Quote Originally Posted by Raziast View Post
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