37 replies to this topic

[MummRa]

....from another thread that could be applied here too:

... think making a seperate (additional) list by founding year (akin to a player's monthly list) would be a much better idea.

By making a second list for guilds based on the year they were founded would actually be really interesting and could help to share the rich history of this game with newer players.

Going to my above point, different than the player monthly list, anyone should be able to see the top list if any year

[2good4u222]

The problem, much like the rest of the games inadequacies , is sensitive. Many people will complain either way. However, the decay system you're suggesting is necessary.

There should be a ''Legacy'' top 250. Top 250 guilds EVER (through experience, I'd imagine), despite activity or not, membership retention or not. This illustrates that at one point, the guild was the greatest in the game. The Top 250 list should indicate those who are currently working the hardest to achieve and excel.

[DragonLord]

The Top 250 list should indicate those who are currently working the hardest to achieve and excel.

Which, if inactive guild member contributed XP were discounted, it would ...

[eldzXtreme]

How about it depends on the Guild Founder's activity.

Like if the Guild Founder has been inactive for 1 month.
The guild does not qualify to be in the Top 250.
So, that guild will be taken out of the Top 250 and replaced by active guilds with active Guild Founder.

[DragonLord]

How about it depends on the Guild Founder's activity.

Like if the Guild Founder has been inactive for 1 month.
The guild does not qualify to be in the Top 250.
So, that guild will be taken out of the Top 250 and replaced by active guilds with active Guild Founder.

If the guild founder was inactive for a month, then there could be a guild rebellion to replace him - and, under "MOST" circumstances, it's inexcusable for a founder to be absent that long ...

(obviously sickness and other valid reasons are not applicable to the above statement, before people start castigating me ... )

[shindrak]

There's no problem in actual game in this part , main problem here with same players not being a real gamer's who fights hard for achievements and beating records...just need easy game.

Most of best/active players splitting in top leveling guilds because they are "lazy" to work hard and beat old records... these players just search for place to relax and level and that's only can be found at top guilds

[wil72]

Most of best/active players splitting in top leveling guilds because they are "lazy" to work hard and beat old records... these players just search for place to relax and level and that's only can be found at top guilds

Can be found at Korova too, though we do like a bit of the old ultraviolence :wink:

Cheers.

wil72

[DeadParrot]

...and on a related topic, why on Earth didn't the GvG rating list reset after the system was changed over to 2+ players per initiated conflict? Apples to oranges. There is no way the current #1 got there via the current constraints. This is odd indeed.

Please excuse the errors, I do not have a FS mobile app.

DP

[DeadParrot]

There's no problem in actual game in this part , main problem here with same players not being a real gamer's who fights hard for achievements and beating records...just need easy game.

Most of best/active players splitting in top leveling guilds because they are "lazy" to work hard and beat old records... these players just search for place to relax and level and that's only can be found at top guilds

Ummmm....WHAT?!? in our wee guild we have 2 higher level players leveling and foregoing pvping so we can support the rest of the guild in any endeavour they choose. So I repeat....WHAT?!?

[Forbin]

I personally think it's great to learn from history and from those that came before us, it gives us something to strive for...with that said this is a game that relies on active players, without which we have no game! I would think that HCS would prefer active guilds and members for obvious reasons, but I don't think we should just forget about those that came before us and are now gone.

I like the idea of two possible lists, a "Hall of Fame Legends" and current "Hall of Fame"

The Legends stats never suffer guild XP decay, while the Current Hall of Fame lists guilds under an XP decay system. With this we could keep the game fresh while still honoring those that achieved greatness before us.

There could be an established time frame on which we start to lose XP from guild members...after 15 days, guild xp contributed goes down X percent. another 15 days, xp contribution goes down another X percent. This would go for EVERY person, not just guild leader!

And now for my toothy Baba Booey grin:
:mrgreen:

[DragonLord]

There could be an established time frame on which we start to lose XP from guild members...after 15 days, guild xp contributed goes down X percent. another 15 days, xp contribution goes down another X percent. This would go for EVERY person, not just guild leader!

After 15 days of WHAT, exactly ?...

I still fail to see why this has to be so complicated. Just discount guild contributed XP from inactive players (be that 7 days, 14 days or 30 days) and it's sorted ... instant totally representative ladder. And, if those inactives return, their contribution is again counted for ladder purposes..

[Spitfire666123]

how about that active guild list lists Guilds that attain 'x' Guild XP per day? X= 250k+? 500k+? Not too large where small guilds cant make it, but not too small, where a single person cant get it, unless they're higher level >.<

[Forbin]

After 15 days of WHAT, exactly ?...

I still fail to see why this has to be so complicated. Just discount guild contributed XP from inactive players (be that 7 days, 14 days or 30 days) and it's sorted ... instant totally representative ladder. And, if those inactives return, their contribution is again counted for ladder purposes..

Talking about inactivity!

What you were saying above is pretty much all I'm talking about as well. If you're inactive 7 days your guild xp contribution would be less by some percentage, and the more days you go inactive your guild xp contribution continues to go down. 7 days, 14 days 15 days, 30 days...doesn't matter, I just went w/ 15 days as an example. For each month (or whatever time frame) of inactivity they lose more of a percentage of contributed guild XP.

I fail to see how it's complicated

[DeadParrot]

Now ladies...a forum is no place to discuss minute details such as %. The Cows will sort that out anyhow. Seems everyone here has to be MORE right than the other. Just agree on principle and relative degree of effect and let the debs roll with it.

Simma down, simma down.

DP

*devs not debs. Apologies I do not yet have a FS iPhone app as yet.

[DragonLord]

After 15 days of WHAT, exactly ?...

I still fail to see why this has to be so complicated. Just discount guild contributed XP from inactive players (be that 7 days, 14 days or 30 days) and it's sorted ... instant totally representative ladder. And, if those inactives return, their contribution is again counted for ladder purposes..

Talking about inactivity!

What you were saying above is pretty much all I'm talking about as well. If you're inactive 7 days your guild xp contribution would be less by some percentage, and the more days you go inactive your guild xp contribution continues to go down. 7 days, 14 days 15 days, 30 days...doesn't matter, I just went w/ 15 days as an example. For each month (or whatever time frame) of inactivity they lose more of a percentage of contributed guild XP.

I fail to see how it's complicated

And if they return ? - is all that contributed XP returned ?

I think (despite my initial thread on this, way back when, asking for a guild decay) that implementing a decay system is more complicated than just discounting inactive contributed XP after a certain period of time.

After all, if it's easier for the cows to implement, there'll be more chance of it being implemented (and yes, even though my guild has some inactives, I'd like to see it implemented because I think we'd actually CLIMB the ladder rather than go down it, if it were .. )

[Forbin]

And if they return ? - is all that contributed XP returned ?

I think (despite my initial thread on this, way back when, asking for a guild decay) that implementing a decay system is more complicated than just discounting inactive contributed XP after a certain period of time.

After all, if it's easier for the cows to implement, there'll be more chance of it being implemented (and yes, even though my guild has some inactives, I'd like to see it implemented because I think we'd actually CLIMB the ladder rather than go down it, if it were .. )

I think using the same type of system in reverse would be the way. After so many days of being active once again would have a percentage of their xp donation, more so after how ever many days of not going inactive until full donation of guild xp reached eventually

[DragonLord]

And if they return ? - is all that contributed XP returned ?

I think (despite my initial thread on this, way back when, asking for a guild decay) that implementing a decay system is more complicated than just discounting inactive contributed XP after a certain period of time.

After all, if it's easier for the cows to implement, there'll be more chance of it being implemented (and yes, even though my guild has some inactives, I'd like to see it implemented because I think we'd actually CLIMB the ladder rather than go down it, if it were .. )

I think using the same type of system in reverse would be the way. After so many days of being active once again would have a percentage of their xp donation, more so after how ever many days of not going inactive until full donation of guild xp reached eventually

WAY too complicated IMO.

[Forbin]

Possibly, but the original idea of guild xp decay is something that needs attention