GbG ranking system

[xivarmy]

Except you don't get 1000 LP for finishing first, you get 175. The 1000 LP in the second round is the same 1000 LP they had in the first round. If you have cumulative LP, then it would be 1000 + 175 = 1175, then 1175 + 175 = 1350, then 1350 + 175 = 1525. They have 1000 LP to start with because that's what they've earned getting to Diamond League, that's not what they get for winning. Surely you all don't think that you've been earning 1000 LP each session. Of course, this all ignores the fact that LP has been capped at 1000 since it began, and Diamond guilds have earned way more than 1000 LP along the way.

We're not talking about LP going above 1000. Just summing up what you had (not earned) for each of the 6 seasons to make a new stat called "cumulative LP" - so that a guild that stayed at 1000 for all 6 seasons would always rank above a guild that went up and down.

Perhaps most importantly, this would cure the copper-championship-guild strategy of creating a new copper guild for the 1st round of a championship, winning all 6 rounds with easy competition racking up the VP, and *never* facing a 1000-rated diamond guild (your last season would be in low-diamond).

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

We're not talking about LP going above 1000. Just summing up what you had (not earned) for each of the 6 seasons to make a new stat called "cumulative LP" - so that a guild that stayed at 1000 for all 6 seasons would always rank above a guild that went up and down.

But cumulative LP the way you describe it is meaningless. It's like saying that since I had 1M coins yesterday I should now have 2M coins today even if I only collect 1k. You can't get "cumulative" without earning something. And the guilds that went up and down would have less LP than those who stay in Diamond the way I describe it, and it would actually reflect what they've earned and it would differentiate between the guilds that do stay in Diamond. With your logic, there would be no difference between the guilds that finished with +LP, they would all get 1000 LP added. I mean, if it's right to differentiate between the guilds that move down and up, then it's only right to differentiate between the guilds taking 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.

 

[Dominator - X]

I think you all are forgetting that guild level is also factored in to the rankings. Why? I have no clue.

Here is the order INNO says the rankings are based on:
1. LP
2. Current GBG Championship victories
3. Current GBG Championship VP's
4. Guild Level

The way they wrote it, it seems as though the rankings are not just drawn from these 4 areas but weighted in the order above. However, INNO is notorious for not being very clear (like the actual date when the new GBG format started was not included in the announcement) so it may not be weighted in this order and will remain a mystery until they *choose* to explain it further.

 

[xivarmy]

But cumulative LP the way you describe it is meaningless. It's like saying that since I had 1M coins yesterday I should now have 2M coins today even if I only collect 1k. You can't get "cumulative" without earning something. And the guilds that went up and down would have less LP than those who stay in Diamond the way I describe it, and it would actually reflect what they've earned and it would differentiate between the guilds that do stay in Diamond. With your logic, there would be no difference between the guilds that finished with +LP, they would all get 1000 LP added. I mean, if it's right to differentiate between the guilds that move down and up, then it's only right to differentiate between the guilds taking 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.

well the guilds that get 1st get victory incremented, which will break the tie with guilds that never or less often get victories.

The point is just to take away low diamond/platinum (or even lower in the case of the copper guild climbing) point stacking as a measure of quality when the quality of opposition in those rounds is way below par.

You could try tracking points-over-1000 without actually putting points over 1000 with similar result but slightly different flaws:

Guild A and B are both in 1000 and finish 4th and 5th respectively. Guild B drops to 975 and gets lower quality competition the next round, wins the round, +175. Guild A gets 4th again. Should Guild B be counted as +150 be rated higher than guild A that never left the big leagues at +50?

 

[coolmite]

Except you don't get 1000 LP for finishing first, you get 175. The 1000 LP in the second round is the same 1000 LP they had in the first round. If you have cumulative LP, then it would be 1000 + 175 = 1175, then 1175 + 175 = 1350, then 1350 + 175 = 1525. They have 1000 LP to start with because that's what they've earned getting to Diamond League, that's not what they get for winning. Surely you all don't think that you've been earning 1000 LP each session. Of course, this all ignores the fact that LP has been capped at 1000 since it began, and Diamond guilds have earned way more than 1000 LP along the way.

I see what you're saying. I guess counting your gained LP each season wouldn't really work. I was really looking to keep a running total of your currently maxed LP. Two guilds that both started at 1000 LP in the same high diamond group....
Guild A

Week	Group Placement	LP	Victories
1	2nd	1000	0
2	2nd	1000	0
3	2nd	1000	0
4	2nd	1000	0
5	2nd	1000	0
6	2nd	1000	0
Total		6000	0

Guild B

Week	Group Placement	LP	Victories
1	5	975	0
2	1	1000	1
3	5	975	0
4	1	1000	1
5	5	975	0
6	1	1000	1
Total		5925	3

Under the current system, Guild B ranks ahead of guild A because at then end of 6 seasons they are both at 1000 LP, but guild B has 3 victories. That doesn't reflect the reality of their strength. If there is a way to track your capped LP, that would more accurately describe the situation. Even though guild B has more victories - guild A is still the stronger guild because they faced superior competition.

Simply getting rid of high and low diamond for the groupings would go a long way toward fixing this problem. If all guilds with 901 to 1000 LP were randomly put together, then guild B wouldn't be able to pick up the easy victories - that would bring VP into play.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

well the guilds that get 1st get victory incremented, which will break the tie with guilds that never or less often get victories.

The point is just to take away low diamond/platinum (or even lower in the case of the copper guild climbing) point stacking as a measure of quality when the quality of opposition in those rounds is way below par.

You could try tracking points-over-1000 without actually putting points over 1000 with similar result but slightly different flaws:

Guild A and B are both in 1000 and finish 4th and 5th respectively. Guild B drops to 975 and gets lower quality competition the next round, wins the round, +175. Guild A gets 4th again. Should Guild B be counted as +150 be rated higher than guild A that never left the big leagues at +50?

This pinpoints a flaw in the LP points system that has been masked by the hard 1000 LP cap. Each league level should have different LP point rewards, with Diamond getting the most and Copper getting the least. That would solve the problem you highlight with the current system.

 

[jaymoney23456]

I think you all are forgetting that guild level is also factored in to the rankings. Why? I have no clue.

Here is the order INNO says the rankings are based on:
1. LP
2. Current GBG Championship victories
3. Current GBG Championship VP's
4. Guild Level

The way they wrote it, it seems as though the rankings are not just drawn from these 4 areas but weighted in the order above. However, INNO is notorious for not being very clear (like the actual date when the new GBG format started was not included in the announcement) so it may not be weighted in this order and will remain a mystery until they *choose* to explain it further.

There should be no quote championship. It is a meaningless stat and you get no reward for doing so. Anyone can see who has the most victories/victory points already. Also, it could be skewed if a guild ends up getting nonsensically easy maps and accumulating a high amt of victory points when they are a clearly inferior guild to others that have more competetive maps. Also guild level has nothing to do with it except for when they first ranked guilds before the first map of this new gbg. Right now the ranking is clearly only based on league points first, victories second, and then victory points third.

 

[Dominator - X]

Also guild level has nothing to do with it except for when they first ranked guilds before the first map of this new gbg. Right now the ranking is clearly only based on league points first, victories second, and then victory points third.

Where did you get your info from? Mine came right from the Update page. I have not seen anything from INNO about the change you mention. Please point us to where INNO posted this.

 

[coolmite]

Where did you get your info from? Mine came right from the Update page. I have not seen anything from INNO about the change you mention. Please point us to where INNO posted this.

I think guild level is really only a very unlikely tie breaker. Which is a little funny that two of the 4 factors (LP and Guild Level) are capped. For top guilds, victories are really the most important thing. But it appears that a victory in gold is equal to a victory in diamond - that obviously isn't a real measure of a guilds strength.

 

[Dominator - X]

I think guild level is really only a very unlikely tie breaker. Which is a little funny that two of the 4 factors (LP and Guild Level) are capped. For top guilds, victories are really the most important thing. But it appears that a victory in gold is equal to a victory in diamond - that obviously isn't a real measure of a guilds strength.

That is exactly how I viewed guild level. However, with INNO never clarifying anything and publishing an actual formula on how things are weighted, it leaves us to speculate on how it works.

 

[coolmite]

Anyone can see who has the most victories/victory points already.

The way it is set up now - 'victories' have almost no relation to actual guild strength. A victory in platinum is equal to a victory in low diamond is equal to a victory in high diamond. But once you are in the 1000LP group, victories are the most important factor in determining your rank. So... two of the four measures for rankings are capped. And one of the four measures has almost no real meaning. And the 4th factor, VP, has a luck factor since no two maps are the same values - and even worse, a money factor since you can buy VP by spending diamonds to speed up VP producing buildings. (4 hours of a Guild Command Post are worth a lot more VP than 1 hour if you don't spend diamonds on it)

Here is the order INNO says the rankings are based on:
1. LP -- capped at 1000 (my world has 28 guilds all tied with 1000LP)
2. Current GBG Championship victories -- no real meaning since they don't take level of competition into account
3. Current GBG Championship VP's -- can be bought with money
4. Guild Level --- capped at 100

I think the current ranking system will probably be fairly accurate for the top 3-4 guilds. After that, I think it is a joke.

 

[Niikilou]

The way it is set up now - 'victories' have almost no relation to actual guild strength. A victory in platinum is equal to a victory in low diamond is equal to a victory in high diamond. But once you are in the 1000LP group, victories are the most important factor in determining your rank. So... two of the four measures for rankings are capped. And one of the four measures has almost no real meaning. And the 4th factor, VP, has a luck factor since no two maps are the same values - and even worse, a money factor since you can buy VP by spending diamonds to speed up VP producing buildings. (4 hours of a Guild Command Post are worth a lot more VP than 1 hour if you don't spend diamonds on it)

Here is the order INNO says the rankings are based on:
1. LP -- capped at 1000 (my world has 28 guilds all tied with 1000LP)
2. Current GBG Championship victories -- no real meaning since they don't take level of competition into account
3. Current GBG Championship VP's -- can be bought with money
4. Guild Level --- capped at 100

I think the current ranking system will probably be fairly accurate for the top 3-4 guilds. After that, I think it is a joke.

Couldn't have expressed it better myself and don't forget the ridiculous amount they ask for in goods for the building you put on your HQ....don't have 52,000 of one good....too bad....sorry to all of you just because your guilds aren't ancient enough to have millions of goods

 

[Dominator - X]

Couldn't have expressed it better myself and don't forget the ridiculous amount they ask for in goods for the building you put on your HQ....don't have 52,000 of one good....too bad....sorry to all of you just because your guilds aren't ancient enough to have millions of goods

If you are a regular HDL competitor, the age of the guild has little to do with your treasury. You will burn through those goods fast, even if they have been accumulating for years, if you don't have a plan in place and enforced to replenish them.
The treasury has more to do with guild management than guild age.

 

[jaymoney23456]

Where did you get your info from? Mine came right from the Update page. I have not seen anything from INNO about the change you mention. Please point us to where INNO posted this.

Just look at the current guild rankings. Guilds with 1000 lp are ranked first according to victories and then according to victory points.

 

[coolmite]

Just look at the current guild rankings. Guilds with 1000 lp are ranked first according to victories and then according to victory points.

I think he was referring to your assertion that guild level wasn't included (even though the Inno release said it was one of the ranking factors). Guild level should be the 4th tie breaker. Can you find an instance where it isn't?

 

[GeniePower]

Just look at the current guild rankings. Guilds with 1000 lp are ranked first according to victories and then according to victory points.

Because there are no ties on VP, there's no visible evidence that level wouldn't be a tie-breaker in that case. Inno did announce it as the 4th level. Very unlikely to be actually used since a tie on VP is highly unlikely. Doesn't mean it isn't coded that way.

If you are a regular HDL competitor, the age of the guild has little to do with your treasury. You will burn through those goods fast, even if they have been accumulating for years, if you don't have a plan in place and enforced to replenish them.
The treasury has more to do with guild management than guild age.

It has a lot to do with guild size. As has been the case from the start, small guilds are complaining they can't afford it. The HQ building remains the entire season, so it costs less than building a single fortified command post each day or less than 2.5 old SC per day. That's really cheap for the benefits, especially when you fight from HQ all the time. Rebuilding a fortified command post on the same tile multiple times a day will eat into the same 3 goods over and over also, so there's really nothing to complain about.

 

[jaymoney23456]

I think he was referring to your assertion that guild level wasn't included (even though the Inno release said it was one of the ranking factors). Guild level should be the 4th tie breaker. Can you find an instance where it isn't?

I bet there is never an instance where anyone is tied in both victories and victory points so whether guild level is officially included would be irrelevant

 

[coolmite]

I bet there is never an instance where anyone is tied in both victories and victory points so whether guild level is officially included would be irrelevant

Probably true - but for now, we have no reason to believe that guild level isn't the 4th tie breaker.

 

[Orius Maximus]

If you are a regular HDL competitor, the age of the guild has little to do with your treasury. You will burn through those goods fast, even if they have been accumulating for years, if you don't have a plan in place and enforced to replenish them.
The treasury has more to do with guild management than guild age.

This is true. I purged a bunch of inactive players yesterday because of this. Costs for GE are fixed, but GbG is weighted depending on which ages guild members are in, the more members are from a certain age when GbG starts, the more likely that age will be used in cost calculations at least according to the Fandom wiki. We had a bunch of inactive players from IA, and that was making IA goods show up much more often for buildings. I had jewelers spammed in my city for a few days last week to shore up our stock. And of course the stupid RNG was heavily prioritizing the goods we were critically low on. Luckily our active players either have Arcs at level 80 or are working on them, so I probably don't have to enforce strict guild goods production. I should set up a topic informing our less experienced members about things though.

The RNG does randomize costs stupidly though. It'll do things like taking the 7k cost for the Fortified Outpost, and dump 6k of that cost in one single good, while the rest of it is dumped in two other goods. I'd rather see the costs more evenly distributed rather than being so lopsided.

 

[jaymoney23456]

This is true. I purged a bunch of inactive players yesterday because of this. Costs for GE are fixed, but GbG is weighted depending on which ages guild members are in, the more members are from a certain age when GbG starts, the more likely that age will be used in cost calculations at least according to the Fandom wiki. We had a bunch of inactive players from IA, and that was making IA goods show up much more often for buildings. I had jewelers spammed in my city for a few days last week to shore up our stock. And of course the stupid RNG was heavily prioritizing the goods we were critically low on. Luckily our active players either have Arcs at level 80 or are working on them, so I probably don't have to enforce strict guild goods production. I should set up a topic informing our less experienced members about things though.

The RNG does randomize costs stupidly though. It'll do things like taking the 7k cost for the Fortified Outpost, and dump 6k of that cost in one single good, while the rest of it is dumped in two other goods. I'd rather see the costs more evenly distributed rather than being so lopsided.

The goods required for GbG camps are not weighted depending on how many players your guild has in an age. You could have 1 player in an age and it may randomly ask for a lot of goods from that age even though you have many players in another age. It does seem that the goods needed are skewed towards whatever a guild is lowest on a lot of the time though.