Discussion - Should Guild Age Be A Guild Rank Criteria?

[H2N]

There have been several requests to include the guild age as an additional ranking criteria in the Top 50 Guild Ranking list. We would like to get your input on this idea. Please keep the discussion civil.

To help with the discussion, here is what the April-30-2014 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like if guild age was included as an additional ranking criteria. It indicates how each guild's final ranking would change. It also includes each guild's rank in the guild age ranking category, as well as each guild's founding date in GMT. Again, please keep the discussion civil.

*edit*: See this post (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1620675&viewfull=1#post1620675) for middle ground proposal based on the feedback.

*edit*: We are going to implement the middle ground proposal. (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1627233&viewfull=1#post1627233)

1. Deviant Misfits (4 -> 1 = +3) 20130116-001425 (15)
2. Epitome Of Silentkill (3 -> 2 = +1) 20130504-110232 (29)
3. Resilience (1 -> 3 = -2) 20140327-172948 (50)
4. Magnum (2 -> 4 = -2) 20140105-170955 (48)
5. Chosen (5 -> 5 = 0) 20140104-050757 (47)
6. Chivalrous Union (7 -> 6 = +1) 20130105-030633 (13)
7. Republika (6 -> 7 = -1) 20140316-191044 (49)
8. Mastermind Ph (8 -> 8 = 0) 20130403-165920 (23)
9. Eminence (9 -> 9 = 0) 20130618-111727 (34)
10. Farmers Inc (10 -> 10 = 0) 20130604-022544 (32)
11. Elite Runners (12 -> 11 = +1) 20130412-150622 (27)
12. Pheonix (11 -> 12 = -1) 20130607-110649 (33)
13. Immaculate (13 -> 13 = 0) 20130328-092607 (22)
14. Republic Of Indonesia (15 -> 14 = +1) 20121223-104940 (10)
15. Trickster (14 -> 15 = -1) 20130920-191758 (43)
16. Helden Von Heute (16 -> 16 = 0) 20130107-232843 (14)
17. Darksiders (18 -> 17 = +1) 20121218-010112 (9)
18. Garuda Indonesia (19 -> 18 = +1) 20121103-091325 (1)
19. Alte Garde (17 -> 19 = -2) 20130217-121234 (17)
20. Indonesia Elite (20 -> 20 = 0) 20121204-013215 (7)
21. Mythic Revenge (21 -> 21 = 0) 20130919-105739 (42)
22. Crisis Of Faith (22 -> 22 = 0) 20130123-132742 (16)
23. Insomnia (23 -> 23 = 0) 20130102-012953 (11)
24. Legends Of Russia (24 -> 24 = 0) 20130407-110053 (25)
25. The Commandos Elite (26 -> 25 = +1) 20130409-035534 (26)
26. Pinoy Rules (25 -> 26 = -1) 20131111-125252 (46)
27. 21 Jump Street (27 -> 27 = 0) 20130514-082003 (30)
28. Philippines Allstar (29 -> 28 = +1) 20130326-012804 (21)
29. Crime Sorciere (30 -> 29 = +1) 20121203-044514 (6)
30. Team Philippines (28 -> 30 = -2) 20130625-053816 (37)
31. Korea (32 -> 31 = +1) 20121104-052308 (2)
32. Polish Legends (34 -> 32 = +2) 20121118-100508 (3)
33. Philippines Finest (37 -> 33 = +4) 20121205-195748 (8)
34. Italian Legends (38 -> 34 = +4) 20121129-012153 (5)
35. Uroboros (31 -> 35 = -4) 20131102-120145 (45)
36. Legenden Sterben Nie (33 -> 36 = -3) 20130321-144031 (20)
37. Black Dragon (36 -> 37 = -1) 20130404-112302 (24)
38. The Lost Immortals (35 -> 38 = -3) 20130818-090316 (41)
39. Indonesian Legend (41 -> 39 = +2) 20130218-173655 (18)
40. Twisted Bastards (39 -> 40 = -1) 20130703-124315 (38)
41. Mundo Misterioso (40 -> 41 = -1) 20130418-023547 (28)
42. Culto Arcano (43 -> 42 = +1) 20121127-013813 (4)
43. So Br Brasil (42 -> 43 = -1) 20130618-141909 (35)
44. Usa Wolfpac (46 -> 44 = +2) 20130102-053850 (12)
45. Heirs Of Grace (44 -> 45 = -1) 20130712-153146 (40)
46. Trinity Knights (45 -> 46 = -1) 20130921-043117 (44)
47. Dirty Dozen (48 -> 47 = +1) 20130301-021036 (19)
48. Indonesian Brotherhood (47 -> 48 = -1) 20130619-180526 (36)
49. Brotherhood Legends (49 -> 49 = 0) 20130526-211428 (31)
50. Dark Legends Elite (50 -> 50 = 0) 20130705-204241 (39)

[Zeus]

I don't think so because this is a stat that nobody can compete with. Thus, you are basically awarding guilds that have been around for all 52 weeks on the guild leaderboards a permanent #1 or #2 position.

[H2N]

Avg Rank value for the top 5 with guild age ranking.

DM 7.1
EoS 7.4
Resilience 7.8
Magnum 7.9
Chosen 9.4

[Zeus]

Additionally, if this becomes a stat, here's what will happen:

1. To compete with it, people will just xfer guild members to an older guild. I have the possibility to do that and I know many others as well.
2. Existing guilds will be essentially given #1 or #2 without working for it. Then, to compete, what I stated in #1 will happen because it's the only way to compete.

I already disagree with account age, but that's manipulable because you can recruit both old and new players. With guild age, you cannot do anything except what I suggested in #1.

Thus, this becoming a stat would promote guild selling as people in the leaderboards will want to get their hand on the oldest guild that they can.

[Thrindal]

I agree with Zeus, while my guilds overall rank didn't change at all I don't think old guilds should get an automatic advantage. Newer guilds, almost by default, will be more active overall and thus more deserving of a higher rank. I think old guilds would prefer this because it offsets their higher inactivity instead of weeding out the inactives.

[Zeus]

I agree with Zeus, while my guilds overall rank didn't change at all I don't think old guilds should get an automatic advantage. Newer guilds, almost by default, will be more active overall and thus more deserving of a higher rank. I think old guilds would prefer this because it offsets their higher inactivity instead of weeding out the inactives.

This!

[UndeadJudge]

Additionally, if this becomes a stat, here's what will happen:

1. To compete with it, people will just xfer guild members to an older guild. I have the possibility to do that and I know many others as well.
2. Existing guilds will be essentially given #1 or #2 without working for it. Then, to compete, what I stated in #1 will happen because it's the only way to compete.

I already disagree with account age, but that's manipulable because you can recruit both old and new players. With guild age, you cannot do anything except what I suggested in #1.

Thus, this becoming a stat would promote guild selling as people in the leaderboards will want to get their hand on the oldest guild that they can.

I agree.

Also, the top guild stats are based on players skill - Achievement Points, KD ratios, etc. If age were implemented, it would sort of get rid of the whole idea of a "top guild".

Not to mention, Zeus is certainly right - some very old guilds exist with 1 member. It's easily manipulable to transfer everyone to that guild.

[Zeus]

I agree.

Also, the top guild stats are based on players skill - Achievement Points, KD ratios, etc. If age were implemented, it would sort of get rid of the whole idea of a "top guild".

Not to mention, Zeus is certainly right - some very old guilds exist with 1 member. It's easily manipulable to transfer everyone to that guild.

Yup, leaderboards would then be "longest guild" assuming that others are just as competitive in the other 15 categories.

[D.AL]

I agree with the including guild age.

[chiqui2go]

Newer guilds wouldn't have a chance to compete. And yeah, members are definitely going to transfer.
Thanks for the post guys!

[Cmrel]

Hands down :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Morholt]

Not in favor, for many of the reasons already stated. It's just going to be a bunch of guild transferring.

[inkredible]

Additionally, if this becomes a stat, here's what will happen:

1. To compete with it, people will just xfer guild members to an older guild. I have the possibility to do that and I know many others as well.
2. Existing guilds will be essentially given #1 or #2 without working for it. Then, to compete, what I stated in #1 will happen because it's the only way to compete.
.


given without working for it? establishing a guild for that long isnt work?
one year standing guilds are plain hard work while the newer guilds just filled with inviting powerful people.. and thats even less work

- edited

[H2N]

Please keep the discussion civil everyone.

[inkredible]

I agree.

it would sort of get rid of the whole idea of a "top guild".

Not to mention, Zeus is certainly right - some very old guilds exist with 1 member. It's easily manipulable to transfer everyone to that guild.

if they added guild age.. if would be 1/16 meaning , containing 6% of the other ranks , ur guild age .. same with account age wouldnt matter much if
14/16 of your rank beats most guild ... it doesnt really get rid of the whole idea of a top guild , Your guild is old and still made it to the top 50? well gratz master for keeping ur guild in pretty good dam shape and the members in it... this is debatable really

i could easily say pvp/ pve kdr "get rid of the whole idea of top guild" having good KDR doesnt mean youre good or your guild contains a lot of people who are good.. alot of people kill farm.. atleast being oldest guild isnt cheated and it is a credit for maintaining their guild for a long time.

[Zeus]

given without working for it? LOL keeping Deviant Misfits one of the oldest top 5 guilds.. you think establishing a guild for that long isnt work?
one year standing guilds are plain hard work while the newer guilds just filled with inviting powerful people.. and thats even less work

Yes, without working for it. This was a statistic that you never had to work for unlike other statistics. You were granted it and just so happen to get lucky. As H2N said, just keep it civil and there shouldn't be any issues.

As I explained before in post #4, oldest guild is easily cheated and encourages an entirely new type of play.

Lastly, as you can see, by adding this statistic alone, DM was able to jump 3 places to the #1 position despite being considerably lower ranked in everything else. Although all statistics are the same weight, this one would not be because it would essentially grant the oldest guilds a free bump.

To counter that free bump, read what I said would happen in #4. It wouldn't last long, it would just be temporary until people find a very old guild name to xfer players to.

[eyescoolblue]

I can understand what some are saying, but is it any different than recruiting players with rank boosting numbers. Top guilds will always attract top players. How many mergers or split-offs have occurred in order to do exactly that? The simple fact of the matter is that it is only one stat in the grand scheme of things (It barely adjusted the positions at all for the most part). Why shouldn't long time operating guilds be recognized for their contribution to the game? Most are established and have been helping to build a base of committed players that continues to grow.

In reference to the idea that people will want to join a particular guild just to improve their "status"...well that is up to the GMs and Officers to decipher who is who. Most LB players are known by these guilds. It would become very evident whether someone was just seeking a "spot to park".

The arguments I've seen so far that are against this idea seem to be from a viewpoint that this ONE stat would somehow turn the tides. Let's say that people start moving around....what are their other stats that affect ranking.....APs, K/D ratio, etc. Maybe the guild they left increases in a certain area(s) and gaining guild declines, not an impossibility.

Let's throw some numbers out there shall we?
Top 20 guilds who have an age rank 20 or less = 8
Number 1 ranked guild on age = 18th in ranking overall
Top 10 guilds who have an age rank right around 50 = 4
Number of positions that stayed the same = 14
Greatest increase (which there are only 2) = +4
Greatest decrease (which there is only 1) = -4
Top 5 guilds = 3 whose age date is 2014 (one of which is 20140327)

Not seeing the HUGE advantage/disadvantage here to anyone really. Previous posts mentioned this whole jumping ship to go to an older guild. Guess that means that Garuda Indonesia is about to get like 5k+ new members huh....ridiculousness. If anything I would imagine the only ones who may not like this idea are anyone that formed a guild full of top end players. They now have to contend with a stat they cannot manipulate except to return to former guilds or join another. In all actuality this will open up several slots in the top 50 for other guilds to jump up.

