Corps should be ranked only by their performance in corp battles. Pub stats show nothing.

This isn't a good way to judge either. Only takes 8 people right now - not hard to field a leet team to pwn while your average members get owned in pubs.

This isn't a good way to judge either. Only takes 8 people right now - not hard to field a leet team to pwn while your average members get owned in pubs.

We could always rank corp on their ability to lose a corp battle so they can make isk in FW. How does that sound SoTa?

Bullshit public stats don't matter in ranking corps. As long as it only take 8/16/24/32 to take a district thats all that will matter.

I mean war ponits/ kills/ wins/ are just a summation of all its members. You think FW milita or nullsec fo rthat matter is going to pay corp based upon there total kills in pub matches vs corp battle record?

Based upon your thinking should a fw milita hire Zion TCD or Imperfects to take districts for them?

/me wins at interweb

Last statement is hard to answer. Zions decent enough and we can take 3 planets at once which would make any employer happy. But at the same time we would lose an entire planet if the imperfects stepped in. If the question is "Where do EvE corps look to find potentially skilled dust mercs." I'd say the average KDR would be your best bet. Otherwise their is layers to EvE side decisions. Like if they want this to be a campaigned event. Then imperfects wouldn't be the corp of choice - Zion would be more suited. But if they're looking to take a high priority planet expected to have heavy resistance - send the imperfects.

As for your first line - I think it's important that corps have a W/L tracking there corp battles so buyers can see what they're getting. Zion may win 100 corp battles but if they're done vs scrubs it should be recorded and noted.

I had so much more to say but alcohol fuzzes my mind

So let me break this down for you.

1- Zion TCD and the quantity to take 3 planets not the quality.

2- Imperfects and other corps like us that focus on quality will be able to acheive wins the majority of the time. When FW or nullsec alliances put billions of isk in fleets above the planet to support with OB and fight off other fleets they will want a higher rate of success then zion tcd can offer.

example zion tcd is paid to take a planet. planet owners contract imps, bunnies, syners, SI, WTF to defend planet. zion TCD goes 0-14. See corps dont have to be big to take/defend planets. The people that own will find the quality one to take and defend them.

3 so based on 1 and 2 above who should be ranked higher Zion tcd because of numbers or the other 5 corps that have less kills in public matches but just sent you home with a 0-14.

Honestly? I completely agree.

iReporters, share your answers to the following:

1) There have been some questions raised about how Corporations should be ranked, specifically in the objective format that gives all players a realistic understanding of what they're getting into and who they are looking at. What specifically do you disagree with regarding a Points-Only perspective or a comparison of Points-To-Kills?

2) What certain skill bases do you think naturally draw more points and thus probably favoritism within the Corporate system in general?

3) What sort of 3-way comparison do you think would suit corporations best? 3-way referring to a comparison between Size, Points, and overall Kills?

Thats pretty much all that I heard. Your a good dude SoTa no harm in playing the game differently. You like to dress up in fat suits in video games I prefer normal sized suits. Could you imagine the LARP version of dust? It would be an epic tragedy

Could Zion, SI, SyN, IMP, Bunnies, and WTF list their membership numbers?

Or.. you could get into dat metagame and start finding out yourself? :D

So tired of all these people trying to rank the corps currently in game.

First off, DON'T use any of the in-game stats/leaderboards.

Second, if you want to make a proper ranking it can't just be the writer's opinion, ya thats cool and we have had plenty of threads like that but if you want to properly rate a team you need a group of very experienced competitive players(pref. leaders of the top corps) to rank the teams.

Third, you need a rating system, a proper one on how you/your judges would rate the teams.

Fourth, you need to actually be able to bring together a lot of people who dont get along, to get along and rate corps un-biased. Which in this community i can't ever see happening... lol

So ya i guess we will just keep doing these rankings based on whatever one person thinks.(i.e dusters)

Total WP divided by the number of members...

i feel that if there was a corp rank system that would be a good indication to boycott any "leet" teams.
you see their match you can go ahead and skip out on facing them because why waste the resources for a known loss.
like playing a fighting game, you don't want to play with the person who plays it all day. only the people who play like they do will bother playing.

skip out of facing them sure the "leet" corp might think you are a coward but you get to keep more of your isk. and that is what the game is about.

especially in these small matches with pathetic numbers. why would i want to have 8 vs 8 when i know they are going to be min maxed off eachothers abilities using 8 prototype heavy suits with 8 prototype mass drivers with 8 prototype locus grenades.

not worth it and a waste of time unless you are doing the same thing than more power to you.

So you wouldn't fight any of the "good" corps?

the pub stomp is stong in this one.

So you wouldn't fight any of the "good" corps?

Exactly, thats what I have been saying.. But with out the amount of players in each corp all stats are meaningless.

Exactly, thats what I have been saying.. But with out the amount of players in each corp all stats are meaningless.

What about WP divided by Member numbers, then some way to factor in Average corp KDR? Such as adding the Average KDR, or multiplying by it...?

Just reached 20 members last night... I wouldn't say we have enough players. But on the CORP leader boards, surprisingly we are not too far behind.