Alphabetical? - we would get a lot of dynasties named AAAAA - LOL
seriously - I do have ideas for changing the ranking system to be more fair where all dynasties regardless off size have a chance to go for the coveted #1 - but all goes back to based on clicks - so yes you got me there but maybe someone here has ideas
Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:37 am
Jeanne wrote:
but all goes back to based on clicks
Yes & clicks can be bought with credits. This why not allowing transfers or buying credits for others will work. It is a link exchange site, you want to be clicked you need to click, no transfers could actually promote more exchanges. May also help retain new members in dynasties. Currently they are pressured by their emps, or allied emps to remain positive at all times (read the short notes of all your allies). When the pressure gets too much they leave.
Without transfers it would then be up to dynasty members to show more links more often to keep them positive, rather than have a non vip try to click 1000+ a day to stay positive (if they click main & history. I have guys clicking 500+ & still go neg with 1 link)
_________________ 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
Hmm the highest clicker among your 3 negative members did 226 not 500? but I think that is a different discussion
The topic is HOW to stop feeder dynasties. I believe stopping the buying or transferring credits will again hurt the many because of a few abuser and might cause even more good members to leave tired of the restrictions.
And I still trust our Admins to be able to spot a feeder dynasty from a legit one: Any dynasty with members showing all 10 links 24/7 and not clicking enough to finance it by themselves ..... deleted.
Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:12 am
Jeanne wrote:
Hmm the highest clicker among your 3 negative members did 226 not 500? but I think that is a different discussion
"I have guys clicking 500+ & still go neg with 1 link" day is still young, give it time they will go neg.
Admins are able to spot feeder dynasties, which is why this dynasty & OFY were deleted in the first place, but there is obviously some confusion as to what a blatant manipulation of clicks & credits to improve a dynasty's ranking is. Thats why we are asking for solutions.
_________________ 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
the no longer allowing credit transfer suggested in this topic sounds like a good solution, but would also ruin the contests some dynasty's like to keep.. how about not allowing transfers to other dynasty's, and limiting the amount that can be transferred between dynasty members to a certain number, like 400 credits?
raise the amount of credits needed to start a dynasty migth work, not sure about that one.
and at least add to the rules that feeder dynasty's are not allowed. that way, the admins can point to the rules and say its not allowed.
and maybe have people having to wait until next reset to join another dynasty if they leave their dynasty?
edited to add:
i also saw someone mention to have less then ten link slots. that might help too, but might make things hard for people with some kids of pets.. then again, i know that you can replace the user-name in a drag-cave link without having to wait, so..
No rules, although for our allies i ask to please show a link in dynasty.
turdkey [Deleted]
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:14 pm
I believe the often nasty side of the Dynasty competition is harming Yarolds. With so many other alternatives around Yarolds needs to be a far friendlier place than it is becoming and that is the fault of the Emps and has nothing to sdo with Stan.
You folks are making taking this far to personal and sometimes taking things way too far. Lighten up a bit and and have a laugh.
If you analyse what actually we do here you would see it's all rather childish. Being a child is all about learning and having fun, meeting new people and making new friends. We adults often loose sight of the more important things in life.
Age: 70 Joined: 28 Jun 2008 Posts: 137 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:00 pm
You're all missing a point here.
It's about getting clicks for whatever game you play that needs them, I scratch your back and just hope you scratch mine. . Competition between dynasties is really not important in my view.
To be honest: I had one just one (adopted) mymmc city and after earning VIP status (the hard way) I created nine more to have something to show at HH, just to help the dynasty I'm in getting up along the line.
Feeder dynasties are basically the same as I am, with my ten links shown at 'happy hours', don't you think?
Another dark side of competitive dynasties:
Threatening to drop you as an ally when you drop another ally...
There's already enough war in the world, make this place a peaceful one!
the no longer allowing credit transfer suggested in this topic sounds like a good solution, but would also ruin the contests some dynasty's like to keep.. how about not allowing transfers to other dynasty's, and limiting the amount that can be transferred between dynasty members to a certain number, like 400 credits?
then that would promote these people into certain dynasty to do this instead of feeder dynasty..about the only solution is to do away with transfer
If this were a "not for profit"/no costs enterprise, then total elimination of credit transfer seems a good option.
I feel that since there is required cost of services, sale of credits supplies a good, non-invasive source of revenue to cover operating costs. Folks hoarding credits make constant supply of new credits from purchase a necessity. The most efficient way to distribute these new credits, besides the infrequent lottery distribution(thank you Stan), is via credit transfer. Some dynasties pride themselves in ability to purchase large amounts of credits and distributing them to members so more links can be shown.
