stop inflation

[Jeff Hardy]

Concise description:

• take one point off the winner every game

Specifics:

• every game, one point gets taken off the winner so for example if i beat someone with the same amount of points as me, they still lose 20 but i only gain 19

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• this should stop the inflation caused by all the new recruits that show up, lose a game and leave again
• high ranks will be harder to get

[cicero]

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 ...

[cicero]

... interested user hat on.

every game, one point gets taken off the winner

The problem with that is that it is over kill. It actually causes hyper deflation.

Assume that 3,000,000 games have been played to date. (Yes I know that the current game numbers are up around 3,800,000, but I've given a generous allowance for games never started.)

OK, now take out one point from the system for every game ever played: 3,000,000 points.
That's enough to completely wipe out the scores of a large proportion of users.

Even if we don't apply the change retrospectively and we start from "now", in 3,000,000 games time the outcome will be the same.

[SuicidalSnowman]

... interested user hat on.

every game, one point gets taken off the winner

The problem with that is that it is over kill. It actually causes hyper deflation.

Assume that 3,000,000 games have been played to date. (Yes I know that the current game numbers are up around 3,800,000, but I've given a generous allowance for games never started.)

OK, now take out one point from the system for every game ever played: 3,000,000 points.
That's enough to completely wipe out the scores of a large proportion of users.

Even if we don't apply the change retrospectively and we start from "now", in 3,000,000 games time the outcome will be the same.

Right, if you can lose more than you gain, isn't there a chance to have everyone with negative (or zeroed) scores if conditions are right/you play long enough?

I personally don't know if there is that much of a problem with inflation, but assuming there is:

Some online ladders have you lose one point every day. This means that you have to stay active and stay winning to keep your spots on the leaderboard. It also combats inflation.

I propose that you lose one point per day while you are active on the scoreboard.

This shouldn't be hard to counter act as it is easy to have several games going as once (even Freemiums can easily maintain 4 at a time) so as long as you win some you should never lose a significant amount of points due to this rule.

It will combat inflation.

If you need to take a CC vacation, after 30 days when you drop off the scoreboard this stops.

However, (and this is where we will see how well people read) I do not think there is a problem with inflation. I personally think that the fact that all the scores are in a 6,000 point range over the current 20,000 active on the scoreboard is not a problem. In fact, the majority of users are not even individually ranked, but tied with other users. (Currently there is a possibility of 5,778 unique scores ((top score= 5,778, lowest possible is 0)) and there are 20,076 scoreboard spots ((current number active on scoreboard)). Therefore, at best, you are always tied with about 4 other users.)

Also, the top scores are a pretty huge achievement. To get up to 5,000 points, you pretty much need to farm, or at least set up some very advantageous conditions to eliminate luck. Look at the top users games, when they win they win five points. But if they ever lose, the losses are significant. This is the built in control of inflation.

Either way, just some thoughts I had on this one.

[yeti_c]

There is inflation.

My highest score ever - was 2297 - and for that I was on the first page of the scoreboard - about 240 odd.

Now you have to be a colonel (2500) to be on the first page.

C.

[Timminz]

Look at the top users games, when they win they win five points. But if they ever lose, the losses are significant. This is the built in control of inflation.

I think you misunderstand point inflation. High-ranked players losing large amounts when they lose a game does not do anything towards inflation, as the points remain in the system. Inflation is caused by players joining (adding 1000 points into the system), losing a game or more (reducing their score), and never playing again (removing their points from the system). Since they start with 1000 and end with less than that, the net effect is more points being circulated amongst the remaining players.

Having new recruit deadbeats not lose any points would be the biggest single thing that could be done to slow inflation rates.

[Jeff Hardy]

There is inflation.

My highest score ever - was 2297 - and for that I was on the first page of the scoreboard - about 240 odd.

Now you have to be a colonel (2500) to be on the first page.

C.

yeah and now, general doesnt even get you in the top 25!!!
thats how bad it is

[cicero]

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 ...

* cough * ... my first post in this thread ... bold added to emphasise the emphasis.

[porkenbeans]

... interested user hat on.

every game, one point gets taken off the winner

The problem with that is that it is over kill. It actually causes hyper deflation.

Assume that 3,000,000 games have been played to date. (Yes I know that the current game numbers are up around 3,800,000, but I've given a generous allowance for games never started.)

OK, now take out one point from the system for every game ever played: 3,000,000 points.
That's enough to completely wipe out the scores of a large proportion of users.

Even if we don't apply the change retrospectively and we start from "now", in 3,000,000 games time the outcome will be the same.

You make it sound like 3 million points is a lot. It is a drop in the bucket when you stand it up next to all the points won from those games. Which would be something like 50 X that amount. 15,000,000,000.
...Thats' Billions my friend.
Or another way to look at it is, 1/50th of all points won.

[sully800]

Consider that there are currently 285,223 registered members on this site. Yes many are busted, many are inactive, etc. But many of them have contributed points into the system.

If you take the current active members: 20117
they would have contributed 1000 points each to the system.

