the limit of the guild member

[messiah44]

after the new core used on icecrown,the limit of the guild member had been set to the 1000.
as a 7x exp server,many ppl has at least 10+ roles,as a guild officer,i spend a lot of time to clear unactive roles to add new players or the ppl who afk servral months.
so could u plz consider to remove or at least raise up the limit of the guild member.
thx

[Obnoxious]

Something doesn't fits i what you're saying. You have to clear a lot of people who don't login for months, and your solution is adding even more room for more people to not login for months? Is there any reasoning to your suggestion besides what sounds like not wanting to have to deal with kicking missing people to make room for new recruits, i.e. laziness?

[Proterean]

While technically we can set it to a higher amount, it'd be undesirable as we had guilds in the past with insane numbers that even slowed down startup time of our realms.

The best choice with this is to do as Obnoxious suggested above and that is to better manage your members.

[messiah44]

thx for ur replies.our guide officer aren't lazy,maybe we should create an alt guilde to solve the problem.
my guild is the only one icecrown alliance guild from china may cause the problem.

[Mirda2000]

I think Warmane should decrease 1000 to 500 player cap max. WHY? Who needs a big guild like that? except Ohdo and other cancerous guilds. A serious guild who raids 25m everyday would be satisfied with a number of 500 players in guild.

[Obnoxious]

thx for ur replies.our guide officer aren't lazy,maybe we should create an alt guilde to solve the problem.
my guild is the only one icecrown alliance guild from china may cause the problem.

Alright, you said it isn't a matter of laziness, but still didn't give a reasoning for a need to increase the amount of players in a guild, especially when the issue you point out is a lot of inactive members having to be removed and that taking time. Creating another guild will just bloat the problem further.

[DamnOriginal]

Alright, you said it isn't a matter of laziness, but still didn't give a reasoning for a need to increase the amount of players in a guild

His reasoning is that because this is a x7 realm, people are naturally going to have way more characters and require more spots in a guild. It's right there in the OP.

[Obnoxious]

His reasoning is that because this is a x7 realm, people are naturally going to have way more characters and require more spots in a guild. It's right there in the OP.

Yet he says they keep having to kick characters that are inactive for months, so it's not a matter of a lack of spots, even with people having multiple characters. As long as there are inactive people to kick, there is no real lack of spots.

[Garamir]

I'm gonna play the opposite end of the scale on this. I think the cap should be lowered to 250. What sense is there in having a 1000 guild members? Or 2000 if you open an alt guild, as mentioned. It's collecting for the sake of collecting. Your officer's might not be lazy but that doesn't mean there isn't another underlying problem here. It could be your policies regarding inactive members. Let's look at my guild. I have a one month inactivity purge rule for any member who hasn't logged in for one month. If they have to take a leave, that's fine. Just message an officer so they can note it on the Guild window not to delete them from the guild. If a member does get deleted for inactivity, they are welcome to rejoin any time. The point is not to punish people for not playing but rather to clear out unneeded nonsense. When people join my guild, it pretty much comes with an unwritten guarantee that people here are active or at least have been on recently. Having a guild with 1000+ people makes no sense when only a handful of them have logged in in the last 30 or 60 days or whatever. Even if you shuffle your roster to show the oldest logins first and just remove a few of them each day, you will see results. Without the server admins having to lift a finger to change that little number next to guildMemberCap or whatever they have as their handler so they can focus on more important things.

Now lets look at the horrible problem with this request. It's unnecessary data collection. Increasing that cap means more guilds can neglect removing absentee guild members and increase junk data on the servers which can cause all kinds of server-end issues. I'm not entirely convinced that when a character is deleted either by the player or by staff, that it actually removes that name from the guild roster. Haven't exactly tested this theory so it's purely speculation. If that were the case, that is a LOT of potential junk data collection. That might be a better use of staff time, following up on that and fixing it if it is in fact a thing. That could also help with the OPs issue some. If not, then my original recommendation stands. Focus on a way to procedurally clear out the junk within your guild rather than ask for changes that could bog down the servers with junk data and ruin it for everybody.

[DamnOriginal]

Yet he says they keep having to kick characters that are inactive for months, so it's not a matter of a lack of spots, even with people having multiple characters. As long as there are inactive people to kick, there is no real lack of spots.

It doesn't matter if there are inactive people to kick, what matters is the ratio of kicks to recruits. If a guild recruits more than they kick, it's not a problem until they reach the cap and become bottlenecked, at which point their recruits will drop down to the amount of kicks and they wont have the spots to recruit all the potential recruits they otherwise would have.

I'm gonna play the opposite end of the scale on this. I think the cap should be lowered to 250. What sense is there in having a 1000 guild members?

Yeah! Now you can limit your guild to 30 people and their 8 alts or be an insufferable prick and whine whenever people ask for their alts to get invited because "muh limitd resorces".

[Obnoxious]

It doesn't matter if there are inactive people to kick, what matters is the ratio of kicks to recruits. If a guild recruits more than they kick, it's not a problem until they reach the cap and become bottlenecked, at which point their recruits will drop down to the amount of kicks and they wont have the spots to recruit all the potential recruits they otherwise would have.

And at no moment he claims to have too many people in the guild or no spots for recruits, but about having to constantly kick inactive people to make room. The ratio of kicks to recruits is a non-issue while you have inactive people to kick. It only becomes something relevant when every single character in the guild is very active - which means everyone with ten characters, all in the same guild, actively playing with them all, not having a single one that is just an alt crafter/personal bank/whatever else that doesn't requires a guild spot. "Muh idle alts" isn't a good reason to increase a cap higher than one thousand members.

[DamnOriginal]

And at no moment he claims to have too many people in the guild or no spots for recruits, but about having to constantly kick inactive people to make room. The ratio of kicks to recruits is a non-issue while you have inactive people to kick. It only becomes something relevant when every single character in the guild is very active - which means everyone with ten characters, all in the same guild, actively playing with them all, not having a single one that is just an alt crafter/personal bank/whatever else that doesn't requires a guild spot. "Muh idle alts" isn't a good reason to increase a cap higher than one thousand members.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the guild cap raised because of what Proterean said about startup times. I'm just pointing out that what you said doesn't make sense and still doesn't. I'm sure the guy was only talking about making a second guild because he wasn't anywhere near the cap but this isn't even about his guild in general, it applies to any guild.

The ratio of kicks to recruits is a non-issue while you have inactive people to kick. It only becomes something relevant when every single character in the guild is very active

Look, I don't know how to explain it any simpler. Once you reach the cap, the amount of people you recruit can no longer exceed the amount of people kicked because for every recruit, you have to kick one person and if the amount of recruits is higher then there's simply no way for you to get those people because you no longer have that buffer you did before reaching the cap, the ratio of kicks to recruits is now forced to be 1:1 instead of whatever disproportional number it was before in favor of recruits, this means you are inevitably passing on people who would've joined your guild before you hit the cap but you can't invite them now, even though you're still kicking people at the same rate you were before. It's simple math.

[Obnoxious]

Look, I don't know how to explain it any simpler. Once you reach the cap, the amount of people you recruit can no longer exceed the amount of people kicked because for every recruit, you have to kick one person and if the amount of recruits is higher then there's simply no way for you to get those people because you no longer have that buffer you did before reaching the cap, the ratio of kicks to recruits is now forced to be 1:1 instead of whatever disproportional number it was before in favor of recruits, this means you are inevitably passing on people who would've joined your guild before you hit the cap but you can't invite them now, even though you're still kicking people at the same rate you were before. It's simple math.

I'm not good at drawing, or I'd use some.

Let's try like this:

Guild at cap + inactive characters = not a problem requiring a cap increase, a problem requiring better member management; until someone proves they have one thousand active characters and still need more room, ratios of recruitment are irrelevant.

[DamnOriginal]

I'm not good at drawing, or I'd use some.

Let's try like this:

Guild at cap + inactive characters = not a problem requiring a cap increase, a problem requiring better member management; until someone proves they have one thousand active characters and still need more room, ratios of recruitment are irrelevant.

I don't think anything can warrant a guild cap increase when it's at a sizable 1000 already. I'm just explaining to you how hitting the cap can impact a guild negatively without necessarily requiring its management to be flawed, while you kept saying that just having people to kick means everything is fine and you can still recruit everyone even though that would be impossible at the cap. It seems it worked because now one of the primary negatives of hitting the guild cap is apparently irrelevant in a discussion of whether that guild cap should change. Good to know.

[Obnoxious]

while you kept saying (...) you can still recruit everyone even though that would be impossible at the cap

Nah, that's what you keep trying to say I said, when I never did, while arguing based on a hypothetical fabricated scenario you don't even believe in - as clarified by your statement "I don't think anything can warrant a guild cap increase when it's at a sizable 1000 already" - to try to be "right." What I'm in fact saying is that if a guild is at the cap while having idle/inactive characters, they are at the cap by choice; it's something that needs to be solved internally, not with increases in any cap; it's only an actual "too low cap" issue if a guild is completely filled with active members and there's more to be recruited, which you don't believe in yourself.

But go ahead and follow up with how in simple math we would have an issue if life was found on Mars and more than one thousand martians wanted to play in Warmane, the same server and the same guild. Might as well go full science fiction and add an edge to the story.