Fair Guild System?

[Racs]

<DIV>After reading hundreds of posts regarding the new guild system that is currently on Test, I decided to think a little about what I thought was fair, and the following is what I came up with:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Instead of having the guild status divisor based on number of accounts/toons in a guild as most, if not all, other post have suggested. How about the divisor being the level of your guild, with a minimum divisor being 5 (The level of guild "legitimacy" where your guild tag shows to all).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The following chart breaks it down:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Level 1 through 5 - Divisor = 5</DIV> <DIV>Level 6 - Divisor = 6</DIV> <DIV>Level 10 - Divisor = 10</DIV> <DIV>Level 15 - Divisor = 15</DIV> <DIV>Level 20 - Divisor = 20</DIV> <DIV>Level 25 - Divisor = 25</DIV> <DIV>Level 30 - Divisor = 30</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basically, I believe this system "rewards" the bigger guilds for being bigger, doesn't hurt the smaller guilds for being smaller. As with Adventure and Tradeskill XP, the higher your level, the longer it takes to get to the next level, only this requires a different calculation method as outlined below:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Example:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Instead of the current (these numbers are for example only) 2000/4000/8000/16000.....status points to level system. The system would need to be changed to a system where each level requires the same number of status points, say, 10000 (Again, number only for example). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, because the divisor increases with each guild level, you maintain the "harder as you get higher" type system, without penalizing guilds for having inactive players (no need to boot), or having too many or too few players.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm not sure of a better way to explain this, but if this makes sense to anyone else, please feel free to re-word it. :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any feedback on this would be appreciated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Padiddle - 26 Wizard - 16 Craftsman - Befallen</DIV> <DIV>Guild Leader - The Charmed Ones</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Puredark - 34 Necromancer - Befallen</DIV> <DIV>The Charmed Ones</DIV>

[Dyeana]

<DIV>THis change would be total misery for smaller guilds and reward only the largest guilds.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently have a very small family guild.  under the old, our devisor was 12, we had 12 alts, ok there.  Under the new, the divisor is 6, but with only 3 active accounts.  I thought it would be bad, but quite honestly I rather enjoy it.  Yes, we take a ding for below the min accounts, but the divisor is ok and do-able.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Under your proposed, it would take us years before we could ever even dream of getting to level 30, not that we are really trying.  Changing our number to some astronomical number only hurts more, not help.    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dye</DIV> <DIV>Eternal Flame - Test server</DIV>

[Racs]

<P>The Charmed Ones is also a family/friends guild. We currently have 4 active accounts, so we too would run into the same issues that you would. In our case, while we believe it to be important to level our guild, it is more about the tight knit unit and social aspect of it. Under this system, if I wanted to level my guild quicker, I would have to actively recruit more members. I don't forsee our guild getting to lvl 30 anytime soon under this system, any of the proposed systems, or the existing system.</P> <P>I clearly see your point, and though I agree with the problems that you forsee, I still believe this to be a fair system. All the other posts in all the other threads talk about how "unfair" the changes are to one side or the other. I think this does that. </P> <P> </P> <P>Padiddle - 26 Wizard - 19 Craftsman (YAY, 3 levels today) - Befallen</P> <P>Guild Leader - The Charmed Ones</P><p>Message Edited by Racsan on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:48 PM</span>