difficulty in PvE doesnt really define end game. In most cases the difficulty is over come with a specific set of toons that can be achieved by a wide range of players.
They seem to be trying to set "end game" with a level of development. That's what GP is, it's a measure of how much time and/or $$ the player has invested
But by imposing it on an entire guild, it's not about how much time and/or $$ the player has invested. It becomes about how much time and/or $$ EVERY player in the guild has invested.
And if other guild members haven't spent as much as you, you might find yourself with a personal GP of 3M+ but still unable to play despite your time and/or $$ investment. The only way to play would then be to abandon your guild, thus hurting the guild, thus proving my original point.
This 80M requirement hurts smaller guilds by tempting bigger players within those guilds to leave.
I know that but analogies only work if most people understand them.
I could start talking about taking on Yig versus taking on Cthulhu with the Innsmouth board and both Heralds and don't use Kate or Patrice ... but I'm not sure that everyone will get the reference.
How do you define end game? This has been a long conversation and it is hard to define. Many "end game" toons and raid tiers are accomplished by a very wide range of players within a fairly short time after they are released..
But please, please note that I have never once argued that Geonosis should not be very hard. I am all for very hard content for the "end of game" players. In fact I even said earlier in the thread that I would welcome MORE very hard "end of game" content.
But allow everyone to play it! Allow everyone to see for themselves how tough it is.
If I pay a Chess simulator, it might come with 20 different levels of difficulty. I can try level 20 straight away if I want. I will lose badly but I can try it. Nobody would be justified in saying that level 20 should then be easier. It's there for the experts but the beginners can still try it if they want to. There are 19 other levels to try in the meantime.
Why should this game be any different? No Chess simulator says "well, your ELO Chess rating is 1,700 but the programmers reckon you should be 2,000 to try level 20 so we're not going to let you have a go at all".
Surely it should be up to the players to decide if they are willing to risk getting no rewards at all for a Territory Battle?
That might be true of your chess simulator, but there are plenty of games for which it is not true. I have played numerous games with multiple difficulty settings that didn’t let you jump right to 20 at the start. You had to win on “hard” in order to unlock “very hard,” and win on “very hard” to unlock “super crazy difficult.”
That might be true of your chess simulator, but there are plenty of games for which it is not true. I have played numerous games with multiple difficulty settings that didn’t let you jump right to 20 at the start. You had to win on “hard” in order to unlock “very hard,” and win on “very hard” to unlock “super crazy difficult.”
Yeah, I know but I was trying to find an analogy that everyone would be able to follow. But you're not the only one to point out the inaccuracy of the comparison so it looks like I chose my analogy poorly.
difficulty in PvE doesnt really define end game. In most cases the difficulty is over come with a specific set of toons that can be achieved by a wide range of players.
They seem to be trying to set "end game" with a level of development. That's what GP is, it's a measure of how much time and/or $$ the player has invested
But by imposing it on an entire guild, it's not about how much time and/or $$ the player has invested. It becomes about how much time and/or $$ EVERY player in the guild has invested.
And if other guild members haven't spent as much as you, you might find yourself with a personal GP of 3M+ but still unable to play despite your time and/or $$ investment. The only way to play would then be to abandon your guild, thus hurting the guild, thus proving my original point.
This 80M requirement hurts smaller guilds by tempting bigger players within those guilds to leave.
I know that but analogies only work if most people understand them.
I could start talking about taking on Yig versus taking on Cthulhu with the Innsmouth board and both Heralds and don't use Kate or Patrice ... but I'm not sure that everyone will get the reference.
Difficulty doesnt define end game in any PvE mode, in almost all cases the difficulty is over come by X number of toons, which generally speaking is around 30ish toons. That's about 1/5 of an entire roster. Realistically closer to 1/4 due to required tokens to get toons and what not. That is achievable for a wide range of players. End game is usually trying to refine that to a smaller group.
The average investment by a guild still needs to be there, and what's where they are setting the bar. It doesnt need to be ever member, sure, but the larger the range the less useful and more of a burden the low end players will become.
As I said in an earlier post (as pure speculation), this could be intentional. We have seen a wide range of complaints about big fish in little ponds. This could be a back end fix to this issue that will push it to self correct.
If a player wants to leave thier guild for the new and shiny, they will choose to do so, whether it is because of low rewards(I dont suspect 80M GP guilds to be in a great position, but I could be wrong) or the guild choosing to do Hoth when they cant score enough to get "equal" rewards (in your open choice model), or due to the imposed gate, they are choosing to leave not being forced to. From everything we know now there is only one thing locked behind this gate, that is shards of Wat Tambor.
As I said in an earlier post (as pure speculation), this could be intentional. We have seen a wide range of complaints about big fish in little ponds. This could be a back end fix to this issue that will push it to self correct
You're saying that the hurt to smaller guilds that I foresee and have spent the entire thread arguing against ... could actually be the intention all along?
So you're saying that I might be right? In that case, why are we arguing? **lol**
People that leave the guild, because no 80 mil, would leave the the guild also for not beating it.
That seems to be one of our points of disagreement.
I don't accept that everyone would behave that way. It is your opinion that everyone acts the same way but my opinion is that they don't.
Being allowed to try the new Territory Battle would stop a lot of people leaving because not everyone cares about the rewards. Some people just want to play the new stuff. They are happy in a <80M guild at the moment which implies they don't care about having all the top rewards from the current Territory Battles, they just enjoy playing the game. So why would they care about the rewards from the new one provided they can just play it?
But this new GP requirement then stops them playing the full game and that's when things get different.
As I said in an earlier post (as pure speculation), this could be intentional. We have seen a wide range of complaints about big fish in little ponds. This could be a back end fix to this issue that will push it to self correct
You're saying that the hurt to smaller guilds that I foresee and have spent the entire thread arguing against ... could actually be the intention all along?
So you're saying that I might be right? In that case, why are we arguing? **lol**
Not at all, you are just focused on this situation, doesnt it hurt smaller guilds to be unequally matched in TW, because a small guild has a fee big players?
Doesnt it hurt a small developing guild to have a few big players that lock the top spots on all events, because at some point they thought they needed them to compete content, rather than grow into it themselves?
I dont think it hurts a small guild that they lose members that want to leave and have no loyalty due to the new and shiny. They will be better without them.
As I said in an earlier post (as pure speculation), this could be intentional. We have seen a wide range of complaints about big fish in little ponds. This could be a back end fix to this issue that will push it to self correct
You're saying that the hurt to smaller guilds that I foresee and have spent the entire thread arguing against ... could actually be the intention all along?
So you're saying that I might be right? In that case, why are we arguing? **lol**
Do you not understand that small guild's get hurt no matter what...?
People that leave the guild, because no 80 mil, would leave the the guild also for not beating it.
People that leave the guild, because no 80 mil, would leave the the guild also for not beating it.
That seems to be one of our points of disagreement.
I don't accept that everyone would behave that way. It is your opinion that everyone acts the same way but my opinion is that they don't.
Being allowed to try the new Territory Battle would stop a lot of people leaving because not everyone cares about the rewards. Some people just want to play the new stuff. They are happy in a <80M guild at the moment which implies they don't care about having all the top rewards from the current Territory Battles, they just enjoy playing the game. So why would they care about the rewards from the new one provided they can just play it?
But this new GP requirement then stops them playing the full game and that's when things get different.
How is the 80M different than guilds who cant complete T6 to move on to T7 of a raid to earn exclusive rewards?
It's the same thing, just a new reason to blame the game for someone's lack of loyalty and commitment.
They can play the full game, they can still do TB, just not the new tier of TB.
Not at all, you are just focused on this situation, doesnt it hurt smaller guilds to be unequally matched in TW, because a small guild has a fee big players?
Hasn't hurt us yet! *lol* We win far more often than we lose!
Doesnt it hurt a small developing guild to have a few big players that lock the top spots on all events, because at some point they thought they needed them to compete content, rather than grow into it themselves?
No. We have a rule that if you have Han Solo at 7*, then you can join the Rancor Raid but not attack it. That way you still get rewards but the other players get more shards. The rule works fine and everyone accepts it.
I dont think it hurts a small guild that they lose members that want to leave and have no loyalty due to the new and shiny. They will be better without them.
While I do accept that the smaller guilds like mine would be better off without players of, say 250,000 ... those players aren't the ones looking to leave. It's the 2M+ players who are leaving. Those are the ones the smaller guilds need.
People that leave the guild, because no 80 mil, would leave the the guild also for not beating it.
That seems to be one of our points of disagreement.
I don't accept that everyone would behave that way. It is your opinion that everyone acts the same way but my opinion is that they don't.
Being allowed to try the new Territory Battle would stop a lot of people leaving because not everyone cares about the rewards. Some people just want to play the new stuff. They are happy in a <80M guild at the moment which implies they don't care about having all the top rewards from the current Territory Battles, they just enjoy playing the game. So why would they care about the rewards from the new one provided they can just play it?
But this new GP requirement then stops them playing the full game and that's when things get different.
You can't disagree with facts.
Guilds splitting up happen at the launch off: Rancor, AAT, sith raid, both Hoth tbs, tws and it will happen at geo tb launch and after that.
Expect that to happen no matter what happens what.
If you can't except the "it's too difficult" argument, take the "you can't play beyond 80mil" argument
So you're accepting that this hurts smaller guilds?
People that leave the guild, because no 80 mil, would leave the the guild also for not beating it.
That seems to be one of our points of disagreement.
I don't accept that everyone would behave that way. It is your opinion that everyone acts the same way but my opinion is that they don't.
Being allowed to try the new Territory Battle would stop a lot of people leaving because not everyone cares about the rewards. Some people just want to play the new stuff. They are happy in a <80M guild at the moment which implies they don't care about having all the top rewards from the current Territory Battles, they just enjoy playing the game. So why would they care about the rewards from the new one provided they can just play it?
But this new GP requirement then stops them playing the full game and that's when things get different.
You can't disagree with facts.
Guilds splitting up happen at the launch off: Rancor, AAT, sith raid, both Hoth tbs, tws and it will happen at geo tb launch and after that.
Expect that to happen no matter what happens what.
If you can't except the "it's too difficult" argument, take the "you can't play beyond 80mil" argument
So you're accepting that this hurts smaller guilds?
The new TB will hurt a lot of guilds (not just ones under 80m). The disagreement lies in whether having an 80m GP cutoff makes that any worse.
The disagreement lies in whether having an 80m GP cutoff makes that any worse.
The cutoff changes the reason and that makes it worse. More people will leave smaller guilds because they can't attempt the new content than would leave if they could attempt the new content but fail.
If X is the number of guilds that would be hurt by failing the new content, then my contention is that the number of guilds hurt by not even being allowed to try would be X + Y where Y is a much larger number than X.
Not at all, you are just focused on this situation, doesnt it hurt smaller guilds to be unequally matched in TW, because a small guild has a fee big players?
Hasn't hurt us yet! *lol* We win far more often than we lose!
Doesnt it hurt a small developing guild to have a few big players that lock the top spots on all events, because at some point they thought they needed them to compete content, rather than grow into it themselves?
No. We have a rule that if you have Han Solo at 7*, then you can join the Rancor Raid but not attack it. That way you still get rewards but the other players get more shards. The rule works fine and everyone accepts it.
I dont think it hurts a small guild that they lose members that want to leave and have no loyalty due to the new and shiny. They will be better without them.
While I do accept that the smaller guilds like mine would be better off without players of, say 250,000 ... those players aren't the ones looking to leave. It's the 2M+ players who are leaving. Those are the ones the smaller guilds need.
So you dont actually care about hurting smaller guilds, you care about your guild. Now I get it.
You are ok hurting smaller guilds when it is to your advantage, this is all making sense now.
What rules do you use for the Sith and tank raid?
So those 2M+ players were fine "helping out" when it was advantageous for them, and now that it may not be they want to leave......seems like a lack of loyalty more than an 80M GP limit that is the issue.
It is also likely that some if not all of them would leave even if they could play the event but were not getting good enough rewards.
This same concept happens every time we see new content, this is all just a different excuse for the same reason. New and shiny. If anything it seems to be worse right now because in this case there doesnt even seem to any exclusive rewards to be had....
So you dont actually care about hurting smaller guilds, you care about your guild. Now I get it.
You are ok hurting smaller guilds when it is to your advantage, this is all making sense now.
No. Definitely not.
It's taken 10 pages before I mentioned my guild because I knew someone would try to make it personal and about me. It's not. It's about all guilds. I don't just argue against things that inconvenience me personally, I stand up for everyone in all walks of life not just online games.
This hurts ALL small guilds. And that would be something I cared about whether my guild had a GP of 10M or 40M or 100M or 400M.
Don't confuse personal anecdotes with personal concerns. You said "ABC already hurts smaller guilds", I said "no it doesn't, this is how we deal with ABC" and youv'e immediately tried to make this personal. No. It's not about me. I used my example of how we deal with ABC to show you that you are wrong.
I reject your allegation with ever fibre of my being and this is the first time in 10 pages that someone has got an emotional response out of me.
No. I am not OK hurting smaller guilds when it's to my advantage. No, no, no.
The disagreement lies in whether having an 80m GP cutoff makes that any worse.
The cutoff changes the reason and that makes it worse. More people will leave smaller guilds because they can't attempt the new content than would leave if they could attempt the new content but fail.
If X is the number of guilds that would be hurt by failing the new content, then my contention is that the number of guilds hurt by not even being allowed to try would be X + Y where Y is a much larger number than X.
Changing the reason doesn't necessarily make it worse. It's entirely possible there will be people who don't even know that they're missing out because they don't read the forums and don't know there's a new TB they aren't getting to play, whereas if it was available to them to try and fail at they would know and leave for guilds that could do it. You are making the assumption that a significant number of people are like you and wish they could try and fail at something they have no chance at, but you have no evidence for that assertion. You have no evidence that the number of people who will leave <80m guilds with the cap is "a much larger number" than the number who would leave those guilds without the cap.
I am wondering what all the defenders of end game argument would do if new content came out like:
New TB, 2 new characters only available in the TB, extra credits equal to a credit heist.
Only available to people under 2.5 million power.
No one in a guild over 80 million may attempt the new content.
Would the end game defenders find this ok? Or would the lock out on them be considered unfair? By using their logic, it would be a perfectly acceptable action because it has restrictions based upon roster and guild membership. I know the developers would never make this move as the whales would not allow them, but would this be considered fair to implement?
I know I am going to get flamed for this idea, but just want to see what others think would happen if they did it.
I am wondering what all the defenders of end game argument would do if new content came out like:
New TB, 2 new characters only available in the TB, extra credits equal to a credit heist.
Only available to people under 2.5 million power.
No one in a guild over 80 million may attempt the new content.
Would the end game defenders find this ok? Or would the lock out on them be considered unfair? By using their logic, it would be a perfectly acceptable action because it has restrictions based upon roster and guild membership. I know the developers would never make this move as the whales would not allow them, but would this be considered fair to implement?
I know I am going to get flamed for this idea, but just want to see what others think would happen if they did it.
You can reach 80m GP as a guild, but once you're 3m GP as a player you'll never be able to get below 2.5m GP again. So no, obviously i wouldn't find that fair and it's kind of a silly comparrision due to that reason.
So you dont actually care about hurting smaller guilds, you care about your guild. Now I get it.
You are ok hurting smaller guilds when it is to your advantage, this is all making sense now.
No. Definitely not.
It's taken 10 pages before I mentioned my guild because I knew someone would try to make it personal and about me. It's not. It's about all guilds. I don't just argue against things that inconvenience me personally, I stand up for everyone in all walks of life not just online games.
This hurts ALL small guilds. And that would be something I cared about whether my guild had a GP of 10M or 40M or 100M or 400M.
Don't confuse personal anecdotes with personal concerns. You said "ABC already hurts smaller guilds", I said "no it doesn't, this is how we deal with ABC" and youv'e immediately tried to make this personal. No. It's not about me. I used my example of how we deal with ABC to show you that you are wrong.
I reject your allegation with ever fibre of my being and this is the first time in 10 pages that someone has got an emotional response out of me.
No. I am not OK hurting smaller guilds when it's to my advantage. No, no, no.
If you care about all guilds than there is no issue.
Here is why:
Every time new content rolls out, there is some road block that causes this question of loyalty. Every time. This is no different. This is just a singular focus on a symptom not the root cause.
I will agree the situation would be different had the number not been there, as always every factor plays it's part, but the end result would be the same, guilds would be shaken up. Players leave for "greener" pastures. That is the new and shiny.
This number being the road block does not change anything about what will happen to many guilds of all sizes. This is not the fault of the dev team this is human nature, some will remain loyal with an eye on the past and the future, others will focus on other things that are more important to them.
Can I ask why you dont care about the guilds that inevitably get "unfairly" matched against you?
Your average is less representative of your whole, and we see complaints about this quite frequently and how bad it is for smaller guilds.
You also didnt answer how you deal with the more valuable raids, you did state what you do for rancor (maybe I missed a response).
It's all about perspective, I didnt mean to offend, that was not my goal. Your response to my suggestions of what it means to hurt small guilds seemed to lean more to your concern only revolving around this particular situation and your guild. I am sorry for making any assumptions.
Again. The cap doesn't hurt anyone, it prevents lower guild's from losing Hoth rewards, by not letting them praticipate in Geo.
The reason is still GP. You don't have enough GP, so you want make it to the first star and lose rewards off ONE Full TB.
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
I cannot fathom that a majority of a guild would pass up 100-200 stun guns worth of GET just to get locked into 4 days of not getting past area one in Genosis just to "try" it out....
They would not even be trying it out as you would never get past first area....you would not get to see the special fights or what the difficulty at the end is.... they would just be stuck on area 1.....
I can't see 30 members of a guild not insta quitting at losing 100-200 stun guns worth of GET for that..
I understand all the "choice" arguments but at this point the thing is kinda ludicrous....
Again I "understand" the whole want a choice thing...but any officer who would choose Genosis at less than 80 mil SHOULD NOT be an officer because they are hurting the guild.....because you WONT be able to test it out or see what's going on you'll just be locked on area 1.
After the 1st Geno TB every single social media outlet will have the scoop, videos, strategy, toon requirements etc.... It will all be there and you won't have to lose out on an incredible amount of rewards....
I get everyone is not me or thinks like me but I cannot fathom at all anyone who would lose out on hoth rewards for NOTHING.
Hang on!
50 people in a guild.... 80m GP = 1.6m average GP
If your guild is much less than that then they probably haven’t even beaten HSTR, they probably aren’t reaching the higher payouts in Hoth and some might still struggle with HAAT and Rancor at that level.
I say let them try Geo TB.....it will be like them trying HSTR —> P1 fail!
—> It would be much better to sort out core Hoth teams and HSTR teams e.g. each person has a team for each phase of HSTR. What good is G12 finisher gear if you haven’t got anyone at G12++?
A guild with supportive officers/leader and a clear achievable objective e.g. “Clear HSTR” is more likely to survive than a guild hurling themselves at the Geo TB and getting nowhere.
