Talking to Bornakk about Raid Rewards in Cata

[OzPhoenix]

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]

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]

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.

[OzPhoenix]

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.

[Khatovar]

/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?

[OzPhoenix]

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?

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.

[MiRai]

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!

[OzPhoenix]

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.