Upcoming change to Alliance Cap with Update 7.100

[DEV-Tiggs 4,034]

Alliances were designed to help the smaller guilds align their forces to be on an even footing with larger guilds.

With the launch of Update 7.100, the max number of members in an alliance will be locked at 500 players. If a guild within the alliance adds members which pushes the alliance over the maximum cap of 500 players, that guild will automatically be removed from the Alliance.

[blazzen 4,632]

8 minutes ago, ACE-Tiggs said:

Alliances were designed to help the smaller guilds align their forces to be on an even footing with larger guilds.

With the launch of Update 7.100, the max number of members in an alliance will be locked at 500 players. If a guild within the alliance adds members which pushes the alliance over the maximum cap of 500 players, that guild will automatically be removed from the Alliance.

How are those 500 players counted?

1. Are they based on number of accounts locked to that campaign within the alliance?
2. Are they based on the number of members each guild has based on overall roster size on the crowfall.com guild management section of the website?

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by blazzen

[DEV-Tiggs 4,034]

1 minute ago, blazzen said:

How are those 500 players counted?

1. Are they based on number of accounts locked to that campaign within the alliance?
2. Are they based on the number of members each guild has based on overall roster size?

 

 

1. This is based upon current members of the the guild, not campaigns
2. It is based upon what is listed for each guild at https://crowfall.com/guild   

[Thimble 136]

What about people who haven't logged in in a month? Is the goal to incentivize guilds to boot inactive members rather than giving them a few months to come back? If people who are inactive are counting against the alliance cap, I can see that being a problem for guilds that want to give people a chance to come back after a break.

[Recatek 413]

1 minute ago, Thimble said:

What about people who haven't logged in in a month? Is the goal to incentivize guilds to boot inactive members rather than giving them a few months to come back? If people who are inactive are counting against the alliance cap, I can see that being a problem for guilds that want to give people a chance to come back after a break.

Reinvite them?

[Hiahio 23]

1 minute ago, Thimble said:

What about people who haven't logged in in a month? Is the goal to incentivize guilds to boot inactive members rather than giving them a few months to come back? If people who are inactive are counting against the alliance cap, I can see that being a problem for guilds that want to give people a chance to come back after a break.

It doesn't mean that is a "goal" of this change, it just means its a side effect. 

[Angelmar 1,889]

A step in the right direction. 2500 man alliances was and is nuts in a game with 200-250 zone pop caps.

Can see argument for CF.com numbers (gives guild leaders ability to control their rosters and population).   

Flip side in CW counts would allow guilds to keep their inactives on their roster.  If it was technology-wise feasible the in CW counts would be better, but probably would need a lower alliance cap (like 250-350).

[Vaporum 12]

It could alleviate a lot of toil if it was maybe instead capped at the campaign level (perhaps a bit lower). Also opens the door for certain campaigns to be scaled for smaller guilds.

Essentially - only allow X amount from an alliance to join the campaign, and after the threshold is met then no more can join.

Though I suppose with persistent worlds coming later on, and overall cap also makes sense to implement.

[Beatsmaster 3]

10 minutes ago, Angelmar said:

2500 man alliances was and is nuts in a game with 200-250 zone pop caps.

2500 eh? So you've trimmed down some fat I see...

[UnderGrowth 214]

500 is a start. I feel that there maybe should be a per guild cap to join an alliance also. But I guess the only intent here is to align the alliance cap with guild caps.

I imagine a lot of alt guilds are about to be made.

Something I would really like to see is dregs with a member join per guild limit, in conjunction with multiple of them running side by side for each region.

[mandalore 3,225]

33 minutes ago, ACE-Tiggs said:

 

1. This is based upon current members of the the guild, not campaigns
2. It is based upon what is listed for each guild at https://crowfall.com/guild   

Well that’s going to be interesting for the current alliances.  When does this go into effect?

[Thimble 136]

37 minutes ago, Recatek said:

Reinvite them?

