[Solution] Here is a way to fix the disparity between small Guild costs and large Guild costs

[Eidolonemesis.5640]

> @"Bunter.3795" said:

> If I, as a solo player, can complete a guild hall in one years time, there is no reason to ever change the materials needed or the time needed for a guild hall.

>

> People saying it's too hard or too many materials, etc. just don't want to put in the time and effort to have a guild hall fully upgraded.

 

I do not care _what_ method you used to solo --- even though you had help, so uh, you did not _really_ solo upgrading your entire Guild, especially since certain trophies are required for Guild Upgrades, along with PvP items --- be it you no-lifed it for almost an entire year, or you are lying and instead pulled out your wallet for Golds from the Gem Store to fund much of your material requirements for Guild Upgrades (other than for trophies, PvP items, etc.). The point is it _is_ a lot of materias, gold, etc. even if 10, 20, or 100 members in smaller Guilds contributed to Guild costs. Back in GW1, it was _much_ easier to solo maintaining Guilds, even as a single Guild Leader with under 10 Guild Members. That is the point.

 

My Guild and I _have_ put in effort for almost a year ourselves (as a small Guild of under 100 Members [and I plan to keep it that way because it's easier to manage with less drama]), and we are _still_ not max level, not even close, not only because we are not rich, but because most of us in the Guild actually _have_ a life, too, beyond Guild Wars 2, and we only play a few hours a day (a few as in no more than 4) on the days we are on, because we are not on every single day.

 

The current Guild system is clearly built for either larger Guilds, for players who have more Gold than they know what to do with, or for players who have no life who play 8 hours a day like it is their job, almost every day, if not, every single day.

 

And what about for even much smaller Guilds with only 2 Guild Members, or 4 (mind you, they do exist, and it's called husband and wife, along with maybe a couple friends of theirs). Yea, the current Guild system does _not_ support players who want to run even smaller Guilds. You can argue all day long, "Yea, well, it doesn't make sense to create a Guild if you're only going to have under 5 Guild Members." yet that is beside the point! Maybe some players like keeping their Guild very small and have all the fun decorating, etc. that much larger Guilds get to enjoy.

[Eidolonemesis.5640]

> @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> Aren't you suppose to buy a member limit upgrade anyway? Or was this removed.

> If you are going to upgrade to 200^ but have a hall maxed for 100, you would have to invest in a 200 member guild before being able to use any guild function.

 

You can buy Guild Member limits (as shown here: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild#Membership), **yet** the current Guild system's Upgrade costs do _not_ 'adjust' to the size of a Guild, whether or not a Guild stays the size of 50-100 Guild Members or increases in size (like in the idea I propose for a revamp of the Guild Creation system). Therefore, if your Guild is the size of 50-100 Guild Members in the current Guild system, all costs remain the same as if a 50-100-Member Guild was a 500-Member Guild.

 

Look, I get it; the only reason most players here commenting absolutely hate my idea is because they invested a lot into their Guilds already in the current Guild system with its ridiculous high costs, and so they want to make sure everybody else pays out the nose by continuously knocking my idea as 'bad', all while ignoring the fact the Guild Creation system I propose in my OP (or something similar to it) _is_ the system we should have been given in the first place that adjusts 'Guild costs' according to 'Guild size'.

 

To that reasoning I say tough cookies, and that Anet should revamp the Guild Creation, anyway. Will some players ragequit for a while as a result of a revamp to the Guild Creation system? Sure, but they'll be back (and most of us here know that fact, so don't bother trying to argue otherwise), because surely they are not going to throw away all their time invested into the game thus far altogether as a result of a single change, just like they didn't do so when other changes were made in the game.

[Eidolonemesis.5640]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> ...but there's a saying, life is what happens to you when you're mkaing other plans . This layout, as it stands, is too restrictive and punishing for people who might make the wrong choice on the outset.

 

There is an even bigger fact in life that people adapt to change, too, even if other things get in the way of our plans (because we are 'adaptive' beings), whether they like certain changes or not. Furthermore, there is _nothing_ forcefully 'restrictive' in the Guild Creation system I devised in my OP. If players want the current Guild system we have now, then they can simply choose option **5.** and call it a day. Everything in the system I devised is 'optional', and so there is _no_ gun being held to a players' head to make a specific Guild size choice. The system I devised is a fair and square 'you get what you asked for/what you wanted' type of system. This is _not_ brain surgery here.

 

To make my point even more clear, players who choose options **4.** or **5.** in the Guild Creation system I devised are going in with the 'plan' to have an army of Guild Members back the Guild up Upgrade-wise, just like players who choose options **1.**, **2.**, or **3.** are going in with the 'plan' to run a smaller Guild, that and knowing and/or expecting the majority of the Guild will either **1.** not help with Guild costs as much like in bigger Guilds or **2.** not be active and/or wealthy enough to get a Guild leveled high like in bigger Guilds. There is _no_ accident(s) here; you choose what you want in the system I devised, and you get what you want.

 

You want the current Guild system in the state it's in now? Choose option **5.** and you will _still_ be well-off for the simple fact there _is_ power in higher numbers of Guild Members, if you run a 500-Member Guild right. You want the system I devised that makes it fairer for smaller Guilds? Choose any option other than option **5.**, and you will get that, yet you face the drawback of having a permanently smaller Guild. That is what you call a 'balanced' double-edged sword. Therefore, any 'regrets' one may have is a result of their own Guild size decision; do _not_ blame it on the system at that point.

[Silinsar.6298]

With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

[Urud.4925]

I agree with the OP that some adjustments could be made to lessen the expenses for very small guilds. I play on a decent-sized guild but I never contributed because I don't care about the guild hall per se. On the other hand, I also play in a very very small guild with my friend (and I know there are several very small guilds only for families/relatives/couples). Having to pay 100 golds to claim it is already a decent expense for very casual players and I'm sure we won't update the guild hall at all, in the very small guild I belong to. Though it would be nice to play together to achieve some small upgrade. But just because "we made it", not because we need it.

 

Rather than capping the guild size once and for always, I'd nerf some benefits. For example, a very small guild can have a karma boost of 1 or 2% instead of 6%, with less costs. The merchant vendor could sell only the basic items, extractor tools but not loot bags or ascended mats (the daily ones). IF your guild gets bigger, you can upgrade these benefits to the regular ones, paying the difference in mats/cost. It would be like: guild level 1A (upgrade 1 with lowest tier of benefits), 1B..., 68A, 68B.

In this way, even very small guilds could enjoy the upgrade process, but since they paid less, the benefits would be less.

 

The OP way... idk, you could create your own guild, paying few money to upgrade it, and take the full benefits (pots/NPCs). I think it would encourage to make small guilds. And small guilds are probably not that interested in unlocking the full benefits, but rather in playing together to achieve some small goal. And currently it's not very doable, I agree.

EDIT: also, "realistically", why should you be able to pay less to buy the same thing? It makes more sense to pay less to buy cheaper buildings or to hire "less professional employees/NPC".

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Bunter.3795" said:

> If I, as a solo player, can complete a guild hall in one years time, there is no reason to ever change the materials needed or the time needed for a guild hall.

I wonder if we can argue by the same logic that someone became #1 rank in PvP, so there is no reason to change the balance of classes.

 

[Vayne.8563]

The reason I think it's okay as it is, costwise anyway, is because it's one and done. I finished this with my guild ages ago and there's nothing left to work on. We're done as a guild, essentially as far as progressing the guild. There's no more to do. I can say yay I have a full guild hall with everything in it, but when we were working on it it gave the guild as a whole purpose, even if not everyone was working on it. We'd see changes and growth. Now, maxed out on currency for over a year, it's not quite the same.

 

Yes, I got there faster than a small guild could. Good thing it's not a race.

[Nick Lentz.6982]

> @"Eidolonemesis.5640" said:

> > @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> > Aren't you suppose to buy a member limit upgrade anyway? Or was this removed.

> > If you are going to upgrade to 200^ but have a hall maxed for 100, you would have to invest in a 200 member guild before being able to use any guild function.

>

> You can buy Guild Member limits (as shown here: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild#Membership), **yet** the current Guild system's Upgrade costs do _not_ 'adjust' to the size of a Guild, whether or not a Guild stays the size of 50-100 Guild Members or increases in size (like in the idea I propose for a revamp of the Guild Creation system). Therefore, if your Guild is the size of 50-100 Guild Members in the current Guild system, all costs remain the same as if a 50-100-Member Guild was a 500-Member Guild.

>

> Look, I get it; the only reason most players here commenting absolutely hate my idea is because they invested a lot into their Guilds already in the current Guild system with its ridiculous high costs, and so they want to make sure everybody else pays out the nose by continuously knocking my idea as 'bad', all while ignoring the fact the Guild Creation system I propose in my OP (or something similar to it) _is_ the system we should have been given in the first place that adjusts 'Guild costs' according to 'Guild size'.

>

> To that reasoning I say tough cookies, and that Anet should revamp the Guild Creation, anyway. Will some players ragequit for a while as a result of a revamp to the Guild Creation system? Sure, but they'll be back (and most of us here know that fact, so don't bother trying to argue otherwise), because surely they are not going to throw away all their time invested into the game thus far altogether as a result of a single change, just like they didn't do so when other changes were made in the game.

 

Maybe I worded it wrong. I am aware it does not scale. But it should scale based on those upgrades, solving the problem

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades. The system isn't "unfair", it's just not what the OP would design.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Silinsar.6298" said:

> With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

 

Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

[Silinsar.6298]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Silinsar.6298" said:

> > With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

>

> Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

 

E.g. in Membership Tier 1 (50 members) you pay 10gold for upgrade x, in Tier 2 it would cost 20gold. Then when you want to upgrade the membership Tier from 1 to 2 it costs 10gold (the amount you paid less because you were a smaller sized guild) more. How does this increase the cost for any guild that stays at its smaller size and never upgrades?

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Silinsar.6298" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > @"Silinsar.6298" said:

> > > With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

> >

> > Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

>

> E.g. in Membership Tier 1 (50 members) you pay 10gold for upgrade x, in Tier 2 it would cost 20gold. Then when you want to upgrade the membership Tier from 1 to 2 it costs 10gold (the amount you paid less because you were a smaller sized guild) more. How does this increase the cost for any guild that stays at its smaller size and never upgrades?

 

So you want to convert all upgrade items to gold cost?

[Silinsar.6298]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Silinsar.6298" said:

> > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > > @"Silinsar.6298" said:

> > > > With OP's system, the membership upgrade could simply cost extra for everything unlocked / every level of the guild that will then be available to more players. Scaling problem solved(?).

> > >

> > > Nope because you would still have to pay for the larger cost while still in the smaller size.

> >

> > E.g. in Membership Tier 1 (50 members) you pay 10gold for upgrade x, in Tier 2 it would cost 20gold. Then when you want to upgrade the membership Tier from 1 to 2 it costs 10gold (the amount you paid less because you were a smaller sized guild) more. How does this increase the cost for any guild that stays at its smaller size and never upgrades?

>

> So you want to convert all upgrade items to gold cost?

 

No, that was a simplified example.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> The OP makes certain assumptions:

> * That guilds always know what they want from the start, e.g. that intentionally small guilds never grow or that intentionally large guilds never shrink.

> * That there's something wrong with the current system, in which lifetime upgrades are priced to last a lifetime.

>

> There's no question that the burden on smaller guilds is great, but that doesn't make it unreasonable or unfair. There's no guarantee that a large guild gets significant contributions from that many more people. We know, from various examples, that plenty of smaller guilds are able to upgrade.

>

> I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades.

 

Basically this: Our small 15 person guild has upgraded to level 40 over time, and will probably eventually hit the cap, with only about 4 of us actually contributing time, energy and lots and lots of gold to that effort. I am also in a much larger ~300 man guild and, surprisingly I found that the number of people actively contributing to the upgrades was only about eight people who contributed about 85% of all the costs to max out the level... so not really that many more despite the much larger size. This isn't really an isolated case as far as I have been informed by a lot of other larger guilds. A lot of the time it is only the top few officers, the ones that formed the guild in the first place, that put in the time, materials, and gold needed. The only exception really is guild missions getting completed, but tbh since races can be piggybacked off of, easy and medium treks can be done by a single person, and easy bounties can also be done easily enough by a single person a guild can more than quickly enough gain the favor needed for upgrades.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Sojourner.4621" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > The OP makes certain assumptions:

> > * That guilds always know what they want from the start, e.g. that intentionally small guilds never grow or that intentionally large guilds never shrink.

> > * That there's something wrong with the current system, in which lifetime upgrades are priced to last a lifetime.

> >

> > There's no question that the burden on smaller guilds is great, but that doesn't make it unreasonable or unfair. There's no guarantee that a large guild gets significant contributions from that many more people. We know, from various examples, that plenty of smaller guilds are able to upgrade.

> >

> > I think it's great that people like to form smaller guilds. I don't agree that means they should get a discount on permanent upgrades.

>

> Basically this: Our small 15 person guild has upgraded to level 40 over time, and will probably eventually hit the cap, with only about 4 of us actually contributing time, energy and lots and lots of gold to that effort. I am also in a much larger ~300 man guild and, surprisingly I found that the number of people actively contributing to the upgrades was only about eight people who contributed about 85% of all the costs to max out the level... so not really that many more despite the much larger size. This isn't really an isolated case as far as I have been informed by a lot of other larger guilds. A lot of the time it is only the top few officers, the ones that formed the guild in the first place, that put in the time, materials, and gold needed. The only exception really is guild missions getting completed, but tbh since races can be piggybacked off of, easy and medium treks can be done by a single person, and easy bounties can also be done easily enough by a single person a guild can more than quickly enough gain the favor needed for upgrades.

 

Pretty much the same here. We are are lv67. We'll probably never max out because some upgrades are just a waste of resources. For example, why would I want gossamer out of the cloth synth? Dumping another 400 Mystic Coins into it for WvW would be a complete waste. The money would be better spent on siege blueprints and feasts.