Forums » Suggestions
/guild vote limit "commander" 100000 yes
Easy enough to implement, and the Commander cannot override it.
Can only be changed by a majority council vote.
||------------------------||
Too many stories of commanders running away with the entire guild bank leaves guilds with no funds and no leader. This would limit the amount that commanders can take, and give the Council more importance.
Easy enough to implement, and the Commander cannot override it.
Can only be changed by a majority council vote.
||------------------------||
Too many stories of commanders running away with the entire guild bank leaves guilds with no funds and no leader. This would limit the amount that commanders can take, and give the Council more importance.
+1
noooooooesss!
me golden parachute!
me golden parachute!
-1 there should be that risk. Most guilds are COed by the guy(or gal) that starts them, and if the council votes in someone else and they run off then tough. I think the idea of someone infiltrating a guild to steal the bank is cool anyways, it takes dedication and makes for an awesome story.
Lol Thor, you better not let darth/neon on your ultimate plan for TRI: become CO then run away with the money.
It makes for a good story? Nope. It's an old and boring move.
It makes for a good story? Nope. It's an old and boring move.
+1 to giving guilds more control. Because the ability to limit a CO is there, it does not mean that it must be used. This would be a tiny step towards facilitating different guild power structure preferences.
-1 Bank stealing is a privilige of being commander.
+1, but with the previous suggestion of being able to choose the guild leadership structure. A guild should be able to decide whether they want to be council-led or CO-led, and that leadership should set the rules.
Bank stealing is a privilige of being commander.
Yes, so you mean +1.
It's not their inherent "right" to have unlimited bank access, only a privilege that the council grants them, should they so wish. The default would still be unlimited.
Yes, so you mean +1.
It's not their inherent "right" to have unlimited bank access, only a privilege that the council grants them, should they so wish. The default would still be unlimited.
+1
*Privilege, sorry.
Kierky, there are no rights in VO. Everything you do is a privilege granted by the devs. That is the sense in which I used the word "privilege".
Honestly, outside the changes Incarnate suggested, I don't think the guild structure needs much changing until the game gets a bigger player base. Most guilds don't use the current voting system that is in place... so making it even more complex is just adding features that most guilds won't use -- aka wasted dev time.
Kierky, there are no rights in VO. Everything you do is a privilege granted by the devs. That is the sense in which I used the word "privilege".
Honestly, outside the changes Incarnate suggested, I don't think the guild structure needs much changing until the game gets a bigger player base. Most guilds don't use the current voting system that is in place... so making it even more complex is just adding features that most guilds won't use -- aka wasted dev time.
-1
-1
+1
A guild council should be able to vote on a commander's withdrawal limit.
I see nothing in the original suggestion that sets a limit by default, or requires the council to impose one.
For those of you that think a commander should be allowed to drain the bank, I suggest you join a guild with a council that agrees with that position.
A guild council should be able to vote on a commander's withdrawal limit.
I see nothing in the original suggestion that sets a limit by default, or requires the council to impose one.
For those of you that think a commander should be allowed to drain the bank, I suggest you join a guild with a council that agrees with that position.
That's a cop out Re: the "privilege" semantics.
You know greenwall, for someone who hasn't made an original suggestion in 5 pages of suggestion threads, you sure seem vehemently opposed to any kind of suggestion which either
1. doesn't serve your own purposes or
2. might take "some" developer time to implement, so you've been against it on purely that basis.
This is a suggestions forum, where we suggest things that the devs can add to their list of things to implement should they like it.
We don't get to tell the devs:
1. to implement anything.
2. that this isn't worth their time because we *think* that it might take time to implement and they should be spending their time better.
All of those things are the developers' decision, not yours, and you don't get to run around playing the -1 card every time you think something will detract from "actual" game development.
---
Now on the topic of this suggestion, the initial guild bank limit would still be unlimited.
If you think it's a bad idea that Council is the governing body of the guild, and they shouldn't have powers over aspects of the guild's wealth and prosperity, then I think you need to join another guild, one where it's just made up of your alts and you control everything.
Because that's exactly what the Council is there for, to regulate and manage the guild in a democratic way, to prevent situations where one person can just abscond with everything and leave the guild with nothing. That's why the Council votes can expel commanders, and do just about anything with a majority vote.
If the Council decides to give a Commander unlimited access to the Guild Bank, then that's their prerogative, but the Council should have powers to stop Commanders basically destroying guilds in seconds.
Commanders setting their own access to funds is stupid. It's like telling politicians they can set their own wages. Oh wait, that exists, and look how that turned out.
You know greenwall, for someone who hasn't made an original suggestion in 5 pages of suggestion threads, you sure seem vehemently opposed to any kind of suggestion which either
1. doesn't serve your own purposes or
2. might take "some" developer time to implement, so you've been against it on purely that basis.
This is a suggestions forum, where we suggest things that the devs can add to their list of things to implement should they like it.
We don't get to tell the devs:
1. to implement anything.
2. that this isn't worth their time because we *think* that it might take time to implement and they should be spending their time better.
All of those things are the developers' decision, not yours, and you don't get to run around playing the -1 card every time you think something will detract from "actual" game development.
---
Now on the topic of this suggestion, the initial guild bank limit would still be unlimited.
If you think it's a bad idea that Council is the governing body of the guild, and they shouldn't have powers over aspects of the guild's wealth and prosperity, then I think you need to join another guild, one where it's just made up of your alts and you control everything.
Because that's exactly what the Council is there for, to regulate and manage the guild in a democratic way, to prevent situations where one person can just abscond with everything and leave the guild with nothing. That's why the Council votes can expel commanders, and do just about anything with a majority vote.
If the Council decides to give a Commander unlimited access to the Guild Bank, then that's their prerogative, but the Council should have powers to stop Commanders basically destroying guilds in seconds.
Commanders setting their own access to funds is stupid. It's like telling politicians they can set their own wages. Oh wait, that exists, and look how that turned out.
I see Kierky's point, however I agree that there should be the option of having a democratic guild or a dictatorial guild. I can see how some guilds might want the council to make decisions while others might like the 'commander is king' style of leadership.
you need to join another guild, one where it's just made up of your alts and you control everything
Who could possibly ever create such a guild?
Who could possibly ever create such a guild?
Kierky, for someone who puports themselves to be highly logical, you sure do seem to have trouble withholding aggressive emotional responses to those who don't agree with you.
Contrary to your accusations, I usually do consider suggestions in "bigger picture" manner. The recent /vote mute trainwreck is no exception. Nor is this suggestion.
I'm generally opposed to making things more complex if they don't have a positive effect on gameplay. The OP fits this category. And, regarding dev time consideration: Resource allocation is a valid discussion point. I'm sure if I combed through these forums I'd have found times when you used resource allocation as an argument against an idea.
You say "too many stories" -- Maybe I'm just not online when these things are discussed, but I'm not aware of any major bank heists by commanders in recent history. Perhaps you could enlighten me to any?
Contrary to your accusations, I usually do consider suggestions in "bigger picture" manner. The recent /vote mute trainwreck is no exception. Nor is this suggestion.
I'm generally opposed to making things more complex if they don't have a positive effect on gameplay. The OP fits this category. And, regarding dev time consideration: Resource allocation is a valid discussion point. I'm sure if I combed through these forums I'd have found times when you used resource allocation as an argument against an idea.
You say "too many stories" -- Maybe I'm just not online when these things are discussed, but I'm not aware of any major bank heists by commanders in recent history. Perhaps you could enlighten me to any?
I don't know what happened with ITAN, but when I robbed the guild bank I did so with the commanders log in info. I was not commander at the time which made it even more sweeter. Social engineering for the win.
This may come as a surprise, but doing shitty things to people isn't "winning".