CIT Forum Index
Ingame Community => News and Updates => Topic started by: Brian on 21 10, 2019, 03:00:16 pm
-
The title is self explanatory, nowadays with low playercount groups shouldn't have 150 buyable slots, for the simple reason that 3/4 of their members are often long-term inactive or just left the game.
I keep looking at GLM's panel to check how many active members do groups have and even if a group has 150/150, often there are barely 30 members playing regularly. Lowering max amount of slots will increase possibility for new groups to emerge, boards could have lower requirements and group features could cost less. More groups would make the server more lively.
-
To be honest, this one must be added without a suggestion. Why should a group have 150 members when most of them are inactive, it will help new groups to find new members thus they will reach their goals by creating a board, base and why not being official. It's logic since our playercount is low.
-
Yes that's totally logical to do but what is going to happen to groups that already got more than 90 members for the meantime? :thonk:
-
One of the current drawback that we use to have in abundance before are number of Active groups. When I look at LV groups now a days, I can only point out some like 5th, Hobos and Van. Months/Years ago the competition was real with many active groups already playing as a team to dominate other groups and claim their territory. The feeling of capturing turfs with various group trying to destroy ours was great. There were groups like HG, The last resort, XCode, Lynx, Morning star, VG etc
No matter if it's a LV, crim, cop or civ group. Each new group tries to get newbies into their group to strengthen themself because experience players always opt for the higher groups. These new groups with an experienced founder always teaches the Newbie about what to do to favour their group. Like Working for #1 Daily (Crim, LV, Civ), teaching them how to work on a job, how to attend CE, how to Turf etc because the leaders know that if he captures a newbie to play the game and be in his group, it will favour his new group to rise. Thus educating the newbie of the server's features. And making him stick to the server.
Let's take the L1 group I am in. It's CzN, a civ group. Each of the leaders are experienced players and when we see a newbie talking in Team chat or sup chat, we try to get him to our group. Once he is in we show them how to job the civ jobs and the aim to be #1 civ daily. This L1 group is currently filled with newbies (below 50 hr) and most of them are loving the game and getting sticked to it. Since they got to know what they can do in this server. More new groups = more newbies sticking longer to the server.
However it becomes a much harder task for Criminal and cop side groups as their requirements are way higher than civ. Thus they feel demotivated to even start a new group because he/she is ensure that he will fail after reaching level 4 (which happens to almost every new groups)
-
I don't see it necessary just because of the playercount drops, because in summer the playercount will be 300-400 players once again, it's like that every year.
Anyways, we barely see new groups nowadays, most of people wouldn't bother to create a group right now, levels can be gained after months for the groups that are newly created, so if you want to help them out, you should make them level up more easier and not let them wait for months just to achieve one level.
As you can see, from L2 to L3 group takes 2-3 months, why's that? if the group is ready for that, why do they have to wait? if it's 1 month, that would be fine, consider this and you might see new groups.
Decreasing members limit to 90 won't help new groups anyhow, because people prefer to join the higher leveled groups.
-
Not a bad idea, but I don't see how it will increase the number of groups on the server. It's a good way to prevent groups from hoarding inactive members though.
Better yet, why not have a script which automatically kicks non-founders who are inactive for let's say 30-60 days? (Kind of similar to how the home ownership script works). That way, groups cannot hold onto inactive members, and if they ever fall below the requirement, they can be marked as inactive and lose their level.
That would be a fairer system and encourage people to maintain a good level of activity. Also, we need set guidelines for what defines an inactive group and what action to take when a group falls below a certain standard.
I say this, because my group was griefed (all players kicked) and we almost instantly went from L4>L0. On the other hand, some groups exist which have <10 players logging on each month, yet are protected because some staff feel nostalgic about them/are friendly with specific members.
If you want to increase the number of groups on the server, then the whole group lvl system needs to be redone in my opinion. It needs to be clearly stated somewhere and the guidelines should be consistent among all groups. Nobody wants to grind 6+ months in a group on a server with a falling player count when their progress can be erased in an instance without any warning or communication.
-
I fail to see what problems would it cause to have inactive members in a group. Some groups prefer to keep even inactive members in and that's ok.
GLMs can monitor that when it comes to requirements.
-
Yes that's totally logical to do but what is going to happen to groups that already got more than 90 members for the meantime? :thonk:
They get the choice to kick some long term inactive members who left the game years ago or wait until some members leave by themselves. That's the only solution I have in my mind for now if group slots get reduced.
-
In the first saw I was against the idea but after that I got your suggestion , it will be good thing to make groups 100% active better than 13 active from 134 members , this update will make groups more active cause atleast 30 active from 90 better than 20 active from 150 :tick:
-
I don't see it necessary just because of the playercount drops, because in summer the playercount will be 300-400 players once again, it's like that every year.
