Feedback: Guild Rankings II

[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

[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.

[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.