I think it would be cool if the owner of a guild could have an option to make another person a co owner so if the guild owner one day decides to leave the guild, the person who has co ownership can take the new role as guild owner. Thoughts?
yes, very cool
icon such as a different colour crown to symbolise maybe?
(12th September 2019, 5:43 PM)gemj Wrote: [ -> ]yes, very cool
icon such as a different colour crown to symbolise maybe?
Yeah! or like a different symbol
(12th September 2019, 5:59 PM)Ashley766 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah! or like a different symbol
It could even just be another hat.
to late for that. i left my guild ownerless
(12th September 2019, 7:36 PM)Vadan Wrote: [ -> ]to late for that. i left my guild ownerless
Lol. That's why I suggested this. So owners can pick co owners so there would be no problem of a guild being ownerless
yes pls
I had this idea before too
I'd much rather code something that would prevent a guild owner from leaving their guild before selecting a new owner.
(15th September 2019, 2:22 AM)bls1999 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather code something that would prevent a guild owner from leaving their guild before selecting a new owner.
But if they are the only person left in the guild they should be able to delete it.
(15th September 2019, 6:27 AM)Stxtics Wrote: [ -> ]But if they are the only person left in the guild they should be able to delete it.
Yeah. Maybe make it so that if there's is more than 1 person in the guild, excluding guild owner, then select new owner
(15th September 2019, 2:22 AM)bls1999 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather code something that would prevent a guild owner from leaving their guild before selecting a new owner.
I was also thinking about if there were to be a co owner, that they could somehow "share" some of the admin powers that the server owner has, (e.g. chat commands). I don't know if Jiggmin intended for the server owner to have those powers only.
Co-owner def a more welcome change imo. The point is to have more people responsible for the guild, so that say the owner loses their account the co-owner can still do the things the owner could (with the exception of deleting the entire guild)
I have a great idea. Implement both!
I forgot guilds even exist.. a much more important change would be giving guilds an actual purpose (I do not know what those changes would be)
(17th September 2019, 12:00 PM)Tejs Wrote: [ -> ]Co-owner def a more welcome change imo. The point is to have more people responsible for the guild, so that say the owner loses their account the co-owner can still do the things the owner could (with the exception of deleting the entire guild)
If this happens, we'd help transfer the guild if possible.
I'd love to make someone a co-leader in my guild. That way i dong have to physically login or give away access to my account for someone i trust to invite/kick members.
Bump because i still think this would be a good idea
I think this is a great idea. I also think that guild leaders should be able to give permissions to other guild members. So if there is a private server any member (with permissions) can set tournament mode without having the guild owner do it for them.
Also, I think that GP should be able to be used on the things normally found in the VoM. However, at a higher "premium." I say this because the cost would be high, and it would allow a guild to at least test the things in the VoM before commiting for long term (I dont know if the duration for sets found in VoM have been extended or not so it is a day rather than an hour) but it would be neat to consider. . .
another though, maybe have GP be used to rent a set for an hour and have VoM have the option to rent a set for a day. A Guild, with enough GP, could rent a server for a day. Obviously with a large sum of GP to make it rather challenging to afford and it would give people an incentive to want to rent a server for a month (or a week or whatever).
(8th October 2020, 8:21 PM)Atari4600 Wrote: [ -> ]I think that GP should be able to be used on the things normally found in the VoM. However, at a higher "premium."
But that de-incentivizes people to spend money on kreds, which is basically PR2's only source of income. If we're gonna have GP prizes, they should be different or inferior to the Vault prizes.
I do like the idea of co-owners in a guild, that has potential to be useful.
(9th October 2020, 12:22 AM)Mystery Wrote: [ -> ]But that de-incentivizes people to spend money on kreds, which is basically PR2's only source of income. If we're gonna have GP prizes, they should be different or inferior to the Vault prizes.
I do like the idea of co-owners in a guild, that has potential to be useful.
Yeah, I have advocated for people spending kreds as well. That is why I think the amount of GP that would be used to be spent in guilds should be ridiculously high and the "rewards" to be ridiculously low. I did not explain myself very well but here is a thought
25,000 GP for a private guild for a day
5,000 GP for Cactus/invisible set for an hour
and pretty have those two things so people could see what it would be like, and the time it would take for them to get GP to buy those things would take so long that it would just be better for them to buy it. I feel like it is "free" trial run so people can still have experienced a private guild, and possible buy more with the opportunity of being on one in the first place.
And of course 25,000 GP is no easy feat which is why I don't think it would be abused since you can get 8GP max in a race when you wear Kong hat. . .