Discussion - Should Guild Age Be A Guild Rank Criteria?

[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!

[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 Top 50 Guild Ranking list would look like under this proposal, so there's data to use in the discussion.)

*edit*: this is what the listing would look like under this proposal http://www.spacetimestudios.com/show...=1#post1620769

[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 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 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 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 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 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 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