I think that guild-only content is a bad thing. When I played DAoC on Gaheris, public raids were common. I led many of them so I know that leading a public raid takes more work that leading a guild raid. The point is that requiring a guild would send the wrong message, that being that you must follow a certain path to have access to some of the content. I don't see anything wrong with raid content in and of itself, but limiting it to guilds is wrong.
In some MMO's catering to the guilded goes way too far. For instance in Anarchy Online you have an expansion pack that with only a few exceptions if you are not in a guild you might as well not even have it because you will not be fighting many aliens. I understand it was meant to be a primarily social expansion and that is great but to make it very difficult to even get in on this content just because you are not in a guild is not cool. I enjoy being in a guild many of my characters are in guilds but sometimes guilds can be annoying especially if you have a very bossy leader who thinks that because you are in their guild they have the right to boss you around and dictate how you spend your time in game. I've had this happen several times and because of this I often play characters that are unguilded just to avoid the drama that can come with guilds and it is annoying that when I choose to do so I am often limited in what I can accomplish.
I think there should be raid content that requires large groups of people. But I dont think that it should be MOST of the endgame. Apparently WoW agrees because they are re-tasking many of their raid dungeons to 5 man dungeons, making it easier on casual gamers. However, even if this were not so, there is a solution, of sorts.
In DAOC they had what was called 'alliances', which were groups of guilds that could talk to one another's members. It gave the advantages of being in a superguild, but also allowed players to stay with their buddies rather than leaving for the endgame guild. It made it easier for small guilds to find people for big raids and keep defense.
I think this is a good feature to implement, and it isn't at all hard. It only really requires adding an additional chat channel to the game.
Also, in the case of WoW, the LFG system is totally F***ed up. It requires that you be in a city to find a group for high level instances. You used to be able to import LFG chat for a city, but this is no longer possible. LFG should be global, but should only be heard by people 3 or 4 lvls in either direction from you. If you did this, then, again, your supergroup problem would be somewhat alleviated, because people wouldnt be trapped in a city, auctioning for groups. They could be out in the world, helping out lowbies or pursuing endgame crafting or long missions, with an ear for the LFG channel.
You are all going about this the wrong way. This shouldnt be about SOLO playstyle vs. RAID playstyle, this should be about games forcing you through a ratmaze, making mobs exactly strong enough for 5 players or exactly strong enough for 40 players. If you bring 4 players in a 5 player mob your gimp. If you bring 30 players for a 40 player mob your gimp.
The game is as complex as checkers, tic tac toe, and connect 4. Are you going to pay $15 to play checkers, tic tac toe, and connect 4? Well you are.
This topic is particularly relevant for me at this time. I am watching with great interest the Age of Conan game and spend a good deal of time on thier forums. Recently, in the last few days, it was announced that players would not be able to craft, or reach a prestige level unless they were part of a guild.
Of course this has caused quite a stir and the arguments between fourm members is running fast and furious. My own personal opinion on this is that a game should never make content unavilable to any customer that pays for it. A game should never, ever, tell the player you must do this or that because we feel it accomplishes A or B result. And if you do not do as we intend you will not be able to experience the same game content as others.
That is exactly what is being said over on the AoC boards. The Dev's when asked stated the game is intended for guilds. One remarked that most MMORPG's require people to be in guilds anyway. And that they felt thier was nothing wrong with making Guild only content in the upcoming game.
First off I've never, ever played a MMORPG that forced a player to join a guild. And I am not personally aware of one. Second and definetly disturbing to me is the lack of consideration that such a stance takes on the Roleplay aspects of games. When will MMORPG's remember where thier origins are? They are the next step in Roleplaying. But most if not all seem to develop games and or situations in games that totally ignore this fact.
If you tell me I have to make my character act a certain way, or join a certain group you remove my feeling of control over my character and thus, you remove me from the immersive quality of the game. The biggest and most grossly overstated response to someone saying they are against being forced into a guild, is the scolding accusation that the individual must be anti-social! He or she should go play another game if they don't like people.
This is such a mindless and moot argument. Roleplaying is a social activity. It started as one around tables and has grown into ones with people from all over the world. You can be the most socially active character on any given server and still not be in a guild. The two simply have nothing to do with each other. Nothing destroys the desire to be engaged, social or diminish enjoyment like being forced into a group you may not wish to be with.
Hopefully AoC will turn from this path while there is still time.
Originally posted by Ardda There is a fine line between having a choice to group or join a guild and being forced to join a group or a guild.
You are absolutely right about this. Yet sadly, this line is defined by the players themselves.....
Since WoW seems to be the best example of guild elitism, i'll stick with that. The players themselves make it so you need to join one of the Uber Guilds. They could just have an open community where people would band together freely and out of choice, it would just require a change of mind. These changes of mind have to be on a VERY large scale sadly.... like the top 10 guilds altogether changing their mind about the whole system..... It's similar to environmental preservation issues in modern day politics...