Yes, that much is obvious. But what should also be obvious is that any disincentive to come back to the game is bad. I would imagine that, for many people, being kicked from your guild would be disincentive to come back. I'd much prefer if people whose last login date was over a month ago didn't count toward the cap. That should be easy to do programmatically, though the difficult part would be what happens if that person coming back suddenly invalidates an entire guild in the alliance. But you run into that problem already with recruitment.

[DEV-Tiggs 4,034]

16 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Well that’s going to be interesting for the current alliances.  When does this go into effect?

 

1 hour ago, ACE-Tiggs said:

With the launch of Update 7.100

 

[Recatek 413]

2 minutes ago, Thimble said:

Yes, that much is obvious. But what should also be obvious is that any disincentive to come back to the game is bad. I would imagine that, for many people, being kicked from your guild would be disincentive to come back. I'd much prefer if people whose last login date was over a month ago didn't count toward the cap. That should be easy to do programmatically, though the difficult part would be what happens if that person coming back suddenly invalidates an entire guild in the alliance. But you run into that problem already with recruitment.

What are you going to tell them instead? "No, you're not allowed in this campaign, you'll ruin it for the rest of us, go twiddle your thumbs for a month in God's Reach."

[mandalore 3,225]

2 minutes ago, ACE-Tiggs said:

 

 

Yes I was asking if there’s an idea of when so guilds have time to go through their hundreds of inactive players and see who’s going to be playing and who’s not so they can plan accordingly.  It would be nice to have a deadline so people can plan out their new guild sizes instead of a few days notice.  It’s a pretty substantial amount of work for people like Blazzen who have large alliances of inactive soldiers.  

[Thimble 136]

1 minute ago, Recatek said:

What are you going to tell them instead? "No, you're not allowed in this campaign, you'll ruin it for the rest of us, go twiddle your thumbs for a month in God's Reach."

Obviously not, that would be pretty terrible.

In case I wasn't clear, I want inactive people not to count for this cap because I don't want to have to kick inactive people just to compete.

[Recatek 413]

2 minutes ago, Thimble said:

Obviously not, that would be pretty terrible.

In case I wasn't clear, I want inactive people not to count for this cap because I don't want to have to kick inactive people just to compete.

Guild pruning is a pretty standard practice IMO. Nothing says you have to boot them from your discord etc. if they decide to come back. Would be weird if the mere act of a guild member logging on, or clicking "enter world" suddenly cast your alliance into turmoil by booting you from it. Imagine that happening during a siege.

[McTan 3,103]

11 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Yes I was asking if there’s an idea of when so guilds have time to go through their hundreds of inactive players and see who’s going to be playing and who’s not so they can plan accordingly.  It would be nice to have a deadline so people can plan out their new guild sizes instead of a few days notice.  It’s a pretty substantial amount of work for people like Blazzen who have large alliances of inactive soldiers.  

Yeah, we just did ours in MWH, it would also be a nice QOL if there was a check-box so you can remove people in clumps instead of one at a time. 

Better would be campaign slots instead of roster slots

Edited August 13, 2021 by McTan

[McTan 3,103]

16 minutes ago, Recatek said:

Guild pruning is a pretty standard practice IMO. Nothing says you have to boot them from your discord etc. if they decide to come back. Would be weird if the mere act of a guild member logging on, or clicking "enter world" suddenly cast your alliance into turmoil by booting you from it. Imagine that happening during a siege.

Yeah, but it could run a check where it reads current active members on dregs rosters across your alliance, and if you aren't on the list and try to login and you are 501 it just says "alliance is at cap in this dregs" - seems reasonable to me, eh?

Edited August 13, 2021 by McTan

[Duffy 483]

This particular number isn't a problem, but continuing to push the number down as some suggest doesn't hurt the blobs as much as you think it does. It will punish the smaller folks way more as the blobs just separate their logistics from their combat core and the game shifts more to who can maintain the highest concurrency the longest (game is already there but you can at least offset it with averages from larger numbers). The lower the caps go the more it sets a standard requirement of time per slot that just pushes people out of the game and the community, to ultimately have little to no effect on the players this change is meant to "inhibit" cause they don't mind jumping through hoops to win.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Duffy