I am here too. I would also like us to be more competetive, but do not want to high requirements hanging over my head.
I have six more kingdoms to level up, and want to have fun while playing.
1 Like
I think at this point, with so many of us very close to maxed kingdoms, it’ll pay to wait a little while to get more hardcore. I know a larger gold requirement would slow me down a bit, but it’s a very small price to pay considering I randomly log in to 200 glory keys every few days.
Ok guys,
This past week, some of you asked if it was possible to base the guild rankings on more than just weekly gold donations. You guys mentioned overall gold donations, trophy donations, Casual Rank and PvP Rank.
Assigning ranks, doesn’t necessarily become harder, but it certainly becomes more tedious every time we add an extra factor into the rank function.
I looked into one of the factors (Overall Gold Donations) and asked myself, what can this possibly be a measure of?
So, after some thought, it was clear that overall gold donations are a person’s history with the guild and a measure of loyalty towards the guild.
Let’s take a look at the current distribution of # of members in each ranks of the guild:
It is clear that Sentinel is by far the most popular rank in the guild. But why? In my opinion, Sentinel offers 1 extra perk that benefits the entire guild and that is the ability to upgrade masteries in order to increase each member’s chance of achieving a mana surge when matching 3 gems. However, with the mana surge limit being set to 65%, this introduces a redundancy in relation to the Sentinel perk. At some point, our guild will have reached that limit and well… there won’t be any reason for anyone to be a Sentinel other than bragging rights.
From a Guild Leader’s perspective, the Sentinel has another use which is a perk that allows the promotion of members to the next rank. This is especially helpful to the guild leader because it allows for other members to instill ranking changes when the guild leader is limited on time. There is only one problem with this system; there is no reverse perk available to the Sentinel. The ability to demote player rank is exclusive to the guild leader which essentially makes the former perk one-dimensional and, ultimately, useless in the long run.
This being said, why do people still insist on donating a minimum of 30k Gold when they really don’t get much in return, as far as the Sentinel rank is concerned?
The only rank that I believe is the most useful for the members is the Legionnaire rank because it grants them the most important guild perk of all time; the ability to invite players into the guild. This is both useful for the guild leader and members of the guild because it ensures a consistently full guild and also helps the guild leader find new recruits when he/she is limited on time. And yet, it is the least populated rank in the guild.
In my opinion, the current ranking system was an afterthought on the developer’s side. There is no incentive for climbing any rankings above Legionnaire. This is hoping that Guild Update 2.1 fixes this issue.
People donate gold so that they can reap rewards for themselves and the guild members. People who donate a lot of gold to the guild are concerned for the survivability of the guild even if the high donations come at a loss for them. More than 50% (15/29) of our current members have chosen to donate at least 2x the minimum gold requirement. Thank You.
Here is the current layout for Overall Guild Donations:
If we we based individual guild rank based on the current guild rank distribution (shown above) and “overall” gold donations, the rankings would look something like this:
Based on this, member’s like InTheMoment would qualify for Sentinel and Aust would qualify for Commander. However, if we combine this factor with the weekly gold donation requirements, you’ll notice that the same people that stayed Sentinel will remain Sentinel. The ranking order of these people will have changed, but there consistency in rank will not. My goal is to introduce more of a normal distribution to the rankings essentially making Sentinel more of an exclusive, harder to obtain rank.
So here is my proposal: Rankings will be based on the following Conditions:
- Recruit: Minimum of 2% of the Median “Overall” Guild Donations/Wk (Median is Determined at the Start of Every Month)
- Legionnaire: Minimum of 4% of the Median “Overall” Guild Donations/Wk (Median is Determined at the Start of Every Month)
- Commander: Minimum of 8% of the Median “Overall” Guild Donations/Wk ( Median is Determined at the Start of Every Month)
- Sentinel: Minimum 16% of the Median “Overall” Guild Donations/Wk ( Median is Determined at the Start of Every Month)
This is how it works: At the start of every month I will take all of the Overall Gold Donations of each member and order them between least to greatest. I will then obtain the median of those donations and round that number up. A percentage of the median, depending on the rank, will be taken and the gold donations for the effective month will be determined. These gold donation requirements will be posted on the forums and the guild chat. No need for anyone to do any math.
- This idea can work really well. Count me in.
- I’m on board with this, but I would wait until the rankings get the necessary buffs in the new Guild Update.
- Let’s try to incorporate more options like Trophies and PvP rank into the ranking formula.
- Let’s just stick with the system that we currently have. Seems to be doing fine as is.
- I need a Cliff Notes version of this!
0 voters
I think we should add trophies also we voted to become more competitive but there is no requirement to do so
1 Like
I completely agree that current guild abilities for each rank don’t do enough alone to incentivise people to want to climb ranks and hopefully that will change in a not so distant update. For this reason I think it is best to wait until after the update to make any major changes to guild reqs.
Also, currentry only 19 slots available for Sentinel rank so what happens if more than 19 members exceed the 16% of median threshold? Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the added benefit of introducing this complexity to the process. By just using a straight hierarchical system based on overall gold donations, I think we accomplish much of the same as what you are proposing but with much less work for you =)
I wouldn’t mind adding a pvp rank requirement on top of this but I do think there is a fair amount of overlap between gold and trophy contributions already so the added benefit is somewhat small.
Also I think the main reason so many people (including myself) donate more than the minimum each week is once all kingdoms are level 10 it is really the best option to spend your gold on as opposed to spending them on gold chests. The best case scenario with efficient spending being the goal, everyone would spend the same amount of gold for guild donations. If this happens or even as we get closer to achieving this, we will actually be getting more glory chests individually than if we used that same amount of money on gold chests. As more people reach the goal leveling up all their kingdoms I think we will see a natural progression of this efficient gold spending without many restrictions or requirements needing to be made. Ultimately, I’m not too concerned with what we decide as it won’t be a deal breaker for me either way. Thanks for all the extra effort you put in to keep this guild above the rest!
1 Like
In my opinion gold alone is not getting us higher up in rank. And I have no vip level and are not finished with my kingdoms. I play for the money I contribute with.
If there will be only gold who counts, that will be a poor incentive for me. To see members with not so many trophies but with gold donations get sentinels. That will tell me its ok to let others to earn the trophies to get us higher in rank and to get me a vip level and contribute gold.
I like the idea of implement the members to reach the rank of “champion” every week to maintain sentinels. We need active members- not only money contributers.
Hope I didn’t step on anyones toes by saying this.
Boris
I love being in this guild i don’t chat much and I’m happy however things go 
I agree with this. I have sacrificed the leveling of my kingdoms to donate gold to this guild for more than 6 months. Now I want to level my kingdoms and I still exceed gold requirements. Trophies are important now if we want to advance in rank
For some reason cannot vote… But my vote is current,y for 100 trophies a week
I’m on board with this but wait…
I know some guilds have a threshold that you can meet with trophies OR gold & that would be interesting to think about.
(I think you mentioned this in guild chat, Shib?)
I just want to say I think JewMage does a really great job & having an organized, conscientious leader probably does more for the guild than any set of rules.
I could care less about guild rankings. But I’d like the guild to thrive & I know a big part of that is making sure that the rules/requirements reflect our expectations. Our expectations from the guild are rising and that’s why this conversation keeps popping up…
I don’t want to feel a lot of pressure to play. That’s a dealbreaker for me. And I’d like to support players who’ve been around for a while & chipping in & are still leveling our kingdoms.
But you could raise the minimums a fair bit before I’d notice so…
1 Like
If we keep only gold donations as an option, we will still have members donating minimum and not playing tha game.
I am not aiming for #1, but want to feel the fellowship in playing the game together. To at least try. Not just sit by and donate gold.
Beast – the reason why I’m so wary of a weekly trophy requirement is that it doesn’t allow for natural ebbs and flows in playtime.
Say in a given month I play a LOT one week and very little another… that’s not “Hey, flag it, I’m on vacation,” that’s just healthy variety. So on those low weeks, donate gold & on the high weeks, tons of trophies.
I would say that accommodating those ebbs and flows is really important for keeping players over the long term, over a period of months instead of just weeks.
If we’re looking for a way to slough placeholder/zombie members, I’d suggest looking for a method that won’t make life more difficult for longterm/loyal members.
