Guild Wars 2

DevilLordLaser.8619:

There’s nothing wrong with PvP or Wuv-centric guild missions, but the general notion seems to be that three-beer-buddies guilds like the Three Wuvmigos should be able to get the same access to the game’s new guild functions without having to do guild missions at all, of any sort. That while other folks are trekking across the Maguuma to stake their claim against the enemy’s armies and then pitting themselves against the new missions system to earn their upgrades, the penny-packet Wuv or PvP guilds shouldn’t even have to change their behavior or go out of their way to earn the same rewards the rest of us are busting our humps over.

Who wants that?

Why would it have to be like that, anyway? Why can’t there be some sort of path of progress that anyone can follow, but is easier or takes less time if you have more members?

Why does GW2 have to be a zero-sum game?

When did we get the idea that ArenaNet is no longer able to come up with fun and exciting ways to appeal to all players?

And what the hell is going on in this thread?

None of this makes a lick of sense.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Incorrect. If it scales large guilds lose content designed for large groups instead of single groups or no groups at all. You have the entire rest of the whole game to be solo. Guilds in a game called Guild Wars have very little content intended for Guilds, meaning larger groups of players.

You have a point, but it doesn’t invalidate my point. The problem is not the size, it’s the scaling.

You apparently believe it is impossible to scale it properly, despite my giving several examples of where world bosses scale perfectly. I believe that it is possible to define content that scales properly, at least most of the time.

The more design time taken, the better the content will be at scaling. Failure to spend that time is not an acceptable reason, IMO, to exclude a large portion of the player base.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

this is my reason…
I cant expect the benefits that a large corporation recieves without BEING a large corporation. thus I cannot expect the benefits of a 6 member family if my family only includes 3 members… How can you feel justified to recieve a reward that took 20 people to get by doing it by yourself?!?!? A family of 8 on welfare receives xxxx amount of money a month due to dire circumstances… should every person in the U.S. get xxxx amount of money too just to make it fair and equal? please say yes… i dare you…

You get MORE benefits, by a long shot, than a corporation gets. They are different, but the comparison isn’t even in the same ballpark. For example, no corporation gets a deduction for dependents. Your family gets one for every person in it (within limits). The corporation gets to deduct the money they spend on each employee, but so do you (again, within limits).

From top-to-bottom corporations are at a huge disadvantage in the tax code. There’s only one worthwhile reason to create a corporation: to shield the owners from some legal actions.

But, back to your argument:

I’m not asking to feel justified to get what you had 20 people do to gain. I’m asking that the content work the same for 21 people. Or 19. Or 25. Or 15. Or 30. Or 10. Or 35. Or 5. Or 40. Or 45. Or 50. Or more.

That’s very different. There’s no reason to exclude any specific count of people from playing. Well, down to about 5, but that’s just my opinion.

It should play exactly the same with any number of people (again, within technical limits)

Let me rephrase in reverse:

Let’s say I wanted them to create Guild Halls (or whatever) via processes designed for exactly 5 people. 6 or more people simply aren’t allowed. I’m OK with scaling down to 1, but not up.

What are your thoughts? I’m betting you don’t like that idea much. (Neither do I, but for different reasons!)

But it is exactly what you are trying to do, in reverse!

How about this reductio ad absurdum argument: Let’s make that arbitrary number not 15, but 1500. If you don’t have 1500 people playing, you aren’t allowed to create a guild hall.

Would you accept that? Because that is what you are asking me to accept, except with a different number.

Ideally, the number of people should not in any way play into the content.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

I’ve articulated plenty of reason, Daddicus. You just don’t like it.

The content must be balanced around a given number of players, which the scaling system treats as its target number.

The scaling system is dodgy and unreliable, and tends to work very erratically for situations not involving gigantic megazergs a’la world bosses. It cannot be counted on to present a properly uniform level of challenge for all player counts.

Please respond to the specific examples I gave that falsify this set of statements about scaling. Scaling is not PERFECT, but it works darned well in most instances. And I believe it CAN be made to work at all levels, IF they choose to spend the effort.

Most of what you have written has been your opinion. However, your argument that scaling doesn’t work is a reason. Unfortunately for your argument, I’ve already provided examples that say your scaling argument is wrong. Have you ever done VW with less than 20 people on the map? I have, and it played out almost exactly like it would normally. Even the 7 minute timer played out exactly as we expected. (Except mids apparently had several newbies, so we had to take a 4th crack at the champions to win.)

But, your argument that scaling doesn’t work IS a valid concern. But, your argument is against scaling, not against the size. What we’re saying is that it CAN be done correctly.

I would like to see, if it requires a 3 hour marathon for 100 people, that it also require a 3 hour marathon for 5 people. If it’s a collection of 10 1 hour stints and 1 very large 4 hour marathon, again, that works for me. I wouldn’t even mind having to grind for it. (But, that goes against their code, I think.)

I want to think of it in terms of the battle and energy spent against the objective PER PERSON, not in total. Having a minimum size doesn’t change that goal. It merely allows them to be sloppy with their scaling code.

DevilLordLaser, here’s a reason you haven’t stated, but would be valid:

What if the content wanted coordination between smaller teams?

In GW1 PvP stuff, you had to have at least a semblance of cooperation on your team. In FA, you had to roughly split your forces in half at the outset, or you might have serious problems. In JQ, mobs worked well, but then the other side could counter by going where you were not covering properly.

Any kind of tactical or strategic design here would be a valid argument for a minimum size. It’s not quite the same as having 3 places you all have to drop the wist at the same time, but things like that would be valid.

Or, perhaps if you had to split off part of your team after some milestone in order to beat the clock, that would require some teamwork and a certain minimum size.

That’s part of why I’m willing to go with 5 people; it allows for 1-3 teams that have different, but related, objectives. If you used this argument, I could see it taking the number from 5 to something larger. But, I would caution them that there would need to be a real tactical or strategic advantage before requiring it.

Otherwise, just do the scaling correctly.

Here’s another reason:

Some people will use the system to get a guild hall in very little time. (Some @#$%^ finished the new LA jumping puzzle in less than an hour. Grrrrrr!)

If they later discover that they had failed to do the scaling correctly, and then later have to bump up the strength, that would be a good argument. The early adopters would have essentially exploited their way to a cheap guild hall.

(It doesn’t work the other way, because if they needed to reduce the strength to make it viable, nobody will have attained a cheap guild hall, simply because nobody would have achieved ANY guild halls, or too few had succeeded.)

thomdane.3670:

Rivindor.7258:

If your guild is not strong enough in numbers to maintain their territory, then it makes sense for them to be wanderers. You can join a populated guild if you want a guild hall.

Maintain? Once you clear it, you’re done, it’s yours (watch the livestreams and other interviews). It’s not about taking it or keeping it for us. It’s about building it up with Favor, which at the moment is only granted through Guild Missions. My small Guild of 7-9 people can roll WvW Keeps, Fractals, Dungeons, PvP, etc. because we have around 4-5 on during our peak times, and we happen to be good, solid, long-time gamers. But Guild Missions, in their current form, are difficult for us to do with our numbers (Our Guild is nearly fully upgraded despite this fact, and not through Gold). To be frankly honest, we wouldn’t want to deal with the crap that comes from being in a large Guild with their various personality conflicts; we like our group of friends just fine. But, as I’ve stated elsewhere, Destiny’s Edge (Anet’s “Meta” example for a Guild) was, by recent lore, the greatest Guild in Tyria, and they were 5-6 at their peak. The new focus of Living Story is Tyrian Guilds replacing the Pact to protect the world. So my Guild and I can go fight Mordremoth and his minions for hours on end, we can fight and die in WvW for our Server (Go ET!), and we can climb the leaderboards of PvP with our Guild PvP Team, but because we can’t clear some random PvE Guild Mission that has nothing to do with any major content in the game we can’t upgrade a Guild Hall? Ok lol. Smaller Guilds should be afforded ways to earn Favor as well, and I am not saying that they can’t, because we just don’t know all the details yet.

TL;DR Which is why, due to the various posts on this matter, it would be nice for some clarification of what Anet meant by “Small Guilds”, potential scaling and minimum numbers required for capturing Guild Halls, more details on Favor and exactly how it is earned (as well as any alternate methods to Guild Missions) and how much it will take, or if they will be reworking Guild Missions to be more inclusive to small Guilds.

This, so much. You said it perfectly and I agree completely.

Daddicus.6128:

Kal Spiro.9745:

The main problem here is that you’re in the wrong argument. Every time you say, “a five man guild should be able to complete the content,” it gets read as, “the content should be adjusted and balanced for a five man guild.”

The problem with this argument is that it’s not a decision between those two statements. You have violated the principle of the excluded middle.

We’re asking for it to be built to be played by 5-500 people, and have the scaling working correctly. That fits into neither of your two statements.

We know they can do it correctly if they want to, because they’ve done it perfectly where they felt they had a need (Vinewraith, Teq, Jormag, Great Jungle Wurm, etc.) They’ve also screwed it up royally in many events, but I think they can do it correctly if they want to spend the effort.

This is an irrelevant argument to the comment you quoted. I’m not giving any sides. I’m explaining the perception of the argument being presented and the reason people are railing against that specific argument. Whether or not there is a happy middle between ideologies does not enter into that aspect of the discussion.

Daddicus.6128:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Your average five man guild will not be able to run this alone. And that SHOULD be acceptable.

Why? One logical reason will be acceptable. So far, nobody on your side of the argument has articulated any kind of reason for your statement.

Our side, however, has articulated a very good reason: we paid for this game, and are therefore entitled to play it.

That’s your flaw. You’re not entitled to anything. You have the game, and you can play the game, but that does not entitle you to be able to access every single aspect of the game whenever and however you please. It only allows you to play it within the bounds that the developers set for it. If, as is very clearly the case, the developers set this bound beyond the capacity of a small group then you are not entitled to play it with less. You’re free to try, and you’re free to fail or succeed on your own merits, but you’re not entitled to it just for paying money to gain access to it.

Kal Spiro.9745:

That’s your flaw. You’re not entitled to anything. You have the game, and you can play the game, but that does not entitle you to be able to access every single aspect of the game whenever and however you please.

See also:

- Actually meeting Dulfy in Lion’s Arch

- Earning “Yakslapper”.

- Beating Liadri (clean)

- Getting Eternity

- Killing the Ancient Karka

- Having participated in “Shadow of the Mad King” and fought him directly under Lion’s Arch.

- Owning Mad Memories, the complete edition.

- An asura-free world.

- Walking naked through the ruins of Old Ascalon with a sandwich board reading “Burntfur didn’t go far enough”.

- Having “God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals”

Daddicus.6128:

DevilLordLaser.8619:

[GTFC] puts together a team of ~15 on a designated “get your butts online” day and fights hard for three hours to vanquish the map and claim our stake. Everybody who was there feels awesome, as well as exhausted, at having earned our ground.

Lanfear logs on, solos the event in twenty minutes because of massive, drastic downscaling, and claims the same stake, earning the same ground for his twobie guild

Tell me – why, exactly, did we waste our three hours again, when it would have been enormously quicker and easier to just send one designated dude to go and get the unlocking out of the way?…

Your logic is fatally flawed. You are changing both the numbers requirement and the time requirement. He’s not asking for that. I don’t think any small guilds will complain about having to spend the same 3 hours, if that’s what is required.

What we ARE complaining about is that we simply will be precluded from doing it AT ALL, for the simple reason that we aren’t big enough. If implemented, that would be completely arbitrary.

Everything in this game except dungeons scales. Why shouldn’t guilds scale like everything else?

Maybe the question many people ask themselves is what size makes a guild. Is one person a guild? I would say no. Personally I would say you need a minimum of 15 people to be considered a guild but at the very, very least 5. Of course this is an oppinion and I agree to disagree with people about this.

Another thing is that a bigger guild should have something to show for it or / and a bigger guild should not be bored soon because everything is designed for smaller guilds.

Take the scaling, to some extent that is fine, but do / use it to much and it is extremely unfair. I remember from the CDI about this subject that some people asked why a bigger guild should have the ‘right’ to have more. Well it’s not about the right, it’s about manpower.. or lets look at it form the other side. Why does one guild (a bigger guild) have to put in way more man-power and man-hour to get the same?

I am all for giving all guilds (and then again the question, when do you talk about a guild) equal opurtunities so that getting a guild-hall is also availible for smaller guilds is fine, just as that they should also be able to get at least all the basic functionality. But there is no shame in the fact that a bigger guild has more to show for it, they also put more man-power and more man-hour into it.

FrizzFreston.5290:

While I definitely agree on cross gamemode missions. Im not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game. At least regarding the bigger goals for a guild anyway.

snip

I’m still new to the game, and have not read all of the thread so am unsure of whether or not this point has been addressed.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your point of “I’m not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game.” Health of the game = income to Anet. Nothing else.