So basically, the very social core of MMOs, the social interaction and ethics and the player-driven community are what induced this situation in the first place. Of course Blizzard MADE the content, but it's how the players handle it. DAoC has even more content like it, yet there's raids open for everyone. The Internet or MMOs have no laws or rules like a society has, passed down by the government, so it struggles to uphold at least a certain level of defined boundaries and ethics, like equal chances. In MMOs the players themselves change this, and thus, you could consider WoW a lost case when it comes to the majority of the community. There are these few people that are different, but for they own sake and money, they will probably move to another game, since Blizzard isnt interested in politics, but in subscription money, which is, economically speaking, completely ok.
actually as a rpger i find a lot of guild related mechanism completly "outwordly"
no way in hell in a medieval world you would have a clan/alliancechat that reaches all members of your guild as ghostly words. no way you would have vent/ts to hear people from the other end of the (gaming) world
if a guild would be a loose network of contacts instead of a modern day social network with internet capabilities/forum... solo players/ casual gamers could be integrated much more easy then now.
the more "perfect" (unrealistic) the management of a guild is the more shut down in itselve it will become. in the company i work in we have worse communication structures then ingame and a guild in games like wow/lineage2 should have messengers on horse rather then forums and ingame chat.
in ddo you should go into a tavern to look for people that venture with you and maybe remember their names and try to reach them after you fought together. having a guild-chart ready where you just select ppl destroys a lot of the atmosphere for me.
if your bored, visit my blog at: http://craylon.wordpress.com/ dealing with the look of mmos with the nvidia 3d vision glasses
I am a casual player. By causal, I am referring to the attitude that the game is fun and to be enjoyed. I've seen way too many people where I work take the current MMOG they play and approach it as a job. I can't do that. I want to enjoy my gaming experiences. Guild only content has its place, but usually the gamer who plays to enjoy the game and reaches the endgame long after the powergamers leave the game, are left out of much of the Guild only content. I don't want to be forced to show up on friday at 8 pm so we can take out (insert MOB name here). I also don't want to be forced into making my character this way or that way so that it fits into the Guild Leader's plans for the raid. That sticks me with a character someone else has designed, but I have to run.
In the end, I accept not doing Guild only content. I am no 1337, but I do enjoy the games I play.
What's missing in WoW is a reliable mechanism for creating "meta-guilds" and small guild alliances (on the fly, even) for raid content.
For example, Guild X has 20 members, all good friends. If they want to do any higher end raid content -- such as MC, Onyxia, ZG, etc. -- they need to either ramp up their recruiting and potentially have an influx of people they don't like/don't get along with, or they need to get friendly with one or more other guilds that are willing to work with them to pursue the same high end content on the same schedule. The trick is, how does Guild X learn about Guilds Y and Z's interest and time schedule? How do they coordinate? And how do they do so without it all becoming like a second job for the guild leaders and junior members?
Perhaps a more fundamental question: Why are guilds the only effective mechanism for both social interaction and end game raiding? If I'm not lucky enough to find the perfect guild, why should I have to choose between friends and raid team members? Why can't we have a mechanism in place for establishing and maintaining "regular pickup groups" by instance -- perhaps accessible using those worthless meeting stones?
Right now, it's all word of mouth and internet connections to achieve these alliances. We need a better way to make and maintain these connections. Without it, we're left with an almost unevitable polarization between megaguilds and small outsiders who'll have to work doubly hard to just be able to access end game.
I'm not opposed to adding guild-centric content (such as guild houses and the like). I just hope the development team also considers the needs of people who don't want to have to join a guild of 300+ members in order to be able to have any success with end game.
Swilldog is absolutely correct. I have seen the destruction of my guild through the need to increase numbers for high end raids. What started as a great community of friends turned into a mass of individuals seeking personal gain through large numbers.
Large raid end game content is really a mystery I can't understand in MMO's anyways. Essentially when you read the FAQ's of an MMO one of the "standard" questions you see answered is "How do I win such and such game" The standard response is you don't win, its an ongoing world. Ironically enough High Level End Game content in itself suggests that you win. You win by beating the uber dungeon. Rather than save up all the "cool" stuff for end game raids, why not make the whole game cool. Make each dungeon, "boss", area or whatever cool in its own unique way. I have always found it interesting that these games have "Awesome End Game Content" in games that are not supposed to END.
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.
Personally, I like the way the EQII is doing this. For any particular "Raid" Zone they Almost always have a Group version of this and even a Solo instance in alot of cases.
The "Raid" Zone will always (Everytime I have went on them) have atleast one Raid level NPC with with Raid quality loot
The Group Version is in fact the same zone with lower difficulty mobs and instead of the Raid Level Mob they will have a lower level Group Encounter NPC(s) that will drop good loot but not Raid Quality Loot. but still great loot. Now the named in these are frequent but not a guaranty that they will always be there
In the solo version all the mobs are Soloable which mean that they give less Exp, names in this version are considered rare I did one 4 time and on the 2nd time the named was up, thats prolly luck. I would go more for 1 in 10 times would be a norm.
That covers the instances which some don't nessisarly like but most of the non instance zones are solo group zones. And there might be raid mobs in those zones once in a while.
I just started playing WoW, and I can see why it's so popular... more choice and freedom. I feel like I am playing BG or NWN as a low level. A non-linear storyline that helps me develop my character. I am disappointed as I have just realized how much content, items, etc. will not be available to my character unless I join a guild or large raiding party.
