Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-10-21, 22:00
Sign in to follow this  
The Traveler

Should there be a group member cap?

Should groups have some sort of membership maximum cap?   

84 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

The disclaimer: 
I will make my case quick, and make it clear that every group that atm has excessive member rosters are cool as hell and I have no ill feelings towards any of em, this suggestion is purely one of a certain trail of logical thought, and even I am on the fence about it... with that in mind...

Text in this colour will be points added after the thread's start. Either from replies adding ideas, people Pming me etc etc

The background: 
The long and skinny is, a group with 15 members is 1/4 of the server's potential population ... a group with 20+ members is over a 1/3 ... 

Back when we had multiple servers this wasn't an issue. But now we are but one singular server, at peak times having 1/3 of the server potentially being one group does tend to reduce the ammount of unique RP encounters as a large proportion of them would be "x meets the large group". 

The idea: 
So perhaps maybe adding a cap of some sort to groups? i.e: "Groups can only have x ammount of people in them at maximum"

The Pros and Cons: 
Pros: 
-Might influence more groups to be made rather than people "building high" as it were with 20+ groups

-Might shift the balance of power into something more interesting than just "the boys with largest groups are gonna kick ur arse" <--- but it should be  noted this topic in itself is a complicated one not just effected by group sizes, but size is certainly a factor. 

-Might mean less of a "grand hub" and a few more tiny settlements due to groups wanting a place of their own and massive groups not being able to do much to "piss in their cheerios" as it were. (Once again a complicated topic with many factors, but big groups having lots of influence defo being one of those factors)

 

- Chapter mentality: Just as in some cultures, organisations were cut down into chapters to avoid total destruction if one chapter fell, having smaller groups means, when a group archives, we don't see a massive influence of the server gone in one fell stroke (we have seen 20 man groups archive and leave a power void, it isn't fun for anyone involved), so smaller groups means not as much is lost if 1 groups archives. 


Cons:
-Might make people disinterested with DayZRP (An "issue" with these massive groups is they have become quite tightly knit, perhaps making a group cap would influence em to play another game rather than dayzrp just so they can hang together) 

-People might ignore the cap and have several groups with really close ties to each other (but with the change to dynamic groups this may be practically difficult to achieve) 

-It might just lead to hubs being even more populated / "hot spotty"  due to a wish to be with other players that people know well, but are not a part of their group. 

-It's unrealistic? (Though this is a subject up for debate as keeping control of 1/3 of a population of a country [I know that's only 20 people but we have to extrapolate game group size with the real life equivalent of how many people 1/3 of a country's population after an infection would be] would be difficult at best) 


-More OOC rules (As mentioned by Oliv)

-Likelyhood of server takeover is very low (most groups have half members on at one time at most) [As mentioned by Whitename / Oliv] 

Discussion time! : 

To stress one final time ,I myself am on the fence with the idea. I am neither for , or against. That said I do think the subject should be talked about in a public setting. 

So with that in mind go ahead, start discussing :D 

Edited by The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post

We discussed this with staff already, as it was brought up in one of our meetings and we said no.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Oliv said:

We discussed this with staff already, as it was brought up in one of our meetings and we said no.

What was the reasoning out of interest. As I said I am on the fence with the idea, I'd be interested to know what tipped staff onto the side of no :)

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, The Traveler said:

What was the reasoning out of interest. As I said I am on the fence with the idea, I'd be interested to know what tipped staff onto the side of no :)

When discussed similar issues that you brought up were mentioned. At the time, I think two very large groups had allied and possibly even joined forces under one banner (memory is foggy). We said no for several reasons, but I'll give you a short list of pros and cons that we factored.

  • Pro: Limit to groups so they can effectively run the server in game how they see fit, especially for hostile groups (sorry, but peaceful groups tend to try and do this less).
  • Con: More OOC rules, plus it doesn't really matter anyways because limiting group sizes could have just led to multiple allied groups anyways.

In the end, we as Admins still have the right to disband groups should it ever reach an irreversible problematic point, so additional rules weren't needed.

I'll also give you an example of Zbor, which at most times numbered over 25 member and at one point something like 50 for a brief period. Even in numbers that large, we were never all on at the same time. It was impossible to get ourselves in position on the server to have that kind of control. Granted, we never really tried either.

