I’d agree with everything you said. I thought the daily tasks encouraged players to interact with all aspects of the game including guild teamwork. Unfortunately the data suggests we are both talking 
When you say “doing tasks daily”, do you mean doing tasks like you do tasks or doing tasks like a normal player does tasks. I’m level 235 (or so), play every day for about an hour, and can generally clear my A task plus do a chunk of one of the others. So far, I haven’t had any synergy between my BCD tasks so have to choose one or the other once my A task is done plus whatever PVP I feel I need to do that day. I’m pretty efficient and look for optimal ways to combine things.
I don’t feel ‘end game’ in that, for any given kingdom or type, I can’t just whip up a team that I can use in all situations. For a lot of kingdoms and types, I’m starting with maybe one troop at level 15 or above. I managed to clear 3 out of 4 tasks on Saturday when I had a couple hours to play, but since then, I’ve been stuck with 20 pridelands, 20 Wild plains and 20 yellow-mana as my BCD tasks. I can build a decent pridelands or yellow team (one that gives me a reasonable chance in PVP), but I was starting with every single troop at level 1 for wild plains.
It is a major compromise for me to spend 20 battles where I can’t advance a quest (all done), farm souls (Valk) or farm gold (PVP). But every day that I leave those 3 tasks sitting there is another day when I might have gotten a task that I could do without giving up significant progress.
2 Likes
If your Guildmates need a Task to Contribute then you need new Guildmates or a new Guild
depends on your luck with a gem key or event key, which can give troops that are worth maybe 100 or so souls or a decent amount of gold if you are lucky to get that from a gem key.[quote=“TaliaParks, post:40, topic:9195”]
Well the majority of Level 150+ players are “end-game”.
[/quote]
and a lot of players on these forums meat that criteria[quote=“TaliaParks, post:43, topic:9195, full:true”]
If your Guildmates need a Task to Contribute then you need new Guildmates or a new Guild
[/quote]
agreed.
In your situation you have to dedicate time to clear the Tasks, even if it’s just Challenges.
Try and wedge Valkyrie into every team that only requires “3 Troops of…” to make it worthwhile for your time spent.
1 Like
I honestly don’t see how 5-10 maps a day could make up the difference from the old task system. I was getting 6000+ souls, 9-15 glory keys 3-10 gem keys, 5-15 gems, 20-40k gold and 200-500 glory from tasks exclusively (not exact amounts just low ball averages). Sure you could make up some of those differences with the half improved treasure maps, but definitely not with such a small number, let alone the thousands of gold and the amount of souls and glory earned from pvping while completing the tasks.
No, not exactly. I was pointing out that @VegaDark541 was making assumptions based on the opinions of very few people and anecdotal evidence.
We absolutely value the feedback and insight posted on these forums. If we didn’t, you wouldn’t see so many devs regularly posting and answering questions. The people on these forums may not be the majority of players, but they’re certainly the most dedicated and passionate.
I hadn’t seen anyone else talking about the guild spin-off from the daily tasks. I feel like I’m starting to adjust in terms of traiting my troops, contributing to my guild and leveling my kingdoms without prompting, but others may not be.
Part of my dissatisfaction is with my guild, but with the amount that I play, I don’t feel confident that I would consistently meet the requirements for a ‘top’ guild. In the meantime, I feel like I’m carrying a lot of dead weight. It’s hard to find the sweet spot for me.
That’s a good suggestion. For whatever reason, even if it only asks for 3, I usually do 4 since it usually results in a better team bonus. I might be better off slipping Valk or even Tyri in where I can.
FYI, there is a rotating task about donating to guilds…
*"There was an ugly discontinuity in the past where new players would suddenly be dumped from an environment where tasks were completed slowly to one where tasks were completed multipel times a day. The new system smooths out that transition, and we’re getting more consistent behavior during that threshold.
When some people did 40+ tasks a day and some did 2 a week, it was really hard to balance the rewards appropriately. Once behavior settles, we’ll have a better idea of what our next adjustment should be."*
Hmm. To extrapolate that line of thinking, some play pvp more, and get more rewards per week… some play more treasure hunt… or arena than others, and do they too not get more rewards per week for their TIME vested? Do you not also see a desparity between how many resources these differing players earn per week? Why is it not equally hard to determine what rewards should be here? I mean if a player only plays 20 pvp games a week… how does he compare to the player who plays 400 a week? It’s a successful PvP game just a different kind of task, with unlimited play? Same goes for arena or TH, right?
A hyperbolic application of the “limit tasks” line of thinking on console could be detrimental if applied to the entire game, right?! Okay, let’s pretend…
boom fantasy time - everyone can only win 4 PvP battles a day… and you can only use 4 treasure hunt maps a day… and you can only play 4 arena games a day… and you can only achieve 4 console tasks a day… So, with the dev’s [let’s limit how many tasks you can do] thinking - everyone can only achieve X per day now, in this fictional and again hyperbolic example, right?! But what did that really accomplish?
Now, if the game doesn’t die in a heartbeat because of such gross control measures, then you would STILL have folks that do all that they can daily for the max rewards, right? Let’s call this group O for the over achievers. Also, you would have others that only do a task or two a week. Let’s call these group U for underachievers! Now you may have groups inbetween too. So let’s call them group A, for the average joes. Did you solve your perceived gap problem? Do you adjust how many rewards you allocate again since some do everything and others do very little? You still have the same gap!
Now extrapolate our make believe world… look at one the O’s can do over the course of a month, and what the U’s actually do over the course of a month. Desparity in behavior, despirity in productivity, and desparity in progress. The down side in this little experiment is that should anyone in the U group decide they would like to be in the O group, they can never really catch up… unless the O’s stop playing. The artificial ‘throttle’ of progress just perpetuated a have’s and have nots… so the U group either goes to the store and ‘buys’ something to catch up, or the O’s quit playing… or the U’s just get fed up and give up with all the control.
Back to reality.
So what did the ‘slow down as implimented do?’ Sure, there is no longer a 4 tasks a day to 40 tasks a day desparity, but… so? Why can you figure out how to balance TH rewards, arena rewards and PvP rewards between those who play a lot and those who play a little… but when you remove the governor from players running tasks, all the sudden task rewards are a problem? It doesn’t seem like folks should be throttled down artificially, but the rewards were never right in the first place for tasks… which once fixed, could be done as much as folks wanted - just like PvP, Arena and TH. It seems like you were even okay with the rewards for those doing them in the pre-level 150 climb… but where you really had a problem was when folks were doing 40+ a day and earning too many resources?
Seems like the correct response was to just adjust the rewards per task at the 151+ levels, so tasks, like the other activities in the game, could be played as much as folks wanted. You’ll never solve the desparities between groups. That’s the nature of resource and growth games.
Guess we will see if the various groups of players stick around for 3+ months, but the gap should remain. It should end up solving nothing between those who do everything and those who do almost nothing. Sure, you changed how much the 'have’s" can accomplish but it doesn’t close the gap between haves and have nots… it just - changes it.
I speculate you would be better served to infuse the game with new and changing content for the economy to be used on. Creating multiple uses for the various resources and accepting and embracing the fact that you will always have disparity between players is a good thing. I would suggest you worry less about how much someone wants to play an activity in your game or how they want to generate and save… let them, play it… just give them plenty of things to do with those resources… and give them plenty of incentives to participate in all aspects of your game… it’s a much more successful model, creates happier players, but still will not solve have’s and have nots.
Want to see a really good example of horrible economy/rewards manipulation by a dev? There are many. Look at Destiny on console from inception… they manipulated and slowed and then killed their game from its core numbers, they still hope Destiny II will bring numbers back. Want another, look at Diablo III’s growth cycle from where they started with rationing rewards and then learned to embrace it and build a system of content and increased rewards. Even World of Warcraft had to adjust a number of times before they figured it out.
Rationing rewards, adding time to in game tasks and pushing the carrot further away asking the player for even more time doesn’t make a great game… it’s a very poor development bandaid for lack of content. It results only temporarily in keeping players in game, but ultimately results in players leaving.
All of this is just my opinion base on past games I have experienced.
5 Likes
Sounds like you have nothing to lose by at least looking for a higher ranking guild and testing their worth
[quote=“Stan, post:42, topic:9195, full:true”]I’ve been stuck with 20 pridelands, 20 Wild plains and 20 yellow-mana as my BCD tasks. I can build a decent pridelands or yellow team (one that gives me a reasonable chance in PVP), but I was starting with every single troop at level 1 for wild plains.
[/quote]
This is an interesting point. I assumed that players with low-level cards would take them into challenges, not PvP matches.
Would you prefer that the task be “Win 10 PvP battles with 3 pridelands troops” instead of “Win 20 battles with 3 prideland troops?” That is, would you rather the difficulty & rewards be adjusted to assume PvP battles for those tasks? I assume that a 150 level player can BUILD a team of arbitrary requirements, and probably level every troop to 5 or so. But trying to take arbitrary teams into PvP is a much harder request.
1 Like
Yes there is! 50,000 Gold.
I got it yesterday, same day I bought 26 Gob-Chomper Weekly Packs which netted me 65,000 Gold. Task completed instantly 
1 Like
That’s a tough question. I don’t exclusively play PVP, but right now, my overarching objective is to feed my guild and level my kingdoms. So anything I can do to scrape more gold together I will do. I don’t like grinding challenges that I’ve already completed because I get paltry rewards in terms of both gold and souls. When a new kingdom comes out, its a different story. I love having a new questline and challenges to use my task-specific teams on, but they just don’t last very long.
If my choice was 10 PVP or any 20 battles, I would probably vote for any 20, just to support the people who don’t want to be forced into PVP.
The soul cost to get my wild plains team up to level 5 to 10 is not massive, and with that I can grind even 5 star challenges at hard difficulty (at least ensuring that i get a traitstone for my troubles), but I’d rather be doing something else.
Definitely not. PvP challenges should simply be win x PvP. Unless the reward is going to be something high, it’s definitely not worth the time and effort to try and win with what will be an inferior team compared to what you would take into PvP matches unless you get it paired with something that let’s you run a stronger all in 1 kingdom team (goblins, orcs, knights). The only thing that makes those challenges tolerable is the fact you can do them quickly against the kingdom challenges and earn some traitstones you need too.
2 Likes
Try getting it after you had dumped all your gold in the guild the night before.
1 Like
I was not making assumptions. I was asking questions to determine if the changes were really supported by the data or not. Based on what we have been told as to the reason for the change, I find it hard to fathom the data could support it. But, I haven’t heard any reports back on the data since the latest patch.
I have my current OK guild to lose. I’ve jumped once before, but at this point, I’d like some certainty of improvement before I throw away what I have. The matchmaking system on the PS4 is really not the best and the only guilds I see advertised here are either one-man startups or extremely demanding top-tier guilds. To find something better than what I have but where the requirements are reasonable for me is difficult, though I honestly haven’t spent much time or effort looking.
Just curious. What would you consider reasonable for yourself to pull off consistently?