126984-the-guild-restriction-for-f2p-needs-to-go

== Content ==
			
After thinking over it after the livestream, it's the one thing that doesn't sit comfortably with me.
 
This restriction needs to go.
 
There needs to be something done to prevent bots yes, but restriction Guild creation leadership and invitations from F2Pers is NOT the right way to do this.
 
Regardless of someone's pay in level, you can't restrict this from people. F2P need to be able to maintain and run guilds. If you want this game to operate properly based on the assumption that People are Content you cannot restrict those making a guild whom are F2P users.
 
Even if they don't spend a damn dime, they still need to be able to provide/look after/invite/create and grow a guild.
 
This is not the right way to deal with bots and spammers.
 
The simple suggestion is that you can't create/lead a guild until you're level 50.
Most spam bots aren't going to level their characters
 
You can't restrict this feature, it's not ethical.	
----
			
Can't, Can't, Can't, Can.
 
I think its fine, and it makes sense that this type of restriction is there for players not paying a penny.
 
It makes really good sense actually. If you are entertained and comitted enough to run a guild, there should be no issue in paying for it.
 
Free riders can still join established guilds and have full access to experience and enjoy the content.
 
WHAT A DEAL!	
----
			In Champions Online, all F2P players were put into a premade "free" SG (which was really more of a Circle as we know them here)  in order to facilitate grouping and other large activities. They were free to leave that SG and seek membership elsewhere, but I think even there, the couldn't create them on their own. Maybe something along those lines that is created automatically?	
----
			
Restricting guild creation to Lv 50 prevents groups of new paying customers from making guilds. The only things a free player can't do are create a guild or invite people. Which would imply that they are able to lead a guild and have paying members of the guild invite people for them.
 
This isn't an ethical issue. It's a simple product offering. Is it ethical to offer more channels on a cable TV service to people who pay more? Now I'm not sure if you're trolling or not.	
----
			Pretty sure Fran meant F2P accounts, those without any sort of "Signature Service"	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Pretty sure Fran meant F2P accounts, those without any sort of "Signature Service"
----
			
They've already said one of the earliest (and thus easiest to earn) perks of the Loyalty system are going to be unlocks for the social restrictions. Anyone who bought a box and played for a couple of months is probably going to have enough points to be able to invite people to their guilds again even playing Free.I've seen games that tried to make the conversion without all the restrictions. IT DOES NOT WORK, for exactly the reasons they stated in dev replies and the twitchcast. The Carbine devs are taking lessons learned from their own experiences at launch, and some things City of Heroes didn't get quite right when they made their Freemium conversion. You're gonna have to accept that the restrictions are more important than what we're losing. 
{| class="blockquote"
 
Even if they don't spend a damn dime, they still need to be able to provide/look after/invite/create and grow a guild.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
They've already said one of the earliest (and thus easiest to earn) perks of the Loyalty system are going to be unlocks for the social restrictions. Anyone who bought a box and played for a couple of months is probably going to have enough points to be able to invite people to their guilds again even playing Free.
 
I've seen games that tried to make the conversion without all the restrictions. IT DOES NOT WORK, for exactly the reasons they stated in dev replies and the twitchcast. The Carbine devs are taking lessons learned from their own experiences at launch, and some things City of Heroes didn't get quite right when they made their Freemium conversion. You're gonna have to accept that the restrictions are more important than what we're losing.
----
			
I like the way the system is going to work with F2P and guilds. They should have full access to circles, if you want more, subscribe. You can have a social environment with circles. Just because it is F2P doesn't mean everything should be free. Gotta keep some incentive to subscribe.
 
I am not sure what the restrictions are for circles, if there is any.
 
EDIT: I get the impression that this whole thread is that fran runs a guild, or plans to, and wants to play for free as soon as and this affects him?	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is the only restriction I have an issue with.
 
F2Pers need to be able to be part of the basic feature.
I think this is the one thing they are missguided on.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I like the way the system is going to work with F2P and guilds. They should have full access to circles, if you want more, subscribe. You can have a social environment with circles. Just because it is F2P doesn't mean everything should be free. Gotta keep some incentive to subscribe.
 
I am not sure what the restrictions are for circles, if there is any.
 
EDIT: I get the impression that this whole thread is that fran runs a guild, or plans to, and wants to play for free as soon as and this affects him?
----
			
I'm fine with the temp guild/circle restrictions for f2p people (since ya know.... these restrictions are lifted with loyalty points you get from just playing.)
 
