ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited June 2015
That's something large enough guilds do. It's annoying and irritating to say the least.
Over the last two years the guild I joined early on grew to a point where they removed inactive account's alternate characters until they reached the point they had to limit the guild to three main characters and a formed a guild purely for alternate characters.
No community wants to remove inactive players from their roster. You want people to know if they decide to come back to the game in a year they still have a home and not show up to find a "you have been thrown out on your rear end" message.
Guilds are not just hard core, make the game your job, show up or be fired PvP guilds. Most guilds are communities. Friends. It is the vocal minority which talk about removing old friends from the roster like yesterday's news.
Yes it is possible to set up a channel and go through hoops. It's not fun. And will be even less fun when alternate guilds don't only have less bank space but also have additional Stronghold requirements. The cap should have been raised and not reduced...
However, the whole previous page is silliness. That behavior won't get things changed.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited June 2015
Not sure what you are talking about. The guild cap limit up until a few days ago was 500 characters. That was the only limit.
But it was a frustrating limit as, well, this is a D&D game. D&D Players are altoholics by nature. I am 100% confident that most active players not looking to be a part of a PvP guild have more than 2-4 characters even if they don't often play a lot of them. This means that even if every account only had 3 characters you would reach 500 characters with the 150 account limit.
However with a reality check that is more than likely a minimum. The average is likely closer to 4 which means guilds can only have 125 members whcih is all fine and dandy until you count inactive members or casual members.
150 accounts is a monster of a guild. Two years ago I would have said that it would be absurd to want guilds larger. However with 150 accounts we likely have 75 or more inactive players. Inactive players we are not happy to be removing just because they haven't played in 6 months.
The correct approach is to limit the progression in strongholds to a fair size to have a guild; not limit guild sizes in a game where players, by the admission of the CEO himself, are expected to come and go. Especially when deciding if they will continue to play when they first come back online is likely decided by whether they return to see they still have a guild to say hello to.
@acrofortep11 you know you must not destroy your guild. You cozld simply let it be. You only could not invite new member and for new member you could open a plain Wing-Guild if you wish so.
Platypus wielding a giant hammer, your argument is invalild!
First off, the cloaks have had more than this 150 account limit for years. ACTIVE. I cull inactives religiously, defined as 42 days or more since last login. Have done for as long as the guild has existed - which happens to be as long as the games has existed outside of Cryptic - including closed beta and alpha. So the solution is not as simple as trimming inactives. Hitting the 500 limit is why I started Whitecloaks as a second guild. Then Blackcloaks, then Browncloaks, then Goldcloaks. If you are an open welcoming guild that is friendly for any player, it's easy to get big and stay big. M6 rocked our membership hard, but we're still over the limit. Edit: Since inception, the Cloaks have used a public chat channel as well, so we're already do that as well. That channel is home to members, ex-members and any number of good friends of the Cloaks that never were members. People who prefer being on chat with us than their own guilds...
In terms of "nothing's changed" -- wrong. If you have more than 150 accounts, even if you are under 500 characters, you still cannot invite alts for existing member that would make the 150 limit stay the same. If you are over 150 accounts, you are grandfathered in by having a stasis ray fired at you. If a character, not a member, a character drops for any reason, even if they have other characters in the guild, you can't invite. If you want to move alts from other guilds in, you can't.
Large guilds are banned because they no longer allow large guilds. Simple as that.
Some may argue 150 players is large - ok, but to me, it's something like 1/3 of what the Cloaks populate typically is, and the same is true for every other actual large guild. Until this week, 150 was a medium to small sized guild.
This limit was arbitrary and unannounced until after the fact. It was very poorly played by cryptic. If they needed a way to balance... Fine. I have asked many times to help, to give real feedback, to provide information... My attempts have been directly turned down. I don't trust for a second that feedback given on the forums is given the time of day. I've been told it is, but when I've asked to give my feedback directly I've been turned down flat. I'm not typically one of the raging babies on these forums. But this one is personal. I'm proud to have helped thousands of players - not kidding here THOUSANDS - find some fun in Neverwinter though their time in the Cloaks. Cryptic, though this arbitrary action, has thumbed it nose at me, and all those thousands of players.
