Inflation Information

[Itrade]

Heh, the whole last bit of my post was a joke and the punchline was "I've really started to suck at this game"

Falling behind the win line wouldn't affect my score. We're not counting wins against losses, we're counting points. And due to inflation, we get free points from people who don't even play.

If I'm correct, the reason for inflation is new players signing up, playing their four games then either forgetting to check back in again and deadbeating or just losing and never coming back. Now we have an inactive account that isn't going to take or give any points, and it only exists in the archives. We also have an active player who has basically gotten his points for free (in the case of a deadbeat) or from a source that he can never give them back to. Then the points can only be taken from him by other active players, and the better active players (at the top of the scoreboard) will get a big chunk of them.

On a very small scale, imagine that there are 100 players. They have a total of 100,000 points being distributed amongst each other. A new player joins and loses 100 points to the active players. Now there are 100,100 points in the active players' points pool, and each of them has an average score of 1,001, one point more than they used to. If 9 more deadbeats were to join and do the same thing, there'd be 101,000 points in the active player's point pool and the average score would be 1,010. So as time goes by and more deadbeats join, the point pool gets more inflated and the average scores of each player goes up.

[sully800]

Heh, the whole last bit of my post was a joke and the punchline was "I've really started to suck at this game"

Falling behind the win line wouldn't affect my score. We're not counting wins against losses, we're counting points. And due to inflation, we get free points from people who don't even play.

If I'm correct, the reason for inflation is new players signing up, playing their four games then either forgetting to check back in again and deadbeating or just losing and never coming back. Now we have an inactive account that isn't going to take or give any points, and it only exists in the archives. We also have an active player who has basically gotten his points for free (in the case of a deadbeat) or from a source that he can never give them back to. Then the points can only be taken from him by other active players, and the better active players (at the top of the scoreboard) will get a big chunk of them.

On a very small scale, imagine that there are 100 players. They have a total of 100,000 points being distributed amongst each other. A new player joins and loses 100 points to the active players. Now there are 100,100 points in the active players' points pool, and each of them has an average score of 1,001, one point more than they used to. If 9 more deadbeats were to join and do the same thing, there'd be 101,000 points in the active player's point pool and the average score would be 1,010. So as time goes by and more deadbeats join, the point pool gets more inflated and the average scores of each player goes up.

Inactive players are a main cause of inflation, but masses of players will cause a rise in score, even if no one becomes inactive.

Think of it this way: If you had 10 people on the site, the top person would never be able to break 4000 points...the best player would gain too little for a win and lose too much for a loss. But as the masses increase, the best player can play the second best player and win points from him/her...which leads to a higher score.

Basically, as CC increases, thousands of bad players are added for each really good player. Over time the 50 points or so that most players lose all migrate toward the top of the scoreboard. It's like a giant pyramid with bad players forming a very wide base and good players forming a very tall narrow peak. Inactive players just increase the rate at which inflation occurs since they lose their first 4 games and never return to win anything.

[Itrade]

Oooh, think I get it now, or at least I get more of it than I did before.

It wouldn't be shaped much like a pyramid, though. It would look something like a diamond with a very fat middle and a spire on the top with a rather pointy bottom (But not as pointy as the spire), since you've got a large difference in score between the players the top of the score list and huge amount of new recruits in the 1100-900 range who aren't coming back and you've also got some serially bad players who lose so much the score difference between players at the bottom of the scoreboard is almost more than at the top.

I think I'm overthinking this.

[hecter]

Oooh, think I get it now, or at least I get more of it than I did before.

It wouldn't be shaped much like a pyramid, though. It would look something like a diamond with a very fat middle and a spire on the top with a rather pointy bottom (But not as pointy as the spire), since you've got a large difference in score between the players the top of the score list and huge amount of new recruits in the 1100-900 range who aren't coming back and you've also got some serially bad players who lose so much the score difference between players at the bottom of the scoreboard is almost more than at the top.

I think I'm overthinking this.

I see it looking something like this:

The blue line represents 1000 points. Everything above it are those above 1000 points, the thicker the space in between lines, the more people there are. The higher above the blue line, the more points there are. Same with those below the blue line, except it's those that are below 1000 points. The more people that join, the blue line gets wider and the peak gets taller.

