Let’s just all be one guild
End all events, be given the same rewards and play using a balloon and pillows while hugging each other
I call it Sarcastagems
Let’s just all be one guild
how about new type of guild can choose to join the reg or one thats based on your pvp ranking on lb from week before say 50 spots per guild haha
I agree with the increase in guild members.
How much will the game pay to play longer?
I’d rather stop playing than use more time for this.
I have work and family.
What you are suggesting in a roundabout way is to maintain access to LTs following the update. Your suggestion to increase guild size is a means to offset the new task expense. The devs could easily do this by adjusting the proposed gold commitment of new tasks or by scaling down current basic task expense and proposed epic task expense to make them remotely affordable. 30 players in top guilds could deal with such an approach but as things stand, the plan is to ignore at least 50% of the epics except during wars week. I get your point totally but it’s just a case of adjust and adapt. Bigger guilds would be a nightmare for GMs and freeloading ALTS would become even more problematic. The devs would have to scale events etc to take into account the increased availability of event completion and so on. I think GMS must be able to lock out tasks as others have said. We’ve had the only compromise we are likely to get; how the update pans out in real terms remains to be seen.
I agree with your post. I am in one of the top guilds and a lot of members are ready to bail on GOW…it is too much of a grind and members are losing interest in this game FAST.
I think they should make guilds 25 and reduce costs accordingly.
Max guild member numbers will never change.
This thread is pointless.
The problem with implementing this idea is it’s based on the false premise, “The devs want everyone to finish everything”.
They don’t. They want to frustrate you. It’s their job. They need you to feel like you can almost get what you want out of GoW, but if you’d just buy a few gems you’d get everything you want. Every week. To get there, they need to make sure that to be competitive you have to spend more resources, because players today have better opportunities to farm than they had before.
The economy isn’t based solely what the average guild does. The devs also have to keep in mind what guilds like Anonymous and TUF are generating in terms of income every week. Most of the game’s top guilds might be agitated, but they’ll still spend what they usually spend and still get multiple LTs.
Right now it costs 30 players an average of ~1.6 million gold to complete all tasks and start LTs. It would take 35 players an average of 1.4m, which means if they donate at the same level as before they get 200k * 35 players = 7 LTs out of those +5 players. Meanwhile, if you’re in a lower guild averaging only 700k per player, you go from 21m (not even halfway) to 24.5m (still not even halfway). And if your guild is donating less than that, you get even less. A guild donating 700k needs ~70 players to reach LTs. A guild donating 1.6m per player would get 60 LTs out of 70 players. Or they could drop their average donation to 1m per player and still get 20 LTs. 1m per week is very sustainable if you play frequently.
So while this would make it a little easier for lower-ranked guilds to get more tasks completed, it’d disproportionately reward the higher-ranked players.
This is all that needs to be said and variations of it have been said by multiple people.
We may as well have gold and gems doubled in every mode. That would solve the same “problems” talked about in the original post and involve significantly less actual work for the devs.
Reducing members is something that would never happen. There are guilds that have 30 long-standing members. It’s important to respect groups like this and breaking them up goes against that, puts the leader in a position to choose who to keep and who to remove.
In this I agree. I imagine a rebalancing of tasks in the future. Or at least a more organized control system than the current one, with random donations on any Weekly Task.
I agree with you on this point. It really is difficult to balance the game to the middle guilds without greatly favoring the guilds of the higher ranks. It makes me think that the game is increasingly focused on top guilds with its hardcore players, making the lives of others very complicated.
Now I understand a little better some friends I have, who stopped after years of playing for not having so much time to spare playing. Fulfilling the main daily tasks does not require as many hours and is accessible to most players. However, collecting medals has proved extremely difficult for players with less free time and now, I feel that the weekly tasks will require many to spend even more time in the game if they want to stay in a good guild.
The additional tasks and increased gold levy reqd to hit LTs is a gambit forcing players who can afford it to buy ring of plunder every month. Simple as.
Ring of wonder is not worth the price. With the added tasks it’s even more not worth it. Unless you want to live on game for a month and if that’s the case you probably don’t need Ring.
I’ve never bought it but I can see why others do. The new gold reqs may make it an attractive and regular purchase for some. It’s not a trap I will fall into.
I agree with that
The number of guild members should be increased to 35. No more, no less.
Getting to 30 members can be a very difficult matter to maintain.
They need to come with some sort of system when you’re actually encouraged to have 30 members instead of almost inactive guild where there are only a few members that can’t do much on their own.
They only take server resources and they potentially penalize players during GW weeks where you end up with a Guild with no members, etc.
Thats it, 30 - no changes.
(me = 5 years guild leader)