Linkshell Capacities Need to be Increased.

128 is a ridiculously low number... the community I am a part of on Gilgamesh has so many players that we have had to open 5 different LS's to hold them all. It's rather bothersome when you want to talk to people you know, but you can't because they are in one of the other LS's.

If there is some sort of data problem with increasing this, why not shrink the number of LS's we can have and jack up the limits. I don't remember it clearly, but I seem to recall that the LS's in 1.0 had a huge capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eshura

128 is a ridiculously low number... the community I am a part of on Gilgamesh has so many players that we have had to open 5 different LS's to hold them all. It's rather bothersome when you want to talk to people you know, but you can't because they are in one of the other LS's.

If there is some sort of data problem with increasing this, why not shrink the number of LS's we can have and jack up the limits. I don't remember it clearly, but I seem to recall that the LS's in 1.0 had a huge capacity.

---

Wouldn't more than 128 just end up being unreadable spam? You casually chatting with the friends you want to get a hold of in the shell while 500+ other people are doing the same thing will just make it unreadable. I'm sure the cap is there for a reason.

Well SE did say that they wanted Linkshell's to be treated like chat rooms. So 128 does seem kind of low. It's not like every single member is online constantly.

Noah your argument is void when FCs can hold over 200 already. There's only 1 FC chat. And I totally agree we need more linkshells, mine is completely full and we have a waiting list. Furthermore, we need to be able to see when people last logged in so we can kick inactives easier without having to resort to making a google doc and manually keeping track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selluna

Noah your argument is void when FCs can hold over 200 already. There's only 1 FC chat. And I totally agree we need more linkshells, mine is completely full and we have a waiting list. Furthermore, we need to be able to see when people last logged in so we can kick inactives easier without having to resort to making a google doc and manually keeping track.

---

If you'll also read the second part of the post (not just the first part), you'll notice I ended with saying "500+". Yes, that would be spam. And no, what I said wasn't void. It wasn't even an argument, I was genuinely inquiring if she thought about just how bad 500+ people in the same LS would be. With 50-80 people talking at once at any given time. I personally don't care and wanted her take to the question posed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eshura

128 is a ridiculously low number... the community I am a part of on Gilgamesh has so many players that we have had to open 5 different LS's to hold them all. It's rather bothersome when you want to talk to people you know, but you can't because they are in one of the other LS's.

If there is some sort of data problem with increasing this, why not shrink the number of LS's we can have and jack up the limits. I don't remember it clearly, but I seem to recall that the LS's in 1.0 had a huge capacity.

---

I'm all for increasing LS player limits. I can't remember what the cap was in 1.0, but I remember that LS leaders were unable to boot inactive players and this led to Linkshells getting remade every so often. (I think the cap might have been 128 in 1.0 too)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selluna

Noah your argument is void when FCs can hold over 200 already. There's only 1 FC chat. And I totally agree we need more linkshells, mine is completely full and we have a waiting list. Furthermore, we need to be able to see when people last logged in so we can kick inactives easier without having to resort to making a google doc and manually keeping track.

---

this is what we really need
i don't really mind the 128 cap, but at least we have to be able to monitor the members