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

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 Members2. A small-sized Guild that caps out at 200 Members3. A medium-sized Guild that caps out at 300 Members4. A large-sized Guild that caps out at 400 Members5. 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.

@"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 Members2. A small-sized Guild that caps out at 200 Members3. A medium-sized Guild that caps out at 300 Members4. A large-sized Guild that caps out at 400 Members5. 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."

@"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.

@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."

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.

@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."

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.

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.

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.

@"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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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."

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.

@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.

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?

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@"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.

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.