[Solution] Here is a way to fix the disparity between small Guild costs and large Guild costs — Guild Wars 2 Forums

[Solution] Here is a way to fix the disparity between small Guild costs and large Guild costs

Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
edited January 8, 2018 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

My biggest gripe with Guilds beyond other things wrong with them is the fact players who choose to run a very small-sized Guild, a small-sized Guild, a medium-sized Guild, a large-sized Guild, or a very large-sized Guild are not given those 5 options to choose from during the process of Guild Creation.

EDIT for clarity: For example, before we create our own Guild, a dialogue box should pop up, asking, "What size Guild do you want to run? Material and Item requirement costs for Guild Upgrades will also be balanced according to your Guild size choice. Note: Your choice of Guild size is permanent, unless you create a new Guild afterward, so choose wisely."

And the 'Member cap' options to choose from would be:

1. A very small-sized Guild that caps out at 100 Members
2. A small-sized Guild that caps out at 200 Members
3. A medium-sized Guild that caps out at 300 Members
4. A large-sized Guild that caps out at 400 Members
5. A very large-sized Guild that caps out at 500 Members

Since there are 5 options to choose from like in the above example, Anet’s Developers would have to divide all Material and Item cost values for each and every Upgrade like so:

If option 1. is chosen, divide all Material and Item cost values for each and every Upgrade by 5.

If option 2. is chosen, divide all Material and Item cost values for each and every Upgrade by 4.

If option 3. is chosen, divide all Material and Item cost values for each and every Upgrade by 3.

If option 4. is chosen, divide all Material and Item cost values for each and every Upgrade by 2.

If option 5. is chosen, since 1 cannot be divided, all Material and Item cost values for each and every Upgrade remain the same.

That is only fair because players who choose option 5. already know such a big Guild will have to be ran in such way to encourage as many Guild Members possible to contribute to the resources required for Upgrades, whereas much smaller Guilds (with our current Guild Creation system) are otherwise often stuck with very high Gold costs to Upgrade their Guild with very few Guild Members. Smaller Guilds (notably options 1. and 2.) may encourage contributions from their Guild Members to help with costs, yet smaller Guilds are also more susceptible to going dormant/inactive, that or fewer Guild Members actually help.

Therefore, the difference between choosing a smaller-sized Guild using this system vs. a bigger-sized Guild using this system is smaller Guilds benefit from cheaper Guild costs, yet they sacrifice the potential to have way more Guild Members, while bigger Guilds benefit from the potential to have way more Guild Members, yet it costs more to Upgrade the Guild, and while it costs more, it is more easier when a bigger Guild with more Guild Members contribute to the costs.

There is absolutely no imbalance in the system I have devised, assuming a sufficient amount of Guild Members in either a small Guild or a big Guild contributes, in conjunction with the fact there are drawbacks on both sides to choosing a smaller Guild size or a larger Guild size. However, if either a smaller Guild or a bigger Guild has players who do not contribute very much, no matter the Guild size, of course there will be an imbalance in Guild Upgrade progress. That is to be expected at that point.

As of now, the current Guild Creation system automatically assumes every player wants to run a very large Guild from the very beginning that caps out at 500 Guild Members whose Upgrade costs are outrageous for players who want to run a smaller Guild. However, the system I devised balances out the field for smaller Guilds where Guild costs are not through the roof.

NOTE 1: The algorithm I used in the above serves only as an example. Anet may choose to use different algorithm to balance Guild costs, that which also balances the time it takes/costs for smaller Guilds to have in Guild Upgrades what bigger Guilds have in Guild Upgrades, so they take roughly the same time if you were to pit a smaller Guild vs. a bigger Guild against each other.

NOTE 2 : The term 'cost value' I refer to in this case means 'the amount of an item' required for any Guild Upgrade, not the actual cost of any item. Therefore, all required Material amounts and all required Item amounts would be divided by x depending on what Guild size players choose (exception to the rule for certain Guild Upgrades requiring only 1 Item that cannot be divided that will remain at the same value, no matter if you create(d) a very small-sized Guild or a very large-sized Guild).

NOTE 3: Since all numeric values will not be ‘even’ using my formula above, certain values would then have to be rounded off to the nearest tenth (exception to the rule for certain Guild Upgrades requiring only 1 Item that cannot be divided that will remain at the same value, no matter if you create(d) a very small-sized Guild or a very large-sized Guild).

A piece of feedback I received to address the fact smaller Guilds with less Guild Members will NOT progress any faster than bigger Guilds with more Guild Members from the Guild Creation system I devised:

@Shirlias.8104 said:
You want to pay 1/5?
You should get 1/5 in terms of space ( guild dimensions ) and features. If a large company can afford a pool, not necessarily a Small one could afford the same, unless found and resources.

You are going off the misplaced assumption that somehow smaller Guilds are going to make out like a bandit vs. larger Guilds from the Guild Creation system I devised when they are really not. It is only common sense that, for example, if a player chooses option 5. with 500 Guilds Members (maxed), that they will progress at roughly the same pace as a player who chooses option 1. with only 100 Guild Members (maxed) if you were to pit them against each other, assuming at least 25% of Guild Members from each Guild contributed to Guild costs.

How is that so? Because while smaller Guilds will benefit from cheaper Guild Upgrade costs from the Guild Creation system I devised in my OP, bigger Guilds benefit from having more Guild Members, and as a result, they will take roughly the same amount of time to Upgrade as a smaller Guild with less Guild Members.

To make it clearer, a Guild capped out at 100 Guild Members going strong on Upgrades, etc. vs. a Guild capped out at 500 Guild Members going strong on Upgrades, etc., if pitted against each other, is not going to progress faster than a Guild capped out at 500 Guild Members. There is power in numbers, and that is known fact (in this case, power in higher numbers of Guild Members). What is everyone's concern here?

P.S. If anybody else has a better idea (beyond suggesting Anet should scrap the current Guild system altogether) on how to fix this big problem since Guilds were released with HoT back in 2015, let's hear it.

Comments

  • Vagrant.7206Vagrant.7206 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Eidolonemesis.5640 said:
    My biggest gripe with Guilds beyond everything else wrong with them is the fact players who choose to run a very small-sized Guild, a small-sized Guild, a medium-sized Guild, a large-sized Guild, or a very large-sized Guild are not given those 5 options to choose from during the process of creating a Guild.

    For example, before we create our own Guild, a dialogue box should pop up, asking, "What size Guild do you want to run?" and the 'Member cap' options to choose from would be:

    1. A very small-sized Guild that caps out at 100 Members
    2. A small-sized Guild that caps out at 200 Members
    3. A medium-sized Guild that caps out at 300 Members
    4. A large-sized Guild that caps out at 400 Members
    5. A very large-sized Guild that caps out at 500 Members

    Now, the neat thing about the above exampled idea is if you choose to run a very small-sized Guild or a small-sized Guild, the Materials required to Upgrade those size Guilds will not cost as much Gold so as to break your pocket vs. running a large-sized Guild or a very large-sized Guild that will break your pocket.

    As of now, the current Guild Creation system automatically assumes every player wants to run a very large Guild from the very beginning that caps out at 500 Guild Members whose Upgrade costs are outrageous for smaller Guilds.

    So, with that being said in mind, how will Anet balance the cost of each and every Upgrade to a Guild in accordance to a players’ Guild size choice?

    Simple. Since there are 5 options to choose from like in the above example, Anet’s Developers would have to divide all Material cost values for each and every Upgrade like so:

    If option 1. is chosen, divide all Material cost values for each and every Upgrade by 5.

    If option 2. is chosen, divide all Material cost values for each and every Upgrade by 4.

    If option 3. is chosen, divide all Material cost values for each and every Upgrade by 3.

    If option 4. is chosen, divide all Material cost values for each and every Upgrade by 2.

    If option 5. is chosen, since 1 cannot be divided, all Material cost values for each and every Upgrade remain the same. That is only fair because if players choose option 5., such big Guilds are ran in such way to encourage as many Guild Members possible to contribute to the resources required for Upgrades, whereas much smaller Guilds (with our current Guild Creation system) are otherwise often stuck with very high Gold costs to Upgrade their Guild with very few Guild Members.

    NOTE: Not all numeric values will be ‘even’ using the formula above, so certain values would then have to be rounded off to the nearest tenth.

    P.S. If anybody else has a better idea on how to fix this big problem since Guilds were released with HoT back in 2015, let's hear it.

    Honestly, guilds as a whole need reworking, not just the scribing aspect. Guild missions are stale and the rewards are the same. There's not much purpose to guilds other than "let's make cool stuff."

    The great god Lagki demands sacrifice!

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @Vagrant.7206 said:
    Honestly, guilds as a whole need reworking, not just the scribing aspect. Guild missions are stale and the rewards are the same. There's not much purpose to guilds other than "let's make cool stuff."

    We already know this as a community, and I agree with you, but as said in the very beginning of my OP, my biggest gripe with Guilds beyond other things wrong with them is the fact players who choose to run a very small-sized Guild, a small-sized Guild, a medium-sized Guild, a large-sized Guild, or a very large-sized Guild are not given those 5 options to choose from during the process of creating a Guild.

    That issue, I believe, needs to be fixed before moving on to the 'how to make Guilds more interesting and more rewarding' part of the equation. Just letting players choose what size Guild they want to run alone (with balanced Upgrade costs depending upon one's Guild size choice) will be rewarding and draw more players into wanting to create their own Guilds.

  • Vagrant.7206Vagrant.7206 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @Eidolonemesis.5640 said:

    @Vagrant.7206 said:
    Honestly, guilds as a whole need reworking, not just the scribing aspect. Guild missions are stale and the rewards are the same. There's not much purpose to guilds other than "let's make cool stuff."

    We already know this as a community, but as said in the very beginning of my OP, "My biggest gripe with Guilds beyond everything else wrong with them is the fact players who choose to run a very small-sized Guild, a small-sized Guild, a medium-sized Guild, a large-sized Guild, or a very large-sized Guild are not given those 5 options to choose from during the process of creating a Guild."

    Yeah, I get what you're saying.

    The problem boils down to the fundamental mechanics of the way that scribing and guild halls were implemented. Since scribing is a craft, it doesn't scale for anything, which is bank-breaking. The upgrade mechanics for the guild hall seem to follow the same line of thinking.

    The great god Lagki demands sacrifice!

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Eidolonemesis.5640 said:

    @Vagrant.7206 said:
    Honestly, guilds as a whole need reworking, not just the scribing aspect. Guild missions are stale and the rewards are the same. There's not much purpose to guilds other than "let's make cool stuff."

    We already know this as a community, but as said in the very beginning of my OP, "My biggest gripe with Guilds beyond everything else wrong with them is the fact players who choose to run a very small-sized Guild, a small-sized Guild, a medium-sized Guild, a large-sized Guild, or a very large-sized Guild are not given those 5 options to choose from during the process of creating a Guild."

    Yeah, I get what you're saying.

    The problem boils down to the fundamental mechanics of the way that scribing and guild halls were implemented. Since scribing is a craft, it doesn't scale for anything, which is bank-breaking. The upgrade mechanics for the guild hall seem to follow the same line of thinking.

    Scribing may be a Craft and not scale, but how are Guild Upgrade cost values from the Guild Treasurer not able to be scaled, even if something from Scribing is required for a Guild Upgrade? Just have less things from Scribing required for certain Guild Upgrades for smaller Guilds. Not everything required for Guild Upgrades is a Material.

    Furthermore, the term 'cost value' I refer to in this case means 'the amount of an item' required for any Guild Upgrade, not the actual cost of any item. Therefore, all required Material amounts and all required Item amounts would be divided by x depending on what Guild size players choose (exception to the rule for certain Guild Upgrades requiring only 1 Item that cannot be divided that will remain at the same value, no matter if you create(d) a very small-sized Guild or a very large-sized Guild).

    P.S. My OP has been updated to better reflect what I initially meant to get across.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Okay so how does this system handle a guild that grows beyond it's constraints. What happens when you're 100 person guild (as mine was at the beginning) is now a 400 person guild?

    There would have to be some safeguard here that stopped people from forming a small guild, upgrading it and then moving to a bigger guild hall. By the same token you can't ask a guild to redo all their work either. But even here, there's an issue because there are people there who believe they should be able to do the same stuff with four or five people in their guild. How many gradations does Anet have to make? How many are they supposed to make.

    Guild Halls having a long term max simply means it takes a long long time for a smaller guild to get to the same place. But even in a bigger guild like mine, do you suppose all 400 people contributed to the creation of it? No. A handful of people did the work and everyone else got the benefit. Those that cared and were dedicated built my guild hall, so if you have a smaller guild where everyone knows each other, the theory would be more people would be there to build it, and not just there for the ride.

    It took us a while to max our guild hall, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be done over night.

