Curse

ZeroVile27 · Jul 16, 2005, 08:10 PM // 20:10

Here's an idea that I'm not sure if anyone came up with...Co-Leaders. A friend and I basically started a guild together but continue to bicker over who's turn it is to be leader, why not make it so you can designate up to two or three more people to be co-leaders so that it would cure the bickering. Also I think it would be cool to be able to name your members positions in your guild, instead of their rank being just officer or member (like making someone a captain or lieutenant), to actually be able to rank them further, like who is a higher ranking officer and such. Lemme know what you guys think.

Kishin · Jul 16, 2005, 08:14 PM // 20:14

That would just add a lot more bureaucracy than necessary. Plus, I fail to see how a "Co-Leader" cures the bickering. You still have to debate/argue over guild decisions.

Age · Jul 16, 2005, 08:20 PM // 20:20

I suggeted this on another board to have more than one leader if that leader is not present when they need to be.

Rhunex · Jul 16, 2005, 08:42 PM // 20:42

There are already co-leaders. They're called officers. They have every in-game power the leader has, except they are not able to kick out the actual leader.

DrSLUGFly · Jul 16, 2005, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Part of the problem here, there aren't really any guild decisions to make...

-guild name (one time only)
-cape design (probably one time only)
-guild hall (one time only)
-when to fight GvG
-who to recruit/promote/kick

That's it. We need more options of things to do with guilds, and assigning ranks within the guild, titles and positions, are a start. The leader should be able to break the guild into as many tiers as he/she so wishes and assign their own title to each tier, as well as a title to each person if they choose.

Nad · Jul 16, 2005, 10:52 PM // 22:52

There are already co-leaders. They're called officers. They have every in-game power the leader has, except they are not able to kick out the actual leader.

SOT · Jul 17, 2005, 03:07 AM // 03:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhunex

There are already co-leaders. They're called officers. They have every in-game power the leader has, except they are not able to kick out the actual leader.

That's the reality, yep.

Galatea · Jul 17, 2005, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Yeah, I'd like to see the Co-Leader option, or at least.. different ranks of officer, in which you can assign tasks. Like, perhaps you might want someone to be a guild officer only so they can be present for gvg matches when you're not around, but you don't want them to be able to kick or invite members.

Age · Jul 17, 2005, 03:11 AM // 03:11

There is one thing officer can't do is buy a guild hall or change the cape design if the guild wants to.It is up to the leader.

SOT · Jul 17, 2005, 03:16 AM // 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Age

There is one thing officer can't do is buy a guild hall or change the cape design if the guild wants to.It is up to the leader.

And after what happened to me, I'll be damned if they should be allowed

LOL

ZeroVile27 · Jul 17, 2005, 04:43 AM // 04:43

i just feel there arent enough guild options and the bickering was over who got to be leader, there doesnt have to be co-leaders only those who choose to have them. also i think it would be nice to be able to designate which officers have invitational powers etc. some people make great officers but they want to invite a bunch of idiots into the guild.

edit: also maybe some people like more beurocracy its up to the guild leader if it is pursued if you dont like it you dont gotta use it.

Sereng Amaranth · Jul 17, 2005, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Our guild has 9 officers. We vote on major issues. Our leader does not exercise the veto option. Being a leader doesn't mean throwing your power around. It means collaborating with others to reach a common goal.

I'm basically 2nd in command, but I'd hate to be the actual leader. Then I'd have to admit that I'm a gamer geek, lol.

quanzong · Jul 19, 2005, 08:39 PM // 20:39

Only thing I want to see is different ranks for officiers. Maybe like Warmaster, Warlord, Scout, etc

Aracos79 · Jul 19, 2005, 08:45 PM // 20:45

I'd like to see ranks for officers as well. Like in my guild, I kind of think of myself as the "Quartermaster". I've stockpiled a ton of dye, materials, weapons and weapon mods, etc. Whenever a guildmate needs something, odds are I have it (except the really high end vanity stuff). It would be cool to have titles that reflect what people do/contribute to the guild.

Damon Windwalker · Jul 19, 2005, 08:47 PM // 20:47

Why should there be a programming change because a few players are not mature enough to take turns and share the sandbox nicely?

However - there should probably be more than 1 guild leader - just in case something happens to the one, someone else can continue on.

This would probably be abused as well....

Flame · Jul 19, 2005, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereng Amaranth

Our guild has 9 officers. We vote on major issues. Our leader does not exercise the veto option. Being a leader doesn't mean throwing your power around. It means collaborating with others to reach a common goal.

I'm basically 2nd in command, but I'd hate to be the actual leader. Then I'd have to admit that I'm a gamer geek, lol.

I'm a guild leader. I have three officers, one newly promoted. They have free reign of all their powers. They can promote, kick, and invite anyone they want to. But they are reluctant to do so. Having co-leaders would be more symbolic than any real power change, but it would mean that when people have a problem, they don't always turn to the leader. One of my officers has significant knowledge about trading and prices, which I hate worrying about. And yet, every day, I get a "Matt, how much is this worth?" And every day, I get a "Matt, lets do a Guild Battle", when any officer could easily put the team together and start the battle.

Co-Leadership isn't that important. If you are bickering about who gets to be leader, do the mature thing and just let him. It's not like you're missing out on anything, before a bunch of members left, they expected me to pay for everything, including new capes they design that I hate.

Ristaron · Jul 19, 2005, 08:54 PM // 20:54

In my guild, I'm only the 'leader' because I'm the founder. I take no stand over the will of a vote, usually guild-wide. When we get more members, I will elect Captains (PvP leaders, they will be making the teams) and more Elders (people who would share my highest eschelon power, guild-guild diplomacy and granting full membership (on reflection of the guild's choice)). Both will appear as 'officers'.

If there is any change to be made in the guild roster, let it be allowing the leader to change the names of the ranks.

I don't want OFFICERS, I want Trustees or something to that effect.

Talesin Darkbriar · Jul 19, 2005, 11:27 PM // 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by quanzong

Only thing I want to see is different ranks for officiers. Maybe like Warmaster, Warlord, Scout, etc

heheh.. I was waiting for that to come out.
I believe the problem the OP was having is that "Emperor" was denied to him.

ZeroVile27 · Jul 20, 2005, 07:20 AM // 07:20

You guys are still missing the point of run your guild the way you want to, you wouldnt have to take advantage of these little additions if you didnt want to, its just something to make the guild more customizable.

souleater078 · Jul 20, 2005, 09:36 PM // 21:36

there can only b 1 all powerful otherwise there is no power 2 ppl own the guild... what if they get mad at each outher then who gets the guild??? split it up? then who gets hall the i DO have the final say if i dont wanna do somthing i dont but the 1 thing the leader dosent have contrl over is MEMBERS i mean yah he can kick any 1 but if he is a bad leader then the members will leave and his/her guild will nvr b very good that is the restraint on being a leader if your a jerk u will not b kick but u might have well been if all your guildies leave i DO listen 2 every 1 but like i said if every 1 has equal power then there is no guild 2 begin with