I came by an idea and mailed it to flaregames, but I also would like to have your opinion on the subject. This for a possible new update.
The subject would be the ranks of players within the guild.
From previous similar game experience, I think it´s unfair for the leader that the only difference that he/she has towards the general is the rank attribution to players. General’s shouldn´t have access to the emblem/flag of the guild, nor changing or have access to the remark/description posted on the guilds page. I think that would be just entirely for the leader, seems more fair and respective towards the leader.
So, for the General the war decisions and player intake or expulsion would be more than enough as a way to help the leader around.
Another thing I would like to share with you is that it could exist more ranks for a leader to choose for his guild players. I think 3 isn´t really a fair decision for a leader.
In our guild at least (and I am not the leader), we feel there are players worth to be promoted but we don´t feel comfortable in doing so because the general already has guild decisions and we don´t want everyone worth promotion to be able to have access to that.
My suggestion in this would be possibly create 1 or 2 more ranks to smooth this decision. At least one more, a Sergeant between the Soldier and General. If 2 more would be possible, between the Sergeant and General create, for example, a Captain. This 2 ranks (the Sergeant and Captain) would be like the Soldier, meaning no active decision taking in the guild.
But the creation of these 1 or 2 categories would already turn visible:
an importance of the player in a guild;
more rank distinction between players;
recognition of long playing player for more “fresh” ones;
their motivation by a possible promotion;
and effort put in the game.
And this without compromising a decision taking for promotion because not every player should be able to have some sort of decisions access.
What do you think about this?