shiri.4257

2000 gems roughly translates to 370g for a whole guild maintenance. not really ridiculous, unless you're a deadbeat freeloader. Which for a presumably 500man guild is about 1.35gold/member every 2months. Still cheaper than server transfer costs. Now its guild transfer costs.

Instead of having players pay for transfers have guild costs for wvw designations of X number of players. I hate seeing dead guilds and bank guilds take up name space and no maintenance fee.-Every 8 weeks an alliance and guild maintenance cost along these lines Guild Fees:-100g/50 wvw player designation slots (that's 2g/per person every 8 weeks) maximum of 500 slots (1000g/guild). This would also require Guild UI to confirm/remove wvw designations internally. Alliance Fees:-100g/5 guilds in alliance with a predetermined max number of guilds per alliance and player cap. (20 guilds/500 players). Even a 5man roaming guild can come up with 20g/8weeks. You can even put a Gem Fee for the max one, so guilds can pay like 1000/2000 gems every 8 weeks for maintenance Why maintenance fees?1) determine your actual guild numbers vs inactive.2) Players that want to switch guilds/alliance can do so every 8 weeks and it will be the in the hands of the guild/alliance to accept them for a fee if they wish.3) I would actually recommend maintenance fees much higher than the proposed.

If they're designated as the WvW guild, probably so. Guild Administration should be up to the guild not anet anyways. However, if they're not designated it shouldn't have an affect.

Did this thread just derail into a request for another game mode, called RP? or are we still discussing WvW?

the top wvw guilds raid naked anyways.

Exactly, so those guilds with shared members form an alliance but the alliance is potentially capped on number of guilds. How will that work? they will have to choose between Furry A or Furry B. or Furry A and Furry B will have to be in the same alliance. I feel like you aren't reading what the FAQ question and answer was. oh, we've been suspecting it being a cap parameter 1) # of guilds AND 2) population. IE: 5 guilds AND 500 PLAYERS. but your designated guild is the one that reflects your alliance world location. your 2nd guild if not in the alliance or figured a work around, will be be in pug heaven. i think the misconception are people looking at it as an OR cap. the shared guilds will have to work on being in the same alliance or a work around like merging temporarily with 1 guild for wvw designation. then rep the other guild. All in all the combination of 2 guilds in 1 will push the total alliance player cap in the numbers but leave spots for guild max parameter. OK let me give example... There's possibly four main guilds. They all rally at different times. They all share some members and want to keep everyone together, which is the purpose of an alliance - keeping a community together. They also want to invite two other small guilds who provide havoc support/scouting and also have a few shared members. The number of people in total is about less than 150 players spread out across several timezones. But let's say the alliance is capped at 5 guilds. Basically the only way then to keep the players together is to have everyone become a member of one of the guilds and they have to set that to their WvW guild. That sounds silly, especially if not everyone in every one of those guilds has an open guild slot. What is the purpose then of an alliance if people have to use a single guild to ensure staying together? It means basically that we should just be creating a single "floater" guild as the alliance rather than create an alliance.Yup that's the work around. Or release them from a 4 Time zone raid sweat shop. Free the pugs! Silly but forces some choices that need to be made.

Exactly, so those guilds with shared members form an alliance but the alliance is potentially capped on number of guilds. How will that work? they will have to choose between Furry A or Furry B. or Furry A and Furry B will have to be in the same alliance. I feel like you aren't reading what the FAQ question and answer was.oh, we've been suspecting it being a cap parameter 1) # of guilds AND 2) population. IE: 5 guilds AND 500 PLAYERS. but your designated guild is the one that reflects your alliance world location. your 2nd guild if not in the alliance or figured a work around, will be be in pug heaven. i think the misconception are people looking at it as an OR cap. the shared guilds will have to work on being in the same alliance or a work around like merging temporarily with 1 guild for wvw designation. then rep the other guild. All in all the combination of 2 guilds in 1 will push the total alliance player cap in the numbers but leave spots for guild max parameter.

Exactly, so those guilds with shared members form an alliance but the alliance is potentially capped on number of guilds. How will that work?they will have to choose between Furry A or Furry B. or Furry A and Furry B will have to be in the same alliance.

This is a 1st world game. Please support Anet in disbanding Blackgate sweatshops. We must unite and not condone such poor labor practices!

Raymond deserves a 2nd promotion. Chaba needs to be hired by Anet as a moderator. All the my dead community cries...chill out. Your community died before linkings when you could only field 20 people throughout prime time and 5 through OCX/Sea in bronze league. For the ones in them "top tier communities." Get a grip, your "community" is a conglomeration of guilds and players that have been moving in and out for a bandwagon for years. If you had to take a look at actual numbers vs the analyzing your community after taking a bong, you'd come to the same conclusion. I bet you couldn't even put 500 people in 1 community guild under the parameters: 1) they were on the server since start and never transferred when the going got tough 2) they actually contributed something to community: ie: gold donations for warchests to buy those "community guilds" onto your server (sarcasm). 3) The guilds that have stayed on your server and anchored it through the rough times prolly don't give a rat's ass about non contributing wvwers like zergbusting teefs and mobile 1 push ACs aka Rangers. What did you do? Log in, capped a camp and yelled "INC, HALP THEY ON LORDS?" I'd venture to bet "Blackgate Community" consists of 80% immigrants.

^ best post in this thread so far Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished. we are not punishing you. we're just assimilating you.

GLORIOUS GIVE THIS GUY A RAISE!! This dude posts this up and clocks out of anet to go home! LET THE PLEBS QQ!! 11/10 anet

various worlds are already taking steps to try and establish a server alliance mentality. perhaps you should get more involved with your world in their discords/voicecoms/forums and help with the process. guilds coming and going from the worlds every 2 months is just the same as guilds hopping servers every couple months or even linked guilds hopping every couple months. the primary differences with this method is 1) more granularity for anet 2) guilds/alliances have the power to pick and choose who they want on their team for 2 months 3) there's a cap in comparison to initial wvw where 5000 man alliances overwhelmed the 500 man ones.

The 50 will count to the alliance most likely. your other 450 will be RNG as pugs and scattered to various worlds. WvW and PvE missions can be currently done across servers/worlds. don't see how that would effect. The world cap would probably have a fluid margin of error accounting for rng pugs being place.

Now you must feel pride for the horde!!!

Is the Ruins of Surmia alliance still available? I need to speak to their war council ASAP.