All ( new ) updates are great. Only the AVE and CLICK about dynasty - its not good for all. It was great before for every one - Who wanted to make a competition with other Dynasty or just enjoy to help their pets or city.
All new updates are pretty cool. Just AVE & CLICK system - its boring now.
There are some people in Dynasty, who only wants to help their pets or city. So, i think, this is not a big issue for them. Who wont care for Ave or Click.
To be honest, for me and my Dynasty's friends - there are no problem about this new update. Just got sad to see some big and wise Dynasty got down then us. Always i saw, they are in first place. But, now - they are in down then small Dynasties. It hurting me cause of my emotions.
No need to think, are they good or bad. They did ( great ) hard works to keep their Dynasty in first place ( in Dynasty list ). But, now, their all hard works are worthless.
Another thing is, before ( some ) people had fight for AVE, now they will fight for CLICK lol
And peasant Rank is worthless now. Dynasty wont count their Ave or Click. So what gain for a Dynasty to having some Peasants ?
And peasant Rank is worthless now. Dynasty wont count their Ave or Click. So what gain for a Dynasty to having some Peasants ?
The same thing they have always had to gain - get a peasant, help them and encourage them, and SOME will turn into big clickers. The ones that don't satisfy your minimum avg/clicks you can boot as you always did.
Helped: 2 times Age: 48 Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 407
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:56 am
MUSHpark wrote:
Kronia wrote:
This punishes many good, average-sized dynasties just because of a few dynasties who shot up the rankings because they only had a few members.
Define "average size" and "few members"? What's the right size for a dynasty? Was MMC UBC okay at 20-ish? Or are the 40-ish dynasties better? Why was a dynasty of 4 wrong? Who is to decide the correct dynasty size?
Whats the problem? UBC wanted to get rid of the small Dynasties that go to the Top easily. You got it now!
The new ranking is great because it counts Qunatity AND Quality!
You complained about small Dynasties? Ok, J4F and RMV (I dont want to speak for them) are now complaining that so extremely small Dynastys like UBC get to the Top easily. Please don't forget that J4F has double your members and RMV even more than double.
So please stop complaining about small Dynasties.
The new Update takes care of exactly what you wanted.
Now you need MANY AND GOOD clickers to get to the Top.
And like I allready mentioned before, for me RMV IS the best Dynasty because they have lots of great clickers. And the ranking puts them to the first spot now.
And peasant Rank is worthless now. Dynasty wont count their Ave or Click. So what gain for a Dynasty to having some Peasants ?
having peasants not count toward averages allows you to accept them without concern for the dynasty's average if they turn out to be no good or take a while to get the hang of the site and allows us to teach them and gives them a chance to prove their worth before becoming a daimyo and an important part of the dynasties, making them like trainees or what have you. Also if someone is going to be gone for a while for any reason you can temporarily demote them until their return so their absence doesn't harm the dynasty. It is a good thing, you'll see
edit: :\ I was reading a little on the ones who have a problem with the peasants not counting cause it will cause people to collect peasants to add more links to dynasties care free, so why not add a maximum of 10 peasants per dynastie, that should fix everyone's problems with it =]
This punishes many good, average-sized dynasties just because of a few dynasties who shot up the rankings because they only had a few members.
Define "average size" and "few members"? What's the right size for a dynasty? Was MMC UBC okay at 20-ish? Or are the 40-ish dynasties better? Why was a dynasty of 4 wrong? Who is to decide the correct dynasty size?
Whats the problem? UBC wanted to get rid of the small Dynasties that go to the Top easily. You got it now!
The new ranking is great because it counts Qunatity AND Quality!
You complained about small Dynasties? Ok, J4F and RMV (I dont want to speak for them) are now complaining that so extremely small Dynastys like UBC get to the Top easily. Please don't forget that J4F has double your members and RMV even more than double.
So please stop complaining about small Dynasties.
The new Update takes care of exactly what you wanted.
Now you need MANY AND GOOD clickers to get to the Top.
And like I allready mentioned before, for me RMV IS the best Dynasty because they have lots of great clickers. And the ranking puts them to the first spot now.
GREAT!
Wow Roman,
Yesterday yet hast thou meant the new ranking system is not good!
Yes, I was against "old" ranking system which there were great dynasty discriminated against and new systems are small and discriminated against Middle dynasty!
I am missing a ranking system where all dynasty (small, medium, large) have the same right, where nobody is discriminated against!
And I'm sure they think most members yarold!
Helped: 2 times Age: 48 Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 407
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:56 pm
Hi Jassej!
jassej wrote:
Wow Roman,
Yesterday yet hast thou meant the new ranking system is not good!
I did only say, that the system is not good for the Dyn/Ave. At this time I did not understand the new system fully. I now understand it and agree with it.
jassej wrote:
I am missing a ranking system where all dynasty (small, medium, large) have the same right, where nobody is discriminated against!
Great wish, but not possible in my opinion. I also would like suc ha ranking system. Do you have any idea? Sorry Jassej, but only complaining without thinking of own ideas is to little.
