I like it. Create as many groups as you like in the groups tab and set permissions on them. put players inside their respective groups and you have the guild EXACTLY as you would like it.Originally Posted by horse
I like it. Create as many groups as you like in the groups tab and set permissions on them. put players inside their respective groups and you have the guild EXACTLY as you would like it.
As of right now, this post has 515 views and 16 comments and 2 are mine. If you like this idea or have any thoughts about it, please leave a comment. A big thread may get some attention from the people that can do something.
Like my 'Forum Moderators' thread, and poll that Sirius said himself that he was interested in and nothing happened... lets just pretend we are fantasizing!
Sirus also said that they were looking at changing CP scoring because it punishes high level players. When did that happen?
Well, not punishes since "Leveling is not a punishment." Maybe 'severely handicaps' is a better phrase?
Oh, and hackers... what's going on there? I thought the admins said they will be more open about what they are doing with hackers. Nope.
They have told us everything that is happening about hackers. Nothing.
anyway. good idea Vachau
I don't know if Sirus is interested in the feedback from the users/customers, but I'm interested in ideas that will help everyone.
I like having a leader to make final decisions, I think there should be a 2nd in command that has the power to make walls and remove members that are ranked below them and the same number of officers to accept or deny requests.
Excellent idea.
We had a leader in MW that went MIA. Gree finally swapped the leadership to an officer but it would have been much quicker if we had a 2nd in command. Even the idea of people being able to boot the leader isn't too terrible of an idea (just don't tell the guys in my guild.) LOL
Great idea
KA - Pauxly & Gimin
When I became a founder, this is how I developed my guild:
Founder = General
Solely responsible for allowing and removing players. (All founder abilities)
Final say in guild matters.
Lt. General
#2 in guild and in charge when General not available.
Reminds players of donation or other contribution deficiencies, when/if they occurred.
Reiterates guild procedures and makes sure everyone knows what their roles are.
Financial Secretary
Responsible for logging and distributing a weekly financial report
Responsible for making sure all member have guild associated communications.
Posted guild upgrades and order of progressions.
Guild Advisor
That level headed and clear head that the founder or any other guild member can turn to and bounce thoughts off of.
Person responsible for resolving conflict or issues within guild.
2 Recruiters
Players responsible for evaluating perspective members. (We did not have an open door policy). A person must first be backed by an active member and then the recruiter took it from there.
These are described in brief but you get the idea....
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys.
Look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death!"Sun Tzu The Art of War
Exactly what I'm thinking now, Spydrax. Why are we limited by the confines of GREE's prescribed system? It would be nice if we could define our kingdom as needed. We just need one more layer of leadership between the founder and the officers. These would be the capos, xo's, VPs, number 1s, first mates, or whatever title you give to them. GREE could call it the co-leader and we would use it for that one person who can help the guild when needed.
I'd agree with having an cofounder, but I'd still be apprehensive on allowing that person the ability to remove a player. If they make a cofounder position I'd like to see normal members NOT have the ability to start a war. Or even a probationer that wouldn't be eligible for rewards until they show they've contributed.
Do you have change for my 2 cents?
2nd in command should be able to kick people.
I will agree that declaring war and such things should be left to officers and founder
Since we have taken a slight turn in topic, I will pipe in again. The Saigoth Boss event worked very well. It required coordination among the members with an officer leading. On officers were allowed to summon a boss. That is the way the wars should run, as well. Only officers and founders should be able to declare.
o yes worked very wellGree please give me all the loot units i still havent received
KA 513742975
Forum Dragon Knights - Immortals ( FDI )
Posting Permissions
