Kaeldorn said:Not really a huge fan of 'leveling up' guilds if there isn't also a way to lose progress. Because sooner rather than later guilds will just have everything unlocked and players will never have to look back. A kind of upkeep should be required at the very least if such a system is implemented.
Something that could potentially be interesting and immersive is to involve player guilds in the reputation/faction system somehow. Where long time members have modified NPC reactions based on their guild's standing with certain factions. It would be a good way to establish a guild's place in the world and naturally attract players looking for similar faction affiliations, instead of having ogre dire lords and dwarf paladins go hand in hand because it's convenient. Faction reputation is also a two-way street, since some factions might like you for your actions while others will despise you for them. No upkeep would be necessary here unless the reputation system itself requires it too.
I like your suggestion relating to a cost. A guildhall could have it's upkeep costs. But that does not weigh down on what has been achieved in its history of excistance.
Perhaps, there could be a way for a guild's status to regress over time and become "forgotten". I think of a time where heroes have done something amazing. And they are celebrated for it. As long as people are celebrating them, the heroes of old are being kept alive. But as with everything, as time goes on, people stop celebrating those heroes as those get replaced by new heroes. The old heroes end up being forgotten.
The forgotten stage would be the basic 'kept excisting' stage for a guild. So that if no member is active for a while, they can still reopen it or revitalize it. So it's never gone for good ingame, but it's become less important in the world. They might have had good standings with the Thronefast guards, but because they didn't do anything recently (there is ofc a large time window here) for those guards, their standings has decreased over time.
A way to maintain their importance, is to have active guildmembers logging on and things happening relating to the guild.
Why is this loss useful? If new players join the guild after 5 years, the things that the first guildmembers have accomplished would still be there, but that's content that those new players do not have meaningful access to. Yes they can do it, but why, it doesn't change anything for the guild. With a degression it might again have. There might again be fun to be had with unlocking things, that for those new players never have been unlocked. Or old members might join in for old times sake.
Depending on the value of the faction organisation, some guilds might aim never to "drop the ball" on those and maintain an outstanding faction.
This doesn't mean guilds can lose levels. But purely their standings with institutions in their environment.
Barin999 said:Perhaps, there could be a way for a guild's status to regress over time and become "forgotten". I think of a time where heroes have done something amazing. And they are celebrated for it. As long as people are celebrating them, the heroes of old are being kept alive. But as with everything, as time goes on, people stop celebrating those heroes as those get replaced by new heroes. The old heroes end up being forgotten.
The forgotten stage would be the basic 'kept excisting' stage for a guild. So that if no member is active for a while, they can still reopen it or revitalize it. So it's never gone for good ingame, but it's become less important in the world. They might have had good standings with the Thronefast guards, but because they didn't do anything recently (there is ofc a large time window here) for those guards, their standings has decreased over time.
...
Yes, that sounds about right. You also raise a good point about members joining a guild long after it has been established. If there's no degression for guilds, they can just piggyback on previous success and never be involved in building it (back) up again.
I was going to suggest that maybe guild progress could be tied to a ladder that keeps track of guild rankings and falling on that ladder would cause certain guild perks to be disabled, but that would be very difficult to get right. As it can either encourage the entire server population to flock to one guild to rule them all, or (if it's weighted by member count) lead to elitist behavior where if you don't meet extremely strict requirements you'll get kicked from the guild because you're weighing them down.
Laura said:I believe it would be healthy if members of the guild can contribute and do their part by grouping (or at some extent solo).
Umm...you do realize that by guildmates grouping up, adventuring together, working on tradeskills together all benefits the guild anyway? Maybe not in a wholly direct manner, but a guild that works together grows together. As a guild they can do more things, go more places, see more things. As the individual grows, so does the guild.
Fragile said:You make it sound sort of like the 'guild' has a progress meter that you are trying to raise with your example. Are they trying to get mats for crafting? That will already be in game. Collect shards for...what exactly? This needs to be thought through a bit more, as your example lists nothing being accomplished / goal achieved.
