stop inflation

[Artimis]

Speaking as someone who has 'come late to the party'(fashionably late of course! ) I'm content to leave things as they are because I don't mind in the slightest that I have more rungs to climb. It'll just be all the more fun for me!

[ctgottapee]

the problem with a simple more flat tax style is those at the top will pay a hefty price, and that is just not going to fly with the paying hoards at the top.

mabye point inflation isn't really a problem as long as the ranks are adjusted for the comparitive inflation. it is an easier pill to swallow to see your rank reduced in a relative fashion compared to everyone else rather than see earned points disappear - ie the guy next to you with the same points also reduces or gains rank equivalently.

it would also make rank titles relative to determine where a player stands

Deduct 50% of everyone's points at a certain time every year.

Or just take the simple average with 1000. So 5000 becomes 3000, 500 becomes 750, etc

[PepperJack]

Isn't the rank the good your currency of points can buy? I think you may have empirically defined point inflation. I still say flat tax, even with all my fluke points.

[FarangDemon]

This is a great idea, can combat point inflation and thwart known harvesting techniques.

I would recommend that the -1 to victor's score be changed to -2 for any player/team who beats someone double their or their team's score. This would make harvesting of low ranked players in quads games much less rewarding, though still feasible.

[FabledIntegral]

Would this not hurt 1v1 players more than it would hurt 8-man players? Or do you propose that if you win an 8-man you'd win 7 less points than usual? Forgive me if this was addressed, but it's at 4 pages now.

[FarangDemon]

Would this not hurt 1v1 players more than it would hurt 8-man players? Or do you propose that if you win an 8-man you'd win 7 less points than usual? Forgive me if this was addressed, but it's at 4 pages now.

I was initially thinking that you would want to -1 for each opponent. But I just ran the numbers and found that by doing so, playing 8 mans makes you lose 0.875 points per game, while playing 1 on 1 makes you lose 0.5 points per game. This would discourage people from playing 8-mans because they would be losing more points per game than those that chose to play fewer opponents.

Assuming all players have same score and equal chance of winning:

n__loss_defl__gain__p(w)__p(l)___delta/game
8__140__-7___133__0.13__0.88____-0.88
7__120__-6___114__0.14__0.86____-0.86
6__100__-5____95__0.17__0.83____-0.83
5___80__-4____76__0.20__0.80____-0.80
4___60__-3____57__0.25__0.75____-0.75
3___40__-2____38__0.33__0.67____-0.67
2___20__-1____19__0.50__0.50____-0.50



'n' is number of players/teams
'loss' is total points lost by all losing players in a game.
'defl' is the points to subtract from the victor.
'gain' is the points gained by the victor.
'p(w)' is the probability of winning, given equal skill
'p(l)' is the probability of losing, given equal skill
'delta/game' is the net change in score per game = p(w) * gain - p(l) * 20

If 'defl', the quantity subtracted from the victor, is changed to n/2 instead of n-1, players lose 0.5 points per game, regardless of quantity of players.

n__loss__defl__gain__p(w)__p(l)__delta/game
8__140__-4.0__136__0.13__0.88____-0.5
7__120__-3.5__117__0.14__0.86____-0.5
6__100__-3.0___97__0.17__0.83____-0.5
5___80__-2.5___78__0.20__0.80____-0.5
4___60__-2.0___58__0.25__0.75____-0.5
3___40__-1.5___39__0.33__0.67____-0.5
2___20__-1.0___19__0.50__0.50____-0.5

So that means subtracting half a point from the victor for each player in the game.

[FarangDemon]

I would like to add that this provides an excellent opportunity to combat points harvesting in a painless manner. By this I mean without imposing maps/game type restrictions or no points games.

As has already been mentioned by I believe Sully, there is some mitigation of harvesting of the lower ranks inherent in reducing an already low point gain by a fixed number. This narrows the margins a little for a harvester, though not by enough.

I would suggest subtracting 1-2 points instead of half a point for each defeated player that is below a certain fraction (say 1/2) of the victor's score.

If this were implemented I would shut my demonic trap for a long time. After a few months I would assess the impact of course.

[Jeff Hardy]

Would this not hurt 1v1 players more than it would hurt 8-man players? Or do you propose that if you win an 8-man you'd win 7 less points than usual? Forgive me if this was addressed, but it's at 4 pages now.

1 from each opponent, sorry for not making it clear

farangdemon, this is to stop inflation and has nothing to do with farming

[owenshooter]

If this were implemented I would shut my demonic trap for a long time. After a few months I would assess the impact of course.

and we all know this site is all about you and keeping you happy...
didn't mean to interrupt your talking to yourself in this thread... sorry... back to triple
and quadruple posting for you!!-0

[FarangDemon]

Would this not hurt 1v1 players more than it would hurt 8-man players? Or do you propose that if you win an 8-man you'd win 7 less points than usual? Forgive me if this was addressed, but it's at 4 pages now.

