Jump to content

Photo

GVG Rating with guilds without 4 members.


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:19

When an active guild lose 4 members, they lose their ability to actively gvg,either initiated by or against them. This makes perfect sense. But when they gain this gvg "immunity", should they retain their spot on the ladder for rating? I dont see this as fair. Im not saying their rating should be removed, they had earned it at one time and is deserved, but to be still on the scoreboard without having to actively defend their rating is sort of like a player with a high pvp rating getting a magical Deflect level 400 when they go inactive. Now I know most do not care about rating, but for some of us, its another fun aspect of the game to make it more interesting and enjoyable. I think further changes to reward guilds for being the best instead of simply doing the most would be great and change that lack of enthusiasm about rating,but that is not the subject matter I intend to touch on here. I digress. My proposed change to the system to fix the ladder for guilds with less then four members, would be for them to simply keep their rating but not be counted on the board as long as they dont have 4 active members to participate. I do not believe this would be too much extra coding, because something similar happened when a top arena player was temporarily banned recently and removed from the top rated boards, but upon his return was instantly back in the spot he was in(And deserving so)

#2 BandLaw

BandLaw

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:36

I somewhat agree... I think ratings should decay over time if inactive :)

#3 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:41

I somewhat agree... I think ratings should decay over time if inactive :)

Perhaps I was a bit sporadic in my first message and you missed what I was going for. If you look at the top ten of gvg, there is a guild right now that cannot be hit because they do not have four members, I do not think they should lose their rating, they deserve it, but I do not believe they should be ranked on the ladder unless they are attack-able and defending that rating. I thank you much for your feed back, forgive me if any of that sounded rude, I only mean to clarify.

#4 BandLaw

BandLaw

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:45

1) no offense taken :)
2) I understand your original idea, I just think inactive guilds or guilds that want to "sit" on their rating should have to defend it by either being on the defensive v. attacking guilds or by attacking other guilds. Being "active" in other areas doesn't mean (imo) you should keep your GvG/PvP, etc. ratings.

#5 cyrus7

cyrus7

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,562 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:00

*counts the number of times that the word "ratting" is on this page* ... 14 :lol:

What's a "ratting"? Turning someone into a rat? :lol:


With this post, there are now 17 of them.

#6 Snakeviper47

Snakeviper47

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:57

*counts the number of times that the word "ratting" is on this page* ... 14 :lol:

What's a "ratting"? Turning someone into a rat? :lol:


With this post, there are now 17 of them.

I was thinking the same thing lol :)
But yeah i like this its not fair for them to be up there if they cant be lowered

#7 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:00

*counts the number of times that the word "ratting" is on this page* ... 14 :lol:

What's a "ratting"? Turning someone into a rat? :lol:


With this post, there are now 17 of them.

My spellcheck fails me again XD Thanks for calling it out, I have been up far too long. You didnt call out "ratted" though, I wonder how that manages to be a word at all either :P (BTW "Ratting" is the act of hunting or catching rats ;)

#8 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:23

I asked how GvG rating with guilds without 4 members can be taken when everyone cried about advantage of solo guilds, nobody listened. It's always been like that with this game, people can't see one step ahead of them. Now, small guilds can choose when it's convenient for them to be part of the GvG system.. lol it's not that hard to hire a couple of players for few minutes to initiate conflicts. As for the suggestion, it's not a solution because the positions of other top gvg guilds will always be questioned... like ... "ah, you are not the top fighting guild, I know at least 5 with higher GvG rating.. " things like that..

#9 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:25

imo, it should be possible for solo guilds to gvg...having the minimum members be 4 was good enough to stop abuse, imo.

#10 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:48

I asked how GvG rating with guilds without 4 members can be taken when everyone cried about advantage of solo guilds, nobody listened. It's always been like that with this game, people can't see one step ahead of them. Now, small guilds can choose when it's convenient for them to be part of the GvG system.. lol it's not that hard to hire a couple of players for few minutes to initiate conflicts. As for the suggestion, it's not a solution because the positions of other top gvg guilds will always be questioned... like ... "ah, you are not the top fighting guild, I know at least 5 with higher GvG rating.. " things like that..

You know, I wasnt even thinking of this, the abuse this could cause by making it so no one can initiate vs you by you have a few of your members stay outside the guild but in their own sets and such when they are targets and hopping in when you need to initiate is scary. Its a good thing most dont care about rating, and the ones that do seem to have had the honor to not pull such things.(so far) I still think there are alot of things wrong with gvg, but now that no one sees the "free rp" stuff in the fsbox, no one seems to care enough anymore. This would have to be changed in order to implement a system I have advocated since speak of change in gvg was actual considered and on the table. Triple the cost of all RP items and buff packs, the have RP linked to rating. You gain 30 rating, you gain 30 rp or something along these lines, Now the guilds at the top would not have as much to gain, so the first rated guild be given 100 rp when the scoreboard is saved. Second gets 90, third 80 and so on down the list. This would reward you for being the best, and slow down the massive farming from guilds that have no interest in gvg. Sure, people would get around this, its not perfect, but at least they would have to work using msn and other sneaky forms, and it would slow them like crazy, it would be 10 times better then the current system where you get gvg paid per win mercenaries to partake in what is supposed to be a team effort so attack whoever is easiest and some guilds still trade wins in secret. These are supposed to be "respect points" not monopoly money for Epics. I was trying to avoid going on about this, all I was concerned about is the lack of fairness having an unattackable guild on the ladder is though :|

