Officers' Quarters: In defense of guild talents

About a week ago, Blizzard revealed all the latest updates concerning their gameplan for Cataclysm. Among them were a host of changes to the new guild systems and UI overhaul that were originally announced at BlizzCon 2009. Today I'd like to focus on the removal of guild talents. In future columns, I'll address other changes.
Guild talents get the axe
Two of the biggest announcements from last week were not new features but the cancellation of previously announced features: Path of the Titans and guild talents. I've heard a lot of complaints from people about removing the Path, which is to be expected -- it was considered a key feature of the expansion and a long-awaited means to customize your character beyond talents after glyphs, in the words of Ghostcrawler, "didn't live up to what they could have been." It's a shame they couldn't make the Path work, but I'm hopeful that the revised glyph system will compensate for its loss.
On the other hand, I'm not hearing nearly as many complaints about the removal of guild talents. Again, perhaps, this is to be expected. After all, Blizzard's plan is to replace them with unlocked perks that you receive automatically as your guild levels up. In other words, every guild will get every talent. Awesome, right? For guild members, yes. For officers, not as much.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me on this point. Ghostcrawler had this to say:
Ghostcrawler -- Guild TalentsGuilds are, for the most part, groups of friends. We don't want features to drive wedges between them. We don't want you to guild hop looking for the talents that suit you best; we want you to play (or in many cases keep playing) with your friends. With a talent tree, guilds would naturally have different talent trees, which creates a reason to bail or guild hop that doesn't exist today. If you didn't like the direction the guild was taking (for example, you were a PvP guy with a GM focused on raid-progression) you might feel like you should leave. That can happen today of course, but you can also stay in a PvE guild just because you like the members even if you don't participate in the same content because you're not losing out on inherent guild benefits.
I agree with him in theory. There is a risk (as well as a benefit) inherent to making your guild different from others, and it's not impossible to imagine that spec'ing your guild a certain way could have caused this scenario. In practice, though, I wonder if such a thing would really happen.
I mean, what sorts of talents was Blizzard planning such that choosing one over another could actually drive people out of your guild? During BlizzCon, they listed examples such as increased gold drops, removal of reagents for raid-wide buffs, mass summon, mass resurrection, and reduced repair bills. If someone gquits over whether they get more gold per kill instead of foregoing reagents, I'm pretty sure there are additional factors at play.
Yes, if there were talents that gave you 10% more damage and healing in battlegrounds but not in raids, then I could see people moving to another guild if they wanted that extra 10% to apply to their raiding instead. I strongly doubt Blizzard would have implemented such game-breaking talents though.
I wish Ghostcrawler had provided a few examples of talents that might have had a negative impact on your guild, because I just don't see how a realistic "perk" talent choice could make such a big difference that people would actually gquit.
Why do I care?
As I explain in Chapter 1 of The Guild Leader's Handbook, it's important to define your guild, to give your guild an identity that sets your organization apart from others on the server. Doing so provides a number of benefits, not the least of which is more effective, targeted recruiting. Of course, there will always be guilds who want to be all things to all people, but it's vastly easier to run a guild with a focused purpose and a strong idea of the types of players who would want to join.
To date, all such differentiators have been external, by which I mean they are chosen by the officers but they have no actual representation in the game itself. You need to speak to guild members or read the guild's policies on its website in order to understand what the guild is all about.
With talents, Blizzard had a means for allowing officers to differentiate their guilds using the game's own interface. For that reason, talents could have been a huge win for officers, but now it looks like we won't get this functionality in WoW. (I should mention that the new recruiting feature in the UI may allow you to choose from one of several labels that describe your guild, which is a small step in the right direction.)
In my opinion, it is possible to provide talented differentiators that don't necessarily drive away players who aren't part of a guild's major activities. For example, in a progression-oriented raiding guild, you might choose a talent that provides 5% increased reputation gains for PvE factions (i.e., Sons of Hodir) over one that provides the same gains for PvP factions (let's assume Cataclysm has PvP factions that actually matter). While it's true that a player in your guild who PvPs rather than raids may not benefit as much, she still does benefit. It's hard to imagine that the cumulative difference of talent choices would affect her game experience to the point that she would leave a guild she was happy with and players she liked for the sake of minor convenience. Perhaps I'm giving too little credit to a player's desire to min/max her time, but I just don't buy it.
The risk of drama
Ghostcrawler's other reason for removing guild talents is this:
Ghostcrawler -- Guild TalentsFurthermore, we felt like the decision-making, for many guilds, would be up to a relatively few people, possibly as few as the guild master. Talent trees work for classes because the decision is up to you. We didn't want to create the risk of drama over choosing those talents or even not being consulted in choosing them.
GC, I take umbrage with you here. Call me sensitive, but this statement is an insult to your game's officers. You're pretty much saying, "We don't trust you to make decisions that won't cause problems."
