To Encourage Guild-Like Behavior

[DeletedUser105579]

Spoiler: Quote from General Discussion

I have been playing this game for a few years now and have seen it move from a guild based game with many players working together to gain growth and rewards.....to a game of singular players in a group called a guild.
by that I mean not much in the game needs players to talk and work together as a guild, even GvG....
the game has become full up with time soaking side quest and GE which is again not really players working as a guild....just loads of individuals fighting on their own....
GvG has become the same, it allows big singular players within a guild to do everything.
The reason for this message now is that I have seen many long term players both from my guild and from my friends list leave the game.
Most reasons are the same....the game has become so time Hungary that there is little time left to enjoy the social side that was part of the game.
I think the games people have become so focused on keeping the new players entertained with short burst of fun and petty nonsensical rewards, I am thinking that they have lost touch with what the true meaning of the game was about for many and what kept people playing.....Guilds and the social connection of working together as guilds.

Proposal:
Changes to GvG and GE to increase guild social connection and thereby bring more value to time spent in-game.

Have you Checked.. From general discussion, see above
Is this idea similar. no.

Reason:
Increase guild social connection and bring more value to time spent in-game

I have been playing this game for a few years now and have seen it move from a guild based game with many players working together to gain growth and rewards.....to a game of singular players in a group called a guild.
Not much in the game needs players to talk and work together as a guild, even GvG, [which] allows big singular players within a guild to do everything.
People... have lost touch with what the true meaning of the game was about for many and what kept people playing.....Guilds and the social connection of working together as guilds.

Details:

Epic Battles / 24 vs 24 Battles

These changes utilize the concept of an 24 vs 24 battle, where three players from a guild have to attack an opponent (AI) together using 8 units each. The AI will use 3 sets of 8 units matched to the highest era troop that each player attacks with. The battle will have 2 waves, with the second wave having 3 sets of 4-6 units.

Example, if one player attacks with highest unit in AF, the second player has highest troop in OF, and the third has a highest troop in FE, they will fight against 8 AF units, 8 OF units, and 8 FE units.​

In battle, guild chat will be available.
By requiring guild members to attack together, this will increase guild participation and social activity. Implementation below.​

Changes to GvG:

Addition of Fortified Towns

• Random sectors on the map will be chosen to become fortified towns, have have a +5% defending atk/def boost
• Each army can hold up to 24 units, thus, all battles will be 24 vs 24 battles (you have to work as a guild to take these hexes)
• Fortified Towns cannot be made headquarters
• This will be added after the next reset

Addition of Sabotage

• If a single player defeats more than 75% of the defending armies by himself/herself during a siege (rounded up), enemy guilds can sabotage the player. This player will then face a atk/def penalty of 20% only when attacking this sector until the siege is broken, the sector is conquered, or the day is over.
• This costs goods equivalent to opening the 6th army slot, and each guild can only do this to one opponent once each day
  
• This will encourage guilds to work together at least in pairs or trios to acquire sectors rather than as individuals.

Addition of Blitzing

• After a guildmate successfully wins a sector, all guildmates who didn't participate in the attack get a 4% atk/def bonus while attacking adjacent sectors for an hour. This bonus does not stack.

Changes to GE:
The idea here is that, while the information on the following would be available in the GE map, these would encourage communication and discussion via the guild forum and mail.

Addition of "Border War!"

• Every 40 encounters that are fought OR every 50 encounters that are negotiated, the guild will have to fight two 24 vs 24 battles against the AI within one hour,
• Otherwise every guild member with more than 8 completed encounters shall lose control of their last encounter, losing the associated prestige bonus (which can be regained). The associated treasure chest, if it was opened, will not be available again.
• Both counters will be displayed to the right of the guild contribution bar

Addition of "Translators Needed"

• This shall randomly happen to any guild member after an encounter.
• [10% of the guild's size rounded down] must each pay one unit in order to let the guild member progress further.
  • Example in a guild of 48 members, 4 guildmates including the affecting guild member must pay 1 unit.
• The donator can only donate troops of his age or the age below.

• A popup button shall appear in GE below the relic button

Addition of "Natural Resources"

• This shall randomly happen to any guild member after an encounter (maximum twice in one GE, non-overlapping)
• For the next hour, every guild member will get a bonus 10 goods from the next map treasure chest they open.
• Within this hour, the guild may fight one 24 vs 24 battle in order to give all guild members and the treasury 20 extra goods
• A popup button shall appear in GE below the relic button

Visual Aids:
None right now, but if anyone wants to help me out that would be great

Balance:
Will put a little more pressure on guilds with minority powerful/active players, but shouldn't affect GvG or GE too much.