Norinth had one suggestion for exceptions. Guild leadership determines how long to wait based on previous performance.
I understand completely. I have a full time job, a family and other hobbies . And the time and energy is not always there.
Personette, do you really think, that some members of our guild have time for login (for keys & gems from guild tasks) but don’t have time for 1 battle?
We have low level members which donated 15k gold (probably from the daily bonuses) but doesn’t gain any single trophy!
Another question. Do you spare gold for future?
Hi I have a simple suggestion.
The issue we face is that on one hand, we have a well established player base that wants to rank up the leaderboards. On the other hand, we also have a younger player base which joined a friendly guild (which we are and will continue to be) but are finishing upgrading their kingdoms.
Fortunately, these are not mutually exclusive. There is only one type of player we want: an active one.
- Leaderboards are based on one thing and one thing alone: Trophies. Every player, from level 1 to 800, will want to reach Rank 1 each week for the rewards.
- Donations are almost assured once you reach max Kingdom level. Let’s face it: there are no better options to spend your gold, even at an individual level.
Thus, a simple solution would be:
Requirement 1: 30k donation per week.
We currently have 8 people this week that so far have not donated more than this. And it’s still early in the week, this should not be a problem. Exceptions for really active & young players may be done at the discretion of the Guild Leadership (but should be an exception).
Requirement 2: 90 Trophies a week.
This is slightly below Rank 1 (it might be technically possible to reach Rank 1 with high 90s, so this makes more sense than 100).
Note 1: Periods of absence are possible given notification.
We are just people and this is a game. These need to be notified via in-game chat. Should be fine, but if too long, Guild Leadership may eventually consider replacement taking into account previous contributions, at their discretion.
Note 2: Analysis is conducted at the end of each month. If a player has not met the 4 week quota, they can be replaced by Guild Leadership at any time. - Except if notified in advance, see Note 1.
Notification from Guild Leadership is entirely optional. We are all adults, if you have given no heads up of absence, this is normal We can search for a replacement while you remain in the guild. Exceptions may occur entirely at the discretion of the Guild Leadership, given previous notification and taking into account previous contributions and performance.
Simple rules, simple application, keeps everyone nice and honest, keeps us friendly (because we are 
).
We get a steady trophy income, the people still developing get a solid way out, we get no inactive players for long.
And I see no point in waiting for any changes. Change is normal, failing to evolve has not been good for anyone, ever. Hell, the sooner we start the better prepared and positioned we might be for any upcoming changes 
Hope it’s helpful 
Again, this is just a suggestion.
1 Like
If Jewmage is willing to do a monthly tally (which is a fair bit of work to volunteer him for) i’d be much happier with a “meet reqs 3 times out of 4” deal.
And while i really like that we can announce a temporary absence and avoid getting kicked, a guild policy of “these rules apply to everyone but the old timers, at the leader’s discretion,” is almost guaranteed to lead to resentment amd misunderstanding.
1 Like
There are already people that do month tallies. We have details for all the past months.
You need to trust the people leading the guild, based on their contribution and actions. Handling the guild is not a benefit at all, it’s extra work!
-Note: I am not part of the leadership here.-
If their actions or values are not aligned with yours, then you owe it to yourself to find someone better who is I honestly doubt there would be any favourites, if you contribute massively you have some good will, but that would not extend beyond the first infraction.
Keep in mind, kicking someone isn’t permanent (unless you have the most insulting behaviour ever, you can always return when your situation is resolved).
I’d like to believe we can each discuss what we think is best for the guild without jumping straight to, “And if you don’t like it, you know where the door is.”
You seem to have a different view of what’s best than I do. That’s cool. Eventually changes will be made & everyone will decide to stay or go, based on those changes. Until then, maybe let’s keep it civil.
I like those terms, Norinth! Flexible and manageable for those who has proven their activity before. Then you will have some legroom if it’s a busy week or two for anyone.
As I wrote in the chat - save those precious gems until you have 500 so you can buy the dragon armor. 100 % gold bonus will help you reach over 50k if you’re going for tier 1 that week. Celestial should only be used in the arena and challenges since that armor has the soul perk.