You’re probably talking about one of my threads on the subject. This is exactly my concern too.
As long as that idea doesn’t block last-minute players from participating. I mean, if 15 players play all 150 matches in the first hour, a lot of people would be left out. An idea based on yours would be:
- Each player in the guild can play maximum 8 guild war matches each day (or a better number the devs figure out).
- That can generate a maximum of 240 matches per day (or more, if the guild recruits a new player? btw, I just now realized how that could unbalance the current system if not addressed), but only the best 150 results would be factored in.
2 Likes
Most good players which put a lot of effort or time into the game will be trying to join a top guild in the end, I believe. People are talking about top players not being loyal to their guild or guild mates, for leaving. It is not about that at all, players which does a lot better than the majority of the guild does not own the guild anything, and is not disloyal towards their guild, and should be free to move on. It is as simple as that.
2 Likes
I knew this was similar to something I despised. Its the same principle - you want to do 30 of this thing but you have to wait until the next day to do more.
And I know Sirrian has said he wants to steer clear of energy systems… wonder how this impacts things.
… I know I’ve been told ‘loads of people do this mode’ and I’ve said ‘yeah but that’s because its the only way to get this thing, nobody wants to be doing it’.
3 Likes
Of course they’re free, I agree 100%. But they don’t have to be stimulated to move on even more than they are now. It creates an even larger disparity, and disparities are terrible for every community – they’re good only for the few people on the top of the pyramid.
3 Likes
Yes, that could work too.
Except you’re wrong.
My guild accepted me when I was donating virtually nothing. For me to leave them now because they’re not giving ME enough is downright dirty. Period.
I’m forced to choose between sharing in the absolute most this game has to offer and keeping the principles that make me the kind of person I am outside of this game. That’s wrong and it will always be wrong.
4 Likes
And some surely would still remain in their guilds despite the slower progression. As Sirrian stated there will be unique rewards at the Guild Wars, and everyone will get an X amount of it based on the results of the guild, but people are already losing hair assuming that they will not perform as good as they feel it’s deserved. It’s a new activity of collective effort, i can assume that mostly everyone wants to min/max results and if that’s so, one may consider moving out of their own guild and if not they must comply to this decision.
Let’s beta-test it for our comrades at consoles and suggest some more tweaks in the run. I believe there is plenty to be done with Guild Wars. 
1 Like
Then it is the Guild leaders job to try to do their best to keep them.
Some known examples:
- Raise the min. requirement.
- Make an area to communicate, boards, discord.
- Communicate with the good/strong players now and then,
ask them if they are happy in the guild/what changes they want. - Promote them earlier, to show that you appriciate their hard work,
make them help with guild work if they want to. - Try to make the atmosphere, in f.example chat and discord better.
- Work hard every week to get out the slackers from the guild, show
the good/strong players reasons to not leave. - Generally having guild goals of going forward/growth.
- Create weekly guild sheets and announcements, of members data.
Some of these, might hinder a good/top player for leaving the guild.
It much depends on the guild leader(s) often too.
3 Likes
I can see “marking” participants so that guilds can be matched equally. However, I do NOT like having a max on possible participants. To force people in highly active guilds to sit things out for a week seems unfair. Therefore, perhaps a system that allows matching based on number of available participants might be in order, anywhere from those 1-person guilds (?) to full 30 active participants.
In other words, make all casual guilds more like hardcore guilds. I’ll pass.
1 Like
ok…
As you can see, some of my examples was not about making it more hardcore.
It’s not “dirty”. A guild is supposed to be a like-minded group of players, with similar goals, etc. If a guild wants to accept a player “beneath” them as charity, cool. And if you want to carry players that won’t do as much as you, that’s your prerogative. But guild wars shouldn’t be dumbed down so that it’s not based on entire guild effort, that’s what the daily login bonus is for…
1 Like
But in any competitive system there is disparity, in another F2P i played i had to constantly login during the first hours of the day to make the final push at some sort of PVP and i had to constantly knock-out some friends because it was some sort of “Highlander thingy” where “There’s can be only one…” one of them got pissed at me at some point, because he couldn’t handle the truth that just as him i was awake very early and that the nature of the (beast) system was that only one of us could be the first place.
I understand that people might want to avoid some extreme cases as this, but there is a limit to have something competitive that can be called a war and having a “group hug” therapy session where everyone is a winner because the sky is pink… 
2 Likes
I agree with you completely. I tire of people complaining about casual players not getting the same rewards as hardcore players. It’s the nature of the beast.
In a game like this, being rewarded should happen even if you can’t keep up with hardcore players, but it should not be equal or even close to equal…
5 Likes
None of these things work.
Raising the minimum requirement alienates all but the highest level players.
Asking the high level players what they would change and they instantly say “get rid of everybody not contributing as much as me”.
My guild has done EVERYTHING you listed. It doesn’t work, it’s that simple. Unless you’re fortunate enough to have a guild that is predominately populated with high level active players, the game inserts acrimony. The more rewards they give to high level active players, the more acrimony there will be.
The idea of the “haves” and “have nots” in this game isn’t imaginary and every time they introduce a new mechanic that appears to reinforce it, the perception of it just gets worse.
2 Likes
“Beneath” them?
That sense of entitlement is everything that is wrong with this community.
I disagree… energy systems are indeed abhorrent… they stop you playing at all… but this is not very similar really: it’s just five of your PvP matches in a day are selected from the GW roster instead of PvP free-for-all…
Capping each guild member’s contribution is the only way to make it a guild competition, not an obsessive play-all-day single player competition… This way, we each do our bit…
6 Likes
It’s not about casual players.
It’s about active players needing to be in hyperactive guilds and there not being enough of those guilds to accommodate the number of active players.
Active players are being penalized for something that’s completely beyond their control.
Sometimes its little one can do to keep a top player, I agree.
But that none of these things ever work? Sorry, I have to disagree.
2 Likes