Recently the Guildmaster Hotspot hosted a summit to discuss a number of topics of interest to guildmasters (and, by association, their guildies whom they represented). After debate and discussion, we would like to submit the following technical points/new features for consideration by SWTOR staff and developers. We would like to thank the staff and devs in advance for their consideration and thoughtful attention to the items below. 😊

Except where otherwise noted, support for the features below was unanimous among the ~200 guildmasters of the Hotspot.

Fixes, Bugs, and Suggestions

Guild Management

Guild Data Export

- After much discussion, it was determined that many of the “quality of life” aspects of guild management could be achieved most easily by allowing guildmasters to export guild data/guild roster information – most likely to a .csv file. It is requested that this feature be created to allow for a variety of data manipulation (including but not limited to guild roster management, conquest point tallies, etc.)

- All were in agreement that this would allow for guildmasters to achieve many of their “wishlist items” in the game with the minimal impact on developers.

Guild Size

- One of the more controversial discussions regards guild size. While acknowledging that smaller guilds have a vested interest in not seeing large guilds expand further, there also exists the reality that current limits unfairly punish guilds that allow “alt-aholics” in their ranks and guilds that would prefer not to kick so many players for minor inactivity. Those who spoke in favor of guild expansion outnumbered those who voiced opposition to any expansion of guilds at a level of ~ 5:3.

- Those who favor expansion propose three alternate solutions:

1. The guild cap be re-engineered to allow for 1000 legacies rather than unique characters. This was the majority’s preference among those present. (It may also be better to have a smaller legacy cap, but given that guilds exist that limit members to a single character, yet are at capacity, it seemed unfair to essentially require these guilds to kick a number of their players). 1000 legacies would permit all current guildies to stay in their respective guilds, while allowing for flexibility in future roster management.

2. Legacy continues not to feature in guild limits, but instead, the player count is increased to 1500 or 2000.

3. [[Could be combined with 1 or 2]] Members (or legacies, if 1 is implemented) who have not logged in for a period of time (30 days was suggested) do not count to the guild total. If a guild is at capacity, and a member reappears, then the roster is at 1001/1000, and new players cannot be recruited until the limit is no longer reached (either by other players going inactive or purging). This also has the nice side benefit of allowing players to immediately determine how “active” a guild is beyond the guild level – if a 999 person guild has 5 people who have signed in in the last month, it would show 5/1000 rather than 999/1000.

Guild Banks

• Please allow separate amounts to be specified as intended for summoning, withdrawal, and repairs (for each rank).

Account Lookups

- This feature requests that the “account ID” be available as something that guildmasters/administrators can access (i.e. the string of numbers associated with accounts), ban, note, report, etc. This would allow for bans across servers, identification of people who might change their legacies/otherwise be unidentifiable, etc.

- Seeing as legacy bans are possible, it seems like it violates no privacy restrictions etc. to allow admins to see/make use of the account ID.

- Slightly relatedly, if this could be used for ignore functions as well – perhaps allowing people to ban by ID # across their own account if all could be permitted to see it, not just guild admins – it could immediately curb much of the harassment users face.

- So long as the identification numbers do not contain personally-identifying information (beyond, of course, knowing who can’t contact you in the game), there were no objections to this request.

Invitations/Joining/Leaving/Banning

Quitting Guilds

- There is a fairly widespread issue of players leaving guilds accidentally (especially thinking that “/gquit” leaves a group). We would like a small popup for players to confirm that they are leaving their guild. Additionally, an optional textbox for “why are you leaving the guild” that generates either a record in a new guild pane (or a mail to the guildmaster) would provide valuable feedback.

Applications

- Many MMOs allow for players to submit applications to join guilds to be approved when an officer/guildmaster is online later to approve them. This would be a valuable asset to decrease the difficulty in obtaining guild applications (and allow for interested prospective members to legitimately apply to join guilds with strict requirements for joining [e.g. RP, endgame raiding, ranked PVP, etc.]). An optional comment box would allow for players to specify their interest/qualifications, etc. This would be best achieved with a new guild-finder/guild directory in-game, but could be achieved also through an addition to the “inspect guild” tab until/in lieu of a directory feature being constructed.

Legacy Invitations

- Unlike other items on the list, we would like to strongly advise against any decisions that would require/suggest a legacy to be invited to the guild. Many guildmasters are concerned about the possible ramifications for such a precedent to be set, and we have seen many suggestions recently that would promote this idea.

- The question of whether legacies should be added to guilds, rather than individual characters is a complicated one. While this would allow for players to easily add their alts, an application function for those alts would achieve the same end without limiting players’ ability to place their alts in different guilds, as they may desire to do.

- Some suggestions were made that this be optional; this seems like a difficult piece of coding, and the question of how this would be enabled/disabled is very complicated.

- This would also seem to require multi-guilding of characters/legacies, which would be extremely difficult in light of conquest and guild ranks.

- At this time, while the general consensus is that guild applications would be beneficial in supporting the intended result (aka, easier invitations for players already existing in guilds), rather than legacy invites – this also avoids the issue of devs having to either rewrite the entire guild/conquest system or requiring people to be in a single guild.

Bans

- We, as guildmasters, adore the ban feature, but ask for a few improvements to be made.

1. Please, please allow offline players to be banned if not in the guild (this also includes if account ID numbers are employed instead of legacy/character names).

2. Please significantly increase the limit of players who can be banned [and, for that matter, placed on ignore]. Some large guilds run into a number of problem-makers, and many of us do “pre-emptive” bans with problem players spotted in genchat. While we understand server space is at a premium always, these limits should not be practically met by any guild or player trying to ban/ignore.

3. Allow non-guildmasters the access to bans, and grant this as a separate “rank-enabled” ability.

Guild Tabs, Lookups, Etc.

It would be significantly helpful if we could improve upon some of the tabs that already exist in the guild pane, and add to them if at all possible. These would strongly promote guild quality of life, guilds’ abilities to run content within the games, and generally assist players and guild admins both in their day-to-day play of the game.

Guild Information

- We would like the “guild information” panel to be expanded significantly in terms of character count (i.e. how much text can be entered). This currently has to be achieved in websites and Discords, which makes it rather unlikely that people will actually visit said information.

Guild Agreement

- Similarly, we would like an optionally enable-able rules/“I agree” feature enabled so guilds (that want to) can provide a list of rules/policies specific to each individual guild so that members can easily read and confirm within the game.

