Please rework the calculation for ranking

[Emberguard]

And, really, there's no logical reason to completely exclude GE from being a factor, either.

I’d be fine with GE being added to the equation. If it’s done on % it’d also need to be done on member count to make it fair. If it’s done on finishing in the top 3 for that week it wouldn’t matter what the member count is.

I've said this before, there is no logical reason that GvG should be equivalent to GBG in the guild rankings (Prestige) formula.

Except it’s GBG that was balanced around GvG, not the other way around.

However the mere existence of GBG means there’s now a absolute minimum amount required for the top. That minimum being 18,000. If a guild wants to get to the top they still have to meet that minimum one way or another

Guild level can be raised by 100% of players.

Sure. But not 100% of players had access to raising their level for the past 9 years and the top level cap has been lifted twice. If that keeps getting lifted whenever enough guilds reach the level cap, then it’s a moot point to expect guilds to use that as leverage in guild rankings. It’ll add score sure, but it’ll never compete against the oldest guilds if the cap keeps being raised

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Sure. But not 100% of players had access to raising their level for the past 9 years and the top level cap has been lifted twice. If that keeps getting lifted whenever enough guilds reach the level cap, then it’s a moot point to expect guilds to use that as leverage in guild rankings. It’ll add score sure, but it’ll never compete against the oldest guilds if the cap keeps being raised

My point was that GvG is the only game feature involved in the guild ranking formula that is not available to all players.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

nice job ignoring my question. So you saying most GVG guilds do GBG also and most GBG guilds don't do GVG, so why on earth those GBG solely guild should be ranked higher than those GVG guilds?

I ignored your question because it wasn't what I was referring to. Yes, guilds can seal the beaches, too, but I was referring to simply moving away from the landing zones. Also, I did not say that most GBG guilds don't do GvG, although overall that is probably true. Most of the Diamond guilds probably do GvG, although some do not, and probably a good percentage of the Platinum ones do, too. The percentage of Gold and lower guilds that do GvG is undoubtedly pretty low.

Here's a question for you: Why should a guild that is in 1st place on only one GvG map (in fact it's the only map that they're even in the top 3) be ranked significantly ahead of a guild that is a higher level, has the very same 1000 LP in GBG and is in the top 3 on 7 GvG maps on that world? Not only should the rankings be rebalanced to reflect GvG's relatively minor place in the game, it seems that the ranking within GvG should also be rebalanced.

 

[Emberguard]

Here's a question for you: Why should a guild that is in 1st place on only one GvG map (in fact it's the only map that they're even in the top 3) be ranked significantly ahead of a guild that is a higher level, has the very same 1000 LP in GBG and is in the top 3 on 7 GvG maps on that world?

GvG gives different points per hex depending on the age of that hex

If a guild chooses to participate at a lower age in GvG they are also choosing to have a lower score

 

[icarusethan]

I ignored your question because it wasn't what I was referring to. Yes, guilds can seal the beaches, too, but I was referring to simply moving away from the landing zones.

So just because these guilds chose to move into inland, other small guilds just cant land on the beach and march towards them? what world you play in, these small guilds must be very nice people.

Here's a question for you: Why should a guild that is in 1st place on only one GvG map (in fact it's the only map that they're even in the top 3) be ranked significantly ahead of a guild that is a higher level, has the very same 1000 LP in GBG and is in the top 3 on 7 GvG maps on that world? Not only should the rankings be rebalanced to reflect GvG's relatively minor place in the game, it seems that the ranking within GvG should also be rebalanced.

so you think people who dominate the AA map/ FE map should rank lower than the guys who take tiles in Iron age, EMA and whatever ages you are talking about? i guess the next thing you gonna say is WNBA should get paid more than NBA

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

GvG gives different points per hex depending on the age of that hex

If a guild chooses to participate at a lower age in GvG they are also choosing to have a lower score

so you think people who dominate the AA map/ FE map should rank lower than the guys who take tiles in Iron age, EMA and whatever ages you are talking about? i guess the next thing you gonna say is WNBA should get paid more than NBA

Specifically, the 2nd place guild is in the top 3 on 7 of the 8 maps from Colonial to Future. They are not in the top 3 in CE. They are #1 on 3 maps. The 1st place guild is not in the top three on any map except the AA map. In fact, on some they are not even in the top 10. Yet the amount of points that the one guild gets from the AA map is more than all the points that the other guild gets from all the other maps, even though they are significantly more successful on them. I get that as the map era gets higher the points per sector get higher, but to have one map be so out of whack makes no sense.
I'll ignore the WNBA/NBA remark because I don't watch either one and couldn't care less about them.

 

[icarusethan]

Specifically, the 2nd place guild is in the top 3 on 7 of the 8 maps from Colonial to Future. They are not in the top 3 in CE. They are #1 on 3 maps. The 1st place guild is not in the top three on any map except the AA map. In fact, on some they are not even in the top 10. Yet the amount of points that the one guild gets from the AA map is more than all the points that the other guild gets from all the other maps, even though they are significantly more successful on them. I get that as the map era gets higher the points per sector get higher, but to have one map be so out of whack makes no sense.

if you hold #1 on FE + TE + CE, it should outweigh AA by default unless the other guild has the whole AA map, which, means your guild not doing things right anyway. Since AA map is a place for all players to participate( lower age players can help sieging), it supposed to be the one that gives your mass advantage if you own majority of it.

 

[Xantac the merciful]

I think an argument can be made to tone down the impact of GvG on ranking, but not eliminate it. Our guild took #1 while in Gold League in GbG, simply by dominating the AA map and then thumping FE/TE and CE. It happened for a few days, we got a giggle out of it, then returned to retirement.

The fact that we could do nothing in GbG but coast, be lax in GE (who cares anymore except for the goodies?), and yet still get #1 only by GvG alone did show some imbalance in the rankings system. Granted it took a lot of work, but it dose seem odd to me that it was possible.

GbG is a burnout machine. Many of the hardcore GvG folk hate the effort required for it, and a similar thing can be said for many GbG folks that can't abide by being locked down to a PC at recalc. They are different aspects of the game, but GvG is the dominate influencer of ranking in the current system.

 

[Sheldor the Destroyer]

Why? What is there to gain besides bragging rights?

I disagree. It truly shows hard effort, hours, and money put into this game, and it shows recognization.

 

[Agent327]

I disagree. It truly shows hard effort, hours, and money put into this game, and it shows recognization.

Did you really think that through before you posted that? You forgot one tiny little aspect of that ranking. Hard effort, hours, and money put into this game gets beaten by knowing how to abuse the system.

 

[Lord Pest]

Rethinking the ranking system. I know it would never happen if only for the calculation crunch it would take to calculate.
40% is a combination of success in GvG and GBG
15% average guild GB level.
15% average guild good production (from goods buildings, GBs, RQs, GBG)
15% average guild coin and supply daily Production.
15% average guild daily aiding friends, guildies and hoodies.

you could also think of rewarding guilds for having a healthy spread of members in different ages. To many of the top guilds now have requirements for new members to be in FE or above and already have an 80 level arc. It would be nice to reward those guilds that will take a member in Iron Age and help them grow.

A nice reward beyond ranking points would be to add goods to the treasury to reward those guilds.

 

[Sheldor the Destroyer]

Did you really think that through before you posted that? You forgot one tiny little aspect of that ranking. Hard effort, hours, and money put into this game gets beaten by knowing how to abuse the system.

Indeed I did. And I'm sure that those people are "abusing the system", which isn't fair game-play.
In my opinion, you didn't think that through.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed I did. And I'm sure that those people are "abusing the system", which isn't fair game-play.
In my opinion, you didn't think that through.

Does ranking show how you got there?

 

[Sheriff Of Rottingham]

I’d be fine with GE being added to the equation. If it’s done on % it’d also need to be done on member count to make it fair. If it’s done on finishing in the top 3 for that week it wouldn’t matter what the member count is.

Except it’s GBG that was balanced around GvG, not the other way around.

However the mere existence of GBG means there’s now a absolute minimum amount required for the top. That minimum being 18,000. If a guild wants to get to the top they still have to meet that minimum one way or another

Sure. But not 100% of players had access to raising their level for the past 9 years and the top level cap has been lifted twice. If that keeps getting lifted whenever enough guilds reach the level cap, then it’s a moot point to expect guilds to use that as leverage in guild rankings. It’ll add score sure, but it’ll never compete against the oldest guilds if the cap keeps being raised

Just an FYI, and it might not matter but in 2016 INNO completely redid how ranking points were calculated. So it would only be 5 years. Again I don't know how much that would matter.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

Surely a good guild can balance its activities to suit both PC only and phone only members, so all are valued. Every member is (or should be) important to their guild and all can (or should) be playing with guild advancement in mind. Ranking is not just about bragging rights. It is more about raising your guilds level so ALL members benefit from faster troop production and healing, lower costs of building and more free FPs for everyone from the town hall. To some this may not seem like much, but when taken into the mix of what helps each member grow their cities and also build pride in belonging to that guild.

As for the debate on GBG versus GvG. In one world I play in a young guild and we are still in the early stages ( helping each other get the needed GBs, building our prestige and rank, Getting our Arcs to 80 etc) We are now all able to complete all 4 levels of GE. We are also doing well enough in GBG to get into Diamond most seasons, but do not weep and wail about imbalance and dropping back to platinum if we get shut out by stronger guilds farming. We know we can only get stronger and will end up as one more boring farming guild as far as GBG goes. The reason we are happy to take our time in this to get things right for all members, is so that eventually we can start doing GvG. GE is what it is. GBG gets old before the season is over whatever level you are in. But GvG is where the guild gets some real fun. It is never just the same old same old. If INNO did do away with GvG the only fun left would be in PvP (the old tower type PvP not the PvP Arena that is part of the game on Beta now)

 

[GE player9]

this topic comes up occasionally.

these are rough numbers, but currently rankings are weighted about 50% for GvG, 45% for GBG and 5% for guild level.
GE is not directly a factor although the guild power earned from it gets dumped into the guilds level,
so for simplicity could split 5% guild level into, 2.5% for GE, and 2.5% for hall of fames in cities

50% GvG
45% GbG
2.5% GE
2.5% hall of fames in cities.
[again, rough numbers for sake of simplicity]
=
before GbG, when it was just GE and GvG
there would be high level GE guilds, with 100-0-0 GE records
with a lower guild ranking than ,
a brand new low level guild with 0-0-0 GE records.


basically any single person could start a GVG ghost guild, and capture enough sectors in a week or two, and have a higher guild ranking than a large guild that had been dominating GE for 2 years straight.
=

a suggestion that was thrown out for balancing the rankings before GbG came out was to give a small amount of prestige for GE trophies. [maybe 5 prestige for a gold GE trophy, 3 prestige for a silver and 1 prestige for a bronze]

since most guilds view their GE trophies with some level of personal prestige, and since players generally look at a guild profile and recognize guilds with better medal counts as better guilds, it seemed like a fairly reasonable suggestion to directly give some small amount of prestige for each GE trophy.

giving 5 prestige for a gold GE medal would adjust the rankings weight to approximately:
49% GvG
44% GbG
5% GE
2% hall of fames in cities.
[again, rough numbers for sake of simplicity]

 

[BpTexas]

My guild is the highest level on the server. We dominate GbG and GE every season. However, we are ranked #19? That makes NO SENSE. If GvG is such a dying part of FOE then when will this change? What, besides GvG can change this?

While fewer guilds may be actively doing GvG, many still do. My understanding is that the "rank" placement is split approximately 33.3% between GE, GbG & GvG. I'm not sure if that percentage is correct, but i do know that you can't "rank" #1 without GvG. In plain English, you do not dominate, unless you are the master of all 3 game activities

 

[BpTexas]

But this isn't a video game. The question is quite valid when it comes to FoE.

You essentially agreed that the only purpose of ranking is bragging rights. The OP's guild has achieved the highest level a guild can reach. She said her guild dominates everything. Those things are evidence of the guild's efforts that everyone can see. If the OP wants to make sure everybody is made aware of it all the time, they could message all the other guilds every week and point it out to them, I guess. But there really is not much point in rankings in this game outside of GBG placement. Because, again, this ain't a video game.



That's a conversation that's been had here on the forums, and one that the devs have probably already had: changing guild rankings to balance the points awarded by the different competitions. Nothing wrong with having that conversation again here but don't hold your breath that something will come of it anytime soon.

It's more than only bragging rights. Guilds get power(crowns) from GvG as well.

 

[BpTexas]

And as we all know, maybe with a few exceptions, it is not reflecting your efforts in the game at all, but mostly your efforts in GvG. Now look at it from the other side. If you do not participate why should you be top rank? Game is more that just GE and GBG.

Of course it's reflective of any guilds efforts. If they don't put the time and effort into GvG, cannot be #1 "overall.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

It's more than only bragging rights. Guilds get power(crowns) from GvG as well.

Which (as I've explained in detail on another thread) gives you very little that is tangible except higher guild ranking...which is just bragging rights.

My understanding is that the "rank" placement is split approximately 33.3% between GE, GbG & GvG.

Not even close. GE, for example, only affects your guild's ranking by raising your guild level. And guild level has very little impact on guild ranking.