People want to seek out RP for the most part. The larger portion of the server population you hold, the less dynamic and fluid your RP experience can become. Sure, you can take a group of 30-40 and if you're lucky and the planets align, get them all on the server at once. That leaves you with 20-30 other people that you have no idea where they might be, attempt to find them, and maybe have them do whatever the fuck you want because of your numbers, but it's not fun. Finding those people is not going to be that easy, and frankly, it's probably going to be a pretty stale experience, so I don't see it becoming a thing. Also, as Admisn we can do what needs to be done still to correct it if it were to ever happen and begin to ruin shit.

Share this post


Link to post

just like my dad Oliv said, none of the larger groups have their entire population on at once. at most i see 10 people. it doesn’t seem to be high on any of the groups’ priority lists to amass a huge population and go in-game to start shit, because you wouldn’t find anybody anyways. now if these groups reach 40+ people and start occupying the server st all times id reconsider, but that’s pretty unlikely.

unnecessary precaution to an unlikely situation 

Share this post


Link to post

Appreciate the points, I have added whitenames / olivs points to the main post :)

But there are other pros and cons to discuss. Would be nice to get some input on them too ^ _ ^ 

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, another Travler suggestion. In all honesty theres no point. I agree with the points said in the staff meeting, it wont stop much. If anything people could just ally and have all their friends, and it would just make things for difficult. It also doesnt matter how many people are in the group, because no everyone will be on at the same time. For example, in my group The Symptom Strawberry and I had 30+ people at one point. We never had 30 people on, generally it was 6 or 7. People would get on at different times and that was fine. 

Basically thats a no from me dog

Share this post


Link to post

This topic has been brought up before and it always ends the same way as others have said above. Just no point bro

Share this post


Link to post

Having a group cap is pointless, people will work around it by creating two separate groups and then creating an alliance.

Share this post


Link to post

Well its hard to get a hole group ingame at the same time. Time zones work Just IRL stuff. I dont think Ive ever seen a big group have all its members on at the same time. So nah its a no from me

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair... most anarchy i’ve Ever seen at one time was 10.. numbers =/= activity’s 

Share this post


Link to post

I never liked the idea of insanely large groups simply because it can make the playing field unfair sometimes. There were a few times when the only bandit groups were all the hostile rpers in the same group or they were all had an alliance and would just sort of take a dump on the entire server. That's why I liked it when the Muslims and the Black Fangs were around. It was cool seeing and being a part of the dynamic that was hostile groups vs hostile groups instead of just dumping on all the good/neutral players.

I will tell you this though, after leading and being a part of a few large groups with 20 or more people on the roster, it's insanely hard to get the whole roster on at once. At most we could manage to get 10 on at the same time due to schedules and time zones. Only time I've seen it a whole roster on is during the summer months when everyone is out of school or has vacation time. So the basis is, there is no point. It's like trying to regulate something you have no true control over. It will just make the situation even worse. 

Share this post


Link to post

Once again, 'preciate the feedback :)
I am defo in the "no" column atm myself.
However, I gotta say I've noticed every post has been just debunking 1 of the 4 pros. There are other points and potential pros that haven't even been touched upon. It seems most of ya'll see this as  a precautionary measure for huge groups, but as shown in the pros, there are other reasonings behind it. 

Not defending it mind, as I said I'm in the no column now, just observing an odd trend ^_^ 

Share this post


Link to post

Im sorry, i have never supported having group caps. I feel it limiting the groups itself and limiting the management of them also. Soz guys...i just like the idea of letting groups manage themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

Not a fan of putting a cap on a group. If people want to play with eachother they'll just make a new group and make an alliance. I like to just let it play out ingame and let people RP with whoever they want to RP with. 

Share this post


Link to post

In all honesty putting a cap on things makes sense on paper but actually doing it has its own complications as many times I've been told that if this would happen the groups would split into two making a pact together or making something like that bringing us back to square one.

Share this post


Link to post

No there shouldn't be a cap.

 

What are the chances that every single member is ingame at the same time? :P

If you're playing with a group that's all about "a large number of people" then there shouldn't be a cap. Even if a few can't the same day, there is still a fair amount of people in said group. Could you imagine a large millitary group that runs around with 5 members?...phew.

 

Edited by jason hunter

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah as people have said putting a cap will just restrict people. Forcing people to not play with each other wouldn't make sense. If I wanna join a group and let's say it would be "full" it doesn't make sense. I can see where you are coming from in this sense but it wouldn't just work out in practice.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...