Willy.
Farmer
I acknowledge that the donations bar will reset each cycle, but that doesn't mean that activated perks disappear. The perks have several levels, which can't be activated in one cycle.
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Feedback Try out Guild Perks on Beta!
- Thread starter Juber
- Start date
In our time, it is fashionable to recycle!
CrashBoom
Legend
why not ?
if every guild member spends his maximum of 30 donations (no diamonds) the first level can be unlocked in 2 days
This will not promote the disappearance of solo-guilds. If anything it promotes the creation of solo guilds - because in a guild of 1 you have full control over which perks you get, and you don't have to worry about others not pulling their weight.
If the boosts were any good, the costs are actually pretty reasonable for a solo guild. I'd suggest though that rather than (226k)n, they move to a formula of (226k)((1+n)/2). This way for a very large guild if over half of the members are contributing they have it easier than a solo guild.
Reminder :
jovada
Regent
Take a look at it from the left , take a look at it from the right , take a look at it from above or from downstairs this is the umpteenth mistake in a row.
And with each mistake our feedback is not took in consideration, worse we never receive a comment on our feedback except we forwarded it.
We the plebs are not worth an explication for example why an heal all button rejected by 98% of the players is still in discussion
And with each mistake our feedback is not took in consideration, worse we never receive a comment on our feedback except we forwarded it.
We the plebs are not worth an explication for example why an heal all button rejected by 98% of the players is still in discussion
I agreed but personally I disagreed to overstep the boundary to buffing something that is already subject
for months of concerns for balance reasons (no attrition). Another boundary overstepping in the suggestion
is the acces to units from you're next age. They've done something similar with Kartuga, you had access
to much strong weapons, even while you didn't reach the needed level. Ultimately Kartuga collapsed for
more reasons but this was one of their biggest flaws.
As I said before, I agreed with you're other powerful suggested benefits. Those 2 are imo just too good. Not
by a large margin, just too good for balancing the game.
In any case I've browsed through them with a bit more intention. Have to say most are lacklustre. The only
one appealing for young cities is the one boosting coins, supplies output and reduced building speed. Most
others are very limited. For fighters there's very little to choose from, for peaceful players there are very little
options too, not even good ones. As others suggested an additional turn for negotiations should help more
than what we got now. Drawbacks are fine if the benefits would be appealing. Giving up something to gain
strength in something else.
A few perk ideas with drawbacks:
Benefits for the guild
> Hostile SC -75%* chance of no attrition, you're guild can't build SC's themselves
> +2h protection conquered GbG provinces, invading guilds won't suffer attrition for the first 5% advances in you're guild's provinces
> GvG defensive boost cap is raised from 75% to 1.000%, GvG costs are doubled
> GbG building costs -50%, GbG building's benefits -50%
> Offensive benefits: +150% att/def attacking armies, -150% att/def defending armies (beneficial for GvG and GbG, to some extend GE too)
> +1 additional negotiation turn (GbG, GE, quests and settlements), -80% att/def attacking armies
> Hostile GbG buildings' buffs in adjacent provinces are also granted to you're guild members**, you're guild can't build any offensive or defensive GbG building
> SC costs 75% less, drawback for the first 10% advances in you're provinces, the attacker don't suffer attrition
> When enemies advancing in you're provinces, their attrition gains +1 regardless of other buffs, you're guild can't benefit from any attrition reducing buffs
Not guild beneficial
> Defensive benefits: Smart AI PvP enabled, +250% att/def defending armies, -100% att/def attacking armies
> -40% scouting a new province and completing exploration on space age maps, +20% production time all buildings
> +500% coins/supplies production, building costs +100% & +50% building time
* a SC would normally give 24% chance, with this buff it's effectively reduced to: 24 x 0,25 = 6%/sc. So, if an guild
is besieging a province under control of guild with the benefit using 6 siege camps, it's just 6% x 6 =36%. This benefit
can be helpful to slowing down invading guilds for you're guild but in exchange denying the guild acces to SC themselves.
This will create real guild dilemma's and strategical discussions within. Which I think is the exact philosophy of guild
perks.
** If in an hostile province there are 3 SC, while advancing in that province, you're guild members get 24%x3=72% chance to
not increase attrition. If traps are build in an adjacent province and someone advances in you're guild's province, that player
risks double attrition. The drawback is that you're guild depends on the buildings from other guilds but in exchange you're
guild can turn their weapons against them.
This are just a few brainstorm concepts that I thought for somewhat appealing benefits but with
serious enough disadvantages to think twice before choosing. They can give major advantages in
GbG but can also limit the guild's capabilities. It allows different play styles and more advanced
GbG tactics/strategies rather then just building SC's the quickest.
I also strongly agreed with the suggestion to making perks a permanent benefit, rather than a
seasonal thing. With deterioration forcing guilds to maintain the benefits or losing it over time.
