Guild quests need adjusting

The guild quest that requires you to experience two new adventures should be gone also. I have not yet run across an adventure that the available time to complete is 6 hours. Newer/lower levels in the guild value the guild coins more than the higher levels, so it is difficult for me to cancel the guild quest just because a few of us have the adventure quests or the pay cannons quest. However, it is unreasonable to expect us to take the hit on cannons for a total of 88 guild coins. (Our guild is smaller than Methius's.)

I also wonder whether the people that implement the game changes ever spend any time in the game itself. The pricing on guild market items is all over the place. With the new update, the Nords adventure is about right, considering what the market is for guild coins, but the nobles are absurdly low. Most of the little items were way overpriced during the voting period. If I remember right, I voted for three items last time. This provides even less incentive to drop a batch of cannons for guild coins.

The same goes for gem items.

Good post, Methius....now send me some cannons. lol

Agreed with quite few people. The game is becoming a bucket of tedious chores, obstacles artificially created by the poor changes and a lake of frustration for likewise new and old players. The levels of frustration differ, but when almost entire game community agrees on it - that is an alarming problem.

Devs recently put in game few features wanted by so many of us for so long. Great. There are however very alarming signs of server economies spinning into depression . Titanium and salt prices are rising like a temperature in a sizzling summer - bad news. When everyday you have 30 people trying to buy it and nobody is selling it will soon mean Ds swords and canons will be practically unobtainable (there already are for many lower level players) in the game.

BB you are being blinded by your data showing how much salt/titanium stock piled players have. If a player has 1mil salt that doesn't mean he/she will be selling it. Quite the opposite. Salt and Titanium are hard to get and you can't refill your stock piles like grout during events. Besides, to support a lev 5 canon and DS sword chain running it will take a proximity of running about 30-60 adventures a day by my row estimate. Good luck with this...

Now that some things have changed, perhaps it's a good time to take a second look at the guild quests. For instance, eliminating the complete 2 adventures would be a good start!

I have to agree with that. It's not always easy for people to do 2 adventures. I, for example, work odd hours and many times haven't got the time to do 2 adventures after getting home that evening/night and many times miss the people that would have offered LS's during the earlier hours of the day/night, meaning I have to either attempt to do both full adventures or get some sleep to prepare for my next workday.

I agree with that and also eliminating the paying of the 40 cannons from storage. I would like to see the IOTP back in the merchant. If I have to do it for a guild quest and don't have the card I must buy it in the trade office. I refuse to pay 2000 coins for an adventure that does not give out good resources. BB please can the guild quests be changed to correlate with what is fair for the players. Making cannons takes time and waiting on explorers to find an IOTP card is time consuming .a

I also find the 2 adventure quest a little unreasonable. My time zone (Australia) makes it difficult to coordinate in time with other guild members to complete the quest, meaning I almost always miss out. Seems a bit unfair!

can't agree more, 1 adventure is quite enough, and i never complete it...hehehe

Bump!!

Completely agree guild quests need to change to something worth doing.

I agree with this also. Paying 40 cannons and getting little reward is not worth it. There has to be more value to the guild coins in order for them to be worth earning.

Indeed. Completing 2 adventures is very hard to achieve.

Remove the 2 Adventures GQ it's hard to do it so often.

I agree that 2 adventures is onerous. The time commitment just to do one adventure makes it tough to do week nights. Two is almost impossible, unless you're lucky enough to hook up with somebody with a ls. When I have one to offer, I seem to be the only one actively on. Also, all specifically required adventures should be available in the merchant. Wow, that felt good.

Please, too hard to do 2 adventures at once.

I love the 2 adventure guild quests. I can run 2 DP in just a little over an hour.

For the high level players (MMA/Cannon), you can run two IOTP in an hour, using the 3 attack solution. Witch of the Swamp can be run with a 5 attack solution, which takes less than 45 minutes including travel to zone (fast general), and can still be purchased with map fragments. Sleepy Reef has only 5 camps total, which also places it in the 45 minute range (fast general). Those are just the few I can recall off-hand that are useful when looking for rapid adventures.

Other solutions include the fast version of Roaring Bull, which requires more losses than the above solutions, but does not require cannons and provides 2 loot spots for other guild members. The fast version requires 8-9 attacks total, 3-4 of them including 1R blocks; this takes less than 90 minutes. This one is also purchasable for map fragments. Several of the lower coops also are very short for each section, although the problem of participation still exists even though it should be lower within a guild.