[Itrade]

That's an excellent way to sum it up graphically and a very mind-friendly and easy to comprehend description.

Now, what can we do to stop inflation, or is it even a problem?

[hecter]

That's an excellent way to sum it up graphically and a very mind-friendly and easy to comprehend description.

Now, what can we do to stop inflation, or is it even a problem?

I don't think there is any feasible way to stop it. Some people have suggested deleting inactive accounts, but you'd just be getting rid of dead points. They've already donated a good 80 points to the system, and it's hundreds of new players doing that that's driving inflation. Unless you want to stop accepting new members, inflation is going to continue, and we'll just have to bump up the minimum score for ranks every so often because of it.

[Itrade]

Bumping up the rank requirements makes sense, plus I'm totally against the deletion of old accounts. One of the coolest things about CC is that its history is perfectly intact. The first game is still here and you can read through the chat and game logs anytime and first topic and post on this forum are still right there to be found if you search for them.

[hecter]

Bumping up the rank requirements makes sense, plus I'm totally against the deletion of old accounts. One of the coolest things about CC is that its history is perfectly intact. The first game is still here and you can read through the chat and game logs anytime and first topic and post on this forum are still right there to be found if you search for them.

Deleting them wouldn't do anything either, remember. What happens is this:
New player comes, joins four games
New player deadbeats four games; loses 20 points each (80 points total)
80 points are now put into circulation
New players remaining 920 points remain out of circulation
By the time you'd delete this new players account, the damage has been done. The 80 points have already been put into circulation thus driving point inflation. Those 80 points get spread up the scoreboard making the higher ranks even higher and the lower ranks staying generally at the same level.

[Itrade]

Dude, I said I was against deleting them.

[hecter]

Dude, I said I was against deleting them.

O, sorry... Kinda tired (it's 2am).

[Visaoni]

Well I feel like an idiot. I wrote up a kinda long post about how we could cut points on either a day by day basis or just have an annual or biannual "point reduction day" and then accidently closed the window.

The more regular the point reduction the more I feel a percentage reduction would be in order. If it was to be once or twice a year I think either a flat rate or a percentage would fit.

Of course, the annual or biannual methods might also require the re-working of ranks just from people whining that they lost a rank due to it. Maybe a certain percent of CC players could be each rank? But that also brings up a whole host of other problems with people that sign up and leave after joining a few games. It also fundamentally changes the way ranks are now so... I'm more in favor of the day by day method.

Lack could decide a percentage to reduce points by and take that much off everyday at a certain time. There would be minimal loss of rank and therefor less complaining, so there would be no need to rework ranks to keep people happy. Anybody that did make a fuss over it can be reminded one more win will easily get them back to the rank they lost. One more loss would have moved them down as well.

I don't think most people would like this idea (I don't know how much I like it myself to be honest), but it wouldn't change the score board, and it would also help solve inflation with minimal perceived impact.

[hecter]

I think the easiest way to do it without having people complain too much is to just bump up the minimum requirement for ranks every so often, or just add more.

[Itrade]

There isn't any need to stop inflation or get rid of excess points since it isn't doing anything bad. All it's doing is making it a little easier to get to the next rank, so making the ranks a little harder to get to would fix that.

[Visaoni]

I think the easiest way to do it without having people complain too much is to just bump up the minimum requirement for ranks every so often, or just add more.

That works as well. Although I'm not sure how many ideas lack will have about ranks. Personally I don't see people joining and aspiring to gain the title of "Lack's 69 Partner" or worse. We all know that if lack runs out of ideas and puts it to the CC forum community we will end up with stuff like that.

Bumping up rank requirements also works but for some reason that seems like more of a band-aid to me than a real solution. I don't know why, it is a perfectly legitiment idea, but perhaps because it is more reactive then proactive, without adding new content? I don't know.

[Itrade]

Well, we could find every single rank from every single military organization and mash them together in whatever order sounds coolest. It'll leave us with lots and lots of ranks. And we'll put President of Earth at the top, just for kicks.

[hecter]

Well, we could find every single rank from every single military organization and mash them together in whatever order sounds coolest. It'll leave us with lots and lots of ranks. And we'll put President of Earth at the top, just for kicks.

Can we still have "Lack's 69 Partner" as a rank though? I would pay to have that rank...

[Visaoni]

Well, we could find every single rank from every single military organization and mash them together in whatever order sounds coolest. It'll leave us with lots and lots of ranks. And we'll put President of Earth at the top, just for kicks.

Can we still have "Lack's 69 Partner" as a rank though? I would pay to have that rank...

If you get "Lack's 69 Partner" then I call dibs on "Wicked's Twilldo."

As far as hecter's idea is concerned, I think that could work. It would mean some changes around here but eh, I think we can deal with it.

My only concern is that the ranks will need to be added slowly, so in terms of actual rank we may have to remove some of our current ranks to replace them all with the various lower ranks. I doubt it would make sense to have our 5 or so all be an equivalent rank to a private 1st class, no matter how cool it sounds. Unless people decide they don't care about what rank it translates to, but personally it would bother me to go from Field Marshall to some lowly rank from a random country.

[hecter]

Well, there's still political positions available (who wouldn't want to have their rank as "Senator"? Come on!) as well as Navy and Air Force specific ranks.

[Itrade]

What would the rank insignia for Lack's 69 partner and Wicked's Twilldo look like, though?

[Visaoni]

Hm... Well, to be nice to lack (and because he is coding it, so we don't have much choice) we can make it a picture of Jessica Alba or whoever he decides.

For the other, perhaps Wicked will be able to supply a picture herself?

[DiM]

That's an excellent way to sum it up graphically and a very mind-friendly and easy to comprehend description.

Now, what can we do to stop inflation, or is it even a problem?

I don't think there is any feasible way to stop it. Some people have suggested deleting inactive accounts, but you'd just be getting rid of dead points. They've already donated a good 80 points to the system, and it's hundreds of new players doing that that's driving inflation. Unless you want to stop accepting new members, inflation is going to continue, and we'll just have to bump up the minimum score for ranks every so often because of it.

actually there is a way to stop inflation. so far i think this is the only feasible way that was ever suggested.

read here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34370

[billy07]

the only problem with that is some people play alot more games than others, so what they have built up will take them along time again only for it to be wiped.

I hope that is clear?

[DiM]

the only problem with that is some people play alot more games than others, so what they have built up will take them along time again only for it to be wiped.

I hope that is clear?

since there will be 2 scoreboards 1 for the current era and 1 for all time, nobody would lose their current hard earned points.

[sully800]

There isn't any need to stop inflation or get rid of excess points since it isn't doing anything bad. All it's doing is making it a little easier to get to the next rank, so making the ranks a little harder to get to would fix that.

Agreed. I think its important to recognize that inflation happens (because if you stay at a certain point level forever you aren't really accomplishing much). But I don't think we need to take any big steps to reduce or reverse the process.

There were 3 main reasons for the rank changes we went through a few months ago:
1- Improve the graphics, since WM is an expert in that area
2- Add more ranks so that people at the top of the scoreboard have something to shoot for
3- Distinguish between premium/freemium

It takes a lot of adjustment to deal with new ranks, and the less we have to go through that process the better. That's why we decided on a top rank of 5000 even though its still a long ways off. If we made the top rank instantly achievable than the rank system would need to change again. Also, the Conquerer rank is nice because even if you have 5 Field Marshalls they can duke it out for first place.

So I think we should all just watch the scores shoot higher as the site gets bigger.....and wait anxiously for someone to break 5000 points

[DiM]

So I think we should all just watch the scores shoot higher as the site gets bigger.....and wait anxiously for someone to break 5000 points

actually we shouldn't be too happy when 5000 is taken. i suspect in a few months somebody we'll reach 5000 and when that happens measures to reduce th inflation must be taken.

the highest scores must be kept as low as possible to make sure new people stay on CC.
imagine joining CC and winning 20 points in your first game. then looking at the scoreboard and seeing the top rank at 10000 points. you play a bit more and reach 1200 points. at this point you're no longer winning 20 points from each player. chances are you'll get 15-16 and you realize the higher you go the smaller the point winnings get (if you play lower ranks) so you quit and never come back.