Quote Originally Posted by Mr Spock View Post
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.

By the way my guild scored 350 something and I believe we spent total about $30..since you were asking.
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.

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.