1. everyone already gets a reward for every participation, not much but they do.

2. There are NEGATIVES to have a per person reward. For one thing, it will further incentive group merger (since it no longer have the negative of merger=less GNW reward). Since most servers don't have 8 groups to fill the GNW, this is a bad thing. It's also bad for less active servers. Currently, while they might suffer lack of sage, at least they usually get more GNW pack per person, if reward is all per person, they lose that too and falls further behind compared to active server.


Why is it that people doesn't think things through when they post suggestions and only ever thinks of "mememe"
And why is it they never actually go through the forum to look for past similar suggestions and what people say about them? This suggestion have came up at least 3 times in more or less the exact same form, with these flaws being pointed out.

If you can come up with a system without those negative impacts, feel free to propose that. But until then, no.

On a side note, poll won't be a very good idea. Because most people are, unfortunately, short sighted and doesn't think things through, just like the OP. They won't think of the potential problem of most server ending up in one group, nor would they spare any thought for the poor servers who are not active enough for Sage that the current schema compensate for. Those less active servers can't even represent themselves well because they have low population and thus low voting power.

I get medium refine runes from group shop, don't you? It's quite useful really, much more so than 50k coin. So that's a failing point.

You completely miss my point on the second point. It's regarding server health as opposed to personal reward amount. Specifically, the problem with per-person reward vs currently fixed reward is that in a per-person reward "world", there is no reason NOT to merge groups.

Currently, merging have the benefit of faster growth(higher lv group & group skill) and more group activity rewards (which is for everyone). Not merging have the benefit of more GNW pack per person (60 ppl in 2 groups will get 19-20 packs, whereas in one group is just 10), this creates somewhat of a balance to keep merges in check.

If we made GNW reward all per person, than, sentimentality aside, the rational decision would be to merge as many people into as few group as possible, to enjoy all the benefit of merger with no drawbacks. As it stands, except for a few servers, that will mean only one or two group per server. That will destroy competitiveness and is probably a bad state. There are quite a few fairly active server (that gets sage everyday) that complains about competition due to the fact the server only have one or two group(see merger request thread), frankly that's the result of over-merger and is a huge source of discontent, we don't need any more of that. In the long run, most server with less than 160 active player will end up in just one or two group, how "fun" would that be? How many server do you think have more than 160 active players?

On a side note, my server is fairly active with 4 groups, my group have around 30 people on for GNW, so I don't get pack every week. I'm hardly saying things to benefit myself, as more packs would in fact benefit me. But I take OTHER PEOPLE into consideration, and realize that it could be bad for the already disadvantaged.

Split the group like Ryota said is a solution.
Of course, this won't really apply to S1 but that's about it. And of course, it does have its draw backs but if you want extra reward that badly, it might be worth considering.

Now, personal reward + bonus would work in theory, but only if the bonus portion is no less than what the packs give today, otherwise it is, in fact, a diminished incentive to not merge. I would support this. Thou unfortunately his does turn this suggestion into "more free stuff" instead of "change of reward structure" which devs are less likely to go for... they are not known for giving us more free stuff just because we ask for it.

On a side note, if they allow us to "break down" a gift pack into smaller packs.... maybe that would work.... I mean rotations would do effectively the same thing, but it is true the long wait between "your turn" can be quite frustrating. So breaking down existing packs might feel better. And as the actual total reward per group stays the same, the anti-merge effect stays the same.

My group wins the GNW now and again. I'll admit, in term of raw power we are the 2nd place in 4 groups, due to the fact the other group holds the top ptws. Still, we do win the war somewhere between half and one third of the time in the last 2 or 3 months. So that's really not a concern.
Our server also have way more people than one group can hold, unless all the casuals are cut off. Therefore, even if we aren't winning the wars like we are, we are not in risk of dying off. The two groups behind us, however, are.

Don't make assumptions. Not everyone is selfish, some of us think of OTHER people (in this case, the other two group I mentioned)

If there are only 3-6 player in the GNW, then you SHOULD merge. The competition and anti-merge bit only applies if there is a shortage of packs. since there are 9-10 packs, generally speaking it's only a real shortage if there are 15 who can do GNW, which is sufficient to provide competiton.

What is bad is for 3 "15's to merge into one "45", whereas 3 "3-6" merging into one 15 is perfectly fine. This is what the current reward structure promotes, small groups but not tiny groups.

On a side note, I'm not entirely opposed to upping packs to perhaps 15 or so, certainly not more than 20. This will, ideally speaking, keep all group at an ideal size of around 30 (GNW) active players, so that each group is active and that MOST servers can have multiple groups to fight it out.

That would make 1, 3 and 5 group respectively the "sweet" spot, there is, logically speaking, no reason to have any other number of groups and groups will merge accordingly.
In fact, 5 group is strictly superior to 6-8 group because in case of 5, only one group have only 3 reward while 4 have 5 rewards, whereas having more group is "bad" as more groups will end up short.
3 group is about on equal footing with 5-8, since while there is no more "5 fights", there is also no more "3 fights", thou 3 is slightly worse than 5, probably not enough incentive to keep 5.
1 is strictly worse than 3.

I'd imagine most server that can and willing will end up with 3 group. If not for the RNGness of match making, people might make alts to make it into 5 where the 5th group is full of alts and the "fall guy"

Also, you have to consider this numerically. The incentive right now to keep 3 group instead of 2, for example, is 150% reward. But if the per-round reward is considered, it's only 133%. And in case of 3 vs 1, it's more extreme, a case of 300% vs STILL 133%. In other words, while per round participation reward does in fact have SOME anti-merge incentive, it is MUCH weaker.

And you are not addressing the server vs server balancing issue. In fact, it makes it worse, because now not only are the less active server not getting more per person, they are getting LESS. On top of missing sage...