Curse

Whosa Skylore · Mar 05, 2005, 10:33 PM // 22:33

well the guild cap has been raised to 100 and im wondering if anyone thought it was bad. ive heard many people say that the guild cap was to small but never heard anyone say anything else. well i say no but i dont care that much i think guilds should stay small and be more of a family, and if you kkept the guild cap low that would encourage guilds to get to know each other and than making there guild play better. what do you all think??

ps- i would post a poll but i dont know how yet

BlackArrow · Mar 05, 2005, 10:45 PM // 22:45

I'm very glad about the cap raise. I do agree about small guilds being like family but having more people online to play with that you know is great too.

100 is the perfect number IMO although there may be a few much larger guilds comgin from other games that would want a higher cap.

Aria · Mar 05, 2005, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Well.. the way I think about it is that there's nothing stopping you at all from making a small, intimate group.

The best example? There's one especially famous close-knit group that is very famous, but very small. The limit cap doesn't matter if you want to be small.. since you don't necessarily have to conform to what everyone else does. And, the small, exclusive groups can be just as yearned for and popular as the big, casual guilds.

On the other hand, however, if you do want to have a big happy casual community (like the GWOnline guild), it's hard to have only 50 members because you slam your head on the member limit pretty early on.

Of course, the main reason that I'm ecstatic over this change is purely out of blatant self-interest.

A higher limit means that I might be able to add a second account to my guild without being eaten up by guilt in taking up a valuable member spot.. and I bet that also goes for some who have more than two accounts, also.

One more thing though.. although I love instancing in this game since it eliminates all chances of ksing/camping.. sometimes it gets rather lonely. A big happily chattering guild in the background solves that for me personally. Even if I don't participate and/or stare blankly at my surroundings oblivious to any and all text, all that friendly bantering filling up my screen makes me feel like I'm still a part of a community. But of course, that's just me personally.

Whosa Skylore · Mar 05, 2005, 10:55 PM // 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aria

There's one especially famous close-knit group that is very famous, but very small.

your talking about dragon assassins arnt you

well i agree that the big guilds should have a big cap limit, but i guess i just say no because of my personal oppinion that you should acctually know everyone in your guild, AND everyone should know you

BlackArrow · Mar 05, 2005, 11:02 PM // 23:02

The Remnants of Ascalon have been at the cap for the last few betas and I know everyone in the guild. Having a big guild doesn't mean that you won't know everyone, if you define big by 100 members. If the cap went up to 500 or 1000 or unlimited than there would be guild where you didn't know everyone, but at 50 or 100 it is still very possible to know everyone, as long as they are loyal and stay with the guild for a while.

Whosa Skylore · Mar 05, 2005, 11:13 PM // 23:13

i dont mean know like hey john, or something, i mean like everyone in my guild i know like as a friend like that, and if you can do that with 50 ppl than ill get down on my knees and worship you

Brett Kuntz · Mar 05, 2005, 11:20 PM // 23:20

It's bad, guilds should be small and skillfull, not huge mobs of people so you flukely get some skillfull players. Sports teams don't get to have infinite rosters and neither should guilds. It's not bad bad like the end of the world, I just believe smaller caps like 30 players really causes a guild to think about who's in it, and make choices about who they accept.

As long as they prevent powerhouse guilds from dominating by limiting 1 GvG per guild at a time, and 1 Tombs guild at a time, it'll be all good. But something tells me they wont, and tombs will come down to how many team you can get going at once. Imagine for a moment slamming 10 tomb teams in there, and when you start to climb higher and get to the multi-team maps, you can just ally with your other guild teams and zerg the other guys, before fighting each other...

You guild will stand an insanely higher chance at holding HoH, and it wont be from skill, just because you have a 100 man guild.

BlackArrow · Mar 05, 2005, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunt0r

You guild will stand an insanely higher chance at holding HoH, and it wont be from skill, just because you have a 100 man guild.

This is true, but unless the guild has alot of skileld players there is a great chance that the guild will never meet each other in the tombs. As long as there are enough teams in the tombs, they will have to go through the lower levels, where alot of decent teams can be defeated by a more skilled team.

If two teams from the same guild meet up before the HoH, it probably means that one of them would make it farther, but it still trims the teams down and now that guild has one less team to capture the HoH with.

I'd be more concerned about a medium sized guild sending in 2 or 3 very skilled teams than a huge guild sending in 10 teams of varying skill.

Your concern is valid though,a nd the only way to combat this wouldbe to limit the number of teams in the tombs form a guild to 1.

But where does that leaves PUGs? If my guild has a team in the tombs and I want to play and all I can find is a PUG, am I not allowed in? Honestly I would enjoy battling my own guild mates in the tombs.

Brett Kuntz · Mar 05, 2005, 11:43 PM // 23:43

Well there will eventually be guilds with 75+ members who have insane skills, and they will have an upper hand in both GvG and Tombs because of this. If a smaller guild of leet player sent two teams, and a huge guild sent two teams of leet players and ten teams of average players, they still have a much higher chance.

GvG is a bit different since it's always (?) 1:1. In GvG guild size wont matter in the lower ranks, but in the top 10, the guilds will be ranked purely on guild size, not skill. The top 10 guilds will have players of roughly the same skill level, but if the #1 guild can have ten teams of leet players playing in ten matches at once, and #2 can only have one team of leets playing, the guild in #1 will achieve 10x more victory points per time played. Even if guild #2 always played guild #3 and always wins, and guild #1 plays guilds #4-#14 and only wins 6 of the 10 matches, both guilds will break even against each other. Guild #1 will still be as far ahead of guild #2. Now if guild #1 wins all 10 matches over and over, they'll accelerate beyond guild #2 at a rate guild #2 will never catch up to. Even if guild #2 plays guild #1 daily and always wins, the sheer amount of rank points guild #1 farms from having ten matches going all the time, guild #1 never has to worry about guild #2 catching them.

BlackArrow · Mar 05, 2005, 11:59 PM // 23:59

I understand what you're saying now. i think the GvG problem is already solved since you cannot have more than 1 team playing at once. (Pretty sure of this at least).

Would you limit each guild to only one team in tombs then? I guess I woulnd't have a problem with this. My guild didn't have a team in tombs very often and never had 2 teams. At one point last beta we had 1 team in GvG and 1 team in the tombs. But we are not extremely focused on PvP as some guilds are.

Brett Kuntz · Mar 06, 2005, 12:05 AM // 00:05

Tombs...they could make it so no two guild teams match up in the same round unless both make it to HoH (or just have the extra guild teams sit-out so theres only one in HoH). If there's just one guild member on a team, and another guild member on another team, no reason to limit them from facing off, but as soon as it's say 4 guilds + 4 other people against another team much like that, should hook them up in another round so they don't see each other.

But maybe Anet wants guild/team alliances in tomb's, who knows. Always thought they wanted tombs to be a true test of player skill, and not whos guild is bigger or who's made the most friends for alliances. But maybe GvG is for the true test (if they do limit GvG's to 1 per guild).

Whosa Skylore · Mar 06, 2005, 12:14 AM // 00:14

well, i dont like 100 player guilds, but id be more affraid of an 8 player guild with skilled players, because they would all know each others skills and know there weaknesses and streanghts and be able to make kick ass team builds, but if you have 100 players, its to many to make team builds cause you never know who your playing with (know as in skills and stuff)

BlackArrow · Mar 06, 2005, 01:05 AM // 01:05

If your guild is organzied to do so, you can know the skills of the peopel you're playing with very well. We have divided our guild up into militias mostly based on time zone. Each militia has between 8 and 15 players and the goal is to ahve these groups play together alot in both PvP and PvE. We aren't restricted to playing only with people from our milita since but it is recommended to do so on a regular basis. Fortunatly we are a socialible guild and interact outside of our militias much more than in them. In beta we havn't played much as militia's but once GW is released we will paly more toegther to learn each others strengths and weaknessess much more than we would just playing with random guild teams.

