No Required Number of Players on missions
Guild content is balanced around a typical guild of players and not that of half a party.
Guild content is balanced around a typical guild of players and not that of half a party.
That is not what a guild is. Destiny’s Edge is a guild of five people, in fact the traditional meaning of guild is pretty much that used for parties in modern MMOs.
Many people play this game with small groups of close friends, effectively treating their guilds as permanent parties, because in older MMOs, that’s what guilds always were. The whole “guilds are 500 people” thing was a trend of GW2, and only a few guilds are actually that large compared to the majority.
The largest guild I’ve ever been in was about 50 active people in total, and of those, only about five people were ever online on average. And that’s pretty consistent with my experiences in older titles as well.
Forcing people to join other guilds just to do things goes against common sense.
Daisuki [SUKI] LGBT-Friendly Guild Leader | NA – Jade Quarry
I’m usually really sweet… but this an internet forum and you know how it has to be.
/i’m a lesbiab… lesbiam… less bien… GIRLS/
I’m usually really sweet… but this an internet forum and you know how it has to be.
/i’m a lesbiab… lesbiam… less bien… GIRLS/
Guild content is balanced around a typical guild of players and not that of half a party.
That is not what a guild is. Destiny’s Edge is a guild of five people, in fact the traditional meaning of guild is pretty much that used for parties in modern MMOs.
Many people play this game with small groups of close friends, effectively treating their guilds as permanent parties, because in older MMOs, that’s what guilds always were. The whole “guilds are 500 people” thing was a trend of GW2, and only a few guilds are actually that large compared to the majority.
The largest guild I’ve ever been in was about 50 active people in total, and of those, only about five people were ever online on average. And that’s pretty consistent with my experiences in older titles as well.
Forcing people to join other guilds just to do things goes against common sense.
Anet is referring to a guild as in what we have actual players join. I’d say that most of the guild missions could be done with a group of five or so players. Some of the challenges may be difficult but I believe most should be doable.
Small guilds already got completely hosed in HoT, so it would be nice if guilds, and guild missions (esp in pve) got a looks see for rebalancing in general, but one thing that is super annoying is that there is no scaling whatever for guild missions and quests now that they are the ONLY way to get guild points.
All guilds should have a choice as to how their missions are completed, just as all guilds deserve a chance to get and complete reasonable missions. If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.
Also, it is clear that Anet’s idea of what an “easy” mission is can be very far removed from the reality of in-game play. So I would suggest you take a look at mission classification, and adding new missions, too.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
Small guilds already got completely hosed in HoT, so it would be nice if guilds, and guild missions (esp in pve) got a looks see for rebalancing in general, but one thing that is super annoying is that there is no scaling whatever for guild missions and quests now that they are the ONLY way to get guild points.
All guilds should have a choice as to how their missions are completed, just as all guilds deserve a chance to get and complete reasonable missions. If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.
Also, it is clear that Anet’s idea of what an “easy” mission is can be very far removed from the reality of in-game play. So I would suggest you take a look at mission classification, and adding new missions, too.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
I’ve never stated, or believe, that Anet is beyond criticism. I just happen to disagree with what’s being stated as guild missions can be done with a small number of players. Keep in mind that 2-3 players is pushing it towards what is considered group content.
Small guilds already got completely hosed in HoT, so it would be nice if guilds, and guild missions (esp in pve) got a looks see for rebalancing in general, but one thing that is super annoying is that there is no scaling whatever for guild missions and quests now that they are the ONLY way to get guild points.
All guilds should have a choice as to how their missions are completed, just as all guilds deserve a chance to get and complete reasonable missions. If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.
Also, it is clear that Anet’s idea of what an “easy” mission is can be very far removed from the reality of in-game play. So I would suggest you take a look at mission classification, and adding new missions, too.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
I completely agree.
it’s this luck based mystic toilet that we’re all so sick of flushing our money down. -Salamol
I complete easy-medium guild missions with 1-5 people. My guild has even completed some hard ones with the same amount. Other than pvp (which requires 3 people? I think. and makes sense since that means your guild is a majority of the team) Im not really sure what OP is talking about.
WvW could need some softening up on the requirement of people needed with the dolly escorts and land claiming missions, especially as those are tasks usually reserved for a single person, but for the guild mission, you need three players all of a sudden.
It would be nice if the “earn personal score” would not have a requirement of three in PvP, too.
This way each game type would have at least one mission that can be done alone.
Member of The Guildwars Online Guild [GWO]
Still keeps a volume of Kurzick poems ;)
Still keeps a volume of Kurzick poems ;)
(edited by Gorani.7205)
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.
What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
People could use what you said and argue for anything such as mounts. The vast majority of guild missions can be completed by a group of players. I want to say that every mission can be done by five players but I haven’t personally tried it for some.
Anet tends to balance group content towards the number of players that they would consider a group. Dungeons are balanced for five players and raids are balanced for 10 players. Claiming a guild hall was balanced to either 5 or 10 players. I can’t remember which was stated by Anet. What I do remember is that Anet claimed anything less than five players not what they would consider a guild.
The problem is that if you were to change the balancing to accommodate those that are in guilds of less than five players, what’s left to stop people from wanting guild missions to all be capable of being completed solo? Balancing it around 2-3 players isn’t too far from that.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
People could use what you said and argue for anything such as mounts. The vast majority of guild missions can be completed by a group of players. I want to say that every mission can be done by five players but I haven’t personally tried it for some.
Anet tends to balance group content towards the number of players that they would consider a group. Dungeons are balanced for five players and raids are balanced for 10 players. Claiming a guild hall was balanced to either 5 or 10 players. I can’t remember which was stated by Anet. What I do remember is that Anet claimed anything less than five players not what they would consider a guild.
The problem is that if you were to change the balancing to accommodate those that are in guilds of less than five players, what’s left to stop people from wanting guild missions to all be capable of being completed solo? Balancing it around 2-3 players isn’t too far from that.
Please take the time to read and understand the points the op is making and which I was discussing.
He states ’ If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.’
Nowhere is balance discussed – what is being discussed is the requirement that 3 players are REQUIRED for example for the WvW missions sentry and camp captures.
Q: How does it negatively affect you, the game or any other player in any way whatsoever, if this requirement was dropped?
A: It doesn’t
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
People could use what you said and argue for anything such as mounts. The vast majority of guild missions can be completed by a group of players. I want to say that every mission can be done by five players but I haven’t personally tried it for some.
Anet tends to balance group content towards the number of players that they would consider a group. Dungeons are balanced for five players and raids are balanced for 10 players. Claiming a guild hall was balanced to either 5 or 10 players. I can’t remember which was stated by Anet. What I do remember is that Anet claimed anything less than five players not what they would consider a guild.
The problem is that if you were to change the balancing to accommodate those that are in guilds of less than five players, what’s left to stop people from wanting guild missions to all be capable of being completed solo? Balancing it around 2-3 players isn’t too far from that.
Please take the time to read and understand the points the op is making and which I was discussing.
He states ’ If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.’
Nowhere is balance discussed – what is being discussed is the requirement that 3 players are REQUIRED for example for the WvW missions sentry and camp captures.
Q: How does it negatively affect you, the game or any other player in any way whatsoever, if this requirement was dropped?
A: It doesn’t
Telling me to read their points again, when I have, and disagree with them serves no purpose.
Just because something doesn’t affect someone else, doesn’t mean it should be made available. One could use that as a means to argue for anything in the game. Sorry but no.
Guild missions were meant for a large group of players although the vast majority can be done with as little as five.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
People could use what you said and argue for anything such as mounts. The vast majority of guild missions can be completed by a group of players. I want to say that every mission can be done by five players but I haven’t personally tried it for some.
Anet tends to balance group content towards the number of players that they would consider a group. Dungeons are balanced for five players and raids are balanced for 10 players. Claiming a guild hall was balanced to either 5 or 10 players. I can’t remember which was stated by Anet. What I do remember is that Anet claimed anything less than five players not what they would consider a guild.
The problem is that if you were to change the balancing to accommodate those that are in guilds of less than five players, what’s left to stop people from wanting guild missions to all be capable of being completed solo? Balancing it around 2-3 players isn’t too far from that.
Please take the time to read and understand the points the op is making and which I was discussing.
He states ’ If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.’
Nowhere is balance discussed – what is being discussed is the requirement that 3 players are REQUIRED for example for the WvW missions sentry and camp captures.
Q: How does it negatively affect you, the game or any other player in any way whatsoever, if this requirement was dropped?
A: It doesn’t
Telling me to read their points again, when I have, and disagree with them serves no purpose.
Just because something doesn’t affect someone else, doesn’t mean it should be made available. One could use that as a means to argue for anything in the game. Sorry but no.
Guild missions were meant for a large group of players although the vast majority can be done with as little as five.
Perhaps you should also read and understand the Anet post you directed me to:
“As a result, we decided that in the new system, guild missions will be free to run as much as you want. Each mission will give its bounty of favor only once per week, on the first successful run, but each member can get their personal commendation rewards by running the mission at any time during the week, even if the guild has already completed it.”
Quite clearly each member cannot get their personal commendation rewards by running the mission at any time during the week because the requirement is set at 3.
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
People could use what you said and argue for anything such as mounts. The vast majority of guild missions can be completed by a group of players. I want to say that every mission can be done by five players but I haven’t personally tried it for some.
Anet tends to balance group content towards the number of players that they would consider a group. Dungeons are balanced for five players and raids are balanced for 10 players. Claiming a guild hall was balanced to either 5 or 10 players. I can’t remember which was stated by Anet. What I do remember is that Anet claimed anything less than five players not what they would consider a guild.
The problem is that if you were to change the balancing to accommodate those that are in guilds of less than five players, what’s left to stop people from wanting guild missions to all be capable of being completed solo? Balancing it around 2-3 players isn’t too far from that.
Please take the time to read and understand the points the op is making and which I was discussing.
He states ’ If that guild only has 2-3 players, there is no reason to have arbitrary requirements for participation so long as the mission is otherwise doable with any number.’
Nowhere is balance discussed – what is being discussed is the requirement that 3 players are REQUIRED for example for the WvW missions sentry and camp captures.
Q: How does it negatively affect you, the game or any other player in any way whatsoever, if this requirement was dropped?
A: It doesn’t
Telling me to read their points again, when I have, and disagree with them serves no purpose.
Just because something doesn’t affect someone else, doesn’t mean it should be made available. One could use that as a means to argue for anything in the game. Sorry but no.
Guild missions were meant for a large group of players although the vast majority can be done with as little as five.
Perhaps you should also read and understand the Anet post you directed me to:
“As a result, we decided that in the new system, guild missions will be free to run as much as you want. Each mission will give its bounty of favor only once per week, on the first successful run, but each member can get their personal commendation rewards by running the mission at any time during the week, even if the guild has already completed it.”
Quite clearly each member cannot get their personal commendation rewards by running the mission at any time during the week because the requirement is set at 3.
You’re reading it out of context. The old system required a consumable to be crafted for each mission. Each consumable could only activate a mission once. Under the new system, this is no longer necessary and anyone, assuming they have permissions, can start up a guild mission. Players are no longer restricted by how many guild mission consumables that they have or by how many they are able to create during a specific time period.
WvW could need some softening up on the requirement of people needed with the dolly escorts and land claiming missions, especially as those are tasks usually reserved for a single person, but for the guild mission, you need three players all of a sudden.
It would be nice if the “earn personal score” would not have a requirement of three in PvP, too.
This way each game type would have at least one mission that can be done alone.
That is what I thought this thread was going to be about but the OP seems to be complaining about the opposite.
Also, it is clear that Anet’s idea of what an “easy” mission is can be very far removed from the reality of in-game play. So I would suggest you take a look at mission classification, and adding new missions, too.
Easy treks can be done with 1 person.
Easy bounties can be done with 1 or 2 people.
Puzzles and challenges are apparently medium and hard only although Blightwater Shatterstrike should be put into the easy rotation as well.
That only leaves race as being potentially difficult for a small number of people but those can be done with other guilds at the same time.
(edited by Khisanth.2948)
A very reasonable request.
Why anyone should object; other than the fact that certain posters believe everything Anet does is beyond criticism, is beyond me.
What anet does is criticized multiple times a day in these very forums, what you’re suggesting is that every criticism is beyond discussion which is practically against the very concept of a forum
I believe that the concept of guilds was to band together towards a common goal and beating missions that would be otherwise impossible; and as time passes your guild grows and you can do more and more, therefore progressing and leveling up your guild.
Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning since everyone could just make his own guild and solo them whenever he pleases. It’s like asking raid content to be cleared by 1 person and still yield the same rewards, it’s counterintuitive.What I’m suggesting is that some players actually need to read the posts and take time to understand and then critically analyze what is being discussed before going into ‘everything is fine’ ‘I love Anet’ mode.
For instance, you state “Allowing 2-3 people to clear this content would make guild missions lose their meaning” yet the current requirement that the OP is discussing is already 3 players.
Daroon is right, everyone arguing with him is just making his point more and more obvious.
People argue just for the sake of argument these days and feel like its whimsical or enlightening when they should just K.I.S.S.