Currently small guilds, such as the one I have, are able to exchange gold for influence, thus making it easier to purchase guild upgrades. Given we are a guild of two and will never increase it beyond that number, so how do we gain the majority of our influence? I buy gems and exchange it for gold, and then in turn, exchange it for influence.

How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?

ColinJohanson.2394:

Lord.4270:

Hi,

We are a guild of 3 guys . We love WWW.
With Guild halls , we will have to do guild missions.

So why we have to do puzzle jump and things like this , when in this game we just love killing people on the battlefield !

Why can t we play as we want .. ??

HoT will include a solution for this for both guilds that are WvW, and PvP oriented that want to build and expand their Guild Halls and need the favor generated by guild missions. Same goes for guilds that have a mix of players interested in all three. More info down the road a bit on how this will work once we’ve got it a little more solid on our end.

Edited to add: Everyone will have to do the actual mission to capture the guild hall once per hall though no matter what. If your group online is too small, you’ll need to invite friends (or pay/beg/sing-songs-to-woo peeps in Lion’s Arch!) to come with you and help you claim the guild hall to own one. Or you could always grow your guild

That is refreshing to read

WTB: temporary friends to secure a guild hall :P Offering turnips for a festive fray

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Frankly?

snip

Here’s the thing – this is Guild Wars.

snip

No this is Guild Wars 2. In Guild Wars I had an amazing guild hall. Yes I was running a decent sized guild at the time, but I didn’t get it through help from anyone but myself. I bought it, just like I expected to be able to do so here.

Just because yourself or others enjoy playing in medium to large sized guilds shouldn’t meant that those who do not or no longer enjoy such social activities should be excluded from enjoying guild halls.

Tarnicus.2865:

FrizzFreston.5290:

While I definitely agree on cross gamemode missions. Im not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game. At least regarding the bigger goals for a guild anyway.

snip

I’m still new to the game, and have not read all of the thread so am unsure of whether or not this point has been addressed.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your point of “I’m not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game.” Health of the game = income to Anet. Nothing else.

Currently small guilds, such as the one I have, are able to exchange gold for influence, thus making it easier to purchase guild upgrades. Given we are a guild of two and will never increase it beyond that number, so how do we gain the majority of our influence? I buy gems and exchange it for gold, and then in turn, exchange it for influence.

How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?

“Given we are a guild of two” Does that mean you are a guild?

“How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?"
It trivialized the content for bigger guilds and does not reward them for managing to come with more people putting in more man-power and more man-hour. That makes is less fun for bigger guilds. When a considered less fun the player-base will shrink and that results in less money.

In fact, if a game is built around the principal you describe here (buy your rewards) then you will get a very boring game. I recently learned that the monetize person at Anet has the title ‘Lead designer’ what really worries me as that would possibly result is a game designed more in that way, but it does hurt the game.

Tarnicus.2865:

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Frankly?

snip

Here’s the thing – this is Guild Wars.

snip

No this is Guild Wars 2. In Guild Wars I had an amazing guild hall. Yes I was running a decent sized guild at the time, but I didn’t get it through help from anyone but myself. I bought it, just like I expected to be able to do so here.

Just because yourself or others enjoy playing in medium to large sized guilds shouldn’t meant that those who do not or no longer enjoy such social activities should be excluded from enjoying guild halls.

I don’t think anybody says anybody should be excluded for anything, it’s only about how you design it. Do you design it with a minimal size guild in mind and allowing for difference between guilds where a bigger guild is indeed able to get more or bigger? Or do you design with no minimum size in mind and scale everything so that it is all pretty much the same for everybody and everybody can get anything when putting in the same personal effort. But guilds are not only supposed to be about personal effort but also about the effort as a group.

That is the big difference between how you should scale guild-stuff vs open world stuff.

everyone here is talking about how small guilds are not worth the efforts and blabla!
You know what? I BOUGHT GUILDWARS! I want my OWN guild. Like everyone else should be able to have their own. I have my own guild and some friends who are even less on then I am (I am on each day they are more once a month due to real life and such) and yet I want a guild hall. But I do not feel like “growing” my guild with random people I never met before, I find it insanely hard to find people on GW2 with the same mind set as I have and play the game in similair ways. It would mean recruiting that would take away my own game time as a “guild leader” having to organize all aspects of the game (including the parts I do not like, erhm yes I dislike pvp aspects).
I cant trust some random person to be allowed into the guild vaults/bank/cove. I would need to fix that all the time when people ask can i have have have have have.

So yes, even small guilds should be able to get a guild hall. 5 people should be enough. party size. that is what we have the LFG tool for. That is how I hope it will turn out!

If duos can’t capture or upgrade Guild Halls, then that will be disappointing. It also makes a key feature of HoT redundant to me, and it’s not like the package reeks of value for money, as is.

Devata.6589:

Tarnicus.2865:

FrizzFreston.5290:

While I definitely agree on cross gamemode missions. Im not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game. At least regarding the bigger goals for a guild anyway.

snip

I’m still new to the game, and have not read all of the thread so am unsure of whether or not this point has been addressed.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your point of “I’m not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game.” Health of the game = income to Anet. Nothing else.

Currently small guilds, such as the one I have, are able to exchange gold for influence, thus making it easier to purchase guild upgrades. Given we are a guild of two and will never increase it beyond that number, so how do we gain the majority of our influence? I buy gems and exchange it for gold, and then in turn, exchange it for influence.

How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?

“Given we are a guild of two” Does that mean you are a guild?

“How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?"
It trivialized the content for bigger guilds and does not reward them for managing to come with more people putting in more man-power and more man-hour. That makes is less fun for bigger guilds. When a considered less fun the player-base will shrink and that results in less money.

In fact, if a game is built around the principal you describe here (buy your rewards) then you will get a very boring game. I recently learned that the monetize person at Anet has the title ‘Lead designer’ what really worries me as that would possibly result is a game designed more in that way, but it does hurt the game.

According to the game, yes we are a guild. If we weren’t a guild, the game would not denote us as one. If I am able to purchase/earn a guild hall, it does not detract from you being able to do. Your guild will have just as much playing with your new toy as we will, if not more given that you have more people to enjoy it with.

The suggestions in this thread about scalability allow for all to enjoy the guild hall feature and play the game as they wish to. There are so many real life reasons that many cannot or will not enjoy large guilds. To limit guild halls to large guilds will ultimately hurt Anet’s income as they are limiting their market.

I find big guilds less fun, as do many others. I’ve run them, been a member in them, and have gotten to the stage in life where I won’t be in one, regardless of the in-game incentives. Take a look at many MMORPGs (I’ve been playing them for 15 years now) and you will note that enforced large grouping is not popular. It might be enjoyable for some, but making it optional (which GW2 currently does quite well) is the way to make everyone happy.

This debate ran rampant in WoW when I used to play; how does it require more skill to do a 40 person raid when people press one or two buttons constantly rather than for a team of 2-10(insert any number) to press multiple buttons constantly, and why should they be rewarded moreso for doing so? I have no idea of the current state of WoW but when I left years ago, they had implemented systems for everyone to eventually achieve high level gear through multiple means, be it PvP, PvE, crafting, etc.

When I played Rift, I was able to own multiple housing instances, including the most expensive ones, and had one of the largest guild halls. Doing so did not detract from anyone’s enjoyment but increased my own. If housing and guild halls were not instanced, then I would have a different point of view, as I did when I played Ultima Online. With instancing, the number of instances is unlimited.

Devata.6589:

I don’t think anybody says anybody should be excluded for anything, it’s only about how you design it. Do you design it with a minimal size guild in mind and allowing for difference between guilds where a bigger guild is indeed able to get more or bigger? Or do you design with no minimum size in mind and scale everything so that it is all pretty much the same for everybody and everybody can get anything when putting in the same personal effort. But guilds are not only supposed to be about personal effort but also about the effort as a group.

That is the big difference between how you should scale guild-stuff vs open world stuff.

Let’s pretend a guild hall = 1000 units of effort. I’d like to see a system where 1 person can contribute that 1000 units of effort, even if that takes a year. If 10 people are contributing, then that makes it 100 units of effort per person. If you have a guild of 1000, then 1 unit of effort each and voila the guild hall is complete! Making multiple paths to contribute to that effort would be the ideal scenario.

mcwurth.2081:

You know what? I BOUGHT GUILDWARS! I want my OWN guild. Like everyone else should be able to have their own. I have my own guild and some friends who are even less on then I am (I am on each day they are more once a month due to real life and such) and yet I want a guild hall. But I do not feel like “growing” my guild with random people I never met before

You … you … you must be my long-lost, unknown twin brother!

I am in a similar position. My guildies and I were together in GW1. We were together in a game before that. We have more than a decade’s-worth of shared history. But we are rarely on at the same time, and trying to get more than two of us together at one time would be a challenge for a cat herder. Yet we would like a guild hall and see no reason why GW2 should make this any more difficult than it was for us in GW1.

Fortunately for us, we still have friends from that original game who are in other small guilds, all of which were allied in GW1. It should be possible for us to help each other out in obtaining GW2 guild halls, and I wouldn’t feel any shame in that arrangement. If it weren’t for that, I’d be feeling a lot more panicky right now.

I’m going to throw an example at you…

In Warhammer Online, guilds could gain access to all kinds of goodies by just playing the game. Mind, not doing special missions, just playing the game. Pretty much how influence started out before GW2 decided to go and make it something you could buy for gold.

Warhammer added something though. How fast ‘influence’ accrued depended on how many members a guild had. The smallest of guilds would be a bit slower than the largest, but they would STILL get the good stuff, eventually.

And honestly, I don’t remember these arguments over there… maybe because it was a faction based PVP game, and everyone having certain guild facilities (like faster travel) made it easier for the entire faction.

I’m getting REALLY tired of this attitude where people want to deny other people content because they feel cheated if anyone else but them gets access to it….

You guys are looking at it so black and white. They can design it for 20 players and then have it scale up AND down. Or they can design it for 3 players and scale it up only. Or they can design it for 200 and scale it down only. These would all result in different experiences for the different group sizes. Theres plenty of options to choose from….

All anet needs to do is pick the ideal sized group they want to design it for. And choose how they are going to scale it. They can make scaling down weaker so it makes it harder for smaller groups but not impossible. Thus incentivising the standard size group. Even if you make the scaling up very harsh it would still probably easy. Zergs trivialise content no matter how punishing it is. But thats another topic entirely.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Lanfear says she wants the thing to be bone-breakingly hard for solos and she’ll be fine with that, so long as it’s actually possible, i.e. no bodycount gating.

Now you’re getting what I’m saying. I just want the option.

It should very much beat my kitten and spit me out if I’m not up to snuff. Hell it should completely boot me out and say ‘start over hunny.’

It shouldn’t matter if you take 1 person or 100 people. Its not easier with less, its not easier with more. It should be the same difficulty.
Now that said, depending on how many you take, it should absolutely require different tactical approaches. (But that’s just logic, at least it is to me)

mcwurth.2081:

everyone here is talking about how small guilds are not worth the efforts and blabla!
You know what? I BOUGHT GUILDWARS! I want my OWN guild. Like everyone else should be able to have their own. I have my own guild and some friends who are even less on then I am (I am on each day they are more once a month due to real life and such) and yet I want a guild hall. But I do not feel like “growing” my guild with random people I never met before, I find it insanely hard to find people on GW2 with the same mind set as I have and play the game in similair ways. It would mean recruiting that would take away my own game time as a “guild leader” having to organize all aspects of the game (including the parts I do not like, erhm yes I dislike pvp aspects).
I cant trust some random person to be allowed into the guild vaults/bank/cove. I would need to fix that all the time when people ask can i have have have have have.

So yes, even small guilds should be able to get a guild hall. 5 people should be enough. party size. that is what we have the LFG tool for. That is how I hope it will turn out!

Having a small guild also has it’s advantages.. like having more bank space per members and you do have any of the following problems.

" It would mean recruiting that would take away my own game time as a “guild leader” having to organize all aspects of the game (including the parts I do not like, erhm yes I dislike pvp aspects).
I cant trust some random person to be allowed into the guild vaults/bank/cove. I would need to fix that all the time when people ask can i have have have have have."

It’s not about you not having access to anything, it’s about rewarding based on the effort.

Raire.7983:

If duos can’t capture or upgrade Guild Halls, then that will be disappointing. It also makes a key feature of HoT redundant to me, and it’s not like the package reeks of value for money, as is.

Why, just ask some friends / a guild to help you with it. Our guild would be willing to help.

Tarnicus.2865:

Devata.6589:

Tarnicus.2865:

FrizzFreston.5290:

While I definitely agree on cross gamemode missions. Im not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game. At least regarding the bigger goals for a guild anyway.

snip

I’m still new to the game, and have not read all of the thread so am unsure of whether or not this point has been addressed.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your point of “I’m not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game.” Health of the game = income to Anet. Nothing else.

Currently small guilds, such as the one I have, are able to exchange gold for influence, thus making it easier to purchase guild upgrades. Given we are a guild of two and will never increase it beyond that number, so how do we gain the majority of our influence? I buy gems and exchange it for gold, and then in turn, exchange it for influence.

