Savet, recurring revenue should be the goal. I don't like the one time fee idea. I'd recommend that they could pay a dollar for the ability to serve as council for 3 or 6 months.

I'm in favor of any solution that reduces the 2nd class citizen feeling of free/lite sub's and increases monetization in a mechanism that that demographic will support.

Currently, we make no money from lite sub's with council access. Either a 1 time fee or an intermittent fee would improve this.

Currently, we don't penalize people who stop playing who have never had a free/lite sub, but we do penalize someone who monetizes a reduced play period by buying a lite sub then going back to a full sub, and then stop playing.

Mobile is part of our future. We can either embrace it or let it slip past us while we fail.

As a full subscriber, it doesn't detract from my play experience for any lite/free player to hold a council spot.

They should just update it to demote all full subs to free whenever they run out of game time, and then the disparity would go away in a much more sensible way (no more guilds with commanders who haven't logged in for over a decade).

+1 to a purchasable add-on to allow the lesser tiers to be guild leaders.

"no more guilds with commanders who haven't logged in for over a decade"... That is another issue that needs to be addressed. Dead guilds on the guild page. Also, guild members who haven't logged in within the month should be on an inactive list and not in the active guild list. And, guilds with multiple alts on the same account should list the alts on one line. Then we can have a real idea of how active guilds really are which would be good for retention because new players wouldn't join dead guilds that only show one person active in that guild.

"Dead guilds on the guild page."

There are no truly dead guilds on the guild page. Guilds only appear on the guild page if a member of that guild has logged in recently (I think the span is one month). Guilds that are only limping along with one member will show up, but not guilds that are truly dead. I have no problem with this, although I certainly support adding a separate "Active Players" number to make it more obvious which ones fall into that category.

"Also, guild members who haven't logged in within the month should be on an inactive list and not in the active guild list."

I only partially agree with this. I don't think the game should reveal that information at an individual level. Instead, it should list all members the same as it does now, but for the member count, it would have two numbers instead of one. The total number, and the recently active number. That way you can get a crude picture of how active the guild is without revealing confidential information on individual players.

"And, guilds with multiple alts on the same account should list the alts on one line."

This one gets a resounding "Hell no."