Alliances and Build Discounts

armadeonx

I just want to mention an issue that has a history of causing drama within alliances; build cost reduction being linked to a guild's position within an alliance.

As things stand, guilds at higher ranks receive a higher build discount and lower XP bonus and at lower ranks the inverse is the case.

Our alliance was formed as soon as the Alliance mod was released. As we were already GH20, our goal was to create a community of 13 guilds where everyone would eventually reach GH20 and all players would have access to a pool of up to 1,950 players but in a friendlier environment than typical pugs.

Soon after formation, we decided that it was unnecessary for us to be in the helm position as we had no need of a build discount. Helm went to whichever guild was closest to GH20 and the sword positions were taken by other guilds on the same premise of need (i.e. the 3 guilds next closest to reaching 20).

We've since moved to a rotation system where the 4 highest (non 20) guilds rotate the helm/sword positions on a timetable and we've also noted that a lot of other alliances have adopted similar strategies.

Our experience has been that 'who has what position' has been the primary cause of arguments/bad feeling within not just our alliance but also others. Our four GH20 guilds sit in Gauntlet spots and don't really care who has what position, we just want a good environment.

My thought is that associating build discounts to position is counter productive to the purpose of an alliance. I understand that perhaps the purpose behind it was to create an environment where high guilds took on lower guilds to boost the high guild's discount & thus encourage them to pull others in but the inverse has actually manifested, purely because once a guild has achieved GH20 they no longer care what their position is.

The best, most egalitarian way of handling the build discount is for it to be a flat rate across all guilds within the alliance. You can still scale the discount value to the total GH ranks, but putting it at a flat rate would remove 90% of the causes of disharmony we currently see.

Hopefully you will consider this.

@nitocris83 @mimicking#6533

warlockneedslove

I have to disagree with this idea for a number of reasons:

> @armadeonx said:
>
>We've since moved to a rotation system where the 4 highest (non 20) guilds rotate the helm/sword positions on a timetable and we've also noted that a lot of other alliances have adopted similar strategies.
>
> Our experience has been that 'who has what position' has been the primary cause of arguments/bad feeling within not just our alliance but also others. Our four GH20 guilds sit in Gauntlet spots and don't really care who has what position, we just want a good environment.
>

This seems like it would be a problem with your changing of helm procedures and not necessarily the discount. I wonder how you determine who gets that "position"? What if 2 guilds are virtually equal in progress when the helm/swords are open? What policies are in place if a guild is moving too slowly or is surpassed by other guilds while holding those spots? How long must a new addition be in the alliance before being "eligible" for one of the swords or the helm? Having been in a similar situation in a guild, an alliance can be torn apart if there are not clear guidelines established ahead of time. Do you have clear rules and a clear judge (alliance leader) for when the rules don't cover it?

If not, start there. Furthermore, if there is any last-minute changing decisions, that will cause more drama than anything. If a decision is made to change the policy on the fly, that will have guilds leaving in droves...Having clear rules in places before these issues open will make booting slow-moving guilds out of helm/swords easier when there are policies you can cite and show that the alliance has had for some time.

> @armadeonx said:

> My thought is that associating build discounts to position is counter productive to the purpose of an alliance. I understand that perhaps the purpose behind it was to create an environment where high guilds took on lower guilds to boost the high guild's discount & thus encourage them to pull others in but the inverse has actually manifested, purely because once a guild has achieved GH20 they no longer care what their position is.
>
> The best, most egalitarian way of handling the build discount is for it to be a flat rate across all guilds within the alliance. You can still scale the discount value to the total GH ranks, but putting it at a flat rate would remove 90% of the causes of disharmony we currently see.
>

I see the alliance-hopping becoming increasingly ridiculous if this happens. Low level guilds will be fighting for high-level alliances to get the better discounts, and suddenly it stops being about activity and ability and becomes about who gives the best discount (and worse....who can pay the most money to stay in these alliances). Some guilds will continually alliance hop to the bigger discount, whereas currently helm swapping says "you'll get your turn if you do the time." In essence, lower level guilds work for their spot (kind of like working for end-game toons). The current system actually rewards alliances such as yours that allow such moving of guild positions. It also promotes more egalitarianism among alliances when 4 guilds don't have more power than others, rather all get a "fair chance" at the discounts. Perhaps I could see an argument for Gauntlets to get the best discounts to help everyone progress, but I personally don't see that helping either as it will mis-balance alliances who have no 20's in them.

Furthermore, your suggestion removes the benefit of swords and Helms. Why have them at this point? Guilds will keep wanting to make alliances for the sake of being in those positions, and the argument is no longer a tangible one of "they get the discount because of the rules", rather it becomes used as a power struggle and seen as "who has power" in an alliance. Swords assume more power than Gauntlets because of position. In a helm-changing alliance, the guilds know the only reason for positions is the discount and it isn't political. I guess you could remove swords and just have gauntlets, but again I see more issues that I will spare at this time.

In a great alliance, each guild helps the others to success, which it sounds like yours has the goal of doing. Helm changing is a player-made mechanic, as shown by the fact we can't reorganize alliances without leaving/re-inviting. We can't expect the devs to cater to our system-altering methods (unless this was intended for us to discover). Furthermore, the truly selfless alliances will build up a fair, egalitarian system with set rules in place and follow them every time a position change is in the works. This will give everyone a clear picture forward. Drama is only caused when someone feels wronged...if the rules were already in place, no one can say they were wronged unless they are truly selfish.

armadeonx

I think you're overlooking the fact that lower level guilds already want to get into as high an alliance as possible for the discount. The higher the total alliance, the bigger the discount. We already see hoppers within the game.

As I also said, we (and other alliances) already rotate who has the helm and sword positions and our GH20 guilds sit in gauntlet spots and this is an example of guilds within the alliance helping each other.

You appear to support the idea that low level guilds should receive low level discounts and not be permitted the bonuses available at the higher ranks as this will somehow make them stay with alliances who have a lower total rank?

You also talk of 'power' and who has it/who should have it and this being linked to position. Really? How do you see this power being exercised? The power of a guild is linked to their value to their alliance. That is partly based on their GH rank and capability of their membership, but also on how much they add or subtract from community cohesion. This has nothing to do with the slot they occupy within their alliance.

You ask what would be the purpose of having helm and sword positions if bonuses were equal - I see no value in them. They are a source of arguments between guilds as lower ranked guilds need the construction bonuses whilst GH20's have absolutely no need.

@warlockneedslove#9102 what guild are you in btw?

zephyriah

armadeonx said:

I think you're overlooking the fact that lower level guilds already want to get into as high an alliance as possible for the discount. The higher the total alliance, the bigger the discount. We already see hoppers within the game.


You appear to support the idea that low level guilds should receive low level discounts and not be permitted the bonuses available at the higher ranks as this will somehow make them stay with alliances who have a lower total rank?


You ask what would be the purpose of having helm and sword positions if bonuses were equal - I see no value in them. They are a source of arguments between guilds as lower ranked guilds need the construction bonuses whilst GH20's have absolutely no need.

@warlockneedslove#9102 what guild are you in btw?

He does have a point. Not all alliances do the helm shifting that Ruthless does. In those alliances, position is often a status symbol. The members take pride in their alliance rank and not the discounts. Other just stick with the original line-up, due to simplicity and only make changes when someone leaves.

His second paragraph sums up the situation that occured in Ruthless quite accurately. I didn't want to dredge up the past, but the biggest drama in Ruthless was not due to the positions, but to not sticking to the listed process and not consulting with all of the other guilds before making a change that did not follow the usual process you listed in the OP last summer. That made it a consistency and communication issue within the alliance and Ruthless, not a design issue of the game. Or as he stated, making a change to policy on the fly.

draco16

The problem the game is having right now is the lack of new players coming into the game. It is progressively difficult to recruit and the people that can come in are leaving dying guilds and alliances. There is a drop in the player base and this affects the ability of the mid level guilds to reach level 20. Either there has to be reversal of the bonding stone nerf or additional content that gives guilds a reason to be other than serving as a boon givers . Perhaps dragonflight can be updated and additional boon structures made available to make the players have a reason to be in an active guild.

sundance777

I would agree that have inequity in the build discounts can create tension or at least inpatients from some guilds and resulting in potentially needless alliance churning.

I could support maybe a lower difference in the discounts between the positions, but we must consider that in a fairly large alliance the helm rotation strategy is appealing because of the massive discounts at the top. To me this is one of the most effective ways to increase progress of the guild hall significantly. Having recently been rotated from gauntlet to helm to finish our last 2 levels of the guild hall, I can honestly say that cut several weeks if not months from our progression. And it would sort of be unfair to those that are not yet GH20 to reap the same benefit, not that everything has to be fair, but imagine if you were back at GH18 looking for millions of resources to finish up, potentially you have been working on this for many months, maybe years and someone cuts your discount from 20% to 10%...that could cause you some serious angst.

Making progress on the guild hall is a fair bit more difficult now as there does seem to be fewer players on for lower amounts of time and increasingly more content to attend to during their play time, all things that are more valuable to them than than participating in dragonflight. There are far too many players that seem disinterested in building a GH over months and months, they simply need to level up their character to some magic item level and then find a guild that is done and ask for a spot, poof, GH20 done.

I think the key is as draco mentioned, dragonflight (or some other event) needs to be updated in a way that both players and those dedicated to building a stronghold have incentive to run the event. When the DF gear was BiS there was a wait list to get into the map to participate, now we are lucky to have 30 people on the map.

When alliances first arrived, the piece I was most excited about was being able to the four dragon kill, it had personal incentives for the arc points, the gear and the material to build the guild hall. Now I am fairly sick of the same old dragonflight, as the only incentive is the material for the guild hall and a few seals. I would suggest we change the event to make it fresh, fun and rewarding, not just for SH loot but for the participants as well. While that does not alleviate the churning due to rotations for discounts, it perhaps helps progress faster and lowers the inpatients factor. Example, from what I have seen, GH20's flat out stop running dragonflight and exist as only a discount mechanism in the alliance, if there were new incentives, perhaps more runs with more participation would override the need to have the helm discount.

mahburg

sundance777 said:

I would agree that have inequity in the build discounts can create tension or at least inpatients from some guilds and resulting in potentially needless alliance churning.

I could support maybe a lower difference in the discounts between the positions, but we must consider that in a fairly large alliance the helm rotation strategy is appealing because of the massive discounts at the top. To me this is one of the most effective ways to increase progress of the guild hall significantly. Having recently been rotated from gauntlet to helm to finish our last 2 levels of the guild hall, I can honestly say that cut several weeks if not months from our progression. And it would sort of be unfair to those that are not yet GH20 to reap the same benefit, not that everything has to be fair, but imagine if you were back at GH18 looking for millions of resources to finish up, potentially you have been working on this for many months, maybe years and someone cuts your discount from 20% to 10%...that could cause you some serious angst.

Making progress on the guild hall is a fair bit more difficult now as there does seem to be fewer players on for lower amounts of time and increasingly more content to attend to during their play time, all things that are more valuable to them than than participating in dragonflight. There are far too many players that seem disinterested in building a GH over months and months, they simply need to level up their character to some magic item level and then find a guild that is done and ask for a spot, poof, GH20 done.

I think the key is as draco mentioned, dragonflight (or some other event) needs to be updated in a way that both players and those dedicated to building a stronghold have incentive to run the event. When the DF gear was BiS there was a wait list to get into the map to participate, now we are lucky to have 30 people on the map.

When alliances first arrived, the piece I was most excited about was being able to the four dragon kill, it had personal incentives for the arc points, the gear and the material to build the guild hall. Now I am fairly sick of the same old dragonflight, as the only incentive is the material for the guild hall and a few seals. I would suggest we change the event to make it fresh, fun and rewarding, not just for SH loot but for the participants as well. While that does not alleviate the churning due to rotations for discounts, it perhaps helps progress faster and lowers the inpatients factor. Example, from what I have seen, GH20's flat out stop running dragonflight and exist as only a discount mechanism in the alliance, if there were new incentives, perhaps more runs with more participation would override the need to have the helm discount.

The dragonflight point is a good one, Dragonflight is pretty redundant now as the gear is now outdated with better gear now available in general content and professions.

The solution to that issue is to keep the gear up to the mark and upgrade every time new gear is released.
As for the swapping Helms and such the process for this is so arcane as to be ludicrous, we are doing this with a sword and gauntlet at the moment sadly there is no way to easily move guilds around in the alliance with a simple button click that I have found (please enlighten me if I have missed it).

Cheers

armadeonx

No, guilds have to leave a reform - having a demote/promote button would make life so much easier. But then again, having everyone get the same discount would be even easier lol.

sundance777

My idea to make rotations easier is an Alliance Owner role ( such as the r7 in the original Helm guild) and Alliance Manager rights, that could be delegated to any r7 or r6 within the alliance or maybe just R6 in original helm guild. Then there should be an interface for the Owner or Manager to move guilds within the alliance as they see fit.

warlockneedslove

armadeonx said:

You appear to support the idea that low level guilds should receive low level discounts and not be permitted the bonuses available at the higher ranks as this will somehow make them stay with alliances who have a lower total rank?

You also talk of 'power' and who has it/who should have it and this being linked to position. Really? How do you see this power being exercised? The power of a guild is linked to their value to their alliance. That is partly based on their GH rank and capability of their membership, but also on how much they add or subtract from community cohesion. This has nothing to do with the slot they occupy within their alliance.

So you give helm to the lowest guild in your alliance? Otherwise, you support the idea that low level guilds receive low level discounts. If I understand correctly, you give it to the guild closest to 20. Yes, your GH 20's who don't need it aren't taking it, but otherwise those guilds are getting the standard gauntlet discount and only get the discount when they're bigger.

I resolve back to my initial point: If guilds in your alliance are causing drama, refer them to the set rules/guidelines you have in place. If a guild get helm until 20, then when they start cooking 20 rotate. If its longer, let them do their upgrades and then the decision is who is next. Its possible for guilds to see this as a motivator if they really want to reach 20. There should be a clear decision factor for who is next and it should be followed. If it isn't, guilds will start to cry foul. The clearer the guidelines, the less drama they can cause. The only thing they can want is to break the rules, which isn't allowed.

draco16#8040 said:

The problem the game is having right now is the lack of new players coming into the game. It is progressively difficult to recruit and the people that can come in are leaving dying guilds and alliances. There is a drop in the player base and this affects the ability of the mid level guilds to reach level 20. Either there has to be reversal of the bonding stone nerf or additional content that gives guilds a reason to be other than serving as a boon givers . Perhaps dragonflight can be updated and additional boon structures made available to make the players have a reason to be in an active guild.

This is a valid point. If the player-base is dying, then it stands to reason some guilds should die as well. For every great guild, there are 10 bad ones run for personal gain of the Leader, run by terrible leaders, and run by lazy people who want others to do the work for them. I'd guess every alliance has 3-4 of the above terribly bad guilds. My first guild ever was 2 of the 3 above...They recently died from what I understand, and that's for the best. Rest in pieces.

This is where that 12-20 phase of Guild Halls comes in. 1/2 dead guilds can get to 12-13ish, but after that it takes true leaders, stacked allies, or deep pockets to get to 20. You have to inspire your guildies to donate. Guilds die here a lot because their membership won't contribute. Leaders start to show their colors and demand contributions or beg allies or others. They demand instead of incentivise. They type in all caps instead of offering help. Its amazing what a 3 minute conversation with a guildie about his build will do for his loyalty. He'll give 5 extra minutes of his dalies time to do the heroic shards mission for the guild or take 20 minutes to run influence with the guild...all because we gave him some of our time to help him.

Some guilds need to die off. If the playerbase is dying, its best these bad leaders join-up as members elsewhere and let their players contribute somewhere progressing, moving, and helping new players. More powerful, helpful guilds will build the player base. More guilds to choose from with a HAMSTER shoot of selecting a good one will just confuse the newer players who will join and get no help or possibly not EVER know the name of their guild leader.

armadeonx said:

You also talk of 'power' and who has it/who should have it and this being linked to position. Really? How do you see this power being exercised? The power of a guild is linked to their value to their alliance. That is partly based on their GH rank and capability of their membership, but also on how much they add or subtract from community cohesion. This has nothing to do with the slot they occupy within their alliance.

The "power" I refer to is based in the terrible leaders mentioned above. "we're a sword, so donate to us or else" mentalities that exist. When a guild doesn't rotate helm, then the helm has power over swords, and swords have power over gauntlets. The ability to "kick" (especially a low level guild holding on to an alliance) is a motivator. Instead of helping their own guild, they're forced to help swords progress. This isn't right, but it happens.

I say all that to say this: There needs to be a gate to stop bad guilds from continuing. Ruthless and other Guild Hall 20's worked for it. They either had great leaders get them there or had someone drop a LOT of money. Balancing the discounts does only benefit 4 of the 13 guilds in an alliance. Done correctly, however, this does create a gate. This gate is only passed if your guild is worthy. Too many people are running guilds who never upgrade or never get ANYTHING done because they don't have members or can't retain them. They need to go away.

So yes, the system works. The lower guilds work for it. When they prove they can handle it, they get the helm. A discount for everyone will have people freeloading worse than they already try. If you helm rotate correctly, then guilds should be motivated to get better.

This is kind of like running your first epic dungeon with an end-game player.....you see what they are and want to be like them. You see what you have to do, and do it.

armadeonx

We obviously take different views as to worthiness - to my mind if a guild is in your alliance then providing support at all levels is a good thing to me. The 'survival of the fittest' approach has a place but I don't think it's the 'be-all' answer. There is such a thing as small friendly communities.

I'll ask again; which guild are you in? The reason I ask is because your forum account was made the day this post went up and you've only made two comments on that account - both on this thread. As such I believe it's reasonable to assume you created the account with the specific purpose of answering my thread so I'm curious as to who you are.

I am very open as to who I am in game, with my guild and all characters listed in my signature.

omegarealities

My thought is if everyone has the same discount, why have helm, gauntlet and sword ranks. Just have a group of 13 guilds.

armadeonx

omegarealities#7219 said:

My thought is if everyone has the same discount, why have helm, gauntlet and sword ranks. Just have a group of 13 guilds.

Why indeed have these ranks? It's mostly a separate issue but I'd actually prefer a system of a head guild and all others being equal. The purpose of the head guild would be to manage (invite/kick) guilds into the alliance. I see no point to having swords.

zephyriah

armadeonx said:

omegarealities#7219 said:

My thought is if everyone has the same discount, why have helm, gauntlet and sword ranks. Just have a group of 13 guilds.

Why indeed have these ranks? It's mostly a separate issue but I'd actually prefer a system of a head guild and all others being equal. The purpose of the head guild would be to manage (invite/kick) guilds into the alliance. I see no point to having swords.

It made sense in the original vision. The idea was that swords would recruit/invite and be responsible for helping their own gauntlets and at some point leave that alliance to helm their own and those gauntlets would become swords in the newly formed alliance and recruit new gauntlets. It made sense on paper and even during discussions on the preview, but in practice it didn't work that way. The system used for determining discounts was never really endorsed by the player base, even in preview discussions.