Bottom line...in any system people will find a way to manipulate it to their personal advantage (can u say "those using the 5 skill trick", "hot keys", macros, scam tricks on new players, fake hack accounts, blocking in pvp, I'm sure the list could go on).

I say go for it...include guild age as a factor.

[inkredible]

Yes, without working for it. This was a statistic that you never had to work for unlike other statistics. You were granted it and just so happen to get lucky. As H2N said, just keep it civil and there shouldn't be any issues.

As I explained before in post #4, oldest guild is easily cheated and encourages an entirely new type of play.

Lastly, as you can see, by adding this statistic alone, DM was able to jump 3 places to the #1 position despite being considerably lower ranked in everything else. Although all statistics are the same weight, this one would not be because it would essentially grant the oldest guilds a free bump.

To counter that free bump, read what I said would happen in #4. It wouldn't last long, it would just be temporary until people find a very old guild name to xfer players to.


lets do some math

4. Deviant Misfits (+1) AVG: 6.6 (27) 3559650 ( 2) 59.7 ( 4) 94183.8 ( 5) 1.6 ( 5) 642.1 ( 3) 1.6 ( 4) 2362.6 ( 7) -3.9 ( 4) 376.9 ( 4) 389.2

--->>>> ACTIVITY ( 8) 44.3 ( 6) 55.7 ( 6) 65.7 ( 7) 72.0 ( 7) 78.3



lets fix activity.. say we do spring cleaning..
from activity 8,6,6,7,7
to 3,3,3,3,3

new avg: 5.1 (ROUGHLY u get my point)
i think "lowered ranked in everything else" is a little bit harsh , you have your point

Newer guilds like resilience "free bump" by 5 stats ..on activity because theyre new..
comparing to others................while guild age is only ONE "free bump"



and based on our experience, dm being number 1 for months before... rank #1 did not attract a lot of people but noobs joining #1 guilds which
we gladly rejected or eventually left.. the statistics doesnt attract people.. the RANK attracts noobs.

[inkredible]

I can understand what some are saying, but is it any different than recruiting players with rank boosting numbers. Top guilds will always attract top players. How many mergers or split-offs have occurred in order to do exactly that? The simple fact of the matter is that it is only one stat in the grand scheme of things (It barely adjusted the positions at all for the most part). Why shouldn't long time operating guilds be recognized for their contribution to the game? Most are established and have been helping to build a base of committed players that continues to grow.

In reference to the idea that people will want to join a particular guild just to improve their "status"...well that is up to the GMs and Officers to decipher who is who. Most LB players are known by these guilds. It would become very evident whether someone was just seeking a "spot to park".

The arguments I've seen so far that are against this idea seem to be from a viewpoint that this ONE stat would somehow turn the tides. Let's say that people start moving around....what are their other stats that affect ranking.....APs, K/D ratio, etc. Maybe the guild they left increases in a certain area(s) and gaining guild declines, not an impossibility.

Let's throw some numbers out there shall we?
Top 20 guilds who have an age rank 20 or less = 8
Number 1 ranked guild on age = 18th in ranking overall
Top 10 guilds who have an age rank right around 50 = 4
Number of positions that stayed the same = 14
Greatest increase (which there are only 2) = +4
Greatest decrease (which there is only 1) = -4
Top 5 guilds = 3 whose age date is 2014 (one of which is 20140327)

Not seeing the HUGE advantage/disadvantage here to anyone really. Previous posts mentioned this whole jumping ship to go to an older guild. Guess that means that Garuda Indonesia is about to get like 5k+ new members huh....ridiculousness. If anything I would imagine the only ones who may not like this idea are anyone that formed a guild full of top end players. They now have to contend with a stat they cannot manipulate except to return to former guilds or join another. In all actuality this will open up several slots in the top 50 for other guilds to jump up.

Bottom line...in any system people will find a way to manipulate it to their personal advantage (can u say "those using the 5 skill trick", "hot keys", macros, scam tricks on new players, fake hack accounts, blocking in pvp, I'm sure the list could go on).

I say go for it...include guild age as a factor.

like i said.. its only 6% ..its like getting arcane from openning crates almost.. lol

[Zeus]

I can understand what some are saying, but is it any different than recruiting players with rank boosting numbers. Top guilds will always attract top players. How many mergers or split-offs have occurred in order to do exactly that? The simple fact of the matter is that it is only one stat in the grand scheme of things (It barely adjusted the positions at all for the most part). Why shouldn't long time operating guilds be recognized for their contribution to the game? Most are established and have been helping to build a base of committed players that continues to grow.

In reference to the idea that people will want to join a particular guild just to improve their "status"...well that is up to the GMs and Officers to decipher who is who. Most LB players are known by these guilds. It would become very evident whether someone was just seeking a "spot to park".

The arguments I've seen so far that are against this idea seem to be from a viewpoint that this ONE stat would somehow turn the tides. Let's say that people start moving around....what are their other stats that affect ranking.....APs, K/D ratio, etc. Maybe the guild they left increases in a certain area(s) and gaining guild declines, not an impossibility.

Let's throw some numbers out there shall we?
Top 20 guilds who have an age rank 20 or less = 8
Number 1 ranked guild on age = 18th in ranking overall
Top 10 guilds who have an age rank right around 50 = 4
Number of positions that stayed the same = 14
Greatest increase (which there are only 2) = +4
Greatest decrease (which there is only 1) = -4
Top 5 guilds = 3 whose age date is 2014 (one of which is 20140327)

Not seeing the HUGE advantage/disadvantage here to anyone really. Previous posts mentioned this whole jumping ship to go to an older guild. Guess that means that Garuda Indonesia is about to get like 5k+ new members huh....ridiculousness. If anything I would imagine the only ones who may not like this idea are anyone that formed a guild full of top end players. They now have to contend with a stat they cannot manipulate except to return to former guilds or join another. In all actuality this will open up several slots in the top 50 for other guilds to jump up.

Bottom line...in any system people will find a way to manipulate it to their personal advantage (can u say "those using the 5 skill trick", "hot keys", macros, scam tricks on new players, fake hack accounts, blocking in pvp, I'm sure the list could go on).

I say go for it...include guild age as a factor.

Okay, here's the thing...

Everybody states that stats are manipulable. However, are they really? Ratios, lets take a look at the them. Yes, you can boost it by inviting twinks with a high KDR and low amount of kills. However, what does that do? It drops other stats like TDM kills per member or CTF kills per member. So, it's not really manipulable other than with hard work or inviting a player that already had a high amount of kills and a high KDR.

Secondly, it has turned the tides, has it not? The top 3 rankings were basically reversed due to guild age.

Thirdly, I do not mean joining another guild that already has an old guild age. What I mean is when you have held onto a guild name from the start of the game. I'm one of those players, I have quite a few guild names that I've held onto. So, this makes me having those guild names a very valuable asset. As I stated before in post #4, it will be the only way to compete in that statistic.

A guild like Resilience is already #1 in a majority of the stats, yet they dropped down to #3 from ONE guild stat. Can this be fixed? Sure, I just use one of my older guild names and that's that. How many others will do the same? A lot!

In any case, it's an unneeded stat that does not promote competition like the other statistics do. It is an immovable statistic that is only able to be manipulated as I've shown in post #4. Thus, that makes it useless.

Account age is also the same thing, which I disagree with as well. The only way to manipulate that statistic is by inviting old players. It's not really competitive by any means now, is it?

@Ink
I wish that I had a 6% chance to loot an arcane from a crate...

[Zeus]

lets do some math

4. Deviant Misfits (+1) AVG: 6.6 (27) 3559650 ( 2) 59.7 ( 4) 94183.8 ( 5) 1.6 ( 5) 642.1 ( 3) 1.6 ( 4) 2362.6 ( 7) -3.9 ( 4) 376.9 ( 4) 389.2

--->>>> ACTIVITY ( 8) 44.3 ( 6) 55.7 ( 6) 65.7 ( 7) 72.0 ( 7) 78.3



lets fix activity.. say we do spring cleaning..
from activity 8,6,6,7,7
to 3,3,3,3,3

new avg: 5.1 (ROUGHLY u get my point)
i think "lowered ranked in everything else" is a little bit harsh , you have your point

Newer guilds like resilience "free bump" by 5 stats ..on activity because theyre new..
comparing to others while guild age is only ONE



and based on our experience, dm being number 1 for months before... rank #1 did not attract a lot of people but noobs joining #1 guilds which
we gladly rejected or eventually left.. the statistics doesnt attract people.. the RANK attracts noobs.

DM has not one #1 position, yet they are able to get to #1 solely due to this guild rank position. I understand that DM was number 1 for many months before, but with competition, it is not now.

Resilience is not actually a new guild but a merger of two guilds. Does that mean that a person who wants to be in the guild rank leaderboards has to suffer or find an older ranking guild name? That's a bit ridiculous.

This is not a statistic, but it is an immovable setback to every guild that does not benefit from it. If it was not an immovable setback, I would not complain as it promotes competition. So, I suggest that H2N should find a better statistic that guilds can compete in that does not have longevity as a factor.

[inkredible]

As I stated before in post #4, it will be the only way to compete in that statistic.



i deleted the other comment u made because it sounded like youre so focus about your guild rank rather than the whole picture..
anyways AS YOU stated.. #4 Guild age rank "will be the only way" to compete in statistics .. okay so theres only one problem out of 16 with your guild..

DM got 94% problems but 6% aint one..

[Zeus]

i deleted the other comment u made because it sounded like youre so focus about your guild rank rather than the whole picture..
anyways AS YOU stated.. #4 Guild age rank "will be the only way" to compete in statistics .. okay so theres only one problem out of 16 with your guild..

i got 99 problems but 6% aint one..

That one problem causes us to lose 3 ranks although we are #1 in nearly every other category. Also, it is not a problem with any real solution other than the one that I mentioned. How in the world does it make sense for a guild to be #1 just because they are older?

If you take a look at the percent active of your guild on a daily basis, it's around 40%. So, just because a guild is "older", they should be #1? Even if the population base is inactive? That makes no sense in my book.

DM may have 94% problems (as you say, not me), but that 6% category isn't one because in theory, it would make you #1 for a long time.

[inkredible]

That one problem causes us to lose 3 ranks although we are #1 in nearly every other category. Also, it is not a problem with any real solution other than the one that I mentioned. How in the world does it make sense for a guild to be #1 just because they are older?

If you take a look at the percent active of your guild on a daily basis, it's around 40%. So, just because a guild is "older", they should be #1? That makes no sense in my book.

sorry i edited my post you should reread it , i thought it was better 94% chance

[inkredible]

That one problem causes us to lose 3 ranks although we are #1 in nearly every other category. Also, it is not a problem with any real solution other than the one that I mentioned. How in the world does it make sense for a guild to be #1 just because they are older?

If you take a look at the percent active of your guild on a daily basis, it's around 40%. So, just because a guild is "older", they should be #1? That makes no sense in my book.

u got 94% chance to boost up ur rank and youre disagreeing with the 6% .. its not just because my guild is older.. theres other 15 stat factor affecting DM's Guild rank that made it that way.. because if GUILD AGE is the only factor well hell... we would be rank 50

[Zeus]

u got 94% chance to boost up ur rank and youre disagreeing with the 6% .. its not just because my guild is older.. theres other 15 stat factor affecting DM's Guild rank that made it that way.. because if GUILD AGE is the only factor well hell... we would be rank 50

Ink, how do we boost up our other ranks when we're rank #1-2 in 12 of the 15 categories? 7 of the 12 are rank 1. Yet DM, who has not a single rank in #1 is able to become #1 because they're the oldest.

I get the whole "paying respect to your elders" concept, but that doesn't mean you let them think they're still in their prime when they're really not...

[inkredible]

Ink, how do we boost up our other ranks when we're rank #1-2 in 12 of the 15 categories? 7 of the 12 are rank 1. Yet DM, who has not a single rank in #1 is able to become #1 because they're the oldest.

I get the whole "paying respect to your elders" concept, but that doesn't mean you let them think they're still in their prime when they're really not...

youre a new guild, you boost up ur rank in 5 categories easily with that merge, thats the advantage of newer guilds, and the only advantage really of an older guild is that one 6%
while the newer guilds got 31% chance of boosting their rank bec of activity

[inkredible]

here some good math since ur so focused about ur guild rank

taking out activity ranks.

Achievement Points PvE K/D PvE Kills / Member TDM K/D TDM Kills / Member CTF K/D CTF Kills / Member CTF C/D CTF Captures / Member AvgAccount Age (d)

resi

(39) 3176550 ( 1) 60.2 ( 1) 120464.2 ( 2) 1.7 ( 2) 1544.0 ( 1) 1.7 ( 1) 4892.1 ( 4) -3.0 ( 2) 985.1 (15) 357.4

= total of 68
AVG RANK 6.8

DM:

(27) 3559650 ( 2) 59.7 ( 4) 94183.8 ( 5) 1.6 ( 5) 642.1 ( 3) 1.6 ( 4) 2362.6 ( 7) -3.9 ( 4) 376.9 ( 4) 389.2
= total of 65

AVG rank: 6.5

now do you see the advantage of newer guilds?

if you look at ur kdrs

RESI: 1.7, 1.7
DM: 1.6, 1.6 - a difference of .1 in stats lowered DM by 4 ranks

CTF FLAG
RESI: 3.0
DM: 3.9

difference of .9

PVE KDR
RESI: 60.2
DM : 59.7

difference of .5

were actually not that much far from you guys as you make it seem to be

[Azepeiete]

Any smart person would say that sustaining a guild for over a year and 3 months as a top guild for the entire time is not "free". There was an extremely long period of time in which DM wouldve been number 1 if total AP wasnt a factor. I also did the math. DM wouldve been untouchable for the weeks this happened in. Small, elite guilds are NOT meant to be on top of guild list. It just doesnt work. Its all the old, lasting, and family type guilds.


Also newer guilds have activity advantage. Sorry that we cant force all our old elitist players to log in everyday.

And Zeus, DM had a streak of 5+ weeks where we were #1 in every pvp category, yet EOS would take number 1 cuz of AP. Where were the complaints then?

What goes around comes around.

We also didnt have to merge and reform once a month like all of the newer guilds(not just yours)
Support Guild Age

[Zeus]

Any smart person would say that sustaining a guild for over a year and 3 months as a top guild for the entire time is not "free". There was an extremely long period of time in which DM wouldve been number 1 if total AP wasnt a factor. I also did the math. DM wouldve been untouchable for the weeks this happened in. Small, elite guilds are NOT meant to be on top of guild list. It just doesnt work. Its all the old, lasting, and family type guilds.


Also newer guilds have activity advantage. Sorry that we cant force all our old elitist players to log in everyday.

And Zeus, DM had a streak of 5+ weeks where we were #1 in every pvp category, yet EOS would take number 1 cuz of AP.

What goes around comes around.

Support Guild Age

Activity advantage is a movable statistic, guild age is not. All the statistics in the lb ranking are movable, why should there be one immovable one? That makes absolute no sense to me. Aze, it is free. Why? Well, I have guild names that are extremely old yet I haven't made any attempt to maintain them.

Newer guilds might have an advantage, but it is an advantage that you as GMs can counter. This is an immovable statistic as I've stated many times. It does not take any effort whatsoever to hold a guild name that is old. I just proved it to you. So, why should it be a statistic?

[Azepeiete]

It takes effort to maintain a guild for MORE than a year, staying COMPETITIVE the whole time. You say holding a name is nothing. K. We didnt just sit there holding a name.

[inkredible]

Activity advantage is a movable statistic, guild age is not. All the statistics in the lb ranking are movable, why should there be one immovable one? That makes absolute no sense to me. Aze, it is free. Why? Well, I have guild names that are extremely old yet I haven't made any attempt to maintain them.

Newer guilds might have an advantage, but it is an advantage that you as GMs can counter. This is an immovable statistic as I've stated many times. It does not take any effort whatsoever to hold a guild name that is old. I just proved it to you. So, why should it be a statistic?

Im sure u know some old PL players holding on to OLD guild names in arcane legends in which are free for use.. MOVE EVERYONE THERE. 6% problem solved

i have an older guild name that isnt in used, older than the name resilience so your name being rank 50 would make up for some a little bit, want it? its free.

[Zeus]

It takes effort to maintain a guild for MORE than a year, staying COMPETITIVE the whole time. You say holding a name is nothing. K. We didnt just sit there holding a name.

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151481-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-Year-1-Summary

Aze,

The above link is your prize for that commendable effort. However, if they add this statistic, it won't change much. The new merger guilds just switch to an old guild name. It's pretty simple, so at most the "veteran" guilds won't even look like veterans.

You wanted your prize? I just gave you it.

@Ink
That is exactly my point. Is that what people will have to resort to? That's silly! You're right, however. If I wanted to, I just grab some guild names from old friends in PL or use some of my own. It is that easy. Then, that makes it once again a statistic that's unfair and immovable.

I get that y'all want respect for being old and maintaining your position and I just linked you the thread that gave it. This, however, is not a good solution for that.

[Azepeiete]

Reforming for guild rank? Thats a new one.

That page doesnt even reflect how much stronger and dominant of a guild we were in that time.

All those numerous weeks where guild size would let them ahead, and no rants from us.

[AnasAngel]

I agree with zues, whats the point n even competing if the guild age counts, becuz ppl will just manipulate it to their own use, and all other guilds won't even be able to compete, unless they do the same, , we all know ur not supposed to sell guilds but it happens,

[inkredible]

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151481-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-Year-1-Summary

Aze,

The above link is your prize for that commendable effort. However, if they add this statistic, it won't change much. The new merger guilds just switch to an old guild name. It's pretty simple, so at most the "veteran" guilds won't even look like veterans.

You wanted your prize? I just gave you it.

@Ink
That is exactly my point. Is that what people will have to resort to? That's silly! You're right, however. If I wanted to, I just grab some guild names from old friends in PL or use some of my own. It is that easy. Then, that makes it once again a statistic that's unfair and immovable.

I get that y'all want respect for being old and maintaining your position and I just linked you the thread that gave it. This, however, is not a good solution for that.


not really because i know h2n combined the members from the other guilds to the name chosen.. no effort for you.

[Zeus]

not really because i know h2n combined the members from the other guilds to the name chosen.. no effort for you.

I didn't really get what you were saying other than proving my point...It really doesn't take much effort to pick an older guild name and then going into it.

@Aze
Exactly why it shouldn't happen. It's not going to make DM #1. All I would have to do is grab my older guild names and the problem is solved. So, it's really just a silly statistic to have in there.

Also, yes it does? It shows you were ranked #1 3 more times than EoS. It also shows that the lowest rank that you've ever achieved is rank 5 and that was a mere 1 time.

[Azepeiete]

How about changing this to timed runs held by a guild? Party leaders should be marked when running timed runs. Thst players membership in guild counts for guild timed runs. Yes? Pvp isnt the only part of the game. Lets see if DM cant get number 1 in tht category.

[Zeus]

How about changing this to timed runs held by a guild? Party leaders should be marked when running timed runs. Thst players membership in guild counts for guild timed runs. Yes? Pvp isnt the only part of the game. Lets see if DM cant get number 1 in tht category.

I already made that suggestion in chatbox, but H2N didn't comment. It would also make timed runs more competitive.

86652

We'll see if H2N likes that, but I think it's a good solution.

[TuMadreee]

Go get your old guild names then Zeus :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Azepeiete]

Lol ok h2n got it, wipe boards, make it so a little crown appears next to party leader when a time is set. DO NOT COUNT TIMES FOR FIRST FEW WEEKS BECAUSE ONLY BAD RECS WILL BE THERE. Could implement both tbh

[Zeus]

Go get your old guild names then Zeus :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would not make sense though, as I've explained this being a very immovable statistic. I've also explained the consequences. If this happens, I will do just that but I won't like doing it. Why? It's a statistic that nobody can compete in.

Old doesn't == better. It just means old.

[Azepeiete]

How about, guild age in rankings. Meaning how many weeks they have been in rankings. Shows consistency, and you cant just move people to new guild name.

[Zeus]

How about, guild age in rankings. Meaning how many weeks they have been in rankings. Shows consistency, and you cant just move people to new guild name.

The same factor is involved: longevity. As I've said before, having longevity as a factor in any stat doesn't == better. Timed runs is a statistic that suits you, but it is a statistic that others can compete in as well. So, why is it not a viable solution and why do you keep insisting on solutions that involve longevity?

[inkredible]

LOL elite time records >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as rank
if u dont agree with guild age rank, then atleast put that in place ^


elite time records prove 100% MORE better than PVP ranks.. pvp easily cheated


or how about just take out top guilds in leaderboard. everyone wont care so much over it

[Zeus]

LOL elite time records >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as rank
if u dont agree with guild age rank, then atleast put that in place ^

I just said that I agreed with it...anything that another guild can compete in is a fine statistic, IMO.

[inkredible]

I just said that I agreed with it...anything that another guild can compete in is a fine statistic, IMO.

like competing how much dummies in pvp people can kill?

[Zeus]

like competing how much dummies in pvp people can kill?

Umm, we don't have dummies in our guild. I will explain why: PvP KDR is directly related to kills per member. If you bring in a high KDR but low kills booster, it would dramatically drop your kills per member stat (which would make it a trade off. You didn't really improve all that much).

So, you need players that have both a high amount of kills as well as a good KDR. Those are difficult boosters to make, who wants to spend the time on that? So, anyone who is doing that is really just shooting themselves in the foot.

[dantus]

+1 for weeks in top 50. This would eliminate the possibility of dummy guilds being sold to newer guilds. I think that longevity loyalty and consistency should count toward something. It is not a determining factor over time, but something imo should be taken into consideration.

[Zeus]

+1 for weeks in top 50. This would eliminate the possibility of dummy guilds being sold to newer guilds. I think that longevity loyalty and consistency should count toward something. It is not a determining factor over time, but something imo should be taken into consideration.

It does count for something already, Dant...the end of the year ranking thread. It shouldn't however be a permanent inclusion, otherwise how are other guilds supposed to compete? Even early on in the year, it doesn't make sense to add it.

However, on the other hand, I do see why it would work as well.

Maybe it's just me, but the longevity biased is a real turn off to me.

[inkredible]

Umm, we don't have dummies in our guild. I will explain why: PvP KDR is directly related to kills per member. If you bring in a high KDR but low kills booster, it would dramatically drop your kills per member stat (which would make it a trade off. You didn't really improve all that much).

So, you need players that have both a high amount of kills as well as a good KDR. Those are difficult boosters to make, who wants to spend the time on that? So, anyone who is doing that is really just shooting themselves in the foot.

i know how kdr works u dont need to tell me lol
im talkin about MORE KIlls not kdr..


summing it all up.. u can talk bad about every category all u want how it shouldnt be in guild ranks and u could say the same with GUILD AGE
but all of them has some sort of meaning why it can be or should be included in guild ranks...
most of the oldest guild in the top 50 simply did their job keeping their guild in there.. and for those people who are so desperate for that 1/16 win.. and wants to transfer to an older guild name .. isnt much different to disbanding a guild and reforming one with another to boost activity.. atleast guild age would only be 1/16 of the factors.. while activity of newer guilds are 5/16 .. big difference.

Guild age has it ups and its downs also,
positive look : it can say a lot about how well established a guild are, how the leaders are and how loyal members are in the guild
negative look: can easily be deceived by joining to an older name guild

I could also the say the same with
Average pvp kills:
posivite: could tell how good a player is in killing in pvp
Negative:- can easily be boost by dummies

Average pve kills
positive: could tell how much time input and effort put in, in running maps
negative: easily deceived by marco users

CTF flags
positive: dedication and time.. surviving in a pvp map and able to flag that much flags with people attacking them
negative: before fixing ctf .. some people may have abused the glitched system
negative: too much free flagging.. doesnt mean skills now days

activity:
positive: show how active members are in guild and in game - important in a sense for people to know who could be there to help them in AL activities (more activie people online the better)
negative: disbanding, merging, renewal of guilds ..easily given as the most active guild.. due to "most recent online" invited in guilds
negative: existing twinks they dont always log in to, (adds up per members)
negative:having 1000 members in guild and having 50% activity doesnt mean its not active..
- depends a lot with how big/small guild is


list goes on

[Zeus]

i know how kdr works u dont need to tell me lol
im talkin about MORE KIlls not kdr..


summing it all up.. u can talk bad about every category all u want how it shouldnt be in guild ranks and u could say the same with GUILD AGE
but all of them has some sort of meaning why it can be or should be included in guild ranks...
most of the oldest guild in the top 50 simply did their job keeping their guild in there.. and for those people who are so desperate for that 1/16 win.. and wants to transfer to an older guild name .. isnt much different to disbanding a guild and reforming one with another to boost activity.. atleast guild age would only be 1/16 of the factors.. while activity of newer guilds are 5/16 .. big difference.

Ink,

The thing is, which guild has boosters then? I don't really see any. We certainly do not have them.

Guild age is an immovable statistic. The thing about stats are that they are always changing, these ones are stagnant as nobody can compete with them, which is why it shouldn't be implemented.

By keeping the oldest guild age, y'all just assure yourself the number 1 position and nobody can ever hope to compete with you except for former rivals. Isn't that a bit messed up? Y'all are welcome to compete in the other categories as they're easily manipulable.

[inkredible]

Ink,

The thing is, which guild has boosters then? I don't really see any. We certainly do not have them.

Guild age is an immovable statistic. The thing about stats are that they are always changing, these ones are stagnant as nobody can compete with them, which is why it shouldn't be implemented.

By keeping the oldest guild age, y'all just assure yourself the number 1 position and nobody can ever hope to compete with you except for former rivals. Isn't that a bit messed up? Y'all are welcome to compete in the other categories as they're easily manipulable.

updated

[inkredible]

Ink,

The thing is, which guild has boosters then? I don't really see any. We certainly do not have them.

Guild age is an immovable statistic. The thing about stats are that they are always changing, these ones are stagnant as nobody can compete with them, which is why it shouldn't be implemented.

By keeping the oldest guild age, y'all just assure yourself the number 1 position and nobody can ever hope to compete with you except for former rivals. Isn't that a bit messed up? Y'all are welcome to compete in the other categories as they're easily manipulable.

LOL i could name a few people in ur guild who i knew farmed their kills.. (terms of dummies) you are just never sure who and who doesnt boost..
all the categories can be so bias in many different ways.. hence why h2n made it in such a way theres 15 different factors ..one factor wont affect that much

open ur eyes. this isnt about ur guild. this isnt about people who boost their kills. im speaking in general terms how each category is bias ALONE

[Iliketolol]

Yes

[inkredible]

Tbh guild ranks purposes isnt really for competition.. i personally think that sts did guild ranks mostly for new players.. not existing
each category somewhat tells something about a guild, though they can all be misleading
- having number 1 aps but being ranked 30 - simply means u just have a lot of members in your guild
- having the highest kdr - doesnt really tell much anything about the guild really.
- having a higher average pvp/pve kills - tells u the activity of someones guild in terms of pvp and pve and the members they consist
- so overall if you look at each category you will somewhat have some sort of idea how the guild is

look at magnum and DM both have fairly similar pvp kdr of 1.6
however the pvp kills are not close to each other - that really just tell that a lot more people pvp in magnum but it doesnt mean that the players in it are better than DM , they just have higher # pvpers..

look at the guild ranks as whole.. not one by one or it just wont make sense why

[csyui]

Sounds good.

Adding more factors (guild age, member size, and etc.) makes the response variable (final rank) more unpredictable.

[Zeus]

updated

You still cannot counter argue anything against the fact that it is THE ONLY stat on there that will be immovable. Every other stat, a guild can do something about. Ink, as for farming kills, guilds can do it, sure but the rank 1-2 is by nonfarmers, that's all I am saying. Remember, just because they twinked doesn't make them farmers.

You said one factor won't affect that much, yet it makes a guild who does not have a single rank as #1 the #1 guild so obviously it does effect the rankings quite a bit.

Anyways, we've both said our views and as much as we argue to convince each other, it won't work. H2N has both the pros and cons and can see the controversy of adding it, so it is his call on wether or not to implement it.

[Serancha]

Avg Rank value for the top 5 with guild age ranking.

DM 7.1
EoS 7.4
Resilience 7.8
Magnum 7.9
Chosen 9.4

Then there's guilds like ours that had a temporary accidental disbanding but were immediately reformed. Our original formation date was in November 2012.

[Zeus]

Then there's guilds like ours that had a temporary accidental disbanding but were immediately reformed. Our original formation date was in November 2012.

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.

[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.

[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

[famousfame]

Yay to fal

Sent from my X909 using Tapatalk

[leoakre]

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

ROFL, Al
:highly_amused:

[Slappityslap]

What do we learn from this kids? Stay in one guild and stop making new ones every month.

[Rare]

Don't like it personally. Then again, I don't like most of the statistics that are used. Mainly because I consider a lot of then fake.

[Deadroth]

I totally agree with guild age to be added! Let the tradition and expirence win with new ones!!!

Fal said everything what we need.

[Deadroth]

I don't think so because this is a stat that nobody can compete with. Thus, you are basically awarding guilds that have been around for all 52 weeks on the guild leaderboards a permanent #1 or #2 position.

There are other 13 cathegories. Nothing is lost.


Okay, here's the thing...

Everybody states that stats are manipulable. However, are they really? Ratios, lets take a look at the them. Yes, you can boost it by inviting twinks with a high KDR and low amount of kills. However, what does that do? It drops other stats like TDM kills per member or CTF kills per member. So, it's not really manipulable other than with hard work or inviting a player that already had a high amount of kills and a high KDR.

Secondly, it has turned the tides, has it not? The top 3 rankings were basically reversed due to guild age.

Thirdly, I do not mean joining another guild that already has an old guild age. What I mean is when you have held onto a guild name from the start of the game. I'm one of those players, I have quite a few guild names that I've held onto. So, this makes me having those guild names a very valuable asset. As I stated before in post #4, it will be the only way to compete in that statistic.

A guild like Resilience is already #1 in a majority of the stats, yet they dropped down to #3 from ONE guild stat. Can this be fixed? Sure, I just use one of my older guild names and that's that. How many others will do the same? A lot!

In any case, it's an unneeded stat that does not promote competition like the other statistics do. It is an immovable statistic that is only able to be manipulated as I've shown in post #4. Thus, that makes it useless.

Account age is also the same thing, which I disagree with as well. The only way to manipulate that statistic is by inviting old players. It's not really competitive by any means now, is it?

@Ink
I wish that I had a 6% chance to loot an arcane from a crate...

Zeus, This isn't bout crates, but about guild age addition. as i said. You need many other factors to be top guild. It is an advantage for guilds with tradition, which functions for almost a year.
It rewards them, and that is good. Cause older players should benefit too!

[Limsi]

Fal got this one :p

[Limsi]

What do we learn from this kids? Stay in one guild and stop making new ones every month.

Just like how hazzlehoff would say it

[leoakre]

Eh, 'census' verses 'sampling'

Yay...my headache! Have fun with that H2N! Weeeeeeeeeee!
:topsy_turvy::nightmare::hopelessness:

P.S. and OMG, Slap...your signature! Somebody pinch me!

[Aziiii]

i think it's a good ideea :) And as always ty Falm for pointing out the facts

[leoakre]

That would not make sense though, as I've explained this being a very immovable statistic. I've also explained the consequences. If this happens, I will do just that but I won't like doing it. Why? It's a statistic that nobody can compete in.

Old doesn't == better. It just means old.
I don't know about that, Zeus...with age comes experience!
This is the part where I wink!
:witless:

[Serancha]

Still want elite kills involved also. Would make a whole lot more sense than a lot of other categories.

[leoakre]

86733


:cupcake:

[Aziiii]

Still want elite kills involved also. Would make a whole lot more sense than a lot of other categories.
Yes and this ^

[leoakre]

Why stop with guild age as a factor for LB ranking? Let's go with toon age also for LB and overall top players!

Yay me!

[Zeus]

There are other 13 cathegories. Nothing is lost.



Zeus, This isn't bout crates, but about guild age addition. as i said. You need many other factors to be top guild. It is an advantage for guilds with tradition, which functions for almost a year.
It rewards them, and that is good. Cause older players should benefit too!

I've already explained why it isn't really an advantage. All you have to do is rename to an older guild name and your problem is solved. I've also explained while even though there are 13 other categories, it does not matter if there is an immovable outlier present.

So where does this leave us? Essentially a huge anchor on any of the newer guilds that they won't be able to shake off.

@Sera
H2N said, unless I misunderstood, that there isn't a way to differentiate between elite kills and normal kills.

[alexdroog]

The top guilds are more and more "newcomers" that only allow capped players.
For guilds with a long history and players in all levels this is a disadvantage.
Maybe this could prevent the
"Thank you for the support over the last 40 levels, but now i have to join this newly founded pro guild for elite/pvp".

[Zeus]

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.

1) Yes, you are right. I never said that the other statistics do not have the benefit of time. Here's what the other statistics have that guild age does not have though: the ability to be changed. So, to say guild age is meaningless does not mean that number of kills or captures is meaningless as you can always manipulate those stats. How does that happen? Well, if you take a look in contest section, top guilds do PvE kill competitions to boost kills. Inviting avid PvE players is also another strategy. Longevity does equate for some kind of standing in society, you're right. However, it should not be used as an anchor to pull all the other guilds down. As this is a weekly guild leaderboard, a yearly stat should not be going into it. That is manipulating results through the use of outliers.

2) Timed Runs should be represented. I think they should be represented by the amount of records set by members during the current season. Again, as I've stated before, as this is a weekly leaderboard, previous seasons results should not be calculated into it. If you want a yearly leaderboard, I've given you the link to that in previous comments and as a result, longevity does equate to some kind of standing in society. DM is #1 on the yearly leaderboard!

3) I agree to this. Due to bug implications, this is no longer a valid stat. Thus, for the same reason as guild age, it should not be included in the statistics.

[inkredible]

pvp really just seems like the main focus you can get out of guild ranks which isnt really fair, if sts want to have guild ranks then atleast make it more In depth as possible .. Even putting the average guild members.. if they have to
@ Leo acc age is in guild ranks already

Just as what I been trying to say in the beginning guild age isn't that much different in all other category when you look at it as whole and yes atm it benefits older guild .. Well isn't this about top guilds? How well established how experienced your guild is really is important so whatever factors can come up to make that more definite is valid, adding elite as guild criteria is a good example of "experience" while pvp kills and flags doesn't really show as much experience and you could say the same for every category but if you take all of them as a whole picture then it makes a difference

90% (or more) of top 50 are older guilds like eos pheonix chival and so on and there are only a few newer guilds that got on there and they benefitted 31% of the category just by being new

Honesty I think majority aka other than some resilience and some people would agree to this

[Zeus]

pvp really just seems like the main focus you can get out of guild ranks which isnt really fair, if sts want to have guild ranks then atleast make it more In depth as possible .. Even putting the average guild members.. if they have to
@ Leo acc age is in guild ranks already

Just as what I been trying to say in the beginning guild age isn't that much different in all other category when you look at it as whole and yes atm it benefits older guild .. Well isn't this about top guilds? How well established how experienced your guild is really is important so whatever factors can come up to make that more definite is valid, adding elite as guild criteria is a good example of "experience" while pvp kills and flags doesn't really show as much experience and you could say the same for every category but if you take all of them as a whole picture then it makes a difference
It is different because this is a weekly leaderboard. If you wanted a yearly one, the link is here: http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014
This yearly leaderboard also pays respect to all the older guilds that were able to remain on the guild leaderboards for all 52 weeks. I don't know how you can say that a yearly statistic should be included into a weekly measure. That really just does not make sense to me. I've shown you that while some statistics are time measurable, there are ways that guilds do to boost up those statistics and they're successful! We were able to boost these statistics as well.

However, I do agree with adding more PvE categories because 2:6 is not a fair ratio.

90% (or more) of top 50 are older guilds like eos pheonix chival and so on and there are only a few newer guilds that got on there and they benefitted 31% of the category just by being new
We benefited because we're active, not new. Making a new guild does not == activity. I've already shown you EoS's ability to share an equal number of ranks with Resilience in terms of activity despite being a much older guild.

Honesty I think majority aka other than some resilience and some people would agree to this

I replied in bold.

[Thrindal]

How about adding "Last Login Date" to the guild member listing. This way abandoned accounts can be removed from a guild to keep average activity up. I would much prefer this to help us manage our guilds than adding a static ranking to the Guild rankings.

[Zeus]

How about adding "Last Login Date" to the guild member listing. This way abandoned accounts can be removed from a guild to keep average activity up. I would much prefer this to help us manage our guilds than adding a static ranking to the Guild rankings.

I agree with that, but this would be essentially the activity stat, no?

[Aziiii]

guild age not a valid stat? ummmmm......wait what ...? it's not a bug or glitch ...it's age :)

[leoakre]

I never said account age! You can have an old account but a new toon...said toon age (along with the amount of activity on that particular toon)! Same thoughts as people saying they can get old guild titles to boost! I don't twink so all my activity is on one toon!

>.<

[Zeus]

guild age not a valid stat? ummmmm......wait what ...? it's not a bug or glitch ...it's age :)

Age doesn't mean better, it just means you're old and have been around for a while (along with the other factors that are associated with longevity). A static rank is not a good idea to add, IMHO.

[Aziiii]

static and longetivity are one of the things that keep "old" players in this game. U learn from them ....pve...pvp...merching ..

[leoakre]

Age doesn't mean better, it just means you're old and have been around for a while (along with the other factors that are associated with longevity). A static rank is not a good idea to add, IMHO.

86751



Factors associated with longevity...hmm, I hope you mean experience and not arthritis!

[inkredible]

Look at guild ranks as whole this discussion is based on whether guild age is as valid as the others
Which it is if you look at the pros and cons .. In the end Guild age is a valid rank .. We can argue all day why each category isn't valid and no one will win because each category has it's pros and cons and are very well debatable

[Ardbeg]

The Guild rank already is based on some stats which can easily be manipulated, as pointed out above.
I fully subscribe to Falmears points here.
Also it clearly shows a bias towards pvp.

as Zeus pointed out, guild age can be manipulated too, if someone feels the need to.

But maintaining a guild over a long time shows a lot of dedication, experience and loyalty not only from gms, officers, recruiters, but also from their members,
which make the task worthwhile and fun for the whole community, that a guild is supposed to be besides the Guild Rank.

So i would really like to see this very special "statpoint" counting towards guildrank.

[falmear]

I've already explained why it isn't really an advantage. All you have to do is rename to an older guild name and your problem is solved. I've also explained while even though there are 13 other categories, it does not matter if there is an immovable outlier present.

So where does this leave us? Essentially a huge anchor on any of the newer guilds that they won't be able to shake off.


You need to find someone who started a guild, be happy with the name of that guild, then get everyone to transfer over. Not is not guaranteed that everyone will follow. As far as I know there is no way to rename a guild unless its done through support. And support can deny any requests to rename.

[yasshh]

The Guild rank already is based on some stats which can easily be manipulated, as pointed out above.
I fully subscribe to Falmears points here.
Also it clearly shows a bias towards pvp.

as Zeus pointed out, guild age can be manipulated too, if someone feels the need to.

But maintaining a guild over a long time shows a lot of dedication, experience and loyalty not only from gms, officers, recruiters, but also from their members,
which make the task worthwhile and fun for the whole community, that a guild is supposed to be besides the Guild Rank.

So i would really like to see this very special "statpoint" counting towards guildrank.

That

[GoodSyntax]

Personally, I would like to see Average Elite Time, and kills per day (PvE and PvP) added in. Most of these other stats can be manipulated or can be held by a handful of top players in the guild. Averaging in across the entire membership gives a better representation of the skill level in the guild, which is what I thought was the originally intent of the rankings.

Frankly, I disagree with the strong emphasis in PvP stats. The only stats which do not have a heavy impact from PvP are APs, PvE kills, Avg Acct Age and Activity levels. Of all the stats used for ranking 6 are pure PvP, 2 are pure PvE....kind of unbalanced, and artifically rewards PvP guilds.

When I picture what constitutes a top guild, I would look at the following:

Average APs per member (not total APs)
Average PvE kills per member
Average PvE K/D per member
Average PvE kills per day
Average PvP kills per member (TDM and CTF combined)
Average PvP K/D per member
Average PvP kills per day
Average Flags per member
Average Elite Time per member (sum of best time across all elite maps, only members who have completed all maps can be used for calculation)
1, 7, 30d Active %


I think that this would give a better sense of overall guild activity and skill level. Also, this would highlight what the focus is for the guild in general. There are many guilds that just get the Elite APs, then spend the rest of their time in PvP, and vice-versa. In those cases, the kills per day stats would tell you immediately what type of guild they are.

I know a lot of players that are currently in guild that PM me daily for elite runs because their guild doesn't do elites. Back when I was PvPing, I had the opposite case, where PvE guild members were partying with me to CTF.

Just my opinion though...

[Zeus]

You need to find someone who started a guild, be happy with the name of that guild, then get everyone to transfer over. Not is not guaranteed that everyone will follow. As far as I know there is no way to rename a guild unless its done through support. And support can deny any requests to rename.


90% of the guild is active in the last 7 days and nearly a full 100 is active in 30 days. I doubt it'll be that hard to accomplish.

If we were able to merge guilds, a guild rename is hardly an issue.

[Zeus]

Personally, I would like to see Average Elite Time, and kills per day (PvE and PvP) added in. Most of these other stats can be manipulated or can be held by a handful of top players in the guild. Averaging in across the entire membership gives a better representation of the skill level in the guild, which is what I thought was the originally intent of the rankings.

Frankly, I disagree with the strong emphasis in PvP stats. The only stats which do not have a heavy impact from PvP are APs, PvE kills, Avg Acct Age and Activity levels. Of all the stats used for ranking 6 are pure PvP, 2 are pure PvE....kind of unbalanced, and artifically rewards PvP guilds.

When I picture what constitutes a top guild, I would look at the following:

Average APs per member (not total APs)
Average PvE kills per member
Average PvE K/D per member
Average PvE kills per day
Average PvP kills per member (TDM and CTF combined)
Average PvP K/D per member
Average PvP kills per day
Average Flags per member
Average Elite Time per member (sum of best time across all elite maps, only members who have completed all maps can be used for calculation)
1, 7, 30d Active %


I think that this would give a better sense of overall guild activity and skill level. Also, this would highlight what the focus is for the guild in general. There are many guilds that just get the Elite APs, then spend the rest of their time in PvP, and vice-versa. In those cases, the kills per day stats would tell you immediately what type of guild they are.

I know a lot of players that are currently in guild that PM me daily for elite runs because their guild doesn't do elites. Back when I was PvPing, I had the opposite case, where PvE guild members were partying with me to CTF.

Just my opinion though...

I agree to this post. Well thought out, Good!

[falmear]

1) Yes, you are right. I never said that the other statistics do not have the benefit of time. Here's what the other statistics have that guild age does not have though: the ability to be changed. So, to say guild age is meaningless does not mean that number of kills or captures is meaningless as you can always manipulate those stats. How does that happen? Well, if you take a look in contest section, top guilds do PvE kill competitions to boost kills. Inviting avid PvE players is also another strategy. Longevity does equate for some kind of standing in society, you're right. However, it should not be used as an anchor to pull all the other guilds down. As this is a weekly guild leaderboard, a yearly stat should not be going into it. That is manipulating results through the use of outliers.

2) Timed Runs should be represented. I think they should be represented by the amount of records set by members during the current season. Again, as I've stated before, as this is a weekly leaderboard, previous seasons results should not be calculated into it. If you want a yearly leaderboard, I've given you the link to that in previous comments and as a result, longevity does equate to some kind of standing in society. DM is #1 on the yearly leaderboard!


1) Most stats are are mostly carried by people at the top. I just have to look at my own stats and in many categories I count for more then one person. This is why guilds at the top are formed by merging multiple guilds. To get these top players in the same guild to boost the ranks. So its just musical chairs at this point. Using guild age as a factor will reduce this behavior. And also demonstrate that other guilds have been better at keeping their members together and functioning as a guild. If your guild is always having drama, disbanding and reforming as something new how does this represent you being a top guild? You're just good at disbanding, reforming & merging.

2) No current season times should not be used. Because records haven't been set, they only count at the end of the season. You only get credit for kills you get. So you only should get credit for records you have set at the end of each season. Because this is when the banner is given. Also I know people will game the system using the arena to set records. This will limit this behavior.

[inkredible]

Personally, I would like to see Average Elite Time, and kills per day (PvE and PvP) added in. Most of these other stats can be manipulated or can be held by a handful of top players in the guild. Averaging in across the entire membership gives a better representation of the skill level in the guild, which is what I thought was the originally intent of the rankings.

Frankly, I disagree with the strong emphasis in PvP stats. The only stats which do not have a heavy impact from PvP are APs, PvE kills, Avg Acct Age and Activity levels. Of all the stats used for ranking 6 are pure PvP, 2 are pure PvE....kind of unbalanced, and artifically rewards PvP guilds.

When I picture what constitutes a top guild, I would look at the following:

Average APs per member (not total APs)
Average PvE kills per member
Average PvE K/D per member
Average PvE kills per day
Average PvP kills per member (TDM and CTF combined)
Average PvP K/D per member
Average PvP kills per day
Average Flags per member
Average Elite Time per member (sum of best time across all elite maps, only members who have completed all maps can be used for calculation)
1, 7, 30d Active %


I think that this would give a better sense of overall guild activity and skill level. Also, this would highlight what the focus is for the guild in general. There are many guilds that just get the Elite APs, then spend the rest of their time in PvP, and vice-versa. In those cases, the kills per day stats would tell you immediately what type of guild they are.

