Guild Wars 2

Hey guys,

I’m building a list of metrics about guilds, their sizes, etc. I’m doing this as part of a project to determine what we consider different “size” bins, which can be used to further elaborate how some of us feel about mechanics that are “size dependent”. So, for this, I need a few things:

1. Your guild name (to help me ensure uniqueness in results).
2. The total number of members in your guild.
3. Whether your guild is in region, or has members across regions (OR, MR)
4. An estimated number of the average number of players that log on per day. You can find this out through your history panel for your guild (measuring the influence gains from having X members on across different days).
5. An estimated average number of hours each member spends playing per day.

Some other statistics which can help, but are not necessary, are:

6. An estimate of the number of concurrent users on in your guild per every hour or so.
7. An estimate on the amount of influence your guild gains per day.
8. An estimate on the amount of achievement points your guild members achieve per day.

My goal with this is to determine means, medians, and population deviations for which to derive what we can call a “medium sized” guild. From there, using the standard statistics, we can estimate influence gains per day based on minimum and maximum possible influence (this is where the extra statistics can help), along with make various other conjectures.

I’ll give an example below of how I am looking for this to be formatted.

Thanks all!

Example (using my guild):

- Knights of the Seraphim
- OR (one region)
- 25 total members
- 3.5 players / day
- 2 hours / player
- (label out the other things in order if you have the rest of your data)

Ronah.2869:

Bigger guild/ smaller guild. This is a dilemma.
Which is considered to be a small guild?
A 15 player guild with all of them active daily
or a guild with 50 members that are online / representing only 3-4 at a given time?

I think the best definition for the size of a guild is to measure the average number of players representing per day coupled with the average number of hours each of those players represented. While this is not a guarantee, this would give a clearer metric establishing what the potential base influence a guild can earn, which better correlates with “size” as we’re concerned with regards to these guild missions. The last item we could add is multiplying that ratio by the average time each player spends playing per day while representing the guild (sorry, a lot of math, I know).

From there, we could easily describe a metric which maps to different “guild sizes”.

EDIT: Sorry for the multiple edits and lots of math work, but this seems to be the best approach I can figure for a metric. I would probably break it down as follows (note, all metrics must be taken while members are representing):

• Guild Size = C * Avg. Players per Day * Avg. Hours per Player

The only value we have yet to decide, is C. From there we can correlate “Guild Size” with influence gain.

Note, all of that aside (just more so my mathematical mind thinking how to capture this), I still think it’s best to do away with the gating entirely, but adjust the cost of each guild mission of set difficulty to reflect different tiered “sizes” we expect to accommodate with the system. Using a methodology as outlined above, we could define a set of bins to which different sizes map, with expected influence costs. Anyhow, I’m somewhat rambling at this point. Carry on!

I actually posted this on Reddit here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/19bko8/i_wish_all_the_people_who_complain_would_be_like/

Specifically:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/19bko8/i_wish_all_the_people_who_complain_would_be_like/c8mm9x3

Basically, the way I see it is that the influence cost should not scale, necessarily, but should be based on the size of the mission you’re undertaking. Obviously the missions may need to be reworked a little bit, but the general idea is: bigger guilds can do larger challenges for more upfront reward, smaller guilds can do smaller incremental challenges that add up to the same amount of reward overall. I’ll go ahead and post the edit and TLDR here:

Here is my modest proposal:

• Unlock 4 of the missions at rank 4 (Bounty, Rush, Trek, and Puzzle) of any upgrade path for 10,000 a piece. The maximum unlock cost for any puzzle is then 28,000 influence from start of an upgrade path to finish.

• Unlock the Challenge mission and potentially other harder mission types at rank 5, for 20,000 a piece (gives something to work forward to, while not gating all content). Better yet, make different Challenge mission types available along each of the different ranks. Increase the reward of this type of mission (cost / reward).

• Space special merit rewards along the different ranks from 4 to 6, or have different tiers / amounts of time the rewards are in effect through the ranks.

• Have more of the cost of playing the missions fall on the actual “building” of the mission. For the first mission types, Tier 1 is 200 Influence, Tier 2 is 500 influence, Tier 3 is 1000 influence. (If there are more tiers, space appropriately). Balance the rewards to reflect the cost vs. reward scenario. Then, adjust these costs and the rewards for the the Challenge missions.

This is just one idea, mainly because I find there to be serious flaws with the “tax” like idea proposed in the post. I may actually post this on the forums at some point, but I’m going to need to be out of work for that.

EDIT: I would also like to say, if we really want to go the extra mile, we can do away with the “unlocking” of the missions period. This would remove the gate entirely. Instead, we could put the whole cost on the actual “building” of the missions (I would still end up tier-ing the costs and adjusting rewards as appropriate). This would make every guild able to at least run the missions. This would essentially be the “fairest” system possible, without resorting to a “size incentive” system, which can easily be exploited.