Darth Vader The Mighty
Baronet
Another bright idea that only shows that devs have NO IDEA AT ALL how to play this game. Lets ignore many many requests for improving this game that people who play and PAY you actually wants and waste your time on another useless feature!
It is unbelievable how many bad decisions were made in past year. I have no idea what changed in the team or who is in charge but my guess is that it is some "suit" who only check numbers and has no clue whatsoever about game and it's player base.
I guess it is time to move on.
It is unbelievable how many bad decisions were made in past year. I have no idea what changed in the team or who is in charge but my guess is that it is some "suit" who only check numbers and has no clue whatsoever about game and it's player base.
I guess it is time to move on.
Last edited:
jovada
Regent
This time ??? Is that a confirmation that all our previous feedback on the past new futures and addons was completly ignored ????
No, you read it wrong. I said, that we want to improve on how we handle feedback. For other features we mainly did smaller adjustments to the features (best to be seen for events, for example we changed some numbers around for the Winter Event, but the main feature stayed the same). For the guild perks it is different: It is on a very early development stage. Currently only the basic functions and some prepared perks are included. There will probably be some major changes/improvements, before it will be released on the live servers.
Yes, but you have to give me time to forward the feedback and the developers to evaluate and develop things. This takes some time.
MJ Artisan of War
Baronet
I would like very much for a change where members of your guild can visit Your tavern!
Sounds positively promising, not intended to bind you to this, just saying it's positively to know that the devs are open
to changing things for the better. Personally I think if perks are executed well, it can become a really good beneficial
feature for more advanced guild tactics. Though I like to urge the dev. team to consider that the game in it's current
stage is already difficult and somewhat intimidating for newbies.
Anyways I think if perks will be something like specialisations in which guilds can choose up to 3. As someone else
suggested to make it work that the benefits build up deteriorate over time, if not maintained until it's lost entirely and
automatically unselecting it.
I think personally perks could be better branded as: Guild Specialisations, founding members can choose 1-3
specialisations as for the guild. Weekly the progress degeriates with X% of the current progress to the next
lvl. Making guilds specialise in different more advanced branching off tactics/strategies in GvG, GbG and GE
would make imo the most sense but they must be powerful. Drawbacks make sense as usually specialising in
something and growing much stronger 1 department means compromising another department. I think if an
balance can be found we'll see more specially designed guilds. More detailed examples I've already given through
brainstorm ideas but good examples are offensive benefits but drawbacks in the defence, peaceful benefits
but drawbacks for the offensive capabilities, etc. So, likely guilds that love GbG will develop an strategy that
works best for them and either using military capabilities or economic ones (negotiations). In the other hand having
guilds designed to aid newer players to preparing them for the mother guild, or just guilds specialising in personal
growth, etc.
Branching off on an perfected version of the guild perks. I think an special All Ages GB or an additional HMA
or LMA GB similar to guild goods but then for perks, would be interesting. If it's an Space Age GB it would make
guilds dependant on Space Age players, which can be stretch for newer worlds. It could however in the long run
boost the virtual value of a future Space Age goods but it'll be highly temporary. So, I think HMA/LMA would be
more fair and making more sense overall.
Reading this part, I came up with an idea to change the feature, so I took some inspiration from the feedback already provided. Also the % are made up.
Instead of resetting all the perks to 0, they could loose some progress every week. You could completely remove the 3 week cycle. I think the idea can be best explained by an example:
Let's say initially there are 10 perks to choose from. You can contribute to any perk you want and a maximum of 3 perks can be activated. So far it is the same. Instead of separating the 3 levels into separate bars, have one bar with 3 milestones: One for level 1, one for level 2 and one for level 3. This might sound minor, but is important for this one: After the first week your guild looses 10% of progress for every perk, with always a minimum of 100k points. After that calculation, every perk with 0 progress will be exchanged with another, new one. After the second week all perks, that stayed will loose 20% of their progress and the others only 10%. So after each week every perk that stayed will loose 10% more progress. This is important, because guilds should change their perks around a bit and not have the same 3 perks every week. How much progress a perk will loose could be shown, when you click on the perk to see the details.
If you want to change it to happen every 3rd week (to stay at the initial 3 week cycle, so that you don't get too many new perks in a short amount of time), you can just increase the percentages, to like 20% (which would mean a guild would have a perk for max 5 cycles, but to keep it, it will be very expansive).
To avoid being stuck with a perk you leveled and don't want the huge drawback next cycle, you could maybe have an option to mark a perk as 'exchange', so it will be removed in the next cycle. This one could be bound to guild leaders.
To expand on the 'specialization' part: It would be a good idea to show the current active perks in the guild profile. If you click on it you get information on what level this perk currently is and what the benefits are.
