Talking to Bornakk about Raid Rewards in Cata [Archive]

OzPhoenix

07-21-2010, 09:28 AM

So I was on the forums tonight and ended up in a conversation with Bornakk about the merits of reducing the proposed Guild Advancements for Raiding from it's current 7/10 for 10-player Raids and 20/25 for 25-player Raids to 5/10 and 12/25 respectively; the object being to allow two guilds to split the advancement awarded.

Obviously being in my own guild of 5 online (at any time) on a realm with other 5-boxers in the same situation, this is an issue I have some concern over.

I've linked the thread in case anyone is interested. I'm "Auctioneer" on the forums and I think our conversation started up around page 2 and continued to page 7 before I had to head off.

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=26227192772&postId=262249526870&sid=1#125

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince Bornakk it seems in the merits or reducing the 7/10 20/25 requirements to 5/10 12/25.

Svpernova09

07-21-2010, 10:16 AM

Bornakk has absolutely no pull with what the devs decide to do. Sure he can offer an opinion. But other than that...

OzPhoenix

07-21-2010, 07:39 PM

Bornakk has absolutely no pull with what the devs decide to do. Sure he can offer an opinion. But other than that...

True, the most he could do is offer an opinion, unfortunately it would seem unlikely he'll do even that, since he seems fairly adamant that guilds should be sufficiently large to field 7 or 20 raiders regularly.

Svpernova09

07-21-2010, 08:05 PM

I pretty much agree, If you're not taking that many to a boss kill, it's not enough to claim it as a guild kill.

Gurblash

07-21-2010, 09:30 PM

I believe this is how the guild progression trackers work. When we ran hard modes on Madoran we had to have 7 from the guild in order for us to get credit for a kill, iirc.

OzPhoenix

07-21-2010, 10:05 PM

I pretty much agree, If you're not taking that many to a boss kill, it's not enough to claim it as a guild kill.

Well, I'd have to say I disagree. I see no harm at all in allowing 2 guilds to share (that is a 50/50 split) the advancement points awarded from a kill.

Svpernova09

07-21-2010, 10:49 PM

Well, I'd have to say I disagree. I see no harm at all in allowing 2 guilds to share (that is a 50/50 split) the advancement points awarded from a kill.

But it's not the guild's kill. It's 5 people FROM the guild, even if the guild is 5 people. It's just 5 people who pug. In blizzard's eyes it's not a guild. Maybe I think this way because I spent a long time tracking guild progression for a realm, and I've run guilds where we didn't get credit for kills when we had X people without the guild tag on the kill yet they ran with us every week.

Pycno

07-21-2010, 10:51 PM

Well, I'd have to say I disagree. I see no harm at all in allowing 2 guilds to share (that is a 50/50 split) the advancement points awarded from a kill.

The only reason I see that will explain Blizzards take on this is if they want to reduce the number of guilds. Maybe they will say something like "We want fewer but more meaningful guilds, DURP DUURP".

I think it makes sense in a way, guilds that used to cooperate may take the cooperation to a new level by fully merging into one guild bringing them closer. Also reducing the amount of guilds will make it easier to get known also, instead of being one in hundreds of guilds one might be one in tens of guilds instead - easier to get a negative/positive reputation etc.

Personally I think this seems like a good change, guilds will be encouraged to merge into larger guilds and small guilds will become less attractive. The reason I like this is that there is too many guilds for me to keep track of, there is four guilds on my server that I know something about - namely if they are good or bad.

Gurblash

07-21-2010, 10:54 PM

guilds will be encouraged to merge into larger guilds and small guilds will become less attractive.

Just in time for Blizzard to release their new 40man raid!

OzPhoenix

07-21-2010, 11:18 PM

The only reason I see that will explain Blizzards take on this is if they want to reduce the number of guilds. Maybe they will say something like "We want fewer but more meaningful guilds, DURP DUURP".

I think it makes sense in a way, guilds that used to cooperate may take the cooperation to a new level by fully merging into one guild bringing them closer. Also reducing the amount of guilds will make it easier to get known also, instead of being one in hundreds of guilds one might be one in tens of guilds instead - easier to get a negative/positive reputation etc.

Personally I think this seems like a good change, guilds will be encouraged to merge into larger guilds and small guilds will become less attractive. The reason I like this is that there is too many guilds for me to keep track of, there is four guilds on my server that I know something about - namely if they are good or bad.

Why do you need to know about all the guilds?

A big part of the reason I 5-box is for independence from large guilds, which inevitably are drama-ridden emo-trips. I won't be taking me teams into a nameless large guild, even if I did get accepted, which most likely I wouldn't anyway.

