GVG Rating with guilds without 4 members.
#1
Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:19
#2
Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:36
#3
Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:41
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.I somewhat agree... I think ratings should decay over time if inactive
#4
Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:45
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
Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:00
What's a "ratting"? Turning someone into a rat?
With this post, there are now 17 of them.
#6
Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:57
I was thinking the same thing lol*counts the number of times that the word "ratting" is on this page* ... 14
What's a "ratting"? Turning someone into a rat?
With this post, there are now 17 of them.
But yeah i like this its not fair for them to be up there if they cant be lowered
#7
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:00
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*counts the number of times that the word "ratting" is on this page* ... 14
What's a "ratting"? Turning someone into a rat?
With this post, there are now 17 of them.
#8
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:23
#9
fs_nthnclls
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:25
#10
Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:48
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 :|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..
#11
fs_ithangor
Posted 29 May 2010 - 10:09
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 :|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..
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
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
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
Posted 30 May 2010 - 06:15
#15
Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:03
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
Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:06
just my two cents...
virusownz
#17
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
Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:48
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 lolI'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
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 happyMaybe 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
#19
Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:52
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 rememberimo, 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
#20
Posted 06 June 2010 - 01:34
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