You've never heard of a guild leveling system? The shards are an example of a guild quest or writ, as such was in EQ2. By completing specific tasks you can gain "guild xp" which unlocks new perks for guild members as the guild levels up.
@ OP: I think it's a great idea.
Laura said:I didn't like the idea when guilds revolved around raiding where you have to gather up a big pile of people to do one job. I believe it would be healthy if members of the guild can contribute and do their part by grouping (or at some extent solo). You can kill two birds with one stone if VR does some kind of guild progress where it needs resources that a group can farm. Say you need different shards scattered all over Terminus so you need a group in King's reach, and one in each other continents. You can even make a few dead zones have it just to encourage players to group there to contrinbute to their guild's progress. Now suddenly you give more reasons for people to go to those zones/dungeons.
There's a number of options they could explore here. RIFT had a progrsssion system where you could unlock perks as your guild advanced, part of which if I recall allowed you to set a portion of your XP to go to the guild as you leveled and I believe a tax tithe that the guild leader could set where a portion of looted coin by members would go to the guild coffers. EQ added a system where you could donate items and coin to an NPC that benefitted the guild if I recall correctly. And EQII had writs. I'm hoping they do have something that's better than anything we've seen yet. But we'll have to wait and see when and if that does take form. I know Brad said they would have some kind of system where you can donate items for different things, so maybe that will be a part of any system that they decide to implement.
I thought I had posted about this in the past, but apparently not.
In any case, my view for many years has been that guilds should be the sum of their parts, only, immediately and dynamically. They should not have their own level, inherently or intrinsically, or distinctly, but rather, the current guild level should be the sum of whatever players have chosen to sacrifice, donate or channel up to that point. As in, for example, a player sacrifices, donates, or channels XP, items, or money to an organization (such as a PC or NPC guild) while they adventure. I like the term "Reward Channeling" but "VoluntaryTaxes" also works.
So say they kill & loot a humanoid, it drops 10cp, 10xp, and a Jute Cloth. Automatically, 1cp and 1 XP of that is magically donated to the guild they currently belong to, but the running total is stored along with their character record. There could be ratio modifiers so that items are worth more than XP or currency, whatever you want to encourage. When they get back to town, they sacrifice the Jute Cloth on an altar. In any case, the item value of all sacrificed items, the total XP sacrificed, and the total currency sacrificed (let's just say those three values) are stored as a running total with the character record.
As time passes, these players gain prestige, power, or some other tangible rewards for their contributions/donations/reward channeling. Other players notice, and think... "Ok, if I had this guy in my guild, my guild level would increase". And... "If I had 10 of those guys, my guild level would REALLY increase". And it's in the best interest of the guild to keep their members happy, as someone leaving would immediately affect the overall guild level. If everyone left, the guild level is now zero.
As players play more, and donate more, their value to guilds increases. Those players that donate, sacrifice, or reward channel more are more valuable to poach from other guilds. Optionally, you could add in Accomplishments or something similar, such that the number and type of quests completed could also be added to a characters prestige value, to make them more attractive. Epic quests or class quests and/or being in a group or raid when those are completed for OTHER classes or players, could also be added as value, if you wanted to encourage that type of co-operative behavior.
EDIT: Only the top x or (max_raid_size * 1.5) guild members would count towards the guild level. So, say 36 is the max raid size, then the top 36 or 54 contributors would apply to the guild level, for example. So, guilds can be as large as you want, if that's also a design goal.
Finally, you could also add downing bosses or raid targets as prestige Accomplishments, but perhaps only if other pre-requisites have been completed. Temporal limits may also be desirable, depending on design goals.
I don't think we know enough about Pantheon's vision for guilds yet to really get too far into this topic. I also feel the need to point out that the team has already stated that housing (which I take to include guild halls) would be an expansion-level feature and will very likely not be in the game for launch.
