• 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.

Do Not Suggest Suggestion: Change the way, guild leveling works

Status
Not open for further replies.

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
Reason: from my point of view, guild level/guild level development is too dependent on the ages the players are in (e.g. a guild comprising only a single VF-player makes more guild power a week than a 40 member HMA guild - estimated values) and the leveling process itself is quite uninvolving overall.

what could change:
- The amount of guild power needed for the respective levels could be reduced relative to the income
- the dependency of the amount of guild power given to the player from the players age could get reduced
- each level-up could have additional requirements like one or more of the following:
- have at least X members that are part of the guild for more than X weeks
- have finished GEx4 X-times individually
- all members finished GEx1 in the same GE X-times
- have at least X bronze/silver/gold trophies in GE-Championship
- pay X goods (per player if "having X members" is a parallel task)
- pay X FP into the guild head quarter
- have a least one observatory above level X
- have at least X Observatories
- tasks could also pop-up as alternatives
-... what are your ideas?
- overall the tasks may become (slightly) easier (per player) if the guild has more members and the task should not get easier with lesser numbers (e.g. the whole guild but one member leaves the guild and the one player remaining finishes the task(s) and the other players come back should not be an easy option)
Edit: e.g. the task could get a lot easier (effectively per player) going from 1 player to 20 players and should only get slightly easier (per player) afterwards​
- the perks of the guild (recruitment boost, building cost boost, FP boost, ...) could get developed individually by performing specific tasks, the max height of the respective perk being limited by the guild level of course...
- the guild could get perk-points for every guild level and dependent on preferences the guild could select different developments of the perks
 
Last edited:
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.

DeletedUser8859

Guest
-1

- have at least X members that are part of the guild for more than X weeks

That one would stall small and medium size guilds (regardless guildmembers era) in a current level until they manage to grow a little (and retain the new recruits), to be able to level up.
  • Why force a guild of say 12 members to be limited to be not higher of level 19 (for one example) because they don't have 15 members required for a Level 20? No matter how successful is that guild is at GE, or how many Hall of Fames they got, at whatever era, and how many crowns they harvest in other special buildings.
  • Let say we are talking about a middle size guild of 40 or 45 members. They are a well established team, even one of the top guilds in ranking due to GvG, and all other factors. Would that rule would create a top level for the guild like say level 75 and that is it. New levels above 75 will not available for the guild because need 50 or 60 members?
  • What if the current level requires 50 members and in next week the guild reduces to 47 members for whatever reasons? Does the guild is demoted a level because now not have 50+ members?
-1
- all members finished GEx1 in the same GE X-times

A member goes to the hospital, or on vacations, or got internet connection problems, and then new guild level will be delayed too? No matter how many additional encounters the active members do in GE?

-1
- pay X goods (per player if "having X members" is a parallel task)

We already pay goods from Treasury, per guildmember /era, for GE participation to get points for guild leveling up. New additional goods quotas to pay?

-1
- the perks of the guild (recruitment boost, building cost boost, FP boost, ...) could get developed individually by performing specific tasks, the max height of the respective perk being limited by the guild level of course...

Do not agree that only big guilds (in numbers) be allowed to higher guild levels and benefits. Smaller and medium sized guilds can be more successful than full 80 members guilds.
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
-1
- have at least X Observatories

Same as above. A player can have only 1 Observatory at the city, not more. This would be like the cases above. A well established medium sixed guild of 40 members can only achieve to have up to 40 Observatories, a rule to require 45 Observatories would place a limit to guild progression. Forcing to get a recruitment requirement: You must have an Observatory to be able to join us.
  • Say the potential new recruit has an ARC level 80.
  • Sorry, no not enough, we need you to have an Observatory. Build one and call us again. (No way !!!)
 

beelzebob666

Overlord
Pathfinder
Spoiler Poster
Well, In all your examples you assumed X was to be 40 or more... I never said what the respective X should be in the cases above...
Also all of these requirements were just examples
That would be up to game design.

All your arguments can be turned around... why should a 3 Member Future-age Guild be getting higher guild levels (quicker) with much less effort than a 40 member middle age guild? That is the status quo and that also is very unbalanced...

That one would stall small and medium size guilds (regardless guildmembers era) in a current level until they manage to grow a little (and retain the new recruits), to be able to level up.

Yes, this would prevent micro guilds of reaching high guild levels. What is the harm to say that to get guild level 5 to have 5 members, have 10 for level 20 or have 15 for level 40? I do not know, what would be an appropriate maximum requirement here... feel free to make suggestions...

A member goes to the hospital, or on vacations, or got internet connection problems, and then new guild level will be delayed too? No matter how many additional encounters the active members do in GE?

Why not, I never said X should be 100 - In the time it needs to collect the guild power every propper guild should be able to achieve that requirement serveral times even if one or more members are hindered for some time.

We already pay goods from Treasury, per guildmember /era, for GE participation to get points for guild leveling up. New additional goods quotas to pay?

Yes, I also contemplated about putting this example in... probably isn't the best anyway because a single person could pay for it anyway...

Same as above. A player can have only 1 Observatory at the city, not more.
Same as above, I never said, that you should have one obs per guild level or anything... was just an idea to give the Obs some meaning.

Sorry, no not enough, we need you to have an Observatory. Build one and call us again. (No way !!!)
I am pretty sure there are tons of GvG guilds out there, having exactly this requirement...

Feel free to make some suggestions on your own - all your counter examples so far can be revoked with proper choice of X ;)
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
I still do not get why a efficient team/guild be forbidden to get a higher guild level in recognition to their success in the game, just because their membership is smaller than an X number.

Why tip the guild levels in favor of bigger guilds?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser9410

Guest
-1
This i feel would actually punish smaller guilds, even though they might be very active and hard working.

Do not agree that only big guilds (in numbers) be allowed to higher guild levels and benefits. Smaller and medium sized guilds can be more successful than full 80 members guilds.

Absolutely agree, Look at the average guild of ( lets say, 60+ members ) How many of those are actually active on a daily basis ?
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
In EN-4 Dinegu, our guild Slayers was founded near the start of the game. We grew gradually until become one of the top 20, top 10 , top 5 of the world. In the old days we were a full members guild of 80 players with a waiting list of people wanting to join. We did not kicked out fast people becoming inactive, but when the rules changed and inactives became a dead weight dragging ranking down, increasing GE costs, etc. we started to downsize to a more active - lean team. We are about 35 to 40 members now. Should we be demoted, or forbidden to increase levels because we are medium sized? No way.
 

Thunderdome

Emperor
Sorry, but no. Too many requirements and a small guild will stall. If the requirements were to focus on a small guild so it can level up to be compared with others, I would not mind the change to benefit such. I hardly do GvG as I think my module is broken for me to even send to fight or take. However, I do GE for the stuff it and unattached units (until I can get an Alcatraz) it gives out that keeps me from building unit buildings. I have a level 10 OBS that gives out 40 towards the treasury each time it is collected. Even so, I sometimes get on to play when I have a chance to (as it is a luxury); other times, I only come on for a few mins to collect and go to bed so I can go to work in the morning.

I've seen smaller to medium sized guilds do better than 80 member full guilds. Why? Because with 80 member guilds there's a percentage of them that are inactive after joining. Smaller guilds often retain those who are active (while making room for more who are the same), so are we to punish them just because they are smaller? No, I don't think so.

-1 from this gent.
 

DeletedUser9410

Guest
In EN-4 Dinegu, our guild Slayers was founded near the start of the game. We grew gradually until become one of the top 20, top 10 , top 5 of the world. In the old days we were a full members guild of 80 players with a waiting list of people wanting to join. We did not kicked out fast people becoming inactive, but when the rules changed and inactives became a dead weight dragging ranking down, increasing GE costs, etc. we started to downsize to a more active - lean team. We are about 35 to 40 members now. Should we be demoted, or forbidden to increase levels because we are medium sized? No way.

In other games i have played, the general trend was to do something very much the same.
A new guild or clan would invite as many members as possible to grow quickly, then after time start culling the dead weight and being more selective about their members. As well as being more strict according to the rules of the guild
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top