zvonimir - Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: Antidynasty Certainly gave you see that there are dynasty, which have one or two members.How is it dynasty?I him call name antidynasty. I think that dynasty, which has less than six members should not (could) take part in the overall state of dynasty.Such dynasty will not accept new members already healed frustration from the former dynasty that could not be number one.Them establish dynasty with another strong member of the goal to reach the first position by ave dynasty. Their only aim is to be number one not choosing methods.To is not good for new members to Yarold. With time up to lose the entire Yarold and no one gets. 1.MMC UBC And itself ,pray Yarold that reveals about it, what thoughts on such dynasty? 2.MMC UBC gives deadline of 3 days dynasty less than 6 members to receive more than 5 members in dynasty otherwise we will be forced stop alliance with them .. 3. I prayed the other dynasty to say what you think about small dynasty(antidynasty). Conclusion: dynasty less than 6 members can not have a calculation of average as other real dynasty. Jeanne - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:14 am I too am against the system being abused but you can't say that dynasties with less than 5-6 members can't have their average calculated how will a new starting dynasty then ever make it? And sometimes it takes abusing the system to show the decision makers that something is wrong. There could be separate ranking lists - 1 for small dynasties less than 10-15 members maybe or ..... when you leave a dynasty your average, that you have worked up in that dynasty, drops to zero so when you join a dynasty you have to start from scratch - something that would have stopped your dynasty from being where you are today I know - but will also stop the small 1-2-4- man dynasties from just popping up with high aves in a few days. zvonimir - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:21 am I know that you can calculate the average for any number of members but this should be prohibited .. Dynasty with few members should be eligible to compete separately .. DemonicJ - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:22 am ok Zvon, I thank you in advance for you alliance. As I am one of the 3 allies (net freaks & happy clickers being the other 2) you have under your new imposed limit of 6 members. Now let me give you the flip side to your argument. Your happy to support bigger dynasties & not help new dynasties. How is this good to new members of yarolds that want to start a new dynasty? Or are you saying its ok to ally with them till they look like passing your dynasty average? I am trying to recruit, but greed has become such a huge thing here with bigger dynasties running comps for credits for doing all sorts of things, improve ave, improve care, beat the record etc. Makes it very hard for smaller dynasties to compete when there are big dynasties throwing thousands of credits around every day dont you think? My dynasty, Eternity, was not set up to be a number 1 dynasty contender. If it becomes one shouldnt that be a credit to the dynasty & its allies? So yes your subject for this is right, you appear to be antidynasty to anyone that may challenge you for top of the table DemonicJ - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:36 am
when you left a dynasty you did have your average reset to 0, but that created its own problems back then! If I remember correctly, UBC started with high average members & only a few members & there average jumped up rather quickly too! Guess whats good for some isnt good for others? MUSHpark - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: Re: Antidynasty
Why 6? Why not 7? Or 5? Or 3? Or 10? Or 20? I think we all generally agree that it's very easy for a "dynasty" with a very small number of members to reach the top if they get the right set of allies. But I think we all disagree on what "very small number" means. If that number is bigger than 4, then it's clearly someone angry of the size of the current dynasty at the top of the rankings. Or one rapidly rising through the rankings that will overtake them. Perhaps sour grapes that they are #2? The current dynasty ranking system is not "antidynasty" it is "antinewbie". I have recently started taking on a lot of newbies, and my dynasty's average has suffered for it. As you imply, the dynasties with small membership making it to the top are doing so without taking on new members. Most of the ones at the top took transfers from other dynasties who already had a high average, or have been around a very long time. I think the system should be changed to reward both size and the top clickers, and not make a penalty when a dynasty accepts a newcomer who clicks well but has a "1" average because they just joined. The old dynasty system which rewarded bigger dynasty size by fixing the # of allies did that. The new system encourages lots of tiny dynasties and leaves newbies to hunt for a larger dynasty that doesn't compete for the top spot. But until everyone can agree on what's the right size for a dynasty, we're not going to fix this. DemonicJ - Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:05 am
Yes im sensing its more about the sour grapes than anything else. If the top dynasty had 9 members would "anit dynasties' be those under 10? :roll: bailey - Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:19 am i dont have a problem with dynasties under 6, single member dynasties are wasting there own time but if you were to reach the highest peak of the dynasty average mountain then the strength of that dynasty should be by the numbers it holds, if not then you have achieved what i think is a small victory, an easy victory, i still have no problem in letting them have there time at the top but to stretch themselves a little more by trying to add more members DemonicJ - Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:30 am