    The catagories you listed are simply, in my opinion, too broad, and any system developed would have to be developed to be free of exploitation.

    I'd much rather see the system redesigned from scratch (something I don't see happening) than to see work put into this sort of implementation. After all, we don't even know what percentage of the community this would benefit. A guild overhaul would likely benefit more people.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    So, what happens if this is put into the game? Do existing guilds get a do-over? Would this mean that every guild would limit themselves to the smallest number? After all, most guilds form around a single individual or a core group. I doubt that many such groups are larger than 100 players.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Okay so how does this system handle a guild that grows beyond it's constraints. What happens when you're 100 person guild (as mine was at the beginning) is now a 400 person guild?

    There would have to be some safeguard here that stopped people from forming a small guild, upgrading it and then moving to a bigger guild hall. By the same token you can't ask a guild to redo all their work either. But even here, there's an issue because there are people there who believe they should be able to do the same stuff with four or five people in their guild. How many gradations does Anet have to make? How many are they supposed to make.

    Guild Halls having a long term max simply means it takes a long long time for a smaller guild to get to the same place. But even in a bigger guild like mine, do you suppose all 400 people contributed to the creation of it? No. A handful of people did the work and everyone else got the benefit. Those that cared and were dedicated built my guild hall, so if you have a smaller guild where everyone knows each other, the theory would be more people would be there to build it, and not just there for the ride.

    It took us a while to max our guild hall, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be done over night.

    The catagories you listed are simply, in my opinion, too broad, and any system developed would have to be developed to be free of exploitation.

    I'd much rather see the system redesigned from scratch (something I don't see happening) than to see work put into this sort of implementation. After all, we don't even know what percentage of the community this would benefit. A guild overhaul would likely benefit more people.

    Your feedback leads me to believe you did not read the OP very well, because it specifically states that the Guild Member cap any player chooses for their Guild remains the same depending on what option they chose. That is what the term 'cap' implies. Therefore, any player in the system I devised who chooses option 1., that will forever be their Guild Member cap unless they choose to remake a bigger Guild with a higher Guild Member cap.

    The options/categories I listed are not broad at all. The list of options I gave are all 'fair game' whose intention is to balance Guild costs to Upgrade a Guild, etc. As specifically stated in my OP, I noted, "The current Guild Creation system automatically assumes every player wants to run a very large Guild from the very beginning that caps out at 500 Guild Members whose Upgrade costs are outrageous for smaller Guilds."

    Therefore, while not everybody even in large-sized Guilds or very large-sized Guilds may contribute to Guild costs, at least in bigger Guilds there is a higher chance for Guild Members to help with the costs than in much smaller Guilds.

    And let's not exaggerate too much. The current Guild system does not need a complete overhaul, because it achieves 'most' basic things fine. All it needs is a revamp to Guild Creation itself, a few more additional features, some QoL improvement, and a GvG game mode we should have had since the beginning of launch to make Guilds interesting against like they were in Guild Wars 1.

  • Shirlias.8104Shirlias.8104 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    What about the guild's growth?
    If the guild pass from 100 to 200 and then from 200 to 500?

    Also, why should a Small guild get the same space as a large one?

    You want to pay 1/5?
    You should get 1/5 in terms of space ( guild dimensions ) and features. If a large company can afford a pool, not necessarily a Small one could afford the same, unless found and resources.

    It seems pretty reasonable to me. The more players, the easier progression.

  • Illconceived Was Na.9781Illconceived Was Na.9781 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    The OP makes certain assumptions:

    • That guilds always know what they want from the start, e.g. that intentionally small guilds never grow or that intentionally large guilds never shrink.
    • That there's something wrong with the current system, in which lifetime upgrades are priced to last a lifetime.

    There's no question that the burden on smaller guilds is great, but that doesn't make it unreasonable or unfair. There's no guarantee that a large guild gets significant contributions from that many more people. We know, from various examples, that plenty of smaller guilds are able to upgrade.

    I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    So, what happens if this is put into the game? Do existing guilds get a do-over?

    If a Guild Creation system like I devised in my OP were implemented, then yes, already-existing Guilds can choose to do a 'do-over' if they wanted (in the event they did not exhaust too many resources to begin with and see doing so as logical to benefit from lower Guild costs that require less Guild Members), yet most already-existing Guilds (notably already-big Guilds) will most likely not do everything all over again and will operate the same way, because they have most likely exhausted many resources to begin with to get where they are.

    To cram the above stated in a nutshell, getting involved in the Guild Creation system I devised will depend heavily on how 'logical' it is to make the move. Therefore, for Guilds that have invested a lot already and are in too deep, it would not be logical, whereas for Guilds that have not invested a lot already, it would be logical.

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Would this mean that every guild would limit themselves to the smallest number?

    No. Not every Guild Leader --- notably Guild Leaders who chose to run a big Guild to begin with in the current Guild system --- will purposely limit themselves to the smallest Guild Member cap either because 1. Guild Leaders already running big Guilds as it is have all they need for their Guild or 2. They simply want to maintain their big-Guild status with a cap of 500 Guild Members.

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    After all, most guilds form around a single individual or a core group. I doubt that many such groups are larger than 100 players.

    Even if such Guilds are not much larger than 100 players, the changes I propose in the Guild Creation system I devised in my OP will benefit those in smaller Guilds, anyway, who cannot maintain Guild costs (in the current Guild System) as well like much bigger Guilds can, to which transferring to the new Guild system (by creating a new Guild) makes the most sense at that point.

    P.S. Those are very good questions you asked.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 8, 2018

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    What about the guild's growth? If the guild pass from 100 to 200 and then from 200 to 500?

    You guys are not getting the Guild Creation concept I devised at all in the OP. Anyone who chooses one of the Guild Member cap options is stuck with that cap after making a cognitive decision to run a particular sized Guild. There is no increasing the cap unless you make a new Guild altogether.

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    Also, why should a Small guild get the same space as a large one?

    The better question is why should smaller Guilds not have the same space size as larger Guilds? The idea in the OP is to make things equal across the board between small Guilds and large Guilds when it comes to Guild costs, and yes, space to move around. Are you suggesting Anet should waste time scaling Guild sizes down depending on a player's choice to run a small-sized Guild or a larger-sized Guild? No way. That is just more unnecessary work. The idea here is to come up with a a more simplified solution.

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    You want to pay 1/5?
    You should get 1/5 in terms of space ( guild dimensions ) and features. If a large company can afford a pool, not necessarily a Small one could afford the same, unless found and resources.

    You are going off the misplaced assumption that somehow smaller Guilds are going to make out like a bandit vs. larger Guilds from the Guild Creation system I devised when they are really not. It is only common sense that, for example, if a player chooses option 5. with 500 Guilds Members (maxed), that they will progress at roughly the same pace as a player who chooses option 1. with only 100 Guild Members (maxed) if you were to pit them against each other, assuming at least 25% of Guild Members from each Guild contributed to Guild costs.

    How is that so? Because while smaller Guilds will benefit from cheaper Guild Upgrade costs from the Guild Creation system I devised in my OP, bigger Guilds benefit from having more Guild Members, and as a result, they will take roughly the same amount of time to Upgrade as a smaller Guild with less Guild Members.

    To make it clearer, a Guild capped out at 100 Guild Members going strong on Upgrades, etc. vs. a Guild capped out at 500 Guild Members going strong on Upgrades, etc., if pitted against each other, is not going to progress faster than a Guild capped out at 500 Guild Members. There is power in numbers, and that is known fact (in this case, power in higher numbers of Guild Members). What is everyone's concern here?

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    It seems pretty reasonable to me. The more players, the easier progression.

    To take an excerpt from my OP, that is what no one is understanding here, because I made the point, "...vs. running a large-sized Guild or a very large-sized Guild that will take less time and will not break your pocket as much due to the fact there are more Guild Members to help out with Guild Upgrade costs, etc."

  • Haleydawn.3764Haleydawn.3764 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Imho, it is far too late to be making changes like this. Small guilds have made this system work, my guild included. We aren’t max level, we’re at lv59, we have pretty much all the stuff that players wanted from the hall. I am the guilds scribe, paid with my own gold, because I wanted to do it. The system does work and I’ll tell you why.
    The only difference between a small guild and large guild upgrading the hall is time. It costs the same amount for both. And that is fair.

    Say I wanted to buy a mansion. I can’t afford that on my own. If I found a few friends who wouldn’t mind sharing some rooms in the mansion, we would be able to afford it though. The price doesn’t change.

    Better get a wriggle on.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:
    Imho, it is far too late to be making changes like this. Small guilds have made this system work, my guild included. We aren’t max level, we’re at lv59, we have pretty much all the stuff that players wanted from the hall. I am the guilds scribe, paid with my own gold, because I wanted to do it. The system does work and I’ll tell you why.
    The only difference between a small guild and large guild upgrading the hall is time. It costs the same amount for both. And that is fair.

    Say I wanted to buy a mansion. I can’t afford that on my own. If I found a few friends who wouldn’t mind sharing some rooms in the mansion, we would be able to afford it though. The price doesn’t change.

    That is the thing, 'time', and is not time precious? While the Guild costs stay the same in the current Guild system, the time it takes/costs players to Upgrade between smaller Guilds vs. bigger Guilds is out of proportion. So no, the current system is not fair at all. Therefore, in order for any small Guild with 100-200+ Guild Members to have in Upgrades what bigger Guilds have in Upgrades with 300-450+ Guild Members, the 'Guild costs' to Upgrade are what need to be balanced so that the time it takes to Upgrade between small Guilds and large Guilds takes roughly the same amount of time, if you were to pit them against each other.

    And if I may add, it is never too late for any improvements like this to the Guild System. Something needs to be done already, and I have not seen anybody else come up with a better idea beyond giving up by saying Anet should 'scrap' the entire Guild system when they can just improve on the Guild system we have now. Telling Anet to 'scrap' the current Guild system entirely and redo it from scratch is not very wise or creative at all.

    P.S. I am going to bed, so I will get back to any feedback I read when I get off work later today.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Even if you can pick your member cap, guilds who go over that cap easier than anticipated and guilds who wouldve been better off with a lower cap would get screwed over marginally due to the need of making a new guild.

    Guild dynamics here will be tied to investment levels which simply does not work. Guilds form, grow, fall apart reform in many different ways for which any "investment according to size" will simply not be a solution.

  • You make the assumption that regardless the guild size everyone donates, but that is not true. Even if you have 500 or 100 active members If you don't incentivise players only a handful will donate, so I don't see how lowering the cost will help. Then is the problem that everyone raised of locking guilds on a certain cap, the guild leader might decide today that he wants a small guild but what about in 5 years?

  • Bod.8261Bod.8261 Member ✭✭✭

    You think 100 members is a "very small sized guild"? Really?
    The game Warframe has a Clan system with a linear cost system like this and there are 5 tiers.
    Tier 1: Up to 10 members, basic costs.
    Tier 2: Up to 30 members, 3 times the costs.
    Tiers 3 - 5 are then 100, 300 and 1000 member cap with corresponding multipliers.

    But again, it's already too late to implement a system like that, there are too many tradeable ressources involved and this would only create drama in one form or another.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Eidolonemesis.5640 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Okay so how does this system handle a guild that grows beyond it's constraints. What happens when you're 100 person guild (as mine was at the beginning) is now a 400 person guild?

    There would have to be some safeguard here that stopped people from forming a small guild, upgrading it and then moving to a bigger guild hall. By the same token you can't ask a guild to redo all their work either. But even here, there's an issue because there are people there who believe they should be able to do the same stuff with four or five people in their guild. How many gradations does Anet have to make? How many are they supposed to make.

    Guild Halls having a long term max simply means it takes a long long time for a smaller guild to get to the same place. But even in a bigger guild like mine, do you suppose all 400 people contributed to the creation of it? No. A handful of people did the work and everyone else got the benefit. Those that cared and were dedicated built my guild hall, so if you have a smaller guild where everyone knows each other, the theory would be more people would be there to build it, and not just there for the ride.

    It took us a while to max our guild hall, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be done over night.

    The catagories you listed are simply, in my opinion, too broad, and any system developed would have to be developed to be free of exploitation.

    I'd much rather see the system redesigned from scratch (something I don't see happening) than to see work put into this sort of implementation. After all, we don't even know what percentage of the community this would benefit. A guild overhaul would likely benefit more people.

    Your feedback leads me to believe you did not read the OP very well, because it specifically states that the Guild Member cap any player chooses for their Guild remains the same depending on what option they chose. That is what the term 'cap' implies. Therefore, any player in the system I devised who chooses option 1., that will forever be their Guild Member cap unless they choose to remake a bigger Guild with a higher Guild Member cap.