I typically play solo in any MMO, RP, and PVP only worlds, I like developing solitary characters that have the potential of becoming great hero's or villiian's. As a solo player, I am always under the assumption that I may have to spend quadruple the time and effort to advance as a guilded player. I cannot accept the fact that I can NEVER attain the same status as a guilded player.
It seems just ridiculous to me that someone who has 6 months of experience, cannot compete fairly in combat against someone with two months experience but has X number of ueber Epic items.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is the impression that I have gotten so far. As I am a newb and still enjoying WoW, I'll cross that bridge when I get there;-)
Simply being in a guild should not afford access to certain key aspects of the game that are otherwise off-limits to that player.
Should games have difficult content that cannot be played alone absolutely! Should it be such that a person whos either in a small guild or in-between guilds has no real chance of getting into this content Absolutely NOT. You should always consider the nature of any guild when you join and decide that its right for you, to be sure. But if you guildmates people suck, and you have to stay anyway because its the only place to be to get into the end-game content, thats miserable gameplay.
saker wrote: Frank is right Garrett is not, period
I like swilldog's suggestion that what WoW is missing is the extended hiearchy above a guild, allowing small groups to work effectively, yet still be able to draw in backup in cases where they need more people to achieve some larger task.
Guilds are going to exist. Its simply a given. MMOGs are competitive due to human interaction, and social groups give an advantage. They're also a good thing from the standpoint of the game, as social groups are a much more compelling long term hook than gameplay alone.
I don't have a problem with certain aspects of gameplay being only available to groups of players. However, it should be possible for groups with a variety of dynamics to exist, such that both casual, low impact players can find a comfortable environment, and highly competitive goal-oriented ones can as well.
Guilds are good for what they are. They shouldn't be used to base a game on, like what's unfortunately going on with AoC in development (which by the way dropped the hammer on this game for me, not even going to bother and try it and recommend others stay away as well.), and they should never be given any advantages. There's already enough of an advantage just being in one for crying out loud. That's why people join them lol.
Just leave them be and let people join them or not depending on their preferences. Don't force them on people by making a game depend on them. It's just plain stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by saker Frank is right Garrett is not, period
I'm not sure how anyone can be wrong. One guy says "Guilds are their own advantage, and do not need to be shown favoritism by the devs."
The other guy says "Guilds are effin cool, they are the best they make the game so much better."
This is only the second "debate" I've read on this site (types of PvP being the other one,) yet twice I've failed to see any actual debate in the original article.
Originally posted by doomicon I just started playing WoW, and I can see why it's so popular... more choice and freedom. I feel like I am playing BG or NWN as a low level. A non-linear storyline that helps me develop my character. I am disappointed as I have just realized how much content, items, etc. will not be available to my character unless I join a guild or large raiding party.
I typically play solo in any MMO, RP, and PVP only worlds, I like developing solitary characters that have the potential of becoming great hero's or villiian's. As a solo player, I am always under the assumption that I may have to spend quadruple the time and effort to advance as a guilded player. I cannot accept the fact that I can NEVER attain the same status as a guilded player.
It seems just ridiculous to me that someone who has 6 months of experience, cannot compete fairly in combat against someone with two months experience but has X number of ueber Epic items.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is the impression that I have gotten so far. As I am a newb and still enjoying WoW, I'll cross that bridge when I get there;-)
./doomicon
Thats the only reason you are enjoying WoW, because you just bought the game.
Since I've only played World of Warcraft extensively, that's what I'll use as a basis for my post. So here goes...
First off, I think the players here are misinterpreting higher level raids like MC, BWL, etc.. Simply put, you don't need to be in a guild to do any of them... however, the one thing to remember is that you're going to need a lot of preparation, practice, and reliability, and you're not going to get this trying to make a pickup group with a bunch of strangers. That's where guilds come in.
The problem with most people's reasoning is that you do not have to complete these objectives in order to enjoy the game. Just as you don't have to do instances to reach level 60, you don't have to run high level, forty man raid instances. This is NOT required content; its not like you have to do them to reach 60, or that they're somehow imposing on solo gameplay. I just recently got my first priest to 60 and my rogue to 44 without joining a single guild, and I've never had a problem finding a group--be it a 5 man or a 20 man. How am I going to get my epic gear, then? Simple: PVP, the single solution to just about everyone's problems.
Let me quote and respond to a few of your posts:
I would love to see more games that use scaling of difficutly by the group size. That way everyone who played could do the same things and it be a challenge.
And you can. To use WoW as an example, again, you can easily to LBRS with a five man group, which is very, very easy to find. You can do BRD with a five man group. These are the "low level equivalents" to the ultimate level of these stages, MC. If you have the organization and the dedication to raid MC, you get the epics to carry with it. So what is it that you really want? Extremely high level equipment without the work? Like I said, its a lot of work to get people organized in a guild, and that work is paid off; if everybody with a couple friends could raid these places and get great equipment, where would the honor be?
Personally I think GUILD ONLY content is an extremely bad idea.
Well, Blizzard, as well as most companies, took this into account--this is why you don't need to group (technically speaking) for the entire game, if you don't want to. What you're essentially asking for is an entirely solo experience--which is already provided. Just quit when you reach endgame, and your bad idea is easily sidestepped.
