Yarold - Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: where we are / update continued end of break. Situation. Before update we saw a slow agony of main page with links. and yes it was because how our site is made. Typical behavior was something like that (as heard on IRC): "Ok, i have 3 boxes, i tick one for dynasty so they dont kick me, and i never tick those main i 'd lose credits omg. Now lest go to click losers on main" is minority or mayby just a sole exception? answer is not sole exception, and its not minority too, answer is 82% of all users set their link like that. This mean that 82% of users got successfully enlighten by "may they burn you alive, but dont tick your link on main". For me it doesnt matter where you show your links as long as everyone is happy. But a problem slowly arise, what new users will click if theres nothing on main. How you welcome them? Month ago we have like 20 links on main. So new member clicked them in 5min, got clicked back by horde of people and end on -20. Some wrote mail to me with "hows that possible?". Such user almost never came back here. Well if you want to continue i can put something like "No new members welcome" instead of register page. From recent topic on fighting dynasties
theres no such, whole year is slow loss data. yet who cares? As always there was a suggestion to rise alliances limits. Lets see old formula was something like "active members in dynasties / 3". Today we have 728 / 3 = 242. But dont worry i'll just wait for next round number. September 1st update as always revolutionary controversy #1: show your link on a page were you click I must say that there is no greater evil than get clicked back. but wait isnt that a thing that every other exchange have ? "To: [A]Yarold [...] have to show my link [...] going to [other popular link exchange here] [...] Bye" "To: [A]Yarold [...] kan click my link [...]" Im really asking here what sort of humour is that ? And of course smart group invented other way: "we will use yerhotel links so no one can click us back and its not against rules hehe". Only week earlier there was a discussion on "feeder dynasties", a group finds a clever way not to break any rules and get advantage of it. So i kicked ball back rising link cost. Pain and bloodshed flowed in its wake... ups! sorry wrong game. Anyway those who were really playing yerhotel have their credits returned, those who didnt and im sure they will whine about it not. I can only sum up this as immature behavior. This change to have your links showed on page you click is being removed. Because sooner or later someone will repeat this idea. Im not a lawyer (and i hope to never be one) so there will be no book with chaper on links usage on main page, which forbids using yerhotel links. Im also sure that this change can be modified to fit better our environment. controversy #2: Score is based also on how manny clicks you receive "To: [A]Yarold [...] burn me alive [...]" Well, i understand that it must be pain to lose credits and such, but you have to believe in yourself and it will be fine. On the other hand... er forum (and mail) we had a nice discussion, however it got boring and if it continues i'll just post one of these, as some keep thinking im here 24h/day and got no other life (some use it as argument too). This change stays as so far its not exploitable. I hope it wont, so i there will be no need to remove it. September 4th I didnt list change that new accounts get extra entry that is showed in admins log. Thanks to which i can check easily how many new members we have. And the news (finnaly good one) is: new members that registered in recent days returned after first visit, because they have links. this is point where we are now I hope that at last some people realize what they were doing and start promoting links to click back. thepossum1 - Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:29 am Not sure if this is correct place to post. I have always been clicked more than I click--not the issue, but I DO need to set limits for extras I show. I am finding, since the updates, once the limit has run out, the check mark is still in the box essentially making all links no limit. I can't afford that. Could this please be addressed? Thanks 
EDIT--Thanks, problem with limits is fixed
hippie - Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:31 am Thank you for the very detailed response in this post. I think most of your positions are well thought out and make a lot of sense. I did want to disagree with you on one thing though. Protesting actions which you feel are wrong is not immature. You may not like them but they were an intelligent response to a change they didn't like. Just saying they are immature is a cop out and is showing disrespect to all of your long standing members who chose to find a way around the new rules. Hopefully the anger will die down and we can go back to normalcy, or some form close to normalcy. City of MT - Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:35 am This update really did not change much from before. All it did was add extra detail and more information to the same system. There is still the average dynasty clicks done column which is the same from before, just with a different formula. It is kind of better because now there are actually links to click on main. bluebell_rose - Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:09 am
mhmm, I agree. Hopefylly with more lotto exploding, people can afford to show links in main more, Beofre I was relucant to show in main because I could barely afford then and still try to keep postive, plus I was never sure my link got clicked all the way through on main. I throw links into main every once in a while. now though. Solrayne - Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:17 am I don't know if this is possible (or reasonable)...just a thought, maybe something for a suggestion that was not considered yet.... If new members and non-dynasty members cotinue with the problem to stay positive, couldn't just those acct. types be given a little more credit value for their clicks...then they'd have a few more credits to help them when their links get clicked, and thry may still stay positive then? Perhaps 0.25 or 0.50 more credit for each click they make, for example... A script could check to see if they go to a dynasty or not...if they do join a dynasty, then they start getting "normal" value like all others in dynasties do now, because they will have more options available to them. Again, it's just a thought...so please don't no one start world war 4 over it, just because it was suggested, thanks. norrbotten - Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:48 am The rule that you had to put up a link in main to click in main is not unfair. I didn't before because it drain my credits so fast but when everybody that wants to click in main has to put up a link it worked perfectly. I actually joined Yarold because I wanted clicks on my Minicity so I don't see the horror in getting clicked.... but that's just me. I protested about the changes because my clicks didn't get counted, I probably clicked at the wrong time just when the update was made and I still don't understand how it could count as it did but bygones is bygones... Thanks for the Lotto, now I can put up two links for the day. Well I still don't understand how get our dynasty no 1 again. Is the only way to have 60 members with a link that can be clicked? (Everyone above us is larger then us). Sincere Norrbotten Zidane - Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:00 pm About the "show a link where you want to click" rule: It is a good idea since Yerhotels cost a bunchload of credits, so those smarties thinking "I will set Yerhotel as my main link" have their plans ruined. I second that and think this rule should stay, it will mean many links in Main, only it will maybe sometimes mean some smartie will find some way to "cheat" on the Main - like the fake Yerhotels founded just for being in Main without real interest into the hotel game were. But that can be fought as we saw already. Showing link in History if I want to click History - why that? Non-vips show their link in History and can not do anything with it and the possibility to hide your link from History is one of the good things for VIPs, because of that it is "possible" to show extra links and set reasonable limits on them - no credit eating through History. I would leave the History as it was before the update if I was Mr. Yarold. I am afraid the situation in Main might return to where it was - only a few links to click there. I personally think I might start showing my link in Dynasty 24/7 and in Main during my online times
CZ thepossum1 - Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:06 pm I also have decided that it's not such a bad thing to show in main. My 24/7 to the dynasty link will get checked if I click main, but all my extras are for the dynasty & our allies. Have to agree that history will rarely be checkmarked by me--as mentioned above, that was the appeal of buying VIP . EDIT--I've since decided to make my 24/7 dynasty link also 24/7 for main as well--hahah mostly for my own benefit so I don't have to remember to tick the box hahahahaha And I only click in history the page of those who've already clicked me so I'm only getting back their click. I still keep my extras for allies only Jeanne - Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:45 am I still think that the 1st link you have should be shown in history as well as dynasty/main like for non VIPs - that way anyone you click can get their click back through history - it shouldn't be optional but only be on the first slot and that would be fair to those who are not in Dynasties. Second: I found something I like about the update: that I can now see how many all dynasties have in their alliance not just those who I am already allied to. But why is the number now without the members of that dynasty? Couldn't it be the total again? Yarold - Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:47 pm
Its just small change from "require to show any link on a page you click" to "requite to show first link on a page you click". First one was "unfair" and lead to riot, second is not very different.