What is the difference between this type of dynasty and a feeder dynasty? (Besides the obvious difference that one purchases its credits for cash from the supplier, while the other is reimbursed credits given from dynasties being fed.)
Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:24 am
PaiGow wrote:
Some dynasties pride themselves in ability to purchase large amounts of credits and distributing them to members so more links can be shown.
What is the difference between this type of dynasty and a feeder dynasty? (Besides the obvious difference that one purchases its credits for cash from the supplier, while the other is reimbursed credits given from dynasties being fed.)
Should both types of "feeders" be banned?
The real difference is allies can share the extra links from that scenario.
Since this post was created I have had the following complaints;
A member leaving a dynasty & joining another on the promise of a big credit pay out *
An alliance request between 2 big dynasties on the promise of credit reimbursement for the difference between given/gained paid daily (alliance was not formed due to that) *
*neither claims have been verified by me, stories as told to me by others as it doesnt involve me or my members
So I dont think anything but stopping credit transfers & buying credits for others will work. As for the in dynasty games for credits, well it is a link exchange site first & foremost.
_________________ 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
This is the same what happened to the UBC, Maxy dont want ally with us and Footballer make O.F.Y...
you forget to said that real maxi don't want to make alliance with you (and with la brute too) because you didn't agree to pay like other dynasty and now you you pay credits to O.F.Y ????
so stop compare with real maxi , at your place i has send credit to real maxi to stay at top before sending now credits to O.F.y no???
it's very funny to read you
i'm agree with demonic stop sending credit only for this dynasty likke real maxi and now o.f.y or the new one
jassej, although it takes a bit longer for me to understand your posts, I have no problems reading them. No matter how much I agree or disagree with your points, you are one evil person . Evil like those villains on a cartoon that causes trouble, for the sake of causing trouble. jessej, It's compliment as it's tough to play devil's advocate! Changes come about because someone or a group of people exploit a flaw in the system.
I am 100% NOT in favor of removing credit purchases. I have no financial stake in this site, but it makes no sense from the site-owner's point of view to remove a donation source.
I am 100% NOT in favor of removing transfers. When you compare Yarold's to another vanilla click site, you do not see this much involvement from the users. Personal experience has shown that when I visit non-Yarold sites, I click and leave. Many people so far have brought up the notion that contests/events would be destroyed with the lack of a transfer system and I wholeheartedly agree. It's human nature to perform and expect a prize/compensation for your hard work. The only prize we, as clickers, can offer is credits. There is no other motivating factor that can keep us clicking. Why do we strive for credits? To improve whatever game we are playing. To summarize the general populations mindset, we don't visit Yarold's because we want to become the #1 clicker/dynasty, we're here because of the game we want others to click. The transfer system offers a camaraderie system on the site and I believe it's a big, big mistake to remove it.
===
Back on topic. Personally, I would love feeder dynasties to remain. Looking towards the future, if Yarold were to expand its user base every year and dynasties were in excess, some dynasties can eventually become self-sufficient. But currently, that's impossible as there is a 400 alliance membership restriction preventing growth.
I don't have any stats on the site, but now would be an appropriate time for a statistics major to study the historical growth data of Yarold. There are multiple purposes for such a task, but the main point I want to get across is to determine if it would be appropriate to increase the alliance membership by an appropriate amount in relation to the user base growth.
Lots of positive and negatives would come about from this. Just briefly looking at one of each, the main negative is that this allows for a large dynasty to spin-off into a smaller one and potentially form a feeder dynasty. The main positive is that this allows smaller dynasties and larger dynasties growth. No one likes to stagnate.
===
I've blabbed on about keeping feeder dynasties, but I rather view them as satellite dynasties. Dynasties that have a main allegiance to their main dynasty, but are and should be free to run as they see fit. I don't mind if the main dynasty may have a major influence over their satellite dynasties as this adds some element of fun into the dynasty game and growth.
===
Solution to limit the advantage of these so-called feeder dynasties. It's a 3-step solution and all the steps have to be complete for it to be effective:
1) Limit transfers only to members of your own dynasty - The reason why feeder dynasties are thriving is that it can receive credits from an external source.
2) Members that leave a dynasty cannot rejoin another dynasty for 5 days - Once step 1 is achieved, one sneaky trick I can think of for how a feeder dynasty can continue to survive is if one member leaves it's dynasty and joins the main dynasty for a large credit transfer and return back to its dynasty to distribute the wealth.
3) Members that receive a transfer of credits will not immediately have their transfers added to their credit total, but will have to wait a grace period of 5 days for the transfer to complete. During this time, if they leave the dynasty, the transfer will automatically be canceled and the credits returned to the original owner.
