More like 3+ years ago. I even seen occurrences like that in 2007.

Why not instead of limiting a max # of guilds just say you need 10 active members (active defined later) to keep it open.

That way as the playercount grows or shrinks it works out.

define active now

It's something that would need defined by whoever works out a guild system. I'm not involved in the project so I have no idea how many guilds or the tolerance on recruiting noobs from another server to boost your activity.

I would rather they get an active guild player that is trusted, and reintroduce the guild admin position, giving them to power to influence and give the support to global guilds that it really hasnt had in a while.

tbh id prefer to have the current guild having a raiding system added to their base
and maybe add new base from new guilds that will register their guild on here just like btk saying they would come back.
there no rush into this too.

no need to be active, find a spot that dev will let u use, build a gh, register guild and here u go

hey leave me a staff msg with what you need I havent seen you in a few weeks

You could use the local guild system but have 3 main guilds and allow outher players to say buy guilds and then have to pay say 5k monthly and if one of the smaller guilds die or dont pay there removed and if a Smaller guild grows to be more active then a main guild the main guild is demoted and the smaller guild dosent have to pay and gets a guild bace.

Enemy guilds should be allowed to fight in no pk zones.

Whoa there jade, take a breath.

lmao

love this idea

so you would have to register your guilds as enemies?

i dont think that a good idea lmao
people would spend their days trying to get the gold haha

Wouldn't matter either way since half of Classic has over 200k in their bank account.

I could put up some kind of "Reputation" System like WoW has.
The more people of a Guild are killed, the less Reputation you have.

When... ... Members:

Guild A kills Guild B
Reputation of Guild A with Guild B sinks, Reputation of Guild A with Guild C raises.

one thing, this is not wow

That's why he used the word "like". He was referencing to it.

kk, let's remove all content that looks like Zelda, owtf where's Classic?

I actually like this idea for one reason.

Ranks!

Some internal ranks could be automated like this:



Leader: Manual promotion(Leader of guild)--Can manually set ranks
Advisor: Manual promotion
Commander: Manual Promotion
General: Manual Promotion
Division Leader: Manual Promotion ----------------Above can recruit
Warlord: Kills-Deaths > 0 & Reputation > 100 & Length in guild > 6 months
Avenger: Reputation > 75 & Length in guild 3 months
Paladin: Reputation >50 & Length in guild 2 months
Knight: Length in guild 1 month
Solider: Reputation > 25

So unless manually moved the autopromote system would put people wherever they belong.


In this system you need to have 25 reputation with the guild to even be able to get added onto the roster(IE: Kill their enemies).




Guild A /vs/ Guild B

Also, if Guild A declares B as an enemy their members get rep from killing guild B... it isn't until Guild B returns the hostility to them and both sides are at war with each other that they can kill each other in no pk zones.

Killing in nopk zones would dig up more hostility for guilds to hate eachother.

I don't like this idea, the Leaders would of course get to choose their Ranks by themselves

They'd get to choose the requirements for the rank up and the names for the ranks i was just making an example of how a guild could set it up. Hell if they wanted it could be all manual promotions.

I like the concept but I dont think it would work for guilds who don't have PK and combat as their directive, think JF.

You'd put different parameters that the guild can choose to determine ranks.


Could have time as saint, length in guild, spar rating. Or whatever modifiers on your ranks.

That's what we can have party guilds for!

sounds like something i will explore soon

man i like exploring

its like a half naked chick on the beach, sun bathing

Limiting the amount of guilds could potentially kill the server.

If we won't be able to maintain NBK (which isn't too active at the moment, partly because of the lack of old content), I and probably most of the old members, wouldn't even bother visiting.
I assume the same applies to other guilds.

How about creating 3 total different Guilds from all the Guilds on Classic right now?

Just an idea

The tragedy of losing a few players who make a monthly appearance.

why would u make it local? is it that much important?

NBK isn't that inactive, and there should be a few other guilds alike.
Besides, if there are 60 players who make a monthly appearance (though I assume occasional players make an appearance more often), they stand for an average of 2 players a day - over 10% of the playercount.

Also, there are plenty of old players who tend to return for a period of time once in a while. I wouldn't consider these players nugatory.

Maybe we can define what guild activity is, but I believe it's when guilds actually do **** together. NBK and a lot of guilds are not like that and haven't been for a while.

If global guilds aren't being taken care of on the global level, then what's the point of supporting them? There's only 1 guild on Classic who actively does things together. That's sad.

Yes it is.
As long as we can't control Guild max members etc. we cannot set up "good" systems for them.

If this is done, that one guild that actually does things together won't be taking part either. We don't recruit at the moment and don't want to recruit either, but would I have to if there was a limit to 3 guilds on the entire server? We'd have two big competitors, and people would be forced to pick one of them through lack of actual choice. What if people don't like how the guilds are? The guild leaders? The guild members? How they're ran? It doesn't make way for choice and is excludes both players of the server and players off the server. The biggest fault is that it doesn't allow people to create their own factions based on rivalries, and it will ultimately make the people on the server want to flock to whatever is the strongest guild (not because of the guild itself, it's people, or its history) like they do on Zodiac with their nations, and Era with their gangs, rendering the guilds themselves individually useless.

Make your own guilds (or even join one!!) if you're that upset about the lack of activity in them.

totally agreed on that one

I don't agree with you, people don't just join the strongest one.

I agree with Rufus too.
just cause..

u sound like ur jealous of not being in the strongest and the biggest teamwork group

People do, unless they have a hidden agenda or are friends with the leader. I've seen it especially on Zodiac, where the nations themselves mean nothing and it's all about the people in those nations. Would a leader of a guild leave their position for leadership of another guild? No, because the guild has meaning and they're not forced to do it to gain some kind of competitive edge. Would someone leave a nation on Zodiac to become the leader of a better nation? Yes, because it is easier and there's very limited options. Would you join a nation that was weak over a nation that was strong? Probably not, unless there was something in it for you. The very same applies to this guild idea and it deviates guilds into property, which is not what they are about.

Uhm... could you please don't talk about something you have no idea of? lol

I've been hopping around gangs on Era every second day :]