I am a fan of giving guilds objectives that their members can contribute to completing and I agree with Laura's sentiment that guilds should NOT be just about raiding. It's even better if these are things that people can work on asynchronously - they don't have to be online at the time. However, I want those objectives to really be meaningful and to allow guilds to set themselves apart from each other. And for that reason, I am very opposed to a guild leveling system. Two examples of why I don't like currency/leveling systems:
Example 1 - In FFXIV, guilds currently earn "points" based on the things their members do - if their members are out there killing monsters, completing quests, crafting items, joining dungeon runs, and so on, the points will keep coming in. As points accumulate, the guilds earn "ranks" which unlock things like more space in the guild storage, or the ability to set up more powerful buffs for their members. Every single guild eventually ends up at the maximum rank. Bigger guilds get there faster, and smaller guilds get there slower, but eventually they all get there. Once you realize that, the achievements associated with ranking up your guild start to feel really meaningless. After all, the system doesn't ask you to do anything you weren't already going to do anyway. No one ever logged in to FFXIV and said "hey guys, let's go work on guild points today!"
Example 2 - EQ2's implementation had guilds accumulating and spending status points for various perks, mostly linked to housing and guild halls. Since you needed to spend status on a regular basis to keep those things once you had them, going out and farming status points became something that your guild needed to do. This seemed great on paper, and it was interesting when the system was new and no one had many of the perks yet, but after a while it became obvious that this just meant that bigger guilds would have more of the stuff, and smaller guilds would feel like they had to work harder to keep up. It went from being a reward/goal system to being a tax for the services you wanted your guild to have.
So, rather than set up a leveling system for guilds that either becomes a requirement or a tax, or that becomes meaningless because everyone does it anyway, I would much rather see Pantheon give guilds goals that really matter and that stay meaningful throughout the life of the game. These are things that are over and above normal play - things guilds and their members have to intentionally go out and do. Here are some ideas:
1) Owning and maintaining a single outpost site and its services somewhere in the world with
2) Allying with a specific faction (at the expense of being able to ally with others) to unlock special titles or capabilities for their members.
3) Building up and maintaining a reputation in specific types of gameplay, so that the game recognizes your guild as one of the premier crafting/trading/raiding/dungeoneering/exploration/etc guilds.
All of the above should be equally challenging for both small guilds and large guilds (to an extent, guilds can probably be expected to have to at least have X number of people in them, but beyond that, the challenge should scale with their membership. Further, within each area, guilds should have to choose which goals they pursue - they shouldn't be able to do everything or unlock everything no matter how big they are.
I'm not opposed to allowing guilds to earn some kind of currency through normal gameplay, provided that what they spend that on aren't perks, but things that generate repeatable content for themselves and others. For example, trading in your guild status to set up chariot races at the coliseum, sponsored by your guild, that anyone can participate in.
Two Words: Raid Triggers
TLWRTB (Too Long Wont Read Trasaks babbling):
1) Raid targets and or Raid zones can be force spawned by a guild raid leader
2) Forced spawns require guild members completing tasks at level (or mentored down to the correct level)
3) Only officers can consume multi group target spawn triggers.
4) Many multi group targets will have both a natural respawn sequence and a thematic appropriate spawn trigger. Some will only naturally spawn and others only will trigger.
In this way guild members can join together to contribute to spawning raid targets. This way guilds can work during the week to be able to force spawn the raid target they want to go for on their raid night. Guilds that want to raid every day will need to have a huge force constantly farming raid triggers.
The “at level” restriction will prevent high level players from just slaughtering contribution encounters and will instead need to group up with a full group of at level/ mentored down characters. This will keep lower level zones active but not being trivially cleared.
Raid targets could only be triggered if the target is currently dead to prevent multiple copies from being alive at once. Spawned raid targets would only be targetable by players in the raid party of the triggering raid leader for a specific amount of time (say one hour). That way other guilds can’t snipe their hard work farming the trigger but if they cannot defeat the target after a few tries then other guilds can step in.
I know I'm in the minority here, and I am ok with that, but I am *NOT* a fan of being in a guild. Why? One simple word. Politics. I'm not a fan of the politics that invariably take place in guilds. Give someone, or a group of someone's, perceived power, and politics will happen.
I spent most of my EQ, EQ2, and Vanguard "careers" unguilded because of it and yet I had earned a good enough reputation on my own to still get invited to raids with some pretty "elite" guilds in EQ.
