Ask the Devs round 6 Guild Advancement Q&A now up
Ask the Devs has landed again with Blizzard answering questions about Guild Advancement. Round 6 of this long-running Cataclysm feature on the official site has gathered a variety of questions from folks about the new guild systems and how they're working so far, as well as what they'll be doing in the future. I was particularly interested in the following excerpt.
Q: Leveling guild speed varies depending on the amount of players. Have you considered tweaking the system so that guilds with fewer members get more experience per player and bigger guilds get less to even it out? Are there plans to allow smaller guilds to level their guild faster? – 信蜂 火星小喵喵 [Taiwan], Sergan [Latin America], Jardar [Europe, German], Паладиа [Europe, Russian], Amasisa [Europe, Spanish], Shory, 부너맨/노대현혹, Meltdown, 치킨아고마워/유진님 [Korea]
A: Guild Challenges coming in patch 4.1 are designed to help address this issue. Obviously we already enforce a cap on the amount of XP that can be gained per day to keep the disparity from being too large, but it's clear that smaller guilds still need some help. We'll monitor the impact of Guild Challenges and see if any further changes need to be made.
The rest of the entire Q&A session is after the break.
A: We knew when we decided to add guild features for Cataclysm that this was one of the risks. If the guild perks and rewards aren't interesting, then there is no motivation to join a guild or work to improve your guild. On the other hand if they are too powerful, then you feel shackled to your old guild, even if it's not a healthy relationship for you. We were careful to only choose perks that didn't contribute to player power, and we let you keep any rewards you earn if you ever have to leave your guild. The perks are nice, no doubt, but you're going to have less fun in an established guild of jerks than you would starting your own guild with fewer perks.
We don't think recruiting random people is healthy for a guild. Rewards are never going to be a substitute for strong social ties. We really encourage as many people as possible to seek out guilds (and we hope the new Guild Finder will help with that), but joining a guild at random will likely end in tears.
On the other hand, there may be some benefit to having less churn on starting guilds. Before Cataclysm, some guilds would get started halfheartedly and then crumble again after a few weeks or months. Maintaining an active guild asks a lot of the guild master and leading officers. If you join an established guild in Cataclysm, hopefully it will continue to be around for awhile. But because of reputation, even brand new guilds may seem like a more serious option than they were before Cataclysm, since the founders of the guild know that anyone interested is likely looking for a long-term home and are not just hopping from guild to guild.
A: We don't really have any interest in controlling who a guild leader chooses to kick, or when. Guilds are fairly transparent and simple player-run groups, and we have to be extremely careful about what systems we implement that impact how people can operate their guilds. We could absolutely make it more difficult for guild leaders to kick their members, and that might help very slightly with these situations, but the result would actually be that guild leaders would just be much less likely to invite new members. We want people to be in guilds, as opposed to making guild masters afraid that if they invite someone they may never be able to kick them if they don't work out.
Allowing players to keep some level of guild reputation is an option we can look into to help with this situation, though.
A: Guild housing is something we have discussed many times. It would be neat to have a place for people to hang out, but every time it has come up as a possibility we don't think that is worth the amount of time and resources it would take to implement (and do it right). This is one of those features where if we ever decided to do it, the benefit would have to outweigh other content we could be working on. Also, we don't feel that we need any new ways for players to hide themselves away. If possible we at least like people to be hanging around in the cities, if not out in the world. We know that many guilds, despite lack of official guild housing, have designated meeting locations throughout the world, which we think is really cool. If you don't have one yet it might be something to explore.
A: We implemented a daily cap so that more players get a chance to contribute every day. A weekly cap would make this more difficult since a guild might hit the cap the first day, leaving no experience for the other members to gain over the remaining 6 days of the week. If you could only login on Thursday, and the cap was always already hit before you could log in, you might not be as interested in this whole guild progression thing.
However, we will be reducing the impact of the cap as we move though the Cataclysm patches. We will most likely start by increasing the daily cap, and removing it from more of the higher levels.