Could be worse: Think of how many f2p mmo's put the housing system behind a paywall -shudders-	
----
			I just think it's a bad idea because it puts up a needless barrier that will inhibit the ability of the player to socialize and connect with other players in game. Would much prefer them to put restrictions of other things like weekly raid locks..	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If she does she can still run it. And with the amount of loyalty points that Fran will have she can no doubt unlock the ability to do everything with a guild that a paying customer can do.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I just think it's a bad idea because it puts up a needless barrier that will inhibit the ability of the player to socialize and connect with other players in game. Would much prefer them to put restrictions of other things like weekly raid locks..
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I just think it's a bad idea because it puts up a needless barrier that will inhibit the ability of the player to socialize and connect with other players in game. Would much prefer them to put restrictions of other things like weekly raid locks..
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I just think it's a bad idea because it puts up a needless barrier that will inhibit the ability of the player to socialize and connect with other players in game. Would much prefer them to put restrictions of other things like weekly raid locks..
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I just think it's a bad idea because it puts up a needless barrier that will inhibit the ability of the player to socialize and connect with other players in game. Would much prefer them to put restrictions of other things like weekly raid locks..
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is simply not correct. You obviously have not understood what the restriction is about.
 
There are no limits on socializing whatsoever related to this restriction.
 
The restriction you are suggesting as better is even more restrictive on limiting access to actual content, and would in terms have a significant limiting factor in socializing,
 
Well done.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This is the only restriction I have an issue with.
 
F2Pers need to be able to be part of the basic feature.
I think this is the one thing they are missguided on.
 
No just because someone is commited doesn't mean they can pay for it.
 
Guild interactions are too basic and essential to a game to restrict, especially a game like WildStar which is so heavily guild reliant.
 
The other restrictions are fine, this is not.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You can't restrict this feature, it's not ethical.
----
			
Yea this part of the F2P system is the only bit that really bothers me.  I get the need to stop spammers but this seems a little extreme.  You can only be in one guild per character right?  So once you join a guild that's that the spammers can't get to you with guild invites anymore.  Circles... eh same thing and I know a ton of people who create circles just for a custom title of sorts so there again we have that avenue of spam dried up.  Both of these are seriously inefficient ways of spamming people and easily countered by just joining in with the community.  The spam I remember from the early days was focused mostly on the mail system and arena team invites, neither of which look to be getting restricted for the F2Pers.
 
I have a few people seriously interested in checking out the game for F2P but the instant they read those bits about guilds and circles they started freaking out and having second thoughts.  They want to move to the game as a pre-existing (or at least part of a pre-existing) guild and manage their own affairs.  This whole forcing them to either go it alone or be controlled by a subbed player is kind of ridiculous.
 
This is an MMO where one of the fundamental aspects is the ability to socialize with other during gameplay.  Restricting guilds and forcing people to have at least one paying member who controls the guild's roster is more or less undermining part of that ability to socialize.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I have a few people seriously interested in checking out the game for F2P but the instant they read those bits about guilds and circles they started freaking out and having second thoughts.  They want to move to the game as a pre-existing (or at least part of a pre-existing) guild and manage their own affairs.  This whole forcing them to either go it alone or be controlled by a subbed player is kind of ridiculous.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I have a few people seriously interested in checking out the game for F2P but the instant they read those bits about guilds and circles they started freaking out and having second thoughts.  They want to move to the game as a pre-existing (or at least part of a pre-existing) guild and manage their own affairs.  This whole forcing them to either go it alone or be controlled by a subbed player is kind of ridiculous.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
After thinking over it after the livestream, it's the one thing that doesn't sit comfortably with me.
This restriction needs to go.
There needs to be something done to prevent bots yes, but restriction Guild creation leadership and invitations from F2Pers is NOT the right way to do this.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Since you're a friend that will be playing with them, presumably you can simply create a guild for them. I really don't understand what is so onerous and difficult about that.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Most of your posts FranBunny can be solved with a little bit of creativity if only you cared to think before opening up your can of complaining. You always find something you can 'whine' about.
 
This has NOTHING to do with ethics. This is a game, Carbine can restrict anyone (within the law) from any feature in their game. Just like the food industry on a daily basis sell you processed food that has <1% proper food and 99% artificial chemicals and flavours.
 
