Should guild tax cap be changed?

[Kulluminatii]

Snowhawk Wrote:Social Guilds don't WoE or they don't actively take part in them like a WoE guild does.??There are more Social guilds than WoE guilds due to lack of interest in WoE by Members.

If there are WoE interested members in Social guilds they either party with a WoE Guild, Make an Alt to become a member of the WoE guild, or quit the social guild to join the WoE guild.

I also listed why I joined Behemoth and it wasn't to WoE.??I also stated that I only WoE when I can because its required of Behe Members to attend a certain amount.??I certainly have no interest in WoE other than supporting my guild to the best of my abilities and if I were to make my own guild (no likely unless I can convince more of my friends to join) it would turn into another small social guild.??If my members wanted to WoE I'd have them go with Behe.

Well we aren't focusing on shifting social guilds to WoE guilds here, but hoping that new guilds are created due to this. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some social guilds created alt WoE guilds for members that did want to WoE.

In reference to the bolded part, thats one of the "problems" we have right now. Most people tend to just join already established guilds simply because they have the levels and the history of stability. I can't blame them for that, its tempting to go ahead and just join a guild such as Behe, NE, or Rev that are already "there" and well-established. If this change could help form even one guild, it would have been worth it.

The idea of increasing guild tax is the least-drastic method of improving WoE that I could think of. We could also remove one castle, but I believe 2 castles should be a minimum...plus a lot of people would be pretty PO'ed .