I know a lot of players that are currently in guild that PM me daily for elite runs because their guild doesn't do elites. Back when I was PvPing, I had the opposite case, where PvE guild members were partying with me to CTF.

Just my opinion though...


For kdr it doesn't work like that
Kdr is calculated by adding everyone's kills and adding everyone's death and then dividing them if you do it per member ... Lmfao twinks got like 1k kdr .. Which then adds roughly .5 ^ to everyones tkdr if the guild consist 500 members

[GoodSyntax]

I agree....the twinks ruin the stat, but then you look a the other stats which knocks them out of contention. Twinks will fail on Average APs, Average Elite Time and Average PvE kills per day.

[Zeus]

1) Most stats are are mostly carried by people at the top. I just have to look at my own stats and in many categories I count for more then one person. This is why guilds at the top are formed by merging multiple guilds. To get these top players in the same guild to boost the ranks. So its just musical chairs at this point. Using guild age as a factor will reduce this behavior. And also demonstrate that other guilds have been better at keeping their members together and functioning as a guild. If your guild is always having drama, disbanding and reforming as something new how does this represent you being a top guild? You're just good at disbanding, reforming & merging.

2) No current season times should not be used. Because records haven't been set, they only count at the end of the season. You only get credit for kills you get. So you only should get credit for records you have set at the end of each season. Because this is when the banner is given. Also I know people will game the system using the arena to set records. This will limit this behavior.

We have a difference in opinion then and neither of us arguing will change that, Falmear.

We've both put our points and we've both argued with logic yet neither is more right than the other, so, I think we should just leave it at that or we will continue yet another page (which I don't want to do as it's a waste of time).

[GoodSyntax]

The intent isn't to showcase how much of a badass your guild is in a single category, it should be about, "Hey, we are great at everything!"

You want elite runs? Look at our average Elite Times, all of our membership is great.
You want PvP? We are tops in PvP KDR, Kills per day and Flags.
You need APs? Our membership averages 17k APs, we can help.
You want an active guild? We have 99% 1d active!

See how that is much different than saying we have 3m APs mostly spread over our top 40 or 50 players, the rest of our membership are a bunch of nubs. Or, we've got two guys with 25k flags - I don't know about the rest of them. I've got 100k PvP kills....the rest of our guild averages about 500. I've run every elite map....but I think I'm the only one in the guild that has done that.

[Zeus]

The intent isn't to showcase how much of a badass your guild is in a single category, it should be about, "Hey, we are great at everything!"

You want elite runs? Look at our average Elite Times, all of our membership is great.
You want PvP? We are tops in PvP KDR, Kills per day and Flags.
You need APs? Our membership averages 17k APs, we can help.
You want an active guild? We have 99% 1d active!

See how that is much different than saying we have 3m APs mostly spread over our top 40 or 50 players, the rest of our membership are a bunch of nubs. Or, we've got two guys with 25k flags - I don't know about the rest of them. I've got 100k PvP kills....the rest of our guild averages about 500. I've run every elite map....but I think I'm the only one in the guild that has done that.

Yes, yes, yes!

Perhaps a whole rework over the current stats system.

[leoakre]

The intent isn't to showcase how much of a badass your guild is in a single category, it should be about, "Hey, we are great at everything!"

You want elite runs? Look at our average Elite Times, all of our membership is great.
You want PvP? We are tops in PvP KDR, Kills per day and Flags.
You need APs? Our membership averages 17k APs, we can help.
You want an active guild? We have 99% 1d active!

See how that is much different than saying we have 3m APs mostly spread over our top 40 or 50 players, the rest of our membership are a bunch of nubs. Or, we've got two guys with 25k flags - I don't know about the rest of them. I've got 100k PvP kills....the rest of our guild averages about 500. I've run every elite map....but I think I'm the only one in the guild that has done that.

H2N! DM poked RESI...MAGS are on EOS side...CHOSEN breathed on IMPERVIOUS!

Mom, Mom, Mom...MOMMY HELP!

:concern:

[inkredible]

The intent isn't to showcase how much of a badass your guild is in a single category, it should be about, "Hey, we are great at everything!"

You want elite runs? Look at our average Elite Times, all of our membership is great.
You want PvP? We are tops in PvP KDR, Kills per day and Flags.
You need APs? Our membership averages 17k APs, we can help.
You want an active guild? We have 99% 1d active!

See how that is much different than saying we have 3m APs mostly spread over our top 40 or 50 players, the rest of our membership are a bunch of nubs. Or, we've got two guys with 25k flags - I don't know about the rest of them. I've got 100k PvP kills....the rest of our guild averages about 500. I've run every elite map....but I think I'm the only one in the guild that has done that.

Elite LB times be better people can easily which guild is better in that category

[inkredible]

Let's go back to original question

is guild age rank valid as a criteria?

Overall discussion
Yes.

[Avaree]

I can understand what some are saying, but is it any different than recruiting players with rank boosting numbers. Top guilds will always attract top players. How many mergers or split-offs have occurred in order to do exactly that? The simple fact of the matter is that it is only one stat in the grand scheme of things (It barely adjusted the positions at all for the most part). Why shouldn't long time operating guilds be recognized for their contribution to the game? Most are established and have been helping to build a base of committed players that continues to grow.

In reference to the idea that people will want to join a particular guild just to improve their "status"...well that is up to the GMs and Officers to decipher who is who. Most LB players are known by these guilds. It would become very evident whether someone was just seeking a "spot to park".

The arguments I've seen so far that are against this idea seem to be from a viewpoint that this ONE stat would somehow turn the tides. Let's say that people start moving around....what are their other stats that affect ranking.....APs, K/D ratio, etc. Maybe the guild they left increases in a certain area(s) and gaining guild declines, not an impossibility.

Let's throw some numbers out there shall we?
Top 20 guilds who have an age rank 20 or less = 8
Number 1 ranked guild on age = 18th in ranking overall
Top 10 guilds who have an age rank right around 50 = 4
Number of positions that stayed the same = 14
Greatest increase (which there are only 2) = +4
Greatest decrease (which there is only 1) = -4
Top 5 guilds = 3 whose age date is 2014 (one of which is 20140327)

Not seeing the HUGE advantage/disadvantage here to anyone really. Previous posts mentioned this whole jumping ship to go to an older guild. Guess that means that Garuda Indonesia is about to get like 5k+ new members huh....ridiculousness. If anything I would imagine the only ones who may not like this idea are anyone that formed a guild full of top end players. They now have to contend with a stat they cannot manipulate except to return to former guilds or join another. In all actuality this will open up several slots in the top 50 for other guilds to jump up.

Bottom line...in any system people will find a way to manipulate it to their personal advantage (can u say "those using the 5 skill trick", "hot keys", macros, scam tricks on new players, fake hack accounts, blocking in pvp, I'm sure the list could go on).

I say go for it...include guild age as a factor.



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.




The Guild rank already is based on some stats which can easily be manipulated, as pointed out above.
I fully subscribe to Falmears points here.
Also it clearly shows a bias towards pvp.

as Zeus pointed out, guild age can be manipulated too, if someone feels the need to.

But maintaining a guild over a long time shows a lot of dedication, experience and loyalty not only from gms, officers, recruiters, but also from their members,
which make the task worthwhile and fun for the whole community, that a guild is supposed to be besides the Guild Rank.

So i would really like to see this very special "statpoint" counting towards guildrank.

Well said to the above posts. I agree, the guild age should be included.

[H2N]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-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/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1620769&viewfull=1#post1620769

[GoodSyntax]

Elite LB times be better people can easily which guild is better in that category

I disagree. LB times only reflect the top 4 players in the guild (assuming LB are all in the same guild). That is not any real indication of the overall talent level in the guild, just that there are a couple of pro's.

For the most part, LB leaders don't run with the general guild membership - which is why there are so many "See how many guild members you can party with" contests going on. So, as a new member, the chances of you being able to run with one of the LBers is slim, so it really doesn't do much to make you better.

[dantus]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)

Would need the birth date of all 50 guilds

[Avaree]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)

Brilliant ideas :)

[dantus]

Would need the birth date of all 50 guilds

Lol never mind this must have been edited

[inkredible]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)


This may work actually , although in the future .. Let's have elite rankings discussion in a different thread and main focus of guild age discussion and what h2n have just posted


@goodsyntax fair enough, per member works , its not hard to teach players and we have had newbies get on LB last day of lvl 36 .. First try.. No mythics , It's really more of a strategic play by the leaders taught to their members so I guess yes that could work

[leoakre]

I disagree. LB times only reflect the top 4 players in the guild (assuming LB are all in the same guild). That is not any real indication of the overall talent level in the guild, just that there are a couple of pro's.

For the most part, LB leaders don't run with the general guild membership - which is why there are so many "See how many guild members you can party with" contests going on. So, as a new member, the chances of you being able to run with one of the LBers is slim, so it really doesn't do much to make you better.

Eh, never heard of that contest! And I know for a fact that EOS and RESI run with and help our members with maps and APs. While visiting the Resilience guild, I saw with my own eyes Joy asking in guild chat if she could help anyone with maps & APs. Paulsebi has devoted more than enough time and effort into running with EVERYONE in maps to help members and officers alike. Both guilds have many LBers and
elite map runners (a.k.a farmers), let alone time runners who do enjoy helping out new members alot! But I must point out that even when I was just a member in Vengence I never asked or expected that officers nor the LBers be obligated to run with me in maps or for achievement points.
And lastly...never heard of that contest!

CONGRATS TO EOS FOR OUR UPCOMING ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY EVENT!

P.s. also much adoration for the boys in DM for all of their wonderful fast run skills!

[inkredible]

Eh, never heard of that contest! And I know for a fact that EOS and RESI run with and help our members with maps and APs. While visiting the Resilience guild, I saw with my own eyes Joy asking in guild chat if she could help anyone with maps & APs. Paulsebi has devoted more than enough time and effort into running with EVERYONE in maps to help members and officers alike. Both guilds have many LBers and
elite map runners (a.k.a farmers), let alone time runners who do enjoy helping out new members alot! But I must point out that even when I was just a member in Vengence I never asked or expected that officers nor the LBers be obligated to run with me in maps or for achievement points.
And lastly...never heard of that contest!

CONGRATS TO EOS FOR OUR UPCOMING ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY EVENT!

P.s. also much adoration for the boys in DM for all of their wonderful fast run skills!

Were all getting so off topic lmao anyways seems were at it , I have given aziii permission to join eos for one year hahaha ! Congrats to ur guild

Elite discussion! Pls separate thread

[H2N]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)

This is what the listing would look like under this proposal.

1. Resilience (1 -> 1 = 0) 20140327-172948 (50)
2. Magnum (2 -> 2 = 0) 20140105-170955 (48)
3. Deviant Misfits (4 -> 3 = +1) 20130116-001425 (15)
4. Epitome Of Silentkill (3 -> 4 = -1) 20130504-110232 (29)
5. Chosen (5 -> 5 = 0) 20140104-050757 (47)
6. Chivalrous Union (7 -> 6 = +1) 20130105-030633 (13)
7. Republika (6 -> 7 = -1) 20140316-191044 (49)
8. Mastermind Ph (8 -> 8 = 0) 20130403-165920 (23)
9. Eminence (9 -> 9 = 0) 20130618-111727 (34)
10. Farmers Inc (10 -> 10 = 0) 20130604-022544 (32)
11. Elite Runners (12 -> 11 = +1) 20130412-150622 (27)
12. Pheonix (11 -> 12 = -1) 20130607-110649 (33)
13. Immaculate (13 -> 13 = 0) 20130328-092607 (22)
14. Republic Of Indonesia (15 -> 14 = +1) 20121223-104940 (10)
15. Trickster (14 -> 15 = -1) 20130920-191758 (43)
16. Helden Von Heute (16 -> 16 = 0) 20130107-232843 (14)
17. Alte Garde (17 -> 17 = 0) 20130217-121234 (17)
18. Darksiders (18 -> 18 = 0) 20121218-010112 (9)
19. Garuda Indonesia (19 -> 19 = 0) 20121103-091325 (1)
20. Indonesia Elite (20 -> 20 = 0) 20121204-013215 (7)
21. Mythic Revenge (21 -> 21 = 0) 20130919-105739 (42)
22. Crisis Of Faith (22 -> 22 = 0) 20130123-132742 (16)
23. Insomnia (23 -> 23 = 0) 20130102-012953 (11)
24. Legends Of Russia (24 -> 24 = 0) 20130407-110053 (25)
25. The Commandos Elite (26 -> 25 = +1) 20130409-035534 (26)
26. Pinoy Rules (25 -> 26 = -1) 20131111-125252 (46)
27. Philippines Allstar (29 -> 27 = +2) 20130326-012804 (21)
28. 21 Jump Street (27 -> 28 = -1) 20130514-082003 (30)
29. Crime Sorciere (30 -> 29 = +1) 20121203-044514 (6)
30. Team Philippines (28 -> 30 = -2) 20130625-053816 (37)
31. Korea (32 -> 31 = +1) 20121104-052308 (2)
32. Legenden Sterben Nie (33 -> 32 = +1) 20130321-144031 (20)
33. Philippines Finest (37 -> 33 = +4) 20121205-195748 (8)
34. Polish Legends (34 -> 34 = 0) 20121118-100508 (3)
35. Black Dragon (36 -> 35 = +1) 20130404-112302 (24)
36. Uroboros (31 -> 36 = -5) 20131102-120145 (45)
37. Italian Legends (38 -> 37 = +1) 20121129-012153 (5)
38. The Lost Immortals (35 -> 38 = -3) 20130818-090316 (41)
39. Indonesian Legend (41 -> 39 = +2) 20130218-173655 (18)
40. Mundo Misterioso (40 -> 40 = 0) 20130418-023547 (28)
41. Twisted Bastards (39 -> 41 = -2) 20130703-124315 (38)
42. Culto Arcano (43 -> 42 = +1) 20121127-013813 (4)
43. So Br Brasil (42 -> 43 = -1) 20130618-141909 (35)
44. Usa Wolfpac (46 -> 44 = +2) 20130102-053850 (12)
45. Heirs Of Grace (44 -> 45 = -1) 20130712-153146 (40)
46. Indonesian Brotherhood (47 -> 46 = +1) 20130619-180526 (36)
47. Trinity Knights (45 -> 47 = -2) 20130921-043117 (44)
48. Dirty Dozen (48 -> 48 = 0) 20130301-021036 (19)
49. Brotherhood Legends (49 -> 49 = 0) 20130526-211428 (31)
50. Dark Legends Elite (50 -> 50 = 0) 20130705-204241 (39)

[Zeus]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)

I don't mind this very much, although I still disagree with age being a factor due to my previous comments. Compromise is compromise however and this seems like a good compromise.


I still believe GoodSyntax's idea about changing the overall guild ranking to his suggestions are the best.

[Endkey]

In the right corner, all the way from Resilience, weighing in at xxx pounds..the resilient the mighty...ZEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS *crowd goes wild*
In the left corner, all the way from DM, weighing in at xxx pounds...the deviant, the stunning blue...FALMEAAAAAAAAAAAR *crowd goes wild*

LET THE THUMB WRESTLING BEGIIIIIIIIIN!

great feedback guys...both of ur posts make sense to me :)

[Zeus]

In the right corner, all the way from Resilience, weighing in at xxx pounds..the resilient the mighty...ZEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS *crowd goes wild*
In the left corner, all the way from DM, weighing in at xxx pounds...the deviant, the stunning blue...FALMEAAAAAAAAAAAR *crowd goes wild*

LET THE THUMB WRESTLING BEGIIIIIIIIIN!

great feedback guys...both of ur posts make sense to me :)

LOL!

That's why I didn't really want to argue much more. Falmear has his points which are very valid and I have my points, which are also valid. If we continued, we would basically be trying to convince each other who is more "valid". We all know how that goes on...

[falmear]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-April-30-2014) Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)

This seems fair and reasonable.

[Eski]

It should deffinatly be included into the guild ranking ... guilds that are active for a long time should get their reward in guild ranking...

[Endkey]

If many are eager to add it..then pls add it..however it shudnt be prioritized

[inkredible]

+1 for h2n

[GoodSyntax]

...never heard of that contest!


You don't have to spend that much time trolling the forums to see these things occur frequently. Two quick examples, that I know of:

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?150102-Let-s-Rock-Elite!-Official-Contest-for-lt-Chosen-gt-Discussion-Thread

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?125773-Winter-WondeRun-Elite-Runners-Exclusive-Contest

I'm sure I could find five more with ease if I wanted to take the time.

There are a lot of contests like these that try to get players in guilds to co-mingle. Nothing worse than asking for any runs and getting no response because you aren't in the inner circle. The larger the guild, the more likely you would get isolated groups that only run together. Events like these help to knock down that divide. Otherwise, it's kind of senseless to have guilds within guilds so to speak.

[inkredible]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-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/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1620769&viewfull=1#post1620769

answer ^ elite contest later.

[Serancha]

H2N! DM poked RESI...MAGS are on EOS side...CHOSEN breathed on IMPERVIOUS!

Mom, Mom, Mom...MOMMY HELP!

:concern:


This cracked me up.

[Azepeiete]

I disagree. LB times only reflect the top 4 players in the guild (assuming LB are all in the same guild). That is not any real indication of the overall talent level in the guild, just that there are a couple of pro's.

For the most part, LB leaders don't run with the general guild membership - which is why there are so many "See how many guild members you can party with" contests going on. So, as a new member, the chances of you being able to run with one of the LBers is slim, so it really doesn't do much to make you better.

I disagree. Last season i knew many many members who received lb banners. Just because the people who push for it most sre officers, doesnt mean members cant do it.

[GoodSyntax]

I disagree. Last season i knew many many members who received lb banners. Just because the people who push for it most sre officers, doesnt mean members cant do it.

Anybody could do it, but it's impossible for undergeared or mainstream Legendary players to achieve it. I try to spend a lot of time running with all my members, crate geared, elite legendary, mythic or arcane....it doesn't matter to me. What is most important to me is that I teach people the proper pulls for easy and enjoyable runs. I don't care much for LB status, so if I can ensure my members are competent runners and, even undergeared, are successful in elites due to strategies and cooperation, then I've done my job. It is more important that they are active.

Unfortunately, I know A LOT of players that simply will not run with crate geared players, cap-1 players, or anyone without Mythics. That is the attitude that I take issue with. Yes, there are a ton of helpful officers, and most guilds wouldn't survive without them, but there are also a lot of officers who don't have patience to teach and struggle with midrange parties.

[leoakre]

You don't have to spend that much time trolling the forums to see these things occur frequently. Two quick examples, that I know of:

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?150102-Let-s-Rock-Elite!-Official-Contest-for-lt-Chosen-gt-Discussion-Thread

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?125773-Winter-WondeRun-Elite-Runners-Exclusive-Contest

I'm sure I could find five more with ease if I wanted to take the time.

There are a lot of contests like these that try to get players in guilds to co-mingle. Nothing worse than asking for any runs and getting no response because you aren't in the inner circle. The larger the guild, the more likely you would get isolated groups that only run together. Events like these help to knock down that divide. Otherwise, it's kind of senseless to have guilds within guilds so to speak.


I do not troll all the threads for lack of time (as you stated) but your description sounds a bit like high school!
:apthy:

[utkarsh saini]

one more cause for disagreement of this subject is that the new guilds will not get the opportunity to be in LB . i also just formed a guild 10 daYS BEFORE.. ADDING PEOPLE FOR APS. but i cant compete with LB guild if this would be a criteria . so in my opinion . this can be a method to caterise old from all and just put aside new ones..

[falmear]

Anybody could do it, but it's impossible for undergeared or mainstream Legendary players to achieve it..

If you want to be competitive in PvP, timed runs or flagging. You need the proper gear. You're not going to win an F1 race with a go cart. So if people want to be competitive they need to try to obtain the best gear. That is the nature of this game. Whether or not it is reflective of the best guilds or not is a different question. But when you have stats like PvP or PvE kills & CTF flag captures, these are all highly influenced by gear. Timed runs is no different and should be reflected in the top guild rankings.

[leoakre]

If you want to be competitive in PvP, timed runs or flagging. You need the proper gear. You're not going to win an F1 race with a go cart. So if people want to be competitive they need to try to obtain the best gear. That is the nature of this game. Whether or not it is reflective of the best guilds or not is a different question. But when you have stats like PvP or PvE kills & CTF flag captures, these are all highly influenced by gear. Timed runs is no different and should be reflected in the top guild rankings.

Woohoo! ^^^ What he said!
:pirate:

[GoodSyntax]

I agree Fluff, but my point was that having a few studs in your guild does not necessarily mean that you are the "top" guild....just that you have a handful of studs. How is having 4 or 5 superstars among hundreds of average or above average players make for a top guild, when other guilds may not have those type of leader boarders, but their population is clearly more competent and active?

Adding LB representation to guild rank means that if those 4 or 5 players leave and go to another guild, they can have an enormous impact on rankings, and I just don't think that is at all indication of guild prowess. I prefer that the entire guild population be represented in ranking, not just the top 1%.

[inkredible]

I agree Fluff, but my point was that having a few studs in your guild does not necessarily mean that you are the "top" guild....just that you have a handful of studs. How is having 4 or 5 superstars among hundreds of average or above average players make for a top guild, when other guilds may not have those type of leader boarders, but their population is clearly more competent and active?

Adding LB representation to guild rank means that if those 4 or 5 players leave and go to another guild, they can have an enormous impact on rankings, and I just don't think that is at all indication of guild prowess. I prefer that the entire guild population be represented in ranking, not just the top 1%.


ive said this over and over and over with zeus and i suppose yes not everyone is reading the discussion
You cannot look at one category and define a guild by that category.

For example: Resilience #1 in pvp - that does not mean they are the "best" guild either, nor it does not mean they are the "best" at pvp
Another example: 90 % activitiy vs a 50% activity .. again a 50% activity does not mean the guild is dead and rarely are active.
that 90% could only have 200 members, while the 50% have 400 members .. so really (rough math) when you look at it.. both guilds are just as active.

My point is, as i have said before.. one category will not make a guild "top". If they were to add guild age in criteria it will be only be 6%, but just like zeus said that does not mean "being old = better" but #1 in pvp also doesnt mean = better.

You have to look at the whole criteria and you could somewhat define a guild in that way.

Zeus has his valid points and so does falm. But imo ANYTHING that somehow, somewhat contributes to a guild's establishment should be included in guild criteria because all categories can be bias alone.

As for elite timed runs, just like aze said.. just because mostly officers do it that does not mean members cant. I have discussed before a perfect example, we got a few people in there who are full legendary gear and legendary pet in top 5 Pure arena run etc. Yes a good gear is recommended but it doesnt mean it is impossible without it.

This is why more criteria the better.. so that each criteria has lower percentage, so it would not affect a guild rank as much

[falmear]

I agree Fluff, but my point was that having a few studs in your guild does not necessarily mean that you are the "top" guild....just that you have a handful of studs. How is having 4 or 5 superstars among hundreds of average or above average players make for a top guild, when other guilds may not have those type of leader boarders, but their population is clearly more competent and active?

Adding LB representation to guild rank means that if those 4 or 5 players leave and go to another guild, they can have an enormous impact on rankings, and I just don't think that is at all indication of guild prowess. I prefer that the entire guild population be represented in ranking, not just the top 1%.

This is how it is now with all PvP & PvE kill stats. When guilds merge its to get these superstars into their guilds. So in terms of PvE & PvP kills, the LB is already represented because they are based off of numbers. And this is also true when you consider achievement points. And its no surprise that the guilds with the most LB representation are at the top of the guild rankings. So adding timed runs is just another factor. Also if its added it would add more competition for timed runs because people are mostly focused on PvP now.

[leoakre]

I agree Fluff, but my point was that having a few studs in your guild does not necessarily mean that you are the "top" guild....just that you have a handful of studs. How is having 4 or 5 superstars among hundreds of average or above average players make for a top guild, when other guilds may not have those type of leader boarders, but their population is clearly more competent and active?

Adding LB representation to guild rank means that if those 4 or 5 players leave and go to another guild, they can have an enormous impact on rankings, and I just don't think that is at all indication of guild prowess. I prefer that the entire guild population be represented in ranking, not just the top 1%.

Studs? Prowess? What are you really getting at here?!
:eek:

[Cero]

Can anyone pls clarify,
This criteria is for guild age, it means how long the guild has made or how long the guild has been in LB or both?
I see both how long the guild has been in LB and e time they were made.

[Annihilations]

Guild age being considered in rankings sounds like a great idea on the surface but this could easily be circumvented by just "acquiring" an older guild. Honestly, there are many ways to "enhance" your rank quickly so I won't just say this was a completely bad idea.

I have one idea that I believe would make sense logically. It seems that guild mergers are rewarded heavily which is shown in the major shake ups in guild rankings. Many GuildMasters come and go and change hands. If this loop hole is rewarded in guild rankings, why not reward guilds with stable GuildMaster leadership? To be considered a top guild in AL, guild stability should be considered in the equation.

Let's say for example a guild with the same GM for 3 months would get a certain amount of points credited to rankings. 6 months and up more points. Perhaps 9 months + would be the maximum possible points awarded. It doesn't have to be a huge momentum shift in points but acknowledgment of the time and dedication to run a guild would be appreciated. Ok I've spoken my piece. Thanks for your time. :)

[razerfingers]

So my Guild trump tower would have a chance if i had one high level character because it was made in the beta? lol That seems unfair since it would only have one in there if that was possible

[Thrindal]

Guild age being considered in rankings sounds like a great idea on the surface but this could easily be circumvented by just "acquiring" an older guild. Honestly, there are many ways to "enhance" your rank quickly so I won't just say this was a completely bad idea.

I have one idea that I believe would make sense logically. It seems that guild mergers are rewarded heavily which is shown in the major shake ups in guild rankings. Many GuildMasters come and go and change hands. If this loop hole is rewarded in guild rankings, why not reward guilds with stable GuildMaster leadership? To be considered a top guild in AL, guild stability should be considered in the equation.

Let's say for example a guild with the same GM for 3 months would get a certain amount of points credited to rankings. 6 months and up more points. Perhaps 9 months + would be the maximum possible points awarded. It doesn't have to be a huge momentum shift in points but acknowledgment of the time and dedication to run a guild would be appreciated. Ok I've spoken my piece. Thanks for your time. :)

I think this seems to have merit, the big question is how do you quantify stability and what of that is easily tracked/extracted from current data. I would have to say "Guildmaster" stability ought to be trackable.

You do have a point in terms of "Mergers". That does seem to be a quick way to move up the ranks and weed out inactives at the same time. I have no ideas on how this should be handled. All I can think of is there be a probationary period when a large change in membership is made between rankings. What constitutes large though? H2N may have an idea.

Another idea would be to discount "Alts". So one person with 2 "Alts" would only count as one Guild member when it comes to activity rankings. Again this could be circumvented so might not be a great idea.

I still believe that having more tools and data available to Guild Masters/Officers in order to better manage membership would be the best thing to help Guilds manage themselves. Information like "Last Login date" would be a huge help in managing membership. Overall Guild management is one area STS could enhance significantly but that is a whole different thread.

[Serancha]

To be considered a top guild in AL, guild stability should be considered in the equation.

Let's say for example a guild with the same GM for 3 months would get a certain amount of points credited to rankings. 6 months and up more points. Perhaps 9 months + would be the maximum possible points awarded. It doesn't have to be a huge momentum shift in points but acknowledgment of the time and dedication to run a guild would be appreciated. Ok I've spoken my piece. Thanks for your time. :)

Totally agree with this. There is currently no category that regards guild stability, which is, in many ways, the most important factor to being a good guild. Guild age would address it but there are other factors too.

For example, guilds who spam recruit have large numbers but very high turnover. There are many other factors also that make a guild into either a transient's paradise, or a destination for players to settle in. But leadership is the most possible of the options for addressing stability in rankings, and as such, should be put in with guild age. However, there's guilds that have "co-gm's" - I don't know how these work, but then I have never known a guild run like this to last long, so it may be a moot point.

I don't get why guilds can form and reform every 2-3 months with the same players, just a new gm and name, and still be considered top guilds. There's obviously internal issues when this happens so repeatedly. Mergers....m'eh. Never approved of guilds merging to get ranks, but there's really no way to filter these, except guild formation date.


However, pve stats still need to be balanced with pvp for ranking weight, which I think should be priority.

[Daddyblu]

Guild Ranking from 1-50 if you guys want to change it then i have this in mind.

From top 50 guild they will challenge Rank 49 and & 48 to a pvp system 5-5 CTF. to get higher ranks.

Lower rank guild can challenge two ranks higher guild to move to the higher positions, by doing this guild is rank more by skills rather than by AP ect. ect.

Also a guild master can use Immunity for 12hrs. this means they can only be challenge in another 12hrs.

A guild can only challenge a higher rank guild once, if they lose the match they cant challenge the same guild. Also lost the chance of ranking up.

Example im rank 3 guild. i can declare war on rank 2 and rank 1. If i lose to rank 1 guild i cant challenge them again until next guild war that is next week. now my only chance is to challenge the next guild that is rank 2.

When a guild declare a war / challenge a higher guild. it will give the defending guild 5 hours to prepare.

This can happen only once a week. lets say every Saturday.

[H2N]

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 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151484-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-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/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1620769&viewfull=1#post1620769

Only got support, and no major objection, to this middle ground proposal, so we are going to implement this middle ground proposal starting with the next (Wednesday 2014-05-07 (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?153242-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-May-7-2014)) listing. Thanks everyone for your input, and for keeping the discussion civil.

[Zeus]

Only got support, and no major objection, to this middle ground proposal, so we are going to implement this middle ground proposal starting with the next (Wednesday 2014-05-07) listing. Thanks everyone for your input, and for keeping the discussion civil.

Peace through repetition! Thanks H2N, will be interesting to see how this plays out when newer guilds come up and maybe be even younger than us!

[Candylicks]

I think it will make people think twice about disbanding and making new guilds. Perhaps instill some commitment and longevity into the guild system.

[Daddyblu]

If this will happen the longer guild will get points i think we should reset the clock.

lets say all guild age should start from the next update.

[Serancha]

If this will happen the longer guild will get points i think we should reset the clock.

lets say all guild age should start from the next update.

That would defeat the whole purpose of having a guild age stat.

[H2N]

2014-05-07 listing (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?153242-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-May-7-2014) posted, using the middle ground proposal (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1627233&viewfull=1#post1627233).

[falmear]

2014-05-07 listing (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?153242-Arcane-Legends-Top-50-Guild-Ranking-May-7-2014) posted, using the middle ground proposal (http://www.spacetimestudios.com/showthread.php?151863-Discussion-Should-Guild-Age-Be-A-Guild-Rank-Criteria&p=1627233&viewfull=1#post1627233).

Thanks! I'm glad to see we could reach a compromise. :)

[gumball3000]

thanks h2n

[Frohnatur]

We need some incentive against tearing down a guild and build up a new one just so. The reason: Stability is a criteria wich suggests a system that works. Drama is handled properly, activity is secure and experience is traded down to new members. Otherwise those "old" guild wouldn't exist.

If we dont have a criteria like this, then statistics wouldn't reflect some of the most important decision-making facts for a lot of gamers, especially if we think of guilds in the terms StS suggested right from the beginning: as families for the players.

[Crowsfoot]

I find it oddly satisfying the guild ranking is decided similarly to figure skating. The wide range of unwitted humor is a huge plus.

All that said, it really is the most fair.

[Eski]

If this will happen the longer guild will get points i think we should reset the clock.

lets say all guild age should start from the next update.

Lol ...

[arethrow]

given without working for it? establishing a guild for that long isnt work?
one year standing guilds are plain hard work while the newer guilds just filled with inviting powerful people.. and thats even less work

- edited

Definately should not have guild age as a stat

yes you are right guilds that long have worked hard but if the age becomes a stat all that hard work would go to waste and all lb will be ranked on is age, not effort not aps or pvp.

[Frohnatur]

Definately should not have guild age as a stat

yes you are right guilds that long have worked hard but if the age becomes a stat all that hard work would go to waste and all lb will be ranked on is age, not effort not aps or pvp.
the weight of the stat is not that powerful. It is just a little contribution to the much heavier stats of pvp, pve etc.

And yes, its a little appreciation for the hard working GMs and Offies that hold a Guild together.

[Dex Scene]

Is it guild age? Or avg of members' account age? Anyone can clarify?

—AshDex

[Serancha]

Each is a category. Guild age and average member account age. Although guild age is not accurate in the cases where a guild was accidentally disbanded at one point. The most recent date of formation (i.e. the date of the disbanding / reforming) is used in these cases, not the original founding date of the guild.

[Dex Scene]

Hmm thanks :)
Last qsn:
Are players below 21 level spared from the avg account age as they are from other catagory?

—AshDex

[Sheener]

Kind of silly rank

[Aslanx]

given without working for it? establishing a guild for that long isnt work?
one year standing guilds are plain hard work while the newer guilds just filled with inviting powerful people.. and thats even less work

- edited

This, and we all know why some people are saying this, because they're a powerful new guild lol, it should most definitely be added in since c'mon, how much will it change ? Keeping a long standing guild is definitely a lot of hard work and although I haven't had one here, I know the pressure of being a leader and having to maintain and keep recruiting members, even if its in a game, so many factors are contributed to making sure that guild stays alive, but of course some of the newer top guilds wouldn't like that and would prefer it to stay this way so they don't have to wait as long as come guilds like DM and CU have...also guilds will have more importance and not every other weak player will waste his saved 50k if he thinks he wont be able to make the lb, besides its about the effort and dedication the officers and all these masters put in, idk how ink does it but ik I would never match up to that much work, making contests recruiting , helping guildies, making records on lb


Just to go and get shown up by a bunch of rich kids who decided they wana be a guild one day, gg.

[Aslanx]

We should also have a separate pvp rank for guilds, maybe like a gold prize to Gm's at the end of every season, maybe a guild fund or plats I was thinking banner for the gm and officers of top or top 3 guilds to recognize their effort(for overall guild lb not pvp one) I'm sure a lot of people would agree with this, as the old guild officers would receive recognition