Alpha guild might use some extra help on DF runs. Alpha guild can grow itself when alliance players from other guild would move to it.
Benefit for Beta/Gamma:
Provide ability to get DF gear within current guild / alliance.
Model 2
It is straightforward deal between Alpha and others guilds - Access market in exchange of contributions. Domestic donations have to help to pursue Alpha guild goals as well.
Benefit for Alpha:
Extra boost to progression.
Benefit for Beta/Gamma:
Beta/Gamma guilds get early access to market, before they reach their own. If small, still can run DF with other guilds.
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!
Part of the issue here are the terms. I.E. "Larger" or "Higher Ranked". I probably should have done a better job in terms of separating the two as the discussion was continuing.
Not all higher ranked guilds are actually larger in membership. I.E. my guild has fewer active members than many of the other higher ranked guilds. We all have alts and a certain portion of us essentially farm everything to upgrade the guild. I mean literally a handful of us have ranked this thing up to where we are today.
So, please... all I ask is that before you preach about how smaller guilds are putting in 3 and 4 times the amount of effort, that you don't jump to preconceived conclusions of martyrdom.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
0
instynctiveMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,885Arc User
Yeah man, the issue is not that you guys haven't done well with your guild. It's great you guys are ranking up and have a plan. It's also not that you're lazy or underachievers. The issue is of entitlement. What I've been getting from a lot of lower ranked guilds so far is that higher ranked guilds have it all and they should simply help smaller guilds out of the goodness of their hearts.
The assumptions made about higher ranked guilds are manyfold. People assume how many members are in higher ranked guilds, they assume that higher ranked guilds feel somehow superior to lower ranked guilds. They assume that higher ranked guilds shouldn't care about getting anything because they already have everything.
The funny thing is that while there may be some who seem to think that being in a higher ranked guild makes them superior. Most I've talked to only wish they had more time to play the content they enjoy rather than doing HE's/Dragons/and SH Quests that make you want to cut yourself.
There are larger member guilds who are higher ranked as well who've been able to more evenly distribute the cost of upgrading, there are smaller member guilds who are higher ranked who have busted their humps to get there. There are smaller member guilds who are lower ranked who've also busted their humps to get there. There are higher member lower guilds who've done almost nothing.
I'm not throwing off on any of them. Ultimately you do what you want to do in the game (after all, it's about what you want to get out of it). Now all that aside, the concern is how do you make an alliance that benefits all? How also do you benefit alliances more that work harder OR have worked harder at recruiting?
I think my style of alliance is one method that rewards each tier (higher to lower ranked as well as higher membership to lower membership) and gives lower ranked guilds the chance to rank up much faster than possible before. It allows everyone to gain what they most want/need from an alliance and everyone can prosper.
No one yet has shown that any of my proposals would somehow more greatly benefit any of the hierarchy and that is because it doesn't favor any level of the hierarchy. The issue EVERYONE who has commented has is one word... TAX.
After reading the word TAX everyone suddenly gets on a superiority vs inferiority kick and ignores the massive benefits to each guild involved. That is why I think people don't even read the full content of the original proposition before they begin tearing it apart because of their perception, not because of the mathematical framework.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
0
instynctiveMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,885Arc User
Since you were nice enough to include a civil response, I'm happy to do the same...
We don't feel entitled. No one owes us anything. We're quite proud of our progress and will continue to inch along. In fact, the only guild we've approached about the Alliance thing is not all that bigger or higher leveled than we are. But they are good people who share our values in and out of the game. And despite what happens with that Alliance, we hope to bring in some smaller guilds that we can help out. But what it boils down to is whether or not those guilds share our philosophies and have good people in them.
I guess, in short, we're never bored... there's always something to do... we enjoy running SH He trains together. We enjoy running DF if enough people are on. We enjoy helping out each other in Elemental Evil or Dread Ring.
My (admittedly somewhat reactionary) post was because all I've heard from higher-ranked guilds is how much "effort" they've put into things. But, as my numbers show, it's easy to rank things up when each character needs to only run 3 HEs to load up on Influence, or a single run through any of the campaign areas. Our HE trains will run all afternoon... finish 5 HEs, swap out characters and keep going.
Regardless... Cryptic will make the Alliances the way they've planned them out... the system won't be perfect or fair, but they'll iron out the details at some point.
I'm honestly just excited about having more DF event opportunities for my guild members. While the DF gear won't benefit any of my builds, that's not true for everyone.
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....
Yes, I dislike a "tax" in any shape or form for the specific reasons that I mentioned. I agree Helm guilds need to get a substantial bonus because they share their stuff and I never said Gauntlet guilds need to get something for free. In fact they don't. The difference in approaches is that I think the system needs to reward the Helm guild appropriately while your proposal directly leeches from the inferior guilds. It's a tiny difference that can mean the world to some.
Since you're not being constructive any longer I am fine by agreeing to disagree though.
0
josiahiyonMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 396Arc User
The OP proposal is a net reduction of costs for the lower tier guilds. I don't see how that is leeching. Seems like a matter of semantics. What if OP called it something other than a tax? tithe, or contribution, etc. the net impact and resulting incentives areall that matter.
If the op said 'let's reduce structure costs by 95% for low tier guilds but also take 1% of their donations and apply to helm guild', would you be similarly against this idea?
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....
Yes, I dislike a "tax" in any shape or form for the specific reasons that I mentioned. I agree Helm guilds need to get a substantial bonus because they share their stuff and I never said Gauntlet guilds need to get something for free. In fact they don't. The difference in approaches is that I think the system needs to reward the Helm guild appropriately while your proposal directly leeches from the inferior guilds. It's a tiny difference that can mean the world to some.
Since you're not being constructive any longer I am fine by agreeing to disagree though.
Good since you're still using terms like "leeching" which is completely incorrect showing you still aren't doing the math. The one percent you pay in influence doesn't even make a difference. Like your terminology shows how completely biased you are. 20% off all resources towards structures vs. 1% of Influence. Dude.. your argument is literally laughable.
Thanks for your insights
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
There is so much 'hate' in this post towards potential Helm Guilds, why?
All of those people here complaining of 'taxes'; you live in this world... everything has a tax.. if you can't get around the concept by now.. well.. humanity is most certainly doomed.
These 'Helm' guilds, I think, are being viewed as large groups of players that have paid for their SH or something similar. In reality, you would be surprised. Our guild for example, probably has about 50% of the population donating to the coffers regularly, with a tiny number of people that donate small fortunes at every upgrade. The actual numbers of active donors are probably on par with a lot of smaller guilds. If we have managed to build our SH's to rank 20, to give the branches of an alliance such hugely significant discounts on their future costs, 1% taxes seems completely reasonable!
Of course, smaller guilds could band together, altruistically, to help each other. I can't personally see there being any significant progress in that scenario though. Similar sized guilds will ultimately require the same amount of things and then, it will come down to a choice, of which guild they will advance first; otherwise progress will surely stagnate quickly. Trying to level two similar sized SH's with similar sized/activity levels completely negates the point of an alliance.
So, realistically, smaller guilds that want to develop their SH at a decent rate, need a guild with a higher rank as their Helm. These guilds will have got to a high level with a lot of hard work, time and materials with NO discounts. (NOTE; I didn't say we worked harder than anyone else, just that we did it all with NO discounts.) A small tax donation doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Why would it? Everything has a cost. And this cost is tiny, 1%..2%.. that's nothing. Smaller guilds would actually be the ones leeching... getting such HUGE discounts for doing what exactly?
Let's have an example; You are a Gauntlet guild, you donate 20,000 influence to your coffer. The Sword guild above you gets 1% of that, so 200 influence. Wow. 200 influence. When you realize that upgrading to level 20 from level 19, requires 751k influence not to mention you need 12 buildings at rank 9. And a lot of rank 9 buildings cost 165k influence to build..... well.. I'm no maths genius but, the tax you give to the Sword guild really is minuscule. Of course they then pass on a 2% tax to the Helm guild, but that would be really small too. Effectively the Helm guild would be receiving nothing of significance from the small Gauntlet guild. (NO leeching, as it has been said.)
And what are you getting as a gauntlet guild? A 20% reduction on ALL costs. That's 20% off Wood.. 20% off Influence.. 20% off Metal.. 20% off Dark Fey.. 20% off Tyranny of Dragons.
Seriously, you would have to be stupid to not see that this is a GREAT idea.
Ultimately, you wouldn't mind paying 1 or 2% to advance, if that is what you are really interested in. And if you don't want to pay, don't join an alliance. Continue on your merry way.