I just don't understand the negativity behind small guilds. There's no harm in small guilds. No-one's hurt by them, yet Blizzard seems to have a negative view of them.

jinkobi

07-21-2010, 11:32 PM

I like the rewards but hate Blizzard's philosphy as to why they're doing it. People will be forced to stay in guilds they dislike because they're invested.

Blizz said they want to penalize for changing guild. Why?? What's the damned point. Just seems like some half-baked idea that a developer with a wild hair up his ass came up with. Creating a problem where no problem even existed.

Guilds come and go all the time just keep up with you server forums. Where there's people there will be drama. What if the guild leader just turns into a total douche...

It's taking away our freedom to choose without suffering a penalty.

Iceorbz

07-22-2010, 01:54 AM

OzPhoenix

07-22-2010, 05:15 AM

You guys are full of tinfoil hats and the sky is falling. I really doubt its going to be so hard to get these perks back when you switch guilds. I'm not in a guild on beta or I would give you more info; but really, nothing is ever that hard. Your qqing for really nothing.

As far as joining a "bigger guild" , if your boxing you are probably pugging with friends. What is so wrong with joining their guild, if its just your toons anyways. If they all qq and cry, turn off guild chat, unless you talk to yourself -- it will be like being in your own guild.

Actually Iceorbz, I don't see anyone here whipping out the tinfoil hats or claiming that the sky is falling and I'm disappointed that you would say that - it's the sort of hyperbolic argument that I'd hope we could keep out of these forums (especially as since the Blizzard forums have become almost useless due to the community there).

For myself, and I pretend to speak for no-one other than myself, I am merely disappointed at Blizzards anti-small guild attitude - and merely stating opposition is not QQ.

Finally, you still haven't stated (and nor has Blizzard I'll give you that) what's actually wrong with allowing small guilds a full scope of participation in these guild leveling benefits.

Khatovar

07-22-2010, 05:58 AM

What is wrong with small guilds sticking to all the OTHER means of leveling? Why should Blizzard feel obligated to change what is already essentially a pretty fair system {I mean, they could very well make it that if it's not 100% your guild, then it's not a guild run} just so people who can't make 1 or two more allies can eek out a few more guild points a little faster?

I mean the way I see people talk about this guild leveling thing, you'd think you won't get anywhere at all unless you're in the top guild on the server. Make friends with another boxer on your server if it's that big of a deal. Drop some alts in his guild, have him drop some in yours and take turns raiding together. Personally, I'm not gonna worry about it, I'll level through quests, kills, achievements, leveling alts, whatever. It's a bonus, it's not a requirement.

ElectronDF

07-22-2010, 06:50 AM

WOW is my first MMO. I kinda thought that I was going to be playing with thousands of people. To me being in a guild and only running with the guild seems like I am only playing with 100 people (if that). I like the idea of a LFD being cross-battlegroups. I would like to have more people to choose from instead of less. If the tank in your guild run sucks, you really can't kick him and get another one. If you want to leave and go to a new run since the DPS won't play nice and the healer is getting upset, you will probably get in trouble if you leave. Even if you ask them nicely.

And again, if you get booted you lose rep. Imagine if you lost rep with Sons of Hodir after you worked hard for it. Some rep grinds kinda suck. Imagine if the guild rep grind asks you go go back and do previous raids? Not so bad, right, but now you have to do it with your guild in order to get credit. That is going to suck. I don't mind doing the work once or twice, but do you really want to have to do it 3-6 times? "Oh, that will never happen." Yeah, guilds will merge and you now play with a crappy guild that got merged together since small guilds are gone. It isn't a group of friends you like playing with, it is being as big as you can stand so you get more rewards.

I will probably just ignore guilds and do my own thing. I don't do arenas now. Not once. Not once. I don't want to do facebook linked to my account. I can just ignore another new "feature".

MiRai

07-22-2010, 06:52 AM

A guild charter requires 10 signatures, not 5. 5 people make up a party. There are no 5 man raids. If you find yourself wanting to be left alone in your own 5 man multiboxing guild, then you will suffer the consequences. If you have found another 5 boxer to do content with... how difficult is it for one of you to join the other person's guild?

I'm really not seeing the problem here.

ghonosyph

07-22-2010, 07:04 AM

Me either. Some people box because they like their solidarity and like to do things solo. You won't get full advantage of the new leveling perks and guild bonuses, because blizzard is trying to implement a bonus for social players, a bonus for commerradery.

I have been lucky to be In a guild that has a long standing on my server, they've been around since wow release and I feel so much at home among our members. People come and go but the relationships have been formed and we are great friends.

