Page 198 of 209 FirstFirst ... 98148188194195196197198199200201202208 ... LastLast
Results 3,941 to 3,960 of 4162
  1. #3941
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    I don't think the system should tell me who to play with, how many to play with, and how to organize my guild. That's a really, really bad thing, IMO.

    It was bad when the system told large guilds to kick or not advance, and it's bad now.

    Get rid of decay. It only leads to aggravation.
    While I agree with getting rid of decay. This system, just like every other system in the game requires players to do certain things to gain anything from it. If one plays once a month and spends that time in the PvP pit, they wont be gaining any character levels, nor should they expect to. Same for guild levels, though I agree that no guild should move backwards with the system due to their personal choices in guild make up.

    Personally, I think we would have been better off if guild levels had never been added as there really is no way to for the system to be fair to all types and make ups of guilds. While the competition it added to the game just does what adding competition tends to do to any game in my experience, separate the winners from the former players to some degree. All the while pointing out who, from Turbines view, is playing the game "right".

  2. #3942
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    It's actually quite sad to see. The people I know that moved to a large guild don't really seem to like it. One hasn't logged in weeks and told me he regretted leaving and now lost so much renown it's not worth trying to revive his guild. LFMs are down significantly. One person that used to lead a lot of PUGS moved to a big guild and no longer does.

    The people hurting most are the casual players that aren't desired by the guilds that have their own organized raids. The vets in their guilds "saw the light" and moved to a big established guild to get out decay hell. The guilds the vets go to never wanted and still don't want the casuals. So it's really a consolidation of vets to the big established guilds.

    This is what happens when you create an imbalance. It's playing out differently than I first expected, but not for the better.

    Perhaps this is what Turbine wanted. A consolidation of the vets to a few big established guilds and a the rest get left behind.

    Being in a small guild doesn't mean you don't have friends. Is it necessary to throw at least one insult in with every post?
    To be fair, the change away from per capita decay was a step away from that consolidation as, at least now, having casual players isn't a liability (and is actually a small boost).

  3. #3943
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    While I agree with getting rid of decay. This system, just like every other system in the game requires players to do certain things to gain anything from it. If one plays once a month and spends that time in the PvP pit, they wont be gaining any character levels, nor should they expect to. Same for guild levels, though I agree that no guild should move backwards with the system due to their personal choices in guild make up.
    They also do not lose xp while in PvP, which is what we do with renown atm.

    Turbine has stated, both recently and at the beginning of the guild level implementation, that they do not want to favor one guild size over another. I'm trying to hold them to this. You may not agree that this is a good goal (I think it is... of course), but Turbine has said this multiple times. I'm still hoping they'll actually act on it, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Personally, I think we would have been better off if guild levels had never been added as there really is no way to for the system to be fair to all types and make ups of guilds. While the competition it added to the game just does what adding competition tends to do to any game in my experience, separate the winners from the former players to some degree. All the while pointing out who, from Turbines view, is playing the game "right".
    I have to agree here. With all the mess that came from the renown system (most specifically the decay part), we'd have been better off without it.

    Hopefully we can at least get rid of decay, so that everyone can play how they like without losing their guild progress.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  4. #3944
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    agree! and if they refuse to eliminate decay - make it fair and make it membership dues....
    I see this as the equivalent of forcing everybody that wants to hang out in a tavern to pay dues to the pool league that plays there. Guild levels aren't guilds, just a little mini-game that was added to them and shouldn't interfere in any way with the play of those who don't choose to play that mini-game, even in the same guild. Else the whole system should be removed as it just serves to make the game more niche.

    I think part of the problem we have in seeing eye to eye is that we see guilds as two wholly different things. You seem to see them as an in game construct that has to be accounted for in game play terms. While I see them as a virtual version of the gaming clubs PnP game players join in order to find others to play with at their core. While in ways they serve both functions, our basic disagreement is in which should be predominant.

    So to my view, your idea of "dues" which are paid by game time would be the equivalent of a club requiring every player to play a minimum amount. Which would just be counter productive as they might have 10 who want to do so and 20 others that don't. The requirement just means they end up playing only with those 10 who would be there either way, rather than those 10 plus however many of the other 20 happen to show up that day.

  5. #3945
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    +1+1+1

    Very well written and expressed. concur with all.