To be honest, I think smaller guilds have NO IDEA what the costs for ranking up actually entail. And most people posting here should probably look into that before they start crying about taxes. The OP is actually a really good proposal.
"Here's a circle... I'm not sure it's a real circle, so don't trust it too much!" Idril (AoGlyph)
With the clarification that your proposal wouldn’t be impacted by the cumulative level of the guilds in the Alliance, I can get on board… (For those still confused…. If you pay a 5% ‘tax’ on every donation to the coffer, but get a 15% discount for being in the alliance… you’re getting a 10% discount for being in the alliance. Ignore the word ‘tax’, focus on the incentive. It’s functionally the same as giving you a flat 10% discount).
Except now there’s a new issue: The bonuses you suggest for the Helm guild have no value for a guild with GH20. Unless there’s something that I’m not aware of, getting a tithe/tax/taste of influence (or any other resource) would be wasted on them. With that in mind, the helm guild might benefit more with discounts to buying from their own marketplace and/or in-game shops like the wondrous bazaar. (It would also be neat to have visitors charged a little more at ally stores, with the difference given to the host guild – giving the host guild profit, and a advantage in terms of mastercraft crafting)
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.
While I appreciate the blood, sweat and tears you and others put into making high-level guilds, you should probably accept that that effort will be devalued going forward (as if the previous cost reductions hadn't already). It’s like complaining that I worked my fingers to the bone for boons that are now way faster/cheaper to get. Or that I had to grind for armor that is now inferior to drow/dusk. Or I had to do ToD for my artifact weapon, while now they're given out as part of the storyline. At least in the alliance system those who did the hard yards guild-building are getting some recognition, and not just seeing their investment immediately superseded by a new/improved version.
Casual Gamers
Join us brothers and sisters and distant relations and confused onlookers.
Join us in the shadows where we stand mostly vigilant... although slightly distracted by our inventories. "In war, unqualified. In peace, disorganised. In death, mild irritation."
With the clarification that your proposal wouldn’t be impacted by the cumulative level of the guilds in the Alliance, I can get on board… (For those still confused…. If you pay a 5% ‘tax’ on every donation to the coffer, but get a 15% discount for being in the alliance… you’re getting a 10% discount for being in the alliance. Ignore the word ‘tax’, focus on the incentive. It’s functionally the same as giving you a flat 10% discount).
Except now there’s a new issue: The bonuses you suggest for the Helm guild have no value for a guild with GH20. Unless there’s something that I’m not aware of, getting a tithe/tax/taste of influence (or any other resource) would be wasted on them. With that in mind, the helm guild might benefit more with discounts to buying from their own marketplace and/or in-game shops like the wondrous bazaar. (It would also be neat to have visitors charged a little more at ally stores, with the difference given to the host guild – giving the host guild profit, and a advantage in terms of mastercraft crafting)
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.
While I appreciate the blood, sweat and tears you and others put into making high-level guilds, you should probably accept that that effort will be devalued going forward (as if the previous cost reductions hadn't already). It’s like complaining that I worked my fingers to the bone for boons that are now way faster/cheaper to get. Or that I had to grind for armor that is now inferior to drow/dusk. Or I had to do ToD for my artifact weapon, while now they're given out as part of the storyline. At least in the alliance system those who did the hard yards guild-building are getting some recognition, and not just seeing their investment immediately superseded by a new/improved version.
The issue you bring up is a valid one, which I did not address in my original post. The idea I originally had when formulating it was simply that when the Helm guild maxed, they no longer received influence. The same would go for the Sword guilds. After you have maxed your SH then the coffers would fill and have nothing to build with it at which point you would stop receiving the influence.
As far as other benefits from the market and or exchanging influence for guildmarks or some such, I'm not opposed to the idea but my original proposition, without the influence when max, I think is still significant enough that it would continue to reward the Helm and Sword guilds respectively even after maxing out.
As far as the guild being devalued, that is already the case with alliances anyway and I've accepted that. The point is how devalued it becomes and what we get in the way of compensation from alliances that helps to buffer that devaluation. It would be nice to be granted some small rewards for the amount of time and effort it took to get this far and that's really all I'm asking for. In my proposal the gauntlet guilds get the most bang for their buck, the sword guilds get the second most, and the Helm guilds get the least but they all get what they need the most. The percentages could be played with a bit if necessary but ultimately I think these numbers are a pretty good representation of what would help each level of the hierarchy.
Thanks for your reply.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Since you were nice enough to include a civil response, I'm happy to do the same...
We don't feel entitled. No one owes us anything. We're quite proud of our progress and will continue to inch along. In fact, the only guild we've approached about the Alliance thing is not all that bigger or higher leveled than we are. But they are good people who share our values in and out of the game. And despite what happens with that Alliance, we hope to bring in some smaller guilds that we can help out. But what it boils down to is whether or not those guilds share our philosophies and have good people in them.
I guess, in short, we're never bored... there's always something to do... we enjoy running SH He trains together. We enjoy running DF if enough people are on. We enjoy helping out each other in Elemental Evil or Dread Ring.
My (admittedly somewhat reactionary) post was because all I've heard from higher-ranked guilds is how much "effort" they've put into things. But, as my numbers show, it's easy to rank things up when each character needs to only run 3 HEs to load up on Influence, or a single run through any of the campaign areas. Our HE trains will run all afternoon... finish 5 HEs, swap out characters and keep going.
Regardless... Cryptic will make the Alliances the way they've planned them out... the system won't be perfect or fair, but they'll iron out the details at some point.
I'm honestly just excited about having more DF event opportunities for my guild members. While the DF gear won't benefit any of my builds, that's not true for everyone.
Anyhoo.. cheers!
Our guild is more similar to yours than you may know. We do multiple alts per day worth of influence because we don't have the numbers some guilds do. That, however, is because we don't choose to recruit as hard as they do. We recruit a specific type of player. If we wanted to we could be less narrow in our recruiting goals allowing our numbers to increase and our workload to decrease.
What I'm saying is that each guild is its own culture, with it's own pros and cons and its own environment to deal with, ours included. The main thing I want for all guilds in all alliances is a symbiotic relationship that does three main things:
1) Help lower ranked guild level up much faster and more effectively, giving them tools to do so and benefits to aid in their endeavors.
2) Gives all guilds in the alliance tangible benefits that help them all accomplish their individual goals together.
3) Give all guilds in the alliance reason to stay in the alliance and form bonds through incentives and cooperation.
This is how I framed my proposition based off these 3 primary objectives that are mutually beneficial and incentive based.
I hope that helps explain things, thanks for your time.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Alpha guild might use some extra help on DF runs. Alpha guild can grow itself when alliance players from other guild would move to it.
Benefit for Beta/Gamma:
Provide ability to get DF gear within current guild / alliance.
Model 2
It is straightforward deal between Alpha and others guilds - Access market in exchange of contributions. Domestic donations have to help to pursue Alpha guild goals as well.
Benefit for Alpha:
Extra boost to progression.
Benefit for Beta/Gamma:
Beta/Gamma guilds get early access to market, before they reach their own. If small, still can run DF with other guilds.
I think in your Model 1 version, the problem is that Alpha guilds really don't need help if they're anywhere close to end game with dragonflights. Getting "help" for DF is not a substantial incentive imho. Growing by stealing members from guilds beneath you in the hierarchy would cause interguild drama I think as well.
in Model 2 It would depend on what the exchange of contributions entailed. Donations and/or contributions for access to markets could be a viable framework for the alpha guild. However I don't think that the benefits for the bet/gamma guilds is enough. The primary purpose to me is to help smaller guilds in the alliance advance.
Model 2 could work if boons got shared as well and all contributions went to alpha guild similar to what josiahiyon stated. Then you simply upgrade the alpha guild to max and all those under in hierarchy get the benefits of the Alpha guild as though they were actually members.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Only one thing to add .Please dont add any more grind. I find myself with very little time to try and enjoy my game time do to the never ending amount of time needed to grind toward my goals of being able to do the things that can be fun. Add more fun less work. All games have a grind but this one is hitting it at a whole new level. While the fun is at an all time low.
I see, that you have put thoughts and effort in your suggestion, but the incentive for maxed or near maxed guilds to take any role in this event are near to zero.
Cost reductions, well if your SH is maxed, you dont care, if you need one or two more lvl, you dont care (I know the costs, but honestly, I dont mind one or two more weeks of grind).
XP, no comment needed, imo.
Guild mark reduction would be interesting for ppl using masterwork or selling ingredients. Fact is, if everyone can dump his/ her surplus guild marks into explorer charts, the devaluation will be much greater, than any cost reduction.
None of the above is interesting at all for me or for many other players I know.
I would like a bonus, that is in fact a bonus. Someone else proposed, to unlock all boons for all allies, if one guild has them. While this would be counterproductive for all guilds (no incentive for progress), the idea, that all allies can use the boons of the other guilds is great, with some minimizing factors.
The level of the boon available to all allies should be limited by
a) their own SH lvl (a lvl 1 guild cant use any boons and higher ranked guilds boon is limited to the boon level available to themselves, if they would have the boon structure)
b) the max rank of the boons structure achieved in the alliance.
Otherwise a SH 20 guild could put some alts in a new or inactive guild (I could 'donate our 'abandoned' lvl 8 guild) build the missing boon plots and be done. Same goes for smaller guilds. They would get all the boons they wish for without the work, but be totally depending on the big ones without an incentive to rank up on their own.
This limitations would give all guilds a reason, to level up and be an incentive for maxed guilds, to max allied guilds, so they can use the boons they did not chose at max level.
So the discounts would be: Helm: 6%max Sword: 15%max Gauntlet: 20%max
Although I like the idea in general, this would cause being in a Gauntlet the best option. Compared to the little influence upper guilds get it would be much more beneficial to get a 20% off on Influence.
Although I like the idea in general, this would cause being in a Gauntlet the best option. Compared to the little influence upper guilds get it would be much more beneficial to get a 20% off on Influence.
Or maybe I missed something?
That is completely correct, the idea is to help smaller guilds level up while giving the big guilds things they need (i.e. guildmarks). The point of this framework is to encourage large and small guilds to ally and give everyone what they need.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
0
putzboy78Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,950Arc User
In theory a larger guild helping a smaller guild can help the larger guild. For example, a rank 19GH is about to become a rank 20. The cost is 3.3M AD, 751K Influence, 3K Gold, 13K Hero Shards, 58.7K dark. Each guild lvl gives a .1% cost reduction. So if a helm guild could donate <= to 33K AD, 75.1k Influence, 300 Gold, 1.3k Hero Shards, and 58.7K dark and upgrade any other GH in the alliance it would be a worth investment. Especially if the items needed are easier to achieve than your own (give some adventure shards and save on hero shards for example).
The challenge is that if you cannot donate from your guilds coffer to another guilds coffer it becomes very difficult for a Guild Leader to manage this and capitalize on it. The other challenge is the long build times for Guild Halls (which should be removed btw, no reason to gate stronghold progress at this point). Which means you could try to help a lower lvl guild by rushing them to the next level but you would have to forecast your construction enough to take advantage of it.
The best scenario would be removing the GH construction time, allowing guild leaders to transfer resources from their coffer to another guild, and making an easy way for a guilds to change rank within the alliance (even if there is a delay). Ultimately the best solution would be for a Helm that reaches max lvl to be able to move to guantlet, then move your highest sword to helm, and your highest guantlet (not 20) to sword. So you slowly mature all the guilds in your alliance. the current system encourages sword guilds to break off and start new alliances regularly. Which is a headache and will result in a lot of movement going forward as gauntlets move to find sword spots and swords start new alliances.
Comments
Role of Alpha can done here with GH8/MK4+ guild.
Benefit for Alpha:
Alpha guild might use some extra help on DF runs.
Alpha guild can grow itself when alliance players from other guild would move to it.
Benefit for Beta/Gamma:
Provide ability to get DF gear within current guild / alliance.
Model 2
It is straightforward deal between Alpha and others guilds - Access market in exchange of contributions. Domestic donations have to help to pursue Alpha guild goals as well.
Benefit for Alpha:
Extra boost to progression.
Benefit for Beta/Gamma:
Beta/Gamma guilds get early access to market, before they reach their own.
If small, still can run DF with other guilds.
— (The unwritten rule)
Not all higher ranked guilds are actually larger in membership. I.E. my guild has fewer active members than many of the other higher ranked guilds. We all have alts and a certain portion of us essentially farm everything to upgrade the guild. I mean literally a handful of us have ranked this thing up to where we are today.
So, please... all I ask is that before you preach about how smaller guilds are putting in 3 and 4 times the amount of effort, that you don't jump to preconceived conclusions of martyrdom.
