pointless guild cap

[ipwnu]

just curious as to when the guild cap is going to be made higher as have come to the conclusion that several guilds are already cycling members ie booting when peeps log and readding to effectively have 35-40 members. This completely goes against the spirit of the guild cap to the point its completely pointless.

maybe 35-40 as a standard amount ?

 

[Adv]

Yeah I'm not entirely convinced by the necessity for a guild cap on Mir. End of the day a guild with 100 people will generate more discontent due to human nature, and squabbling over the sharing of items over a broader member base inevitably leads to collapse anyway.

Smaller tighter guilds have historically stood the test of time with Mir and as a result, been stronger. With a few exceptions of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JustAUser]

48h CD on kicked and reguilded characters. =)

 

[KingCobra92]

Agreed , bigger guilds are much harder to manage as you need to share items out between more people inevitably causing discontent.

However there are are to many weak guilds on here who cry everytime they get battered by core/tribal that this probably won't happen

 

[ipwnu]

Agreed , bigger guilds are much harder to manage as you need to share items out between more people inevitably causing discontent.

However there are are to many weak guilds on here who cry everytime they get battered by core/tribal that this probably won't happen

Of course they are getting battered you guys have a lot more members

 

[Adv]

Of course they are getting battered you guys have a lot more members

Countering your original post here lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ipwnu]

Countering your original post here lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In what way does it counter my original post cap is 25 we have 25 members. Other guilds are cycling members so have 35-40 active members of course they will dominate.

If cap was 40 everyone would have 40 members there's loads of people guildless.

What's the point of a guild cap if people are having more members anyway.
We will start cycling members but again this just removes the point of the very low member guild cap why not just make it higher so everyone can have 40 members.

We have had to turn away a lot of members only to find out other guilds are cycling completely removing the spirit of the cap in the first place

 

[Adv]

The guild as a whole is more active, due to cycling who's online at the time. So let's say they have 25 people online at all times, and you don't, then you're going to be outnumbered.

Not gonna debate it cause I agree the cap should be removed, but if they have more members, in or out, then they're going to win anyway, if your point is numbers wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ipwnu]

The guild as a whole is more active, due to cycling who's online at the time. So let's say they have 25 people online at all times, and you don't, then you're going to be outnumbered.

Not gonna debate it cause I agree the cap should be removed, but if they have more members, in or out, then they're going to win anyway, if your point is numbers wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't understand your point ? A guild that is cycling 40 members has a massive advantage over a smaller guild as they will always have more members.

This leads to everyone having to cycle removing the whole point of the guild cap if every guild is going to have to cycle to compete the cap is useless as a feature

 

[Adv]

Yeah, and so they should? 100 people are always gonna beat 50. Regardless of if they're on guild attack or group attack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nigelfarage]

i don't like it either

 

[Pez]

Would love to get a response from Jamie on this. There is a clear and present problem with guilds hitting caps and hve to kick people to remain competitive. I hope Jamie does give in a little and increases the cap as a trial to see how it goes.

 

[Koriban]

Atm in CORE we have yet to ever have 25 people online at any one time. We just kick out the person who's not been on the longest if we need to reguild someone who's more of a casual player.

Upping it would save us this 5second hassle and perhaps give guilds who need numbers to win a better chance at fighting?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ipwnu]

Atm in CORE we have yet to ever have 25 people online at any one time. We just kick out the person who's not been on the longest if we need to reguild someone who's more of a casual player.

Upping it would save us this 5second hassle and perhaps give guilds who need numbers to win a better chance at fighting?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

having 25 ONLINE isn't the issue its the pool that guilds that are doing this have to select from , if you have a pool of 25 players to select from chances are you will never get more than 10-15 online (at a good time) if you have a pool of 40 people choose from then obviously there will be more people on more of the time.

if people are just booting and reading people then the cap isn't even slightly working and is only disadvantaging the smaller guilds who are atm following the cap as it is supposed to be.

"guilds who need numbers to win" considering you just admitting your guild are going around the cap to have a higher pool to choose from it sounds a bit stupid.

if people are actively going around a 25 guild cap what is the point of setting it at that It either needs making higher OR he needs to find a way to stop people readding every 24 hours.

 

[Incredulous]

having 25 ONLINE isn't the issue its the pool that guilds that are doing this have to select from , if you have a pool of 25 players to select from chances are you will never get more than 10-15 online (at a good time) if you have a pool of 40 people choose from then obviously there will be more people on more of the time.

if people are just booting and reading people then the cap isn't even slightly working and is only disadvantaging the smaller guilds who are atm following the cap as it is supposed to be.

"guilds who need numbers to win" considering you just admitting your guild are going around the cap to have a higher pool to choose from it sounds a bit stupid.

Stop crying.

 

[Koriban]

having 25 ONLINE isn't the issue its the pool that guilds that are doing this have to select from , if you have a pool of 25 players to select from chances are you will never get more than 10-15 online (at a good time) if you have a pool of 40 people choose from then obviously there will be more people on more of the time.

if people are just booting and reading people then the cap isn't even slightly working and is only disadvantaging the smaller guilds who are atm following the cap as it is supposed to be.

"guilds who need numbers to win" considering you just admitting your guild are going around the cap to have a higher pool to choose from it sounds a bit stupid.

if people are actively going around a 25 guild cap what is the point of setting it at that It either needs making higher OR he needs to find a way to stop people readding every 24 hours.

It would make zero difference for us if he stopped us readding people every 24hours. Frankly all you would be doing is punishing casual players. In that case - we just simply wouldn't reguild them - no big loss, they're not a part of the core group of players we created the guild for any way.

I think you're making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. If the guild cap was 40 and we somehow started losing fights, we'd obviously just start recruiting too, rather than stay at our core. Then you'd be back at the same point where we are now but with far less guilds in-game.