Feedback: Guild Size

[asommers]

Some of our guilds are waaaaay too big. Hindsight is 20/20, and we should have had a guild limit initially, but we didn't, and I need to deal with this issue soon. I'd like to set a limit on guild size and am thinking of 500-1000 players max. Once we settle on the limit, you can continue to have the number of members you have now, but you will not be able to add any members (at a minimum) until your guild member count is less than the maximum size. Other limitations may occur if the player count is over the maximum guild size such as the guild not being able to participate in the Top Guilds leaderboard if over the guild size limit.

Thoughts?

-ALS

[Encryptions]

750, if guild ranking is based off the top 500 players then we should have atleast 250 slots for players who want to join the guild who have very low stats.

[InsanitrisesAL]

+1 to this remi i don't think having the most aps and active within 7 days does make the best guild ( no hate directed at anybody) say your a premium/ high end player looking for other players to run lb , timed dungeons / or even professionally farm e sunk which is mainly what people are looking for in a guild these days (5-6) yrs gm experience, these proficient players youd be looking for can be found in the top ranking guilds previously and for the most part will remain this way / IA , CU , and DM in particular have an abundance of top teir aps / leaderboard runners / and yes even sunk farmers for the more active ones , i believe guilds with 2-3 k members should have to downsize like top guilds had to before to make high lb / not just downsize but to also remove their inactives

[Enetry]

+1 to this remi i don't think having the most aps and active within 7 days does make the best guild ( no hate directed at anybody) say your a premium/ high end player looking for other players to run lb , timed dungeons / or even professionally farm e sunk which is mainly what people are looking for in a guild these days (5-6) yrs gm experience, these proficient players youd be looking for can be found in the top ranking guilds previously and for the most part will remain this way / IA , CU , and DM in particular have an abundance of top teir aps / leaderboard runners / and yes even sunk farmers for the more active ones , i believe guilds with 2-3 k members should have to downsize like top guilds had to before to make high lb / not just downsize but to also remove their inactives

Yeah , Guild activity should add points and inactivity should decrease points .

[papas]

@asommers I dont see what's the need of making limit to a guild size. If they can handle the 1k+ members then is np. How will that benefit game community?anyway personally wouldn't hurt in anyway the guild I'm in but maybe others guild would mind.

This has nothing to do with guild lb rankings lol. @Insanityrises

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[InsanitrisesAL]

Voicing my opinion just like yourself , cheers mate

[PatD]

between 750 and 1000 is good imo

[Neutrone]

750 or 800 should be alright

[Fkned]

Some of our guilds are waaaaay too big. Hindsight is 20/20, and we should have had a guild limit initially, but we didn't, and I need to deal with this issue soon. I'd like to set a limit on guild size and am thinking of 500-1000 players max. Once we settle on the limit, you can continue to have the number of members you have now, but you will not be able to add any members (at a minimum) until your guild member count is less than the maximum size. Other limitations may occur if the player count is over the maximum guild size such as the guild not being able to participate in the Top Guilds leaderboard if over the guild size limit.

Thoughts?

-ALS

Yes thoughts. Why? I am getting pms and messaging, from a certain guild, both publicly and privately, ( bet you are too now that I see this) that will remain nameless, how they dropped and my guild are nabs because of our size, and why are we on lb, etc. Took 1.5 years to build this guild to this size, and we include anyone who meets level reqs. You already made it more exclusive by counting only the top 500 players, and I get that. Keeps it a level playing field. But now because guilds allow members to leave game and come as they choose, you want to limit that?? Firstly. This is specifically targeted towards Bellum, as being the largest top 10 guild. You would be building rules of exclusion, not inclusion. How can this be good for the game? Limits on who is counted, I get. It gives a border. Limits on who can be where? Pointless. Elitist as well. Your 500 cap does exactly as intended, the number of people over that is irrelevant. My 500 members counted will have to work as well, moreso, because I allow freedom. Game is supposed to be a place to have fun, be active, enjoy. Be with your friends, even if you take a break. That builds game loyalty. That is a reason to return to this game out of the very many out there when rl intrudes, or you don't like an event. The nameless guild mentioned previous cuts after one week offline, hate to get sick or take a break... Anyway, That's the guild I built. And you are going to make me cut players to be on lb? Entity also meets over max as number one as well. And are also recruiting, as is every guild, as it always will be. I still have to draw 500 online within the week like everyone else. With more casual players as well. Because in my guild, they don't 'have' to live here in order to count. More importantly, you know what the next step will be for every one of those guilds? Get bigger. Because my guild is already there, big fat and happy, we get cut or they don't count?? This is a rule tailored for a purpose, and particular people. Not to enhance gameplay, in any shape, manner, or form.

Itsed, Master of Bellum

[Fkned]

If a concern is about a single guild becoming one giant superstore btw, and must add a limit, I don't believe you are thinking high enough at 1k. Letal was over that previously, as a top lb guild, and nobody complained, or felt they monopolized the game. The purpose of the lb change was to remove the stagnation. Not form it in another direction. 1250-1500 is where imo you should be at a max if you must implement at all. By nature, big guilds are active, and activity is the point I believe. It allows room to take and build new players,+keep alts in the guild you wish to be in as well.
Itsed, Master of Bellum

[Yennah]

Thoughts? Why do we worry about guild size? Why are we setting limit? What is the purpose if you already set the requirement for guild ranking? Top 500 active players. So... why do we even have to limit the number of players in a guild and include it in the requirements to be in lb? Just because some guilds are waaaaay too big? So what? People are free to choose whichever guild they want to settle in. In our guild, people come and go. They are free. How is "sorry our guild is full sound to you? Please think about this carefully. Because for some players, it's unfair.

[Dummluck]

Disagree to this because it only ranks top 500
Size is irrelevant, set a cap at 10k like most things in game
Being in a huge guild means have huge activity
30-50 Legends always online, 100+ During birthday event
This would crush our community we work so hard to build
Guilds shouldn't have to down size, to meet requirements

[Empressfury]

Some of our guilds are waaaaay too big. Hindsight is 20/20, and we should have had a guild limit initially, but we didn't, and I need to deal with this issue soon. I'd like to set a limit on guild size and am thinking of 500-1000 players max. Once we settle on the limit, you can continue to have the number of members you have now, but you will not be able to add any members (at a minimum) until your guild member count is less than the maximum size. Other limitations may occur if the player count is over the maximum guild size such as the guild not being able to participate in the Top Guilds leaderboard if over the guild size limit.

Thoughts?

-ALS

Bellum has been dealing with all sorts of bullying since the new leaderboard, people have a problem with such a large guild being on leaderboard. "No names" but we all see them complaining about it.

If sts submits to the whining then we will simply see it really isn't a fair system. Size should be a choice, we just have different waves of active peeps. And we have the pros, we have the noobs, and we have all ages from kids to elderly here, and even special needs people here. We are the melting pot of Arlor if you ask me.

The thing about guilds is they should be inclusive-its 2023 yall. Bellum is a family type guild. We have all types of people, and all types of gamers. The guild that would be targeted by a size cap would be Bellum. It appears to me, that not only are we being targeted by jealous players, but now also the devs? Please tell me how that's not what happening here.

[papas]

I really like the way how descent the members/gm of top guilds posting their opinion. Idk who are those that bullying these guild holding atm top spots or if it really happened, but to be clear noone from CU is one of them. Feel that I need to say this cause maybe some think that previous rank1 guild would be the ones.
We don't care abt guild lb. rank1 came naturally through just playing a game while having fun.
As I mentioned I don't mind abt size of guild, but sinse they add a reward on rank1 there should be some limits.
Maybe u can consider that sts just removed guild lb cause in its previous form it was easily broken by ppl dummy farming and bottling hauntlet. We saw ppl got 3-7days banned cause that reason in the past.
And this new lb is a mini weekly event.
Idk if this would make u guys feel any better.
Anyway guilds are the same no matter algorythm of lb has changed. Cu wasn't better than entity before and ain't worse guild now.
Cheers





Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Soimienn]

The new guild member cap discussion is ridiculous. The 500 that makes the Ap list will have to work as hard no matter how many members a guild have (given both guilds have 500 players). If two teams have a starting lineup and a full bench. Why should it matter that one of the teams have 150 more club members that does not cut it to match day. It’s so wird that the argument “they have more players” holds any ground at all when the point system is based on a limited amount of players🤦*♂️🤦*♂️🤦*♂️🤦*♂️

[Jadedunicorn]

