Scoreboard Activity Requirements

by **gameplayer** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:07 pm

Concise description:

Make it harder to stay on the scoreboard by creating stricter requirements

Specifics:

The top pages of the scoreboard are cluttered right now with lots of people who are barely active, and are either playing only a few games per month, or stuck in one long build game and not starting any new games. Currently, you only need to take 1 turn a month to remain active. I think this is too lenient and needs to be fixed. Make it harder to stay on, using stricter requirements. I'm willing to be open for discussion, but something like 1 turn taken per week or 1 game finished per two weeks would make a lot more sense. What do other people think?

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Unclutter the scoreboard and give more people a chance to get on top
Weed out the true active players from people who got to the top by other means

by **Optimus Prime** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:09 pm

I'm not sure if "games finished" in a certain time frame is a good way to go about it, but I think that changing it from 1 turn per month to a shorter time period would be a worthwhile endeavor.

by **prismsaber** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:16 pm

Great suggestion.

by **gameplayer** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:44 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:I'm not sure if "games finished" in a certain time frame is a good way to go about it, but I think that changing it from 1 turn per month to a shorter time period would be a worthwhile endeavor.

It depends on whether you consider someone playing in a build game but otherwise inactive to be "active", or not. I'm willing to do it either way, I just think the time frame needs to be shortened.

by **The Neon Peon** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:29 pm

How about one game initialized per ____ ?

That way, instead of taking turns in several build games, the person would have to get in some new games as well.

by **Optimus Prime** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:37 pm

The Neon Peon wrote:How about one game initialized per ____ ?

That way, instead of taking turns in several build games, the person would have to get in some new games as well.

OooooOooo, you might be on to something with that. If someone wants to be in 10 build games, that is their own business, but it isn't really showing they can beat anyone, so having to be involved in a new game every so often could work.

However, what happens in the situation of someone in say 40-50 flat rate games that aren't really "build" games, but just hard fought, long-lasting games? I would consider them active, but they might not join a new game for two or three weeks. That has happened to me before where I was in a bunch and didn't want to up my load so I just didn't join any for a few weeks while they all wound down.

Perhaps something that is multi-conditional? Like, player A must have at least X new games per ___ or X turns taken per ___.

by **Bruceswar** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:40 pm

What about a Freemium... Lets not forget about them. They only have 4 games to work with. Say they enjoy no card games, well they could all 4 lock up and be build games...

by **The Neon Peon** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:42 pm

Bruceswar wrote:What about a Freemium... Lets not forget about them. They only have 4 games to work with. Say they enjoy no card games, well they could all 4 lock up and be build games...

If a freemium gets in 4 build games, then it is the same as a premium who chooses to be in all build games.

Either way, you can't tell what their skill actually is. They might have forgotten everything about how to play by not joining any new games. So why should they keep their own rank?

P.S. another incentive to get premium.

by **n00blet** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:45 pm

The Neon Peon wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:What about a Freemium... Lets not forget about them. They only have 4 games to work with. Say they enjoy no card games, well they could all 4 lock up and be build games...

If a freemium gets in 4 build games, then it is the same as a premium who chooses to be in all build games.

Either way, you can't tell what their skill actually is. They might have forgotten everything about how to play by not joining any new games. So why should they keep their own rank?

P.S. another incentive to get premium.

Or there could be a different number of turns required for freemiums and premiums.....

Not sure how much I like the idea, but it might work

*edit* "the idea" referring to my suggestion of different requirements....i quite like the OP's suggestion

by **jnd94** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:45 pm

Sounds good to me. Although I would probably change it to 2 or 3, b/c any premium that wants to stay up there can just make a 1 vs 1.

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:38 am

Bruceswar wrote:What about a Freemium... Lets not forget about them. They only have 4 games to work with. Say they enjoy no card games, well they could all 4 lock up and be build games...

and what if a guy is burying his cat in his backyard and cuts the lines to his house and has no access to the net and misses starting a game in the time frame to keep on the leaderboard? *snicker*... i think it is a good suggestion to increase the frequency a member has to take a turn to remain active, but not such a good idea for starting X amount of games a month. don't forget there are a ton of people that have summer breaks on here. and there are a ton of players that are adults and have to take breaks for job related/life related occurences, where CC must take a back seat. to punish someone that gets caught up in a huge work/home/child load is just not cool... the black jesus has spoken...-0

p.s.-for a fee, i can bring cats back from the dead...

by **Bruceswar** on Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:57 am

owenshooter wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:What about a Freemium... Lets not forget about them. They only have 4 games to work with. Say they enjoy no card games, well they could all 4 lock up and be build games...

and what if a guy is burying his cat in his backyard and cuts the lines to his house and has no access to the net and misses starting a game in the time frame to keep on the leaderboard? *snicker*... i think it is a good suggestion to increase the frequency a member has to take a turn to remain active, but not such a good idea for starting X amount of games a month. don't forget there are a ton of people that have summer breaks on here. and there are a ton of players that are adults and have to take breaks for job related/life related occurences, where CC must take a back seat. to punish someone that gets caught up in a huge work/home/child load is just not cool... the black jesus has spoken...-0

p.s.-for a fee, i can bring cats back from the dead...

This is also true, with the said rule I would have been off the board..

by **Kotaro** on Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:11 am

So, you're only allowed to stay on the scoreboard, if you meet a set amount of guidelines that, while already determined by the Administrators, are currently not good enough, and people should be forced to play more if they want their, while not necessarily hard-earned, rightful points to be counted?

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:20 am

Kotaro wrote:So, you're only allowed to stay on the scoreboard, if you meet a set amount of guidelines that, while already determined by the Administrators, are currently not good enough, and people should be forced to play more if they want their, while not necessarily hard-earned, rightful points to be counted?

yes, in a nutshell. he just wants the number of times you make a move within a month, needed to stay on the scoreboard, increased from 1 to "X"... he hasn't stated what he thinks "X" should be, and is open for suggestions. but yeah, you summed it up pretty well... thanks for the recap... the black jesus has spoken...-0

by **BGtheBrain** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:59 pm

*****

by **The Voice** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:07 pm

I agree 30 days is too long, but what are you suggesting the cut-off be? You say most users take turns daily. Are you indicating the cut-off should be 24 hours?

by **BGtheBrain** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:10 pm

*****

by **spiesr** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:20 pm

Keep in mind that players cannot be invited to games if they are not on the scoreboard and consider how this proposed change will affect that.

by **BGtheBrain** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:24 pm

*****

by **greenoaks** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:22 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:The shorter the better, but I dont feel 24 hours is fair enough.
Was hoping for some input from everyone to come to a good number.

5 days? 10 days?

I really dont know.

at worst, you could take your turn once in an 8 day period for 8-player games.

it would need to be at least 8. any cutoff period less than that could find you dropping off the scoreboard mid-game.

however you could still disappear from the scoreboard if you miss a turn, or 2. three times eight is 24 days.

by **BGtheBrain** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:04 pm

*****

by **blakebowling** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:07 pm

IMO, 14 days sounds like a good number, long enough that you can take a short time off without being dropped, but shorter than the current timespan.

by **greenoaks** on Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:39 pm

blakebowling wrote:IMO, 14 days sounds like a good number, long enough that you can take a short time off without being dropped, but shorter than the current timespan.

but drops you off the scoreboard if you miss a turn. this prevents you from being invited to games.

by **koontz1973** on Wed May 01, 2013 12:32 am

greenoaks wrote:
blakebowling wrote:IMO, 14 days sounds like a good number, long enough that you can take a short time off without being dropped, but shorter than the current timespan.

but drops you off the scoreboard if you miss a turn. this prevents you from being invited to games.

If you miss a turn mid game, you only need to play once to get back on. It is not 14 days + a finished game.