+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: @XLgames @Trion A BETTER SOLUTION FOR GUILD SIZES

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    792

    @XLgames @Trion A BETTER SOLUTION FOR GUILD SIZES

    While I understand some of the reason for limiting guild sizes 100 members is just far too small

    I've found that the "magic number" of members for a successful well rounded guild is about 300. This is especially true when talking about a multinational guild where people from australia, Korea, india, russia, brazil and europe where members are online at different times of the day. I've been a part of 2 guilds that had anywhere from 100-400 members and at 300 members you have roughly 50 members online at any given time which is just enough to fill a raid. Having a 100 guild member limit only works for competitive PvP guilds who are already mostly geared. Well rounded guilds have dedicated farmers and traders that help support the guild in more passive ways while still having a PvP contingent to support overseas trade runs and various PvP and PvE events. Buy limiting the guild size down to 100 ppl or less you are only going to alienate and piss off more players.

    The Solution:

    1) limit maximum guild size to 300-400 members (this allows for well rounded and multi-national guilds)
    2) Scale the guild leveling requirements based upon guild size.
    3) (optional) To mitigate guild vs guild war issues you create a special guild rank for guild war participants that is maxed at 100 members and have it handled similar to a siege so that only the participants of that guild rank participate in the guild war.

    For instance: if it takes 10 million XP (or whatever leveling currency is needed) to get a guild to level 2 for a 100 person guild then it would take double that XP (20 million) to get to level 2 for a 200 person guild. If you have a 300 person guild it would take 30 million XP. 400 person guild 40 million XP

    This is a simple, straight forward and elegant solution to the guild size issue in 2.0

    I highly recommend that you use this solution instead of your current proposed model which is really flawed and requires guild masters to alienate members and friends by kicking them from the guild once their guild gets past level 3... its just not right.


    If you agree please voice your support so that Trion and XL will Listen!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    622
    I appreciate your post is well written, and thoughtful. It is intelligent and not whiny.

    But I still disagree. 300-400 member guilds are still monopolizing on a server, and not fun for anyone but them. 100 active members is more than enough. We don't need any more help creating zergs or unstoppable guilds crowning themselves king of the server.
    I'm back baby.

    Aurorian Knights
    Echonaught - East (Tahyang)

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Caernord Rooftops
    Posts
    2,419
    they already stated how it's gunna go down in te article and I think it's a really solid way to compensate both parties

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Echonaut View Post
    I appreciate your post is well written, and thoughtful. It is intelligent and not whiny.

    But I still disagree. 300-400 member guilds are still monopolizing on a server, and not fun for anyone but them. 100 active members is more than enough. We don't need any more help creating zergs or unstoppable guilds crowning themselves king of the server.
    the problem is you can do that with a 100 member PvP guild that all get on and play at the same time. We have/had that on Ezi. A guild named Incarnadine (and awakening before that) which essentially ruled the server for a time. Even the bigger zerg guilds couldn't compete with them unless they came with over 2-1 odds. A raid of 25 of them could whipe 60 ppl fairly regularly.

    And like I said a 100 person guild only works for dedicated gamers really. A guild with many different types of ppl such as people with jobs and families who can only play nights or on the weekends tend to only have a fraction of that total guild member number online at any given time. And of course multinational guilds that have players in many different time zones (such as my guild on Ezi) have different groups of their membership online at any given time of the day. Like I said we have 300 members and most of the time only 30-50 ppl are online at any one time. So we can't even fill a full raid unless it's prime time.

    This game has to focus on ALL of the players not just hardcore gamers/PvPers or pay to win players. If AA wants longevity it needs to to allow people to be able to play this game casually and not feel inadequate or left out.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Caernord Rooftops
    Posts
    2,419
    guild lvl 1-2 don't have the cap, but to lvl up and reap more benefits u need to drop to 100, players or benefits and guild battles it's a good tradeoff

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Mike View Post
    guild lvl 1-2 don't have the cap, but to lvl up and reap more benefits u need to drop to 100, players or benefits and guild battles it's a good tradeoff
    yeah but that means excluding everyone else. there are 7 guild levels allowing only levels 1 and 2 to be over 100 members is a bit exclusionary and unfair.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    175
    How about guilds with 50 members that want to be competitive? Would you say it's fair that they compete against guilds with 300 ?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by SkullMonkey View Post
    While I understand some of the reason for limiting guild sizes 100 members is just far too small

    I've found that the "magic number" of members for a successful well rounded guild is about 300.
    ~SkullMonkey's post after watching 300~


  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    1,260
    In all actuality. If there was a 300v300. The amount of memory leak and lag would be ridiculous. Even a 100v100 will be stretching the power of some people's Computers. And at this point in time. We have no true clue what the system will hold. As the cap lift is in discussion with XL. It is not set in stone at this time.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by moomeishiba View Post
    ~SkullMonkey's post after watching 300~

    dude where did you find that picture of me and my rippling abs?

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts