Oct 19th 2011 3:08PM I've been there. This piece of advice will probably get me some criticism, but it's something I've learned after putting my hand on the stove many many times:
If you believe things need to be changed drastically in your guild, and you're given the opportunity to change them... DON'T DO IT. RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN. If people really want drastic change, and claim to be behind it? Tell them to leave the guild with you and form a new one. If they don't want to, there's your sign. Give up, or run.
Because no matter how good your intentions are, no matter how logical and necessary the changes seem, or how many people back you up... a casual guild that raids will never become a committed raiding guild without huge pains, for example.
The only way you're going to survive a change like this without lots of drama is by shedding the doubters, the silent borderliners, people who don't like what you're suggesting but feel they have to endure out of loyalty to the guild tag, or endearing memories of what was... or maybe they just lack the sense to quit while they're ahead. They'll stay, secretly brood, and then start spreading malcontent behind your back, which will gain traction if there are hiccups in the transition or if you're human and make mistakes sometimes.
Don't fool yourself. These people are in every guild, and unless the guild's resolve is amazing, they WILL undermine any change you make, create discontent. And they rarely do so openly... they whisper and go behind your back, since they won't risk being singled out and removed if they don't have the sense to quit a guild that's no longer for them.
So don't do it. If you think you can do it better, and it TRULY matters to you enough to take charge, do so by leaving with people who are as passionate as you are and start a new guild. You'll save yourself LOTS of drama.
Oct 16th 2011 7:55PM @(Unverified) Alright, I'll have one last go, maybe I didn't explain well enough the first time and it led to confusion.
The dealership/bookstore already got your money, so a new car model/book coming out doesn't affect them drastically; you already made the one-time purchase. However, when your profitability depends on customers paying you every month and using your in-game store (as is the case in a hybrid model like AoC's), new competition IS a real threat.
Your other idea (about them being too different) is a valid point of contention, but it doesn't change that there will be a tangible financial hit. Because people playing and not paying are not making you money, and people who have a shiny new MMO to play are far more likely to opt for the F2P offering (or at the very least buy a lot less from the in-game store) until they tire of the new and shiny.
Also, keep in mind that Funcom and other MMO developers have been taking steps to minimize the financial hit that you claim won't exist. I'd say that they know their finances better than you or me, no?
Oct 16th 2011 2:08PM @(Unverified) ...that's a horrid simile, and even if it wasn't, the argument isn't even true.
In MMOs, you pay to play (in some way; even in F2P, people only pay if they're invested in the game). I play AoC regularly now, and pay accordingly. Once SWTOR comes out? I'll be trying that. Which means that for at least a month, I'll be playing that a lot and AoC a lot less. If SWTOR is good, that might continue being true for months afterwards. That's time that I'm not browsing their in-game store and buying cosmetic stuff.
Funcom and other developers have been trying to pad that loss by offering multi-month subscription bundles (so that even if you play less, at least they got your money for that time you're not playing), but given their transaction model (some can't really be called 'micro'), even if people subbed they'd -still- be spending less at the store because they're not in-game.
Your argument would work if MMOs were a one-time deal... but these games NEED you to be engaged and paying to stay profitable, and anyone that thinks SWTOR won't put a dent on ALL other MMOs to some degree, whether it's amazing or disappointing, is deep in denial territory.
Oct 13th 2011 3:20PM @Seffrid "On the other hand, if guild leaders can recognise that they don't hold their members on balls and chains and that they are free to log in or not according to what they want to do then it must be easier to lead, because the pressures are less than in the days when you had to provide guild-based action 24/7."
I wish this was true, but it is not in most cases. Because the regulars, the guys that -are- dependable, still expect you to provide regular guild action. They don't want to sit around twiddling their thumbs because Johnny can't tell you what he'll be doing two hours from now, or because Jen doesn't believe in schedules and refuses to tell you when she'll be available, even if the question is whether she'll be on to raid tonight.
So as a leader of a guild that raids (which is not necessarily a raiding guild), you're basically stuck with the same expectations and pressures (to organize and run successful guild activities on a regular basis), but with fewer means to truly meet them because scrounging up the people to do stuff has gotten absurdly difficult.
Sep 22nd 2011 1:44AM @reathorn2010 I can only speak for myself, but for me it was a combination of a few things.
