Curse

stealthslicer · Mar 06, 2007, 12:07 PM // 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophitia Leafblade

Perhaps the ability to display your guild position as a Title too. Eg. Guild Leader of [DSG], or for a new custom one - Guild Champion of [DSG]

To be fair other than adding in the few new features for Halls, Anet hasnt really done much to expand on the Guild side of Guild Wars.

The titles thing could be a bit complicated. If they decide not to expand the guild rank idea they could possibly do somthing like a title for leader and officer. Perhaps they could put an "L" or an "O" befor the tag to tell people that you are a leader or officer.

I do agree that Anet hasnt done much about the guild side of Guild Wars, bearing in mind that the name of the game is Guild Wars.

Mercyful Fate · Mar 06, 2007, 06:58 PM // 18:58

/signed

I'm very fond of the idea of being able to customize multiple tiers to add on to the current 3 tier hierarchy that is in place at this time. Whether or not we can customize is secondary, as we are using the forum for a larger tiered hierarchy.

I would like to see ArenaNet either go all in on improving the Guild roster and permissions or leave it be for now. I'd like to allow some non-Officers to recruit, but not kick.

I also would like to be able to tag people as PvE only, or PvP willing (since I have a PvE guild that does only HA and AB).

It has been brought up that the [W/A] or [N/Me], etc. show next to members online to designate what class they are currently playing. Seeing that added would be nice as well. But it could be expanded on to allow a screen for a summary of a guild member's account, showing all characters they have (possibly a check box must be checked by the player to show the character on the summary). It could show the character, class and secondary, level, location the character last left it in, etc.

There are numerous potential upgrades that could be done to the Guild features. I'd like to see it addressed, but I think it should be handled as I stated above in an "all or nothing" manner. Naturally there will be tweaks, but should ArenaNet address it, like always it's not as high a priority - this has been proven merely by how long we've been using the current system. But it would be a delightful upgrade and surprise to many of us who value what organization ArenaNet can help provide in game, since even some of the most devoted players hate going to forums.

-MF

Ilithis Mithilander · Mar 12, 2007, 01:14 AM // 01:14

/signed - if only one or two more guild titles were added.

/notsigned - if more than two are because then it does seem like there would be competition to get to the top when a guild is supposed to work together.

Crushedskulls11 · Mar 26, 2007, 07:00 PM // 19:00

/signed

Good idea either way most good guilds do this outside the game but it would be nice also for members. Especialy considering im part of a guild thats 500+ members lol. LaZy Nation FTW!

Maximumraver · Mar 26, 2007, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilsod

/signed for more inguild positions

/notsigned for methods of punishment

/absolutelynothingmoretoadd

Lord Azhren · Apr 01, 2007, 11:50 AM // 11:50

I think this is a great idea. There are so many guilds who run differently than the standard format. There are guilds where everyone is an officer, there are guilds where some officers are allowed to invite, some aren't. So why not have customizable options?

/signed

kimahri · Apr 01, 2007, 01:07 PM // 13:07

/signed
Definetly, this would be a great improvement.

Innoccence · Apr 01, 2007, 01:22 PM // 13:22

Ah what the Hell?

/Signed - Guild Positions/Options
/Not Signed - Ways Of Punishment

I do not agree witht he ability to ban people from the Guild Chat and Guild Hall, for what would be the point of having either of those if they could be tuned off so easily like that? It is unfair for some people to lose the privelages of the other members. Why not just "Punish" them by kicking them out of the Guild.

Anyways that'll all my ranting for today.
~Innoccence

0phelia · Apr 10, 2007, 01:13 PM // 13:13

/signed

leader, officers and "the rest" is not enough

Mike_version2 · Apr 10, 2007, 01:24 PM // 13:24

/signed

looks good to me

Lydz · Apr 10, 2007, 01:49 PM // 13:49

/signed

The game is called GUILD Wars...and I don't think there's enough focus on the Guild aspect at the moment

Ama Seraphim · May 17, 2007, 08:05 PM // 20:05

/signed
but honestly from the looks at all of these posts Anet doesn't seem to care too much about the Guild aspect of the game

Tarun · May 17, 2007, 08:45 PM // 20:45

/signed - would be an excellent addition.

karunpav · May 17, 2007, 08:55 PM // 20:55

/signed, why not?

Amon Warrior · May 18, 2007, 11:33 AM // 11:33

/Signed
For Guild hierarchy. It gives depth and life into this important part of the game.

/Not Signed
For forms of punishment. Just kick or demote the player, the same as it is now.

Don't give any ideas to control freaks, over-zealous members, inexperienced leaders or anyone with a grudge. That can easily sink any organization, let alone a virtual guild of players. It takes the joy of playing right out of everyone involved in the punishment process.

Mortius Madius · Jul 07, 2007, 03:54 AM // 03:54

I agree with having more OPTIONS. I disagree with allowing PUNISHMENTS, because you know there are going to be alot of jerks out there that will go on power trips.

I am however, all for choice and options. I think maybe the Guild Leader should be able to set permissions. But with limits. Like giving certain officers permission to do Guild v Guild Missions, and denying that option to others. Of course, with the current system, if you are a GL and have an officer that throws together half baked GvG teams with no consideration to the Guild Rank or winning or losing, you have the option of just demoting or kicking them.

There was rumor that if the GL is inactive for a period of time, then an officer who at one time had been designated GL would automatically 'flip'. Allowing the guild to continue onward without waiting for the GL to eventually 'show up'. Is that true? If not, can we install it? Instead of doing it THAT way, there should be more direct methods of doing it. Like, Designate as Successor - so if you are inactive for more than a month, it will automatically demote Guild Leader to Officer and promote the Successor to Guild Leader. If no Successor was designated, then the most senior officer (with the oldest promoted date) would be promoted by default.

Other than that I don't see a need for PvE Officers or PvP Officers. All Officers should be equal, albeit with Senority. As to different levels of designation based on 'time in guild' - just as with Members, all should be equal. If you want to move up, gun for promotion. Seeing your name under 'Senior Members' as opposed to just 'Members' might seem like a cool idea to some people, but for most it won't mean anything at all and won't do a thing to limit guild hopping.

It's just FLUFF then, and I don't oppose or support it.

Conman1 · Jul 21, 2007, 01:11 PM // 13:11

My personal concept of this would be to have more ranks in a guild. With more ranks there could be a passive way of restraining some members.

For example, you could promote someone to a new rank, say captain. He could only invite people.

Then when you think they did good with that, you could promote them to general, and have more options for them to contribute to your guild. With this improved ranking system with more ranks, someone could easily see if a guild member can handle these responsibilites.

Bazompora · Jul 21, 2007, 01:29 PM // 13:29

/signed

Customisable ranks would also allow guilds to have more unique caracteristics.

Alex The Noble · Jul 21, 2007, 09:19 PM // 21:19

/Signed

Definatly needed but more needed in Guild Wars 2 as the game will be going persistant, and maybe with world pvp youll need commanders and warmarshals ect.

anyway ive been wanting this for ages. Plus the priverlidge thing would allow those certain epriverlidged players to add players but not kick them. If you were an active guild leader you may allow yourself to be the only one to kick

stoping awful member kickers from kicking you.

I want to the Wandering Ranger rank...i dont say much in my guild...i help pick out weedy players, and then smoke all my competitors in battle...but mostly i wander through towns being a carebear...thats why im a Wandering Ranger.

Conman1 · Jul 22, 2007, 01:18 PM // 13:18

Ya, part of the reason i want to have these customizable ranks is because i used to be leader of an OK guild. There was this one guy who i promoted to officer and then later on he just kicked everyone out.