High Council guild rank

Don't really care if it's called 'High Council', but...

I woud suggest there be another guild rank, one that has the options of a vice leader.

Lets face it, leading a guild is a pain in the ass...and better done with a team. Generals and Diplomats, while both very useful...are also very limiting. There is a max of 2 players in any given guild that have the ability to respond and handle situations that are sure to arise in GW. This all depends on those players being online, or a cacaphony of diplomats/generals all trying to establish order.

Giving leaders the option to expand their circle would prove to give more complexity to the game politics.

You could always, of course, just rename VL title and enable more than 1 player to that position. Though the honourary title would certainly be a nice flavour to have though.

(perhaps different options? all options minus disband guild and maybe edit flag seem suitable for such a position...and lets face it, honourary titles are a tad disappointing)

I support the above post. Managing a big guild around the clock is a too difficult task for two persons.

Most crucial for this new rank is giving one person powers of general and diplomat, then he can be a designated leader for a time.

Title's name and other minor powers are not important, they can be detracted so rank would stay lower than vice leader, or you can let us have multiple vices.  Which doesn't sound good, so probably a new name is in needed.

Gentlemen, what about the risk of an appointed "Leader" disbanding the Guild or taking all the resources/items?

Also, if there are a lot of "Leaders" and "Vice Leaders", the position itself loses its importance.

If I am not mistaken, a Guild has as many Diplomats and Generals as it wishes, so I do not understand the problem.

I do understand that we need to make it so if a Leader becomes inactive, the Guild will have a way to assign someone else as a Leader. This is definitely something that needs to be done.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I do understand that we need to make it so if a Leader becomes inactive, the Guild will have a way to assign someone else as a Leader. This is definitely something that needs to be done.

I have to agree since guilds could barly do anything with an inactive leader. So, I say remove the leader after 4-6 weeks and replace him/her with the vice(unless they said they will not be here this long) if there is not a vice, then you can install the guild voting system on your to do list, so the guild can nominate and vote on the new leader of the guild.

Death1 wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

I do understand that we need to make it so if a Leader becomes inactive, the Guild will have a way to assign someone else as a Leader. This is definitely something that needs to be done.

I have to agree since guilds could barly do anything with an inactive leader. So, I say remove the leader after 4-6 weeks and replace him/her with the vice(unless they said they will not be here this long) if there is not a vice, then you can install the guild voting system on your to do list, so the guild can nominate and vote on the new leader of the guild.

what would they do with all the inactive guilds though?

RuneSlayer wrote:

Gentlemen, what about the risk of an appointed "Leader" disbanding the Guild or taking all the resources/items?

Also, if there are a lot of "Leaders" and "Vice Leaders", the position itself loses its importance.

If I am not mistaken, a Guild has as many Diplomats and Generals as it wishes, so I do not understand the problem.

Vice leaders can disband guilds? Haven't been one, so I wouldn't know...but that option obviously need not be included - only 1 should have the power to do that...and were you to create a NEW rank - they need not have full bank access, or any at all.

The position would not lose importance. I don't see how it could...it would both give large guilds greater capacity for management, and smaller guilds the option to have more than one buddy able to enjoy an equal share...i've played many games with a tight-knit group of friends and would love this option in any game I play.

The problem is that generals and diplomats are too limited. It would be universally handy for guild leaders to have the option of expanding full management to other members...but not full power.

If you add a new rank give it the authority of a Diplomat, General and Recruiter then they can do everything but disband the guild promote/demote guild members and have full access to the vault.

Tlecon wrote:

If you add a new rank give it the authority of a Diplomat, General and Recruiter then they can do everything but disband the guild promote/demote guild members and have full access to the vault.      

Maybe the title the manager?

Tlecon wrote:

If you add a new rank give it the authority of a Diplomat, General and Recruiter then they can do everything but disband the guild promote/demote guild members and have full access to the vault.      

actually, I would like to add a rank right above the general/diplomat/recruiter/treasurer; who could do ALL of the things those four combined can do-but cannot promote/kick any players, as that is the distinction between the special rank, and the Vice-Leader.
OR
we could make guilds be capable of having 2 Vice-Leaders, however that could lead to problems.
MOSTLY, the point is that two players being basically the only people with the power to do anything is just too few, and being capable of exclusively 1 item out of 4 (general, etc) is simply too weak; Even having the power of a General and diplomat combined would still have you needing other abilities, for example:

"help, I want to join your guild!" "well, I'll try to see if any of the 4 recruiters are online! Nope, they're not; haven't been for 3 days or longer. I'll tell the Vice-Leader to let you in"
"hey, so and so deposited a GL in the vault for me! can I have it?" "sorry, I'm just a general, not a treasurer..."