Quote:
Originally Posted by salesman
Limiting the number of people who are allowed to join gangs isn't a good way to increase activity. A good way to increase activity would be to actually release content that makes players want to log on.
If someone didn't want to log on last week, what are you bringing to the table that will make them want to log on now? You're basically threatening them with "if you don't play enough you can't be in a gang". Great strategy.
The server pretty much revolves around gangs. There's what, 3 gangs now? You've just limited your player count to 75 players.
edit: new players are getting totally shafted. "new players will have to work hard to join gangs!!!" It shouldn't take months of training (not to mention earning money to buy a decent weapon) for new players to be able to participate.
|
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fowlplay4
The problems with Era's gangs are the same ones I see with Zodiac's nations.
If gangs/nations were dynamic in the sense that players could create them without staff intervention the system wouldn't need this much moderation.
Capping and preventing players from participating in a certain aspect of the server isn't an incentive to get better (considering it's player controlled skill will probably have very little to do with it and instead rely more on social connections), it's a deterrent from actually getting to play the game.
|
And this.
On paper I can see how "gangs will only add active players" seems like it'd work, but in practice nobody is going to kick their friends out of their gang and recruit somebody that they don't like just for points -- which mean nothing anyway. So in the end you might actually get some gang reform immediately after this change, but in the end gangs will revert and end up just being less active than before.
I also understand that on the flip side it's hard to make points meaningful without a member limit, because without one the winning gang is normally just the gang which zergs the most. In which instance maybe an "on-tag limit" would be better than a hard member cap? But going back to what Jerret said, maybe we should automate the whole thing and just not care?
Maybe it'd be best to just create an automated gang system where gangs can be promoted from and demoted back to party status depending on their week-to-week performance? And then never have to worry about them again.