- This would not necessarily have to be an automatic feature that applies at the time a member joins a guild (and would be onerous if so – imagine getting a guild’s rules during a flashpoint or raid run, for instance), but as a tab within the guild pane, and something that has a checkbox/marker in the roster that guildmasters can see (i.e. who has read/agreed to the rules), this would be an amazing feature to have.

Guild Calendar

- Having an in-game calendar (potentially with “signups” for some events) would be an absolutely utilized, tremendous resource. Events would be set ahead of time, with (or without) notifications possible in-game. These could either be simple “this is happening” style events, or events that allow for signups by players RSVPing. This is a tool used to very, very great effect in other MMOs, and is essential to include within the game.

Message of the Day Improvements

- If the message of the day could appear as text, or not disappear given certain login locations (this is a known glitch addressed in other threads), that would be lovely. More usefully, however, would be if the message of the day could correspond with the calendar when implemented, and include the calendar events *in* the message of the day automatically.

Guild Directory

- If, either in place of (or in addition to) the “why join a guild?” pane visible when guildless players open the guild pane, a “guild directory” were available (with guilds supplying blurbs, information, what they run in the game, size, etc.), that would be phenomenal. Ideally, it would be available also to people currently in guilds.

- This would also foster guild-to-guild communication so that if, for instance, a NiM guild wants to team up with another NiM guild for some 16m content, they could easily search through the directory to find likely candidates.

- It was suggested that this be an interactable item, but by and large it seemed better to have this as an independent tab one can view (like conquest/mission log) rather than require someone to interact with an item.

- The directory could/should integrate with the “applications” feature (if that guild is recruiting) so that guilds without members online able to invite can, in fact, accept player applications.

- No objections were raised to this, though we acknowledge the serious coding required to implement it. That having been said, this would be an incredibly helpful feature/set of features and we believe it would be worth the challenges.

Guild Anniversaries

- For transparency as well as for the fun of celebrations, please include in the guild lookup the guild’s formation date.

- Nobody doesn’t want a reason to party. 😊

Roster Improvements

- Whether or not guild data is re-engineered to allow guildmasters to download the information in their rosters, we would like to have at least the “guild join date” (either by legacy or character) as a searchable function. As of now – speaking entirely for myself – I have some “cosmetic” guild ranks dependent on length of term in guild, and in order to exercise these fairly, I have to upkeep an Excel database that takes hours of work weekly. (I am, however, not alone in wanting this feature). Simply including the join date as another field (like officer notes) would be extraordinarily beneficial and cut down on a lot of GM paperwork. Some guilds hand-enter this as part of the officer notes, but these are also very small fields.

Conquest Tallies

1. The conquest leaderboard remains very, very broken. This is really painful for guildmasters who run any kind of conquest contests – please fix so that we aren’t entirely out of luck if we don’t manage to log in in time to catch the top players on the roster. [No objections were made to this bug fix.]

2. Please allow for some way to tally/calculate the conquest point contributions to a guild by legacy, whether by allowing for the data export feature noted above, or by allowing it in the guild roster/guild pane. Given how many changes have collapsed together conquest point accrual into legacy achievements (rather than character), this is really important to help us reward our active players who have many alts. This could be accomplished by upgrading the leaderboard to show “by legacy” (since it’s already broken) or by adding something to this effect in the guild roster.

Ranks

- Other MMOs have features that allow certain ranks to be designated as general “administrator” (and receive certain abilities/have unlocks as a result). This would be useful in establishing some of the other requests below. It is also useful for guilds that have creative guild ranks rather than the straightforward “Guildmaster > Officer > Lieutenant” model, etc.

Promotions

- Having a “set legacy to rank” function would be very helpful, and also nice if able to be implemented as soon as a guild is joined.

Guild Communication

Mail Timers

- Guildmasters and administrators (see: “ranks” above) routinely need to mail many guild members in an efficient manner (i.e. conquest prizes, welcome mails, raid-team mails, RP content, etc.). We are hindered by the mail timers significantly.

- Please remove the mail timers from at least guildmasters (the other administrator ranks as well, if the “ranks” suggestion is implemented.) when mailing guild members. Due to the “fill in the blanks with guildies” for mail generally, we know that the system “recognizes” shared guild membership already, so this should not be a massive coding project.

- The only issue raised here is the possibility of guild leaders spamming members; we are generally in agreement that this would not be a problem. If members are receiving legitimate “spam” from guilds, they are not likely to remain in those guilds [and the possibility for gold-spammers to actually create guilds, maintain them, and spam is pretty unlikely].

Automatic Guild Messages and/or Mail-to-Rank

- One aspect of guild membership is that it is essential to communicate certain facts about the guild, welcome members, etc., and a nice-and-neat way of achieving this end would be an option either to have an automatic mail message sent when members join the guild, or the ability to (in the guild mail pane of the mailbox) “mail to rank.” This would allow, after a recruiting spree, a GM to send a welcome message to everyone of newbie rank.

- More than likely, the latter “mail to rank” option would be easier to code – furthermore, it could be useful for RP ranks, raid team ranks, etc. in different ways.

Mail from Guild Pane

- It would be very useful as well, if the character is in range of a mailbox, to allow a “right-click” in roster to “mail to member.”

Mail CC

- Beyond guild use, many guildmasters (and players) have suggested a carbon copy/multiple recipient function. This could potentially be in place of the “mail-to-rank” or “automatic guild messages” suggestions, though it would also be very welcome as an addition.

- Assumably, there would be a limit placed on non-guild administrators to reduce spam, and this limit would not apply to guild administrators.

Guild Invitations from Who/Whisper

- This is our other example of a “please do not implement” suggestion. We have been fighting spam/ninja/blind invitations across the game for some time now, and would like to stand against the suggestions that people be able to right-click+invite from anywhere. We are in agreement that this will only encourage those who mass-invite.

Guild Strongholds

Multiple Strongholds

- Several guildmasters have indicated that they would prefer to have more than one stronghold per guild.

- Given that guild strongholds are, by and large, cosmetic projects for members/guild administrators, and the opportunity to own multiple strongholds does not present any additional perks for the guilds beyond opportunities for role-playing and the fun of decorating, there were no objections to this request.

- Since flagships technically are “second strongholds” for guilds anyway, there should be minimal coding issues in adding further strongholds to be available to guilds.

Flagship Hooks

- Similarly, while not all guilds found they were having the issue, some guilds report that their members are unable to participate in community decorating of the flagships due to a low hook count.

Keys

- The largest concern regarding guild holdings regards the assignment of keys.

- All guildmasters present concurred with the difficulty in assigning keys to members or administrators.

