[Poll/Suggestion] Member Requirements for Guild Missions

Should guild missions retain a minimum player requirement or be based on the level of difficulty to define the number of players needed? Some missions that could be done solo and or with less than 3 can not be attempted since they require more players to even count. In today's game logic I don't think this makes sense since you can re-launch missions as needed and there might be players in the 24-hour world of MMOs that play off times of their guild-mates but could still run missions. So why penalize them?

You'll probably get a lot more responses if you edit the topic to make it clear what you're asking. I clicked on this expecting it to be a suggestion about polls because that's what I got from the title.

@Danikat.8537 said:You'll probably get a lot more responses if you edit the topic to make it clear what you're asking. I clicked on this expecting it to be a suggestion about polls because that's what I got from the title.

Quite right, and don't ask me what happened to it. I think when I backspaced thru a sentence I was in the wrong spot. +1 idiots to myself. :)

I'd rather have the whole mission system revamped and have it scale in requirements with the number of members on guilds.That way even guilds with only 3-5 guys would be able to do hard achievements.

Which missions do you think should be allowable with fewer than X members?

Hardly a "Guild Mission" if it's routinely performed solo. ....now...Personal Missions that would benefit the guild as a whole....there's something to consider.....oh wait we got rid of influence didn't we....hmmm

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Which missions do you think should be allowable with fewer than X members?

Any that have requirements. Let the difficulty of the mission itself be the guiding factor on how many players it requires versus fixed numbers. Have guild-mates that play off hours that could accomplish missions solo, but if they are not on with the required numbers than they can't run them. Take Doylak escorting, why does that need three people? Senty captures, camps, towers? Same with PvP missions. This would also assist the smaller group sized guilds.

They should remove any player requirements from all of them.If let's say 5 people in a guild do a race, it should just count those 5 people and not have to do it x3 per person (or 3+ for those that can beat it and 1 to 0 to others that can't beat it for skritt).Needing 15 to get credit is just meh.

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:Which missions do you think should be allowable with fewer than X members?

I apologize for using too short a question. I always thought that some WvW missions required a minimum number to demonstrate guild cohesion. Are there any where the limit is really onerous to small guilds? I thought that making a specific list might help to identify cases in which the limits no longer make sense, compare to perhaps some for which there's still a good reason to have a limit.

Here's the sort of list I was thinking of:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_mission#List_of_opportunities

• WvW requires 3 people for capping camps, capping sentries, holding a camp|tower|keep, and defending dolyaks.
• PvP requires 3 people per team for each mission.
• PvE requires six people for the medium or hard puzzles.

Here's my take:

• I think the PvP requirement is reasonable: it's meant to show that you can field a PvP team. I don't think it should change.
• The PvE requirement of six for some puzzles seems paternalistic. If it can be done with 3, why not allow it?
• The idea of some WvW minimums also seems reasonable to me. It's not about whether someone can accomplish something, but about whether a group can. And three isn't all that many.

In short, it seems to me that requiring as few as three isn't all that limiting except to guilds that really only have 1-2 active members. I wouldn't mind if the requirement was lowered or eliminating; I just don't think it's necessary or important to the game.

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Which missions do you think should be allowable with fewer than X members?

Super sensible. Small guilds needs love, and something as simple as this could revitalize a good chunk of interest in the guild system as a whole.

I would love to see player requirements removed.

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:Here's the sort of list I was thinking of:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_mission#List_of_opportunities

• WvW requires 3 people for capping camps, capping sentries, holding a camp|tower|keep, and defending dolyaks.
• PvP requires 3 people per team for each mission.
• PvE requires six people for the medium or hard puzzles.

Here's my take:

• I think the PvP requirement is reasonable: it's meant to show that you can field a PvP team. I don't think it should change.
• The PvE requirement of six for some puzzles seems paternalistic. If it can be done with 3, why not allow it?
• The idea of some WvW minimums also seems reasonable to me. It's not about whether someone can accomplish something, but about whether a group can. And three isn't all that many.

In short, it seems to me that requiring as few as three isn't all that limiting except to guilds that really only have 1-2 active members. I wouldn't mind if the requirement was lowered or eliminating; I just don't think it's necessary or important to the game.

I think this made more sense when you could only run the mission once or when missions cost the guild money to activate (might be mixing that with WvW functions) but after the change to guilds/players getting credit only once I think it already has that covered. As far as showing team unity, I understand your point but would prefer to support the guild mates that are left out more. Side note on the same thought, seeing players run together looks the same if they are running a mission or not so even the team unity thing is more of a stretch currently.

For the WvW missions again, challenge of the mission defines the players required. Holding a tower solo is not easy even if capping one might be. Escortiung yaks, if aguild can run the mission all at the same time on different yaks they create their own challenge level.

For PvP its a bit worse. Quite a number of those missions are expecting multiple teams to complete them considering the short times and the fact that the timer runs even while waiting on a queue pop. Example: PvP mission getting 15 top stats in 'x' time. If you are fielding one team of 3 there is only 'x' amount of top stats available in a game period so unless you have multiple teams running it you still may not get it, but running less people per team you might have better odds to complete.

For PvE, puzzles, same thing, if a guild can complete it with less players, let them try. Some might finding them even more interesting to try and do it with less to increase their own challenge levels.

@ReaverKane.7598 said:I'd rather have the whole mission system revamped and have it scale in requirements with the number of members on guilds.That way even guilds with only 3-5 guys would be able to do hard achievements.

This would be an ideal situation but I don't know if they would buy off on the expense, but agree with your thought if the intent was to challenge all guild equally.

@"Arioch.6507" said:Hardly a "Guild Mission" if it's routinely performed solo. ....now...Personal Missions that would benefit the guild as a whole....there's something to consider.....oh wait we got rid of influence didn't we....hmmm

An addition of solo versus team would also be nice addition to see. Key is allow players and small guilds to help advance themselves and their guilds if they want to and can do so.

Next time need to remember to add a, I don't do guild missions as well. Let scary when I chat with some people in game with lower AP and they respond with, what's a guild mission? Wasn't expecting that one.

My guilds are dead, 139 members in one, only 4 active members at a time And my guild is just myself and my family, only 2 of us still play. Can't do a single mission, and I have no interest in joining other guilds. I would like to see no min member requirements. But I could go for a min amount of people, from different guilds. Then you could be helping multiple mom and pop guilds throughout the community. A guild alliance could be another option, especially with WvW missions.

Wow that was a necro. Couldn't remember making this post in the last few weeks, then I checked the year. Granted still in favor of seeing the requirements removed so that people playing off hours, or in guilds now reduced in size, can get them done. It was also always meant to remove extra constraints on smaller guilds. One day maybe.