Alliance Benefits

ltgamesttv

So in the upcoming release of alliances it seems the biggest issue is how to give everyone motivation to ally that benefits everyone involved and helps smaller guilds grow. I think I have a good solution to this dilemma.

If you have three tiers of an alliance in the form of Helm guild, Sword guilds, and Gauntlet guilds this is what I suggest so that all guilds can benefit:

Helm Guild: All items in marketplace are reduced by a certain percentage by each guild they have in their alliance. i.e. 2% per guild up to 24% for max alliance. All guilds below alliance are taxed 2% of their influence which will automatically go to helm guilds coffer. .5% structure cost decrease for each guild in their alliance up to 6%

Sword Guilds: Ability to purchase from Helm guilds marketplace (wards, drains, gear etc). Ability to use Helm guilds boons when in Helm guilds SH for HE/Dragons. 5% decreased structure cost for each guild underneath them in alliance up to 15%. All guilds below Sword guild are taxed 1% of their influence which will automatically go to the sword guilds coffers.

Gauntlet guilds: Ability to purchase from Helm guilds marketplace (wards, drains, gear etc). Ability to use Helm guilds boons when in Helm guilds or use Sword guilds boons when in Sword guilds SH for HE/Dragons. 20% decreased structure cost.

Optional would also be to allow the Sword and gauntlet guilds the ability to use Helm guilds boons in SH siege which would allow for more guild resource farming while benefiting from being in an alliance.

In this fashion larger guilds get guild mark discounts and influence that they need. Medium sized guilds get good structure cost decreases and influence. Smaller guilds get large decreases in their structure costs.


The numbers could be adjusted as the percentages were mainly to show the idea behind how it could work. A system like this allows guilds to fall naturally in place according to their rank and benefits all guilds in the ways they need it most.

beckylunatic

I suspect the taxation mechanic would be much too complicated to implement on the kind of timeline they're looking at, as interesting an idea it is and as much as the structure cost reduction would more than offset it for the subordinate guilds.

Not bad ideas though.

kvet

I suppose for some alliances, taxation would be an attractive thing. For me though, I wouldn't want to impose such a thing on subordinate guilds. To me, an alliance is really flat, despite the hierarchical organization being built into the game. Alliance members can contribute to each other as they choose, when they choose and however much they choose. I would never consider for one second forcing an alliance member to contribute to other alliance members. Encourage? Sure. Require? Absolutely not.

ltgamesttv

beckylunatic said:

I suspect the taxation mechanic would be much too complicated to implement on the kind of timeline they're looking at, as interesting an idea it is and as much as the structure cost reduction would more than offset it for the subordinate guilds.

Not bad ideas though.

While I appreciate speculation on the difficulty of coding in new mechanics, I don't know about you but I'd hope that good suggestions may be worth the effort in order to make new content/material more interesting and dynamic. Sometimes results are worth a little elbow grease.

ltgamesttv

kvet said:

I suppose for some alliances, taxation would be an attractive thing. For me though, I wouldn't want to impose such a thing on subordinate guilds. To me, an alliance is really flat, despite the hierarchical organization being built into the game. Alliance members can contribute to each other as they choose, when they choose and however much they choose. I would never consider for one second forcing an alliance member to contribute to other alliance members. Encourage? Sure. Require? Absolutely not.

I suppose for some alliances freely giving to guilds that are lower down the alliance chain, who haven't had to do any of the work your higher ranked guild has, getting free access to your marketplace and/or boons would be an attractive thing. For me though, I wouldn't want to impose such a thing on superior guilds. To me, an alliance really is beneficial to everyone, despite the desire of people with a guild that has done very little to be instantly equivalent to the guilds who have done a lot.

I would never consider for one second forcing an alliance member to contribute to other alliance members. Encourage? Give motivation? Sure. Require? Absolutely not, they don't have to join an alliance at all for that matter and can avoid the entire scenario.

Honestly, it's absurd to ask guilds that have it all to freely give it to smaller guilds for the sake of altruism. This is a very affordable (and VERY beneficial) way to give every guild in the Hierarchy motivation to ally with one another.

telprydain

No one is asking "guilds that have it all to freely give it to smaller guilds for the sake of altruism".
A: Helm guilds are sacrificing nothing.
B: They are asking guilds that have it all to join with smaller guilds for the sake of additional bonuses.
The bonuses have to be worth it for all involved - but that doesn't necessitate a penalty be levied from the lower ranks.

ltgamesttv

telprydain said:

No one is asking "guilds that have it all to freely give it to smaller guilds for the sake of altruism".
A: Helm guilds are sacrificing nothing.
B: They are asking guilds that have it all to join with smaller guilds for the sake of additional bonuses.
The bonuses have to be worth it for all involved - but that doesn't necessitate a penalty be levied from the lower ranks.

IF you do the math on my proposal, there is no penalty. What I'm suggesting are bonuses. It's a very simple concept that gives to each guild in the alliance what it needs. This is beneficial for everyone. If you simply look at the benefits each rank gets you would see this. It's simply that the idea of a "tax" is all too familiar and often negatively associated. If you can move past a knee jerk reaction to that and actually, I know it's frustrating to have to revisit it after graduation, do the math you can plainly see that what you forfeit in influence tax you more than make up for in structure cost reduction and access to end game SH markets.

If the benefits aren't obvious then you are letting your bias influence your understanding.

Thanks for your reply.

phoenix1021

And here it starts already with high level guilds wanting to be paid for others to get into their alliance. This is why a hierarchical system is bad in this community.
High level guilds shouldn't be the government that gets to collect taxes. I can't imagine anyone would agree to that. Dragonfang gear and masterwork are not that important to the game, except if you are a min-maxer. And those people already are in high level guilds anyway.

ltgamesttv

phoenix1021 said:

And here it starts already with high level guilds wanting to be paid for others to get into their alliance. This is why a hierarchical system is bad in this community.
High level guilds shouldn't be the government that gets to collect taxes. I can't imagine anyone would agree to that. Dragonfang gear and masterwork are not that important to the game, except if you are a min-maxer. And those people already are in high level guilds anyway.

You, just like the other poster are not even looking at the benefits you get. This is really comical. You get a 20% discount on building your structures. That's so OP LOL. I mean large guilds had to build it out of blood, sweat, and potentially $$. You want to get everything the large guild has for free.

You get access to the entire market, rank 2 wards/drains, Lionsmane, Dragonflight (BIS PVE and PVP) gear. Food from our vendor, maps for resources. Dude you are either 1) Uninformed on the SH market 2) Unable to understand it's value or 3) Both.

The method I described benefits the gauntlet guilds the most lol. You guys are SOOOO hung up on the taxation thing it's blinding you completely to the very simple math. I'm surprised that, besides beckylunatic, you guys aren't even looking at the numbers, you just see the word TAX and that's it. Just lol.

Thanks for another well thought out reply.

ltgamesttv

Allow me to put this in perspective, since it seems that people don't actually look at the numbers that I'm proposing.

A rank 2 Guild Hall costs 32K influence. If the gauntlet guild donates 1% of that to its sword guild then they get 320 Influence. 320 Influence... LOL I mean come on man, that's one days worth of HE's. Now let's take that same structure and see what discount they get. After a 20% discount the 32K influence becomes just 25,600 influence. That's 6400 Influence less, 1% of that would be 256 influence.

Guys.. this math is so simple, the amount of "Tax" from influence is so minute compared to the savings I hope this explains it so that you can see directly the savings vs. what is donated to the sword and helm guilds. The only reason it's of any benefit to the sword and helm guild is that if they have 3 guilds under them donating then it's like having a few extra HE's being run by your guildmates to help towards leveling their own exorbitantly expensive structures while encouraging them to incorporate more guilds into their alliance.

This is literally a win-win that the bottom guilds get the most benefit from.

telprydain

I see what you're saying, but bonuses are based on the levels of the guilds in the Alliance, so you wouldn't be able to count of the full bonus.That means we're back to a tax on the smaller guilds with an uncertain bonus from above. Unless you're proposing a flat bonus that no longer takes the size of the guilds into account.
Rather than taxing anything, just give the helm guild bonus loot based on what swords are donating to their coffers.

ltgamesttv

telprydain said:

I see what you're saying, but bonuses are based on the levels of the guilds in the Alliance, so you wouldn't be able to count of the full bonus.That means we're back to a tax on the smaller guilds with an uncertain bonus from above. Unless you're proposing a flat bonus that no longer takes the size of the guilds into account.
Rather than taxing anything, just give the helm guild bonus loot based on what swords are donating to their coffers.