- Two solutions were offered; both could be implemented:

§ Search for member names within the key assignment pane (rather than click through the list).

§ Right-click a guildie and have a “grant key to guild flagship/stronghold” option.

Perks

Set Bonuses

- The current method of how set bonuses are assigned (when all guild perks are selected) is greatly disliked among guildmasters. As it stands now, in order to effect an alacrity bonus, for instance, many unused/undesirable perks must be selected.

- We would prefer to be able to select our set bonus independent of what perks are assigned. In other words, as long as all slots have an active perk, the guildmaster (or any administrators with the ability to select perks) may choose the set bonus that best fits the need of his guild. This also allows for greater flexibility among guilds to offer what a range of players might need (i.e. a guild that has both new players needing experience boosts and also hardcore endgame players who need the alacrity set bonus).

Rallies

Warzone Rally

- The Warzone Rallies do not grant completion unless the entire queue is in the group. This makes it nearly impossible for guild groups to obtain this objective’s benefits unless they get arena fights.

- This should be fixed so that the act of queuing counts (i.e. a four-person group of guildies) even when the larger eight-man squad in the warzone will, naturally, not consist of all guildies.

Flashpoint Rally

- The rally is bugged so as to allow groups that finish a flashpoint in a mixed group (i.e. guildies and non-guildies alike) to receive credit for the rally so long as they have at least one guildie in the group when the quest is turned in.

- This should be fixed similarly so that the group queuing matters, not the group composition at the point of completion.

Gameplay (Beyond Guilds!)

Raiding

- In accordance with requests from our players, we would like to suggest a re-implementation of loose loot tables for raid bosses. Given the massive number of set bonuses that now exist, we propose the following:

1. Each boss has a randomized selection of items that it can drop, but enough to have a certain amount of structure. For example, Nefra could drop either a bracer belonging to one of ten sets or headslot items belonging to one of another ten sets.

2. These items remain rolled for-drops.

3. With increased difficulty of operations, the quality and/or quantity of these drops could improve.

4. Flashpoint loot could remain the same, or follow the same principles (this could also be a rewarding way to get people to queue for something other than Athiss/Hammer Station/Red Reaper).

Tech Fragments

- Many players have indicated that the 10,000 tech fragment stash is burdensome, especially those who are “cash-poor” and must save to buy the set bonus pieces piecemeal. This is also annoying if one has not yet selected which set bonus they might like to pick up for an alt.

- Increasing the tech fragment cap would benefit most players; it promotes more content being run, and generally does not inconvenience others, since the items purchased with tech fragments are non-transferrable.

Loot Stash

- To preserve precious inventory space, we suggest that non-rolled-for item drops be placed into a “loot stash” (analogous to the Cartel Market or renown stash) to be sorted through at the end of the operation. Given how many items drop, and the length of time it takes to inspect amplifiers etc., it would be helpful to have the loot stash limit set at ~100.

Strongholds

- Our players absolutely love the new Alderaan stronghold. This has brought many players to the game who have not played/subscribed in some time, as well as returning guildies here to set up and decorate their new strongholds. It’s not like it’ll be blown up at some point…

- Players indicate that they would love more Alderaan-inspired decorations to be available as well.

- Similarly, there is a general consensus that an Oricon stronghold would be greatly appreciated as well.

Controls/Interface

- Players would like the option to have larger cursor sizes, especially those who may suffer from visual impairments.

Most of it is fairly good, but you should not be allowed to see anyones account id, their account id is what they log in with, it could be misused. Also if a person on the forums disagrees with a GM, what's to stop that GM, going to the guild, using the account info to find the player and ban them. Your legacy is not your account name, and it should stay that way.

The Guild mail is also a problem at the moment, as some guilds send out way too many, not to mention some GM's who abuse the feature to send out their own referral link.

It's always good to see guilds collaborating to come up with community beneficial suggestions and improvements.

It's a shame that the your one was stolen. Not only was the majority of that list provided by another guild, but after the "summit" you decided to ban the GM of that guild from your hotspot and then steal their work.

You can find the original work already posted on the forums here.

I will concede that you at least took some time to reword slightly and add a small number of new suggestions, but the overall work was not yours to begin with.

Love most of these suggestions a LOT, and nothing I disagree with.

PS: most of these are ideas are older, also older then in the other suggested post. I don't get the drama attitude here, if the ideas are good, they have a place here. Its a great summary, the rest is not my business.

Most of it is fairly good, but you should not be allowed to see anyones account id, their account id is what they log in with, it could be misused. Also if a person on the forums disagrees with a GM, what's to stop that GM, going to the guild, using the account info to find the player and ban them. Your legacy is not your account name, and it should stay that way.

 

The Guild mail is also a problem at the moment, as some guilds send out way too many, not to mention some GM's who abuse the feature to send out their own referral link.

To be clear, we're not looking for access the login ID name, but rather the account reference number (as we assume exists in system), partly to distinguish between legacies that share names. (I.e. common legacy names). Of course, the alternate suggestion could be that legacies become unique.

And to short-circuit any derailment of the thread from Athilapa's allegations:

- We do not comment on bans, as that does nothing but fuel drama, as exhibited here.

- The OP of the thread that you linked provided a list of suggestions for agenda items at our summit, so overlap is acknowledged, and we were grateful for him providing the list to jog our memories and inspire conversation. However, alleging that the list was "stolen" is both inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory. Many of the items in his list were already on the docket for discussion, as they are widely known to be issues within the game. And it would, after all, be rather difficult to "steal" the results/collective contributions of a summit organized and orchestrated by other GMs. As it turns out upon further inspection, only 5-6 of the items on this list were even inspired by the original list provided by that OP [most of which, like key fixes/multi-strongholds for guilds, are well-documented in the community], as opposed to the 30-odd unique/"innovative" items offered here. The other topics shared by both of our threads were actually added to OP's list after seeing a draft summary of what became the thread posted here.

- The thread link represents the OP's own personal suggestions and preferences as collected by him, and does not reflect any of the summit conversations and subsequent discussion held among the guildmasters of the Hotspot community. In other words, though there is minimal overlap in topics, there is not necessarily overlap in the solutions/suggestions provided in relationship to those topics, and we indeed diverge very significantly in our suggestions/advisements on many major issues (e.g. legacy invitations).

- We are happy to see other posters/players share our aims for the game, and certainly the thread you linked provides another individual's alternate perspectives on some of the issues also discussed here. Thank you for sharing it.

To be clear, we're not looking for access the login ID name, but rather the account reference number (as we assume exists in system), partly to distinguish between legacies that share names. (I.e. common legacy names). Of course, the alternate suggestion could be that legacies become unique..

They changed the legacy name where people can share legacy names for various reasons. There are couples that play together that like to use the same legacy name, so making them change them just because there are the same names shouldn't happen. You can do as we do in our guild and make a notation who the main character is for the legacy name. My boyfriend and I share the same legacy name and we have since they allowed us to do this and we would not like having that feature taken from us. While it may not matter to some, it would matter to others.

They changed the legacy name where people can share legacy names for various reasons. There are couples that play together that like to use the same legacy name, so making them change them just because there are the same names shouldn't happen. You can do as we do in our guild and make a notation who the main character is for the legacy name. My boyfriend and I share the same legacy name and we have since they allowed us to do this and we would not like having that feature taken from us. While it may not matter to some, it would matter to others.

Fair enough! I'm theorizing/theory-crafting for my own part here -- there are good reasons to allow legacy overlap; it's just trying to find a balance between the great reasons for overlap of legacies (like yours), and not seeing someone with a common legacy name be penalized for potential wrongdoings of another.

As a concrete example, my own guild had a "Reaper" legacy (name slightly changed to protect both innocent and guilty) that was banned on Repside, removing his alts from the Rep guild. I noted in my member database that there was a Reaper on Impside, and banned that player/legacy as well. Unfortunately, it turned out that the Impside "Reaper" legacy was another individual. On a more pleasant note, this could also affect promotions, raid team ranks, etc. -- knowing someone's "main" (if they have one; many people don't have mains or have multiple mains) doesn't really help with management of alts, especially if multiple people in the same guild or guild family share a legacy name. One might think it's uncommon, but in 1000+ player guilds over time, there's a LOT of legacy overlap!

My/our/Hotspot thought on this was that providing (or creating) unique numbers would allow for multiple accounts to share legacy names while disambiguating at a level that guild management can make use of. This also helps prevent guilds from dealing with serious problem players who server-hop.

As far as guilds (and not the ignore function) are concerned, it wouldn't allow for any sort of unfair/identifiable/punitive practice that isn't already enabled by legacy names other than offering some way to identify players across server and differentiating them from players with the same legacy for better and for worse. It also would avoid the confusion and hurt of getting banned for something that you didn't do.

I still think Blizzard's now defunct Blizz Id was a brilliant idea & SWTOR should have implemented a form of it.

With something like that incorporated in game it would solve the prob of Legacy names.

I still think Blizzard's now defunct Blizz Id was a brilliant idea & SWTOR should have implemented a form of it.

With something like that incorporated in game it would solve the prob of Legacy names.

There's something similar as well in STO and WoW both. I think the hesitation that I, for my own part, and other players might have is that the Battle.net ID (and in-STO player handle) is visible easily, which could be bad if someone is handling stalkers or avoiding someone who knows many of their character names (but not all). In other words, the "ID number" we suggest would be something only visible in-guilds to guild management (and bannable as the legacy is), but not a way to track an individual player beyond that, or see all of their alts etc.

There's something similar as well in STO and WoW both. I think the hesitation that I, for my own part, and other players might have is that the Battle.net ID (and in-STO player handle) is visible easily, which could be bad if someone is handling stalkers or avoiding someone who knows many of their character names (but not all). In other words, the "ID number" we suggest would be something only visible in-guilds to guild management (and bannable as the legacy is), but not a way to track an individual player beyond that, or see all of their alts etc.

Well that's what I meant. lol Blizz being Battle Net ID. Last I saw they had discontinued that though...is it still functioning??

But that is a good point. You could friend that & be a stalker. >.> I know WoW/Battle.net was only available if you gave it out to friends though. So maybe it could be like that & not STO where it always shows, BUT GM's get access to it when they join a guild in a separate rank tab so then you can ban via that ID only.

Just spitballing there. lol

Well that's what I meant. lol Blizz being Battle Net ID. Last I saw they had discontinued that though...is it still functioning??

 

But that is a good point. You could friend that & be a stalker. >.> I know WoW/Battle.net was only available if you gave it out to friends though. So maybe it could be like that & not STO where it always shows, BUT GM's get access to it when they join a guild in a separate rank tab so then you can ban via that ID only.

 

Just spitballing there. lol

Yeah, that's exactly kind of what I had in mind -- the guild functionality in the roster lookup of being able to see through the "disguises" and tricks of problem players, with the anonymity a lot of players value.

Account Lookups

- This feature requests that the “account ID” be available as something that guildmasters/administrators can access (i.e. the string of numbers associated with accounts), ban, note, report, etc. This would allow for bans across servers, identification of people who might change their legacies/otherwise be unidentifiable, etc.

- Seeing as legacy bans are possible, it seems like it violates no privacy restrictions etc. to allow admins to see/make use of the account ID.

- Slightly relatedly, if this could be used for ignore functions as well – perhaps allowing people to ban by ID # across their own account if all could be permitted to see it, not just guild admins – it could immediately curb much of the harassment users face.

- So long as the identification numbers do not contain personally-identifying information (beyond, of course, knowing who can’t contact you in the game), there were no objections to this request.

Legacy bans already violate privacy, because the ban log can be viewed by everyone in the guild. Considering you can ban people who are not even in the guild, it's a tool for harassment and stalking, because everyone can form a guild and start banning people to see their legacy name. So going even further with that is a really bad idea. There is absolutely no reason why anyone would need to identify a person who is not even in their guild. Some people actually like privacy and we should allow them to have that. If there are problematic users in the game, that everyone wants to pre-emptively ban, report them to BW, it's their job to get rid of those people.

Bans

- We, as guildmasters, adore the ban feature, but ask for a few improvements to be made.

1. Please, please allow offline players to be banned if not in the guild (this also includes if account ID numbers are employed instead of legacy/character names).

2. Please significantly increase the limit of players who can be banned [and, for that matter, placed on ignore]. Some large guilds run into a number of problem-makers, and many of us do “pre-emptive” bans with problem players spotted in genchat. While we understand server space is at a premium always, these limits should not be practically met by any guild or player trying to ban/ignore.

3. Allow non-guildmasters the access to bans, and grant this as a separate “rank-enabled” ability.

I have heard of one guild that has met the cap in their ban list, and that's because they are banning random people based on fleet chat. There is no reason to raise the cap, just remove the opportunity to ban people outside of the guild completely and the cap doesn't need raising. Revealing people's legacy names to the whole guild is a violation of privacy and can be abused, as I already mentioned above.

