| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (4)

Posted: Jan 13th 2011 7:21PM Diatonic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks for the refresher. I would also add that, although things change over time, the guild's reason for being should be consistent over time. If you are a casual or hardcore guild, PVE or PVP, let recruits know that up front and don't deviate from your core unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Posted: Jan 14th 2011 1:55AM FrostPaw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would also add don't be afraid to make hard decisions when it comes to member lists. If people are misbehaving the decision to kick them may be easy but if people simply are not joining in with anything guild related there may be a case to get rid of them too. Better to have 10 actcive guild members who chat and want to play together then a 100 soloers who don't have time for anybody else and just use the guild as a chat room for their needs.

Posted: Jan 14th 2011 7:38AM BigAndShiny said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Haha. it's so funny to go on the Star Wars: Old Republic forums and see the pregame guilds obsessing over their 87 ranks including "dark commander" "council member" "grand Moff" "Upper Sith Sanctum Member"
total bs.

Posted: Jan 14th 2011 11:19AM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All very true. If only we had more games that let you specify exactly what responsibilities each rank gets, then instead of having a complex hierarchy (like some of the MMOs out there with ten tiered ranks - TEN! - that just panders to people using rank as an "award") you could have proper positions/roles being set, such as say "raid leader", "social organiser", "treasurer", "recruiting officers", etc.

Imho guilds only really need 3 ranks - leader, officers and members - or maybe 4 at most if you have a "recruit" rank for if your guild has a probationary period. Heck, small guilds can get by with just a leader and members if they're casual, and the leader may not have to do much (that's always my preferred situation these days).

But being able to set different roles/permissions within each rank - especially within the officer rank - would be far more handy - officers are like the middle-management in a company and not all of them have the same responsibilities/duties - some might be rather specialised. After all, everyone is different, and that person who is really good at leading raids might be pretty bad at managing the guild bank, or organising a social event, or deciding which people to recruit for your guild - in fact restricting who has access to the guild bank or who can invite is just basic prudence.

So more MMORPGs need to let leaders decide exactly what permissions each position/rank has so that officers aren't overwhelmed by too many duties/responsibilities and can be put exactly where they can contribute their best skills and not be out of their depth, or asked to put in more time/effort than they are willing to contribute.

Most of all it needs to be made clear to members up front that being made an officer isn't a reward that comes with extra privileges/power, and that remaining a member doesn't mean you're worth any less to the guild - members need to know that being an officer adds extra responsibilities and that only certain people will want those extra duties (or be suited for them).

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW