Thanks for all the feedback folks, and for keeping the discussion civil. Your input on this idea (as well as proposal for other ideas) is much appreciated.
It would seem that guild age as a ranking criteria is divisive, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It shows that both sides are passionate, which is a good thing.
Perhaps a common middle ground can be reached here.
What are your thoughts on the following proposal for a middle ground.
1) Add guild age as a 16th ranking criteria.
2) Change the final ranking calculation by tossing out the best and worst ranking for each guild, and averaging the remaining 14th. This is how figure skating competition is scored. Long-lived guilds may get an advantage out of it, and new guilds won't be hurt by it. Those who try to transfer to an old dormant guild may not actually get any benefit for all the risk/effort involved, as if that ends up the guild's best rank, it will be thrown out.
Thoughts?
(I will shortly post what the April-30-2014 Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)
*edit*: this is what the listing would look like under this proposal http://www.spacetimestudios.com/show...=1#post1620769
| 
Bookmarks