I don’t disagree. The whole idea is a bit baffling to me but they’re trying something different. Which is fine, we’ll see how it goes. I just don’t plan on joining more than 1, maybe 2 guilds. And I expect both of those to be large and community-driven rather than project-driven.
It was an example provided by @Vastar, not me. Like you, I’m not really a builder either so I’d never do this or really care about it.
I may be wrong, but this is how I interpreted his example:
There are two guilds. Guild A and Guild B. They are fairly sized and have both benefited from their traders trading with traders from the other guild. However, there’s a problem. A large and tall mountain range blocks the two guilds. It’s dangerous to try to grapple up the mountain as one mis-click means instant death and a loss of goods. And it’s far too long to go around in any reasonable amount of time. So the traders have asked the leaders of the two guilds to create a tunnel through the mountain to reduce the time/risk associated with trading.
The leaders agree and believe this will be beneficial to all. With beacon taxes part of the game though, they decide to use the proposed guild system to create a Guild C, which has miners and builders from both guilds. Vastar thinks that having beacons tied to progress would prevent Guild C from building and maintaining this tunnel because a group of builders doesn’t want to have to feel forced to go fight Titans or pick flowers in order to make this tunnel. They should be able to jump right into this project without being forced to work on other projects before addressing the very simple project for which they were formed.
@Smoothy, your proposal sounds very much like the achievement sort of system proposed by @Zouls, @Havok40k, and perhaps a few others. It’s sound and enables slow guild progression with the exponential limit on growth. But it also fails to account for the above (and other guilds formed to tackle short-term or collaborative projects rather than community-building).
Edit: If it’s not clear enough, I’m not really for the “make a guild to do a project and then move on” approach either. And I’m not saying it’s something we should just accept and move on with. I’m just saying it’s part of the CURRENT design, which CAN BE CHANGED, AS WITH ALL DESIGNS FOR ALL FEATURES IN ANY EARLY ACCESS GAME (all caps not because I feel emotional or because I’m trying to shout, but to make this point more salient as I’ve been told by an individual in the past that my threads do not explicitly say this and as such it seems to them like I’m arguing that designs are set in stone. So I told the individual I would try to provide disclaimers on every thread in which I try to work with a current design to make it better since they seem to not understand that designs are not set in stone until implementation and even then a new design can be created to implement something different).
My post is only working with @Vastar’s example, which I’m neither for or against on a personal level but which I think needs to be kept in mind as a totally legitimate possibility with the current design. I welcome subsequent posts to challenge the currently proposed guild system or to try to work with what we have to come up with creative solutions for the devs to ponder.