Officers' Quarters: Cataclysm will reshape guilds
Every Monday Scott Andrews contributes Officers' Quarters, a column about the ins and outs of guild leadership.If you're a regular reader of this column, you know that my biggest pet peeve with WoW is how little support guilds have received from Blizzard over the years. As I've said before, guilds are the backbone of any MMO. They facilitate all the group content that developers spend millions to produce -- the content that keeps people interested in the game and separates an MMO from your average single-player experience.
Without officers who sacrifice time and energy to organize and lead their guilds, no MMO can succeed. I am, of course, biased, but I believe that officers deserve more support than they typically get from MMO developers, especially in WoW. Finally, Blizzard has unveiled plans to deliver not just an improved guild interface, but an entire leveling and achievement system for guilds, complete with talents.
In Cataclysm, the face of Azeroth is not the only thing that will be reshaped. Guilds will be completely different entities compared to what they are now, with much greater depth and interactivity. To fully understand how monumental these changes are for officers everywhere, let's first look at the history of WoW's guild improvements.
Once upon a time, a guild in WoW was just a chat channel with a crude interface for ranking and assigning permissions to ranks. That basic interface was clunky when WoW first launched, and it hasn't changed . . . ever. To give an example of how awkward this interface is, imagine you want to add a rank to your guild for junior officers, who will assist the full officers. You can only add ranks to the bottom of the ranking list. So to add this new rank, you have to add a rank to the bottom of the list and then rename all the ranks above it. The new rank will be your lowest rank. Then you'll have to rename your former lowest rank to be your second-lowest rank, on and on up the list, finally renaming whatever rank was previously in that position to the new rank you wanted to add.
Now there's a big problem. No one in your guild has their correct rank anymore. So you need to click on every single member of your guild and reassign their rank. Then you need to go into the permissions tab and set up each rank all over again, including your new rank. Voila -- seven hours later, you have your new rank! There are add-ons to ease this process, but the fact that you even need an add-on to simplify what should be so incredibly basic is mind-blowing.
The first substantial improvement to guilds was made in Patch 2.3, when guild banks were added to the game. This patch also gave us the Zul'Aman raid instance. So yes, guild officers waited a long, long time for this feature.
Almost a year later, 3.0.2, the pre-WotLK patch, brought us improved game calendars to schedule raids and other events as part of the base UI. In theory, you could use this calendar for all your guild scheduling. However, many officers still use add-ons such as GroupCalendar, which are (in my opinion) better, due to their flexibility and ease-of-use.
Ten months later, 3.2 gave guilds the option to extend their raiding lockouts. It's a small change, but it's a godsend for guilds of all ability levels to be able to make their own decisions about raid resets.
These changes and improvements, slow as they were in coming, were all very welcome. But they were, by and large, what should have been provided at launch.
After all this time, we are still tied to the basic guild UI that launched with the game. Nearly five years after WoW first hit shelves, guilds have very few in-game ways to distinguish themselves, to tout their victories, or to reap rewards for their survival and success. Leaving a guild (or getting kicked out) has virtually no cost. Disbanding and reforming can be done at the drop of a hat with practically zero consequences outside of a few pricey bank slots. Guild-hopping for personal gain has ruled the day. Now, all that is changing.
Three months before WotLK launched, I wrote up a wish list for improvements I wanted to see Blizzard make to the guild experience. Foremost among them was to add guild-wide achievements. Another request I made was for a recruiting interface. Now, in Cataclysm, we're getting both! Another item I wished for, a way to identify which characters were all tied to the same account, was noted as a possibility at the BlizzCon WoW Systems panel.
I'm not trying to take credit for these ideas. I'm just extremely excited to be able to check two or three items off my list of wishes! Blizzard has finally announced a way to make guilds -- and belonging to a guild -- more meaningful and more dynamic.
When the developers of Warhammer Online announced their "living guild" system and its associated perks, I admit I was quite jealous. I wanted my WoW guild to be able to grow and develop, and eventually offer its members some substantial in-game benefits beyond access to group content. I tried WAR briefly, but I didn't stick around long enough to see if their promises about guilds came to fruition the way that Mythic envisioned.
Blizzard as a software developer is more of a "perfecter" than an innovator. If they can take what other games have done with guilds and make those good ideas shine with Blizzard's unique brand of polish, then officers and members alike will truly benefit from all the hard work of operating a guild.
Needless to say, it's about time they spent some serious development resources on guilds. Cataclysm is shaping up to be the expansion that officers always hoped for, but never got. It's a great time to be in a great guild!
In a perfect system, talents and achievements would help long-standing, highly successful guilds of any size or inclination to stand out from the crowd. Guilds would have ways to prove that they have achieved their goals. The benefits of achieving those goals should be numerous and significant. They should be better for long-term members than for new recruits, rewarding guild loyalty with improved perks.