Guild Tabs, Lookups, Etc.

 

It would be significantly helpful if we could improve upon some of the tabs that already exist in the guild pane, and add to them if at all possible. These would strongly promote guild quality of life, guilds’ abilities to run content within the games, and generally assist players and guild admins both in their day-to-day play of the game.

 

Guild Information

- We would like the “guild information” panel to be expanded significantly in terms of character count (i.e. how much text can be entered). This currently has to be achieved in websites and Discords, which makes it rather unlikely that people will actually visit said information.

 

Guild Agreement

- Similarly, we would like an optionally enable-able rules/“I agree” feature enabled so guilds (that want to) can provide a list of rules/policies specific to each individual guild so that members can easily read and confirm within the game.

- This would not necessarily have to be an automatic feature that applies at the time a member joins a guild (and would be onerous if so – imagine getting a guild’s rules during a flashpoint or raid run, for instance), but as a tab within the guild pane, and something that has a checkbox/marker in the roster that guildmasters can see (i.e. who has read/agreed to the rules), this would be an amazing feature to have.

 

Guild Calendar

- Having an in-game calendar (potentially with “signups” for some events) would be an absolutely utilized, tremendous resource. Events would be set ahead of time, with (or without) notifications possible in-game. These could either be simple “this is happening” style events, or events that allow for signups by players RSVPing. This is a tool used to very, very great effect in other MMOs, and is essential to include within the game.

 

Message of the Day Improvements

- If the message of the day could appear as text, or not disappear given certain login locations (this is a known glitch addressed in other threads), that would be lovely. More usefully, however, would be if the message of the day could correspond with the calendar when implemented, and include the calendar events *in* the message of the day automatically.

 

Guild Directory

- If, either in place of (or in addition to) the “why join a guild?” pane visible when guildless players open the guild pane, a “guild directory” were available (with guilds supplying blurbs, information, what they run in the game, size, etc.), that would be phenomenal. Ideally, it would be available also to people currently in guilds.

- This would also foster guild-to-guild communication so that if, for instance, a NiM guild wants to team up with another NiM guild for some 16m content, they could easily search through the directory to find likely candidates.

- It was suggested that this be an interactable item, but by and large it seemed better to have this as an independent tab one can view (like conquest/mission log) rather than require someone to interact with an item.

- The directory could/should integrate with the “applications” feature (if that guild is recruiting) so that guilds without members online able to invite can, in fact, accept player applications.

- No objections were raised to this, though we acknowledge the serious coding required to implement it. That having been said, this would be an incredibly helpful feature/set of features and we believe it would be worth the challenges.

I would love to see those improvements happen. I might add an option to the guild directory to make a guild private, but the default would be publicly listed in the directory.

[...]

i'm totally with you!

---

if these suggestions are supported by around 200 guilds and their guildleaders,

i would like them to do the first step and fill in a list in a new thread, with following

information; each supporter with their own account, with linked proofs, that they are

the guildmasters of that guild:

server name - guild name - character name - legacy name

otherwise i can't believe that there are around 200 guilds out there,

with such a toxic mindset.

but hey. i don't think that this will come live, ever!

with the updated data protection regulations in many countries around the world,

every guild would need an own data protections disclaimer, you have to accept

before joining the guild, because with all these data you can create personal

profiles in an automated way.

so maybe the technical part is doable, but the juridical problems needs to be solved first.

but please give us that list with the supporters.

and no thanks. i don't wanna visit your discord, that you can abuse these data, too.

Legacy bans already violate privacy, because the ban log can be viewed by everyone in the guild. Considering you can ban people who are not even in the guild, it's a tool for harassment and stalking, because everyone can form a guild and start banning people to see their legacy name.

So going even further with that is a really bad idea.

Incorrect. No one in guild can view the ban list except the GM. The GM is the only one who can add to it also.

Also, as legacy names are not unique it does not matter who knows your legacy as being stated here because there could be multiple legacies of the same name but different accounts.

Second off: There is no invasion of privacy in a game. lol It's a pixel game. No toons are owned by you, nor ar their names. Read the ToS/RoC/Etc...You own NOTHING.

If it was an invasion of privacy, they would not allow your legacy name to be shown as a title.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone would need to identify a person who is not even in their guild. Some people actually like privacy and we should allow them to have that. If there are problematic users in the game, that everyone wants to pre-emptively ban, report them to BW, it's their job to get rid of those people.

With that statement I will assume you are not a GM of a guild.

Yes, as a GM there is many reasons that you would need to indentify/ban someone who has NOT joined your guild but could.

And I'm not referring to what "That guild" mentioned below does. (More on that in a min.)

There has been many players who are guild bank thieves, that GM's on Fleet have announced. Stating what that player has done.

There is also players who are trouble in guilds/Ops that once they get removed from a guild for their behavior start causing more probs for guild/GM/Officers.

Yes BW needs to have reports filed on them, BUT all too often we have seen nothing or just gentle slaps on the wrists for behavior that is classified as harassment/etc...

This would make it easier for guilds to at least protect themselves from those who seek to cause harm to enjoyable playtime.

I have heard of one guild that has met the cap in their ban list, and that's because they are banning random people based on fleet chat. There is no reason to raise the cap, just remove the opportunity to ban people outside of the guild completely and the cap doesn't need raising. Revealing people's legacy names to the whole guild is a violation of privacy and can be abused, as I already mentioned above.

Yes, now that is an issue. I do not agree with what they're doing. It's TOO much. They're abusing the feature IMO.

There are reasons to preemptive ban some on fleet but they're going overboard. More of a power/control move on that GM's part.

But as always in real life, there will be those that abuse it. Nothing anyone can do about that.

AGAIN- the whole GUILD can not see the Ban List. If you're that worried about legacy names, then revealing them in the guild roster could cause problems. All one has to do is form a guild, being members of larger guilds see who they don't like, then go to their guild & ban & harass...But they don't need that as they can just friend them to harass them too.

Your argument is very flawed in that it can be worked around.

if these suggestions are supported by around 200 guilds and their guildleaders,

i would like them to do the first step and fill in a list in a new thread, with following

information; each supporter with their own account, with linked proofs, that they are

the guildmasters of that guild:

server name - guild name - character name - legacy name

Why would you need that? lol If you oppose it, then oppose it. But what does it matter how MANY GM's support this?

And I can tell you right now as a member of the Hotspot discord server, there is a TON of GM's in there.

otherwise i can't believe that there are around 200 guilds out there,

with such a toxic mindset.

