Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-08-03 12:14

Dynamic Events: "The Mutated.."
TODAY | 2021-08-03 19:00:00 (server time) | Starts in 6 hours, 45 minutes | Nyheim City

Faction Member Limit


Trench

Should factions have a member limit?  

73 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Emerald
Posted (edited)

Okay now hear me out,

I've been seeing a few posts on the forums as of recent that are outlining hostileRP, how singular groups are dominating the entire server through hostileRP because of their size etc etc. So I wanted to hear from everyone about how they'd feel about a Faction Member Limit system?

[I am quick firing ideas as they come to my head.]

So of the top of my head it originally came across like this;  Factions set goals, in order to have a higher member count they'd have to complete X amount of their listed goals. Let's say the starting maximum is 10, once they've surpassed 3 goals, it goes up to 15 for example. I realise though there's no way to actually prove the faction completed their goals unless they are told to give proof of Goal X being completed [screenshot/clip.].

The reason I suggest this is I think if done right, it could give factions real time progression and objectives with rewards. While also preventing people with friends OOC from basically snowballing day 1 into a 30 man faction. I want to promote real character development and I think this could be a step in the right direction? Frankly whether you like it or not people are dragging their friends from previous wipes/games into their factions and basically form [in rust terms] a zerg.

I want HostileRP. I want HostileRP that can realistically be contested but right now it cannot and it's actually preventing people from roleplaying fully. People are waking up to raided bases after just rebuilding from the day before; being robbed multiple times a day despite the fact they have very little all because you have these groups that are doing it for the sake of it a lot of time with no roleplay intent.

To be clear, I'm not anti-HostileRP. I think it's great and is definitely needed for variety, but should not dominate the server how it currently is. 

 

Conclusion to the suggestion - Faction Goals could be used in a way that allows factions to progress and have more benefits, in this case a higher member count.

EDIT: 'LIMIT ROAMING NUMBERS NOW ADDED TO POLL'

Edited by VikingHunter
Link to post
  • Diamond

Simple. No.
Hard limiting groups is something that has been brought up previously over and over again and has never gotten a majority of positive votes.
I dont like the idea of restrictions on groups.

- 1

Link to post
  • Game Master

Adding hard caps to factions doesn’t solve the problem, as the groups will just split up and ally with eachother, then its like nothing changed. So its a no from me.

That being said, introducing a maximum number of members of a group that can be involved in a specific hostile situation at one time is something I’ve seen done in numerous RP communities, to varying degrees of success.

 

Link to post
  • Diamond

Groups should not be subject to a roster limitation. 

Roaming Limits could be an interesting conversation though. 

 

Link to post
  • Emerald
Posted (edited)

I agree with the others here. Limiting group size big no no, but limiting the roaming size could be a idea worth experimenting with. Maybe add that option to the poll?

Edited by Lucky Luke
Link to post
  • Diamond

Groups shouldn't ever have member caps unless the actual leader of the group wants them, that's just simple.

 

As for roaming caps...just no...say you put a 10 roaming cap on, 11 people are on which means either 1 person gets left behind or its randomly forced to be split up into a 6 and 5 group who might be roaming to the same place...it's just silly.

Link to post
  • Emerald

As large as a group maybe, they never usually roam in groups larger than 5 at a time. There only time you'll see force in numbers is raids, which makes sense. 

You'll find that by restricting groups in said way, you may also restrict new players from forming a group with numbers to rival the issues you spoke on. 

I fail to see how hostilities are stopping people from 'RPing fully' when the only reasons you mentioned are results that end in less gear? Less gear =/= Less RP.  Moreover, if you are on the receiving end of a hostile encounter and feel that the RP was minimal, you can report it. I agree with the general fact that some hostilities (raiding/robberies) are simply done to gain gear and give little RP, but the solution to that isn't restricting all groups.  

Link to post
  • Game Master
7 hours ago, Queerios said:

That being said, introducing a maximum number of members of a group that can be involved in a specific hostile situation at one time is something I’ve seen done in numerous RP communities, to varying degrees of success.

Ye I wouldn't mind a cap on how many folks can participate in a firefight from each side tbh

8 hours ago, VikingHunter said:

-snip-

Problem is then you encourage folks to go dynamic to avoid the group roster cap. There's already so many reasons to be a dynamic group instead of an official one that this one would seal the deal.

Link to post
  • Diamond
3 hours ago, Verbal said:

As large as a group maybe, they never usually roam in groups larger than 5 at a time. There only time you'll see force in numbers is raids, which makes sense. 

Ehhh, I wouldn't say this is really true. The bigger groups are very commonly spotted with 7+ guys rolling around, just enough so they can begin hostilities and not have a group of 2-3 fight back for the fear of being NVLR'd... not that it's really an issue so long as the people doing the hostilities are actually good at roleplay.

Link to post
  • Diamond

No, there should be no rules that put a limitation on RP. A rule like this would also fuck over Plikt, who need all the help they can get. This is just another 'I'm losing IG so lets change the rules' thread. RP your issues out like everyone else.

Link to post
  • Emerald
11 hours ago, Queerios said:

Adding hard caps to factions doesn’t solve the problem, as the groups will just split up and ally with eachother, then its like nothing changed. So its a no from me.

That being said, introducing a maximum number of members of a group that can be involved in a specific hostile situation at one time is something I’ve seen done in numerous RP communities, to varying degrees of success.

 

That's a pretty interesting alternative. I'd like to see this talked about. It'd allow for a higher chance of a fairer playing field when it involves larger groups.

 

5 hours ago, Lucky Luke said:

I agree with the others here. Limiting group size big no no, but limiting the roaming size could be a idea worth experimenting with. Maybe add that option to the poll?

Also this. I'll add to the poll. 

 

37 minutes ago, Craig said:

No, there should be no rules that put a limitation on RP. A rule like this would also fuck over Plikt, who need all the help they can get. This is just another 'I'm losing IG so lets change the rules' thread. RP your issues out like everyone else.

Not going to be flame baited by you because for the record in Nyheim I've lost nothing through HostileRP. So your point is invalid. I'm just reading the room and putting a broad suggestion that can be developed on the basis of issues other people are having.

I appreciate your input though!

Link to post
  • Diamond

To echo the sentiments of many others on this thread, I don't think limiting people to a cap should be a thing as while big groups do spring up yes, it's also restricting who people can play with in a sense which is not something I think we'd want to do. If someone is blessed with a large amount of friends, it could be seen as unfair to make them pick and chose and then exclude the others leaving them left out just for the sake of not going over a number limit. Then they may just give up the idea of being a official group entirely and roll dynamic just so they can have all their homies with them. We want to encourage people to make groups, not demoralise them or give further requirements.

Roaming specifications could be a interesting topic of conversation though. 🤔

Link to post
  • Emerald
7 minutes ago, Lettuce said:

To echo the sentiments of many others on this thread, I don't think limiting people to a cap should be a thing as while big groups do spring up yes, it's also restricting who people can play with in a sense which is not something I think we'd want to do. If someone is blessed with a large amount of friends, it could be seen as unfair to make them pick and chose and then exclude the others leaving them left out just for the sake of not going over a number limit. Then they may just give up the idea of being a official group entirely and roll dynamic just so they can have all their homies with them. We want to encourage people to make groups, not demoralise them or give further requirements.

Roaming specifications could be a interesting topic of conversation though. 🤔

You bring up a very good point, it wouldn't be fair for people to have to tell some friends 'yeah come join' and others 'sorry we're full'. 

The suggestion is very broad and I wrote it hoping people would develop on it, and they have. Roaming specifications I like the idea of, I'm just thinking of the ways staff could go about implementing it. What do you think?

Link to post
  • Diamond
1 minute ago, VikingHunter said:

You bring up a very good point, it wouldn't be fair for people to have to tell some friends 'yeah come join' and others 'sorry we're full'. 

The suggestion is very broad and I wrote it hoping people would develop on it, and they have. Roaming specifications I like the idea of, I'm just thinking of the ways staff could go about implementing it. What do you think?

Guidlines of the roaming idea would have to be discussed and then implemented if that was something the community and staff agreed on and felt the server needed. 👍

Link to post
  • Emerald
4 hours ago, Verbal said:

As large as a group maybe, they never usually roam in groups larger than 5 at a time. There only time you'll see force in numbers is raids, which makes sense. 

You'll find that by restricting groups in said way, you may also restrict new players from forming a group with numbers to rival the issues you spoke on. 

I fail to see how hostilities are stopping people from 'RPing fully' when the only reasons you mentioned are results that end in less gear? Less gear =/= Less RP.  Moreover, if you are on the receiving end of a hostile encounter and feel that the RP was minimal, you can report it. I agree with the general fact that some hostilities (raiding/robberies) are simply done to gain gear and give little RP, but the solution to that isn't restricting all groups.  

I do have to disagree as I've seen groups running around with between 10 - 15 people in a single group out of raid.

I don't want to restrict groups and prevent them from doing certain things. The cap idea was to even out the playing field just slightly so everyone can enjoy HostileRP. Not just the huge groups. 

HostileRP is good, but everyone should get a shot at enjoying it. Currently you can't even contest because some of the only people doing HostileRP are the huge groups.

My point wasn't the result being in less gear, my point was people HostileRPing for the sake of gaining gear. So in the event that's happening I want to give the receiving end more of a chance to... well have more of a chance of changing out of the situation.

Link to post
  • Administrator

Nah, group member limits just hurts the creativity and fun a group can have. You bring us this idea because hostile groups are kicking ass and having the power to do what they are meant to do. But what about the groups who have 10+ members and are purely just campfire RPing? There has been plenty of groups in the past who were a large size but rarely or almost never acted as the aggressors in hostile situations because all they wanted to do was RP in a town or something. Whether a group of people want to be the size of 5, 7, 15, or 25 that is their choice. If they have the goals to be hostile and do their RP that way then they need to have the manpower to do so. 

