Cataclysm: Preparing For Patch 4.0.1

[Paelos]

It seems like you are crying (again, as you have been for years on this board) about how your "raid alliance" is getting screwed by Blizzard design decisions. You choose to run raids with the same people every week but allow them to be in different guilds for whatever reason (too many people wanting to be 'guild leader'?) which is counter to the way that the entire raid concept was designed. Why not have your three guilds with 15 people each just merge and go on about your business as one guild?

1 - I've been in the same guild for 10 years across 3 different games.
2 - It's an alliance of 12 guilds with 200+ characters who put together about 2 seperate 25 mans and a slew of 10 mans with no real borders besides who we like. We were put together 4 years ago due to the exact pressure of uber-guilds controlling the only access to raiding. Suggesting we give up the guild autonomy and family atmosphere for the people that don't even raid within the alliance is like suggesting that the US just give up states and become one giant blob.
3 - Just because I like some of the people to raid with out of the 200+ in the alliance, doesn't mean we want to share an always open chat channel, decide leadership, or let certain cliques within the system try to play politics. Nor do we even share similar raiding goals from hardcore to casual across the alliance.


Here's a better question. Care to tell me how simply dividing up the xp is a worse idea than forcing 8 into a ten man? That literally would solve any complaint I have with this system. I don't give a shit about guild achievements or whatever.

[Ratman_tf]

I won't predict doom, but I will call it a stupid system design added to other recent missteps they have made.

It will go down in history as Cataclysm's Vehicle System. 

[Simond]

Here's a better question. Care to tell me how simply dividing up the xp is a worse idea than forcing 8 into a ten man? That literally would solve any complaint I have with this system. I don't give a shit about guild achievements or whatever.

Because it's a guild advancement system, not an advancement system for people who happen to be in guilds.

[caladein]

It seems like you are crying (again, as you have been for years on this board) about how your "raid alliance" is getting screwed by Blizzard design decisions. You choose to run raids with the same people every week but allow them to be in different guilds for whatever reason (too many people wanting to be 'guild leader'?) which is counter to the way that the entire raid concept was designed. Why not have your three guilds with 15 people each just merge and go on about your business as one guild?

1 - I've been in the same guild for 10 years across 3 different games.
2 - It's an alliance of 12 guilds with 200+ characters who put together about 2 seperate 25 mans and a slew of 10 mans with no real borders besides who we like. We were put together 4 years ago due to the exact pressure of uber-guilds controlling the only access to raiding. Suggesting we give up the guild autonomy and family atmosphere for the people that don't even raid within the alliance is like suggesting that the US just give up states and become one giant blob.
3 - Just because I like some of the people to raid with out of the 200+ in the alliance, doesn't mean we want to share an always open chat channel, decide leadership, or let certain cliques within the system try to play politics. Nor do we even share similar raiding goals from hardcore to casual across the alliance.


Here's a better question. Care to tell me how simply dividing up the xp is a worse idea than forcing 8 into a ten man? That literally would solve any complaint I have with this system. I don't give a shit about guild achievements or whatever.

Assuming the guilds are of roughly equal size and you at least have some people who level alts or do their daily quests, the fact you won't be getting any guild experience from raids will be irrelevant.

The daily guild experience cap is that low.

[Paelos]

Here's a better question. Care to tell me how simply dividing up the xp is a worse idea than forcing 8 into a ten man? That literally would solve any complaint I have with this system. I don't give a shit about guild achievements or whatever.

Because it's a guild advancement system, not an advancement system for people who happen to be in guilds but pug-raid.

And are these people killing shit not in a guild? Does that guild not deserve some iota of credit for their participation? Why 8? Why not 5? Why not 6?

[Paelos]

Assuming the guilds are of roughly equal size and you at least have some people who level alts or do their daily quests, the fact you won't be getting any guild experience from raids will be irrelevant.

The daily guild experience cap is that low.

I agree. I'm sure we will. I'm sure a lot of people will. I just question why it's even a requirement if the cap is so low that we're talking about numbers requirements in 10 and 25 mans. At the higher levels I'm not sure the caps will be as forgiving, or if they continue to add levels in the future, which they undoubtedly will.

[Merusk]

If you don't give a shit about guild achievements, then stop whining.  There's no problem.

In reality you DO care and you think it's unfair that you're going to be locked out from certain perks larger guilds will get very quickly.  That or you're concerned that the more hardcore segments of your alliance will grow their guild(s), say fuck off and you'll be doing fuckall besides twiddling your thumbs.  That's the risk you run doing alliances.