Officers have to make difficult decisions all the time. Sometimes it's better to talk to your players and achieve a consensus. Sometimes it's better to act alone for the benefit of the guild as a whole. Good officers know when to move forward with either method. By taking this power out of our hands, Ghostcrawler is telling us that we don't know how to do our jobs.
Beyond that, I was honestly shocked by this statement. Never before has Blizzard so much as batted an eye at whether their game design would "create the risk of drama." Where was this concern when they decided to create a 5 > 10 > 25 progression path in Burning Crusade? Where was this concern when they were implementing the Immortal achievement? Or restricting Algalon access to individual players rather than the guild as a whole? Or creating four separate lockouts for Trial of the Crusader? Or designing the Tribute to Immortality achievement? Or making cool and purely aesthetic rewards such as the Amani War Bear, Mimiron's Head, and Invincible -- rewards, by the way, that take the dedication and hard work of everyone involved for months at a time in order to earn -- drop one. at. a. time?
C'mon, GC. Some days I feel like you guys do nothing but sit around your office inventing new ways to "create the risk of drama." Seriously, that is not card you get to play at this point. Don't get me wrong: I love that it's finally occurring to you and I hope that this represents a shift in thinking. However, I'll believe you actually care about that when I see it over the course of an entire expansion.
Ghostcrawler also goes on to say that it's easier for Blizzard to make adjustments and add more perks over time without worrying about a talent tree, and that is completely understandable. At this point, anything they can do to get Cataclysm into our eager hands faster is a good thing. Even so, I also feel like the dumping of guild talents is a missed opportunity for officers, and I don't think Blizzard's reasons for this decision, beyond the basic logistics of it, are particularly strong.
What do you think?
/salute
Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)
Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 2 of 6)
brian Jun 21st 2010 8:03PM
The thing is, each of those "30" talents wouldn't be one point each. There'd be talents costing 2, 3, and possibly even 5 points, with only a couple one-pointers scattered in.
Changing them to perks changes them to be more like guild "spells" even if some of them are passive. There's no ranks. You get the full bonus as soon as you unlock it.
So, 20 talent points, where you have to spend at least 5 points to move down a tier?
Or 20 "talent points" where each point unlocks something new?
That's more content, not less.
Tunacanjones Jun 21st 2010 2:23PM
I agree with Scott
James Jun 21st 2010 2:25PM
I hate to be mister negativity, but there are ALOT of guilds out there where the officers rule with an iron fist. I mean, disregaurding anything that did not affect them. I am an officer in a guild that is NOT like this, but even still, its probably better as a whole that the dictatorish officers dont get a say in it. Every guild has at least one power hungry person in there... you give them more influance over the game, and see what happens.
I like the idea that your guild gets 'perks' over talents, it removes the ability for toe stepping in a sence. If your guild is missing a pvp perk, its not the officers fault, its yours... kill more horde/alliance :D
Inaraserra Jun 21st 2010 2:24PM
Hang on a minute.... Did I just see a "Recruiting" tab?!
YAY!!!
Hoof Jun 21st 2010 2:26PM
I think you're taking it far too personally. I'd rather have it all than only a portion of it. I enjoy doing everything with my main character. I PvE when I feel like it, I PvP when I feel like it. I'd hate entering either of those situations and
HerriPaul Jun 21st 2010 2:34PM
I'm not a fan of how the upcoming changes are attempting to cut toons with the same cookie cutter.
I don't always need to optimize a toon for a particular skill but sometimes like to stretch a toon out in a direction it wasn't originally intended for - e.g. a melee hunter, tanking mage, etc.
I get and like how the upcoming changes make decisions (talents, gear, etc) easier and as a result cater to the broader audience but it comes at a creative cost.
The argument that guild talents would disrupt guild cohesion has little merit imo.
Guilds by their nature have a focus and aren't necessarily a replacement for the friend list or upcoming Real ID.
Toggle Jun 21st 2010 2:47PM
I would say this is the reason I'm glad that people like you won't get to make decisions. No offense, but if you're picking talents for the guild that support these builds, your guild could be forgiven for having issues with that.
HerriPaul Jun 21st 2010 3:00PM
Agreed but your assumption is that these toons are all in the same guild when, in fact, very few have a common guild.
I can't be the only user with toons sprinkled among different guilds to emphasize different agendas - end content, twinking/BGs, arenas, powerleveling, etc.
Qot Jun 21st 2010 2:34PM
Are we going to get them all? If so, then this article is moot.
If, however, Blizz is just going to implement those they decide were the "best", then it's not a good thing. Being able to choose between something like "Everyone's Friend" (removed the candle/dust/quillvine/symbol requirement for raid buffs, great for raiders) or Cash Flow (increased gold for leveling/casual players) or the honor-related talents was something that could define a guild.
