Forums » Suggestions
I would like to request that lite subs not be kicked out of guild council positions.
I have had several members go lite for a while while they are away from the game, and their council spots have been forfeited.
If this same player failed to renew their full subscription, they would retain their council spot. The current mechanics encourage players not to subscribe instead of subscribing lite when they know their play will be reduced. Additionally, it creates guild instability when losing council members without notice.
What would happen if a guild leader went on a lite subscription? Would the guild disband?
I have had several members go lite for a while while they are away from the game, and their council spots have been forfeited.
If this same player failed to renew their full subscription, they would retain their council spot. The current mechanics encourage players not to subscribe instead of subscribing lite when they know their play will be reduced. Additionally, it creates guild instability when losing council members without notice.
What would happen if a guild leader went on a lite subscription? Would the guild disband?
Good idea.
Yeah the fact is that council positions are required to keep guilds alive so if all your council spots went and lite subbed the guild would get disbanded.
Commanders are not required, only a certain number of council members.
Yeah the fact is that council positions are required to keep guilds alive so if all your council spots went and lite subbed the guild would get disbanded.
Commanders are not required, only a certain number of council members.
-1 to a new exploit
The differance is a non sub is not playing at all while a lite sub is playing with limits.
They simply cannot remain guild leaders on a lite sub....
If your guild leaders cant stay subbed then they need to resign....
The only fix here is to warn the player that they will get kicked from the guild if they use a lite sub.
If your guild cant maintain a viable leadership then too darn bad.
The differance is a non sub is not playing at all while a lite sub is playing with limits.
They simply cannot remain guild leaders on a lite sub....
If your guild leaders cant stay subbed then they need to resign....
The only fix here is to warn the player that they will get kicked from the guild if they use a lite sub.
If your guild cant maintain a viable leadership then too darn bad.
Leadership isn't the issue, it's about game mechanics rewarding non-subscription over subscription. If we wanted to discuss exploits, the topic would be keeping a guild alive with non-paying subs
I think they should suspend lieutenant membership when cancelling full subscription, regardless of whether it is followed by lite or by non-subscription. After a fixed window (e.g. three or six months) the membership should be removed.
Any guild which does not have a (fully) paying lieutenant for three/six months should be disbanded.
Any guild which does not have a (fully) paying lieutenant for three/six months should be disbanded.
+1 to the op. They're paying, they're paying "fully", why should they lose access to their guilds? I thought guilds were supposed to be important to gameplay. So what.....we're going to deny these people access to an important part of gameplay because.......why?
I really don't see what any of the guild features have to do with lite subscriptions. Having sub restrictions to a certain type of guild position is predicated on the idea that guild positions will be consistent across guilds and I hate that about Vendetta.
That's the main problem that needs fixing. Assume it is fixed and it then becomes clear that restricting certain guild positions is not going to be practical because they will vary so greatly from guild to guild that it will lose all meaning.
In the meantime the guild system isn't even functional within the game, you have to go to the forums to use it practically. Talk about broken features; lets disassociate as many new products with it as we can until it's fixed.
That's the main problem that needs fixing. Assume it is fixed and it then becomes clear that restricting certain guild positions is not going to be practical because they will vary so greatly from guild to guild that it will lose all meaning.
In the meantime the guild system isn't even functional within the game, you have to go to the forums to use it practically. Talk about broken features; lets disassociate as many new products with it as we can until it's fixed.
Well the point of lite subscriptions is that they are limited somehow. Otherwise full subscriptions are nothing more than charity.
The devs chose to limit lite in at least two ways:
- limited license levels
- no guild leadership positions
This makes some sense, as it allows a player to "taste" the game but denies the more advanced game content. It would also have made sense to limit e.g. number of alts or login time per month.
What I'm trying to say is: OP is right that it doesn't make sense to reward non-sub over lite-sub, so that's why I propose to limit guild leadership for both lite and non-subscribers.
The devs chose to limit lite in at least two ways:
- limited license levels
- no guild leadership positions
This makes some sense, as it allows a player to "taste" the game but denies the more advanced game content. It would also have made sense to limit e.g. number of alts or login time per month.
