[Suggestion] Either Limit Clansizes Or Implement Size-Based Brackets @ Leaderboards

[Marijan]

Hi there,

 

I would like to suggest to limit the number of members a clan can have, to something between 30 and 100 or alternatively divide clans by their size (e.g. <20, 20-50, 50-100, 100+ or something like that).

The reason I'm suggesting this kind of limitation or division is the leaderboards of the Fusion Moa Operation [ https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/40537-fusion-moa-operation-leaderboards/ ], which should be similar or equal to future ones.

 

The current leaderboard of clans is completely meaningless, because the sizes of the clans vary way too much. It's no surprise that "Warbros", which is one of the biggest clans with 400+ members, got the 1st rank, because they simply had the most players participating. A clan of that size can't be compared to a much smaller one, whose members might have put much more effort into an event and actually achieved way more per player than the bigger clans did.

 

So in order to make future leaderboards really informative about the "Top Clans", the number of members a clan can have should be either limited (which might complement the upcoming trading system as well, which is supposed to enable trading between clan-mates, because people might create/join huge mass-clans for the sole purpose of trading otherwise), which would make it possible to compare them to each other, or to divide clans by their size (which clans that want to stay small would benefit from).

[Ced23Ric]

A larger group can achieve more than a smaller group. Where is the mispresentation?

[Archistopheles]

Or just make leaderboards average out # of kills / number of players

 

 

400 players, 5000 kills vs 100 players, 3000 kills

 

3000/100 wins

[Venarge]

I dont see the problem... You want to restrict clans because there are ones that actually have many members and that small clans were no match for them.... there wasnt even any intention to make this a competition. They only said that the best might get something when the even was almost over....

[Venarge]

A larger group can achieve more than a smaller group. Where is the mispresentation?

Exactly!

[CapricaSix]

Rather than limiting the clan size, maybe they could turn it into another money sink, every clan starts with 5 members, you upgrade for a certain amount of credits and increase it to 10, 20, 40, 80, 150, 200 and so on. The higher it goes, the more expensive it gets.

[Firebat86]

For future things too, they could somehow base it off of total clan member contribution.  AKA total number of MOA's killed divided by number of clan members.  Gives equal footing for the smaller clans etc.  I do support the idea of limiting clans to 50-100 members since it is a four play coop game, the clans that have 400+ players aren't exactly a tight knit group and can more or less be considered a "zerg" guild so they can rush things in the dojo/top leaderboards to get the special dojo stuff etc.

[liavalenth]

A larger group can achieve more than a smaller group. Where is the mispresentation?

This is exactly the point. You do not try to compare professional sports teams to high school sports teams, nor high school sports teams to elementry school teams.

 

I do not necessarily agree Marijan, but I do understand the reasoning.

[MyHeroPatrickSwayze]

[Vilemike]

As long as rewards are given based on individual performance, why would it matter what clan was on top?

[Marijan]

A larger group can achieve more than a smaller group. Where is the mispresentation?

 

If a trading system between clan-mates is implemented and more events with leaderboards are coming, people will be more interested in clans and join the leading and big ones, for trading purposes and because they enjoy being part of the "leading" or "Top Clans". We will end up with huge clans with such huge amounts of members, that it's impossible to know even half of them, which will dominate the leaderboards simply because of their size, although other players might put much more effort into events etc.. Is this the point of a clan-system? I prefer quality over quantity.

 

 

Or just make leaderboards average out # of kills / number of players

 

 

400 players, 5000 kills vs 100 players, 3000 kills

 

3000/100 wins

 

I thought about that as well, but I'm not sure if this wouldn't make clans too competitive. If you have let's say 37 members, which are actively participating in events, an additional one won't lower your "score" or "rank" in the leaderboards, as long as you don't hit a specific cap of members in total. If your actual achievements are divided by the number of members, adding an additional member, who might be less active or good will lower your score ... but I agree with your indication that 3000/100 is a greater achievement than 5000/400 for example, which is why I'm suggesting this.