Anyways, we barely see new groups nowadays, most of people wouldn't bother to create a group right now, levels can be gained after months for the groups that are newly created, so if you want to help them out, you should make them level up more easier and not let them wait for months just to achieve one level.
As you can see, from L2 to L3 group takes 2-3 months, why's that? if the group is ready for that, why do they have to wait? if it's 1 month, that would be fine, consider this and you might see new groups.
Decreasing members limit to 90 won't help new groups anyhow, because people prefer to join the higher leveled groups.
I honestly think the same as 3bood
-
I totally agree with this suggestion. Reducing groups max slots to 90 will make smaller groups alive and it'll give them a chance to prove themselves to this community. :tick:
-
How will this be applied?
Groups with 150 slots have paid for this feature to have it forever and it's their right to get refunded with the 60 slots they have paid for, right? I would suggest the cash amount could be added to their group bank, as an addition to this suggestion.
Also assuming that they got refunded with the amount, will they need to kick all of the inactive members so they start recruiting new ones?
-
Instead of 90 can you change it to 100 as it'll be a even number sometimes there are people who are inactive due to studies or irl problem's, for example me. I had a issue with my PC the screen got destroyed and I didn't think if getting it fixed it's been 6 months and now I'll be coming back so do you get my point yet? Sometimes people have some problems they can't explain and it results into them being inactive. I am voting Postive
-
Makes sense to me, That's why I always kick inactive members who didn't join the game from 20 days+ currently CitiZeNs has 30 members in the group but all of them are active, Always kick inactive players so it would be clear to me who wants promotion etc.. Doesn't make sense to keep member in your group didn't login for 1 year just to have more members in your panel, It's impossible to get more than 90 members in your group are insanely active like 90+ active members, So I believe that's decent number.
Would like to ask, If a group has 150 slots and it was decreased to 90 would they get the money they have paid on these 60 slots ? I mean when you do that you have to put the money they have spent on group bank, Example like a group has 95 slots when it be decreased to 90 then the group get 250k in group bank "50k X 5 = 250k" the money of slots they have spent.
Positive anyways.
-
Imo, it is pretty difficult to just get rid of the old members that basically worked for years to make your group succeed. Any old group leader/founder will understand me. I doubt that kicking old honourable members will help the other groups reach a higher amount of members. We kick members almost daily for being inactive but we might reach a point where we won't have a choice besides kicking the old homies. I cannot support this suggestion.
-
Yes that's totally logical to do but what is going to happen to groups that already got more than 90 members for the meantime? :thonk:
Actually current groups with more than 90 members (my group is one of them) have a minimum of 50-60 inactive players that haven't logged in for over a year so you can easily get rid of them and re-invite them back when they are active again.
But, since a lot of players here are against the idea,
How about we make it so when a player decides to create a group he will have a maximum of 90 player slots and not 150 (if this is possible of course)? so older groups wouldn't have to kick over 50 or 60 of their members.
-
Actually current groups with more than 90 members (my group is one of them) have a minimum of 50-60 inactive players that haven't logged in for over a year so you can easily get rid of them and re-invite them back when they are active again.
But, since a lot of players here are against the idea,
How about we make it so when a player decides to create a group he will have a maximum of 90 player slots and not 150 (if this is possible of course)? so older groups wouldn't have to kick over 50 or 60 of their members.
About your idea, then what is the purpose of implementing this suggestion (Brian's)?
-
About your idea, then what is the purpose of implementing this suggestion (Brian's)?
Brian's purpose of this suggestion is to lower the requirements for new groups in both forum and game to make some new groups appear.
Lowering max amount of slots will increase possibility for new groups to emerge, boards could have lower requirements and group features could cost less. More groups would make the server more lively.
Therefore, I suggested something (just an opinion btw) that could do the job rather than having to kick a lot of members from certain groups as most of the players said above. Although new groups will have the ability to only afford a maximum of 90 player slots but the same requirements will apply for both old (with 150 member slots)/new groups (with 90).
-
Now the server donesn't have many players, and the most of them are already in groups, so we need new rules for groups.
Reducing the max slots of groups is a very good idea.
BUT many of groups have more than 90 members so how can they kick the members to reach to the requirement number of slots ?
-
What about the groups that have the 150 members already? They would need to kick them or the system will do it by itself? What about the bought slots?
If this thing, will make groups more active, I'm positive.
-
Imo, it is pretty difficult to just get rid of the old members that basically worked for years to make your group succeed. Any old group leader/founder will understand me. I doubt that kicking old honourable members will help the other groups reach a higher amount of members. We kick members almost daily for being inactive but we might reach a point where we won't have a choice besides kicking the old homies. I cannot support this suggestion.
When a group member has been inactive for months, it's pretty clear they're gone and won't play. You can be grateful even if they're not in group.
-
The server's playercount is kinda low right now, and surely nobody can start or keep his FULL 150 members active, it'd be a good idea to reduce it to 90 since buying more slots = more inactive members.
-
+30 votes. :tick: