New Clan Scoring

[Tograk]

After last event I was thinking how to improve clan scoring and now after DE Megan post pushed me to action:
 

 

 

Clan scoring has taken many forms over the course of Warframe events. Surrounding the most recent Tethra’s Doom Event, Devs have been triggered to further brainstorm a better way of scoring moving forward. Scoring has come a long way, as well as the scope and objective of events, but we still have more improvements to make.

 

Feedback on how we can improve Clan scoring for events is always appreciated!

 

I'm posting results of my thinking.

 

So...

 

Generally speaking scoring is not so bad but it should be more fair for smaller clans (eg In mountain Tier we have 100 and 300 man clans and naturally first ones has no chance against bigger).

I think that we should leave "old" way of scoring (summin points of members) but change it for best "minimum clan members in tier" in clan.

 

Examples now:

 

In Mountain Tier we take 101 best clan scores. It makes events more fair for smaller clans but bigger ones still have advantage (More members - higher chance for better scores).

 

Scoring should look like that in following Tiers:

 

Ghost Clans - That irregular one but clans are small that I would leave normal way of scoring here

Shadow - 11 best scores

Storm - 31 best scores

Mountain - 101 best scores

Moon - 301 best scores

 

 

What do u think about it? I'm waiting for your comments.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Tograk

[Drasiel]

It's not a bad idea, I know that for our clan the massive member gap between the top and bottom of the Moon tier was what made us first decide to cut down members enough to become a mountain clan instead. We just felt we couldn't compete with our 500 memberes (at the time) in any event.

 

This helps smooth out the disadvantage of having a minimum member count while still giving an option for a clan with more members to attempt to get a better score. 

 

take my +1

 

I'd be interested to see any downsides anyone else can see to this.

[Zerrien]

A 1,000 member clan has a clear advantage over a 301 clan. Even though smaller clans can be more elite, the likelihood that a 3x larger clan can beat your scores by sheer population makes this suggestion unworkable.

[Axterix13]

 

Ghost Clans - That irregular one but clans are small that I would leave normal way of scoring here

Shadow - 11 best scores

Storm - 31 best scores

Mountain - 101 best scores

Moon - 301 best scores

 

 

What do u think about it? I'm waiting for your comments.

 

The main problem here I see is for Ghost Clans.  They shouldn't be required to max their size.  And the others could stand to be a bit more than the minimum size.  After all, what's the point to being a Mountain Clan if you're going to have one more member than a Storm clan?  I'd say something more like:

Ghost - 5

Shadow - 15

Storm - 45

Mountain - 140

Moon - 400

 

 

A 1,000 member clan has a clear advantage over a 301 clan. Even though smaller clans can be more elite, the likelihood that a 3x larger clan can beat your scores by sheer population makes this suggestion unworkable.

Someone will always have an edge.  If you do it by the average score across all members, for example, a clan that kicks out anyone that under-performs will have the advantage.

 

With a system like this though, a smaller clan that puts in the effort could beat the bigger clan, since it comes down to the individual scores of its members.

[2ply]

It's not a bad idea, I know that for our clan the massive member gap between the top and bottom of the Moon tier was what made us first decide to cut down members enough to become a mountain clan instead. We just felt we couldn't compete with our 500 memberes (at the time) in any event.

This helps smooth out the disadvantage of having a minimum member count while still giving an option for a clan with more members to attempt to get a better score.

Yes, I agree this type of scoring system could encourage mountain clans to cross the gap and work into the MOON tier.

Our clan was originally auto placed in the Moon tier, We knew that if we wanted to have a fighting chance to compete we would have to develop multiple recruitment efforts outside of the game itself and the Warframe Forums.

Considering these types of recruitment tactics are only a boon for DE due to the fact competitive moon clans are bringing new eyes to Warframe from outside sources daily, I can understand from a business standpoint why DE would prefer to encourage ZERG tactics in scoring as is what we have with the current system.

Having pressure to go outside the game or the Warframe forums to grow a clan to compete is not something I wanted to do.

I don't like the idea of feeling pressure to provide free marketing for Warframe in order to compete effectively.

Aside from that...I'm pretty lazy and I like the idea of getting all my recruits from the source.

I would like to eventually work into the Moon tier, once I feel we have the right number of handlers for our community to flourish beyond our current size. The one thing holding me back would be the current scoring system.

For a mountain clan to break into the moon tier, many progressive steps have to be taken in preparation such as forming sister clans to eventually merge with for the sake of numbers to compete.

Eliminating the strength in the zerg by placing a skill based scoring system that allows for a good deal of community effort to thrive such as the OP has suggested, would enable smaller clans to grow without the certainty that they will have their butts handed to them by default in the next competition.

Not to mention removing the zerg based scoring system will actually make MOON tier competitive instead it being based on who has their hooks in the largest media forum outside of warfame.

I agree with the OP, and I would like to see this type of idea deployed prior to our next competition.

Edited March 15, 2014 by 2ply

[Dreed]

It can't be te sum off all scors from guild members.. sorry always clan who have more ppl in clan will be better...

