ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Guild Pre-requisites

Strongly Disagree

There is nothing wrong with, as the suggestion worded, "average guilds". Is the future success of a guild measured by the initial difficulty of obtaining it?

Their potential isn't the problem. The problem I always found in GW1 is that, since guilds are so easy to make, there's an over-abundance of them, too much competition for recruitment between too many guilds, and A LOT of them fail quite fast. I've seen so many guilds go completely dead/disband left right and center - with a charter system, guilds would at least be built on more solid foundations, and you can bet they would at least have some level of organization, having recruited enough people to form the guild - GW1 lacks any real requirement at all (which doesn't even make sense in RP terms if you ask me), which to me is a pitfall. I would rather not see that repeated in GW2. - Slarynn 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Would having additional requirements at the very beginning prevent an over-abundance of guilds and alleviate the problem of too much competition in recruitment? Will it cause much less guilds to fail quite fast? --198.17.70.8 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I honestly think so. I'll make a comparison between GW and WoW - which I know is generally not a good idea as the games vary a lot, but the basic concept of guilds is present in both games.

In Guild Wars 1, pretty much from day one (I played in the beta and since release), I saw guilds form and drop like flies all over the place. I joined several (about 7-8) guilds, and I say several only because I had to leave numerous ones, due to a lack of members and no real activity. Conversely, in World of Warcraft, I joined only two guilds during my time there (not since the game's release, but for a few years nonetheless). Why? Because the general level of activity and quality of guilds is higher in WoW, due to the requirements that must be met to actually form one.

More to the point, Guild Wars always suffered from guilds spamming recruitment messages when they never really had much more to offer than the other several hundred guilds trying to compete. How many times have you entered a major city/outpost to see a string of messages along the lines of "(guild name) recruiting members!! we have cape and guild hall!!"? I don't think I know of any guilds that DON'T have both of those things. Guilds are just too common, because the majority of players all want to own a guild of their own, and the fact of the matter is: THEY CAN, because the requirements to create/own one are extremely low. You might think that's a good thing, but forming guilds shouldn't be almost as easy as forming a party (technically, it's easier, if you count the party cap).

And one more thing; I mentioned previously that it doesn't even make sense in RP terms. I'll explain that here too. Picture for a moment a warrior, who lived and grew up in pre-searing Ascalon, never having made much of a living, but did his fair share of skale killing. He walks up to one of the city's guild registrars, and asks "hey, if I give you this handful of coins, will you register this guild name for me?". In GW1, he would get a 'Yes', and would own a guild then and there, simple as that - despite the fact he's the only "member", and never did anything truly commendable or something that would make him renowned. Something isn't right there.

My opinion, in a nutshell, is this: guilds aren't for commoners and simpletons. If you want to own a guild, you should prove that you are worthy of owning and running one in the first place. Does it have to be a cost in gold? No - it can be, but with additional requirements, the best of which I think would be a signed charter. Starting a guild off with 7 other members straight off the bat is a good basis for the guild's development and lowers the chances of it fading out of existence the next day.

Oh, and wouldn't it be nice to see "we have a guild hall and cape" and, to an extent, actually be impressed by it? It would be nice to join a guild that has some evidence of their status besides PvP ranking. - Slarynn 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice points, although I think the point the previous editor made is more on the fact that no matter how much requirements you put in one thing (like creating a guild), people can and will be able to attain that, and that gives no guarantee that they will maintain the guild in the future. Sure, I'll do the requirements. But does that ensure that I will keep it up in the future?

While I agree that the suggestion is well-meant, I think it removes the casual aspect of guilds. This may or may not be a good idea, but personally, I think that the "over-abundance" of guilds is not really a problem---if you like a big, "respectable" guild (which naturally varies depending on your definition), then I don't think anyone is stopping you from joining them. Let the small players make guilds; who knows, maybe they'll be the "respectable" guild you are looking for in the future. --148.87.1.171 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)