All this Bs about how blizz is hurting the little guild or "why can't we guild hop if they suck" is retarded. If you kill goblins in booty bay, to get your pirate suit you're GONNA lose rep with the goblins, same as leaving a guild to look for greener pastures. :p they don't want you to guild hop!

OzPhoenix

07-22-2010, 09:33 AM

Ok, well, to reinfoce some points here, because I feel like I'm getting tarred with the same brush as some of the QQ'ers on the WoW forums.

1. I fully realise that small guilds will still be able to progress their leveling in other ways.

2. I'm expressing - AT BEST - mild disappointment in this decision, not raging from the rooftoops about another Blizzard "slap in the face(tm)".

3. To answer the specific questions raised:

Khatovar: "What is wrong with small guilds sticking to all the OTHER means of leveling?"Nothing. But then, why is this avenue being closed off? The burden of proof I think should be on an argument to deny some players participation, rather than having to proof they should have that opportunity.

Khatovar: "Why should Blizzard feel obligated to change a pretty fair system?" (paraphrased)Yes, the system IS pretty fair, and in my humble opinion, extending it to include very small guilds would make it even fairer - hence the question I pose then is "Why shouldn't Blizzard change it?" Again, I think the burden of proof should be on citing some reason to actively exclude some portion of the playerbase, that is, the initial assumption of any system should be to try and include as much of the playerbase as possible.

Khatovar: "I mean the way I see people talk about this guild leveling thing, you'd think you won't get anywhere at all unless you're in the top guild on the server". You're getting too used to the Wow Forums. I would hope these would be an area where members could discuss things as adults, given that most multiboxers tend to be more mature types. Post a link where anyone on these forums has claimed that the system being proposed prevents small guilds for partaking in all forms of advancement.

Khatovar: "Make friends with another boxer on your server if it's that big of a deal."Again, it's not that big of a deal, and yes, I do happen to be lucky enough to be on a server where there are three other 5-boxers and a number of 2-4 boxers. However, merging guilds sacrifices the benefits of the guild banks we all now have access to, so again, why should we be forced to lose that functionality?

Fenril: "A guild charter requires 10 signatures, not 5. 5 people make up a party. There are no 5 man raids."
If the number of persons required to start a guild formed any part of the basis of a raid, then from Vanilla we'd have all required 40 signatures for a guild to be formed. That the number of signatures required to form a guild is now the same as the number of players the smallest raid will maximally hold is pure coincidence.

Note to that as little as two toons can form a raid.

Fenril: "how difficult is it for one of you to join the other person's guild?"Why should we have to first of all? Secondly, it means that where each of us once had our own personal guild banks accessable without the necessity of logging over characters, now that guild bank would have to be shared. I already make quite good use of all 6 of my own guilds bank tabs.

Ghonosyph: " You won't get full advantage of the new leveling perks and guild bonuses, because blizzard is trying to implement a bonus for social players, a bonus for commerradery. "I completely understand, and even accept, I won't get the full bonuses, as I intend on keeping my own guild to myself. But the question remains, and I've yet to see a single valid answer to is why should small guilds be discouraged? What harm have they done? How have they failed to meet up to the expectations of what a guild is or should be?

Even more so, for those small guilds that genuinely are 5 or so people, by what measure have you discounted their comradery over a guild of 100 people. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the community spirit inside a 5 person guild is likely to far exceed the almost stranger-like association of a guild of 500 people.

Ghonosyph: "All this Bs about how blizz is hurting the little guild or "why can't we guild hop if they suck" is retarded."
You know, this, thank God, isn't the Blizzard forums. So perhaps you can leave the attitude that opposite points of view are "retarded" behind. I'm taking your arguments and viewpoints with respect, why not do the same for mine, eh?

Then you could explain why you feel people should be penalised for leaving a guild.

Fat Tire

07-22-2010, 09:47 AM

Even though I am in a rather large guild and these perks look cool and all, I see something sinister in the future coming from the beginning process of integrating guilds into larger "social" guilds. Something with RealID keeps popping into my head for some reason. Also guild micro transactions, I know right, grab the toil foil hat.

By adding perks for joining and taking away anything you have contributed when leaving they are slowly forcing the players hand. I am sure they will add more powerful perks down the road as people become more accustomed/tolerate to the changes.

Khatovar

07-22-2010, 10:48 AM

Nothing. But then, why is this avenue being closed off? The burden of proof I think should be on an argument to deny some players participation, rather than having to proof they should have that opportunity.

Who is being denied? You keep talking like Blizzard is only allowing guild advancement via this one tiny aspect. They aren't, and I find it kind of laughable that you talk about Blizzard denying players something, when these small guilds are built entirely around preventing other players from joining.

Yes, the system IS pretty fair, and in my humble opinion, extending it to include very small guilds would make it even fairer - hence the question I pose then is "Why shouldn't Blizzard change it?" Again, I think the burden of proof should be on citing some reason to actively exclude some portion of the playerbase, that is, the initial assumption of any system should be to try and include as much of the playerbase as possible.

You explain to me why they should? You say 5, but why stop there? I can still be the highest represented guild just playing 2 toons in a 25 man raid, especially in a world full of vanity guilds. So why 5?

You're getting too used to the Wow Forums. I would hope these would be an area where members could discuss things as adults, given that most multiboxers tend to be more mature types. Post a link where anyone on these forums has claimed that the system being proposed prevents small guilds for partaking in all forms of advancement.

I don't read the WoW forums, thanks. And I never said anything about this preventing anyone from doing whatever they want, what I am pointing out is people seem to think they should be entitled to every single thing no matter how they play, and if BLizzard doesn't agree, then they have something against you and they're actively out to get you. Like this

I just don't understand the negativity behind small guilds. There's no harm in small guilds. No-one's hurt by them, yet Blizzard seems to have a negative view of them.

For myself, and I pretend to speak for no-one other than myself, I am merely disappointed at Blizzards anti-small guild attitude - and merely stating opposition is not QQ.

Again, it's not that big of a deal, and yes, I do happen to be lucky enough to be on a server where there are three other 5-boxers and a number of 2-4 boxers. However, merging guilds sacrifices the benefits of the guild banks we all now have access to, so again, why should we be forced to lose that functionality?

And how exactly does that prevent alts from other guilds from JOINING your guild and YOUR alts joining THEIR guild? No one loses banks, no one loses their guild name and now you've got 2 separate raid forces so both guilds win.

But you seem to be far more interested in proving this is some sort of persecution than being happy with the fact that we've all, yes ALL, got a new collection of toys to play with in guild perks.

MiRai

07-22-2010, 03:55 PM

If the number of persons required to start a guild formed any part of the basis of a raid, then from Vanilla we'd have all required 40 signatures for a guild to be formed. That the number of signatures required to form a guild is now the same as the number of players the smallest raid will maximally hold is pure coincidence.

Note to that as little as two toons can form a raid.
I wasn't comparing guilds to raids, I was comparing guilds to guilds. Your 5 characters technically aren't a guild, they're half of a guild; but Blizzard is giving us a little leeway by saying 7/10 and 20/25 is acceptable. Those 3 sentences I wrote were their own separate ideas.

On multiboxers joining forces:
Why should we have to first of all?
Because Blizzard said so. They obviously want > 50% of the raid make up to be from the same guild.

On multiboxers joining forces:
Secondly, it means that where each of us once had our own personal guild banks accessable without the necessity of logging over characters, now that guild bank would have to be shared. I already make quite good use of all 6 of my own guilds bank tabs.
As Khatovar said, how difficult is it to leave an alt in your guild to hold the bank? I have my main in a raiding guild, where we all share the guild bank. I have 4 alts with 4 different guild banks holding all kinds of illegal goods from south of the border. My main will continue to get achievements and guild perks, while the alts, that I could care less about, don't get squat.

TIME TO START 10 BOXING!

Bot

07-22-2010, 04:34 PM

ghonosyph

07-22-2010, 05:16 PM

I completely understand, and even accept, I won't get the full bonuses, as I intend on keeping my own guild to myself. But the question remains, and I've yet to see a single valid answer to is why should small guilds be discouraged? What harm have they done? How have they failed to meet up to the expectations of what a guild is or should be?

And in WHAT way are small guilds being "discouraged"? Bigger guilds have more people, more options, more achievements, more access to the rewards?

... why? because they have MORE people. The rate of return is higher, why? Because blizzard wants to punish players for being in a small guild right? No, thats doubtful. In fact, the rate of return on leveling the guild is going to be adjusted, its still in beta and there are still changes to come. To say you're being punished from staying in small groups is silly imo, i see no punishment from the implementation, just that bigger is better... for obvious reasons.

Even more so, for those small guilds that genuinely are 5 or so people, by what measure have you discounted their comradery over a guild of 100 people. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the community spirit inside a 5 person guild is likely to far exceed the almost stranger-like association of a guild of 500 people.

