Jump to content

Member-based upkeep


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Poll: Like it? (16 member(s) have cast votes)

Like it?

  1. Yes (15 votes [75.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.00%

  2. No (5 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 08:54

I think it's time the HCS start to support smaller guilds.

I think that all structures should have their upkeep based on the size of the guild, linear between 25 and 100 members (25 to 100% of the current cost).

Disclaimer: I'm in a big guild and I don't plan to start my own. I suggest this because I think that smaller guilds deserve this.

For those, who plan to vote No, be that kind and explain why...

#2 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 09:22

I agree. I also think some price scaling for guild level is in order, since a level 800 guild with 100 members will easily earn more gold than a level 100 one.

This is based on the fact that the guilds are both established, and not a new startup guild like PANIC was - the level of the players in the guild generally scales with the level of the guild :)

A collection of 20 level 400s would out-earn my whole 100+ member guild on a typical day.

#3 fs_jimmyjoe

fs_jimmyjoe
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 18:56

I agree about scaling with the number of members...


As for scaling with level, I don't think it should be guilds level (since it is possible to keep the guild on very low level and have high level players just by constant leaving and entering the guild...), I actually think it should be based on the average player level in the guild.

#4 doa4life

doa4life

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,737 posts
  • Badge

Posted 12 September 2008 - 19:32

isnt some structures already based on the number of members currently?

#5 fs_tawniteamo

fs_tawniteamo
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 19:38

isnt some structures already based on the number of members currently?



I believe thats why the all is in bold

#6 doa4life

doa4life

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,737 posts
  • Badge

Posted 12 September 2008 - 19:39

isnt some structures already based on the number of members currently?



I believe thats why the all is in bold


But other than the most expensive ones they are all reasonably priced IMHO.

#7 fs_ecolitan

fs_ecolitan
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 19:44

I think this is good but should have a function that scaled level and number of members. While it should be cheaper for Phool to have Endurance Shrine than TEW; it should be more for Phool to have Endurance Shrine than a guild of 8 level 10-50 players. Complex formula to work out in a way that doesn't unbalance guilds. An incentive for players to form small guilds that doesn't overly penalized guilds for gaining xp.

In general I love the idea but think it needs a bit of work for it to be fair. A question back to OP. What would you consider your base? A guild of 100 with average level of what? Because I'm sure HCS placed prices in mind for guilds that weren't of the size of say TEW. So, if this were done, TEW (among others) would see their costs increase. As you currently outlined it nobody's costs would go up and the majority of guilds would see costs fall. I'm pretty sure HCS doesn't want a negative gold sink no matter what. I think the proposal has to be at least approaching revenue neutral for it to fly.

#8 fs_supmet

fs_supmet
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 19:56

key points so far

-upkeeps should ALL be based on guild size
-should also be based on average player level
-Total gold taken out has to be equal or greater than it is currently

So, kinda touching on what Eco said, one level 500 outearns a guild of 8 10-50s. You can't use guild level, because you can keep your guild at level 1 if you really wanted as JJ pointed out. The flaw with just taking an average is that a guild could just sandbag and recruit 50 level 5s.. I'd think you'd have to find what an average person at each level can feasibly gain in gold each day, and then take a percentage of that.

Something like:

(average player stam gain/hr) * (average stam to kill monster at their level) * (average gold from monster at that level) * (structure level) * (0.1-5% depending on structure) = (upkeep for structure)

do that for every player in the guild and total it up. kinda just brainstorming right now :P

#9 fs_jimmyjoe

fs_jimmyjoe
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 20:05

hmmm... how about basing it solely on player level?
by that i dont mean average player level but the sum of all guild members levels...
that way a guild of ten level 50s would have the same cost as one level 500... and it would fix the flaw with recruiting lower levels to lower your upkeep since the upkeep would increase by recruiting anyone...



its a very simple solution but might just work...
now if only someone would post average incomes from monster kills for level 50, 250 and 500 so the formula can be checked :P

#10 fs_supmet

fs_supmet
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 20:08

hmmm... how about basing it solely on player level?
by that i dont mean average player level but the sum of all guild members levels...
that way a guild of ten level 50s would have the same cost as one level 500... and it would fix the flaw with recruiting lower levels to lower your upkeep since the upkeep would increase by recruiting anyone...



its a very simple solution but might just work...
now if only someone would post average incomes from monster kills for level 50, 250 and 500 so the formula can be checked :P


It could work, I'm not sure but I think very large very low level guilds will get the short end of the stick on that one though.

