Skip to Content
11-30-2009 @ 2:03PM
Kinda long, but I wanted to address a few points.First, I very much sympathize with the writer. As the GM of a small guild of casual raiders, I know how diffuicult it is to keep things going over the long haul. We formed (as many of these kinds of guilds do) as a result of a dispute in a larger guild. That guild was moving toward a more "hardcore" raiding mentality (and there were other issues), so we formed . Early on, we were able to run ToC10/Ony10 during the first night, and then hit Uld10 for the second. Our runs started to suffer attrition after about 8 weeks, though. A string of RL issues with several of our members whittled the on-line crew from an average of 6 to just 2. Toss in the holiday, and we haven't so much as run a 5-man in almost a month.We've tried the recruiting thing, but it's difficult to do that when you can't promise a raid. So I agree with the advice that if you want to make a go of it, schedule a run, and then *run it*, even if you have to pug over half the raid.One other hurdle you will have to face, however, is one that is becoming increasingly common: risk aversion on the part of the players. I don't know how many times I've seen people refuse to accept someone in a pug raid unless they can link the achievement that says they've already completed it. Or because their gear score isn't so dramatically high that the content isn't a real challenge. And we've seen people who join a raid, and bail after the first wipe. (Insert "noobs"-related parting shots here.) Fewer people want to meet the challenge. They want their phat lewt nao plz, kthxbai.Finally, something we're dealing with now, is that some of the long-standing players are frankly just burnt out on the content. Patch 3.3 is on the way, but it's not here now, and until then Dragon Age is apparently much more interesting (I wouldn't know; I haven't even seen it). I'm seeing indications that the hiatus may be a permanent departure for some of them.I think in the end, we're going to have to start regognizing that the server population simply isn't going to support 50+ "casual raiding" guilds. We're going to have to make an effort at consolidating into fewer guilds so that a good 10-man core isn't distributed between 3-5 guilds. Oh, and guild alliances aren't really cutting it; there's no support for them in the game (shared calendar, for example).Just my 2 pence.
11-30-2009 @ 2:06PM
Heh. Apparently, if you put the guild name between angle-brackets, the comment system treats it as an HTML tag, and blots it out. The line above should read, "so we formed Invincible." That's on Suramar. /plug
11-30-2009 @ 2:08PM
Proudmoore Guild Alliance has no problems. We have a PMA Forum and you dont need to be in the same guild to invites from the in game calendar. We even have a public channel that all the PMA members share.I really do wish there was more official support from Blizzard (like WAR does), but guild alliances do work, if they are done right.
11-30-2009 @ 2:13PM
I see these threads on official forums fairly commonly, and its that there are so many 'fail' guilds who can't raid but want to, and somehow it's the servers fault for having so many guilds. I'm not implying this was the gist of this message, but its pretty similar. I dont really like this idea, I think of the server population as pretty dynamic as everyone has a self-interest in fulfilling their needs. If a guild is built around raiding and you can't get a 10 man together, then its probably going to fold, and those people will go to other guilds and build their numbers. In other words, I dont think there needs to be an active process of GLs saying 'well we dont have enough for a 10 man, lets disband'. That's up to the individuals IMO. Also success breeds success. Every guild has a large potential pool of people who are maybe interested in raiding, but you need to have actual success to make them strive towards that goal. So for example downing Onyxia for the first time should somewhat galvanize those interested in raiding to step it up so they can join in on the fun. Again I think there is a problem with 'social raiding guilds', there is an inherent discord between social and raiding. The emphasis should be 'a social guild that occassionally raids, but when we do raid, we raid for success'.
11-30-2009 @ 2:33PM
@Rob: It's not the "servers" fault, but you cannot discount what you yourself said, that a great many guilds want to raid, but can't. It's truth. Now, as you said, this problem tends to correct itself over time by people leaving guilds that don't raid successfully. The issue I have with that is it tends to be death-by-1000-cuts, losing one or two "core" people every so often. It's stressful for the player leaving, for those left behind, and for the GM/officers who watch the guild slowly suffocate. I'm an advocate of proactive behavior here.Wolftech mentioned the Proudmore Guild Alliance, and that has possibilities. Perhaps Suramar can enact something similar. It's worth a try.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.