"...I grab my wiener and charge!" - ironzerg79
The assumptions made about higher ranked guilds are manyfold. People assume how many members are in higher ranked guilds, they assume that higher ranked guilds feel somehow superior to lower ranked guilds. They assume that higher ranked guilds shouldn't care about getting anything because they already have everything.
The funny thing is that while there may be some who seem to think that being in a higher ranked guild makes them superior. Most I've talked to only wish they had more time to play the content they enjoy rather than doing HE's/Dragons/and SH Quests that make you want to cut yourself.
There are larger member guilds who are higher ranked as well who've been able to more evenly distribute the cost of upgrading, there are smaller member guilds who are higher ranked who have busted their humps to get there. There are smaller member guilds who are lower ranked who've also busted their humps to get there. There are higher member lower guilds who've done almost nothing.
I'm not throwing off on any of them. Ultimately you do what you want to do in the game (after all, it's about what you want to get out of it). Now all that aside, the concern is how do you make an alliance that benefits all? How also do you benefit alliances more that work harder OR have worked harder at recruiting?
I think my style of alliance is one method that rewards each tier (higher to lower ranked as well as higher membership to lower membership) and gives lower ranked guilds the chance to rank up much faster than possible before. It allows everyone to gain what they most want/need from an alliance and everyone can prosper.
No one yet has shown that any of my proposals would somehow more greatly benefit any of the hierarchy and that is because it doesn't favor any level of the hierarchy. The issue EVERYONE who has commented has is one word... TAX.
After reading the word TAX everyone suddenly gets on a superiority vs inferiority kick and ignores the massive benefits to each guild involved. That is why I think people don't even read the full content of the original proposition before they begin tearing it apart because of their perception, not because of the mathematical framework.
We don't feel entitled. No one owes us anything. We're quite proud of our progress and will continue to inch along. In fact, the only guild we've approached about the Alliance thing is not all that bigger or higher leveled than we are. But they are good people who share our values in and out of the game. And despite what happens with that Alliance, we hope to bring in some smaller guilds that we can help out. But what it boils down to is whether or not those guilds share our philosophies and have good people in them.
I guess, in short, we're never bored... there's always something to do... we enjoy running SH He trains together. We enjoy running DF if enough people are on. We enjoy helping out each other in Elemental Evil or Dread Ring.
My (admittedly somewhat reactionary) post was because all I've heard from higher-ranked guilds is how much "effort" they've put into things. But, as my numbers show, it's easy to rank things up when each character needs to only run 3 HEs to load up on Influence, or a single run through any of the campaign areas. Our HE trains will run all afternoon... finish 5 HEs, swap out characters and keep going.
Regardless... Cryptic will make the Alliances the way they've planned them out... the system won't be perfect or fair, but they'll iron out the details at some point.
I'm honestly just excited about having more DF event opportunities for my guild members. While the DF gear won't benefit any of my builds, that's not true for everyone.
Anyhoo.. cheers!
"...I grab my wiener and charge!" - ironzerg79
Yes, I dislike a "tax" in any shape or form for the specific reasons that I mentioned. I agree Helm guilds need to get a substantial bonus because they share their stuff and I never said Gauntlet guilds need to get something for free. In fact they don't. The difference in approaches is that I think the system needs to reward the Helm guild appropriately while your proposal directly leeches from the inferior guilds. It's a tiny difference that can mean the world to some.
Since you're not being constructive any longer I am fine by agreeing to disagree though.
If the op said 'let's reduce structure costs by 95% for low tier guilds but also take 1% of their donations and apply to helm guild', would you be similarly against this idea?
Iyon the Dark
Yes, I dislike a "tax" in any shape or form for the specific reasons that I mentioned. I agree Helm guilds need to get a substantial bonus because they share their stuff and I never said Gauntlet guilds need to get something for free. In fact they don't. The difference in approaches is that I think the system needs to reward the Helm guild appropriately while your proposal directly leeches from the inferior guilds. It's a tiny difference that can mean the world to some.
Since you're not being constructive any longer I am fine by agreeing to disagree though.
Good since you're still using terms like "leeching" which is completely incorrect showing you still aren't doing the math. The one percent you pay in influence doesn't even make a difference. Like your terminology shows how completely biased you are. 20% off all resources towards structures vs. 1% of Influence. Dude.. your argument is literally laughable.
Thanks for your insights
All of those people here complaining of 'taxes'; you live in this world... everything has a tax.. if you can't get around the concept by now.. well.. humanity is most certainly doomed.
These 'Helm' guilds, I think, are being viewed as large groups of players that have paid for their SH or something similar. In reality, you would be surprised. Our guild for example, probably has about 50% of the population donating to the coffers regularly, with a tiny number of people that donate small fortunes at every upgrade. The actual numbers of active donors are probably on par with a lot of smaller guilds. If we have managed to build our SH's to rank 20, to give the branches of an alliance such hugely significant discounts on their future costs, 1% taxes seems completely reasonable!
Of course, smaller guilds could band together, altruistically, to help each other. I can't personally see there being any significant progress in that scenario though. Similar sized guilds will ultimately require the same amount of things and then, it will come down to a choice, of which guild they will advance first; otherwise progress will surely stagnate quickly. Trying to level two similar sized SH's with similar sized/activity levels completely negates the point of an alliance.
So, realistically, smaller guilds that want to develop their SH at a decent rate, need a guild with a higher rank as their Helm. These guilds will have got to a high level with a lot of hard work, time and materials with NO discounts. (NOTE; I didn't say we worked harder than anyone else, just that we did it all with NO discounts.) A small tax donation doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Why would it? Everything has a cost. And this cost is tiny, 1%..2%.. that's nothing. Smaller guilds would actually be the ones leeching... getting such HUGE discounts for doing what exactly?
Let's have an example;
You are a Gauntlet guild, you donate 20,000 influence to your coffer. The Sword guild above you gets 1% of that, so 200 influence. Wow. 200 influence.
When you realize that upgrading to level 20 from level 19, requires 751k influence not to mention you need 12 buildings at rank 9. And a lot of rank 9 buildings cost 165k influence to build..... well.. I'm no maths genius but, the tax you give to the Sword guild really is minuscule. Of course they then pass on a 2% tax to the Helm guild, but that would be really small too. Effectively the Helm guild would be receiving nothing of significance from the small Gauntlet guild. (NO leeching, as it has been said.)
And what are you getting as a gauntlet guild? A 20% reduction on ALL costs. That's 20% off Wood.. 20% off Influence.. 20% off Metal.. 20% off Dark Fey.. 20% off Tyranny of Dragons.
Seriously, you would have to be stupid to not see that this is a GREAT idea.
Ultimately, you wouldn't mind paying 1 or 2% to advance, if that is what you are really interested in. And if you don't want to pay, don't join an alliance. Continue on your merry way.
To be honest, I think smaller guilds have NO IDEA what the costs for ranking up actually entail. And most people posting here should probably look into that before they start crying about taxes. The OP is actually a really good proposal.
Except now there’s a new issue: The bonuses you suggest for the Helm guild have no value for a guild with GH20. Unless there’s something that I’m not aware of, getting a tithe/tax/taste of influence (or any other resource) would be wasted on them.
With that in mind, the helm guild might benefit more with discounts to buying from their own marketplace and/or in-game shops like the wondrous bazaar.
(It would also be neat to have visitors charged a little more at ally stores, with the difference given to the host guild – giving the host guild profit, and a advantage in terms of mastercraft crafting) While I appreciate the blood, sweat and tears you and others put into making high-level guilds, you should probably accept that that effort will be devalued going forward (as if the previous cost reductions hadn't already).
It’s like complaining that I worked my fingers to the bone for boons that are now way faster/cheaper to get. Or that I had to grind for armor that is now inferior to drow/dusk. Or I had to do ToD for my artifact weapon, while now they're given out as part of the storyline.
At least in the alliance system those who did the hard yards guild-building are getting some recognition, and not just seeing their investment immediately superseded by a new/improved version.
Join us brothers and sisters and distant relations and confused onlookers.
Join us in the shadows where we stand mostly vigilant... although slightly distracted by our inventories.
"In war, unqualified. In peace, disorganised. In death, mild irritation."
JOIN US.
As far as other benefits from the market and or exchanging influence for guildmarks or some such, I'm not opposed to the idea but my original proposition, without the influence when max, I think is still significant enough that it would continue to reward the Helm and Sword guilds respectively even after maxing out.