So well said Ash. If an under 6 member dynasty can make it to the top, yes it is a very hollow victory. When a larger dynasty can do it then it is a bigger acheivement. The other point worth making is that some bigger dynasties only take on the under 6's out of greed anyways. Net freaks shows all links during happy hours (thats 40 links) & I know we do as well (thats 20 links). In total thats 60 extra links a day for those in bigger dynasties that can click them. Or put another way thats an extra +6 to personal average to every member that can click them (every 10 dynasty clicks = 1 point on personal average)! Calculate what that might do to your dynasty average if they arent there & the next biggest dynasty keeps the under 6's DaBabes City - Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: Re: Antidynasty
Our dynasty has had four members for months, and we have worked our way to being the "First to 500!" meaning the first Dynasty willing to work hard enough to attain a 500 average. We added a great clicker who has helped us, but another super one has left. We are actively recruiting more members, as we have been all along. Some people respect that we show more active links daily than some dynasties four or five times our size. Most have congratulated us graciously as our average surpassed theirs. Personally I am proud of our achievements, but then I know the thousands of hours of work! turdkey - Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:57 am This thread shows how well the changes worked! Now we no longer have 5 super dynasties we have newer smaller ones popping up all the time. I am still waiting to see if a single member dynasty ever reaches the top though. Let's all be happy we have somewhere to click in the first place! Ferrari - Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:18 am Of course a single member dynasty will reach the top 
If i make a dynasty now, and take no members, but have enough allies than i can reach the top, look to Eternity they are now 5, tomorrow 4 (than i am 5 grin) and in a week they are 1, maybe 2 weeks. engelina - Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:20 am okay, my opinion to this: (( its mine, not my dynasty's, beware of that)) all dynasty's start small. most grow beyond that sooner or later. some stay small, but are good allies to have. As i see it,t here are two kids of smaller dynasty's. the ones that have members that are willing to click, and thus also make good allies, since they have links to click, and the ones that simply do nothing. i have some small dynasty's as allies. i have seen some of those small dynasty's grow to the bigger ones they are now. i think we all should remember that what now is a 2 man dynasty, might be a bigger one later. the only cap i put on accepting allies is that i don't want to get too close to the 400 limit, and that the new ally is not negative a lot. the only idea i would like to see is more then one ranking table. we currently have the one we all know. i am not talking about removing that one, but adding a few, or at least two: a top average page for bigger dynasty's and one for the smaller. and maybe a few that are based on other factors then average. Roman - Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:46 am I think thats its not a good idea to say that Dynasties with a certain amount of Members can not participate in the ranking system. But perhaps there would be a way to make a new ranking system? The Points get calculated by the Average of all members and the amount of members. I just calculated that all Dynasties that exist on Yarolds have an average of 12 mmebers. So perhaps its possible to give a positive Bonus to Dynasties with more members and a negative Bonus to Dynasties with less members. So both counts. Amount of memebrs and Average of all members. P.s. That would mix it up a bit more. For me personally RMV is still Number 1 in the ranking system. Many members + great average! Metalteo - Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:25 pm Originally dynasty were ranked on members count, but that was changed a while ago. You can still sort the dynasty page on members , total clicks , name. What could be possible is adding a new ranking, that calculates total clicks done by all members in day. In other words, it would be the sum of all members average or dynasty avg * total members. It's all the same. This would reflect the most active dynasty more based on the amount of members they have. This calculation has no bad effect when accepting new members with low average. Infact even a new member with 1 avg, will still add 1 to the total. this is just an idea. zvonimir - Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:29 pm
I am not talking about the average members but average dynasty. MMC UBC launched dynasty of 10 members and this number increase over time. I do not want to break Ally easily, but I want to Ally that all dynasty develop normally. Two members can drive two-seater kayak and not be a dynasty. DemonicJ - Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:35 pm Mate, I hate to break it to you but 1 person can be a dynasty here. I chose to start a dynasty & am recruiting by advertising in this forum only. It wasnt started by mailing members & getting them to improve their averages in another dynasties before moving to the newly created dynasty. Yes your dynasty has grown, might have something to do with a rapidly increasing average? Im sure as my average increases so will the members in my dynasty (or maybe I can mail members in other dynasties to join me when they have a big average?). 