1. The setting, while fun, was simply not being used to capacity by its RP community. Add to this Trion's horrid handling of their RP community (I still remember the "roleplayers are like smokers" comments shortly before I quit), a general lack of love for RPers in their feature set and a focus on raiding... the RP community was small, and their RP uninspired.
2. The faction grind was obnoxious. It felt like you had to grind for days and days to see the fruits of your labor unless you quested exhaustively in Shimmersand and IPP
3. Endgame progression at 50 felt incredibly linear. Hit/Focus/Toughness cap, T1, T2, raid. That was it. This one is getting addressed with this coming patch, but in my case, it's too little too late. I moved on to greener pastures (tried a few other MMOs, settled on AoC with ventures into FFXIV).
I don't want RIFT to fail. I'd have loved to stick around. But the game's direction just didn't match my own, and what was left for me to do felt so uninspired and insipid that I just couldn't justify the time and money investment.
Sep 10th 2011 11:48PM I'm loving Turan. I like the quest flow, and the place looks flat-out stunning. If they had added a tavern for RP, I'd probably never leave there on my characters.
Sep 7th 2011 7:00PM @Azaetos I'm fine with having to spend extra for some cosmetic stuff, extra character slots or things like that... but if they're going to charge me $15 every month like fully-featured P2P titles do, I expect at least some solid perks out of subscribing, along with a good chunk of store currency to spend each billing period.
I feel AoC does this fairly well with its veteran rewards... you can get teleport spells to every zone, mounts and training for free, and other quality-of-life upgrades with vet points you get every time you buy playtime. On top of that, you have access to all classes, your full inventory (and bank), and you get an offline level every 4 days of paid time.
I wish they offered more Funcom points (store currency) for being subbed, but I don't hate it enough to feel I don't get my money's worth overall... so the system obviously works as intended. Ultimately, these games are out to make money, and make as much money as they can.
It's why I'll take a sub-based model anytime over so-called F2P. But I can see the merits in a hybrid system that's tuned well. An item store that sells cheap XP pots and cosmetic armor is fine by me, as long as subbing gets you an allowance of points that lets you benefit a bit each month.
One thing is for sure, though: if you don't have money for small impulse purchases, you probably want to go with a P2P game where your $15 gets you the same as everyone else. Otherwise, you'll just have to come to terms with the fact that someone with buying power will get cooler stuff/advance faster at the very least.
Sep 3rd 2011 2:28AM @dndhatcher Do you know why fairy tale endings work out just fine in short stories and some literature? Because they end right as you succeed. The story, which was interesting and had you reading from start to finish, was all about the struggle to get there, which are usually lined with? You guessed it, failures. If the hero could just beeline for the bad guy and kill him immediately every time, stories would get incredibly boring.
Just because you fail at -something-, does not mean that the attempt was pointless. For instance, maybe your character did not vanquish the Big Bad, but he destroyed his base and met a new ally in the struggle. That counts as a failure, because the goal of killing the BB is left unresolved... but the story moves forward, and the experience still brought him closer to his goal.
Aug 30th 2011 4:08PM Ah, AoC. Great game, and the F2P model is not all terrible. But some of the decisions are mind-boggling, and some of the bugs just show a lack of care that is really out of place, considering how much care it shows in other areas.
For instance, it's appalling to me that a game that's been out since 2008 and sells you armor in its shop won't let you actually preview that armor on your character first. Or some of the glitches in armor model that should never have gotten through because they're so obvious (some of them on the armor they sell you on the cash shop).
Aug 15th 2011 12:31AM @Deadalon I always find it amusing when people whine about F2P feature sets. YOU ARE GETTING IT FOR FREE.
Now, I am not a huge fan of the F2P model in general (and I've posted my objections to it before), but I think as far as models go, Funcom's has worked for them. The whole point of free-to-play is that it's not free; they want to entice you to subscribe, or spent money in their store to unlock features you want. So -of course- they won't just give you every class as F2P, and of course it will have other inconvenient aspects. The point is to get you to spend money, not for you to keep freeloading indefinitely. The F2P conversion just has to entice you enough to get you playing, then make you want to play to play with fewer restrictions.
Whining about F2P being a limited or restrictive offering is like complaining that a wheel rolls.