How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?

“Given we are a guild of two” Does that mean you are a guild?

“How is that not “healthy for the game” when it directly puts money in Anet’s pocket?"
It trivialized the content for bigger guilds and does not reward them for managing to come with more people putting in more man-power and more man-hour. That makes is less fun for bigger guilds. When a considered less fun the player-base will shrink and that results in less money.

In fact, if a game is built around the principal you describe here (buy your rewards) then you will get a very boring game. I recently learned that the monetize person at Anet has the title ‘Lead designer’ what really worries me as that would possibly result is a game designed more in that way, but it does hurt the game.

According to the game, yes we are a guild. If we weren’t a guild, the game would not denote us as one. If I am able to purchase/earn a guild hall, it does not detract from you being able to do. Your guild will have just as much playing with your new toy as we will, if not more given that you have more people to enjoy it with.

The suggestions in this thread about scalability allow for all to enjoy the guild hall feature and play the game as they wish to. There are so many real life reasons that many cannot or will not enjoy large guilds. To limit guild halls to large guilds will ultimately hurt Anet’s income as they are limiting their market.

I find big guilds less fun, as do many others. I’ve run them, been a member in them, and have gotten to the stage in life where I won’t be in one, regardless of the in-game incentives. Take a look at many MMORPGs (I’ve been playing them for 15 years now) and you will note that enforced large grouping is not popular. It might be enjoyable for some, but making it optional (which GW2 currently does quite well) is the way to make everyone happy.

This debate ran rampant in WoW when I used to play; how does it require more skill to do a 40 person raid when people press one or two buttons constantly rather than for a team of 2-10(insert any number) to press multiple buttons constantly, and why should they be rewarded moreso for doing so? I have no idea of the current state of WoW but when I left years ago, they had implemented systems for everyone to eventually achieve high level gear through multiple means, be it PvP, PvE, crafting, etc.

When I played Rift, I was able to own multiple housing instances, including the most expensive ones, and had one of the largest guild halls. Doing so did not detract from anyone’s enjoyment but increased my own. If housing and guild halls were not instanced, then I would have a different point of view, as I did when I played Ultima Online. With instancing, the number of instances is unlimited.

Again, it’s not about not allowing small guilds to exist or not giving them a guild-hall. I think also small guilds should be allowed to have that (while I might disagree that a 2 person guild, is a guild). All I am saying that there is no shame, in fact it’s also good to have differences between large and small guilds. A build guild can have more and bigger things, they also have more people putting work into tit so it’s just fair they also get more.

Tarnicus.2865:

Devata.6589:

I don’t think anybody says anybody should be excluded for anything, it’s only about how you design it. Do you design it with a minimal size guild in mind and allowing for difference between guilds where a bigger guild is indeed able to get more or bigger? Or do you design with no minimum size in mind and scale everything so that it is all pretty much the same for everybody and everybody can get anything when putting in the same personal effort. But guilds are not only supposed to be about personal effort but also about the effort as a group.

That is the big difference between how you should scale guild-stuff vs open world stuff.

Let’s pretend a guild hall = 1000 units of effort. I’d like to see a system where 1 person can contribute that 1000 units of effort, even if that takes a year. If 10 people are contributing, then that makes it 100 units of effort per person. If you have a guild of 1000, then 1 unit of effort each and voila the guild hall is complete! Making multiple paths to contribute to that effort would be the ideal scenario.

Yeah that I agree on but has some problems. Let’s say you have specific content like guild-mission that unlocks some decoration. How are you going to keep the same ‘units of efforts’ while allowing it for everybody to be accesable?

You cannot just complete it by spending more time on it.

The way I would solve that is by making 5 versiosn of the decoration and allowing to do the content in 5 different ways. Small guilds might only be able to do the easiest path, while for big guilds maybe only the last two are a challenge. In that way you can all get that type of decoration but as small guild you might not be able to get the biggest or most shiny version.

Your version with units only really works with currency what is frankly an extremely boring way of rewarding.

Broom.2561:

I’m going to throw an example at you…

In Warhammer Online, guilds could gain access to all kinds of goodies by just playing the game. Mind, not doing special missions, just playing the game. Pretty much how influence started out before GW2 decided to go and make it something you could buy for gold.

Warhammer added something though. How fast ‘influence’ accrued depended on how many members a guild had. The smallest of guilds would be a bit slower than the largest, but they would STILL get the good stuff, eventually.

And honestly, I don’t remember these arguments over there… maybe because it was a faction based PVP game, and everyone having certain guild facilities (like faster travel) made it easier for the entire faction.

I’m getting REALLY tired of this attitude where people want to deny other people content because they feel cheated if anyone else but them gets access to it….

Yeah just do some general stuff and earn a currency that way… boring! That simply is not fun, and we have seen the same with influence, it was a boring system. You should get specific task to do with the guild, challenges you complete as a guild. That makes a guild fun.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

This is actually calm and reasonable (mostly. #starch), so I’m going to respond to it. Thanks for that, Frizz.

(trying to be) Mostly calm and reasonable while taking a stab here and there. =P

There’s nothing wrong with PvP or Wuv-centric guild missions, but the general notion seems to be that three-beer-buddies guilds like the Three Wuvmigos should be able to get the same access to the game’s new guild functions without having to do guild missions at all, of any sort. That while other folks are trekking across the Maguuma to stake their claim against the enemy’s armies and then pitting themselves against the new missions system to earn their upgrades, the penny-packet Wuv or PvP guilds shouldn’t even have to change their behavior or go out of their way to earn the same rewards the rest of us are busting our humps over.

I know what they are saying, and I mostly agree with what you said in your post. While I understand that Colin sort of tried to calm the smaller guild argument down by saying that there will be options for them to earn favour, I didn’t immediately take that as Small Guilds should get handheld into it. I mostly took that as, There will be options for Wuv and PvP guilds (of ANY size) to also earn favor to some extend which is likely not the same for a full fledged multi platform guild or the extend of a PvE guild. It kind of felt like you misunderstood what Colin was trying to say. Or rather what I thought what he was trying to say. He also encouraged smaller guilds to be a little bit more creative with their efforts to gain the upper hand on some of these missions.

I defenitely would think they wont make all the guild missions easier just because there are smaller guilds. (I hope not)

But for the most part we would have been bothered to no end if ArenaNet went back and crippled these instances, dialed their difficulty down by huge amounts, so that lowball guilds could handle them without issue.

TBH, I seriously think that the current guild missions are at perfect difficulty for 5-6 man groups right now. Yes they are fairly challenging, but definitely possible. If ArenaNet were to dumb them down that would just be silly. I’m definitely not a person for dumbing things down at all. And with some inventiveness small guilds who are able to invest some time in making some contacts to better gather resources for their Guild Hall, then I would say that is pretty great.

I currently am with a guild that has been together for a decade and we aren’t the hugest (20-30 at the most?), but we always managed and have some friends across the game who are interested in helping each other out, if necessary.

Why is it completely okay, then, for PvP/Wuv players to do the exact same thing to the rest of us?

I think it’s fine for them to voice their opinion, as silly as that opinion sometimes is. I think that they mostly need to understand that there most likely wont be a hard minimum cap on a guild hall or upgrading it. (which i think what Colin meant by inviting people to help out) And it should be reasonable to expect that a guild at least consists of 5 people, and that content will be balanced towards such a number or above if the content calls for it.

PUGing is a thing that some people seem to shun and are afraid of, but there’s always content that you can’t play if you don’t tolerate other players to increase the odds or better ability to do certain content. I would expect that a 3-man WvWvW guild would understand the importance of other random people.

I think my biggest problem with the idea of small guilds getting a Guild Hall is the size. There is, apparently, only one size Guild Hall and it’s huge. If there were multiple sizes available, such that a small guild could only “capture” a very small Hall, suitable to their use, then I would be fine with it. Average guilds could capture the normal Hall. Possibly super huger guilds could capture and extra large Hall.

I see it like City of Heroes, which did not have a capture system. Anyone could make a “Guild Hall” for their Supergroup if they could afford it. Everyone started with the smallest plot and then spent resources to increase them. The first plot was free. All plots after the first plot, though, cost an upkeep. To have the biggest plot, with all the amenities meant having a large and active group to handle the upkeep.

I don’t want upkeep, but I would like to see something implemented so that everyone can have their cake, but that the size of the slice is directly proportional to what the groups can bring to bear. That isn’t what we have here. It could be something we get in the future, though, since they’ve already expressed an intent to make more Guild Halls.

Tarnicus.2865:

I wholeheartedly disagree with your point of “I’m not sure catering to really tiny guilds is a thing that would be healthy for the game.” Health of the game = income to Anet. Nothing else.

If you put it that way then the hundreds of people in a large guild would totally outweigh the argument you’re trying to make.

I find if funny you disagree with my unsureness (because that’s what my point literally says), because it doesn’t seem like you thought beyond “I’m paying for my influence so it puts money in ArenaNets pockets, thus it’s the most healthy for the game.” That argument is basically saying, that as long as people can buy anything available in the game can just be paid for rather than played for is good for the health of the game.

So what you’re saying is that pay2win is good for the health of the game?
I not sure if you meant to say that, but that is the crux of your argument here. Are you even ready to open that can of wurms?

Majic.4801:

This whole imbroglio seems like an awful lot of effort to exclude people from content.

If would be nice to see more effort spent making the game enjoyable for all players instead.

We all paid to be here. Why not design the game for all of us?

Your implication that all of this was done to INTENTIONALLY screw over very small Guilds is the absolute pinnacle of exaggeration and conspiracy theory bunk. If you are going to try and make a point about including everyone, don’t start your rant with some outlandish supposition that makes you look like a raving lunatic….

State some facts and make your point.

Sorry, but Guild content has always been geared toward double digit membership at the very least. Assuming they would change that approach with Guild Halls is not very realistic.

Daddicus, if the requirement was 1500, then i would go find a 1500 member guild and join if i wanted to play the content… that is where we differ mainly. you want this catered to smaller groups, when it is designed for larger groups. Using the excuse that you paid for the game and are therefore entitled to have it custom designed to your specific needs is just…well… ludicrous. every game has requirements for you to do certain things in order to accomplish goals. this game is no different. in diablo3 for example, you have to do the hell level content to get the gear good enuff to progress to the next level. The makers arent gonna just start making high lvl gear drop off trash mobs just so you can go straight to the end game content at your leisure. why do you expect anet to be any different? here, they are requiring a certain number of people to be in a guild to do the content at that level. instead of trying to dumb down the content so it can be solo’d, you should be trying to work as a group to accomplish this goal… thats how i see it, sorry if you dont like it.

Devata.6589:

Broom.2561:

I’m going to throw an example at you…

In Warhammer Online, guilds could gain access to all kinds of goodies by just playing the game. Mind, not doing special missions, just playing the game. Pretty much how influence started out before GW2 decided to go and make it something you could buy for gold.

Warhammer added something though. How fast ‘influence’ accrued depended on how many members a guild had. The smallest of guilds would be a bit slower than the largest, but they would STILL get the good stuff, eventually.

And honestly, I don’t remember these arguments over there… maybe because it was a faction based PVP game, and everyone having certain guild facilities (like faster travel) made it easier for the entire faction.

I’m getting REALLY tired of this attitude where people want to deny other people content because they feel cheated if anyone else but them gets access to it….

Yeah just do some general stuff and earn a currency that way… boring! That simply is not fun, and we have seen the same with influence, it was a boring system. You should get specific task to do with the guild, challenges you complete as a guild. That makes a guild fun.

Now that’s something I strongly disagree with. For me, personally, a guild is a place where people hang out, help each other, exchange information about games and do things together that they enjoy doing.

Please note that line: DO THINGS TOGETHER THAT THEY ENJOY DOING.

I think every guild should play as they like, and no one should be forced into specific types of content for something as basic as guild facilities. Especially, I might add, when this is one of the main features of a paid expansion. And a model where you get influence for doing what you like doing is FAR more in line with that than restricting advancement to group activity of any kind.

ADDING group content to this is always an option, especially if they manage to get the scaling right and maybe add some group-only incentive (special decorations maybe, or an influence bonus). But I really think the influence model (with influence scaled to guild size) is at the core a good one for allowing EVERYONE to experience the content in their own way.

Kal Spiro.9745:

That’s your flaw. You’re not entitled to anything. You have the game, and you can play the game, but that does not entitle you to be able to access every single aspect of the game whenever and however you please. It only allows you to play it within the bounds that the developers set for it. If, as is very clearly the case, the developers set this bound beyond the capacity of a small group then you are not entitled to play it with less. You’re free to try, and you’re free to fail or succeed on your own merits, but you’re not entitled to it just for paying money to gain access to it.

Actually, we are. If they advertise guild halls as part of the release, and do not specify limitations, then it would be false advertising to change an aspect of the game such as that.