Prom d Exolandia
Baronet
I'm fed up to translate all i have written about my feedback in fr forum... then a google translation :
| Personally, I haven't seen any interesting bonuses for the guild or the player. A player who has friends with his guilds is not currently optimizing his game because he loses dozens of PO / MO. => the bonus would have been on the po / mo of another guild-brother there it would have been good But on the tavern visit of another guild-brother hum how to say ... no ... The advantage over the GE and BG nego ... at low level (5 nego ress) it has no effect ... and if I lower my resources to distribute them to my guilds instead of unlocking the advantage guild that makes them make hundreds of nego. So direct donation to the luffers or activation bonus nego? ... how to say ... no ... City defense bonus? Serious ? It would have added attrition on the CBG provinces ... yes ... It would have added 500% of cited def or% of triggering on galata ... at a pinch ... but there ... how to say. .. no... A guild if it is to maximize its benefits must have an identical player profile ... basically players of the same era and who don't care about gold and merchandise or small non-assiduous noob guilds. Instead of being inclusive, participatory and united, it will further increase the gap between big elitist guilds and the rest ... not to mention the big boost to mono-guilds (I activate the bonuses adapted to my game at a lower cost and without fretting with anyone by being in a mono-guild) |
| In that implementation what bothers me is the way of presenting things, innogames does not accept its choices to implement new functionalities which are made to empty stocks. They started with the BGs which were thought to empty the guild treasury (more or less towards personal enrichment), there we are in the opposite effect a so-called emptying of personal "stocks" (to the advantage of guild) In itself the concept does not shock me, but why hide it. Where they go wrong (still from my personal point of view) is that they only thought about the overall concept without fine-tuning the details. The "bonuses" given are well below the cost necessary to unlock them (as said above contributing players have every interest in "giving" resources to other needy guilds rather than activating guild bonuses) It is not possible for the "administrators" to prohibit the laying of resources on unwanted bonuses, it is not possible to see who gives, who does not give and who benefits or not from the bonuses. We are in a game of management, not just a click-to-kill game. Give us levers to manage things. The "bonuses" given do not benefit the guild (in the broad sense) but will help some players and disadvantage others. However, there was a way to give real bonuses / penalties affecting the guild (cost of unlocking GE levels, attrition, period of blocking provinces in BG, cost of buildings in BG, modulation of guild level bonuses, earnings (gold, ress, plans ...) on the Po / Mo guild) And the trick of doing a linear thing on the cost according to the size of the guild is absurd, it favors mono-guilds (being able to invest in the bonuses that benefit me, unlock the bonuses I want, do what I want) it is necessary to privilege the guilds which have as many active members as possible. What keeps players in the game for the long haul are mainly social interactions, encouraging players to "actively play together" should be a priority for developers. |
Last edited:
Prom d Exolandia
Baronet
Some text are in french on my (non-beta) app version, is it normal ?
Prom d'exolandia raises a crucial point, the solo-guilds.
It is clear that a player creating their guild and not accepting anyone has a huge advantage in the game.
Already in EG, even if he cannot win cups, he does not depend on anyone.
In GbG, no problem with goods of another age than his own, still a good advantage over the guilds and this helps them to find themselves regularly in the Diamond League.
So if Innogames does not define a minimum number of members so that a guild can benefit from the same things as those having a collaborative spirit, the guild advantages must ask at least what a guild composed of at least 3 members would cost. (or more).
It is clear that a player creating their guild and not accepting anyone has a huge advantage in the game.
Already in EG, even if he cannot win cups, he does not depend on anyone.
In GbG, no problem with goods of another age than his own, still a good advantage over the guilds and this helps them to find themselves regularly in the Diamond League.
So if Innogames does not define a minimum number of members so that a guild can benefit from the same things as those having a collaborative spirit, the guild advantages must ask at least what a guild composed of at least 3 members would cost. (or more).
Rickster911
Farmer
High level guilds will ignore this feature from what I see. Seems like a lot of donations are needed by most of the guild daily to reach the highest level, just for a minor boost. By the time you get there the 3 weeks or however long it is are over. There should be some sort of prize if a guild could manage to get 3 top level perks. A temporary boost in global ranking could help a guild get enough points to grab 1st place for a short time. A temporary shorter timer for Alcatraz would also motivate guilds to work harder on coming together and achieving a goal. Currently my Beta guild is just ignoring the feature because it is not worth it.
Yekk
Regent
as this is it on a scale of 1-10 is a 0. my development guild is struggling to get one buff...on my live guild I will not enable any buffs as they are... I run a no drama guild on the us servers and this brings drama with few pluses.
now what you can do is change the buffs as others have said, change the period a guild owns a buff to say.. 3 weeks after a guild is enabled.
BUT IT STILL GETS BACK TO IS IT FUN... maybe 9 years ago it would maybe worked but not now...
Emberguard
Emperor
Something I’d like to see:
Bulk contribution button. Having to click each contribution individually is boring
Bulk contribution button. Having to click each contribution individually is boring