Wait, what toxic mindset are you referring too? lol I'm not sure you even read the OP's post.

but hey. i don't think that this will come live, ever!

with the updated data protection regulations in many countries around the world,

every guild would need an own data protections disclaimer, you have to accept

before joining the guild, because with all these data you can create personal

profiles in an automated way.

so maybe the technical part is doable, but the juridical problems needs to be solved first.

ROFL Wow you really are going out in left field with this.

There is nothing that is private in this game other than your personal account info. That has nothing to do with your legacy name/in game name.

No one is even suggesting your real account info get out into the open. So lets just drop the whole strawman argument you're trying to throw up there & derail the thread.

but please give us that list with the supporters.

and no thanks. i don't wanna visit your discord, that you can abuse these data, too.

If all the GM's & OP want that list, I will gladly sign it to an extent. lol Not that it's needed. But again you're just opposing this for reasons...(I would assume you're a member of the guild like the other one up there who is claiming the OP stole their ideas. Or a major troll who's thinking this is going to harm their trolling attempts.)

As for the Discord, you can't be a member of it unless your a GM of a guild or officer/Co-GM in place so no worries there.

Nor is there any abuse of any data as you can't get any data from a discord that you're not willing to share. lol

Again stop with the strawman type argument.

Legacy bans already violate privacy, because the ban log can be viewed by everyone in the guild. Considering you can ban people who are not even in the guild, it's a tool for harassment and stalking, because everyone can form a guild and start banning people to see their legacy name. So going even further with that is a really bad idea. There is absolutely no reason why anyone would need to identify a person who is not even in their guild. Some people actually like privacy and we should allow them to have that. If there are problematic users in the game, that everyone wants to pre-emptively ban, report them to BW, it's their job to get rid of those people.

Speaking just for myself, I see no reason not to hide it from members in the guild log. It is correct that if I were to ban someone from the guild, it shows (until it falls out) something to the effect of "Jolia-Var has banned Jar-Jar (Binks) from the guild," wherein "Binks" is the legacy.

Again speaking personally, there's honestly not that much that can be done with a legacy name (or could be done with a Battle.net-styled ID # which would fulfill the same roles, just being "entirely unique" and cross-server), however. As it stands now, you can see a user's legacy in two places: when they are members of a guild (it's visible in the roster, zero way to hide it), and if they are banned from a guild (if changes are made so that their names are obscured, that's not even apparent to anyone but the GM).

In essence, then, the only thing a legacy tells you is whether a player's characters are in a guild or not (assuming that you even have "contacts" in other guilds to ask whether a legacy is present). It doesn't allow you to track anyone in WHOIS, it doesn't even (currently) allow for ignore/friend-list adds, and it certainly doesn't allow for stalking in any interesting sense.

I have heard of one guild that has met the cap in their ban list, and that's because they are banning random people based on fleet chat. There is no reason to raise the cap, just remove the opportunity to ban people outside of the guild completely and the cap doesn't need raising. Revealing people's legacy names to the whole guild is a violation of privacy and can be abused, as I already mentioned above.

Every guild is unique. Again, to speak entirely for myself, the vast majority of people in my guilds' ban-lists are individuals who were indeed in the guilds and managed to get themselves banned.

However, I'd point out that the ban list serves a valuable function in that it protects guilds from "accidental invitations." You do get guild trolls (believe it or not, they exist, and virulently -- I've spent evenings pre-ban while recruiting dealing with the same people joining, quitting, joining, quitting upwards of ~30 times) who wait until the initial inviter/rejecter is offline to pull the same routine with an unsuspecting officer (or whatever person is allowed to invite). And again, to speak for myself, if I see someone exceptionally rude or offensive in fleet-chat or gen-chat, even if he's/she's never been in the guild, I occasionally will pre-emptively ban. (This is also something that I consider good to do with guildbank thieves and known troublemakers of light through heavy sorts.) Over the last year or so since bans have been implemented, it's saved my bacon a number of times -- nobody is in the banlist who I would ever want in my guilds, and I know for a fact that countless times previously-kicked/banned members or fleet trolls have slyly sought out invs among my members, only to be auto-rejected (yay, the system works).

On the other hand, I'd say I have a pretty moderate/hands-off approach to my banlist; others have a more and less lax policy about the banlist. Some never use bans except in extreme cases, some, as the poster mentioned, use it to create a personal blacklist for themselves. I don't personally see a problem with the flexibility to decide how one wants to use the banlist -- especially if it is changed so the whole guild cannot see the legacy name of the banned individual (temporarily in the log until it falls out, as discussed above).

To be clear, however, I cannot in any way support the idea of removing the ability to ban outside of the guild. 1) If a GM doesn't want you in a guild, they likely have a good reason. If they don't, why would you want to be in that guild anyway? 2) Players behave egregiously, /gquit, then do start trying to regain access to wreak more havoc. If they've quit the guild, you wouldn't be able to ban them, and that would be very, very bad.

I would love to see those improvements happen. I might add an option to the guild directory to make a guild private, but the default would be publicly listed in the directory.

Again, speaking just for myself here, sounds perfect! I wouldn't want my "my alt only" guilds being visible/able to be applied to, and I know many elite PVP/raiding guilds might prefer not to be listed either.

i'm totally with you!

---

 

if these suggestions are supported by around 200 guilds and their guildleaders,

i would like them to do the first step and fill in a list in a new thread, with following

information; each supporter with their own account, with linked proofs, that they are

the guildmasters of that guild:

 

server name - guild name - character name - legacy name

 

otherwise i can't believe that there are around 200 guilds out there,

with such a toxic mindset.

In a word, no. I'm not asking the GMs to "register" themselves to assuage a single player's paranoia. If you have any reason to doubt the validity of the numbers and you are actually a guildmaster yourself, you could join the Hotspot, which is linked below for any appropriate parties to join, except I don't think either I nor you actually know what you're talking about (nor could anyone reading), because...

... with the updated data protection regulations in many countries around the world,

every guild would need an own data protections disclaimer, you have to accept

before joining the guild, because with all these data you can create personal

profiles in an automated way.

so maybe the technical part is doable, but the juridical problems needs to be solved first.

...

no thanks. i don't wanna visit your discord, that you can abuse these data, too.

Okay. Never mind then.

Incorrect. No one in guild can view the ban list except the GM. The GM is the only one who can add to it also.

To be fair, as it currently is set, you can see the legacy name in the guild activity log (until it disappears, which doesn't take very long -- there's a row limit in the log and oldest stuff gets pushed out pretty quickly).