I know there are still multiple breakpoints in my solution, such as cycling through members in a dynasty to replenish a feeder dynasty (any ideas anyone?), but the purpose is to first have a quick solution in place as I believe this should not be difficult to code in comparison to a fail-proof idea, and second, make it a pain in the @$$ to fund feeder dynasties.
EDIT: I had a brief read of what I had and the only complaint I have with myself is what about those transfers to those negative accounts on vacation/break and are valued members to the dynasty. I'm swaying towards adding a 4th rule to allow transfers to a member that has been with a dynasty for more than 6 weeks to receive a credit transfer automatically added to their credit total.
Age: 56 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 1937 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:36 am
supergeorge216 wrote:
1) Limit transfers only to members of your own dynasty - The reason why feeder dynasties are thriving is that it can receive credits from an external source.
2) Members that leave a dynasty cannot rejoin another dynasty for 5 days - Once step 1 is achieved, one sneaky trick I can think of for how a feeder dynasty can continue to survive is if one member leaves it's dynasty and joins the main dynasty for a large credit transfer and return back to its dynasty to distribute the wealth.
3) Members that receive a transfer of credits will not immediately have their transfers added to their credit total, but will have to wait a grace period of 5 days for the transfer to complete. During this time, if they leave the dynasty, the transfer will automatically be canceled and the credits returned to the original owner.
I know there are still multiple breakpoints in my solution, such as cycling through members in a dynasty to replenish a feeder dynasty (any ideas anyone?), but the purpose is to first have a quick solution in place as I believe this should not be difficult to code in comparison to a fail-proof idea, and second, make it a pain in the @$$ to fund feeder dynasties.
EDIT: I had a brief read of what I had and the only complaint I have with myself is what about those transfers to those negative accounts on vacation/break and are valued members to the dynasty. I'm swaying towards adding a 4th rule to allow transfers to a member that has been with a dynasty for more than 6 weeks to receive a credit transfer automatically added to their credit total.
Age: 51 Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 1541 Location: Australia
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:50 am
Quote:
Solution to limit the advantage of these so-called feeder dynasties. It's a 3-step solution and all the steps have to be complete for it to be effective:
1) Limit transfers only to members of your own dynasty - The reason why feeder dynasties are thriving is that it can receive credits from an external source.
2) Members that leave a dynasty cannot rejoin another dynasty for 5 days - Once step 1 is achieved, one sneaky trick I can think of for how a feeder dynasty can continue to survive is if one member leaves it's dynasty and joins the main dynasty for a large credit transfer and return back to its dynasty to distribute the wealth.
3) Members that receive a transfer of credits will not immediately have their transfers added to their credit total, but will have to wait a grace period of 5 days for the transfer to complete. During this time, if they leave the dynasty, the transfer will automatically be canceled and the credits returned to the original owner.
I know there are still multiple breakpoints in my solution, such as cycling through members in a dynasty to replenish a feeder dynasty (any ideas anyone?), but the purpose is to first have a quick solution in place as I believe this should not be difficult to code in comparison to a fail-proof idea, and second, make it a pain in the @$$ to fund feeder dynasties.
EDIT: I had a brief read of what I had and the only complaint I have with myself is what about those transfers to those negative accounts on vacation/break and are valued members to the dynasty. I'm swaying towards adding a 4th rule to allow transfers to a member that has been with a dynasty for more than 6 weeks to receive a credit transfer automatically added to their credit total.
1. Dynasties have feeder accounts in them as well.
2. What if someone wants to leave for another dynasty for legitimate reasons? What about their dynasty average while theyare forced into this 5 day sit out period?
3. rules out your edit doesnt it?
Another breakpoint, being able to buy credits for others??
EDIT; if they are valued & on a break and require transfers to keep them positive, is that not in itself creating a feeder account (for the duration of their absence)
supergeorge216 wrote:
I am 100% NOT in favor of removing credit purchases.
I dont think anyone has asked for the purchasing of credits to be stopped
_________________ 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
No matter how much I agree or disagree with your points, you are one evil person . Evil like those villains on a cartoon that causes trouble, for the sake of causing trouble. jessej, It's compliment as it's tough to play devil's advocate! Changes come about because someone or a group of people exploit a flaw in the system.
I do not play advocate, these are facts!
I'm just someone that glad is be in yarold, I like competitive and I'm here because I want to win.
It is evil than I am evil
Of course, others want to be first too and so others have come to idea of a feeder dynasty make.
If other playing so then I have to play it too.
