A suggestion to avoid overpowered guild

[yvee]

Hi!

We are all aware that people with incredibly high strength or spent tons of $ plays in 1 guild to get all the resources. I would like to suggest in order to avoid that, a "points system". For 1 guild, it has limited amount of points to recruit members. The points are based on the overall power of the player which will be recruited. A good basis for that can be the player's rank, or overall power if it reaches this certain amount of power and such. The points available shall be increased as the guild levels up, but not too greatly.

As long as the points are full, and the players in the guild ranks up, there will be no way to recruit another one. I'm aware that there will be tons of guild if this is implemented, but wouldn't it be more fun?

Cheers!

[-Aescheritt-]

Sounds intresting but would it work out? I mean what if there arent any Guilds left you could join in? You would have to make one yourself and build it up from there and that could be difficult if those other guilds are popular.

[yvee]

Sounds intresting but would it work out? I mean what if there arent any Guilds left you could join in? You would have to make one yourself and build it up from there and that could be difficult if those other guilds are popular.

I don't think there will be a popular guild since the points are limited. That's possible to make one for yourself that will give chance to people to lead and don't zerg up an existing populated guild.

If that's not the case, the point system can also be applied in guild wars and such. If limiting the recruitment is a bad idea, then in wars it should be good to really strategize the fight. For example, 0/100 points is used and Wizard A costs 9 points to fight, then there's still 91 points for the guild to make the players participate in a war. But that will surely affect the rewards in wars.

At the end of the day, it's still the admin's decision if they want to implement this or how, it's up to them. I'm just giving an idea of limitation to make a server not 1-sided.

[kersenka]

Not a bad idea, but I don't see this working, reason being, unless the system kicks players once the points are reached you can easily manipulate it. Several spenders could agree to join a guild at low power so they can invite as many players as possible then spend afterwards.

The only way you could prevent guilds from getting out of hand is to standardise stats for Guild Vs Guild content which negates any benefits the big spenders have, but if that was the case the appeal to buy power would be reduced thus losing the income for the company.

[kisses1221]

Not a bad idea, but I don't see this working, reason being, unless the system kicks players once the points are reached you can easily manipulate it. Several spenders could agree to join a guild at low power so they can invite as many players as possible then spend afterwards.

The only way you could prevent guilds from getting out of hand is to standardise stats for Guild Vs Guild content which negates any benefits the big spenders have, but if that was the case the appeal to buy power would be reduced thus losing the income for the company.

This is true. You could manipulate the system by taking off your armor/main team etc. I think if the main "resource" guilds will be fighting for is decided in a tournament style like NO it will work out. I really liked the system NO had, I just wish it had a participation prize as well.

[yvee]

This is true. You could manipulate the system by taking off your armor/main team etc. I think if the main "resource" guilds will be fighting for is decided in a tournament style like NO it will work out. I really liked the system NO had, I just wish it had a participation prize as well.

You guys have a point. But it's not always power should be the basis. Ranks/progress can be counted as possibilities

[mounttai]

Doesn't look too promising. There are plenty of problems with this like : what if a group of friends move over to the game but can't join eachother in the same guild?... or what if a group of people join a guild together at lvl 1, would they have to be kicked when they get too powerful for the guild to handle? Since if you just bring a group of people over who you know of that they will all spend, even if they can't recruit more at some point its not like they would need more people with so many payers.

Anyways the best way to deal with an issue like only 1 guild being super strong is to keep the playerbase on the server competitive and active. The reason you see plenty of games where a server only has 1 or 2 super strong guilds is because they are pumping out servers too fast. So it is always the same people playing with and against eachother on a server and when people start leaving the people that are still playing grow closer and also want to be able to compete in cross server content so they band together.

That is another reason why joining 1 of the first servers is often better because the player base will always get new people in that server even if it might slow down after a while. Afterall when you look to join a game and it has 100-500 servers out, unless you know someone on a certain server you would most likely either join the newest server or server 1-2 or something. You would rarely see someone who thinks like... hey today I feel like 356 is my lucky number so lets start out the game on that one!

So yea the issue can be prevented by managing servers and playerbases properly and be careful with releasing new servers... and if you really do release loads of servers you better be on top of your game and merge the dying ones before it gets too late. That would solve the root of the issue, besides that there is always cross server wars... if most servers will really only have 1 or 2 strong guilds thats where they can compete and you would have to suck it up as a smaller guild and just join the big guy of the server if you want any real balance in such huge fights.

[SinfulCrow]

Them releasing multiple servers will keep players flowing into the game and keep cash coming in from new players. I think they best thing for them to do would be to control the rate at which they release severs, like 2 severs every week or something like that. Also at release make 2 or 3 severs instead of 1.

On day one of release you won't know what guild will be the top guild for that faction and who they will have. This will show on 2nd or 3rd day of the sever being released, unless everyone just floods to the first/second created guild.

As a new player who just joined the game on the 2nd day or 3rd day of the sever opening. I'd join one of the top guilds, since their guild levels are higher and i'd be able to gain better benefits. If there are a ton of guilds created, that would mean lots would be low leveled and I would not gain any benefits from them. Depending on the player base this will also determine how many guilds are made.

As for guilds in general, I think it would be best to have a limit of 20 members with every upgrade you get an extra 5 slots. At least this will control how powerful one guild gets in the beginning. Or ever level you gain one new member, which sucks for being a guild leader since you want your guild to grow but it limits the guilds growth drastically allowing other guilds to keep up.

[yvee]

I appreciate all the feedback. However, there can be a lot ways to make a limitation like this one not just in recruiting. Like I mentioned, if it's a bad idea in recruitment, then it'll be good in wars for guilds to not overuse their aces and strategize thoroughly. You guys have a point that the idea has flaws but it's up to the people who will use the idea and how will they use. Like they won't kick when points are full, they just won't be able to recruit more.

[ellegrey]

As for guilds in general, I think it would be best to have a limit of 20 members with every upgrade you get an extra 5 slots. At least this will control how powerful one guild gets in the beginning. Or ever level you gain one new member, which sucks for being a guild leader since you want your guild to grow but it limits the guilds growth drastically allowing other guilds to keep up.

The limited number of members sure is the only solution. More guilds will always keep the game interesting. No one wants to be in a giuld with 90 dead souls and 10 active people.
Leveling up the guild better give more other benefits but not not that many members in general. Because things happen in this order - time passes and you upgrade the group, open more slots but more people get inactive. In my opinion 30 members in general are more than enough. There would be more active guilds.

It wouldn't suck for the leaders because it'd prevent the guild from dying soon. If there are like 20-30 members in guild even if some get inactive, recruiting just 1-2 more new players would recover the ballance.
And something else - people sometimes struggle to find good group and they want to try different one. If there are just two groups on the server they'd just join the next server hoping for better community and better chance to be someone in their group. Therefore smaller number of members could be a good idea. If it'd prevent the forming of one overpowered guild - I am not sure. But for sure it'd give a good chance for the forming of more active guilds

[mounttai]

The limited number of members sure is the only solution. More guilds will always keep the game interesting. No one wants to be in a giuld with 90 dead souls and 10 active people.
Leveling up the guild better give more other benefits but not not that many members in general. Because things happen in this order - time passes and you upgrade the group, open more slots but more people get inactive. In my opinion 30 members in general are more than enough. There would be more active guilds.

It wouldn't suck for the leaders because it'd prevent the guild from dying soon. If there are like 20-30 members in guild even if some get inactive, recruiting just 1-2 more new players would recover the ballance.
And something else - people sometimes struggle to find good group and they want to try different one. If there are just two groups on the server they'd just join the next server hoping for better community and better chance to be someone in their group. Therefore smaller number of members could be a good idea. If it'd prevent the forming of one overpowered guild - I am not sure. But for sure it'd give a good chance for the forming of more active guilds

20-30 max members would be perfect in a world where real life didn't exist, however you will often find only 1/3 or even 1/5 of your members being online at any time of the day. The reason those overpowered guilds are so overpowered are mainly 2: They are spenders AND they are really active to the point where they do not really miss an event and get all dailies done every day. The spender part doesn't matter much in picking a guild unless if spenders feel like they want to join with other spenders ( Personally I always go wherever its active, I do not look at the amount of spenders in a guild)

Anyways the point I am trying to make is even if you cap at 30, if you got a reasonable amount of active people you might only have 5-10 people online outside events and with luck around 15~ for events. Now I do not know what guild versus guild battles will be like or how many people you will need for that to fill up all the slots but leaving that aside, these numbers were about a more active guild... there are only so many active people in a server so by lowering the member cap you are actually hurting the more casual players who only login a few times a day. Sure maybe with 30 people you can get 4 or 5 decently active guilds, but what about the casual players? If some people only log in 1 hour a day or a few minutes at different times you would maybe have 2-3 people on at any time... you would never get to socialize with your members and have fun together and you would always be talking to the same few people who log in.

Also the more active people would kick those less active ones because they can not keep up and got a waiting list of a few people who can keep up. If anything the balancing should be done by limiting the amount of people who can join into a guild versus guild fight. That way guilds can have plenty of members and the really strong guilds can still only send out a few people. Just to take naruto online as an example... I think guild versus guild fights had like 60 slots?! That is basically forcing all the active people into 1 guild if you want to stand a proper chance. Sure you could win with half the numbers but if even 1 of the groups failed you would lose so its a bad idea to put all your eggs in 1 basket. So if they just limit the amount of people who can participate it wouldn't force all the people into 1 guild... if anything people might spread out to more guilds because they never get picked to participate in that big guild and want a chance to participate somewhere else. And for those who never get to participate because they just aren't strong enough you could give them some kind of minigame to do for rewards that do not impact the results of the big fight.

[ellegrey]

@mounttai If you paid attention on my last three lines up there - if I believed the perfect world existed I would use 'can/will' not 'could/would'. There is no perfect world tho and we are all aware of it.
All the reasons applied to this thread are not incorrect. The truth is that either with less or more people in a guild players just have to adapt and have patience.

[mounttai]

@mounttai If you paid attention on my last three lines up there - if I believed the perfect world existed I would use 'can/will' not 'could/would'. There is no perfect world tho and we are all aware of it.
All the reasons applied to this thread are not incorrect. The truth is that either with less or more people in a guild players just have to adapt and have patience.

No worries my intention wasn't to bash your ideas or thoughts or anything like that. I was simply discussing the feasibility and going more in depth about the ups and downs of a 30~member limit. I am also not stating that my thoughts are correct or anything like that, I just felt like discussing the topic and ideas since thats what forums are for right?

[ellegrey]

No worries my intention wasn't to bash your ideas or thoughts or anything like that. I was simply discussing the feasibility and going more in depth about the ups and downs of a 30~member limit. I am also not stating that my thoughts are correct or anything like that, I just felt like discussing the topic and ideas since thats what forums are for right?

You quoted my post so I cared to explain (and point) that I also state there that I doubt reducing the number of players would help BUT I wish It could help