Ideally, guild stability and longevity should bring tangible incentives. That will encourage members to work harder at preserving the guild they belong to. When disbanding or gquitting brings real consequences, then players won't be so quick to tear a guild apart over a loot issue or jump ship to a new guild rather than apologize for a mistake. When being kicked out of a guild has an actual cost, then officers can exert more pressure on their members to behave in a respectful and courteous manner. All in all, guilds might experience less drama as a result.
Of course, these changes could tip the balance in the other direction. Power-mad guild leaders could wield their juicy talent perks and gkick button as a club to beat down anyone who disagrees with their policies. Members could all flock to the most successful guilds, leaving average or newer organizations high and dry. The push to level up or earn achievements could cause massive, guild-wide burnout.
It's too early to tell exactly what Blizzard has in store for us. Thus, it's too early to predict what will happen to guilds in Cataclysm. The only thing for certain is that guilds will never be the same.
In the coming weeks, I'll talk specifics about what I'd like to see (and what I don't want to see) for guild achievements, leveling, and talents. For now, let's just bask in the possibilities!
/salute
Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Gridneo Aug 24th 2009 1:10PM
There was a question at the end of that panel asking if they would implement Guild management of ALTs... Luckily, they said they'd look into it, so there is hope. I like the professions interface, so it shouldn't be that difficult to get ALTs listed under a MAIN in the same fashion.
I think that the Looking For Guild tool needs a TON of work. Dmg, Healing, Tank? Are you kidding me? Give us options for specific Classes and Specs, and areas for experience (based on Achievements if you will)... Tools that a USEFUL! Hehe. Scrubs need not apply. Everybody and their sisters will have 2 piece T8.5, so we need tools that can weed out the riffraff.
Aykwa Aug 24th 2009 1:46PM
Seems like the overall effect will be to make guilds more powerful. The downside is that GMs end up having a lot more power over the resources of a guild. Resources that many member have taken a long time in helping to accrue. The potential for mismanagement is therefore going to be bigger, and have a more profound potential negative effect on players. In order to balance this potential, I would love to see some additional (and voluntary) checks and balances put into place. For example, a guild could turn on certain features that could then only be turned off by a large majority vote (75% or something) of guild members. These features could include something like replacing a GM by making another officer a GM, or requiring a majority vote of officers to kick out a guild member, or other types of things like that. These would be optional, so a guild would have to choose to activate them, and would only be able to be deactivated if the vast majority of the guild is in favor. I am much more quick to trust that the vast majority of the guild will act in the guild's best interest than just one GM or a couple officers. The group, as a whole, however, will probably do a better job of keeping its members in line, even if those members are the GM or an officer. Just my 2 cents.
smcn Aug 24th 2009 2:06PM
You can put any number of options in a LFGuild tool, but the only way to REALLY know if someone is a good player is to play with them. I've done heroics with plenty of undergeared rerolls who outperformed others with Ulduar gear (pre-3.2).
P.S. Not sure why you got downvoted so I +1'd you.
t0xic Aug 24th 2009 2:45PM
I always wondered why the LFG tool doesn't show you ALL dungeons that you could run. Give me a checkbox that says "display all eligible dungeons". If you are bored and feel like running some lowbies through a dungeon it would be nice to have the option to see what groups are forming up. As it is now you can see the dungeons and raids relevant to your level ONLY (unless I'm missing an option somewhere). When you level beyond those dungeons they're no longer available. Why? If I want to run regular UK with some fresh 70s why can't I queue up for that with my 80 pally tank?
Ringo Flinthammer Aug 24th 2009 2:50PM
The same professions interface that has two "miscellaneous" categories for engineering -- and has for years? -- doesn't alphabetize categories and has no way to filter for recipes that will actually give skill-ups?
I wouldn't get too excited yet. This could be great, or it could be half-formed and never touched again. (Sort of like the professions interface.)
Superthrust Aug 24th 2009 3:26PM
why the HELL was the first post voted down? He has AWESOME points! Hell, the first reply post is based on his post!
ladygamertn Aug 24th 2009 3:56PM
I had a nasty taste after the ..."riffraff..." comment. Just because we aren't totally geared doesn't mean we are riffraff.
Gridneo Aug 24th 2009 5:46PM
Ok, so by riffraff, I guess I simply meant the people that didn't have the time to invest as much time in gameplay as the people we look for in our guild. We're not hardcore, but we do expect things of our raiders. Apparently the people who consider themselves casuals have a problem with this. We like rewarding people who invest time and help out the guild. Can you blame us? I am not the GM; however, I've had picked my healers and trust them to do everything that is required of them. That's why we succeed.
Blizzard has just leveled the playing field when it comes to gear, so experience does go a long way. Right now, we are in a holding pattern before we can start attempting Heroic versions of the new Raid, so that's giving tons of people time to get geared out.
kitterz Aug 24th 2009 8:27PM
There are tools for that. It's called "talking to the person" and "asking questions." You want Blizz to make a tool to hold your hand while you run the instance too?
