GBG competition via Guild Treasury

[Tamastara]

I apologize if this has been discussed already. I've been through a handful of threads but am on a limited time schedule so I'm just gonna post.

Every guild is charged the same amount of goods per building. Meaning a guild of one has to pay the same amount for a Barracks as a guild of 100. I'm in a guild of 7 & 7 Arcs, & we work so hard but we simply can't build as many buildings as larger guilds. It's made GBG depressing & for all the enjoyment I've had coordinating past rounds, I'm sick of it now. It's just not fun now.

I like the idea of incentive to have Arcs, Obs, etc. And to have more guild participation. And I'm also aware that we don't HAVE to participate in GBG. It's just... it used to be fun.

Is there any chance GBG matchup can maybe take guild size into consideration? That wouldn't change the dynamic but at least give all the guilds a fairer chance.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

That is good idea. The cost of the GbG buildings correlates to the number of player in the Guild. (But The maximum Guild size is currently 80 not 100)
As it is now the biggest Guilds get a pretty good deal in GbG building costs. and the smallest Guilds a big penalty.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Both items, per-capita pricing of GBG buildings and matchmaking based on guild size, have been discussed extensively. I do not believe that INNO has provided their reasoning behind why it is like it is. Perhaps because they want to discourage the proliferation of "micro-guilds".

 

[Dursland]

Perhaps because they want to discourage the proliferation of "micro-guilds".

Not a terrible thing for the game really, given the declining playerbase.

It's annoying when you run a large guild and watch good players go to 5 member guilds out of boredom or whatever other reason.

Recruits are becoming slim pickings these days, I think it's good to encourage them to go to already-established guilds and keep those guilds running.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

It's annoying when you run a large guild and watch good players go to 5 member guilds out of boredom or whatever other reason.

To funny! Most of my fellow guilders get annoyed to watch good new players we have taken the time to train and build go join a big fighting guild. I have harped on this before a bit but will say it again. The big guilds aren't bringing any new players into the game they are feeding off the smaller guilds where new players are trained, built, and fostered.

I have come to consider it much the same as having a player get called up to the big league and view it as a feather in our cap. Doesn't make it any easier to lose a player you trained up though.

 

[Be Chuille]

It would make more sense to adjust the GBG building costs according to guild size, just as they do for opening GE.

 

[Tamastara]

Thanks you guys; very thoughtful discussion all around. ♥ I would take anything that would give us a fighting chance. As it is, we may have to drop out of GBG completely.

As for being a small guild, we've had invites to merge with other guilds but we don't want to disrupt our current dynamic. We've been together for so long that I consider these guys lifelong friends. That's what's kept me here. I've been in large guilds before, & never experienced the learning curve or the fellowship I enjoy with my current guild.

 

[Tamastara]

That is good idea. The cost of the GbG buildings correlates to the number of player in the Guild. (But The maximum Guild size is currently 80 not 100)
As it is now the biggest Guilds get a pretty good deal in GbG building costs. and the smallest Guilds a big penalty.

Thank you ebe! I just wanted to let you know that I DID ask FoE about the goods required in GBG, & this was the response:

Hello Tamastara,

Thanks so much for contacting the Forge of Empires support team!

To answer your question specifically, the amount of goods will remain the same for all guilds, no matter the size or number of Arc buildings. You can have a guild of 1 person with no Arc at all, and they will have the same number of goods required as a guild of 80 players each with an Arc. The only difference is that the AGE of the goods will be narrowed to that of the players in the guild. This is why many guilds have a minimum age requirement to join, so they don't have to worry about the typically smaller number of goods in the earlier eras.

I hope this helps, if you have any other questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,
The Deuce
In-game Moderator

 

[Dominator - X]

I apologize if this has been discussed already. I've been through a handful of threads but am on a limited time schedule so I'm just gonna post.

Every guild is charged the same amount of goods per building. Meaning a guild of one has to pay the same amount for a Barracks as a guild of 100. I'm in a guild of 7 & 7 Arcs, & we work so hard but we simply can't build as many buildings as larger guilds. It's made GBG depressing & for all the enjoyment I've had coordinating past rounds, I'm sick of it now. It's just not fun now.

I like the idea of incentive to have Arcs, Obs, etc. And to have more guild participation. And I'm also aware that we don't HAVE to participate in GBG. It's just... it used to be fun.

Is there any chance GBG matchup can maybe take guild size into consideration? That wouldn't change the dynamic but at least give all the guilds a fairer chance.

The amount of goods per building SHOULD be the same no matter the size of the guild.
The amount of goods produced per member (on average) is what makes or breaks a guild in regards to being competitive in GBG.

Also, having a guild with 7 members with 7 Arcs means absolutely nothing, treasury-wise. A guild with 80 members and 80 Arcs in and of itself does not mean it can produce enough T-Goods to compete. Even if they all had Arcs, Atoms, Obs, Hydras and AICs does not guarantee anything.

The response you received from The Deuce was exactly right. It is up to you and your guild to figure out the rest.

 

[Coach Zuck]

I wouldn't be against a discount to at most 50% cheaper for small guilds, but the reasoning doesn't completely make sense.

if you have half the number of members as a guild twice your size, and all players are equal fighting capability and goods production, you take half as many sectors, requiring half as many goods just because you are only building on half the sectors.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

All it will take is one match up where the the strongest guild keeps rebuilding and holding piles of sectors for the complaints to start rolling in again.

 

[Orius Maximus]

Both items, per-capita pricing of GBG buildings and matchmaking based on guild size, have been discussed extensively. I do not believe that INNO has provided their reasoning behind why it is like it is. Perhaps because they want to discourage the proliferation of "micro-guilds".

Not a terrible thing for the game really, given the declining playerbase.

It's annoying when you run a large guild and watch good players go to 5 member guilds out of boredom or whatever other reason.

Recruits are becoming slim pickings these days, I think it's good to encourage them to go to already-established guilds and keep those guilds running.

Definitely agree. There's too many small guilds that aren't very active in the game already. It's better to encourage guilds to grow, even if trying to recruit members only to see them leave gets frustrating after a while.

I got an offer to merge with another guild a little over a month ago but I turned them down. I don't know the players in the other guild, and I don't know their guild culture. The one big upside to running a guild is that I don't have to worry about what someone else wants me to do with my city or how I play, and in turn I let the guild members play the game as they will. I don't like heavy handed guilds and I don't run my guild like that.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

"Recruits are becoming slim pickings these days, I think it's good to encourage them to go to already-established guilds and keep those guilds running."

Think about that for a moment and what it says about the overall health of foe.
Having done that....

Let me ask, how are the top fighting guilds growing the player base or the game?

To me it seems like they are sucking up all the oxygen in the room and the Inno/foe team is running around chasing its tail trying to rein in the mess they created with a bunch of new rules that only reinforce the top fighting guilds ability to stay on top.

 

[Tamastara]

The amount of goods produced per member (on average) is what makes or breaks a guild in regards to being competitive in GBG.

It sure does now. It was important before, but now it really IS "make or break."

Also, having a guild with 7 members with 7 Arcs means absolutely nothing, treasury-wise.

lol so true

A guild with 80 members and 80 Arcs in and of itself does not mean it can produce enough T-Goods to compete.

Uh... a guild of 80 all with level 80+ Arcs generates significantly more Treasury goods than a guild of 7 all with 80+ Arcs unless I am missing something. And since

The amount of goods produced per member (on average) is what makes or breaks a guild in regards to being competitive in GBG

that prevents small guilds from being competitive in GBG against large guilds. It's like expecting a featherweight boxer to be able to compete in the heavyweight division. FoE does not have divisions based on guild size but on victories. So small guilds no longer belong in Platinum or Diamond League, but is that what FoE intended?

If so, then whatever. The new version of GBG will cause the smaller guilds to be eliminated from the higher leagues. I don't have a problem dropping down to Gold or Silver or whatever. The reason I posted was because right now, it's a very rude awakening. We were really enjoying GBG, but the new mechanics have turned it into a different game. Is this what FoE intends?

The response you received from The Deuce was exactly right.

I know it was exactly right. That's the whole reason why I posted it, to provide accurate information.