A solution to the Cap dilema?

[Screamin' 1]

<div></div>I posted this in another thread, but unlike most of my ideas, it is pretty good <span>:smileyvery-happy: </span>so I thought I would post in a new thread. My apologies if this has been proposed already, I have not read every single post on this subject, but I have read many, and not seen anything quite like this. To summarize first, we are solving two problems here, one where a cap gives a large guild too much advantage, and one where a small guild is being forced to include all accounts in their divisor. Most of us agree that this is imbalancing, hurts small guilds, and helps big ones. Whether you think it is a good thing or not to help bigger guilds, the consensus seems to be that is what the cap does. In addition, at least for me, a goal is to preserve the part of the new system that allows alts and mains to be under the same umbrella w/ respect to the divisor. So, here is my idea:  The cap should be determined as follows: <font color="#ffffff"><span> One way to solve this is to have the cap be based on the guild size, but have some room for casual accounts. # Accounts    Cap 1-6                6 7-12              </span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span># Accounts</span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span> - 3 (min of 6) 13-18            </span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span># Accounts</span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span> - 4 19-24            </span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span># Accounts</span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span> - 5 etc..... This would give all guilds a cushion, while not giving the larger guilds any advantage. The number can of course be tweaked to achieve balance. The cap could also just be a percentage of the # of accounts, say 80% of the first 30, 70% of the next 30, etc. Since large guilds will actually be at a disadvantage with a one-to-one divisor (I think they are more likely to have more stray accounts) this will help them stay even. Thoughts? </span></font><div></div><p>Message Edited by Screamin' 103 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:07 PM</span>

[Sepp]

My only input: I think this is a clever idea... I hope it gets some attention.

[Tockl]

There have been lots of good ideas lately.  This is one.

[DarkLegacy2005]

<P>While this solution hinders the growth of large guilds and puts them in 'check' to say, so that they might be closer to advancement speed of a small guild... it does wonders to any guild with over 31 accounts. Why? After 31, you start getting divided by higher then 24. So now the system that the devs had in place starts to penalize what I would consider the average amount of players for a 'medium' sized guild. A sliding scale is not the solution, but it is a step in the right direction. Mind you, a step only. </P> <P>Large guilds continue to have an advantage in your system... as they should. </P> <P>I think we are looking at this from the wrong direction.... </P> <P>The largest guild probably does not have over 200 unique accounts. Well what does that mean?</P> <P>That means that 200 have to do the same amount of work as 24 in the current system. BUT 24 has to do more work then 6. Which means 200 accounts have to do more collective work then 6. </P> <P>So what you have now is an inverse bell curve, with the advantages being either 6 or 200. You want to be one of those two. </P> <P> </P> <P>What if you flipped the bell curve? Made the ideal guild size something like 72 accounts? Do it in such a way that it marginally affects small guilds, so how do we do that?</P> <P>72 is a divisor of 24, chosen by me for a reason. Its the number I believe a casual guild will realistically need to have a regular raiding group size. </P> <P>My solution is done like this:</P> <P>6 Person Guild = Divisor of 6</P> <P>Every 3 people after 6 adds 1 to the divisor</P> <P>72 Person Guild = Divisor of 28</P> <P>After 72 every 2 accounts adds another 1 to the divisor so you end up with</P> <P>200 Person Guild = Divisor of 92</P> <P>Now the bell curve is flipped to favor moderately sized guilds. Large guilds are not so much penalized as they are just contributing a smaller amount per person, but they have far more people to get just as far. Small guilds contribute the most per person but need more from each person. Medium sized guilds... which the system should favor, because they are the 'average' get the best deal. </P> <P>Just a thought, and one I am not even so sure of myself. I need to sleep on it, but might as well throw it out there.</P> <P> </P>

[Ramsy02]

<div></div>Why should small guilds have the same chance to level their guild to 30 as large guild? Thats like saying a casual player should beable to get the same equipment as a raid style player <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ramsy02 on <span class=date_text>07-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:05 AM</span>

[Ciarr]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ramsy02 wrote:<BR> Why should small guilds have the same chance to level their guild to 30 as large guild?<BR><BR><BR>Thats like saying a casual player should beable to get the same equipment as a raid style player<BR><BR> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>it's not, what people are trying to say is that guild of 24 people who invested 500hours each on average doing writs should be the same level as a guild of 100 player who invested 500hours each</P> <P> </P>

[Gorkk00]

<span><blockquote><hr>Ciarrai wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Ramsy02 wrote: <div></div>Why should small guilds have the same chance to level their guild to 30 as large guild?Thats like saying a casual player should beable to get the same equipment as a raid style player <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>it's not, what people are trying to say is that guild of 24 people who invested 500hours each on average doing writs should be the same level as a guild of 100 player who invested 500hours each </p><hr></blockquote>So it is. To give another comparison, it would be like if you gave a group of 6 the same chances to beat a contested mob that a raid... When you're not many there's things that harder to achieve. I don't see why it would be wrong that it would be harder for each member to level a small guild than a large guild, whereas it would make roleplay sense.</span><div></div>