I've got no doubt about this. The statement was made short due to my cell phone not quite having enough power to finish the train of thought. I used to be in a casual raiding guild, 10 man strictly. It was some of the best times in wow i've ever experienced. We raided kara religiously, and we did well. Did we ever do The eye, or black temple? no, absolutely not. We pugged more for gruuls lair on occasion, but it was always fun no matter wipes or whatever. There's nothing wrong with having a small guild, but to say that you're being punished because you cant get all the best rewards as fast or as a large guild might be able doesn't mean thats a punishment. It means that a larger guild has more access, because they have more options, because they have a plenty more people. I'm VERY sure that bliz will change the way these guild things work before beta ends and things will work out a little differently.

quoted because well... read it :P

the idea behind guild vaults is not to give single players more storage space... moreover a single player (regardless of the number of characters) does not comprise a guild. you may be able to have a guild with only a single character in it but that is surely not the intention of the mechanic. <--- THIS right here is the reason i see most 5 boxers are arguing about this guild perk thing. Its NOT the intention of the mechanic, and most seem to argue "i like my guild because i have access to my own guild bank" ... make an alt and store your stuff, then join a guild with some friends? I like being solo, but i also enjoy my raiding guild. I have friends in game, lots of them.

The attitudes of " why should i have to" are imo foolish and arrogant. You shouldn't have to... you DON'T have to... If you want full advantage of all the awesomeness, join a guild, make relationships/friends! Blizzard WANTS people to be social... its part of the experience of a multimassive online rpg. Just because multiboxing allows us to play the game as if it were basically solo, doesn't really mean its a solo game. amirite?

Maxion

07-22-2010, 05:46 PM

Any guild of any size will most likely be able to unlock all the perks, just slower.

OzPhoenix

07-22-2010, 08:28 PM

Who is being denied? You keep talking like Blizzard is only allowing guild advancement via this one tiny aspect. They aren't, and I find it kind of laughable that you talk about Blizzard denying players something, when these small guilds are built entirely around preventing other players from joining.

/sigh Show me where, ever, just once, I have said, inferred, hinted or otherwise stated that this would be closing off a small guilds only avenue of advancement? Anywhere.......

You explain to me why they should? You say 5, but why stop there? I can still be the highest represented guild just playing 2 toons in a 25 man raid, especially in a world full of vanity guilds. So why 5?

Because as a natural principle of game development wouldn't you want any new system to be open to all players? If the system weren't open to all playstyles shouldn't there be a specific reason for that? Why do I have to prove that 5-player guilds are entitled to this? The burden of proof should be on the other side proving why 5 player guilds shouldn't be entitled to this.

I don't read the WoW forums, thanks. And I never said anything about this preventing anyone from doing whatever they want, what I am pointing out is people seem to think they should be entitled to every single thing no matter how they play, and if BLizzard doesn't agree, then they have something against you and they're actively out to get you. Like this

Since small guilds are being slightly disadvantaged by the 7/10 raid requirement I think it is fair to say that this system is slightly anti-small guild. However, in stating that, I've never put forward a persecution complex and claimed that this stance was motivated by an attempt somehow to personally get me. What other people do is relevant to the merits of the points I'm putting forward, so why bring those peoples reactions into this discussion.

And how exactly does that prevent alts from other guilds from JOINING your guild and YOUR alts joining THEIR guild? No one loses banks, no one loses their guild name and now you've got 2 separate raid forces so both guilds win.

Because the alts won't be raiding. So there's nothing gained by having 2 alts of one multiboxer join the other multiboxers guild, unless they're actually going to be there in the raid, in which case, his own toons won't.

But you seem to be far more interested in proving this is some sort of persecution than being happy with the fact that we've all, yes ALL, got a new collection of toys to play with in guild perks.

I refute that completely. I have never once claimed this as some sort of personal persecution of me by Blizzard. I've merely stated simple facts i) the system discriminates against small guilds and ii) no-one at Blizzard nor certainly in this thread has provided a valid justification for that discrimination.

Nor have I sought to overplay the scope of the discrimination. It merely closes off one - and only one - avenue for small guild advancement. Small guilds, mine included, will still have plenty of opportunity to advance and I am, on the whole, very happy with this system. I'm just pointing out one of its defects is all.

Iceorbz

07-22-2010, 09:37 PM

Any guild of any size will most likely be able to unlock all the perks, just slower.

Probability of a large guild unlocking = 1. Probability of a small guild unlocking = 1. It will be possible, it's just like saying I'm going to travel to another state. Whether I get there by car, train, plane, bike or foot. I will get there, the duration of the journey is the only variable.

Even though I am in a rather large guild and these perks look cool and all, I see something sinister in the future coming from the beginning process of integrating guilds into larger "social" guilds. Something with RealID keeps popping into my head for some reason. Also guild micro transactions, I know right, grab the toil foil hat.

By adding perks for joining and taking away anything you have contributed when leaving they are slowly forcing the players hand. I am sure they will add more powerful perks down the road as people become more accustomed/tolerate to the changes.