I'm only advocating what I'm advocating not bonuses based on levels, I didn't mention that anywhere. I gave an example of how it could be better done. What I've shown here is how to give guilds on each "rank" of the "hierarchy" exactly what they need to advance while benefitting the lowest guilds the most and helping them to advance the quickest. I wouldn't be opposed to "bonus loot" off what the swords or gauntlets are donating to their coffers, I just didn't want it to seem to the devs that I was pulling unearned influence out of thin air. I would be fine with that if they were however.

phoenix1021

tolkienbuff said:

phoenix1021 said:

And here it starts already with high level guilds wanting to be paid for others to get into their alliance. This is why a hierarchical system is bad in this community.
High level guilds shouldn't be the government that gets to collect taxes. I can't imagine anyone would agree to that. Dragonfang gear and masterwork are not that important to the game, except if you are a min-maxer. And those people already are in high level guilds anyway.

You, just like the other poster are not even looking at the benefits you get. This is really comical. You get a 20% discount on building your structures. That's so OP LOL. I mean large guilds had to build it out of blood, sweat, and potentially $$. You want to get everything the large guild has for free.

You get access to the entire market, rank 2 wards/drains, Lionsmane, Dragonflight (BIS PVE and PVP) gear. Food from our vendor, maps for resources. Dude you are either 1) Uninformed on the SH market 2) Unable to understand it's value or 3) Both.

The method I described benefits the gauntlet guilds the most lol. You guys are SOOOO hung up on the taxation thing it's blinding you completely to the very simple math. I'm surprised that, besides beckylunatic, you guys aren't even looking at the numbers, you just see the word TAX and that's it. Just lol.

Thanks for another well thought out reply.

Actually, I don't want anything. You just assume everyone wants the HAMSTER you high level guilds have. In fact, noone needs dragonflight gear, wards or anything a high level guild gives, except maybe the boons, which you suggested should only be shared on their sh map.
Anyway, if you spend blood and sweat playing a video game, maybe you should consider that you are taking things a tiny bit too serious.

ltgamesttv

phoenix1021 said:

tolkienbuff said:

phoenix1021 said:

And here it starts already with high level guilds wanting to be paid for others to get into their alliance. This is why a hierarchical system is bad in this community.
High level guilds shouldn't be the government that gets to collect taxes. I can't imagine anyone would agree to that. Dragonfang gear and masterwork are not that important to the game, except if you are a min-maxer. And those people already are in high level guilds anyway.

You, just like the other poster are not even looking at the benefits you get. This is really comical. You get a 20% discount on building your structures. That's so OP LOL. I mean large guilds had to build it out of blood, sweat, and potentially $$. You want to get everything the large guild has for free.

You get access to the entire market, rank 2 wards/drains, Lionsmane, Dragonflight (BIS PVE and PVP) gear. Food from our vendor, maps for resources. Dude you are either 1) Uninformed on the SH market 2) Unable to understand it's value or 3) Both.

The method I described benefits the gauntlet guilds the most lol. You guys are SOOOO hung up on the taxation thing it's blinding you completely to the very simple math. I'm surprised that, besides beckylunatic, you guys aren't even looking at the numbers, you just see the word TAX and that's it. Just lol.

Thanks for another well thought out reply.

Actually, I don't want anything. You just assume everyone wants the HAMSTER you high level guilds have. In fact, noone needs dragonflight gear, wards or anything a high level guild gives, except maybe the boons, which you suggested should only be shared on their sh map.
Anyway, if you spend blood and sweat playing a video game, maybe you should consider that you are taking things a tiny bit too serious.

If you don't want anything, including building your SH faster, then why are you even commenting? Go guild less for that matter. This forum post is not for you. We have done hours of HE's, Dragons, Tiamat, SH siege, etc etc etc. to build our guild. You, apparently, are fine being an underachiever. So... have fun bro! Enjoy what you like in the game, but don't expect that all alliances will want you to be a part of it if you're so nonchalant with your gaming resources

If you have something of value that's pertinent to add besides your own information-less opinion on what you want from the game, feel free to post it and I'll be glad to consider it.

Thanks for your reply

phoenix1021

With an attitude like that I'm sure other guilds will beg to be your vassals! You are so very pleasant. Again proving my point why this community is not right for having a hierarchy of guilds.

ltgamesttv

phoenix1021 said:

With an attitude like that I'm sure other guilds will beg to be your vassals! You are so very pleasant. Again proving my point why this community is not right for having a hierarchy of guilds.

My attitude? That you should do you and have fun with it? Because you don't want any of "the **** you high level guilds have"? You're right friend, I'm completely showing an attitude here. I'm sure that your pleasant attitude would be preferable in trying to help with building a framework for alliances.

Thanks again for your informative response.

ltgamesttv

phoenix1021

Let me add one more thing, as you seem to be on this anti hierarchy kick (and good on you for it mate, fight the man!). They are using a pre-existing mold from STO and tailoring it to this game. That is also hierarchical. So if you're hoping to sway the opinion of the devs completely away from a template towards a peer-based alliance. Go for it! Feel free to create your own forum post and I'll go there and give you a +1 if it's well thought out and beneficial to all involved. Perhaps you'll garner enough attention by stating that you don't want anything from an end game guild except their boons. I think that will go over well.

Just lemme know when you post it so I can make sure to check it out

phoenix1021

Let me explain this to you then. The more benefits you give to alliances, the more likely it is that they become mandatory for future content. (people already crying the game is to easy with their insane guild boons, so new content might be balanced around that) If they become mandatory it becomes more likey for low level guilds to get trapped in an alliance with someone like you who looks down upon people that don't put "blood and sweat" in a video game. If they want to make sh buildings cheaper, they should just make them cheaper instead of forcing everyone under the heel of some big headed guild leader.
The thing is, you are not "the man", as in some kind of authority figure just because your guild hall has a higher level.

But if alliances only give a small percent to xp to everyone like it seems to be planned, I don't really care if someone calls himself the "helm" or "head" or "brain" or "alpha". Just keep the benefits small and everyone can avoid people they don't wanna play with. You can't force people to work together that have totally different attitudes about how to play this game. These differing attitudes are the reason why some guilds are higher level than others.

And I don't have to build an alliance network because I'm not making these decisions in my guild, thank the heavens! But I do have to deal with the results in the end.

ltgamesttv

phoenix1021 said:

Let me explain this to you then. The more benefits you give to alliances, the more likely it is that they become mandatory for future content. (people already crying the game is to easy with their insane guild boons, so new content might be balanced around that) If they become mandatory it becomes more likey for low level guilds to get trapped in an alliance with someone like you who looks down upon people that don't put "blood and sweat" in a video game. If they want to make sh buildings cheaper, they should just make them cheaper instead of forcing everyone under the heel of some big headed guild leader.
The thing is, you are not "the man", as in some kind of authority figure just because your guild hall has a higher level.

But if alliances only give a small percent to xp to everyone like it seems to be planned, I don't really care if someone calls himself the "helm" or "head" or "brain" or "alpha". Just keep the benefits small and everyone can avoid people they don't wanna play with. You can't force people to work together that have totally different attitudes about how to play this game. These differing attitudes are the reason why some guilds are higher level than others.

And I don't have to build an alliance network because I'm not making these decisions in my guild, thank the heavens! But I do have to deal with the results in the end.

Here's the rub mate, you've jumped to all kinds of conclusions in your premise, most of them wrong and all of them biased.
Firstly, I wasn't referring to myself or my guild as "the man" but cryptic because they set the rules. Secondarily, in order to play all the content in the game you're already forced into a guild. Taking that a step further and forcing guilds into alliances is most likely what will occur either by alliance locked content or the necessity of what the alliance affords you. Thirdly, I don't "look down" on you for being casual and wanting to play a very relaxed style, as I told you twice already.. you do you bro (sorry maybe it'll sink in on the third try).