My point being, your dynasty was a planned thing from the beginning, mine isnt & will grow as its noticed by others they arent in dynasties or or unhappy in whatever dynasty they maybe in. we all started from an idea. zvonimir - Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:59 pm
Existing calculation by state dynasty is good I do not have anything against him. I am against small dynasty (1-5 members). I think that such a dynasty not be put along with higher dynasty (20 members or more). Dynasty to 5 members would not be at on this table ,Or 10 in future.Not only one or two members. I suggest This calculation for the state dynastyes; ave dynasty +number of members dynasty = total ave dynasty DaBabes City - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:20 pm
Thank you, Bailey, that is exactly what we have done. We have worked our way to the top, then added another member who is a credit to us. Sadly, our long time kampaku reached the goals he had set for himself and left or we'd still be five, and we are actively seeking more members. When another applies whose work ethic agrees with ours we will take them on, our average will drop, then we will work our way back up to the top. Our allies will get a credit for each click as long as I am Emperor, and we encourage each of our members to show ten links at Happy Hour or some other time each day. Some may critique our Dynasty size, but our work ethic has been unimpeachable. zvonimir - Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:37 pm
I am amazed your work and have nothing against .Your work is really great..I you sympathy from the beginning but I'm sorry that your dynasty is not growing. thepossum1 - Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:22 pm Just throwing my 2¢ worth of opinion in now that I've read the whole thread. I recall when jassej began his dynasty, there were less than 3 members. All dynasties begin that way. We readily accepted alliance to allow his dynasty to grow. Some grow quickly, some do not, some choose to remain small, some want to have as many members as the alliance total rule will allow, some want to be in the middle. The dynasty alliance rule was adjusted to allow small dynasties a chance to compete by allowing no limit on the number of allies, just a fixed number for the total. Under the previous dynasty/alliance rules, small dynasties had no chance because the large dynasties allied with each other leaving no room for small ones since you could only have 4 allies. IMHO if we want to compete, we all play by the same rules/calculations. If a dynasty happens to have a good set of allies and motivated clickers who have high averages why should they be penalized for working hard simply because they are small? The easiest way to raise your dynasty average is to assist your members to become excellant clickers. If your members all have personal averages over 400, the dynasty average will be over 400 whether you have 2 or 200 members. Help those who may be new to know how to stop the drain on their credits by showing to dynasty only, to try to click during the Happy Hours/Times when additional links are available to click, to not show more links than they can support through their own clicking. For me, it more critical that a member not go minus than have an outrageously high personal average--I want to be able to click their links. More links to click equals higher average both personal & dynasty. DaBabes City - Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:07 pm
Thank you, Zvonimir, for the respect you have shown us. Our dynasty will grow at its own natural pace. Our Team's main interest is in what we consider to be excellence, and we will admit only those members who can match us, or have the sincere desire to learn. On the other hand we will not fault those who choose to have a more laid back dynasty. This is a game, after all. 