Ups, forgot that dynasty should be included in own alliance. Jeanne - Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:57 pm
LOL - it's OK Stan you can't remember all 
but I still think it's not like a requirement - the update made us open our link to all of Yarolds, every single member - if the link in the first slot was automatic also shown on history (it is for non-VIPs) it would mean your link is open to those you have clicked - that is fair - to give those you click a chance to click you back. Something else: This update again favors the largest dynasties: Only they have a chance to be #1 and to win your contest (like the Tiny Contest) - 1: That is unfair to the rest of the dynasties; 2: This will mean there will still be hunting of anybody on main which will mean main will continue to be drained for members. I don't get the idea 
Yarold - Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:07 pm
With only ~750 active people in dynasties i have to favour bigger than smaller dynastie. I hope someone will do math and dynasties start recruiting members again. Jeanne - Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:39 pm But they do recruit .... from main 
I also find the score" system unfair - the sum of clicks done/received will favor the VIPs who has most links - the 1 link member can never get as high a score as them. Yarold - Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:59 pm It is not unfair. Normal members can have more than 1 link its not a feature that only VIPS can use. Those who will show more links for other people will have higher scores than others, it should be obvious after my first post in this thread, but clicking others is still important. jassej - Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:05 am I wanted first to understand update and than write. Now we have two classes of members. Members what they want (can) give money for a game and members what do not (can not) give money for a game. And the best members (clickers) is not more best, best members is now what most credit purchases and show always all links. This is possible only who man buys enough credit.
Sorry mister Stan but is unfair!! That a game and that must be fun. You think is fun for me whan others is better just because buy more credit. What is now competitive? Who buys more credit! This is not fun, this is sad. And credit has become more expensive in time. How convenient! And contest is funny°° Contest = Who buy most credit that can show always all links have a bonus.... That's my opinion. bluebell_rose - Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:15 am
Wolverines - Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:38 am alot of unfair this and unfair that going around....i would just like to point out a couple of things..has stan/yarold ever came out and said anyone needs to buy credits and has he ever said you need to post more than 1 link?????just cause you dont have a high average doesnt mean anything if you are getting all the click for your game...that is what really matters clicks for your game.... and another question i have never understood why people transfer hundreds of thousand of credits to people that dont click...or click 50 links then go negative...i am sure they like it but what gives them the incentive to click if given credits all the time?? i watch certain people account in dynasty that go negative and they will click less than 200 per week all the time but keep feeding them the credits and i dont think VIP ever runs out bluebell_rose - Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:54 am vip expires if you paid for it and didnt' do your 60k before it expired simple, people are obessed about having no negs in their dyn, so emps feeds their members, so they don't get dropped. To be best member you need to click alot and also show 10 links 24/7. And to keep on getting clicked and from going neg, you need to buy credits, because you won't be able to click back what you lost. I'm saying this new system favors those who can afford to buy credits, Yarold - Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:29 am Im thinking of changing current sum of clicks done and clicks received to minimum from them. eirien - Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:20 am
Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not sure I understand... I buy credits, made no secret of it, it's how I can supply my allies with extra links (like the 10 links I showed ALL day today) and spread my links over the various games I play. I like being able to do this, however I do have a real life and work and study and have friends I like to spend time with so I can't be here clicking all day every day to make up the extra clicks. Jeanne - Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:34 am I believe what Stan means is if there's a difference between clicks done and received it's the lowest number that counts so no one ill benefit from clicking more than they receive or vice versa - this again will favor those with extra links - the 1 link member can only get clicked once by every member in Yarolds so no matter how good a clicker he/she is will only get average for the clicks received. More unfairness. eirien - Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:46 am Hmmm... well I do think it's a good idea to get some recognition for showing extra links, but also for clicking. I don't know why anyone here needs to be advantaged or disadvantaged. It seems a fairly simple calculation to make things fair for everyone regardless of the size of their dynasty imho. bluebell_rose - Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:23 am
Jeanne - Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:58 am I am missing the "clicks done yesterday"
I have always used it for my contests and now all of them had to be canceled because we can't tell who was top-clicker yesterday cause the numbers are accumulated. I also used that number from the profile when judging if a joiner would fit in our team. Would it be possible to get it back? City of MT - Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:21 am We have the clicks done yesterday. Click on some guy's profile in your dynasty and click on activity and it just happens to magically appear many days of dynasty clicks. Roman - Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: where we are / update continued Pfff..... 2,5 weeks of holidays and when I come back there is a huge update. When I rememebr correctly, the last big update also was during my absence. Stan, do you always wait for my hollidays? 
Anyways, there are already so many threads about the new update in different subforums that I dont know where to put that posting. Well, I decided to go along here since it only has 2 pages and not 7 or more 
After reading and thinking about all the updates and reading all different postings from everyone in all the different threads I think, that I understand all - or maybe only 50% or even nothing . Anyways so far so good.
Its definately better then it was before. Most of you are in Dynasties. I dont go with my Dynasty for a longer time now and always run around in Main. It was really quiet there. Like Stan wrote: new members came, clicked EVERYTHING there, went in huge -20 credits just within a few minutes and left without coming back..... All in all its a good idea, that the clicks done and clicks gotten back - both count - a great idea! Many wrote, that they want it back to the Top clickers. But thinnk about folliwing: There are ONLY top lcickers but NO people who actually show the links. How can you get a top clicker when there are no links to click? So yes, its a perfect idea to put the top clickers and top link showers to the same level. The only problem - already in discussion in a different thread - are the feeding Dynasties (I share Stan, that the feeding dynasties must be stopped somehow) and the problem with buying and transferring credits. But one step after the other. Stan, that update - as far as I understand it - are some steps forward. Lets see if we can do some more! dragonspiritdp - Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:02 pm
I second that. Due to recent update I was finally able to show some links on the Main. I set my link limit to 100, after that pet I was leveling was at level 108. I checked it just now: thanks to history my pet is now at level 242, that means it got 150% more clicks than limit set. On the other hand, many people showing links on Main are VIPs , therefore with about 500 links clicked, I got only about 100 of them in history. bluebell_rose - Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:05 pm Argh, can we go back to deleting links only at reset? With the ability to delete links before reset, people can click my link and then delete their link, rendering others from being able to click their link back. Totally not fair. Why is this unfairness here? I won't show in main much thanks to the abiltiy of being able to delete links before reset dragonspiritdp - Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:46 pm
Actually, I like being able to change my link instantly when it reach the limit. Also, people can click your links without even having any link set, so I don't think anyone's doing that on purpose. Wolverines - Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:21 pm i agree change link instantly is better than before.......you might find a game but have to wait 20 hours to post a link for it...not good....this way is better
Jeanne - Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:50 pm
Whoa - thank you but I would still like to have it on the dynasty page, it's a lot of extra work to check all members profiles to find the winner.
Zidane - Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:55 pm
But I think it is bugged or something like that. The Activity number tells me I did 732 dyn clicks today, but when I look at my profile in Sumup and/or at the numbers in Dynasty exchange, it tells me I did 504...why the 732? Does the Activity number adds TODAY´s links ignoring reset - times 00:00-24:00 or why there is more than 200 links more than in Sumup? Jeanne - Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:15 am
The activity shows up to yesterday though the date say today it is up til reset - after this reset it will show the 8th as yesterday even though there are many hours left of the 8th (for me in my timezone and Yarolds). Bruno73 - Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:46 am
Correct. Therefore to get a high score/rank members and dynasties would be: - encouraged to be clicked as much as they click (and discouraged to build up credits) - encouraged to click as much as they are clicked (and not encouraged to buy credits to be clicked a lot and get a high SumAvg)
You are just accumulating useless credits if you click more than you can be clicked. What you can really exchange with the others is exactly the Minimum(ClicksDone;ClicksReceived).