Beyond the complaints about the time taken to run adventures, part of the problem is what has been noted on other threads, that the guilds may not be meeting the needs of the active players. There are much fewer quests with the "2 adventure" requirement for guilds sized 35 player and lower. The 36+ size guilds tend to get the double adventures more often, as well as the donate expert resources. I don't agree with the change in the difficulty level for larger guilds, as there should be enough inherent difficulty just in getting more people to do complete their individual portion. However, there is the ongoing problem of inflated guild sizes due to inactive members, which results in having a higher difficulty guild quest with a smaller proportion needed to complete. This is because the total size of the guild (active and inactive) is used to determine the level of quests and the reward, while only the active size is used to determine how many players need to complete the quest. Correcting this disparity would either remove any benefit or disadvantage to holding on to inactive members, by using only the active guild size to determine both; or make it detrimental to hold inactives, by using the total guild size for both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurboth

there should be enough inherent difficulty just in getting more people to do complete their individual portion.

---

I don't about the European folk, but most people I know who play games, do so as a way of relaxing.

all you need to do is look in trade, and you know which guild has "do X adventure" for their guild quest. on that note you often see players selling the LS in trade and a few posts later someone in same guild looking to buy said LS. BB make those quests non-delete able, make these players do their beloved guild quests, or they can quit the guilds. all they need to do is use the 4th tab from the left and talk to each other. is it hard to do 2 adventures in an hour, for most players in the guild not likely, but the pixel greed overwhelms them and whining about it here seems to be their best solution. 1 do the quests, 2 help a lower lvl player do one, 3 get together and knock a few out, or 4 quit the guild. simple easy fix to the guild quest problem......TADA!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll-Phu

whining about it here seems to be their best solution.

---

There's whining then there's providing feedback for BB. I believe we're doing the later.

+1 again to guild quest revamp.

I've got no problem with the do 2 adventures quests. There are plenty of suitable options for guilds to spread around ls to get that one completed. At worst do an adventure and swap it with somebody in the guild. It can be done in an hour fairly easily. The main concerns in my opinion are still the same ones i went over in the first post of this thread. We shouldn't get guild quests that cost us much more then the reward. Paying cannons, gunpowder, carriages, crossbows is no longer reasonable. We also shouldn't be asked to do adventures that can't be purchased for frags in the merchant. Trying to supply an entire guild with a nords or iotp every time those gq's come up is way too difficult and the adventures cost atleast 5-10x as much as the value of the guild coins we will recieve in return. And lastly they need to work on improving the guild merchant. Every single guild market there is usually one good limited offer surrounded by lots of bad to worthless offers. Because of this guild coins typically aren't very valued. We currently cancel 4 of our guild quests. There are another 3 i should cancel. I would like to say BB Endesmor was very helpful when this thread was originally made and insistent that these ideas would get atleast get to developers. Whether they've actually looked into it or done anything since then i can't say. It would be nice to hear they are looking into changes. It's been overdue for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methius

I've got no problem with the do 2 adventures quests. There are plenty of suitable options for guilds to spread around ls to get that one completed. At worst do an adventure and swap it with somebody in the guild. It can be done in an hour fairly easily. Paying cannons, gunpowder, carriages, crossbows is no longer reasonable.

---

it wasn't ever really! even before all the gouging due to no more weapon drops, paying the wheels or carriages every other guild quest got old, take it from one of the few in a guild that had those chains. most players never bothered building them so the ones that did 1 either gave away the stuff or 2 lied and said they had none. are the rewards equal to the payment after the adjustments BB did? heck no, like the new dailies, most just get X out anyway. the fact that no one wants to do anything at a loss and that the guild merchant rarely has things in worth buying, kill any motivation to do any of the quests. sure players complain that the rewards for doing 2 adventures sucks, but it's in addition to the rewards you get for doing it in the first place. so not really a bad reward, does it put pressure on players, sure it does, but one reason you join a guild in the first place is to get/give help to other players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll-Phu

it wasn't ever really! even before all the gouging due to no more weapon drops, paying the wheels or carriages every other guild quest got old, take it from one of the few in a guild that had those chains. most players never bothered building them so the ones that did 1 either gave away the stuff or 2 lied and said they had none. are the rewards equal to the payment after the adjustments BB did? heck no, like the new dailies, most just get X out anyway. the fact that no one wants to do anything at a loss and that the guild merchant rarely has things in worth buying, kill any motivation to do any of the quests. sure players complain that the rewards for doing 2 adventures sucks, but it's in addition to the rewards you get for doing it in the first place. so not really a bad reward, does it put pressure on players, sure it does, but one reason you join a guild in the first place is to get/give help to other players.

---

I've been around quite a while too and was usually the one running the chain and helping others by giving the carriages, and gunpowder so i get where u are coming from :) Many of the gq's have always been questionable as far as being worth the cost. That in itself isn't a new thing. We just ignored it and got them done for the good of the guild. But when they rebalanced and took away the weapons they caused huge changes in the market. That's also when they took out iotp for frags. They made sure to adjust their daily quests (not that they did a very good job) but they ignored the guild quests. At this time guild quests should have been evaluated and they should have realized just how bad the current system is. It's one thing to question whether a gq may be worth it. It's quite another to have to pay 10x the value of your reward. Very tough to motivate people to do something like that. Nor do i want to. Guild quests shouldn't be a punishment or a chore that people dread getting on to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methius

I've been around quite a while too and was usually the one running the chain and helping others by giving the carriages, and gunpowder so i get where u are coming from :) Many of the gq's have always been questionable as far as being worth the cost. That in itself isn't a new thing. We just ignored it and got them done for the good of the guild. But when they rebalanced and took away the weapons they caused huge changes in the market. That's also when they took out iotp for frags. They made sure to adjust their daily quests (not that they did a very good job) but they ignored the guild quests. At this time guild quests should have been evaluated and they should have realized just how bad the current system is. It's one thing to question whether a gq may be worth it. It's quite another to have to pay 10x the value of your reward. Very tough to motivate people to do something like that. Nor do i want to. Guild quests shouldn't be a punishment or a chore that people dread getting on to deal with.

---

You are right. I hope BB takes some action to fix this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wimpy

You are right. I hope BB takes some action to fix this.

---

Now you're talking Wimpy.

agreed

Maybe this has been mentioned before. If yes, you can disregard.

I would like to see a guild quest being based on a daily reset and the number of people participating. What this means is that there would be a guild quest each day, and if you have 30 people on that day, and they decide to all do their quests before the day's end, then those 30 people get their quest done, and those 30 get guild coins. How many coins they get would be based on how many people in the guild managed to get it done before the reset for the day. If only 5 get it done, then those 5 get coins, albeit fewer than if 30 got it done. The rest that do not want to participate do not have to, and yet those that do, don't have to be left with nothing. The only thing that would change is when you'd be getting your coins, and this would be happening at the day reset, and not as soon as the guild quest is done as is it is now.

I ask for this for two reasons.

First, I don't like the fact that guilds quests are all or none. Some people are not into quests, some simply do not have time for them but do log on just for a short while to do maintenance or do a quick purchase and some want to get them done every day. Yet if you log on for short time, you get a guild quest, and if you don't get it done, you drag the shared guild quest down waiting for completion.
As the current system stands, if your list of priorities differs, or you simply have more or less time in real life to play, well you should simply not be in the same guild. But is the coherency of the guild then to be based on guild coins alone? In my mind, guilds should be about more than that. Yet current system pidgeonholes us into this attitude and I really dislike it. I don't like to badger people to get their quest done if they're really busy during the day. Real life trumps a game any day. Yet I can also understand why other people get frustrated when they get guild coins once a week. And I dislike that the game offers no middle ground.

Second, I don't like the fact that those that do not participate still get coins. It also leads to laziness and too much attitude of "I'll just let others get it done and pretend it doesn't exist this time". In the system I'm proposing, if you get your quest done, you get coins. If you don't, you're free to ignore it and play as you like, but you also don't earn coins for doing nothing. Yet your hanging out with a group of people you like is not dependent on it either.

Please consider changing this.

I think you bring up some interesting points. As a guild leader myself I see some pros and cons to your suggestion. In KMYA we dont require anything except that our members get along. However despite not requiring them we still manage to complete them within a few days. I do know there are many guilds who are all about the coins. Often it is the leaders who are all about the guild coins and are not leading guilds for general fun but rather only want people so they can get the most guild coins. To do what you have suggested however I think would destroy the general idea behind guilds. Guilds are where people with the same shared mindset play to share a common goal and to build that community. I highly doubt that if this system was implemented that it would bring any guilds closer together. The guild leaders arent going to change how they lead just because the game changes that way. As far as your comment about no middle ground a good guild leader will work to bring about a middle ground rather than allow it to disrupt guild play. As much as people want the game to be a certain way for everyone, it simply is impossible because people are not the same way. The current guild coin system has some flaws, but the current system ensures that players who do do the quest do earn more coins than those who do not. Those who do not like guild quests may consider doing them if another member helps them complete. Example APLAYER wants to just have fun and not do guild quests. BPLAYER wants the guild quest done. BPLAYER could talk to APLAYER and offer to pay the items or help the other player get the quest done or make an arrangement to buy the coins from APLAYER. It ultimately is up to the guild leader to work with the players to avoid trivial issues like fighting over a guild quest. If all guilds were like the system that you suggest then whats the point of playing in a specific guild? Guilds foster a community because the players in those guilds share a common goal. Using the above system in my opinion would render the whole guild system pointless and there would be no reason to find the right guild for you. If your guild coherency is only on guild coins then make that a priority for recruiting. I dont see any system in the game that pigeonholes anyone. IF a player is that upset about not getting a guild quest done than that player isnt playing for the group effort or group fun, they are playing for the guild coin. That player would be better in a guild that has that focus rather than not getting along where they are. We have the add friend feature for a reason. If your not in the same guild as someone you can still be friends with them. I think your idea pigeonholes the difference between adding as a friend and being in a guild. The two arent completely the same. I play in a guild but I have just as many friends outside the guild and thats how the system is designed. You CAN play with people who you like and be in a different guild. Its up to the guild leaders to be clear and up front with its members the focus of each guild. We are all playing the game, the guild is just a group of players who play for the same goal. I think the issues with implementing your system idea would take more away from the game than it would add. This is just my opinion, its up to each guild leader to decide for themselves what their guild is for.

