Guild Rosters.

[Dami.5046]

Yeah I get it. There are more pressing matters to attend to. Skill balance , lag. So i'm just putting my thoughts to paper.

The guild Rosters are a mess.

 

It's all well and good having symbols which you can modify, but when guilds have one symbol for member which another has for leader (and in some cases very strange titles) it can get confusing who is in charge at a glance.

The First game's rosters were quite clearly set out : LEADER with the leader below, then OFFICERS with a list and Then Members .

So I think some polish is needed.

 

 

[Danikat.8537]

I prefer the current system. I agree it's confusing at first because you have to check the ranks tab to find out what order the ranks go in and what permissions they each have, but I think the benefits of letting each guild create and customise their own ranks outweighs the hassle of having to check what they mean.

 

I'm currently in 5 guilds and only one (the inactive one) has a rank structure which mirrors the GW1 system. The others all have different kinds of officers and members with different permissions. For example one guild has a dedicated 'decorators' rank for people who are allowed to change the guild hall decorations, but don't have other 'officer' permissions. Another has separate ranks for WvW, PvP and raid leaders, who again all have separate permissions. Two of them use themed names which are confusing at first (or at least they confused me at first) but fit the overall theme of the guild and are part of what gives the guild a sense of identity.

 

If you're in a guild where their ranks don't make any sense to you it might be worth mentioning it to them, let them know you're not sure who is in charge or who you'd speak to about a problem or to sign up for an activity because you can't understand how their structure works. It might well be you're not the only one having that problem and they could do something to make it clearer.

[Dami.5046]

It should of been more clear at the start. It looks a like a messy list of names and symbols.

All i'm saying.

[The Greyhawk.9107]

I rather keep it the way it is, more fun this way. If yer unsure what the rank structure of a guild you've joined, its on you to ask for clarification.

[mercury ranique.2170]

The difference with gw2 is that both leader and officer role are not set in stone.

I am in a small guild of friends that exist out of mostly only leaders. Only a new member rank exist as well. GW2 offers a lot more freedom to govern guilds in the way the management of the guild wants. Making any type of hierarchy in the roster would change this.

 

But, I do understand your problem and would like to offer a different one.

Make a permission that changes where someone is listed and add a category on the top of then list. Call it something like guild contacts

 

The roster would shown like this:

 

Guild Contacts

Logan

Rytlock

Jennah

 

Members

Zoijjah

Tybalt

Seiran

Scarlet

Bubbles

 

It would still be optional to give anyone this permission to be listed elsewhere, but I do think many guilds will use it.

 

[Dreamy Lu.3865]

Personally, I appreciate the way it is now. Not all guilds are structured the same way. There are many different concepts. For example, in our guild, we have no "leader". We have a team of several persons working together so the rank is called "Council". Not all guilds have a person dedicated to HR, or dedicated to contact, .... Not to forget guilds within an alliance what creates automatically different roles. On my opinion, the flexibility on the ranks and how to call them is very necessary. :)

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> Make a permission that changes where someone is listed and add a category on the top of then list. Call it something like guild contacts

If you find you need to communicate your guild's leaders/officers/whatever more clearly to the players than via ranks and permissions then you can easily put those names into the guild's MotD.

 

For the rest of us the GW2 system really gives us all the flexibility we want. If we want an old-style rank/permission system it's easy to create that (to the point where the default set-up is basically that), but we can adjust it to fit our guilds without having to deal with preset roles.

 

For example my main guild has a rather large pool of guild leaders and no officers. We do however have two "janitors" that are explicitely only responsible for technical stuff (like maintaining of the guild's teamspeak server and other out-of-game jobs). For reasons too complicated to go into now though, in game we have set up ranks and permissions so that the janitors are technically above the guild leaders. If the game had pre-set leader, officer, contact, whatever roles that you couldn't change we never would've been able to configure this set-up that we are most comfortable with.

 

If you are in a guild where the roles and ranks confuse you, then simply speak up in guild chat and ask for clarification and/or ask for who to contact about your questions. No need to make this less flexible for the rest of us just because of a few players that don't mesh with their guild's chosen setup. It's a people problem, not a game problem.

[Westenev.5289]

Leadership is more than a rank. From experience, guilds aren't always held together by the top leadership positions, but rather influenced by active and popular members. If your guild needs ranks to see who is in charge... well, idk what to tell you?

[keenedge.9675]

> @"Westenev.5289" said:

> Leadership is more than a rank. From experience, guilds aren't always held together by the top leadership positions, but rather influenced by active and popular members. If your guild needs ranks to see who is in charge... well, idk what to tell you?

 

I was literally about to say similar things. Guilds that focus on ranks don't last long.

 

Constructive comment @Anet: Look a the guild controls in Neverwinter Online. They are robust, intuitive AND helpful.