No. If you buy credits and/or show extras, you will still need to click as much or you will get no advantage of the many clicks received. Jeanne - Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:24 am
No matter how you look at it and how even the clicks done/received are the ones who has extra links still get the highest score and this will encourage to buying credits to show more links. Roman - Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:42 am
Yes, but it would not help if "click here " counts. Grummelbaer - Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:53 pm The activity has got a litle count mistake. The first column is one day faster than reality. So the dynasty clicks done today could even not fit to profile dynasty clicks done today. I'm sure the dynasty clicks done yesterday in profile show some important information but the clicks done today column in activity shows the real clicks of everyday. sorry very bad englisch but i didn't know how to make it understand able... Jeanne - Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:26 pm
Yes it would - if you have 1 link it can only get X amount of clicks so you will only click that amount since clicking more doesn't count (or you click more and build up your credits) and that number is your contribution to your dynasties score. The more links you have, the more you can click and the higher you can score and help your dynasty rise in ranking. The new system we have now and what is being suggested as change will both mean the dynasty with most members and most of these members VIPs will win - so how many will be bought VIPs with bought credits to start of showing all links from day 1? Yarold - Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:52 am
Its true that this update favour big dynasties, its meant to attract dynasties to more people. Its not true that buying credits is required. Its only required when one wants to have thousands of credits. Having 10 links will give nothing without enough clicking. I 'd like also to point that lotto gains credits from everyone (that's those with lots of credits and those with only little number of them), while giving only for those with no of few credits. Atm im less optimistic, as some dynasties returned to 'remember to hide your links on main'. DemonicJ - Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:06 am
so go back to show link on main to click on main! Yarold - Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:33 am
Some people will be against this and will use links to games that require greather delay to avoid that. Jeanne - Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:41 am
It doesn't attract more people to dynasties it tells all the people who are not in the top 5 dynasties that they doesn't matter - they can't take part in your contests or hope to see themselves on any Top list. Before this update you could see in smaller dynasties Sn's: Yay we are #4 in dyn ave - all wants to be able to achieve something on the level they are - now they can't. Many does not want to be in a large dynasty - first of all because of the cut-throat competition in the top is disgusting and second a lot likes to know their team mates and that is more possible in a small dynasty. Atm there are 322 members in the largest 6 dynasties and 412 in the rest so the updates favours the minority ???? Zidane - Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:19 am
Yes, Yerhotels and such. But it is simple - either lower the time limit or raise the cost of one click on such a link - you know, when you raised YH to 40 cr, the dozens of YH being set on Main disappeared - why?  Yes, it will punish the "real" hoteliers, but what else to do?
thepossum1 - Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:08 am I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how taking the LOWER of clicks done or received is a good thing. I have now 8 links that I share but with so many unclickable members on the dynasty page, most not showing as many links as I do, or just plain not being able to be online all day clicking, I have always been clicked at least 200-300 times more than I could click back. So, it's not bad enough that I lose the credits, but now with excluding the clicks received in the mix, I & my entire dynasty are penalized because I didn't click back what I'd been clicked? That just doesn't feel right. It definitely isn't fun. We dropped by nearly 2000 from the day before. Granted all are effected in the same way, but it doesn't feel like progress. It actually makes me feel like we're being forced to be mediocre--no incentive to do our best, push ourselves to excell. Only do back the clicks done to you. And, as always, size does matter--bigger dynasties will have the advantage of more members counted together in total--they will ALWAYS be on top. So, we're back to where I came in a year ago--top however many squeeze out the little ones because there's no way to compete. At least before we could have a little fun trying for higher personal averages even if our total clicks couldn't compare with the "big guys", we could feel like something if we worked hard. Now, pffft, this makes it hard to want to stay here and lose out on all the great people here. DemonicJ - Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:21 am
Totally agree with you. show 1 link, get clicked 400 times (max of dynasties) then you only need click 400 as anything above that is a waste of effort Xazy - Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:27 am I think the idea is if you show outside of a dynasty you will have more received clicks, which makes you want to try and click as many back (both for credits and to keep your clicked/done number from being low) simply, it's another way to encourage link showing outside of dynasties DemonicJ - Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:30 am As you can click main without having to show a link there, I cant see how this is meant to encourage people in dynasties to show in main thepossum1 - Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:34 am Don't know about anyone else, but regardless of where I have a link showing, I'm looking to click all I can. The problem is finding the links. You show more hoping that someone else will also show more since they see some to click, but alas this is mostly not the case. Happy Hours were a good idea--at least you knew when you might be likely to see some links. Bad part is that, many weren't able to attend at those times, so you end up showing your links even more often when you see people on & showing links--that means losing more credits usually. Now some want Happy Days--that really won't work under these new changes--you'll really get clicked on those days & most likely won't get to click back enough--numbers plummet only to be sky high the next day you only click & don't show. Sorry, I have no suggestions that might make it better--my mind is blown.  But when I recover, I'll see.
Edit--I have no problem showing a link on main--I use my same 24/7 dynasty link, not a new link--I get clicked in dynasty which means that the same link isn't visible to anyone who clicked me in dynasty, so the only new clicks I'm gettng on it are the non-dynasty people I'm clicking myself. It's only one link so it hasn't made a huge dent in credits, so I have to say it's working for me. Xazy - Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:44 am
You said if you only show in Dynasty, there is no point in clicking more than 400 since only 400 people can click you If you show in main, more people will click you Which gives you a reason to click more thepossum1 - Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:55 am And that is the rub in all this---the motivation to click more is there, but the links aren't. I'll use my last activity to illustrate :
Believe me if the links were there, I would've clicked them--even LaBrute links which are a real pain if you use flash block. I have been trying to achieve neutral credit flow and it just isn't happening. DemonicJ - Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:02 am
As you would have read in this & other threads, for a lot of people the only numbers that count are the dynasty numbers. Tell me how this "I think the idea is if you show outside of a dynasty" helps that? Xazy - Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:14 am More people post link in main -> you can have more credits -> you can show more in dynasty -> everyone shows more in dynasty -> you can click more in dynasty it is a system which only works when everyone cooperates. DemonicJ - Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:27 am
Really? is that where we have all been going wrong the last 4 odd years? Co-operate all you in my alliance! when you do I may just try this page called main
eirien - Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:49 am
When people see that they click 800 links but their contribution to their dynasty is half that I don't know how long the motivation to click will last... I'm only showing one link from now on. No point in me showing 10 any more. norrbotten - Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:50 am So now what? MinYday counts. Does that mean that if I'm off for one day or more, I'll have to remove my links? As I see it I get clicked 1003 and click 0 => MinYday=0. Leaving them on doesn't do anything (positive or negative) for my average so I'll lose a lot of credits for nothing, or am I missing something here? I'm so confused.