I was in a wonderful guild made up of friends in WoW. We had agreed beforehand that we wouldn't be a "structured" guild, just casual. [...] So I am against this kind of "forced" guid making. It is not a healthy atmosphere for friends and it will destroy friendships. I have seen it happen.
Here, your opposition is misplaced. This Article illustrates the problem your group ran into: miscommunication and lack of leadership. That's not the Guild system's fault, that's your guild's fault, plain and simple. Once again, running a large guild takes time and effort, and once again, you're requesting the benefits of group play without the hard work behind it.
With those things being said, I'm perfectly able to get stuff done without a guild; like I mentioned before, MC is specifically made for guilds who can tough it out. If you can't find a guild you're happy with or that's capable of running MC, you can't go to MC, plain and simple. I mean, everybody is essentially saying, "I can't afford a Porsche, so instead of putting the effort into getting one, I want you to make the Porsche easier to get."
Plus, if you're upset because you can't get the same gear as somebody who put in the time and effort to form an efficient raid group, there's another way to get it: endgame PVP. I've done Alterac Valley countless times, as well as WSG and AB, and I'm already several ranks in. Guess what the rewards are for continued play? Epic items. I'm not sure how the other MMOs treat PVP, but I know that WoW does a good job of rewarding those who put in the time.
Overall, however, I hate to say it, but I think a lot of people are simply angry because they can't find groups or don't want to spend countless hours planning in order to get what they want. In fact--mirroring what I said in response to one of the posts above--it seems people want access to raid loot without the raid. Guild content is there for guilds only, like everybody has said previously. However, if there were no such thing as guilds, these instances would most likely not exist. Think of it that way.
P.S.: Like I said, I'm not in any guilds, at all, and never have been. Am I looking forward to joining one to do larger raids? Yes. Will I have to join a guild to do them? Yes. Am I going to request changes to the core gameplay if I can't find such a guild? No. Hence, Guilds are NOT required to finish and enjoy everything the game has to offer.
I dont have a problem with MMOG's based on player interaction and co-operation. The percieved problems in WoW by some are infact fair, because this goes to the heart of the MMOG problem. That you cant make a game for everyone. Some people want a big single player game with lots of "content". Others want an open ended playing field with multiplayer at its heart.
In WoW this is a problem because the entire game is based on solo play/small group play. Which then changes at max level to Guilds. Most of the people who played the game up to this point have been enjoying it, they all of a sudden find that the entire "feel" or "reality" of the gameworld has changed. In order to continue playing they must addapt or die. Like a species of animal that has just had its habitat completely destroyed. And naturally they dont, they leave. Taking their money with them. If developers were serious about making longer term games they'd make them consistent. That is true to the player base they are looking to attract.
But in the developers defence. People will only group, and work co-operatively together, if there is a reason. The reason in this case is advancement. How else can they increase the difficulty without making it hardwork? What would you do if there were no "uber" hard dungeons with powerful items in them?
If you start making it so you absolutely have to have a guild to accomplish certain things non-guild persons cannot do, then perhaps either the requirements to make a guild should not be a million gold as is the case in Silk Road online, for example, or it should be something that doesn't really matter overall, like has been mentioned before, organizing events for guilds and having fancy buildings and a coat of arms and. . .hmn, kinda sounds like WoW, to an extent. Perhaps better left alone, but if you start having only guilds capable of doing some really cool shit, then...bah, I prefer singleplayer anyway, lol. Elder Scrolls 1V tomorrow. Woot! m/
To me, it seems the industry could still learn alot from Asheron's Call. The original. Not the sequel, for the love of Kronos! Or something. Err. . .
Originally posted by _Seeker I dont have a problem with MMOG's based on player interaction and co-operation. The percieved problems in WoW by some are infact fair, because this goes to the heart of the MMOG problem. That you cant make a game for everyone. Some people want a big single player game with lots of "content". Others want an open ended playing field with multiplayer at its heart. In WoW this is a problem because the entire game is based on solo play/small group play. Which then changes at max level to Guilds. Most of the people who played the game up to this point have been enjoying it, they all of a sudden find that the entire "feel" or "reality" of the gameworld has changed. In order to continue playing they must addapt or die. Like a species of animal that has just had its habitat completely destroyed. And naturally they dont, they leave. Taking their money with them. If developers were serious about making longer term games they'd make them consistent. That is true to the player base they are looking to attract. But in the developers defence. People will only group, and work co-operatively together, if there is a reason. The reason in this case is advancement. How else can they increase the difficulty without making it hardwork? What would you do if there were no "uber" hard dungeons with powerful items in them?
The thing missing most, but not completely from the MMO experience is depth of story. I never got to the raid content of WoW, but I didn't quit from lack of loving the game. I'll be back! Anyways, If there's a good reason to do it storywise, then I'm all for being in a guild. I was, in fact, in a good guild that moved to another server when I was away for awhile for suck-arsed reasons, and they moved because they thought the balance of power was too far in the other side's favor. I personally welcomed the challenge.
Besides, ever try to attack the other side when you weren't in a guild? Ugh. Talk about a clusterfuck to the inth degree.