As far as the guild being devalued, that is already the case with alliances anyway and I've accepted that. The point is how devalued it becomes and what we get in the way of compensation from alliances that helps to buffer that devaluation. It would be nice to be granted some small rewards for the amount of time and effort it took to get this far and that's really all I'm asking for. In my proposal the gauntlet guilds get the most bang for their buck, the sword guilds get the second most, and the Helm guilds get the least but they all get what they need the most. The percentages could be played with a bit if necessary but ultimately I think these numbers are a pretty good representation of what would help each level of the hierarchy.
Thanks for your reply.
What I'm saying is that each guild is its own culture, with it's own pros and cons and its own environment to deal with, ours included. The main thing I want for all guilds in all alliances is a symbiotic relationship that does three main things:
1) Help lower ranked guild level up much faster and more effectively, giving them tools to do so and benefits to aid in their endeavors.
2) Gives all guilds in the alliance tangible benefits that help them all accomplish their individual goals together.
3) Give all guilds in the alliance reason to stay in the alliance and form bonds through incentives and cooperation.
This is how I framed my proposition based off these 3 primary objectives that are mutually beneficial and incentive based.
I hope that helps explain things, thanks for your time.
in Model 2 It would depend on what the exchange of contributions entailed. Donations and/or contributions for access to markets could be a viable framework for the alpha guild. However I don't think that the benefits for the bet/gamma guilds is enough. The primary purpose to me is to help smaller guilds in the alliance advance.
Model 2 could work if boons got shared as well and all contributions went to alpha guild similar to what josiahiyon stated. Then you simply upgrade the alpha guild to max and all those under in hierarchy get the benefits of the Alpha guild as though they were actually members.
Cost reductions, well if your SH is maxed, you dont care, if you need one or two more lvl, you dont care (I know the costs, but honestly, I dont mind one or two more weeks of grind).
XP, no comment needed, imo.
Guild mark reduction would be interesting for ppl using masterwork or selling ingredients. Fact is, if everyone can dump his/ her surplus guild marks into explorer charts, the devaluation will be much greater, than any cost reduction.
None of the above is interesting at all for me or for many other players I know.
I would like a bonus, that is in fact a bonus. Someone else proposed, to unlock all boons for all allies, if one guild has them. While this would be counterproductive for all guilds (no incentive for progress), the idea, that all allies can use the boons of the other guilds is great, with some minimizing factors.
The level of the boon available to all allies should be limited by
a) their own SH lvl (a lvl 1 guild cant use any boons and higher ranked guilds boon is limited to the boon level available to themselves, if they would have the boon structure)
b) the max rank of the boons structure achieved in the alliance.
Otherwise a SH 20 guild could put some alts in a new or inactive guild (I could 'donate our 'abandoned' lvl 8 guild) build the missing boon plots and be done. Same goes for smaller guilds. They would get all the boons they wish for without the work, but be totally depending on the big ones without an incentive to rank up on their own.
This limitations would give all guilds a reason, to level up and be an incentive for maxed guilds, to max allied guilds, so they can use the boons they did not chose at max level.
So the discounts would be:
Helm: 6%max
Sword: 15%max
Gauntlet: 20%max
Although I like the idea in general, this would cause being in a Gauntlet the best option. Compared to the little influence upper guilds get it would be much more beneficial to get a 20% off on Influence.
Or maybe I missed something?
The challenge is that if you cannot donate from your guilds coffer to another guilds coffer it becomes very difficult for a Guild Leader to manage this and capitalize on it. The other challenge is the long build times for Guild Halls (which should be removed btw, no reason to gate stronghold progress at this point). Which means you could try to help a lower lvl guild by rushing them to the next level but you would have to forecast your construction enough to take advantage of it.
The best scenario would be removing the GH construction time, allowing guild leaders to transfer resources from their coffer to another guild, and making an easy way for a guilds to change rank within the alliance (even if there is a delay). Ultimately the best solution would be for a Helm that reaches max lvl to be able to move to guantlet, then move your highest sword to helm, and your highest guantlet (not 20) to sword. So you slowly mature all the guilds in your alliance. the current system encourages sword guilds to break off and start new alliances regularly. Which is a headache and will result in a lot of movement going forward as gauntlets move to find sword spots and swords start new alliances.
The best scenario is the best! But it can be achieved also by dummie guilds