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

Reader Comments (60)

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 1:00PM Plastic said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
In my opinion, this is just accommodating what already takes place in most MMOs. I always have a group of core friends I group with, we end up joining a larger guild, clamor for a raid spot, then eventually we find a few people from other guilds who we can depend on to run this dungeon or that.

While I understand some people disagree with ArenaNET encouraging this behavior with an official system, there's no doubt in my mind that it will take place with or without the multiple-guild-tag option. I just think it's really refreshing to offer the option, and am excited to see how it works out.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 1:53PM Ref Minor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If guilds have any meaning other than a simple social group, ie striving together to build something of yourselves in game, which is in essence competitive vs the other guilds then it is a very bad thing.

If guilds are meaningless social groupings then it doesn't matter.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 2:26PM ArcherAvatar said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The few details we've been given so far indicate a shift in "power / control" away from a guild and towards individual players.
This confirms for me personally, that the only folks who are going to have a major issue with this shift are power hungry, ambitious guild leaders, and control freaks.

If you're not concerned about how much control you can exert over other players (ie; members of your guild) then this change has very little affect on you. If you ARE concerned about that then this change is causing you more than a little bit of worry.

In previous games (including GW1) the focus and purpose of guilds has been frequently perverted, corrupted, mis-used, or simply lost in confusion on an all too frequent basis. The primary (sole?) function of this sort of group formation should be to bring like-minded individuals together for mutual support in achieving common purpose goals. Those common purpose goals ranging from everything between just an enjoyable social environment to chat in and share experiences in, all the way to extreme alpha, type A, hyper ambitious, raid-oriented type organizations where the hierarchy and agenda is strictly determined by the uber l33t.

GW2's social agenda appears to be significantly different from many (all?) of those previous games. Disfunctional / flawed design mechanics that pit players against one another in the most antagonistic ways have been purposefully removed. (ie; kill stealing, node stealing, "ganking" lower level noobs, and similar mechanics which are antithetical to a positive social environment.)
The news regarding "Guilds" from PAX 2011 merely reflects another attempt on ArenaNet's part along these same lines.

Excessive control freaks and "drama" have been associated with guilds in general since their very early days in games such as UO and EQ, and have continued right up to the present. Are the changes proposed by ANet going to change basic human nature? No... but perhaps they are going to encourage a display of some of the better behaviors instead of the worse. They can't strictly enforce better behavior... merely encourage it.

How does the proposed guild system encourage better behavior? Flexibility and power shift towards the individual. Guilds / groups with excessive amounts of "guild drama" will quickly find themselves with members who aren't interested in that sort of thing leaving more frequently. Why would they leave more frequently? Because there will be a significantly easier access to alternatives.

Humans are inertia machines... it is easier to continue a particular behavior than it is to change it (just trying changing a habit if you don't believe me, or talk to an ex-smoker for 5 minutes.) Pressure was more heavily self-imposed on players to stay with a guild even if the social enviornment wasn't very pleasant simply because there was little to no information available on alternatives BEFORE making the change, and also likely due to at least some positive relationships having been formed with other individuals within the guild which they would not like to leave behind.

However, with multiple guild membership a possibility in GW2, then the individual has the opportunity to experience more than one "social environment" at a time and has a greater degree of comparison information to work with. It also permits a person to focus their efforts towards a guild whose purpose/environment suits them more while still maintaining contact with those "good" relationships they formed in guilds they wouldn't otherwise remain in.

In short (waaaaay too late!) anyone expressing concerns about "control" or "loyalty" with regards to the proposed guild system in GW2 probably needs to perform some self-examination and get a clearer idea of why they were associated with (leader of) a guild in the first place. It's easy to lose sight of (as evidenced by how many folks actually do lose sight of it) but these are GAMES which are suppose to be PLAYED for the express purpose of having FUN. Certain personality types have a great deal of difficulty avoiding turning it into work instead.

I think the comparison of GW2 guilds to "clubs" is an apt one, and a favorable one imo. A club is formed by someone who likes something very much... so much that they want to create an environment where other folks who like that something can gather together and share their liking of that something with one another. Control and loyalty only enter into the picture due to personality flaws in the individual people involved. Provided focus is maintained on the original purpose of sharing a common enjoyment of something, then control and loyalty take care of themselves and never rise to level of conscious concerns at all.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 3:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ArcherAvatar I was about to post something exactly like what you just said, thank you for eloquently saving me the trouble. Well said! :)
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 3:51PM jondifool said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ArcherAvatar

so well said.
I do think thoug , that some of the worried ones simply are people that haven't fully grasped the impact off all gw2's changes. I mean if you are caught in a raiding mindset, where you expect to need dedicated fellow players, loosing the guild tool will worry, thoug for no reaso
Reply

Posted: Sep 6th 2011 1:58AM ArcherAvatar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jondifool
That's very true. It is possible some folks expressing concerns about the proposed guild system are also simply not "up to date" on the change to Dynamic Events as opposed to "raids" in GW2. Some of them may not be aware of the relative ease of forming "ad-hoc" groups on the fly while playing in the general world of GW2, and how easy it is just to work with others in general.

There will be "purpose-driven" groups of players in GW2. The competitive PvP (5 man groups) and the explorable mode of dungeons (again, 5 man groups) will defintely benefit from long-term, well-seasoned partnerships.

I seriously doubt that the "good old days" of raiding in massive organizations of players (aka herding cats) will make much of an appearance in GW2... at least not based on the information we have so far, perhaps ANet still some surprises in store...
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 2:49PM Nearly Departed said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like the idea, feels like Google+ Circles.

Keep your Social guild in that circle, the PvP Pals you got in that one, and and your main Raiding is over here, in this circle. The more you are able to communicate with people who "at that moment" are in a like mind, the better.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 3:15PM Kovnic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nearly Departed

I was about to say the same thing, but from a facebook perspective (yes yes facebook = devil blah blah blah) But as someone that very recently got quite "into" some of the facebook games, I see this working a LOT like groups on that site.

You play the game, and join as many "groups" as meet your needs for the game. Raiding group? check. Farming group? Check. Crafting group? Check. Now Lets play.

The best groups quickly attract the better players and from that become the "must join" groups for any particular activity.

To be fair, they are not doing anything "new" really. City of Heroes has a similar mechanic with its use of chat channels allowing players from multiple guilds to still join "Alt" groups for different purposes. The only difference is in GW2 they have named them guilds rather than channels.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 2:51PM Jeromai said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I honesty think it will, on the whole, make for much more interconnected server populations.

Whyever would being in two or multiple guilds mean a loss of loyalty or dedication? It strikes me that those who are notorious for guild-hopping in single-guild MMOs have even LESS loyalty as they change guilds like clothes, just looking for what benefits themselves. Loners wouldn't bother joining any guild at all, let alone multiple.

Being in multiple guilds is double the accountability. Especially since you are account-linked, not character-linked. You can't hide from your behavior or your reputation, and more people, not less, will hear of your good or bad behavior when in multiple interconnected guilds.

And why not just chat channels? Because you don't "belong" to chat channels, and you cannot get kicked out of them by a guild leader. At most, you just get banned off the channel by a mod. Guilds tend to have more privileges/side benefits at stake than chat channel membership.

Yes, there will be opportunities for guild drama, but really, they were there even on single guild MMOs if you decided to play with other people on an alt, play with other people on some super-sekrit hardcore mission/raid, play with other people on a number-limited team and oops, we don't have room for one (or two) more.

Imo, the bulk of the problem lies with the people throwing the hissy fit for feeling left out. On the bright side, in a game where strangers can fight side by side in en masse event set pieces, and where even the one feeling left out can have multiple guild networks to fall back on, maybe it's not the end of the world if they can't join one specific team activity.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 2:57PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jeromai
"Being in multiple guilds is double the accountability. Especially since you are account-linked, not character-linked. You can't hide from your behavior or your reputation, and more people, not less, will hear of your good or bad behavior when in multiple interconnected guilds."

That was how it worked in FFXI, at least on my server. Everyone knew each other, and if you ran into someone and made friends with them they were much more likely to become part of your social circle because there wasn't that "Welllll, I like them but they're not part of my guild and they already have a guild they do stuff with" thing. Our Dynamis and Limbus linkshells were made up of people from a handful of parent shells, not to mention some people who didn't have linkshells at all. If you stole loot or acted like a jerk, man, -everybody- knew.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 3:01PM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"So to those of you wondering about MVOP in Guild Wars 2, I can now give you a firm yes!"

Hooray! =D

I think I mentioned in an article what I think about communicating and coordinating between multiple guilds (since you can only be in one guild chat at a time) so I'm gonna dig that up and repost it here:

Someone at the panel asked about GW1-style alliances and the response was basically that whether they do an alliance system and how it will work is still under discussion.

It's not a perfect solution but I think a GW1-style alliance system would help with this kind of thing. Say a bunch of social guilds form an alliance, create a separate guild for "alliance cooperative activities" or whatever and add it to the alliance, and then they can coordinate using alliance chat while still talking within their guilds normally.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 3:33PM drunkingamebar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From my experience there is always people willing to help, and people willing to make excuses not to help. It's easy to get offended by someone you had helped a lot and the 1 time you ask for help "They are about to log out" or "dead silent" pretending to be /afk in chat or vent. Chances are you will find a good home eventually. One where you feel both welcomed, and apart of something. Until then you can bounce around or maybe form a /clique/ that will turn into one of those desired guilds.

From what I understand the dungeons are similar to WoW in size (5man) so really when it comes down to "elite" play and story modes you'd only have to deal with 1/3 to 1/8th of the drama raiding creates(WoW). Of course the "raiding" events in the game allow 100's of people, so members can't play the blame game, either you go or you don't.

I rather have fun, than a full time job pulling my hair out, trying to making other people happy.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 4:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I think one of the most personally empowering, and at the same time community strengthening aspects of this guilding approach, is that guildies being able to only "represent" one guild at a time turns player time into a currency of sponsorship that good, solid, socially and/or logistically successful (whichever is your preference) guilds will be rich in.

One might take the approach to join everyone who invites, but the discerning player will only give the resource of their time and "influence" (I believe that was the logistical "guild rep/level" name given) to guilds that sound good to them, particularly if your max number of guilds is looming. More players will finally be cultured to weigh the guild as much as the guild weighs them, the way it should be, and with most of the game being soloable (personal story) or self-motivated (dynamic events), there will be less "OMG I NEED A GUILD" purely for logistical reasons.

Guilds will form for the right reasons, and more importantly, will thrive for the right reasons. So much win.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 5:28PM Ordegar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People will adapt to this. It's not something so drastic that we can't get used to it or even learn to love it.

I have already seen people come up with ideas on how to use it, such as a guild making sub-guilds for members to join so they can tag what they're interested in at the moment; or what they're going to be doing for the day.

Let's say your guild is called Uber. A subguild might be Uber Crafting; another might be Uber Leveling, etc. The main guild might then be the social guild, or the hardcore raiding section or you might make one called Uber Raiders for that. Like I said this was not my idea; I read the idea from someone's comment previously.

My point being that it might be something we're not used to but we are human; we will adapt.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 5:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is liable to raise the amount of people you can have close ties with in the game.

As a person who has never found the right mix of people to feel truly at home in an mmo guild - the chance to be part of several, feeding each of my social needs - it can only be a good thing.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 5:54PM Mikx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is going to be great for pvp. When they announced guilds in gw2 could capture and control castles in WvWvW I thought cool, but what are the chances I'd be in a guild that can do that on a long term basis?

Now, guilds can form specifically for WvWvW, which is great for both the players and the server reputation.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 6:11PM Yoh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds all good to me.
As long as we're in the same guild again Rubi, with everyone else, and maybe Shawn too I guess, then I'm all good.

At least this time we can all experience it from the start, rather then from the tail end of it all. (as was my case)
I'm sure I'll be as generous as I always have been.

You can have my minipets.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 6:16PM alinos said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
To me it's just a step away from controlling Guild leaders.

in the past if you made friend's in your guild or whatever, and then suddenly the guild leader changed to a real monster, generally speaking it was harder to leave because you had attachments to other people

But it also provides another angle, after learning the hard way that my real life friends and my online friends simply dont mix(seems to lead to a lot of fighting :( ) This allows me to satisfy Real life friends by playing with them now and then while still maintaining full contact with the people i have been playing with for years.

Not to mention that if someone has a month of for holidays and want's to get really heavy into dungeon running with their free time they don't have to leave for a month to do so.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 8:05PM scrubmonkey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*yawn*

This change merely brings GW2 in line with almost every other game in terms of guild membership. Hard to see how there's much controversy or discussion to be had about that.

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 8:58PM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@scrubmonkey

Most games I know of don't let you be in multiple guilds on the same character, but I personally agree that it's not a bad thing.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW