Auto Guild Manager Swap.

[Darthanimus]

I am writing to complain about the auto guild swap mechanic. It is in my opinion it's one of the most pointless and infuriating aspects of the game right now. I am co-manager with a guildie and real-life issues mean that both of us from time to time need to take breaks from SWtoR. The issue is that unsubbing turns the guild to a F2P guild and then when someone resubs in guild the ownership swaps to whoever, which we then need to ask for it back. A guild turning to a F2P guild resets the guild ranks and this messes with the permissions on the guild bank. This had happened so many times often with unacceptable consequences, such as a random guildies getting access to the guild bank clearing out tabs of platinum and gold armor and weapon and billions of credits..

I am honestly getting to my wits end at this stupid mechanic and its long past time that it was removed so that people can safely keep hold of what they have worked so hard for. In my opinion guilds should remain with a person regardless of sub status and guilds that move from F2P and subbed and visa versa, should not suffer changes or effects that impact the existing permission parameters of guild property. 

[lEziol]

Agreed, The Division did this with clans and it ruined the entire clan system because nobody knew who was the real clan leader anymore after people stopped playing. For SWTOR this is just stupid to have. I am not a guild owner anymore, but I know for a fact it was a pain in the ass to have.

[Darthanimus]

1 minute ago, lEziol said:

Agreed, The Division did this with clans and it ruined the entire clan system because nobody knew who was the real clan leader anymore after people stopped playing. For SWTOR this is just stupid to have. I am not a guild owner anymore, but I know for a fact it was a pain in the ass to have.

Thanks for adding to the thread, it's appreciated. This mechanic has been such a big headache over the years. 

[DarthAlastor]

I disagree with this. By unsubbing or not logging in you are basically saying you don't want the position anymore which is why it either goes to the next highest rank or if it's a choice between a sub vs a f2p the sub is going to win

[SteveTheCynic]

2 hours ago, Darthanimus said:

I am honestly getting to my wits end at this stupid mechanic and its long past time that it was removed so that people can safely keep hold of what they have worked so hard for. In my opinion guilds should remain with a person regardless of sub status and guilds that move from F2P and subbed and visa versa, should not suffer changes or effects that impact the existing permission parameters of guild property. 

The mechanics serves to keep the guild in the hands of a leader who plays often enough to keep the guild active and interesting.  The distinction between F2P guilds and subscriber-led guilds serves as an incentive to subscribe, and (up to a point that we haven't even come close to reaching(1)) the more of those we have, the better.

So: no, I do not support the proposed changes.

[xordevoreaux]

5 hours ago, Darthanimus said:

In my opinion guilds should remain with a person regardless of sub status

Stay gone long enough, avoid your guild leader-only duties long enough, expect your guild to be depopulated. 

[Crystal_Mind]

Not supported.

If your primary interest in the guild is your stronghold/bank etc. (effectively just a vanity guild with extra people), then the only way to secure those assets is to kick everyone but you and your co-GM when you both convert to F2P. Problem solved.

If you're actually interested in the guild as a Guild (an association of players), then you need to put in some work, plan, and set up your ranks accordingly. For example: transfer leadership between you and your buddy so that you're not both gone at the same time. This kind of guild IS its members; the pixel assets are nice, but largely irrelevant beyond buying perks.

Guild leadership is not a casual enterprise if you care about your members. The "transfer to active subscriber" mechanic is in place to protect your members from absentee GMs, to allow them to retain the perks of being in a subscriber guild, and (as Steve points out) as incentive to subscribe. F2P guilds exist with limited features by sufferance; they are not intended to be the default.

[lEziol]

On 1/29/2023 at 6:08 PM, DarthAlastor said:

I disagree with this. By unsubbing or not logging in you are basically saying you don't want the position anymore which is why it either goes to the next highest rank or if it's a choice between a sub vs a f2p the sub is going to win

 

On 1/29/2023 at 7:00 PM, SteveTheCynic said:

The mechanics serves to keep the guild in the hands of a leader who plays often enough to keep the guild active and interesting.  The distinction between F2P guilds and subscriber-led guilds serves as an incentive to subscribe, and (up to a point that we haven't even come close to reaching(1)) the more of those we have, the better.

So: no, I do not support the proposed changes.

 

On 1/29/2023 at 9:10 PM, xordevoreaux said:

Stay gone long enough, avoid your guild leader-only duties long enough, expect your guild to be depopulated. 

 

On 1/30/2023 at 11:35 AM, Crystal_Mind said:

Not supported.

If your primary interest in the guild is your stronghold/bank etc. (effectively just a vanity guild with extra people), then the only way to secure those assets is to kick everyone but you and your co-GM when you both convert to F2P. Problem solved.

If you're actually interested in the guild as a Guild (an association of players), then you need to put in some work, plan, and set up your ranks accordingly. For example: transfer leadership between you and your buddy so that you're not both gone at the same time. This kind of guild IS its members; the pixel assets are nice, but largely irrelevant beyond buying perks.

Guild leadership is not a casual enterprise if you care about your members. The "transfer to active subscriber" mechanic is in place to protect your members from absentee GMs, to allow them to retain the perks of being in a subscriber guild, and (as Steve points out) as incentive to subscribe. F2P guilds exist with limited features by sufferance; they are not intended to be the default.

Honestly it doesn't matter AT ALL what you all think is good or bad, the system has been proven time and time again to be the direct downfall of many guilds across NUMEROUS games who had/have this feature. Additionally, the Game Master's won't ever do anything to help return the guild to you even if you can prove you MADE the guild.

Take for example someone had a prosperous guild who dedicated billions to it and filled it to the brim with content, only for it to be removed for losing a sub or going inactive due to financial issues in real life or whatever have you.... THIS IS A GAME!!!! It should not rely on your attendance to stay functioning, instead, rather it should have a Guild Master inactivity timer to delete the guild entirely and return all items to their respective owners. 

You can try to justify and group-think this, but I see and have seen NO BENEFIT from this system except to those who wish to do hostile takeovers of guilds and rob them. You cannot change my mind.

[Jdast]

30 minutes ago, lEziol said:

 

 

 

Honestly it doesn't matter AT ALL what you all think is good or bad, the system has been proven time and time again to be the direct downfall of many guilds across NUMEROUS games who had/have this feature. Additionally, the Game Master's won't ever do anything to help return the guild to you even if you can prove you MADE the guild.

Take for example someone had a prosperous guild who dedicated billions to it and filled it to the brim with content, only for it to be removed for losing a sub or going inactive due to financial issues in real life or whatever have you.... THIS IS A GAME!!!! It should not rely on your attendance to stay functioning, instead, rather it should have a Guild Master inactivity timer to delete the guild entirely and return all items to their respective owners. 

You can try to justify and group-think this, but I see and have seen NO BENEFIT from this system except to those who wish to do hostile takeovers of guilds and rob them. You cannot change my mind.

I have no intention of changing your mind, but it is not a hostile takeover -- it is abdication. What about the lieutenants in the guild who also contributed billions, worked on recruiting, etc.? They are now left twisting in the wind. Even with your proposed solution of an "inactivity timer" and return of resources, it would be impossible for Bioware to determine not only the resources contributed, but time spent organizing and management. How could you possibly quantify that? Do you seriously expect Bioware to go back and check, for example, every decoration contributed to a guild bank? 🙄

What if the other guild members can no longer invade a planet for Conquest bonus points? What if they can't set Guild Bank parameters? 

This situation is very easy to resolve. Talk to a trusted guild member, explain that you need to step away from game for <<insert reason>> but that you would like to resume guild leadership upon your return. It's a guild, not your personal dictatorship to do with as you please, whenever you please.

Of course real life situations can happen and warrant you stepping away from the game. And while the details for your taking a break are your own and don't need to be made public, your failure to communicate with other guild members is entirely on you. It's very easy to set up a solo guild. I have two myself. That sounds like a better fit for you as opposed to being selfish and punishing others.

FYI, you're not going to change my mind either. I also don't think it matters what you think as I highly doubt Bioware, or any other respectable gaming company, will change their minds because of your selfishness.

Dasty

Edited February 1, 2023 by Jdast

[xordevoreaux]

22 minutes ago, lEziol said:

the direct downfall

The direct downfall requires a person to be absent, the system simply makes sure perpetually AWOL leaders don't hamstring a guild with their absence.

