Yarold - Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: dyn ave ... Roman - Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: dyn ave Hi Yarold! My answer depends on what an eventual change would look like 
So it would help if you make concrete what you would like to chnage and we could tell you if we want it or not! Thanks. kito - Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:30 pm i agree can we have some kind of idea on what kind of change? Metalteo - Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:52 pm that will be the next question. Jeff - Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:10 pm Hi All! After all the whining and crying over the last changes... I like our little community the way it is. I must vote NO because I don't know what changes are being proposed. Sometimes leaving well enough alone is good. LOL! Jeff Divan - Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: Simply answer: NO Where to press NO? Divan Prlek - Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:36 pm System is working just fine right now, i don't see any reason to change anything. I vote no. fred007 - Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:48 pm Yes or No? How can I choose if I don't know what kind of change? Hum... Without more explanation, it's NO! rosie - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:00 pm I voted no  as I am happy with things as they are- I think we have been subjected to a lot of change recently! 
los-gangstas - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm Vote for NO. Dynasty average calculation is currently OK I guess 
Irishgeezah - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:26 pm Some information on the subject would have been very helpful but as none is available I'm voting No. I've always found it better to vote against things that you know nothing about ie No to Lisbon in Irish Referendum to ratify the treaty. Maybe like the EU, after this gets rejected we can vote on it again and again until it gets passed (No never means No when it comes to the EU) or..........We could be told what the changes are so we can make an informed choice and then choose to go with it or not !! Valldal - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:44 pm More changes?? What kind of changes?? That's gonna be NO for now since we don't know what kind of changes we are voting for/against. More info please.....:P carlo-patti - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:46 pm I vote for NO. Dynasty average calculation is currently OK 
DemonicJ - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:46 pm Would be good to know exactly how the current averages are calculated & any ideas as to what the next changes might include. But I voted yes as long as the changes help rid the site of the means to inflate averages like we are seeing now jane2002 - Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:48 pm Yes, please what changes?? 
Valldal - Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:16 pm How about changing those turrets? *Cough cough* saasiestown - Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:33 pm Changes are very nice. But changes made to get your own goal and promotion are not done. I think that jalously thought are given in to do this. DemonicJ - Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:43 pm
Changes need to be made to prevent the current manipulation of averages currently being exploited by some on this site Esperdome - Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:37 am I vote no because I have no idea what the changes might be. Rebecca - Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:21 am Hmmm, I guess there should be a rule banning happy hour then, and more than one link, because that certainly does "manipulate averages". DemonicJ - Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:07 am
You probably have a point, but its not manipulating the averages as much as some techniques that have been seen over the last week or so Rebecca - Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:12 am Well, thanks Jay, that I "probably" have a point. activist - Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:45 pm Typical,you ask a question but do not explain anything. How is an educated person supposed to vote on that question. When you do not know anything about something,you vote NO 
Dannic2002 - Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:42 pm I think if everyone looks, several dynasties have been "manipulating" the averages in their own ways. Would you not agree? Happy hour is a good example as Rebecca said, but I am sure we both know there are other ways that are being used. Dan bansho - Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:48 pm None of the mentioned above violates the rules/CoC, right? 
shumadija - Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:16 pm My vote goes to YES. To make changes to better. minh-phuoc - Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:40 am [quote="shumadija"]My vote goes to YES. To make changes to better.[/quote] Change better for whom? And why need to change? DemonicJ - Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:49 am
Changes to make it better for all, or to make a judgement on allowing the current methods legitimate & known so others may employ the same tactics should they want too turdkey - Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:11 am I dunno coz I ain't got enuff info to decide. What changes? Wildthing - Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:54 am I personally think once you click a link on a slot no matter what you put in that slot shouldnt be viewable until the time of the new day 24/hrs whatever you select comes, that would help stop the "inflation" we've seen. I am ALL for change *votes YES!* bansho - Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:22 pm I agree with Wildthing, the idea sounds quite reasonable. Ferrari - Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:24 pm I agree with Wildthing
Alba - Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:00 pm I am not going to vote for the time being, think as the majority of my partners, the changes are usually good, but you do not offer us the options of change. my opinion is that there should be contributed different ways of calculating the bird of the dynasties, and then asking for our vote. if we do not have any information about the changes, we do not dare to vote if. although I think that it is entertained to do changes a hug to all DemonicJ - Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:06 pm
Exactly right!! Thats a change worth making Roman - Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:16 pm
But what does it help? We have unlimited slots, don't we? Or am i wrong? kito - Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:11 pm
i also really like this change Darrel - Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:01 pm YES! Ferrari - Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:12 pm
Yes Enrul but but what person would put 24 hours 20 links in the slots?
ppj2005 - Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:32 pm
The answer to this is actually NO. You have 14 slots to fill. However, if you erase the 14 links and put 14 new links, there are 14 new links to click. If you do this you presumably have endless links. Before they limited the links to 14 on the profile, you could put more in. I have 22 slots filled in and yes, I have left them out all day before. Saendelft - Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:32 pm What about limiting the number of slot entries and -removals to, lets say, five? Would that be technically possible? Then every has the option of adding a maximum of, in this case, four extra links at happy hour and remove them if needed. After removal, the slot is blocked until reset. That way, the charm of happy hour is preserved but this type of legal manipulation is limited to "acceptable" proportions. Neerie - Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:00 pm
Even though I am very very new to this site, I've already been witness to many exploits to boost one particular dynasty averages, partially by the abuse of the aforementionned. So I totally agree with this. On a side note however, if we are limited to a max of 14 links total at one time, could it be possible to ALWAYS see the 14 slots in our profile, even if they are empty? Especially if the aforementionned is ever implimented. Wildthing - Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:54 pm I am actually shocked so many agree with me, I know my thoughts aren't always so popular. See happy hour.. thats an interesting idea as well. On one hand, do we not have enough link slots? I could perhaps offer an apartied soluition of sorts. perhaps one or two link slots designated on this list specifically as happy hour slots. Now you can use them all day if you want, but have it know that if you remove the link frmo it, then you can not replace anything in it at all or can not reenable it until the site resets. My major concern is the unfair boosting of a dynasty making those who work hard and fair as so many do a worthless endeavour. To be the best you have to beat the best but does cheating to do it?.. or skirting a rule in the CoC I think its unmber 6?.. really.. you know what I mean? Ferrari - Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:49 pm
I agree again.. wildthing if I agree with someone, then I say it, I think that is fair. I know that you normally keep in the background, but I am very glad that you've also seen what happens. And I am glad that we agree on the fact that this may not happen again. Wildthing - Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:29 pm I call it as I see it and I am desperatly hoping if admin will not recalculate the averages or find a way to do so then please make the link boxes useable in a way they can not be abused *hugs ya* Chillaxville - Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:37 pm I voted No because as others have said it's not clear what changes would be made and why. I am concerned about the manipulation of dynasty averages though and would be in favour of changes that would reduce this type of activity. I just think we should know in advance what changes are to be made and be allowed to give some feedback about them. Dingaka - Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:25 pm I vote NO ppj2005 - Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:49 pm
If you refer to what RMV did to boost their numbers, the question of whether it is a violation of the CoC should have already been answered by admins. It was pointed out to them and because nothing corrective was done it appears it does not violate the CoC. That would leave the same option open to all other dynasties who want to employ such methods. It was discussed by MMC Mob but we have chosen not to employ such methods. As for happy hour there is nothing wrong with showing extra links for 1 hour in the day. This is not manipulative of the system in any way and has been done on the site long before I ever came here (just reading the forum tells me that). As for a change in the way dynasty averages are calculated... I do not see why it cannot be based on a 10 day average like our personal averages. I recall the posting here where Metalteo said our personal averages have some weight in the calculation but I do not know the purpose of that. As was said before, knowing how averages for the dynasties are being calculated now would help us determine what kind of change might be best. los-gangstas - Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:52 pm I agree with ppj2005. We would like to know current calculation and what kind of changes you have in mind. lurchman - Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: Vote for no 1. I vote for no. Why should we change, no explenation given? 2. Can someone show me exact the place in the Yarold rules where - what I call cleverness - some others call "manipulation"? 