The longest a guild event has ever been is 7 days. So to go from there to 70 days doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Though most players stay in one guild for more than 70 days anyway. A few need to step out due to real life or just want something new.
To be basically locked into playing in a guild for 70 days would turn off a lot of players.
Not to mention it would then be easily exploited. Since it’s hypothetical at this point I don’t think a blue print debate on exploits is necessary.
But imagine if Tower of Doom was 70 days. Your guild only uses 30 members worth of free sigils. And get beat on the Leaderboards by a guild that utilized 60 members worth of free sigils.
It’d be a disaster.
2 Likes
Certainly, that would be craziness. I meant it would be 10 world events, each of those would be 7 days long. The story from the spoilers tells of a search/hunt across different kingdoms, so each world event would be in a different kingdom.
A simple, and I consider it fair, solution would be that each part of the campaign/event lasting seven days would “lock out” the members of each guild in the sense that any member joining a guild wouldn’t be allowed to participate in said event until the next week/part starts.
This way, a guild member could take their leave whenever they want, like after they spend all their free/purchased sigils as a way to not let their (former) guildmates on the low end of the ranks for example, and when the new member joins they can’t help in this particular week. But that’s fine, they can pull their weight on the next part(s) of the campaign.
In the end, a guild can change their entire crew, but without causing any havoc in the ranked competition.
That is, IF each part of the campaign would reset all the sigils each player gets for the week/part of the event.
i also hope these campains will be player based…not guild based
although like other people suggested, even if it will be a player based, some of campain tasks might require participation in guild events (f.e. collect 3 medals of seasons) or participation in guild events might help with achieving it’s goals (like collect 10 chaos orbs)
some might be annoying (get XXX reown in a specific faction)
some might sound familiar (win 500 battles using 4 unique troops from Kingdom X)
etc.
ps. this whole post is a collection of some of ideas people posted in this thread, so it’s pure speculation
If campaigns are multiple weeks; seems unlikely that any individual task would REQUIRE an entire week (e.g. conversion of medal to medal of seasons) to complete as it would probably gate other tasks.
3 Likes
Campaigns are 10 weeks, each week has tasks that award stars. If you buy the Elite Pass and upgrade it to Elite Pass+ you’ll get the stars for the tasks you missed during past weeks.
This would be bad design.
1 Like
It’s kind of hard to agree or disagree unless you get a lot more specific. 
2 Likes
Beta baiting or genuinely doesn’t know that Lorien is on the beta?
Either way.
1 Like
Beta badges on the forum haven’t been updated for the 5.0 beta, so it is much harder to tell who is actually participating in it this time. Some people without forums badges are in it, and some people with forums badges aren’t.
7 Likes
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’ll try again…
Let’s say an event is X weeks long. It seems like bad design to make some subset of tasks be gated by other events (e.g. CoC type event) that would make it IMPOSSIBLE to complete, until that sub-event (e.g. CoC) passes. The forum would explode; and it’s bad design.
Hence, my comment that it seems unlikely that a task we’d be assigned is obtain X “medals of seasons” - as this would imply a certain gem spend in the Event (CoC) (e.g. cash) and a time gated window to boot. And then, to presume that the way to bypass this cash/time gate is to purchase something (e.g. elite pass)? Unlikely the devs would ever put something like this in its place.
That’s all I mean - I bring up the predatory nature of devs on occasion; but the above would seem overly onerous and hard to support.
2 Likes
I would think of campains more like a list of tasks that are doable over the whole 10 weeks, with last day of campain being the limit and without a prerequisite in form of finishing other tasks earlier.
F.e.: here’s a list of 10/20 task which you can do this campain to gain some camapain currency, none of them are blocked by any other task, but some may be completed only in a more narrow window (like doing XXX cumulative damge to raid boss/destroying a number of towers etc.)
You would have at least 2 tries on those in a campain. Or you could split requirements of the task on 2 weeks to do it without spending (fe. do half of required damage in one raid boss week, and rest in other raid boss week)
But, that’s just guessing from me. Nothing more. And it wouldn’t be a bad desing either.
I was rather expecting those tasks to be something running in parallel, somehow tied into the campaign story. A bit like the old weekly tasks, killing a given type of troops, matching a given gem color, summoning troops and such. It feels unlikely that participation in the weekly event will be required, we’ve still got Guild Wars weeks, there wouldn’t be enough torches and pitchforks to go around if they decide to make that mandatory as part of the campaign. 
There is a “pay X gems to skip this task” (paraphrased) in spoilers. So there is some sequence to doing tasks, could be you have 3 tasks on the todo list and when one is completed, you get the next one in that slot. Or it could be one task at a time and you have to complete them in order.
I’m just hoping the tasks aren’t random so everyone gets the same chance at completing them.
1 Like
Is it too early to say next week’s troop might be the worst in the game? That’s actually saying a lot.
The way its worded is not optimal.
It could either mean
- It does damage to only purple enemies and then drains the purple troops, doing nothing to anything else.
or
- It does damage to only purple enemies, then drains from every enemy.
If its 1, I’d rather run a Peasant
If its 2, I still rather run a Peasant. I’d rather use a Harpy for the mana drain.
Imagine paying 11 mana to drain 4-12 mana. Yawn.
Seems like 1 is most likely. But c’mon; it’s not the worst … by far.
1 Like
Then what’s worse than a troop that does nothing to 5 out of 6 colors?
Rare troops tend to do damage to a single opponent; then do something else (usually poorly). This troop can do damage to up to 4 opponents, then drain mana from them. Even if it’s 1 mana, you’ve delayed a potential spell cast. Not saying it’s great or even good; but there are worse in the “rare” category. Attack stealing dog comes to mind. Slayer ghost, etc.
It’s only rare, can’t expect much from it most of them.
1 Like
Those other troops are consistent at their effects. At least you can rely on them do things, even if its just damage.
Slayer Ghost does damage.
Warhound can possibly protect you from first slot skull damage.
This troop does nothing if the opponent doesn’t use purple mana.
I’d rather run Musketeer. At least it does flat damage.
Ogre is worse.