Now to address your other issues about alliances. Noone end game cares in the slightest about XP. We really don't care at all because we already have a guild XP boon, rank 12 azures for our utility slots, and inscribed pants and shirts for more XP. Combine that with the Sharandar quest that now gives you a power point at completion EVERY TIME and XP is useless for most of us.

The whole point of alliances, as you seem to continue to miss, is to build smaller guilds up. It's to benefit guilds with casual players or a small guild that is a group of friends so that they can experience all the content and grow their guilds faster to be on more equal footing with larger guilds. XP won't help that at all, it's almost like you haven't been seeing the point behind this maneuver. The point is for larger guilds who've made it close to end game to help smaller guilds in achieving their goals as well.

Your solution accomplishes none of those tasks, I'm guessing that your idea won't be very popular with ANY guild leaders because it offers nothing in the way of really tangible benefits.

So, if you would be so kind as to stop assuming that I'm looking down my nose at you and actually read the content, you'll realize that I hope you have fun doing whatever it is you like to do in game but your opinion about SH alliances is extraordinarily biased and doesn't address any of what the devs have already said is the plan. Good luck, however wishing they would stop the grind forward and the associated power creep.

Thanks for your objective reply.

josiahiyon

Good post and good ideas. I'm with Becky in thinking it is probably too difficult for cryptic to incorporate something like this so late in the process, but who knows, they could surprise me.

I'd also challenge the statement that the point of alliances is for bigger guilds to boost smaller guilds strongholds. I think it is more for smaller guilds to either (1) band together to focus on upgrading 1 guild (not all 13) or (2) small guilds to join with and share everything with larger guilds, effectively making it pointless for the small guilds to worry about upgrading their own stronghold. I think it's an unnecessary stretch to try to incentive big guilds to grow the smaller guilds. Just give the small guilds the big guild benefits, and reward the big guilds with guild marks and more players focused on upgrading their alliance stronghold.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ltgamesttv

josiahiyon said:

Good post and good ideas. I'm with Becky in thinking it is probably too difficult for cryptic to incorporate something like this so late in the process, but who knows, they could surprise me.



I'd also challenge the statement that the point of alliances is for bigger guilds to boost smaller guilds strongholds. I think it is more for smaller guilds to either (1) band together to focus on upgrading 1 guild (not all 13) or (2) small guilds to join with and share everything with larger guilds, effectively making it pointless for the small guilds to worry about upgrading their own stronghold. I think it's an unnecessary stretch to try to incentive big guilds to grow the smaller guilds. Just give the small guilds the big guild benefits, and reward the big guilds with guild marks and more players focused on upgrading their alliance stronghold.

I have spoken with you about this before and from what you've mentioned I don't have any real issues with that strategy either as it benefits both small and large guilds in the case of the latter. The former feels unfair tbh, primarily because it feels like we larger guilds had to do loads of hard work getting our stronghold up and now smaller guilds will get it handed to them. However, feelings of unfairness aside, as long as big guilds also get some benefit from the upcoming changes I would be fine with that format as well. My biggest fear is that Devs think XP is actually a worthwhile benefit, I really hope they realize this would only help guilds that have lots of players less than lvl 70. For everyone else it's a moot point.

Ultimately, in order to make what I enjoy more fun, that being PVP, I'd like to see all the smaller guilds have a chance to get on more equal footing with larger guilds so that there won't be as much of a gear gap (i.e. BIS tenacity equpment from SH market and upgraded boons). I know you had said you posted your ideas in a forum post in greater detail, I believe, would you mind to link that here as well?

Thanks

loboguild

This come close to what I was proposing in the official feedback thread. Generally granting the Helm guild "wealth" (in my version %RAD and %Guild Marks), while Gauntlets get the best structure discount. Weighting bonuses per guild though is a bad idea as it can be exploited. It also takes away from the incentive to support your alliance because your bonuses are not dependent on the other levels. That's not what you want.

Taxes are not needed. Helm gets wealth, Gauntlets progression and Swords a mix of both. I don't see why you additionally need to milk the alliance. The bonus also disappears once the Stronghold is fully upgraded.

I like the conditional boon sharing.​​

ltgamesttv

loboguild said:

This come close to what I was proposing in the official feedback thread. Generally granting the Helm guild "wealth" (in my version %RAD and %Guild Marks), while Gauntlets get the best structure discount. Weighting bonuses per guild though is a bad idea as it can be exploited. It also takes away from the incentive to support your alliance because your bonuses are not dependent on the other levels. That's not what you want.



Taxes are not needed. Helm gets wealth, Gauntlets progression and Swords a mix of both. I don't see why you additionally need to milk the alliance. The bonus also disappears once the Stronghold is fully upgraded.



I like the conditional boon sharing.​​

I'm not sure what you mean by weighting guild bonuses per guild, as my idea actually only "weighs" bonuses per rank. If you mean you're afraid that a Rank 19 guild could try to become a gauntlet guild so that it could finish getting its structures up then that's a possibility. There are two ways to play out that scenario:

1) Allow it, if a lower guild will take a higher guild as its underling then so be it. The higher guild will finish it's last level or so faster. Then it will want to become a helm guild anyway because it will only want GMs at that point.

2) Place a formula in the coding that doesn't allow lower level guilds to be over higher level guilds in the hierarchy.

As far as the "Taxes" go the whole "milking the alliance" bit is back to the other arguments further up. There is no "milking" man, even saying so leans the evidence towards you didn't read the original post. Like how many ways do I have to say it that 1% of just influence compared to a decrease of 20% of all resource costs of building structures is a joke. If you consider that "milking" then you're simply not doing any math here at all.

dfnce

Ideally, each alliance should pick its own model of relations.

Model 1.

Beta/Gamma guild pays 100% on own buildings. Alpha guild gets nothing.

Model 2.

- Each donation in Beta/Gamma guild splits into X + Y parts.

- X part goes to own buildings with same price, no discounts. Beware of discounts, it opens door to all sorts of exploits and abuse. If small guild looks for relief, it should ask other guilds to donate to her chest. If it deserves, it gets it.

- Y part goes to Alpha. Y part is between 0 % -20 % established once and forever.

- Benefit for Beta/Gamma guild is Alpha guild develops faster, some common things can be unlocked faster. Alpha guild benefit is obvious.

ltgamesttv

dfnce said:

Ideally, each alliance should pick its own model of relations.

Model 1.

Beta/Gamma guild pays 100% on own buildings. Alpha guild gets nothing.

Model 2.

- Each donation in Beta/Gamma guild splits into X + Y parts.

- X part goes to own buildings with same price, no discounts. Beware of discounts, it opens door to all sorts of exploits and abuse. If small guild looks for relief, it should ask other guilds to donate to her chest. If it deserves, it gets it.

- Y part goes to Alpha. Y part is between 0 % -20 % established once and forever.

- Benefit for Beta/Gamma guild is Alpha guild develops faster, some common things can be unlocked faster. Alpha guild benefit is obvious.

So in Model 1 what would be the motivation to ally? I don't see any benefit whatsoever? Unless you mean that the Beta/Gamma guilds get access to markets which again makes it unfair for the Alpha guild that worked hard to achieve and then essentially gives away its resources.

Model 2 would be acceptable in terms of the Alpha guild gets payback essentially for access to its markets (assuming that is still part of the alliance in your models). However neither of these accomplish the goal of building smaller guilds and trying to spark motivation in the alliance to do so imho.

Perhaps I'm not getting your full idea?

loboguild

tolkienbuff wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by weighting guild bonuses per guild, as my idea actually only "weighs" bonuses per rank. If you mean you're afraid that a Rank 19 guild could try to become a gauntlet guild so that it could finish getting its structures up then that's a possibility. There are two ways to play out that scenario:

1) Allow it, if a lower guild will take a higher guild as its underling then so be it. The higher guild will finish it's last level or so faster. Then it will want to become a helm guild anyway because it will only want GMs at that point.

2) Place a formula in the coding that doesn't allow lower level guilds to be over higher level guilds in the hierarchy.

As far as the "Taxes" go the whole "milking the alliance" bit is back to the other arguments further up. There is no "milking" man, even saying so leans the evidence towards you didn't read the original post. Like how many ways do I have to say it that 1% of just influence compared to a decrease of 20% of all resource costs of building structures is a joke. If you consider that "milking" then you're simply not doing any math here at all.

