That's an interesting point I haven't thought about. In light of this aspect my algorithm could actually be viable. Because given enough strong players, all the effects of negative scores would be scaled down far enough to not be actually hurtful for the guild rating. But still, I would definitely prefer some sort of trade-off between no negative effects and full negative effects. Because there should still be SOME incentive to play well and not fool around. Just limit how much this player's rating is processed. Worst case, don't consider these players at all for the whole season. But even that shouldn't be a problem (from my perspective). A season is one month, so all players that consider themselves PvP players should be able to manage to log into the game once each month and play one game, right? Especially if you see guilds as a social construct, then I would assume that most players would at least join the (guild) chat way more often than once a month. And if they are in the chat already, they might as well start a match. But the main reason I wrote that, was that in your algorithm with the virtual player even inactive players would battle the virtual player and (assuming the ELO of the virtual player could get lower than the starting rating), improve the virtual player's rating although these inactive players only kept their rating because of inactivity. And if some guild rating system would use some sort of average over all members, this would probably cause these guilds to kick inactive players more often. See your argument about social groups. Again, do as you please. I'm no PvP-player, but these are my thougths of how an acceptable (not necessarily "good") guild rating system might look like. Although my algorithm might need some more work, but the theoretical criteria I stated are - from my point of view - well-founded for the most part.
No dog in this fight either, but I love the thoughts being expressed. Their are many aspects to this game. Thanks! p.s. I obviously still love playing.
So, why not just use the old system but code it into the game? Every month, the guild ratings started at 0. By winning a game, you bring your guild rating up. By losing, you bring it down. There was a system that increased or decreased how much the guild rating changed depending on how much higher or lower your guild's rating was over against the guilds you play against.
I hate to be a hound, @knightsofunity we need the [meta] game to be fixed and added into the game! Guilds are the best!
Let's restore the meta game! We had some momentum on this discussion about 3 months ago. Let's get it going!
Did you contact Farbs? He is your best bet. I don't know what's going on with the game anymore. Seems like the Knights of Unity kinda dropped it too? No idea.
Yes Guild Battle is nice if Possible with all active member, Since it's a matter of active member size instead, bye2 Sniper era. and of course the top 5 Pizza Code is somehow good in the late era. But now less community, some technical bug, and we wait for CH 2, hope so, Cheers all, let's support for our beloved Game.