You know the onlything that I thought would be fucked up, is if say you are in a hardcore guild.. how often have one of the officers just /gkicked someone messing around. That would be screwed up, and I would hope there are some restrictions in place to prevent that lol. The Rep should have some sort of decay by day (like 10%) so that if a person is booted, for just a few minutes nothing happens.

Oz - You also need to consider, that even if your group makes up 50% of the raid that != to 50% of the of the work done, why should your guild get credit? At 7/10 we are almost certain that greater then 50% of the work was done by your guild. I never have really seen the point of super small guilds. From everquest, AO, Shadowbane, EQ2, WoW all have a greater benefit when guilds have more players. Now, quantity does != quality, and quality is certainly > quantity. You really must look at the purpose of a guild, and as some have stated previously, it's not for you to be there by yourself. The game is designed for us to band together and slay the horde or alliance, and conquer the world together. By a lack of restrictions, we as multiboxers, are able to utilize guild's for bank storage, and avoid the entire social purpose of it.

Mercurio

07-22-2010, 10:49 PM

My opinion is that Blizzard has one major goal with the changes they've been making (or trying to make) lately.

They have realized a huge flaw in the "social" part of the internet - anonymity has a tendency to make people act like total jerks. My opinion is that most players entered into this game with the intention of being forthright and helpful, but that they were mistreated by a minority, saw almost no consequences for the offenders, and felt forced down the road of wariness or even "screw them because I've been screwed", "screw them because they've probably screwed someone else", or "screw them before they screw me" (the last one is the major reason PvP realms are such a pita).

Making leaving a guild have more consequences for players is a small way to create consequences for bad behavior. RealID also ups the ante by taking some of the anonymity away (can't just "hide" by switching to an alt). RealID on the forums was expressly listed as a way to make the forums a bit more like a real community (that had some consequences).

A personal case in point: A few months ago I saved up emblems of frost, bought some Primordial Saronite and Titansteel Bars, and asked in chat for someone to make some ilvl 264 boots for me. Someone said they could, so I traded them the mats.... and they insta-logged. They logged back on later but were unresponsive to my polite tells. What recourse did I have? I did the only thing I could - figured out who his guild leader was, sent him tells explaining the situation, and he asked the guy for clarification. The guy must have sensed he might get kicked, so he went and raided the guild bank. The guild leader kicked him and put in numerous tickets explaining the situation (as did I) to Blizzard asking for my (and his guild's) goods to be returned. We only got form letter responses and no resolution. It was back when the mats felt like a fairly substantial investment and I was sad to lose it. Would things have been different if he had been with the guild for a while and might lose the perks by being a jerk? Probably not, but it might have.

I believe forcing more people to be more social (7/10 in a raid instead of 5/10) in a community that requires a bit more commitment is just a small step in their larger goal to make our little game a bit more friendly. That goal I applaud.

ElectronDF

07-23-2010, 01:37 AM

So you really think deterents stop people from doing stuff? I will agree that mutual distruction like nuclear weapons would give people pause, but other than that, I don't think they do. Do people that know 100% what will happen to them not do crimes? No, they do it and hope they get away with it. Do people on death row feel bad for what they did? Not sure, but some of them are just crazy and would kill again if let out. "Some people just like to see the world burn."

I don't see how being in a guild helps people so much if there are so many people PUGing raids. I see pretty much a 10 man 4-6 times a night full of people with guild tags. I see 25 man 2 times a night again, full of people with guilds? How was being in a guild helping them? If they want to incourage guilds, fine, but for me, I want to play with thousands of people, not just 100. Chance of people in 100 going to run old raids? Not so much unless you deliberately join a guild that does that. But then, what if you want to other stuff? To me there is too much stuff that I want to do that doesn't match 100% with a guild of only 100 people. But I can find people in the 1000's of people online that does match. Multiply that by 15 servers and you could find people to do anything anytime anywhere.

Khatovar

07-23-2010, 02:38 AM

/sigh Show me where, ever, just once, I have said, inferred, hinted or otherwise stated that this would be closing off a small guilds only avenue of advancement? Anywhere.......

First, I said people, not YOU. Second, I never said that ANYONE said that this is the only way to level, I said that people are acting like the only way to level with significant progress is through a big guild. Nowhere in that sentence did I say anything about raiding. What I inferred, however, is that it's all just more whiny Chicken Little BS.

Because as a natural principle of game development wouldn't you want any new system to be open to all players?

Um, yeah, that's why anyone who has a guild in WoW will be able to participate in the Guild Perks system, no matter the size of the guild. Because you gain experience in many different ways, including small group and solo play.

If the system weren't open to all playstyles shouldn't there be a specific reason for that?

The system IS open to all playstyles.