A: The experience gained from a quest is directly related to all of these factors, which is why we use it as a basis to reward guild experience. Clearly this value is much smaller at lower levels and we know that this does not feel great with the current tuning. We're going to tune the XP multiplier for doing lower level quests so it doesn't feel like such a waste. Guild reputation suffers from this same multiplier issue too, and when we tune the experience the rep gain will be improved as well. Rep gain will also be much improved though in patch 4.1 with the introduction of the new guild tabards, and increased values on clearing dungeons, raids and winning arenas and battlegrounds.
A: The best way to deal with this situation is to immediately contact a World of Warcraft Game Master.
We will continue to pay close attention to and work to protect the various in-game cultures in each region. However, we don't have plans to change the structure of the system at this time.
A: This is one of the main reasons 4.1 has new guild tabards with 50/100% bonus to rep. We made sure to place these at friendly and honored so they would be easy to obtain by alts. We are considering adding an even larger bonus to an exalted, BOA version as well. Great minds think alike!
A: Yes, we will continue to add rewards to the system as necessary. A great example is the guild reward we intend to add in patch 4.2 for guilds that obtain the new legendary staff. Guilds at level 25 also get the benefit of large gold deposits for completing Guild Challenges. Capping the guild system at level 25 felt right for the amount of content we wanted to provide in Cataclysm. We designed the system with expansions in mind, so raising the cap is something players will most likely see down the road.
Some of these questions have of course been asked and answered (the guild housing one in particular feels absolutely formulaic at this point), but it's nice to see some clarification on guild challenges and how the alt issue for guild rewards is being addressed. I was also interested to see that in at least one fairly active region (Korea), the new Guild Advancement system is actually having a pretty serious effect on the culture.
Check out our coverage of the previous Ask the Devs Q&A sessions:
WoW Patch 4.1 is live, and WoW Insider has all the latest news for you -- from guides of the revamped Zul'Aman and Zul'Gurub to new valor point mechanics and new archaeology items.
Q: Leveling guild speed varies depending on the amount of players. Have you considered tweaking the system so that guilds with fewer members get more experience per player and bigger guilds get less to even it out? Are there plans to allow smaller guilds to level their guild faster? – 信蜂 火星小喵喵 [Taiwan], Sergan [Latin America], Jardar [Europe, German], Паладиа [Europe, Russian], Amasisa [Europe, Spanish], Shory, 부너맨/노대현혹, Meltdown, 치킨아고마워/유진님 [Korea]
A: Guild Challenges coming in patch 4.1 are designed to help address this issue. Obviously we already enforce a cap on the amount of XP that can be gained per day to keep the disparity from being too large, but it's clear that smaller guilds still need some help. We'll monitor the impact of Guild Challenges and see if any further changes need to be made.
The rest of the entire Q&A session is after the break.
Q: The guild perks system makes it unnaturally hard to start a new guild, since a guild without all perks is at an obvious disadvantage in recruitment. In addition, it rewards just recruiting random people (who might only care about the perks) to get guild XP. What are your thoughts on this? Will it be addressed? – Lolisa [Europe, English], Mith [North America]
A: We knew when we decided to add guild features for Cataclysm that this was one of the risks. If the guild perks and rewards aren't interesting, then there is no motivation to join a guild or work to improve your guild. On the other hand if they are too powerful, then you feel shackled to your old guild, even if it's not a healthy relationship for you. We were careful to only choose perks that didn't contribute to player power, and we let you keep any rewards you earn if you ever have to leave your guild. The perks are nice, no doubt, but you're going to have less fun in an established guild of jerks than you would starting your own guild with fewer perks.
We don't think recruiting random people is healthy for a guild. Rewards are never going to be a substitute for strong social ties. We really encourage as many people as possible to seek out guilds (and we hope the new Guild Finder will help with that), but joining a guild at random will likely end in tears.
On the other hand, there may be some benefit to having less churn on starting guilds. Before Cataclysm, some guilds would get started halfheartedly and then crumble again after a few weeks or months. Maintaining an active guild asks a lot of the guild master and leading officers. If you join an established guild in Cataclysm, hopefully it will continue to be around for awhile. But because of reputation, even brand new guilds may seem like a more serious option than they were before Cataclysm, since the founders of the guild know that anyone interested is likely looking for a long-term home and are not just hopping from guild to guild.
Q: Are you planning to address the issue of Guild Leaders mass kicking members, once the guild reaches level 25? – Bloodbliss [North America], Юхани [Europe, Russian]
A: We don't really have any interest in controlling who a guild leader chooses to kick, or when. Guilds are fairly transparent and simple player-run groups, and we have to be extremely careful about what systems we implement that impact how people can operate their guilds. We could absolutely make it more difficult for guild leaders to kick their members, and that might help very slightly with these situations, but the result would actually be that guild leaders would just be much less likely to invite new members. We want people to be in guilds, as opposed to making guild masters afraid that if they invite someone they may never be able to kick them if they don't work out.
Allowing players to keep some level of guild reputation is an option we can look into to help with this situation, though.
Q: Are we going to see guild houses someday so we could finally get a special gather place for the guild, to meet and interact easily? – Ellidryl[Europe, French], Греланд[Europe, Russian], Ledieri [Europe, Spanish], Bodywreckér [North America]
A: Guild housing is something we have discussed many times. It would be neat to have a place for people to hang out, but every time it has come up as a possibility we don't think that is worth the amount of time and resources it would take to implement (and do it right). This is one of those features where if we ever decided to do it, the benefit would have to outweigh other content we could be working on. Also, we don't feel that we need any new ways for players to hide themselves away. If possible we at least like people to be hanging around in the cities, if not out in the world. We know that many guilds, despite lack of official guild housing, have designated meeting locations throughout the world, which we think is really cool. If you don't have one yet it might be something to explore.
Q: Why is guild experience capped daily instead of weekly? – Omegal [North America], Nuckels [Europe, English]
A: We implemented a daily cap so that more players get a chance to contribute every day. A weekly cap would make this more difficult since a guild might hit the cap the first day, leaving no experience for the other members to gain over the remaining 6 days of the week. If you could only login on Thursday, and the cap was always already hit before you could log in, you might not be as interested in this whole guild progression thing.
However, we will be reducing the impact of the cap as we move though the Cataclysm patches. We will most likely start by increasing the daily cap, and removing it from more of the higher levels.
Q: Why isn't guild XP from quests a factor of character level, quest difficulty, and intended quest level, instead of being derived directly from XP gained? Why is guild reputation so hard to gain before level 70? It feels as though it's harder to gain reputation with your guild at the beginning and easier as you gain levels; shouldn't it be the other way around? – Atun [North America], Threshold [Europe, English], Helíana [Latin America]
A: The experience gained from a quest is directly related to all of these factors, which is why we use it as a basis to reward guild experience. Clearly this value is much smaller at lower levels and we know that this does not feel great with the current tuning. We're going to tune the XP multiplier for doing lower level quests so it doesn't feel like such a waste. Guild reputation suffers from this same multiplier issue too, and when we tune the experience the rep gain will be improved as well. Rep gain will also be much improved though in patch 4.1 with the introduction of the new guild tabards, and increased values on clearing dungeons, raids and winning arenas and battlegrounds.
Q: Is there any way to recover a guild which is deliberately disbanded by evil account hacker or lunatic guild leader? – 哇靠不是吧 [Taiwan]
A: The best way to deal with this situation is to immediately contact a World of Warcraft Game Master.
Q: It seems that the new guild system is killing off the Pick Up Group culture in KR. In KR, raids were generally done through PUG and players did not care what kind of guilds they joined for raids. Can we expect more localized guild features to support the unique raid culture of the Korean region? –밥상의달인, Jeran, 블러드베인 [Korea]
We will continue to pay close attention to and work to protect the various in-game cultures in each region. However, we don't have plans to change the structure of the system at this time.
Q: Are there any plans to allow for easier alt access to the same guild rewards as someone's main character? Perhaps some kind of +rep item that is BoA and can only be bought by an exalted character? – Serule [North America], Xheevas [Europe, French]
A: This is one of the main reasons 4.1 has new guild tabards with 50/100% bonus to rep. We made sure to place these at friendly and honored so they would be easy to obtain by alts. We are considering adding an even larger bonus to an exalted, BOA version as well. Great minds think alike!
Q: Will there be additional levels of rewards for those guilds that have reached the cap in future patches? Are you going to add levels beyond 25? – Sergan [Latin America], Carnesîr [Europe, German], Zippi [Europe, English], Gabän [Europe, Spanish]
A: Yes, we will continue to add rewards to the system as necessary. A great example is the guild reward we intend to add in patch 4.2 for guilds that obtain the new legendary staff. Guilds at level 25 also get the benefit of large gold deposits for completing Guild Challenges. Capping the guild system at level 25 felt right for the amount of content we wanted to provide in Cataclysm. We designed the system with expansions in mind, so raising the cap is something players will most likely see down the road.
Some of these questions have of course been asked and answered (the guild housing one in particular feels absolutely formulaic at this point), but it's nice to see some clarification on guild challenges and how the alt issue for guild rewards is being addressed. I was also interested to see that in at least one fairly active region (Korea), the new Guild Advancement system is actually having a pretty serious effect on the culture.
Check out our coverage of the previous Ask the Devs Q&A sessions:
- Ask the Devs Round 1: Questions and Answers
- Ask the Devs Round 2: PvP
- Ask the Devs Round 3: UI and macros
- Ask the Devs Round 4: Weapons and armor
- Ask the Devs Round 5: Achievements
WoW Patch 4.1 is live, and WoW Insider has all the latest news for you -- from guides of the revamped Zul'Aman and Zul'Gurub to new valor point mechanics and new archaeology items.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Guilds, Cataclysm







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Bynde Apr 27th 2011 3:15PM
Oh. So the subject of smaller guilds being at a disadvantage *is*
worth discussing afterall. I'll be darned.
/smugness
Yvl Apr 27th 2011 3:44PM
All guilds have the same rewards, regardless of how quickly they earn them. If competing with other guilds to be the first is more important to you than keeping a small group culture, then just expand your guild.
Bynde Apr 27th 2011 3:50PM
"All guilds have the same rewards, regardless of how quickly they earn them. If competing with other guilds to be the first is more important to you than keeping a small group culture, then just expand your guild."
Being the first is not more important. And that isn't my point. My point was as the commenter above noted, smaller guild have a disadvantage. My larger point is that this disadvantage is worthy of discussion.
Boz Apr 27th 2011 4:00PM
Worth discussing? Yes.
Worth addressing?
"We were careful to only choose perks that didn't contribute to player power, and we let you keep any rewards you earn if you ever have to leave your guild." -Blizzard
The problem here is that the perks DO contribute significantly to player power. By leveling a character in a low-level guild rather than my raiding guild I am effectively handicapping my character. I earn less experience, less gold, gather fewer resources, gain less reputation, and increase my skills slower. This all adds up to a HUGE waste of my time if I am trying to level a character relative to a player in a high-level guild, and is a major disincentive for recruiting players.
Do I want to spend 10% more on vendor items?
Earn 10% fewer Justice Points?
Earn 10% less honor?
Loot 10% less gold?
Take 20% more durability loss when I die?
It's a no-brainer.