Wildstar isn't medicine or in any way something that is a right to consume. You consume it the way Carbine want it, if you don't like it bugger off. In this case either pay or buy a CREDD.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Guild interactions ARE basic parts of the game.
----
			If they can't pay $$$, there's CREDD.  If they want to make or invite to a guild, they can contribute to the game.  Carbine has lenient restrictions, they have a valid reason for this one.  It should stay.	
----
			You can get the restriction removed through the loyalty or CREDD. Which basically is the same thing as having a level restriction just called something else since you get it through simply playing the game. And since you're fine with lifting it at level 50, what's the issue with getting some loyalty points or plat?	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Guild interactions ARE basic parts of the game.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
So is the expectation of not seeing a game system abused whenever the developers can help it. We have strong evidence that with free accounts, guild creation and invitation would get abused. You're right this issue is about ethics, but you see it backwards. It would be unethical for them to allow an obvious and large loophole for abuse to be part of this transition. When weighing the balance between free players and paying players, paying players need to win, without question. Giving free players access to 50% of the benefits and abilities of being in a guild is more than generous when faced with the potential for abuse.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I am not saying no restriction, I'm saying this isn't the restriction to impose.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
So what restrictions would you suggest they impose?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I already said in this thread.
Do people not even try to read my posts?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I already said in this thread.
Do people not even try to read my posts?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I did, but all you said was lvl 50.  Is that for all, or just F2P'ers?  And how is that a better restriction than what they already have in place?  If we're going by fairness/ethics here, why is lvl 50 a better restriction than being a Signature member?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Just F2Pers obviously.
 
If you're signature the restrictions don't apply.
 
 
And do you think that bots/spammers/gold farms aren't going to go and snatch up credd to get around this restriction?
That's a worse fate.
 
Gold Farmers are going to snatch up CREDD from people who'd potentially buy it for the reason to get around this restriction if needed.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Who said I was going be usin F2P?
 
Where did I say that?
 
this change doesn't affect me, I never plan on not having signature service. I will still keep paying for the game.
I've even made posts saying how much I would be willing to throw money at Carbine.
This change doesn't affect me at all.
 
But Even if it doesn't affect me, this restriction isn't fair.
This isn't a good choice.
 
 
What in the bloody hell are you talking about?
 
Guild interactions ARE basic parts of the game.
 
This thread isn't about me, it has nothing to do with me.
This change doesn't affect me, it doesn't change my game experience this wont ever affect me.
 
This thread has NOTHING to do with me and my place in the game, but I do care about people other than myself, and F2Pers need to have access to such a basic feature as a running a guild.
----
			
Gives up
Not going to sit here and watch people drop personal attacks, and strawman everything I say.
 
You win
 
happy?	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Gives up
Not going to sit here and watch people drop personal attacks, and strawman everything I say.
 
You win
 
happy?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Gives up
Not going to sit here and watch people drop personal attacks, and strawman everything I say.
 
You win
 
happy?
----
			Explaining why I think you're incorrect in a reasonable and non personal way is dramatic? Who knew?	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Happy that you started with hyperbole and ended with drama while passing through vague dismissiveness and never once addressing any of the reasonable points people were making? Not really, but ignoring the logic of an argument and appealing to emotion is what I've come to expect, so yay?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Gives up
Not going to sit here and watch people drop personal attacks, and strawman everything I say.
 
You win
 
happy?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Explaining why I think you're incorrect in a reasonable and non personal way is dramatic? Who knew?
----
			
Creating and maintaing a guild is a basic feature of any MMORPG.
It's ridiculous to say that it's not.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Your personal attack was uneeded.
And your constant finger pointing.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Creating and maintaing a guild is a basic feature of any MMORPG.
It's ridiculous to say that it's not.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Your personal attack was uneeded.
And your constant finger pointing
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You must be a very sensitive person. I don't see that anyone has exhibited any type of finger pointing, personal attack or anything of the like.
 
You are the one thats getting driven by feelings when your arguments dont hold and your points are starting to fall apart.
 
You have not provided any real sound arguments to support your opinion, and if you cannot handle the truth, yay?
----
			I would recommend that everyone get back on the topic at hand or move on. This thread's not going to a good place right now.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Creating and maintaing a guild is a basic feature of any MMORPG.
It's ridiculous to say that it's not.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
It doesn't matter.
It's still a basic feature that a F2P should have access too.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Not every single player is cut out to make guild decisions.  I'd say being in a guild is a basic feature, but I won't agree that creating and running a guild is a basic feature.  The people that have to be in charge of at least maintaining a guild need to have leadership qualities that not every player has.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Everyone is ignoring what I've said.
I've supported my arguments, everyone is ignoring what I said.
 
It's not "the truth" and Yes lemurian's attack was definitely directed at me and pointing fingers by saying "you're trying to create drama" is an issue as well.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Why?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Everyone is ignoring what I've said.
I've supported my arguments, everyone is ignoring what I said.
 
It's not "the truth" and Yes lemurian's attack was definitely directed at me and pointing fingers by saying "you're trying to create drama" is an issue as well.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Because it's a basic feature.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Why is forming a guild, and inviting into a guild a basic feature?  And why should they have access to it?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Explain why it's not a basic feature.
Convince me that it's a feature that should be gated out of non paying players hands.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Because it's a general fucntion of the game that supplies a basis for building or developing your own personal place in the game.
 
Explain why it's not a basic feature.
Convince me that it's a feature that should be gated out of non paying players hands.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Irrelevant.
 
Convince me it's not a basic feature, not that some people aren't born to be leaders.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
As I've said, not all players have the leadership qualities that are necessary to making guild decisions that involve changing the roster.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's not how it works. You're the one arguing for change. Come up with a compelling reason, because you haven't so far.
----
			
I agree and i find we should not look too much on it from a perspective that we deem playing members more capable of leading a guild.
 
It creates a barrier and according to the live stream they were seeking to abolish such barriers, this can very well determine if a group of people decides to try out the game or not. 
Which is why it should be granted to all, we may argue that features inside the guild system such as the levels, bank tabs and so on are parts that can be put behind a subscription, this would even work better since it would encourage the guild to ensure the GM always maintains a sub. 	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Because it's a general fucntion of the game that supplies a basis for building or developing your own personal place in the game.
 
Explain why it's not a basic feature.
Convince me that it's a feature that should be gated out of non paying players hands.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I agree and i find we should not look too much on it from a perspective that we deem playing members more capable of leading a guild.
 
It creates a barrier and according to the live stream they were seeking to abolish such barriers, this can very well determine if a group of people decides to try out the game or not. 
Which is why it should be granted to all, we may argue that features inside the guild system such as the levels, bank tabs and so on are parts that can be put behind a subscription, this would even work better since it would encourage the guild to ensure the GM always maintains a sub.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Additionally
 
Example:
TERA
 
TERA is the largest F2P MMORPG on Steam, and it allows anyone to create a guild, and this feature is not abused.
TERA is an example of F2P transition success with a similar subscriber service addition.
 
Creation of and maintaining of a guild is a basic feature and function of a players interest in the game and could be for an entire group of players, so restricting it based on pay level isn't valuable way to restrict a player interms of players as content.
 
And paying into the game doesn't mean someone isn't worthy of running a guild on that sense either.
 
 
IT'S CREDD, HOLY FREAKING CRAP.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Irrelevant.
 
Convince me it's not a basic feature, not that some people aren't born to be leaders.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
People not having leadership qualities is why it's not a basic feature to me.
----
			
What about placing a higher requirement of people signing up for a guild on registering guilds, i.e.
 
It takes 10 people to register a guild, 20 if you want to be more restrictive. Place a level restriction on this too, level 20+?
 
I do feel like there should be some tool for a group of friends migrating to be self-sufficient in some format to communicate. However, I do think a form of guild barrier should exist.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I would like to turn the tables around, why do people feel it's not part of basic feature list? What's the concern behind making it available to all, i personally see no good reason to do so but others might. 
 
The only thing i can think of is that the reluctance to grant such a feature to all stems from a general disliking of F2P and the players more so then any other reasoning behind it. But again i'm open to hearing reasons why and be proven wrong.
----
			
I would like to turn the tables around, why do people feel it's not part of basic feature list? What's the concern behind making it available to all, i personally see no good reason to do so but others might. 
 
The only thing i can think of is that the reluctance to grant such a feature to all stems from a general disliking of F2P and the players more so then any other reasoning behind it. But again i'm open to hearing reasons why and be proven wrong.	
----
			
If you were around during launch, the spam of guild, arena and other invites was harassing every unguilded, unteamed and uncircled player in the game. Almost everyone fell under at least one of these categories. And it was daily harassment at that, multiple times a day. It really hurt the experience.
 
And as Phandaal mentioned, it was due to gold seller spam.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I would like to turn the tables around, why do people feel it's not part of basic feature list? What's the concern behind making it available to all, i personally see no good reason to do so but others might. 
 
The only thing i can think of is that the reluctance to grant such a feature to all stems from a general disliking of F2P and the players more so then any other reasoning behind it. But again i'm open to hearing reasons why and be proven wrong.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If you were around during launch, the spam of guild, arena and other invites was harassing every unguilded, unteamed and uncircled player in the game. Almost everyone fell under at least one of these categories. And it was daily harassment at that, multiple times a day. It really hurt the experience.
 
And as Phandaal mentioned, it was due to gold seller spam.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
So is the expectation of not seeing a game system abused whenever the developers can help it. We have strong evidence that with free accounts, guild creation and invitation would get abused. You're right this issue is about ethics, but you see it backwards. It would be unethical for them to allow an obvious and large loophole for abuse to be part of this transition. When weighing the balance between free players and paying players, paying players need to win, without question. Giving free players access to 50% of the benefits and abilities of being in a guild is more than generous when faced with the potential for abuse.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I actually turned off the ability to see arena team invites because of it. It was a mess. Carbine learned that lesson the hard way, and they are trying their best to avoid a repeat.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The main argument is to prevent gold seller spam, which I think is a very compelling one.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If you were around during launch, the spam of guild, arena and other invites was harassing every unguilded, unteamed and uncircled player in the game. Almost everyone fell under at least one of these categories. And it was daily harassment at that, multiple times a day. It really hurt the experience.
 
And as Phandaal mentioned, it was due to gold seller spam.
----
			I'm actually not sure how TERA operates anymore, been a long, long time since I played it. What did they do to handle it?	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The point is, that it is neither.
 
Its simply a decision that Carbine made when they needed to transition and define the principles for the 2 tier system.
 
You can agree or disagree with their decision, but there is no argument in the world that can support the statement that it is a basic function and feature and thereby something that you are entitled to in a free 2 play context. 
 
Do you understand?
----
			TERA has server wide channels for gold sellers to spam instead of them having to resort to making guilds, arena team, and circles. 	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Actually, I'd like to just note a point of correction here because there's a common meme on the forums that equates "signature account" with "paying player" and "free account" with "non-paying player". And in some threads, like this one, "non-paying player" with "3rd-party RMTer".  That's simply incorrect, and pretty unfair to a lot of people who are going to be coming to this game soon.
 
Free accounts are not the same thing as free players. Players without signature accounts can support the game through ala-carte purchases in the cash shop and many of them do in comparable hybrid programs in other MMORPGs. In fact, many of them spend considerably more per month that way than a monthly subscription. Recognizing and allowing that kind of support to count in their loyalty program is an aspect of Carbine's plan that they are wise to include. 
 
But even free players--people who show up and play but don't ever spend a dime or purchase CREDD--aren't the same thing as people who are looking to cheat or exploit the game for their own real-world profit, even if the cheaters/exploiters would love to be able to do what they do for free. Free players don't cover their costs, but they do show up and fill queues and run content and play the game alongside paying players. There is value to that, as anyone who has been around for the last 6 months should be able to understand clearly.
 
The restriction will make life better for fair players whether they are paying players or not. It will fall more heavily on fair players who are playing for free, but it is nevertheless a very minor restriction that only affects those who want to run guilds themselves, and only persists if they never choose to even use the CREDD exchange once they've hit a level where they can build up plat enough to buy CREDD.
 
Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not exactly a human rights issue either, and this really wouldn't deter me from playing at all if I hadn't bought the game yet.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm actually not sure how TERA operates anymore, been a long, long time since I played it. What did they do to handle it?
----
			
Maybe that's the way to stop Wildstar gold spammers.
 
Open up a global channel, then allow players to filter said channel with key words, with offered suggestions of known gold seller websites (susan express comes to mind).	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
TERA has server wide channels for gold sellers to spam instead of them having to resort to making guilds, arena team, and circles.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Should we deny them access to chat since that can be used for such practices with a doubt? Private messages?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Most people in guilds ended up dealing with Arena team spam, and had to turn off invites.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
TBH I haven't see a gold seller comment in ages. Granted i dont log in daily and what not, but whenever I go back and check it out, i do not ever recall any gold spam.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Actually, IIRC DCUO does disable some global/zone chat functions for players until they buy something--anything--to prevent goldsellers from simply operating a rotating door system of create account/spam/get banned/repeat at no cost to the goldseller. It works well enough, although there's still individual locations that are a constant stream of goldseller spam in /local. I would not be surprised if this game ends up having to implement something similar.
 
