I don't see how one could even consider capping the guildmembership of existing guilds to 30. These are real people playing who actually have become attached to other real people.Originally Posted by Herby
Not to mention the investments they have already made. Would they go with them? Would they be taken away from the existing guildfunds?
Obviously everyone on the server matters, so another solution should be found.
Just because you don't experience a guild as a family, doesn't mean the rest of the server should suffer either.
Your argument slices both ways.
Let us bin the idea of capping existing guilds and find one that would satisfy both parties.
Adding new content rather then changing what is there, is dynamic.
Guild Warfare changes might include collapsing the bonuses so that more guilds could acquire them. For example, instead of needing to hold 5 cities to get 100% increase reputation gain, you would only be able to hold a single level 3 city, and that city would give you 100%. Same with 1 level 4 city to get 150% more coins. Just possibilities.
Dawnseeker this would still mean that less guilds will take the buffs overall since there are only 3 lvl 4 cities. Or do you propose to have more cities of each level?
This still makes the current system more attractive since at least now 5 guilds can hold them, where as in your example only 3 guilds could hold them.
It would also mean we would have to spend more guildfunds for the bidding which at the moment we desperately need to aquire a higher level guild (which takes more then a week to reach).
I understand that it would mean some would invest more and Tynon would make more money due to gemcosts to reach them.
I doubt those on server 1-10 would be happy with a change that puts us at such a disadvantage overall.
If this option is adopted I suspect many will quit.
I vote against this idea and refer to previous posts for additional content.