JPN Aug 24th 2009 1:11PM
I just hope they give a large portion of "influence" to us casual/solo players. It could be easy for guilds to become all about raiding and to give all the benefits to raiding guilds. I don't raid, but I've done a ton of what I would consider to be the "higher end" solo achievements - Higher Learning, lots of exalted reps, working on The Insane, tons of mounts, Loremaster, etc. I like my guild, but I would just hate to see guilds become all about raiding accomplishments because the benefits for having those people are just too good. But, a lot is up in the air right now anyway...
gari.rogers Aug 24th 2009 1:41PM
Hrm... what if Guild Heirlooms could only be crafted? And they took insane amounts of resources? That weren't gotten via Raids? Like say you could make a nice set of tanking Heirloom gear for the guild with 40 Conquest Badges, 60 Tournament Badges, a crapton of Titanium and three people to channel the crafting? Something so insane that a guild of just Raiders wouldn't be able to pull it off?
I might like that.... I just might...
CannedBread Aug 24th 2009 2:02PM
For what reason would a raider not be able to do that, if anything, it would be easier for someone who raids to amass large amounts of badges and co-ordinate farming and crafting.
I see a lot of people who complain about there not being enough content for non-raiders, and I find that statement ridiculous. Raiding isn't particularly difficult, it's a time investment, yes, but it makes sense that someone who invests more time in something gets a greater reward, the same applies to PvP and to collecting, questing and making gold.
It annoys me that people stereotype and assume anyone who takes PvE content seriously cares more about loot than people. Yes, I expect a certain standard of effort and skill from the people I raid with, but it's no higher than the standard I set for myself. If you choose not to raid, that's your choice, arguing that you should get your own exclusive content because you can't raid is illogical, you can raid, but you choose not to, the only thing that makes raiding content "exclusive" to raiders is your choice to not raid.
xoonaka Aug 24th 2009 2:44PM
@CannedBread
For me, raids are unattainable because we just don't have enough people. I just wish more instance content or something was available to those who don't have 25 people available all the time. I'm liking the new 10/25 man approach, but even 10 can be hard to get. My group of friends right now is hovering around 12-13... while "technically" enough, it's pretty rare everyone is available at the right times.
I loved my levelling experience from 0-60... 60-70 wasn't too bad in BC... and 70-80 was a real blast. But after I'm done levelling, it feels like it just stops... there's running an insane number of heroics (which, I don't find fun.. I like to run it once or twice, but I hate "farming") but not much else.
Anyway, no disrespect to raiders or anything, I know you guys love what you do and love the extra content. Us "solo-ish" players just wish there was a bit more thrown our way. (Not to say we aren't getting any... Ice Crown with its three 5-man dungeons sounds awesome!)
Here's to hoping for some more Ravenholdt Quests someday!!
Schadow Aug 24th 2009 7:23PM
There are a LOT of guilds without enough people to raid. Most were started by people who used to be in the raid scene, but got screwed over by some nightmare of a GM, got cheated out of loot one too many times, or for whatever other reason had a bad experience in a larger guild.
They get together with their close friends and start a new guild, but never have the numbers to raid. They are good, loyal, people, doing what they can to avoid the problems that made their previouis guild suck.
The problem is that there are a lot of those out there. This leaves a lot of people happy with their lack of drama, but wishing they could down a 25-man hard mode before Cataclysm.
The solution is to marry up some of those small guilds so they can raid.
Granting perks to guilds means those perks will be more quickly achieved by larger guilds, which will make them more attractive for recruiting. This will force some of the small guilds to either fold or merge if they want to get these perks.
You could argue the incentive is already there - if you can get the numbers to raid, you can get tier gear. But it's easy to write off raiders as people who only care about loot, so merging to get chances at better gear reeks of selling out.
Smaller-guild folks do what they can in solo or small-group content. Namely, achievements and vanity items.
Adding those to guilds will help to attract people where the promise of leet purple pixels didn't. It's further incentive to condense talent, which is good because those disillusioned raiders might have a chance to raid again.
Turlagh Aug 24th 2009 10:34PM
I'm a casual player that plays a lot, not a raider in an elite guild. I am kind of disappointed about the new guild talents that I will never see. I can deal with the fact that I will never have the best gear, but now I won't even have the talents that hard core or even "casual" raiders have.
GravityCatt Aug 24th 2009 1:38PM
I cant wait to find out that the GM spent the guild tallents wrong and we have to take a few thousand gold from the gb to fix it... =P
cspenn Aug 24th 2009 1:13PM
You'll get both. You'll get guilds who use the new system to thrive, and you'll get the power mad dictators who abuse the system, just like everything in WoW. There will be the good, bad, and ugly. Let's hope the features on balance help the good even just slightly more than the other two categories.
SeanOr101 Aug 24th 2009 1:14PM
I really like the Idea that people won't be so quick to /gquit if it means they lose alot more than Bank access. Hopefully this will strengthen guild relationships.
Treason Aug 24th 2009 2:18PM
Or it will make the petty little tyrants of wow even more so... :o(
Robert M Aug 24th 2009 1:54PM
Sadly, part of me thinks that is a liability. Do you really want people who are quick on the /gquit if the only reason they are sticking around is for the perks?