Changing Requirement for Ability to create a guild.

[Guest Trojan_Knight]

I've not been on as much as I use to be over the past couple of weeks. But over time of playing this great game. Some tend to notice certain things. I know this suggestion may of been suggested in the past, and maybe my searching abilities are not that great.

 

In the past when I first started playing this game, there were many many more actual individuals that were playing, and many many times less number of guilds. With time things change. As some of us that have been around for a little longer then a minute can probally admit too.. With this being said. I feel that upping the requirement to be allowed to create a guild. Would be a great idea. Maybe I'm wrong on the idea that there are less people playing now, but more guilds present? Although from my perception that I have noticed there are many many guilds on this game that have 1 or 2 people in them. Some of them not even active.

 

Although to be honest, the best way to learn something is to do it yourself. Although honestly with a single skill in the level of 39 or higher. As a new player, are you seriously expierenced enough to lead a successfull guild? I'm not saying its not possible. I'm just saying that the chance of it usually may not be all that great. Where as if the skill level requirment was raised to 70 for example. Then that itself would lesson the number of guilds, increase active guild functions, and overall in my opinion greaten the chance of a new gm to be successful in his or her new journey as a gm.

 

In my honest opinion, I feel as 39 is more then a little bit to low. Back when a/d level cap was a lot less then what it is now. I think 39 was suitable. But as the game grows, and caps are raised, why are not other areas as well? This game has become greatly detailed with things to do, make, see, complicated, etc since long long ago when I first started. So why not have other things resemble in the same sense?

 

Over all, I think this would help in many possible ways explained in the above. Even increasing the cost to create a new guild along with a skill level increase requirement would be a great idea. It would even make, making your own guild that much more awarding in the long run. I'm tired of seeing guilds that are here in a minute, then gone 9 minutes later in a example of speaking. Just been spending a lot of time thinking about this. And thought to toss my ideas in here.

 

~TK

[Garnoo]

http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34081

[Entropy]

Yes, I might rise the requirements a little. Although we do have a guild auto clean up thingy, to clean inactive guilds.

[Tempest]

yeh, cant say why but sounds like cool idea

i read the other thread too, high requirement for making a guild would rly be nice IMO.

[Guest Trojan_Knight]

http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34081

 

Thanks, I knew there were previous posts made about this topic. I just couldn't find anything to bump .

 

Yes, I might rise the requirements a little. Although we do have a guild auto clean up thingy, to clean inactive guilds.

Yeah I know theres a auto guild clean thing. (Guilds that do not have at least 1 active player, be active in them per month) Maybe thats not how ya said it, but I think I'm close. But regardless, having a guild being yours, should be a great reward in my opinion, and it should be something that a more expierenced player has the opportunity to have, then someone just starting. Just my two cents

 

yeh, cant say why but sounds like cool idea

i read the other thread too, high requirement for making a guild would rly be nice IMO.

Yeah, I agree, I like the other thread too.. I wonder if there is a way a mod could slap this thread on the bottom of the one shown in the above? Just another idea.

 

~TK

[shallara]

Like others, I also think that Eternal Lands can only benefit from having less, larger, guilds.

As was stated in the other thread, maybe gradually increasing the requirements, automatically disbanding guilds in which the GM did not qualify (after adequate warning, of course). When a balance is reached suitable to the community, and Teh God, of course, then those requirements can be made permanent.

 

Also, I definitely do not think creating a guild should be OA based, especially if the idea is implemented to keep guilds from being transferred to players that do not have the requirements to make a guild (which I am all for)

 

For, if guild creation was based on oa... and the GM, after months and months, chooses to #reset... what happens?

 

If guild ownership cannot be transferred to anyone that does not have the required skill levels... and the GM resets (if guild ownership/creation is based on OA level)... does the guild poof? GM get kicked from the guild? Server message saying "Teh uber GM's of guilds are not allowed to #reset by order of Teh God"?