[Dairkrinn]

Yeah, it would definitely help soothe out the disparities between clans within the same tier, bigger clans would still have and edge but zerg-recruiting will not be an answer anymore, and it would give a chance for the smaller clans to win, even a little one, compared to no chance at all.

I completely agree with that.

[PookieNumnums]

also, it seems quite strange that clans like Warbreed actually have 100 members, all of whom competed, and recieved a high enough score to put them at the top. The likelyhood of 100 active and capable members in a small clan like that is slim to none.

 

How do we know some of the smaller clans arent filled with alternate accounts being carried by their clanmembers?

 

To me, the scoring is completely unfair. Instead of having this leaderboard situation where not only is it unfair and unbalanced, but it is also suggests exploitative methods of scoring abuse, the statues should be available to everyone.

 

The clan statues should be part of the reward tiers, where the requirements are not favoring the larger end of the clan tier spectrum.

[Tograk]

also, it seems quite strange that clans like Warbreed actually have 100 members, all of whom competed, and recieved a high enough score to put them at the top. The likelyhood of 100 active and capable members in a small clan like that is slim to none.

 

1. How do we know some of the smaller clans arent filled with alternate accounts being carried by their clanmembers?

 

2. To me, the scoring is completely unfair. Instead of having this leaderboard situation where not only is it unfair and unbalanced, but it is also suggests exploitative methods of scoring abuse, the statues should be available to everyone.

 

The clan statues should be part of the reward tiers, where the requirements are not favoring the larger end of the clan tier spectrum.

 

ad 1

Such accounts are clan leaders problems. With good clan management u can avoid situations like this.

 

ad 2

U can buy statues in dojo. This rewards are specials like olympic medals. It can be only one best clan, so... Giving them too everyone doesnt make sens for me.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Tograk

[Drasiel]

The main problem here I see is for Ghost Clans.  They shouldn't be required to max their size.  And the others could stand to be a bit more than the minimum size.  After all, what's the point to being a Mountain Clan if you're going to have one more member than a Storm clan?  I'd say something more like:

Ghost - 5

Shadow - 15

Storm - 45

Mountain - 140

Moon - 400

 

 

Someone will always have an edge.  If you do it by the average score across all members, for example, a clan that kicks out anyone that under-performs will have the advantage.

 

With a system like this though, a smaller clan that puts in the effort could beat the bigger clan, since it comes down to the individual scores of its members.

 

That makes a lot of sense. having the numbers sit more in the middle of each range is a good suggestion. +1

[nekrojiji]

Why not take the individual score and average that?! for any clan!?

 

Why would a 300 member clan have more points than a 10 man clan just because it has  290 more people in it?!

[Tograk]

It was time when average was scoring system, but it was too good for smaller clans.

 

We are not comparing 300 people to 10, we are comparing clans in one Tier.

 

 

I was also thinking about taking number of people somewhere in the middle.

[Gurzil]

also, it seems quite strange that clans like Warbreed actually have 100 members, all of whom competed, and recieved a high enough score to put them at the top. The likelyhood of 100 active and capable members in a small clan like that is slim to none.

 

How do we know some of the smaller clans arent filled with alternate accounts being carried by their clanmembers?

 

To me, the scoring is completely unfair. Instead of having this leaderboard situation where not only is it unfair and unbalanced, but it is also suggests exploitative methods of scoring abuse, the statues should be available to everyone.

 

The clan statues should be part of the reward tiers, where the requirements are not favoring the larger end of the clan tier spectrum.

Wow, this hate is still on me because I put him on ignore?

 

You want to know how I was able to compete in my tier, at seemingly max capacity, and get scores?

 

I drive my members. I accept no one in my clan not giving 100% to an event. Me, and my leaders, check with everyone on their progress. We look at their profiles to see if their scores could be better, we take them on extra runs if need be, scratching out every point possible. If I have inactives, via my clan rules they know they can be replaced, so I am likely to recruit new talent during an event, etc. 

 

I lead my clan to victory, or defeat, and so far it's been victory. 

 

Far from invincible, far from the greatest Warlord ever, farrrr from exploits, hacks, or cheating.

 

I actually lead my clan.

 

I can't believe T4LCOM really wants to point my clan out. He's just butt hurt because I put him on ignore in January.

 

He seriously needs to get a life.

 

Man crush much?

[Gurzil]

I agree scoring does need some changing, but it depends on the event.

 

Gradivus seemed one way to avoid alt accounts being used, due to the number of runs required.

 

Cicero started out as an average, and many clans kicked members out to attain the average.

 

Tethra was almost legit, but left room for alt accounts to be used.

 

I'm sure it's a difficult situation for DE, as much as it is for the clans that wind up against clans that play dirty.

 

I enjoy the events, and their rewards. It's a great time for clan activity, and though hectic at times, it's a rush.

 

I wish there was a fix-all for the situation, but it really seems, it would have to be event specific.

[Tograk]

Actually most fair one is grinding, but I dont know why DE resigned from it. I think its because of crying (They actually do almost everything when noobs cry) but that's only my theory.

 

In grinding small clans can fight with bigger ones when they have small numbers but active players.

Eg during Gradivus CKY with no more than 50 players easly destroyed their Tier, because players grinded they &#! to death. That's what's called Quality over Quantity.

[Gurzil]

^