Abuse Prevention:
--N/A--

Summary:
Changes to GVG and GE in order to make Guilds regain the social aspect.

• Addition of 24 vs 24 fights
• Addition of situational buffs/debuffs, and group fights to GvG
• Addition of instance quests

Spoiler: Idea Comment Chain

Spoiler: General Methods of Increasing Participation

The way I believe an incentive should work is that (a) it should reward the player directly, and (b) should drastically increase guild communications in a short period of time.
Likewise, the way I believe a debuff should work is that (a) it should punish the player indirectly, (b) be at most an irritant, not more, and (c) should encourage the player to seek help from the guild to solve the problem.
Augustavian:
Mandating participation will simply kill desire to play at all. This will cause guilds to mandate participation in GE, players who may not want to do it will find they have no guild to join. No guild to join, the social element DIES.
Dane Thorson:
The OP is trying to encourage participation by increasing game play, offering rewards and incentives. You can't just offer more rewards as it will lead to an imbalance and faster game play which in turn will put more pressure on more content being released...

Spoiler: Comments on 24 vs 24

Fortified sectors and 24 vs 24 would be available on mobile as well (theoretically, of course). Turns would be based just like regular battles, with faster units first. All players would see the same screen. The idea is that there would be conflict between players - much like in ww2 with axis and/or allies. Everyone has a different idea on how the battle should go, and guild members would have to work together to come up with a common strategy in the middle of a battle.
Edit, this could later be balanced by the AI an defensive % buff if 3 players find it overly easy to win against 24 ai units

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Uh, I'll get back to this and read it one by one, I'm just too tired right now

 

[DeletedUser110195]

You changed the idea in ways that made it less of a punishment to play GE a certain way, so my vote on this stands at neutral leaning positive.

 

[DeletedUser653]

after the 20th new rule i must admit my eyes glazed over and I thought I would never get my guild interested in that. so sorry after so much thought but

-1​

 

[DeletedUser108047]

There are some good ideas here and the idea seems very carefully thought out. Kudos for all the work and considering the balancing issue

I particularly like the idea of fortified sectors - that could have a marked change on strategy in GvG. Also the team battle (24x24) could be attractive. Would it only be browser based? How would you manage the turns? Would all players see the same screen? Is there the possibility for conflict between players?

The limitations on GE seem overly harsh/complex and I'm not convinced they are necessary. Inno would be able to tell us what completion rates there are for GE ie how many guilds hit say 50% and in that 50% how many have 100% participation etc( @Sovereign ?). Perhaps a better way to increase participation if it is necessary would be for levels 3 and 4 to be locked until say 40% of guild members have completed level 1? This may be too much of a stick - i think guilds would prefer managing & encouraging participation rates by removing or threatening to remove players from guilds

Taken as a whole I think, on reflection, it may be too complex to get wide acceptance or in-game understanding?

 

[DeletedUser105579]

There are some good ideas here and the idea seems very carefully thought out. Kudos for all the work and considering the balancing issue

I particularly like the idea of fortified sectors - that could have a marked change on strategy in GvG. Also the team battle (24x24) could be attractive. Would it only be browser based? How would you manage the turns? Would all players see the same screen? Is there the possibility for conflict between players?

The limitations on GE seem overly harsh/complex and I'm not convinced they are necessary. Inno would be able to tell us what completion rates there are for GE ie how many guilds hit say 50% and in that 50% how many have 100% participation etc( @Sovereign ?). Perhaps a better way to increase participation if it is necessary would be for levels 3 and 4 to be locked until say 40% of guild members have completed level 1? This may be too much of a stick - i think guilds would prefer managing & encouraging participation rates by removing or threatening to remove players from guilds

Taken as a whole I think, on reflection, it may be too complex to get wide acceptance or in-game understanding?

Toned down the limitations on both sections so that it encourages rather than penalizes.

Fortified sectors and 24 vs 24 would be available on mobile as well (theoretically, of course). Turns would be based just like regular battles, with faster units first. All players would see the same screen. The idea is that there would be conflict between players - much like in ww2 with axis and/or allies. Everyone has a different idea on how the battle should go, and guild members would have to work together to come up with a common strategy in the middle of a battle.
Edit, this could later be balanced by the AI an defensive % buff if 3 players find it overly easy to win against 24 ai units

after the 20th new rule i must admit my eyes glazed over and I thought I would never get my guild interested in that.

From that point on it just read like one giant punishment for fighters.

changed the details to make it encouraging than penalizing, and removed 50% of the rules

 

[DeletedUser108941]

+1

Space is Awesome

 

[DeletedUser109510]

Perhaps a better way to increase participation if it is necessary would be for levels 3 and 4 to be locked until say 40% of guild members have completed level 1?

If increasing participation in GE is what is needed, then two ways to do that would be
a) require 75% of the guild members to participte before guild championship rewards can be obtained
b) increase rewards for the Temple - if the rewards came more often, for instgance

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Wow, guys(Dane, 12345)...that sounds like a hell of a way to punish either the GE participants of a guild, or the farmers who just contribute to the treasury. Mandatory GE regardless of what the guild needs or wants? No thank you.

Now on to my commentary on the changes to the idea...

GvG Changes

• Fortified Towns.....good stuff

• I'd rename Assassinations to, say, Sabotage, and reword it to fit that. Assassination is kind of a permanent thing that reduces your ability to do anything by 100%

• Blitzing....good stuff

GE Changes

• Translators Needed: This would give the farmers who negotiate GE a use for the units they get, beyond the 8 they need for a defense. I would make this require units of at least the previous age of whoever does it, if not their current age. This to keep people from just building spearfighter barracks and training one cheap, disposable unit to make the whole thing irrelevant.

• Natural Resources....good stuff

The changes made this a lot more attractive, you sure know how to put thought into things.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Yeah I more or less agree with everything the guys said, instead of assassination I could imagine whole separate sectors or even a competitive map, where different rules would apply (like the ones you proposed). For example in the competitive map, in a battle a single individual from a guild would only be able to fight for a given percentage in a siege. This would mean that a guild would only be able to take a sector, if enough people participates, which should - theoretically - encourage more cooperation.

 

[DeletedUser105579]

• I'd rename Assassinations to, say, Sabotage, and reword it to fit that. Assassination is kind of a permanent thing that reduces your ability to do anything by 100%

• Translators Needed: This would give the farmers who negotiate GE a use for the units they get, beyond the 8 they need for a defense. I would make this require units of at least the previous age of whoever does it, if not their current age. This to keep people from just building spearfighter barracks and training one cheap, disposable unit to make the whole thing irrelevant.

The changes made this a lot more attractive, you sure know how to put thought into things.

Definitely like the rewording, sabotage is more permanent,
I thought about the age issue, but donating troops of the affected's age would be hard for farmers.
Edit, I misread what you said, do you mean the donater can only donate troops of his age or the age before? That sounds like a better way to balance and increase participation. Virtual thumbs up

Wow, guys(Dane, 12345)...that sounds like a hell of a way to punish either the GE participants of a guild, or the farmers who just contribute to the treasury. Mandatory GE regardless of what the guild needs or wants? No thank you.

Perhaps a better way to increase participation if it is necessary would be for levels 3 and 4 to be locked until say 40% of guild members have completed level 1? This may be too much of a stick - i think guilds would prefer managing & encouraging participation rates by removing or threatening to remove players from guilds

I don't see Dane saying he wants to see mandatory participation. His comment reads to me as more of a fully rounded criticism (as his comments always tend to, shoutout to Dane), seeing all the options and then stating their issues - He states that Inno could implement mandatory participation but guilds would not like that so it shouldn't be done. I also agree that Mandatory GE is harsh, I'd rather reward members who start to do GE (carrot > stick)

Yeah I more or less agree with everything the guys said, instead of assassination I could imagine whole separate sectors or even a competitive map, where different rules would apply (like the ones you proposed). For example in the competitive map, in a battle a single individual from a guild would only be able to fight for a given percentage in a siege. This would mean that a guild would only be able to take a sector, if enough people participates, which should - theoretically - encourage more cooperation.

Elaborate, how would that fit with the theme of increasing the social cooperativeness in guilds (so our mods don't see fit to archive this)? Should this be a separate proposal?
Is this part of GvG, GE, separate, what are we looking at here? Is this a competitive map in a single sector that we are talking about (like a zoomed in map)?
I personally believe that the best way to increase the guild aspect of a guild is to tweak what is currently popular rather than to roll out something new and untested

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I don't see Dane saying he wants to see mandatory participation.