[Guest Trojan_Knight]

I'm not for OA based requirment. But the idea of change I am for. Like for example what I stated in the above, being a single skill @ or above the level 70 for instance. And I do think that your idea, "keeping guilds from being exchanged" is a great idea too. OA isn't the way to go imho because. I can get OA 50 in the matter of a day or two.. And then theres the #reset that you included on your post. I think it should be, if was changed, any skill other then OA based, at a set req that is around 65 - 75 for example.

 

Idk how many guilds there are currently created that do not meet the above criterea. I'm sure many would be agrivated that are below that req if this was implimented right away. Maybe do like a gradual time line. Like once a week, on the same day bump it up 5 till meet pernimate req. Or just be like "this is beta, things change" lol.

 

Just my two cents again.. I hope I can find more pennies. lol

~TK

[frogimus]

I wonder how many players start a guild of 1 just for the ability to change guildtags? Or how many small groups of friends have their own guild of 4-5 people (for example) because they are the only people IG that they have any real desire to associate with? I have personally met many players that fall into both these scenarios.

 

If I was forced (by these proposals) to choose which "large" guild to join, I would pick none. Why is this even an issue unless you believe that limiting guilds would force people to join yours?

 

Leave it alone, let each group play the game and associate with other players as they wish

[Guest Trojan_Knight]

I wonder how many players start a guild of 1 just for the ability to change guildtags? Or how many small groups of friends have their own guild of 4-5 people (for example) because they are the only people IG that they have any real desire to associate with? I have personally met many players that fall into both these scenarios.

 

If I was forced (by these proposals) to choose which "large" guild to join, I would pick none. Why is this even an issue unless you believe that limiting guilds would force people to join yours?

 

Leave it alone, let each group play the game and associate with other players as they wish

 

Just wondering, who said anything about the number of people allowed to be in a guild having a requirement or change? I believe this is a suggestion about raising the single level req not including OA. In order to have the ability to create a guild. And for the record, my community has always been small. We've even been around for a minute longer then a couple minutes. Some perfer to remain small, others perfer to see a bigger picture. But regardless, the size of a guild is not the comment in suggestion here.

 

~TK

[Ben]

Why not have a set time at which a player is deemed experienced enough to be a guild master? Or base it on actual *play* time?

 

Experience of the game is more important than skills, and makes for a much better GM (imo).

 

Ok, some may say that skills = experience of the game, but does it really?

Edited August 18, 2007 by benfish

[Khalai]

Why not have a set time at which a player is deemed experienced enough to be a guild master? Or base it on actual *play* time?

 

Experience of the game is more important than skills, and makes for a much better GM (imo).

 

Ok, some may say that skills = experience of the game, but does it really?

 

Good point. Maybe add a timestamp on each character and increase it every time, the character play.

 

However, what stops player from being afk all the time and "earns" required timestamp for no effort?

[masterpiter]

I think idea is very good, but it has some weak points:

 

1) Whar about true roleplayers/scouts/adventurers/players who dont neccecary make big exp but also know game and many of game aspects very well(low skills and oa but still pretty big knowledge about the game)?

 

2) lvls in skills r not same difficulty, in my opinion:

70a/d=60 alch=50 pot/harv=40manu/craft/magic= 30summon/engi(not sure about the engi )

 

I might be not 100% perfect with it, but i just wanna say that the amount of work and time needed to reach same lvl for different skills is not the same(which is very good thing btw).

 

So its hard to make guild-making requirements depended on number of any skill w/o define what skill.

 

mp

[Ben]

However, what stops player from being afk all the time and "earns" required timestamp for no effort?

 

Keep the level 39 requirement in place too?

 

So the requirement would be: a level 39 or above, 30kgc, have been playing for at least a year and have over XX hours ingame? (or something like that)

 

That way there is no afk'ing to get the required time, a relatively low skill requirement (for those who might say levels = experience) and enough time in game to know what you need to know.

Edited August 18, 2007 by benfish