Btw after looking at received and done I can clearly see that is my "done today" that is on min so there goes my link in main.... Jeanne - Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:44 pm
LOL Jay - head on the nail
There's no incentive to cooperate with a system that supports bullying, terrorism and blackmailing of smaller dynasties. This is what I have dealt with as Emp of a smaller dynasty: Make your members show more links or we drop you, Buy VIP for more of your members and make them show more links or we drop you and last stay allied to 1 dynasty or loose another all to turn the smaller allies into semi feeder dynasties. Stan you knew this is going on and yet you keep supporting the largest dynasties? You know I am fully aware of the situation on main and what that means for the site, I mailed you some suggestions a month ago, and I have no problem with showing a link on main if need be, but why should I help when you keep showing I don't count as long as I am not in a large dynasty? Roman - Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:34 pm
Hi! Yes, thats true and I have to admit, that I did not think about that case (On the other hand it was not any difference when Avg/day was counting because there also was only counting the done clicks and nothing else. Did you remove your link then? So actually no change there to the old system). -> Its true that then counts the 0. But dont forget, that still the Average for "clicked links" and "received clicks" counts. So as an example: I am nearly never online on weekends: What can I do? 1.) I can let my link in Dynasty (+History + Main) if I want over the weekend so I still get my clicks 2.) The Average of "clicked links" goes down and the average of "received clicks" stays where it was. 3.) From monday on I can clcik again to higher my "clicked links" but dont need to try to get that many "received clicks" - so I can lower that one a bit to make it more equal. But agreed, its getting more and more complicated now ..... Ella - Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:14 pm
So, isn't there a way to have a limit set to those games? Like, a script that only allows, for example: 5 or 10 yer hotel links at the time on a page ? Bruno73 - Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:33 pm I don't know exactly where the problem comes from, but the following stats are not coherent: - the MinAvg value displayed on the Dynasty page (14362 for RMV today) - the MinAvg value displayed on the Dynasty Activity tab (12388 for RMV today) bluebell_rose - Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:09 pm I think this is to solve the problem of people buying credits and show 10 links in main his and dyn 24/7 and gain a high avg. Although, you can hardly click back what you gained even in dyn, especially if you particiapte in happy hours Yarold - Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:02 am
activity tab should be read as: value of MinAvg showed on 09-09-09 (till reset to be more precise) was 12388 mari - Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:04 am I can't read this thread more. Where is a problem? If there is possibility to buy credits - everybody can use that. If somebody buy's more credits - Yarold should be happy. That's all. "Feeder dynasties" - joke - how to stop them- joke. Can buy credits - OK, can't buy credits - OK for me too, but not to Yarold. Are all need to be as Jay or bluebell_rose thinking? No - they can work more with their dynasty and listen advices from another users too. Why to try figure out system how they can be on a first place? That's all going wrong way right now - I think we need clear system how averages and dynasty averages counting or there will be no users at all soon. If I said something that hurts somebody - kick me out of Yarold's - with changes of system every day to worse I'm going to leave soon anyway. Sorry, my English isn't good enough. All the best and lets end that meaningless war Mari bluebell_rose - Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:28 am the problem is alot of people including me can't afford to buy credits. We have commitments like tutiion, rent, bills to pay. It's not fair to the dyns who can''t afford to buy credits. And I was protesting the fact that one could theoritically gain a high avg and be at the top, without doing a single lick of clicks back in the new system, The new change is an attempt by stan to fix the flaw Roman - Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:38 am
Just a big: YES! Thats the same I was thinking and thats exactly why I like the new update! Maybe its time to make a summary of the different updates: Old System of Dyn/Ave: It only counted what you click and not what you give back. If everyone is only interested in clicking links but not in showing links the clickers dont find a link to click
-> bad system! Update - clicked links and received clicks count together: The links you click and the received clicks get counted together. Very nice new system and much better then the old one, but it has a big diasadvantage: The problem is, that people that have a lot of money and that want to spend money for Yarolds rule the ranking. If a person buys credits and shows 10 Links 24/7 in Main, History and Dynasty this person does not even need to click to have a high ranking. (10*400=4000 only in Dynasty and then maybe even the ones in History and Main. Maybe that will get together 6000 or 8000 received clicks? -> Clicking 0 = Average 3000 or 4000. Try to reach that without money )
Maybe you now say, great: Much money for Stan. Yes, but not in a long run, because if that starts many people will leave Yarolds including me (everyone who does not use money to show more links). Newest update - the lower one counts: The lower amount counts. The clicked links or the received clicks. Buying credits still is nice but you also have to click a lot to get to the top. With that update also feeder Dynasties are not that usefull anymore! Why? Lets say I allie with a Feeder Dynasty. They show 10 Links 24/7 only in Dynasty and only I are allied with them! I get a lot of lcicks but have to low amount of received clicks -> I need to show my links to make it equal -> My other allies click me more and also need to show more to their allies to make themselves also equal. So in the end that credits of the feeder dynasties spread the Yarolds world. -> Feeder Dynasties are not that usefull anymore! If anything above written is wrong, please let me know. Maybe we even find a better way to make it more better. Thank you! P.s. I also often read, that its just needed to forbig transfers to avoid feeder Dynasties. yes, that would definately help but it would also kill the most fun on Yarolds. - No contests anymore - No helping of new members - No helpings of non Vip members that get fast negative - No possibilities to snd credits to valuabled members - you can go on here ....... So in my opinion, forbidding to send credits is the most stupid way to stop feeder Dynasties! eirien - Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:10 am
Exactly. If you are in a smaller dynasty you and your opinion/thoughts/feelings/clicks/links/credits (that you get by clicking or buy with your own money and aren't handed to you by the site admin in competitions geared toward large dynasties) aren't worth anything on Yarolds. Batezou - Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:28 pm Gesh.... this is not a game. I don't care about averages, I don't care how high are they or how are counted. I don't care about dynasties, I dont even have one. What do I do? I do things that SWLE was created for: - I show my link, - I click other links, and that's it! If You are not satisfied with credit cost of your link (eg YerHotel) make your own dynasty with only Hotel links. Fair? Fair! If You dont like buying credits, don't buy them. You won't lose anyhing. It is all about getting your link clicked. Nothing more, nothing less. Yarold - Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:45 pm
So the solo contest dont exist, and i ignore those in smaller dynasties ? Are you sure that you are not using this as cover that you want hard working dynasties be last ones, and those with 1-2 members as first ? Koshka - Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:59 pm
I totally agree with this comment! I've been hearing of decisions made here in the forums by the "Big 5" emperors without any input from smaller dynasties. I was not aware that there was any discussion of the current changes even going on. Could we not have been invited to participate??? My dynasty is small by design. We come, first, from another website, ravelry.com and most of our members are knitters. We don't necessarily WANT more members, but as our allies grow (which is their right) we are forced to drop allies so they can keep growing. Instead of helping the "big 5" grow bigger, why not help the smaller dynasties grow if they want to? And all these changes were made in response to CHEATING by some of the Big 5??? Why are those dynasties not targeted for punishment? Are feeder dynasties bad? if they are, the creators should be punished. Period. Are emperors bullying? yes. IMO, they should be punished by short-term removal from office for a first offense, and all the way up to having their dynasties disbanded. I'm feeling very small and unimportant and disregarded by the Yarolds leadership. Koshka Kampaku Ravelry Dragon Knitters [ Added: Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:27 am ]
I don't think anyone works harder for their dynasty than Jeanne. The priorities you have set mean hard working=best cheaters. That's just wrong. Jeanne - Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:15 pm
The solo contests exist but I am part of a team. As for your last remark .... What would be wrong with a 2 man dynasty at the top? At least they wouldn't be able to pressure or bully anybody - the way you say that tells how you feel about a 2 man dynasty. I send you a suggestion for a new ranking system where most would have a chance to work for getting top position and I say most cause it was made to prevent a situation where a 2 or 4 man dynasty could sail to the top with no effort like we saw in October last year. As for hard working dynasties: Do you think members in small dynasties work less than members of large dynasties do? bluebell_rose - Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:45 pm ._. I think you forgot it's the big six now. la brute has made it's way up to the top eirien - Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:10 pm
I'm quite sure. I want all hard working dynasties to be able to reach the top regardless of size. The people in my dynasty are good people, not just a number, and deserve to be treated just as well as any member in a larger dynasty. I'm going to fight for a fairer system for them, and I'm not going to ask them to show more links/click more when they are at a disadvantage and they will never be recognised for their hard work. Koshka - Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:17 pm
Very much this! Additionally, we attained our goal of a high member average by working hard, not by creating faux dynasties or fake links. We worked for it. Now, small dynasties have that advantage removed to make the Big 6 happy? DemonicJ - Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:19 pm
Before anyone makes assumptions about the big 6 (the mob being one of them), I am not happy with the changes either. Yarold - Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:45 am
Objection, 'Dynasty discusion' forum is for every dynasty, thus no invitation were given to anyone. Discussion that took place had no results anyway.
