Cap teams at 35 members?

[Eslade]

We all know how much good that polls do.
Vote.

[Andis]

lol wheres the poll

[Eslade]

Using my phone, cool your jimmies.

[SamwiseRed]

not gonna stop people from teaming up. guild tag means nothing.

if you truely wanted to force guild size or more specifically force engagement size you'd basically have to code in instances. cant happen, wont happen, naw.

[Juhstin]

yes
mustard
yeah

[deadlycupcakez]

Originally Posted by SamwiseRed [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not gonna stop people from teaming up. guild tag means nothing.

if you truely wanted to force guild size or more specifically force engagement size you'd basically have to code in instances. cant happen, wont happen, naw.

Two things this would change -

A.) it would restrict in game chat capabilities
B.) even tho each guild would start out as sub-groups of an overarching guild... they would require leaders to at least manage the guild and be the direct link to the overall leader. factions emerge with these types of scenarios - and pixel lust is real

would it stop folks from teaming up? not necessarily. but it would change the current (well... repeated) tone of the server.

[SamwiseRed]

in guild chat really not a game changer with voice comms. some people already dont even pay attention to it.

[Kergan]

Would make 0 difference in how anything on the server is done so why waste even 1 second of development resources on it.

[Swish]

alts across different teams, play for the winning side on the day... seems legit

[Farzo]

Originally Posted by SamwiseRed [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not gonna stop people from teaming up. guild tag means nothing.

if you truely wanted to force guild size or more specifically force engagement size you'd basically have to code in instances. cant happen, wont happen, naw.

wise man here, az raids with 4-5 different tags as it is lol