Or, it might be nice if they didn't try to give you the single player experience, ie, your the hero on the quest to save the world, and so is everybody else! You are ALL the only one that can save us all! Err. . . I guess the level of complexity just isn't there yet. And as long as everyone is worried more about graphics than they are the cool shit that is possible through kick-ass programming. . .
Guilds have gotten out of hand. Big guilds with leaders that have absolutely no RL have grown to become necessary to continue play in most MMORGs past the first 4-6 months. Guilds should be for social purposes only...in the sense that no one should feel "forced" to leave a small guild for a large one as the only means to progress in a game.
Sadly, the only way to eliminate the stranglehold that the large guilds have on today's games would be to eliminate pre-formed raids.....ALL raids would have to be pick-up raids in a sense...with the game being tuned toward that, and with the raid tools provided by the game itself.
The best scenario would be that anyone could participate in everything the game has to offer...for example battlegrounds where people could ONLY enter as an individual but enlarge that to include any PvE big boss encounters.
Won't happen...mainly because today's devs are yesturday's big guild leaders and raid leaders, and are stuck in the mindset.
Comments
I think that guild-only content is a bad thing. When I played DAoC on Gaheris, public raids were common. I led many of them so I know that leading a public raid takes more work that leading a guild raid. The point is that requiring a guild would send the wrong message, that being that you must follow a certain path to have access to some of the content. I don't see anything wrong with raid content in and of itself, but limiting it to guilds is wrong.
I think there should be raid content that requires large groups of people. But I dont think that it should be MOST of the endgame. Apparently WoW agrees because they are re-tasking many of their raid dungeons to 5 man dungeons, making it easier on casual gamers.
However, even if this were not so, there is a solution, of sorts.
In DAOC they had what was called 'alliances', which were groups of guilds that could talk to one another's members. It gave the advantages of being in a superguild, but also allowed players to stay with their buddies rather than leaving for the endgame guild. It made it easier for small guilds to find people for big raids and keep defense.
I think this is a good feature to implement, and it isn't at all hard. It only really requires adding an additional chat channel to the game.
Also, in the case of WoW, the LFG system is totally F***ed up. It requires that you be in a city to find a group for high level instances. You used to be able to import LFG chat for a city, but this is no longer possible. LFG should be global, but should only be heard by people 3 or 4 lvls in either direction from you.
If you did this, then, again, your supergroup problem would be somewhat alleviated, because people wouldnt be trapped in a city, auctioning for groups. They could be out in the world, helping out lowbies or pursuing endgame crafting or long missions, with an ear for the LFG channel.
You are all going about this the wrong way. This shouldnt be about SOLO playstyle vs. RAID playstyle, this should be about games forcing you through a ratmaze, making mobs exactly strong enough for 5 players or exactly strong enough for 40 players. If you bring 4 players in a 5 player mob your gimp. If you bring 30 players for a 40 player mob your gimp.
The game is as complex as checkers, tic tac toe, and connect 4. Are you going to pay $15 to play checkers, tic tac toe, and connect 4? Well you are.
This topic is particularly relevant for me at this time. I am watching with great interest the Age of Conan game and spend a good deal of time on thier forums. Recently, in the last few days, it was announced that players would not be able to craft, or reach a prestige level unless they were part of a guild.
Of course this has caused quite a stir and the arguments between fourm members is running fast and furious. My own personal opinion on this is that a game should never make content unavilable to any customer that pays for it. A game should never, ever, tell the player you must do this or that because we feel it accomplishes A or B result. And if you do not do as we intend you will not be able to experience the same game content as others.
That is exactly what is being said over on the AoC boards. The Dev's when asked stated the game is intended for guilds. One remarked that most MMORPG's require people to be in guilds anyway. And that they felt thier was nothing wrong with making Guild only content in the upcoming game.
First off I've never, ever played a MMORPG that forced a player to join a guild. And I am not personally aware of one. Second and definetly disturbing to me is the lack of consideration that such a stance takes on the Roleplay aspects of games. When will MMORPG's remember where thier origins are? They are the next step in Roleplaying. But most if not all seem to develop games and or situations in games that totally ignore this fact.
If you tell me I have to make my character act a certain way, or join a certain group you remove my feeling of control over my character and thus, you remove me from the immersive quality of the game. The biggest and most grossly overstated response to someone saying they are against being forced into a guild, is the scolding accusation that the individual must be anti-social! He or she should go play another game if they don't like people.
This is such a mindless and moot argument. Roleplaying is a social activity. It started as one around tables and has grown into ones with people from all over the world. You can be the most socially active character on any given server and still not be in a guild. The two simply have nothing to do with each other. Nothing destroys the desire to be engaged, social or diminish enjoyment like being forced into a group you may not wish to be with.
Hopefully AoC will turn from this path while there is still time.
while I have always been in a guild of some sort except for some times in UO, I am also totally against "guild only" features.
the mmorpg industry is going to hell in a handbasket..
_____________________________________________
"Old UO is now but a dream that will live in the hearts of the faithful for eternity."
Think you have what it takes to take the 'Oath of the legion' and become a true soldier of Rome?
Service guarantees citizenship!
You are absolutely right about this. Yet sadly, this line is defined by the players themselves.....
Since WoW seems to be the best example of guild elitism, i'll stick with that. The players themselves make it so you need to join one of the Uber Guilds. They could just have an open community where people would band together freely and out of choice, it would just require a change of mind. These changes of mind have to be on a VERY large scale sadly.... like the top 10 guilds altogether changing their mind about the whole system..... It's similar to environmental preservation issues in modern day politics...
So basically, the very social core of MMOs, the social interaction and ethics and the player-driven community are what induced this situation in the first place. Of course Blizzard MADE the content, but it's how the players handle it. DAoC has even more content like it, yet there's raids open for everyone. The Internet or MMOs have no laws or rules like a society has, passed down by the government, so it struggles to uphold at least a certain level of defined boundaries and ethics, like equal chances. In MMOs the players themselves change this, and thus, you could consider WoW a lost case when it comes to the majority of the community. There are these few people that are different, but for they own sake and money, they will probably move to another game, since Blizzard isnt interested in politics, but in subscription money, which is, economically speaking, completely ok.
heres maybe another aspect
actually as a rpger i find a lot of guild related mechanism completly "outwordly"
no way in hell in a medieval world you would have a clan/alliancechat that reaches
all members of your guild as ghostly words. no way you would have vent/ts to hear people
from the other end of the (gaming) world
if a guild would be a loose network of contacts instead of a modern day social network with internet capabilities/forum... solo players/ casual gamers could be integrated much more easy then now.
the more "perfect" (unrealistic) the management of a guild is the more shut down in itselve it will become. in the company i work in we have worse communication structures then ingame and a guild in games like wow/lineage2 should have messengers on horse rather then forums and ingame chat.
in ddo you should go into a tavern to look for people that venture with you and maybe remember their names and try to reach them after you fought together. having a guild-chart ready where you just select ppl destroys a lot of the atmosphere for me.
if your bored, visit my blog at:
http://craylon.wordpress.com/ dealing with the look of mmos with the nvidia 3d vision glasses
I am a casual player. By causal, I am referring to the attitude that the game is fun and to be enjoyed. I've seen way too many people where I work take the current MMOG they play and approach it as a job. I can't do that. I want to enjoy my gaming experiences. Guild only content has its place, but usually the gamer who plays to enjoy the game and reaches the endgame long after the powergamers leave the game, are left out of much of the Guild only content. I don't want to be forced to show up on friday at 8 pm so we can take out (insert MOB name here). I also don't want to be forced into making my character this way or that way so that it fits into the Guild Leader's plans for the raid. That sticks me with a character someone else has designed, but I have to run.
In the end, I accept not doing Guild only content. I am no 1337, but I do enjoy the games I play.
I am paper. Rock is ok. Nerf Sicissors.
What's missing in WoW is a reliable mechanism for creating "meta-guilds" and small guild alliances (on the fly, even) for raid content.
For example, Guild X has 20 members, all good friends. If they want to do any higher end raid content -- such as MC, Onyxia, ZG, etc. -- they need to either ramp up their recruiting and potentially have an influx of people they don't like/don't get along with, or they need to get friendly with one or more other guilds that are willing to work with them to pursue the same high end content on the same schedule. The trick is, how does Guild X learn about Guilds Y and Z's interest and time schedule? How do they coordinate? And how do they do so without it all becoming like a second job for the guild leaders and junior members?
Perhaps a more fundamental question: Why are guilds the only effective mechanism for both social interaction and end game raiding? If I'm not lucky enough to find the perfect guild, why should I have to choose between friends and raid team members? Why can't we have a mechanism in place for establishing and maintaining "regular pickup groups" by instance -- perhaps accessible using those worthless meeting stones?
Right now, it's all word of mouth and internet connections to achieve these alliances. We need a better way to make and maintain these connections. Without it, we're left with an almost unevitable polarization between megaguilds and small outsiders who'll have to work doubly hard to just be able to access end game.
I'm not opposed to adding guild-centric content (such as guild houses and the like). I just hope the development team also considers the needs of people who don't want to have to join a guild of 300+ members in order to be able to have any success with end game.
Swilldog is absolutely correct. I have seen the destruction of my guild through the need to increase numbers for high end raids. What started as a great community of friends turned into a mass of individuals seeking personal gain through large numbers.
Large raid end game content is really a mystery I can't understand in MMO's anyways. Essentially when you read the FAQ's of an MMO one of the "standard" questions you see answered is "How do I win such and such game" The standard response is you don't win, its an ongoing world. Ironically enough High Level End Game content in itself suggests that you win. You win by beating the uber dungeon. Rather than save up all the "cool" stuff for end game raids, why not make the whole game cool. Make each dungeon, "boss", area or whatever cool in its own unique way. I have always found it interesting that these games have "Awesome End Game Content" in games that are not supposed to END.
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.
Personally, I like the way the EQII is doing this. For any particular "Raid" Zone they Almost always have a Group version of this and even a Solo instance in alot of cases.
The "Raid" Zone will always (Everytime I have went on them) have atleast one Raid level NPC with with Raid quality loot
The Group Version is in fact the same zone with lower difficulty mobs and instead of the Raid Level Mob they will have a lower level Group Encounter NPC(s) that will drop good loot but not Raid Quality Loot. but still great loot. Now the named in these are frequent but not a guaranty that they will always be there
In the solo version all the mobs are Soloable which mean that they give less Exp, names in this version are considered rare I did one 4 time and on the 2nd time the named was up, thats prolly luck. I would go more for 1 in 10 times would be a norm.
That covers the instances which some don't nessisarly like but most of the non instance zones are solo group zones. And there might be raid mobs in those zones once in a while.
But thats my opinion
and we all no about those.
I just started playing WoW, and I can see why it's so popular... more choice and freedom. I feel like I am playing BG or NWN as a low level. A non-linear storyline that helps me develop my character. I am disappointed as I have just realized how much content, items, etc. will not be available to my character unless I join a guild or large raiding party.
I typically play solo in any MMO, RP, and PVP only worlds, I like developing solitary characters that have the potential of becoming great hero's or villiian's. As a solo player, I am always under the assumption that I may have to spend quadruple the time and effort to advance as a guilded player. I cannot accept the fact that I can NEVER attain the same status as a guilded player.
It seems just ridiculous to me that someone who has 6 months of experience, cannot compete fairly in combat against someone with two months experience but has X number of ueber Epic items.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is the impression that I have gotten so far. As I am a newb and still enjoying WoW, I'll cross that bridge when I get there;-)
./doomicon
Frank Mignone wrote:
Simply being in a guild should not afford access to certain key aspects of the game that are otherwise off-limits to that player.
Should games have difficult content that cannot be played alone absolutely! Should it be such that a person whos either in a small guild or in-between guilds has no real chance of getting into this content Absolutely NOT. You should always consider the nature of any guild when you join and decide that its right for you, to be sure. But if you guildmates people suck, and you have to stay anyway because its the only place to be to get into the end-game content, thats miserable gameplay.
saker wrote:
Frank is right Garrett is not, period
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I agree with Frank and saker, period.
I like swilldog's suggestion that what WoW is missing is the extended hiearchy above a guild, allowing small groups to work effectively, yet still be able to draw in backup in cases where they need more people to achieve some larger task.
Guilds are going to exist. Its simply a given. MMOGs are competitive due to human interaction, and social groups give an advantage. They're also a good thing from the standpoint of the game, as social groups are a much more compelling long term hook than gameplay alone.
I don't have a problem with certain aspects of gameplay being only available to groups of players. However, it should be possible for groups with a variety of dynamics to exist, such that both casual, low impact players can find a comfortable environment, and highly competitive goal-oriented ones can as well.
Guilds are good for what they are. They shouldn't be used to base a game on, like what's unfortunately going on with AoC in development (which by the way dropped the hammer on this game for me, not even going to bother and try it and recommend others stay away as well.), and they should never be given any advantages. There's already enough of an advantage just being in one for crying out loud. That's why people join them lol.
Just leave them be and let people join them or not depending on their preferences. Don't force them on people by making a game depend on them. It's just plain stupid as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not sure how anyone can be wrong. One guy says "Guilds are their own advantage, and do not need to be shown favoritism by the devs."
The other guy says "Guilds are effin cool, they are the best they make the game so much better."
This is only the second "debate" I've read on this site (types of PvP being the other one,) yet twice I've failed to see any actual debate in the original article.
Since I've only played World of Warcraft extensively, that's what I'll use as a basis for my post. So here goes...
First off, I think the players here are misinterpreting higher level raids like MC, BWL, etc.. Simply put, you don't need to be in a guild to do any of them... however, the one thing to remember is that you're going to need a lot of preparation, practice, and reliability, and you're not going to get this trying to make a pickup group with a bunch of strangers. That's where guilds come in.
The problem with most people's reasoning is that you do not have to complete these objectives in order to enjoy the game. Just as you don't have to do instances to reach level 60, you don't have to run high level, forty man raid instances. This is NOT required content; its not like you have to do them to reach 60, or that they're somehow imposing on solo gameplay. I just recently got my first priest to 60 and my rogue to 44 without joining a single guild, and I've never had a problem finding a group--be it a 5 man or a 20 man. How am I going to get my epic gear, then? Simple: PVP, the single solution to just about everyone's problems.
Let me quote and respond to a few of your posts:
And you can. To use WoW as an example, again, you can easily to LBRS with a five man group, which is very, very easy to find. You can do BRD with a five man group. These are the "low level equivalents" to the ultimate level of these stages, MC. If you have the organization and the dedication to raid MC, you get the epics to carry with it. So what is it that you really want? Extremely high level equipment without the work? Like I said, its a lot of work to get people organized in a guild, and that work is paid off; if everybody with a couple friends could raid these places and get great equipment, where would the honor be?
Well, Blizzard, as well as most companies, took this into account--this is why you don't need to group (technically speaking) for the entire game, if you don't want to. What you're essentially asking for is an entirely solo experience--which is already provided. Just quit when you reach endgame, and your bad idea is easily sidestepped.
Here, your opposition is misplaced. This Article illustrates the problem your group ran into: miscommunication and lack of leadership. That's not the Guild system's fault, that's your guild's fault, plain and simple. Once again, running a large guild takes time and effort, and once again, you're requesting the benefits of group play without the hard work behind it.