Then all the inactive members: ~265,000
may have each added 40 points into the system (remember that the average loss in 4 games would be 80 points)

That would mean the total points in circulation is somewhere around (20,120,000+10,600,000) = 30,720,000 which is 10x the value that -1 points to the winner would have caused to date.

The 10,600,000 is a very rough guesstimate of extra points added into the system by inactive members. If that number is remotely accurate it would indicate we should be taking 3 points at the conclusion of every game to stay even. Since that has not happened points have inflated.

[porkenbeans]

Consider that there are currently 285,223 registered members on this site. Yes many are busted, many are inactive, etc. But many of them have contributed points into the system.

If you take the current active members: 20117
they would have contributed 1000 points each to the system.

Then all the inactive members: ~265,000
may have each added 40 points into the system (remember that the average loss in 4 games would be 80 points)

That would mean the total points in circulation is somewhere around (20,120,000+10,600,000) = 30,720,000 which is 10x the value that -1 points to the winner would have caused to date.

The 10,600,000 is a very rough guesstimate of extra points added into the system by inactive members. If that number is remotely accurate it would indicate we should be taking 3 points at the conclusion of every game to stay even. Since that has not happened points have inflated.

Yep, so 1 point is not that much after all. 1 point, 2 points 3 points, what ever it takes , I say - ...Make it so #1.

[Jeff Hardy]

1 point is about right

[max is gr8]

Luckily the ranking system we are using accommodates for inflation. It does take more points to get higher up in the leader board but the average score is still around 1000. I jumped to page 40 on the scoreboard and the score is 1076, I think it's so close the effect is negligible.

And 10,600,000/20117 = 526.9 and we aren't seeing an average score on the leaderboard being 1526.9 so your calculations are far off the effect we are seeing. Also we have an incredibly large number of cooks, but people aren't putting that down to deflation, they just say that the cooks are crap, it takes a lower score now to get to the last page than it ever did.
This isn't inflation it's just the scoring system exaggerating all scores, which is what this type of score system will always do

[gundiesalvo]

Inflation is caused by players joining (adding 1000 points into the system), losing a game or more (reducing their score), and never playing again (removing their points from the system). Since they start with 1000 and end with less than that, the net effect is more points being circulated amongst the remaining players.

Having new recruit deadbeats not lose any points would be the biggest single thing that could be done to slow inflation rates.

It's funny because this New Recruits not losing any points thing was also mentioned in a "solutions to farming" thread, so if this is implemented, perhaps with the addition of the -x point(s) per game finished, we could be effectively dealing with Inflation and Farming at the same time.

Although this "Recruits not losing points" thing isn't 100% effective, since some players actively play yet the 1000 points they came in with consistently drop and they are now Cooks, Cadets and Privates.
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.

Now as cicero said:

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.

So I will only add that I do think both taking 1 point out every time a game is finished, along with stopping New Recruits from losing points, are good solutions to Inflation, now whether it is a problem or not, I seriously don't care.

[sully800]

Luckily the ranking system we are using accommodates for inflation. It does take more points to get higher up in the leader board but the average score is still around 1000. I jumped to page 40 on the scoreboard and the score is 1076, I think it's so close the effect is negligible.

And 10,600,000/20117 = 526.9 and we aren't seeing an average score on the leaderboard being 1526.9 so your calculations are far off the effect we are seeing. Also we have an incredibly large number of cooks, but people aren't putting that down to deflation, they just say that the cooks are crap, it takes a lower score now to get to the last page than it ever did.
This isn't inflation it's just the scoring system exaggerating all scores, which is what this type of score system will always do

Looking at the middle rank is the median of the scores, not the mean.

Please keep in mind that the highest ranks have over 5000 points (4000 more than what the average "should be") and the lowest ranks cannot go below 1 point (999 less than what the average "should be"). This makes the mean score higher than the median.

I agree my calculation is most likely very high, because many many members were created and never joined a single game. But I bet it is not 3 times too high, and certainly not more than that.

The real question is, who wants to make a script to calculate the mean score of active members? Divided that by the total active members and you have an excellent view of all the points added into the system.

[InkL0sed]

Luckily the ranking system we are using accommodates for inflation. It does take more points to get higher up in the leader board but the average score is still around 1000. I jumped to page 40 on the scoreboard and the score is 1076, I think it's so close the effect is negligible.

And 10,600,000/20117 = 526.9 and we aren't seeing an average score on the leaderboard being 1526.9 so your calculations are far off the effect we are seeing. Also we have an incredibly large number of cooks, but people aren't putting that down to deflation, they just say that the cooks are crap, it takes a lower score now to get to the last page than it ever did.
This isn't inflation it's just the scoring system exaggerating all scores, which is what this type of score system will always do

Looking at the middle rank is the median of the scores, not the mean.

Please keep in mind that the highest ranks have over 5000 points (4000 more than what the average "should be") and the lowest ranks cannot go below 1 point (999 less than what the average "should be"). This makes the mean score higher than the median.

I agree my calculation is most likely very high, because many many members were created and never joined a single game. But I bet it is not 3 times too high, and certainly not more than that.

The real question is, who wants to make a script to calculate the mean score of active members? Divided that by the total active members and you have an excellent view of all the points added into the system.

That sounds like a simple script. If I knew javascript I'd do it.

[Jeff Hardy]

the average score is still around 1000.

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

[Jeff Hardy]

Luckily the ranking system we are using accommodates for inflation. It does take more points to get higher up in the leader board but the average score is still around 1000. I jumped to page 40 on the scoreboard and the score is 1076, I think it's so close the effect is negligible.

And 10,600,000/20117 = 526.9 and we aren't seeing an average score on the leaderboard being 1526.9 so your calculations are far off the effect we are seeing. Also we have an incredibly large number of cooks, but people aren't putting that down to deflation, they just say that the cooks are crap, it takes a lower score now to get to the last page than it ever did.
This isn't inflation it's just the scoring system exaggerating all scores, which is what this type of score system will always do

Looking at the middle rank is the median of the scores, not the mean.

Please keep in mind that the highest ranks have over 5000 points (4000 more than what the average "should be") and the lowest ranks cannot go below 1 point (999 less than what the average "should be"). This makes the mean score higher than the median.

I agree my calculation is most likely very high, because many many members were created and never joined a single game. But I bet it is not 3 times too high, and certainly not more than that.

The real question is, who wants to make a script to calculate the mean score of active members? Divided that by the total active members and you have an excellent view of all the points added into the system.

that would be really cool, some way of knowing exactly what the average score is and how much above/below it you are

you should make another thread and suggest this

[Seulessliathan]

what is this discussion for?

i know that inflation in economy can cause trouble .... but what is the problem about point inflation? We have more Brigs and Generals? So what?
I don´t see why we need a solution for point inflation. You still can compare yourself with others on scoreboard, and what is the big deal if you are both majors or both Generals?

If you really want to do something about this anyway ... ok .... but in that case you try a strange way. You all talk about how to take some points from the system to combat inflation. Why does nobody makes suggestions how to prevent inflation? You don´t solve this problem (if it is a real problem) by reducing the points ,you can only solve it if you combat the reasons. Whatever these reasons are, may it be new recruits who come , start games and don´t play, or if it´s caused by farming or by whatever.

If point inflation is a problem for you, think about the origin of this inflation and deal with it, don´t just take points from players, no matter in which way.

[Jeff Hardy]

what is this discussion for?

i know that inflation in economy can cause trouble .... but what is the problem about point inflation? We have more Brigs and Generals? So what?
I don´t see why we need a solution for point inflation. You still can compare yourself with others on scoreboard, and what is the big deal if you are both majors or both Generals?

If you really want to do something about this anyway ... ok .... but in that case you try a strange way. You all talk about how to take some points from the system to combat inflation. Why does nobody makes suggestions how to prevent inflation? You don´t solve this problem (if it is a real problem) by reducing the points ,you can only solve it if you combat the reasons. Whatever these reasons are, may it be new recruits who come , start games and don´t play, or if it´s caused by farming or by whatever.

If point inflation is a problem for you, think about the origin of this inflation and deal with it, don´t just take points from players, no matter in which way.

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

[max is gr8]

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

Because you have to go to page 12 to reach it, they aren't in the top 8th of the leader board.

@Jeff in the above post made a valid point. However the problem of point inflation is not as real as people claim. You are comparing to long standing members anyway, so having an extra 50 points each wouldn't make an extreme difference

[Jeff Hardy]

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

Because you have to go to page 12 to reach it, they aren't in the top 8th of the leader board.

@Jeff in the above post made a valid point. However the problem of point inflation is not as real as people claim. You are comparing to long standing members anyway, so having an extra 50 points each wouldn't make an extreme difference

in time, it will make a difference
so cc will either have to do something about it or make new ranks do suit the higher scores

i think preventing it now would be easier

[Timminz]

so having an extra 50 points each wouldn't make an extreme difference

I recall someone doing the calculations a while back ( a few months maybe), and the average score at that point was over 1200.

[Jeff Hardy]

and the average score at that point was over 1200.

i doubt it will have dropped meaning the average score is still 1200 if not higher

[sully800]

Yeah I remember taking the high score from each page and averaging them to get an overall "average". Pretty time consuming to update and not entirely accurate though. Any java masters?

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

The problem is, that even reducing inflation doesn't prevent high scores. With a really large user base the people at the top will always have very high scores compared to the masses at the bottom. If stopping inflation reduced the highest scores to the 4000's instead of the 5000's would it stop any problem? Probably not.

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.

I think if the scoring system was completely changed it would be nice to prevent future inflation by considering the measures we have talked about (or something to have a similar effect). However stopping inflation is not a priority in my opinion unless it causes a real problem.

This system would have one very nice side effect of making farming harder. If you went from receiving 3 points for beating a new recruit to receiving 2 points then the games you would need to win to maintain a certain score level would increase dramatically. Whereas for people who play others of similar rank the effect would be much less. The difference between 19 and 20 points is much less noticeable than the difference between 2 and 3 points. If this change would stop future inflation AND mitigate the effects of farming then I think we have a very valuable change to implement!!