[ Added: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:21 am ]
Thank you, Possum. Your alliance with us has proven to be be backed by your impeccable integrity! You have all of my respect.
jassej - Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:09 pm We all have once dynasty founded, and of course everybody needs help at home and MMC UBC will continue to support this dynasty under our Facilities (400) but man needed little time to see whether the dynasty wants to grow (or can) or not because 1, 2,3,4,5 man dynasty, I do not accept and will ally with those ends! So everyone needs help and we will continue to help as long as we do not begin to benefit from! [ Added: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:19 pm ]
I need no permission from anyone ally to stop it is more concerned dynasty opportunities to enter into ally to stay! Course there are intentioned Net freaks and Eternity and for so long was only Net freaks "antidynasty" has gone but now we have second 3.4 Such dynasty soon and it is simply not fair! We should all think and give suggestions for a fair rule because this is not it! One possibility would be for only days click dynasty ave to be calculated according ... Second best opportunity of sports, 1 and the second league to establish which is updated monthly and after certain number of members directed ... Third ave the opportunity for smaller dynasty differently calculated and more So we all know this rule is not fair and because we should all work to improve! [ Added: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:29 pm ]
As seriously as you want to say you deserved first place? I can not believe you really think! You say many hours have needed much work for this success? What do you think how much time a day I consume only in order to write mails? And I wil not even think how much time is needed in RMV or J4F! Thinking you also working on new contest, as members can motivate, how different group in the dynasty to unite? course, consumers also a lot of time to completely new to learn and have to explain what is yarold! I have really great respect for you but for me, you never have been the first special Mob or RMV ... I envy me before RMV, so many members and always at the top, because man needs much work and many hours of unbelievable! [ Added: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:40 pm ]
UBC was not established from frustration but long time planned and on the first day UBC it had 13 Members! And there were not only members with large ave but also newbis were there only for what UBC have registered as Dreamsattown, and also members Tzvrchak space in which no other dynasty had as Soltok ... And I do not expect that everyone does as UBC, several members immediately but I can not and will not even wait for months to a dynasty grows! DaBabes City - Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:57 pm Jassej, I believe communication between you and I suffers in translation, or in the lack thereof. I was raised in Texas, in the United States of America, so my English is imperfect at best. Our little forum has some of the best clickers I have seen as yours has, yet we have not been on Yarolds long enough to make as many friends and connections as you have. Whatever the case, we will continue to give positive credits for clicks, and ten links per member, to those who to link to us. jassej - Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:02 pm I must give you fairly , sorry for my bad English
MMC UBC is founded as a forum dynasty and this is obviously a big advantage for us but everyone is welcome even newbis and there are Net Freaks and UBC totally different! I am sure the many new in the first attempt to come dynasty on what first place and that ye! turdkey - Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:01 pm
That one sounds best! But in all honestly you will never please everyone and you know it Metalteo! So what we have is dynasties splintering and new ones being formed almost every day. I would not say that is too bad a thing and it will be interesting seeing where it all goes. In the mean time I intend to click leisurely and just play this game for fun, after all folks it isn't like this is real life is it??? 
MUSHpark - Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: Antidynasty
DaBabes City, First, congratulations on achieving 500. Yes, you are the first to do so. But I'll take issue with your claim that you are the first "willing to work hard enough" for it. If I took the "top 4" of my own dynasty, who have been willing to work hard for it, we'd be at 550 by now. And still not nearly as high as the top 4 of other dynasties. Try comparing your 4 members' averages with the top 4 clickers in many other dynasties and you'll find yourselves far from the top. Your best clicker (you) is #67 on the overall game's top clicker list. That means 66 yarold's members are "working harder" than the hardest-working member of your own dynasty. MMC UBC has 4 of the top 5 spots, all with 700+ average, so if they kicked all but the top 4 people, they'd shoot up towards a 700 dynasty average. If they kicked all but the top 4 right before reset tonight, they'll shoot up 20 spots on the board, and be "first to 517", and leave you in the dust. Thankfully, I think they're about more than getting the highest average, they're also about building numbers. I think they're more than willing to work hard. But they also are willing to take on new members with lower averages.