#11 fs_jimmyjoe

fs_jimmyjoe
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 20:11

yes, i thought about that too... which is why we need the average incomes :)


if the incomes climb exponentially, the formula would also be exponential - say (((sum_of_player_levels)^2)/x)*building_factor...

yes i know that formula prolly wouldnt work... its just an example :P

#12 fs_ecolitan

fs_ecolitan
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 20:13

lol. I was thinking in terms of something much easier to calculate. Gold gained is capped at level 300 right? If this changed then just redo some of the figures and this still works. I'm tossing this out as a way to do it fairly simply that is as balanced as can be. We know that most members of the big guilds will come in and object but... only way to lower the costs for small guilds is to raise it for large guilds.

Just take a figure such as min(ceiling(level/50),6). So a low level player rates 1 and any player over level 250 rates as 6. Add this up to get effective guild members (EGM). If we take 50 high level players as the base (the type of guild that will see no change in their costs) the R=EGM/300.

Here's where it gets hard. I think there needs to be a fixed component to the price and a part that is a function of this number (or some similar one). My first thought is .5*COST + .5*R*COST

A small guild (10) of players under 50 would pay about 50% of current costs.

A medium sized guild (50) of players averaging level 150 would pay about 75% of current costs.

Trouble. A maxxed out guild of high level players will pay about 75% more than they are now. Obviously as you increase the % of base costs you remove the penalty to high level guilds. But you remove the discount that was being sought. Someone else can play with these as I'm in too much of a hurry to adjust them more right now.

#13 fs_supmet

fs_supmet
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 20:21

yours could work too, provided gold gain is truly capped at 300, and yours would probably be a lot less laggy to calculate on the order of 100,000 times per hour.

So each structure cost would be.

R*(structure level)*(structure constant).

R could be calculated at :30 and the upkeep calculated at :00 each hour

#14 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 21:21

if you do it by how many members are in the guild, then the prices should go as follows:

25 members should pay 25% of maxed out structure prices is currently. lets take the endurance shrine; 25,000 x .25(25membmers,25%)=6,250

the percentage is = to the number of players in guild. so for full guilds it would be 124 and 124%=1.24. so for endurance it would be 31,000 an hour for upkeep.

yet with this kind of formula and i was in a solo guild, endurance would cost me 250 gold per hour. so you would have to have a cut off like 25%.

*edit: just noticed endurance is one of the structures that changes with number of guildmates. but you get the point im trying to make. you could change how the structures work, like how some are based on number of guildmembers and just have it so they are set and you just multiple them by the number of players. come up with some type of equation or base gold upkeep for each level of structure and just multiply it by number of guildmembers.

this could work out to cost the full and big guilds more gold yet they are bigger and the upkeep should show.

yet this would help out the smaller/solo guilds out there. theoretically

#15 fs_angiefc

fs_angiefc
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 21:53

Something like:

(average player stam gain/hr) * (average stam to kill monster at their level) * (average gold from monster at that level) * (structure level) * (0.1-5% depending on structure) = (upkeep for structure)

do that for every player in the guild and total it up. kinda just brainstorming right now :P


The problem with Average is that many of us here can't even manage average any more with the monsters, not to mention the issue that if you are carrying a lot of gold and lose against a monster (while it might be your fault) you can lose a third of your whole day's hunting worth of gold, and not every guild has 25% tax rate.

I'm not sure there would be an 'easy' way to balance this out and make it fair without changing A LOT of things.

Beyond just that there is gear to think of and other things that people need to buy to keep leveling, plus some people don't hunt, they might just sell buffs or do other things with stamina that help the guild out but don't exactly "Make gold" like like other players might do

#16 fs_ecolitan

fs_ecolitan
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 22:31

Two quick points. Angie, I agree that different people "earn" different amounts but if you use some sort of "level weighting" like mine it goes of earning potential. We all know it drops for a while in the 2-hit zone and then goes back up but that's all "noise".

Supmet - yeah I think it's easier to calculate something like mine but still admit it would need some work to be "fair" but still achieve the desired result. One quick point. If you wanted to increase the "weight" of higher level players just divide level by a smaller number and cap the figure higher. For example divide by 25 and cap at 12 or divide by 10 and cap at 30. The denominator of the R function then is just 50*cap. If you want to increase the benefit to small guilds lower percentage of costs fixed and raise that coming from levels. Want to decrease penalty to large high level guilds reverse the percentage changes.

Waiting for Phool and Joe to come in and love this. lol. By the way. Construction costs should not change I don't think. Just upkeep costs. Hope everyone realizes that then you'd want to have a guild of 1 to build everything and invite them all in. lol. Not sure who would really do all that but don't want to encourage it.

#17 fs_deciever11

fs_deciever11
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2008 - 22:34

logically i say yes why pay so much for structures in a 50 player guild wen a 100 member guild pays the same and has more members to contribute gold to the guild than the 50 player guild w/ less players benefiting so i think in reality we should base it by # of guildies so that small guilds pay less and larger guilds pay MORE yes thats right MORE it just makes sense

#18 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2008 - 09:36

I am strongly against level-based upkeep. Why punish players for success?

People maybe forget to realize that there are some serious expenses at higher levels. Not only one-time expenses for forging gear, but mainly all those potions...

Meaning that if there's a guild of low-level players, just about the only buff they NEED to buy is doubler (and not necessarily the bottled one. With fully upgraded stat structures, they can run around naked, making close to 20 levels on the first day alone, then average 3-4 levels per day, dropping only slowly as they grow. Once they reach level 130, that's about the first time they start to worry, and only when they reach 186, their expenses start to go up.

Now, I have to spend about 1M on bottles for one levelling session, so why the hell I should be punished by higher upkeep as well? I only make net profit from leveling because I spent a load of FSP to increase maxstam seriously...

So, please, leave high-level players' upkeep alone (or at least start a separate thread for that idea :)).

I would want this thread to be focused on promoting small guilds, on making their life easier...

#19 fs_ecolitan

fs_ecolitan
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2008 - 20:07

I don't see how you can separate the issues. If you insist on looking only at guild membership I vote no. Why fix 1 part of a 2-part problem. Phool and Joe should not have upkeep costs for a structure lower than a guild of 8-10 low level players. Also, in order to work you have to have a means of making the change close to revenue neutral. As such you would have to make 50 players (or about) your baseline. So, "low level" guilds with 80-100 players (yes they exist) would see an increase in upkeep costs.

I don't see how your argument follows. You are doing something seriously wrong if you don't net more gold for your guild than a level 50 no matter what potions you buy. I buy most of the same ones and only have 3 days worth of max stam and I net much more gold for my guild than lower levels. By my formula I was counted as high level as you. The earning power for most guilds is calculated by the TAX which has nothing to do with the gold you buy potions with.

But, your comments bring the problem with this suggestion (and my suggestions within it) into focus. In order to do this it will have to be close to revenue neutral. In order to do that someone has to pay more. That will be large (or large and high level) guilds. They won't like it. That doesn't really bother me too much if it's done carefully. Maybe high level guilds should face increasing costs of remaining so. But it will create opposition to such an idea.

#20 fs_supmet

fs_supmet
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2008 - 21:51

I would want this thread to be focused on promoting small guilds, on making their life easier...


Really everyone is after that same goal. Its just going by only member size and not character levels will do one of two things -make a guild of 20 level 400s pay 1% of their income for every structure maxed out, or make a guild of 20 level 20s pay 1,000,000% of their income for every structure maxed out. Either way it will be unbalanced


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: