Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-08-22, 14:36
Sign in to follow this  
Eagle

Group cap

Group cap  

119 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

Posted (edited)

Group caps not sure how you guys feel about this but I feel like a certain amount of members should be allowed in one group, I have never understood why one group needs to have 40+ members in one unit as it basically means that now, one group has almost half of the server cap in one group why that is needed idk but I feel like a cap needs to be put in place so people dispersed and spread out a bit more, creating more groups as those numbers can fit at least 2-3 groups, not 100% on what number is a solid one but IMO 25 is enough for one group at a time.

What do you guys think?

Edited by Eagle

Share this post


Link to post

25 is literally a perfect number to cap at, I don't know why I see a current group having almost 60 people in it. Large groups dominating the server is boring. 

Share this post


Link to post

Surprised you share this same opinion as me on this issue. I think there should be a group cap but even 25 seems a bit high if I'm going to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post

Twenty-five seems to be a happy medium, honestly. It's big enough to be scary if you're hostile but not so big that it completely dominates the entire server. 

Share this post


Link to post

I'd honestly be okay with a smaller cap than that, probably no lower than 20.  You'd be able to scare the shit out of people with 20 guys and not take up a quarter of the server if everyone is on, so I'd be totally fine with 20 or 25.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm down for 25, I don't like Supergrouping. Isn't fun anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but gurantee the 40 guys who split into two groups will be super duper allies and share the same TS. 

To be blunt, the "damage" is already done. 40 man social groups OOC are very much a thing and won't stop due to rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Traveler said:

Good idea, but gurantee the 40 guys who split into two groups will be super duper allies and share the same TS. 

To be blunt, the "damage" is already done. 40 man social groups OOC are very much a thing and won't stop due to rules. 

Well if stuff is just built on OOC rather then what makes IC sense, I would see that as just Bad RP.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Traveler said:

Good idea, but gurantee the 40 guys who split into two groups will be super duper allies and share the same TS. 

To be blunt, the "damage" is already done. 40 man social groups OOC are very much a thing and won't stop due to rules. 

Groups can be allied to one another but at some point having more than 25 members in a group of a 100 pop server feels redundant. Like a DayZRP group inside the DayZRP server. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Well if stuff is just built on OOC rather then what makes IC sense, I would see that as just Bad RP.

Cool, but that doesn't stop literally anyone from doing it. I can write a compelling piece of literature that could tie literally any two groups on the server together like fucking brothers in arms in less than an hour. 

If you want it to happen OOC, you can make it happen IC. Simple as. 

Good idea, but gurantee if it goes through fuck all changes. 

Share this post


Link to post

No point.

People will just make another group and be really good allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I do think there should be a group cap but it should depend on what kind of group it is. If the group is a settlement group or a non-hostile group of civilians i don't see a reason to limit those kinds of groups to 25

Also what @Dan said, that's pretty much how it's gonna go

Edited by NozzyRP

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I'd rather groups be limited to like 15 or 20. In 2015, it was rare to see a group run around with more than 10 people. The server seemed more balanced then, and more fun. Now it can be common to see groups of 10+, and with less variety and diversity in the server, 10+ is killer. 

I don't see how running around with that many people is fun. Multiple smaller groups > a few large groups. But people will just ally anyways, making it basically a super group. Like when 5 medium sized groups allied against the saviors to attack their compound.

Share this post


Link to post

Its hard to say really if a group cap will work because as the server has seen, the groups will just form one massive blob that takes up half the server and call it that. Hostile or otherwise. I can already think of a few examples where this was/is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

If there was to be a cap then I suggest capping it at 20 members per group but if you need to exceed that limit (for a valid reason) then you can request additional spaces providing you give staff a legitimate reason for the need to increase the amount of members.

However I don't think a cap would make too much of an impact IC'ly due to OOC reasons, a group could split into two but then become allies and therefore be technically just one big group anyway. People tend to join a group with their OOC friends rather then picking a group for IC reasons (wanting playing with your OOC friends is understandable) especially if you have been a part of the community for a while. So I like the theory behind the reasoning for a cap but I'm not sure it'd make much difference in game.

Edited by Samaritan

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Personally I would like to see 15, but 20 would probably be the best medium for everyone as I doubt the community would go for such a low number. 25 is approaching super group levels if you ask me. Like Nik said above you years ago you would rarely see people in groups of more than 10 and the server seemed a lot more balanced and fun that way. The days of bandits operating in 3-5 man groups is a thing of the past and that's kind of disappointing just because you would never know their intentions because they had so little in numbers. Now when you see a large group it usually means time to get the fuck out of dodge. 

Edited by Zero

Share this post


Link to post

Hey guys! just wanted to chime in and say im apart of a group thats prettyy big group right now. Now i would like to point out the word "dominate" The term i would use it for would be if a large group went everywhere tearing stuff up and ruin the RP, I do agree on the cap to atleast to go to 50 but thats just me personally.. Alot of different people in this community live around the world and have different time zones we also have to take that into consideration, But i do agree with you on the group cap 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post

Don't see a point in restricting people's rp with imaginary group caps. I haven't seen a "big" group with 40+ members ever throw around their full roster in any scenario. In the big one's I've taken a part of we usually had a day crew (US timezones) and a night crew of EU players that would sometimes overlap. People will be friends no matter what anyway and just make a group to immediately ally so unless your only problem is KOS rights then idk what to tell you. There have been far more lethal groups on the server that roll with low numbers, just learn and adapt, don't make forum posts trying to restrict the power group's have accumulated. I know it's cancer to use the "irl" argument but cmon, big groups would be a thing and you should deal with it IC.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Sxcomba said:

I know it's cancer to use the "irl" argument but cmon, big groups would be a thing and you should deal with it IC.

I disagree with this point exclusively for the fact that real life doesn't have a 100 person population cap.  We're simulating realism here, sure, but on a smaller scale, and groups should have to abide by that scale too.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I see no point in group caps, if people want to play together the fact of the matter is they will, group cap or not. All that will happen is you will make more people play dynamic with official groups or they will just make another group and be allies with their friends group.

Edited by Shroud

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

For one it removes approved groups to have 60 people with kill rights just one member getting attack doesn't grant the whole other approved group rights unless they all ran with those people unless I'm mistaken here.

Edited by Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

With how it is currently with people banding together when their goals make no sense and don’t align, this rule will add nothing but another crutch. No point.

If I remember rightly, these threads popped up regularly a year or so ago, but didn’t seem to be an issue then, I guess that changes with groups.

-1 from me.

Edited by Mexi

Share this post


Link to post

There's literally no point in this.

The workaround will literally just be to have two groups with similar goals working together in the same comms anyway. 

I don't like supergroups, for the record, but this doesn't fix the supergroup problem. This is like applying a plaster for a gash wound. It doesn't fit the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It has to start somewhere if people are so afraid people will band together for no reason but OOC then get the staff team to enforce reasoning etc that's what the job consists of, if one supergroup cannot have 40+ shooters running about another group of 20 won't gain rights just from one of those members being attacked unless they have rolled with them dynamically and that would only mean those that rolled with  them the rest would have to initiate.
Even simply just adding a meter range for kill rights when running dynamic would sorta that out.
Along with those saying that the mega-alliance that attacked saviors was built on OOC that was not the case at all they were a common enemy and people banded together to fight them, as that is what should happen when you have an issue with someone IG instead of crying about it OOCly that there too big or cannot be defeated.

Edited by Eagle

Share this post


Link to post

I personally don't support limiting it, mainly for the already stated reason of realism.

-1 from me, it's okay as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...