#11 fs_ithangor

fs_ithangor
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2010 - 10:09

I asked how GvG rating with guilds without 4 members can be taken when everyone cried about advantage of solo guilds, nobody listened. It's always been like that with this game, people can't see one step ahead of them. Now, small guilds can choose when it's convenient for them to be part of the GvG system.. lol it's not that hard to hire a couple of players for few minutes to initiate conflicts. As for the suggestion, it's not a solution because the positions of other top gvg guilds will always be questioned... like ... "ah, you are not the top fighting guild, I know at least 5 with higher GvG rating.. " things like that..

You know, I wasnt even thinking of this, the abuse this could cause by making it so no one can initiate vs you by you have a few of your members stay outside the guild but in their own sets and such when they are targets and hopping in when you need to initiate is scary. Its a good thing most dont care about rating, and the ones that do seem to have had the honor to not pull such things.(so far) I still think there are alot of things wrong with gvg, but now that no one sees the "free rp" stuff in the fsbox, no one seems to care enough anymore. This would have to be changed in order to implement a system I have advocated since speak of change in gvg was actual considered and on the table. Triple the cost of all RP items and buff packs, the have RP linked to rating. You gain 30 rating, you gain 30 rp or something along these lines, Now the guilds at the top would not have as much to gain, so the first rated guild be given 100 rp when the scoreboard is saved. Second gets 90, third 80 and so on down the list. This would reward you for being the best, and slow down the massive farming from guilds that have no interest in gvg. Sure, people would get around this, its not perfect, but at least they would have to work using msn and other sneaky forms, and it would slow them like crazy, it would be 10 times better then the current system where you get gvg paid per win mercenaries to partake in what is supposed to be a team effort so attack whoever is easiest and some guilds still trade wins in secret. These are supposed to be "respect points" not monopoly money for Epics. I was trying to avoid going on about this, all I was concerned about is the lack of fairness having an unattackable guild on the ladder is though :|


This problem should be solved by the "cool-down" time from leaving one guild to joining the next.

I agree that it is a bit off that guilds can stay in the top ratings when it is impossible to hit them.

The only thing is, what would you suggest to fix it? I guess the rating could just be totally removed if they fall below the 4 members, since they are not a viable GvG guild, they should have no rating.

#12 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 11:15

This problem should be solved by the "cool-down" time from leaving one guild to joining the next.

I agree that it is a bit off that guilds can stay in the top ratings when it is impossible to hit them.

The only thing is, what would you suggest to fix it? I guess the rating could just be totally removed if they fall below the 4 members, since they are not a viable GvG guild, they should have no rating.


the "cool-down" time won't help, if I ask 3 other players to join me for few minutes for some FSPs just to initiate 20 GvG conflicts most players will send their multies.

the requirement of 4 active players has been introduced with the aim to cut the advantage of solo guilds, but now that advantage is even more.. lol

removing rating if below 4 active members? yes, that could be a solution... do you mean resetting it or just hiding in the profile? reset won't be fair, but hiding it is only a half solution..

#13 fs_ithangor

fs_ithangor
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2010 - 11:47


This problem should be solved by the "cool-down" time from leaving one guild to joining the next.

I agree that it is a bit off that guilds can stay in the top ratings when it is impossible to hit them.

The only thing is, what would you suggest to fix it? I guess the rating could just be totally removed if they fall below the 4 members, since they are not a viable GvG guild, they should have no rating.


the "cool-down" time won't help, if I ask 3 other players to join me for few minutes for some FSPs just to initiate 20 GvG conflicts most players will send their multies.

the requirement of 4 active players has been introduced with the aim to cut the advantage of solo guilds, but now that advantage is even more.. lol

removing rating if below 4 active members? yes, that could be a solution... do you mean resetting it or just hiding in the profile? reset won't be fair, but hiding it is only a half solution..


Hmmm, so you can still take part in a conflict even if your members drops below 4? So it is only that you need 4 members to initiate, then you can kick 3 and carry on? I guess it could be changed so that if you do not have at least 4 members then you cannot initiate, or carrying on completing an already initiated conflict.

And yea, removing the rating may be a bit harsh, although it may stop the cheating altogether and be a good deterrent so that if you want to be a GvG guild you must make sure your members never drop below 4 or you lose all your rating and have to start again.

In my opinion only those guilds who play fair, and continue to GvG deserve to have a rating and be in the top lists.

#14 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 06:15

What if the rating is removed from the ladder(but they get to keep what they have since they did earn it at one time) until they have 4 again, and anytime they have less then four during a gvg, they forfeit for not having enough players. This would prevent any abuse.

#15 virusownz

virusownz

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:03

I'm not 100% sure if this is in the right spot on the forum or not, I am sorry if its not.

Here is my complaint, the guild that I am currently a member sometimes has many conflicts open for gvg, that's totally fine, love that part of the game as much as leveling.

What my complaint is, is when i go to fight back for my guild and the only player I can attack in their guild that attacked us has not been online for 10 days, and i have to sit there and watch our guild loose another gvg because, the attacker's guild founder can not find a way to make their guild fun enough to keep active member's. It's not my fault but yet I'm hampered by it...

In My Opinion, If a guild founder is not running a guild right, and can not keep their players active within their own guild, how is it fair that I we my guild are being screwed by this? And they are advancing in gvg rank, It's not my fault the founder is dragging around dead weight, its not my fault that they attacked us, but I am really upset that based on this 7 day rule, I am being hampered in protecting my guild's gvg rating's because a guild can not keep players logging in.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

Thanks,

virusownz

#16 virusownz

virusownz

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:06

Maybe HCS should make a rule that no GVG can happen if a player is inactive for more than 7 days, it would really make the guild founders of guilds make sure they had some way to keep players active, which we all know active players donate more than none active inactive players...

just my two cents...

virusownz

#17 paingwin

paingwin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:14

imo, it should be possible for solo guilds to gvg...having the minimum members be 4 was good enough to stop abuse, imo.


lol but how can you have "solo" guild? the word guild itself implies a "group" of people so how can you even have a guild with fewer than 2 people? lol

#18 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:48

I'm not 100% sure if this is in the right spot on the forum or not, I am sorry if its not.

Here is my complaint, the guild that I am currently a member sometimes has many conflicts open for gvg, that's totally fine, love that part of the game as much as leveling.

What my complaint is, is when i go to fight back for my guild and the only player I can attack in their guild that attacked us has not been online for 10 days, and i have to sit there and watch our guild loose another gvg because, the attacker's guild founder can not find a way to make their guild fun enough to keep active member's. It's not my fault but yet I'm hampered by it...

In My Opinion, If a guild founder is not running a guild right, and can not keep their players active within their own guild, how is it fair that I we my guild are being screwed by this? And they are advancing in gvg rank, It's not my fault the founder is dragging around dead weight, its not my fault that they attacked us, but I am really upset that based on this 7 day rule, I am being hampered in protecting my guild's gvg rating's because a guild can not keep players logging in.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

Thanks,

virusownz

I think your in the wrong place bro, you should perhaps make your own topic,bnut while you here I might as well answer you lol

Maybe HCS should make a rule that no GVG can happen if a player is inactive for more than 7 days, it would really make the guild founders of guilds make sure they had some way to keep players active, which we all know active players donate more than none active inactive players...

just my two cents...

virusownz

This wouldnt work. Having a guild not be eligible for gvg just because they had an inactive would essentially kill gvg. Your guild, as long as they have a target to hit, has a target to hit back. Your not losing them because you have no targets, your losing them because your guildmate(s) that were hit are not stepping up to the plate and fighting back when they are needed to. Its a team effort bro. The not being able to hit inactives 7days+ is a extremely fair rule, as chances are they will not likely be on to hit back, but those xp guilds can retain the contributed xp in which that player earned while they were active. Everyone is happy

#19 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:52

imo, it should be possible for solo guilds to gvg...having the minimum members be 4 was good enough to stop abuse, imo.


lol but how can you have "solo" guild? the word guild itself implies a "group" of people so how can you even have a guild with fewer than 2 people? lol

Although I agree with you,solo guilds arnt really guilds and there fore shouldnt be in gvg, the way it is currently with the major flaw pointed out by avvakum is much much MUCH worse. That is why I think that if you drop under four members, you should forfeit any conflicts that are active. This would coincide well with my idea of their rating not being removed by dropping under four, but simply being removed from the ladder as they are not a viable target for other guilds to try to take rating from. That is what this topic is about remember ;)

#20 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 01:34

Ok, lets use hard statistics (please feel free to double check my numbers, this took me a while.) Accurate as of 00:08 06/Jun/2010 server time, in the top 250 gvg leaders, 71 guilds do not have the 4 or more active members(within the last 7 days) needed for a gvg to be initiated or initiated against 22 of which are on the top 100, 1 in the top ten. Many as high as the top 50 are guilds completely full of terminated accounts. I dont see how any one could see this as a fair and accurate representation of gvg rankings. I would go so far to say, the system is majorly flawed. Is this not enough to constitute change? If not to a system that rewards you for doing the most, rather then being the best, at least the the board that is supposed to represent who the best is. Anyone?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: