Announcing The Old Republic Guild Summit

[NoxiousAlby]

Accusations of conspiracy? Really? Whining about how guilds got selected or the amount of notice they gave? Awww boo hoo..... how unfair. Grow up, Bioware owes you nothing. They aren't required by any means or should they explain how and why they do things. Unleess your a board member just play the game and be thankfull they're taking steps like this to better the game for you.

 

Maybe bioware will learn not to publish these types of things on public forums untill it's done. They have the ability to kow who in game are succesfull guild leaders. Perhaps they should have just quietly reached out to them instead of having them apply and announce it on the forums.

 

And perhaphs due to your despotic and arrogant replies we should just unsubscribe because if your any indication of what the game will become, then no thanklyou.

[NoxiousAlby]

You appear to be inferring that every player who isn't in a guild is a mindless moron who isn't worth listening to. That's a very elitist and presumptuous perspective. Furthermore, you are giving guild leaders way too much credit. They do NOT represent the majority of the playerbase because they will be biased, and have their own agendas which aren't necessarily in line with the concerns of others.

 

I also disagree with your automatic assumption that "much of end game content is accomplished through guilds". You make it sound like a necessity. Which isn't the case. Sure, being in a guild makes it easier to get into raids. But that doesn't hold for other forms of end game content.

 

Besides, too much reliance on things like raids as the main form of end game content is a bad move anyhow. There's lots of end game content that this game could have, which wouldn't necessitate being in a guild.

 

 

In short: If Bioware truely want to get the honest opinions of the community, then they should ask the ENTIRE community using a medium that is concise and convenient for all. Not just "hand pick" particular guild leaders and assume that their views are representative of the majority.

 

Quoted the whole thing for truth, it's exactky how I feel and if this game follows the same path as the previous rpgmmo I played then my subscription wont go beyond 6 months.

[jztrotter]

Stephen, I find it interesting that you acknowledge that people were giving constructive feedback before AND after launch, and we also mustn't forget that infamous "Wall of Crazy" which the devs mentioned a few times which apparently contains a wide range of things which both the devs AND players have suggested.

 

You also apparently have metrics, individual constructive feedback on the forums, bug reports, in-game report feedback, etc, etc on a variety of subjects.

 

So, Stephen, the question begs:

What exactly do you hope to accomplish with this summit (in regards to making the game "better") that you didn't either already know, or could find out in a more "convenient" and concise means?

 

By this I mean, please give us an example of how YOU (bioware) think this "summit" will be beneficial to the continued development of this game, in ways that cannot be achieved via a more concise and cost effective means.

 

And please don't give us this "open discussion...blah blah" marketing speech because that isn't giving a straight forward answer. We already have an "open discussion" medium, on these forums.

 

Side note: Words and promises are hollow and worthless until action is taken. So perhaps the effort that is being put into this "summit" would be better spent actually making this product better. Not just talking about it.

 

I couldn't have said it better if I tried.

[Tarka]

You folks are very amusing.

 

So for a guild summit, about guilds and guild functionality and for the purpose of discussing future possiblities for guilds they did something crazy and chose a subset of those folks who had the founded current Star Wars guilds.

 

 

There is some serious entitlement issues certain folks need to work through.

 

 

Personally I think it's a great idea and applaud BioWare for reaching out to the Guilds for their input.

 

Well done BioWare!

 

 

Alodar

 

No mention is made in the announcement that it's specifically about guild specific activities.

[Tarka]

Regardless if you agree or disagree with the summit, the current state of endgame, and how the game works... ignoring that being in a guild makes it easier for all endgame content is just putting a blind eye to the obvious

 

Much end game content is being done by guilds. Raids, Open world PVP and warzones are often done by guilds.

 

How often do you see people, who are not in guilds, at any of these events?

 

 

I understand you don't agree with the summit, but don't down play the value of guilds in an MMO

 

If you read my post again, I haven't downplayed guilds at all.

 

Besides, do you actually have metrics which state that "much end game content is done by guilds" (inferring that an activity only includes players from the same guild, and no one else)? Because to me, that sounds like a wild guess.

 

The fact is, you DON'T HAVE to be in a guild to get involved in things like open world PVP, warzones, dailies, crafting, and flashpoints. The only playstyle that is more likely to be "guild orientated" is in fact raiding. And thats only because it's hard work to find a pug.

 

Being in a guild isn't a necessity. That's a fact. But more relevant is the fact that each guild and guild leader will have their own guilds best interest at heart, which is not necessarily in line with the rest of the population. So to assume that a "select" few individual guild leaders are naturally representative of the majority of players, would be a fallacy.

 

My point is that if Bioware really do want to get the latest opinions of the ENTIRE community, then they should ask the ENTIRE community. Not just "Cherry Pick" a few guild leaders, and assume that their views are representative of the community as a whole.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Tarka

[ChaJomi]

If you read my post again, I haven't downplayed guilds at all.

 

Besides, do you actually have metrics which state that "much end game content is done by guilds" (inferring that an activity only includes players from the same guild, and no one else)? Because to me, that sounds like a wild guess.

 

The fact is, you DON'T HAVE to be in a guild to get involved in things like open world PVP, warzones, dailies, crafting, and flashpoints. The only playstyle that is more likely to be "guild orientated" is in fact raiding. And thats only because it's hard work to find a pug.

 

Being in a guild isn't a necessity. That's a fact. But more relevant is the fact that each guild and guild leader will have their own guilds best interest at heart, which is not necessarily in line with the rest of the population. So to assume that a "select" few individual guild leaders are naturally representative of the majority of players, would be a fallacy.

 

My point is that if Bioware really do want to get the latest opinions of the ENTIRE community, then they should ask the ENTIRE community. Not just "Cherry Pick" a few guild leaders, and assume that their views are representative.

 

Even if Guild leaders are pushing agendas that promote their own interests with the diversity of the people who will be in attendance this is a good thing. People who have no guild at all would simply be pushing their own personal agenda, at least with guild leaders you get more peoples interests and ideas being promoted.

[Tarka]

Even if Guild leaders are pushing agendas that promote their own interests with the diversity of the people who will be in attendance this is a good thing. People who have no guild at all would simply be pushing their own personal agenda, at least with guild leaders you get more peoples interests and ideas being promoted.

 

You are right, everyone has their own agenda. Which is why it is NOT safe to just automatically assume that the views of those actively participating on site in this summit are representative of others and even very diverse.

 

Also, one cannot automatically assume that this event will promote more peoples interest and ideas by having guild leaders present. The opposite in fact has just the same amount of probability in happening. For instance, we could end up with a situation whereby those in attendance all think alike, cheering and whooping at anything Bioware say and do, no matter what the subject or context. Resulting in a "summit" which actually didn't acheive very much aside from being a "praise Bioware" event.

 

The entire point for only inviting guild leaders is simply because its impossible to invite everyone. That's understandable. But in only inviting a select few, the accuracy of the results may be somewhat diminished.

 

In short: Unless we know of each an every guild leaders intentions that are going to this summit, one cannot be absolutely sure how much will be gained from it.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Tarka

[ManOSteal]

If you read my post again, I haven't downplayed guilds at all.

 

Besides, do you actually have metrics which state that "much end game content is done by guilds" (inferring that an activity only includes players from the same guild, and no one else)? Because to me, that sounds like a wild guess.

 

The fact is, you DON'T HAVE to be in a guild to get involved in things like open world PVP, warzones, dailies, crafting, and flashpoints. The only playstyle that is more likely to be "guild orientated" is in fact raiding. And thats only because it's hard work to find a pug.

 

Being in a guild isn't a necessity. That's a fact. But more relevant is the fact that each guild and guild leader will have their own guilds best interest at heart, which is not necessarily in line with the rest of the population. So to assume that a "select" few individual guild leaders are naturally representative of the majority of players, would be a fallacy.

 

My point is that if Bioware really do want to get the latest opinions of the ENTIRE community, then they should ask the ENTIRE community. Not just "Cherry Pick" a few guild leaders, and assume that their views are representative.

 

actually no this is the definition of a focus group. Not just that but a focus group of people that will more than likely be regular customers that intend to be around for a while. They are in fact representative of the comunity.

 

your saying these forums are constructive in some way...have you been watching the very thread your posting in. Think of it like this: How much useful dialog or feedback would they get if they started a thread saying, "hey we want your thoughts on implementing this new feature for guilds"? Now look at the rest of the forums. Do you think they would be able to actually get meaningful dialog going? More than likely they would they get a bunch of posts from forum trolls and people making inane comments like, "You should fix X and Y before you implement new features", and, "Why are you only making up new stuff for guilds what about all of us not in guilds?" Now think about how fast that goes by and how side tracked that thread or any threads like it would get (read as look at this thread). The devs would end up having to lock their own thread because it got off topic and is now participating in an argument over whatever the argument of the month is. By having a Guild Summit they do something awesome for expediting the feedback process. They remove the trolls and a lot of the complainers that slow the process down. Because really who is going to actually spend that much money to go out and troll and complain.

 

Personally my guild, if we get an approval of our application, will be sending an envoy that already lives in Austin. Mainly because none of us can afford that trip either monetarily or time wise. Our envoy will be running twitter and possibly keeping updates flowing to our enjin shoutbox. He will be the figurehead of our whole guild giving constructive feedback. This will work for us because we are a fairly small guild, but could still work for most large guilds if they set up posting rules for the actual day. Also most large and serious guilds going to this event will be having forum discussion about this ahead of time for what questions need to be asked and what suggestions should be made. So cherry picking certain guild leaders that are the heads of guilds that are or have been very active in the community in a constructive manner is a perfect way to get a litmus test of ideas. Them allowing others to apply for a slot is an incredibly nice gesture that they never even needed to make, and in all likelihood pissed off the people designing their focus group testing.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a unified hashtag setup so we can keep multiple updates and discussions community wide. Having someone live stream some of the event with a webcam or something would be more than awesome, but that's a bit much to ask of people. No matter what pumped about this summit as it means that people will report on some of the new features they are entertaining the idea of or are planning on implementing.

 

P.S. sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes I am posting at work and cannot take the time to proof read.

Edited February 3, 2012 by ManOSteal

[Dragonexadon]

one cannot be absolutely sure that much will be gained from this event.

 

That can be said for any form of data communication , including surveys. Nothing is absolute. Having multiple forms of communication is not a bad thing.

 

I think knowing that the summit will happen no matter what is said here...you have three options:

 

1) Not support it (that's fine)

2) Try to support it but give feed back on what you would like to see a the summit (with in reason, having 1.7 million people in one room can't happen)

 

I don't think it helps to say the same things over and over on how this wont work. If it fails it fails. If you know it will fail then there is nothing to even debate about. You absolutely can't be wrong if you know for sure.

 

I think it is better at this point to ask questions or give suggestions about the summit or let it go. I don't see how posting about the many ways it will fail helps anything.

[Tarka]

actually no this is the definition of a focus group. Not just that but a focus group of people that will more than likely be regular customers that intend to be around for a while. They are in fact representative of the comunity.

 

So you're saying that ONLY guild leaders are considered to be "regularly customers"? Really?

 

your saying these forums are constructive in some way...have you been watching the very thread your posting in. Think of it like this: How much useful dialog or feedback would they get if they started a thread saying, "hey we want your thoughts on implementing this new feature for guilds"? Now look at the rest of the forums. Do you think they would be able to actually get meaningful dialog going? More than likely they would they get a bunch of posts from forum trolls and people making inane comments like, "You should fix X and Y before you implement new features", and, "Why are you only making up new stuff for guilds what about all of us not in guilds?" Now think about how fast that goes by and how side tracked that thread or any threads like it would get (read as look at this thread). The devs would end up having to lock their own thread because it got off topic and is now participating in an argument over whatever the argument of the month is. By having a Guild Summit they do something awesome for expediting the feedback process. They remove the trolls and a lot of the complainers that slow the process down. Because really who is going to actually spend that much money to go out and troll and complain.

 

Lol. The irony is that that very same scenario in a "summit" situation and end up with the same results. As for "removing trolls" and complainers, are you essentially trying to advocate that only "fanboys" should be attendance? If so, you are proving my point exactly about this whole summit thing is a really bad idea due to the agendas of those in attendance.

 

Personally my guild, if we get an approval of our application, will be sending an envoy that already lives in Austin. Mainly because none of us can afford that trip either monetarily or time wise. Our envoy will be running twitter and possibly keeping updates flowing to our enjin shoutbox. He will be the figurehead of our whole guild giving constructive feedback. This will work for us because we are a fairly small guild, but could still work for most large guilds if they set up posting rules for the actual day. Also most large and serious guilds going to this event will be having forum discussion about this ahead of time for what questions need to be asked and what suggestions should be made. So cherry picking certain guild leaders that are the heads of guilds that are or have been very active in the community in a constructive manner is a perfect way to get a litmus test of ideas. Them allowing others to apply for a slot is an incredibly nice gesture that they never even needed to make, and in all likelihood pissed off the people designing their focus group testing.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a unified hashtag setup so we can keep multiple updates and discussions community wide. Having someone live stream some of the event with a webcam or something would be more than awesome, but that's a bit much to ask of people. No matter what pumped about this summit as it means that people will report on some of the new features they are entertaining the idea of or are planning on implementing.

 

And what exactly do you think are the main subjects that those "large and serious guilds" will be biased towards hmmm?

 

Here's a clue: Ever heard of "Fires of Heaven", and ever wondered why WoW's endgame was so centred around raiding for quite some time after launch?

[Tarka]

That can be said for any form of data communication , including surveys. Nothing is absolute. Having multiple forms of communication is not a bad thing.

 

Nice try at taking what I said out of context there. Look at the entire sentence please.

 

It seems that bioware is attempting to get the opinions of the community. Such intentions are admirable. But, the moment they DON'T actually ask the entire community, but instead just focus on a small number of guild leaders, they risk dilluting the accuracy of the results and what can be achieved from that event.

 

Compare the accuracy of information gained from interviewing a select few, compared to conducting a survey involving a much bigger pool of subjects.

 

I think knowing that the summit will happen no matter what is said here...you have three options:

 

1) Not support it (that's fine)

2) Try to support it but give feed back on what you would like to see a the summit (with in reason, having 1.7 million people in one room can't happen)

 

I don't think it helps to say the same things over and over on how this wont work. If it fails it fails. If you know it will fail then there is nothing to even debate about. You absolutely can't be wrong if you know for sure.

 

I think it is better at this point to ask questions or give suggestions about the summit or let it go. I don't see how posting about the many ways it will fail helps anything.

 

If someone responds to your post, it is customary to reply to it. Now, it sounds to me like you are making a thinly veiled attempt to tell me to shut up because my viewpoints happen to differ to yours. Which I really don't think anyone has the right to do so.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Tarka

[Dragonexadon]

If someone responds to your post, it is customary to reply to it. Now, it sounds to me like you are making a thinly veiled attempt to tell me to shut up because my viewpoints happen to differ to yours. Which I really don't think anyone has the right to do so.

 

Not saying that at all, just saying your views have been stated. You are no longer being constructive. Nor am I for that matter for debating back with you about our views.

 

Side note it is not out of context. I replied to a point you made about the summit.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Dragonexadon

[Tarka]

Not saying that at all, just saying your views have been stated and are no longer being constructive. Nor am I for that matter for debating back with you about our views.

 

Side note it is not out of context. I replied to a point you made about the summit.

 

That is your own opinion, one that is not necesssarily shared by everyone. So thanks for proving my point about how the viewpoints of a particular individual are not necessarily in line with the opinions of others.

 

Btw, you DID take what I said out of context, you stripped half the sentence away. Here's what I ACTUALLY said:

 

Unless we know of each an every guild leaders intentions that are going to this summit, one cannot be absolutely sure how much will be gained from it.

 

Notice how the start of that section puts the rest into a different context.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Tarka

[Seisaan]

Do people really not understand why guild leaders are being selected to go? Its not necessarily because they know more about the game, but because they usually have better organization skills. What I mean by this, is any guild leader who gets invited and gives a damn will have already started a thread on their guild's forums or sent out mail asking, "Hey, I got invited to the Summit. What do you want me to ensure gets brought up/discussed and what kind of feedback would you like for me to provide?"

 

They are going as representatives of the guilds in game. They should be organizing the ideas and thoughts of their guild members and bringing that with them to the summit. If your guild leader is not doing something like this, you should probably bring it up to them. Yes, there are those who arent in guilds (like myself) who wish they could go, but Bioware are picking representatives and, if you're not the leader of a guild, you are really potentially only bringing your opinions and not the opinions of thousands of others. Is this concept really so hard for some of you to understand or accept?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Seisaan

[ManOSteal]

So you're saying that ONLY guild leaders are considered to be "regularly customers"? Really?

 

no not saying that. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that they most likely are regular customers.

 

Lol. The irony is that that very same scenario in a "summit" situation and end up with the same results. As for "removing trolls" and complainers, are you essentially trying to advocate that only "fanboys" should be attendance? If so, you are proving my point exactly about this whole summit thing is a really bad idea due to the agendas of those in attendance.

 

1.) Being a guild leader doesn't make you a fanboy in fact I would bet that some of the cherry picked guild leaders are from guilds that are quite audible in their dissatisfaction yet are still playing and waiting for things to improve.

2.) your really need to work on reading comprehension. Stop seeing what you want to see being said and see what is actually said. I didn't say that only fanboys should be in attendance. I was saying that constructive and directed discussion is impossible on these forums. Take for example what we are doing right now. It detracts from the discussion, and becomes the discussion. This is not conducive to getting anywhere. In an in-person discussion the people leading the discussion can outright stop people from going to far off topic with the discussion.

 

And what exactly do you think are the main subjects that those "large and serious guilds" will be biased towards hmmm?

 

Here's a clue: Ever heard of "Fires of Heaven", and ever wondered why WoW's endgame was so centred around raiding for quite some time after launch?

 

yes that may happen, that's why there are also people there from smaller guilds which will influence them to make the end game easier for small groups. However one shouldn't forget it is a social game. It should be based around groups accomplishing things together. In that regard you have two options. You can either Raid or PvP. Both of these are done in ops groups. That is what end game is in a social game.

 

 

Yet again I apologize for any erroneous grammar and/or spelling

Edited February 3, 2012 by ManOSteal

[ManOSteal]

Do people really not understand why guild leaders are being selected to go? Its not necessarily because they know more about the game, but because they usually have better organization skills. What I mean by this, is any guild leader who gets invited and gives a damn will have already started a thread on their guild's forums or sent out mail asking, "Hey, I got invited to the Summit. What do you want me to ensure gets brought up/discussed and what kind of feedback would you like for me to provide?"

 

They are going as representatives of the guilds in game. They should be organizing the ideas and thoughts of their guild members and bringing that with them to the summit. If your guild leader is not doing something like this, you should probably bring it up to them. Yes, there are those who arent in guilds (like myself) who wish they could go, but Bioware are picking representatives and, if you're not the leader of a guild, you are really potentially only bringing your opinions and not the opinions of thousands of others. Is this concept really so hard for some of you to understand or accept?

 

could have been stated in a nicer tone but this^

[Dragonexadon]

Do people really not understand why guild leaders are being selected to go? Its not necessarily because they know more about the game, but because they usually have better organization skills. What I mean by this, is any guild leader who gets invited and gives a damn will have already started a thread on their guild's forums or sent out mail asking, "Hey, I got invited to the Summit. What do you want me to ensure gets brought up/discussed and what kind of feedback would you like for me to provide?"

 

They are going as representatives of the guilds in game. They should be organizing the ideas and thoughts of their guild members and bringing that with them to the summit. If your guild leader is not doing something like this, you should probably bring it up to them. Yes, there are those who arent in guilds (like myself) who wish they could go, but Bioware are picking representatives and, if you're not the leader of a guild, you are really potentially only bringing your opinions and not the opinions of thousands of others. Is this concept really so hard for some of you to understand or accept?

 

100% agree. Though also agree that it could be said nicer haha

[DTuloJr]

You and others demanded? And who exactly are you to be making demands to any one other than perhaps your children? Maybe it's not that your ideas aren't impossible, maybe they are being incorporated but your ideas aren't their highest priority. So you make demands and you want it now.

 

Demanded is BioWare's own term used by their management and devs when frequently discussing customer feedback. You're reading farrrrr too deeply into that word. Please remain civil.

[Seisaan]

Eh, sorry, reading the forums usually makes me want to bash my skull through a wall so that frustration sometimes breaks through in my posts.

[ManOSteal]

Eh, sorry, reading the forums usually makes me want to bash my skull through a wall so that frustration sometimes breaks through in my posts.

 

hey I hear ya man I have gotten a few posts edited because I, to the emperors delight, let the anger flow through me and straight into the keyboard.

[Dragonexadon]

Eh, sorry, reading the forums usually makes me want to bash my skull through a wall so that frustration sometimes breaks through in my posts.

 

haha, we have all been there.

[DTuloJr]

Missed the point. Your feedback is nothing more than:

 

"...now do that again."

 

They're looking for something more useful than "spend more time and money on everything".

 

BioWare Austin did not deliver what they originally released as their vision, in their very first press releases and interviews. I'd like them to do exactly what they said they were going to do. Nowhere do I say it has to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to accomlish that. Indeed, they already have the development staff and infrastructure to make it happen. The list I provided is in no way prioritized. It can absolutely be accomplished, without spending another few hundred million dollars.

 

Now, you suggest that they're looking for something specific and "useful". Who are you to judge what is and is not useful to them?

 

Open your imagination. Dare to dream. Nothing is impossible. Heck, learn from Yoda. If you think something isn't possible, then you've already defeated yourself.

[ManOSteal]

On a completely different tip what are some of the subjects people are hoping they cover at this event.

 

I'm hoping for some guild perks. It is one of the few things I saw that other game do in recent history where I was like wow how was that not a feature of guilds for like forever. The one I want in particular right now is guild capitol ships or fleets. nothing to crazy but something you can bring outsiders to in your ship for RP and stuff like that.

[Dragonexadon]

On a completely different tip what are some of the subjects people are hoping they cover at this event.

 

I'm hoping for some guild perks. It is one of the few things I saw that other game do in recent history where I was like wow how was that not a feature of guilds for like forever. The one I want in particular right now is guild capitol ships or fleets. nothing to crazy but something you can bring outsiders to in your ship for RP and stuff like that.

 

• Guild Leveling
  
• Companions in Endgame (companion dailys, weeklys story missions)
  
• Current Crafting System
  
• Future of the Crafting System
  
• Tionese/Columi tokens and their useful ness in current state
  
• Warzone current state, plans for ques as a 8 man?
  
• Increased guild management tools
  
• Small feature request / discussion (Ready checks, /rolls, ect)
  
• Class balancing
  
• The future of pure single player content (story)
  
• The future of Artifice and other neglaticed crafting (I have yet to see a recp. drop for artifice in raids)
  

 

I am , today, going to be gathering a list from my guild. As I know even if I dont get picked I will want to be apart of the public aspect. I want to get as much information for them as I can.

[LordPlucky]

I've been in a number of large and successful MMO guilds over the years, going back as far as 2003. One thing I can say definitively is guild leaders, more and more as of late, suffer from a major disconnect with what a game entails. They turn into one part hedge fund director, one part social planner, one part oligarch. This is a thinly-veiled press conference disguised as a "community panel." If they had bothered with this kind of interaction with us durring beta, the game would have been more solid at launch.