Like already said, if there is a cap set all that’s gonna happen is groups split into multiple and just ally each other. Then that makes the rule completely useless, I’m gonna assume next there will be a rule of “Don’t let friend groups ally each other”? Imo leave the whole group creations the way they are now, they’re fine as is and no changes are needed.

Link to post
  • Diamond
40 minutes ago, VikingHunter said:

Not going to be flame baited by you because for the record in Nyheim I've lost nothing through HostileRP. So your point is invalid. I'm just reading the room and putting a broad suggestion that can be developed on the basis of issues other people are having.

I appreciate your input though!

I'm not flaming you in anyway, my post wasn't directed to you but my thoughts about your suggestion. In the last few days we have had threads pop up suggesting rule changes and they were all linked to Base Raiding, hostile rp and now groups with large numbers. You might not have done this on purpose but its funny how the threads over the past few days with the complaints in them are about a certain group. And seeing as the majority of the community didn't like the rule suggestions about base raiding, it seems like its now trying to restrict hostle groups from being to large and I see right through it.

+ My flaming days are over.

Link to post
  • Emerald
7 minutes ago, Craig said:

I'm not flaming you in anyway, my post wasn't directed to you but my thoughts about your suggestion. In the last few days we have had threads pop up suggesting rule changes and they were all linked to Base Raiding, hostile rp and now groups with large numbers. You might not have done this on purpose but its funny how the threads over the past few days with the complaints in them are about a certain group. And seeing as the majority of the community didn't like the rule suggestions about base raiding, it seems like its now trying to restrict hostle groups from being to large and I see right through it.

+ My flaming days are over.

My suggestion isn't directed at a certain group. It can't be as I've had no negative interactions with specific groups. I understand why you may think that but I can assure it's a hypothetical suggestion made with every type of player taken into account. My suggestion isn't malicious and doesn't aim to restrict a specific group. I just want everyone to have as good of a time in the server as the next person.

Link to post
  • Diamond
3 minutes ago, VikingHunter said:

My suggestion isn't directed at a certain group. It can't be as I've had no negative interactions with specific groups. I understand why you may think that but I can assure it's a hypothetical suggestion made with every type of player taken into account. My suggestion isn't malicious and doesn't aim to restrict a specific group. I just want everyone to have as good of a time in the server as the next person.

I believe you, the timing is just suspicious. In the past we have had people trying to do something similar when it came to weapons (Automatics) being able to be drawn from bags and clothing. It seems like we want the same thing, people to have fun.

However I would prefer it if people would just try to RP out there problems before taking it to the forums. I may be wrong but I don't believe anyone has actually approached us IG/IC to RP it out or even contacted us privately about some of the issues. I think the perspective people have of us is that we just want to ruin peoples RP/Fun and dominate the server, but it really isn't. We just RP out our group and the goals we have no matter the group theme whether it may be a neutral trading group or a chaotic evil group. I myself are a filthy hardcore RP'er who sucks at PvP, I won't comment on the rest as it varies but some are really good at PvP and also RP. We want others to have a good time around us and with us. We aren't here to bully or harass anyone, simply to RP. 

The above part isn't mainly directed to yourself but to anyone who comes here to read the thread, that may have an issue with us or a false perspective of us.

Link to post
  • Diamond

Shit doesn't work it will end up with waves of dynamic groups swarming you since they ain't on the game roster.

Link to post
  • Emerald

Like many indeed has stated, it simply won't work. Of course it's not fun by a group to be ganked by a much larger one but hey, its the post-apocalypse, survival of the fittest. Doesn't mean a much larger faction has to assert themselves as well, just simply having the numbers could make them have tributaries when it comes to smaller groups, same goes for smaller ones, don't look up for a fight with someone more mean and bigger then you, instead be prepared to having to sacrifice certain things.

Link to post
  • Emerald
On 7/2/2021 at 10:24 AM, Queerios said:

That being said, introducing a maximum number of members of a group that can be involved in a specific hostile situation at one time is something I’ve seen done in numerous RP communities, to varying degrees of success.

 

Yeah and that varying degree is a huge thing, because what happens is Group A and Group B will just constantly stick together to give them big numbers. Then Group C that wants to further the HostileRP with Group A but can't because only say 8 of their numbers can assault the 20+ between the other 2.

Link to post
  • Emerald
12 hours ago, ImSpecies said:

Yeah and that varying degree is a huge thing, because what happens is Group A and Group B will just constantly stick together to give them big numbers. Then Group C that wants to further the HostileRP with Group A but can't because only say 8 of their numbers can assault the 20+ between the other 2.

I don't really care that much, but I fail too see how this matters. Groups team up all the time even without a rule like this. Dead-horse and the anarchists, Azazel - Spero, Duchy - CLF, Black-hand - C-block and propably many more. Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Link to post
  • Game Master
35 minutes ago, Lucky Luke said:

I don't really care that much, but I fail too see how this matters. Groups team up all the time even without a rule like this. Dead-horse and the anarchists, Azazel - Spero, Duchy - CLF, Black-hand - C-block and propably many more. Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Not every group teams up. Some like to stand alone. Limiting amount of people per firefight would be pog to stop big old campfire zergs from crushing the average roleplayer.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...