◊ Vectivus

Since I can't find an existing thread that addresses this, I'd like to initiate a conversation on the topic.

What ranks or structure do you use in your guilds to meaningfully distinguish players from one another? An in-guild promotion can be a very powerful motivator and a truly profound reward, if used correctly.

In our guild, we've adopted the following as our ranks:

Guild Master

Officer - Total of 6, bringing our 'leadership team' to 7 (an odd number)

"Top Gun" - The be-all and end-all of raiding. These people will get improved access to the guild bank, more permissions, etc. The big draw, however, is that anyone holding this rank (we've yet to decide if this will be a permanent or rotating rank) is guaranteed a raid invite (provided they're raid-specced, etc.).

Veteran - Awarded after a term with the guild and effort signifying a long-term interest in achieveing success with our guild. Generally given out liberally to members once they've been around for at least a month and given something of themselves to the guild.

Member - The base rank (we use no 'initiate' level).



Could we effectively add more, or better, distinctions between ranks? Is there an 'optimal' number of ranks?

 

Glayde

We've gone from Guildleader-1st Officer(active raidlead) ->2nd officer (non raidlead stuff) ->vet ->member ->initiate->non-raider(social)

The veteran rank ended up being a pain so we ditched it. Basicly everyone became a veteran and it lost it's distinction. People not promoted over time grew restless etc.
We never had a solid plan for it's use anyway.

We're now - Guildleader ->Officer->Elder (inactive officers) ->member ->initiate ->non-raid.

The Elder rank was a good compromise to keep officers who had served at a level of distrinction, without confusing them with active officers.

(also twink and officer twink are lower ranks)

 

Derrida

I think this is a case of less is more. If you have a lot of ranks of varying level of privledge, you're opening the door to the fairness and favoritism family of complaints. If you're having issues with raiders leaving to more progressed guilds, i could see this as being a useful way to fend some of that off though.

As far as guild ranks being meaningful, the guildbank is going to be a little bit of a hassle. We've got lots of silly ranks and handling guildbank permissions without dumping these is going to be a headache.

 

Cloudgatherer

Why add more? Seems like having too many would just be a headache to manage, and getting into semantic games isn't really productive.

Off the top of my head, we have the following:
GM -> Officers -> Raiders -> Trials -> Casuals -> Alts

Too much fine grained detail among "raiders" seems problematic to me.

 

• Chicken

Personally we use:

GM > Administrative Officers (These guys do website stuff, lead raids, and currently manage the guild bank) > Class Officers (With the GM and Administrative officers filling a few of these positions) > Alts of Officers > Raiders > Trials/Socials > Alts

I can't imagine needing more than that amount of ranks really. Even the administrative versus class officers distinction seems more than is needed.

 

Ghando

I don't see why you'd guarantee a raid spot to "Top Gun" members. There's always going to be situations where you want, say, only one Warlock (pre-2.2 Shahraz) or only one tank (Archimonde), especially if you're doing progression content with very little room for error. Guaranteeing raid spots seems like a recipe for drama as soon as you need to stack a raid for some challenge.

 

◊ Vectivus

I guess I just question how we could make more productive use of these ranks. As with Glayde, I'm finding that with the exception of a handful of recent additions to the guild, functionally everyone is a Veteran - it seems redundant to retain it as a unique rank. I do, however, want some way (beyond the 'Top Gun' rank) to distinguish dedicated and long-term raiders (my "wheat") from run-of-the-mill, 2-raids-a-week folk (my "chaff").

Also, with a 'Top Gun'-style rank (these players are guaranteed priority raid invites), what limitations should I impose? My current theories are:
- 1 per class. Problem - I've got several phenomenal ClassX, but no really stand-out ClassY.
- Hard maximum (say 8?). Problem - Once there are as many Top Guns as the maximum allows for, then what? No incentive for other players. Treat it as a ladder, maybe, where you could earn a spot and someone else would be stepped down?
- No limit. Problem - 18 Top Guns means anyone who isn't a Top Gun functionally doesn't raid. May also create problems of class balance.

The only other thing I could do is change the 'guarantee' to only apply to progression raids - they could be asked to sit out of farm content or non-current tier raids (e.g. we're 3/6 + 2/4, Top Guns could be asked not to attend Gruul/Mag).

 

Swanchr

We use

Guild Leader (1)

Class Leader (Officer one for each class)

Member (all Members raid... or they wouldn't be members)

Initiate (Recent recruit - 2 week trial)

Friends (everyone gets one friend that can join the guild but they do not raid)

Alts

 

◊ Vectivus

Situationally, we'll adjust. I've had my main OT sit out of single-tank fights (despite being an Officer and long-time member). I'll ask my 'Top Gun' raiders to sit out of fights they need absolutely no loot of off (and they're happy to oblige).

It's not so much that they're "guaranteed" a spot, I guess, as that they're guaranteed first crack at a spot once I've established my basic needs for a fight. Once I have enough healers/AoE for Morogrim, for example, I'll immediately offer them a spot (which they can accept or decline). If a situation warranted taking absolutely no melee DPS, I'd happily tell them to sit out, despite their privilege (distinguishing it as a privilege from a right makes a big difference).

By the by, what happened with TKT? I followed you guys for a while after you left Sargeras, but I haven't heard much since BC.

 

sovelis41

Our ranks go (roughly):
GM->Officers->2nd Officers (assistant to Class Leads)->Raiders (Varying Ranks)->Initiate->Friends & Family (Casual types).

Alts are lumped in with Initiate unless they are officers.

We have varying degrees of raider in order to set bidding permissions and tradeskill pattern distribution.

How you set your ranks is very dependent on the culture of your guild and how it was set up when it was founded. I know of many guilds that do not have a set GM who acts as the final word. The officers are all on equal ground authority-wise, for lack of a better term. Our GM is typically the final voice of reason and has a better skew on things from a guild wide perspective, but in general, we run on a consensus of opinions from all officers.

Posting Sobreity Test

 

Irise

Segregating guild ranks by skill or privileges is a bad idea as it will only lead to conflict from perceived slights. We separate guild ranks by responsibility ie. Guild Master, Raid Leader, Class Leader, Member, Initiate, Inactive. We also have a separate rank for veteran members who aren't actively raiding. No alts or friends in the guild.

 

Swanchr

This sounds like a lot of thought into ranks....

In my guild this is all handled by the Class Leader. If it is progression night and we need the best of the best the CL alts the less geared or people who have not done the fight before. If it is farm content the people with the gear get alted.

If you have competent class leaders this can work very well and off load the responsibility of running the day to day activities so that raid leader does not have to deal with personnel issues.

 

Hudini

GM-> Officer-> RaidLeader-> ClassLeader-> Raider-> RaiderApplicant-> Alt-> Casual-> Muted

GM and Officer are the only ranks that can /ginvite and /gkick
RaidLeader can /gpromote and /gdemote.
Muted can neither see nor type in guild chat.

The Class Leaders are really good at their class and performance and have visibility into the Raid Leader chat channels, though they don't lead raids or do administrative tasks like a Raid Leader does. That visibility and the recognition went a long way in improving guild morale and acted as a sort of "bridge" to the Raider population. Class Leaders can see what the raid leadership has to deal with on an every day basis and this kinda information trickles down to the Raiders. Much less drama and much more respect for leadership overall in the guild since we added that rank.

 

Keline

Well, since everything above "member" is fairly obvious and everything below "member" is as well, the only question is how to deal with members that aren't officers.
Let's open up our rank system

Top is "Prophet", the Guild Leader. This rank may or may not exist, depending on guild
LeadOfficers. This is obvious
ClassOfficers - Obvious as well. The only question here is what rights these guys have.
Member - the rank for everyone that isn't an officer and isn't something below
OfficerTwink - so Officers have guildmanagement rights when on twinks.
Friend - Someone who isn't a member but may wear our tag. Some guilds have them, some don't.
Twink - nothing to talk about here.
Trial - Pretty much everyone has that

There's only one rank here worth talking about - Member
There are lots of possibilities and even more questions about how to handle this rank.
Do you want to split this one up? How do you decide who's a first rate and who is second rate? Who gets to decide it? What does it actually mean? What privilegdes will a first rate have? What responsibilities?
Just to name a few here...

The only reason for a "Veteran" rank I can see is long-time membership. Anyone in the guild for more than 6 months gets Veteran, everyone that's in for 12 gets Core Member.
Any benefits here could cause a lot of drama.

Are there any people here that have experience with splitting up the Member rank?

 

◊ Vectivus

I strictly avoid the concept of class-based leadership, since the actual leadership capability of my guildmates isn't necessarily distributed equally amongst the classes. In a leadership team of 7 (GM + 6 Officers), we currently have two Warriors, and we had two Warlocks for a period of time. Rogues, Hunters, Mages, Paladins, and Priests are currently not represented amongst our leadership. However, our core leadership is comprised of people with extensive game knowledge - they're very capable and handling situations involving other classes than their own.

Part of the reason this question comes to mind, for me, is based on the RNG loot thread - it seems like guilds are relying on the game to provide carrots and incentive, rather than taking an active role in ensuring that people have something to work towards. Our guild is a team, and every member of that team wants to be a central and crucial part of the raiding roster. Rewarding them with recognition and privileges has been as successful, if not more successful in ways, than swapping one epic for another.

We also elect not to have friends or alts in the guild, for simplicity's sake. If you load our roster in the Armory, you will find only active, participating guild members (some are on hiatus, or taking breaks from the game, but they are still part of the raiding roster). The only notable exceptions are the guild bank and my girlfriend's mid-30's Shaman.



I understand not wanting to actively distinguish between players in your guild for the purposes of being equitable and fair, but how does that detract from rewarding performance and ability? I see no reason not to have my best half-dozen or dozen raiders elevated to their own level - it's recognition and distinction, without any meaningful repercussions to other players (my 'Top Gun' raiders don't get more loot - their raid attendance is higher, but they had near-perfect raid attendance to begin with, so it's not like they're suddenly limiting the number of available raid slots for other guild members).

Would it make more sense in this fashion:

1. Guild Master
2. Officers
3. Top Guns (first crack at available raid spots once group composition is established)
4. Raiders (everyone else)
5. Joke rank of some kind (since we unfortunately have to have a minimum of 5)

I'm struggling to envision a useful 5th rank.

 

• Elendril

Our ranks were zerg units and buildings. Creep Colony was the rank that couldn't speak in gchat. I thought that was a nice touch.

In all seriousness, I think distinct ranks within your raiding members has serious potential for problems. If one of your "Top Guns" starts sucking for some reason, or insists that he should be able to raid as Ret or Enhancement when you have too much melee already and not enough healers, what happens? Any sort of implied or stated privilege based on guild rank can have real backlash, and cause resentment among your other members. GLeader - Officers - Raiders - Trials - Casuals - Friends - Alts are all fine ranks, but Raiders and Better Raiders seems like it's asking for trouble. Just invite people to raids based on ability and need. People know who the best players are without giving them a separate rank.

 

Karmen

We just keep it simple, you need everybody to play a part so the ranks are pretty minimal.

GM -> Officer -> Class Rep (filled by officers in some cases) -> Member

We also have recruit, inactive and alt but those aren't a big deal.

Late Night Raiding www.skeletoncrew.org

 

◊ Vectivus

The point isn't necessarily to say, "Anyone who breaks 1k DPS gets to be a Top Gun!" The idea is that we have a unique and valuable reward for consistent, dedicated, and very strong raiders.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the rank obviously doesn't apply if there is an encounter-specific need, or if the players in question are not raid-specced and appropriately prepared. Generally, those kinds of players wouldn't get the rank in the first place.

Maybe it's just a guild environment thing, but we certainly don't have any resentment towards our top raiders for being congratulated on their efforts. I think the validity of recognizing and rewarding people's accomplishments and dedication is being overwhelmingly ignored in the face of potential (and I stress, potential) repercussions. I would hazard a guess that your guild uses DKP, for fear that an Officer-based loot decision might have 'repercussions', too?

 

• tsigo

Guild Master, Officer, Member, Applicant. We build our raids around who's going to win loot, maximizing our drops.

We're not very complicated.

 

• christide

We take our ranks very seriously.

HNIC - Our GM.
1RN - Our officers and their assorted alts.
Juice Layer - This is for our veterans.
Giants Pick - Midrange members end up here.
Knee Grow - Anyone new to the guild ends up a Knee Grow.
STFU - Not allowed to talk, this is used fairly extensively.
Fucked the raid - Timeout, we usually leave people here for a few days to think about what they've done.

 

◊ Vectivus

Hooked on Phonics worked for you guys.

What criteria, if any, do you use to separate Veterans from mid-range and new Members?

 

• christide

Vets are people who have lasted for 2 instance tiers. At the moment, it's basically everyone who has been with us since the Naxx days.

 

• Branar

I definitely agree with this. Especially in TBC raiding, an average guild might have 40 players. Having 9 class officers is a lot of people "leading".

How is it valuable? You yourself make the point (in defending it) that it confers no real benefit.

Any time you draw a line and say "Everyone this good or better is a Top Gun, they're awesome!", there's some guy just barely on the other side of the line who feels like he should be there too.

It's even worse when it's a more-or-less permanent rank. What happens when a Top Gun slips a bit, so he's worse than that guy on the other side of the line? Are you going to demote him? If you do, he's probably not going to feel like he's worse (or he's going to feel like his solid performance for months warrants some leeway). The guy who's not a Top Gun is going to feel slighted if he doesn't get promoted.

Again, you yourself say that this rank confers no real benefit that these members don't get already. Do you really need a special rank - that requires you to maintain and arbitrate it fairly and opens you up to complaints of favoritism and bias - to distinguish these players? Is this conferring any benefit that simple praise and recognition on raids and the forums can't do instead?


If it's working for you, it's working for you. But I think there are a lot of potential problems with using rank in this way - specifically the perceived permanence of rank, the in-game wording (you have *promoted* soandso to Top Gun, you have *demoted* soandso to Normal Raider), etc. Dunno, I wouldn't do it.

 

Kardinalen

Guild Master -> Class Officer -> Officer -> Hippo -> Veteran -> Member -> GOD! -> Trialist -> Alt

As you can see, ranks were a mess. Officers basically moved people arbitrarily back and forth between ranks for giggles, accepted trailists remained on the trial rank for ages because people forgot and so on. I, and my guild, felt that since we all knew eachother pretty well from playing together for a long time, we didn't need meaningful ranks to show who had done what. Everyone just knew.

 

Vyra

The Kara-level guild that I've been with for two years now has maintained a "council" system of leadership (thus the name). Our ranks are:

-Guild Leader: The character in this role is on a separate "guild" account maintained by a founding member. The toon is literally named "Figurehead."

-Officer: These are the folks who actually run things and make final decisions on guild policy and procedures. Officers are voted in periodically and handle new invites, promotions of new members, and maintenance of guild r