I hope there's something magical to m7 that will make up for this. I hope it's just their communication was mishandled and that m7 will bring some new features that will allow us to still play a home to thousands without me having to spend hours a week changing from one toon to another in order to manage everything.
Maybe. But right now... All I see is another example of Cryptic treating it's most active players like garbage.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
What are the technical limits?
And what are the in-game repercussions that we're trying to avoid?
Yes, the Devs are responsible for programming the game, but we're the ones playing it. At the end of the day, the players MAKE the game what is is, not the Developers.
So we need to talk.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I've asked for it, more than once (nicely, I might add - I'm not usually this vitriolic) and have been turned down flat. They don't want any two-way dialog, and they only seem to want to hear praise, not "concerns"
I wonder, when the gamer media (Massively, etc) get wind that Cryptic has decided to only allow small and medium sized guilds, what they'll say about it. 150 member max for a guild is the smallest limit I've ever seen in an MMO. I guess we'll see though.
It can't be technical the limit on instances now is like, what, 40 or 50 maybe before things basically become unplayable?
I'm starting to wonder if they are planning on trying to allow a lot more than 40 - 50 players on a map at once , have you seen the size of the strongholds pve and pvp maps? they are massive , the pvp map being so big with only 20 odd people on each side would be silly .
0
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
We have more than 150 different accounts in CA... with just over 350 toons. Our issue right now is not our number of members but the number of accounts. I believe that many of our founders toons have been removed from the guild.
I believe that we may all have to create one of two Alt oriented guilds for each larger guild. I am sure that has been a topic of discussion in every large guild, since the blog post went live.
Atwil "At" - Tiefling TR / Saardush - Black Dragonborn GWF / White - Tiefling OP
Ok guys, let me put this straight. Strongholds will offer various bonuses, such as boons and other stuff. The more players benefit from "one" Stronghold the less incentive they have to spend $ to upgrade another. If there's gonna be 20 or 50 Strongholds, they cant allow the playerbase to spit only between 3-5 very big guilds.
What's more, the more small and medium size guilds fight against each other the more each player will have to invesnt in their character to stay relevant in pvp. While in big guilds it would be more like "dont worry man, our elite group of 20 will win this fight so the rest of you can benefit from it with very little effort or $ spent".
There's an old proverb which says "where two fight, the thrid gain".
1: Why use the word ban? Because that's what they've done. I use the word with specific determination. They no longer allow large guilds in the game - aka, they are banned. They "grandfather" existing large guilds (sort of), but no longer can any guild be what was once considered large in this game. It's not hyperbole, it's fact - the word usage is correct and deliberate. As a matter of fact, changing it would simply prove everything I've been saying correct. Rather than hide the truth, I want to hear real, rational explanations for this. A mod saying he would change/delete this thread if he could because he personally disagrees with it's content... that's just an abusive and unproductive comment. It's true, I'm upset here and venting a little (a lot) but I have good reason to be upset. Pseudo-authority figures saying they personally disagree with my word usage and would censor me if possible is a very clear and blatant misuse of power and authority. I won't delve into that trap any further, this thread is about Cryptics BAN on large guilds and their unwillingness to hear player concerns, not the ongoing debate about moderation on these forums. PLEASE leave that discussion to another thread. And Mods - as you always say to us - if you have a problem with something, PM me. I'll respond in public if you do, but I won't if you don't. But don't give me some power-tripping do as I say, not as I do <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. I'm 40 years old, not 4.
2: @quspiv - I think you make a good point, one I've considered the most likely reason for this all along. money. They want to increase the overall number of guilds and slow the overall production of a fully build Stronghold, by reducing the number of players that can contribute so that more resources are expended across more guilds. Also, of course, more guilds make the module sound more successful and expansive too.
3: @iambecks1 - It's entirely possible they are going to improve their tech to allow more people in. Of course, we already know how well the client works with 30 or 40 characters blasting away with all their effects, so forget the server-side tech, the client and the machines running them, can't handle that sort of thing. I doubt very much they can improved the technology of the game for m7 to allow for so many players on the map fighting at once that 150 accounts was a required limit. How many guilds have that many players online at once anyway? None, that's how many. Cloaks, at peek, doesn't have more than 30 except on really rare occasions. It's usually between 15 and 20 at peek times, and more like 5-8 or so off peek. Again, I don't buy the technical argument as anything more than spin.
4: @mrgiggles212 - I've considered voting with my feet, but I still feel responsible for the hundreds of players currently in the Cloaks, and all things considered, I *enjoy* Neverwinter as a game. As I've said already, I can handle the nerfs and difficulty and bugs - but this is something else entirely. This is being told the community I've built was too good to be allowed to thrive. That's completely different than making me do 10% less damage or whatever.
No, I'm not quitting over this - not yet anyway. I want to see how this all pans out. As I've said, m7 may hold some additional surprises that, at least partially, make up for them removing (aka: BANNING), or "phasing out" large guilds from their game. A big map and resource sinks are not going to do that - only something that would truly enhance the community aspect of guilds can make up for that, not just another way to spend resources for new stuff. That won't make up for what they've done here.
So... what guilds were banned? I am presuming since the OP used a plural that it have been quite a few guilds.
Cryptic banned the ability to HAVE large guilds in the game. No specific guild was targeted. ALL guilds over 150 accounts can no longer add new member, or even new characters even if they're under the 500 character limit and that character belongs to someone already in the guild (meaning it's account count neutral). They are phasing out the ability to have guilds with more than 150 members whereas before, we could have up to 500 (and many of us did have that, and more using multiple guilds).
Guilds with more than 150 accounts are "grandfathered" but no guild under 150 accounts can go above it. So - large guilds (as a whole) are no longer allowed - aka, banned - in the game. I use the word deliberately. Say tomorrow, they decided that the letter O was no longer allowed in Character names but that they wouldn't force anyone with that letter to change their name. Still, the letter O would be banned because no new character could ever have that letter in their name. Same thing here. Large guilds have been banned and they've instituted a phase-out process for guilds already over the limit.
EDIT: I know of many guilds that would fit into the category, so yes, it's plural and effects easily several thousand players.
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
Yeah... Civil Anarchy is on a freeze. As I said we will have to break off into another sister/brother guild. Mostly because we have over 150 accounts in the guild.
Atwil "At" - Tiefling TR / Saardush - Black Dragonborn GWF / White - Tiefling OP
Cryptic banned the ability to HAVE large guilds in the game. No specific guild was targeted. ALL guilds over 150 accounts can no longer add new member, or even new characters even if they're under the 500 character limit and that character belongs to someone already in the guild (meaning it's account count neutral).
Sounds like a but, you should report it.
Platypus wielding a giant hammer, your argument is invalild!
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Then why was such important news NOT featured on the launcher where it was supposed to be?
I don't know why it wasn't or even if it wasn't. Honestly I'd say it was likely there and was missed but I didn't think to check. I happened to see it on the main page when it was put up and thought nothing more of it other than the fact I did not like the change.
Either way, to be blunt as a player, always check the main page of a website. Not all news goes to the launcher of any game. Honestly although a lot of stuff changed behind the scenes, which I don't like either, I have been rather surprised that virtually all news, if not all news, that is on the website is on the launcher. Most games don't put half as much on the launcher as they do...
@ambisinisterr and no, I did not miss that post. Did you miss this part? "Starting immediately, we will be reducing the guild cap in Neverwinter to 150 accounts and 500 characters on both PC and Xbox One."
As in, "This change has already happened, deal with it. Oh, and here's some spin that don't really make a lot of sense we think you should accept without question as the reason we've already made this change."
"This will be happening when m7 drops. We're not ready to announce a release date yet, but please begin preparing for it now if it affects you since we know those of you it will effect will have to handle whatever changes you need to make by coordinating with hundreds of players. Since we understand that's a lot of effort and time, we're giving you plenty of notice so that you can start planning whatever changes you feel necessary for your guild."
But no, instead of showing concern for their most active players, they show - again - how little regard they hold for us.
@ambisinisterr and no, I did not miss that post. Did you miss this part? "Starting immediately, we will be reducing the guild cap in Neverwinter to 150 accounts and 500 characters on both PC and Xbox One."
As in, "This change has already happened, deal with it. Oh, and here's some spin that don't really make a lot of sense we think you should accept without question as the reason we've already made this change."
I was talking to the people who are complaining it was not announced when it was.
And then using logic to know that moaning about a lack of notice is pointless. Focus on the problem which is the fact it is not enough space for guilds. Anything else is just going to come off as whining which will not get the developers to understand the complaints.
I was talking to the people who are complaining it was not announced when it was.
And then using logic to know that moaning about a lack of notice is pointless. Focus on the problem which is the fact it is not enough space for guilds. Anything else is just going to come off as whining which will not get the developers to understand the complaints.
sorry, I guess I am being a bit touchy... this whole situation has me very frustrated.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
To that I don't blame you.
Although I personally didn't push it that much the guild limit has been a serious inconvenience for months now to my guild and others. Constantly figuring out who the prune because of the character limit was frustrating enough without an account limit.
To that I have said I am not happy on either end. We as a player base wanted an increase, not a decrease.
To the complaining of the notification, whether or not you feel that way it is irrelevant to the problem and detracts from the true reason for even making this thread which is that guilds are frustrated with the current limits so putting more limitations is the absolute wrong thing to do.
Whatever the reason for the change needs to be re-examined particularly if it has to do with upkeep or advancement costs.
rickcase276Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,404Arc User
Now my guild has the opposite problem. At the moment I am the only active member of it, or at least I am the only one that has characters over the level of 60. There were probably 15 different accounts in the guild at one time, but most seem to have stopped playing around Mod 4-5. I had to assume control of it, for fear that if I did not I would not be able to do anything in Strongholds. But there is no way I would even think about doing any of the PvP content, obviously. That being said, I am not changing guilds. I will do what I can in the new Mod, and go from there.
imho, letting it be would cause more harm to smaller guilds since large guilds would just keep on getting bigger. Lets be honest here, majority, if not all, of the new players and guildless people would join the guild that would best benefit them and without the 150 account cap, that would point only to the current large guilds.
Correct, 500 characters per guild has been the limit the whole time, and was the expectation going into m7. Many of us have been advocating for raising the limit (I personally, have suggest 2000) because we don't like having to manage many separate guilds. I manage FIVE of them. If you've ever had to deal with one largish guild, imagine multiplying the tasks by 5. As Ambi said, we were looking for an expansion, not a massive reduction.
And anyway, what harm is there? So what if your smaller guild is slower to build than a larger one? Is this PvP compulsory? I can't imagine is would be. So, don't compete in PvP if you're a PvE-oriented small guild. Even if you do compete and are beating - so what? Will Strongholds suddenly do something Cryptic has NEVER done in any of its games ever and have an actual penalty for losing other than reduced or no rewards? I very much doubt it.
I was doing some research into other games and what their max guild sizes are. WoW is 1000, ESO is either 300 or 500, I saw conflicting things. GW2 has a paid scale - it starts small, and you can buy higher tiers to increase the limit with tier 1 starting at 50 and tier 6 is 500. 500 member limit with game called Guild Wars. Ironic that the newest module in Neverwinter is at least in large part about guild warfare and in doing so, causes Neverwinter to be the game with the smallest guilds max. Funny. ha. ha.
It was announced AFTER the hotfix, NOT before. No warning, no nothing. Seriously, stop defending the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> move on cryptic's behalf, even if they needed a change for whatever reason, one should warn the player base and not <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> everyone off with a sudden hotfix and no warning.
Um...so what. Nothing is different - you're existing guild is grandfathered in...
[/color][/i]
I don't know, maybe 20 pending people wanting to join the guild and couldn't all of a sudden? Alts forced to stay out because we're not overcapped? We would have changed rules, warn the guildies, prepare with another guild in mind. I personally pulled off a giant change in 24 hours and lost a couple of people because it was too sudden, no guild chat, 2 guilds, it's too much for some.
I was doing some research into other games and what their max guild sizes are. WoW is 1000, ESO is either 300 or 500, I saw conflicting things. GW2 has a paid scale - it starts small, and you can buy higher tiers to increase the limit with tier 1 starting at 50 and tier 6 is 500. 500 member limit with game called Guild Wars. Ironic that the newest module in Neverwinter is at least in large part about guild warfare and in doing so, causes Neverwinter to be the game with the smallest guilds max. Funny. ha. ha.
