Guild Conquest Rewards

[Gaspodia]

I would like to propose some changes to the conquest reward structure, since the overwhelming majority of guilds that participated will have been told they failed to be placed in the top ten - in bright red letters, in case they missed the point that they had failed. *This meant that a week of fun guild activity will always end on a downer for most guilds because the current system has been designed to allow only a very few guilds to achieve meaningful rewards for this activity.

 

There are lots of ways of making conquests both competitive, fair and accessible to guilds of various size, including:

 

a) Bracketing leader boards by guild size (there is already a metric for counting the number of active players so based on that, or characters).

 

b) Have a points based reward in addition to a leader board placement reward for participating guilds that reach certain levels of conquest points.

 

c) Change % of player contribution that goes into the guild conquest points formula to one that is divided by number of (active) players. This could be subject to a minimum divisor of 12 (the minimum players required to for a guild to have a bank and therefore participate) or other meaningful number to avoid this favouring the one/two man guilds. I think EQ2 do something similar for guild rep but I'm not sure of the exact numbers.

 

I wouldn't want anything that made conquests less fun for the larger guilds, they deserve the opportunity to earn rewards too of course. I would just like something that allowed all guilds that worked towards this to have something for their efforts.

[Ratajack]

I would like to propose some changes to the conquest reward structure, since the overwhelming majority of guilds that participated will have been told they failed to be placed in the top ten - in bright red letters, in case they missed the point that they had failed. *This meant that a week of fun guild activity will always end on a downer for most guilds because the current system has been designed to allow only a very few guilds to achieve meaningful rewards for this activity.

 

There are lots of ways of making conquests both competitive, fair and accessible to guilds of various size, including:

 

a) Bracketing leader boards by guild size (there is already a metric for counting the number of active players so based on that, or characters).

 

b) Have a points based reward in addition to a leader board placement reward for participating guilds that reach certain levels of conquest points.

 

c) Change % of player contribution that goes into the guild conquest points formula to one that is divided by number of (active) players. This could be subject to a minimum divisor of 12 (the minimum players required to for a guild to have a bank and therefore participate) or other meaningful number to avoid this favouring the one/two man guilds. I think EQ2 do something similar for guild rep but I'm not sure of the exact numbers.

 

I wouldn't want anything that made conquests less fun for the larger guilds, they deserve the opportunity to earn rewards too of course. I would just like something that allowed all guilds that worked towards this to have something for their efforts.

 

If a guild didn't make top ten, they didn't make it. I would hope that most guilds and their members are mature enough to understand that not everyone can "win" and that "participation trophies" are NOT needed.

[Gaspodia]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I was suggesting adding further rewards to increase the longevity and inclusiveness of the event. The bounty hunter event is perhaps a good example to illustrate this, as it is both open to a wide range of characters and crucially, all levels of characters that are able to participate have an equal chance to earn a reward from it.

 

While all guilds with a guild bank are eligible to participate in conquests, only a very few stand any chance of earning a guild reward as the current way of calculating winners is hugely biased towards guilds with a high number of members.

 

I feel it is a waste of a good event to effectively minimise eligible participants by using the current reward structure. The game has room for all kinds of guilds and I believe many people prefer to be in guilds that are smaller and perhaps feel more personal.

[azudelphi]

While all guilds with a guild bank are eligible to participate in conquests, only a very few stand any chance of earning a guild reward as the current way of calculating winners is hugely biased towards guilds with a high number of members.

 

It is incredibly unfair... I know I am still waiting on my Superbowl Ring because I played a game of flag football once.

 

Long story short, no... no additional rewards are needed. Either you win or you don't. Some people won't win. Some people will. Placing top 10 can be done by even a medium sized guild.

[Gaspodia]

*Shrug* my suggestion wasn't aimed at *you* but at the devs. You are entitled to your opinion of it of course

[Gaspodia]

Bah please ignore double post ..stoopid mobile phone...bah Edited August 26, 2014 by Gaspodia
double post

[Caralysse]

To say, "there are always winners and there are always losers, get over it" may be true, but it also shows a level of nonchalant elitism.