3. Think about why Dynasties are created, it is game, a race a competition. I see some people which are complaining that others have a better strategy. Start to build up your own strategy than to call for rule changes. Putting in 64 links in happy hour is nothing diffrent, than you need to bann this as well. 4. There will always be members not satisfied that things are not running as expected or members which are unsatisfied. Are you going to change each time someone is wining or complaining? I can see many suggestions in the forum, many of them are even not answered. What about them. You could do a poll for each suggestion than. Cheers lurchman purplemkayel - Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:42 am I don't understand how "dynasty aves calculation" is done now, so have no idea what the problem/s with the current "dynasty aves calculation" could be, or what changing it would fix... reading this thread just confuses me. Is this poll about changing how the dynasty averages are calculated or changing how people are able to build their averages? This would seem to be 2 different things to me. Is there information somewhere how the dynasty average is calculated? Yarold - Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:47 pm This was jut a pool asking if any change is needed in how dyn. ave is calculated. Curent is calculated by suming all clicks in to dynasty + ally members, then "averaged" over the last 10 days. I had no idea to what it might be changed at time when poll was created. Now i think it might be omething like change from counting different members insted of different links. quetions asked here:
simple version is above, for math
turrents will be changed, but not yet
yes, none violates rules/CoC Now i think that WT idea is better. But now i cant take any action as you look at vote result. DemonicJ - Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:57 pm
You can implement Wildthings idea as it wasnt part of the original question now was it? Nor was there a poll when you changed it last time either Neerie - Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:46 pm
I don't actually think the vote results should totally be taken into consideration, especially in WT's idea, mostly because most people who voted NO voted so not because they were against the idea of any change, but because they were not informed of what those changes would be. los-gangstas - Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:05 pm I vote NO just because there were no info what changes there will be, but WT's idea is worth of implementation. If there were only conversation you will probably have more idea's. And after that you will have to open poll question's. In that way you will have more precise results. Wildthing - Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:37 pm My idea has nothing to do with how an average is calculated Yarold. My idea has with making the site run the way I believe you originally intended and as how it used to be. Back before when you clicked a slot that link slot was "dead" until the day change, no matter what you put in it be it happy hour or not, if you already clicked the slot nothing would appear in it. I plead with you to please consider this and readd it to the site. it might not be "cheating" persay but it is most definitly abusing a loophole in the code, and it is abusing something I do not belieev you made or coded or intended to be abused. I can respect that the calculation of averages ight not be changed, but remember my idea was never about how things were changed, only about making them better for the majority. Wolverines - Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:13 am
totally agree once a link spot have been clicked it should be dead until day change like it was before kito - Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:19 am I also agree strongly with this Wildthing - Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:12 am I am totally grateful for your support. I am only hoping that Yarold will give it the consideration it should get because I really feel strongly that the site will better off if he brings this back. Greasbrough - Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:49 am Agree - a link slot once clicked should stay dead for 24hrs regardless of how many different links you put in the slot. Darrel - Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:26 am Hm, that looks good, but only if there are unlimited slots bansho - Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:28 am practically they are unlimited... but credits are not
stompi - Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:37 pm
Big NO from me. I see, that it might be good to limit it to the box again, but don´t make a 24hrs rule for each box. This would be a big step back. In advanced options we can now decide, when the link will be refreshed and I really don´t want to miss this feature again. For example: myminicity refreshes at 00:00 and if the only refresh would again be at 07:00, you could click it twice without a second real hit for the city. And with 24 hrs there would be much less clicks, because not all can be online at the same time each day. Example: You click it normally at 12:00 and can´t do it one day, so you click it at 20:00. The next day you can´t click before 20:00 and because you can only be online at your usual time at 12:00 and not later, you have one day without clicks. Yarolds is allready a game itself, but please don´t forget the initial purpose, which is to get as many valid clicks to your game-sites as possible! My suggestion would be showing the 14 slots the whole time in profile, not depending, if there are links in it or not. Advanced options stay as they are. Link will only be refreshed, when the slot is determined to be refreshed and not when you enter a new link. Or just let it as it is and let us compete at this level. I don´t really mind at this. Roman - Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:40 pm I absolutely 100% agree with stompi! Greasbrough - Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:59 pm Stompi
I agree - when I said 24hrs I should have added the options you mention should remain. As you said we should be able to determine when the slot is refreshed and NOT by repeatedly adding new links. jennielynn - Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:10 pm