[Tockl]

<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ramsy02 wrote:<BR> Why should small guilds have the same chance to level their guild to 30 as large guild?<BR><BR><BR>Thats like saying a casual player should beable to get the same equipment as a raid style player<BR><BR> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>Because from the very beginning, SOE claimed it would be this way.  I came to EQ2 to see how they implemented it, and although it had problems, it was an interesting solution.<BR></SPAN> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[dejahtho]

<span><blockquote><hr>Tockley wrote:<blockquote><span><blockquote><blockquote>Because from the very beginning, SOE claimed it would be this way.  I came to EQ2 to see how they implemented it, and although it had problems, it was an interesting solution. </blockquote></blockquote></span><div></div></blockquote> <div></div><hr></blockquote>they also said frogloks were in the game, when in fact, they weren't.  this is one of those things that soe never should have set in stone...a 'don't promise if you can't deliver' sort of thing.  i still want to know why they've changed it again.  i'm not holding my breath waiting for an answer tho.  </span><div></div>

[Heiro]

<P>Guilds of any size have the same chance to lvl their guilds to 30.</P> <P> </P> <P>Smaller guilds have to make the same amount of exp as Larger guilds.</P> <P> </P> <P>Every guild has the potential to reach that level.</P>

[Bolr]

<span><blockquote><hr>Heiro wrote:<p>Guilds of any size have the same chance to lvl their guilds to 30.</p> <p> Smaller guilds have to make the same amount of exp as Larger guilds.</p> <p> Every guild has the potential to reach that level.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> Of course, all of those have been true since release day.</span><div></div>

[Ramsy02]

<span><blockquote><hr>Ciarrai wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Ramsy02 wrote: <div></div>Why should small guilds have the same chance to level their guild to 30 as large guild?Thats like saying a casual player should beable to get the same equipment as a raid style player <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>it's not, what people are trying to say is that guild of 24 people who invested 500hours each on average doing writs should be the same level as a guild of 100 player who invested 500hours each</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>gez... please read what you posted and you will see how silly it sounds.. your saying 100 people working their butt of should achieve the same level as 24 people working their butts off.. thats just stupid logic.. 100 people working butts off= overall more time invested 24 people doing same stuff= less overall time invested. No way 24 people can outdo 100 people but you want it to be so.. dont make sense to me </span><div></div>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>Ramsy02 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Ciarrai wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Ramsy02 wrote: <div></div>Why should small guilds have the same chance to level their guild to 30 as large guild?Thats like saying a casual player should beable to get the same equipment as a raid style player <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>it's not, what people are trying to say is that guild of 24 people who invested 500hours each on average doing writs should be the same level as a guild of 100 player who invested 500hours each</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>gez... please read what you posted and you will see how silly it sounds.. your saying 100 people working their butt of should achieve the same level as 24 people working their butts off.. thats just stupid logic.. 100 people working butts off= overall more time invested 24 people doing same stuff= less overall time invested. No way 24 people can outdo 100 people but you want it to be so.. dont make sense to me <font color="#33ccff">The end result of this logic is that each server will have only one guild (of course, in practice, this will not happen, but we will see far fewer but larger guilds). This is a game, and game balance logically requires that all guilds should have *roughly* the same chance to advance, within reason, at least as far as the guild system is designed. There is absolutely nothing silly about that. There are various intangible benefits to small and large guilds that cannot and need not be accounted for, of course.</font> </span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<p>While this solution hinders the growth of large guilds and puts them in 'check' to say, so that they might be closer to advancement speed of a small guild... it does wonders to any guild with over 31 accounts. Why? After 31, you start getting divided by higher then 24. So now the system that the devs had in place starts to penalize what I would consider the average amount of players for a 'medium' sized guild. A sliding scale is not the solution, but it is a step in the right direction. Mind you, a step only. </p> <p><font color="#33ccff">Hmmm. How does this penalize guilds with 31+ accounts? In this system, all guilds have a divisor that is relative to the number of accounts they have, with some wiggle room for the innactive accounts most guilds have. There is no penalty, it is a removal of an unbalancing bonus given to guilds with more than 24 active accounts in  the new system. The only problem with this proposal is that guilds with fewer inactive accounts get a bit of a bonus, but I don't think that is much of  a concern.</font> </p> </blockquote></span><div></div>

[rjj]

<P>screaming 103  i have read 3 times now and i still dont see what you trying to sugest!</P> <P>cut and paste</P> <DIV>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV># Accounts    Cap<BR>1-6                6<BR>7-12              <FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN># Accounts</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN> - 3 (min of 6)<BR>13-18            </SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN># Accounts</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN> - 4<BR>19-24            </SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN># Accounts</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN> - 5<BR>------------------------------------------------------</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN>end cut and past.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN>You have accounts in bothe collems.     Why would row one and two have a min of 6 accounts and 3 and 4 be alowed to have less then 6 accounts??</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN>i will try again latter  as of right now i am  confused to what your trying to say. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN>thanks </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff><SPAN>call me the rock of the day</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