    And exactly why I have so many squelched. Tired of reading all the personal flaming and mud slinging.
    Humorous seeing this from the guy who diagnosed me as having Paranoia.

  6. #3946
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Personally, I think we would have been better off if guild levels had never been added as there really is no way to for the system to be fair to all types and make ups of guilds. While the competition it added to the game just does what adding competition tends to do to any game in my experience, separate the winners from the former players to some degree. All the while pointing out who, from Turbines view, is playing the game "right".
    Yes, I agree totally. But some people are not happy in such an environment. Some people can only have fun playing a game if they are beating other players. They are a minority, as has been proven by relative server populations in every game that has PvP servers, but they do exist. And even non-PvP games still try to cater to them a little bit in the hopes that they will not ignore the game completely simply because it is non-PvP. So I understand where renown decay came from. I don't like it at all but I recognize that some ultra competitive players do like it. The difference is, in DDO, PvP is voluntary and you give up nothing at all if you opt out of PvP. If your guild tries to opt out of this stupid renown decay competition, you are forced to give up on ever leveling up your guild. That is why it was a bad idea. If guild competitions had been introduced like PvP, with no ties to guild levels and nothing to lose if you opt out, then it would have been pretty harmless, like PvP is in DDO.

  7. #3947
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    So to my view, your idea of "dues" which are paid by game time would be the equivalent of a club requiring every player to play a minimum amount. Which would just be counter productive as they might have 10 who want to do so and 20 others that don't. The requirement just means they end up playing only with those 10 who would be there either way, rather than those 10 plus however many of the other 20 happen to show up that day.
    Ah, but remember, you are arguing with people who think having more members is a bad thing. Policies that lead to exclusion seem counter productive to people like us who prefer inclusion, but some people actually PREFER exclusion. To them, keeping people out of their guild is very important. They don't stop to think that if all guilds behaved that way, many players would be unwelcome in the game overall and that hastens the day when DDO closes its doors.
    Last edited by Tshober; 04-06-2013 at 12:26 PM.

  8. #3948
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tychagara View Post
    That is the most backward set of statements I've seen in a while...

    What you are saying is apples and oranges = is that small and large guilds are two different things and cannot be compared. Wrong.

    Play enough? Jimmy H. Crickets. You are just being blantently discriminatory by forcing your beliefs and play styles down others throats. You are now flat out saying that small guilds must grow or die an that small guilds need to get more active and boot casual players to fight decay. Plain wrong.

    You know nothing about me or the guild I may or may not belong to. You know nothing about my play style, or how much renown I generate with or without a size bonus. ANd most certainly you cannot tell me how to play, who to play with or what type or size of guild I should belong to.

    A guild should not have to choose between having who it wants as members and decay. Exactly the same argument the large guilds did to achieve the temporary change.

    Guess if you are unable to prove the facts wrong, like the effects of the current decay and the proposed system you will just devolve and spew bigoted and biased nonsense.

    Onus - hmmm... someone did the grotto recently

    Gotta get back to getting my nerd glaze on 'cause winter is coming.
    I agree that no guild should have to choose who they play with and no player should have to conform to another's goals to be able to play with them.

    But my point about apples and oranges stands. Fixing the problem for small guilds in no way needs to effect how things work for any other size of guild. That's where Uur's plan fails as rather than fixing the problem, it just spreads it out to everyone.

    As far as Winter Coming. I really don't see how that would have any effect on my point of view. What do I care if a game fails due to not becoming a game I wouldn't play anyway? The results the same either way. As I have absolutely no say in the direction Turbines business ventures go, I find it awful difficult to even feel guilty about expressing my views on what sort of product I'd like them to offer regardless.

  9. #3949
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowz View Post
    another good reason for uurlocks suggestion for improved in-game guild information with built in we're accepting applications and email asking for invite, optional provision invitiations, and guild managent tools.
    While those may be nice things (though some unnecessary and others potentially counter productive). I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them. Nor are any necessary to give small guilds relief from decay.

    I'd take the complete elimination of decay over the whole lot.

  10. #3950
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    They also do not lose xp while in PvP, which is what we do with renown atm.