    The options/categories I listed are not broad at all. The list of options I gave are all 'fair game' whose intention is to balance Guild costs to Upgrade a Guild, etc. As specifically stated in my OP, I noted, "The current Guild Creation system automatically assumes every player wants to run a very large Guild from the very beginning that caps out at 500 Guild Members whose Upgrade costs are outrageous for smaller Guilds."

    Therefore, while not everybody even in large-sized Guilds or very large-sized Guilds may contribute to Guild costs, at least in bigger Guilds there is a higher chance for Guild Members to help with the costs than in much smaller Guilds.

    And let's not exaggerate too much. The current Guild system does not need a complete overhaul, because it achieves 'most' basic things fine. All it needs is a revamp to Guild Creation itself, a few more additional features, some QoL improvement, and a GvG game mode we should have had since the beginning of launch to make Guilds interesting against like they were in Guild Wars 1.

    You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I didn't expect to be a 400 man guild. That just happened. We were looking to have a cap of about 80 people when I founded this guild more than five years ago. That was our vision for the guild. But visions change.

    If there is no room for growth, no change or flexibility then I would say the plan as suggested is flawed. If that's the plan I'd be completely against it because my own guild's growth, mostly by word of month, rather than active recruiting, was not a plan. You're expecting people to be able to plan what size guild they have and be locked into it.

    I'm not sure how many would agree with that, but there's a saying, life is what happens to you when you're mkaing other plans . This layout, as it stands, is too restrictive and punishing for people who might make the wrong choice on the outset.

    What about people who start a new guild, expect to get 500 members and end up with 12?

    Nope, sorry, this is not something I can get behind.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Anet has been ok with this for years even though it was the very first and loudest complaint that its a giant paywall, especially for WvW. I am in a 5 man guild and we have sunk nearly 5000 gold into it just to unlock stuff for claiming WvW stuff we could claim for free before. And thats still not even half the final cost of a fully upgraded hall.

    So yeah. No point.

  • No, this not gonna work. This way all people on bigger guilds who have interests in Guild Hall upgrading and decorating would found an alt guild with 100 players limit to have 1/5 costs. There wouldnt be reason to upgrade a large guild, cause in a large guild about most of people (>75%) doesnt have interests in GH upgrading and decorating.

  • Haleydawn.3764Haleydawn.3764 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2018

    @Eidolonemesis.5640 said:

    That is the thing, 'time', and is not time precious? While the Guild costs stay the same in the current Guild system, the time it takes/costs players to Upgrade between smaller Guilds vs. bigger Guilds is out of proportion.

    By this logic, Legendaries should be made cheaper for people who take their time crafting them as opposed to rushing it.

    So no, the current system is not fair at all. Therefore, in order for any small Guild with 100-200+ Guild Members to have in Upgrades what bigger Guilds have in Upgrades with 300-450+ Guild Members, the 'Guild costs' to Upgrade are what need to be balanced so that the time it takes to Upgrade between small Guilds and large Guilds takes roughly the same amount of time, if you were to pit them against each other.

    If you think a 100-200 semi active player guild is small then the problem you’re having upgrading your hall is motivation, not costs, time or otherwise. My guild has had less than 15 active people since HoT came out. We’ve managed just fine, the costs are the same as any other guild, but they’re all gated by Aetherium production.

    It is not a race to upgrade a guild. You don’t need a fully maxed out Guild hall either. Not many guilds need everything unlocked, since many that are full/active focus on 1 out of 3 game modes with the few tiny groups within said guild that are PvX.

    And if I may add, it is never too late for any improvements like this to the Guild System. Something needs to be done already

    Does it? I can certainly agree guilds need improvements, but that stretches to guild missions, conveniences in the hall and the guild teleporter. Upgrading the hall? No. It is fine as it is. Guilds are supposed to work together to build the guild, whether you are 10 or 100 strong.

    I have not seen anybody else come up with a better idea beyond giving up by saying Anet should 'scrap' the entire Guild system when they can just improve on the Guild system we have now. Telling Anet to 'scrap' the current Guild system entirely and redo it from scratch is not very wise or creative at all.

    You’re idea is not a good one as a few people have pointed out the flaws. Another flaw would be compensating any guilds that wish to downgrade capacity, because their initial idea of the guild growing to 400+members doesn’t happen.

    You’re idea would hurt the small guilds that have already conquered the system and leave them out of pocket digitally and feel like they’ve wasted their precious time.

    Better get a wriggle on.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I didn't expect to be a 400 man guild. That just happened. We were looking to have a cap of about 80 people when I founded this guild more than five years ago. That was our vision for the guild. But visions change.

    If there is no room for growth, no change or flexibility then I would say the plan as suggested is flawed. If that's the plan I'd be completely against it because my own guild's growth, mostly by word of month, rather than active recruiting, was not a plan. You're expecting people to be able to plan what size guild they have and be locked into it.

    I'm not sure how many would agree with that, but there's a saying, life is what happens to you when you're mkaing other plans . This layout, as it stands, is too restrictive and punishing for people who might make the wrong choice on the outset.

    What about people who start a new guild, expect to get 500 members and end up with 12?

    Nope, sorry, this is not something I can get behind.

    I clearly did read everything you wrote, including but not limited to, everything other players here wrote who are under the wrong impression that somehow smaller Guilds are going to come out winning, or vice versa, when the idea in the Guild Creation system I devised is to create 'balance', progress-wise, and the only way to do that is to adjust Guild costs for smaller Guilds and makes the Guild costs for bigger Guilds incrementally higher, unless you choose option 5. where you are left with the same Guild system we have now (no different!)

    With that being said, going by your logic and everyone else's logic here, that the current Guild Creation system we have now is okay --- being capped out at 500 Members by default with very expensive Guild Upgrades, notably for Guilds who are smaller --- a system that assumes every player wants a huge Guild, then players in the system I devised can easily choose option 5. where nothing changes when it comes to Guild costs, progress, etc. Everything stays the same like it is now that you guys here are so 'okay' with.

    Almost everyone here keeps going around and around the point I have made mathematically in my OP that a Guild capped out at 100 Guild Members will not Upgrade any faster than a Guild capped out at 500 Guild Members. The reason I made that point because some of you in the comments here (not me) were the ones trying to make the 'race-to-the-finish' argument, that smaller Guilds in the system I devised will Upgrade quicker, etc. than bigger Guilds in the system I devised, and that is simply not true at all.

    And as for the the 'regret' factor you guys keep pointing out, in the event a player who chooses to run a smaller Guild with only 100 Guild Members, and they wished they would have chosen a bigger Guild size, then that is their fault, not the system's fault! The Guild Creation system I devised specifically gives players options, to either go with a perma smaller Guild capped out at lesser Guild Members, or to stick with the system we have now (option 5.) where nothing changes.

