I would like to see more freedom to structure guild leadership as we wish. For instance, having more than 2 LTs could be a desired structure for some. Also, having more council than 9. Maybe even creating/extending a new role or an existing one to F2P as well.

Seems like some low-hanging fruit, not to mention something that many have asked for. I mean to open this up for others' suggestions on possible limitations as well. I haven't given much detail for that reason. All feedback is welcomed.

Darth Nihilus +1
Not necessarily the same suggestion but I think being able to change the names of those positions would be pretty swell.

Seems like some low-hanging fruit, not to mention something that many have asked for.

Don't you think the fact that many have asked for it, and yet it's still not implemented, clues you in that it might not be such a low hanging fruit?

It's clear from this sentence that you have no experience in programming. You have no knowledge of how it works under the hood and just assume wildly that it "ought to be easy."

+1 to this often requested concept. Also I like the idea of renaming titles but there is something to be said for commonly named titles. If we could rename positions to anything, inevitably someone would name their "Commander" position "Member" and confusion would ensue. Perhaps, alternatively, some kind of additional custom sub-titling could be added?

I'm not speculating about any coding changes that need to take place. What I'm saying is that it seems like there are arbitrary limits in place that could probably be removed or extended. For instance, there's no inherent reason that there should be only 2 LT positions. By low-hanging fruit, I'm referring to the fact that there are unwanted, arbitrary limitations in place, not how hard-coded those limitations are into the framework of the game.

+1

Basically, you need to suggest something specific, and limit discussion to that topic.

The problem here is that I don't know who is +1ing "adding more LTs" or "adding more council" or vague ideas about "extending roles into F2P", or these side-jaunts into "re-naming positions" or whatever.

What I need is a thread for "Let us add 2 more LTs". If that's what you want, then stick to that, and it might actually happen.

Threads that devolve into "wouldn't it be great if Guilds were more flexible in these 17 different ways, let's now discuss them all" are not likely to result in any immediate development response. For one, because the development requirements of different features can be wildly divergent (some stuff might be trivial, another might be a huge pain). For another.. I can't easily tell if people even like the (same) idea.. or if instead everyone is basically imagining "their own idea", and aren't all on the same page.

So, basically, I need a bit more disciplined posts, if you want change to happen.

On the other hand, if you just want to have a long-term "RFC-style" discussion, hey, that's cool too. But don't expect anything to happen anytime soon.

Incarnate, I think what people are asking for is the freedom to decide themselves how many LTs, Council etc there are (and to a lesser extent, the ability to name those roles themselves).

Yeah, I get that. But, I'm not burning several weeks building and testing a free-form guild system at this time. "Deciding it for yourselves" will mean checking a lot of other cases and situations in the code, and probably re-writing a lot of stuff.

So, basically, if you want to ask for some specific modification, like more LTs, then great. LTs have no real impact on the formation or the dissolution of guilds, it's a pretty orthogonal role that simply allows you to acquire new members more conveniently.

Otherwise.. probably not right now.

But, as I was mentioning in my prior post.. for Suggestions in general, smaller specific goals are more likely to be implemented than "large, vague, all-encompassing multi-pronged changes". I'm fine with discussion of the latter, just don't expect any short-term movement.