Unlimited slots would defeat the purpose of this. Wolverines - Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:30 pm well i dont see the need for 14 slots....4 slots worked good for everyone....u telling me that some people are playing games (beside highest average race) that need 14 slots for links to be shown all the time? Grandpa - Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:37 am
The flight of that plane is, I believe, the ideal metaphor for group leadership and family life. I, for one, will continue to trust those in charge to keep our 'plane' on track. Please accept my thanks and appreciation for the skill and work it takes and pardon me for not contributing as well as I might by offering my support earlier. More on topic: I would say "YES" for change. How can we get to our destination without it? ~Grandpa Thriving Dragons ____________________________________ FOOTNOTES, ANNOTATIONS AND CREDITS: The above quote was taken from the book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, written by Stephen R. Covey, published by Golden Books Darrel - Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:10 am
Well, that's is what I think, otherwise it would be too costly for everyone to have several liinks all the time, but if he/she removes them, they would be locked. This way it would be good for smaller dynasties, but not so good for the bigger. This would lead to drop of average and credits most of all. It best like it is now. Wildthing - Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:47 pm stompi you misunderstood me. My thing is this, as it is now a slot isnt dying once clicked. I want it to go back to the old way of when once you click it its either "dead" until reset, or "dead" until the 24 hr period is up.. this would be dependant on whatever ticked option the owner of the links has set. Right now people are playing a self inflated average game and thats really not in the spirit and good will of the site and I do not believe this is what yarold had intended when he created the site either. Now that I have explained my view what do you think? Also the "unlimited" link slots would indeed destroy the purpose. Why have "unlimited" slots if thats going to let you do what it is many of us are trying to stop from happening now? stompi - Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:44 pm Yes, I am the same opinion Wildthing. A defined number of slots, which only reset at the selected time or 24h. I only don´t want to miss the selectable time option. Wildthing - Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:48 pm I love the time option, it stops people from getting jupped (cheated) on clicks. I keep hoping Yarold will consider our most desperate and heart felt pleas. Darrel - Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:16 am Yarold made this update, but now many people are wondering what is happening with their links and have problems. There are already several topics asking about problems with the links. Grandpa - Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:53 pm
I like the idea of counting the the number of MEMBERS clicked instead of counting Total Links clicked. We could still share Happy Hour clicks but clicking 14 links all from the same Member would only count as 1 toward Dynasty Averages. Regarding the math: Weighted averages divide the sum of the weighted values by the sum of the weights themselves. For instance, if we had 3 days of totals where:
Day 2 = 80 Day 3 = 90 An average on the 2nd day (70 + 80) / 2 = 75 This could be used to calculate the actual average for the third day.
Today = 90 WRONG: (75 + 90) / 2 = 82.5 CORRECT: (70 + 80 + 90) / 3 = 240 / 3 = 80 ALSO CORRECT: (2 * 75 + 90) / 3 = (150 + 90) / 3 = 240 / 3 = 80 To simplify the calculation we'd need to add another variable to track how many days were in the old average. Old_Average = 75 Old_Average_Total_Days = 2 Today = 90 That way our Personal and Dynasty averages would be more intuitive and reflect actual averages. It could also be made into a floating 10 day true average simply enough. In other words, Yes - I'd like to see changes to the way our averages are calculated. I also like your idea of counting MEMBER clicks better than our current way of counting the number of links clicked. ~Grandpa stompi - Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:50 pm only as an example with a 3 days period: 1: 40 2: 40 3: 46 4: 50 5: day 3 ave: (40+40+46)/3 = 42 day 4 ave: (40+46+50)/3 = 45,3 (2*42 + 50)/3 = 44,6 So the only REAL average is made by saving the number of clicks of all 10 days and dividing them by 10. (day1 + day2 + ... + day3) / 10 (9*old_ave + today_clicked)/10 is no average, it is just a filter algorithm, which is normally used to reduce for example the signal noise of a measurement. Grandpa - Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:05 pm
Respectfully, stompi - your math is wrong. The final average you have shown (2*42 + 50)/3 = 44.6 as your 'proof' incorrectly averages the days. To average that specific three day period the equation should include: Day 2 (40) + Day 3 (46) = 86 / 2 = 43, not 42. Therefor the 'correct' method for calculating the average during day 2 through 4 inclusive would be:
To consider the progression of averages over a period of 6 days, please examine:
I have no idea what you mean by "signal noise of a measurement", but it seems that we may agree in a couple points.
2. There is room for change. Question: How do you feel about Yarold's proposed change, "MEMBERS clicked instead of counting Total Links clicked"?
