Discussion - Should Guild Age Be A Guild Rank Criteria?

[inkredible]

more factors the better imo

add guild age
add elite time runs
add consistency being in top 50
avg rank of leveling cap in guild
add it all

[inkredible]

This is also a very valid point. It's just not a good stat to include. One mistake and your rank for this is blown, even if it's an accidental disband.

was it an accidental disband? , u disbanded your guild, u reformed now u have 31% chance to boost up ur rank.. aka activity

[Serancha]

was it an accidental disband? , u disbanded your guild, u reformed now u have 31% chance to boost up ur rank.. aka activity

I didn't disband, the previous GM did, and reformed the guild 30 seconds later, according to H2N's stats. This was not intentional, and it was done almost a year ago, so wouldn't have any influence on activity now.

[Zeus]

was it an accidental disband? , u disbanded your guild, u reformed now u have 31% chance to boost up ur rank.. aka activity

Why would you do that?

You can boost the activity through other methods, a lot involves kicking older players versus keeping them for APs. If they're not active, they're not doing a service to your guild...

[inkredible]

I didn't disband, the previous GM did, and reformed the guild 30 seconds later, according to H2N's stats. This was not intentional, and it was done almost a year ago, so wouldn't have any influence on activity now.

im saying.. if it were to happen now..

[Zeus]

im saying.. if it were to happen now..

You act like this won't have an effect on all the other stats...disbanding and reforming is not a good way. What if all the players do not join back? What if you don't have anyone to replace the inactive player's stats? What if the account age drops too much? You're sacrificing so many stats over a simple activity monitor.

Thus, the method I described is a much better way to help this stat. Kick the inactives at a steady rate. Recruit people that can replace their stats and then kick out an inactive. So, as a general rule...one active in = one inactive out + keep the inactives that are old players.

[inkredible]

You act like this won't have an effect on all the other stats...disbanding and reforming is not a good way. What if all the players do not join back? What if you don't have anyone to replace the inactive player's stats? What if the account age drops too much? You're sacrificing so many stats over a simple activity monitor.

Thus, the method I described is a much better way to help this stat. Kick the inactives at a steady rate. Recruit people that can replace their stats and then kick out an inactive. So, as a general rule...one active in = one inactive out + keep the inactives that are old players.

why are you acting like im saying thats the only way? that was just one incident (example) the guild got disbanded.. if renewed they gain in some ranks.. u lose in some. thats just "life"
im not specifically suggesting for people to do that. im saying IF it were to happen. hence why more factors the better.

[Instanthumor]

more factors the better imo

add guild age
add elite time runs
add consistency being in top 50
avg rank of leveling cap in guild
add it all

All these categories are in favor of DM.. Just saying..

[Zeus]

why are you acting like im saying thats the only way? that was just one incident (example) the guild got disbanded.. if renewed they gain in some ranks.. u lose in some. thats just "life"
im not specifically suggesting for people to do that. im saying IF it were to happen. hence why more factors the better.

And I am saying that because it has its downfalls as well, it's not something that'll be manipulated. You're pointing it out as a way to manipulate that statistic but that's not a valid way as it gives other downfalls.

The way that I pointed out is a valid way. Will it take time? Sure, but at least the effects will be visible without jeopardizing other major statistics. If you want to boost up those statistics, do the method that I just showed you.

@Instant
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it...

[Prioritize]

What does guild age have to do with being a top guild?

At the moment, to be the top guild, you must have superior stats in all aspects of the game, have played the game for a while, and be active; all of these factors pertain to players playing the game and your ranking in these factors are within the control of your guild (the exception being avg account age, a topic for another time).

Here's an example of how guild age would be an unfair factor in determining the top guild rankings: If a group of friends consisting of top players created a new guild, should they be denied the #1 top guild ranking just because they decided to create a new guild instead of joining an old guild? Any logical person would answer no. The time a guild has existed has absolutely nothing to do with the superiority of that guild.
And even though the guild age would be only 1 of the 16 factors for determining top guild ranking, a rank of 50 in guild age would certainly skew the average rank of a guild whose other factors are all in the top 4, except ap and account age.
50 + 39 + 15 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 3.../16 versus 39 + 15 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1.../15

Tl;dr A guild should not be superior to another simply because it was created earlier in AL history. Guild age would be the one factor in top guild ranking that a guild could not change through playing the game (again, except for avg account age, which is also controversial). To change your guild age rank, other guilds would have to disband, which is out of your control.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[inkredible]

All these categories are in favor of DM.. Just saying..

top 50 to lvl 41 cap, count how many dms and talk again

but its funny how u say that , like i said in the beginning every category will seem bias if u look at it as one

right now if u havent noticed guild ranks is based on mostly PVP alone, it needs more factors in there.. AL isnt all about pvp
thats my point

[inkredible]

6 / 15 = pvp

5 / 15 = activity

2/ 15 = pve

1/15 - aps

1/15 age

list goes on add more pve factors in there i think atleast we can agree to that
and AGE shouldnt hurt much,

[Zeus]

top 50 to lvl 41 cap, count how many dms and talk again

but its funny how u say that , like i said in the beginning every category will seem bias if u look at it as one

right now if u havent noticed guild ranks is based on mostly PVP alone, it needs more factors in there.. AL isnt all about pvp
thats my point

All factors are weighed equally, so how is it based on that alone? If you take a look at EoS, they've been able to maintain a nice percent activity record despite being an old guild. Old guild doesn't mean inactive, DM is just slacking in that category and should use methods to clean up versus complaining about it.

My point is this: your complaints can be fixed. EoS has done it if you need a case and point. If they make guild age a statistic, there will be no competition.

[Zeus]

6 / 15 = pvp

5 / 15 = activity

2/ 15 = pve

1/15 - aps

1/15 age

list goes on add more pve factors in there i think atleast we can agree to that
and AGE shouldnt hurt much,

I will keep repeating myself...if age doesn't hurt much, then how is DM able to jump 3 ranks based on one statistic while being subpar in every single other statistic?

[inkredible]

All factors are weighed equally, so how is it based on that alone? If you take a look at EoS, they've been able to maintain a nice percent activity record despite being an old guild. Old guild doesn't mean inactive, DM is just slacking in that category and should use methods to clean up versus complaining about it.

My point is this: your complaints can be fixed. EoS has done it if you need a case and point. If they make guild age a statistic, there will be no competition.

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

[Instanthumor]

right now if u havent noticed guild ranks is based on mostly PVP alone, it needs more factors in there.. AL isnt all about pvp
thats my point

I agree that they should add more PvE criteria (possibly number of times guild is represented on Timed Run LB), but they should NOT include guild age as a factor. It's meaningless.

[inkredible]

I will keep repeating myself...if age doesn't hurt much, then how is DM able to jump 3 ranks based on one statistic while being subpar in every single other statistic?

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

[Bless]

more factors the better imo

add guild age
add elite time runs
add consistency being in top 50
avg rank of leveling cap in guild
add it all

All these categories are in favor of DM.. Just saying..

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

[Zeus]

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

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.

[inkredible]

I agree that they should add more PvE criteria (possibly number of times guild is represented on Timed Run LB), but they should NOT include guild age as a factor. It's meaningless.

kdr is meaning less.