Fixing guilds

You mention "This is going exactly against the idea behind guilds to bring people together." in the first part but then recommend something that goes against it even more in the second part.

I doubt they go back other than to pull a captaincy and maybe nerf things down the road but leaning into more player monitoring only makes things worse, not better imo.

Some guilds are gonna do what some guilds do but treating people like video game guilds are some low qol production job shouldn't be enabled through more features imo.

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

You aren't being punished. You are making a choice to have a small guild. If you level up slower because of your own choices, that isn't a Rare problem, that is a You problem.

And yet there's this pesky thing called 'balance'.
Small guilds should be able to get all content, same as large guilds.

You not caring about small guilds is a You problem.

The biggest problem with guilds is their size limitations and their lack of progress scaling by guild size.

When I think of the main reason I want to be a part of a guild it’s not for the rewards or the distinctions it’s so that I don’t have to play solo anymore. Whenever I want to play I can first check the guilds I’ve joined to see if anybody is sailing and has a slot open for me to join.

It doesn’t make any sense to me to arbitrarily limit guilds to a maximum of 24 players.

I think guilds should have no member limit to how large they can become.

How cool would it be to join a guild associated with your favorite streamer?

I see guilds as sort of an in game solution to the randomness and unreliability of open crew matchmaking. An in game way to find decent players to play with so you don’t have to solo or if you don’t want to use the sloop you can find enough players to use a larger ship.

It is odd that larger crews don’t get some sort of progress buff to encourage the use of the larger ships more and so that the meta for guild grinding isn’t splitting up and going out as solo sloopers.

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

What's next, people who choose to play less should earn more ledger value for the same amount of work, since otherwise they would be punished for not playing as much?

If you choose not to take in more guildmembers, then that is a deliberate action on your part. That has consequences. What you are basicly asking here is that Rare would remove the consequences of your own actions.

But this would even be problematic, since it would just be used to cheese. People would quit the guild when they stop a playsession just to rejoin when they start a new playsession, just so the value of the actions of guildmates would increase. This way most guild would still have 24 members, but the game would treat it as only 4 or 5 perhaps, because the other 19-20 or out of the guild because they are offline. It wouldn't even work as you describe, because the bigger guilds would just do the same and look just as small as yours.

@discobugle09896 said in Fixing guilds:

It doesn’t make any sense to me to arbitrarily limit guilds to a maximum of 24 players.

It does, because otherwise you would have giant guilds that would always be guaranteed in gold tier for the ledger. In fact: over time you could then even see (almost) everybody be in the same guild because of that and the whole guild ledger would be useless. Same for progression, since everybody would be at max then and there would be no differences for any players, even though that is part of the journey.

The reason it is limited is because of those things. And that the limit isn't higher is also because the want to give smaller guilds a chance in the ledgers, even though they would have to play a bit harder/more efficient to make it. On top of that the bigger the max guild size you would make, the more the progression has to be slowed down and the harder it would become for smaller guilds. So they had to make a balance in that. They found that balance at 24.

@discobugle09896 said in Fixing guilds:

How cool would it be to join a guild associated with your favorite streamer?

I am actually :-)
And for the partner streamers i know, they deliberately have multiple guilds, so that everybody could join one if they want to. Not just to be aligned with their community, but they also do it to give everybody a chance to be part of a bigger guild. I think blurbs community has dozens of fully filled guilds already? (i am not in one of his though)

@discobugle09896 said in Fixing guilds:

It is odd that larger crews don’t get some sort of progress buff to encourage the use of the larger ships more and so that the meta for guild grinding isn’t splitting up and going out as solo sloopers.

It already does though. A larger crew can complete voyages quicker then a solo slooper can. Emptying a lost shipment or a vault is way quicker with 4 people then with just 1. In fact: fully emptying a vault with just 1 player is extremely hard, so a bigger crew would even get more loot there. On top of that a bigger crew is less likely to be sunk by other players, so they probably lose less loot too. You might argue that that advantage might not be big enough to compensate that crew all soloing, but there is an advantage though.

On top of that: you don't have to complete the progression before the season ends or something, so there is nothing wrong with taking your time. And for the ledgers: if you are in a big guild, you don't even have to have everybody active. The guild i am in i only see that most are not even that active, but we are still far into the gold tier (almost double the amount of the highest silver tier guild). In fact: most of the work is done by perhaps 2 or 3 players. So there is nothing you would need to miss out of when you would play on a galleon with some friends.

@super87ghost

So the guild ledger couldn’t have brackets based on how large your guild is? That way small guilds compete against small guilds, medium against medium and large against large?

Then from within those brackets you calculate ledger position based on how much total guild reputation was earned divided by the number of members in the guild. In other words, you don’t want people in your guild that don’t play/contribute.

@discobugle09896 A guild leader could cheese that by just kicking some members just before the ledger closes, so the guild would fall down into a 'smaller' section of the ledgers, while profiting of the amount it got with a full guild. This could be done in a cheesing manner (the ones that got kicked agree to it) or in a griefing manner (the ones that got kicked didn't want it and got denied the profits of their work). And even that cheesing could be seen as griefing, because you are then just pushing smaller guilds aside who thought they were in the safe with their current ledger amount.

And if you would say then the amount dissapears if you go into another 'section', it would create 2 other problems:

• guilds would be punished for growing, since moving up a different section erases their ledger progress.
• you would open it up to griefers, who can just leave guilds just before the ledger closes, so nobody in that guild gets anything for their work.

So either way, it won't work. It would only encourage griefing.

@super87ghost said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

What's next, people who choose to play less should earn more ledger value for the same amount of work, since otherwise they would be punished for not playing as much?

If you choose not to take in more guildmembers, then that is a deliberate action on your part. That has consequences. What you are basicly asking here is that Rare would remove the consequences of your own actions.

But this would even be problematic, since it would just be used to cheese. People would quit the guild when they stop a playsession just to rejoin when they start a new playsession, just so the value of the actions of guildmates would increase. This way most guild would still have 24 members, but the game would treat it as only 4 or 5 perhaps, because the other 19-20 or out of the guild because they are offline. It wouldn't even work as you describe, because the bigger guilds would just do the same and look just as small as yours.

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy; The argument of people with no real argument.

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

You aren't being punished. You are making a choice to have a small guild. If you level up slower because of your own choices, that isn't a Rare problem, that is a You problem.

And yet there's this pesky thing called 'balance'.
Small guilds should be able to get all content, same as large guilds.

You not caring about small guilds is a You problem.

Small guilds already have access to the same content as guilds with 24 people. You should invite more people, guilds are about bringing people together.

And here we see somone who does not understand what 'social anxiety' is, or cannot understand that some people only want to play with people they know.
But since YOU don't have that issue; Rather than fixing the problem in a fair way, you'd rather just say "Just get more friends!" and completely brush aside people who can't/won't.

But you're fine, so people who aren't should just deal with smaller Guild Rep gains because...reasons.

---

So the two people against my idea have 0 valid reasons for their stance, other than being selfish. Good to know.

@super87ghost

Well that’s another point that needs to be discussed.

The only time that guild leaders or owners however it’s worded should be allowed to kick members is during the first week of a new ledger period.

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@super87ghost said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

What's next, people who choose to play less should earn more ledger value for the same amount of work, since otherwise they would be punished for not playing as much?

If you choose not to take in more guildmembers, then that is a deliberate action on your part. That has consequences. What you are basicly asking here is that Rare would remove the consequences of your own actions.

But this would even be problematic, since it would just be used to cheese. People would quit the guild when they stop a playsession just to rejoin when they start a new playsession, just so the value of the actions of guildmates would increase. This way most guild would still have 24 members, but the game would treat it as only 4 or 5 perhaps, because the other 19-20 or out of the guild because they are offline. It wouldn't even work as you describe, because the bigger guilds would just do the same and look just as small as yours.

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy; The argument of people with no real argument.

It's not even that, it's almost the same thing. In both cases it's something someone deliberately doesn't want to do and wants to see the negative aspect of their choise removed from it. In fact: yours is the one that is even deeper in, since nobody is being stopped from being in a bigger guild (there are ads enough and you can easily join a streamer's guilds), but some people are just not able to play that much. So my example was even the lesser of the extremes and yours is the more slippery slope one, since even a noob with low amounts of time to play can join a bigger guild.

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

@captain-coel said in Fixing guilds:

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

Guildrep SHOULD scale, but in reverse.

Smaller guilds get less rep than larger guilds, because they have less people in them.
So they should get a 'small guild bonus' to rep that lowers as they get more members, roughly keeping a small guild on the same footing as a large guild.

Or here me out. It is balanced and small guilds could just recruit more people.

Or, and here me out, some people like being in small guilds with just their friends/are uncomfortable trying to recruit people they don't know & should not be punished for it.

You aren't being punished. You are making a choice to have a small guild. If you level up slower because of your own choices, that isn't a Rare problem, that is a You problem.

And yet there's this pesky thing called 'balance'.
Small guilds should be able to get all content, same as large guilds.

You not caring about small guilds is a You problem.

Small guilds already have access to the same content as guilds with 24 people. You should invite more people, guilds are about bringing people together.

And here we see someon who does not understand what 'social anxiety' is, or cannot understand that some people only want to play with people they know.
But since YOU don't have that issue; Rather than fixing the problem in a fair way, you'd rather just say "Just get more friends!" and completely brush aside people who can't/won't.

But you're fine, so people who aren't should just deal with smaller Guild Rep gains because...reasons.

Social anxiety is a realy BS argument here. I am someone with social anxiety (and therefore likes to solo sloop most of the time) and nothing stopped me from joining a big guild, since it doesn't force you to communicate with others or play with others. You can still just play closed crew and it's nothing else then if you did that without being in a guild.

So social anxiety isn't the issue here, it's just you not wanted to be in a bigger guild, but only in a guild with people you know. That is fine ofcourse, but don't demand that every concequence of you own choice has to be taken away.

@eguzky said in Fixing guilds:

So the two people against my idea have 0 valid reasons for their stance, other than being selfish. Good to know.

You not agreeing with something doesn't make that reason invalid. That is realy a dumb way or arguing. In fact: you where the one not even going into other arguments and pulling up strawmans. You claimed that we didn't have or undertsand social anxiety, wich you didn't and couldn't even know and also was false. Then you turned to saying that we'd said "just get more friends!", wich we never said (another strawman) and then you called us "selfish", wich is even hilarious, since you are the one deliberately wanting your guild to remain small and demanding that you are being rewarded for that, you're the one demanding to not have consequences for your own choices... Who's the selfish one again? LOL

And on top of that you also completely ignored arguments brought in, like how bigger guilds could just cheese their way by leaving the guild when their offline and only joining back in when their playing and when the ledger is going to close, something you didn't go into, since that would just make your idea not even work anymore, would not help smaller guilds and even punish larger ones who don't want to cheese.

So stop with the selfrightiousness, namecalling and strawmanning.

@brentjitsu said in Fixing guilds:

Do away with it entirely. That's how you fix it.

Guilds are pretty cool without the grind and turning into into some weird power imbalance work-for-free social thing.

Getting rid of ledgers and adding some more occasional in-game guild stuff for casual play and guilds fit in fine into the game.

Only real issue with guilds imo is trying to cater to people that cheese at a sacrifice to those that should have been the priority with the feature, people without connections and those that just want to better enjoy their connections through fun features.

A lot of momentum is lost but if things were changed a bit they could bring a lot of interest back to just casually having fun with guilds, without the offputting grind/stress/drama parts of it that really are not necessary.

They nerfed the heckaroni out of Captaincy to where it's an entirely different version than designed just to let casual players have a bit of a fancier version of the same reward. It's just inconsistent to act like any grind in guilds is necessary at all. Especially as social/community focused content.

I think the best option would just be having a guild leaderboard in the guild menus displaying emissary earned by each member that week or month.

That way its not invasive, caters for serious guilds who don't want slacking cheesers. It also offers a bit of friendly competition to be your guilds top contributor. It also make no harmful difference to more chilled guilds that dont care about this stuff.

Overall it would be a good tool to add for guild leaders to manage their guild better.