If a guild can't move on until half of the guild(the less harsh suggestion from Dane) or worse 3/4, the suggestion from 12345, finish level 1, that will force all guilds who frequently have more advanced members doing levels 3 and 4 to make GE mandatory, or those more advanced players will be limited to 2. This will hit a lot of guilds hard. My guild frequently hits 50%, but we don't have 40% of all members doing 16 encounters, this would cripple us.

Edit: Correction, at least for this week, we would meet Dane's threshold, but not 12345's. Competing against a rank 2 guild with slightly less dead or dragging weight than we have, some usual non-participants have ponied up and done some GE.

 

[DeletedUser105579]

If a guild can't move on until half of the guild(the less harsh suggestion from Dane) or worse 3/4, the suggestion from 12345, finish level 1, that will force all guilds who frequently have more advanced members doing levels 3 and 4 to make GE mandatory, or those more advanced players will be limited to 2. This will hit a lot of guilds hard. My guild frequently hits 50%, but we don't have 40% of all members doing 16 encounters, this would cripple us.

Edit: Correction, at least for this week, we would meet Dane's threshold, but not 12345's. Competing against a rank 2 guild with slightly less dead or dragging weight than we have, some usual non-participants have ponied up and done some GE.

I agree that there should be no mandatory GE, I was saying that I don't think Dane disagreed with us either. Regardless, I think Dane can defend himself well and we should move on (we mostly all agree there should be no minimum percentage)

 

[DeletedUser108047]

@Augustavian GE level 1 is scaled so anyone (farmer or fighter or even casual player) should be able to complete 16 encounters with minimal fuss. There is absolutely no reason why players shouldn't complete the first 8 encounters as they can be done on auto with almost no loss. Level of player is irrelevant as it is scaled. Admittedly boosts and a traz and rogues help so you can fight and negotiate (thus keeping the cost down) but even without these things level 1 is not really a challenge.

I chose 40% as just a suggestion. The bar could be low as X% of the guild has taken one encounter... The important thing is to try and encourage participation somehow. I read @123456789101112YY to be saying 75% of the guild took one encounter which is a pretty low bar.

I applaud the OP for trying to encourage ways for guildees to contribute.

Encouragement could be by 'carrot' ie reward (Natural Resources), or by 'stick'. I'm cautious about adding in too many rewards (personal or guild) as providing too much reward could potentially without consumption of resources and time, unbalance the game. Already there are a number of guilds on older worlds who have maxed out the guild levels

Adding 'stick's to the encourage guildees is also hard. Currently a guild's only stick is dismissal which is sort of counter intuitive.

Other possible ways of encouraging guild behaviour that could be incorporated in this idea might be to have:

• a bonus % boost or addition to treasury for guilds that achieve a % of participation. ie if everyone does level 1 goods to treasury or a 2% boost in power collected etc.
• as a reward for achieving say 100% completion of level 1 a guild can trade say 1000 goods from treasury with the AI for alternate goods for treasury;
• in GE if everyone completes level 1 guildees get an extra turn bonus or a discount on their tavern extra turn boost
• a within guild equivalent of PvP - a weekly ranking of who has done the most for the guild and the top 5 get some sort of reward or boost

 

[DeletedUser110195]

If you want to cull these people from your guild, and make GE mandatory, do that, but don't force it on guilds who don't want it.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

@Augustavian - read the whole thread and my original post and don't take it out of context

I'm not for making it mandatory. All I've suggested are ways in which rewards might be structured to improve guild participation. At no point have I suggested that 100% engagement is required or desirable as a game feature. It's not mandatory in my guild although it is encouraged. Equally I can't see any reason why threshold participation can't be used to justify either participation or access to better rewards.

My reference to 50% was actually in a question to @Sovereign - I was asking him whether Inno could share any info about measured levels of performance etc in GE. Any change to GE should be considered in the context of what the game behaviour actually is, ie how do guilds participate in GE and to what extent etc.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Perhaps a better way to increase participation if it is necessary would be for levels 3 and 4 to be locked until say 40% of guild members have completed level 1? This may be too much of a stick

I'm guessing "too much of a stick" means too much of a problem to overcome, and that would be correct. Not everyone wants to force their guild members to do any GE, and this suggestion would do exactly that. None of my objections are being taken out of context, you suggest locking levels 3 and 4 until a guild has a 40% completion rate of level 1. If this is something your guild wants to do, have at it. If this is something you want your guild to do but it doesn't, oh well. Mandating participation will simply kill desire to play at all. This will cause guilds to mandate participation in GE, players who may not want to do it will find they have no guild to join. No guild to join, the social element DIES.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

@Augustavian

again you misunderstand and take my 'suggestion' out of context. My 'suggestion' was in the context of a proposal that would effectively penalise guilds for lower participation rates. That element has been withdrawn from the proposal. I suggested the % participation rate as simply a threshold to accessing certain rewards. It should be seen in the context of the whole proposal and not as a stand alone idea.

