Individual player rewards>whatever this is

Will there be any sort of "open-guild" system, where anyone can freely join a guild that is just starting up, and it's leader/few members don't really know many people?

finally i can rec more to darkshire

oh wait im the only one...

Thallen, can I join your guild when the new guild system start? Oh Cmon you know I am a special player. Well you already know what I will do, right ? =_=

I have a few thoughts.

1. Will it cost money to unally/ally guilds in this system? or will they be allowed to change alliances as much as they like.

2. I have a lot of thoughts on the interactions between the two allied gulids.

Will the guild chats be separate? This seems like it will be a much bigger question than it was before, since before allied tags were just meant to ask for your main tag. Personally I would love the option to seperate out the chats, to allow for more individual identity and to keep the spam to a minimum... If one guild towers (communication essential) and one bks/spars (communication basically is just annoying) having the ability to seperate out would be great.

Will their rewards be seperate? I'm assuming yes, since you said they will split the points.

Will there be options for different kinds of point ratios? I'm imagining a situation where one guild has, say, 10 and one is at 25. The guilds want to ally, but the guild with 25 obvious doesn't want to split the points directly in half. Will they have the option of a few different point splits? Say 75% - 25%, 60% - 40%?

Will the alliances work like before when hitting the flag (only the holding tag can hit it, ally does damage) or will this be reworked so that the other tag heals it as well? (or maybe just doesn't do damage?). Personally I would like to see the allied tag not damage the flag, but not heal it, either. I think that it will incentivize combining into a single guild, but it will also not remove the ability of allied guilds to tower.


3. When this is implemented I'm going to hope that, instead of just removing everyone's allies, it will ask the you which one you would like to keep. But that is minuet, and not too important.

Anything that is not a 50-50 split will result in an unfair advantage.

Guild A gets 1 point and keeps .75 of it, then guild B gets 1 point and would award another .75 to Guild A if it's a 75% and 25% split resulting in guild A getting 1.50 points.

The split has to be even otherwise one guild will earn more per point than a normal guild would 50-50 is the only thing that works that maintains a point per point ratio with normal guilds.

a guild that has 50/50 members would still be more of a points machine than the situation you mentioned. In the scenario you mentioned your assuming that both guild A and guild B will get points quicker than guild C (the 50 member guild). You said that they both earned a point, right? Then why would guild C not make 2 points in that scenario? They have the same amount of members as those allied guilds, so saying that they'll accue points faster is weird. So in the scenario you mentioned your 50 roster guild should earn 2 points, not one. Correct me if I'm wrong

However, i can imagine that making the argument that having points in the decimal places would be weird, than I can agree with that.

Way I see it:

Guild A has 50 members each get a point and they have 50 points.

Both 25 members in Guild B-C get a point each, and both guilds get a total of 25 points but still 50 points overall just split since they chose to do that.

This is a fair trade off assuming both Guild B-C can purchase separate rewards.

If Guild B had 25 members and Guild C only had lets say 15 members Guild B still made the decision to ally them knowing it's a 50-50 split.

Way I see it is this would be good for non-competitive family guilds, since if two smaller guilds wanted to work together they could just turn into a 50 member guild especially if one only had 15 members it would be better to just join together and be a 40/50 guild and just recruit 10 more later on if you wanted.

If competitive guilds wanted to make use of 2 tags for 2 rewards for the different people then 50-50 is the most fair option in that scenario.

I don't see the point in such a system. With the update there will probably be lots of people spamming recruitment so if you desire to be in a guild you should have no problem getting into a random one.

I know that you're going to "lose points" if you kick players or if they leave your guild. But, is the amount of points you're going to lose is huge? Because you will always have players who will go inactive because of in-reality important business therefore, the player must be replaced of a more active one. You're more likely going to have such situations in a guild of 50 members so, is the punishment going to be MASSIVE for kicking members?

Probably depends on the amount of points accumulated by the individual who was kicked

lagblock the enterance to flagroom with 1 member and use all other 49 to stall halls kek

This sounds really interesting. Both options seem viable for different strategies and I'm honestly having a hard time deciding which is the better way to go (which is a good thing). The two 25-player guilds seem best for situations when two guilds are coming together and want to maintain their identities, and I can also see it being used for guilds with distinct parts (such as a pking/tower crew and a spar crew). That being said, a 25-player guild devoted to towering might have trouble against 50-player guilds which are entirely focused on that part of the game, but this will of course also depend on player skill, activity and guild focus on other activities.

Also, as Areo said earlier, I think it might be good to have an option in two-guild arrangements to chat only within your division, or with the entire guild as a whole. However, this could also be a bit of a problem because it would encourage division between the guilds, and I think it would be best if they work together as a cohesive whole.

Thinking on it again, I would personally prefer to be in a 50-player guild due to it being more unified. It would suck to have to worry about one guild not pulling its weight or something like that. Though I can definitely see situations where two 25-player guilds would be best.

So basically a sub guild they already had or option to mass recruit in main guild. revolutionary..

It should be fairly large imo. A large part of that is to stop the temp recruiting that plagued the towering and gsing community for a long time, and turn it into more of an actual guild instead of just cycling through people you only intend to briefly use.