Second off: There is no invasion of privacy in a game. lol It's a pixel game. No toons are owned by you, nor ar their names. Read the ToS/RoC/Etc...You own NOTHING.

If it was an invasion of privacy, they would not allow your legacy name to be shown as a title.

Exactly.

As for the Discord, you can't be a member of it unless your a GM of a guild or officer/Co-GM in place so no worries there.

And, point of interest, only guildmasters and co-guildmasters.

]

Incorrect. No one in guild can view the ban list except the GM. The GM is the only one who can add to it also.

Well, you are clearly wrong. You can see the legacy name on the guild member management list, when someone gets banned.

Second off: There is no invasion of privacy in a game. lol It's a pixel game. No toons are owned by you, nor ar their names. Read the ToS/RoC/Etc...You own NOTHING.

If it was an invasion of privacy, they would not allow your legacy name to be shown as a title.

It is indeed a violation of privacy. People who want to keep their legacy names to themselves, don't join a guild in order to keep it to themselves. Now anyone can create a guild to spy someone. Also, some people can actually have unique legacy name, especially if it's name that means something to them, or even something they made up just for that purpose. So yes, while there can be 100 legacies called "Smith", doesn't mean that there aren't any unique legacy names in game.

Obviously you have never had an issue with someone harrassing you, because you don't seem to understand your proposal is giving them a perfect tool to track down people in order to harass them.

With that statement I will assume you are not a GM of a guild.

And I'm not referring to what "That guild" mentioned below does. (More on that in a min.)

There has been many players who are guild bank thieves, that GM's on Fleet have announced. Stating what that player has done.

There is also players who are trouble in guilds/Ops that once they get removed from a guild for their behavior start causing more probs for guild/GM/Officers.

 

Yes BW needs to have reports filed on them, BUT all too often we have seen nothing or just gentle slaps on the wrists for behavior that is classified as harassment/etc...

This would make it easier for guilds to at least protect themselves from those who seek to cause harm to enjoyable playtime.

Guild leaders have all the tools to set guild bank permissions so that nothing can be stolen. Someone just announcing at fleet something about player "Joe Smith" may not be true at all. It's some random dude, as you said "pixels" calling another bunch of pixels a thief. If this is just a game, and we are all pixels, why would it even matter that someone raids the guildbank? The items are just pixels.

Yes, now that is an issue. I do not agree with what they're doing. It's TOO much. They're abusing the feature IMO.

There are reasons to preemptive ban some on fleet but they're going overboard. More of a power/control move on that GM's part.

But as always in real life, there will be those that abuse it. Nothing anyone can do about that.

Could say the same about guild thieves, people who cause problems when they get kicked out from group and so on. Basically you are just choosing to side with possible abusers that carry a guild master title, instead of someone who doesn't even want to join a guild, to keep their privacy. IMO tools like that are far more dangerous in the hands of people who have power, than in the hands of people who don't.

AGAIN- the whole GUILD can not see the Ban List. If you're that worried about legacy names, then revealing them in the guild roster could cause problems. All one has to do is form a guild, being members of larger guilds see who they don't like, then go to their guild & ban & harass...But they don't need that as they can just friend them to harass them too.

Your argument is very flawed in that it can be worked around.

Again: they can see the legacy names when bans are added. I'm fine with legacy names being shown when people join a guild. I'm not fine with having them shown when those people are not even in the guild.

You were guessing somewhere also that I am not a guild leader. I am, I inherited one long time ago. That's how I got to test the banning of random people from fleet. I couldn't believe my eyes, because it felt so wrong. Never got my invitation to the guild leader summit though.

[quote=CaptRogue;9826133

There is nothing that is private in this game other than your personal account info. That has nothing to do with your legacy name/in game name.

No one is even suggesting your real account info get out into the open. So lets just drop the whole strawman argument you're trying to throw up there & derail the thread.

:

Actually they are asking for your account ID, which is tied to your personal account information. No idea how it works, but if they have your account ID, it might be possible to get other info? It's not as if we haven;t seen stuff like this before.

Speaking just for myself, I see no reason not to hide it from members in the guild log. It is correct that if I were to ban someone from the guild, it shows (until it falls out) something to the effect of "Jolia-Var has banned Jar-Jar (Binks) from the guild," wherein "Binks" is the legacy.

That is fine, as long as the banned person has been in the guild. I only have a problem with pre-emptive banning, because it can be used to track down people in game.

Again speaking personally, there's honestly not that much that can be done with a legacy name (or could be done with a Battle.net-styled ID # which would fulfill the same roles, just being "entirely unique" and cross-server), however. As it stands now, you can see a user's legacy in two places: when they are members of a guild (it's visible in the roster, zero way to hide it), and if they are banned from a guild (if changes are made so that their names are obscured, that's not even apparent to anyone but the GM).

In essence, then, the only thing a legacy tells you is whether a player's characters are in a guild or not (assuming that you even have "contacts" in other guilds to ask whether a legacy is present). It doesn't allow you to track anyone in WHOIS, it doesn't even (currently) allow for ignore/friend-list adds, and it certainly doesn't allow for stalking in any interesting sense.

I am not worried about someone tracking people down IRL. I am worried about bullies tracking their targets in-game. As someone who has been bullied in game, I take things like this seriously. The potential for abusing pre-emptive bans is huge.

Every guild is unique. Again, to speak entirely for myself, the vast majority of people in my guilds' ban-lists are individuals who were indeed in the guilds and managed to get themselves banned.

And that's how the ban list should be used. I have no problem with that at all.

However, I'd point out that the ban list serves a valuable function in that it protects guilds from "accidental invitations." You do get guild trolls (believe it or not, they exist, and virulently -- I've spent evenings pre-ban while recruiting dealing with the same people joining, quitting, joining, quitting upwards of ~30 times) who wait until the initial inviter/rejecter is offline to pull the same routine with an unsuspecting officer (or whatever person is allowed to invite). And again, to speak for myself, if I see someone exceptionally rude or offensive in fleet-chat or gen-chat, even if he's/she's never been in the guild, I occasionally will pre-emptively ban. (This is also something that I consider good to do with guildbank thieves and known troublemakers of light through heavy sorts.) Over the last year or so since bans have been implemented, it's saved my bacon a number of times -- nobody is in the banlist who I would ever want in my guilds, and I know for a fact that countless times previously-kicked/banned members or fleet trolls have slyly sought out invs among my members, only to be auto-rejected (yay, the system works).

 

On the other hand, I'd say I have a pretty moderate/hands-off approach to my banlist; others have a more and less lax policy about the banlist. Some never use bans except in extreme cases, some, as the poster mentioned, use it to create a personal blacklist for themselves. I don't personally see a problem with the flexibility to decide how one wants to use the banlist -- especially if it is changed so the whole guild cannot see the legacy name of the banned individual (temporarily in the log until it falls out, as discussed above).

 

To be clear, however, I cannot in any way support the idea of removing the ability to ban outside of the guild. 1) If a GM doesn't want you in a guild, they likely have a good reason. If they don't, why would you want to be in that guild anyway? 2) Players behave egregiously, /gquit, then do start trying to regain access to wreak more havoc. If they've quit the guild, you wouldn't be able to ban them, and that would be very, very bad.

I hear your concerns, just don't agree with it.

Actually they are asking for your account ID, which is tied to your personal account information. No idea how it works, but if they have your account ID, it might be possible to get other info? It's not as if we haven;t seen stuff like this before.

Please, please read carefully (and for everyone commenting beyond this post); this has been addressed several times above. We are not asking for the login ID. We are asking for either the invention of or the availablility of a unique *numerical ID number* (which we suspect must exist, seeing as how the legacy ban features work) to be available to guildmasters only in lieu of/in addition to a legacy name. In other words, if my account ID is 12345678, that would show as a field in the drop-down selection in the roster, available to GMs. It would be the same across servers and in spite of legacy name changes. This is absolutely no different than how other MMOs handle unique identities (and quite a bit better for those fearing privacy breaches, seeing as how only GMs would have access to the information, and the information literally reveals nothing in terms of online status/characters/alts etc. as a Battle.net ID or STO handle would).

Let's also please keep the question of whether they ought to expand the ban limits and the question of implementing an ID number separate, seeing as how they are actually rather different points (and they are being a bit conflated, it seems).

Also, I will be adding the question of whether or not legacy bans ought to show in the guild log to the next Hotspot summit's agenda for general consideration, since we are rapidly reaching the limits of what I can speak for myself versus the community, as per our summit.

Please, please read carefully (and for everyone commenting beyond this post); this has been addressed several times above. We are not asking for the login ID. We are asking for either the invention of or the availablility of a unique *numerical ID number* (which we suspect must exist, seeing as how the legacy ban features work) to be available to guildmasters only in lieu of/in addition to a legacy name. In other words, if my account ID is 12345678, that would show as a field in the drop-down selection in the roster, available to GMs. It would be the same across servers and in spite of legacy name changes. This is absolutely no different than how other MMOs handle unique identities (and quite a bit better for those fearing privacy breaches, seeing as how only GMs would have access to the information, and the information literally reveals nothing in terms of online status/characters/alts etc. as a Battle.net ID or STO handle would).

 

 

Yes, but that unique number would be attached to that account, they'd have to have a way to guarantee that it could not be used to back trace, or whatever to get a persons id, or private information. I'm not a security expert, and it could possibly be the tin foil hat I'm wearing that is causing me to wonder, but it's always best to be safe than sorry

Also, if someone is so determined to get in to your guild and cause trouble, any feature you have won't stop them, all they have to do is create multiple accounts, buy the smallest amount of caretl coins, or items, become preferred, then use a ref link, and for a week they'd had sub access to everything.......ok I'll take the tin foil hat off for a moment

Yes, but that unique number would be attached to that account, they'd have to have a way to guarantee that it could not be used to back trace, or whatever to get a persons id, or private information. I'm not a security expert, and it could possibly be the tin foil hat I'm wearing that is causing me to wonder, but it's always best to be safe than sorry

Also, if someone is so determined to get in to your guild and cause trouble, any feature you have won't stop them, all they have to do is create multiple accounts, buy the smallest amount of caretl coins, or items, become preferred, then use a ref link, and for a week they'd had sub access to everything.......ok I'll take the tin foil hat off for a moment

I'll grant you your right to your tinfoil hat, and the point about not being able to stop the most dogged of trolls.

But, to be fair, I don't think that a number would be any more hackable (as opposed to a legacy name, or a character name. And (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) I've never heard of Blizzard or ArcGames (or, for that matter, Origin) ever getting hacked in such a way as to connect in-game identities with real world.

Not to short-circuit any newcomers to the thread or alternate perspectives from those we've already heard from, but any thoughts from others or about the other suggestions made? We do have a lot to cover, and it'd be lovely to hear from a variety of people about everything else mentioned here (I'm personally keen to hear some discussion about the loot tables, loot stash, other guild improvements, etc.)

 

To be clear, however, I cannot in any way support the idea of removing the ability to ban outside of the guild. 1) If a GM doesn't want you in a guild, they likely have a good reason. If they don't, why would you want to be in that guild anyway? 2) Players behave egregiously, /gquit, then do start trying to regain access to wreak more havoc. If they've quit the guild, you wouldn't be able to ban them, and that would be very, very bad.

I understand where you are coming from because there are people that we have seen in general chat that there is no way we would want them in our guild. Normally we would just reject them if they applied. We have banned some outside of the guild, mainly due to the way they behave in a flashpoint or something they did with us. We would not want those types of people in our guild. Most guilds don't want people coming into a guild and creating problems.

I'll grant you your right to your tinfoil hat, and the point about not being able to stop the most dogged of trolls.

 

But, to be fair, I don't think that a number would be any more hackable (as opposed to a legacy name, or a character name. And (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) I've never heard of Blizzard or ArcGames (or, for that matter, Origin) ever getting hacked in such a way as to connect in-game identities with real world.

 

Not to short-circuit any newcomers to the thread or alternate perspectives from those we've already heard from, but any thoughts from others or about the other suggestions made? We do have a lot to cover, and it'd be lovely to hear from a variety of people about everything else mentioned here (I'm personally keen to hear some discussion about the loot tables, loot stash, other guild improvements, etc.)

I would love to be able to actually have a co-guildmaster. Normally I have to become creative to give my boyfriend a rank that only he can have to show that he is also a leader of the guild.

I would love to be able to actually have a co-guildmaster. Normally I have to become creative to give my boyfriend a rank that only he can have to show that he is also a leader of the guild.

Yes I 100% agree! Additionally, could all the GM alts have the same permissions (access to log, ranks, etc.) for those of us who have several alts.

I love this thread, and pretty much agree with all of it! I think these changes would greatly benefit not only the GMs ability to run guilds but overall game experience.