Some guilds already mandate participation - they are clear to do so regardless of this proposal. I don't mandate it in our guild

To be absolutely clear... I don't propose making GE compulsory, but I am open to guilds who have higher participation rates getting a better reward or access to certain features from guild participation activities. Guilds that operate effectively as guilds and have a high social value system deserve reward. If we are discussing adjusting how GE rewards guild behaviour then this needs to be taken into account. Equally I am open to ideas like this one that subtly encourage guildees to participate and when trying to formulate what is ultimately a complex and balanced idea the ideas need to be tested.

The OP is trying to encourage participation by increasing game play, offering rewards and incentives. You can't just offer more rewards as it will lead to an imbalance and faster game play which in turn will put more pressure on more content being released...

for every increased reward there needs to be some balance that ensures that it is not over used, or that it chews up consumables elsewhere to maintain the speed of game play etc

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I actually can't remember most of the original idea, I just know I didn't like any of it below the 3v3 team battles.

I'd say the guild power as well as additional progress made towards winning the championship, is adequate rewards for guilds with high completion rates vs guilds with people who do none...and believe me I'm aware of the drag it is to have people doing none. My guild of 71 has 15 perennial 0 encounter people, which has been as high as 25 some weeks. If all of them participated, cleared level 1...we'd win gold every time.

 

[DeletedUser105579]

@Augustavian
Encouragement could be by 'carrot' ie reward (Natural Resources), or by 'stick'. Currently a guild's only stick is dismissal which is sort of counter intuitive.

Other possible ways of encouraging guild behaviour that could be incorporated in this idea might be to have:

• a bonus % boost or addition to treasury for guilds that achieve a % of participation. ie if everyone does level 1 goods to treasury or a 2% boost in power collected etc.
• as a reward for achieving say 100% completion of level 1 a guild can trade say 1000 goods from treasury with the AI for alternate goods for treasury;
• in GE if everyone completes level 1 guildees get an extra turn bonus or a discount on their tavern extra turn boost
• a within guild equivalent of PvP - a weekly ranking of who has done the most for the guild and the top 5 get some sort of reward or boost

Mandating participation will simply kill desire to play at all. This will cause guilds to mandate participation in GE, players who may not want to do it will find they have no guild to join. No guild to join, the social element DIES.

The problem with "carrots" and "sticks" is that too much is.. well... too much.
I tried to balance both GvG and GE so that each gains 1 neutral, 1 benefit, and 1 debuff.

@Dane thorson This paragraph is in reference to to your list of bulleted suggestions, it's long but relevant.

While it might be a good idea to boost % to guild, as you said, many guilds could be maxed or close, and this would not be motivational. Secondarily, a benefit is only useful if it directly affects a player, which this would not do. This is again the issue with bullet #2. I am of @Augustavian's school of thought in that a carrot/stick would affect individual guild members rather than guilds -- It puts less pressure on guilds trying to increase participation and trying to stay together.
The problem with a PvP situation is that it rewards a few, so those who participate just a little may not feel any motivation to participate the same or more the next time -- in fact it may be demotivational and reduce participation, which is counterproductive. (Generally, participation correlates with social connectivity).
In addition, the problem with discounting the extra turn is that it might make minimal activity players overuse the negotiation tool. Negotiations are similar to aiding in that they make the game have more button clicking, and therefore reduce player involvement (in general). Furthermore, I don't see any benefit in subsidizing the easy way out.

*SUMMARY*
The way I believe an incentive should work is that (a) it should reward the player directly, and (b) should drastically increase guild communications in a short period of time. Correct/suggest me if you have better approaches to increasing social connectivity.
Likewise, the way I believe a debuff should work is that (a) it should punish the player indirectly, (b) be at most an irritant, not more, and (c) should encourage the player to seek help from the guild to solve the problem. Again Augustavian, Dane, sabjan, correct/suggest me if you have better approaches to increasing social connectivity.