I will be discussing this with our guild master as well.
We have a min req at 3. We will still have that tho.
1 Like
Our rules weee never to max but at least 85% of our guild did. 3,3,3,3 is our minimum
@Arelana I have my guesses to reason their decision, but I wouldnāt like to state them publicly.
ā¦ Itās not my policy to cast shadow on the company. Even though I donāt agree with the publisherās strategy, that doesnāt mean I should deteriorate their business.
If their decisions work out - good for them.
ā¦ If not, theyāll find out for themselves.
Today, with the game industry being so awfully broad, it will be easily decided where to spend money. The newcommers will probably like this game. A lot of players who liked the game before and dislike the changes will probably find another place to spend money at.
I donāt believe they will ever revert back to their original, or anything close to it. This is a common business approach.
3 Likes
We will be voting by Sunday on our rules changes so weāll see what happens.
Ironically, @peterix, one of the first things that came to mind for me because of the gravity of the change is some kind of management shakeup/restructuring/buyout/etc.
1 Like
I wonder if they nerfed it so hard to say later āok, here is a few more gemsā, but nothing like the original. To make it not look so bad in the future.
3 Likes
We will be maintaining max sentinels requirements for joining RisināPhreekz. If that changes it will be posted in our recruitment post.
Well - that may or may not be another thing that was nerfed by unity.
I have been collecting all my stats in a spreadsheet and noticed that after the PC Unity port, my # of kingdoms average and amount average went down.
I couldnāt prove anything except three days on my cell phone before the unity port showed a higher amount clearly.
I am going to do this month on my pc and next month on my cell phone to see how nerfed the port wasā¦but Tributes have gone down tooā¦
1 Like
Youāre right, out of 80 battles my goblin explorers did lose their turn once. Must have been the combo breaker. 
Itās quite amazing that some players believe than Sirrian woke up on morning and though:āOh today, we are going to reduce drastically the gem incomeāā¦
If they did that, itās surely because of financial issues. This game as a publisher so on, someone who can cut their funds if they believe that this game cannot make enough dollars (cough cough capitalismā¦).
Iām not a specialist in business but I assume that a company cannot survive by itself from scratch. First years should have a negative balance and this balance should be either at 0 or positive after X years (3 maybe). That something that devs should prove to the publisher else publisher will take back his dollars and adios GoW.
3 Likes
The other thing people forget about is āopportunity costsā. They could continue to pump money into the game to keep it afloat, but that puts a toll on their resources (cash flow and people). Why support a game thatās barely puttering along and staying afloat when they could invest all of that into other projects that have much more potential?
Theyāve already supported it this long so I doubt itās at risk, but you can definitely see how that pressure would lead to a tighter and tighter economy. (And itās really not like itās a tight economy respective to basically every other F2P game Iāve played.)
According to this thread, additional changes are coming in 3.1 to account for feedback received by the community. I will reopen the thread and collect new values when they become available, likely at weekly reset next week.
3 Likes
In case you missed it Lyya.
Yeah, I saw it, thanks. Not sure what will be rearranged as a result. Iāll update once we know.
I swear I saw someone say that they reverted the final few Event Keys tasks to their old values as well (which is technically a nerf). Am I making that up? My guild doesnāt get that far on green tasksā¦
The āto replace those keys we addedā in Sirrianās original post strongly suggests that the 3 Gem Key tasks will be removed from Blue to replace the original Gem tasks.
Well, I had almost finished running the numbers with these tasks and now everything is changing again. Guess we need another week to be sure. I think it is a safe bet that the 3 gem key values on the blue task will be replace with the 250 gems as stated, but I donāt want to run all the numbers again and be wrong.
The numbers from the table show currently showed an overall drop in the total value of stuff gained by VIP and non-VIP players alike (as to be expected), but slightly greater than 20% lost when considering their relative purchasing power to a mythic (and with a much bigger loss for VIP players). Also, completing all these tasks puts you at legendary task level, where simply putting in 25% more gold (to offset the ā20%ā lost rewards) would get you about 3.9 legendary tasks per week. Iāve yet to compile the data on that and get an average per task, but at quick glance, it looks to be highly unlikely you can recoup your ā20%ā lost guild task rewards or anywhere close to it by simply spending 25% more gold. The same would hold true for most of the given task steps, I imagine, but I have not yet calculated all those out either (if I have time, Iāll have to put it on a table). Based on their relative positions on the table and how much āvalueā in other total resources has been lost compared to the baseline ā20% lessā, too few shards and diamonds are given. At this point, the guild task table seems to value Diamonds even higher than their exchange rate in the Gem Bounty on Monday-Saturday, which was already bad.
āFreeā dungeon resources continues to be a mitigating factor on whether or not people come out ahead or behind from the update as a whole as far as resources are concerned with the ability to further and maintain collections, but the tasks themselves were stated to have āabout 20% less valueā to offset people earning ā20 to 25% more goldā. I intend to hold them to that claim.
1 Like
This is key. We were given the amount of reduction and the reason, so other than LTs not giving gems (which we now know is intentional) we should be able to equal our old task values by simply doing 16-20% more tasks.
While I donāt want to be the bearer of bad news, unfortunately math doesnāt quite work that way. Iām not sure how big a difference it will be in practice, but if you have a 20% reduction on something, you will need to do slightly more than 20% more to get the same result.
Eg if we put in 100 gold and got 100 glory back, then we have a 1:1 ratio. However if returns get cut by 20% then it would be you put in 100 gold and get 80 glory back or 1:0.8. So if you were to put in 20% more, ie 120 gold, you would only get 96 glory back. You would need to put in 125 gold to get back the original return of 100 glory again, or a 25% increase in input to make up for a 20% reduction in output.
I could be wrong on those, so maybe if @Lyya or one of the other better math people could check my numbers that would be great.
EDIT: Looks like this is basically what @Mithran was saying in his postā¦ I need to read things more carefully next time 