Quest Kings

Bring up a good point. 20 for Magatia PQ? That is insane. How about if you take out Event reached 101 by a certain point, add a certain amount. 25 should be good. Subtract all thanksgiving unfair quest's 'cept one, because it should still count that you did it at all. And stuff like that.

If these event quests were removed, some of these people wouldn't be on there. If you're concerned that you can't be on there without the event quests, the average mapler has about 40~60 event quests. I have only 39. You can easily be on that list by doing the quests you already have. Look at the difference between rank 1 and rank 25. A whole 88 quest margin for you to fall in. I'd say that the system is pretty lenient with that huge of a range.

Maybe Harronized should do something like

1) Quester-404 quests Completed All Completable Quests for his Level
2) Chinchilla-403 quests
3) Steve-395 quests Completed All Completable Quests for his Level
4) Argh-382 quests Completed All Completable Quests for his Level

The people who didn't complete all of their available quests (can be easily checked by people screenshotting their "Available" and "In Progress") don't get the bolded/italized/whatever header, such as Chinchilla in my example. You can change the header to anything you want. I just improvised a sentence lol.

Just an idea :f6:.

What's the point...?
Most of the people can't complete the Horntail quests, and I'm certainly not removing that as a requirement because it is completable, and I only remove or add quests if they're glitched and it's completely not your fault that you didn't finish it.

What about Maple Island quests we can never do? What about Cupid courier which jumps right back to available each day?

If I were to implement such a system, I'd allow these quests to pass. However, most people still wouldn't get this acknowledgment because they cannot finish Horntail, and as I said again, I'm not removing Horntail from that system that ClawofBeta proposed.

When I say Completable, well, I say completable. :f6: This means Maple Island Quests are not completable at this time, so you can still have the bold message. For Cupid's Couier, well, I'd leave it out too.

And... again, it doesn't matter. Having the bolded message and not bolded message doesn't affect your ranking numbers.

Geez...all of this fuss about a ranking that doesn't even count that much lol.

Exactly. It's just a fun, friendly competition between players who are enthusiastic about quests. I don't see why everyone is stressing out about it.

These stupid Allowance Event quests are what ruin this ranking. They are so terribly designed that it makes this quest ranking really unfair. Those who did most of them in the first wave = will always be on top, as long as they're high leveled and keep doing the quests. Those who didn't do many in the first wave = will never, ever be able to pass them.

These retarded quests are the biggest factor in deciding who has the higher count in the top-tier, besides Maple Island quests. I have 0 Maple Island quests and only 5 from the first wave of Allowance. Go me! Double score!

The numbers we've all been posting aren't an accurate measure of who is the most dedicated quester. No, they're a measure of dedication + pure luck (started the game late enough to get Maple Island + PQ quests and were able to do Allowance quests). I know that's just the way it is, and I'm merely BAWWWing, but that's why I've always complained about this type of quest ranking.

Oh, and I still refuse to update until Nexon stops being a papaya and fixes the Capt. Latanica glitch.

It's not really about luck. In the end, it does boil down to dedication. Those who simply only have event quests will not make it onto this list. However, even those with lower numbers of event quests can still make it on. Isaac has 80 event quests. The gap between Isaac and the lowest person on the list is 88.
So for the moment, unless people are going to get drastically higher scores, the list is somewhat unbiased as far as the NX card event goes.

I completely agree, as it's so true that those of us who started much earlier and never got the chance to do a lot of lower leveled quests that capped at levels we passed months ago means we can never be on top.

If you notice, like the level ranking system on Nexon's website, the oldest players have the advantage, even though they're lacking major developments in the game. Tiger reached an extremely high level before 2x exp came out. FangBlade undoubtedly trained a lot of his character on Gobies or maybe Himes. Not like today with the bishops leeching the hermits and the 2x exp stacking on with events to make 8x exp in Demethos.

It's synonymous with our rankings, because as you can see, most of the people on the rankings are 4th job, signifying that they started early on. Remember that these quests take time to do.

(Heck, I'm doing Sabitrama's Anti-Aging Medicine and have been in there for 27 hours spread out over 4 days. I haven't seen a single pirate yet, nor done any of the new Target quests, nor gathered more crystals. Yet I'm still doing it for that one ranking point. This determination is what will separate the true questers from those merely taking advantage of the lower leveled 'capped' quests.)

However, as the last few posters have said, you might as well keep the list as is. Any ranking thread is INHERENTLY inequal, incomplete, or some other combination of similar terms. Let me repeat that. INHERENTLY inequal, etc. So many issues arise with rank threads that it's best to keep them the way they are (unless someone can come up with a truly novel method of unbiased comparison, similar to Afrobean's matk score formulas), and recognize this aspect of unavoidable disparities.

Afrobean's matk score was not unbiased. It favors the LukLess. Every Luk point you put takes one point off. Thus, if I were to reset all my Luk into my INT, then I'd make it onto the list. It also favors the 'rich and powerful' which was an excuse used by many people when I made my thread about discrimination that I asked Fiel to close because of immature people pissing me off.

However, I wouldn't care. Why? Because it's the best we can come up with. There's no other way, just like with my Quest Kings list, there's no other way.

That's why I didn't just post under announcements: "I will run my rankings the way I want to."
I'm always looking for ways to improve, so please, if you have any better ideas, present it. Must be humanly possible though. I have thought before, of what Isaac wrote...

 quoted from IsaacGS

See the problem with that is it gives a drastic advantage to new players, because of all the quests with max level caps that have been implemented lately. There's 5 or 6 for Pirate PQ, 3 for OPQ, one in Showa, 4 job quests, maple island quests that have been changed out 6+ times, and those are just the ones I can recall off the top of my head. There's more coming, too. There's almost 20 for Magatia PQ. is that fair? what about event quests that came out before the event quest section? Those are listed under Victoria and Ossyria. Should we have to go and root out those? How about job quests? Not every class has the same amount. Don't count those either?

The problem is, there's no better way to do this. I've been talking about it with Mira for a while now, and the best thing we could come up with is to calculate the total number of possible quests based on when someone started their character, when they hit certain landmarks (to judge the availability of said capped quests) and then render it as a percent. The problem with this is it takes an insane amount of work and it requires things we couldn't possibly know (How many quests were available at each and every patch, what quests were added when, detailed information on when people hit certain levels, etc.)

if someone has a better suggestion feel free, but cutting out whole categories seems stupid at this point.

...long before he made that post. However, I'm not willing to devote 2 hours per person (or rather, applicant) on a rankings that, as ClawofBeta agrees, is not that important.

So at this point, in other words, the best Harrisonized could do would be to put a disclaimer after the list saying that it's inherently skewed. Of course, then the list itself loses credibility, and the whole point of putting in the disclaimer is wasted if every other ranking thread in the world doesn't add a disclaimer as well.

No point in that. We know it's skewed. Just like we know Nexon's rankings are screwed as well. (Because of creation dates and actual dates achieved 200, and when 2x cards were released, ect.)

So, again, if anyone has any LOGICAL ideas, please post. Otherwise, don't rant.