There is no rule to be big dynasty. You are not forced to drop allies also.
You are skipping reading of my replies, i shall do the same with yours.
offtopic
Jeanne is a person not a dynasty, and should be looked at "member list" not "dynasty list". Shes doing very good only her dynasty cant keep up. I can even make a contest if that helps.
Anyway your now a liar untill you prove that they are cheating, and if you have read dynasty discussion you 'd have know that its not easy.
Im sorry but i have to ask for it again if you say it was that good.
no, they work harder work W: do 20 000 clicks dynasty A ( 10x members with average 1000 clicks a day = total 10000/day) dynasty B ( 2x members with average 2000 clicks a day = total 4000/day) dynasty A will do work W in 2 days, dynasty B in 5 days. so dynasty A works harder and is ranked #1. However individual members from dynasty B work harder than those from A, so members from dynasty B takes 1st and 2nd place on memberlist. Is this not fair ?
you can show them now on 'main' Anyone else see that this disscussion is not going anywhere? Maybe again changing limits? Koshka - Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:01 am Stan, are you familiar with the word "hubris"? I'm simply astounded by the bull-headed nature of this reply. ratchet freak - Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:16 am I think everyone forgot what we came to yarold's for, getting a ref link clicked to get people to do you need to click others thus the credit system if I can get my 25 clicks I'm happy, when I first came here I never had to show on main and I could get my clicks from history or from dynasty where follow ups are more common in those days (IIRC) I then took a break from my game (and by extension yarold) when I came back limits where implemented and I got invited into a dynasty, I had to set my limit to 75 to get all the (action) clicks I needed per day and not waste credits, this meant I got kicked out of dynasties since I couldn't show 24/7 going without dynasty (stop the spam doesn't count) and clicking at least 75 per day was hard the last weeks before the change and I stayed short around 20 credits a day now I can set the limit to 75 and get 100+ clicks in before it runs out, keeping my balance up and a on my face
eirien - Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:00 am
You have also made the dynasty contest so that no smaller dynasty can win. So either you are ignoring them or deliberately excluding them...? Why not choose an emperor of one of the larger dynasties and just give them the credits or call it 'Big 6 Dynasty Contest' instead of making it seem like something all dynasties can win? Yarold - Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:09 am
Example of contest for smaller dynasties please? Koshka - Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:45 am I was warned for the above post. I guess "hubris" knows no bounds. Seriously? is this how you want to run your site, Stan? Freedom of Speech is a right in most civilized countries. thepossum1 - Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:32 am
While there may not be a rule saying every dynasty must grow to the max of 60, it is extremely difficult NOT to feel forced to drop allies if you are a smaller dynasty allied with larger ones who DO want to grow. With the ally total of 400, just this past week, I have had to drop 3 allies--one not that small-- due to being pushed over 400 by larger dynasties adding members. Yes, in most cases you feel forced to it because you fear being dropped by that larger dynasty if they need even more room. I tried to have the attitude of "well, a lot of the allies are over 400 & don't seem to mind, so I'll float it too" BUT in the end, I bend. The part that chaps my hide is that even in the face of being over 400, many still want to hang onto members who are not clicking for their own dynasty & have become unclickable--either by being minus or by stripping their links so none is showing after they click. Then there are the none waiting for mod approval. Those cannot be helped BUT I'm still seeing them in a dynasty after the links get denied. Taking up precious space but not clickable. All these things seem to affect the smaller dynasties to a greater degree because WE don't want to be dropped. Many of us try to show more links than we can really afford for the same purpose. In my case, it made me need to buy more credits many times because I was clicked more than I could find to click back. No clicks = no credits = eventually no extras. There's probably no way to make everyone happy about everything but if there could be a little more for the smaller dynasties, it would make some of the changes easier to deal with. I don't know--how about ally limit based on links shown or listed in profiles? More links, fewer allies, fewer links, more allies allowed. This would give smaller dynasties a chance to compete with larger based on links possible to click. Then we can all get to click the same amount of links and all be the same, everyone at the top ( yes, that last was a joke) It might be a lot of extra work on someone's part but couldn't there be size division contests pitting similar sized dynasties in contests? I recall from the "old days" that this was brought up--different ranking by dynasty size. Instead, we got the higher ally limit. Don't get me wrong, I liked that way and we had our personal goals we could achieve. Katewolven - Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:14 pm [quote="Yarold"]
you say this discussion had "no results", however things were changed!
no your right we are not "forced" to drop allies, but if we want to keep the larger allies that do manage to show the most links we HAVE to give in and drop some of the smaller allies to make room for them to get bigger!
What is this? you don't like the question so you refuse to answer? I assure you she read ALL of the posts in this thread, yours included. You have yet to answer this well. You DO NOT help the smaller dynasties AT ALL, unless you include forcing them to get bigger to compete to be "helping"!
Off topic?? Really? or is it just that again you dont choose to answer? I ask again, why don't you punish the larger dynasties that were "cheating"?
Wrong. We have been trying to keep up on things, and have supported you right up until you made life impossible for the smaller dynasties!
Make a contest for what? How would you do this, would it really be for the smaller dynasties, or again just for those you prefer that feed you money by buying credits so they can feed thier members
No it's not easy to prove they are cheating, but you OWN the site you don't have to prove ANYTHING! You know how things are working behind the scenes, if you don't want "feeder" dynasties, cut them off. Make it impossible for them to work, stop allowing them to do things like this AND get rewarded. Simply say, no sorry you cheated you can't win this contest. The winner is (insert 2nd place person who DID NOT cheat here)
So your punishing the dynasty as a whole? KNOWING they have to work so much harder, your still not giving them a break! The MEMBERS might make it to 1st or 2nd, but many of us have a friendship going with those in our dynasties. We would like to see THE DYNASTY get 1st or 2nd place, instead we get punished for trying to work as a team.
I think you missed the point of this one...We worked hard and FAIR, we didn't cheat to get as high as we were. Yet we are still being punished, while you find ways to reward those that got to the top by cheating. Here's my take on things, and I could care less if you ban me, (I'm leaving anyway since this is supposed to be fun, (but since I am honest and not willing to lie, cheat and steal to be on top I won't ever get anywhere here.) I don't have the money to spend on buying credits, period. I don't have enough links to show 8 or more to get the same number of clicks received as given, and since I am emperor of a dynasty that will NEVER be large. We won't ever "win" your contests or be taken seriously. It has ceased to be fun for me, it has become a big ball of stress! I don't need your stress, (I have enough in real life). I hope you enjoy your site, and I will NEVER bring anyone here to get clicks again, since I know how against you are to anyone that wants to "play fair" and not cheat to get ahead in your world! KateWolven Emperor (almost ex emp) Ravelry Knitters Dynasty Jeanne - Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:36 pm
I never said it was "that good" but here is the mail and remember it was written before any of these new updates: Hi Stan I have been thinking about the problems Yarolds are having which are increasing and bad for all of us - I see fewer reg. members now than just a few months ago and I understand that any new member arriving here and finding it so hard to click anything on main and therefor not have a positive link so not getting any clicks for their game - they leave again. It is no secret that I was never a fan of the November 2008 update that changed the rank system only because 1 dynasty was frustrated to see themselves being beaten in rank by a small dynasty. The current rank system is very unfair - only the full size dynasties has a chance to go for #1 and because of the ally size limit and the few fully sized dynasties, they are allied to each other and theoretically has access to the same amount of links so they keep changing places or become inventive and try to "cheat" their allies of their own links by displaying them in history or at random times of the day. It causes a lot of frustrations and I believe it is partially to blame for some of the mean animosity going on here. Unfortunately the greed for clicks and the lack of cooperation and trust here prevents that the other top dynasties join together and "punish" this behavior by dropping them. The need to be full sized in order to make #1 has vacuumed main, the few that are left has to go and hide in ghost dyns to be free from the constant flow of invites to join a dyn - when I started in Yarolds a year ago I had 3-4 links on and every day when I logged on there where page after page of links on main - after 2-4 weeks on main I joined The MOB, I had 2,000+ credits, and if I had clicked 300 dyn clicks I had clicked at least double that amount in total! I liked the old rank system (dyn ave) better; all dynasties regardless of size had a chance - it was abused by small sized dyns - I suggested then a coding that didn't calculate dyn ave if the dyn was less than 10-15 members. I have a new suggestion: Click per member: Total clicks of dyn/number of members (but minimum 10 (or 15)) If the dyn has clicked 10,000 clicks and has 20 members the ave is 500 - keep the peasant doesn't count option but make the divider no less than 10 or 15 (meaning that if a dynasty only has 5 members and they have clicked 4000 then the ave is not 800 but 400 (min 10) or 267 (min 15) that way no small sized dyn can do a new "NF/Eternity" model) I believe this will result in the dyns no longer see it necessary to grow to 60 members and will eventually drop some "not so click-addicted" members and I think main will grow again - also it will make more room in the alliances for the now struggling smaller dynasties. Also to stop the current "cheating" remove the option to display in history alone - all displaying in history must be with either main or dynasty display. And make the limit option with a bottom value (no less than 10? or 25 like in transfers?) This would stop those who "flash" 9 links when they really can't "afford" it and help those who doesn't have snap links (some kids use their parents comp and are not allowed to install anything). My suggestions are not based on my own want/need to go for the top - although I am competitive and like all others like to win - I am more interested in seeing an end to all the frustration, bickering and hate and getting a more fair system with more equal opportunities and hopefully bring back the days of friendly competition and lots of clicks on main. ---------- You mention change of limits - I think that's a good idea, with fewer members in Yarolds, fewer members per dynasty would give the smaller dynasties who are not willing/able to pay for new members to join them a chance to get joiners too. engelina - Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:46 pm
i like the sound of this. it makes that you do not have to have 50-60 members to get high up on the dynasty list. i too am emperor of a small dynasty. i alsoo have been emperor of a big dynasty. both have its downs and ups. ((allies do have space for you sooner if you are small.. but they drop you a little sooner too, for example when they hit or nearly hit that 400 limit. )) i like having a small dynasty. but i also would like to keep a member that is negative from time to time, without having to worry about losing allies over one or two negs. Wolverines - Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:47 pm i think everything worked out just fine and nothing should be changed...nice work stan...i get all the clicks i need for my game... Yarold - Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:08 am So how this approach stat/members make it better ? For "big family" dynasties, and "those kicked from other" dynasties? For me its no change, you will stop and other emperors will come here. Atm you have stat/members (but minimum 60). This change situation from "we dont want to grow big" to "we dont want to kick all but X top members". (my arguments have nothing to do with who i favour) eirien - Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:44 am
I would like to hear the arguments from other emperors against a system that is fair to all. Anyone? mao_nagra - Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:21 am
I lick this idea
Jeanne - Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:20 am
I am sorry Stan I don't understand this post and I can't figure out who you are addressing. DemonicJ - Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:13 am
would stopping credit transfers acheive the same thing? Stop the wealthy dynasties 'employing' the best clickers? Jeanne - Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:54 am
Maybe, but stopping the transfers would ruin things for many not just "abusers". Atm I don't have any contests going on the new scoring system has completely ruined the fun (not just for my dynasty but for all who ran contests) but when I do the transfer system is the only way to reward winners. Ferrari - Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:03 pm
Totally agree with you, the Fun for contests is gone. Also the Fun ''try to be a top dynasty'' is gone. I think me and my dynasty must do as the short note from blurk say ''I don't get the scoring system anymore, and frankly: I don't CARE. Just clicking for FUN here.'' thats the way it is... DemonicJ - Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:23 pm
isnt that what it should be about anyway? have a bit of fun clicking & getting clicks for your games. Not getting paid to click as you are in nearly all dynasties Koshka - Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:01 pm If we could retain quality allies by clicking just for fun, I can assure you we would! I suppose we could eliminate the entire alliance system and we could all be on one page, with dynasties meaning nothing but "a bunch of friends," which is what my Ravelry Dynasty is. Jeanne - Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:27 pm
It's a another debate but OK: I'll give you that some dynasties have had contests with ridiculously high prizes (maybe to entice allied members to jump dyn?) but the last 2 I had, The Top Clicker and Chase the Wombat paid 50 & 25 credits - mere symbolic amounts but still a prize to win - it's in the human nature (and animals too) rewards makes you do better and the contests makes the clicking more fun. *DLMulsow* - Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 pm Here is another country heard from... I'm emperor of a small dynasty, we linger mid page on the dynasty list before the big changes. We have 4 members and we all click most every day, and contain high averages, no negatives and continually show links and extras from time to time. I think that dynasty effort should be rewarded. The averages = # of members should be ratio. So if you got 50 members in a dynasty and only 10 of them actually participate regularly, they got 5 ppl who stay - and a few that click every few days compared to MY small dynasty, of course the WHOLE average for the larger dynasty will be larger because it isn't scaled. If this is all about fairness, the averages should be scaled on a member to click/link average per dynasty ratio . This would give smaller dynasties an opportunity to grow and show they are worthy of rewards as well as these top member dynasties. It's not 'fair' for you to be on top just because you got more bodies in your fort. Skill and effort should honestly have a part in that. If this isn't about fair, then just disregard all my drivel... iFly - Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:09 pm In other words, proportionize the things...or simpler worded---rank-depend over members equals rank-depend over 60... so if it's the dynsumavg that counts, and the dyn's sumavg is 1500 with 6 members...it should be: 1500/6 = x/60 am i right? Is that what you are trying to say? Koshka - Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:23 pm
Would that it could be this way! But it doesn't seem to be about "fair." Wolverines - Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:44 pm
eirien - Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:38 pm
I'm sorry - why do you feel I should abandon my dynasty? Because the site is geared toward large dynasties I should just forget about the friendships I have and the loyalty in my small dynasty and the work we've done together and just join another? Is that what you're saying? We are 'whining' as you put it, because there is clearly a way to make the system fair to all dynasties regardless of size. Are you against this? If so, please tell us your arguments why. DemonicJ - Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:04 am
well to go back to another topic, as your rewards as merely symbolic & rewards for effort are human nature. Stan asked about extra ranks a while back & as not many responded, didnt do anything about it. maybe if there was an extra rank or two, the reward you speak of could be promotion to another rank for a defined period?? The call to abolish credit transfers & buying credits for others is to allow all dynasties an equal chance of getting members, rather than have the wealthiest dynasties buying members (& to a degree, buying VIP thereby allowing them to hide links to dynasty only) Jeanne - Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:00 am
Since you most of the time are not in any dynasty and when you are it's always in one of the larger (J4F mostly) maybe you don't fully understand what we are talking about. Whining you say? Is calling for equal opportunities whining? What do you have against fair treatment? And do you seriously suggest that all small dynasties should disband and join a larger if they want to be able to take part in competitions and contests? Wolverines - Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:04 am
thepossum1 - Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:05 am First off--please do not misunderstand my question. I am NOT trying to stir trouble, it's just an honest question trying to understand the original intent. @ Stan--why was the dynasty system instituted? Was it to allow friends/others to band together to have some fun clicking? And to spice things up a little, due to human nature, competitive spirit will always come into play. This is what has happened. Is it what you had envisioned when you began it? If not in a dynasty, you don't have short notes which can make things nice. If you only want to exchange clicks and have no other interaction with anyone, then you stay on main. I realize that the problem entered that most in dynasties stopped showing on main, so that drove the casual clicker away. But, on the other hand, you saw the creation of more dynasties to take advantage of the other benefits. With size limits per dynasty and ally limits this caused some dynasties to grow and ally with other large dynasties & not leave room for smaller who wanted to grow. Those of us in dynasties would like to keep dynasties, but if it is also required that 1 link be shown in main this will give something for the casual clicker to click making them happy too. I have been showing my normal dynasty link on main as well and find that I AM able to click back any main clicks. BUT, I also like to click alot. Problems occur when people just plain do not click enough and end up going minus making them unclickable. Again, that is casual clicking--go click on main. As for extras--those are only shown on dynasty since those are my allies, not the people on main. Main clickers are "entitled" to one link for the one click I get. If they choose to show more than 1 link on main then it would be in their own self interest to join a dynasty to get the benefit of more links to help balance their click done/click received. As far as credit transfers, I seriously doubt this will ever be eliminated because funds for running this site would begin to dry up. Why would I want to buy more credits if all I could do with them was fund showing more links myself that I most likely wouldn't be able to click back? Money down the drain as far as I can see. If I can't share them with my dynasty mates ( or anyone else should I choose) for contests, keeping them from going minus if they have to be away from clicking for a few days or whatever reason, why would I spend my money? As far as it not being fair to those who can't afford to buy credits, all I can say is--life isn't fair. I want a bigger house like some people have, but I can't afford, but I do not begrudge that person having it. And, as much as I dislike the feeder dynasty concept, if they are willing to ally with ANYone who wants alliance, then I don't see a problem. It's no different than any other ally. It is in their own best interest to click as much as they are clicked otherwise, they end up minus. I know the idea is that they are transferred credits to keep them positive, but again--if you want to spend your hard earned credits that way, why shouldn't you be able to? But for the dynasty in question to demand credit transfers is wrong. But again to the topic of being equally fair to large & small sized dynasties--
eirien - Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:19 am
Again, I would like to ask those emperors of large dynasties to speak out now if they are against a system that is fair to all dynasties. And if they are, to explain why. If no one speaks out then I feel it's safe to assume that everyone is in favour of a system fair to all, so Stan, you will be safe from them.
Bruno73 - Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:34 am
That is funny to read... The largest dynasties want to "get bigger" (how bigger? there is a limit!) and they cause trouble... however you want to keep them in your alliance because they show "the most links"... they show links but they shouldn't be ranked at the top... because they are too big LOL
Oh that's fine, you'd like a new dynasty ranking system that would perfectly fit the size of yours? lol Ok, RMV would split in RMV1, RMV2, RMV3 and RMV4, each of size 15, then I guess you would ask to stop "sister dynasties" like "feeder dynasties"?
RMV has been and is still the most extra link showing dynasty (see my graphics ) and you dare to call us "cheaters"? If you think we're cheating, you just have to break our alliance!
This has really stopped nothing at all... Is that unfair? Why that? No it isn't! Otherwise HH are unfair too! (Flash History exchanges are just a variation of HH)
You got it! You're just mad when you miss some of our fast exchanges... but you know, you and your members are welcome to our chat room to EXCHANGE with us.
Because you lack of imagination.
Because you are now ranked 5th.
Maybe I misread but I saw no such "fair to all" system proposed. The one suggested by Jeanne would just lead to have only 10/15-member dynasties because there would not be any interest in being bigger. So you would as well make the dynasty size limit be 10/15. Is that what you want? Maurice (barymore) has completely rebuilt RMV in less than 2 months, it was up to you all to do the same! Now just tell me why it is unfair or cheating that RMV is ranked 1st again... eirien - Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:46 am
Why would there be no interest in getting bigger than 10/15? Jeanne's system works just as well for hard working larger dynasties as for smaller ones. lol Jeanne - Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:07 am
First of all I don't say my idea is the best just that it is one. second it wouldn't just fit the size of my dynasty it would fit all sizes.
Now where did I say RMV?
According to my average you can hardly say I miss much
RMV was 80 members during the old DynAve system so saying no dynasties would be interested in growing larger is just not true. I think you missed the point: To allow all to take part in the competition - you can hardly be scared of competition? And think of this: Atm you're best out of 5 (yes 5 cause with this male-thing where size matters The MOB being currently 10 members less than RMV is not competing) wouldn't it be more of an accomplishment to be best out of 20? or 30? Koshka - Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:00 pm A Group of any size whose members click the most should be able to be "best" by some measurement, if not the most universal measurement. We used to be able to work toward excellence of Member Average, even if we never could be or want to be biggest and best. This ability has been stripped away from the smaller dynasties because the Big Boys didn't like being beaten anywhere. That's just not fair. bluebell_rose - Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:48 pm I think the previous system, was set up so dynasties would accept newer members and not reject them for some reason. I remember the top dynasties-> small dyns refusing to accept new members in their dyn descriptions. Saw plenty of those. So I gather the change was made to force top dyns to accept new people to stay up top. Ask yourself why the avg rank system was removed. Jeanne - Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:04 pm Smaller dyns had descriptions saying not accepting new members because they were under pressure from larger dyns and over alliance limit - told if they grew there wouldn't be room for them in the alliance. I'm not sure what you mean by the avg rank system - if you mean the Dyn ave it was removed because 2 small dynasties ( 4 and 2 members) sailed passed all larger dyns by having only top ave members. bluebell_rose - Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:06 am I meant when dyn done avg was used for ranking. Saw plenty of dyns refusing to accept new members. especially the small dyns holding top position. People completely new to yarolds then, had a hard time finding a dyn to enter because new people have 0 avg. Jeanne - Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:16 am I never saw that in any of the Mob allies there was always new peasants with 0 average, and when I was Emp there (the last month of dyn ave ranking) I didn't notice it in any of the dyns I checked out for potential allies either. Not saying it never occurred just that I never noticed it. Besides it's not important since I am not wanting the Dyn ave back my suggestion was based on the dyn click ave we had. Ferrari - Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:29 am
Jeanne you have right, I also never saw that, and we accept all new members , no matter if the ave was 0 or 500 DemonicJ - Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:07 pm
Neither of you looked real hard. If they were accepted into dynasties they were peasants until the average helped the dynasties they were in Jeanne - Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:22 pm
Not quite so - we promoted to Daimyos when they reached average 350 even when the dynasty average were higher - but back then peasants counted so no matter the rank they didn't "help" the dynasty average but were still accepted in the dynasty - how else would a dynasty grow if they didn't take new members? Yarold - Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:09 pm
Why any dynasty 'd like to grow if they ranked 1st? Jeanne - Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:27 pm Because the "old members" will at some point loose interest and stop or they burn out so if you don't continue to "grow" new members you will drop. DemonicJ - Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am
Im talking when peasants werent counted. There were a few dynasties that wouldnt promote till they had reached dyn average or close to it (unless they clicked a lot depending on which stat you were chasing) Jeanne - Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:10 am But why? When peasants didn't count it was the click ave that was deciding ranking order? Besides I don't see anything wrong in giving a "training" period - the peasant rank is no punishment it's the starting rank - promotion follows after a job well done meaning achieving a certain average just like the following promotion to Shogun. DemonicJ - Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:24 am
Which is why some dynasties left them as peasants till they got to dyn ave or as some dynasties had in their descriptions "good clickers only" or variations thereof. They wanted people with better averages to help boost them up Jeanne - Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:25 am Now you're just being argumentative. When it was dyn ave that counted most dynasties had a a set of rules determining when a peasant got promoted and it was usually when reaching a certain average but even before reaching that ave and being peasants they counted (pulling down) in the total dyn ave - yet dynasties had peasants. When click ave counted and peasants didn't - most dynasties promoted all as long as they clicked - some dynasties even kept a bunch of negative members cause having 10 that clicked average 150 each meant 1,500 extra on the click ave +++ that meant allied competitors had that much less room for positive maybe multi-link showing smaller allies. As for descriptions saying good clickers only (yourself included had that) ... don't we all prefer good clickers? Have you ever seen a job add saying apply also if you are lazy? Your last sentence is back to when it was dyn ave and 2 small dynasties (your own Eternity being 1 of them) only wanted members with ave 500+ to sail passed everyone else - the rest of the dynasties still accepted ave 0 members. DemonicJ - Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:42 am Sorry Jeanne, my bad. how remiss of me to think my opinions were worthy next to yours. Back to topic regardless of what we have had before this isnt any better ( do you agree Jeanne, please do as I really dont want to recant this comment as well) *bows & begs for forgiveness* yes your of course right when it comes to the Mob, Eternity & myself. after all we are the only ones to ever take any advantage (accordinging to you as you have only ever mentioned those) Jeanne - Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:11 am
LOL - you were my mentor I owe it all to you
I couldn't agree more: This is definitely not better
Hmm Ok since it's you
