|
I don't necessarily like this idea. If you had just one group of people in charge of guilds you would have everything be changed so it would be in the favor of their own guilds.
|
Well for one, they would not be "in charge" of guilds, they would be a consultation. Secondly, in what way could they suggest changes that would only benefit
their guild? Either way, that's why there would be a council, rather than just one person. If one person tries to think selfishly, the other members would hopefully balance the scales against that.
|
In my eyes, a good leader isn't someone who has lead a lot of 1k guilds.
|
I never said they would be chosen from leading a lot of 1k guilds.
|
You could also have two different parts of the council: one for towering/sparring and one for family guilds. But to prevent bias, you could put the most well known tower leaders in charge of family guilds, and vice versa,
|
No, why would I want a player who has never towered and only had family/casual guilds deciding what changes will and will not happen to towers and competitive guilds? May as well just grab a random player as they'd have about as much expertise as them.
|
However, they would be able to give input and give ideas and such. I'm only suggesting this because I'm concerned about biased decisions and such.
|
I think you're thinking too much into this. These players would not suddenly start ruling all the guilds and getting whatever they want added. They'll just be there for
us to run ideas past
them on how our ideas would negatively or positively effect guilds. We can't just revamp the entire guild system and not have player input, and consulting the entire playerbase would just be a waste of time.