[Thraxen]

Except the Clan in second place apparently has more members than Warbros, so it's not exactly entirely down to membership. Even so, a dedicated smaller clan could easily outshine a larger, more unfocused clan in operations.

 

Anwyay, the only reward from the operation was kudos so it's not exactly a huge blow to other clans.

[BiggsVIII]

Hi there,

 

I would like to suggest to limit the number of members a clan can have, to something between 30 and 100 or alternatively divide clans by their size (e.g. <20, 20-50, 50-100, 100+ or something like that).

The reason I'm suggesting this kind of limitation or division is the leaderboards of the Fusion Moa Operation [ https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/40537-fusion-moa-operation-leaderboards/ ], which should be similar or equal to future ones.

 

The current leaderboard of clans is completely meaningless, because the sizes of the clans vary way too much. It's no surprise that "Warbros", which is one of the biggest clans with 400+ members, got the 1st rank, because they simply had the most players participating. A clan of that size can't be compared to a much smaller one, whose members might have put much more effort into an event and actually achieved way more per player than the bigger clans did.

 

So in order to make future leaderboards really informative about the "Top Clans", the number of members a clan can have should be either limited (which might complement the upcoming trading system as well, which is supposed to enable trading between clan-mates, because people might create/join huge mass-clans for the sole purpose of trading otherwise), which would make it possible to compare them to each other, or to divide clans by their size (which clans that want to stay small would benefit from).

You just don't have the same inspiration as we do. Row row fight the power.

[Sherbniz]

Well, I think it may be pretty nice if clans were divided into different, smaller units like Platoons. That way they could not only be easier organized, but competition between Platoons from different clans could be fairer.

 

But overall, that a bigger clan has an advantage... I think it's good for competition!
 

Maybe some smaller clans will have to bind together under a new warlord to gain more weight in challenges.

[Venarge]

If a trading system between clan-mates is implemented and more events with leaderboards are coming, people will be more interested in clans and join the leading and big ones, for trading purposes and because they enjoy being part of the "leading" or "Top Clans". We will end up with huge clans with such huge amounts of members, that it's impossible to know even half of them, which will dominate the leaderboards simply because of their size, although other players might put much more effort into events etc.. Is this the point of a clan-system? I prefer quality over quantity.

So a huge clan doesnt have quality?

Its your opinion about this topic, but please dont expect that huge clans are only leading because they are huge.

And this works the same way in any other MMO....

[Marijan]

Except the Clan in second place apparently has more members than Warbros, so it's not exactly entirely down to membership. Even so, a dedicated smaller clan could easily outshine a larger, more unfocused clan in operations.

 

Anwyay, the only reward from the operation was kudos so it's not exactly a huge blow to other clans.

 

It was mentioned somewhere that those "Top Clans" might get something for the soon-to-come Dojo, which might not be a "huge blow" to other clans, but sucks if you actually put more effort into the event, but were outshined by clans twenty times your size.

 

I'm aware of that a small and dedicated group of ambitious players can achieve more than an unorganized mob, althought it might have more members, but that's only possible to a specific degree and clans will be more popular in the future, when the Dojo, trading and more events are implemented, which make them actually useful. The mass-clans will grow even further and I'm afraid that "clans" with more than 1000 members are going to dominate the leaderboards, which will result in more rewards and cause even more players to join them. The members of those clans won't even know a majority of their clan-mates.

 

So a huge clan doesnt have quality?

Its your opinion about this topic, but please dont expect that huge clans are only leading because they are huge.

And this works the same way in any other MMO....

 

I didn't say big clans are necessarily "worse" than small ones, but that they can't be compared currently, which puts all smaller clans in a disadvantage and will result in huge mass-clans eventually.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Marijan

[Ferghus]

Rather than limiting the clan size, maybe they could turn it into another money sink, every clan starts with 5 members, you upgrade for a certain amount of credits and increase it to 10, 20, 40, 80, 150, 200 and so on. The higher it goes, the more expensive it gets.

I'm fairly sure there is going to be a limit on the number of players that can be in a clan dojo at any given time. Why not pay additional materials to upgrade the tier/level of the dojo rooms to accommodate larger numbers of concurrent players? For example:

Initial room being built - 5000 of each generic material + 50k credits, 2 day craft time, 10 max concurrent members

First upgrade to room - 10000 of each generic material + 100k credits, 3 day craft time, 25 max concurrent members

Second upgrade to room - 25000 of each generic material + 250k credits, 4 day craft time, 50 max concurrent members

If an 11th clan member tried to join an initially built room that already has 10 players in it, he would get put into a queue or be given an error message stating the clan dojo is full. Alternatively, the maximum capacity of the dojo could be proportional to the number of rooms your dojo contains, requiring the larger clans to create considerably larger dojos with multiple cosmetic rooms.

 

Something like this would address the issue of smaller clans complaining about larger clans having an advantage. Clans could all procure the resources for the initial features easily enough, but larger clans would be inconvenienced by it until they spent the additional resources necessary to expand their dojos. Limiting the number of actual members in a clan wouldn't make sense, as a number of clans would already exceed the arbitrary limit, and DE would have to work around that.

[Venarge]

It was mentioned somewhere that those "Top Clans" might get something for the soon-to-come Dojo, which might not be a "huge blow" to other clans, but sucks if you actually put more effort into the event, but were outshined by clans twenty times your size.

 

I'm aware of that a small and dedicated group of ambitious players can achieve more than an unorganized mob, althought it might have more members, but that's only possible to a specific degree and clans will be more popular in the future, when the Dojo, trading and more events are implemented, which make them actually useful. The mass-clans will grow even further and I'm afraid that "clans" with more than 1000 members are going to dominate the leaderboards, which will result in more rewards and cause even more players to join them. The members of those clans won't even know a majority of their clan-mates.

So what. If you decide to create a small clan for your own privileged group, you cant expect to have the same rewards a huge 100+ people clan gets. Thats simply not how it works. Or do you expect to build a house without any help in the same time a huge company does with 100+ employees?

[DarthRevan84]

So what. If you decide to create a small clan for your own privileged group, you cant expect to have the same rewards a huge 100+ people clan gets. Thats simply not how it works. Or do you expect to build a house without any help in the same time a huge company does with 100+ employees?

 

Exactly. Couldnt have said it better Venarge.

[Ced23Ric]

At the end of the day, this is David asking Goliath to stop working out. If you look at EVE, GuildWars, WoW, etc. pp. the bigger clans have the advantage of manhours and the plight of organization. Since this is a PvE game, and no clan of 400 will PvP against a clan of 20 in CvC, the call for limitied clan sizes is a moot one.

 

Performance awards have been passed out based on individuals, not on clans. And even if clans do get awards later, from a strategical standpoint, they have done more. Quantity is a simple force determination. 200 carriers that carry 3 buckets each still get more done than 30 carriers carrying 19 buckets each. Now, you might say that those 30 carriers are beasts, and you would be right.

 

But in a war effort, the Lotus will probably lean closer towards the 200 carrying 3 buckets.

[Marijan]

At the end of the day, this is David asking Goliath to stop working out. If you look at EVE, GuildWars, WoW, etc. pp. the bigger clans have the advantage of manhours and the plight of organization. Since this is a PvE game, and no clan of 400 will PvP against a clan of 20 in CvC, the call for limitied clan sizes is a moot one.

 

Performance awards have been passed out based on individuals, not on clans. And even if clans do get awards later, from a strategical standpoint, they have done more. Quantity is a simple force determination. 200 carriers that carry 3 buckets each still get more done than 30 carriers carrying 19 buckets each. Now, you might say that those 30 carriers are beasts, and you would be right.

 

But in a war effort, the Lotus will probably lean closer towards the 200 carrying 3 buckets.