There's a difference between actively recruiting members who already have high averages, and actively helping newcomers, who may click 500+ per day, but start out with a "1". You have not been open to allowing new members to join, no matter how well they click. Any new members you "recruit" will, by definition, be coming from another dynasty, yet you'll get the credit for their success.
Good for you, and thank you for doing that. Providing more links is definitely a good means toward getting a lot of good allies, and having enough allies for your members to all click above 500 is how you achieved your current rank. Well done!
Again, congratulations. But again, you seem to take credit for "thousands of hours of work". DO you know how many thousands of hours of work my shoguns and I have spent helping newcomers and educating them on credits, links, browsers, resets, and the like? How much "work" do you put into educating your other 3 members? Seems the "work" is just in clicking. Which is a lot of work, but I'll note that the 915,000 clicks that my dynasty's members have made are collectively many more thousands of hours of work than your 179,000. And by that measure, we must give major kudos to Gamers Alliance, who still sits well atop the heap at 7.25 MILLION clicks, thanks to a very newbie-friendly policy that doesn't much help their average but does help their size and longevity. Given that total clicks seems to be the measure Yarold uses on a personal basis (VIP at 60K, for example), it seems a more appropriate measure of true dynasty greatness than whoever happens to currently hold the highest average.
I like this idea, but it still will hurt the "just starting out" dynasties. I would prefer a system where the dynasty average changed based on that day's clicks from members, rather than the dynasty average changing based on personal averages. SO a new member who could click 500 would apply 500 to the dynasty average, not their personal average of 1 (or 50, since it would actually take those daily clicks into account). It was amusing watching the "Taking on the Average" dynasty when nobody in it was clicking but their dynasty average was only slowly decaying. Amusing, but not really representing a dynasty's effort. Another possible new system which would not punish dynasties for taking on new members, is to only count the top 10 (or 20 or some other number) members. Or only count members who had been in a dynasty for 10 days or more. Ella - Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:10 am --- Roman - Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:01 pm Ok, I made my mind and came to the conclusion that its NOT a good idea to say, that small Dynsties should not be in the ranking. Everyone should be in the ranking no matter if the Dynastie has 1 or 100 memebrs. Its not a good idea to split the ranking into 2 groups. But I also think, that higher membered Dynasties should get a positive Bonus and lower membered Dynasties a negative Bonus. So I did following in an Excel file: - I calculated the average amount of all 78 exisiting Dynasites. Which is 11,67 members per Dynasty If you have more than that you get a positive Bonus If you have less than that you get a negative Bonus - I now calculated the difference between each Dynasties amount of members and the above calculated Average of all Dynasties and multipied the result by 2 (*1). The result is shown in the column "Factor members" (The result is positive for higher membered and negative for lower membered Dynasties) - I added this result ^^ to the Ave/day which is shown in the column "Rating" - On the right side of the Excel file you can see the old ranking, new ranking and the difference for each Dynastie besides it. The difference will not be that much but its still a difference. RMV would be Nr1 which is also my feeling. They have a great Ave and a high number of members! Also the Penalty ist not that hard to let small Dynasties fall down to the end of the Ranking. I would like to hear what you all think of it. Here is the Excel File located: http://h1.ripway.com/Eurul/DynAve.xls Greetings Roman ------------------------------------------- (*1) The multplying factor of 2 is only a feeling. It can also be 1 or 3. The higher this muliplier is the more it hurts the smaller Dynasties. The 10 days which are used for the calculation of the Ave/day is also only a feeling. It could also be 1, 5 or 20 days. DemonicJ - Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:21 pm Roman, averages as worked out are fine now. All I have heard is how the numbers dont work for bigger dynasties etc. Guess what number everyone has so far failed to point out??? The number of allies! There is no maximum number of allies any dynasty can have as long as the total does not exceed 400 alliance members! Net freaks, got to the top because it has a lot more allies than MMC UBC, MMC UCB (based on current member numbers) will stay in front of RMV as it can fit in extra allies. Like it or lump it, thats the issue, smaller crews can fit all the bigger, active, show 10 links during happy hour types of allies! to level the playing field a bit, there needs to be a maximum amount of allies one can have, say 8 allies. There are enough dynasties of all different sizes to cater to those who prefer small dynasties & those that prefer large dynasties. Yes we had similar before, 4 allies was the limit there & yes it created 4 big dynasties & basically nothing else. Now we have a 400 max alliance bring in 8 as a max amount of allies. I doubt you will not get 8 dynasties all allied together to help each other. A few emps tried to get 5 together, needless to say that didnt last (dynasty x has more members than dyn y so they should drop members when maxxed etc). Plus when we had a maximum of 4 dynasties allied we didnt have this many members in dynasties by a long shot to give you the hard data, I currently have 15 allies!!! Think I would do it this easy if I had a limit of only 8 allies? No I dont have the most allies either, but im sure you know that anyway Roman - Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:15 pm Hi Jay! Yes thats true too, but: - if you get down to lets say a maximum of 8 allies it would be the same as it was before last rule change. Before the last rule change we had 4 to 5 Top big Dynasties and then long nothing. - If you go back to a maximum of 8 Dynasties in an alliance there would perhaps be 8 big Top Dynasties and then long nothing. Not a big change isnt it? (Lets take J4f, my Dynasty: We now have 12 Alliances. If you max it to 8 we would have to kick many smaller Dynasties of our Alliance and take a bigger one instead.) Jay and me just had a small discussion on the Yarolds Chat, which was quite interesting. We came to the conclusion that if we max the amount of Dynasties we also would have to max the total amount of members in the whole alliance system down to lets say 300 or 350. Jay also told me about an idea from Mushpark (I hope you dont mind when I post your idea here): Dynasties with an lower amount than 10 members get a penatly which woud look following: For every member you have less than 10 members the missing members have a Ave/day of 1. Which means for a 8 membered Dynastie following: Member 1: 502 Ave/day Member 2: 498 Ave/day Member 3: 450 Ave/day Member 4: 449 Ave/day Member 5: 423 Ave/day Member 6: 398 Ave/day Member 7: 391 Ave/day Member 8: 375 Ave/day Member 8: 1 Ave/day -> the missing member Member 10: 1 Ave/day -> the missing member Well I like that idea too. But this one would hurt very low membered Dynasties very, very hard! Greetings Roman P.s. I calculated what Ave/day Net Freaks or Eternity would need to get to the Top spot in my Excel file: Net Freaks: 585 Ave/day with 4 memebrs to get First Eternity: 589 Ave/day with 2 memebrs to get first. Still not impossible and for sure simple to be done by both of them. (so around 100 Ave/day more than RMV has to get to the Top - quite fair in my opinion) So to point it out again I dont want to hurt small Dynasties with my system down to the end. It just makes it a bit harder for them to get to the Top spot. P.s. Thanxs Jay for discussing this with us even if it may hurt your Dynasty too (like Mushparks idea or your own idea of maxing the allies) zvonimir - Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:01 pm formula of Eurul me like, I have only one question: Why Factor Members: (Members - Dyn members Avergae) * 2? Why not just Factor Members: (Members - Dyn members Avergae)?? .. That means no one * 2, I think that it is superfluous *2. Roman - Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:05 pm
Thats why I have written: (*1) The multplying factor of 2 is only a feeling. It can also be 1 or 3. The higher this muliplier is the more it hurts the smaller Dynasties. The 10 days which are used for the calculation of the Ave/day is also only a feeling. It could also be 1, 5 or 20 days. Means you can also do it without a multiplier but the higher the multiplier the more worse it is for small Dynasties. DaBabes City - Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:06 pm Jassej, I congratulated you on breaking the 500 average by mail, but wanted to do so on the forum, too. Your Dynasty is a fine one!
jassej - Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:40 pm
Today in the early Yarold at 6:30 you have written to agree with the're Mushpark shed and now it's gone 
[ Added: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:41 pm ]
Thank you very much 
[ Added: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:56 pm ] Is best for me Mushpark proposing is simple and reward active clicker and automatic no longer discriminated against newbis Members, in other words, dynasty which takes newbis will therefore no longer be punished! I like it even proposing Roman, at least from Table looks fairly! In all cases both are better than current ranking system! Now is Yarold on train, it should finally meet ranking system come !!!!!! Ella - Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:30 pm
Yes its gone because i don't quite understand all the maths involved in what is talked about. Anyway, my thought is that the personal ave is the struggling thing. Wildthing - Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:45 am I was talking to a few people aboput something similiar Met. I'd love to see average calculation changed. The actual average changed. No more personal average period. I say take all the clicks done by the dynasty, divide by the members and then on that new day that decides the leader board. Everyone has an equal and fair chance. Be it 1 member dynasty or 100 or whatever... but with me I suppose its just wishful thinking and fairy tale dreaming. So many people forget that its about getting clicks for the games and making new friends.. its become so bloody cutthroat lately.. the fun is slowly being leeched out of it. NoT City - Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:11 am Just my two pence. I am a World of Warcraft Player and there you need 10 people to found a guild. OK, thousands of people are playing WoW and Yarold just have even thousand 
But what about the idea, that you need a spacial amount of members to found a Dynasty which appears in the ranking-system. (for example 5 - I think 5 is not to much and not to less for a "Dynasty" or a "Guild"). MUSHpark - Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:49 am
Yes, that was part of my idea but you missed the other part which was more important. I was suggesting you just base the dynasty average on the top ten clickers. So dynasties with more than 10 members would not have to count the lower members at all. A newcomer with low personal average wouldn't hurt. The above explanation is only if we insist on using personal averages... but I think we should not use personal averages as input to the dynasty average. No matter how good a newbie is (or even a really good clicker who goes on vacation for a week) they will hurt the dynasty average. I agree with WT's post that we shouldn't bother at all with personal averages... the average daily clicks should be what's important. Whether a daily changing average without tracking past history, or the current setup but using average clicks instead of average of personal averages... zvonimir - Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:33 pm MMC UBC this moment is interrupted alliance with all the dynasty, which have fewer than 10 members. We are such a dynasty will not take into Ally if them do not think increase the number members.We gave them a chance and they are not to use.We will receive the Ally all small dynasty (less than 10), provided that they expand over time and if not we will terminate alliance with them. I think that all the dynasty must give chance to all members who it wish.I tell; at least a chance. This is the only solution we have for now for 'small' dynasty that dynasty which will not receive new members scarlete - Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Antidynasty
Srsly, best comment in this thread. I don't know when UBC was founded, but I don't think it took very long at all for UBC to get a lot of members. The irony of how they got some of the better clickers, of course, does not escape me. The smaller dynasties, two in particular, are not accepting new members who are new or have low click avg. Only yesterday did I notice that two of them did, and I now see that it was probably because of this thread. (: Half the time I can't figure out what the heck Zion or Jassej are saying (online translators are not the best!), but they didn't do too bad getting their dynasty off the ground and fast. How long has Net Freaks been around? Seems like at least a month or so. Ella - Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:52 pm DaBabes City wrote:
MUSHpark wrote:
Doesn't make us populair by some, i know. Newbees get no chance. But i am sure you can't convict DaBabe on wanting good clickers as all dyns are working on encouraging their members to do their best to show links and click as much as possible. After all, it is a competition. She wants the best and i want to support new members with little or no ave, which is not in our dynasties policy. So, PLEASE make a new system without personal ave , so i can tutor newbees and whip them to make 500 clicks a day (eh, how does it work putting a smiley here?) I hate to have enemies and fighting, i love to have friends and hugs. AND a good competition (smiley) Scarlete, i don't know how long NetFreaks are around, but i think i joined them 2 months ago. DemonicJ - Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:22 pm
