Discussion - Should Guild Age Be A Guild Rank Criteria?

[csyui]

LOL my case can be fixed never said it isnt fixable, but i just highly believe putting in more factors in there outside PVP would be better , more variables

Bro, no need to explain any more, that is waste of your time and efforts.

You can't expect to convince them of the fact that "adding more criterion will make the guild LB more comprehensive", as they care too much about their guild rank now.

[Zeus]

even if DM is #1 right now, its not about the ranks , id still make the same argument
for this whole time really my main focus and what i been trying to tell u over and over and over and over
less percentage each category the better.. 6% is nothing 1/16 , make it 1/20 guild ranks if even possible

6% is nothing, yet it is able to boost DM to the top because of huge outliers? C'mon ink...this is statistics. You're talking percents while I am talking outliers. Percent me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that having an outlier in this category completely destroys your chance at being #1. And no, you won't be able to fix that outlier either without a guild rename, top guild disbanding, or a younger guild coming into the leaderboard.

@Cs
I never said no in adding more criteria. If you want proof, see my suggestions to Aze and H2N. However, I am saying no to adding criteria that one can do anything about. That's not a criteria, that's a booster seat so people do not have to work as hard in the categories that they should be working hard in.

[inkredible]

Taking a look at your statistics, there's a lot more to fix than just PvP. Honestly, PvP is one of the better looking statistics apart from captures/deaths. How about, instead of making 6 separate categories for PvP based achievements, reduce that to one overall PvP based? You could take the average of those 6 and that would be your overall PvP based. This way, there isn't as big of an influence in PvP since it's only one category versus six.

why are you still talking about my guild.. this isnt about my guild, im not making this discussion on how to fix dm.. LOL!

7.5 to 6.6 less than a week.. i took over DM saturday not to do nothing , i swear you get so off topics sometimes

talk about guild age - to you focusing about my guild and your guild

i keep trying to focus in the math factor of this and the positives and negatives of each categories and u keep bringing it back to your guild and mine.

[inkredible]

Lol, the current factors are easily in favour of new guilds like Magnum and Res. Activity, kdrs (less ppl -> higher kdr)...many more

lol exactly..

[Zeus]

why are you still talking about my guild.. this isnt about my guild, im not making this discussion on how to fix dm.. LOL!

7.5 to 6.6 less than a week.. i took over DM saturday not to do nothing , i swear you get so off topics sometimes

talk about guild age - to you focusing about my guild and your guild

i keep trying to focus in the math factor of this and the positives and negatives of each categories and u keep bringing it back to your guild and mine.

I keep bringing it back to your guild and mine because any "math" that you bring up favors you and is misrepresented. So, it really does come down to your guild and mine. If it didn't, you would not keep shoving 6% at me. I just proved to you have that 6% is not 6% if there's an outlier present. Numbers can be manipulated too, Ink.

Also, the factors that you presented are factors that cannot be competed with apart from timed runs (which I already suggested). So, until you give factors and percentages that do not favor your guild and offer all guilds an equal opportunity to compete, I will view it as manipulation to keep your guild rank on top.

[Zeus]

lol exactly..

All factors which are manipulable and you can compete in. Case and point of another old guild who's able to do it: EoS

• They have 3 #1 spots in activity and 2 #2 spots in activity.

PvP is not determined based off of newness, it is determined based off the amount of people that actually PvP in that guild. If it was, you would see a new guild like Republika being in the top 3, but that is not the case. Rather, an older guild (EoS) has a lot of the top 3 PvP achievements as well.

Activity, as I mentioned is also able to be fixed. I gave you a case and point for that as well.

Your factors and guild age are criteria that nobody can do anything about. How is that fair to anyone other than the ones that benefit from it?

[inkredible]

okay lets end this conversation with

PLease add more factors in guild ranks

because 6/15 - being pvp is kind of unfair , IF AGE has to be one, then pls do so

and please add more pve in there ..

if pve and pvp in guild ranks are evenly distribute then new players can easily tell which guilds are more balanced in terms of having even pvpers and pvers
and a guild with more pvpers and more pvers, and less pvpers and so on



end of discussion

[Zeus]

okay lets end this conversation with

PLease add more factors in guild ranks

because 6/15 - being pvp is kind of unfair , IF AGE has to be one, then pls do so

and please add more pve in there ..

if pve and pvp in guild ranks are evenly distribute then new players can easily tell which guilds are more balanced in terms of having even pvpers and pvers
and a guild with more pvpers and more pvers, and less pvpers and so on



end of discussion

Here's my solution to PvP:
• turn all those 6/15 PvP into a single overall PvP rank. Use those 6 factors to determine the single overall PvP rank.

If we add more PvE, then it will be very PvE dependent which then favors PvE as well. So, as a result, I suggest that H2N does the same for PvE as well.

Thus, this will put both PvE and PvP on equal grounds which is fair, right?


Then, to replace to removed criteria, add other criteria:
• amount of players per guild on pure timed runs
• amount of players per guild on enhanced timed runs (or you can combine bullet point 1 and 2 into one rank)
• amount of leaderboard players per guild (feel free to disagree with me, I'd rather have as non-biased as possible, which is why I disagreed with guild age)

As you pointed out, Ink, the issue is not adding more ranks, but it is minimizing those rank (if I am correct on how the guild rank is calculated, then this will work out. If not, then minimizing ranks will do nothing.)

[Limsi]

I am in favor of the idea!

[Endkey]

Agree with zeus.I have a guild I made in s2 which i made for the Aps. If all resilience transfers to that guild, it will get the first position again.
What we only will see is new and weird names on the flag Lb, the guilds made by people who wernt planning on making their own guilds but kept all their alts in the guild they made. So really this will change LB and noone will really know which guild is which as constant name changes and trying to find old names will confuse all.

[Alhuntrazeck]

I'm betting Speedofsound (aka Age) will love this thread. He's mentioned everywhere! xD

[Zeus]

I'm betting Speedofsound (aka Age) will love this thread. He's mentioned everywhere! xD

Lol!

By the way, I just did the math and if you average out the PvP categories into 1 category, it does drive the average rank from 5.0 to 7.2. I'm sure there's more factors that go into play, but this might be a possible solution.

[inkredible]

Here's my solution to PvP:
• turn all those 6/15 PvP into a single overall PvP rank. Use those 6 factors to determine the single overall PvP rank.

If we add more PvE, then it will be very PvE dependent which then favors PvE as well. So, as a result, I suggest that H2N does the same for PvE as well.

Thus, this will put both PvE and PvP on equal grounds which is fair, right?


Then, to replace to removed criteria, add other criteria:
• amount of players per guild on pure timed runs
• amount of players per guild on enhanced timed runs (or you can combine bullet point 1 and 2 into one rank)
• amount of leaderboard players per guild (feel free to disagree with me, I'd rather have as non-biased as possible, which is why I disagreed with guild age)

As you pointed out, Ink, the issue is not adding more ranks, but it is minimizing those rank (if I am correct on how the guild rank is calculated, then this will work out. If not, then minimizing ranks will do nothing.)

Minimizing ranks doesn't mea putting pvp in one category
That's actually maximizing the percentage per criteria

If u combine all 6 into 1 .. You're looking at
1/10 criteria , as suppose to 1/15, 1/20, and so on
What I mean by more variables .. All it is .. Is to reduce the weighing of each criteria

By doing so it promotes other criteria to be worked with rather than focusing in pvp since it weighs the most
And defines a guild in a more depth perception. If there are 6 pvp factors make it even and have 6 pve factors or others

[Zeus]

Minimizing ranks doesn't mea putting pvp in one category
That's actually maximizing the percentage per criteria

If u combine all 6 into 1 .. You're looking at
1/10 criteria , as suppose to 1/15, 1/20, and so on
What I mean by more variables .. All it is .. Is to reduce the weighing of each criteria

By doing so it promotes other criteria to be worked with rather than focusing in pvp since it weighs the most
And defines a guild in a more depth perception. If there are 6 pvp factors make it even and have 6 pve factors or others

If I combined all 6 into one, it's 1/9 criteria as opposed to 6/15 criteria. That's a big difference, no? Yes, your way will reduce the weight of criteria as well but I believe mine is more efficient in the sense that less categories are needed in order to be accurate.

This would also tip the favors to PvE but not that much as only 2/9 will be PvE criteria.

The downfall of this would be that guilds could not see which stat in PvP they needed to improve unless H2N was willing to provide a breakdown of that each time.

What are your thoughts?

[inkredible]

I don't even know if what I said make sense I'm
GOing to sleep

[inkredible]

They just need to add more different things there pve factor there is only killing mobs while pvp has flagging tdm ctf
Maybe what be better is having avg rank for tdm avg rank for ctf - makes 2 for pvp rather than 6 or if they add more factors for pve say elite timed runs .. That makes 3 pve .. Then make
Pvp 3 also by extracting ctf flag as a diff category ..
Maybe sts should can divide pve into more Indepth
Example

Normal map kills
Elite kills

[falmear]

I completely skipped all discussions and am just going to post my thoughts:

1) Guild Age is valid as any other stat. Pve Kills/Member, TDM Kills/Member, CTF Kills/Member, CTF Captures/Member & Avg Account Age all have the benefit of time. The longer you have been around the more kills you can amass. So saying Guild Age is meaningless is also saying number of kills or captures is meaningless because you could have had over 1 year to get these kills. Also longevity equates some kind of standing in society, the longer you have been around means some kind of quality and/or trust.

2) I would like timed runs represented in the guild rankings either by banners received by members or records set by members at the end of previous seasons. Current season should be excluded. PvE is under represented in the guild rankings. There is 3 PvE rankings vs 6 PvP rankings. PvP is only 2 maps in Arcane Legends, yet it is considerably weighted more in the rankings.

3) CTF C/D & CTF Capture/Member should be removed. We all know these are bogus stats where people were free flagging and exploiting a bug to flag unopposed. Last season I had a suspicion that some change would be made based on the level anger on the forums. So I flagged 1k flags in about week. Almost all was just mindless running back and forth between flags. So how does this stat make you a top guild?

So as we can see by #1 & #3, guild age is as valid as any of these stats. Because in case of #1 people who have been playing longer have an advantage and in #3 people have manipulated the stats. But now its not possible to manipulate the stats in the same way.

[OtAtOtomustam]

How about instead of adding guild age we add a bit more guild management tools :-P I know you devs are busy but even something as simple as the ability to filter a roster by something other than guild rank (member, recruiter, officer) would be a tremendous help. I am sorry I know its off topic but couldnt miss the opportunity. We really do need more guild management/functionality rather than more guild ranking criteria :-)

[KingMartin]

Guild hoppers won't like this as proven in the discussion above :-)

I vote yes of course

[eeknoh]

Falmear wins