 

Nope, David had a chance to beat Goliath. There won't be a way for the small "David"-clans to compete with clans with multiple thousand members, regardless of how much effort they put into it. As far as I know games like Guild Wars and World of Warcraft limit the number of members a guild can have (in WoW it's somewhere between 600-1000 players if I'm informed right, which is alright since the community is much bigger in general), which is necessary in order to make them comparable to each other. There is competition between those guilds and clans, e.g. leaderboards, but there is no point in competing with each other when a few of them dominate everything simply by their numbers, which grants them additional benefits and causes even more players to join (which will be attracted to those big clans with more people to trade with anyway), which will result in a vicious circle. Furthermore clans are a way for players to socialize, which is barely possible if there are multiple thousand players in your clan. A majority of them will be and stay a bunch of random people for you, because it's impossible to get to know all of them and the clan chat won't be a big difference to the global chat at all.

[Baigan]

The problem about that player/kill ratio is not competitivity, but you put a larger, herculean, task at a larger clan, where -everybody- has to kill more to for the clan itself to remain competitive. Its easier to  have 10 people attend an event than 40. It's easier for 20 people to achieve a reasonable quota than 400. Thus in larger clans, dedicated players would literally have to work their brains out to compensate for a much larger amount of people than in a smaller clan.

 

We literally could a clan of 3 very dedicated people killing what, 300 moas and be the first, and that's not much at all in the course of a weekend. How likely is it that 100 people in a clan would all be able to kill those 300? What if some of em are friends and family? What if some people could not attend the event, not only losing the reward but also dragging down the clan itself? Why does this even matter?

Edited May 9, 2013 by Baigan

[Marijan]

The problem about that player/kill ratio is not competitivity, but you put a larger task at a larger clan, where everybody has to kill more to for the clan itself to remain competitive. We literally could a clan of 3 very dedicated people killing what, 300 moas and be the first, and that's not much at all in the course of a weekend. How likely is it that 100 people in a clan would all be able to kill those 300? What if some of em are friends and family? What if some people could not attend the event, not only losing the reward but also dragging down the clan itself? Why does this even matter?

 

That's the reason why I didn't suggest that, but a limitation of the amount of members a clan can have or to divide clans by their sizes. I would appreciate it if people would actually read my posts.

[Baigan]

That's the reason why I didn't suggest that, but a limitation of the amount of members a clan can have or to divide clans by their sizes. I would appreciate it if people would actually read my posts.

 

 

Hm, you're not the only person who posted in this topic, OP. I would appreciate if you'd take context and read into what was posted thus far.

[Ced23Ric]

Dissecting this really quick ...

 

1.) David beats Goliath through cunning and superior application of tactics. He didn't grow in size, neither did Goliath shrink. What I am saying is, if those 30 carriers can manage to do 20 instead of 19 buckets and just one more, they'll come out on top. Regardless, the will have to invest more/apply different strategies to be victorious. The analogy holds true. And sometimes, 10 buddies playing casually are just not going to be able to keep up with 400 players, out of which 300 slack and 100 pull their weight. Because it's still 100 vs. 10 putting in work. Larger clans aren't automatically less industrious - if anything, their quantity of quality players is higher, because of empirical spread. At this point, you are asking for a larger number of players investing the same work individually as a smaller group to be denied their unified effort. Without any gain to you.

 

2.) The average guildsize of WoW, after removing outliers, is ~25, if I recall correctly. How does 25 compare to 1000? If anything, those numbers help opposing opinions, since the majority (count, quantity) of guilds are not even remotely as large as the "big" ones. Same with other games mentioned. Those limitations are almost always technical, to reduce strain of database calls. But even that has no meaning.

 

3.) Your interpretation of what clans are for are valid for you, but not for every player. You don't get to decide how a clan is right and how a clan is wrong. People can very well join a clan without knowng the entirety of it, by working in autonomous or organized cells. For example, the clan "TAW" (The Art of Warfare) is a clan that sends around 50 to 100 players into various games, and those only know each other via the tag - but they organize in fireteams, platoons and battalions, operate with hierarchies and achieve their goals. You don't have to copy this or like it, but it is a completely valid approach.