That 80 mil guild has to have a pretty perfect setup too IMO... needs fluff guys to fill platoons but needs more "tight" guys with the teams to win the battles.
The 80 mil requirement aside I think a lot of 80 mil guilds might revert back to hoth as a prediction... There are so many factors and that's before not truly knowing what it's going to be like..
I am wondering what all the defenders of end game argument would do if new content came out like:
New TB, 2 new characters only available in the TB, extra credits equal to a credit heist.
Only available to people under 2.5 million power.
No one in a guild over 80 million may attempt the new content.
Would the end game defenders find this ok? Or would the lock out on them be considered unfair? By using their logic, it would be a perfectly acceptable action because it has restrictions based upon roster and guild membership. I know the developers would never make this move as the whales would not allow them, but would this be considered fair to implement?
With a minimum requirement there's an incentive for guilds to grow to reach the requirements. With a max requirement, there could be an incentive to stop growing at some point. Fair or not - this makes your idea rather ... still born.
Again. The cap doesn't hurt anyone, it prevents lower guild's from losing Hoth rewards, by not letting them praticipate in Geo.
The reason is still GP. You don't have enough GP, so you want make it to the first star and lose rewards off ONE Full TB.
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
I cannot fathom that a majority of a guild would pass up 100-200 stun guns worth of GET just to get locked into 4 days of not getting past area one in Genosis just to "try" it out....
[...]
I get everyone is not me or thinks like me but I cannot fathom at all anyone who would lose out on hoth rewards for NOTHING.
Curiosity? Attraction of the novelty? I'm glad, I still have my curiosity.
also its a TB, you can't just restart over and over on one Special Mission or Combat Missions. If its C-3P0 hard, then the under 80M guilds might have no chance.
Replies
But by imposing it on an entire guild, it's not about how much time and/or $$ the player has invested. It becomes about how much time and/or $$ EVERY player in the guild has invested.
And if other guild members haven't spent as much as you, you might find yourself with a personal GP of 3M+ but still unable to play despite your time and/or $$ investment. The only way to play would then be to abandon your guild, thus hurting the guild, thus proving my original point.
This 80M requirement hurts smaller guilds by tempting bigger players within those guilds to leave.
I know that but analogies only work if most people understand them.
I could start talking about taking on Yig versus taking on Cthulhu with the Innsmouth board and both Heralds and don't use Kate or Patrice ... but I'm not sure that everyone will get the reference.
That might be true of your chess simulator, but there are plenty of games for which it is not true. I have played numerous games with multiple difficulty settings that didn’t let you jump right to 20 at the start. You had to win on “hard” in order to unlock “very hard,” and win on “very hard” to unlock “super crazy difficult.”
Yeah, I know but I was trying to find an analogy that everyone would be able to follow. But you're not the only one to point out the inaccuracy of the comparison so it looks like I chose my analogy poorly.
Difficulty doesnt define end game in any PvE mode, in almost all cases the difficulty is over come by X number of toons, which generally speaking is around 30ish toons. That's about 1/5 of an entire roster. Realistically closer to 1/4 due to required tokens to get toons and what not. That is achievable for a wide range of players. End game is usually trying to refine that to a smaller group.
The average investment by a guild still needs to be there, and what's where they are setting the bar. It doesnt need to be ever member, sure, but the larger the range the less useful and more of a burden the low end players will become.
As I said in an earlier post (as pure speculation), this could be intentional. We have seen a wide range of complaints about big fish in little ponds. This could be a back end fix to this issue that will push it to self correct.
If a player wants to leave thier guild for the new and shiny, they will choose to do so, whether it is because of low rewards(I dont suspect 80M GP guilds to be in a great position, but I could be wrong) or the guild choosing to do Hoth when they cant score enough to get "equal" rewards (in your open choice model), or due to the imposed gate, they are choosing to leave not being forced to. From everything we know now there is only one thing locked behind this gate, that is shards of Wat Tambor.
You're saying that the hurt to smaller guilds that I foresee and have spent the entire thread arguing against ... could actually be the intention all along?
So you're saying that I might be right? In that case, why are we arguing? **lol**
That seems to be one of our points of disagreement.
I don't accept that everyone would behave that way. It is your opinion that everyone acts the same way but my opinion is that they don't.
Being allowed to try the new Territory Battle would stop a lot of people leaving because not everyone cares about the rewards. Some people just want to play the new stuff. They are happy in a <80M guild at the moment which implies they don't care about having all the top rewards from the current Territory Battles, they just enjoy playing the game. So why would they care about the rewards from the new one provided they can just play it?
But this new GP requirement then stops them playing the full game and that's when things get different.
Not at all, you are just focused on this situation, doesnt it hurt smaller guilds to be unequally matched in TW, because a small guild has a fee big players?
Doesnt it hurt a small developing guild to have a few big players that lock the top spots on all events, because at some point they thought they needed them to compete content, rather than grow into it themselves?
I dont think it hurts a small guild that they lose members that want to leave and have no loyalty due to the new and shiny. They will be better without them.
This.
The 80M is just another excuse.
How is the 80M different than guilds who cant complete T6 to move on to T7 of a raid to earn exclusive rewards?
It's the same thing, just a new reason to blame the game for someone's lack of loyalty and commitment.
They can play the full game, they can still do TB, just not the new tier of TB.
No. We have a rule that if you have Han Solo at 7*, then you can join the Rancor Raid but not attack it. That way you still get rewards but the other players get more shards. The rule works fine and everyone accepts it.
While I do accept that the smaller guilds like mine would be better off without players of, say 250,000 ... those players aren't the ones looking to leave. It's the 2M+ players who are leaving. Those are the ones the smaller guilds need.
So you're accepting that this hurts smaller guilds?
The new TB will hurt a lot of guilds (not just ones under 80m). The disagreement lies in whether having an 80m GP cutoff makes that any worse.
The cutoff changes the reason and that makes it worse. More people will leave smaller guilds because they can't attempt the new content than would leave if they could attempt the new content but fail.
If X is the number of guilds that would be hurt by failing the new content, then my contention is that the number of guilds hurt by not even being allowed to try would be X + Y where Y is a much larger number than X.
So you dont actually care about hurting smaller guilds, you care about your guild. Now I get it.
You are ok hurting smaller guilds when it is to your advantage, this is all making sense now.
What rules do you use for the Sith and tank raid?
So those 2M+ players were fine "helping out" when it was advantageous for them, and now that it may not be they want to leave......seems like a lack of loyalty more than an 80M GP limit that is the issue.
It is also likely that some if not all of them would leave even if they could play the event but were not getting good enough rewards.
This same concept happens every time we see new content, this is all just a different excuse for the same reason. New and shiny. If anything it seems to be worse right now because in this case there doesnt even seem to any exclusive rewards to be had....
No. Definitely not.
It's taken 10 pages before I mentioned my guild because I knew someone would try to make it personal and about me. It's not. It's about all guilds. I don't just argue against things that inconvenience me personally, I stand up for everyone in all walks of life not just online games.
This hurts ALL small guilds. And that would be something I cared about whether my guild had a GP of 10M or 40M or 100M or 400M.
Don't confuse personal anecdotes with personal concerns. You said "ABC already hurts smaller guilds", I said "no it doesn't, this is how we deal with ABC" and youv'e immediately tried to make this personal. No. It's not about me. I used my example of how we deal with ABC to show you that you are wrong.
I reject your allegation with ever fibre of my being and this is the first time in 10 pages that someone has got an emotional response out of me.
No. I am not OK hurting smaller guilds when it's to my advantage. No, no, no.
Changing the reason doesn't necessarily make it worse. It's entirely possible there will be people who don't even know that they're missing out because they don't read the forums and don't know there's a new TB they aren't getting to play, whereas if it was available to them to try and fail at they would know and leave for guilds that could do it. You are making the assumption that a significant number of people are like you and wish they could try and fail at something they have no chance at, but you have no evidence for that assertion. You have no evidence that the number of people who will leave <80m guilds with the cap is "a much larger number" than the number who would leave those guilds without the cap.
New TB, 2 new characters only available in the TB, extra credits equal to a credit heist.
Only available to people under 2.5 million power.
No one in a guild over 80 million may attempt the new content.
Would the end game defenders find this ok? Or would the lock out on them be considered unfair? By using their logic, it would be a perfectly acceptable action because it has restrictions based upon roster and guild membership. I know the developers would never make this move as the whales would not allow them, but would this be considered fair to implement?
I know I am going to get flamed for this idea, but just want to see what others think would happen if they did it.
You can reach 80m GP as a guild, but once you're 3m GP as a player you'll never be able to get below 2.5m GP again. So no, obviously i wouldn't find that fair and it's kind of a silly comparrision due to that reason.
If you care about all guilds than there is no issue.
Here is why:
Every time new content rolls out, there is some road block that causes this question of loyalty. Every time. This is no different. This is just a singular focus on a symptom not the root cause.
I will agree the situation would be different had the number not been there, as always every factor plays it's part, but the end result would be the same, guilds would be shaken up. Players leave for "greener" pastures. That is the new and shiny.
This number being the road block does not change anything about what will happen to many guilds of all sizes. This is not the fault of the dev team this is human nature, some will remain loyal with an eye on the past and the future, others will focus on other things that are more important to them.
Can I ask why you dont care about the guilds that inevitably get "unfairly" matched against you?
Your average is less representative of your whole, and we see complaints about this quite frequently and how bad it is for smaller guilds.
You also didnt answer how you deal with the more valuable raids, you did state what you do for rancor (maybe I missed a response).
It's all about perspective, I didnt mean to offend, that was not my goal. Your response to my suggestions of what it means to hurt small guilds seemed to lean more to your concern only revolving around this particular situation and your guild. I am sorry for making any assumptions.
I cannot fathom that a majority of a guild would pass up 100-200 stun guns worth of GET just to get locked into 4 days of not getting past area one in Genosis just to "try" it out....
They would not even be trying it out as you would never get past first area....you would not get to see the special fights or what the difficulty at the end is.... they would just be stuck on area 1.....
I can't see 30 members of a guild not insta quitting at losing 100-200 stun guns worth of GET for that..
I understand all the "choice" arguments but at this point the thing is kinda ludicrous....
Again I "understand" the whole want a choice thing...but any officer who would choose Genosis at less than 80 mil SHOULD NOT be an officer because they are hurting the guild.....because you WONT be able to test it out or see what's going on you'll just be locked on area 1.
After the 1st Geno TB every single social media outlet will have the scoop, videos, strategy, toon requirements etc.... It will all be there and you won't have to lose out on an incredible amount of rewards....
I get everyone is not me or thinks like me but I cannot fathom at all anyone who would lose out on hoth rewards for NOTHING.
50 people in a guild.... 80m GP = 1.6m average GP
If your guild is much less than that then they probably haven’t even beaten HSTR, they probably aren’t reaching the higher payouts in Hoth and some might still struggle with HAAT and Rancor at that level.
I say let them try Geo TB.....it will be like them trying HSTR —> P1 fail!
—> It would be much better to sort out core Hoth teams and HSTR teams e.g. each person has a team for each phase of HSTR. What good is G12 finisher gear if you haven’t got anyone at G12++?
The 80 mil requirement aside I think a lot of 80 mil guilds might revert back to hoth as a prediction... There are so many factors and that's before not truly knowing what it's going to be like..
With a minimum requirement there's an incentive for guilds to grow to reach the requirements. With a max requirement, there could be an incentive to stop growing at some point. Fair or not - this makes your idea rather ... still born.
Curiosity? Attraction of the novelty? I'm glad, I still have my curiosity.