Feedback: Guild Rankings II

[Nocturnus]

Well better late than never, but seeing as the weekly rankings seem to have a link to the thread it's fair to assume the topic isn't a dead one just yet and after reading through the posts so far... understandable.


Firstly ill be paraphrasing at times what some have already been saying and because its going to be quite a few times and different people you'll all have to excuse me for individually quoting.

So this week currently using top 500 of the last 7 days active to determine the rankings, ok.

Well lets go back to the basics and ask what is the purpose of the guild leaderboard/ranking in the first place.

The simplest answer would be, to show a, as fair as a possible representation of which are the top guilds in the game.

We can then ask, why bother even showing it then?

Well the top guilds will usually consist of the more experienced/top players.

Why is that useful?

Well as a new or inexperienced player knowing where you are more likely to find knowledge or help is essential towards getting better at this game. Even if you're just going to throw money at the game to get to the top... rather pointless if you don't even know where to actually know the best places to throw that money and get there.

It can also serve as a goal for new players along with different communities within the game for players to find themselves in, chill with one they enjoy also provides longevity for a player as they end up coming online for not just the game itself but the community they've grown attached/created bonds with.

Now, are the guild leaderboards a "fair" representation of the top guilds in the game?

Well, let's look at the old system that's been in place for a decade. Seems only a small amount of people actually understood how it worked so I will try to explain it to make it easier to understand.

To get into the Top 50 guild rankings a guild needed to achieve a total number of APs overall with all its members.

There are 2 ways to really do that,
1 - gather lots of people with lower APs individually
2 - have fewer people but higher APs individually

After that, what number a guild was in the top 50 was broken into 16 different factors.

6 for PvP (CTF&TDM)
5 for Activity(1,3,7,15,30)
2 for PvE (KvD&KpM)
2 for Age (Player+Guild)
1 for APs (Just because guild got enough APs to be in LB still might have a low amount compared to others)

After that the numbers of players in each guild is counted and an average number is found. Based on that average number is a guilds overall number for each factor.

Then to get the Overal score (the bit we see on the LB in game) is worked out by removing a guilds... Ill use my own guild as an example
Attachment 252304
So the guilds Overall Aps was ranked 48th out of the top 50 however because the majority of the players in HS have high PvE kills it is ranked 1st in the top 50.
That 1st ranking is removed by the 48th ranking, and this carrys on until the guilds Overall Ranking is found.

16 factors to count is quite a few... tho having so few factors deciding a guilds rank based on APs/PvE is what's really out of line with the game being more geared towards those aspects of the game instead of PvP which has the highest amount of deciding factors.

Just looking at the numbers the old way, you can usually work out which guilds most likely have the more experienced players that are also active and with lower numbers, the guilds that have large numbers but less experienced, the guilds with players who aren't as active, etc.

Taking into count a guild and player account age is also something important however, as can be seen, it actually counts for a small fraction towards the overall rankings as mentioned in a previous post.

Also, the activity factors account for having people being offline at different intervals which worked nicely in being able to determine how active guilds are looking at the rankings which can be a deciding factor when choosing a guild to venture into.

So based on all those factors id say with confidence the "old" ranking system was a pretty fair representation of the top guilds in the game. Tho this is also assuming everybody understands how to read and truly understand the old rankings which is why if you really did then not only would know what to do to make your guilds climb the ranks also realise it isn't actually that easy and just having gathered every new player in game wont amount to jumping right into being a high ranking guild because of all the different factors also involved.

Imagine being a new player, looking at the leaderboard rankings seeing the top guild and finding after joining its mostly filled with players who are also in the same boat of being new players to the game.

Its the "blind" leading the "blind".

Which is why knowing where your more likely to find people that are not "blind" helps navigate better when you cant "see" yet yourself.

Now lets go with what we have today.

To become a #1 guild is rather simple. Just loads of APs/People who have recently enough been online.

Total number = 12,000,000 APs

Lets do some quick math...
Attachment 252305

If we have a guild 1 with 500 players all with at least 24,000 APs each... well 500 x 24,000 = 12,000,000 APs...

But wait...

We can also have a guild 2 with 250 players all with 48,000 APs each... well 250 x 48,000 = 12,000,000 APs...

Now both guilds have 12m APs so with today's current way of doing it both represent being #1...

Now we have to ask ourselves out of the 2 guilds which one is more likely to have players that will be helpful towards getting better at the game...

The guild where most of the members have low APs or the guild with the members with high APs?

Rather an obvious choice would be guild 2...

That's not to ever say you wouldn't find someone helpful in guild 1 and find someone useless in guild 2... there will always be exceptions...

Exceptions don't make the rule.

The general consensus would be those with higher APs are more likely to be able to more helpful in helping you get more

Also, the players from guild 2 tho less of them, worked to gain x2 the amount of APs guild 1 members have gotten... so would the current system in place which would put guild 1 and guild 2 at #1 spot be truly a as fair as possible representation of a #1 guild and its players...

In my opinion, I would strongly say No.

By no means was the previous way of guild rankings flawless. It could do with some adjustments to be more in line with current times or the direction of which the game is trying to go (which can say at least is away from PvP)

So introducing more AP/PvE factors instead to the previous system such as quests completed, badges/titles earnt, and level capped, are just a handful off the top of my head whilst writing this but hopefully, that's enough to get the idea across.


IN regards to making guilds more relevant of course more management tools would always be great! People asking for badges when yeah would be cool tho be I have been suggesting guild Banners concepts multiple times in the past even custom coloured titles!

But to really make guilds more useful to players besides the cheaper pot and place for members to have a private space to gather...

Why not introduce locations guild master can apply to a guild hall where the effects are given to all its members similar to how a player can buy a house and get locations for the buffs (and APs)... could even just be different buffs guilds can choose out of like 10 but can only pick 3 even if its the same so different guilds might have different buff benefits of being a member...

Say a guild picked 25% MS buff 3 times so all members got additional 75%ms just for being part of the guild

Same with gold loot or damage mana reduction for smaller pvp guilds...


But that's all another topic just thought it would be rude not to put my take on the rankings whilst the topic is still open at least



1 <3

You say "The blind leading the blind"
Now imagine a guild with many "old" or "good" players completely idle or afk in Expedition all day.
It would be "The blind man led by a dead companion dog"

Adjustments are probably needed, but it's a step in the right direction.
On the other hand, it is the Lb of the "best guild of the week" which is why it is updated weekly.

[papas]

Well better late than never, but seeing as the weekly rankings seem to have a link to the thread it's fair to assume the topic isn't a dead one just yet and after reading through the posts so far... understandable.


