Suggestion: New maximum guild member capacity

Feature Requests and Game feedback
1

I know many may not agree with this suggestion, but I believe that with the arrival of new Guild Guardians and with them, 12 weekly tasks, only 30 guild members would have to suffer a lot to meet the gold demand needed to complete all tasks and still get some Legendary Task, be it the competitive or casual guild.

I have suggested, like other veteran players, that the Devs implement a donation control system where the leader would set an “order of importance” in the Weekly Tasks and members would make their donations in that order.

That would solve part of the problem, which would be the waste of gold by donating at random, but not the bigger problem, which is the difficulty for a guild to collect a large amount of gold weekly to complete all 12 Weekly Tasks and perhaps some Legendary Tasks.

Some may say that it would be more difficult to run a guild with more members, but honestly, I think it’s all a matter of adaptation. The game is changing and we have to adapt to those changes.

I would suggest that the maximum member capacity in a guild be increased by 50%, ie from 30 to 45 members.
This readjustment would definitely bring many benefits to guilds. First, we would have 50% more members helping with donations. Perhaps the value of the weekly seals collection needed to be increased from 40 to 50k, but the guild would still be able to complete it.

Not only in terms of donation benefit, more guild members would also help more easily get weekly rewards for Raid Boss, Invasion and Tower of Doom events (as long as there was no absurd readjustment to the requirements). More guild members would still mean stronger active guilds and fewer dead guilds polluting the guild wars.

After 5 years, what we see most are countless tasks, making the game a challenge for hardcore gamers. Why not increase the number of guild members to help us overcome these challenges more easily?

Lord MeghatroN - Gems of War’s player since 2014.
Leader of the Raptors Brasil guild (Brazilian Gems of War Community).

8 Likes
2

I think guild master and recruiter will not like this a lot

1 Like
3

I understand that many will claim that recruiting is difficult, however, there are many guilds that only have half of the active members, while the other half is mixed in and out unrelated to the rest.

Also, we have to agree that guild tasks have been heavy for 30 members for a while now. Achieving all the rewards of weekly events only happens in fully active guilds. A few more hands would just help, not the opposite.

It is also important to remember that events and tasks will not decrease, on the contrary, the tendency in the next Updates is to increase. So the solution is for the guild to have the strength to get more resources.

An important item that I forgot to mention in the suggestion is that with 30 members currently, the required load on weekly goals is high for many players. With Update in sight, it seems to me that many guilds will increase these weekly targets to complete all Weekly Tasks rewards. The amount of players that will be harmed is huge if this happens.

With more members, it is possible to divide the weekly load and lower the goals by members, making it easier for many who can’t spend more than 4 hours a day playing but don’t want to stop playing.

Anyway, I’m just a madman who thinks a few weeks ahead. One rule I always follow is to hope for the best, preparing for the worst.

1 Like
4

I’d rather the max go down to 25.

5

they are not going to do this because a LT that cost 1 mil gold will be 50% more expensive on the other end because 45 will now be getting it instead of the 30 now.

2 Likes
6

I concur with OP in other games I’ve played I’ve easily handled guilds/clans with 50-75 active people 45 would be no issue even is all of them don’t have/use discord

1 Like
7

That’s a big no from me.
Hard enough to keep a guild of 30 active players.
Just look at the number of recruiting posts on here. Or hang out in global for awhile.

2 Likes
8

That is, the reason they set such a high goal is to frustrate us and prevent us from getting a reward they themselves have created? It makes no sense at all. This is exactly what will make many players give up on the game.

Should we be left with a small guild in the face of very high goals that a minority will be able to get close to? This is asking to sink the boat.

1 Like
9

Gems is an easy game to administer. A Guild Master with the help of two or three members to pass on information to others is enough.

It’s not a game where you need to connect with multiple players at once, all chatting with voice chat to accomplish missions on specific days and times.

You understand me. Managing 45 members is not the end of the world, it is a possibility that each member can play more smoothly and the end result of teamwork is the desired end of the week.

1 Like
10

What I want to see is a 30 member guild achieve the goals to come soon.
In top guilds with 30 assets, it will be tricky. In the smaller ones, it will be impossible.
And honestly, playing a game with impossible goals without living exclusively in the game is pretty frustrating.

1 Like
11

Being honest with you, my intention with the suggestion is solely to find a way for every guild in the game to have a chance to complete the Weekly Tasks.
A guild with 30 active members can achieve with many hours of weekly play for each member. Already a smaller guild, with players who can not stay so long in the game, this will be impossible.

Arguments such as “recruitment is difficult”, “we found no assets” is quite invalid considering the number of guilds in the GW Brackets and how many players compete in the other events. There are many active players in the game. What is missing is a reason to come together more.

Seeing goals almost impossible to achieve does not unite anyone, on the contrary, moves further away.
In the last GW we faced a 1 member guild that was no longer in the game. Probably GM dismissed all members and dropped out of the game after signing up for the guild in GW.

