Joined: 09 Jun 2008 Posts: 241 Location: North Carolina, USA
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:32 am
Quote:
There is no rule to be big dynasty. You are not forced to drop allies also.
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.
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???
Objection, 'Dynasty discusion' forum is for every dynasty, thus no invitation were given to anyone. Discussion that took place had no results anyway.
you say this discussion had "no results", however things were changed!
Quote:
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.
There is no rule to be big dynasty. You are not forced to drop allies also.
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!
Quote:
Instead of helping the "big 5" grow bigger, why not help the smaller dynasties grow if they want to?
You are skipping reading of my replies, i shall do the same with yours.
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"!
Quote:
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.
offtopic
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"?
Quote:
I'm feeling very small and unimportant and disregarded by the Yarolds leadership. I feel that no one is interested until any changes happen.
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!
Quote:
Quote:
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 ?
I don't think anyone works harder for their dynasty than Jeanne.
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.
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
Quote:
The priorities you have set mean hard working=best cheaters.
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.
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)
Quote:
As for hard working dynasties: Do you think members in small dynasties work less than members of large dynasties do?
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.
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.
Quote:
Additionally, we attained our goal of a high member average by working hard, not by creating faux dynasties or fake links
you can show them now on 'main'
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
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.
Im sorry but i have to ask for it again if you say it was that good.
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.
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 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.
Helped: 12 times Age: 38 Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 765
Posted: 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)
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)
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)
I am sorry Stan I don't understand this post and I can't figure out who you are addressing.
Helped: 9 times Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:13 am
Jeanne wrote:
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.
would stopping credit transfers acheive the same thing? Stop the wealthy dynasties 'employing' the best clickers?
_________________ Do it Legit. You break the rules, don't expect a pleasant outcome
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Proudly the Emperor of The MOB. The oldest surviving & most successful large dynasty
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.
would stopping credit transfers acheive the same thing? Stop the wealthy dynasties 'employing' the best clickers?
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.
Helped: 2 times Age: 56 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 1937 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:03 pm
Jeanne wrote:
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.
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.''
Helped: 9 times Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:23 pm
Ferrari wrote:
Just clicking for FUN here
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
_________________ Do it Legit. You break the rules, don't expect a pleasant outcome
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Proudly the Emperor of The MOB. The oldest surviving & most successful large dynasty
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.
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
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.
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...
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:
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...
Would that it could be this way! But it doesn't seem to be about "fair."
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
i totally agree...i see this whinning about small/big dynasty....if you think it is unfair to small dynasty then join a big one if you think it is unfair to big one then join a small one...anyways back to the quote i think elimination of credit transfer and buying credits for other would help alot....other than that i like the changes nice work stan....you will alway have people who dont like the changes you make and whin that is is unfair but you can never make everyone happy
if you think it is unfair to small dynasty then join a big one if you think it is unfair to big one then join a small one
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
