13 replies to this topic

[Sean]

How about adding extra points to a clan's rank or decreasing depending on how active the players in it are? Not sure how this would work, but imo alot of clans are more deserving of points than those who just sit there with alot of lvl 30's/gold in the bank.

Opinions?

[Pureza]

I agree, the more active clans ingame should get a higher score for being more active. Amount of time logged and actually spent training/bossing and the like should affect a clans score. Just my opinion though, i could be wrong.

[Squee]

It sounds like a pretty nice idea. However, if we're just logging active minutes then it's not really an accurate measurement of how "active" these players are.

In my humble opinion, sitting at the SGH for hours on end, poking your head in just to look around so you aren't booted due to inactivity is a lot worse than sitting on your pile of gold. At least you had to put some kind of effort (game-wise) into attaining your horde.

I agree that the current clan ranking system is pretty... poor. The problem is that nobody has really come up with a sound solution to it.

[Äññöÿäñcë]

I like this idea, but the clan room / amount of level 30s / gold in characters bank should matter more than the activeness idea, as gold has been put into the clan to create it and get rooms, and gold has been earned too put into the bank, and all this would be ruined because someone is just active..

So I say that this should be put into the game - but dont make the ranking TOO reliable on it.

(Many apologies if that makes no sense, i've had like 5 hours sleep this weekend..)

[£EGEÑd§ ôf thë Mí§T]

Supported.

[Gaddy]

The clans that have a load of arch crits, clan rooms, etc---they earned it.
Why would they be bumped down by new clans that haven't done as much work?
Just cause the lesser work is more recent? I think not...

[Sean]

The clans that have a load of arch crits, clan rooms, etc---they earned it.
Why would they be bumped down by new clans that haven't done as much work?
Just cause the lesser work is more recent? I think not...

Clan A - 1 good player with 10 lvl 30 crits. 5 other people with level 10-20 crits. Do nothing.
Clan B - 15 people with lvl 15-25 crits who play actively as a clan.

Clan A are comfortably in front, though they don't function as a clan at all. I see this as a problem.

Now if it were account rankings or something this post was suggesting, maybe I'd agree with you. But, especially in the current alt-centric NM, I don't really think if one player is doing all the work, or even if they done all the work before they joined that clan, that the clan should be getting points.

[Gaddy]

The clans that have a load of arch crits, clan rooms, etc---they earned it.
Why would they be bumped down by new clans that haven't done as much work?
Just cause the lesser work is more recent? I think not...

Clan A - 1 good player with 10 lvl 30 crits. 5 other people with level 10-20 crits. Do nothing.
Clan B - 15 people with lvl 15-25 crits who play actively as a clan.

Clan A are comfortably in front, though they don't function as a clan at all. I see this as a problem.

Now if it were account rankings or something this post was suggesting, maybe I'd agree with you. But, especially in the current alt-centric NM, I don't really think if one player is doing all the work, or even if they done all the work before they joined that clan, that the clan should be getting points.

Well, if a clan has several members with levels 20-25, they have more points than the clan with one person with a lot of archmasters.
Each crit in a clan gives the clan points, not just arches.
IE- a level 25 gives 2.5 points; arch only gives .5 more points than 25. (as I understand it)

So, the arguement of one player over-riding 5 players doesn't seem feasible to me, if the 5 players have decent accounts.

[Pureza]

Maybe give clan's points for the amount of monsters killed by it's active members. Would make it easier to track who's actually logged and active not just who's logged as they won't be killing anything, just sitting on the same square all day. The harder the monsters the more points the clan gets for killing it. Just an idea.

[£EGEÑd§ ôf thë Mí§T]

Or add monster kills into the formula.

[Ryuku]

Yeah I'ma go kill 10000 bunnies and get my clan +100 points thanks xD

[Wolfgang]

Wouldn't this system frown on small clans?

For example... 66 total hours of gametime in my clan.
And thats a clan with 13 people.

What about the clans that have like.... 200-600 members?

Adding a total gametime statistic to the clan ranking system would make it almost impossible for newer or smaller clans to move up in the ranks.

[AnEskimo]

This would prove to be pointless, and possibly even screw the system up more.

It would be pointless because any clan in the top 20 that has the 300+ members always has people logged on, and usually a rather large number of people, so the rankings would stay the same. Also, clans that have recruited the better players with more arches deserve the high ranks.

How it would corrupt the system: Certain people in the game would take advantage of this idea by simply having all their characters logged on all the time. They would simply stop by their computer once an hour to make sure no one gets disconnected. This would easily bump a small insigificant clan up the rankings, but it not be an accurate or fair level to be judged upon.

So yeah, not supported.

Edited by AnEskimo, 28 February 2006 - 04:32 AM.

[Egbert]

Well currently, the clan ranking is more like a hall of fame than a ranking list, so yes, this is a good idea.

This would make it more like a. . . clan ranking. You know. If you have an INACTIVE character with 100 million, then it doesn't help your clan at all, and shouldn't be counted toward your score---it doesn't do your clan any good.

I bet a good portion of the people in some of the top clans that have a bunch of gold in the bank and sit around don't play at all anymore, and shouldn't really be counted as part of the clan.

I'm thinking that the activity should be factored in, but like as a percentage of your points.

I mean, an active level 10 is all good and dandy, but an active level 30 helps tons more.

For example (this is just an example, keep in mind). If you are active for (on average) two hours a day, then it should count 100% of your score. If you are active for one hour, it should count 50% of your score. (Those are EXAMPLES). OF course, being active for 24 hours a day shouldn't make you count 1200%. That's just ridiculous.



What I'm saying is, a