1 from each opponent, sorry for not making it clear

farangdemon, this is to stop inflation and has nothing to do with farming

FarangDemon,

Thanks for pointing out and correcting the flaw in my suggestion. I appreciate the time you spent doing it. I also appreciate that you separated your comments such that the first comment was simply a revision of my deflation suggestion, while the second comment was an additional suggestion on how to further improve the site while we're at it. Whether I personally agree with it or not, I respect the time you spent improving my suggestion and don't mind your subsequent brief remark.

Sincerely,

Jeff Hardy

[ctgottapee]

there still needs to be something done to address this me thinks

besides my how about a one time reset based on all past performances? rather than an arbitrary deduction from future games, we could use past game data to develop a tax for all current players to pay one time. of course devising the tax will be interesting if not difficult, but it will be based on some solid numbers at least

i still think some of my prior excellent ideas if i do say so myself could work as they have some economic basis

Living Minimum Wage: the starting point value for newbs increases [this obviously adds some to inflation issues too]
Progressive Tax Brackets: point taxes are taken and higher ranks pay more, lower ranks may even get a small rebate. taxes would be based on the amount of new points (newbs entering the system)
Point Fees: small point fees to enter games, earn rewards, etc
Charity: ability to give a small percentage of points away annually

[Thezzaruz]

besides my how about a one time reset based on all past performances? rather than an arbitrary deduction from future games, we could use past game data to develop a tax for all current players to pay one time. of course devising the tax will be interesting if not difficult, but it will be based on some solid numbers at least

A one time thing isn't a tax, it's a fee. And it's a piss poor solution here as the problem is a continuing one and hence the solution needs to be a continuing one too.

i still think some of my prior excellent ideas if i do say so myself could work as they have some economic basis

Living Minimum Wage: the starting point value for newbs increases [this obviously adds some to inflation issues too]
Progressive Tax Brackets: point taxes are taken and higher ranks pay more, lower ranks may even get a small rebate. taxes would be based on the amount of new points (newbs entering the system)
Point Fees: small point fees to enter games, earn rewards, etc
Charity: ability to give a small percentage of points away annually

Well the "charity" and the "wage" ones are complete crap and the "tax" and the "fee" might combat the extra points but again, none of them addresses the reasons to the perceived inflation.

[Thezzaruz]

the average score is still around 1000.

so why is private(fc) considered a low rank?

A PFC has 3 ranking classes below him but 11 above him. No matter what the average score is the rank of PFC will always be seen as one of the lower ones, it has nothing to do with score or the perceived inflation.

Would this not hurt 1v1 players more than it would hurt 8-man players? Or do you propose that if you win an 8-man you'd win 7 less points than usual? Forgive me if this was addressed, but it's at 4 pages now.

1 from each opponent, sorry for not making it clear

Meaning the 3 million points would have to be multiplied by the average number of opponents in a game. The hyper deflation cicero was worried about would be a very real thing...

the reason is (obviously) new recruits starting/joining gamea and then leaving the site

the obvious (and perfect) solution would be that new recruits dont lose points but for some reason that suggestion was disliked (especially by maxatstuy, i wonder why...)

this is just a different solution which should work too

No it isn't. This is punishing the normal user for winning a normal game while still ignoring the cause of the perceived inflation. No good will eve come from such a solution as the majority of those being punished isn't doing anything wrong.

No doubt someone will shoot holes through this. I've barely started thinking about this sort of thing, because I don't see it getting implemented any time soon if at all. But that's the general path you'd have to take. Basically measure how many 'defunct' points have entered the system in the past month, using a (say) 3 month measuring stick for inactivity.

No that is not in any way how you have to do it, in fact it is a really dumb way to go about the problem. Just as with Jeff's idea you are punishing people that have had little or no gain from the perceived inflation just as harsh as the ones that have made the biggest gains and you are certainly not in any way addressing the reason of the problem.

Out of the 20165 players in the scoreboard, there's about 8620 that have less than 1000 points (that's almost half the players), so that means they have only given points to the pool, and this also contributes inflation. The more people with low scores, and the lower their scores also means the people with high scores are considerably higher. Every new player that comes in and even while active falls into cadet or cook is adding to inflation.

That's BS though. An active player does not contribute to the perceived inflation no matter how low (or high) his score is.

[Thezzaruz]

The only problem I see is that new recruits look at the scoreboard and see the top scores as something insurmountable. That may drive some new players away because they feel like they can never reach the top. (Compare to when we had 1000 members, the high score was in the 1500's, and nearly everyone felt like they had a shot!)

I don't see the problem to be honest. I started a little over a year ago and have just about doubled my score since then without going down any "maximize my points" route in my choices of maps or settings. And I've been a freemium the whole time too. It's not like it is impossible to reach a respectable rank quite soon here on CC. Of course getting top requires a bit more but then again the top guys have put in that extra effort during their time here so why should anyone else get a free ride up the charts??

The only other problem I see is a very minor one: People are used to points being worth a certain amount, but the actually "worth" of points decreases over time. Once upon a time 2000 was the highest score. Then 2500. Then 3000, etc. If you have 2500 now you aren't doing nearly as well as you were in June of 2006. But does that really matter? It's not like we are able to purchase goods with these points...it doesn't really matter if your points are worth less due to inflation.

That's not inflation though, it's time. Even if CC had stopped at 1000 users the top scores would have continued to rise, albeit a bit slower, as that is a natural effect of the principle of swapping points.

I agree that before a change is implemented it needs to be determined if point inflation is really a problem.

I fully agree. Discussing how a change should be done before deciding that a change is needed is pretty stupid in my book.

[ender516]

An interesting discussion to be had here for sure ...

The members of the Scoring Ad Hoc focus group spent quite some time discussing this problem. And, for that matter, 'discussing' whether there even is such a problem.

Just to avoid that argument (sorry 'discussion') starting again here I'm going to emphasise that to be on topic for this thread you must discuss the solution to the inflation problem. If you wish to discuss whether such a problem even exists please start a thread in General Discussion to that end.

OK, mod hat off ...

Without a clear definition of what "the inflation problem" is, it is impossible to determine if anything suggested is a solution. Could you, cicero, or perhaps someone else from the Scoring Ad Hoc focus group, outline the problem we are trying to solve here? Is it the fact that the top score continues to get higher? Is it that the rank needed to reach the first page of the scoreboard is higher than it used to be?

[izacque]

The only problem I see is that new recruits look at the scoreboard and see the top scores as something insurmountable. That may drive some new players away because they feel like they can never reach the top. (Compare to when we had 1000 members, the high score was in the 1500's, and nearly everyone felt like they had a shot!)

As a PFC, I agree that conqueror is not something we noobs actually expect to get. I, however persevered from cadet to my current rank and plan to go even further. The problem is, many people are not like me and they leave. Isn't that the cause of cc "inflation"? I must agree that the new-recruit-deadbeats-can't-lose-points idea is super because it keeps the prime contributors to inflation from doing any "damage." The idea also helps eliminate farming. Personally, I don't think inflation is a problem; but I think that the no-new-recruit-deadbeat-point-loss policy is the way to dramatically slow down inflation.

[mibi]

285,223 registered members, holy shit.

[Mr_Adams]

ok, first, no points for beating a new recruit? that's bull crap. why shouldn't they lose points? that's part of the whole system. And what I originaly came here to say...

What's the problem wth King_Herpes being the king of an even bigger hill? still king of the hill, right?

[izacque]

ok, first, no points for beating a new recruit? that's bull crap. why shouldn't they lose points? that's part of the whole system.

Might I ask why a SergentFC would be so angry about this suggestion if he wasn't a farmer? Besides, If a new recruit joins, deadbeats at all four games, and then leaves, Inflation will not go up. Let me repeat that I do not care about inflation, but this is a way to stop inflation and, *ahem* farming.

[Timminz]

ok, first, no points for beating a new recruit? that's bull crap. why shouldn't they lose points? that's part of the whole system.

I think you, and a few others, are missing a key word in there. The major suggestion for reducing inflation is to stop getting points from new recruit DEADBEATS.

[Mr_Adams]

then you would have to stop giving points for all deadbeats or people would raise hell over the change. it simply won't work.

[Timminz]

then you would have to stop giving points for all deadbeats or people would raise hell over the change. it simply won't work.

No. The point of that suggestion is to stop the influx of points being left behind by people who join the site, join a few games, and then leave, never to return, or even finish a game. Why do you think we would have to extend that to all deadbeats?

[Mr_Adams]

I don't think you would, but somebody would bring up the point eventualy. they would accuse the site of giving a brake to newbies, or something to that effect. and to the little brat who *implied* that I'm a farmer, a quick search will show the very opposite. I very rarely have recruits in my games. however, you occasionaly get a newbie who joins, and the high ranks avoid the game because a possible deadbeat changes the whole pace of the game. so, yes I have 6 player games w/ 4 newbies occasionaly, but not intentionaly.

[izacque]

...and to the little brat who *implied* that I'm a farmer, a quick search will show the very opposite. I very rarely have recruits in my games. however, you occasionaly get a newbie who joins, and the high ranks avoid the game because a possible deadbeat changes the whole pace of the game. so, yes I have 6 player games w/ 4 newbies occasionaly, but not intentionaly.

I'll admit, I probably shoulda made a quick search befor I made my accusations. so...srry. On a more serious note, What if Newbs stared with 100 or even 1 point instead of 1000. A newbie joined one of my games (his first game) and if I win, I'll glean over 20 points off him. if you want to stop inflation, Start them off low so that they don't contribut to the defltion.

[Supreme_Pookie]

Easy. Deny all points and comments from cheapskate "noobs" who won't pony up the dough for a premium membership.