There will never be a ranking system (ONE ranking system) that fits for small, middle and big Dynasties.
Great wish, but not possible in my opinion. I also would like suc ha ranking system. Do you have any idea? Sorry Jassej, but only complaining without thinking of own ideas is to little.
We are given ideas but none of them does not read or whom you care.
We no longer care for the system because when UBC again be the first and in the new system, he will then change.
People who have made an update to match them, wisely silent ..
considered to fool us
_________________ Proud Shogun MMC UBC Dinasty and Ex Kampaku Ex Shogun MMC MOB Dynasty
Frankly, I think the new ranking system makes it so ranking doesn't really matter, and maybe that's the point. The thorn in UBC's side is that it changed just as they were going to be number 1. (and omg I wish everyone would take down the "we're number 1 signs".
I just couldn't care less now. I joined to throw in my dragcave links, then I added valenth and myminicitys to help out during happy hour, then I foolishly spent money on credits so I could keep up. I spent/spend way too much time on this site clicking other people's links, who probably have extra links up for the very same reason I do.
Does anyone really care anymore? It's just a d*amn click exchange, for crying out loud, not a war.
Since it doesn't look like this is going to change, the pointless fighting over it is.. well, moot.
The one thing I think Yarold should have done before implementing this new system was have a poll, considering a good deal of us pay, but w/e.
This punishes many good, average-sized dynasties just because of a few dynasties who shot up the rankings because they only had a few members.
Define "average size" and "few members"? What's the right size for a dynasty? Was MMC UBC okay at 20-ish? Or are the 40-ish dynasties better? Why was a dynasty of 4 wrong? Who is to decide the correct dynasty size?
Whats the problem? UBC wanted to get rid of the small Dynasties that go to the Top easily. You got it now!
The new ranking is great because it counts Qunatity AND Quality!
You complained about small Dynasties? Ok, J4F and RMV (I dont want to speak for them) are now complaining that so extremely small Dynastys like UBC get to the Top easily. Please don't forget that J4F has double your members and RMV even more than double.
So please stop complaining about small Dynasties.
The new Update takes care of exactly what you wanted.
Now you need MANY AND GOOD clickers to get to the Top.
And like I allready mentioned before, for me RMV IS the best Dynasty because they have lots of great clickers. And the ranking puts them to the first spot now.
GREAT!
Wrong. I never complained about small dynasties. What I said was that this update was clearly aimed against small dynasties, when it should have been aimed against dynasties that were too exclusive with who they let join. Stop telling me that I got what I wanted. You clearly didn't read my post very carefuly.
Helped: 2 times Age: 48 Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 407
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:52 pm
Hello Zvonimir!
zvonimir wrote:
We are given ideas but none of them does not read or whom you care.
We no longer care for the system because when UBC again be the first and in the new system, he will then change.
Ok, perhaps I did not see that idea. Show me please where this idea is posted and I will read trough it. But it has to be an idea of ONE ranking system where EVERY Dynasty can compete. No matter if they have 1 or 60 members (not saying that Dynasties till 5, 10, 20 members can not compete).
Hello Kronia!
Kronia wrote:
Wrong. I never complained about small dynasties. What I said was that this update was clearly aimed against small dynasties, when it should have been aimed against dynasties that were too exclusive with who they let join. Stop telling me that I got what I wanted. You clearly didn't read my post very carefuly.
Ok. Please tell me what in your opinion is bad about the new ranking system! I think, that RMV is the best Dynasty. Just take a look of the amount of members and then look on their Averages. You will see, that it is VERY hard to get such an amount of great clicking members. You dont think so? Again where are your ideas of a completely fair ranking system.
I am sure, that Yarold will change it immediately if you can post a fair ranking system which fits for the amount of members and their clicking rates.
Please, please, please UBC members, which brings not!
Roman that I do point to this discussion, if I have an idea for an ideal ranking system? No, but I (just like you) do not work for Yarold and thus is not my job, the new ranking system to make! Everything we can all with new proposals and make our contribution Yarold itself is responsible for all of us to give fairness!
Now I will be working off the UBC also in the new system first is!!
Why not put things back to the way they were (including counting the averages of peasants), and then put some sort of penalty on the dynasty averages of dynasties who reject too high of a % of joining peasants? That would hurt NetFreaks and (possibly) Eternity, who I think this update must have been aimed at, while leaving RMV and UBC and other dynasties, who accepted all joining peasants, untouched.
That puts the emphasis back on quality over quantity, thus making the competition actually fun again. And it will put a penalty on dynasties which act "snobby" towards newcomers, so it is just as "newb-friendly" as the new system. Furthermore, this system would also be just as dynamic as the new update, because everyone knows that the 1st-place dynasty gets the most joining peasants, so that if a dynasty is in 1st place, it would be harder for them to stay there. AND it won't hurt dynasties like UBC who are already in the habit of accepting everyone.
UBC and RMV would still be the top dynasties under the new system. You think that RMV deserves to be #1? I think they are a good dynasty too. But I think that if Yarold had actually given UBC a chance, that we would've grown to be as big as RMV. After all, unlike NetFreaks, we accepted everyone who joined. We have been growing every week, and if we had actually been given a chance to be number 1, as our hard efforts deserved, we would've grown a lot. So like I have been saying in all my posts, this update was clearly aimed against small, exclusive dynasties. But it is a failure as an update because it hurt UBC and Unity and others, which accepted everyone, along with those very small, very exclusive dynasties. My suggestion is better in every respect. It accomplishes the same things, without hurting brand-new dynasties, or dynasties which don't deserve it.
First, you acted like it was dumb to say that the update punished average-sized dynasties. You said to "define average." I am pretty sure that the word "average" has a well-agreed-upon definition. Look it up in a dictionary and you will find a definition.
I've already looked up the definition of average and it's simple. Take a series of numbers and add all but the last in the series -- then subtract 1 and multiply by 9. To that total, you add the last data point and divide that total by 10. Our "simple" definition of averages has been modified so that our "average" now includes subtraction. "Take a series of numbers minus the "Peasant Numbers" and subtract 1 then multiply by 9...
Am I the only one who thinks that real averages would be of greater benefit? The "yesterday" clicks could be Total_Dynasty / #_of_Members to balance fairness to smaller, medium sized and large dynasties. If we don't want to include Peasants it would make sense to change their title to "Initiates" pending full approval to membership within the dynasty.
All in all, I am glad of the changes so far - it eliminates the power games that have detracted from the fun of joining together and sharing links within our community.
Am I the only one who thinks that real averages would be of greater benefit? The "yesterday" clicks could be Total_Dynasty / #_of_Members to balance fairness to smaller, medium sized and large dynasties. If we don't want to include Peasants it would make sense to change their title to "Initiates" pending full approval to membership within the dynasty.
~Grandpa
Grandpa makes sense! It must be all of those years of wisdom The only problem I could see with that is that Jeanne could start her own dynasty which would dominate everybody, she is too good and needs a special way of calculating average in order to restrain her from complete and utter domination. Ok that was a joke. Seriously, Grandpa's idea sounds good. And I still think my suggestion would also work maybe.
Helped: 2 times Age: 48 Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 407
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Hi Kronia!
Thank you very much for stepping in the real discussion. thanxs for making suggestions!
Kronia wrote:
Why not put things back to the way they were (including counting the averages of peasants), and then put some sort of penalty on the dynasty averages of dynasties who reject too high of a % of joining peasants?
We both need for our suggestions a multiplier or for your idea a penalty. the problem with such ideas is, to say how high this penalty or how high the multiplier should be. Just take my excel file. I have there a multiplier in the penalty of 2. you can also set it to 1 or 3 and get completely different output and ranking. No mater how you set it it will always be wrong
So I understand Yarold, that he wants to have a ranking without any multiplier or penalty.
Thank you very much for stepping in the real discussion. thanxs for making suggestions!
Kronia wrote:
Why not put things back to the way they were (including counting the averages of peasants), and then put some sort of penalty on the dynasty averages of dynasties who reject too high of a % of joining peasants?
We both need for our suggestions a multiplier or for your idea a penalty. the problem with such ideas is, to say how high this penalty or how high the multiplier should be. Just take my excel file. I have there a multiplier in the penalty of 2. you can also set it to 1 or 3 and get completely different output and ranking. No mater how you set it it will always be wrong
So I understand Yarold, that he wants to have a ranking without any multiplier or penalty.
Thanxs again for sharing for thoughts!
Who says it has to be a multiplier? Why not just subtract 10, or 30, or 50 from the dynasty average as a penalty? Maybe after toying with the numbers a bit, it would be found that kicking >33% of joining peasants should get you a -50 penalty on your dynasty average or something like that. The penalty could last a day, or several days, or a week. I don't crunch the numbers, so I don't know what would be good. But there is a lot of room in my suggestion for Yarold to choose numbers that are fair. It would be so much better than the current update. I really don't think the reason that you gave is a good one for ignoring my suggestion, especially since there is so much that is wrong with the new update
The only problem I could see with that is that Jeanne could start her own dynasty which would dominate everybody, she is too good and needs a special way of calculating average in order to restrain her from complete and utter domination.
Thank you Kronia (I edited out the "it's a joke" part)
Age: 27 Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Posts: 188 Location: Bulgaria
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:26 am
For me, the new AvgClicks system is better than the old Average Dynasty, because with the older system, little dynasties with only 2-3 members were shooting up, while big dynasties were quite slower. I think it is unfair that some people with high averages create dynasties and don't accept new member, only because they want to be #1. So I think the new system is fair and it gives everyone the oppurtunity to receive many clicks to his/her link, without needing high average. With me, the problem is that I cannot click much every day, but with the new update, my emperor is not needing to kick me because I'm not clicking much and my Average is low.
Also, I am sure that it was a lot of programming and work from Mr. Yarold to make this update, so I AM ALL FOR THE NEW SYSTEM!
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