    Again, as with any 'balanced' system, there has to be two edges to the sword, and the Guild Creation system I devised does have drawbacks for smaller Guilds and bigger Guilds. It does not get any more clear than that.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:
    You’re idea is not a good one as a few people have pointed out the flaws. Another flaw would be compensating any guilds that wish to downgrade capacity, because their initial idea of the guild growing to 400+members doesn’t happen.

    You’re idea would hurt the small guilds that have already conquered the system and leave them out of pocket digitally and feel like they’ve wasted their precious time.

    To reiterate my counterargument to someone else who made a similar argument as you in the Reddit thread I posted for this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7oot6a/solution_here_is_a_way_to_fix_the_disparity/ I replied, and I quote, " Going by your logic, let's have Anet not improve the game (in this case, a revamp to the Guild Creation system) just because a few small Guilds that have invested heavily into Leveling their Guilds will get mad? That does not sound very logical at all. Sure, a few small Guilds will get mad about it, but as with all changes players don't like at first, they will get over it and still continue to play the game.

    With all the above being said in mind, just to give you an example, when Anet implemented the Wardrobe system, players who were trying to profit off certain Skins got really ticked off at the time because they would no longer make as much Gold off the Skins they had for sale if players could simply 'store' Skins forever, at the cost of Transmutation Charges instead.

    The end result? Anet implemented the Wardrobe system, anyway, players got mad about it for a while, and then they got over it.

    What is the difference if Anet implements something like the Guild Creation system I devised? The same scenario I just explained will happen in the event smaller Guilds do get mad about the Guild Creation revamp." end of quote

    To which someone countered my above quoted by saying, and I quote, "Let's skip getting small guilds mad, how about if a guild decide to expand without sacrificing what members already donated? Because if something I learned in 20 years of MMOrpgs, is no guild can foresee the future of their own guild. Also you are skipping that anet refunded certains mats to guilds under certain conditions at the time, should they do it again??" end of quote.

    To which I replied, "Then certain players should make a future-proof decision and go with option 5. (equivalent to the Guild system we have now) if they are the type of people who are susceptible to changing their mind, etc. And I don't know, would Anet do that? I highly doubt it, considering how much work it would be for the devs to code the game in such way to go through every Guild's history list and 'refund' players any 'excessive' amounts of currencies to the Guild Treasury to balance what they originally invested in an already-established Guild (in the old system) to what they would have otherwise spent within the Guild system I devised.

    In other words to the above exampled, if even 1 player in any Guild at one time contributed, say, 100 Vials of Powerful Blood, yet one of the options in the Guild system I devised only charged that player 75 Vials of Powerful Blood, then they would be refunded 25 Vials of Powerful Blood. However, since Anet would never implement such a timely 'refund' system for already-established Guilds, the only option would be to implement a system 'similar' to the Guild system I devised, let players get mad about it for a while, and then they will get over it, just as they got over other systems that were changed.

  • Aren't you suppose to buy a member limit upgrade anyway? Or was this removed.
    If you are going to upgrade to 200^ but have a hall maxed for 100, you would have to invest in a 200 member guild before being able to use any guild function.

    Vinnorin Almar, Firebrand of Maguuma.
    I Crit Under Pressure is recruiting, message me for an invite ^_^

  • Bunter.3795Bunter.3795 Member ✭✭✭

    There is no reason to adjust the costs in any way. Any guild of any size can easily fully upgrade a guild hall to max in 1 year's time. How do I know this? Because I did it and I did it solo (some explanations below)

    I decided to get a guild hall for my bank guild due to wanting to see the effort needed and the fact that both my main guilds (1 pve and 1 wvw) were both using the same guild hall. Now I had been the main person involved in the upgrading process of my wvw guild so I knew some of the materials and some of the things that would be needed ahead of time but that same information can be found on the in-game wiki.

    On November 7, 2016 I and 3 others did the capture mission for the guild hall. We succeeded on the first try and the process began. Throughout the year I had a few items totaling 100 auric dust, 200 ecto, & 500 mithril ingots dontated by some of the people in the guild I had invited to share in the ability to harvest the nodes. I had one person help me with some of the guild missions but by and large every completed mission was solo'd by myself. Sure there were selections I couldn't do such as any wvw mission or the 5 bounty missions, etc but I skipped those and concentrated on the easy missions each week which are easily done solo. I looked for guilds doing the races and joined in so their completion counted for me and mine for theirs so we helped each other.

    On November 1st of 2017 I had 4 upgrades left to finish. 1 had to wait until April of this year as one of it's materials is a SAB item I didn't see until after the SAB ended in 2017 and 2 of the other 3 were ones I wasn't going to finish as they allowed me to harvest nodes in two halls and allowed me to see different selections from the guild trader each day. These 2 upgrades were fully funded at that time except for the tier 6 leather on one which I decided to not wasted since I wouldn't be completing the upgrade. The last upgrade was only waiting for the next Sunday so I could solo a guild mission to have the needed favor to complete the upgrade.

    If I, as a solo player, can complete a guild hall in one years time, there is no reason to ever change the materials needed or the time needed for a guild hall.

    People saying it's too hard or too many materials, etc. just don't want to put in the time and effort to have a guild hall fully upgraded.

    If life gives you melons, you're probably dyslexic.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    @Bunter.3795 said:
    If I, as a solo player, can complete a guild hall in one years time, there is no reason to ever change the materials needed or the time needed for a guild hall.

    People saying it's too hard or too many materials, etc. just don't want to put in the time and effort to have a guild hall fully upgraded.

    I do not care what method you used to solo --- even though you had help, so uh, you did not really solo upgrading your entire Guild, especially since certain trophies are required for Guild Upgrades, along with PvP items --- be it you no-lifed it for almost an entire year, or you are lying and instead pulled out your wallet for Golds from the Gem Store to fund much of your material requirements for Guild Upgrades (other than for trophies, PvP items, etc.). The point is it is a lot of materias, gold, etc. even if 10, 20, or 100 members in smaller Guilds contributed to Guild costs. Back in GW1, it was much easier to solo maintaining Guilds, even as a single Guild Leader with under 10 Guild Members. That is the point.

    My Guild and I have put in effort for almost a year ourselves (as a small Guild of under 100 Members [and I plan to keep it that way because it's easier to manage with less drama]), and we are still not max level, not even close, not only because we are not rich, but because most of us in the Guild actually have a life, too, beyond Guild Wars 2, and we only play a few hours a day (a few as in no more than 4) on the days we are on, because we are not on every single day.

    The current Guild system is clearly built for either larger Guilds, for players who have more Gold than they know what to do with, or for players who have no life who play 8 hours a day like it is their job, almost every day, if not, every single day.

    And what about for even much smaller Guilds with only 2 Guild Members, or 4 (mind you, they do exist, and it's called husband and wife, along with maybe a couple friends of theirs). Yea, the current Guild system does not support players who want to run even smaller Guilds. You can argue all day long, "Yea, well, it doesn't make sense to create a Guild if you're only going to have under 5 Guild Members." yet that is beside the point! Maybe some players like keeping their Guild very small and have all the fun decorating, etc. that much larger Guilds get to enjoy.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    @Nick Lentz.6982 said:
    Aren't you suppose to buy a member limit upgrade anyway? Or was this removed.
    If you are going to upgrade to 200^ but have a hall maxed for 100, you would have to invest in a 200 member guild before being able to use any guild function.

    You can buy Guild Member limits (as shown here: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild#Membership), yet the current Guild system's Upgrade costs do not 'adjust' to the size of a Guild, whether or not a Guild stays the size of 50-100 Guild Members or increases in size (like in the idea I propose for a revamp of the Guild Creation system). Therefore, if your Guild is the size of 50-100 Guild Members in the current Guild system, all costs remain the same as if a 50-100-Member Guild was a 500-Member Guild.

    Look, I get it; the only reason most players here commenting absolutely hate my idea is because they invested a lot into their Guilds already in the current Guild system with its ridiculous high costs, and so they want to make sure everybody else pays out the nose by continuously knocking my idea as 'bad', all while ignoring the fact the Guild Creation system I propose in my OP (or something similar to it) is the system we should have been given in the first place that adjusts 'Guild costs' according to 'Guild size'.

    To that reasoning I say tough cookies, and that Anet should revamp the Guild Creation, anyway. Will some players ragequit for a while as a result of a revamp to the Guild Creation system? Sure, but they'll be back (and most of us here know that fact, so don't bother trying to argue otherwise), because surely they are not going to throw away all their time invested into the game thus far altogether as a result of a single change, just like they didn't do so when other changes were made in the game.

  • Eidolonemesis.5640Eidolonemesis.5640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    ...but there's a saying, life is what happens to you when you're mkaing other plans . This layout, as it stands, is too restrictive and punishing for people who might make the wrong choice on the outset.

    There is an even bigger fact in life that people adapt to change, too, even if other things get in the way of our plans (because we are 'adaptive' beings), whether they like certain changes or not. Furthermore, there is nothing forcefully 'restrictive' in the Guild Creation system I devised in my OP. If players want the current Guild system we have now, then they can simply choose option 5. and call it a day. Everything in the system I devised is 'optional', and so there is no gun being held to a players' head to make a specific Guild size choice. The system I devised is a fair and square 'you get what you asked for/what you wanted' type of system. This is not brain surgery here.

    To make my point even more clear, players who choose options 4. or 5. in the Guild Creation system I devised are going in with the 'plan' to have an army of Guild Members back the Guild up Upgrade-wise, just like players who choose options 1., 2., or 3. are going in with the 'plan' to run a smaller Guild, that and knowing and/or expecting the majority of the Guild will either 1. not help with Guild costs as much like in bigger Guilds or 2. not be active and/or wealthy enough to get a Guild leveled high like in bigger Guilds. There is no accident(s) here; you choose what you want in the system I devised, and you get what you want.

    You want the current Guild system in the state it's in now? Choose option 5. and you will still be well-off for the simple fact there is power in higher numbers of Guild Members, if you run a 500-Member Guild right. You want the system I devised that makes it fairer for smaller Guilds? Choose any option other than option 5., and you will get that, yet you face the drawback of having a permanently smaller Guild. That is what you call a 'balanced' double-edged sword. Therefore, any 'regrets' one may have is a result of their own Guild size decision; do not blame it on the system at that point.

  • Silinsar.6298Silinsar.6298 Member ✭✭✭

    With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

    SD Engi / Holo roaming videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/algeyr

  • Urud.4925Urud.4925 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    I agree with the OP that some adjustments could be made to lessen the expenses for very small guilds. I play on a decent-sized guild but I never contributed because I don't care about the guild hall per se. On the other hand, I also play in a very very small guild with my friend (and I know there are several very small guilds only for families/relatives/couples). Having to pay 100 golds to claim it is already a decent expense for very casual players and I'm sure we won't update the guild hall at all, in the very small guild I belong to. Though it would be nice to play together to achieve some small upgrade. But just because "we made it", not because we need it.

    Rather than capping the guild size once and for always, I'd nerf some benefits. For example, a very small guild can have a karma boost of 1 or 2% instead of 6%, with less costs. The merchant vendor could sell only the basic items, extractor tools but not loot bags or ascended mats (the daily ones). IF your guild gets bigger, you can upgrade these benefits to the regular ones, paying the difference in mats/cost. It would be like: guild level 1A (upgrade 1 with lowest tier of benefits), 1B..., 68A, 68B.
    In this way, even very small guilds could enjoy the upgrade process, but since they paid less, the benefits would be less.

    The OP way... idk, you could create your own guild, paying few money to upgrade it, and take the full benefits (pots/NPCs). I think it would encourage to make small guilds. And small guilds are probably not that interested in unlocking the full benefits, but rather in playing together to achieve some small goal. And currently it's not very doable, I agree.
    EDIT: also, "realistically", why should you be able to pay less to buy the same thing? It makes more sense to pay less to buy cheaper buildings or to hire "less professional employees/NPC".

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2018

    @Bunter.3795 said:
    If I, as a solo player, can complete a guild hall in one years time, there is no reason to ever change the materials needed or the time needed for a guild hall.

    I wonder if we can argue by the same logic that someone became #1 rank in PvP, so there is no reason to change the balance of classes.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The reason I think it's okay as it is, costwise anyway, is because it's one and done. I finished this with my guild ages ago and there's nothing left to work on. We're done as a guild, essentially as far as progressing the guild. There's no more to do. I can say yay I have a full guild hall with everything in it, but when we were working on it it gave the guild as a whole purpose, even if not everyone was working on it. We'd see changes and growth. Now, maxed out on currency for over a year, it's not quite the same.

    Yes, I got there faster than a small guild could. Good thing it's not a race.

  • @Eidolonemesis.5640 said:

    @Nick Lentz.6982 said:
    Aren't you suppose to buy a member limit upgrade anyway? Or was this removed.
    If you are going to upgrade to 200^ but have a hall maxed for 100, you would have to invest in a 200 member guild before being able to use any guild function.

    You can buy Guild Member limits (as shown here: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild#Membership), yet the current Guild system's Upgrade costs do not 'adjust' to the size of a Guild, whether or not a Guild stays the size of 50-100 Guild Members or increases in size (like in the idea I propose for a revamp of the Guild Creation system). Therefore, if your Guild is the size of 50-100 Guild Members in the current Guild system, all costs remain the same as if a 50-100-Member Guild was a 500-Member Guild.

    Look, I get it; the only reason most players here commenting absolutely hate my idea is because they invested a lot into their Guilds already in the current Guild system with its ridiculous high costs, and so they want to make sure everybody else pays out the nose by continuously knocking my idea as 'bad', all while ignoring the fact the Guild Creation system I propose in my OP (or something similar to it) is the system we should have been given in the first place that adjusts 'Guild costs' according to 'Guild size'.

    To that reasoning I say tough cookies, and that Anet should revamp the Guild Creation, anyway. Will some players ragequit for a while as a result of a revamp to the Guild Creation system? Sure, but they'll be back (and most of us here know that fact, so don't bother trying to argue otherwise), because surely they are not going to throw away all their time invested into the game thus far altogether as a result of a single change, just like they didn't do so when other changes were made in the game.

    Maybe I worded it wrong. I am aware it does not scale. But it should scale based on those upgrades, solving the problem

    Vinnorin Almar, Firebrand of Maguuma.
    I Crit Under Pressure is recruiting, message me for an invite ^_^

  • I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades. The system isn't "unfair", it's just not what the OP would design.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Khisanth.2948Khisanth.2948 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Silinsar.6298 said:
    With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

    Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

  • Silinsar.6298Silinsar.6298 Member ✭✭✭

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

    @Silinsar.6298 said:
    With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

    Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

    E.g. in Membership Tier 1 (50 members) you pay 10gold for upgrade x, in Tier 2 it would cost 20gold. Then when you want to upgrade the membership Tier from 1 to 2 it costs 10gold (the amount you paid less because you were a smaller sized guild) more. How does this increase the cost for any guild that stays at its smaller size and never upgrades?

    SD Engi / Holo roaming videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/algeyr

  • Khisanth.2948Khisanth.2948 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Silinsar.6298 said:

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

    @Silinsar.6298 said:
    With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

    Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

    E.g. in Membership Tier 1 (50 members) you pay 10gold for upgrade x, in Tier 2 it would cost 20gold. Then when you want to upgrade the membership Tier from 1 to 2 it costs 10gold (the amount you paid less because you were a smaller sized guild) more. How does this increase the cost for any guild that stays at its smaller size and never upgrades?

    So you want to convert all upgrade items to gold cost?

  • Silinsar.6298Silinsar.6298 Member ✭✭✭

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

    @Silinsar.6298 said:

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

    @Silinsar.6298 said:
    With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

    Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

    E.g. in Membership Tier 1 (50 members) you pay 10gold for upgrade x, in Tier 2 it would cost 20gold. Then when you want to upgrade the membership Tier from 1 to 2 it costs 10gold (the amount you paid less because you were a smaller sized guild) more. How does this increase the cost for any guild that stays at its smaller size and never upgrades?

    So you want to convert all upgrade items to gold cost?

    No, that was a simplified example.

    SD Engi / Holo roaming videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/algeyr

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    The OP makes certain assumptions:

    • That guilds always know what they want from the start, e.g. that intentionally small guilds never grow or that intentionally large guilds never shrink.
    • That there's something wrong with the current system, in which lifetime upgrades are priced to last a lifetime.

    There's no question that the burden on smaller guilds is great, but that doesn't make it unreasonable or unfair. There's no guarantee that a large guild gets significant contributions from that many more people. We know, from various examples, that plenty of smaller guilds are able to upgrade.

    I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades.

    Basically this: Our small 15 person guild has upgraded to level 40 over time, and will probably eventually hit the cap, with only about 4 of us actually contributing time, energy and lots and lots of gold to that effort. I am also in a much larger ~300 man guild and, surprisingly I found that the number of people actively contributing to the upgrades was only about eight people who contributed about 85% of all the costs to max out the level... so not really that many more despite the much larger size. This isn't really an isolated case as far as I have been informed by a lot of other larger guilds. A lot of the time it is only the top few officers, the ones that formed the guild in the first place, that put in the time, materials, and gold needed. The only exception really is guild missions getting completed, but tbh since races can be piggybacked off of, easy and medium treks can be done by a single person, and easy bounties can also be done easily enough by a single person a guild can more than quickly enough gain the favor needed for upgrades.

  • Khisanth.2948Khisanth.2948 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sojourner.4621 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    The OP makes certain assumptions:

    • That guilds always know what they want from the start, e.g. that intentionally small guilds never grow or that intentionally large guilds never shrink.
    • That there's something wrong with the current system, in which lifetime upgrades are priced to last a lifetime.

    There's no question that the burden on smaller guilds is great, but that doesn't make it unreasonable or unfair. There's no guarantee that a large guild gets significant contributions from that many more people. We know, from various examples, that plenty of smaller guilds are able to upgrade.

    I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades.

    Basically this: Our small 15 person guild has upgraded to level 40 over time, and will probably eventually hit the cap, with only about 4 of us actually contributing time, energy and lots and lots of gold to that effort. I am also in a much larger ~300 man guild and, surprisingly I found that the number of people actively contributing to the upgrades was only about eight people who contributed about 85% of all the costs to max out the level... so not really that many more despite the much larger size. This isn't really an isolated case as far as I have been informed by a lot of other larger guilds. A lot of the time it is only the top few officers, the ones that formed the guild in the first place, that put in the time, materials, and gold needed. The only exception really is guild missions getting completed, but tbh since races can be piggybacked off of, easy and medium treks can be done by a single person, and easy bounties can also be done easily enough by a single person a guild can more than quickly enough gain the favor needed for upgrades.

    Pretty much the same here. We are are lv67. We'll probably never max out because some upgrades are just a waste of resources. For example, why would I want gossamer out of the cloth synth? Dumping another 400 Mystic Coins into it for WvW would be a complete waste. The money would be better spent on siege blueprints and feasts.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.