that little scene with Captain and Banner had one the best lines in that movie.
@sirrian - This gem cost for GW Sentinels is, in my opinion, going to be the most divisive decision the devs have yet made (at least in GW) and here’s why, if I’m understanding this correctly, this is a huge mistake on your part:
You’re asking players to contribute 340 gems each week with no assurances that anyone else in the guild is also going to contribute
Not only that but this is forcing players to gamble with their resources. Forcing them to gamble that, not only will other members also contribute but that the other members are going to perform at such a level as to make risking these resources worth it.
On top of that, since the Devs will be personally curating the fights (for which guilds fight which other guilds), the Devs will basically have it in your power to decide which of the guilds win each week (i.e. if one guild in the bracket is dominate then having them show up in your bracket for the week basically means it’s not worth spending the resources since your not going to win for the week anyway).
This will further alienate the casual guilds and players from the hardcore, destroy the semi-casual middle ground and make it much harder for players to find a playstyle that suits them (and a guild that fits it).
Please reconsider how much you are asking players to contribute. I can’t speak for other guilds but personally, I’d be fine spending 50-100 gems total a week to max out all my Sentinels and I’d be ok with asking my members to do the same as they’d still have 4/5’s of the Guild Task Rewards left over. Any more than that and I’m probably not going to sign my guild up for Guild Wars as it’s just not worth the risk regardless of what the potential rewards are.
Edit: I wanted to add @Mithran’s point as well as it’s one I initially missed and also very valid:
+1 to this post …
You’re operating under the false assumption that every one should be able to max their sentinels each week. It appears to be that this is a design decision. You can still upgrade the sentinels to only level 1. This is just another way for active guilds to rise to the top.
My concern is as you said, that’s a lot of gems to spend to maybe not get enough of a return. They would have to basically guarantee that you at least get your gems back for even entering the competition.
It’s definitely a gamble, but I guess you’d know who your competition is before you spend any gems.
We simply don’t earn enough gems in this game currently to gamble ANY really.
Sirrian said you don’t have to pay to win, which i’m not sure how that works, but I can’t see any reason to pay if it doesn’t alter your chance at all?
This. This right here is my biggest concern. The entire mode is divisive in my opinion, but essentially betting gems on your guild’s performance is a bit much. Not only that, the consistent winners will have more gems to work with the following week, and the week after, and the week after… those that already have a ton of gems and are above the “break even” point for gem rewards on guild wars will simply get more. I don’t see how this helps anyone.
This is pretty confusing I’m hoping for a preview video that will hopefully make it a bit easier to understand.
Yeah, its not like we need any more powercreep in the game, let alone on a personal level …
Speaking of powercreep, that reminds me: more stats? More BD. Screw that, incoming fix or not …
I understand why you’d think that but I’m not; what I am is keenly aware of human nature and if there’s a way to get an advantage, humans are going to want to do it. So that means this will cause much derision amongst guilds and players. Those that want to max out their Sentinels are going to want everyone else to, also. Everyone else will wonder exactly how much Sentinel contributions are worth it and eventually when they get tired of contributing and still losing each week. It’s not going to be pretty.
I get what you’re saying, but I’d like to suggest another way to look at it:
You could take your sentinels to level 3 for just 40 Gems, or level 4 for 140 Gems (or somewhere in between if you don’t care about armor or life), and still be at very little disadvantage. It has been weeks since I’ve lost a single battle by 1 or 2 points, so unless you’re really competing over the last few points to try and get on top of the table, then I doubt a few skill points will make difference to the result. And if you ARE competing over those points, then the rewards will more than pay for 340 Gems.
Adding a feature like guild wars costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Putting my business hat on for the moment, it’s simply not feasible to add major feature updates without providing a way to allow players to spend money/resources, IF THEY WANT TO. I mean, in a perfect world, we’d love to add everything for free, but we simply can’t run a business that way.
I know you’re probably very busy and it’s not finished, but could you give a ballpark estimate of the gem rewards for each placing? 1-6. That could help ease some minds…IDK.
Also I was going to ask before, but didn’t wanna run this sorta off-topic. Your comment kind of speaks to my concern on your behalf, are you all worried that this is even more “watering-down” gems as a currency? Or do you have plans for that?
Or am I just talking out of my tail?..I do that occasionally.
That’s entirely true, but its still going to feel pretty lame going in vs those teams that are just bigger …
And there’s still the whole issue of guilds ending up requiring this stuff from their members. I can’t see that ending well.
Gonna feel pretty EPIC defeating those teams that are using cheesey sentinel buffs, you mean?
And therein lies part of the problem. Snowballing. Week to week, how much do you really expect results to change? I’m not talking places 1 and 3 switching places, or the top 10 changing order, I’m talking how many switches do you expect to take place between places that are significantly above the line where you break even or better for gems on your sentinel gem investment and those that are significantly below the line? I’m predicting certain groups being worth it, and others not. Some people will consistently lose or gain a little or break even, others will consistently gain, others just wont buy them. What you are basically doing here is putting more gems in the hands of the people that need them the least. Those that have more to spend will find the mode easier, and then have even more to spend.
oooooh cant wait
@Sirrian I appreciate your reply and I can only begin to imagine the complexities of trying to make a good freemium game that is profitable without taking advantage of your players. And I want to say that I (and I know many of your players) feel that you do try very hard to straddle that line; it’s a big part of why we’re still here.
I also want to say that I want to spend more money on GoW; I’m VIP 7, my wife is VIP 6 and that’s way more money than we’ve spent on any other mobile game; shoot it’s probably more money than we’ve spent on all other mobile games combined. But we’d still love to give you more because we love GoW and feel that you (the devs) respect your player base (which isn’t, of course, the same thing as always agreeing with them lol).
With all that out of the way, this is not how I want to spend money on GoW. This feels like gambling on other people that I only have a modicum of control over. I understand your point that players don’t “have” to gamble if they don’t want to but I don’t think human nature will bare that out. Guilds are going to tell their members to contribute it all so that not only do those individual members have a better shot at winning but so do the higher level players (who get the small bonuses). If you do incorporate a way for guilds to see who has contributed, it will destroy the semi-casual guilds. If you don’t offer a way to see who contributes, then most players will stop contributing because why should they if they suspect (rightly or wrongly) that most others in the guild aren’t also.
At the end of the day, it’s your game and you have every right to do what you want with it. All I can do is decide whether or not I want to keep playing it and while I’ll gladly reserve final judgment for when Guild Wars is actually released, from what I’m seeing in this post, this is not a direction I’m interested in heading. Please don’t take that as a threat as I don’t think you deserve that; I’m just trying to be honest about how I’m feeling because I feel, at the very least, I owe you that for giving me a game I’ve enjoyed playing so much for the last two years.
Hopefully, I am wrong and this is a bunch of kneejerk reaction. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
This is the problem. Even you think it’s going to feel cheesy to have that on the other side?
Haha - they don’t have an emote for being flippant unfortunately…
As before, we probably can’t tell a goddamn thing from this until we have it in the game and use it for ourselves… I don’t know why I let myself jump to any conclusions here, I was so reasonable last time. Panicked, but reasonable.
I suggest we wait a little longer. Numbers can be tweaked if they suck.
I think that was mostly tongue in cheek, and from the perspective of people who feel the buffs are not needed.
EDIT: Nvm, @Sirrian replied before I finished typing my post.
Also I think it’s worth considering that the majority of the player base won’t have everything maxed out troop and kingdom-wise. So you will likely see teams that are that little bit bigger, and smaller, but in most cases it won’t be possible to tell if it’s the statues or just kingdom/guild level buffs. The only people who will be able to tell are those with all kingdoms at 5* and in top level guilds with all the buffs (and probably high level as well to have troops mythic’ed and traited), which is a small percentage from a business point of view, and the majority of those who are in that position will be in top tier guilds anyway, so will probably want to fight for higher spots.
I know I’m making a lot of assumptions, so apologies if I’m wrong about the higher level player side of things.