What we need is not arguments pointing to what will go wrong. We already know many things that have a huge chance of going wrong. What we need is ideas that can work.
Remember to bring up your ideas that you find useful when commenting, I’d love to read that.

1 Like
12

Managing 45 members would be difficult.
Getting 45 active members, good luck with that.

2 Likes
13

45 members from 30,is a huge increase.Make it gradually,like 35 members to see how the GMs+recruiters can hundle it.
I believe +5 members is manageble,and they will add the gold the guild needs to cope with 4.7 patch

14

Unfortunately, I disagree on the part that only 5 more players will fill the gold demand to complete 12 Weekly Tasks. Previously it was 30 to complete 6, so would we have 5 more to complete the new 6? It remains a heavy burden to distribute the total amount by the number of members.

Even with 45, each guild member’s required gold rate would still have to be higher than before. Consider that there were 30 memebers to complete 6 Weekly Tasks. With 45 there are 15 more players to complete the new 6. If you divide the total by 45, everyone will still have to donate more than 30 previously donated with only six tasks.

What I see a lot are people afraid they won’t be able to recruit new 15 players to the guild. I think as follows: If in my guild I keep my 30 active and have 15 new casual players, these new members will help me more than if I had only 30 before.
Too lazy to recruit? This I do not have. It may take a while, but I’ll fill the vacancies in my guild.

And no one has read the other attributes of expanding membership. More players would be helping out at all events, which would be of great benefit to the guild.

Something that tells me that some players will be happy to see 12 Weekly Tasks and only 30 guild members to complete them. I have several friends who have said they will only play until December and that makes me sad. However, instead of coming up with ideas to help, most commenters just have new problems, which we already have plenty of. What we need is suggestions for solutions.

1 Like
15

I’m for adding up to 50 players, so there will be no problems with not closing the Guards, but because of this, it will be necessary to redo the entire guild system, including the seal

16

This is because you’re trying to fix a ‘problem’ that according to the devs doesn’t exist. They specifically designed epic tasks with the intention that most guilds won’t complete them. You’re trying to work in the opposite direction of their plan which of course they won’t implement for that reason alone. You perceive so many responses as negative & pointing out more problems because your ‘solution’ in fact creates more problems than it’s going to solve:

  1. while I don’t expect my family of guilds to have a problem keeping our guilds full if raised above 30, many individual guilds will certainly have difficulty with this, as others have already indicated.

  2. while it’s possible your solution might help finish more epic tasks, do you think the devs would leave the weekly guild events unchanged if they increase guild sizes? Highly unlikely because that means more guilds finish those, flooding their micro-managed economy with resources. Instead they’d likely raise raid, invasion & ToD reqs to compensate for more players, which means your solution to 1 epic tasks just made 3 other events tougher for many guilds to finish.

  3. same applies to seals. Again do you think the devs won’t raise seals above 40k to get level 6 guild chests with more members? That means more guilds will lose access to this unless those extra members are all active enough to get 1k to 1500 seals.

  4. your solution to epic tasks means reworking guild wars to deal with more members. Again, MANY guilds will be hard pressed to maintain 45 GW players. Do you anticipate them changing GW participation from 27/30 to 30/45? Not going to happen. So yet another potential problem created.

  5. finally, where exactly do you think all these extra players are going to come from? The top 20 guilds would suck a large number of the highly productive players from the other top 50. Those top 50 will in turn drain the top 100 of their talent, who will then drain the next 200 guilds and so on down the ranks. This will effectively create much larger gaps between top, mid & low guilds - again, completely counter to what you’re trying to accomplish.

It was a valiant effort but there are too many holes in your plan that affect other aspects of the game to make it viable without reworking large portions of the game, many of which have already recently or going to be reworked.

14 Likes
17

Vanyel already made some points about why is never going to happen and that above you consider a “pros” is actually another reason why wont happen, also events would need a total rework to keep up the gems spent on events.

To make it short, something like that will never happen cuz mean a LOT of work for the devs for something that dont bother them a little bit (in fact they added those Epic (Fail) Tasks already knowing there’s 30 ppls each guild).

And yes, some players (all those on the triple digit LT’s guilds right now) will be happy about 4.7 that’s gonna give them a nice boost, all others imo got 2 choices, either move to 1 of those guilds and play more hardcore (cuz i doubt they take leechs) or go casual a lot without really gaff about completing (and competing on) everything.

1 Like
18

Exactly. And these changes and this reworking of events will come in one form or another.

19

Really, you made me think of a single point of importance. Events are being developed so that guilds cannot complete them in order to force microtransactions within the game. After five years, I find myself considering a new game to play, just as I’ve heard from several friends.
Gems is about to become P2W, which is unfortunate.

2 Likes
20

You’re right. I just fell into limbo of sad and harsh reality. No matter what we suggest, the goal of more difficult events is to make most guilds unable to complete them, prompting players [who can] resort to microtransactions to stay within a strong guild.
From this point of view, I understand the position of the Devs. And I also understand that suggestions for favoring guilds in battle are only dreams.
Thank you.

1 Like