Idea for fair guild competition--rejected, can ignore

Smokin_Joe_BlowSmokin_Joe_Blow Member Posts: 97
edited December 2015 in Suggestions & Ideas
I think most players agree that cycling guild members to increase stars goes against the spirit of fair competition on the guild leaderboards, but is currently allowed by the rules (though discouraged by the player community). I think most players agree that unlimited changes should be allowed in between challenges, but not during challenges. One problem with just locking guilds at the start of each competition is a guild could be unfairly penalized if a player starts a challenge, but opts to leave the guild mid challenge (or possibly just is unexpectedly not active). Here is an idea that could address this fairly:

Suppose a player leaves a guild mid challenge, leaving the guild at a disadvantage. I propose he could be replaced by a new player, but only one who had already earned the same or more stars as the deserter had at the time he left the guild. This way, guilds could not cycle players to increase their total stars earned, but could still replace a player who left unexpectedly or just wasn't active that week.

Comments

  • @Smokin_Joe_Blow

    this idea sounds very appealing but what about starter guilds like the one I'm running? It is already next to impossible to recruit new members due to the recruiting efforts of other bigger and stronger guilds. If something like this is implemented then it makes it even harder for guilds like mine to find members because rather than opting to wait for one of the Mega guilds to get a free space or chancing that you will like being thrown into an unknown guild and enjoy struggling to out compete the next person chasing the same spot in the parent guild, some players may opt to help build something from the ground up. Unfortunately many of these players decide to do the latter after a weekly challenge has already commenced but in their defense they really have no choice but to wait untill after a challenge has started to make sure they can't have any of those slots within the top guilds or their affiliates.

    Long story made short this will hurt start up guilds who are already being crushed by the competition to gain more members.
  • Smokin_Joe_BlowSmokin_Joe_Blow Member Posts: 97
    edited December 2015
    I guess I should have specified. If your guild has less than 20 members total for the challenge, you can still recruit members to your max without restriction. This would only apply to guilds trying to go over 20 total members for the challenge (i.e. started with 20, had 1 leave and want to bring in another to replace his which would be the 21st member in the guild during the challenge). Do you think this would still hurt start up guilds?
  • What would prevent the larger guilds from kicking people during the time period between weekly challenges so that they can start the challenge with less than 20 people on the roster?
  • AysatyoPetAysatyoPet Member Posts: 1,168
    Before they can join, they must earn same star as the one who left? You are making it hard for guildless players to join a guild by this proposal. Instead of earning the same star, why not inherit the stars earned by the player who left by the new player who join. In this way, new member can join easily even in mid challenge week, but will not be able to earn new stars that easily if the one he replaced got many stars already. If the member is inactive and gives only little or no stars, the replacing member will start at little or no stars also. And about the one who left or had been kicked out of the guild (for being inactive or whatever reason), he cannot re-join that same guild until the weekly challenge ends.

  • JenJen Member Posts: 74
    I have no problem with guilds swapping before and after challenges, as this is in spirit with the game and building the strongest team possible. I do, however, have a problem with guilds kicking members out mid-challenge to accumulate more stars. That makes the competition 20 vs 40 and is not really representative of the comraderie that many of us enjoy by creating and being part of a strong team. New guilds will simply have to wait a couple of days to recruit new members. That is the same wait that established guilds will have to endure. Considering that rankings only take a 2 week snapshot, it will not be hard for new guilds to recover. STARS BETA is a perfect example of how a new guild can rise in a few short weeks. @DarkFae
    <b class="Bold">Jenny (Ullr)
    Email/GroupMe: [email protected]</b>

    <blockquote class="Quote"><b class="Bold"> elder/recruiter of CONQUER / THE UNINFECTED / ALEXANDRIANS </b></blockquote>
  • @Jen


    I do agree that cycling guild members is an issue but do not agree this is the best solution. Assuming the Dev's fall head over heals in love with this idea. Who's going to tell all the 100's of thousands of players that are not a part of this forum about this change and why it has taken place? Some of them who are not active here are also in top guilds and some donate just as heavily to the game and very likely (with the exception of Morgan) even more.

    Making people wait leads to even more player frustration. As a player that has newly become interested in joining a guild, you will have to wait to see if a high scoring guild will take you in, you will do more waiting if you decide to join a newly formed guild and/or wait even longer while you are stuck exactly where you are trying not to be which is alone and still waiting if you try to start up your own guild if these changes are made. This seem more unfair to me than the problem we are working to solve by the implementing these changes.
  • Smokin_Joe_BlowSmokin_Joe_Blow Member Posts: 97
    Starting guilds with less players would be no advantage. They could fill the spots later, but if they tried to go over 20 total players then the rule would apply.

    It would not be hard for guildless people to join. There would be no restrictions between challenges. It would only apply if they tried to join a guild that had already had 20 or more players during the current challenge.

    My proposal would take away any significant advantage from kicking out players mid challenge. The only advantage would be if the new player would eventually earn more than the player kicked out. This is far less of an advantage than gained under the current system.

    If the changes were implemented, obviously they would have to include the info in the patch notes. Guilds who are active enough that they are trying to have over 20 players during any given challenge would figure it out pretty quick.

    This change would not increase player waiting in any way unless you are trying to join an established guild that is already full in the middle of a challenge. I don't think you should be counting on joining a guild in this situation anyways.

  • AysatyoPetAysatyoPet Member Posts: 1,168
    Let's say a guild started a challennge with 20 players.. and then midgame, a player who accumulated 99 stars are no long able to play for some reason (perhaps he died in the real world so he cannot play anymore). Obviously, he needs to be replaced. But in your suggestion, before anyone can replace him, they need first to accumulate 99 stars? Or wait for the weekly challenge to end? That is ridiculous. The time to wait for anyone to have that many stars will have a big impact on the guild. And anyone who wants to join but dont have that many stars will not be able to join. Instead of getting that many stars, they will just find another guild who have less or no required stars or guilds with few members.. This will have a big impact on the guilds. They will not be able to replace right away the inactive members. Guilds will suffer. Guildless players will have a hard time getting into guilds during weekly challenge. I dont think that's a good thing..

  • How about this everyone?

    three new rules:

    1. If a member gets kicked from or leaves a guild for any reason then they can not rejoin that same guild for 90 days.
    2. If a player wants to rejoin a guild then they can not ever do so while a weekly challenge is taking place.
    3. If a player is let into a guild during a weekly challege then they can not be kicked from that guild for 30 days.
  • AysatyoPetAysatyoPet Member Posts: 1,168
    edited December 2015
    @WastelandDan
    <blockquote class="Quote" rel="WastelandDan">Why are we trying to create rules for players dying? THATS is ridiculous. If a player dies, that's terribly sad.... But take a loss for the challenge. If you have players switch inactive out of nowhere because you don't recruit well... TAKE A LOSS and try to identify how to get better. Don't try to make a rule for every reason you aren't good at
    something.</blockquote>

    (I don't know why this didn't look like I quoted it)
    anyway,
    I am not trying to make a rule or anything. Im just explaining the negative effect of the suggested idea in this post (if you also consider it negative). And the player dying in the real world is just an example of many reasons why a player becomes inactive. (Maybe a bad example but still a possible reason). Please read carefully..

  • shAdshAd Member Posts: 268
    DarkFae said:

    How about this everyone?

    three new rules:

    1. If a member gets kicked from or leaves a guild for any reason then they can not rejoin that same guild for 90 days.
    2. If a player wants to rejoin a guild then they can not ever do so while a weekly challenge is taking place.
    3. If a player is let into a guild during a weekly challege then they can not be kicked from that guild for 30 days.

    No. Please not! That are restrictions that are on the other side really bad.

    1. we had two members in history that retired at the beginning of the challenge because: Game stuck or reallife problems. This players must wait then to rejoin.
    2. its Ok. But solves nothing
    3. i want to kick if i feel the need for it. Whats if this player transform into a troll and flame e.g. in the guild chat?

    I repeat my suggestion, because they are very easy and would solve a lot!

    1. increase guild size to 25-30 (maybe connected with 2. a guild level based on overall stars. Every new guild lvl one slot more, to a maximum)
    2. introduce guild reputation in relation to the players collected stars for this guild. With small unlockable advantages. If you quit your guild, you lose your reputation lvl. That does a disadvantage for guilds and members that are hopping from one to the other guild. Than member cycling had a disadvantage. Its still possible but then with a disadvantage.

    Shad
    Very proud first officer of "<a hred="http://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/27/dead-angels#latest">Dead Angels</a>"
  • Smokin_Joe_BlowSmokin_Joe_Blow Member Posts: 97
    I see that there are many practical problems with this idea, but still think the current guild system and also a guild locking system has flaws. I'm starting a new thread for what I think is a better idea. forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/1404/another-idea-for-fair-guild-competition-without-guild-locking#latest
  • shAd said:

    DarkFae said:

    How about this everyone?

    three new rules:

    1. If a member gets kicked from or leaves a guild for any reason then they can not rejoin that same guild for 90 days.
    2. If a player wants to rejoin a guild then they can not ever do so while a weekly challenge is taking place.
    3. If a player is let into a guild during a weekly challenge then they can not be kicked from that guild for 30 days.

    No. Please not! That are restrictions that are on the other side really bad.

    1. we had two members in history that retired at the beginning of the challenge because: Game stuck or reallife problems. This players must wait then to rejoin.
    2. its Ok. But solves nothing
    3. i want to kick if i feel the need for it. Whats if this player transform into a troll and flame e.g. in the guild chat?

    I repeat my suggestion, because they are very easy and would solve a lot!

    1. increase guild size to 25-30 (maybe connected with 2. a guild level based on overall stars. Every new guild lvl one slot more, to a maximum)
    2. introduce guild reputation in relation to the players collected stars for this guild. With small unlockable advantages. If you quit your guild, you lose your reputation lvl. That does a disadvantage for guilds and members that are hopping from one to the other guild. Than member cycling had a disadvantage. Its still possible but then with a disadvantage.

