Friday, August 15, 2008

Guild halls announced at Fan Faire

We just finished the guild hall panel here at Fan Faire and received an extremely positive response. I'm really excited about them and very happy that we're able to talk about them now. If you missed the panel, don't worry there will be lots of information circulating about them now.

54 comments:

Mikul said...

Except the people that want it on the silver plate as per the forums.

Oh are we going to get some things that cost huge amounts of status to buy? I've just gone past 30mil personal and i dont have things to buy with it. Seems such a redundant figure on my persona now. By the time guild hall release i expect to by at over 50mil. Or am i just one of a very small % of players with that amount.

Greg Spence said...

I don't think that is typical of most players. I have about 6 million status at the moment and don't do writs or anything special to earn status.

However, I'm sure your guild will be very happy if you donate lots of status to the house escrow account to be used for amenities and guild hall upkeep.

Mikul said...

Ah nice, that was something that was crossing my mind (while doing writs, heh). If the escrow system will allow donations as per the existing housing system.

Loredena said...

Have you run statistics on size/level of guilds? My tiny guild has worked very hard to level, and I think we'll make 30 soon, but honestly -- our mains range from 40 to 55 -- I don't believe we'll be able to afford *and maintain* even the level 30 size guild. Are we really the exception?

Yes, I have 2 characters approaching 1million in status each(see small guild at 28) but that won't last that long if I'm the only one paying, and I don't earn that much coin week to week.

I know last year at Fan Faire the initial discussion had indicated guildhalls would be accessible for guilds as low as level 10, and I admit to being severely disappointed in the implemenation as announced :(

Greg Spence said...

Loredena,

Yes we've looked at some statistics for guilds. I'll have a discussion with some of the designers to talking about lowering the costs of the 5-room since this hall is basically meant to be the lowest entry-level hall.

You mentioned that guild halls would be available to guilds starting at level 10, but this was never said by an official source. I also saw someone mention this on the forums, so are you perhaps just repeating it because you saw it on the forums too? I know that we never gave any specifics like this because nothing was determined about guild halls last year at Fan Faire. Costs, upkeeps and level requirements weren't even finalized until very recently. I have a feeling, like many other things, this was a rumor started by a non-SOE employee that eventually got spread as fact. This happens all the time and you cannot rely on information that you hear from someone else.

Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion, I really don't think the costs should be changed. I was in a guild that was the 2nd or 3rd (my memory fails me a lot) to reach level 80 on Oasis and it was a huge accomplishment that we were all very proud of.

I do see the point that the tier 1 version of guild halls is basically just a 5 room house with some extra's thrown in and for the cost, where is the excitement of something new?


I personally think there are to many guilds out there with only 2 or 5 or 8 players and sure, even getting the tier 1 version for those guilds is going to be tough. Perhaps I'm a bit abrupt in saying this, but if your in such a guild, perhaps joining forces with another small guild or two would go a ways toward making things more "affordable".

Just my opinion :)

I'm excited about the guild halls and while I couldn't make vegas this week (I was on vacation in Indiana) a big kudos go out to the Dev's for their hard work. Trying to make things that are cool but still taking flack from users is never fun.

Anonymous player on Oasis
"ApoO"

Mikul said...

The guild halls lower level stuff etc come from this writeup post on ZAM in the guild halls section of future projects.

http://eq2.allakhazam.com/db/guides.html?guide=1049

But since then, there has been a large change the dev team peoples views change.

Greg Spence said...

Thanks for pointing that out. I was sitting in on that panel last year and I don't remember mention of level 10 as the starting level for guild halls. Perhaps it was used as an example as mentioned in the article for how new features might be unlocked with higher levels.

Regardless, we felt that level 30 was low enough for an entry level guild hall and would still provide plenty of room for expansion to reach the current cap of level 80.

If anything, I could understand making the tier 1 hall a little less expensive so that it was more accessible to guilds with less plat for savings. But the costs of the amenities would remain the same.

Loredena said...

Yes, I remembered it from the write-up from last year's Fan Faire. While I'm a bit frustrated that it starts at level 30, well, we were pushing for that anyway as a couple of us wish to buy one of the 5-rooms that guild-level unlocks. Of course, that's part of why we cringe at the price -- it's an awful lot of plat and status (both initial and maintenance combined) for the same layout I could buy anyway at 30.

As I said, I would be curious to know the stats on guild levels/sizes. Perhaps my guild really IS an anomoly. But, we were created the week of launch, and we were originally in EQ, so those of us who remain don't really want to lose that history by merging with another guild (though I'd love to add more people -- I'm hoping the changes in the guild recruitment window will eventually help).

As a reply to ApoO, I absolutely do not begrudge you the really amazingly nice guild hall available to a level 80 guild. If your guild is large enough to be there, and to afford it, that's great! I just want my guild, small though it is, to be able to afford something suitable to us, too -- and well, as I said above, those of us who are left don't really want to merge our guild, and lose what we HAVE managed to build ;/.

I don't know what the costing of the amenities will be (I've not seen anything on that yet) so I don't know how that will play into things. But I do think a reduction in the upfront costs would make the maintenance easier to swallow (though, I'm assuming it will work like individual houses do -- you can't use the house/amenities if the week isn't paid up, but it could lapse without 'poofing' if no one logs in that week -- we DO take breaks for real life now and then ;)

Mustang| said...

I can't imagine the amount of work that must have gone/are going into the halls, and I certainly have to give respect to that.

That being said, I have to say that I think the upfront price for the halls need to be cut in half, or maybe a good compromise would be a third. It seems like the halls were priced out from the highest common denominator (i.e. raiding guilds). The thing about that is it doesn't matter how much you make the halls in that case - the top end guilds will always be able to afford it. So why not price it out to be more affordable? You created all this stuff, now let people experience it. :P I really think it should be 75/300/750.

But, in my opinion, the most egregious issue I read about the GHs is the 1,500 item limit. That is just atrocious for houses of this size. What is the reasoning for such a small count? You are really gonna drive decorators crazy with this one, and it seems like most of the larger Halls will just have a bunch of bare rooms.

Greg Spence said...

The house item limit was one we chose to start based on the experience we've had with existing houses and the 500 item limit. We've seen database problems due to large house records and very slow load times. The demo guild hall had 1200 items in it, and the loading time on it was pretty slow. Introducing guild halls with such huge item limits will have an impact on the database that we cannot even measure at this point. Imagine how many new houses will be created when these go live, and within a short period of time how full they will become.

We thought the safest idea was to introduce them with an item limit that was more on the cautious side with the ability to increase it later. If we were to introduce them with something much larger, and it revealed a major problem with the database, then we'd have a bad situation on our hands that would be very difficult to correct.

I don't think players ever really think about these things and just assume that computers and database will handle anything we throw at it, so why not make it a 10,000 item limit right? Unfortunately things aren't that simple and our #1 priority is to not break the game for everyone else.

Mustang| said...

I certainly understand that technical limitations exist, it's just kind of comical to me to introduce these massive halls that won't get nearly filled up. It seems like you would want to scale the size to the technical limitation of the item count. But then you would probably have people bitching that they are too small and just another 4 Bayle Court, so I suppose in that case it's a no win. =)

Greg Spence said...

Yeah, scaling the guild halls down is not something we can easily change later on. I think the approach we are taking is the best one. Introduce the halls with an item limit that we feel won't break things. See how database performance goes after the first few months. Identify areas in the database or in code where we can possibly make changes to increase performance and then up the limit to accommodate more items.

No one has even filled up a guild hall yet and 1500 items is quite a bit. Hopefully players will understand the approach we're taking and give us a little time.

Mikul said...

I've seen the item limit vs db performance first hand. My house has nearly 700 items in it (then add the surfaces and basic objects) and thats alot of things to load. And thus it takes 2+ mins to even get in my house.

Anonymous said...

Guild Halls should never be a form of reward that only the largest guilds can obtain. It may take months, it may take years but eventually even smaller guild should be able to move up into larger halls. The upkeep, which amounts currently to 52% tax per year is crushing to the point that even if a small guild obtains level 50 or 70 someday, they will never be able to afford the tax. The amount of "you don't deserve a guildhall because you do not play the way we think you should play" really saddens me. This is a fantasy world where we come to escape the realities of the world and any form of heavy tax will make me mentally feel like I have a second job. Just because I happen to log in and play a few times a week does not mean I have to... this setup with the heavy taxes (for casual players) will make it feel like I am obligated to log in. This will ruin EQ2 for me and many others. Is this what Guild Halls were meant to do?

Greg Spence said...

Anonymous,

Please don't take this with disrespect, but do you also feel that Mythical Epic weapons should also be given to everyone equally because we shouldn't require them to raid in order to get that reward?

There must always be a risk-vs-reward situation, and you have to reward people for more time spent. Upgrade paths are what keep people playing the game and make it feel rewarding. People just need to be content with playing on different scales based on your available time.

Calain said...

As I first read the prices, all what I could think of was: "How can anyone afford this or even pay the rent?"

But after some checking of the upkeep costs (10P + 200k Status for T3) with the time it needs to gain 1P / some status, I think the prices are right.

Our guild (Lvl 71)h as currently about 6 to 8 active players. We won't be able to buy the T3 guild hall the day it goes live, but if we work for it will will be able to by the end of this year. Also the status is a no brainer currently. Even running one instance round a week with a guild group will give you enough status to maintain the guildhall.

So after a first "way to expensive" reaction, I am now at "costly, but manageable even for a smaller guild". Will raid guilds or massive account guilds have an advantage over "family" / casual guilds? Sure, bur not such an big advantage, that I think it is unfair.

So while I still see all the ranting on the boards I hope the guild halls will stay a status symbol worth working for. Beside this EQ2 needs an other big money sink. ;)

p.s. What will happen, if you have enough status / money left to pay for the guild hall but not for all amenities? Will you still be able to enter the guild hall or how does it work out?

Loredena said...

Greg, re. guildhall vs epics.

My take, personally? I expect I'll be able to get the tradeskill epics eventually, and that's what matters to me. I eventually got one of the epics in EQ, and helped guildmates get a few more, when the increase in levels and gear mudflation made most fights do-able with 6-12 people. Sooner or later that will be the case in EQ2 as well, and if not, /shrug

The guild halls are different -- they are not, to me, JUST a status item. That's what the tier 3 one is for. Every guild has a tag and a bank, and can easily acquire a basic cloak. I expected to be able to acquire a basic guildhall easily as well -- after all, we all start with cheap apartments, do we not?

I looked at the guild hall as a place we can gather (in lieu of my personal home) and can decorate as a guild, access our bank and a vendor and perhaps can acquire guild-specific items. Maybe it's because I've been playing EQ lately, but what they had done with guildhalls was what I was anticipating for the first tier homes in EQ2.

Loredena said...

Oh - -and I know it doesn't seem that way to some -- but a small guild spends MORE time on a per-person basis leveling our guilds, and acquiring guild status/coin/etc, then the bigger guilds already.

You aren't rewarding risk, or effort, when you overly reward the larger vs smaller guilds, you are rewarding size. Does your entire player base really all need to join large guilds? Isn't there a place for those of us who group and tradeskill, but don't recruit and raid?

Wrapye said...

A lot of the comments I heard the night that Guild Hall pricing was announced, and comments since, have been along the lines of "My guild of [single digit number] players won't be able to afford them! Make them cheaper!". A guild is supposed to have at least 6 characters in it - that is what is required to form a guild in the first place. If there aren't even that many characters in the guild at present, then I can't see those arguments being valid.

My only issue with the guild halls is that the Guild Leader's home city determines the location of the guild hall. It would be nice if the interface allowed choosing the location of the guild hall. Then again, it is really only an issue for me because my guild's leader is a paladin, which means the guild hall will be off Antonica, and I have all Freeport-based characters. With Call of Guild Hall, or whatever it will be called, even that won't matter in the end (other than living so close to Disneyland :P ).

Mikul said...

I personally think all the people making the comments based on the price of the guild halls etc should do a double check. As Wrapye mentioned a guild minimum members is 6. So expanding on this, people need to really take that number as 6 active members. Non of which are alts of another player in the guild.

So now we take some basic principles:
Guild level 30 assumed players of ave level of 40-50. As level 30 was the end level of the guild when the cap was level 50 player level.

If you have your min 6 accounts, although you could argue this be 6-12 characters (alt included, although min 6 accounts still apply) at ave level of 45. These players play on the low end 4-6 hours per week.

So what can SoE expect them to obtain for payment reasons? Lets say one person does some tradeskill writs, one person does some adventure writs, one person crafts and the other 3 just do instances and quests. Each writ player will do say 6 writs each ((6x6.5k status)x2) = 78k status). The adventurers do 2 instances with other players (chance to get more members of the guild), one that gives status and one that doesn't (3x5k = 15k status) and they also do some quests with kills and pick up a modest amount of status items (5 per hour for 3 players? ... so 5x3x6=90x500 status = 45k status). So the total acquired status = 78+15+45 = 138 status and so more than the 100k required per week and leaves 38k for amenities.

Now level 50 and 70 guilds can earn alot more status when you consider players in these guilds should actually ave 60 and 70 respectively. Personally i actually think the guild halls are actually very reasonable.

Sandi Shores said...


Please don't take this with disrespect, but do you also feel that Mythical Epic weapons should also be given to everyone equally because we shouldn't require them to raid in order to get that reward?


Please don't take this with any disrespect but I am really amazed to see you equate guild halls with mythicals, they don't even come close. You are in essence confirming that only raiding guilds should have guild halls since only they or the people they sell updates to will ever have mythicals. Do you really think that everyone expects a mythical? Everyone expects a weapon and all are happy with less than a mythical because they at least have something.

There must always be a risk-vs-reward situation, and you have to reward people for more time spent. Upgrade paths are what keep people playing the game and make it feel rewarding. People just need to be content with playing on different scales based on your available time.

I think you have an incorrect view of players and play styles, I have been both a raider and non-raider and there is FAR more risk involved in doing challenging group content than getting together with 23 other people to take down a mob. Raiding is about following orders (or scripts). Challenging group content and playstyle is all about thinking and playing at your very best in order to succeed, without a bunch of other people there to pick up the slack.

We are like the SEALS, we are small and we are the elite, we go in with minimal people and maximum skill to obtain our objectives. Not maximum people with average skill to complete an objective that is not 4x more difficult.

Loredena said...

I just read Rothgar's post on the changes to guild hall pricing, and wanted to express my appreciate. I don't know if the discussion here contributed at all, but I'd like to think so :)

I know that the amenitities will add a lot to costs long terms, but I'm ok with that -- the reduction in the upfront and maintenance halls for the guildhall itself make me believe we can manage at least to purchase a tier 1, we'll just need to pick and choose carefully amongst amenities.

I also am happy to see that there will be new artwork for the tier 1 house -- unexpected, but greatly appreciated!

Mustang| said...

I thought it only fair that I drop in and say that I think the changes you've proposed are a good compromise.

Greg Spence said...

Loredena,

What you said is really the key. EQII has always been about choices. This is one of the reasons that even in the biggest guild hall at level 80, a guild cannot have ALL of the amenities. We always want there to be a decision-making process that gives people different ways to play. Having the upkeep costs high but manageable encourages people to talk about priorities and decide what is important to them. In some cases people may decide to work a little harder to get that extra item, or they might decide to give up one feature for another. Either way, these types of decisions empower people and give everyone something to work towards. If you can just log in and have it all, you really lose half the fun of playing the game.

Riding the line of being challenging but attainable is so hard in a game like this with people of so many different play-styles. Hopefully we've hit the mark and if we've missed, we'll do what we can to make things right.

Loredena said...

oh, and ummm, as evidence of how much attention I don't normally pay to the forums -- I just realized that you are Rothgar! You're in my blogroll as a game designer, with the bonus of being an eq2 one, but I never paid attention to your forum handle /blush

Anonymous said...

Loredena -

Don't feel bad, I didn't know it either and I lurk on several forums for eq2.


:)

Anonymous player on Oasis
"ApoO"

KC said...

((Hiya Rothgar!

Skree here. Guild Halls looking great so far, give your co-workers a high-five or two for us! (and a long-distance high-five to the Soga teams as well!)

Nice to finally meet you at the Fan Faire! TTYS!

Wrapye said...

Having to make choices? I dunno.

Someone created a guild hall cost calculator (which is already out of date due to the proposed changes in cost of T2 and T3 guild halls) and if the amenities listed are a complete list, I can only really see having to make choices if a guild wants to indulge on a lot of statuary or other decorations. One can get a fairly functional set of amenities with less than 20 of the options. And some of those decoration options are only available to T3 guild halls.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for halving the price. This will allow smaller guilds to at least get a T1 hall.

Now having been nice I'll follow with the vinegar :)

Right now the stuff you put inside the hall all costs the same no matter you in a T1 or T3. While one could argue that this is only fair I can point out that, for example, in the case of a bank you would have to hire more people/tellers and such for a larger more active bank over a smaller one. This is the "logic" you could use to allow lower costs for the T1 and T2 halls in regard to amenities.

You see even if I picked only two amenities (banker and porter) you are talking about another 1p per week on top of that halved (thanks!) tax on the T1. Now we are up to 1.5p per week with 110,000 status points per week. This is only with two amenities.

It is very clear that the amenity cost is based on the larger guilds but why not scale (like the hall tax) the tax on amenities as well?

I am not looking for a handout. I'm very grateful that you lowered the T1 and T2 price and tax but since the vast majority of costs remain what you put into the hall, this still kills even T1 halls for most smaller guilds... well kills putting anything in them :)

I do not expect to "ever" be able to purchase even half of the amenities but when you cannot even afford two?

I hope this has already been looked at when you lowered the tax on halls. Since this calculator that has been making it's way around the web was using the only data they had available at the FF I really hope these numbers become in line with the changes in the T1/T2 hall purchase/tax.

Our guild has been working to level to 30 for a week now... when we saw the amenity prices we were a bit shocked and wonder if it all has been a waste.

Thanks again for the drop in price... holding our breath for the potential drop in amenities prices.

Greg Spence said...

Scaling the price of amenities by guild size is unfair as well. Its just reverse discrimination. :) Also, a guild might have a lot of alts or inactive players, and it just wouldn't be fair to charge them more because of that.

Anonymous said...

Greg, you just put into words what was tossing around in my mind :)

Drives my wife crazy when I do the "well what if..." things.


I, as a player really appreciate the fact that the dev's have listened to the players (despite the fact that I thought things were fine as they were :P ) and adjusted things based on feed back.


Sounds like I'm kissing butt, however I just understand that no matter what the team does, it's going to annoy someone.

Bottom line, this is a great game and I still have fun most of the time when I log in :)


anon player

Anonymous said...

I do not meant o scale the cost based on the number of players in the guild but rather the guild level T1, 2 or 3.

Is size alone the only way to price things?

My example of a bank or even a porter would only be fair if you charged per transaction to account for different guild sizes.

Say I am in a 6 person guild and I plop down a porter in my guild. I will very rarely use those ports because there are less of us. In a guild of 100 they will use the ports 10x more than I so the only fair way is to charge a small fee per port... or an easier way is to just charge a bit less for taxes and purchase.

Now nothing is to say that a large 100 person guild would not be happy with a T1 hall and use the heck out of the porter so the only "real" fair way is to charge a small token port fee. This is too complicated so I understand why you want to just tax people weekly but how is this fair for people who will use the amenities less?

Same goes for status rent. What was your base size guild that you set the rent for?

How can you understand that the "initial" purchase of the T1/T2 halls needed to be halved yet the real expensive stuff to put in the halls all costs the very same for all three tiers?

It just does not make sense. Allowing us to by a hollow shell of a hall then sticking it to us in rent... well I can see that you just do not see it this way.

I'll bet you one shiny nickel right now that Guild Halls will be a bust under the present system. Large guilds will love them small guilds may buy them but they will be decorated and remain near empty of the goodies because the cost is just too high.

Greg Spence said...

I think you sort of answered your own question about why scaling the price doesn't work. The tier of the guild hall has nothing to do with the size of the guild or how often people use it. You could have a 500 person guild in a T1, or a 5 person guild in a T3. So if your rationalization is guild size, you can't use the guild hall tier as the determining factor. We already charge more to purchase the bigger halls and more upkeep each week for them.

If a smaller guild decides that they won't use a druid portal hireling enough to make it worth the cost, then they shouldn't buy one.

Charging usage fees just would not work either. Not everything has a "transaction" associated with it, and charging someone just because they want to move an item from GB1 to GB2 would be crazy and people would view it as nickel-and-diming them to death. My point is that its not easy to tell if you're taking something out to keep it, or taking something out just to move it to another bank. There would be all sorts of problems with trying to charge usage fees.

Were you playing when EQII launched? Do you remember how long it took to amass a single gold coin? I think I was level 20-something when I first had enough silver that I could combine it into a gold. At the time 5 room houses were so expensive no one could comprehend buying one, much less affording 20g a week upkeep. Yet now everyone has a 5 room house if they want it.

Just because we release guild halls with lots of amazing features doesn't mean people should feel entitled to the biggest hall on day 1 with all of the amenities.

Loredena said...

I'm more then a bit stunned by the proposed costs of the amenities, but I don't really see a good way to scale things by guild level/size or guildhall tier.

My guild (formed at launch!) has adventurer mains ranging from 40 to 57; our tradeskill mains range from 30 to 80, with the majority being in the 50s. As a result, I can rely more upon the crafters then the adventurers for status.

For us, it's really the plat costs. I did the math, and if I spent just an hour a week doing writs with my 75 provisioner, I could make 100k in personal status each week. Thus the status costs for the hall and a few amenities, while it would certainly take the guild as whole to do, is manageable.

Of course, all of this is assuming that it works as houses currently do -- you only pay for the week when you access the house, and if no one accesses it for a month, it doesn't get paid, but you don't lose anything. (As small as we are, and as often as various members go inactive for months at a time, I just can't rely upon a week-in week-out contribution from anyone, even myself).

I really don't see how we'll swing the plat cost any time soon though (for the amenities -- lowering the upfront cost of the guildhall makes it palatable). So, personally, I'd rather see plat costs lowered and status costs raised. I suspect other guild wouldn't agree though!

Anonymous said...

"Just because we release guild halls with lots of amazing features doesn't mean people should feel entitled to the biggest hall on day 1 with all of the amenities."

That's just it. Day one or Day 10,000 these "amenities" are just too expensive for smaller guilds. There is no saving up because the status point alone will take me almost an hour each week of doing mind numbing boring work orders... we do not raid.

I have to be honest here. I am somewhat taken aback from your lack of even trying to understand our point. When you say things like "well it was worse years ago" makes me feel better how?

I picked two very basic guild hall amenities that most, if not all, guilds would want.

1. Guild Banker
2. Guild Porter

We cannot even afford these two! How can we "grow" or do you mean grow the guild? Did you ever stop to think that maybe some people prefer smaller and more intimate guilds?

I also gave you an example about how you could justify charging based on the tier but you keep coming back saying that I want to charge per guild member which I do not.

I can see from your responses that you are totally unsympathetic toward smaller guilds. I'll wait on release and you'll see the negative feedback from the smaller guilds then.

My real fear it that this will drive people from the game as you force people to do unfun things just to maintain their guild hall. I love EQ2 and want it to thrive and yes I was here in the very beginning and left because the game sucked at release only to become a real gem today. I fear that this will drive a real nail between those who do NOT want to join a large raid guild and those that feel that ONLY raiders should ever get anything nice.

Raiders are not the enemy. Their play style is just as important as mine. I just ask not to be grouped as a lazy, unskilled player who wants everything handed to me just because I choice to play in a different way or not as much as the hard core player.

Anonymous said...

"So, personally, I'd rather see plat costs lowered and status costs raised. I suspect other guild wouldn't agree though!"

You do know that the status costs come from the guild leader? Both the weekly plat and status are way too high for smaller guilds. I added only two amenities (banker and porter) and this alone warrants 110,000 status points per week.

This is almost an hour of doing BORING BORING work orders over and over and over even any every week till the end of time!

What gets me is that these numbers are the very same for all three tiers and while I understand the logic this is still a game and we do put aside "reality' in games to make them fun.

Why not just make everyone sit at a wash tub for 60 minutes every week to do their laundry? Seems silly but hey... it's real LOL Now of course we suspend this form of reality because it not fun but I fail to see how doing endless work orders are ok just because we choose not to raid.

Greg Spence said...

My opinion is that the prices are pretty reasonable as they are. That being said, I wouldn't mind if the upkeep status was lowered a bit, but the decision isn't just up to me.

Telling me I'm not sympathetic towards smaller guilds doesn't really help your case either. I happen to think that people will appreciate things more if they have to work for it. If you give something away, it has no value. So in my opinion the game will be more fun for people when they are required to do a little bit of work.

If you balance the prices for the smallest guilds, then all of the medium to large guilds will not get any satisfaction from the fact that guild halls are so easy to obtain.

As game developers we have to think about how to please the largest number of people. There will always be people that disagree with those decisions.

Loredena said...

"You do know that the status costs come from the guild leader?"

Actually, as with houses, they've stated that coin and status can be escrowed, allowing all guildmembers to contribute. Also, I read something that hinted at a mechanism for guildmembers to direct all adventure-writ status directly to the guild.

In any case -- I AM the guild leader, as is my husband, and I have 3 out of the top 5 in status avatars. I fully expect the status to be primarily coming from me, and I'm ok with that. As I said I figure doing 1 hour a week of tradeskill writs would meet our needs -- and that assumes no one else does any!

It's the plat that's a problem -- I see no way my guild is coming up with the upfront plat costs for most of those amenities (10 or 25 plat each for the tradeskill oriented ones!) and the carrying costs wouldn't be fun either.

So, yes, small guilds are hurt, and badly by this. But I can't really disagree that there's already not much effort involved for larger guilds, and thus it will quickly become meh to them if costs are lowered too much. It's a conundrum that I don't have a good answer for --perhaps a way to pay more status for less plat?

Anonymous said...

"If you balance the prices for the smallest guilds, then all of the medium to large guilds will not get any satisfaction from the fact that guild halls are so easy to obtain."

How do you figure this unless you are assuming that large guilds will stay with the T1 hall?

Each hall is designed for a different type of guild/size and I understand that making each guild work a bit means that the hall means something. We both agree on this.

If you look at just the price of the hall for T1/2/3 each seems to be designed to test each types of guild. All three are "doable" with some work for small, medium and large guilds.

When you move to amenities this goes right out the window. In order to give T3 guilds that "sense of accomplishment" that you speak of you kill off small guilds 100% unless you consider the number of amenities to be the killer.

Large guilds will have all amenities but small guilds only a few. Is this correct?

It was my understanding that small guilds "could work there way up" to more and more amenities. We might be able to only afford one amenity with our small T1 but we could save and save for maybe 1 new amenity every few months. "Eventually" and this could, in theory, take years we too could build up to a hall having everything and with that same sense of accomplishment that the larger guilds have. Of course if will NEVER be with anything larger than a T1 hall but it would be our small T1 hall :)

Your way of taxing things kills this because even if we could someday afford more, we could NEVER pay all those weekly taxes.

I have a simple and fair solution to this. Have each size only allow so many accounts. This way a guild can "outgrow" a hall. I did not say members but separate account.

For example:

T1 - Up to 15 accounts
T2 - Up to 50 accounts
T3 - Any size

Now you can adjust the upkeep down to be in line with what the target number of accounts can afford instead of assuming that maybe a 200+ guild will be happy with a T1 be be done with it.

The logic of doing it this way is apparent. It's the best of both worlds and makes sure that each hall fits the target it was designed.

T1 halls, for example, would be designed for small guilds and since you could not go past 15 accounts this would force an expanding guild to grow to the next sized hall.

T3 halls, for example, could stay expensive and as such only be afforded by the larger guilds.

You could also put a lower limit if you wanted on teh halls so that, for example, you would need a 20+ account guild to buy a T3 but some with lots and lots (did I say lots LOL) of Plat, status and time might want the larger hall even if they do not have many members.

Any thoughts on this?

Anonymous said...

BTW my example price for a banker would be:

Tier-Buy-Taxes

T1-5p/100k-10g/5k
T2-25p/500k-50g/25k
T3-50p/1000k-1p/50k

Allow guilds to reclaim when they upgrade. This allows challenge for all three types of guilds and does not lock "everyone" into paying the very same rent.

HardcoreCasual said...

"I happen to think that people will appreciate things more if they have to work for it."

And a smaller guild has to work so much harder than a guild with more members.

In fact, based on your viewpoint, don't smaller guilds really deserve MORE stuff than their larger contempories?

My guild is level 54 and there's TWO active accounts - do you know how much WORK that is? Together we've put as much work into our guild as a larger, higher level guild, but we're not entitled to rewards simply because our body count is far lower.

Truly, if EQ2 were about risk vs. reward then every encounter defeated and every achievement gained would take into account how many people actually participated before calculating the rewards.

Greg Spence said...

So if you solo a mob you should get better loot than if you killed with an entire group?

The reward has always been based on the difficulty of the objective, not how much trouble it takes for you to beat it. Mobs are designed to be beaten by a certain type of group. So you solo mobs, group mobs and raid mobs. The reward isnt going to change if you solo a group mob, or kill a raid mob with one group.

Its the same with guild halls. They are designed to be obtained by a group of people working together. Someone that decides to go about it alone shouldn't get the reward more easily than 20 people that work together on it. How would that encourage people to play together? This is an MMO, not a single-player game.

Loredena said...

In general smaller guilds (or those with primarily younger members) put in more effort then larger guilds (or those with primarily maxed level members)for the same rewards. Unfortunately, there isn't really a way around that. That being said -- the more I look at the current cost of the guildhalls, and the known costs of the amenities, the more I think that that my mental struggle is with the maintenance costs, not the purchase price.

Why? Because you're right - the initial push to be able to purchase them in the first place IS rewarding as we see our effort pay off. But -- we're right too. For a smaller or younger guild, the maintenance costs will rapidly turn the game into a job.

I personally would therefor rather see a higher purchase cost, and lower maintenance cost, for the amenities, combined perhaps with an emphasis on status over coin (since it IS easier to grind status then coin even with lower level avatars in my experience).

Mikul said...

I expect that by the end of the year, we will see items that reduce monthly costs of guild halls. It was something that was highlighted at FanFaire that people would really want and it fits with the current housing system.

However, i also expect these items to be hard to obtain, but dependent on the guild working together to obtain. Examples i can think of, off the top of my head:
i) Tradeskill group mission quest line to the extent of the epic quests.

ii) Raid target kill quests. With 6-12 names, which requires 12-24 people to complete for a shard than can be traded for an item (would require item to be lore and also quest to be non-repeatable)

iii) Group instant and explore specialist quests for the same style rewards as point ii).

Although the quests from i), ii) and iii) are exclusive quests. So fitting for your primary style of play/guilds play.

Remember, guild halls are a work in progress that i expect have progression in mind for further development. Think of it as the start of the game your char's never had achievement tree's, soon we'll be getting our third.

Anonymous said...

Solo kills do give you more reward now because you do not split the drops!

EQ2 considers 6 people the minimum for a guild so therefor a T1 hall should be tuned for that 6 number.

Here me out a second....

When a high level guild raids (because, I assume, they LIKE to raid) they are rewarded with status and treasure beyond anything I will EVER see. I understand that this is what "I" give up when "I" make that choice not to raid and not to be in a larger guild.

So large guilds (not 100% on everything so don't jump all over me LOL) obtain status, plat and treasure just for doing what "they" find fun.

Those who elect to craft obtain treasure, plat and status by means of doing what "they" find fun.

Those who single group or mostly solo (but still elect to be in a small guild) do NOT obtain any significant status by what they do for fun.

This is the issue. Guildhalls, as they currently stand, require a significant amount of status to purchase amenities and pay the taxes. Unless you like to craft... and craft ALOT!!! you will never obtain the status to buy/pay the taxes on the amenities.

The other two types of players, raiders and trade skill people "do" automatically get status for what they find fun.

How do we fix this? Well it seems the easiest fix is to reward "every" mob kill with a small (maybe 1 status point for whatever level the mob is) amount of status for each and every kill.

This allows all types of play to be compensated. I would also bump up the trade skill status rewards because they are much too low IMHO.

How does this sound?

Either this or put a small cost to use certain amenites and then lower the cost/taxes upfront as they will be compensated later by usage fees. This way small and large guilds all can contribute the same based on usage.

HardcoreCasual said...

Its the same with guild halls. They are designed to be obtained by a group of people working together. Someone that decides to go about it alone shouldn't get the reward more easily than 20 people that work together on it.

That's hardly the case though, is it?
Small guilds work a bazillion percent harder than large guilds to get to the same level/rewards.
I'm sure we'd have no problem with working just as hard as the next person. We're not asking to do less, but we'd like OUR efforts recognised.

How would that encourage people to play together? This is an MMO, not a single-player game.

That's mere semantics. I believe an MMO is lots of people playing at the same time, not lots of people co-operating simultaneously.

MMOs allow me to play with my close friends, or partner, in a diverse and vibrant world.

Where you say "encourage", many others would say "force".

Personally, I'd be thinking about not DIScouraging the many players who like to exist as individuals in said vibrant world.

Greg Spence said...

Is it not the same argument as raiding? Raiding really requires 24 people to work together to achieve that goal. We aren't forcing people to raid, its just one more thing you can do.

We aren't forcing people to buy guild halls, its just another method of progression that you can take with a GROUP of people.

Saying that you deserve a guild hall because your guild made a specific level is like saying you deserve raid loot because you are level 80.

I'm sure many people will disagree with this because they have it in their heads that it should be a specific way.

This argument is moot anyway because the posted prices for purchase and upkeep on the web are out of date now. Many of the amenities are a good bit cheaper, so you'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

Loredena said...

Ah, but here's the thing -- raiding isn't a good comparison, because only a chunk of your player base enjoys raiding and wishes to be in a raiding group (and not the majority).

I would wager that the far majority of your player base does want a guildhall, and considers it a 'must have'.

It can be difficult as a small guild to recruit -- I've already seen that give a choice between two guilds with nice people, the level 30 guild that enables buying a 5-room house will get the recruit over the level 25 guild.

Now, the bar will be raised, and all else being equal, a level 30 guild with a guildhall will find recruiting easier then one without. It's simply human nature, and sadly, something that's difficult to design around.

Regardless, I look forward to seeing what the amenities are now being priced at. I do think that the reduction in the cost of the tier 1 house brings it into reach of even small, relatively casual guilds like mine, and I hope that with the changes you've indicated are being made to amenity costing that we'll be able to afford a few of those as well

Anonymous said...

Greg I know I have been hard on you but I did want to stop for a second and thank you for having this conversation. You do not have to talk to us and explain yourself but you do and this is to be commended. While we do not always see eye to eye I find it refreshing that someone in your position is willing to talk to us and I thank you.

I'm happy you guys are going to lower some costs and I thank you for allowing our input to help. I know that it's a compromise and likely the costs will end up being lower than you would like and higher than we would like but the definition of compromise is that no one is happy :)

Just wanted to point out that to a small 6 person guild the amount of work needed to level to 30 just to qualify for the halls is a TON of work... especially if most of those few members do not craft and none of us raid. While I can crank our work orders and obtain 15000ish status every 5 minutes or so, they need to do a kill task that takes far longer so I think we all need to remember that everyone plays EQ2 differently and obtaining status is not as easy if you are a casual player who plays but a few hours a week and just likes to quest... and not quest doing the same writs over and over and over and over.

I know this is all probably a moot point because the costs will be lowered some but your last post about not everyone needs a hall struck a nerve a bit because it tries to change the rules mid stream so to speak.

EQ2 has used guild levels to determine the power of guilds and rewards in regard to housing, titles and other perks. "How" you play in order to level your guild never seemed to matter... well until guild halls came into play.

Now, all of a sudden, "other" factors were introduced that would further limit what you could obtain at your guild level and while some titles were priced very very high, all these were one time purchases... IE you did not have to pay taxes on your title.

Houses, while they do have taxes, were priced so low as to be a non factor.

I'll stop now. I just wanted to once again thank you for listening and I look forward to the new prices.

Calain said...

Those who single group or mostly solo (but still elect to be in a small guild) do NOT obtain any significant status by what they do for fun.
This is not right. They introduced status for killing named mobs inside instances. So If I'm right on named gives more then 10k status. And if you want to solo you can pick up the normal kill tasks. which give around 15k status at level 80.
So there are ways to gain status for all kind of players. Actually the fastest way to gain status is doing kill tasks in a full group. This is faster then crafting and raiding.
The only thing that is easier for raiders to obtain is gold. But as raiders tend to spend horrendous amounts of plat for buying the masters that just don't want to drop for them this money gets distributed to the whole player base.

So from my viewpoint I would set status as the primary cost for guild halls, but from a developer view I must say that EQ2 needs a new money sink. And it needs to be a huge one, so that the prices do not increase any more.

In the end I think they did a great job. I just don't know if I'm happy if the prices for the amenities fall to low. Yes our guild has to struggle to get enough money and status to buy a T2 guild hall with all the amenities we want, but we are a small guild with only 5 accounts with at least one level 80 char (plus about 5 accounts between 50 and 75). I think we should have to struggle to reach that goal.

Douglas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
douglas said...

Greg,

Has anyone thought of going ahead and adding a way to let the guild start saving status for the guild halls.

Something like added a deposit status to the guild bank.

Then when a guild hall is purchased the status is transfered to the guild hall escrow account.

I think that if some of the guilds start to see the status start to add up that they will start to see that the status is achievable.

KC said...

Hey Greg! Just popping in to say keep up the great work, I know you guys are up to good stuff, dont let us down now! ^_^