Printable View
Guild ranking just based on the number of 61s has a problem. The number of 61s, IMO, has nothing to do with the quality of the guild because you can easily become 61s by spending plats or golds for elixirs.
This is the easy formula what I thought of.
The number of enemy kills + 10 times of the number of pvp kills + 5 times of the number of capture the flag kills.
Mhm. With that kind of ranking "the best" guilds wouldn't be on top. Only the ones which have recruited as many players as possible would be on top and large number of players doesnt mean the guild would be pro. And besides. Those most kills pve monsters would dominate this thing.
The ranking based on most 61s is the most reliable way. That war of 100k exp is that kind of horrible campaign which not everyone want or will do.
That's the reason why we should not keep the ranking based on the number of 61 players. That is purely based on the number of players. 100 xp is nothing with 4x elixir. 25k xp, you can get it in two days.Quote:
Originally Posted by dudetus
Then, how about this?
Average of total pve and pvp killing numbers.
e.g. (PVE Kills + 10 x PVP Kills + 5 x ctf kills) / the number of players in the guild
I think it should be ranked by how many players are in a guild its simple
I think that this wouldn't really show who is the best, but the biggest. And some players have a lot of Alternates, so might not be the best way to find the best guild.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimtigrex
Personally, the leaderboards are pretty meaningless. Everything is basically stats all-time. Most this. Most that.
I think leaderboards (or at least a subset of the leaderboards) would be more interesting and more encouraging for people to aim for if they were just a snapshot of the current week (or two weeks works well also).
Imagine a set of leaderboard categories that were divided, grouped by:
individuals by any class,
individuals by class,
guilds
From there, the only stats kept tracked of are:
total xp gained
kills
(is ratio really, really, really necessary?)
total levels gained (maybe even show how long it took if some individuals were able to go from L1 to level cap within a reset?)
Guild stats can be kept track of in two ways:
Total
Average (total divided by members in guild. shouldn't be valid for guilds with less than 5 members)
Stats would be shown for two ranges:
the final stats for the previous reset
the ongoing stats for the current reset, updated daily (or hourly, or realtime)
If such stats were reset periodically (each week or two), just about anybody has a chance to get into the leader board during any particular reset.
Something like this goes more along the lines of the casual, mobile gameplay which we all love about STS instead of the "must play 26 hours a day 10 days a week grind to get on the leaderboards" mentality.
One of the interesting qualities of the setup above is the possibilities for low level guilds to do well, especially in total levels gained.
I guess one difficulty is the xp gained part. I just remembered that it's stored only as a percentage of the xp TNL. Would it be difficult to store actual xp gained for leaderboard purposes? I really think xp gained would be a great stat to watch, especially if it's averaged out for guilds (with >= 5 members)
Good idea!
I partially agree with you, but It's better not to use "ranking" and "quality of guild" with the context you are making. Rank in the leader boards is a number, and you're suggesting to use other numbers to describe "quality", which can be achieved over time -- it just so happens that elixir gets you to a higher number quicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderjuice
There are some qualities that can describe a guild. For example, the number of players who stay or leave a guild... The number of connections you make in a personal level... The number of goofballs who makes players laugh (yes, I'm one of those and I'm glad the guild puts with it lol).
All I'm saying is the number of kills (as you suggested), the number of 61s, etc., is used for rank -- which can be a guideline for quality. Is rank what you really mean and want to see? Because quality is hard to quantify, and IMHO, you are using the wrong numbers to describe quality (or at least, quality that seems important to you).
P.s. I haven't had my coffee yet, but it's sunny outside... Good morning!
It would be a lot better if guilds aren't listed as a "leaderboard". I will be happy to see ALL guilds, the number of their members and officers (Endgame or not), and a comment text (a motto!). How do you think players should choose guild to apply if they do not have / don't like access to forums?
The current formula for top guild is good. I've seen threads saying make it most people, most kills, ect. But these options are all going to end up being biased. There's my 2 cents