I understand where you're coming from, though I may disagree with it. But I don't understand how my system in any way destroys the way guilds are run now. You still will get far more coins if you coordinate your guildies to get as many quests done as possible. The way you lead does not have to change for you at all. But it might change for us is what I'm saying. Not everyone is the same. If going for playing in a specific guild is all about the coin, which is what you seem to suggest, with common goals being the main driving force, then those with most active members will still get the most coins, so nothing in that regard will change for you.

But the fact that you ask what is the point of playing in a specific guild without sharing this common driving goal points out the difference between us. I like the group of people I'm with. I like that we have our own chat to talk. I like that we help each other. And I like that we're a fairly relaxed bunch. I also like diversity and the fact that some of us have lives and some play the game an awful lot. That's ok. I do not find I need to either define or segregate myself based on number of hours I play. I dislike that the game does this for us though. I don't need to get the gq done every day. But neither do I want to badger people every time to get it done either because it's dragged on for a week. I want the choice. Your argument about friends list isn't great because that friends list is of an extremely poor design as it is and I have trouble finding anyone on it :) I like the separate chat we have and the ability to talk amongst ourselves as a group.

I don't therefore quite understand what this system would take away from you on your end. I reiterate again, the more people complete the quest per day per guild, the more coins you get, just like now. Those that are very active and very focused on the gq can get 50 people to do it in a day maybe. Those that don't, maybe 5. Coin numbers will reflect the dedication to it which is what i think you're after and those drawn to this, will still hunt for guilds that match their attitude. But for mixed guilds this would make a big difference and remove a lot of friction.

I like sedivy's idea, seems very fair and balanced to me without forcing anything upon anyone at any stage.

As a new guild leader (recently inherited my guild) i would like to SEE what quests my members get... at this point i have NO idea if say a lvl 36 got 2 adv.. or pay hi level stuff... etc... to know if i need to cancel on their behalf.... there needs to be transparency - frankly to ALL guild members -- so that we can help each other.. Isn't that the point of the guild quest -- to get us to work together???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciara_Belle

As a new guild leader (recently inherited my guild) i would like to SEE what quests my members get... at this point i have NO idea if say a lvl 36 got 2 adv.. or pay hi level stuff... etc... to know if i need to cancel on their behalf.... there needs to be transparency - frankly to ALL guild members -- so that we can help each other.. Isn't that the point of the guild quest -- to get us to work together???

---

on the wiki site it has a breakdown on what a player gets for their lvl, the main guild quest is the same for everyone in the guild and will breakdown into 3 lvls, not sure what the ranges are, but everyone gets the same main quest.

sorry where is this wiki? i havent seen it -- if i understand you correct the 'named quest' is the same for everyone - with different sub levels for each range of levels?

nvm - i think i found it - http://thesettlersonline.wikia.com/wiki/Guild_Quests :) tyvm

and here (check menu Quests drop down for different guild sizes lists) http://www.settlersonlinewiki.eu/mis...36-55-members/

I understand requiring adventures that are less common finds as part of individual quests but I echo the sentiment that requiring them for guild quests is not good.

Guild quests do need rebalancing.

Is there any possible way we could get quests that were more worthwhile for players to do? I know this has been brought up multiple times but some of these individual guild quests are not worth doing for the amount of guild coin we get. I myself cant rationalize doing some of the quests for the tiny amount of guild coin because the cost is way more than the reward. Again I know this has been brought up many times but I just wanted to reiterate that sentiment.

Completely agree, our Guild Leader is also cancelling the Guild Quests that require rare resources.

Agreed!!!

/Agree