As for PMs, gold sellers who send them one at a time are easily countered with /ignore and some players will have to learn to get comfortable with using it.
----
			I mean it's always a possible that we start with these guild/circle restrictions and then as the gold sellers calm their shit down we see the restrictions lessened - which I think would be a solid way to deal with it. As it always is, with some big occurrence and subsequent surge of players, gold sellers usually respond in kind - be that a game launch, or model swap.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
My point was that we should not enforce high limitations for the sake of combating spam bots. Throwing away the baby with the bathwater so to speak.
----
			
Some facts...
The only reason they give to restrict guilds and circles it because of gold spammers.
In my gameplay in WS in only had invite spams from arena teams and those are not limited behind a signature/loyalty wall.
 
So why not make a guilds and circle creation/invite 50+ or signature members only?
Or make it at least so that those with a box can invite/create a guild as well.
 
Now they are alienating vetaring members who are running guilds since launch, which is not a good idea at all since they are one of the most loyal members.
I've been playing WS in mostly a leadership or officer role and to keep continuing this carbine is forcing me to get a sub and that is no fair at all!!!	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
And most other people's point has been this isn't a "high limitation" Even if you ignore everything we know about the Loyalty system, gaining access to guild creation and invitation rights is pretty easy.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The only way to access it is to pay at least once.  I find if it is to prevent it from being used as spam there are alternatives to that, by not prohibiting it but by delaying guild invites and creation for free players in levels. Set a level requirement on it this has show to be an effective deterrent in other games.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Some facts...
The only reason they give to restrict guilds and circles it because of gold spammers.
In my gameplay in WS in only had invite spams from arena teams and those are not limited behind a signature/loyalty wall.
 
So why not make a guilds and circle creation/invite 50+ or signature members only?
Or make it at least so that those with a box can invite/create a guild as well.
 
Now they are alienating vetaring members who are running guilds since launch, which is not a good idea at all since they are one of the most loyal members.
I've been playing WS in mostly a leadership or officer role and to keep continuing this carbine is forcing me to get a sub and that is no fair at all!!!
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
What are Loyalty Points?
All Wildstar players will be part of our new Loyalty Program where they will accrue Loyalty Points and achieve Loyalty Ranks to earn special items and perks. In fact, if you've ever subscribed you have already earned some! We'll reveal more details on the Loyalty Program in the near future.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
That's not true you can life the restriction through the loyalty shop, loyalty points are earned by playing the game. You can also lift it by buying a CREDD with in game currency. Neither of those options require you to pay. Essentially it's the same thing as a level requirement just with a different system.
----
			
They still have a lot to elaborate on in how you gain Loyalty Points.
 
They mentioned gaining Omnibits (basically, currency you can spend in their shop) by playing the game. Does this count towards the Loyalty Points? Not sure.
 
I think anything we can say to that end is speculation from both sides.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
They still have a lot to elaborate on in how you gain Loyalty Points.
 
They mentioned gaining Omnibits (basically, currency you can spend in their shop) by playing the game. Does this count towards the Loyalty Points? Not sure.
 
I think anything we can say to that end is speculation from both sides.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Fair enough, i however was speaking out the perspective that you didn't play the game before. I also believed loyalty points are only earned by paying, you perhaps meant the other currency? But that isn't tied to the loyalty program i invite you to read the FAQ again and you'll see that the loyalty program literally is linked to the system that rewards you for spending money on the game, actually to save time i'll bring up the paragraph:
 
'All WildStar players will be part of our new Loyalty Program where they will accumulate Loyalty Points and achieve Loyalty Ranks to earn special items and perks. In fact, if you’ve ever subscribed you have already earned some! We’ll reveal more details on the Loyalty Program in the near future.'
 
Could you provide the source of where you found it stated you get loyalty points by just playing? 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What many people haven't brought up, or remembered, is that there is a level restriction in Wildstar for creating a guild already. You have to be level 12 (reaching the capital city) and pay 10g to do such. Sure, it doesn't take long to get there for some, but there is already a level requirement.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The only way to access it is to pay at least once.  I find if it is to prevent it from being used as spam there are alternatives to that, by not prohibiting it but by delaying guild invites and creation for free players in levels. Set a level requirement on it this has show to be an effective deterrent in other games.
----
			
Hey guys, all feedback regarding our transition to free to play, including all restrictions, should be kept in our feedback thread here. 
 
Thanks.
- Team WildStar	
----