That doesn't mean they do it on purpose. I saw such things quite often in different companies i worked in and it is simply incompetence or misscommunication not like "we are evil, only want your money AND WANT YOU SEE TO SUFFER *evil laugh*"
It is still a company like any other. And now think on your workplace how many people do their work properly, how many coworker are there that do the job halfassed or are simply dumb (underqualified for the job). I don't want to offend, but <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> happens. It can happens repeatly and i don't say i like, but to say: They do it on purpose to annoy us, is the same to say: They wanna stop us to play their game.
Platypus wielding a giant hammer, your argument is invalild!
But you know that it isn't that easy.
It is not a small company with 10 people. We talking about two companies. Cryptic which develop the and PWE that send E-Mails and stuff and if i understand it correctly dictates Cryptic which changes are made in the game in cooperation of Hasbro and Wizard of the Coast, so it is 4 Companies that have their hand in one software product.
Platypus wielding a giant hammer, your argument is invalild!
Comments
Over the last two years the guild I joined early on grew to a point where they removed inactive account's alternate characters until they reached the point they had to limit the guild to three main characters and a formed a guild purely for alternate characters.
No community wants to remove inactive players from their roster. You want people to know if they decide to come back to the game in a year they still have a home and not show up to find a "you have been thrown out on your rear end" message.
Guilds are not just hard core, make the game your job, show up or be fired PvP guilds. Most guilds are communities. Friends. It is the vocal minority which talk about removing old friends from the roster like yesterday's news.
Yes it is possible to set up a channel and go through hoops. It's not fun. And will be even less fun when alternate guilds don't only have less bank space but also have additional Stronghold requirements. The cap should have been raised and not reduced...
However, the whole previous page is silliness. That behavior won't get things changed.
But it was a frustrating limit as, well, this is a D&D game. D&D Players are altoholics by nature. I am 100% confident that most active players not looking to be a part of a PvP guild have more than 2-4 characters even if they don't often play a lot of them. This means that even if every account only had 3 characters you would reach 500 characters with the 150 account limit.
However with a reality check that is more than likely a minimum. The average is likely closer to 4 which means guilds can only have 125 members whcih is all fine and dandy until you count inactive members or casual members.
150 accounts is a monster of a guild. Two years ago I would have said that it would be absurd to want guilds larger. However with 150 accounts we likely have 75 or more inactive players. Inactive players we are not happy to be removing just because they haven't played in 6 months.
The correct approach is to limit the progression in strongholds to a fair size to have a guild; not limit guild sizes in a game where players, by the admission of the CEO himself, are expected to come and go. Especially when deciding if they will continue to play when they first come back online is likely decided by whether they return to see they still have a guild to say hello to.
In terms of "nothing's changed" -- wrong. If you have more than 150 accounts, even if you are under 500 characters, you still cannot invite alts for existing member that would make the 150 limit stay the same. If you are over 150 accounts, you are grandfathered in by having a stasis ray fired at you. If a character, not a member, a character drops for any reason, even if they have other characters in the guild, you can't invite. If you want to move alts from other guilds in, you can't.
Large guilds are banned because they no longer allow large guilds. Simple as that.
Some may argue 150 players is large - ok, but to me, it's something like 1/3 of what the Cloaks populate typically is, and the same is true for every other actual large guild. Until this week, 150 was a medium to small sized guild.
This limit was arbitrary and unannounced until after the fact. It was very poorly played by cryptic. If they needed a way to balance... Fine. I have asked many times to help, to give real feedback, to provide information... My attempts have been directly turned down. I don't trust for a second that feedback given on the forums is given the time of day. I've been told it is, but when I've asked to give my feedback directly I've been turned down flat. I'm not typically one of the raging babies on these forums. But this one is personal. I'm proud to have helped thousands of players - not kidding here THOUSANDS - find some fun in Neverwinter though their time in the Cloaks. Cryptic, though this arbitrary action, has thumbed it nose at me, and all those thousands of players.
I hope there's something magical to m7 that will make up for this. I hope it's just their communication was mishandled and that m7 will bring some new features that will allow us to still play a home to thousands without me having to spend hours a week changing from one toon to another in order to manage everything.
Maybe. But right now... All I see is another example of Cryptic treating it's most active players like garbage.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I've asked for it, more than once (nicely, I might add - I'm not usually this vitriolic) and have been turned down flat. They don't want any two-way dialog, and they only seem to want to hear praise, not "concerns"
I wonder, when the gamer media (Massively, etc) get wind that Cryptic has decided to only allow small and medium sized guilds, what they'll say about it. 150 member max for a guild is the smallest limit I've ever seen in an MMO. I guess we'll see though.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
I'm starting to wonder if they are planning on trying to allow a lot more than 40 - 50 players on a map at once , have you seen the size of the strongholds pve and pvp maps? they are massive , the pvp map being so big with only 20 odd people on each side would be silly .
I believe that we may all have to create one of two Alt oriented guilds for each larger guild. I am sure that has been a topic of discussion in every large guild, since the blog post went live.
What's more, the more small and medium size guilds fight against each other the more each player will have to invesnt in their character to stay relevant in pvp. While in big guilds it would be more like "dont worry man, our elite group of 20 will win this fight so the rest of you can benefit from it with very little effort or $ spent".
There's an old proverb which says "where two fight, the thrid gain".
2: @quspiv - I think you make a good point, one I've considered the most likely reason for this all along. money. They want to increase the overall number of guilds and slow the overall production of a fully build Stronghold, by reducing the number of players that can contribute so that more resources are expended across more guilds. Also, of course, more guilds make the module sound more successful and expansive too.
3: @iambecks1 - It's entirely possible they are going to improve their tech to allow more people in. Of course, we already know how well the client works with 30 or 40 characters blasting away with all their effects, so forget the server-side tech, the client and the machines running them, can't handle that sort of thing. I doubt very much they can improved the technology of the game for m7 to allow for so many players on the map fighting at once that 150 accounts was a required limit. How many guilds have that many players online at once anyway? None, that's how many. Cloaks, at peek, doesn't have more than 30 except on really rare occasions. It's usually between 15 and 20 at peek times, and more like 5-8 or so off peek. Again, I don't buy the technical argument as anything more than spin.
4: @mrgiggles212 - I've considered voting with my feet, but I still feel responsible for the hundreds of players currently in the Cloaks, and all things considered, I *enjoy* Neverwinter as a game. As I've said already, I can handle the nerfs and difficulty and bugs - but this is something else entirely. This is being told the community I've built was too good to be allowed to thrive. That's completely different than making me do 10% less damage or whatever.
No, I'm not quitting over this - not yet anyway. I want to see how this all pans out. As I've said, m7 may hold some additional surprises that, at least partially, make up for them removing (aka: BANNING), or "phasing out" large guilds from their game. A big map and resource sinks are not going to do that - only something that would truly enhance the community aspect of guilds can make up for that, not just another way to spend resources for new stuff. That won't make up for what they've done here.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
Cryptic banned the ability to HAVE large guilds in the game. No specific guild was targeted. ALL guilds over 150 accounts can no longer add new member, or even new characters even if they're under the 500 character limit and that character belongs to someone already in the guild (meaning it's account count neutral). They are phasing out the ability to have guilds with more than 150 members whereas before, we could have up to 500 (and many of us did have that, and more using multiple guilds).
Guilds with more than 150 accounts are "grandfathered" but no guild under 150 accounts can go above it. So - large guilds (as a whole) are no longer allowed - aka, banned - in the game. I use the word deliberately. Say tomorrow, they decided that the letter O was no longer allowed in Character names but that they wouldn't force anyone with that letter to change their name. Still, the letter O would be banned because no new character could ever have that letter in their name. Same thing here. Large guilds have been banned and they've instituted a phase-out process for guilds already over the limit.
EDIT: I know of many guilds that would fit into the category, so yes, it's plural and effects easily several thousand players.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
Sounds like a but, you should report it.
This is why the word ban is not appropriate...
Nobody has been banned...
I don't know why it wasn't or even if it wasn't. Honestly I'd say it was likely there and was missed but I didn't think to check. I happened to see it on the main page when it was put up and thought nothing more of it other than the fact I did not like the change.
