1.20 Poll

Yeah, map is going to be hardcore stale until they make changes to make active participation feasible.

________________________________

I'm with you on that.

I see that is has some benefits, although I think the new guild cost fails to recognize the guild ambition and how ordinary guilds have contributed to Wynncraft's success. Guilds were established as permanent parties, and majority of guilds are friend groups that play Wynn together and invite each other. They may not be mainstream, but they are essential. The guild experience is rad and its true ambition creating a clan even if its just to chill with your friends.

Guilds are for the purpose of community nonetheless, hence I think the cost being this high to promote community which overall contributes towards Wynncraft and the player experience is questionable.

I feel like this decision was made with mainstream war guilds in thought, and to put larger restrictions on sub usage as a result, although it doesn't play out like that.

Overall, it doesn't sit well with me amidst all the new expenses revolving around the guild feature in general.

 

i like the changes

 

ayo monki?

 

I like the changes as well. I am personally a big fan of the update. I like how new wars work and how territories have a management and strategical aspect to them. That said, I do have some concerns about how some of the game mechancis function.

The developers weren't intending to deliver an update that was perfect on launch. Hero beta couldn't bring even close to the testing they needed, in order to really see it function and how it would play out, it needed to be done on live and in real play. Now that the update has been launched, they have seen how it currently works as a feature and are basing changes off of real results.

Although it isn't over. Xp for example is extremely low right now because they wanted to see how much land a guild could virtually own. That is still going on.

If the update was perfect, there wouldn't be new balances and fixes in every hotfix.

The update has a lot of potential, and I am a huge fan of some of the integral changes in the system. It really comes down to execution.

 

I agree. There should probably be some changes to balance out things but in general I like the system.

 

The most urgent and most gamebreaking problem guilds have right now is the cost to start wars not being fair to either small new guild or big but wiped guild.

Thus i find little reason to even bother writing essays about the 10 other fun and/or balance ideas I have until we can get verification that a solution for it is being worked on.

(Refer to the specific thread about that)

 

The whole "all-or-nothing" dynamic of HQ's and warstarting has created a nasty money sink and loophole that is, like many others stated here, chokeholding peoples ability to even play the guildgame. I understand that the emerald costs to starting wars was meant as a control mechanism for guilds persistently on the attack, to make them have some kind of 'disadvantage' but it is completely overkill. Guilds tryna get on the map are almost always using players' personal emeralds because in order to use guild bank emeralds you'd need to have a guild bank, but to have a guilid bank you need an HQ. I struggle to comprehend how the developers did not think that this would cause a deadly cycle of money sinking that many people cannot afford. Another classic example of trying to solve a problem in an over the top and shortsighted way.

I do not necessarily think that the war emerald cost *needs* to be completely removed, so I have a rough idea for a compromise: Don't charge emeralds for wars until a Guild places its HQ or is attacking another guild's HQ. This helps combat the participation-suppressing money sink that warstarting has become while also keeping the intent of the feature intact. The damage an attacking guild can do to a defending guild isn't very much unless an HQ is involved, but most guilds can't even get there in the first place because of the war costs.

What a change like this would allow is the ability for guild emerald storage to build up and be spent on wars rather than draining guild members' wallets. Couple this with polishing the Tax system and you still keep the general idea of warring strategically and with some form of risk; reckless attacks with only your 1 HQ territory giving output is not sustainable for its guild bank, it keeps warcost meaningful, but also fairer. This change also allows guilds to do wars 'for fun' or for testing builds without any cost to them, which I think is okay because again, you're not going to do much in the way of wiping lands or upgrading your defenses until you're fighting or defending HQs. It's enough tho to give guilds a fighting chance of getting to that stage of the game cuz right now very few can, and for those who can afford they don't see spending some much personal LE worth it.

 

whole map is allied :( . some guilds leave alliance, fight back. Boom! more competition more fun for everyone.

 

Goose has nothing to do with this problem, and honestly doing this wouldn't help unless the strongest goose guilds do this, which wouldn't make much sense.

 

It's really not just about competition. Trust me, there will be enough competition when the system is acutally rewarding & when it is worth it to hold territories

Anyways just would like to give my 2 cents on this:
> Absolutely agree that paying 2LE is an absurd sinkhole that should not exist, since paying with your guild HQs emeralds also isn't an viable option. This because:
- you either already have an established area with territories which makes the warring timer in other territories while using your guilds HQs emeralds VERY long
- or you don't have any territories, but then the problem is that the war cost (8192) can not be covered by the production cost of emeralds if you just take 1 territory and place your HQ. You would be able to do <2
wars and already run out of emeralds...

| Maybe the /gu contribute command can be brought back (with the old emerald storage), and let that be used for wars. The war cost should then be brought back to 32EB (2048E), which makes it almost equal to pre-1.20 1000 fillers. If territories, apart from emeralds used for territory upgrades, also dropped emeralds going into the /gu contribute storage then the war cost makes sense (since you'd get money from territories & people lootrunning could get back to donating the emeralds with /gu contribute)

> At the moment there is no reason to hold territories:
- the tome seeking bonus is very expensive and unproportional because you'd have to give up guild tower defence to get a decently high chance of finding one
- the emerald seeking bonus is also too expensive because it again uses a lot of fish while you don't really gain that much emeralds from it (e.g. if you wanted to cover the attack costs with it, you can not)
- the xp seeking bonus is just not good, on max level you can get 6k xp/hour, which you can get from 1 mob in SE...

> Headquarters are really easy to wipe in the current system. Your HQ was supposed to be something that is hard to take, but all you really have to do is block the entrances to the HQ, tax it very high and you'll have the HQ in no-time (whenever the defences lower). I haven't quite come up with an idea to fix this, but the HQ should definitely be something that should only be able to be taken after all other terrs are wiped.

> The T11 tower bug (well.. ''intended game feature'') is something I still don't understand. You just shouldn't be able to defend a tower with T11 bonusses if you don't have the resources for it. I get it that you might be able to hold it for a little bit, but not for >5mins, it should just reset pretty quickly

I do see a lot of potential with the new guild update. I like the strategy aspect of guild wars with the upgrades/bonusses & resource distribution (and the other guild features: guild bank, new guild rank etc) but in the current state it is not enjoyable. Holding territories should be rewarding, not an sinkhole for emeralds and HQs should actually be your strongest tower of your claim which can only be taken when you've lost almost all of your other territories.

 

Great discussion going on in the gl x staff discord :)

Keep suggesting and sharing your thoughts here so we can bring up it up and refer to what people are saying about game mechanics and the feature.

 

I really want to like this update at the first weekish i really liked it. I mostly think that was hey it's a cool guild update haven't had one of those ever. But as time has passed i have gotten really dissatisfied with the update. But the thing is for me atleast, i feel once you get your guild established there is nothing for a guild member to do other then grind xp. back in 1.19 you did'nt have a huge amount of things you could do but now it feels there is only one thing to do. All i find myself doing on wynn now is Grind xp or be afk. They came up with a pretty cool idea of managing territories but didn't give any reason to have territories or anything to do once you have territories. I really want something i can do to help my guild casually, in 1.19 i could war and it would give xp and emeralds to my guild. it did'nt give a ton but it sure as hell gave more then 6000xp and hour and it added up over time. I've seen a few cool ideas such and daily/weekly/monthly guild Challenges. I really think they need something that you can compete against other guilds/guild members over long periods of time, like how people would compete for most wars pre-1.20

 

In my opinion new wars have some interesting mechanics like different bonuses for territories and guilds but update really hit small/medium guilds with war costs. Its also really hard to use old guild emeralds, getting 1 or 2 territories isnt a big deal, but you cant have strong hq without more of them, which hits smaller guilds more than the bigger ones. It was possible for them to actually try controlling territories but now with attack cost and bonuses strongly based on amount of territories owned its nearly impossible.
In Changelog Salted said "We're hoping this will allow large guilds to have a stable hold of some territories without needing to play 24/7 to defend it, and also give a chance for newcomers to get started without getting instantly destroyed by a guild with 80 territories."
The update really made it harder, it was possible before, but now...well

 

Absolutely. This update has not been well to the average guild. Creation cost went were quintupled and now participation in the war system is a rather large expense.

To be honestly I don’t really understand the whole point of warring from your own emeralds in a system designed to have territories and headquarters and war from there with resource management. It kind of just voids and invalidated all that when used regularly.

 

warring system IS intriguing and I have already spent an ungodly amount of personal LE on wars, will very confidently say I have a grasp on the new system. Would also be completely willing to continue lootrunning & financing the warring IF IT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP MY GUILD. Essentially deleting XP gain from territories really was a bit problematic. Ruined all the incentive for the average warrer & general non-prof hardcore people (which I believe is more than prof hardcore people) and as we are seeing with the PROF guild right now, they only really focus SE.
In conclusion people would at least still engage in the whole territory/warring stuff if it actually did help their guild or even became the strongest XP source now with glowbulb gone. Bring back XP gain. If it'd be upgradable as some sort of territory Resource Bonus or scaled somehow with nearby trade routes, perhaps even something like territories have to move the XP to the HQ I do imagine that could be rather intriguing & incentivising.

 

guild update in a nutshell:
>>spend 2 stx to wipe a guild for no reason other than to be on map and tomes
>>get wiped after people start going offline because people have lives to live
>>repeat from step 1

 

Coming from somebody who doesn't really do guilds anymore (since 1.19), I think the worst part is that there was clearly effort put into trying to make guilds better but it was just so unbelievably misguided. I feel like instead of looking at what worked with guilds before and building on it they just scrapped everything so they could make a "better" system, but in the process they lost so much of what made old guilds fun in the first place.

Not that old guilds were perfect, but I think what made them fun was the simplicity. You didn't need constantly need territories to exist as a guild so the stakes of losing them was fairly low but you could gain emeralds and XP from having them so taking them was rewarding which is a dynamic that lends itself to making compromises with others and forming alliances and stuff. The complexity of old guilds clearly came from the politics and not from the game mechanics, which may or may not have been a good thing, but it made guilds easy to understand and for me at least, made me more interested in interacting with my guild members since we were working together and had a clear goal.

I get what they were going for by adding in all the extra stuff, the guild towers are a cool idea, trade routes are interesting and all the resource management stuff is interesting, but the problem is that it's all built on the same base of territories which can be easily taken. Because territories have all this added value, losing them is so much worse then before to the point where it can completely kill your guild if you lose them all. The resource management is cool, but there's no point in spending time actually doing the math when your plan could completely fall apart in a few minutes. In the new system, way too much importance is placed on being online 24/7 because if you're not online, you risk losing basically everything. In this new system, people don't even have time for politics because they're too busy making sure their guild still exists. I can't believe I'm saying this, but guilds are just way too mechanically complex and require way too much effort to be fun and I don't think there's any way to easily fix the current system to make it better which is a real shame.

 

Any opinions on the new guild changes this hotfix?

 

made a thread about strategist perms but thought I'd share here aswell
https://forums.wynncraft.com/threads/change-perms-place-hqs-for-strategists.285554/

Giving strategist the ability to place HQs would be great, since (especially for attacking guilds) you need your HQ and there is not always a chief online

 

- The 3 days timer while annoying is probably a necessary evil
- The 10 minute grace period after a war, has been observed to be very discouraging and often kills the momentum of a good war fray, which makes it less fun. This probably had the most complaints I have seen within my guild trying to reclaim the ground it just lost.
I'd like to know if this 10 minute cooldown is really necessary and why that is.

- The fact that attacking guilds are not penalized in the slightest for attempting an attack, only to be wiped again after.
This is something I feel people are still sleeping on because it's not immediately obvious But the amount of energy it requires for an attacker (who already have the advantage of starting their HQ wherever they please AND able to pick the time of the attack to suit their timezone) to just attack and attack compared to a defender who has to defend + constantly manage their territory resource management due to production terrs and routes getting cut off is an big imbalance. This wouldn't be a huge problem if it weren't for the fact that even if you get rid of an attacking guild, they can keep trying again and again.
I'd rather not have it this way since it encourages bully tactics. I'd rather see some limit to how often a guild can make an attempt to establish a claim daily.