Limiting Multiguilding

[Minoc]

Removing multiguilding would upset too many old players.

What I don't understand is why new useless guilds such as i R Turtle, Awsome-O-Saurus, and Soda are still approved.

[Flares]

There is no reason to enforce multiguilding. Personally, I am only in a couple of guilds, but if people want to join any guild that tickles their fancy, that seems fine with me. In my experience, the days of guild rivalry took the firmest grip when there were not a lot of servers, and there were very few guilds on one particular server. With the way things are now, even if global guilds are cut back to try and produce fewer guilds with more activity, it will not stop individual server guilds from springing back up in number. The days of guild rivalry were fun, but, they've been outdated by global guilds.

[protagonist]

Make it easier for leaders to find out if there are multi-guilders in their guild.

Also, there should be incentives for guilds if they do well. Maybe the guilds with the top 10 activity could have free webspace?

[jake13jake]

You can't bring back the old guilding atmosphere unless multiguilding is prohibited. That way, a player will join the guild that they think offers the most potential to them. A better shopping market. Guilds should also be separated into family guilds and nation guilds. Family guilds would have a cap of maybe 8-12 members, nation guilds would have a cap of 45-60. A player can only join one family guild and one nation guild, but perhaps they can wear their family guild and their nation guild tags at the same time. Lower restrictions for family guilds and heighten restrictions for nation guilds.

If people want to join any guild that enters their fancy, it destroys the atmosphere of guilding on Graal. Recently I readded the MoD Fort to Classic, and when I massed asking for ideas of how I should script who owns the fort, I received a severe lack of interest. Because almost everyone is multi-guilding, there is no sense of rivalry/alliance between guilds. Unless the modern global guild system can make some changes, the only way to regain the environment of the old guild system would be to make guilds local to server, but in doing that, it would discourage players coming to a server with only local guilds, or discourage competition between servers when people wouldn't want to leave their guild on the initial server.

Any other system is flawed because not many people would care about "free webspace" or things you can do globally, only advantages within the game, and with a global guild system, and with so many guilds, that would be impossible to accomplish. However, where the server that the guild plays on is listed, you could possibly give servers the option of giving the highest active guilds special NPCs. Other than that, no, I wouldn't care. Nobody cares and that's the problem.

With apathy all about, you can't stop it, but you can enforce against it.

You can't say prohibiting multi-guilding would be negative on the guild system, but without it, it would probably leave the most serious guilds that have higher standards of recruiting, so newbies would always be looking to start their own guild and join a guild. A new guild would have lower admission requirements as is expected, and etc.

[jake13jake]

It would be also neat if you could have guild mergers too, like... MyNick (Guild Name) (Guild Alliance Name), for allied guilds or families that align themselves with an alliance.

[matt5892]

Originally Posted by jake13jake

It would be also neat if you could have guild mergers too, like... MyNick (Guild Name) (Guild Alliance Name), for allied guilds or families that align themselves with an alliance.

this caught my eye and I'm running with it we should make it like setnick nick setguild guild , guild , guild ...... which will appear as

nick(guild (guild (guild)

[HarDKoRe1234]

The top 10 guilds having free webspace idea wouldn't work because they change so frequently.

I, myself, like the idea of restriction of guilds but I'm all about being in one guild. BTK uses the "no multiguild" rule. If I see a member in another guild, I remove them. :P

[gozen]

who is btk?

[Minoc]

Filtering new guilds better would also be helpful, there are too many.
http://graalonline.com/guilds/viewgu...ll=0&view=info

[adam]

As for multiguilders.

Give them the option of showing anything after thier name with ( ) and they will be happy. All they care about is having lot's of tags.

As for true guilders.

They only care about one. Guilds aren't a status symbal. Thier a community.

And right now with multiguilding thier broken communities with members who are worthless trying to serve so many guilds.

Most game's only allow one guild. Actually most games put a high high value on guild creation.

[Minoc]

Good job.

[KaasharuHunter]

I believe no multiguilding it's a rule a leader shall enforce if he/she feels the need to, it shouldn't be obligated by the system. Regaurding the inactive guilds, there is a big number of useless guilds.

- Kaasharu

[Minoc]

Seriously, do SOMETHING.

[LOA--Paul]

I don't really partake in much multiguilding myself as a leader. However, I am a member and old contributor to some allies. For example- Vigilant Knights where I am a senior knight.

I use both tags, LOA majority of the time.

Another example: some members of LOA are also members of US, done intentionally to strengthen the alliance. Depending on who's in need at the time the tags will switch.

It's the same army pretty much under different leadership structures. I guess you could say it's similar to an officer exchange program.

But yes you're right. People who are in 15 guilds are ridiculous. My account is probably in 5 or so- but I don't use them. Just haven't bothered to remove myself from them.

[p2p_Sir_Link]

let's become super best friends to really strengthen the alliance.