Either way, to be blunt as a player, always check the main page of a website. Not all news goes to the launcher of any game. Honestly although a lot of stuff changed behind the scenes, which I don't like either, I have been rather surprised that virtually all news, if not all news, that is on the website is on the launcher. Most games don't put half as much on the launcher as they do...
As in, "This change has already happened, deal with it. Oh, and here's some spin that don't really make a lot of sense we think you should accept without question as the reason we've already made this change."
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
"This will be happening when m7 drops. We're not ready to announce a release date yet, but please begin preparing for it now if it affects you since we know those of you it will effect will have to handle whatever changes you need to make by coordinating with hundreds of players. Since we understand that's a lot of effort and time, we're giving you plenty of notice so that you can start planning whatever changes you feel necessary for your guild."
But no, instead of showing concern for their most active players, they show - again - how little regard they hold for us.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
I was talking to the people who are complaining it was not announced when it was.
And then using logic to know that moaning about a lack of notice is pointless. Focus on the problem which is the fact it is not enough space for guilds. Anything else is just going to come off as whining which will not get the developers to understand the complaints.
sorry, I guess I am being a bit touchy... this whole situation has me very frustrated.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
Although I personally didn't push it that much the guild limit has been a serious inconvenience for months now to my guild and others. Constantly figuring out who the prune because of the character limit was frustrating enough without an account limit.
To that I have said I am not happy on either end. We as a player base wanted an increase, not a decrease.
To the complaining of the notification, whether or not you feel that way it is irrelevant to the problem and detracts from the true reason for even making this thread which is that guilds are frustrated with the current limits so putting more limitations is the absolute wrong thing to do.
Whatever the reason for the change needs to be re-examined particularly if it has to do with upkeep or advancement costs.
imho, letting it be would cause more harm to smaller guilds since large guilds would just keep on getting bigger. Lets be honest here, majority, if not all, of the new players and guildless people would join the guild that would best benefit them and without the 150 account cap, that would point only to the current large guilds.
afaik the 500 toons per guild was always there.
Correct, 500 characters per guild has been the limit the whole time, and was the expectation going into m7. Many of us have been advocating for raising the limit (I personally, have suggest 2000) because we don't like having to manage many separate guilds. I manage FIVE of them. If you've ever had to deal with one largish guild, imagine multiplying the tasks by 5. As Ambi said, we were looking for an expansion, not a massive reduction.
And anyway, what harm is there? So what if your smaller guild is slower to build than a larger one? Is this PvP compulsory? I can't imagine is would be. So, don't compete in PvP if you're a PvE-oriented small guild. Even if you do compete and are beating - so what? Will Strongholds suddenly do something Cryptic has NEVER done in any of its games ever and have an actual penalty for losing other than reduced or no rewards? I very much doubt it.
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
Sekhmet@kvetchus_
Guilds: Greycloaks, Blackcloaks, Whitecloaks, Goldcloaks, Browncloaks, Spiritcloaks, Bluecloaks, Silvercloaks, Black Dawn
Tredecim: The Cloak Alliance
I don't know, maybe 20 pending people wanting to join the guild and couldn't all of a sudden? Alts forced to stay out because we're not overcapped? We would have changed rules, warn the guildies, prepare with another guild in mind. I personally pulled off a giant change in 24 hours and lost a couple of people because it was too sudden, no guild chat, 2 guilds, it's too much for some.
The Holy Crusaders guild leader ♚ Mod 10 PVE Destroyer GWF guide ♚ Founding member of the Relentless Alliance
Check for Lineage 2 :]
I think you interpret a bit too much in a simple change of the guild system. You start to sound like one of these doom preacher from the streets.
It is still a company like any other. And now think on your workplace how many people do their work properly, how many coworker are there that do the job halfassed or are simply dumb (underqualified for the job). I don't want to offend, but <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> happens. It can happens repeatly and i don't say i like, but to say: They do it on purpose to annoy us, is the same to say: They wanna stop us to play their game.
It is not a small company with 10 people. We talking about two companies. Cryptic which develop the and PWE that send E-Mails and stuff and if i understand it correctly dictates Cryptic which changes are made in the game in cooperation of Hasbro and Wizard of the Coast, so it is 4 Companies that have their hand in one software product.