However, if they changed the guild requirement either before the release, or as part of the release and stated so, then your argument has merit. They also are entitled to change it after release, per the usual EULA, but that would be considered unfair to most of the community.

Devata.6589:

Maybe the question many people ask themselves is what size makes a guild. Is one person a guild? I would say no. Personally I would say you need a minimum of 15 people to be considered a guild but at the very, very least 5. Of course this is an oppinion and I agree to disagree with people about this.

Finally, someone who admits that it is an opinion. Thank you.

Devata.6589:

Another thing is that a bigger guild should have something to show for it or / and a bigger guild should not be bored soon because everything is designed for smaller guilds.

Why? This is just an opinion, too.

Devata.6589:

Take the scaling, to some extent that is fine, but do / use it to much and it is extremely unfair. I remember from the CDI about this subject that some people asked why a bigger guild should have the ‘right’ to have more. Well it’s not about the right, it’s about manpower.. or lets look at it form the other side. Why does one guild (a bigger guild) have to put in way more man-power and man-hour to get the same?

I fail to understand why you believe big guilds have to put in more manpower. If it were done correctly, every guild would have to put in exactly the same amount of manpower per person.

Devata.6589:

I am all for giving all guilds (and then again the question, when do you talk about a guild) equal opurtunities so that getting a guild-hall is also availible for smaller guilds is fine, just as that they should also be able to get at least all the basic functionality. But there is no shame in the fact that a bigger guild has more to show for it, they also put more man-power and more man-hour into it.

Why? Why should any group of people get more just because they have more people?

Devata.6589:

In fact, if a game is built around the principal you describe here (buy your rewards) then you will get a very boring game.

Incorrect. That’s the way it is designed right now, and it works great.

There is certainly content that I choose not to get (like Legendary weapons). But, that’s my choice, based upon economic reasons.

What they’re demanding is that I be excluded from content simply because I don’t meet their arbitrary reason.

Tarnicus.2865:

… Doing so did not detract from anyone’s enjoyment but increased my own.

Excellent.

Somehow, the other side, has decided that my having a guild hall will detract from their experience. I just can’t understand why they think that way. It makes no sense. My guild has absolutely nothing to do with their game and their experience.

Their one solid argument is that scaling doesn’t work right.

So, fix scaling. Do it right for this purpose, and that argument evaporates.

Devata.6589:

Having a small guild also has it’s advantages.. like having more bank space per members and you do have any of the following problems.

This is a good point. Here we have something that is truly unfair to larger guilds.

It should be corrected.

Devata.6589:

Again, it’s not about not allowing small guilds to exist or not giving them a guild-hall.

Devil says it is. He flatly stated that any guild smaller than 15 should not have access to guild halls. (He was generously willing to go down as far as 10.)

Devata.6589:

Yeah just do some general stuff and earn a currency that way… boring! That simply is not fun, and we have seen the same with influence, it was a boring system. You should get specific task to do with the guild, challenges you complete as a guild. That makes a guild fun.

Seems to be working fine right now.

you know what… forget it.. im tired of the never ending arguements like this… its like children constantly pestering you for a soda for hours on end till you finally give in… im done… just give them everything in game for free and easy so they will get bored and leave….

CorrynnStarr.7942:

Daddicus, if the requirement was 1500, then i would go find a 1500 member guild and join if i wanted to play the content… that is where we differ mainly.

Really? How about 15 thousand? 15 million?

You can’t escape a reduce to absurd argument by accepting the number, for a reducing argument scales infinitely. At some point, even you will have to admit that the number is too large.

The instant you hit that number that you don’t accept, you have proven that any chosen number is arbitrary.

Daddicus.6128:

Actually, we are. If they advertise guild halls as part of the release, and do not specify limitations, then it would be false advertising to change an aspect of the game such as that.

. . . you keep thinking that. I’ll just be shaking my head over a misunderstanding of what “false advertising” actually is.

Hint, it’s not what you just described.

Broom.2561:

Devata.6589:

Broom.2561:

I’m going to throw an example at you…

In Warhammer Online, guilds could gain access to all kinds of goodies by just playing the game. Mind, not doing special missions, just playing the game. Pretty much how influence started out before GW2 decided to go and make it something you could buy for gold.

Warhammer added something though. How fast ‘influence’ accrued depended on how many members a guild had. The smallest of guilds would be a bit slower than the largest, but they would STILL get the good stuff, eventually.

And honestly, I don’t remember these arguments over there… maybe because it was a faction based PVP game, and everyone having certain guild facilities (like faster travel) made it easier for the entire faction.

I’m getting REALLY tired of this attitude where people want to deny other people content because they feel cheated if anyone else but them gets access to it….

Yeah just do some general stuff and earn a currency that way… boring! That simply is not fun, and we have seen the same with influence, it was a boring system. You should get specific task to do with the guild, challenges you complete as a guild. That makes a guild fun.

Now that’s something I strongly disagree with. For me, personally, a guild is a place where people hang out, help each other, exchange information about games and do things together that they enjoy doing.

Please note that line: DO THINGS TOGETHER THAT THEY ENJOY DOING.

I think every guild should play as they like, and no one should be forced into specific types of content for something as basic as guild facilities. Especially, I might add, when this is one of the main features of a paid expansion. And a model where you get influence for doing what you like doing is FAR more in line with that than restricting advancement to group activity of any kind.

ADDING group content to this is always an option, especially if they manage to get the scaling right and maybe add some group-only incentive (special decorations maybe, or an influence bonus). But I really think the influence model (with influence scaled to guild size) is at the core a good one for allowing EVERYONE to experience the content in their own way.

First of all I am not talking about basic as guild facilities, every guild should be able to get it’s basic guild facilities. And also the ‘do what they like’ should not be a problem when you link the reward to the content. I gave this example before.. Earn a portal to a WvW map by holding a keep or tower in that map for x time, same for other WvW themed decoration and so on. Want to unlock an jumping puzzle for the guild-hall, complete some Jumping puzzles with the guild.

That is a fair way. You say you don’t like to do specific missions, I don’t want more currency that comes from anywhere but nothing, I want specific task and goals so you can finally feel like you really achieve something with the guild.

Linking the reward to the content should for the most part solve the problem of having to do content to get a reward you want as a guild who really wants WvW portal is also likely more into WvW and can you really complain that to get a WvW portal you need to do WvW content? Well you complain about anything but I think it would be a really bad complain.

(with influence scaled to guild size) yeah of-course (not) , a smaller guild should get more influence per man-hour then a bigger guild. Because that is fair right?

While you can have some influence to the side I prefer real task as only that really feels like completing something, GW2 is already to much one big currency grind, if there is anything I really consider bad in GW2 is that everything is so currency-driven. Lets not get it right with the guild-stuff and have that less currency-driven. I gave perfect examples how the fear of “being forced into specific types of content they don’t like”. You want a char-car in your guild-hall you need to do a task in WvW, you want a really big version of it ou also need to do something in WvW but need a big group in order to be able to complete it, nothing wrong with that.

And just for the record, we have middle sized guild so it would mean we would likely also not be able to get everything or it would be really hard. But that does make it more special when you do get that unlock you want.

Daddicus.6128:

Kal Spiro.9745:

That’s your flaw. You’re not entitled to anything. You have the game, and you can play the game, but that does not entitle you to be able to access every single aspect of the game whenever and however you please. It only allows you to play it within the bounds that the developers set for it. If, as is very clearly the case, the developers set this bound beyond the capacity of a small group then you are not entitled to play it with less. You’re free to try, and you’re free to fail or succeed on your own merits, but you’re not entitled to it just for paying money to gain access to it.

Actually, we are. If they advertise guild halls as part of the release, and do not specify limitations, then it would be false advertising to change an aspect of the game such as that.

However, if they changed the guild requirement either before the release, or as part of the release and stated so, then your argument has merit. They also are entitled to change it after release, per the usual EULA, but that would be considered unfair to most of the community.

Um, no? Apparently you also don’t understand what false advertising is. If they advertise guild halls as part of the release, then don’t have guild halls in the release THAT would be false advertising. At least if it wasn’t for the fact that all information is always subject to change. Guild Halls will be in the release, though, so there is no concern.

Whatever requirements may be necessary to access Guild Halls has nothing at all to do with their existence.

Daddicus.6128:

Devata.6589:

Maybe the question many people ask themselves is what size makes a guild. Is one person a guild? I would say no. Personally I would say you need a minimum of 15 people to be considered a guild but at the very, very least 5. Of course this is an oppinion and I agree to disagree with people about this.

Finally, someone who admits that it is an opinion. Thank you.

Devata.6589:

Another thing is that a bigger guild should have something to show for it or / and a bigger guild should not be bored soon because everything is designed for smaller guilds.

Why? This is just an opinion, too.

Devata.6589:

Take the scaling, to some extent that is fine, but do / use it to much and it is extremely unfair. I remember from the CDI about this subject that some people asked why a bigger guild should have the ‘right’ to have more. Well it’s not about the right, it’s about manpower.. or lets look at it form the other side. Why does one guild (a bigger guild) have to put in way more man-power and man-hour to get the same?

I fail to understand why you believe big guilds have to put in more manpower. If it were done correctly, every guild would have to put in exactly the same amount of manpower per person.

Devata.6589:

I am all for giving all guilds (and then again the question, when do you talk about a guild) equal opurtunities so that getting a guild-hall is also availible for smaller guilds is fine, just as that they should also be able to get at least all the basic functionality. But there is no shame in the fact that a bigger guild has more to show for it, they also put more man-power and more man-hour into it.

Why? Why should any group of people get more just because they have more people?

“I fail to understand why you believe big guilds have to put in more manpower. If it were done correctly, every guild would have to put in exactly the same amount of manpower per person.” In this sentence you are contradicting yourself, and by doing so answering the question you ask me.

“Exactly the same amount of manpower per person”, but with more people that means.. more manpower in total.

“Why? Why should any group of people get more just because they have more people?”
Not because they have more people but because they put in more manpower = more effort and more afford effort be rewarded.

Most important is that it makes the reward also feel better (also for smaller guilds BTW). If everything is just something everybody can get it’s less rewarding, if it’s really something that takes effort and manpower and.. then it feels more rewarding.

When you scale you don’t have this feeling because it might have felt like a challenge but at the same time you know you could also have done it with 5 people so it simply feels less rewarding.

Also keep the difference between open world activities and guild activities clear, with the guild the whole purpose is doing things with the guild as group, so you should also look at the group as total, not just at what every member does individually like you would do in open world activities (and why scaling does makes more sense in the open word).

Like I said, I am for making tiers to allow every guild to get his item, so with Wintersday guilds can for example unlock a x-as tree.
Tier one is a small tree, tier 2 is the same size but with presents, tier 3 is the same but now with a snow effect, tier 4 is again like tier one but now a huge tree, tier 5 is like tier 2 but now huge and tier 6 is like 3 but huge.

Tier 6 might only be something big guilds can complete while tier one you can even complete with 5 people. (as an example).

In that way every guild should be able to get a tree for Wintersday but there are indeed differences. To me this seems like a completely fair solution that also really keeps the challenge and reward feeling for all size guilds.

Furthermore locking the rewards behind content that is linked to the reward (like the WvW portal example) and you have a perfect system that works for smaller and bigger guilds, gives guilds goals things to do and makes it feel rewarding imho.

Daddicus.6128:

Devata.6589:

In fact, if a game is built around the principal you describe here (buy your rewards) then you will get a very boring game.

Incorrect. That’s the way it is designed right now, and it works great.

There is certainly content that I choose not to get (like Legendary weapons). But, that’s my choice, based upon economic reasons.

What they’re demanding is that I be excluded from content simply because I don’t meet their arbitrary reason.

Like I said, that is the weakest point in GW2. That is not great, that is boring.

I mean, even look at your own example.. you are not getting you legendary weapon because of economic reasons.. It’s a game. Getting a legendary weapon should be for completing legendary content, not based on economies. People can brainlessly grind gold and buy a legendary.. That takes all the value (from a game perspective) out of the legendary and indeed just makes it some economic thing.

I am baffled that you even give this as a reason why it’s good. Yeah I did not get a Legendary, not because I was not able to defeat that epic boss but because of economic reasons… Really, this is the explanation why it’s good? I would give this as reason why it’s bad. Different tastes I guess.

Daddicus.6128:

Devata.6589:

Again, it’s not about not allowing small guilds to exist or not giving them a guild-hall.

Devil says it is. He flatly stated that any guild smaller than 15 should not have access to guild halls. (He was generously willing to go down as far as 10.)

I said every guild should have one but I also openly asking questions (not making a judgment) at what moment you could really talk about a guild.

So to an extent I might agree with him. It is more like a feeling so nothing concrete, but if ever person could get a guild-hall it becomes more something like personal housing, and not a guild-hall. For a guild-hall you need a guild so then you get the question ‘what is a guild’.

Now personal housing every single person should get (when that would be in the game).