[Ominovin]

A couple of things to add/repeat:

1. When you donate to your guild, remember that the key word is 'donate' and don't ever, ever, ever, ever expect to get anything back.
   1. Even when you are the guild leader, you are not 'the guild' (assuming it isn't an actual solo-guild, of course).
2. Leadership = Responsibility
   1. If you want to be a guild leader, you need to log on periodically.
      1. If you don't, the game will replace you so the guild isn't bereft of leadership for a prolonged period.
   2. If you know you are leaving the game for a while, promote someone trustworthy before you leave.
      1. If you don't have any trustworthy guildies to promote, you don't actually have much of a guild...
   3. If you unexpectedly have to leave the game for 28+ days, your SWTOR guild should probably the least of your worries.

The existing system is basically fine...

[casirabit]

2 hours ago, lEziol said:

 

 

 

Honestly it doesn't matter AT ALL what you all think is good or bad, the system has been proven time and time again to be the direct downfall of many guilds across NUMEROUS games who had/have this feature. Additionally, the Game Master's won't ever do anything to help return the guild to you even if you can prove you MADE the guild.

Take for example someone had a prosperous guild who dedicated billions to it and filled it to the brim with content, only for it to be removed for losing a sub or going inactive due to financial issues in real life or whatever have you.... THIS IS A GAME!!!! It should not rely on your attendance to stay functioning, instead, rather it should have a Guild Master inactivity timer to delete the guild entirely and return all items to their respective owners. 

You can try to justify and group-think this, but I see and have seen NO BENEFIT from this system except to those who wish to do hostile takeovers of guilds and rob them. You cannot change my mind.

We have had our guild since launch, and not once have we had a problem with anyone other than an officer becoming guild leader and that was expected as our old guild leader told us about it and promoted the person.  When she was leaving the game, she asked my boyfriend and me to take over the guild.   

[SteveTheCynic]

18 hours ago, lEziol said:

Honestly it doesn't matter AT ALL what you all think is good or bad, the system has been proven time and time again to be the direct downfall of many guilds across NUMEROUS games who had/have this feature.

And I have directly, in two different games, seen what happens to guilds (that is, the guilds I was in!)(1) that don't have an automated leadership transfer feature.  It isn't pretty.

18 hours ago, lEziol said:

Additionally, the Game Master's won't ever do anything to help return the guild to you even if you can prove you MADE the guild.

Correct.  The policy is, as I've said elsewhere (and so have they), that a guild belongs collectively to *all* of its members rather than just to any one of them, so it isn't yours for them to return it to you.

(1) In Runes of Magic I eventually quit the guild when the late Mrs Cynic started to play and wanted to start a guild with me.  In Allods Online, I eventually became the only remaining player, and eventually, for other reasons, quit the *game*.  I had recruiting rights, but I could not, in good conscience, recruit anyone for a guild where I was the only member actually playing, when I wasn't the leader.

[RikuvonDrake]

the system is working pretty well and is in place to prevent populated guilds from going inactive when the gm stops playing, 30 days a plenty of time and the option for a subscriber to get gm once the prior gm goes f2p is simply for the benefit of the guildmembers as the guild loses all of the subscriber perks once it turns into a f2p one

guess its a matter of perspective, you look at it from an half inactive gm perspective and think its a bad system cause you risk losing power

bioware looks at it from the perspective of what benefits the guildmembers the most

if you have donated lots of expensive items, invested lots of time, effort and credits into the guild you might want to be a bit more selective with who you invite if you are scared of losing the stuff and not just take any random lvl from the starter planets if you plan on going inactive for more than 30 days/unsub, i prefer to fill my guilds with ppl i like to play this game with and trust that they probably will give the guild back to me if i lose it

[klizilii]

The way your post is written appears to be incorrect.  Guilds rot and die if there is no way to get guild ownership from the guild leader abandoning the game. It happens more often than you seem to think.

1) I disagree that if a player drops his sub as the GM the guild ownership changes hands without a bigger grace period.  I don't have an auto renew sub and so what happens if I don't log in for a week and find out my sub wasn't active for the last 6 days?  I would like to see a change on how they handle the automatic transfer of the guild to keep it as a subscriber guild.  As long as someone in the guild is a subscriber, it should give the GM a reasonable grace period to log back in and subscribe to retain the guild and the status will stay subscriber guild the entire time.

2) Once it is F2P guild, the ownership doesn't automatically transfer to a person with a sub.  The GM has to not log in for 30 days.  If you really want to keep a F2P guild, it's not a big ask to log in every 30 days.

3) I would agree that it would be a nice feature to not break all the guild ranks when the type swaps between a subscriber guild > F2P > subscriber.  It would be nice if it could remember all the subscriber settings & have a way to set the F2P settings so if and when it reverts that's not a problem.  There are "workarounds" for the sub > F2P aspect with guild bank permissions where you can build your custom ranks so they get converted into the F2P ranks without much changes in permissions.

I think there are positive changes to be made to the rules about guild status and GM, but I think you're being completely unreasonable in your request.  If you want to keep a guild without logging in once a month, kick everyone else.  It is unfortunate that there is no way to convert it to a fp2 guild while any member is a subscriber.  You could kick them and re-invite them after it changes to f2p status, but I assume these aren't your best friends who'd be happy to be inconvenienced for you.

[SteveTheCynic]

11 hours ago, klizilii said:

1) I disagree that if a player drops his sub as the GM the guild ownership changes hands without a bigger grace period.  I don't have an auto renew sub and so what happens if I don't log in for a week and find out my sub wasn't active for the last 6 days?  I would like to see a change on how they handle the automatic transfer of the guild to keep it as a subscriber guild.  As long as someone in the guild is a subscriber, it should give the GM a reasonable grace period to log back in and subscribe to retain the guild and the status will stay subscriber guild the entire time.

Establish your own grace period (frankly, "the duration of my non-renewable subscription" is plenty of time to organise an orderly handover if you really need to stop paying for a subscription) by renewing early (renew every three weeks for three or four renewals is three or four weeks of margin, which should be plenty).

11 hours ago, klizilii said:

2) Once it is F2P guild, the ownership doesn't automatically transfer to a person with a sub.  The GM has to not log in for 30 days.  If you really want to keep a F2P guild, it's not a big ask to log in every 30 days.

Every 28 days, but yes.

11 hours ago, klizilii said:

3) I would agree that it would be a nice feature to not break all the guild ranks when the type swaps between a subscriber guild > F2P > subscriber.  It would be nice if it could remember all the subscriber settings & have a way to set the F2P settings so if and when it reverts that's not a problem.  There are "workarounds" for the sub > F2P aspect with guild bank permissions where you can build your custom ranks so they get converted into the F2P ranks without much changes in permissions.

It might be that if you just rename the five default ranks and assign privileges, you'll mostly get away with it, but I would not be willing to recommend that as a procedure.

11 hours ago, klizilii said:

It is unfortunate that there is no way to convert it to a fp2 guild while any member is a subscriber.

There is, actually.

• The automatic system skips all inactive member characters, so if the (active) subscriber leader character's subscription drops, and all the subscribed member characters are inactive (not played for at least 28 days), the guild will become an F2P guild led by the same character.
• You can explicitly transfer membership to a non-subscriber character.  The game even warns you that the change will convert the guild to F2P.  See: https://i.imgur.com/clWqjxa.jpg

[Char_Ell]

On 1/31/2023 at 6:59 PM, lEziol said:

Honestly it doesn't matter AT ALL what you all think is good or bad, the system has been proven time and time again to be the direct downfall of many guilds across NUMEROUS games who had/have this feature. Additionally, the Game Master's won't ever do anything to help return the guild to you even if you can prove you MADE the guild.

Not sure why you seem to have thought everyone was going to agree or even should agree with your viewpoint.  If you want to retain ownership of your guild and you're planning on not logging in for more than 28 days or unsubscribing then you'll need to kick everyone out of your guild and only leave in those characters that you trust will return guild ownership to you upon your return.  I understand you don't like how this works and want it changed.  Obviously there are others, including myself, who think the auto guild manager swap function is a good thing.

 

On 1/31/2023 at 6:59 PM, lEziol said:

You can try to justify and group-think this, but I see and have seen NO BENEFIT from this system except to those who wish to do hostile takeovers of guilds and rob them. You cannot change my mind.

A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black if ever I've seen one.