What I'm trying to say is: OP is right that it doesn't make sense to reward non-sub over lite-sub, so that's why I propose to limit guild leadership for both lite and non-subscribers.
But then guilds will just randomly disband if council members let their subs lapse, it will be insane.
That could actually be quite amusing.
+1 to any sort of full sub lapse losing leadership position.
+1 to any sort of full sub lapse losing leadership position.
Our guilds would have disbanded ages ago. We keep players in our council for historical reasons like Matriarch, theres no way he has a sub but he's the founder so hes there. There'd be very few actual guilds around.
And yes, PA would DEFINITELY BE DEAD
And yes, PA would DEFINITELY BE DEAD
That's what makes it such a great idea. There would actually be some change in the VO player landscape. Granted, the stable guilds would implement policies to keep things consistent, but the dead stuff would go poof.
My support for that is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but they really do need to fix it so a guild won't disband if they have a small number of council and a few go on lite sub.
My support for that is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but they really do need to fix it so a guild won't disband if they have a small number of council and a few go on lite sub.
PA has always had a fully subbed leadership....
And its a long way from being dead inspite of all the rhetoric you want to spew out.
I do agree that guilds held with only non subbed characters should be pruned but the devs dont seem worried over them. They may simply not care as it hasnt been a real issue yet.
IMHO -> this arrangement seems fair:
Full sub for council and above
lite sub membership only
Non-sub auto kicked from guild after 90 days. (for short payment lapses)
If the guild loses all its members then it should be disbanded and its assets confiscated
And its a long way from being dead inspite of all the rhetoric you want to spew out.
I do agree that guilds held with only non subbed characters should be pruned but the devs dont seem worried over them. They may simply not care as it hasnt been a real issue yet.
IMHO -> this arrangement seems fair:
Full sub for council and above
lite sub membership only
Non-sub auto kicked from guild after 90 days. (for short payment lapses)
If the guild loses all its members then it should be disbanded and its assets confiscated
Your suggestion still has lite sub inferior to not subbing for 3 full months.
Perhaps 3 months of lite sub OR 3 months of non-membership. That way, members could go lite rather than lapsing for a month or two.
Perhaps 3 months of lite sub OR 3 months of non-membership. That way, members could go lite rather than lapsing for a month or two.
certain folk are lite subing just besause they dont need high levels
they know who they are and at least one of them was a council member of Famy
Light sub is supposed to be a way of trying out the game not a way for vets to save money
they know who they are and at least one of them was a council member of Famy
Light sub is supposed to be a way of trying out the game not a way for vets to save money
Certain folk are also lite subbing where they would instead not sub at all and simply go without. If you're going to tell me that a lite sub = a lost sale on a full sub, i'm going to call you the MPAA.
NO
there is a big differance between letting a Sub lapse for a short while and changing your sub to a lite one...
Not subbing is not playing at all!
If someone wants to play on a lite sub then they are going to have to live with the limits.
As I said before -1 to a new exploit
there is a big differance between letting a Sub lapse for a short while and changing your sub to a lite one...
Not subbing is not playing at all!
If someone wants to play on a lite sub then they are going to have to live with the limits.
As I said before -1 to a new exploit
You seem to forget that your input is no more or less valuable than anyone else here.
This creates a real incentive to give GS no income rather than lower income for a short duration.
I like the idea of terminating accounts from leadership spots after a period of unsubscription, but to give more benefit to unsubscription than to a lite subscription is clearly the exploit.
This creates a real incentive to give GS no income rather than lower income for a short duration.
I like the idea of terminating accounts from leadership spots after a period of unsubscription, but to give more benefit to unsubscription than to a lite subscription is clearly the exploit.
I don't really see a point arguing this point any further. It's going to have to change in the event that we get a guild system that's worth a damn. In the meantime it's just something we have to put up with I suppose.
-1. Everyone seemed to agree with the restrictions when the lite subs were introduced. IMHO, full subs should be required for any guild Commander, LT, or Council member.