I think yhat guild should be able to charge dues, due every month of whatever amount the master sets, which goes towards the guild bank. This would further group like-minded members.
Printable View
I think yhat guild should be able to charge dues, due every month of whatever amount the master sets, which goes towards the guild bank. This would further group like-minded members.
They have this, they call them donations though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpisme
A number feel like you. A number also think this is a stupid idea. People continue to want access to the best stuff, but don't want to actually spend the money that others are willing to to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Spock
Trust me, its not about the spending less for the war part. I don't think you'll argue with ANYONE saying they WANT to spend MORE.
But to totally give away guild wars to anyone... because at such a low price, you're giving it away for free. Everyone could easily do enough free offers in the few weeks between wars and bam, never have to spend a dime, ever. That goes for EVERYONE IN THE GAME. I know to some, that is the best idea ever, but from a business standpoint, YOU JUST GAVE AWAY THEIR BIGGEST MONEY MAKER FOR FREE. Re-read that last sentence. I even made it bold for you. Does that make sense to you from a business standpoint? That is great for the general public yes. I don't dispute that. But wait until you get into war. Low level guilds will stilll be squashed by guilds that you'll never be able to compete against, low level guilds with high level players. So, what are you going to gain points? Constantly attack the wall for 50 points each time? That seems like fun, and a huge "strategy" boost from where we are now.
Also, if I see guilds winning because they attacked a wall and couldn't beat another player on the opposing team, I pity you, and hope you feel like less of a guild. You don't deserve a win if that is how you have to win. Am I the only one who feels this way?
Also, 20k gems spent for wars? That is an extremely low calculation. I think you could double or triple it, and still only be covering one or two of the top guilds. Just fyi.
On 1 platform :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by busteroaf
Not reading all this to see if it was mentioned, but maybe a trade system? Now an all out 'trade whatever' system would be bad, but maybe you can only trade armors 3 star (fusions included) and down. Maybe make trading only possible withen a guild. I think this would be sweet, it would also allow GM's to offer incentive for doing well in wars. Ex: i will give the commander MVP 3 fusions and 2 50 ep armors at wars end. This would also allow stronger members to help out the weaker ones, but not so much as to just give them powerful armors (which would make the game lame). I dunno, just a thought
Not true. I dont get more than 1-2 gem offers a month. When im lucky i get about 5-6 but thats very unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by busteroaf
Not every country gets alot of offers. Im far from the only one who barely get any.
*Corrections with red, wrong calculations posted originallyQuote:
Originally Posted by bloodwolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by busteroaf
I was somewhat wrong with my original calculation, but the result is still the same, only 20 gems pro player are required to get 200.000 gems from like 400 guilds, 500 gems pro guild.
I think that is fine.
To be successful in the war currently you need:
DEDICATED TIME + MONEY FOR GEMS + GOOD ARMORS
I would like that MONEY factor is taken away. To win then you need: TIME + GOOD ARMORS.
In every game/sport you need time to invest to be successful. If you dont invest time in something then how could you win? But this is currently also like that in KND.
- And what could be the criteria for the winners otherwise?
- You could have also max 1 attack pro enemy guild member with 20 attacks/ war. Like in the arena .. Is this somewhat limiting the "free time" issue you addressing?
Anyone have a screen shot of the points around #400 of the last war? I'm curious to see where they fall in the p2w/f2p spectrum. Also, at 20 gems per player, 500 per guild, that is putting an average of 25 players per guild. 25 players * 400 guilds = 10,000 players. Okay, sorta doable. But I also don't see those 10k people all wanting to participate. Likely, I envision more guilds having less people participate, or not enough gems to buy in, but that is just my negative thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodwolf
And as far as people investing time, most of the top guilds have already done that, much more than most. And their time + good armors will trump 99% of everyone else's time + good armors. Once you factor in that people can still spend on chests and get epics, those that aren't spending, are going to get beat by those that are willing to spend.
Spin it however you want, anyone trying to even the playing field by making one giant buy in tournament is still going to get blasted by those who have already invested more time (and money) than you, regardless. If this was how it was from the start, you might have had a chance, but not now. That is why this won't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by busteroaf
1. I see also some risks from Gree's perspective .. but as you can get 20 gems even from doing offers/quests .. I do not think this is an issue.
2. Right. If you have better armors and you invest more time .. then you should win! This is the essence of the game. And if you invest also money on buying chests .. you will be better for sure. BUT. We have lot of guilds with lot of strong players (3 maxed epics even ) which have NO chance to get in the top 10 if most/any of the members are not spending several hundred dollars/euros on gems.
Whit such change .. the war would be more fair, and really the strongest guilds (and not the richest) would be in the top. Some currently top 10 guild will be there, for sure, but then 10- 200 guilds have a chance to get in the top 10!
I invested 0 cents in this game, I have 2 epics. It can be done.
For me it is not the same if you have to spend 2 EUR or 200 EUR to be able to compete for top 10, to have just a chance! What about you?
3. I would fall off my chair if Gree would implement this. :) I also think it should be like this from beginning and changing now is a deep cut. But this does not change my opinion that not the money amount you invest should decide a war. (in a game, at least)
BloodWolf,
High commander
Dark Souls (top 25 )
Yep, but end result was still correct :pQuote:
Originally Posted by iH8t2lose2
Bloodstone has the right general concept of getting away from the auction concept. The auction concept will not keep a player base over the long run. The details in this case would not work. I think it needs the tier approach as des cussed before.Quote:
Originally Posted by busteroaf
By the way my guild scored 350 something and I believe we spent total about $30..since you were asking.
It's been said 1million times before but here goes,
I took me spending £5-600 before I accepted the simple fact.. Money spent is the ONLY reason this game exists. Those spending the most SHOULD & WILL continue to dominate.
Sucks for poor people. Heh?! NSS! - It sucks to be poor!
And for those with the.. Eugh i've got the money i just choose not to spend it on a game.. Fine but you also CHOOSE not to compete at a descent level.
Stop playing.. Or stop moaning about it start spending to compete.
The only reasonable idea i've read (in the last few pages) was about tiered wars. Although it'd suck if anyone outside top tiers were unable to get Epic rewards so not sure there's a way around that that couldn't be fudged by those willing to take the time.
So $30 total for your whole guild. How many are in that guild? How many fights did you have? How many attacks did you have on average? I'm trying to get a ballpark of where those guilds are in comparison to the larger guilds. Members/$ spent/gems spent/battles etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Spock
I still don't think the tiered approach works at all, because it is too easy to play the system if there is a clear buy-in price, and set tiers for prize levels. And as far as being an auction, if you make the tiered system with higher buy ins, you've still done the same general thing: The guilds with the most money get the best rewards because they've bought the best tier, while the guilds with less/no spending still get nothing (because I guarantee Gree would make the rewards for the "free" and "low" tiers virtually worthless).
The only "tier" idea I see working with any success is the flat "win" tier. Still rewards all guilds equally based on war performance and actual wins. The higher level or higher winning guilds would still get benefits, but so too could many lower level guilds, and it doesn't require an immediate buy in, since many low level guilds can win battles 1000-900 just as easily as other high level guilds win 300k to 250k. A win is a win is a win, and in this case, you aren't competing against other guilds. No guild can knock you out of a ranking. Once you get a win, it is counted. You're simply trying to win as much as possible, regardless of the score.
The blackfrost was a "big deal" armor for my guild. It would seem like nothing to you of course. What would really be cool is fighting a group of equals for 1st place in our tier.Quote:
Originally Posted by busteroaf
You need the highest level tiers to be set up the same like a table stakes poker game where everyone has a buyin. Right now I could get dealt a royal flush and still lose because the other guy just keeps raising the stakes till I am out of money. That is why the current model us not sustainable.
As a RR person I get your reticence since you always will buy the pot and will always win...If you had to battle on equal terms money wise there is a larger chance you would lose... However it is in Gree's best interest to change to a tablestakes game.
I also think your tiered win approach will work and will make the gamers happy for the medium term. It would seem fairly easy to implement and would be a win win for everyone...