I paid for these features back in 2012, way before i was spending money on this game lol

Exactly. The towering players of classic shouldn't dictate something that will affect a mass majority of the other players, whether they participate in towering or not. Use your brain ffs

While the system would work for social guilds I don't think it would be fair to tweak the entire system for just certain types of guilds and try and find ways to make it work for other kinds of guilds. Classic is made up of various types of activities - sparring, towering, PKing, socializing, and guilds should be able to encompass all of these factors of Classic.

Also, lots of people like to be in multiple guilds, and some have guilds where the only members are their friends just for the sake of keeping them all in one place. While many guilds are just chatrooms/places to talk, many players enjoy these types of guilds as they encompass the social side of Classic.

Also, Aguzo, I never said towering/sparring/PKing guilds weren't social. I'm sure you know what I meant by that, as many players refer to social guilds as guilds who do not/rarely partake in these activities.

Who said it would affect social guilds? They can still ally, when they categorize themselves as social.

Is this all because I didn't want to stay on your vampiri family tag or whatever?

True, there are multiple guilds. They last what? 1 week, everyone is usually only loyal to one guild. I have so many tags.

Only allowing 1 guild would fix the following:

Guilds using low score to spar against guilds with a higher score, so they can lower them on the ladder.

Maybe the server would have an easier time with less data stored.

Gtg, so I can't add anymore.

Don't think that I am a mean person, Yeah, I also have a ton of guilds that have a lot of memories, but I am willing to sacrifice my guilds and saved guild names to just be in 1 single guild. Then it would actually be "Guilds are for life, not just..." (The perils of guild something something)

People aren't blind. We are well aware of what is happening with towers. I'm just not convinced with any ideas on here, they are one-sided and unequal to the rest. So don't try to replace the current one with unappealing ones.

You also do realize that 25 people won't spend their entire time on towers for a pixel hat. They should just abolish the towering system and implement something like a tower seize, that would be much more appealing to me.

Hypocrisy...

The towers are fine. You go in, take the flag, and defend it.

The guild system, and the way people use it to get 1ks effortlessly, while sometimes using others along the way... that's the problem.

If there were a punishment for kicking people, like removing hours, reducing spar points (which that member gained), then it would be reduced from the total.

Oh, the second one was a bait. :)

"You can't be in more than one guild, you can't join another guild for a day, deduct their total hours when someone is removed from the guild."
Do you expect a group of 25 people to tower for a month or more worth of time? What kind of system do you want? I might as well just remove the entire guild system.

There are people who do that already...

Actually that's exactly what's expected, because that's what an actual guild is.

(See Aguzo I don't just disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing, it just happens to turn out that way)

I'm sorry but 'one guild limit' isn't going to happen. With a guild limit of 25 members it would be too anti-social to expect people to stick to one guild tag at all times.

Then just make the guild count higher? If that person has enough hours, or has enough spar points, then they wouldn't want to leave either.

http://i.imgur.com/puBUw9f.png

Yeah, I can see how it could be anti-social. Guilds that practice spar/help others get points, help others with towering, etc. That would be affected. But then again, guilds would be much more than "just another tag". If the count was higher, then you wouldn't even need allies.

Is a 50 member limit bad? Or giving 50 people a tower hat is bad? (That's if 50 people actually contributed)

Sure, someone could say... Well, I'm bored of towering, so I don't want to tower anymore.

What would you do with said member/s?
Maybe, if they haven't done gained hours, or sparred during x amount of days, then they could be kicked. Then again, if the person contributed a lot (2000+ hours), I don't think they would want to leave.

We already know what we're doing. It's just not single-guild limits, so I thought I would point that out since it seems to be a misconception. I welcome the discussion though, it might bring up something that hasn't already been looked at. Just be aware that a lot of this is already decided on.

I like the idea of the longer a guild holds a tower the easier it is to take it. For example every minute the flag loses 1 hp, or if a guild holds it long enough, the members have a death cooldown before respawning, or a health debuff, or have it based on the certain amount of hours done to that specific tower by that guild in a week to encourage basing at different places and not have the same guild own a tower for a year. It kinda sucks when newish players wanna tower but have no chance of ever getting one without joining a huge ass guild rather than make their own.

These are good, but the hp would need to have a limit. Can't just remove the guild from the tower, after they have been holding the tower for so long. Maybe a limit of removing 50 hp from it's original amount.

the way the towering system works is perfectly fine but as thallen said, the way the guild system works is a problem. the suggestions i've read to adjust towers in this thread are all horrendous by the way.

why punish people for holding a tower for too long???

To give other people a chance of holding it.