There's little incentive to grow your guild into a mega guild unless you're a leader (or leadership core) concerned only with advancing yourself on the loot front.  It leads to too much drama and whining when you're sitting lots of players out.  People also see though that shit quick and quit or form their own guild to avoid such bullshit.

For 25 man raids, the ideal is 30-34 regular players, that's it. Any more and you're going to get folks sitting out too much causing tension. Any fewer and you're often crippled by too many people needing the same night off, or missing due to RL issues.  Your doomsday scenarios of 3-4 megaguilds per server are very Chicken Little but not at all reality based.  This isn't EQ where you could zerg a raid with 200 players, so having a guild of 500 or more was advantageous.  

[Simond]

Here's a better question. Care to tell me how simply dividing up the xp is a worse idea than forcing 8 into a ten man? That literally would solve any complaint I have with this system. I don't give a shit about guild achievements or whatever.

Because it's a guild advancement system, not an advancement system for people who happen to be in guilds but pug-raid.

And are these people killing shit not in a guild? Does that guild not deserve some iota of credit for their participation? Why 8? Why not 5? Why not 6?

Because it is a guild advancement system. If your guild cannot muster enough strength to form 80% of a raid, then your guild isn't strong enough to reap the rewards from that raid. The individuals taking part already do, mind you - they're called "loot" and "points". Let's turn it around - why should Joe Bloggs in his one-man guild be able to classify "PUG raid I was one of twenty-five others" as a "guild raid"?

Why 80%? It scales nicely: 4/5 group, 8/10 raid or 20/25 raid.

[Paelos]

That or you're concerned that the more hardcore segments of your alliance will grow their guild(s), say fuck off and you'll be doing fuckall besides twiddling your thumbs.

Tbh that's a large concern. The Mega-guild thing is just hyperbole. The rest of it is just liking all the changes of a guild system besides the oddly placed number requirements that create weird results I don't think Blizzard wants.

[Paelos]

Here's a better question. Care to tell me how simply dividing up the xp is a worse idea than forcing 8 into a ten man? That literally would solve any complaint I have with this system. I don't give a shit about guild achievements or whatever.

Because it's a guild advancement system, not an advancement system for people who happen to be in guilds but pug-raid.

And are these people killing shit not in a guild? Does that guild not deserve some iota of credit for their participation? Why 8? Why not 5? Why not 6?

Because it is a guild advancement system. If your guild cannot muster enough strength to form 80% of a raid, then your guild isn't strong enough to reap the rewards from that raid. The individuals taking part already do, mind you - they're called "loot" and "points". Let's turn it around - why should Joe Bloggs in his one-man guild be able to classify "PUG raid I was one of twenty-five others" as a "guild raid"?

Why 80%? It scales nicely: 4/5 group, 8/10 raid or 20/25 raid.

So, they can earn some of the rewards, just not all of the rewards because Blizzard tossed in an arbitrary number even when you're doing the exact same activity. 60% scales too.

[Ratman_tf]

Tbh that's a large concern. The Mega-guild thing is just hyperbole. The rest of it is just liking all the changes of a guild system besides the oddly placed number requirements that create weird results I don't think Blizzard wants.

I'm personally not too fond of the idea. It's another XP/Rep grind type of thing with perks that are going to become a requirement bum bum buuum! like gemming or enchanting, so you can hit target number X for raiding. And then players will just expect that X value, and the actual reason behind leveling guilds (Encouraging guilds to be a fun and interesting thing to belong to) will be pushed aside.

[Paelos]

Tbh that's a large concern. The Mega-guild thing is just hyperbole. The rest of it is just liking all the changes of a guild system besides the oddly placed number requirements that create weird results I don't think Blizzard wants.

I'm personally not too fond of the idea. It's another XP/Rep grind type of thing with perks that are going to become a requirement bum bum buuum! like gemming or enchanting, so you can hit target number X for raiding. And then players will just expect that X value, and the actual reason behind leveling guilds (Encouraging guilds to be a fun and interesting thing to belong to) will be pushed aside.

Exactly. I totally agree. MMOG players min/max dryhump things like this into next week. That's why they had to fuck around with items like flasks, potions, etc.

[caladein]

None of the perks are more than quality-of-life buffs.

Will being in a level 25 guild with Exalted reputation be useful to you personally, sure.  Will what your guild's level be matter to getting into a PUG, no.

[Selby]

I am totally failing to see the rage and upset that this is causing.  Bigger guilds have better perks?  Say it ain't so!  It's not like if you aren't of size X guild you automatically don't get into raids or heroics...

[Rasix]

The poopsock vote has spoken.  Yeesh.  I'll go crawl back in my hole.

[Azazel]

Also, look at it this way, only small guilds really get much "personal storage" with the guild bank. So say that for those guilds of 1 or 2 people using it for the bank need it for the bank space, what about the people with 30 members? Those guys don't get the same amount of bank space as the 1 member guilds, so it's not really a case of "me too".

Honestly, guilds with 30 members would have no "personal" space in a guild vault. It only takes 1 looter. It'd all be blues for alts and that kind of stuff. Then again, nothing is stopping them from having their mains in a "real" guild and a personal guildbank for their bank alts, either. That's what I have (shared with my wife).

For you people getting bent out of shape at me for saying Blizzard should crackdown on small guilds, what I meant was the vanity guild names. Those are, and have always been a pet peeve of mine.

Sure, but it's not much different to people with retarded character names. I met a paid of dickheads (and they were dickheads) on a pug who both had "Kunt" as part of their names. They all fly under the rader until reported, and I'm not sure how you manage to tell that "Luvs 2 Spooge" is a guild with one moron or 16 morons in it.

[Lakov_Sanite]

and I'm not sure how you manage to tell that "Luvs 2 Spooge" is a guild with one moron or 16 morons in it.

 

[Rendakor]

Why 80%? It scales nicely: 4/5 group, 8/10 raid or 20/25 raid.

So does 20%. 1/5 group, 2/10 raid, 5/25 raid. The 80% is an arbitrary bullshit number.

[Merusk]

Yes, because if 20% of a group is in the same guild it's clearly a guild group rather than an assortment of pugs.   The idea was to have over a majority belonging to the same guild to qualify it as a "guild run."  60, 70 or 80%.. They chose 80 over 60.  Cry more.

[K9]

This discussion hit full retard.

[Paelos]

Yes, because if 20% of a group is in the same guild it's clearly a guild group rather than an assortment of pugs.   The idea was to have over a majority belonging to the same guild to qualify it as a "guild run."  60, 70 or 80%.. They chose 80 over 60.  Cry more.

They released a dungeon finder and gave you a freaking pet for pugging dungeons. Then, within the span of a couple months, create a system which blatantly discourages pugging dungeons. It's like the designers are completely bi-polar.

People were running more dungeons, loved the ease of use, etc etc. Exactly what was broken that led to this?

[Azazel]

Seems like a calculated attempt at subscription retention.  You've got a set of conditions for a guild to advance and you have to advance personally within the guild.  They'll make it so it's deterimental to leave the guild and in turn detrimental to leave the game.

It's just another thing for someone like myself to look at, sigh, and then hit the cancel sub button that much quicker.  They've been removing those potential "this game isn't exactly for me" moments steadily as game has progressed.  This seems regressive for me.  Exciting for others, but regressive for me.

I really don't know what it's going to involve, but I'm assuming that even when I effectively ignore the new guild-based bullshit, it won't really make much of a difference to my style of play.

[Azazel]

Funny how the player cap for large guilds was handwaved away here with a "Not my playstyle therefore it's not an issue" but now that people in their glorified-group "guilds" realise that they're fucked, guild advancement is suddenly a huge problem that needs to be discussed and fixed.

Seven people isn't a guild, it's a group with two spares.

500 (or a thousand) people isn't a guild. It's Barrens Chat and West Commons rolled into one. A fucking Zoo of random cunts, the majority of which you'll never associate with in any way.

[Lantyssa]

I am totally failing to see the rage and upset that this is causing.  Bigger guilds have better perks?  Say it ain't so!  It's not like if you aren't of size X guild you automatically don't get into raids or heroics...

Aren't they making the rewards for 10 and 25 man the same so that bigger guilds don't have perks?  One hand giveth, the other taketh away?

[Azazel]

Yes, because if 20% of a group is in the same guild it's clearly a guild group rather than an assortment of pugs.   The idea was to have over a majority belonging to the same guild to qualify it as a "guild run."  60, 70 or 80%.. They chose 80 over 60.  Cry more.

They released a dungeon finder and gave you a freaking pet for pugging dungeons. Then, within the span of a couple months, create a system which blatantly discourages pugging dungeons. It's like the designers are completely bi-polar.

People were running more dungeons, loved the ease of use, etc etc. Exactly what was broken that led to this?

Many designers, many pet projects, one game. See: Arena => all other PvP and PVE Balance. Dungeon finder pugs will be dead for some time with the new "we make it challenging/hard again - healing and CC matters bigtime" design which will kick the casual and average-skilled players who probably play more as a game than a lifestyle in the balls. Got my RAF mount, so that's a month worth of gameplay that takes me to about the middle of Nov. Add a 60 day gamecard and I'm on till mid-Jan. Then it's Xbox time again for a year or so till all this shit gets shaken out. 

[caladein]

I am totally failing to see the rage and upset that this is causing.  Bigger guilds have better perks?  Say it ain't so!  It's not like if you aren't of size X guild you automatically don't get into raids or heroics...

Aren't they making the rewards for 10 and 25 man the same so that bigger guilds don't have perks?  One hand giveth, the other taketh away?

Same amount of loot per person between 10 and 25, but 25 gives more points (per person, natch).

As for guild experience, any guild that raids as a guild (i.e. 80%+ of raid is in guild) should easily hit their daily guild experience cap on raid nights if they're downing bosses.  The advantage that larger guilds have is that they'll get achievements faster but that should balance out as that's a finite amount of experience.

Aside from that, any guild with say... ~10 or more active characters, in the sense that's doing dungeons/raids/rated BGs "as a guild" or questing, is on the same footing.

Numbers are obviously subject to change, but aside from corner cases like Paelos's, the system as it stands seems pretty good between guild sizes.

Edit: Clearly, edge cases such as guilds practically below charter levels and guilds above the new hard-cap are proper fucked for one reason or another.

[Rendakor]

The problem my guild has with the 80% rule is that even when we had a lot of people play, they were almost all DPS (or only wanted to play their DPS toons). As a result, we were always pugging 1-2 healers and occasionally 1 tank. This could be annoying as fuck if the difference between 2 pugs and 3 pugs is no guild xp.

[Simond]

Funny how the player cap for large guilds was handwaved away here with a "Not my playstyle therefore it's not an issue" but now that people in their glorified-group "guilds" realise that they're fucked, guild advancement is suddenly a huge problem that needs to be discussed and fixed.

Seven people isn't a guild, it's a group with two spares.

500 (or a thousand) people isn't a guild. It's Barrens Chat and West Commons rolled into one. A fucking Zoo of random cunts, the majority of which you'll never associate with in any way.

I can quote too:

Funny how the player cap for large guilds was handwaved away here with a "Not my playstyle therefore it's not an issue" but now that people in their glorified-group "guilds" realise that they're fucked, guild advancement is suddenly a huge problem that needs to be discussed and fixed.

If your guild isn't strong enough to form an actual guild raid (as opposed to a PUG raid with a couple of guild members in it), then your guild doesn't get the guild rewards from guild raiding. It's not exactly a difficult concept to grasp. The individuals still get their individual rewards, and the guild still gets xp from guild groups for dungeons, etc.

E: guild guild guildity guild. It now looks spelt wrong to me because I've typed it so much. 

[Azazel]

I think you're missing my point. By rather a decent margin. 

[K9]

People will still do RDF for the daily bonus. I suspect folks will make guild groups when they can, and RDF when they can't and a week after release people will forget it was any other way.

[Sheepherder]

spelt wrong

[Simond]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spelt

Pronunciation

    * IPA: /ˈspɛlt/, SAMPA: /"spElt/
    * Rhymes: -ɛlt

[edit] Etymology 1

See spell
[edit] Alternative forms

    * spelled (US, Canadian)

[edit] Verb

spelt

   1. (chiefly UK) Simple past tense and past participle of spell.

[edit] Quotations

    * 1590, William Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost, v 1

          Yes, yes; he teaches boys the hornbook. What is a, b, spelt / backward with the horn on his head?

Not just prehistoric wheat. 

[Azazel]

He actually spelt it the correct way. 

[Lantyssa]

Funny how the player cap for large guilds was handwaved away here with a "Not my playstyle therefore it's not an issue" but now that people in their glorified-group "guilds" realise that they're fucked, guild advancement is suddenly a huge problem that needs to be discussed and fixed.

Missed replying to it the first time.  We didn't hand-wave it.  Several commented it wasn't fair large guilds were being broken up.  A few might have, but unless those exact same people are now defending small guilds, there's no inconsistency.  (And short of "fuck them" being said, not being concerned with one end of the spectrum doesn't mean a "fuck them" is deserving for the other end.)

I think both are stupid.  Little guilds are what I have experience with, so it's what I'm going to comment on.  It's what a large portion of the game knows, so of course it's going to concern them.

[Sheepherder]

He actually spelt it the correct way. 

Merriam-Webster doesn't recognize it as anything but grain.  Shakespeare is not a good source for your grammar lessons.