Rebalancing guild members limit


#1

yeah so guild cap more like 250 members 250 extra gleam club
100 members plus 400 GC members seems completly nuts to me

please let me know here if you also disagree our explain to me why it is ok our a good thing

i think that people just gonna build small guilds and work around the cap to avoid the GC dont like how it is done now should at least raise the non GC cap as well to make it less a problem for me

making big guilds should be a part off the game you buy and not an adition imo


#2

yea i was not a fan of it too kind of feels like oh you want a bigger guild well pay 5$ month for it


#3

Due to the way the ruddy guild buffs work, Is why I think they capped it the way they did. I feel they should remove guild buffs, make them cheap personal buffs, and uncap the guild member count,


#4

It’s not uncommon for MMOs to have limited “non subscription” slots in a guild. I’m not saying if it’s correct one way or another, but that it isn’t new.

Personally I’m glad my “sub” is possibly helping others now since I count towards a different total in guild numbers.


#5

I understand the cap to guild buffs so the entire playerbase doesn’t just join among a few guilds however I am surprised the GC cap is so high. However I believe it is 400 as a sort of looking to the future kind of deal kind of how the buff coin sinks for lvl 3 are so high perhaps…


#6

Ah did not see that way make sence its helping to get more non members still think cap need raise a little guilds allready full fast


#7

The Aquatopia community alone is enough to fill up a guild, and four factions and still have plenty of people waiting to get in. the guild cap is definitely too low in my opinion. a way to alleviate it would be to make the guilds account wide that way we don’t have to put alts into the guild or in a faction.


#8

I think a different way of ‘paying’ for the buffs would be the best solution. As I’ve mentioned several times already. Like for instance grapple and run, let us fuel next week’s buff by the amount of metres each and every guild member travels. That way even a Level 3 player can help not just the richest player which is totally nuts…

This would make the buffs way more fun and we won’t have a need to join a big guild just for the silly buffs…


#9

They quoted “performance concerns” but I don’t really know if that’s the real reason since we haven’t heard anything other than a small mention. If the reason is the helix coin sink, make it scale with member count. The current system makes no sense when the buffs are only on a few top guilds, if I want to keep the buffs, I can’t join a smaller guild as my main. Small groups should still be able to have buffs, this is how Guild Wars 2 does it. Look at them for examples, that system works well. The current state of guilds encourages weird behavior.


#10

This would be the most logical way to do it.


#11

If they want to use it as a coin sink and can’t be persuaded to use something else instead of coin, then yes, this is the most logical way to do it.

But even when it’s scaling I find it super odd that all buffs need coin to be turned on every week making sure many people can’t really help with it no matter how low the amount would be…


#12

Would be shocked if they could be persuaded to use something else. The game doses need some coin sinks, just not as extreme as this is. or as punishing if you wish to play in a smaller group.


#13

I am not sure how the limits work or don’t work around the guilds and its linking to GC. Overall 100 members is nothing unless it would be across the Account and not count ALTs. Otherwise that would mean a guild of only 10 real people with full ALT accounts… that is totally unacceptable.

Ultimately any small caps on guild numbers does nothing to help the community… and linking a GC component to it just feels wrong and cheap. Which adds to the P2W stigma many players see especially new ones.


#14

If guild buffs are the reasons for why the non-gc guild member cap exists, I would think there should be other ways to fix the problem rather than hampering guild growth.

Putting a hamper on guild growth could even have a negative impact in player retention. For some newbies, getting in an active guild can make or break the game and, if they suddenly can’t join x guild, that’s more work for them to have to find another guild. Perhaps it seems silly, but this is a game and that first day or 2 can make or break that experience. Before someone gets hooked there’s that fragile period where they could just up and leave with 1 click of the X button.


#15

i told this new player to join my guild he said the book says i need gleamclub pretty embarrassing for me atm ive split up into some different guilds
and make sure im not pushing GC to newplayers anymore lol
now i precheck the guildbook lol


#16

This is key! We all know how much Moebius promotes new players and helps them out… him being capped because of some GC limit for one of the most important aspects of the game - guilds - is really BAD.


#17

Yeah, this is exactly what you should not have to do. lol

And to have to split things into different guilds. I can only imagine how expensive that gets, especially considering buffs. This is a city building game with mechanics that encourage people working together, so why cap that and go against what this game is about?


#18

my guess to keep server costs down would make sense why the cap boost is tied to GC still best idea i can come up with


#19

thats allready a problem yesterday we where removing alts and disconected roads out off the guild settlement to make room
i would need at least enough spots to combine all the beacons in my city that want to be aligned together


#20

yea I really think this limit needs to be increased. We’re going to have to kick people and turn them away :(.