Since the beginning of eternity I have 3 people request to join. 1 is in, one is a serial dynasty hopper (& left before he could be accepted in) & the other that was accepted in that has now been booted, was booted for CoC reasons. I have also had a recruitment post up longer than this post, so dont think you could be referring to Eternity in relation to recruitign because of this thread. MUSHpark - Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:41 am
I'll second this motion! Or third, since I think WT said it first
Roman - Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:18 pm
Thanxs for your response! I personally would not like that. I and many others dont have time to click all the time. I mostly dont click on weekends. Well this weekend I do but normally not. Which means, that I will never have such a high Average to get counted. So whenever our memebrs say, (example) wow we reached Rank 3, I must answer: "Yes you did it but I did NOT help anything for it." Not that I need that but I want to know that I also help, even if its only a bit D Or did I missunderstand your idea? MUSHpark - Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:22 pm
Thanks for the feedback... and I understand. Unfortunately it's hard to determine whether it's a long-term low click-rate clicker, or a newbie still working their way up. I think the best solution is to not use personal averages in the dynasty average calculation. Period. Use daily clicks instead. (And let people set themselves on vacation!) turdkey - Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:18 pm And judging by the small number of people answering this thread it does not look like too many actually care. Surely this issue will be judged by what ever suits the individual poster best. Most people, just as in real life, may not like what fate hands out but get on with it and do the best they can anyway. I also find the thread title distasteful. Born out of self interest someone came to grind their axe. zvonimir - Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:15 pm I noticed that I have this discussion a lot of people read. That many people do not participate with the proposals.I think that people fear that others would not have not understood because most use a variety of translators (sometimes and I). Each dynasty should give his proposal here, I think. turdkey - Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:29 pm I suppose this is just a question of what Yarolds is really about? 1 A click exchange? 2 Just another competition for us all to play? I am not too fussed . I get the clicks, mostly, that I want , enjoy clicking, having fun and making new friends. The dynasty competition is a fun distraction and it does help you meet new people. But I do think the last lot of changes to dynasty rules have been good for competition between dynasties. And that there will always be winners and losers whatever system is used. Ella - Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:37 pm
It is solved ! "Peasant" has become a flexible thing. I see it as a playground. And when a peasant reaches a higher ave he/she can move up to daimyo or shogun. And on the other side : Emperors, Kampaku's, shoguns and daimyo's will be set to peasant when on holiday or other circumstances, until they return. We're still dealing with personal ave though, but i think this solution is a challenge. Edit: hear, hear, Turdkey ^^ zvonimir - Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:21 pm
Not good.Three steps backwards . It is good for those about whom I wrote here. I think that it and write the rules 
DemonicJ - Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:34 am Dynasties of all sizes will have an advantage no matter what the rules are. UBC grow faster than RMV because they are smaller? net freaks & eternity grew faster becuase they were smaller than UBC. What say we just call UBC the winner & get back to the business of clicking as thats what we are here for jassej - Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:45 am
hahaha that was good! Yes UBC grows faster than RMV but UBC tries to be bigger, you even try? UBC is in the moment, for me, winners because Net freaks for me does not count as a dynasty! And best at the end ... if you really want to return to business clicking then go back to the MOB and click !!!!!!!!!! Jeroen - Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:53 am omfg.. really what is this thread about..? MMC UBC fealing attacked by other small dynasty's? geez -cares- I agree with that guy who said let's get back to our normal clicking and call MMC UBC the winner.. in the end they are, in 10 minutes they'll be number 1 and not to be harmed by anyone who might get to defeat MMC UBC.. Wow.. please I am requesting jassej/zvonimir to stop the continious questioning about the new dynasty averages.. Yarolds changed it to this now in order to keep everyone happy.. 90/% is happy with it.. get over it.. jassej - Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:38 am
Because Jeroen MMC UBC past I do not rate his writing, there were times when it's all my decision was agreed !!!!!! zvonimir - Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:45 am
We are here to help us to click, we did not come here to sleep. I do not know why it bothers you? Conclusion on everything: And what more to say here? From antydinasty they made even worse;minus-dynasty |
