Your question/example of having to abandon your friends at work to get ahead is a great example of what's busted in most MMO guild implementations.

Why not model guild membership like real social circles - ie - you can be involved in a number of them, to serve a number of different goals?  That'd give you the ability to be involved in one guild for hard-core adventuring, another guild for fun/casual/social play, and another guild for other game mechanics (crafting, etc).

Requiring membership and allegiance to a single guild would be like only allowing you one circle of friends, or one news source, or a single restaurant chain to eat at.

It's a legacy dinosaur from the infancy of the industry - and it should go the way of the dinoaur.

Making monsters just as strong so a group of 5 players or 40 players, with diminishing returns above *variable X* numbers of players, is artificial, gamey, and lousy game design.  Its nice to see ALL games copy this concept, ruining all future and pressent games, with everquest cloneage.

Dont forget, you need 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 nuker, and 2 miscellaneous, or else your gimp.

THIS IS FREAKING LAME!  So are guilds and the high command in wwiionline.  I dont want to play a damn rat maze, whether its a literal rat-maze or a figurative one.

Well, I belive that the problem of the "guild only content" is how its implemented and how its work. Because, if the "guild only content" is much better that the standard content, them all problems will come, leaders abuse, elitism, monopoly, great difference and distance between "member of ubberguilds" and the standard players (casual or not).

So the "guild only content" should be a part of the reason to join on a guild, not the main reason ! Also, content should not be ovepowered, and also be acessible to players out of guilds, or members of small guilds.

As exemple of the problems that could come of the poor implemented "guild only content", of Ragnarok online,  is War of Emperium, where the clans might take a few castles that not only give acess to special dungeons (with exclusive monsters), but a economic tool that allows not only to take good things but a few that can be only get from castles.

So what happens? ubber clans take castles, and so the take all of this content, with this, they get morepowerfull, they get more rich, what happens later? the continue to hold the castles, because of this advantages while the other have a incresed difficult. Very soon, the ubber monopoly
several castles. (join this with the alliances between ubber clans, to have even more problems).

As long the cicle continues, the ubber will get more ubber, the other face a crushing force without chances, the ubber then could easily take down most of the mpv (the bosses of ragnarok, drop
good itens and have good xp), while the others face major dificult. (it is very annoing to be hunting
a mvp, only to see him killed by ubbers, how proabily already have killed him several times on a row)Also in pvp the ubber will have advantage.

Soon, major of the content of ragnarok (actually the game don't have much at all) is on the hands of major clans and people for small/medium clans wishing to have acess to this "guild only content" (since they don't have much other content to use) start to leave their clans and become just numbers on this guilds.

So, as I have side on the begin, the "guild only content" don't is the problem, but how its implementedand how its work, it should be a reason for join or build a clan, not the main reason. And also solo and small guild should have acess at least to part of this content.

There is a subtle symbiotic relationship in MMO's between the various playstyles. If MMO's continue to favor particular playstyles at the exclusion of others, it will end up destroying the relationship. That's not good for business or for players. No particular playstyle can support a good game alone.

Sooner or later this will become obvious to companies. Then an innovative developer will realize this and this unfortunate trend will be reversed. The pendulum will swing the other way.

In the meantime, the single-player game market will benefit, as more and more people have their playstyles bullied out of MMO's.

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. I personally join guilds with friends of mine in them or with people I've been friendly with in the game I'm playing. I don't join them so we can go on massive raids, I join them to have fun and to have people to hang out with and group with and to in turn help others with their quests/missions/etc. I can't stand guilds who basically run around trying to own everything and everyone on a server. A little competition is a good thing, but I've seen too much trouble caused because of the philosophy that only by being part of a big guild or a power guild or what have you is the only way to survive, the only way to play, and that if you don't like it go find another game. That's just plain wrong. Period.

Should there be some type of system for huge rewards for huge guilds? Nothing that is any better than what any other charater can make or find in some fashion with smaller groups or on their own with some amount of difficulty. Epic items call for epic play, and that's really what guilds are about, but it's unfortunate that guilds have become so elitist that they're destroying the foundation of people getting together to have fun. If your only purpose in life on an MMO is to log on, find your guild and go on massive raids for loot, I think you're missing out on something. What's the point of quests and good graphics and such when you have to turn down all of your settings just so you don't lag in a huge fight? What's the point of playing if you're not having fun because you're too busy trying to take down the mob of the week for his shoes?

Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of people who enjoy this style of play. But why penalize the players in a game who don't? Why offer something cooler/better/more uber for people who do and then screw over the ones who don't? There needs to be a good balance here, and forcing people into massive guilds is not good balance.

Watching large groups of people form up massive guilds before a game's release and then attempting to extort items and status from the designers should be illegal. Personally, if I were a designer, I'd certainly take the time to listen to their suggestions about various different structures and styles, but if I fel that I was being blackmailed or extorted by this group, then I'd ban them from my game. They're taking away from the other players by trying to take away what others have just as much right to.

I have to agree with everyone who has stated that there must be two paths to play. One for the large guilds with their huge epic content, and one for the smaller groups and solo players. There must be items that help those in large groups, and equally vauled items for the smaller groups and solo players. But as long as the designers of a game listen more closely to the large groups and cater to the extortion and pressure they put on them, this debate may never truly end.

If a game cannot find a good balance for the large groups and the small ones, perhaps it's not worth playing. If there are players out there who ruin the fun for everyone else with an elitist attitude and a belief that their way is the only way, they should be banned, or at the very least ignored. But the only way to make true change is to go the designers and devolpers - or find a game with ones who will listen.

Ardda

---

Originally posted by Torchwood

Gave up COH/COV because of forced grouping also.

---

And this is what those MMOs devs have to realize and understand!  Torchwood is not an exception!  Even if I accept CoH group enforcing, it is BAD and the majority is not going to accept this.

Kaalin underlines many great points!  Most peoples in "uberguilds" consider me like an ultimate hardcore, yet, I don't raid (which make them really mad).  I don't like raiding, I don't care about raiding.  Eventually I quit because I find my toon to be to backward in EQ and CoH, due to raid-reasons.  Honestly, I think the casuals players enjoy guilds MORE than the hardcores...or maybe it is the "social" players, dunno...but from an achiever point of view, guilds are not really a strong focus of every instant!   

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..

---

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.

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.

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.

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 who’s 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 it’s right for you, to be sure. But if you guildmates people suck, and you have to stay anyway because it’s the only place to be to get into the end-game content, that’s miserable gameplay.

saker wrote:
Frank is right Garrett is not, period

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I agree with Frank and saker, period.