Of course people could still influence it -- by having links visible and keeping positive credits <-- both good things. I suspect that the combined ideas would not be well received. The new Average algorithm combined with counting Member clicks would make things like "Happy Hour" into a way of helping others without personal gain. Some may even hate the idea because the "Dynasty Average" game would finally have a level playing field, one purely based on who is clicking other member and allied links the most. Cordially, ~Grandpa DemonicJ - Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:38 am Only issue I see with a members clicked based average is that it will not be level at all, but will favour the dynasties with the most members? For those that play the highest average game, that could lead to them dropping smaller dynasties & maxing out there own dynasty to get the numbers? purplemkayel - Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:52 am Yep, maxing out would be a problem and incentive for a dynasty to have active allies is reduced. It could lead to active dynasties maxing out their own number to 100 and choosing to ally with the least active dynasties, to weight the average game in their favour. To maximise dynasty average would I ally with a dynasty where everyone clicks everyday or would I ally with a dynasty with where only half the people click everyday? Incentive gone and a whole new game again. Grandpa - Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:33 am
I would assume that what was meant by "Member" clicks would mean members of the alliance. I haven't asked. Elsewise it would be TWO changes, not one. Given the above situation (with true Averages -AND- 'Alliance Member' not 'Total Links' counted) having 10 alliances of 25 members each would be the same as having 3 large alliances, don't you think? True averages -AND- Member (or ally) clicks counted would effectively cap the maximum number of clicks that counted toward the dynasty average to 350. The best of the best could tie for the top and the game would end. I honestly believe that some here would hate that idea. Ambivalence here. ~Granps stompi - Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:02 am Grandpa, now I understand, what you meant. So with your formula you get the average over all days. And I thought about an average over only a definite number of days, like 10. For all days, your formula is correct of course. I would make the sum of the last 10 days divided by 10, because an overall-average brings some problems. What if you have clicked for a year and there was in your dynasty only the chance to get for example about 200 average and then you could make about 600. Another one joins just when the change happenes and even after a year, you could only have 400 and he allready after the first day 600. For dynasty average it could be basically the same: For each day is an average calculated: All clicks divided by the number of members And then the averages of the last 10 days are summed and divided by 10. Also possible, but I dont like it so much: the averages of all members just summed and divided by the number of members. But the first mentioned method would be more dynamical, faster and more accurate. It would not give you less average, if you let a new one join the dynasty. To the idea with only members clicked instead of links clicked: I like the old idea here more. With the new method, all dynasties would say "you have to show a link everytime, have credits and click all links" and then it is only a question of the number of members in the dynasty+allies. Grandpa - Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:00 am Yes, stompi. I believe you understand what I'm talking about:
It should be a simple matter for all links that have not been clicked to be made visible. Loyalty and longevity could also be reflected in other statistics (how long the member has been with Yarold's Exchange, or time spent with a specific dynasty). Much (if not all) of the manipulation we see would be brought to an end. The benefit of belonging to a dynasty is reduced cost when ones link is clicked. How can we then argue that having links invisible or having insufficient credits is a good thing? To continue the idea there could be a ratio created (IF Member Only clicks were the basis) expressing the number of clicks performed versus the number of clicks received. It would show not only how productive a clicker you are but also show how often your link was available. Combined ratios are not uncommon in business. This could result in an eventual redesign of the Dynasty Page. The game of "King of the Mountain" and "Top Dog" there would take on different aspects, but I doubt that it would end. Nor do I think that it's necessarily a bad thing, only that so many people come to Yarold's Exchange with the expectation of meeting friends who want to share their links. They typically join a dynasty and the current situation oftentimes leaves them confused. The number of "Why was I kicked from my dynasty?" questions would go down. Cordially, ~Granps mph10 - Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:16 pm
ye lets do that, i only have one, and people who aren't in the time zone and actually sleep get pushed below those who join in with "happy hour" i will not vote on this until a somebody posts a thread of the current system for calculation regarding dynasty averages, and also a rough idea of possible changes... [ Added: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:26 pm ] i propose that averages exclude holiday periods or something if someone isn't able to click at all over a period of time, they could set holiday mode, meaning their average does not drop severely from no internet access Darrel - Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:35 pm
No, this about the banning of the Happy Hour is no longer needed.....already there are too much updates that make Happy Hour inpossible, because if someone wants to show links only a selected time of the day, he/she will have to wait one day, during which he would lose a terrible amount of credits (if he/she is not a VIP cause non-Vip's hidden link is vissible in History). I tried this and lost 1000 credits for nothing! Now I can't make this credits again cause now people are looking for EVERY possible link to help their Dynasty. But about the Holiday counting, I agree totally  although perhaps it would be impossible to make it...maybe a button in which you tick when you are on a Vacation and while it is ticked the Person Ave will not drop, may be a way.
