Super Friends and SuperFriends. Thx!
⌠we are all in the same group of friends (ie the fellowship) there is nothing wrong with what J/arrker is doing. he isnt only doing something to benefit himself. I honestly cant see what the problem is here.
and yes please lets get back on topic instead of making up silly problems
Which one would be the one that shows up? Super Friends, I take it?
Yeah - the one with the space.
Done. Migrated all the runs from SuperFriends to Super Friends, as well as the members and linked those two together
2 Likes
yeeey congrats super friends 
2 Likes
Awesome work guys!!!
2 Likes
I kind of agree. Dont get me wrong, i dont really have an issue with the idea of having an âAllianceâ rank, which could consist of multiple in game fellowships, but i think it should be noted somehow. Maybe next to the fellowship/alliance name there could be a number of players who actually participated in the runs contributing to their score.
Not that any of it really matters all that much, and in fact i feel like having fewer players to have to learn to play with is actually advantageous (assuming you can all have the same raiding schedule) But, if i saw that the two top alliances were tied for score, and one of them only had 5 players, while the other had 100, i would feel like the 5 were much more bad ass, and i feel like bad assery counts for something.
1 Like
upon second thought, i dont know if i like the idea of showing the amount of players âcontributingâ to the scoring runs⌠ignores the fact that some players may not like to/be able to(for whatever reason) raid, but may really be into fishing/farming/selling/whatever, and that stuff certainly can contribute. I know i would love to have a person who just really loved to fish in the guildâŚ
2 Likes
I think the general concern is the armory is presented and received as an âunofficially officialâ leaderboard (like the unofficial Orbus discord). Any information displayed on the armory is viewed as undisputed fact by the majority who view it while some players feel information is being misrepresented or displayed in a bias manner, the vast majority wouldnât know the difference. In this regard itâs difficult to just ânot use itâ.
Would it be better to have the community work together to make it a system everyone can agree on? I donât know. Thatâs just my understanding of whatâs going on.
2 Likes
After careful consideration of the feedback, we have decided that this is not an issue.
Thanks
Back to that post with the breakdown numbers I think these are clear and easy to understand. And I find it a very good change because people will likely try to spread out to all the different instances like âhey, we donât have any Forest T8 cleared yet, ever, letâs try that todayâ.
Which is a good thing for guilds, not only for scores and rankings - who cares, iâm somewhat stuck on T5, you guys with the T10 sure are all awesome 
- but also for the practice and fun.
1 Like
Thanks Alice.
Yes we believe that Rileyâs intention is for us to help test out the content to the max. To do that we should be encouraged to clear as much content as possible. Ratings based on content cleared for us seems more and more relevant the more people are playing.
There will always be new ways of quantifying progress (there are a 1001 ways) and we are trying to keep it as neutral as possible. We are constantly discussing how to improve that quantification further but of course we have other goals for the armory not just quantification of progression. That is one of a few things we are working on.
Please do continue giving feedback and helping us improve.
Hi Logan,
This is exactly what we are trying to do. I am acting as a PM of the sorts on this project and listening to all the feedback wrote here⌠Of course we get tons of feedback in private messages.
Every change we make we are careful to not add any bias⌠If there are any issues that get highlighted that the game system does not have, we try to make it clear as to what we have done to cover that.
The Armory itself uses raw API data from the public API provided by the Orbus dev team and we then turn that in to a UI that can meaningfully represent player activity within Orbus. If something is deemed âmeaningfulâ and the impact, our confidence and the effort required indicates so, we generally try to action it as something to help make the game more fun for everyone. Of course it will never be perfect for everyone, but we want to make it inclusive for as many as possible.
Thanks,
Any collection of factual data can be skewed depending on how it is presented. The only way to make sure it is honest, is to show how it is being collected, and be clear on how they are using it. This discussion is part of that. They also spell it out in the FAQ. I have never played a game where rankings werenât disputed because of one thing or another. I feel its unrealistic to have that expectation.
I also think its important to understand that the choices being made on how rankings are determined have the ability to actually change how the game is played. Something as simple as requiring a full 5/5 members in a dungeon run for it to counts towards a certain fellowships score, has the ability to break LFG, and fundamentally change the social aspects of the game. Things like this need to be taken into account.
2 Likes
While this specific topic is already closed I would still love to express my thoughts on the matter. It definitely felt strange when the two alphabet fellowships were combined, however if you think about it from a player perspective it does reduce a lot of headaches. Since we have a lot of people playing the game, some more regurarly than others (but they do still stay in the fellowship). The limit on a single fellowship is actually not large. With all these people if we were to have them in a single fellowship how would we go about it? Take the most active ones but leave some of our regurals without a guild? While they may all be playing with us and be friends they will feel as if they are outsiders. Same with having a second fellowship act as a double, if it werent under one flag it would count as some kind of demotion, to be exiled into some overflow guild. I think merging does give a sense of belonging, even if our in game guild name is separate.
Obviously this is my own stand point, and you are free to agree or disagree with anything written here.
2 Likes
Fair points. Ideally a âcompetitorâ wouldnât have 100% oversight of a leaderboard though. The recent changes improved the leaderboard ownerâs score by a large margin while reducing the existing leaderâs. Changing the rules mid game moves the goal posts.
Additive arithmetics can be difficult, but believe it or not, 10710 is more than 10090. You gained points, as well as got a greater lead on Alphabet by 10 points.
7/5 bait, would feed the troll again
2 Likes
I get that its frustrating to have a competitor be in charge of something that affects you. Ideally the game developers would do all this stuff, but thats not how it works in most games. The game developers are developing the game, and this game in particular needs that desperately. (10 mans are going to be dope!) This is extra stuff that the community wants. If nobody wanted/cared about it, it wouldnât be such a big deal.
I have to point out though, that this leader-board, created by your competitors is putting YOU in first place. Even with the changes, you are still in first place. Do you have any criticism of the formula used, and recommendations of how it might be better?
Iâm hoping @Riley_D just tells @Damage_Da_Mage to create a leaderboard on their website for 10-mans. 10-man progress will be much easier to track and wonât be the nightmare that shard dungeons are to track due to the RNG nature of it.
3 Likes