 

If the #10 guild on the leaderboard has scored over 2 million Conquest points, how is any small(er) guild expected to compete? Seriously.

 

Are the Conquest rewards listed - "junk", a packet of resource decor, a few thousand credits and ONE encryption chip - really worth it to a competitive guild at that level of achievement? Obviously, they're competing at a far higher level of playership or (perhaps) focus. Whereas, for a small guild to complete 35k Conquest points with maybe only a handful active players, that reward is significantly more substantial.

 

It would be better to offer the very large and competitive guilds a higher return on their efforts - and award any guild which completes the stated task. Tier the reward system, perhaps, to top 10 <-> 500K CP <->100K CP <-> 35K CP or somesuch with appropriate incentives.

 

As it is now, there is NO incentive for a smaller guild to attempt this system. NONE. And you detractors seem to be saying not to even bother. That sentiment does not encourage improvement or innovation.

[Lotharofxev]

As it is now, there is NO incentive for a smaller guild to attempt this system. NONE.

 

Truth.

 

And you detractors seem to be saying not to even bother.

 

That sentiment does not encourage improvement or innovation.

 

Allow me to combine your last two sentences and add something

 

"The system does not encourage PARTICIPATION." (by smaller guilds).

[Ratajack]

Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Allow me to combine your last two sentences and add something

 

"The system does not encourage PARTICIPATION." (by smaller guilds).

 

"If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home"? That's your answer?

 

It's not nonchalant elitism to recognize that not everyone can win. Do we really need to coddle every player in the game with "participation trophies"? If that is the case, let's just give every player everything that is, ever was or ever will be in the game simply for logging in to the game.

[Lotharofxev]

Win? LOL.

 

It costs 50 million to be admitted into the arena. We've chosen not to pay that.

 

We've chosen not to participate in a system that rewards quantity. Because there is no way we can finish in the top-10. Not and have a life.

 

We're not looking for a "participation ribbon". Far from it. But let's acknowledge this "content" for what it is. Maybe, MAYBE, a year down the road when the larger guilds have gotten tired of this "content", we'll make a one week run to place in the top-10. But given the underwhelming rewards, I rather doubt it.

[Ratajack]

Win? LOL.

 

It costs 50 million to be admitted into the arena. We've chosen not to pay that.

 

We've chosen not to participate in a system that rewards quantity. Because there is no way we can finish in the top-10. Not and have a life.

 

We're not looking for a "participation ribbon". Far from it. But let's acknowledge this "content" for what it is. Maybe, MAYBE, a year down the road when the larger guilds have gotten tired of this "content", we'll make a one week run to place in the top-10. But given the underwhelming rewards, I rather doubt it.

 

No, your solution is to not participate. Instead, you choose to complain that it is unfair that you don't get those participation trophies and that it's unfair that you can't win.

 

Sure, there are guilds that have an advantage and will likely be in the top ten each week, just as there are individuals and teams at any level of organized competitions that will usually be near the top. I'm not trying to be elitist, and I am not in one of those guilds. In fact, my guild does not even have a guild ship yet, as we have only about 2 dozen members total and only 2 or 3 active, atm.

 

 

The OP does seem to be asking for participation trophies, though. What would happen if BW did decidfe implement participation trophies (tiered rewards) and the OP's guild didn't even make top ten in the tiered rewards? I'm betting he would be back here asking for more tiers or some other way to get that participation trophy.

[Caralysse]

"If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home"? That's your answer?

 

It's not nonchalant elitism to recognize that not everyone can win. Do we really need to coddle every player in the game with "participation trophies"? If that is the case, let's just give every player everything that is, ever was or ever will be in the game simply for logging in to the game.

 

Now you're just being silly.

 

We have a small guild. Several of us worked hard this weekend - only the weekend since we all have lives outside the game that require most of our waking hours - and managed to hit the 35k Conquest points only to realize that there was no way this side of hell that it mattered. It was nice to hit it on a personal level, but as a guild ........ why bother? (except for the satisfaction of having done it, of course)

 

I don't want a shiny free ribbon, I want a fair shot at the ribbon. As it is now, conquest ONLY favors very large guilds with a quantity of players grinding away. Maybe they like the grind, and if they do that's great. But the truth of the matter is that Conquest totally alienates and essentially eliminates participation by smaller guilds. Period.

[Lotharofxev]

No, your solution is to not participate.

 

I think I said that when I said we chose not to pay 50 million simply to enter the arena.

 

Instead, you choose to complain that it is unfair that you don't get those participation trophies and that it's unfair that you can't win.

 

I'm complaining? If you equate "complaining" to pointing out the flaws in the system, then yeah, I suppose I'm "complaining".

 

LOLLERS.

[JamieKirby]

I would like to propose some changes to the conquest reward structure, since the overwhelming majority of guilds that participated will have been told they failed to be placed in the top ten - in bright red letters, in case they missed the point that they had failed. *This meant that a week of fun guild activity will always end on a downer for most guilds because the current system has been designed to allow only a very few guilds to achieve meaningful rewards for this activity.

 

There are lots of ways of making conquests both competitive, fair and accessible to guilds of various size, including:

 

a) Bracketing leader boards by guild size (there is already a metric for counting the number of active players so based on that, or characters).

 

b) Have a points based reward in addition to a leader board placement reward for participating guilds that reach certain levels of conquest points.

 

c) Change % of player contribution that goes into the guild conquest points formula to one that is divided by number of (active) players. This could be subject to a minimum divisor of 12 (the minimum players required to for a guild to have a bank and therefore participate) or other meaningful number to avoid this favouring the one/two man guilds. I think EQ2 do something similar for guild rep but I'm not sure of the exact numbers.

 

I wouldn't want anything that made conquests less fun for the larger guilds, they deserve the opportunity to earn rewards too of course. I would just like something that allowed all guilds that worked towards this to have something for their efforts.

 

This is why i never participate in this garbage, EAware should have used the resources for something better, just my opinion.

[Galbsadi]

"If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home"? That's your answer?

 

It's not nonchalant elitism to recognize that not everyone can win. Do we really need to coddle every player in the game with "participation trophies"? If that is the case, let's just give every player everything that is, ever was or ever will be in the game simply for logging in to the game.

 

I'd make the argument that it's not quite like that at all in comparison. Your argument would be, for example, you or me vs a professional athlete in their sport. About 99% chance of us losing, but slim (SLIM) possibility of us winning.

 

This conquest situation is like a war between a man with a stick and the US Military.

[azudelphi]

I'd make the argument that it's not quite like that at all in comparison. Your argument would be, for example, you or me vs a professional athlete in their sport. About 99% chance of us losing, but slim (SLIM) possibility of us winning.

 

This conquest situation is like a war between a man with a stick and the US Military.

 

An organized group of 12 can place top 10. I know, our guild has done it twice.

 

We will probably conquer a planet one day as well.

 

So, through my personal experience, your premise that only large guilds place top 10 is false.

[Ratajack]

An organized group of 12 can place top 10. I know, our guild has done it twice.

 

We will probably conquer a planet one day as well.

 

So, through my personal experience, your premise that only large guilds place top 10 is false.

 

You bring logic and truth to the forums?

 

A small guild can compete. It seems, though, that many do not want to put forth any effort. Instead, they would rather ask BW to give them participation trophies, or to punish the guilds that do make top ten by banning them from competing again.

[BrystShevr]

I agree that Conquest rewards need to be reworked....what happens when the guilds that consistently end up in the top 10 unlock all of their guild ship? What will they do with the logistics then from further conquests? Plus, gathering nodes as a reward are kind of lame in my opinion....

 

Instead, there could be personal guild goals for getting the logistics for each conquest. Meaning X guild has to earn X points during this conquest to unlock logistics for each toon. That way even the smaller guilds can eventually open up all of their guild ship.

 

The top ten guilds should be getting decorations for their guild ship AT LEAST, so that they can actually fill up the massive guild ship with limited edition stuff. But not nodes or other lame deco, they should be able to select a single massive decoration (ancient holocron for example) or a pack of smaller decorations (flags, rugs, wall hangings, etc)...or something along those lines...

 

But the top guild for the planet should get something USEFUL. I mean really, a walker and a flyby? I lost interest in the first week... Each member of the top guild should earn something like x2 WZ comms, x2 EXP, x2 Credits, x2 crafting mats, etc.

[AdrianDmitruk]

You bring logic and truth to the forums?

 

A small guild can compete. It seems, though, that many do not want to put forth any effort. Instead, they would rather ask BW to give them participation trophies, or to punish the guilds that do make top ten by banning them from competing again.

 

Indeed a smaller guild can "compete." The question of whether it is worth it, however, might be another story.

 

Take my guild for example. We have a small but incredibly tight knit core of five players (and another handful of casually active players as well). But I'm pretty sure the number of active, unique player accounts we have is less than 10. We can't even get all the numbers on at the same time to run operations as a guild. (FPs, yes, ops no, and I must pug the latter, but that's a different story.)

 

We also happen to have an intense rivalry with a guild about eight times our size, with about 40 players as active as we are, and this last week our two guilds happened to invade the same planet, which my guild effectively understood as a wardec.

 

We managed to place eighth, a mere 30k points ahead of their ninth place finish. We did technically "compete" and even win a spot on the leaderboards, but at what cost? I alone did 425k conquest points' worth of output, almost all of which was in the last two days of the event, because I had to work two double shifts earlier in the week and couldn't be on earlier.

 

Should a small guild literally have to be EIGHT TIMES as active and dedicated, as quantified by our results, both cumulative and per capita, as a larger guild simply to "compete?"

 

I set aside the question for now of whether or not a small guild should ever have a resonable expectation of placing first and taking a planet from the megaguilds as that is a very different question. But the present lack of tiers and/or per capita guild rewards creates an environment where smaller guilds who do wish to participate must heavily consider whether to merge and/or mass recruit, which in turn will dilute their identity and cohesiveness as a guild. By all means give the first place finishing guild an epic centerpiece or something for their guild ship. But guilds like us face a Faustian bargian of either slaving away at grinding (we placed only because I crafted for NINE CONSECUTIVE HOURS IN ONE SITTING RIGHT BEFORE RESET to keep up), diluting their cohesiveness/culture/identity by merging or lowering recruitment standards to fill up with warm bodies, or simply not opting to participate in the content at all. There's literally no incentive to run the content past the personal quota unless you know and expect your guild can place in the top 10, and even then the incentive is quite lackluster.

 

I really don't see a reason not to tier this that doesn't boil down to "I'm in a guild ten times your size and like it just the way it is so I can coast to victory without having to be nearly as dedicated as you."

Edited September 9, 2014 by AdrianDmitruk

[LordBarok]

Simplify it...

 

1st Place: 3x Guild Rewards

2nd-10th Place: 2x Guild Rewards

Rest of Participants: 1x Guild Rewards

[Kulyok]

Simplify it...

 

1st Place: 3x Guild Rewards

2nd-10th Place: 2x Guild Rewards

Rest of Participants: 1x Guild Rewards

 

You mean, everyone, who is in a guild and qualifies for a personal reward, should get a double reward for... well, just being in a guild? No way.

[Heat-Wave]

"If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home"? That's your answer?

 

If you can't win, why would you play? There should at least be a chance to win, if the game is setup to make that chance almost zero, why play?

[LordBarok]

You mean, everyone, who is in a guild and qualifies for a personal reward, should get a double reward for... well, just being in a guild? No way.

 

No, I'm saying that guilds that participate get the guild rewards for their characters that met the personal guild contribution goals, whether they place on top 10 or not. Guilds that place on top 10 get 2 times the guild reward bonus, and guilds that place 1st get 3 times the guild reward bonus.

[magicallypuzzled]

Indeed a smaller guild can "compete." The question of whether it is worth it, however, might be another story.

 

Take my guild for example. We have a small but incredibly tight knit core of five players (and another handful of casually active players as well). But I'm pretty sure the number of active, unique player accounts we have is less than 10. We can't even get all the numbers on at the same time to run operations as a guild. (FPs, yes, ops no, and I must pug the latter, but that's a different story.)

 

We also happen to have an intense rivalry with a guild about eight times our size, with about 40 players as active as we are, and this last week our two guilds happened to invade the same planet, which my guild effectively understood as a wardec.

 

We managed to place eighth, a mere 30k points ahead of their ninth place finish. We did technically "compete" and even win a spot on the leaderboards, but at what cost? I alone did 425k conquest points' worth of output, almost all of which was in the last two days of the event, because I had to work two double shifts earlier in the week and couldn't be on earlier.

 

Should a small guild literally have to be EIGHT TIMES as active and dedicated, as quantified by our results, both cumulative and per capita, as a larger guild simply to "compete?"

 

I set aside the question for now of whether or not a small guild should ever have a resonable expectation of placing first and taking a planet from the megaguilds as that is a very different question. But the present lack of tiers and/or per capita guild rewards creates an environment where smaller guilds who do wish to participate must heavily consider whether to merge and/or mass recruit, which in turn will dilute their identity and cohesiveness as a guild. By all means give the first place finishing guild an epic centerpiece or something for their guild ship. But guilds like us face a Faustian bargian of either slaving away at grinding (we placed only because I crafted for NINE CONSECUTIVE HOURS IN ONE SITTING RIGHT BEFORE RESET to keep up), diluting their cohesiveness/culture/identity by merging or lowering recruitment standards to fill up with warm bodies, or simply not opting to participate in the content at all. There's literally no incentive to run the content past the personal quota unless you know and expect your guild can place in the top 10, and even then the incentive is quite lackluster.

 

I really don't see a reason not to tier this that doesn't boil down to "I'm in a guild ten times your size and like it just the way it is so I can coast to victory without having to be nearly as dedicated as you."

 

wait beating the much larger guild you have a rivalry with wasn't reward enough? how so? If i was in that guild the thought of being worth 8 or so players in the other guild would have me smiling for weeks. Sure it's a lot of work but you act like it's something you have to do every week for it to be worthwhile content what's wrong with taking weeks off? heck if you retired from it after just that one time you're never going to lose bragging rights for that how is it it not worth it in and of itself?

[AdrianDmitruk]

wait beating the much larger guild you have a rivalry with wasn't reward enough? how so? If i was in that guild the thought of being worth 8 or so players in the other guild would have me smiling for weeks. Sure it's a lot of work but you act like it's something you have to do every week for it to be worthwhile content what's wrong with taking weeks off? heck if you retired from it after just that one time you're never going to lose bragging rights for that how is it it not worth it in and of itself?

 

The act of beating said guild was plenty reward enough!

 

However, you seem to have missed my point entirely, that being the proposed nerfs to crafting will render any repeat of said accomplishment impossible. If crafting for conquest points becomes gated by lockouts, the only way for my small guild to repeat such an accomplishment would be to expand to their guild's size as the per capita limit would apply to everything. The only way around it without diluting the closeness of the guild would be for each of us to literally make alts until we have, on average, eight times as many alts per player as they do.

 

Even if we suppose that the other guild only PVPs, and we're willing to PVP, PVE, and craft to attain the maximum breadth of point sources possible per character, we'd still need around 3 times as many alts per capita as them to have any hope of repeating that feat. Given that they also have alts, we would run into characters per server hardcaps very quickly.