Metalteo - Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:40 pm Why do you want to waste your credits on links you don't receive real clicks for anyway. Ferrari - Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:48 pm
Darrel, you can just set extra links for happy hour as long as you wish!! Will you just 15 minutes set 10 extra links than you add 10 links for 15 minutes and after the 15 minutes you remove the 10 links. The only thing what is changed is watch out you can in those 10 slots not again new links adding, you must wait till reset.
But you have 14 slots, so your regular link who is the whole day in dynasty, you can just let it where it is. just use the other slots for happy hour. ♥ Ferrari ♥ Darrel - Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:45 am Understand, but I just tried to put one link and it says "changing to new" and will apear after the reset, wouldn't it? jennielynn - Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:33 pm
Correct. MUSHpark - Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:57 pm OK, nobody has posted on this thread for a week, but I've been referred here from another question about dynasty averages so I presume it is still the correct place to ask about changing the dynasty average calculation. Currently there are TWO running averages taken. First, dynasty members personal averages are taken into account with a 9*oldave + clicks today = newave. You have to click at least 10 higher than your current ave for it to increase, so even if you click 400 forever you will only get a 391 personal average. THEN after this calculation, for the dynasty, the new dynasty average is based on member averages, not based on member clicks that day. So even if you have a dynasty full of people all clicking 400, their personal 391 averages are what will go into the dynasty average calculation and it will be no better than 382. Currently MMC Mob has 384 average which means that their members have really probably been clicking 402 every day for a while.
Also the change in averages means you can click 0 for very long period of time and still keep a high average. The "Taking on the Average" dynasty has had 0 clicks for several days now, but their dynasty average only drops by 2 each day because member averages were high to start with. You can have the following silliness: Today MMC Mob has a 384 average. That means dynasty member averages are at least 393 (by math shown above). So what would happen if everybody in MMC Mob clicked exactly 0 links today? The member averages would drop by 10% to 353. But then the dynasty average would assume everyone clicked 353 today and would only drop by 10% of (384-353) or 381. So 0 clicks ALL day and dynasty average drops only by about 1%. Let's say MMC mob stopped clicking for 4 days. That is no clicks at all! Their daily averages would be: Day 1: 381 Day 2: 375 Day 3: 367 Day 4: 357 They would still be in the lead even with zero clicks! Another problem with the current method is that it makes it less likely for dynasties to want new members because no matter how good that new member clicks they bring a 0 average in, and there is no way to get higher than a 0 average without being in a dynasty to start with! Say you have a dynasty with 9 people who all have a 250 average and do 250 clicks every day to maintain it. Then you get a new member with 0 average. They do super well and click 500 their first day. New member personal average (9*0 + 500) / 10 = 50 Dynasty average input to formula 300*9 + 50 = 275 Dynasty average (9*300 + 275) / 10 =298 (edited to correct math) So dynasty has 9 people maintaining 300. New member clicks DOUBLE the dynasty average and what happens? Dynasty average goes down by 2. This does not make sense!!! Please reopen the discussion on changing dynasty average to fix these issues.
Metalteo - Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:17 am
9x300= 2700 2700 + 275 = 2975 2975/10 = 297.5 rounded up it would be 298 not 288. Now when you do the whole calculation for a 60 member dynasty, you'll see that the effecft can be neglected. Not to mention that only in theory a dynasty will have members all with a 300 avg. (yes I know you said 250 before.) Another effect on this is when someone with an high average doesn't click for a day their own personal average will drop some, but they will still count for an high average in the dynasty calculation. Afteral why should the formula forget all the clicks that have been done on the days before. It wouldn't be an average anymore if it did that. MUSHpark - Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:38 am
Thank you for correcting my math. It still means that you can have more clicks than your dynasty average and your average can still go down.
Yes, the bigger your dynasty the smaller the effect, and that gives more weight (literally!) to building a bigger dynasty. It is probably a good thing to reward dynasty size somehow. I still think it is not right to penalize dynasties (no matter how small the penalty) for accepting newbies. But that is just my opinion, and I suppose others may differ. |