Rather than being able to make a PvP-oriented talent build (taking the major and minor PvP talents) or being able to make a PvE-oriented talent build (taking the major and minor PvE talents), we'll get a general build that takes the major PvP and major PvE talents and drops the neat minor perks.
Bedvyr Jun 21st 2010 2:37PM
Frankly, as a guild leader and former officer myself, I wish that the talents weren't given the axe. The reason for that is that talents could've helped guilds become more "niche", which could help in recruiting and retention.
Yes, I'm happy that my guildies and I will be getting all of the perks now, but I do regret that this layer of customization won't be available to us.
puck Jun 21st 2010 2:38PM
This is a ridiculous post. There's nothing to be gained *for the guild* by giving the leaders control over what talents the guild gets, and a possible atomic-bomb amount of drama to be heaped on the guild because of it.
Sure, some guilds will be just fine because they're all of one mind anyway.
But ignoring that many guilds are just groups of friends that could be blown apart by talent choices that don't suit some players.
The only people who gain anything over guild-talent-choices is the self-important guild-leader who would risk drama simply to gain some personal power.
I'm the leader of a small friendly guild and I'm actually relieved I won't have to deal with people constantly criticizing my talent choices because it's not what they would have picked.
Jeremy Jun 21st 2010 3:52PM
"many guilds are just groups of friends"
So using a talent tree based thing would not be an issue. After all, they are all friends. Friends tend to work together well to come up with whats best for them as a whole.
Irem Jun 21st 2010 8:24PM
@Jeremy
But that's exactly the problem. The devs don't want people to feel like they have to leave a group they might like--say, a group of friends, where the guild spec they choose isn't a big deal--to join a guild that's specced into the "right" things for their favorite part of the game. Whether or not that would realistically happen is another argument, but the devs know that they can't assume that a certain number of players won't min/max, and thus feel "forced" to do something they don't like. They could remove any talents that would have caused that kind of problem, but instead they decided to give us everything.
Evi Jun 21st 2010 2:38PM
I have to agree with Scott on this one. I am glad that we are still getting bonuses with leveling our guilds however, I really like the talent trees and the way they would make each guild unique and provide definition for the guilds. In my guild we do polls on our website and then the officers make decisions based on the polls. This is of course if it were something that should be decided on by the masses like these talents. My officers and I were greatly looking forward to being able to decide the talents that would best suit our guild and help us grow as a unique group. It gave another perk to being an officer/GM. A player could also determine if the guild he/she was in is more of a democracy or dictatorship with these talent trees and then decide if it was the right guild for him/her. This does seem like the only time Blizz is focused on "preventing" drama. I don't understand why they feel they need to have this much control over the way guilds are run.
EtaoinShrdlu Jun 21st 2010 2:39PM
I think his argument is being somewhat misrepresented in the comment thread. What he wants is not necessarily only some of the talents, but a way to differentiate your guild from others based on something more than guild slots. Perhaps a system with a longer guild leveling grind, but guild leaders can rearrange which talents they get first, so that they can advertise about having all pve or all pvp titles. That said, I disagree with him that players would not leave guilds to min max time. Imagine if you play in a social/pve guild, but one day decide you're going to try for Justicar or Conqueror. My money says you'd try and find a guild that had pvp rep bonuses.
KPB Jun 21st 2010 2:38PM
I'd think the answer to the question on why the do things that create drama is pretty obvious. They are learning as they go. They've even said that the Immortal achievement were poorly done and they wouldn't do them again.
jrizutko Jun 21st 2010 2:40PM
I totally disagree with this article. As an officer in a large social guild, I am so glad that no one interested in one aspect of the game over another will miss out by remaining with the community they've chosen.
Butts Jun 21st 2010 2:42PM
Next to goblins, I was most excited about guild talents. Blizzard, I am disappoint.
Fumas Jun 21st 2010 2:42PM
I do not believe that Blizzard and GC is saying that officers can't do their job. They are not saying that you will not be able to pick good talents. They are saying that whichever talents you choose, someone will not be happy about it. There will always be someone thinking that you should have chosen different talents, because it's not their style of play. What would a class that does not buff need reduced reagent cost for? They would much rather get bonus gold per kill or something along those lines, and that would cause drama and annoyance for the officers.
Blizzard has removed something that would indeed cause additional drama, and I support it fully.
Ryan Bell Jun 22nd 2010 2:55PM
Maybe I missed something but there is a difference between getting all the toys and having all the toys be avialable to get... They haven't really explained how it would work but I assumed it would be based on guild achievements and different 'talents' would become available after accomplishing certain guild achievements. So you do a bunch of raid achievements, you get some guild raid stuff... Your guild does rep achievements, maybe you get a guild pony...That kind of thing. Anyway, this may not mean spending talent points to get these things but you still have to focus on certain things as a guild to unlock these abilities and hence distinguish yourself from other guilds.