Not true. Events are made so you can’t complete them without spending gems. That’s a subtle but important difference.
You can complete events without spending a $ of irl money, if you rely on ingame aquired gems (aka on free gems). It is doable but it requires some resource management.
The more you play (per day/week/etc) the more free gems you can get (as from tributes and treasure maps). So the game’s not going p2w as in pay2win, but rather p2w as in play2win. You actually have access to basically unlimited gems, via treasure maps, that are not limited by anything except time.
Pay2win would require a crucial resource/item/etc locked behind cash gating. There’s 0 such things in GoW, beside the 50$ armor, that is nowhere near so gamechanging to be counted as pay2win.
For my part, I say no to higher guild member limit, based on human nature issues.
In every type of gathering of humans, larger than 2 members, there is a certain chance (and even a certain probability) of issues, drama, infighting, lies, betrayals, etc. The larger the gathering, the higher the chances.
Raising guild member limit to 45 guaratees higher chances for dramaqueens/kings, toxic people, liars/scammers, etc, joining already estabilished guilds and farking them up from inside.
Not quite worth the hassle, if you ask me. Especially if the guild’s set to reach all new goals, and 1-2 members can easily destroy it for all others.
Wow, many of the complaints against increasing # of membership seem from players too lazy to recruit or wanting to deal with the hassle of managing a larger guild. If you look at the environment now, successful guilds have gone around the problem of membership limitation by starting up sister guilds. I think it is much more of a hassle trying to run 2 or 3 guilds then it is to run a single guild. Increasing the # of members would allow GMs to not have to turn away as many potential recruits as our current 30 member limit.
For those GMs who are complaining of going through the trouble of recruiting and/or managing a larger guild, there is something called delegation. Use the resources at your disposal.
I, for one, would love to see the limit on membership increase. It would definately help guilds deal with the increase in tasks 4.7 would bring.
Unfortunately, from what I noticed in the comments, most do not want to have the job of recruiting anymore, preferring to divide tasks by the current 30 members, increasing their daily hours of play. Consequently, those who do not meet the guild’s weekly goals will leave and another will take their place.
I saw through a sensible comment (which was not just a recruitment complaint) that increasing membership would imply countless other adaptive changes in the game. But we are already facing these changes and like or not, they will come.
Even with all the cons, I think a bigger guild would be the same as more “manpower” and with more members, the chances of reaching bigger goals would be closer.
But that certainly will not happen. I don’t even want to see when we are overloaded with tasks and have to deal with them with only 30 members.
The highest rank guilds with 30 active players will be able to survive this without any major problems, however the smaller rank guilds will never see a Legendary Task again.
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
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.
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.
