[Feedback] Guild Quest Rework - Dev Blog

[inyi]

- why do you think a guild with fewer members should get the same rewards as a large guild? larger guilds have always received higher ggc rewards than smaller guilds, no one complained about this before.

i agree
with this new system we actually gain more than with the old system and we have 24 members, with a few inactives only.
i think a lot, who complain they dropped, have more inactives than actives in their guild

[Iolanthe]

- why do you think a guild with fewer members should get the same rewards as a large guild? larger guilds have always received higher ggc rewards than smaller guilds, no one complained about this before.

i agree
with this new system we actually gain more than with the old system and we have 24 members, with a few inactives only.
i think a lot, who complain they dropped, have more inactives than actives in their guild

As mentioned earlier in this thread with the removal of the guild size restriction on the quests now any size guild can get any quest set. This means that a guild of 56-100 players that used to get the quests BB considered hardest now has access to 51 quest sets BB consider easier. In many cases the quests geared originally for smaller guilds are actually easier.

On the other end a small guild of 10-20 players is now faced with the possibility of 57 "harder" quest sets, with no increase to their resources or opportunities to complete them and the same new, much higher, gem cost to finish instantly. All for significantly fewer individual rewards than a larger guild.

Even on paper that looks off.

While it is likely that some of the discontent is related to the quantity of inactive members there is also a new underlying imbalance that wasn't there before.

I've said it before but it bears repeating, on the whole and purely personally, I'm in favour of the ideas behind the changes. The application of some of these ideas still needs work and a lot more of that work should have been done before the update went live. That can't be helped this time but also seems to bear repeating for the next time The Powers That Be are tempted to override test server and live forum Sneak Peek feedback.

it is true, we had one to produce 500 exo planks or something like that, it was almost done when i came online

now i wonder if it was triggered because others already did the buff part

I'm so trying to catch this. No luck yet but still very worth poking. Today however, the part of the quest to "Produce 200 Gunpowder" would remain unaffected regardless since the Powderhut sleeps unless buffed and requires a click in-game and the "Produce 500 meat" report is negative but that could possibly have been confusion on our end.
Also trying to fit the behavior of regular dailies in as well, I can't recall ever coming in to find a "produce" one of those in progress though I know I've come in to find buffs placed after the daily reset.

Re the waiting guild quests and there disappearance.

As we know frequently they did not turn up when they was supposed to, sometimes being 17 hours or more late. My thinking is maybe this flaw was at the heart of the problem preventing guilds ending up in the position of no guild quests at all. The obvious conclusion over both their removal and BB's statement about the resets no longer being required is that BB removed the waiting quests to fix the no GQ bug.

I've wondered about this too, though considering BB also made this statement, and repeated it in the FAQ in the same post, I'd disagree about the conclusion above being obvious:

The main Quest has been disconnected from the guild leader to allow a Guild Quest to be finished even in his or her absence

Be interesting to have more clearly accurate information on the various "fixes." Without that info bringing back the Waiting Quest does still certainly appear, from playerside, to be the simplest way to allow players to prepare for the more demanding quests.

[Xibor]

Specifically referring to the part of the Dev blog where it was mentioned that they will 're-evaluate' quests that may be impossible in a 24 hour period. I sure hope so.

I had one that I can't say was impossible, but definitely impractical. It was to make a tome. At the time, I had no manuscripts and was about 1/2 way through a codex. Even if I could start on the manuscript right away (I picked up the quest the moment it started) you can't make 5 manuscripts in 24 hours even with a level 6 bookbinder, even if you use small glue. I could have got it done if I bought a hide glue but I'm not going to pay those kinds of gems (184?) for the few guild coins I would earn.

Since books can't be traded your guild members can't help you - so I think that quest needs some reconsideration.

[Mitasan]

yo guys i am speaking on behalf of the whole Guild "Bulgaria on 3 Seas" - we like the new system very much and we congratulate you for the nice rework you did here In the previous system we were constantly struggling with a few downsides - inactive players, or online players who don't participate actively in the GK etc.
Now as i see - many of the guild members became more and more active and it improved even the social part between us

So yeah - Thumbsup and GG

[SmurfAsH]

The main Quest has been disconnected from the guild leader to allow a Guild Quest to be finished even in his or her absence

Be interesting to have more clearly accurate information on the various "fixes." Without that info bringing back the Waiting Quest does still certainly appear, from playerside, to be the simplest way to allow players to prepare for the more demanding quests.

I think the answer is in..

First of all, why was a rework of the Guild Quest system necessary?

With the old guild system, there were numerous concerns about guilds that were blocked because of inactive players, and inactive leaders who were not able to cancel the quests in case it was impossible for the guild to complete them.

[SirPoz]

Hey Devs,
How come you guys ask guild players to do quality adventures like nords etc and not Co-op adventures instead.
Most explorers bring back lots and lots of co-op adventures and not one of them is a part of a guild quest!
As the guilds are a team, it would make more sense for you guys (BB devs) to remove hard to get adventures like nords and replace them with co-op adventures.
Come on BB fix this guild quest system by thinking of the players.

[Mortallicus]

Hey Devs,
How come you guys ask guild players to do quality adventures like nords etc and not Co-op adventures instead.
Most explorers bring back lots and lots of co-op adventures and not one of them is a part of a guild quest!
As the guilds are a team, it would make more sense for you guys (BB devs) to remove hard to get adventures like nords and replace them with co-op adventures.
Come on BB fix this guild quest system by thinking of the players.

I think when quests say experience a new adventure this is where co-ops could take a part and I think will do more now.

[Iolanthe]

Hey SmurfAsH, I'd wondered if that was meant to be an explanation of the earlier phrasing or if it was in addition to the old BB belief that only a guild leader could complete the GQ for the guild and that the leader had to log in daily for the quests to appear. Be nice if it is clarification of the Peek and not years of confusion popping up again.

~

It's interesting how consistently it is possible to correctly guess guild size based only on Really Like It/Not Thrilled in a post. There is some variation but on the whole it seems to be holding up that larger guilds are happiest while smaller guilds are seeing the most difficulty. As an example I'd have bet 'Bulgaria on 3 Seas' is a big guild, opening the guild list on Sandycove confirmed it. So far this little gamble has worked almost perfectly, on several language versions, for the guesses I've been able to check. While it's grand the larger guilds are reasonably well pleased/thrilled it would be much nicer all round if the dividing line wasn't so very clear*.

Strength in numbers, settlers!

is not the only way to play the game.


*It would be great to see a string of posts from small guilds poking holes in this. That would mean the imbalance isn't as heavy as it appears.

[Kizarvexious]

*It would be great to see a string of posts from small guilds poking holes in this. That would mean the imbalance isn't as heavy as it appears.

No, the imbalance is definitely as heavy as it appears. As head of a Small Guild (Hot Coffee Drinkers) we're suffering quite a bit. Nobody wants to join us because we're small. Trying to grow a Guild now is a futile task. Everybody is joining the larger Guilds. In fact all Small Guilds now seem to be suffering. The only option is to completely close the Guild and move our family, lock, stock and barrel, over to another Guild.

[ambandil]

I think when quests say experience a new adventure this is where co-ops could take a part and I think will do more now.

no

coops are actually difficult to set up finish etc as you are dependent on others- esp with the 3/4 persons one. And all need to do their part at more or less the same time to not cause bottlenecks- So single person adventure, a lootspot or even a scenario is much easier solution than a coop. This revamp doesn't make coops more attractive, review of loots is needed for that