[Belizarius]

<P>For all those who think that bigger guilds <STRONG><EM>should</EM></STRONG> naturally have an inherent advantage when it comes to guild status.   Have you even stopped to think about what status actually means?</P> <P>If you were trying to build an elite, high status club, would you invite say the King/Queen/President of (insert-your-favourite-country), or 100 pig/goat/sheep-herders?  Which would add more <EM><STRONG>status</STRONG> </EM>to your organisation?</P> <P>A high status organisation is usually made up of a few, high status members than a horde of wanna-bes.</P>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>rjjrs wrote:<p>screaming 103  i have read 3 times now and i still dont see what you trying to sugest!</p> <p>cut and paste</p> <div>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div> <div># Accounts    Cap1-6                67-12              <font color="#ffffff"><span># Accounts</span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span> - 3 (min of 6)13-18            </span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span># Accounts</span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span> - 419-24            </span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span># Accounts</span></font><font color="#ffffff"><span> - 5------------------------------------------------------</span></font></div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span>end cut and past.</span></font></div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span>You have accounts in bothe collems.     Why would row one and two have a min of 6 accounts and 3 and 4 be alowed to have less then 6 accounts??</span></font></div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span>i will try again latter  as of right now i am  confused to what your trying to say. </span></font></div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span>thanks </span></font></div> <div><font color="#ffffff"><span>call me the rock of the day</span></font></div><hr></blockquote>Column 1 is the number of unique accounts. Column 2 is the cap, based on the value in column 1.  Here is a more concrete example: # Accounts       Cap 1-9                    6 10                     7 11                     8 12                     9 13                     9 14                     10 15                     11 16                     12 17                     13 18                     14 19                     14 20                     15 ...etc 24                     19 ...etc 50                     40 I put the numbers in columns and rows to illustrate the idea. The idea is that the more accounts, the larger the cap, but the more wiggle room there is due to more difficluty managing those accounts. </span><div></div>

[pera]

In my oppinion the last posters option is great or well not as bad for mid - small sized guilds but totaly screws over higher level guilds.  I honestly do not think there is a good solution too any of this other than maybe a tri-peak bell curve where it would be benifical to have certain range of member in a guild around a "magic" number so that the size of the guild could scale at least some with out too much worry about the stress the extra divisors would have. Well now that i think about this last part that "magic" number better be pretty dang magic because any way you look at it the larger the guild get the great the divisor is going to get.  Which is not totaly a bad thing, but when you have a guild of 50 60 or even 100 people the divisor would be insally hard and forcing EVERYONE to help in guild status to just break even with some of the smaller guilds. Oh and to the question I am not sure where the magic number of  6 and 24 came from but i know the largest group that any raid can have at the moment is 24 people so maybe that had something to do with it. What actualy might be a good solution is guiles smaler that 24 be given the option to use patrons and guilds larger than 24 not given that option and the diviser be set at a constant 24 reguardless of size.  This way smaller - mid sized guilds would not be hurt as much and larger guilds wouldnt have to deal with the headace of figuring out this week who is a patron and who is not.  I really do not think soe invisioned guilds from the start spawping people in and out of the patron system like hot plates.  I do think they are moving in the right direction though with guilds no longer losing guild xp points. <div></div>

[Keegant]

<P>Though I am not taking sides on this,</P> <P>Belizarus, Your analogy is false. Using peons vs kings is like using someone who does one writ vs someone who does 22 HQs.</P> <P>A proper analogy would be, which would you rather have in your club 24 kings or 100 kings. When put in those words, which club would have more prestige?</P>

[Claritin]

<P>I understand what the original poster is saying... and it's something I suggested in another thread a couple days ago... because logically it makes sense.</P> <P>What you large guild lazy peeps are screaming about is just self centeredness... there is logically no reason why every single person in a 24 man guild should work thier butts off while in a 200 man guild of newbies... of which there are many... should be handed lvl 30 on a silver platter by each doing 1-2 heritages.</P> <P>You try and make it sound like everyone in your guild has been working hard to reach lvl 30... but that is not the case I am sure... and it will not be after this patch... however since the last patch where we quit losing status when people left SOE games due to programming flaws we have gained about 2 levels... with minimal effort... and we will never go backwards... that's just crazy... but the fix for us was simply being able to de-patron people who had like 10k + status but were no longer trying to level the guild or had quit the game.  This was very important to us and a critical turning point... we will be lvl 30 in no time... we have over 40 members of highly dedicated members now (since we were able to kick the ones who quit) and now we can simply work as 40 members to do the work of 24 and it will be a cake walk... we are talking about doing 5 levels in like 1-2 weeks.... I mean how hard can it be?  We kill status mobs... we do some writs... and we have alts in thier 40's in our [Removed for Content] guild... we just guild them in... run some heritages... wait 2 weeks... deguild them... CAKE.</P> <P>Attaining lvl 30 should not be cake... although with the overpriced rewards... who really cares...</P>