Increase Supergroup Membership

[Artillerie]

Been running into a few problems with my sg. We all like to have a bunch of alts and we like to hang out together, this has caused us to use the available space for chars rather quickly and then have to try to chose which ones we'll get rid of to free up a space.

 

It would be great if the allowed number of sg members could be doubled or tripled..or quintupled.

[TfStormcry]

I think a great fix would be have the limit stay the same, but have any characters in the sg with the same global handle only count as 1 towards said limit. If they do that, then it'd be nifty if they also added an option to join any sg you're part of with an alt. Possibly tie rank in sg to global handle.

[_NOPE_]

/JRanger

 

If, instead, there could be another level of permissions for Coalition members to determine whether or not to allow other supergroups to take items out of base receptacles, that would resolve the issue.

 

https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Coalition

 

[Castrum]

/sign for all attempts to improve SGs

[Neowulf]

I think a great fix would be have the limit stay the same, but have any characters in the sg with the same global handle only count as 1 towards said limit. If they do that, then it'd be nifty if they also added an option to join any sg you're part of with an alt. Possibly tie rank in sg to global handle.

That was my suggestion way back on live. It would fix the problem perfectly. Alts get to join without increasing the max possible players simultaneously online in the SG, saving on resources.

[Impish Kat]

 

If, instead, there could be another level of permissions for Coalition members to determine whether or not to allow other supergroups to take items out of base receptacles, that would resolve the issue.

 

https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Coalition

 

 

This is a popular request for SG/bases.

However, I don't know how easy or difficult it would be to implement.

 

Right now, each individual item needs to be set with permissions by rank.  This allows us to have "leaders only" salvage set aside.

 

This means that when someone accesses a particular salvage item, the base code does a check against the sg roster for name & rank.

 

Addding Coalie access would mean adding a check against all other rosters in the coalition...  And how then, do you keep your "leaders only" salvage separate?

 

Considering how the salvage is coded to the base, with each and every piece being saved to the base map itself (essentially becoming base items), I just don't know how feasible this would be.

[Mandos]

As the owner of the SG mentioned at the start of this thread, i have 45 people in my SG discord, some are from the coaltion, say 10-15, that still leaves 30 people who want to be involved in the SG. Using the base to get around, using the communal salvage and other handy things we have. We are always full and with how quickly you can level i find it hard to kick out peoples chars just because they havent been played in a few days.

 

Boosting the SG cap to match the 1000 Char limit on each account seems like common sense to me, so that we can still have fun and use the base features. We also made a SG channel to help this issue, but it doesnt help on the base side of things.

[Sidious]

This really needs to happen.

Base raids are no longer a thing.

Prestige is no longer relevant. 

we need to increase the SG size to account for that.

[BlastLord]

There should be like PvE Base raids which gives you specific rewards when completing it. Getting more Super Group Missions to obtain artifacts to boost the stats of your SG members.

I agree with everyone to increase the size of the SG systen it needs to be worked on big time.

Adding a Super Group Perk system which would be good for reasons to join a Super Groups.

Edited July 25, 2019 by BlastLord

[JackDaniels]

I was just coming to this thread to address this exact thing! SG membership numbers need to be raised at least to 1000!! and soon. we have removed characters from our SG because of the SG being full 3 times now.

My vote is to rise the cap for SG characters to 1000 or 1500 something like that.

[Widower]

There are database issues with raising the cap. Apparently, even the raise Paragon did up to 150 very nearly broke things, so it's not particularly likely anytime soon.

[Sidious]

1 hour ago, GM Widower said:

There are database issues with raising the cap. Apparently, even the raise Paragon did up to 150 very nearly broke things, so it's not particularly likely anytime soon.

Ah OK. Well at least now we know. Maybe when the "out of the box" version is available the limitation will be fixed.

Thank you.

[justicebeliever]

5 hours ago, Sidious said:

Ah OK. Well at least now we know. Maybe when the "out of the box" version is available the limitation will be fixed.

Thank you.

What "out of the box" version?  I'm confused...

[ed_anger]

the 150 limit should be for global handles, ie actual people, with as many alts as you want. 

[PaxArcana]

11 minutes ago, ed_anger said:

the 150 limit should be for global handles, ie actual people, with as many alts as you want. 

Again, as GM Widower just mentioned, the problem is database limitations.  SG rosters don't record membership by Global Handle, they record it on a per-character basis.

And before you suggest changing that: not all of one player's characters on a particular server are necessarily going to want to be part of the same, specific, single SG.

[ed_anger]

9 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

Again, as GM Widower just mentioned, the problem is database limitations.  SG rosters don't record membership by Global Handle, they record it on a per-character basis.

And before you suggest changing that: not all of one player's characters on a particular server are necessarily going to want to be part of the same, specific, single SG.

Good idea, change it from per character to per person, as I said. Same number of entries in a database. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by ed_anger

[PaxArcana]

1 minute ago, ed_anger said:

Good idea, change it from per character to per person, as I said. Same number of entries in a database. 

/JRanger

Hell, /JRanger^2 ...!

You completely ignored my point, that there are players who will NOT want all their characters on a given server, to be members of the same single Supergroup.

Just one example: back on Live, on Virtue, had several alts in a supergroup called "The Young Paragons" - it was a light-RP group, themed on "teenaged supers".

Simultaneously, the same group of people had a parallel Villain group, "The Wasted Youth", also on Virtue.  For when we wanted to play redside.

The group even staged a few "crossovers", especially in cooperative trials and zones.  With HC SG/VG being Faction-agnostic (heroes and villains can be in the same group together), making membership be "per @global" would have made that impossible; no-one could have joined the VG without first quitting the SG, and vice versa.  And without doing that .... how would the game know which group name to put over a particular character's head?

[ed_anger]

 

17 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

You completely ignored my point, that there are players who will NOT want all their characters on a given server, to be members of the same single Super

Don’t care, I’m guessing more people would prefer larger SGs than the ability to be in two supergroups, I’d love to see it put to a vote. 

 

You do realize there’s no walls between villains and heroes anymore, right? You can just have them in the same SG, and run all hero or all villain groups when you want to. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by ed_anger

[PaxArcana]

2 hours ago, ed_anger said:

 

Don’t care, I’m guessing more people would prefer larger SGs than the ability to be in two supergroups, I’d love to see it put to a vote. 

So, your mere convenience trumps anyone else's anything?  How very magnanimous of you.

 

Quote

You do realize there’s no walls between villains and heroes anymore, right? You can just have them in the same SG, and run all hero or all villain groups when you want to. 

That would completely defeat the point.  Those were RP groups.  Role-play.  Not merely clumps of players existing for the convenience of finding a team.

[ed_anger]

2 hours ago, PaxArcana said:

So, your mere convenience trumps anyone else's anything?  How very magnanimous of you.

Try, you know, actually reading the thread. Many people would like larger supergroups, this is a solution. 

 

So your arbitrary roleplay needs trumps other people’s social needs? Very nice.  

[Apparition]

The solution is coalitions.  Have people 1 - 10 put 15 toons in a SG, people 11 - 20 put 15 toons in SG II, 21 - 30 put 15 toons in SG III, etc.  Just an example.  Have people 1 - 7 put 20 toons in a SG, 8 - 14 put 20 toons in SG II, 15 - 21 in SG III, 22 - 28 in SG IV, 29 - 35 in SG V, etc.

[PaxArcana]

9 hours ago, ed_anger said:

Try, you know, actually reading the thread. Many people would like larger supergroups, this is a solution. 

You are falsely conflating one thread, with only fifteen respondents (and one GM), of which only about HALF are in support (in one fashion or another), with most people in teh game as a whole.

 

Don't.

 

No single thread - especially one with only a single page of posts - is ever going to be properly representative of the playerbase as a whole.  There is, just to name one reason, typically a large portion of any MMO's playerbase who never even read the forums at all, let alone post replies there.

 

Quote

So your arbitrary roleplay needs trumps other people’s social needs? Very nice.  

Your "social needs" are easily and completely addressed by the use of an existing tool: Coalitions.  Your social needs do not need to be further supported in a way that completely eliminatesp options for other people's differing social needs.

[ed_anger]

49 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

No single thread - especially one with only a single page of posts - is ever going to be properly representative of the playerbase as a whole.  There is, just to name one reason, typically a large portion of any MMO's playerbase who never even read the forums at all, let alone post replies there.

As I said, I’d gladly put it to a vote. FYI coalitions don’t allow sharing materials, so not really a solution. 

 

For your good guy/bad guy roleplay, you can make paper hats that say “Hero” and “Villain” and swap between the two when you change characters. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by ed_anger

[Widower]

I would note that we're not really in the business of limiting options or significantly changing how the game works to appease a subset of the population. Also, I feel reasonably certain that your idea isn't actually possible; presumably the SG cap checks every character in the character db and doesn't check the auth db, which it would need to, since handles don't exist outside the chatserver. Rewriting the code in such a way would presumably be a horrific pain, and there are many other things our coders would rather spend their time on that would improve the experience for everyone rather than cause a riot. So, no, we're not going to set up joining SGs by account.

[WanderingAries]

22 hours ago, ed_anger said:

Try, you know, actually reading the thread. Many people would like larger supergroups, this is a solution. 

 

So your arbitrary roleplay needs trumps other people’s social needs? Very nice.  

I think you're missing something rather big here though. RP or not, people Intentionally will have some alts in one group and some in another. Especially those from the OG. What you're suggesting (if it were even Possible, which it's already been suggested is Not) would result in a mess where Every alt you make will go into that SG.

 

Now, think about this a minute. Just think about how big those ranks will get in a hurry. IDK about you, but I've already got about 4-5 dozen alts (most are OG remakes). Now imagine you get say 5 of us like that in a group and then somebody wants to go change a rank. Something rather simple and normally quick-ish depending on sorting and activity. Even if you expanded the group window from top-bottom of a screen, it would take maybe half a dozen pages to Read just to find that alt.

 

Oh and don't forget about the bases. Your first problem will be sharing storage. We already know the storage limit is EASY to hit with a Single hoarder in the base, but imagine trying to share with hundreds of alts vs a couple hundred. Ok, you can set rules on that and hope they're followed.

 

What about when you get a couple hundred people hanging out in the base and a few of them happen to be multi-boxing...do you like HARD crashes, because that's how you get server/instance killing crashes.

 

The point is, until the database issue gets a work around (I'm assuming that means when they get time to dump the spaghetti and build from scratch), we're likely going to have to just deal with this as is and how we've managed before. Creatively, with coalitions, and the understanding that while we're lucky the game is back, we're even luckier it happens to work due to some very creative fixing back in OG.