Nephele said:...
So, rather than set up a leveling system for guilds that either becomes a requirement or a tax, or that becomes meaningless because everyone does it anyway, I would much rather see Pantheon give guilds goals that really matter and that stay meaningful throughout the life of the game. These are things that are over and above normal play - things guilds and their members have to intentionally go out and do. Here are some ideas:
1) Owning and maintaining a single outpost site and its services somewhere in the world with
2) Allying with a specific faction (at the expense of being able to ally with others) to unlock special titles or capabilities for their members.
3) Building up and maintaining a reputation in specific types of gameplay, so that the game recognizes your guild as one of the premier crafting/trading/raiding/dungeoneering/exploration/etc guilds.
All of the above should be equally challenging for both small guilds and large guilds (to an extent, guilds can probably be expected to have to at least have X number of people in them, but beyond that, the challenge should scale with their membership. Further, within each area, guilds should have to choose which goals they pursue - they shouldn't be able to do everything or unlock everything no matter how big they are.
I'm not opposed to allowing guilds to earn some kind of currency through normal gameplay, provided that what they spend that on aren't perks, but things that generate repeatable content for themselves and others. For example, trading in your guild status to set up chariot races at the coliseum, sponsored by your guild, that anyone can participate in.
I'm on board with pretty much everything you've mentioned (in particular the need for meaningful choices in the direction of a guild), but I have two concerns/questions.
1) Do you have any ideas to combat excessively strict membership requirements within a very competitive guilds if the challenge of attaining guild scores or upkeep scales with the number of members? I could see this leading to undesirable toxicity within the community, where the most dedicated players with the most time on their hands all end up in the top guilds together to get the biggest edge possible with their perks and everyone who isn't pulling their weight gets axed.
2) Who has the right to make meaningful choices for the guild (like choosing what faction to ally with)? Can it only be done by guild leaders? If multiple people have rights to make those decisions, what happens if someone decides to go against the majority? Or should decisions that will impact the entire membership of the guild be based on an in-game majority vote?
Then don't belong to a guild that revolves around raiding. It' s a black or white logical fallacy to suggest that all guilds do is rad. Guilds do lots more for the game and for members than just raiding. Perhaps what the OP is really gettiing at is some system where guilds maintain resources for the guild hall or whatever that mechanic turns out to be(if any)? Arbitrary made up mechanics such as farming shards, just to force some idea of making groups somehow produce for a guild, seem false and tedious.
Keno Monster said:Then don't belong to a guild that revolves around raiding. It' s a black or white logical fallacy to suggest that all guilds do is rad. Guilds do lots more for the game and for members than just raiding. Perhaps what the OP is really gettiing at is some system where guilds maintain resources for the guild hall or whatever that mechanic turns out to be(if any)? Arbitrary made up mechanics such as farming shards, just to force some idea of making groups somehow produce for a guild, seem false and tedious.
Who aare you talking to? Context helps.
I was never into the whole 'guild progression' thing. Your guilds strenght should be based on its individual members and how strong you work together as a team, not who has the most hours to put into farming points. Raiding only benefits the people raiding for the most part. Just like solo content only benefits the individual doing it. A lot of the "guild perk" stuff is geared more towards features that (most likely) wont be in Pantheon anyway. Things like cuting your gate ability timer in half, or giving you more space in your personal bank house. No I don't think we need a guild progress meter.
Flossie said:You've never heard of a guild leveling system? The shards are an example of a guild quest or writ, as such was in EQ2. By completing specific tasks you can gain "guild xp" which unlocks new perks for guild members as the guild levels up.
@ OP: I think it's a great idea.
Yes I have heard and played through that. But thats not what the OP said or described. As I mentioned in my original reply, they need to specify what they want or are looking for. It's like if Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream..." and then just stopped there.
This seems like unnecessary bloat for the game. Guilds are whatever players make of them. They don't have to be raiding focused. You could have a guild that's focused on crafting or RP'ing or whatever. VR should just focus on putting out stuff for players to do, and if they want to do it as a guild activity then they can. No need to force guilds into certain activites in order to "level" the guild.