    Turbine has stated, both recently and at the beginning of the guild level implementation, that they do not want to favor one guild size over another. I'm trying to hold them to this. You may not agree that this is a good goal (I think it is... of course), but Turbine has said this multiple times. I'm still hoping they'll actually act on it, too.
    It's not so much that I don't agree about it being a good thing. It's more that, with the system they gave us, it's not a viable goal. About they only way they could really do that is to base everything on a guild of 1000 accounts (max possible) and adjust everything proportionally to achieve an average. Which just leads us to a situation were one man guilds are the norm as anyone who would want you to join their guild would be someone you don't want to join with for their motivation would be to increase their average gain at the expense of your average gain.

    Personally, I think the best they can hope for is a system that is viable for all size guilds, while not forcing anyone to change how they play due to it simply to be able to have a chance to be in a guild.

    I have to agree here. With all the mess that came from the renown system (most specifically the decay part), we'd have been better off without it.

    Hopefully we can at least get rid of decay, so that everyone can play how they like without losing their guild progress.
    Frankly I think that's about as optimal a solution as I think exists. Because anything much beyond that seems to cause more problems than it addresses.

  11. #3951
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    In my opinion, all guilds have this sort of problem - almost all player will, sooner or later, get tired of DDO, and 'finish' it - let's face it, there's only so many times you can level your guys up doing the same adventures, right?

    That's why small guilds shoot themselves in the foot, in my opinion - unless they are die-hard uber-fans, sooner or later, they will leave and find another game.

    It's just something you have to deal with. We have to deal with it, too; as a large guild, it happens a lot - people lose interest, and move on. We have a buffer, you see - and a larger guild, in my opinion, will help people stay longer, as they decide to play with their friends. Hey, I could be wrong - but on the other hand, I'm also not worried about new games coming out and destroying our guild; our base of players is enough I am pretty sure it won't happen!

    New games come out all the time. If you're going to insist on a having a tiny guild, you're going to need to make sure they are hardcore ddo addicts who will never, ever leave.

    Or, you might as well join a big guild When GW2 came out, yeah, a few people went to play that for a while... and then came back Since we were a big guild, it was no problem for us, or for them - they came back to welcoming arms, ready to play with their friends again....
    Exactly. Large guilds have the advantage of stability of the guild, as long as the leadership remains stable and the members are fairly happy. If 10 or 15 people leave for GW2, no biggie. We just recruit some more and go on. And when 2/3 of those who left some back, we welcome them back and we are all the stronger. 10 or 15 people leaving would wipe out or devastate many a small guild. To a large guild that is just typical noise. Even 30 or 35 leaving would not be devastating as long as that was a one time thing and did not continue. Large guilds with satisfied members and stable leadership can withstand anything short of a game threatening situation.

    It seems to me a small guild is at a much greater risk of completely collapsing because people leave the game than a large guild is. Of course, small guilds have other advantages. So what kind of guild you choose comes down to how you prioritize those advantages.

  12. #3952
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Yes, I agree totally. But some people are not happy in such an environment. Some people can only have fun playing a game if they are beating other players. They are a minority, as has been proven by relative server populations in every game that has PvP servers, but they do exist. And even non-PvP games still try to cater to them a little bit in the hopes that they will not ignore the game completely simply because it is non-PvP. So I understand where renown decay came from. I don't like it at all but I recognize that some ultra competitive players do like it. The difference is, in DDO, PvP is voluntary and you give up nothing at all if you opt out of PvP. If your guild tries to opt out of this stupid renown decay competition, you are forced to give up on ever leveling up your guild. That is why it was a bad idea. If guild competitions had been introduced like PvP, with no ties to guild levels and nothing to lose if you opt out, then it would have been pretty harmless, like PvP is in DDO.
    Yes, I know. Before DDO I had the pleasure to play a skill based PvP centric game. It failed miserably as players had 4 choices, be amongst the best, get better, get used to always losing, or play something else. Way to many chose the last for the game to be financially viable. People generally just don't choose to keep doing something they perpetually lose at.

  13. #3953
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    In my opinion, all guilds have this sort of problem - almost all player will, sooner or later, get tired of DDO, and 'finish' it - let's face it, there's only so many times you can level your guys up doing the same adventures, right?

    That's why small guilds shoot themselves in the foot, in my opinion - unless they are die-hard uber-fans, sooner or later, they will leave and find another game.

    It's just something you have to deal with. We have to deal with it, too; as a large guild, it happens a lot - people lose interest, and move on. We have a buffer, you see - and a larger guild, in my opinion, will help people stay longer, as they decide to play with their friends. Hey, I could be wrong - but on the other hand, I'm also not worried about new games coming out and destroying our guild; our base of players is enough I am pretty sure it won't happen!

    New games come out all the time. If you're going to insist on a having a tiny guild, you're going to need to make sure they are hardcore ddo addicts who will never, ever leave.

    Or, you might as well join a big guild When GW2 came out, yeah, a few people went to play that for a while... and then came back Since we were a big guild, it was no problem for us, or for them - they came back to welcoming arms, ready to play with their friends again....
    What was being discussed here is people leaving primarily because of frustration with the guild system not because they are bored of the game. There will always be attrition and small guilds face no real disadvantage in that regard if they are able to level up the same way large guilds are.

    The guild system was always bad, but now it's only bad for tiny guilds and not all that great for many small guilds either.

    I am happy that large guilds are able to level now. However most of the large guilds commenting here were in the 60-85 range before the change. Many of the small guilds commenting here are stuck in the 50s. What about these frustrated casual players that wish to stay in a small guild. Personally I think DDO is a fine game, but I think Neverwinter is a better fit for anyone that prefers to group in a small guild. It's quite easy for Turbine to fix this - but I don't think they will and there is no really no basis for holding out hope. A developer popping in and saying they aren't able to keep up with the comments certainly isn't a reason.

    This system isn't good for casual players, it is good for big guilds and the players in - casual or not. People in tiny guilds that aren't filled with hard core players continue to be frustrated with decay unless they've already reached the level they wanted to reach or know they can due to sufficiently high play time.
    CC Casting Druid: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...C-Summer-Build
    Shiradi Wiz Plan for 1st Lifers: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...r-First-Lifers
    U25 Patch 1 Dex Halfling Assassin Build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...x-Assassin-1-0
    Warlock DC Caster: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ld-Blast-Build

    Several characters on Sarlona all starting with "Rand" in the Guild "Guardians of House Cannith". My main four characters are Randowl (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  14. #3954
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    What was being discussed here is people leaving primarily because of frustration with the guild system not because they are bored of the game. There will always be attrition and small guilds face no real disadvantage in that regard if they are able to level up the same way large guilds are.

    The guild system was always bad, but now it's only bad for tiny guilds and not all that great for many small guilds either.

    I am happy that large guilds are able to level now. However most of the large guilds commenting here were in the 60-85 range before the change. Many of the small guilds commenting here are stuck in the 50s. What about these frustrated casual players that wish to stay in a small guild. Personally I think DDO is a fine game, but I think Neverwinter is a better fit for anyone that prefers to group in a small guild. It's quite easy for Turbine to fix this - but I don't think they will and there is no really no basis for holding out hope. A developer popping in and saying they aren't able to keep up with the comments certainly isn't a reason.

    This system isn't good for casual players, it is good for big guilds and the players in - casual or not. People in tiny guilds that aren't filled with hard core players continue to be frustrated with decay unless they've already reached the level they wanted to reach or know they can due to sufficiently high play time.
    My experience before the change was that when I pugged at any level about 10-20% of players would be unguilded from being casual, now after the change it's closer to 1-5%. To me that is some evidence that the change did benefit casual players.

  15. #3955
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    My experience before the change was that when I pugged at any level about 10-20% of players would be unguilded from being casual, now after the change it's closer to 1-5%. To me that is some evidence that the change did benefit casual players.
    Before and after the change it was always extremely rare to find someone unguilded in high level content.

    I am not buying those %. Getting into guilds has never been a problem. I will agree that large guilds have grown as a result of this change. However, much of that growth is large guilds recruiting vets that were already in a guild. I am not seeing the large Sarlona guilds commenting in this thread making an effort to recruit on Korthos or the Harbor. They didn't before the change they won't after the change because they still prefer vets.

    The biggest problem casuals have always had is that guilds want to protect their brand. The best way to do that is by being selective. Many many guilds are selective and always will be regardless of the rules Turbine puts in place. Very few guilds actually rejected solely because of decay under the old system, although it happened. However those people were much more likely to be rejected because they didn't have the experience guilds were looking for.