Dovi the Monk · Mar 06, 2005, 01:26 AM // 01:26

wel guys why are we all talking about more then one team from each guild going into battle, i thought that only one team could pvp at a time. or atleast last beta if 2 teams were ready it wouldnt work cause aomeone was already in gvg, so all this talk about a 10 groups being able to have more matches is incorrect at this time, and i think it will stay like it is now. gw is all about fair and will know about this and take it into consideration im sure and in that keep things how they are, only 1 gvg and 1 tombs at a time.

i lie the new cap, RoA has been hoping for this for awhile, because now we can let in more members that looked like good canidates but just didnt stand out into r guild. and some huge guilds may hve some trouble staying together, but i can honestly say i think ive talked to everyone in my guild who has AIM at one time, and know each other from the forums or exploring/gvgin in game. we may not be exact best friends but i still know just about everyone in the guild. To help, putting teams/militias together help the whole knowing each otheres strengths and weaknesses, while u can still explore or get random gvgs together with other ppl.

Ensign · Mar 06, 2005, 01:30 AM // 01:30

The number of quality squads isn't affected in any way - just the banners they may wear.

I don't see how you could argue this is a bad thing. Some people prefer smaller guilds, and this change doesn't affect them. Some like the large, community guilds and this just gives them that option.

It doesn't affect competitive balance in any way, and you don't have to take advantage of it if you don't want to. Certainly not a critical change, but a welcome one.

Peace,
-CxE

Keramon · Mar 06, 2005, 02:21 AM // 02:21

I agree with Ensign on this one... I don't think it makes a great change, it just provides people with more options to go with guild structures that they like.

My prediction however is that majority of the "top" teams will have around 20ish players and heavily geared towards strategy. The larger guilds will contain both casual and regular gamers and will cater better to those who like social interaction and the ability to PvP or PvE when they wish.

Dragonne · Mar 06, 2005, 03:45 AM // 03:45

The GW economy will suffer even more with larger guilds. Trading will become even less public as larger guilds become their own community and retain everything they find within themselves. If it wasn't for this, I wouldn't care if guilds had a million members, but this is where the game experience of everyone else will be affected and that's where it does matter to everyone.

More and more GW sinks into the depths of the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" economy.

What a shame.

Freyas · Mar 06, 2005, 10:34 AM // 10:34

I definately like the change. Since GvG combat is limited to one group at a time, a large guild has no advantage over a small guild when it comes to rankings on the ladder- if they play GvG with more people, they'll actually generally do worse than a smaller tight-knit guild with skilled players, since they'll lose ranking for those losses when they're not fielding their optimum team, and run into skilled guilds.

Raising the guild caps allows larger, social guilds to play together.... 100 is not large enough for some(Amazon Basin comes to mind), but is much better than 50. Some guilds don't care about playing for a spot on the ladder, but instead just to hang out with friends and acquaintances. Being in a guild can help out a lot due to the ease of communication through guild chat, and having the guild hall as a common place to hang out or meet up with each other.

kee mo saw bey · Mar 06, 2005, 01:58 PM // 13:58

While it increases the ability for one guild to control the "Rares", its still manageable.

Lets say there are 6 "rare" hammers that every warrior would seel their soul to gain. Guild "Scammers" decides to corner the market on the 6 hammers and gets them. Then they "loan" them out to other guilds at horrible rates or use them to do horrible things that impact the flow of the game.

As long as the GW staff and volunteers realise this process can, is happening, they can adjust the market to reduce the impact (If the impact becomes important). The day after Guild "Scammers" corners the market, GW staff can introduce new rares/ flood the market. Nerf the attribute, etc to eliminate the value of the rare.

Ensign · Mar 06, 2005, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by kee mo saw bey

Lets say there are 6 "rare" hammers that every warrior would seel their soul to gain.

If this is ever the situation, your economy is already so FUBAR that the additional concern of a single guild buying up these limited resources is just an afterthought.

Peace,
-CxE