So sorry if you feel attacked that were never my intention. I bring up The Mob, Eternity and yourself not because (?) you (?) they (?) were the only ones to take advantage of the system, but because you are the one raising the issue and that seems strange to me knowing that you were part of it, and I did say you included - included meaning you were not alone in doing it. Also I talk about what I know for sure and I do know most about the Mob. Let me make clear I will be the first to defend the Mob: We only did what others did too. Ok I mentioned Eternity being 1 of the 2 so to be fair to you NF was the other! *Bows and begs for your forgiveness*
DemonicJ - Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:17 am
Yes I worked within any & all rules implemented here (no not the implementation, like everyone else here I find out as it/or after it happens). Doesnt mean I have to like them or agree with them, which is why im commenting Jeanne - Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:57 am Fair enough - just seemed to me you were knocking both of the old systems (and mixing them). This latest with minimum counts discourage displaying links it can be seen in the bottom left corner "clicks done" and in the growing amount of negative dynasty members. If the purpose is to turn Yarolds back to an exchange site I am afraid it will become a very small exchange site. I am a MMC link holder and my link does not benefit from being on this site - I think most MMC link holders leave should it become about only exchange and since DC, Squiby and many other link types are now accepted in some auto visitor sites I think many of those would leave too What Yarolds has is the unique Dynasty game (a kind of RPG) and making that so complicated and boring as it is now (not to mention unfair when only 2-4 dynasties can really compete against each other) could end with that breaking down and many more leaving. Reading SN's in my alliance I already see many talk about leaving - it is sad and frustrating But - Hey - with the game so boring I have plenty of time to nag here
mao_nagra - Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:26 pm
may I disagree withe you! I suppose all dynasty compete withe some one
not for the top but withe there nabers up and down I don't wan to be n1 dynasty, (I don't have any chance ), but at list have my (dynasty) 2000 dynasty in a day ore see all my member clicking in a day. that's very good for me and it is snuff
my dynasty is unique in yarol's because it is the only one that just accept new members to it, helping them to learner and to use yarold's in the best way I know that this politic it isn't the better one for me because I can't have many allays but that's OK may I suggest that all the dynasty should have a certain number of newbies in there teems! Jeanne - Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:09 pm I did mean compete for the top ranking, I know not all dynasties want to but I think all should be able to if they wanted it. I believe all dynasties has newbies - I have had some who only just reg. an account same day. misunkyno - Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:58 am ok i havent spoken here yet. i know im a bit late but have been very busy - my last week in my foreign country. anyway - i agree with jeanne on many matters. the new system isnt fair cause basically smaller dynasties have no way a possibility go to the top. i dont mind personally that respect isnt on top, for me theres another problem that rises: when a new member joins yarolds, what dynasty will he choose? the one on the bottom or one of the first ones? you can answer yourself. that means lately i have almost no members joining, or i get those who had been kicked out of others. thats not fair.. im very happy to have the peasant status back - i hated the promoting-demoting every night, plus as it has been said, its a "learning" rank and it also is more acceptable to have negatives there than among daimyos. back to the ranking.. i understand big dynasties want to grow, they show many links etc.. but with a small dynasty you cant really do a big performance, not all the ppl are online plus sometimes for me, with an irregular schedule, not even the happy times are lucky cause most of the time im not at home or am asleep. so even tho i try to be a good clicker and show extras, no luck there. showimg nore links part: i wouldnt mind showing more links but it makes no sense for me if im playing only one game! should i start (force myself to start) playing more games? no, cause i dont have time for that! my link is mmc and i created another one which honestly i dont give a ... about, and also im using my friends inactive mmc for the ahppy times.. so where is the link exchange need for me of these links since i dont need them, they are just made up or not used?? i agree the ranking should be based on average per member or something, even though thats tricky too, cause small dynasties with almost no allies (cause, its true as it has been said, ppl prefer big ones and there is no room for small ones) cant click a lot if they are lacking allies... on the other hand, if all small ones allied together, they might reach something... i dont know what to suggest. honestly i think the last ranking system was very similar, big dynasties with 60 members on top, cause they clicked more than small ones, of course... soo.. dunno stan.. what is your idea??? or how do you think we should attract new members into small dynasties??? [ Added: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:02 am ]
i am willing to accept and teach everyone. actually i got two great members since yarolds changed, and had to remove negatives only for being totally inactive (ie not logging in for days), never for "just being negative"... the question is that no one want to join my dynasty because its too small and therefore ont he bottom of the dynasty page, or not bottom but definitely not on the top.. so you cant force me to have more new members if they dont even try to join me cause theres no way how to get them besides picking them up on main page or so... for which, unfortunately, i have no time
eirien - Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:25 pm
I'm still waiting on a valid reason why they can't. Jeanne - Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:45 pm
Me too I feel we're being ignored to silence 
eirien - Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:58 pm
Typical tactic.
They must think we give up easy, Jeanne.
Koshka - Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:01 pm We have a name for that at our house. Passive Aggressive Bull (you know the rest--I have no need of another warning for speaking contrary to TPTB) Jeanne - Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:41 pm Maybe Stan hasn't been married and doesn't know the way to silence a woman is to give her what she wants
Roman - Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:20 am
..... and now - after that help from your side - he probably will never marry
Gail - Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:08 pm
LOL Roman--I know this thread is not about marriage, but if I had known before I married what I know about all men now--they are all the same , I never would have married.
Ferrari - Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:36 pm
Lol Gail, totally agree, all man are the same... I know for sure , when i could do it all over, I never want a husband again. sorry stan for the off topic subject, forgive us this time please (K) Yarold - Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:58 am uh, dont scary my future wife, its already impossible to find one Yarold - Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:22 pm
Atm ranking you want 'd look like this Jeanne - Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:38 pm No - (if that's for me) - I wanted a bottom limit at 10 or 15 members to avoid a new situation with a small dynasty sail to the top - and peasants must still count or the same can happen. Edit: Ahh - LOL I see it doesn't look good - I am putting my own Dyn first - but if we are best at average clicks per member we should be there ehh
[ Added: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:05 pm ]
aww Stan - I'm not scared as long as you promise to keep me silent
Koshka - Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:50 pm That's exactly what I want, especially since so many of our members left because of the perceived lack of respect for small dynasties. Small (really small) dynasties need love too! eirien - Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:02 pm Yes, that is a step in the right direction in my mind. Even though my dynasty isn't listed there. LOL We will have to work hard to reach the top, but if we have a system that says we can rather than one that will stop us no matter how hard we work, I think it's fair. |
