Helped: 9 times Age: 53 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:04 am
Jeanne wrote:
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.
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)
_________________ 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 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
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?
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
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?
well first off i was i was only in jf4 for 1 month ask ferrari i have mostly been in small dynasty gamers and untouchables..i dont have anything against fair treatment but someone is always going to see it as unfair treatment...i just dont understand what is so unfair about this....so JF4 ranks higher than gamers....does that make them better???? does that make them get more clicks cause of a higher average??? are you not getting your clicks for your game???people in alliance not getting enough clicks????ya i am suggesting if you not getting enough click in whatever(big or small) dynasty you are in you should leave and find another one that suits you...well since i am not part of dynasty this is all unfair to me as i cant compete with anyone in a dynasty big or small...so lets change everything....lol .....or maybe since i get the clicks i need for the game i just let it go..maybe stan could figure something out that if you show 10 links for just 1 min then those that do it get their averages divide by 10...instead of inflating number would see their real number that way...if you stop credit tranfers then dynasty would trim some fat...instead of feeding people 500 credits per day everyday to do nothing
Joined: 09 Jun 2008 Posts: 241 Location: North Carolina, USA
Posted: 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--
Quote:
Yarold wrote:
For me its no change, you will stop and other emperors will come here.
Perhaps this is so, but it doesn't change anything either. At some point down the road, those who have other small dynasties will also see that things as they are favor larger dynasties and this same discussion will occur. Why not fix it now, keep those who are asking for equity PLUS make it more likely that new people will come, like the atmosphere and also stay? To me, this seems like a win-win situation.
For me its no change, you will stop and other emperors will come here.
Perhaps this is so, but it doesn't change anything either. At some point down the road, those who have other small dynasties will also see that things as they are favor larger dynasties and this same discussion will occur. Why not fix it now, keep those who are asking for equity PLUS make it more likely that new people will come, like the atmosphere and also stay? To me, this seems like a win-win situation.
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.
Age: 52 Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Posts: 57 Location: Nice, France
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:34 am
Quote:
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!
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
Quote:
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))
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"?
Quote:
Also to stop the current "cheating" remove the option to display in history alone
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!
Quote:
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
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)
Quote:
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
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.
Quote:
Totally agree with you, the Fun for contests is gone.
Because you lack of imagination.
Quote:
Also the Fun ''try to be a top dynasty'' is gone.
Because you are now ranked 5th.
Quote:
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.
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...
_________________ Bruno73
Last edited by Bruno73 on Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total
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.
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
Oh that's fine, you'd like a new dynasty ranking system that would perfectly fit the size of yours? lol
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.
Bruno73 wrote:
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!
Now where did I say RMV?
Bruno73 wrote:
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.
According to my average you can hardly say I miss much
Bruno73 wrote:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Helped: 2 times Age: 57 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 1937 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:29 am
Jeanne wrote:
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.
Jeanne you have right, I also never saw that, and we accept all new members , no matter if the ave was 0 or 500
Jeanne you have right, I also never saw that, and we accept all new members , no matter if the ave was 0 or 500
Neither of you looked real hard. If they were accepted into dynasties they were peasants until the average helped the dynasties they were in
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?
Helped: 9 times Age: 53 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am
Jeanne wrote:
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?
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)
_________________ 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
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.
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