"All guilds have the same rewards, regardless of how quickly they earn them. If competing with other guilds to be the first is more important to you than keeping a small group culture, then just expand your guild." -Yvl
All guilds have the same rewards available to them should they have the available resources to obtain them. Those resources are bodies, and it is more difficult to attract bodies to a low-level guild than a high-level guild because there are tangible benefits to being in a high-level guild, making it difficult to simply, "expand your guild."
Marcosius Apr 27th 2011 4:38PM
Only thing that bugs me about guild rewards is that they thought it was a clever idea to put feast cooking recipes as guild rewards, and on top of that put a crazy amount of things to do before they unlock. My guild at level 12 still has over a thousand meals to cook for the dragon feast, and well over 8 000 pools to fish for the fish feast. THIS impacts player power, if not in a straight way, and it will take a lot of time for smaller guilds to achieve these goals, which sucks.
SamLowry Apr 27th 2011 5:02PM
I'm just amazed by anyone at Blizzard acting surprised that the Guild Advancement system might actually destroy small guilds by forcing everyone to join megaguilds. The perks of a megaguild are in no way minor or cosmetic, so anyone who decides to stay loyal to a long-established friends-n-family guild is effectively screwing themselves over.
Duh. Just take a moment to think these things through, guys, but that ain't the Blizzard way, is it? Like dropping a patch during a holiday? Smooth move, guys.
Eirik Apr 27th 2011 5:11PM
@Boz: "it's a no-brainer"
Um... Up until cataclysm, you paid the 10% durability cost per death. You had enough daily quests available that you could earn more gold than you could conceivably spend. You could requeue in battlegrounds for honor endlessly. (And complete Wintergrasp for yet more honor.) With the advent of cataclysm and justice points you get those too.
It is only when your guild reaches those magic numbers that you get any of those breaks you mention.
I don't know about you, but I'm having no problems at all with the amount of honor I get with a low level guild. Or with gold. Repair bills after a particularly strenuous raid can be pretty steep, but my gold stockpile continues to mount regardless.
It seems obvious that you feel tied to those bonuses, that they have become mandatory to you. I regret that you feel this way, but I have no answers for you ... other than that not everybody feels the same way.
Glonk Apr 27th 2011 5:27PM
@SamLowry
I'm in a small friends and family guild. Theres about 20 of us in total I suppose so certainly not a mega guild. Max about 12 on at a time, average 8 in evenings. We're level 21, sure we're behind the curve but I personally dont feel we're missing out too much. Certainly dont feel screwed over by not joining a mega guild.
Okay perhaps the fish feast, that is annoying but tbh I kinda like having a chance to win 5000g every time we wipe :P
Rob Apr 27th 2011 5:59PM
I do not see the disadvantage being permanent. Sure, smaller guilds level slower, but not much slower. If you are talking about perks, then you just to be a bit more patient and not just expect someone else to do those things that advance guild rep. So in that way you can actually have more of an impact on your guild with a smaller guild. Which is a good thing.
People tend to forget that this moment in time is fleeting. In a month your super awesome but small guild will be 25, whereas the sucky big guild is also 25. No big deal.
SamLowry Apr 27th 2011 6:00PM
Glonk, the five-year-old guild I'm in just hit level 4; if more than two people log on at the same time it's a truly remarkable night.
We can't participate in raids since only megaguilds are doing those (at least during Wrath there were plenty of raid pugs going on--no more), and heroics are impossible to pug.
Hob Apr 27th 2011 6:02PM
@Eirik
Well, actually it is a no-brainer. If you roll or transfer onto a new realm - or if you've never bothered to join a guild on your regular realm - and you'd like to join a guild, you've got a number of options. 1) Join a friend's or family member's guild, and live with it, or 2) shop for a guild with the best perks.
I can't argue that before Cataclysm, we all paid the durability penalty, had gold from dailies, and honor from battlegrounds. The point is, if you are in a high level guild, you earn more and pay less without having to change anything. 10% adds up. 20% really adds up. 15-minute hearth plus reputation bonus really adds up.
If you have two roughly equivalent guilds (in terms of friendliness, core activities, etc.), but one is level 5 and the other is level 25, you are basically losing money / honor / reputation / time by joining the lower level guild. It's like considering two jobs that are equivalent in work and responsibilities, except one pays 40K a year, and the other pays 45K a year. All other things being equal, why would you choose to make do with less?
Perhaps Basil Berntsen of "Gold Capped" fame could offer us an analysis of the economic pros and cons of guildery.
loop_not_defined Apr 27th 2011 6:17PM
Hob, if the only thing people cared about in a social game was *numbers*, then yes, you might be right. For a lot of people, WoW is much more than complex systems distilled into numbers. 10% is *nothing* to me when choosing between small friendly guilds and large impersonal guilds.
So really, the decision still comes down to personal preference...not numbers. If you prefer numbers, you would be going with large impersonal guilds anyways. o_O
loop_not_defined Apr 27th 2011 6:22PM
Also, the %s Boz originally listed are misleading. The likelihood of someone choosing between a Level 1 guild and Level 25 guild is pretty small, considering how quickly the first couple of levels pass by. Level 5, 10, and 15 guilds are far more likely, with smaller bonus gaps.
SamLowry Apr 27th 2011 6:30PM
But the numbers are big enough that they are forcing people to join megaguilds if they actually do want to see endgame content. And there are so many people on at any time in these guilds that they have no interest in allowing outsiders to pug with them, even though the majority of the guildies that are on are just as anonymous to them as any outsider.
See how far you can get in a friendly guild with only five members.
Hob Apr 27th 2011 6:41PM
@loop_not_defined
Part of my initial statement was that you can join a friend's or family member's guild and live with it. I never called it a bad option. My point was really the "all things being equal" part. If you've got two small, friendly guilds accepting members, but one is level 5 and one is level 25 - all things being equal - you're better off in the higher guild.
Say you've been invited to join two Bastion of Twilight raids. Both groups are equally friendly. However, one group is seriously undergeared, and one group is ready to farm. All things being equal - why wouldn't you go with the geared group? Now, if the geared raid is a bunch of douchebags that you can barely tolerate, and the undergeared raid is being put together by a family member or friend, then things are not equal and (in my opinion) you'd be better off with the undergeared group. (Or not going at all...)
Skarn Apr 27th 2011 7:39PM
"The problem here is that the perks DO contribute significantly to player power."
Well, no, they don't. Not as Blizzard is obviously defining it. They don't give you any more damage. No more HP. No more cooldowns. They don't even give you any extra gear. They do not make your character stronger. That is what Blizzard is talking about. Obviously, these perks offer player benefits, but not power. These benefits are the contention of course, but it's silly to get worked up over Blizzard's wording choice.
"The perks of a megaguild are in no way minor or cosmetic"
I would call them minor and cosmetic. Yes, that is my opinion. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just see them as nice, but umimportant.
10% more XP? I'm already at 85. (In addition, I've never bought an heirloom for an alt and have no desire to either.)
10% more Justice/Honor points? There's not a single thing I need from points. I barely run Heroics any more, unless a friend needs help. Obviously, many people are different and still need stuff. So this perk is useful for them. Then again, most people will run into this spot eventually.
More money spent on repairs? It's not bothered me for 6 years, it's not going to significantly impact my game experience. Minor benefit.
Money for a guild bank? Guild money, the player doesn't get it anyway, so that's no incentive to a solo player.
Cheaper vendor stuff? Only an issue if you are buying hugely expensive things like the Vial of the Sands and then you've got cash to burn. Minor.
And so on. Oh, they're nice perks, sure. But they're minor. Cosmetic. At least I think so. That's my opinion and the concern over it indicates that I'm likely in the minority here. Well, I'd contend that they ARE, ultimately, cosmetic. They're not going to make a dungeon run faster or a raid boss easier or help you survive in PvP. They help travel and reduce grind, they're time savers only. Blizzard clearly looks at the perks the same why I do: Nice, but not mandatory at all.
The trick for those that feel they ARE mandatory is convincing Blizzard of that. I doubt you'll be able to convince ME, but you're not paying me so you'll have better success with Blizzard.
Skarn Apr 27th 2011 7:59PM
Putting this in a separate post because it's, well, more of a separate thought.
"Glonk, the five-year-old guild I'm in just hit level 4; if more than two people log on at the same time it's a truly remarkable night.
We can't participate in raids since only megaguilds are doing those (at least during Wrath there were plenty of raid pugs going on--no more), and heroics are impossible to pug."
Ok, so here we can clarify something. There are more than two sizes of guilds. You've got the mega-guilds that are 500 or so members. Then there are more "large-size" guilds of 100-200. Next would be small guilds of 10-20. Finally we have Sam's guild, which isn't small. It's tiny. 3 people online at once isn't "small." That's miniscule.
Guild perks are definitely not designed for tiny guilds that barely field 3 people. :( I can't say I'm surprised by that. On the other hand, it does not take a mega-guild to raid, as Sam suggests. My guild fields roughly 15-20 people, max. That's not a mega-guild. That's not even a large guild. It's a small guild. We raid just fine, 2 nights a week for 3 hours a night. We're 10/12 right now, just got Cho'gall down last week. We're not new either though, we're an old "friends and family guild." (Actually, just the family part could top Sams' guild...wow.)
I don't think it's fair to lump all guilds into 2 size categories. There's more variety than that.
mibu.work1 Apr 28th 2011 12:45AM
Okay everyone, please, quit the whining.
Did the guild perk system make it harder for small guilds to get new recruits? Yes. Did it give a lot of advantages to Megaguilds? yes. Did it cripple smaller guilds compleatly, making megaguilds the only option? No.
Allow me some time for anecdotal evidence. My guild is fairly small. It is a family guild in every sense of the words. My guild leaders are a mother-and-son, the officers are the mother's daughter and sister respectively, and the other officers are their real-life friends. After that, there's a good cluster of couples, young families, and a few retirees, with almost all recruiting done in RL among friends. We are level 20 now, have both feasts, our first battle cauldron, all tabs, and many other perks, all without topping 50 members (not counting alts, with which we top 150). We haven't seen Nefarian or Cho'Gol, we're working on Artremedes and the Dragon Twins. We've got lots and lots of old raid achievements, not many PvP ones, and a metric ton of profession, reputation, and similar achievements. All this has been accomplished since early december of last year.
What does this show? That the family guild can survive and even thrive, that megaguilds might get realm firsts, but they're not the only option, that small guilds still have a chance. Besides, when it comes to recruitment, we don't advertise guild level, or our relevant perks, we advertise our community, raid schedule, and readiness to help anybody at any point of the game. If somebody decided they wanted to join us because of our perks, we'd tell them to find someplace else, because we don't want them to ditch us when they find there's another guild at level 21 with loose recruitment policies.
And honestly, the guild perks may be nice, but they're not make-or-break the game experience. I'm leveling a warrior and a priest at the same time, warrior in the guild, priest out. The warrior has three heirlooms and guild membership, is leveling via tanking the dungeon finder. the priest is not in the guild, has two heirlooms, and honestly has more gold than she needs at this point, heals dungeons wel but not too easily, is only slightly behind the warrior in XP, and manages to outlevel zones just as fast as the warrior. Sure, the extra speed boost is nice when I die, but honestly, that's the only difference I see when playing them.
The perks are just that, perks, and only the small-minded care about them when looking at guilds.
mibu.work1 Apr 28th 2011 12:54AM
Sorry, didn't see some of the comments that were more in-line with what I said.
Eririk, skarn, and others, you all make good points.
Bynde Apr 28th 2011 11:13AM
You lost whatever point you had to make by starting off your post with calling our concerns "whining".
We're discussing something. There is no reason whatsoever for you to barge in with insults.