You propose a marketplace discount based on the number of guilds in the alliance. If the specific percentage of how much discount a guild is granting the Helm is affected by guild level, then the OP doesn't clearly state it.

I won't get into a defining war about the term milking. Helms are getting a minor cost reduction as well which also affects Influence. That's your tax. Even if it's mathematical irrelevant, people will dislike the fact that they are working for the Helm.

If you want Helms to get resources from Swords and Gauntlets, they shouldn't be getting any structure discounts themselves and the "taxes" needed to be extended to all coffers. But I personally dislike this system a lot as it's too hierarchic and in my eyes alliances should ideally be a system where Gauntlets have at least the same power as Helm.

Instead of forcing guilds to contribute to other coffers the system should up the incentive to do so voluntary to help the alliance or oneself. Like a 10% Guild Mark bonus when contributing to alliance coffers.

Influence is a problem on all guild levels and the solution is not a tax but providing more and more diverse ways of earning it.​​

ltgamesttv

Dude.. you still haven't done the math. You're looking at one word "TAX" jeebus lol. You're like the other guy who can't get past a single word and still see that the gauntlet guilds BY FAR get the best out of the deal. This is simple math so I won't explain it again.

As far as "forcing" guilds to contribute, if the swords and gauntlet guilds get access to the Helm guilds marketplace then you have just "forced" the Helm guild to contribute to the other guilds by freely giving access to what they worked hard for.

What I've seen so far is a bias from lower guilds against higher guilds. Lower ranked guilds want all of the advantages that higher ranked guilds have striven hard to achieve for free and want to give nothing in return. Instead of a symbiosis some of the forum "contributors" want to be parasites. Take all you can from the Helm guild but heaven forbid you give them something back....

instynctive

For the record, just because my little guild is "only" at a level 8 GH doesn't mean that we're under-achievers or being at all lazy. It doesn't mean that we haven't been putting in the time or the money to level up the structures. We're actually kicking HAMSTER for a smaller guild.

What it means is that there is more requirement per person, and that's not something that we can "compete" against with larger guilds.

In my example below, this is our current "roadmap" for the Stronghold. What I've done here is added up what is required to get us through to GH L10, then broken that down by "per player". No, we don't expect everyone to come up with those numbers (as an example, we have many payers still working on boons.. especially for IWD), but in an ideal world, this is what the breakdown would be.

To contrast our membership numbers vs. a guild with 150 players, the second chart outlines the breakdown per player

To further contrast our membership numbers vs. a guild with 500 characters in it, the last chart breaks that down.

As you can see, there are significant differences:


So, please... all I ask is that before you preach about how the bigger guilds have somehow worked "harder" or "more" to reach L15 or L20 Guild Halls, remember that the smaller guilds are putting in 3 and 4 and 10 times the amount of effort.

Could we disband and be in a larger guild? Sure. But we've all made the conscientious decision to stay in our guild.. the guild that we've built together.. that we've labored over and cried over. Because while, congrats to the ubers who have everything maxed out, it's really not a race. Since we don't PvP, the boons aren't all that important... well, no moreso than the campaign boons.


Anyway.. cheers!

beckylunatic

There does need to be clear benefit for being a helm guild as opposed to just opting out of the system. Structure discount cost does make some difference if and only if we assume the helm guild has yet to max everything they want (which few have, though more are getting there).

Small guilds do need some form of assurance that either A. they're getting enough of a structure discount that they aren't crippling themselves by giving up some portion of resources or B. it doesn't matter because the helm guild is providing everything or C. it's automated such that the % of resources that get passed along doesn't reduce your initial contribution. Trickle up or trickle down models of resource sharing could both function reasonably, so C. has the advantage of letting guilds in any position advance themselves while passively adding to the advancement of all allied guilds. Locking specific coffers from outside donation would still prevent them from getting filled too quickly and blocking your own donations. Just spitballing, really.

XP bonus is just a poor incentive for everyone at this point. Currency bonuses (+ guild marks and/or + salvage) make more sense.