With those things being said, I'm perfectly able to get stuff done without a guild; like I mentioned before, MC is specifically made for guilds who can tough it out. If you can't find a guild you're happy with or that's capable of running MC, you can't go to MC, plain and simple. I mean, everybody is essentially saying, "I can't afford a Porsche, so instead of putting the effort into getting one, I want you to make the Porsche easier to get."
Plus, if you're upset because you can't get the same gear as somebody who put in the time and effort to form an efficient raid group, there's another way to get it: endgame PVP. I've done Alterac Valley countless times, as well as WSG and AB, and I'm already several ranks in. Guess what the rewards are for continued play? Epic items. I'm not sure how the other MMOs treat PVP, but I know that WoW does a good job of rewarding those who put in the time.
Overall, however, I hate to say it, but I think a lot of people are simply angry because they can't find groups or don't want to spend countless hours planning in order to get what they want. In fact--mirroring what I said in response to one of the posts above--it seems people want access to raid loot without the raid. Guild content is there for guilds only, like everybody has said previously. However, if there were no such thing as guilds, these instances would most likely not exist. Think of it that way.
P.S.: Like I said, I'm not in any guilds, at all, and never have been. Am I looking forward to joining one to do larger raids? Yes. Will I have to join a guild to do them? Yes. Am I going to request changes to the core gameplay if I can't find such a guild? No. Hence, Guilds are NOT required to finish and enjoy everything the game has to offer.
I dont have a problem with MMOG's based on player interaction and co-operation. The percieved problems in WoW by some are infact fair, because this goes to the heart of the MMOG problem. That you cant make a game for everyone. Some people want a big single player game with lots of "content". Others want an open ended playing field with multiplayer at its heart.
In WoW this is a problem because the entire game is based on solo play/small group play. Which then changes at max level to Guilds. Most of the people who played the game up to this point have been enjoying it, they all of a sudden find that the entire "feel" or "reality" of the gameworld has changed. In order to continue playing they must addapt or die. Like a species of animal that has just had its habitat completely destroyed. And naturally they dont, they leave. Taking their money with them. If developers were serious about making longer term games they'd make them consistent. That is true to the player base they are looking to attract.
But in the developers defence. People will only group, and work co-operatively together, if there is a reason. The reason in this case is advancement. How else can they increase the difficulty without making it hardwork? What would you do if there were no "uber" hard dungeons with powerful items in them?
If you start making it so you absolutely have to have a guild to accomplish certain things non-guild persons cannot do, then perhaps either the requirements to make a guild should not be a million gold as is the case in Silk Road online, for example, or it should be something that doesn't really matter overall, like has been mentioned before, organizing events for guilds and having fancy buildings and a coat of arms and. . .hmn, kinda sounds like WoW, to an extent. Perhaps better left alone, but if you start having only guilds capable of doing some really cool shit, then...bah, I prefer singleplayer anyway, lol. Elder Scrolls 1V tomorrow. Woot! m/
To me, it seems the industry could still learn alot from Asheron's Call. The original. Not the sequel, for the love of Kronos! Or something. Err. . .
I'm done.
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Bleakmage
You don't need guilds to do raid content.
There is a thing called groups.
But yeah, the chances are better if you're organized.
A good friends list can do that, though.
Guild of friends that can communicate =
Guild of assholes just to get the loot =
Loot that binds to you that you cannot give to your friends =
If you're not having fun, why bother?
Kick ass armor you earned by countless asskickings (of yourself and/or others) when you finally beat that badassed mo-fo = Priceless.
Ok. I"m done. Be
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Bleakmage
The thing missing most, but not completely from the MMO experience is depth of story. I never got to the raid content of WoW, but I didn't quit from lack of loving the game. I'll be back!
Anyways, If there's a good reason to do it storywise, then I'm all for being in a guild. I was, in fact, in a good guild that moved to another server when I was away for awhile for suck-arsed reasons, and they moved because they thought the balance of power was too far in the other side's favor. I personally welcomed the challenge.
Besides, ever try to attack the other side when you weren't in a guild? Ugh. Talk about a clusterfuck to the inth degree.
Or, it might be nice if they didn't try to give you the single player experience, ie, your the hero on the quest to save the world, and so is everybody else! You are ALL the only one that can save us all! Err. . . I guess the level of complexity just isn't there yet. And as long as everyone is worried more about graphics than they are the cool shit that is possible through kick-ass programming. . .
Ok, I lost my point. I'll go away now.
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Bleakmage
Many of today's guilds are actually online gangs.
Guilds have gotten out of hand. Big guilds with leaders that have absolutely no RL have grown to become necessary to continue play in most MMORGs past the first 4-6 months. Guilds should be for social purposes only...in the sense that no one should feel "forced" to leave a small guild for a large one as the only means to progress in a game.
Sadly, the only way to eliminate the stranglehold that the large guilds have on today's games would be to eliminate pre-formed raids.....ALL raids would have to be pick-up raids in a sense...with the game being tuned toward that, and with the raid tools provided by the game itself.
The best scenario would be that anyone could participate in everything the game has to offer...for example battlegrounds where people could ONLY enter as an individual but enlarge that to include any PvE big boss encounters.
Won't happen...mainly because today's devs are yesturday's big guild leaders and raid leaders, and are stuck in the mindset.