Why do I have to prove that 5-player guilds are entitled to this? The burden of proof should be on the other side proving why 5 player guilds shouldn't be entitled to this.

You want a reason? Because come raid night, when you're up against non-trivial content in appropriate gear, if 3 people don't show up, a real guild, who actually raids together still has a chance of being able to make some progress in that raid. Likewise, 20 people could probably work through a 25 man, 12 certainly aren't. Anyone else they pug would just be a bonus to make things easier.

Since small guilds are being slightly disadvantaged by the 7/10 raid requirement I think it is fair to say that this system is slightly anti-small guild.

And I think it's far more appropriate to say it's the price you pay for not wanting to participate in a certain aspect of the game. When someone whispers you saying "What kind of guild are you in?" you don't say you're a raiding guild. You don't even say you're a social guild, or a leveling guild. You're 1 guy chillin by himself. You're a vanity guild. You're not excluded from raiding, you can raid all you want, you're just not going to get a bonus for it just because you fill half the slots while being as anti-social as possible. And honestly, 5 or 7, vanity and private guilds are still unlikely to get the raid-lead bonus because most of them aren't raiding together. Most of the ones I've seen through the years still have to PuG 5-mans.

I could turn around and say :

it's anti massive guild - because only the top 20 contributors per day advance the guild,
anti RP guild - because there is no RP bonuses and you have to participate in normal content {quests, kills, instances} to get guild XP
anti PVE guild and/or anti PvP guild - because people who don't do PvE/P aren't getting the same bonuses as people who do

Blizzard should just scrap the whole thing because it's all unfair and too many playstyles are excluded, amirite? :rolleyes:

Owltoid

07-23-2010, 10:06 AM

I do appreciate the calm discussion in this thread :)

I'm not sure it matters if Blizzard is discriminating against small guilds. Blizzard always favors size. 25-man raids get better (or more in Cata) loot. 5 man arena teams get more points than 3 man.

Blizzard has done a great job of making a ton of solo content. You could roll new toons and quest for a looong time if someone didn't want to deal with anyone else. They have also made a huge multiplayer aspect to the game, and I don't have a problem with them rewarding more people working together. In this case, since the rewards are eventually available to all guilds, they're not putting that big of an advantage on big guilds.

Dooz

07-23-2010, 08:15 PM

OzPhoenix

07-23-2010, 09:36 PM

First, I said people, not YOU. Second, I never said that ANYONE said that this is the only way to level, I said that people are acting like the only way to level with significant progress is through a big guild. Nowhere in that sentence did I say anything about raiding. What I inferred, however, is that it's all just more whiny Chicken Little BS.
Well, there's plenty of people on both sides of this argument in the WoW forums who do nothing but embarass their side of the debate. So, let's ignore those people, and concentrate on the points we specifically are raising.

Um, yeah, that's why anyone who has a guild in WoW will be able to participate in the Guild Perks system, no matter the size of the guild. Because you gain experience in many different ways, including small group and solo play.

They'll be able to participate in most aspects of this new system. Most, not all.

The system IS open to all playstyles.

No, it's not. An aside from whether it should or shouldn't be, let's at least agree that it's not. A single member, single character guild run by a player who never entered an instance would get next to nothing from this system.

You want a reason? Because come raid night, when you're up against non-trivial content in appropriate gear, if 3 people don't show up, a real guild, who actually raids together still has a chance of being able to make some progress in that raid. Likewise, 20 people could probably work through a 25 man, 12 certainly aren't. Anyone else they pug would just be a bonus to make things easier.

Some ICC10 bosses have now been 5-boxed if I'm reading correctly some of the threads. Certainly Naxx bosses have. There's a raid making progress with 5/10.

And I think it's far more appropriate to say it's the price you pay for not wanting to participate in a certain aspect of the game. When someone whispers you saying "What kind of guild are you in?" you don't say you're a raiding guild. You don't even say you're a social guild, or a leveling guild. You're 1 guy chillin by himself. You're a vanity guild. You're not excluded from raiding, you can raid all you want, you're just not going to get a bonus for it just because you fill half the slots while being as anti-social as possible. And honestly, 5 or 7, vanity and private guilds are still unlikely to get the raid-lead bonus because most of them aren't raiding together. Most of the ones I've seen through the years still have to PuG 5-mans.

Here at least we agree, it's definitely the price I have to pay for remaining in my own guild. I just don't think the price is fair. Fortunately however, it is small.

I could turn around and say :

it's anti massive guild - because only the top 20 contributors per day advance the guild,
anti RP guild - because there is no RP bonuses and you have to participate in normal content {quests, kills, instances} to get guild XP
anti PVE guild and/or anti PvP guild - because people who don't do PvE/P aren't getting the same bonuses as people who do

Yes, it is slightly anti-super-sized guild. But then, Blizzard probably did that to prevent those guilds from running too far ahead on the guild advancement ladder.

Yes, it is anti-RP guild, given no RP achievements, but then I think Blizzard would find it difficult to design achievements accessable to RP and RP alone. Still not being an RP'er myself, I'm not advocating their interests in this thread.

As to whether it's biased for or against PvE or PvP, I don't know. I haven't looked into the deep mechanics of the system to see what's what. But, and here's an important point, I don't PvP and I accept - fully - that it means I'll advance my guild slower. But I do raid and I feel completely entitled to ask for the same recognition of that with 5/10 as a guild with 7/10.

Blizzard should just scrap the whole thing because it's all unfair and too many playstyles are excluded, amirite? :rolleyes:
Well, I'm glad the smilie was there, the sarcasm alert... hehe. Personally, I think the system will, on the whole, be beneficial to my own playstyle - just not as beneficial as it could have (should have) been is all.

OzPhoenix

07-23-2010, 09:42 PM

I wasn't comparing guilds to raids, I was comparing guilds to guilds. Your 5 characters technically aren't a guild, they're half of a guild; but Blizzard is giving us a little leeway by saying 7/10 and 20/25 is acceptable. Those 3 sentences I wrote were their own separate ideas.

If my guild fails to meet the qualification for a guild by some technical standard, then why is Blizzard making this concession of reducing it to 7/10? Why give any leeway at all?

Because Blizzard said so. They obviously want > 50% of the raid make up to be from the same guild.

If we all agreed and mindlessly followed everything Blizzard said, simply because Blizzard said it, we'd all be posting on the WoW Forums with our real names. Blizzard isn't always right - recent events have quite adequately (re)proven that.

As Khatovar said, how difficult is it to leave an alt in your guild to hold the bank? I have my main in a raiding guild, where we all share the guild bank. I have 4 alts with 4 different guild banks holding all kinds of illegal goods from south of the border. My main will continue to get achievements and guild perks, while the alts, that I could care less about, don't get squat.

It is a possible solution and one we've already discussed on my server. This however doesn't address whether the requirement forcing this was fair or not.

TIME TO START 10 BOXING!

I just couldn't level multiple teams. It'd kill me... hehe.

OzPhoenix

07-23-2010, 09:46 PM

the idea behind guild vaults is not to give single players more storage space... moreover a single player (regardless of the number of characters) does not comprise a guild. you may be able to have a guild with only a single character in it but that is surely not the intention of the mechanic. it is merely a fail safe to save a poor guild master from not loosing everything if there's a mass exodus or some such thing. I think your assumptions that blizzard doesn't like small guilds are kind of based around some misguided assumptions.

My assumptions about Blizzards attitudes to small guilds are based on the mechanics of some elements of this system and indeed Bornakss own statements in the thread stating Blizzards lack of concern about the effects this may have on small guilds (effects which, of course, were then blown out of all proportion in the WoW Forums).

it should be noted that a guild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild) is traditionally a group of people who work together for a common goal.

Yes, but those groups can be large, small, massive or tiny.

that said it is sad to see that guild alliances will be at a slight disadvantage when it comes to raiding but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Yes, it is the way the cookie is currently crumbling, but needlessly so.

OzPhoenix

07-23-2010, 09:48 PM

I do appreciate the calm discussion in this thread :)

Yes, it's nice to have somewhere to talk about WoW and have reasonable expectations of intelligent replies.

I've got no problem with anyone disagreeing with me here - in fact, I like a good debate - it's something that's sadly lacking from the WoW forums.

MiRai

07-23-2010, 10:28 PM

Just add "Cataclysm's requirement of 7/10 or 20/25 for certain Guild Perks" to this list:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25626350573&sid=1&pageNo=2#39

/thread

Tonuss

07-23-2010, 10:54 PM

I don't think that Blizzard is discriminating against small guilds. They've been moving away from the large guild mentality for some time now, shrinking raid sizes and making content more accessible. I'm not sure what they are seeking to prevent with the 7/10 and 20/25 setting, and I don't think that they see it as set in stone or anything. With time they might relax it, they've shown a tendency to favor solutions that include more people.

They do seem to be moving away from the concept of small vanity guilds or fly-by-night guilds (the ones that invite anyone who is on and make all kinds of plans and then fall apart after two weeks) and trying to encourage people towards larger and more stable guilds. Why? No idea, and I doubt that they'll discuss it. If it's just some kind of experiment, then there's a good chance that they'll relax the rules a bit as time goes on. Blizzard seems to change its mind a whole lot when it comes to WOW.