Why restricte guild number what do you think it's going to achieve the lb has been adjusted and even with this restricted guild allowance inplace its not going to affect the current lb standing .
Why are u pandering to some of the old stale guild who think that it's there right to be on top as that's how it's been for the last 10 years . Now this new system is in place they been left judged and found inadequate that's there fault not sts they sould have been more open and let fresh blood in from start . It's there fault there guild are low in numbers as they closed the doors keeping there guild small . Now there crying about guild numbers they have always been allowed to have as many as they wanted in guild they just refuse to let ppl in . Now they want to have restrictions put on guild who open there doors for anyone allowed ppl in and now have mass numbers .
So don't place restrictions on guild numbers now there no point it won't change the new lb in anyway at all

[InsanitrisesAL]

This isn't about targeting any particular guild to you guys complaining but i will say the majority of complaints about this discussion are due to the fact that it would no longer benifit you / yall / your guild ect , thats all ty

[Dummluck]

Again this will not effect LB standings, so it does not effect our ranking
This effects our community in which we built to be the most active guild in AL
What this does is make us remove 750+ members to be evaluated for LB
It's cutting our community in half, imagine telling half your guild goodbye
Tbh you couldn't imagine that bc majority of guild only have 200-600 members
Instead of setting a cap, why not accept the new system and start recruiting
Over time Majority of guilds will have 500+ members to be evaluated for LB

[asommers]

This isn't an attack on anyone's guild, the issue is the larger the guild, the higher the overhead required when doing anything with it or its members.

If I didn't have a penalty (restricting adds or removing from top guilds), the guild size wouldn't change which defeats the purpose.

Looks like if we're counting 500 members for top guild, doubling that for total members would be fair. This may be moot anyway, I can probably do some internal analysis to see what guild counts look like if we removed any non-officers from the guild that hasn't logged in in 30d, 60d, 90d, etc.

-ALS

[Fkned]

This isn't an attack on anyone's guild, the issue is the larger the guild, the higher the overhead required when doing anything with it or its members.

If I didn't have a penalty (restricting adds or removing from top guilds), the guild size wouldn't change which defeats the purpose.

Looks like if we're counting 500 members for top guild, doubling that for total members would be fair. This may be moot anyway, I can probably do some internal analysis to see what guild counts look like if we removed any non-officers from the guild that hasn't logged in in 30d, 60d, 90d, etc.

-ALS

Isn't that exactly what old lb did, showed.activity at x days? So you know those numbers. The issue I have with this, is this-
Inactive players do lb no good, that's what people complained about, and you fixed it. And tbh I don't care if they help lb or not. Nor do they affect other guilds.
It's plain as the nose on the face, that at 75% activity in a 30 day span, my guild currently runs over a 1000 members active every month, here's my issue. On a very regular basis, someone who has been gone a while, comes back, and says, haven't been on in a while, what's going on, what's new, etc etc, says hi to peeps, and gets back into the flow of the game. And they can ask that question where they were, and still be a part of what they were, with the people they knew, when they stopped playing, and mostly inevitably, return.
If you wish to halt further recruitment due to your maintenance or management issues, that's fine Freeze us. Inevitable attrition will lower numbers, and I will trim as needed, but penalizing the active by removing lb status is unfair, to say the least.
Is there a way for u to tag an inactive member as such, to put to the side let's say, together yet apart, so maintenance doesn't have to be done with them? We know it affects lb zero, if they aren't on rn they dont count. Tbh I would be content with removing say, 90 day+ inactive, if I knew the first thing they saw when returning was an automatic invite to return to the guild they were removed from due to game mechanics.. Three months is nothing. It's summer school, it's a newborn, divorce, sickness, it's...life.
Show a guild count overall, show active status, inactive status at x number, pigeonhole the inactive, where they go into a pile and no maintenance needs to be done to them til they dust off the character and log in? Had a member have a baby, told me he was going to be gone an uncertain amount of time, had no idea when or if he would return... I told him he would still be here when he returned. He did. Six months later. Shared his stories, with his friends, with what to him, online at least, were his friends. We are a family guild, and act that way. Find a way to do that, and I will happily trim 90 day inactive, if I had a place to put them, besides out on the street. Cuz that's not good for my guild, or the game. Imagine it's you, logged in after you just been gone a while for whatever reason, years long player to find yourself being noplace once again, like a nab.
Yes I've cut people. Thousands, literally. Doesn't mean that a player who has years invested in the game, is og and op, should just be tossed. I'll say it again. 1k isn't enough. Letal was that plus of active, I am over 1k of active. I know of several other guilds that are over that as well. Raise it. Please. As much as you can and allow reasonable maintenance. Or find a way to separate them without cutting them. Off my soapbox now.