Cataclysm: Guild cap revised, now 1,000 members

While there are not a huge amount of guilds that go over the 1,000-player limit, those multitudes of players came out in anger over Blizzard's decision to set a hard cap. Now, with that cap raised, these guilds may potentially fall under the new rules, keeping their organizations intact. Hit the jump for the full announcement.
We previously announced in the Cataclysm Beta forums that we'd be enforcing a 600 guild member cap with patch 4.0.1. We've reevaluated what we believe the realms are capable of supporting and instead will be enforcing a guild member hard cap of 1,000 members. This means that guilds with more than 1,000 members will no longer be able to invite new members until they drop below the cap. For example, if a guild has 1,500 members they'll be able to continue as-is, playing and earning guild achievements for as long as they choose, through Cataclysm and beyond, but they will not be able to add new members until they fall below the 1,000 member cap. If a guild has fewer than 1,000 members, they won't be able to add members above that number.
This new guild cap is being enforced for several reasons, but they all factor into a need to control guild sizes in light of the new guild systems, including guild leveling and achievements. Previously, adding players to a guild was as simple as adding people to a chat channel. While approximately 500 members were visible in the UI, there was no real need to limit guild size. That is no longer the case. Guild leveling in Cataclysm features unified progression powered by a series of complex systems that track the contributions of all guild members. The larger the guild, the bigger the impact on these systems. We found it necessary to determine a maximum guild size to ensure continued performance now and into the future.
We want to reassure the few guilds that this does impact that they have ample time to plan and rearrange their guilds as they see fit. While this hard cap will go into effect with 4.0.1, guilds should feel safe rearranging members as necessary up to the release of Cataclysm on December 7 when the guild leveling system goes into effect. There will be no impact on guild leveling progression before then. If a guild were to disband after Cataclysm, or a group of people were to leave and start a new guild, they would lose the time and experience they previously contributed and potentially extend the amount of time it would take to regain the new guild perks.
While some players have used options including mods and custom chat channels to support large player and guild alliances that number multiple thousands, groups of that size aren't ideally suited to our design philosophy. As always, we're continually looking into adding new features to help facilitate guild management, scheduling, and player communication.
This new guild cap is being enforced for several reasons, but they all factor into a need to control guild sizes in light of the new guild systems, including guild leveling and achievements. Previously, adding players to a guild was as simple as adding people to a chat channel. While approximately 500 members were visible in the UI, there was no real need to limit guild size. That is no longer the case. Guild leveling in Cataclysm features unified progression powered by a series of complex systems that track the contributions of all guild members. The larger the guild, the bigger the impact on these systems. We found it necessary to determine a maximum guild size to ensure continued performance now and into the future.
We want to reassure the few guilds that this does impact that they have ample time to plan and rearrange their guilds as they see fit. While this hard cap will go into effect with 4.0.1, guilds should feel safe rearranging members as necessary up to the release of Cataclysm on December 7 when the guild leveling system goes into effect. There will be no impact on guild leveling progression before then. If a guild were to disband after Cataclysm, or a group of people were to leave and start a new guild, they would lose the time and experience they previously contributed and potentially extend the amount of time it would take to regain the new guild perks.
While some players have used options including mods and custom chat channels to support large player and guild alliances that number multiple thousands, groups of that size aren't ideally suited to our design philosophy. As always, we're continually looking into adding new features to help facilitate guild management, scheduling, and player communication.






Reader Comments (Page 2 of 5)
thebitterfig Oct 9th 2010 10:37AM
I also wish Bliz had better/more programmers, and illustrators, since non-feral druid forms really need new art. There are also a bunch of other minor quirks they could no doubt fix. However!
Consider this one glitch in isolation. There are three options. [1] leave it in the game and go live anyhow. [2] delay release until it's fixed [3] hardcap guild size and [a] work on fixing it with the hard cap as a temporary workaround or [b] just leave the hard cap in place and make the next patch/expansion/game.
Personally, I like option 3a. Gets the product out on time, and aims to fix the problem when they've got more time to work on it. options 1 and 2 are both really bad plans, and 3b is plausible, but popular support wants this fixed at least eventually.
Ianmis Oct 8th 2010 11:04PM
I find myself slightly confused. Is this a cap on accounts in the guild or toons? Meaning, can a guild have up to 1000 actual accounts with 10 toons per account in their guild, amounting to over 10,000 toons per guild or does it mean that only 1000 toons can be in a guild?
Robin Torres Oct 8th 2010 11:06PM
characters, not accounts. Unfortunately.
Nathan Alberg Oct 8th 2010 11:07PM
Drop alts from guild = problem solved. Any guild over 1000 members is not a guild, its an army.
Robin Torres Oct 8th 2010 11:13PM
In our case, it's a guild. That is, if you think that people hanging out on multiple alts to chat, group, help each other out, etc. is a guild. I know I do.
D-Rider Oct 9th 2010 12:10AM
A raid guild already is an army, albeit a smallish one (in most cases). And yeah, dropping the alts may work there. For a social guild, booting out alts is pretty much missing the whole point of the guild. Social guilds are about people, not characters, and some people play lots of alts. Limiting the alts basically makes them part-time guild members. They can only be on guild chat part of the time they're playing.
The guild leveling and achievement systems fit the raid guild model much better than the social guild model. In fact, they'll probably destroy many small social guilds, as people leave for larger guilds to get the new goodies. Just as people already end up leaving social guilds in order to raid.
Raid guilds and social guilds are 2 different things, but unfortunately there's only one game mechanic available, so you can be in only one or the other. And blizzard's design decisions invariably favor the raid guild model.
Phort Oct 9th 2010 12:25AM
The alts are now DIAMONDS!!
cocoboom Oct 9th 2010 2:42AM
I'm on a horse.
sullyXXX Oct 9th 2010 2:45AM
I tend to agree, in a 200 person guild, there are people I really don't know from a bar of soap. In a 1000 player guild, I can't help but feel it's just a glorified trade chat.
Brett Porter Oct 9th 2010 9:43AM
I've got to assume you've never been in a large social/casual guild? I'm not saying that makes you a bad person or anything like that, but the fact remains that large guilds are there typically for a social aspect, such as the ones I'm in, It came from the Blog and the WHU alliance of guilds.
Forcing folks to remove all alts would destroy the social aspect of that setup. I'm an admitted altoholic, but as long as the guild powers that be enforce a login requirement, I'm ok with a typically unplayed alt, or not as played alt, getting booted to make room for someone more active, or at least more recently active.
Fierna Oct 9th 2010 11:17PM
"it's not a guild it's an army"
Just because a guild doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean it isn't ideal for its members.
Shinji Oct 9th 2010 11:47PM
"Raid guilds and social guilds are 2 different things, but unfortunately there's only one game mechanic available, so you can be in only one or the other. And blizzard's design decisions invariably favor the raid guild model."
Hahaha, well, thats not totally true. I know of at least one guild that has a hardcore progression roster and plenty of social, casual players.
Priestess Oct 8th 2010 11:26PM
I cheered! Not that I like having a cap, but even though I'm part of a guild not even close to the previously stated cap, 600 felt cramped. 1,000 seems like there's some breathing room. I'm grateful that Blizzard was willing to compromise on this issue.
Bethontheharbor Oct 8th 2010 11:38PM
Like they say after an amazing high flying wrestling move..
Holy S*it! Holy S*it!
ok next one who says Blizz does not listen to their players at all..
I'll be supplying the rope for the lynch mob.
Woohoo good job blizz.
devilsei Oct 9th 2010 12:09AM
Eh, they just need to implement an "alliance" system for guilds that would be affected. Each guild in the alliance will be responsible for its own level gains, but doing any raids won't penalize each other due to the "guild member" requirement. So if for some reason Guild AB had to split into Guild A and Guild B, and needed 5 from each for a certain raid, both could get the guild raid achievement.
Hell Cataclysm is probably dying for a gold sink right now, so just make the cost of the alliance like 10k per guild or something.
Saeadame Oct 9th 2010 12:27AM
I'm not sure if that wouldn't defeat the purpose of a guild member cap. The reason that they're putting it in is that they want stability. If they're STILL tracking achievements for two guilds of 1000 members treated as one guild, it would be like tracking the achievements of one guild with 2000 members... which is what they're trying to avoid.
One work around would be to have two different kinds of alliances, one that is just a combined chat that can be used to connect multiple guilds, and one that is like you mentioned, but with a combined member cap across all the connected guilds of 1000. Most raiding guilds won't even get up to even half that many members anyway, so it would work out.
Artificial Oct 9th 2010 4:12AM
@Saeadame: You appear to have misread devilsei's proposal. The two guilds would not be treated as one guild. Separate levels, achievements, etc. What devilsei proposed was that guild members of allied guilds count as guild members for purposes of the guild member requirements when doing achievements, for example, if in order to count towards the achievement, 8 of 10 members of the raid must be guild members, then membership in either allied guild would count. This imposes no extra tracking requirements or stability issues beyond those involved in having two entirely separate guilds, it just allows them to raid together and have it count towards earning the (separately tracked) achievements.
Hanak Oct 9th 2010 6:23AM
But it would in all probability require about as much tracking. At least for the instance. See, one easy way to implement guild achievements is to have each member report every achievement to the guild. If 8 or more members simultaneously report a 10-player achievement with the same instance-ID, the guild gets an achievement. This implementation would of course not work if you had two guilds who cooperated. Because those guilds would have to synchronize the reports.
I'm not saying that Blizz did it this way, I'm just trying to point out a scenario in which guild alliances wouldn't work (for achievements at least).
Cheledril Oct 9th 2010 12:35AM
Alea Iacta Est is at over 7000 members and over 3000 mains. We're still screwed... :(
Saeadame Oct 9th 2010 12:47AM
Well hey, now you get to be AIE unam, duo, etc.