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 newsOfficers' Quarters: In defense of guild talents
by Scott Andrews 
Jun 21st 2010 at 2:00PM
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
Send Scott your guild-related questions, conundrums, ideas, and suggestions at scott@wow.com. You may find your question the subject of next week's Officers' Quarters!Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)
Reader Comments (Page 6 of 6)
Bluriel Jun 22nd 2010 2:49AM
@Dave -
More then half your list implies raiding - while a lot of guilds probably do raid at least 10 men content - where did you get the idea that the guild leader is necessarily the raid leader?
Clockworker Jun 22nd 2010 3:49AM
Using your metaphor, the ice cream shop just gave me all those scoops of ice cream for free. I have -ALL- the ice cream now, why would I want to make a choice?
Lar Jun 22nd 2010 4:47AM
I do not understand. People talk about how officers have to solve so much drama and now they suddenly want for officers to solve even more drama?
The raid conversion examples that the author of this article brought out, are different. They are different in the sense that it is hard to blame officers for going from 40man raids to 25man raids suddenly. It was Blizzards idea and officers are just the people who are coping with the change. With guild talents it is different, it would be so easy to blame the officers for choosing talents that the guild members do not like. Suddenly guilds that have lived peacefully for years, will have many long discussions about some guild talents and there would definitely be drama.
Not in authors guild maybe, not in all guilds maybe, but there will be drama in other guilds. If Blizzard has found a way to save officers from making hard choices and trying to keep their guild together, then why shouldn't they do it? Why should they add a feature in the game that causes drama against the officers, not against Blizzard.
Lemons Jun 22nd 2010 5:05AM
I think trying to laser focus your guild is a bad thing. My guild is mostly focused on raiding, but there's a fair number of them who arena and pvp quite heavily and hardly participate in raiding at all (I actually do both). They're going to want a different set of talents then the majority of the guild simply because they just don't care about raiding, and they might leave because of it.
And it doesn't even have to be as black and white as pve vs. pvp...the choice could simply be between faster reputation gains and faster gold gains. Of course those who already have all their reputations maxxed are going to want the +gold, but all the altoholics and lower level characters are going to want the +rep. The new system is leaps and bounds better because you simply get whatever you get (if I'm understanding it right) and there's no contention because the gm or officers made "the wrong decision".
Terra Jun 22nd 2010 6:53AM
If as you say the guild talents allowed you to create an identity for your guild, then that idicates that they talents are powerful enough to cause people to care and move based on the talents. If the talents weren't powerful enough to cause people to care and move, then they aren't powerful enough to really create an identity, people just wouldn't care what a guilds talents are.
Also, on the guild leaders chooing the talents. Why it felt different to other changes to guilds, is that these talents become an extension of the power of your character. But someone else gets to choose them for you! Would you like your guild leader to be able to bring up your talent tree and respec you as he wishes at any time! While obviously guild talents will have less of an impact the your class talents, they will still feel like part of your character, and it would feel frustrating that you couldn't control them yourself.
Bort Jun 22nd 2010 7:33AM
I will concede one point right now.
Any talent that gives + damage or + resource (mana/rage) etc. Would make the system very controversial. If thats what they have in store then I think maybe the talents are a bad Idea - but what I would really like to say is that including those is a terrible idea anyways.
Guild talents should do things like
- Eliminate Consumables
- Vanity Guild Items
- Cheaper Repair Costs
- Spells (available to any class, maybe the Raid Leader allots them to people in a raid)
Such as Mass Rez/Summon, or another combat rez not tied to the druid class, + spell resistance, Increased run speed inside a zone, lower aggro range for the whole raid to potentially sneak past some trash
Bad Guild Talents would do things like reduce class specific cooldowns, extend/improve class specific buffs, give better loot or just provide an intangible dps/hps bonus.
I would say im on the fence when it comes to things like bonus armor, badges, rep - i think those are the kind of end path abilities I might have appreciated in a talent structure. The don't make you better but do help you get better faster - in fact they are potentially the drama.
A talent/perk shouldn't give someone a bonus across the board you could just other wise build encounters around people not getting. They should provide something that genuinely make the game less agonizing for the players involved as a reward for team work and longevity.
dick Jun 22nd 2010 8:59AM
Afraid I disagree this time. I think Blizzard made a sound decision here. I have seen guilds disband over futile issues and I can understand that Blizz would not want to create more issues.
You mentioned stuff like extra money drops and/or reputation. These are the things that people can have arguments about. Say that a part of the guild already has rep maxed for several factions, they'd go for gold then. Still there are guildies that could care less about that and need/want the rep.
With this implementation these issues are non-existent since in the end you get em all.... so no bad decisions on that end.
I have noticed a certain decrease in cohesion in a lot of guild, compared to a few years back. People leave a guild on a whim it seems, at least more than they used to in my experience.
Again, I support this one.
Dave Jun 22nd 2010 9:31AM
Blur - You are absolutely right, that was just one point of view on the subject. I'm sure an RPer could come up with a similiar list for an RP GL, and a PVPer a PVP GL list, and so on. Even the leader of a casual guild will always have a pile of duties above and beyond the rest of the players in the guild.
Peter Jun 22nd 2010 10:47AM
I don't agree with the author at all. In his opinion, every guild should be very focused on their intent. Most guilds, however, are not focuses. Yes, hard-core raid guilds are very focused on that one area, but most guilds like to raid, do heroics, and pvp to some extent. In my guild, there are fairly hardcore pvpers who only really are in the guild for chatting and socializing.
If those pvpers are adding significant amounts of experience to the guild and helping the guild level, should I totally discount them because the majority of the guild is raiding?
The author is wrong from the very beginning when he suggests that guilds should be (and are) focused. They are not. I don't want friends to leave the guild because all the levels they helped earn are being used on guild talents they will never use.
Minrus Jun 22nd 2010 11:55AM
I think that in the article, and all the comments, there has been something left out. How much do we really know right now?
Sure, Guild Talents are gone and replaced with Perks. Yet, we still have only vague clues as to what the Talents *would have been* and what the Perks *will be*. So what can really be said? Well, here's my opinion on what little we know:
The problem with Perks is that it will only *lessen* the drama. The problem with Guild Talents will still be present with the Perks-system. Consider...
The biggest guilds on any given Realm are going to get all the Perks. They have lots of dedicated members. They have a rep as the "biggest/baddest" guild. So, they want all the bonuses to maintain that image. Since they have lots of people, they can get the Perks quickly. What of the smaller guilds? They can't compete. They won't be able to earn the Perks as quickly and easily as larger guilds. In the end, they won't get the bonuses. Members of a small guild will say, "I wish I was in guild: X. They have all the Perks unlocked!"
In this regard, WoW is becoming like a Facebook game. You don't have a lot of friends, so you suffer in-game penalties. I think that's a huge step in the wrong direction.
If you are in a small guild, and you don't have all the Perks of other guilds... How can you keep members around? After all, they can just leave and get their Perks elsewhere!
Wouldn't it be better if your guild could have all the same Perks as the big guilds? If you had a Guild Talent-system, you could be! At least, in theory. If under the hypothetical Guild Talent system, every guild has the same number of talent points, then yes. A smaller guild could have the same advantages as a larger guild. (Except, y'know... the number of members.)
I digress. The point is that Perks (as it is currently presented) is going to drive people away from the smaller guilds. It's going to be harder than ever to start-up a guild too. I think a lot of these friends/family/casual guilds are going to disappear. Which is sad because that's exactly what Ghostcrawler was trying to prevent.
This is getting really long, so... One last comment: Customization > Homogenization.
Derick Jun 22nd 2010 8:23PM
One, we don't know that we'll be getting all of the 'talents' that they came up with through this new system. Second, what is nice about the current talent system is that you can be the same class as another character but be absolutely different in ability and function. I like the idea that guilds become more defined by what they choose to do instead of being a group of friends who never play together because they have different interests. Why is it so wrong that a person would seek out a guild that has clearly defined similar interests? Wouldn't this make guilds more focused and cohesive?
Bort Jun 25th 2010 10:09AM
I am continually bothered by this arguement; if you don't believe it's your arguement then this might not apply to you. However it goes like this.
1. Under the talent system guilds couldn't get all the talents, and would have to specialize.
2. Your game play is lessened by not belonging to a guild that does specialize in what you do.
3. I and other people would HAVE to leave my guild since they don't focus on the same kind of content.
4. The new system lets guilds get everything that would be a talent so I can stay in my guild.
-------------
Ok this is my issue with this.
How do you not create the same reason for leaving your guild for all those guilds out there who are lagging behind leveling their guild up.
I can only assume that since there are now more things for every guild to get the whole process is longer.
So at some point your guild potentially wont have those talents that you seem to feel were required to enjoy playing the game and someone else will - were you going to leave then ?
What about people who don't want to be in the guild ? Will they forever be at a detriment to competing in this game ?
There is little chance we will see the system go back to the way it was but there is good reason for people to wish it was.
There are down sides. There are upsides.
This article is about one of the downsides.