    Shad
    @shAd

    I understand how you feel but:

    #1 Yes waiting to rejoin will stop player cycling which is what many here have concerns over. If there is an issue with RL that strikes while a weekly challenge is occurring that causes a team member to not be able to participate then cycling someone in to fill the spot on the team and earn stars, then weeding them back out in order to let the same player back in to earn more stars during the same weekly challenge gives the guild that does that an unfair advantage over other guilds who run a 20 member team only.

    #2 This rule should be considered for many of the same reasons I have already stated for rule #1. So my apologies but yes it would solve many problems due to the fact it is a dual layer of protection to help enforce the 1st rule mentioned.

    #3 This rule is very easily avoidable by simply not introducing new members into the guild while a weekly challenge is taking place. If you do let them in during a challenge then you risk exactly the type of thing you are countering with occurring. Since we are search for ways to discourage player cycling your counter points on this one are helping to prove that the rule is a good idea,


    Regarding your 1st rule: It would seem that this would lead to a bigger player cycling pool being formed by the top guilds. Which would make the situation much worse. Also only the top guilds will gain from this causing every other guild that is formed at a later date to be permanently locked out of the top spots on the leader board.

    Regarding your 2nd rule: TBH I really wouldn't care about my reputation if I could hop from guild to guild collecting more prize chests than I could by staying put in one guild during weekly challenges. Higher level players are already being rewarded more by being powerful enough to collect more rewards during challenges and having their spots be secured in the most well established guilds. Giving them even more on top of that makes it harder for everyone to compete with them.

    I'm not trying to be argumentative or offensive but I do believe we are looking at this issue from 2 different vantage points and therefore seeing things from different perspectives.
  • AysatyoPetAysatyoPet Member Posts: 1,168
    @DarkFae from your suggestion, what if im a member of "guild A" with 20 members. Then before a challenge starts, i created a new guild named "Guild B", then start to recruit 19 new members. Then a challenge starts. My 19 members are actively contributing stars. After mid challenge, i kicked them all. Then start recruiting all my guild mate from my old guild "guild A" to accumulate more stars. They can enter my new guild since i didnt kicked them and they didnt rejoin since its a new guild, right? Isn't this also considered cycling of players. And i didnt violate any of your rules.. and o can repeat this process week after week after week.. having 38 trusted members. 19 on Guild A and 19 on Guild B.

    irishmob
  • @AysatyoPet

    Yes it could happen but then everyone is stuck in the guilds they were swapped to for 30 days so you could only do that once a month. So you have 19 members stuck and a guild leader that can't leave for 4 challenges, true?
  • AysatyoPetAysatyoPet Member Posts: 1,168
    Rule 3 said they cant be kicked.. it didnt say they cant leave.. anyway, kicked or leave, it still has flaws.. 1 challenge abused out of 4 challenges is still an abuse.. right?

  • shAdshAd Member Posts: 268
    @darkfae: i try to view your suggestion from every possible side. But casual gamers would also restricted by this rules.
    Than the biggest argument: its to complex. No one will understand that intuitive. And its restricting in to many ways.
    Very proud first officer of "<a hred="http://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/27/dead-angels#latest">Dead Angels</a>"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,344
    edited December 2015
    @AysatyoPet

    Very true but if they leave they can't come back to guild A for 90 days, or back to guild B unless it has been 90 since they left. The rules feed into and support each other making it not worth anyone's time and effort to continue trying to do it after they try to do it the 1st time the rules are put into play. Unless someone decides to create 2 new guilds every two weeks but then again no bragging rights because if someone admits to doing that then no one is going to respect them here.
    AysatyoPet
  • shAd said:

    @darkfae: i try to view your suggestion from every possible side. But casual gamers would also restricted by this rules.
    Than the biggest argument: its to complex. No one will understand that intuitive. And its restricting in to many ways.

    Okay :)
  • HattenatorHattenator Member Posts: 40
    It's a very simple fix. After challenge starts if anyone leaves to go to another guild that person can not compete in current challenge in new guild. If new player comes to guild during challenge that player can not contribute during that weeks challenge.

    I also believe the challenge should be shortened to 3 or 4 days to allow for more preparation time between events.
    Jen
  • JenJen Member Posts: 74
    @Hattenator What you are describing is what most of us mean when we say "lock the guilds". I also agree that challenges should be shortened because the game is starting to feel like a constant loop of the same three challenges over and over with little time to upgrade or play regular missions, especially if you're in a competitive guild. I have to use every bit of gas to get stars. @Teeceezy @TK-421 @Overwatcher
    <b class="Bold">Jenny (Ullr)
    Email/GroupMe: [email protected]</b>

    <blockquote class="Quote"><b class="Bold"> elder/recruiter of CONQUER / THE UNINFECTED / ALEXANDRIANS </b></blockquote>
  • AlibabaAlibaba Moderator Posts: 1,275
    NG has changed this so guild cycling cannot occur! Closing this thread.

    Alibaba lvl49
    LINE me: princealibabwa
    Aegis Official FB Page
This discussion has been closed.