Firstly ill be paraphrasing at times what some have already been saying and because its going to be quite a few times and different people you'll all have to excuse me for individually quoting.

So this week currently using top 500 of the last 7 days active to determine the rankings, ok.

Well lets go back to the basics and ask what is the purpose of the guild leaderboard/ranking in the first place.

The simplest answer would be, to show a, as fair as a possible representation of which are the top guilds in the game.

We can then ask, why bother even showing it then?

Well the top guilds will usually consist of the more experienced/top players.

Why is that useful?

Well as a new or inexperienced player knowing where you are more likely to find knowledge or help is essential towards getting better at this game. Even if you're just going to throw money at the game to get to the top... rather pointless if you don't even know where to actually know the best places to throw that money and get there.

It can also serve as a goal for new players along with different communities within the game for players to find themselves in, chill with one they enjoy also provides longevity for a player as they end up coming online for not just the game itself but the community they've grown attached/created bonds with.

Now, are the guild leaderboards a "fair" representation of the top guilds in the game?

Well, let's look at the old system that's been in place for a decade. Seems only a small amount of people actually understood how it worked so I will try to explain it to make it easier to understand.

To get into the Top 50 guild rankings a guild needed to achieve a total number of APs overall with all its members.

There are 2 ways to really do that,
1 - gather lots of people with lower APs individually
2 - have fewer people but higher APs individually

After that, what number a guild was in the top 50 was broken into 16 different factors.

6 for PvP (CTF&TDM)
5 for Activity(1,3,7,15,30)
2 for PvE (KvD&KpM)
2 for Age (Player+Guild)
1 for APs (Just because guild got enough APs to be in LB still might have a low amount compared to others)

After that the numbers of players in each guild is counted and an average number is found. Based on that average number is a guilds overall number for each factor.

Then to get the Overal score (the bit we see on the LB in game) is worked out by removing a guilds... Ill use my own guild as an example
Attachment 252304
So the guilds Overall Aps was ranked 48th out of the top 50 however because the majority of the players in HS have high PvE kills it is ranked 1st in the top 50.
That 1st ranking is removed by the 48th ranking, and this carrys on until the guilds Overall Ranking is found.

16 factors to count is quite a few... tho having so few factors deciding a guilds rank based on APs/PvE is what's really out of line with the game being more geared towards those aspects of the game instead of PvP which has the highest amount of deciding factors.

Just looking at the numbers the old way, you can usually work out which guilds most likely have the more experienced players that are also active and with lower numbers, the guilds that have large numbers but less experienced, the guilds with players who aren't as active, etc.

Taking into count a guild and player account age is also something important however, as can be seen, it actually counts for a small fraction towards the overall rankings as mentioned in a previous post.

Also, the activity factors account for having people being offline at different intervals which worked nicely in being able to determine how active guilds are looking at the rankings which can be a deciding factor when choosing a guild to venture into.

So based on all those factors id say with confidence the "old" ranking system was a pretty fair representation of the top guilds in the game. Tho this is also assuming everybody understands how to read and truly understand the old rankings which is why if you really did then not only would know what to do to make your guilds climb the ranks also realise it isn't actually that easy and just having gathered every new player in game wont amount to jumping right into being a high ranking guild because of all the different factors also involved.

Imagine being a new player, looking at the leaderboard rankings seeing the top guild and finding after joining its mostly filled with players who are also in the same boat of being new players to the game.

Its the "blind" leading the "blind".

Which is why knowing where your more likely to find people that are not "blind" helps navigate better when you cant "see" yet yourself.

Now lets go with what we have today.

To become a #1 guild is rather simple. Just loads of APs/People who have recently enough been online.

Total number = 12,000,000 APs

Lets do some quick math...
Attachment 252305

If we have a guild 1 with 500 players all with at least 24,000 APs each... well 500 x 24,000 = 12,000,000 APs...

But wait...

We can also have a guild 2 with 250 players all with 48,000 APs each... well 250 x 48,000 = 12,000,000 APs...

Now both guilds have 12m APs so with today's current way of doing it both represent being #1...

Now we have to ask ourselves out of the 2 guilds which one is more likely to have players that will be helpful towards getting better at the game...

The guild where most of the members have low APs or the guild with the members with high APs?

Rather an obvious choice would be guild 2...

That's not to ever say you wouldn't find someone helpful in guild 1 and find someone useless in guild 2... there will always be exceptions...

Exceptions don't make the rule.

The general consensus would be those with higher APs are more likely to be able to more helpful in helping you get more

Also, the players from guild 2 tho less of them, worked to gain x2 the amount of APs guild 1 members have gotten... so would the current system in place which would put guild 1 and guild 2 at #1 spot be truly a as fair as possible representation of a #1 guild and its players...

In my opinion, I would strongly say No.

By no means was the previous way of guild rankings flawless. It could do with some adjustments to be more in line with current times or the direction of which the game is trying to go (which can say at least is away from PvP)

So introducing more AP/PvE factors instead to the previous system such as quests completed, badges/titles earnt, and level capped, are just a handful off the top of my head whilst writing this but hopefully, that's enough to get the idea across.


IN regards to making guilds more relevant of course more management tools would always be great! People asking for badges when yeah would be cool tho be I have been suggesting guild Banners concepts multiple times in the past even custom coloured titles!

But to really make guilds more useful to players besides the cheaper pot and place for members to have a private space to gather...

Why not introduce locations guild master can apply to a guild hall where the effects are given to all its members similar to how a player can buy a house and get locations for the buffs (and APs)... could even just be different buffs guilds can choose out of like 10 but can only pick 3 even if its the same so different guilds might have different buff benefits of being a member...

Say a guild picked 25% MS buff 3 times so all members got additional 75%ms just for being part of the guild

Same with gold loot or damage mana reduction for smaller pvp guilds...


But that's all another topic just thought it would be rude not to put my take on the rankings whilst the topic is still open at least



1 <3

We alrd explained many times how old lb was working. I'm sad see u keep miss informing in forum, when some friends told me u changed now after u got dumped by time record team. Several ppl with high pve kills u mentioned is just few botters farmed millions of pve in gauntlet, also u got op kdr in ctf cause with same way u got hundreds of thousands ctf kills. Many got banned for that reason so its a fact!
CU was mostly harmed from change old lb algorythm sinse all scores was legit. Ofc most in guild used dummies just to get 10k kills in pvp won't deny that. We have tho many who actually achieved those aps and a good kdr plus 10k flags legit.
Tho sinse it was a lb which could easily cheated by anyone. I m good with sts removing it. That's how I see this. Old lb was removed like in the past the pvp and pve kills were.
And I accept a "New lb", which yes some guilds have an advantage alrd cause of 2k members but it is what it is.
Those who interested in rank1 and new rewards coming will have somethin to work for.
Cheers

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Kelyx]

https://giphy.com/gifs/ztXnhkdvprlIfq1xEU



Enviado desde mi SM-G781B mediante Tapatalk

[BaronB]

Admittedly, my presence hasn't been around for a "minute" as I have been busy on life's journey.
My lack of presence is also only temporary until my work dies down.

First, in keeping with the topic itself at hand and why the leaderboards shouldn't be ranked as simply as they currently are.

The leaderboards are supposed to represent The Best (scores, kills, times, etc)...
Most of the leaderboards represent individual players, we then have a few parties of 4 and then a single guilds leaderboard which represents larger parties/groups (small social communities).

If we are going to use APs alone as the main deciding factor for The Best guilds ranked in the game then that would mean of course the more APs the better...

There surely can't be disagreements that a player with a higher amount of APs is going to be more helpful to someone new to the game learning to gain more APs...

If a guild is supposed to represent that, rather than looking at just the total overall amount of APs a guild has in total... why not look at the average APs a guilds players has instead as the guild with players with an average of higher APs would obviously be the environment most beneficial for someone new to the game...

Already mentioned a player with higher APs would be more helpful to someone then someone with a lower amount.


To work out the average amount of APs a guilds members has all we have to do is take the total number of APs and divide it by the number of members that are counted towards that total number of APs.

So based on the most recent figures just looking at The Best guilds in the game, starting with the current Top 3 to find the average APs each guild has per member...

1st - 25k APs average per member
2nd - 20k APs average per member
3rd - 27k APs average per member.

To keep it easy here's a handy spreadsheet of the top 20 guilds with all the math done already...

Source.
Attachment 252602


And now if we were to actually rank the guilds based just on the average APs a guild's members have, because remember more APs alone means more of a help to new players...

Attachment 252603


Feel free to go verify it all for yourselves.
(edit* the above is a example using the top 20, not sure what the top 50 results would be but if done let please share)

Uncomfortable truths.

A guild that's top of the leaderboards is supposed to be representing the group of best players that would potentially be the most helpful to new players (even if it helps by becoming a goal for that new player to aspire towards) and the best players has also been determined mostly by how many APs a player has (can go look at the player LBs).

Sure lets look at the total number of APs as a collective a guild has to judge if its The Best guild in the game...

A ton of Lead and a Ton of Gold weigh the same ... however the value each has greatly differs.

So we can't just look at the total APs a guild has and we know of course some players in a guild have more APs than others do as well so the fairest way, in reality, is by looking at the average APs amongst all the members of each guild.

Now we know there is more to the game now than just APs and what good is all that if members aren't even online?
so then factoring in not only the APs but also how often a guild members are even online is another good measure to help best represent what is Lead or Gold when looking at the leaderboards.

Oh look we've come back to pretty much what we had before.

The old leaderboards could definitely do with with a bit of tuning in to be a better representative of top guilds otherwise were just pretty much just happy to go along with delusional perspectives and ideas.

Quality > Quantity

Now some of the responses... lol

you're standing in the city all day, start recruiting people and that's it

Most think its a miracle if i even reply let alone sit there recruiting all day/night...
I can leave my mage online as my laptop is on and running 24/7 even whilst I'm at work or asleep which is why I'm always Online but not actually there.

Now imagine a guild with many "old" or "good" players completely idle or afk in Expedition all day

Not sure why your even triggered, the guild mostly as adults who get on their own business and time to time have a cheeky chat...
We all use the game for different things... I'm sure you can even comprehend that much?

I'm sad see u keep miss informing in forum, when some friends told me u changed now after u got dumped by time record team

Its amazing how you can literally contradict yourself in a single sentence... wow.
What exactly is the "misinformation" your causing me of? You seem be talking as if you know facts yet your source is "when some friends"...

You could always come and talk to me directly tho last time it was even me who reached out to you to try make some peace tho you have no interest... still hurting after I called out for trying to poach my officers in the past perhaps?

Ofc most in guild used dummies just to get 10k kills in pvp won't deny that.

We are actually in agreement ironically enough which again I mentioned about removing or at least adding more to balance it out better.


So by all means adjust Leaderboards, however, I'm sorry but what's currently in play is not a true representation of The Best guilds in the game.


If people really don't care about quality in this game anymore then by all means lets see what the future holds.

[Raziast]

I really don't get the point here. Obviously the guild with higher average aps will still get the top spot "eventually".
What differs from before is that you can't have 100 members only and still be at the top without working on recruitment, which leads to helping new people.

As i said before the guilds at top before will have the easiest time to get their positions back, obviously because of their average aps. The only thing that's hurting right now is to get the required amount of members and not getting off easy with countable people having high aps already.

If you need a practical example of previous top guilds still at advantage, look at CU. Their avg aps were always higher. And as expected, with more recruitments they're getting their way back up steadily, you can see the difference in their score of first and 2nd week.

If anyone will in case argue that the old ranking system was better, then no it wasn't. That system relied vastly on pvp scores or kdr. Which is impossible to achieve now because of completely inactive PvP, unless you go on to farm dummies to get huge +ive kdr. Which'll lose the point of being experienced anyway.

Let's compare my guild @ 25k avg with 500 members and another having @ 30k avg with 100 members. I don't get the point why 100 members guild is better.

If i start trimming down my members right now back to 100 and keep the highest aps people, my average will go way above 30k. And I'll still come out at the top. lol Beated you at your own ground of
Quality > Quantity

Basically what you're saying is that we need to be punished for recruiting more members? xD

It's something so simple that I don't need to post reference rank lists to explain.

Sent from my POCO F3 using Tapatalk

[papas]

I really don't get the point here. Obviously the guild with higher average aps will still get the top spot "eventually".
What differs from before is that you can't have 100 members only and still be at the top without working on recruitment, which leads to helping new people.

As i said before the guilds at top before will have the easiest time to get their positions back, obviously because of their average aps. The only thing that's hurting right now is to get the required amount of members and not getting off easy with countable people having high aps already.

If you need a practical example of previous top guilds still at advantage, look at CU. Their avg aps were always higher. And as expected, with more recruitments they're getting their way back up steadily, you can see the difference in their score of first and 2nd week.

If anyone will in case argue that the old ranking system was better, then no it wasn't. That system relied vastly on pvp scores or kdr. Which is impossible to achieve now because of completely inactive PvP, unless you go on to farm dummies to get huge +ive kdr. Which'll lose the point of being experienced anyway.

Let's compare my guild @ 25k avg with 500 members and another having @ 30k avg with 100 members. I don't get the point why 100 members guild is better.

If i start trimming down my members right now back to 100 and keep the highest aps people, my average will go way above 30k. And I'll still come out at the top. lol

Basically what you're saying is that we need to be punished for recruiting more members? xD

It's something so simple that I don't need to post reference rank lists to explain.

Sent from my POCO F3 using Tapatalk

Well said. I can make a guild with 15members and get rank 1 that will never be bellow that. If lb work with average aps.
Would that be the best guild in game? Just a childish try to claim best guild title....



Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[papas]

Admittedly, my presence hasn't been around for a "minute" as I have been busy on life's journey.
My lack of presence is also only temporary until my work dies down.

First, in keeping with the topic itself at hand and why the leaderboards shouldn't be ranked as simply as they currently are.

The leaderboards are supposed to represent The Best (scores, kills, times, etc)...
Most of the leaderboards represent individual players, we then have a few parties of 4 and then a single guilds leaderboard which represents larger parties/groups (small social communities).

If we are going to use APs alone as the main deciding factor for The Best guilds ranked in the game then that would mean of course the more APs the better...

There surely can't be disagreements that a player with a higher amount of APs is going to be more helpful to someone new to the game learning to gain more APs...

If a guild is supposed to represent that, rather than looking at just the total overall amount of APs a guild has in total... why not look at the average APs a guilds players has instead as the guild with players with an average of higher APs would obviously be the environment most beneficial for someone new to the game...

Already mentioned a player with higher APs would be more helpful to someone then someone with a lower amount.


To work out the average amount of APs a guilds members has all we have to do is take the total number of APs and divide it by the number of members that are counted towards that total number of APs.

So based on the most recent figures just looking at The Best guilds in the game, starting with the current Top 3 to find the average APs each guild has per member...

1st - 25k APs average per member
2nd - 20k APs average per member
3rd - 27k APs average per member.

To keep it easy here's a handy spreadsheet of the top 20 guilds with all the math done already...

Source.
Attachment 252602


And now if we were to actually rank the guilds based just on the average APs a guild's members have, because remember more APs alone means more of a help to new players...

Attachment 252603


Feel free to go verify it all for yourselves.
(edit* the above is a example using the top 20, not sure what the top 50 results would be but if done let please share)

Uncomfortable truths.

A guild that's top of the leaderboards is supposed to be representing the group of best players that would potentially be the most helpful to new players (even if it helps by becoming a goal for that new player to aspire towards) and the best players has also been determined mostly by how many APs a player has (can go look at the player LBs).

Sure lets look at the total number of APs as a collective a guild has to judge if its The Best guild in the game...

A ton of Lead and a Ton of Gold weigh the same ... however the value each has greatly differs.

So we can't just look at the total APs a guild has and we know of course some players in a guild have more APs than others do as well so the fairest way, in reality, is by looking at the average APs amongst all the members of each guild.

Now we know there is more to the game now than just APs and what good is all that if members aren't even online?
so then factoring in not only the APs but also how often a guild members are even online is another good measure to help best represent what is Lead or Gold when looking at the leaderboards.

Oh look we've come back to pretty much what we had before.

The old leaderboards could definitely do with with a bit of tuning in to be a better representative of top guilds otherwise were just pretty much just happy to go along with delusional perspectives and ideas.

Quality > Quantity

Now some of the responses... lol

Not sure why your even triggered, the guild mostly as adults who get on their own business and time to time have a cheeky chat...
We all use the game for different things... I'm sure you can even comprehend that much?


Its amazing how you can literally contradict yourself in a single sentence... wow.
What exactly is the "misinformation" your causing me of? You seem be talking as if you know facts yet your source is "when some friends"...

You could always come and talk to me directly tho last time it was even me who reached out to you to try make some peace tho you have no interest... still hurting after I called out for trying to poach my officers in the past perhaps?


We are actually in agreement ironically enough which again I mentioned about removing or at least adding more to balance it out better.


So by all means adjust Leaderboards, however, I'm sorry but what's currently in play is not a true representation of The Best guilds in the game.


If people really don't care about quality in this game anymore then by all means lets see what the future holds.

I pretty much clearly explained all my points.Try read again my comment.
Propably u forget what really happened with blaze, but that's expected from u. Trying change real facts to cause dramma. U can check our chat in discord where I sent u his reply with ss.
Yes u came to me for an apology which I accepted. That doesn't mean I have to like u, or asosiate with u, right?
Peace
Ps this is feed back thread. Devs don't need extra bs to read.


Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[BaronB]

I really don't get the point here. Obviously the guild with higher average aps will still get the top spot "eventually".
What differs from before is that you can't have 100 members only and still be at the top without working on recruitment, which leads to helping new people.

As i said before the guilds at top before will have the easiest time to get their positions back, obviously because of their average aps. The only thing that's hurting right now is to get the required amount of members and not getting off easy with countable people having high aps already.

If you need a practical example of previous top guilds still at advantage, look at CU. Their avg aps were always higher. And as expected, with more recruitments they're getting their way back up steadily, you can see the difference in their score of first and 2nd week.

If anyone will in case argue that the old ranking system was better, then no it wasn't. That system relied vastly on pvp scores or kdr. Which is impossible to achieve now because of completely inactive PvP, unless you go on to farm dummies to get huge +ive kdr. Which'll lose the point of being experienced anyway.

Let's compare my guild @ 25k avg with 500 members and another having @ 30k avg with 100 members. I don't get the point why 100 members guild is better.

If i start trimming down my members right now back to 100 and keep the highest aps people, my average will go way above 30k. And I'll still come out at the top. lol

Basically what you're saying is that we need to be punished for recruiting more members? xD

It's something so simple that I don't need to post reference rank lists to explain.

Sent from my POCO F3 using Tapatalk

I am sorry that you are misunderstanding, simply put there should be more metrics in place to determine a guild's rank besides it boiling down to the total number of APs a guild has to be the overall deciding factor.

Watch the movie "300" if you haven't before if you want a great demonstration of quality is better than quantity.

It is possible to stretch out time and resources across a larger number of people however you will always yield better results if the same time and resources were concentrated into smaller groups.

Same as a smaller classroom will yield students with better results.

Based on that philosophy and their track record even looking at the current figures I do genuinely believe CU should still be #1

I also genuinely don't think its right that such a small place now and with a not so hands-on gm like myself that HS should be as high ranked up as it was before the changes. With that same breath, a good majority of the members in HS have been around for a very long time and worked hard for their achievements which is also reflected within the ranks.

It really isn't that hard to rank up if you're being active and interactive and getting a fun environment going for people to grind away to actually climb up the leaderboards

Im against dumbing it down as it devalues it if made to simple.

Could add a guilds seasonal banner count into the rankings that only updates ever season which the ranking from there also plays a part towards the guilds weekly rankings which is more commonly seen.

So guild that gets more banners end of a season more it will help to boost their rank for 3 months.

Can add a counter for overall quests completed as a factor of rankings.. be easy enough to know find how many quests each member of the guild has completed and more quests a guild overall has completed again better it plays on a guilds rank.


There is so much more that could be done besides just settling with something so basic if we truely want to strive for competition

[BaronB]

Well said. I can make a guild with 15members and get rank 1 that will never be bellow that. If lb work with average aps.
Would that be the best guild in game? Just a childish try to claim best guild title....



Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

I actually did the calculations welcome to check out the top 50.

Im using the average APsas an example of why just looking at APs alone is actually a bad idea and more should be considered.

Using the Average Aps is just the other side of using Total Aps... Seems might be some breakthrough happening

[papas]

We mentioned abt average aps if should be better than total 10days ago in this thread. We set example too. But after further thinking it can't work........


Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Raziast]

I am sorry that you are misunderstanding, simply put there should be more metrics in place to determine a guild's rank besides it boiling down to the total number of APs a guild has to be the overall deciding factor.

Watch the movie "300" if you haven't before if you want a great demonstration of quality is better than quantity.

It is possible to stretch out time and resources across a larger number of people however you will always yield better results if the same time and resources were concentrated into smaller groups.

Same as a smaller classroom will yield students with better results.

Based on that philosophy and their track record even looking at the current figures I do genuinely believe CU should still be #1

I also genuinely don't think its right that such a small place now and with a not so hands-on gm like myself that HS should be as high ranked up as it was before the changes. With that same breath, a good majority of the members in HS have been around for a very long time and worked hard for their achievements which is also reflected within the ranks.

It really isn't that hard to rank up if you're being active and interactive and getting a fun environment going for people to grind away to actually climb up the leaderboards

Im against dumbing it down as it devalues it if made to simple.

Could add a guilds seasonal banner count into the rankings that only updates ever season which the ranking from there also plays a part towards the guilds weekly rankings which is more commonly seen.

So guild that gets more banners end of a season more it will help to boost their rank for 3 months.

Can add a counter for overall quests completed as a factor of rankings.. be easy enough to know find how many quests each member of the guild has completed and more quests a guild overall has completed again better it plays on a guilds rank.


There is so much more that could be done besides just settling with something so basic if we truely want to strive for competition

Seems like we're finally getting somewhere, you simply think that it's too straight forward to count aps only and we should add more factors.

You mentioned banners and quests? I didn't understand the quests part because achievement points for number of quests done is already covering that.

Now we're left with banners, so here's the thing:

Let's be real. What's the main source of banners? Dungeons? Which covers almost 70% of banner rewards. Over the past several seasons we've seen more or less same 15 people and their teams dominating the lb because of their stupidly high ms gears which probably costs billions now. Even if more players try to compete, only 3-4% of them will be able to afford that kinda movement speed. Hence we see same people still on lb every season as they were long time ago.

To get those banners, some people, probably friends of those 15, request them to carry so they can get the banners. And there goes the competition. If someone in someway gets close enough in competing, than pings come in play. Which is impossible to have constant around the globe because of one server only.

So how in the world can you possibly decide the rank of 50 guilds having thousands of players, just by the banners going to same 15 players for several seasons?

If you ask me, only factors that can be counted fairly are seasonal and overall achievement points and probably the event leaderboards if that can be counted in some way.

Sure, I agree that counting aps are very simple, but if you want to add more "fair factors" it needs a lot of thinking and rework.

[Nocturnus]

Admittedly, my presence hasn't been around for a "minute" as I have been busy on life's journey.
My lack of presence is also only temporary until my work dies down.

First, in keeping with the topic itself at hand and why the leaderboards shouldn't be ranked as simply as they currently are.

The leaderboards are supposed to represent The Best (scores, kills, times, etc)...
Most of the leaderboards represent individual players, we then have a few parties of 4 and then a single guilds leaderboard which represents larger parties/groups (small social communities).

If we are going to use APs alone as the main deciding factor for The Best guilds ranked in the game then that would mean of course the more APs the better...

There surely can't be disagreements that a player with a higher amount of APs is going to be more helpful to someone new to the game learning to gain more APs...

If a guild is supposed to represent that, rather than looking at just the total overall amount of APs a guild has in total... why not look at the average APs a guilds players has instead as the guild with players with an average of higher APs would obviously be the environment most beneficial for someone new to the game...

Already mentioned a player with higher APs would be more helpful to someone then someone with a lower amount.


To work out the average amount of APs a guilds members has all we have to do is take the total number of APs and divide it by the number of members that are counted towards that total number of APs.

So based on the most recent figures just looking at The Best guilds in the game, starting with the current Top 3 to find the average APs each guild has per member...

1st - 25k APs average per member
2nd - 20k APs average per member
3rd - 27k APs average per member.

To keep it easy here's a handy spreadsheet of the top 20 guilds with all the math done already...

Source.
Attachment 252602


And now if we were to actually rank the guilds based just on the average APs a guild's members have, because remember more APs alone means more of a help to new players...

Attachment 252603


Feel free to go verify it all for yourselves.
(edit* the above is a example using the top 20, not sure what the top 50 results would be but if done let please share)

Uncomfortable truths.

A guild that's top of the leaderboards is supposed to be representing the group of best players that would potentially be the most helpful to new players (even if it helps by becoming a goal for that new player to aspire towards) and the best players has also been determined mostly by how many APs a player has (can go look at the player LBs).

Sure lets look at the total number of APs as a collective a guild has to judge if its The Best guild in the game...

A ton of Lead and a Ton of Gold weigh the same ... however the value each has greatly differs.

So we can't just look at the total APs a guild has and we know of course some players in a guild have more APs than others do as well so the fairest way, in reality, is by looking at the average APs amongst all the members of each guild.

Now we know there is more to the game now than just APs and what good is all that if members aren't even online?
so then factoring in not only the APs but also how often a guild members are even online is another good measure to help best represent what is Lead or Gold when looking at the leaderboards.

Oh look we've come back to pretty much what we had before.

The old leaderboards could definitely do with with a bit of tuning in to be a better representative of top guilds otherwise were just pretty much just happy to go along with delusional perspectives and ideas.

Quality > Quantity

Now some of the responses... lol

Not sure why your even triggered, the guild mostly as adults who get on their own business and time to time have a cheeky chat...
We all use the game for different things... I'm sure you can even comprehend that much?


Its amazing how you can literally contradict yourself in a single sentence... wow.
What exactly is the "misinformation" your causing me of? You seem be talking as if you know facts yet your source is "when some friends"...

You could always come and talk to me directly tho last time it was even me who reached out to you to try make some peace tho you have no interest... still hurting after I called out for trying to poach my officers in the past perhaps?


We are actually in agreement ironically enough which again I mentioned about removing or at least adding more to balance it out better.


So by all means adjust Leaderboards, however, I'm sorry but what's currently in play is not a true representation of The Best guilds in the game.


If people really don't care about quality in this game anymore then by all means lets see what the future holds.

Surely, you racked your brain calculating and looking for a way for your guild to "suspiciously" be in top 1 in that table.

Fun fact: your guild is the least active in that entire table.

Conclusions aside.

[BaronB]

Seems like we're finally getting somewhere, you simply think that it's too straight forward to count aps only and we should add more factors.

You mentioned banners and quests? I didn't understand the quests part because achievement points for number of quests done is already covering that.

Now we're left with banners, so here's the thing:

Let's be real. What's the main source of banners? Dungeons? Which covers almost 70% of banner rewards. Over the past several seasons we've seen more or less same 15 people and their teams dominating the lb because of their stupidly high ms gears which probably costs billions now. Even if more players try to compete, only 3-4% of them will be able to afford that kinda movement speed. Hence we see same people still on lb every season as they were long time ago.

...

Sure, I agree that counting aps are very simple, but if you want to add more "fair factors" it needs a lot of thinking and rework.

Exactly what I've been saying and making examples of from the start yes we definitely agree which is great to see!

Having spent enough time around the people running those timed maps, have to give credit where its due because even if you gave the same gears to other players, without the work that went into learning and perfecting the runs... some of the times accomplished in the maps couldn't be replicated by anyone.

Even so what if a guild does have the advantage in banners in there guild ranks, its something that can be obtained still and it doesn't have to be a major factor just like a guilds age for example however season banner ranks are more likely to change but would encourage guilds to aim for banners via gearing up enough for lbs, perhaps even include event banners within the season earnt by guilds in that count as well or even doing things like seasonal lbs... its just another factor thats a little more relevant with today's times.

With the quests one yes quests do count towards APs anyways however there are plenty of other ways to farm or buy easy aps.. perhaps then maybe a Hardcore factor counted so whether members in guilds have completed the HC family ap or not maybe?

With the quests could also be the % of players who have completed weekly tasks like how many total APs a guild earnt per week being a factor instead...

As at least if that's a factor it encourages constant gaining aps and what better way then with new players / characters of course guilds with just top players would suffer from this factor as would be less and less aps to farm each week but that's why having multiple factors makes it fairer instead of just total number of APs... at least counting only the top 500 of the last 14 day active is a start but we certainly can do better.

Perhaps even having a guild retention counter so how long at % of members have been in guild bit like the different activities time but with different lengths of time members of stayed in a guild... of course, the deader the guild the % would naturally go down as a guild would hold retention,

Something that would encourage a factor that counts towards having new members join and then shows how much you've helped them would be cool tho I personally cant quite think of a way at the moment so if anyone can then now in this public forum would be a great time to not hold back!

Surely, you racked your brain calculating and looking for a way for your guild to "suspiciously" be in top 1 in that table.

Fun fact: your guild is the least active in that entire table.

Conclusions aside.

After seeing the original one made by by Zestee Link Here To Post

which is the #39th post in this thread it clearly wasnt me that thought of using the average AP of members first and I even used it as an example of it not being a good way to do it either just like the top APs count.

High Society is 9+ years old, has been top 10 in the lbs since 2015,its only guild to ever be #1 for seasonal x3 in a row... twice, It still has the most #1 seasonal wins and ahead (9 in total), also did hit #1 on LB with CU dominating the #1 rank for so long.

Even after 50% of the guild had left due to a failed takeover, still was #2 until 2 other guilds merged just to take take the spot...

Your saying the "Fun fact: your guild is the least active in that entire table."



Looking at December activities at least where we had a better break down, sure it isn't the most active but with an average of 7.5 out of 50 (highest rank is 6, lowest is 9 so for activity) definitely isn't the least active. Fact,

Also lets look at that table your most likely referring to and lets go over how to actually read the information...


Yes in that count High Society has the lowest total APs in the top 20... the activity counter is showing out of all the guilds members what % of those were online within the last 14days and only those players APs counting towards the total APs.

So example if you have a guild member with sy 50k aps but been offline for the last 15 days, their APs wouldnt count towards a guilds overall APs count either anymore.

Out of all the members HS has, 88% of them were online within the last 14 days to count towards its total APs... Facts.

The guild that's #1 of that list, 89% of there players were online within the last 14days... Facts.

The current #2 ranked guild in game had 41% of its players online within the last 14 days... Facts.

Are you seriously that delusional to say HS is least active?

Yeah its a small quite place with members who casually do their own thing coming on when every other day as most of us are adults with other commitments in life that keeps us busy too.

Can see HS was also ranked #4 for average account age which proves when I say its just old time members who have been casually and quietly leveling up and enjoying the game over the years... Facts

Come back when you actually have something truthful or at least constructive when replying to me for attention. thank you.


Can we all seriously not be objective here with this topic and put emotions at least aside because all it would take is a small ground of 15/20 people making chars up to 25/30k aps each over several months of grinding to take over LB is simply put BS


Ive fulfilled my goals of chasing that success and thanks to a lot of people's help manage to obtain it... it came at great costs and I genuinely have no intentions of being after that #1 as aggressively as I have been in the past.

Been there. Done that.

Would I do it all again? No thanks.

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a player in AL who has been a guild master for as long as I have and will carry on to be.

Ill just be chilling, streaming again later on and just getting by but my biggest love in this game and always has been is Guilds.

Why I'm so passionate about the changes being made to them. Ive even had my own guild quality of life threads done up in the past and have always been vocal about guilds so this isn't something new.

Whatever the outcome of the changes keeping with quality over quantity will always be a lb guild at least lets make changes that are sensible and represent top guilds as fair and as acurately as possible.

[papas]

We all gave reasons why old lb shouldn't change. We also gave suggestions of what should be counted other than aps in new lb before it comes. Sts desided that this is how it can be a lb that can't be cheated ig and most fair.
I beleive there is no point of keep suggesting but it's a feedback thread so it's free to everyone share thoughts.
Yes imo many more factors should be counted to prove why guild rank1 gets there, but sinse there was abuse in the past and completely broken rank having this way lb is ok. U only can get rank1 by doing aps legit.
And an honest opinion of me, a guild with 80members(90%) active can't be considered more active than guilds with 500members(50%) active.
Especially if those just log and chat and having a great time which is nothing wrong.Activity same as aps can't be counted by % if we wanna be realistic of how those members can contribute to help others. Also where would be the "quality" in this case? That once upon a time ppl made aps till overall but now they don't play actually game, or cause busy af just log once a week and farm couple hours. Still will contribute in guild lb the max but it's a dead toon.
Examples I gave are randoms. Just my point is that this quality and quantity thing isn't 100% accurate in every case.

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Dfgh]

R y’all actually crying about a reward-less lb bro grow up

[BaronB]

We could go backwards and forwards about if its all a good idea or not but the fairest most unbiased way of getting the answer these days is why not ask AI instead...

it is 2023 after all...



That's from ChatGPT... So even AI would think its pretty much all a good idea as long as its done right.


Anyways if it was a done and dusted change then the thread would have been closed or at least no link would have been provided in the weekly updates post, indicating it is still a open topic and clearly looking for more opinions and feedback and that's all that's being provided.

When i first started this game I was a part of a guild which had 1000s of members within the top 20 in the leaderboards and it was a very lively active guild with 30+ online per day... however i personally didn't find it all that enjoyable as it was a lot of "spam"... The guild ended up falling apart after an officer had come online 1 day and did a mass kick of all members...

I had learnt a bit about the game at that time and was made an officer of that large guild for a short period before it got killed off, after which I had managed to get into the ranked #1 guild at that time called Phoenix guild which only had 2/300 members and really opened my eyes in the difference between quality vs quantity.

After leaving due to always getting in trouble in chat for me cheeky behaviour, Ive been heavily influenced by that experience and has always been my personal preference and im sure its a preference of others have as well otherwise it wouldn't work.


I appreciate and of course accept a guild with 500 out of 1000 members are online at least every 14 days it is indeed livlier then a guild that has 100 members that come online every 14 days...

I apologise for using poor examples.

https://www.spacetimestudios.com/sho...lds-2023-01-11

High Society has 106 members that were counted towards LB ranks...

Lowest count in that is 44 members... By no means the most lively guild on the leaderboards... most certainly not bottom of the table either.

Self corrected and moving on...


Heres actually another idea then to add to the factors for guild ranks

Weekly count of how many "Bosses" a guild collectively has killed each week... With Bosses you have less likely concerns of "botting" as its always mob kills that's usually done for those PVE kill counts...

It could work like the guild events system but on a global scale with counters live updates via a counter in the guild page.

Easier Bosses giving say 1 point and Harder Bosses giving 3 points... Would give some balance as could have large guilds with less geared players spam easier boss kills for guild points and the smaller better equipped players farm the harder ones for their points to keep up against the larger numbers.


As rewards perhaps why not introduce guild badges however the badges actually being next to the guilds name on the LBs instead?

A "Seasonal #1,2.3" badge
A "Most Aps Earnt" badge (measured weekly)
"Most Boss Kills" badge (weekly count)
"Most Active"badge (weekly count)

Using that guild badge system solves the worry about gifting anything to players, the badge is given to the guild and what better place for it then the leaderboard itself... some guilds could even earn multiple badges each week which can also give us a more fair representation of guild leaderboards.

Thats also keeping the leaderboards based on system of its rank being measured on several different factors and then ranked on its overall rank like we had before.

[papas]

We could go backwards and forwards about if its all a good idea or not but the fairest most unbiased way of getting the answer these days is why not ask AI instead...

it is 2023 after all...



That's from ChatGPT... So even AI would think its pretty much all a good idea as long as its done right.


Anyways if it was a done and dusted change then the thread would have been closed or at least no link would have been provided in the weekly updates post, indicating it is still a open topic and clearly looking for more opinions and feedback and that's all that's being provided.

When i first started this game I was a part of a guild which had 1000s of members within the top 20 in the leaderboards and it was a very lively active guild with 30+ online per day... however i personally didn't find it all that enjoyable as it was a lot of "spam"... The guild ended up falling apart after an officer had come online 1 day and did a mass kick of all members...

I had learnt a bit about the game at that time and was made an officer of that large guild for a short period before it got killed off, after which I had managed to get into the ranked #1 guild at that time called Phoenix guild which only had 2/300 members and really opened my eyes in the difference between quality vs quantity.

After leaving due to always getting in trouble in chat for me cheeky behaviour, Ive been heavily influenced by that experience and has always been my personal preference and im sure its a preference of others have as well otherwise it wouldn't work.


I appreciate and of course accept a guild with 500 out of 1000 members are online at least every 14 days it is indeed livlier then a guild that has 100 members that come online every 14 days...

I apologise for using poor examples.

https://www.spacetimestudios.com/sho...lds-2023-01-11

High Society has 106 members that were counted towards LB ranks...

Lowest count in that is 44 members... By no means the most lively guild on the leaderboards... most certainly not bottom of the table either.

Self corrected and moving on...


Heres actually another idea then to add to the factors for guild ranks

Weekly count of how many "Bosses" a guild collectively has killed each week... With Bosses you have less likely concerns of "botting" as its always mob kills that's usually done for those PVE kill counts...

It could work like the guild events system but on a global scale with counters live updates via a counter in the guild page.

Easier Bosses giving say 1 point and Harder Bosses giving 3 points... Would give some balance as could have large guilds with less geared players spam easier boss kills for guild points and the smaller better equipped players farm the harder ones for their points to keep up against the larger numbers.


As rewards perhaps why not introduce guild badges however the badges actually being next to the guilds name on the LBs instead?

A "Seasonal #1,2.3" badge
A "Most Aps Earnt" badge (measured weekly)
"Most Boss Kills" badge (weekly count)
"Most Active"badge (weekly count)

Using that guild badge system solves the worry about gifting anything to players, the badge is given to the guild and what better place for it then the leaderboard itself... some guilds could even earn multiple badges each week which can also give us a more fair representation of guild leaderboards.

Thats also keeping the leaderboards based on system of its rank being measured on several different factors and then ranked on its overall rank like we had before.

Dude. For real it's like u have no knowledge abt this game or u in purpose playing it "Saint". You say farming bosses can be a fair thing to be added as factor? Not easy to use script for farming?
Let me remind u that in ss devs removed drop of bosses cause ppl overgrind it with bots.
I am pretty much sure that there is one(at least) certain member in ur guild that will happily use script to grind bosses for better rank. Doesn't matter if u not aprove/aware abt this.
Wasn't him he was asked to be excluded from ur guild event between Carrot, Dm, HS? Cause he is a known botter?
Pls spare us. Enough bs.

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[BaronB]

Dude. For real it's like u have no knowledge abt this game or u in purpose playing it "Saint". You say farming bosses can be a fair thing to be added as factor? Not easy to use script for farming?
Let me remind u that in ss devs removed drop of bosses cause ppl overgrind it with bots.
I am pretty much sure that there is one(at least) certain member in ur guild that will happily use script to grind bosses for better rank. Doesn't matter if u not aprove/aware abt this.
Wasn't him he was asked to be excluded from ur guild event between Carrot, Dm, HS? Cause he is a known botter?
Pls spare us. Enough bs.

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

Trying to give some ideas and keeping it constructive.

Again no idea why constantly bitter or so dismissive either… rather strange.

Total APs
AVG APs per member
APs earnt per week
Average Account Age
Guild Age
1/3/7/15/30 active login (min 1h login)
Seasonal Banner Rank
Event Banner Count rank


That’s 12 different factors that guilds could be ranked on alone the last 2 being ones you couldn’t factor in just yet however the rest we could already get info on to use as factors for ranking guilds.

Only trying to make fair and coherent points whilst the window of opportunity is still open to suggest changes.

Not looking to give my guild any sort of additional leverage in the rankings either as don’t need them… already done it with previous perimeters can just do it again so it makes no difference in that regard

Thank you if your thinking of me as some kind of “Saint”…

Just trying to keep things as fair and worthwhile as possible as the previous way tho seems simple once you knew how wasn’t all that easy and still more challenging then what’s been put on offer now.

Sure giving away gold to drive the pve numbers, threat of kicks for not raising APs, dedicating teams and driving pvp kills for those bs to get APs, offering banner runs as prizes to help boost count, allowing toxic people in because of stats, kicking out members/friends who havnt logged in a long time whos stats would have also been low but are actually really nice people… with the kicks also giving lower members so better averages…

Yeah some rather shady stuff indeed or morally grey but not illegal all to get that top spot and after achieving, the burn out after from pushing for it so aggressively for and what it cost in terms of mistakes and friends is why not interested down that path again.

Want to tell me your so morally pure yourself with what you might be/not be aware of goings on under your own roof.

This isn’t some slander match for you to be trying to throw stones especially when living in a glass house, I may have been absent for the last several months but both of us as and our guilds are nearly as old as this game so I don’t doubt you hear and know plenty and worth remembering so do I.

So please, grow up and go outside and touch the grass a little and as you so eloquently put it… “spare us, enough bs.” ..


Let’s keep things on topic shall we

1 <3


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[papas]

Ur suggestions just make u look like someone that plays a diferent game. For as many years I use forum I never saw u made a suggestion nor a statement that was true or fair for community.
I just reply to ur suggestion with facts why they make no sense.
Again u giving me a chanse to reply on topics away from thread purpose.
It's good that u acknowledge ur mistakes in the past. There is not saddest thing to put a dead line to complete guild reqs for members n remove em after not get. Just my personal opinion. Everyone runs his own guild like he wants ofc.
Just some info, if we really cared abt guild lb or banners we would never been Rank2 on guild lb rankings n we have got rank1 for banners every season. Anyone can claim this statement like bs but ikr it's true. As long as "don't care anymore" "been there" "done that", I m really curious abt somethin n if u kind enough to reply. U can ignore ofc. Are u proud u achieved rank1 on guild lb by actions that banned ur members? And even after all that botting n dummy farming still managed to be on lb for 4 or 5 weeks?
Also pls dont mention our guild meaning that we cheat. At least that I understood u meant. Ofc I and my oficers can't know everything, but lemme give u a example abt how fair we are. When I found out a close friend of mine was botting in hauntlet (he was oficer and alrd in overall lb) I asked him to leave guild. Every guild has diferent way of thinking, diferent values and diferent way of having fun in game.
So if u really wanna be adults just accept that no lb proves which guild is "best". If u ask any al player I'm pretty sure that will reply that the best guild is the one that is member in. Best guild is where u enjoy and have a great time. No matter ranks n banners. If u need a broken lb to prove that ur good, then u never was good nor ever will be.
CU was not the best guild cause stands rank1 for years, nor now is worse than before cause 2guilds are above.

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Xuds]

Ur suggestions just make u look like someone that plays a diferent game. For as many years I use forum I never saw u made a suggestion nor a statement that was true or fair for community.
I just reply to ur suggestion with facts why they make no sense.
Again u giving me a chanse to reply on topics away from thread purpose.
It's good that u acknowledge ur mistakes in the past. There is not saddest thing to put a dead line to complete guild reqs for members n remove em after not get. Just my personal opinion. Everyone runs his own guild like he wants ofc.
Just some info, if we really cared abt guild lb or banners we would never been Rank2 on guild lb rankings n we have got rank1 for banners every season. Anyone can claim this statement like bs but ikr it's true. As long as "don't care anymore" "been there" "done that", I m really curious abt somethin n if u kind enough to reply. U can ignore ofc. Are u proud u achieved rank1 on guild lb by actions that banned ur members? And even after all that botting n dummy farming still managed to be on lb for 4 or 5 weeks?
Also pls dont mention our guild meaning that we cheat. At least that I understood u meant. Ofc I and my oficers can't know everything, but lemme give u a example abt how fair we are. When I found out a close friend of mine was botting in hauntlet (he was oficer and alrd in overall lb) I asked him to leave guild. Every guild has diferent way of thinking, diferent values and diferent way of having fun in game.
So if u really wanna be adults just accept that no lb proves which guild is "best". If u ask any al player I'm pretty sure that will reply that the best guild is the one that is member in. Best guild is where u enjoy and have a great time. No matter ranks n banners. If u need a broken lb to prove that ur good, then u never was good nor ever will be.
CU was not the best guild cause stands rank1 for years, nor now is worse than before cause 2guilds are above.

Στάλθηκε από το LDN-L21 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

Your guild isnt anything special it has over 1k members and like less than 5 people online

Sent from my DE2118 using Tapatalk