    Editing to add: this is my last comment on this thread for a while. I am going to stick to my promise to comment on guild renown less.
    Last edited by slarden; 04-06-2013 at 03:00 PM.
    CC Casting Druid: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...C-Summer-Build
    Shiradi Wiz Plan for 1st Lifers: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...r-First-Lifers
    U25 Patch 1 Dex Halfling Assassin Build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...x-Assassin-1-0
    Warlock DC Caster: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ld-Blast-Build

    Several characters on Sarlona all starting with "Rand" in the Guild "Guardians of House Cannith". My main four characters are Randowl (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  16. #3956
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    Before and after the change it was always extremely rare to find someone unguilded in high level content.

    I am not buying those %. Getting into guilds has never been a problem. I will agree that large guilds have grown as a result of this change. However, much of that growth is large guilds recruiting vets that were already in a guild. I am not seeing the large Sarlona guilds commenting in this thread making an effort to recruit on Korthos or the Harbor. They didn't before the change they won't after the change because they still prefer vets.

    The biggest problem casuals have always had is that guilds want to protect their brand. The best way to do that is by being selective. Many many guilds are selective and always will be regardless of the rules Turbine puts in place. Very few guilds actually rejected solely because of decay under the old system, although it happened. However those people were much more likely to be rejected because they didn't have the experience guilds were looking for.

    Editing to add: this is my last comment on this thread for a while. I am going to stick to my promise to comment on guild renown less.
    Erm, well, if certain sarlona large guilds really tried, yes; we could probably recruit the heck outta anyone in the harbor or korthos; generally, our large guild hasn't, because, well, we kind of view it as spamming if we announce it in public chats...

    On the other hand, while we TR, we do keep our eye out for new players

    Our large guild has been able to open the doors and make it so much easier for anyone to join who is interested; but we're not really out there recruiting as a full time job, either - we're here to play the game

  17. #3957
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    Getting into guilds has never been a problem. I will agree that large guilds have grown as a result of this change. However, much of that growth is large guilds recruiting vets that were already in a guild. I am not seeing the large Sarlona guilds commenting in this thread making an effort to recruit on Korthos or the Harbor. They didn't before the change they won't after the change because they still prefer vets.

    The biggest problem casuals have always had is that guilds want to protect their brand. The best way to do that is by being selective. Many many guilds are selective and always will be regardless of the rules Turbine puts in place. Very few guilds actually rejected solely because of decay under the old system, although it happened. However those people were much more likely to be rejected because they didn't have the experience guilds were looking for.
    Getting into guilds that are going to be around in a month or two and are not just one-person guilds has been a problem for new players and for casual/social players. Only a few established guilds were willing to take such players in significant numbers under the old system and every one of those was punished every day with massive decay for doing so. Now, new players and casual/social players can join an established guild and not worry that they will cost the guild levels due to additional decay. And guild leaders are also free from such worries about inviting players. This is all goodness.

    If, as Slarden claims, the established large guilds of Sarlona are not taking in new players or casual/social players and you are reading this and you are such a player, then I invite you to come on over to Orien. My guild and a few other established guilds are now (and, in the case of my guild, still) accepting such players. The only requirement is that you play by our very simple rules and that we have room in the guild to invite you. Roll up a new character and try it if you like. We have had people join us who intended to only farm favor on Orien and then delete the character and go back to their main server, but ended up liking the guild so much that they moved their main characters to Orien and are now playing here almost exclusively, just so they can be in our guild. We can't offer the same intimacy of a small guild but I guarantee you we do our best to provide a friendly and fun home for players of any play-style. And, thanks to the change the devs made, we are now advancing in guild levels too!

  18. #3958
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    What was being discussed here is people leaving primarily because of frustration with the guild system not because they are bored of the game. There will always be attrition and small guilds face no real disadvantage in that regard if they are able to level up the same way large guilds are.

    The guild system was always bad, but now it's only bad for tiny guilds and not all that great for many small guilds either.

    I am happy that large guilds are able to level now. However most of the large guilds commenting here were in the 60-85 range before the change. Many of the small guilds commenting here are stuck in the 50s. What about these frustrated casual players that wish to stay in a small guild. Personally I think DDO is a fine game, but I think Neverwinter is a better fit for anyone that prefers to group in a small guild. It's quite easy for Turbine to fix this - but I don't think they will and there is no really no basis for holding out hope. A developer popping in and saying they aren't able to keep up with the comments certainly isn't a reason.

    This system isn't good for casual players, it is good for big guilds and the players in - casual or not. People in tiny guilds that aren't filled with hard core players continue to be frustrated with decay unless they've already reached the level they wanted to reach or know they can due to sufficiently high play time.
    agree.

    And to another poster - I like (as have said numerous times) all guild sizes - and have friends in many different guilds of many different sizes.

    Membership dues are for those that are in the guild, and that analogy of bowling or tavern etc is completely wrong. If you are in the bowling league you pay dues/fees and receive benefits. If you aren't in the bowling league you still have to rent the lane, the shoes, the ball and wait for a free lane. So for a bowling league - being in a guild is like the bowling league and those not in the league are not in guilds. Obviously those that aren't in the bowling league (aka guilds) don't pay dues/fees. Those that belong to the bowling league get perks (discounted lane rental, preferential lane use, discounted shoe, ball etc rental and of course scoring and competition).

    So if you make an analogy - kindly make sure it fits. And by the way - bowling leagues (and other membership guilds/clubs/league) charge PER PERSON for membership dues/fees. Thank you for proving that point.

    post script - comment was about post concerning pool leagues.... but substitute pool (billards) for bowling - and ball, stick, chalk, table rental as needed. Still bad analogy.

  19. #3959
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    Before and after the change it was always extremely rare to find someone unguilded in high level content.

    I am not buying those %. Getting into guilds has never been a problem. I will agree that large guilds have grown as a result of this change. However, much of that growth is large guilds recruiting vets that were already in a guild. I am not seeing the large Sarlona guilds commenting in this thread making an effort to recruit on Korthos or the Harbor. They didn't before the change they won't after the change because they still prefer vets.

    The biggest problem casuals have always had is that guilds want to protect their brand. The best way to do that is by being selective. Many many guilds are selective and always will be regardless of the rules Turbine puts in place. Very few guilds actually rejected solely because of decay under the old system, although it happened. However those people were much more likely to be rejected because they didn't have the experience guilds were looking for.

    Editing to add: this is my last comment on this thread for a while. I am going to stick to my promise to comment on guild renown less.
    Hard to not keep commenting eh? I agree.

    Yep - the number of low level guilds running around Korthos/Harbor/Marketplace/Necro is staggering (At least on Khyber) - and the number of requests per hour 'guild please, high level guild please, or invite to guild with +2s) is also staggering. We need to balance the system and also make it much easier to research and recruit and manage and provide a provisional invitational system (one that does not affect modified guild size or renown or allow access to chests).

  20. #3960
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    agree.

    And to another poster - I like (as have said numerous times) all guild sizes - and have friends in many different guilds of many different sizes.

    Membership dues are for those that are in the guild, and that analogy of bowling or tavern etc is completely wrong. If you are in the bowling league you pay dues/fees and receive benefits. If you aren't in the bowling league you still have to rent the lane, the shoes, the ball and wait for a free lane. So for a bowling league - being in a guild is like the bowling league and those not in the league are not in guilds. Obviously those that aren't in the bowling league (aka guilds) don't pay dues/fees. Those that belong to the bowling league get perks (discounted lane rental, preferential lane use, discounted shoe, ball etc rental and of course scoring and competition).

    So if you make an analogy - kindly make sure it fits. And by the way - bowling leagues (and other membership guilds/clubs/league) charge PER PERSON for membership dues/fees. Thank you for proving that point.

    post script - comment was about post concerning pool leagues.... but substitute pool (billards) for bowling - and ball, stick, chalk, table rental as needed. Still bad analogy.
    But if all you want to do is hang out in the bar, why would one pay dues as if the were on the pool team? What you don't seem to get is that the guild level mini-game was an add on, not an original part of guilds. So I see no reason why those guild members who choose to partake in this new mini-game should expect those that don't to pay dues. You see the guild isn't the pool team, it's the tavern. The pool team are just those members that choose to play for guild levels.

Page 198 of 209 FirstFirst ... 98148188194195196197198199200201202208 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload