Maintenance for the week of December 22:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
Updated Thread - Requests for Guild Level System + Level Benefit
RT01100111
✭✭✭
What are your thoughts if guilds had levels 1 to 10.
What should each level have as a guild benefit?
Lvls
1)
2)
3)
4) *Requires 100 members
5)
6)
7) Requires 350 members
8) Requires completing 1 trial per week
9) Requires completing 4 trails per week
10) Requires competing 4 trails per week and capturing 1 or holding 1 Cyrodiil resource per day
What should each level have as a guild benefit?
Lvls
1)
2)
3)
4) *Requires 100 members
5)
6)
7) Requires 350 members
8) Requires completing 1 trial per week
9) Requires completing 4 trails per week
10) Requires competing 4 trails per week and capturing 1 or holding 1 Cyrodiil resource per day
0
-
Dusk_Coven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭What about guilds that are about trading or roleplay or housing -- and don't want to have to do <insert specific requirement here> that has nothing to do with them?
And "benefits" typically = power creep. When the game is levelled the same everywhere, you can't really have too much power creep at all. It just leads to everywhere being "too easy" once people start moving into that new power increase. A lot of the game is already easy once you get your sets assembled and your CP points going.
If there are to be any benefits, they should not be directly related to combat or economics/loot. For example, something like tracking active members (people who log in frequently) to allow a guild to have even more members than just 500. This way, active guilds can "prove" they are active and have an incentive to stay active.Edited by Dusk_Coven on June 30, 2020 7:23PM2 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The idea promotes poor behavior and says it does not take into account not all guilds run trials.
I will start with trials is not the focus of every player or guild. The idea suggests PvP guilds that focus on Cyrodiil are not important. Social guilds where players enjoy the game together are not that important. It is either than it suggests everyone needs to run trial regardless if it is what they enjoy.
The more important aspect is that somehow the idea thinks the larger the guild the better. Outside of trading guilds, those with extremely large rosters tend to not be very well run. They do not have the leadership and structure to keep everyone's interest. Sure, they do have activities, enough to keep a few dozen members busy and can at least manage to do normal trials. They could be a top-ranked guild but still not be very good.
Solid raiding guilds are a great example of well lead guilds. They have a focus and set requirements so that the guild can meet its focus. A large raid guild is often less than 300 members, most are much smaller. They weed out players that are not somewhat active in the guild. Top raid guilds would not be ranked very high with the idea presented.
A good guild is one that has a focus and manages their leadership and roster so they do not outgrow their ranks. There is no way to measure that because one size does not fit all and activity interests will vary by the focus of the guild.2 -
SpacemanSpiff1✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭why have a ranking system? a good guild isnt defined by having X number of players, or doing Y trials per week.2 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭RT01100111 wrote: »@idk but that takes me back to my point. I agree, larger guilds can have more leadership and structure issues. Smaller guilds of less than 30 core members can be way more fun. But that comes at a cost of limited guild slots of 5. The 5 additional guild slots could be used to join guilds like the ones you are recommending.
Guild slots per player is not your point in the OP here. It is not even mentioned.
Further, it is irrelevant how many players a guild chooses to have as that does not affect the total number of guilds in-game.
More importantly, the idea presented suggests a guild can fill up their roster with a bunch of fluff, run a handful of raids with a small number of them, and they are a top-ranked guild.
There are a lot of poorly lead guilds that have full rosters of members that never do anything with the guild (or have not logged in for months) and manage to do some normal trials every week. That is the type of guild this idea promotes.SpacemanSpiff1 wrote: »why have a ranking system? a good guild isnt defined by having X number of players, or doing Y trials per week.
This, very much.Edited by idk on June 30, 2020 8:17PM1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Please understand I am not knocking you or that you are making a suggestion. I realize it is all well-intended.0 -
RT01100111✭✭✭@idk later tonight I'm going to do some forum digging to see last aged thread on this topic.0