This is intended to be a poll.
I most closely relate to the following statement:
I am opposed to fellow players being able to express themselves by having their own coat of arms and insignia. Any small guild comprised of one household, a few intimate friends, or an individualist has no right to partake in the full experience of the game they purchased, if they won't become part of a huge alliance. I feel the game should not be changed.
I fully support fellow players being able to express themselves fully, develop the appearence they want for their characters, and make alliances with others to play anywhere in the game without being forced to destroy their guild, join someone else's just for access, or be denied the fellowship of their friends in other guilds. I feel the alliance system should be changed to be more flexibla and inclusive of differences in personality.
Fitz Rinley
Feed back on alliance system
Fitz Rinley
Kool Pajamas
How about making the choices less biased? 
duverga
If this is intended to be a poll then why don't I see a voting button?
Cyril Aspect
the highly biased nature of your "poll" does not help any. I would like to see alliance chat have permissions as currently the GL officers only thing is idiotic. making it so I could at least grant everyone alliance chat privelages would help since currently I see no real reason follow my original plan of splitting my guild into a gvg only and an everyhting else guild.
I don't think this setup for chats is helpful for encouraging guild mergers. In fact i think it discourages allying since in general you'll need to meet in guild halls and you can't easily chat with others outsid eof local or whispers.
I don't think this setup for chats is helpful for encouraging guild mergers. In fact i think it discourages allying since in general you'll need to meet in guild halls and you can't easily chat with others outsid eof local or whispers.
Fitz Rinley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by duverga
If this is intended to be a poll then why don't I see a voting button?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
How about making the choices less biased?
|
Here is a portion of a post I have sent to Guild Wars:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley
When I began discussing the Guild vs Guild system and how it excluded many last November-December, I promted the idea of how neat it would be if Guilds could make alliances with each other and individuals that would allow more inclusive cooperative play. I may not have been the first to think of alliances but I was the first I saw discuss it.
In such a manner, a host could be the guild scheduling an event and their friends who like having their own personal expression in the form of their own coats of arms and colors would join them. As the combattants on a field have their cloaks colored red or blue it would not matter if another persons symbolism was similar or the same as one on the other team. This would be inclusive of all players and personality types. Instead the game has been set up with exclusionary power aimed at detroying peoples self-value and expression. One must now submit to membership in the largest guild possible in order to have access to advanced areas and game play. Any individualist, introvert, some (meaning more than one for those that know I am) I know who are disabled and treated poorly by your other customers, etc. must destroy their coat of arms/colors and guild to play. This is not inclusive. It is exclusive of others.... |
away2peace
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by duverga
If this is intended to be a poll then why don't I see a voting button?
|
Read this thread while supplies last!
sinisters chaos
uhhhhhh, no offense but this idea/poll is horrible
idk what to say lol
idk what to say lol
UndeadRoadkill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sinisters chaos
uhhhhhh, no offense but this idea/poll is horrible
|
Fitz Rinley
I would have liked for people to choose between the two positions. Since they are almost verbatim between the opposed points of view I have encountered. My own position is admittedly against the current system. I did not however alter the attitude of the position that opposes mine. Had the Poll option been available I would have used it.
Fitz Rinley
Fitz Rinley
Ken Dei
If you have a problem with his wording, just say what you'd agree or not agree to. Don't bug him about it. Least he's trying.
Btw, Yes the town control system is idiotic. We told A.Net it was a bad idea. They did it anyway. Now smaller guilds are screwed. Until something changes, which it won't if people flame every thread they see.
Btw, Yes the town control system is idiotic. We told A.Net it was a bad idea. They did it anyway. Now smaller guilds are screwed. Until something changes, which it won't if people flame every thread they see.
Theus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken Dei
If you have a problem with his wording, just say what you'd agree or not agree to. Don't bug him about it. Least he's trying.
Btw, Yes the town control system is idiotic. We told A.Net it was a bad idea. They did it anyway. Now smaller guilds are screwed. Until something changes, which it won't if people flame every thread they see. |
P.S.It seems I have yet to die in real life Ken Dei.
duverga
I should address the issues at hand? Certainly. I think two different issues got merged in the original question, so I'll separate them.
First issue... Should Guild insignia be independent of Alliance. I personally don't care, but options are always nice so I'll say yes. That allows for a uniform "look" across the Alliance or for diversity, whatever is desired.
Second issue... Should membership in a major Alliance be required to access content. I'd say no. I think favor was a bad idea and town control a terrible one. Restricting access to game content based on conditions that are essentially beyond a player's control does nothing to enhance the experience, it just provides aggravation.
First issue... Should Guild insignia be independent of Alliance. I personally don't care, but options are always nice so I'll say yes. That allows for a uniform "look" across the Alliance or for diversity, whatever is desired.
Second issue... Should membership in a major Alliance be required to access content. I'd say no. I think favor was a bad idea and town control a terrible one. Restricting access to game content based on conditions that are essentially beyond a player's control does nothing to enhance the experience, it just provides aggravation.
UndeadRoadkill
I was hoping that my guild would ally with my friend's one-man guild as soon as Alliances were supported. Just today, my guild leader (she, my friend, and I all know each other in real life) refused because he "doesn't have enough members to earn faction."
So I can try to play the way I enjoy and guarantee I'll never see all the game content (which I paid for), or remain in this guild without my friend on the chance that I'll get into an elite mission (though I'd pretty much given up hopr of that from the beginning).
People would try to say, "DUH ITS AN *ELITE* MISSION!! ONLY BEST PLAYERS R SUPPOSED TO GET IN! STFURWHINGING AND PLAY BETER!!!!" but the truth is that it's not a function of skill, it's a matter of number of members and time available to spend earning points.
Didn't people kick up enough dirt over favor? Why did they go and create an even more exclusive system?
So I can try to play the way I enjoy and guarantee I'll never see all the game content (which I paid for), or remain in this guild without my friend on the chance that I'll get into an elite mission (though I'd pretty much given up hopr of that from the beginning).
People would try to say, "DUH ITS AN *ELITE* MISSION!! ONLY BEST PLAYERS R SUPPOSED TO GET IN! STFURWHINGING AND PLAY BETER!!!!" but the truth is that it's not a function of skill, it's a matter of number of members and time available to spend earning points.
Didn't people kick up enough dirt over favor? Why did they go and create an even more exclusive system?