_________________ Jassej, MMC UBC Founder
Last edited by jassej on Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:15 am; edited 1 time in total
I dont think anyone has asked for the purchasing of credits to be stopped
This is not an irrelevant argument. I am addressing to a comment that suggested that purchases should be stopped. Please refer to page 2 for the other users' comment. I have made a statement and find it rather offensive that this had to be nitpicked before sufficient research was done on your part. For future reference, I will not defend/elaborate on what I feel to be a waste of my time and effort; this quote you have picked from me fits that category.
DemonicJ wrote:
1. Dynasties have feeder accounts in them as well.
2. What if someone wants to leave for another dynasty for legitimate reasons? What about their dynasty average while theyare forced into this 5 day sit out period?
3. rules out your edit doesnt it?
Another breakpoint, being able to buy credits for others??
EDIT; if they are valued & on a break and require transfers to keep them positive, is that not in itself creating a feeder account (for the duration of their absence)
supergeorge216 wrote:
I am 100% NOT in favor of removing credit purchases.
I dont think anyone has asked for the purchasing of credits to be stopped
Do pay heed that the time restriction can be modified upon discussion. 5 days in my mind was a reasonable number.
I do have a difference in view on how you worry about an individual's dynasty average and legitimacy to change dynasties.
1) Legitimacy of people leaving for another dynasty - The very moment this thread was created, there was already a bias that users that leave their dynasties are bad people and should be penalized (e.g. Leaving for a feeder dynasty). Time restrictions can be changed or a mod can police the movement of members. The latter is not preferred as this matter is much too subjective and leaves chance for corruption if the mod is a member of a dynasty.
As the creation of dynasties already created a role-playing environment, individual actions should also have a similar element. It can be argued that the change of allegiance is frowned upon and deserves a penalty for such an action.
Another way around the penalty is to buy your way into the new dynasty (2,000 is the bare minimum to buy-in: 5 days x 400 credits from a max alliance), but I am personally against this idea as you can float from dynasty to dynasty if you or your dynasty have a deep pocket of cash/credits.
2) Individual dynasty average - Users that reach a certain average can work their way back-up. This is a individual stat and is irrelevant to the task. It's one of those nice things to preserve, but do tell me the importance of this statistic? The one disadvantage I can see and why you mention about this is that potentially a lower dynasty average would lower the prospect of a person joining another dynasty, but there should be other factors to determine the value of a clicker (e.g. CARE, # of clicks, reputation)
3) Feeder/vacation accounts - I hate to address this as I feel this is beyond the scope of this topic. I believe I understand what you are trying to say in which dynasty members can communicate with each other on the timing of when to release their links, but still, it's another matter for another thread as I envision this sort of impact:
If dynasty A is allied with dynasty B who has an account that is being fed credits, both dynasty A and B will have an opportunity to click the account - feeder accounts should have minimal impact in this situation as we are dealing with fairness.
Our problem is if dynasty A is allied to dynasty B and dynasty B is feeding credits to an account that dynasty A cannot reach. This is deemed as an unfair competitive advantage.
Good pick-up on the purchase of credits for others. That too should be restricted to internal dynasty members. The suggestion would be exactly the same as how transfers are restricted in my suggestion in step 3 (e.g. Purchases to another person won't show up until the 5 day grace period, otherwise the purchase of credits will go to the original purchaser). The way I see it is if you can purchase credits for another person, it would be the same as purchasing credits for yourself and transferring to another.
First I will say I am about to change my mind or having it changed for me - if the price for removing feeder dynasties is removing the transfer/buy credits option .... I say lets keep the feeder dynasties.
Second to Jassej: You funding a feeder dynasty is not a new idea of yours brought on by the current situation you tried it 6 months ago (May 23rd) and don't try to deny it you know your son told me you would finance him showing all 10 links all day only for UBC.
To (my) SuperGeorge
I am not for a 5 day time out I believe this will to some degree stop members from changing dynasties as 1: their averages; some take great pride in having achieved a high average. 2: In those 5 days you can only click and be clicked on main which with the current situation means you will loose credits while you're out.
The delay in transfers wont help much you can calculate how much credits will be needed to pay for clicks done in a feeder dynasty and pay in advance making sure there's always enough to keep the feeder dynasties links open it will only hurt the situations you mention where a dynasty member on vacation or a member who has mistakenly forgot to turn the extra links off after HH needs an immediate helping hand from the dynasty.
Stan has said he is against the feeder dynasties so delete them and make a penalty rule:
Any dynasty who engage with a feeder dynasty will have their average reset to 0 !!!!
I believe that would stop anybody even thinking about feeder dynasties.
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
. Evil like those villains on a cartoon that causes trouble, for the sake of causing trouble. jessej, It's compliment as it's tough to play devil's advocate! Changes come about because someone or a group of people exploit a flaw in the system.
