stop inflation

[EagleofGreenErth]

Well, I did my part to stop inflation! >_>

[porkenbeans]

GO SULLY !!!

[Timminz]

Sully makes great points, but forgot (at least) one other effect of inflation. New recruits are no longer starting with the average amount of points. Whether or not this is a problem is debateable.

[Jeff Hardy]

Sully makes great points, but forgot (at least) one other effect of inflation. New recruits are no longer starting with the average amount of points. Whether or not this is a problem is debateable.

i would say it is a problem

[Timminz]

Well, I did my part to stop inflation! >_>

No. If you had quit, you would've reduced inflation, as your points would have been removed entirely from the system. You're still playing, and therefore did absolutely nothing towards increasing, or decreasing inflation.

There are currently only 2 things that counter inflation. One is for people to stop playing entirely, while having more than 1000 points, thus removing more points from the system than they brought in originally. The other, is for someone with more than 1000 points to be punished with a point reset, thus removing the difference from the system.

[Timminz]

Sully makes great points, but forgot (at least) one other effect of inflation. New recruits are no longer starting with the average amount of points. Whether or not this is a problem is debateable.

i would say it is a problem

As would I, but that does not preclude debate on the subject.

[e_i_pi]

Sully makes great points, but forgot (at least) one other effect of inflation. New recruits are no longer starting with the average amount of points. Whether or not this is a problem is debateable.

i would say it is a problem

As would I, but that does not preclude debate on the subject.

This is something I thought about too Timminz, but then I thought 'Well, the average player here is above average compared to the average new recruit', or at least I believe so. I get surprised by stripes pretty often still, and some are simply diamonds in the rough.

[Timminz]

Sully makes great points, but forgot (at least) one other effect of inflation. New recruits are no longer starting with the average amount of points. Whether or not this is a problem is debateable.

i would say it is a problem

As would I, but that does not preclude debate on the subject.

This is something I thought about too Timminz, but then I thought 'Well, the average player here is above average compared to the average new recruit', or at least I believe so. I get surprised by stripes pretty often still, and some are simply diamonds in the rough.

True enough. However, the more we travel down the inflation road (the more time passes), the more of a disadvantage new recruits are starting with. Someone who joined very early in CC's life, started with the average score, while people joining now are starting at 200 points (or probably more) below average. I won't argue that new recruits are generally of "average" skill, but they are being punished, in a way, for being late to the party, so to speak.

[EagleofGreenErth]

O RLY? Then what happened to the 1000+ extra points I had when I asked for a point reset, Mr?

[Timminz]

O RLY? Then what happened to the 1000+ extra points I had when I asked for a point reset, Mr?

Thousand pardons sir. I was under the, apparently mistaken, impression that you had been caught point-dumping recently.

[EagleofGreenErth]

O RLY? Then what happened to the 1000+ extra points I had when I asked for a point reset, Mr?

Thousand pardons sir. I was under the, apparently mistaken, impression that you had been caught point-dumping recently.

Well, to some extent... but I only went from 3000 to around 2200. Then asked for my reset. So yeah.... Some points were taken out of the system.

[sully800]

That's it! Let's all get point resets repeatedly to take points out of circulation!

Kidding of course.

Excellent point about new users starting below average! That makes it even harder to climb the ladder to the top (well, it makes the first few rungs easier but there are more rungs to climb)

[e_i_pi]

That's it! Let's all get point resets repeatedly to take points out of circulation!

Kidding of course.

Excellent point about new users starting below average! That makes it even harder to climb the ladder to the top (well, it makes the first few rungs easier but there are more rungs to climb)

It's a double edged sword sully (and Timminz). You start lower down the ladder, but if you are on par with the average CCer (ie, should be about 1200?pts) then you will get on average 15-20% more points than them, and climb to your true level soon enough.

Inflation is a problem, but not in the way a lot of people see it. The only real way around it is to do a scoreboard adjust every so often. If I suggested anything, it would be:
A) Once a month have a look at all players who has become inactive for 3-4 months (ie - 12-16 weeks)
B) Total their score differences from 1000, multiply by the number of (12-16wk) inactive players, divide by the number of active players
C) Minus or add that many points from every active CCer
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.

[porkenbeans]

That's it! Let's all get point resets repeatedly to take points out of circulation!

Kidding of course.

Excellent point about new users starting below average! That makes it even harder to climb the ladder to the top (well, it makes the first few rungs easier but there are more rungs to climb)

Yes you will have disparages like this when ever you implement a point collecting system. Those coming late to the party will always be less advantaged.
A percent or ratio system is the only real way to overcome this problem.

[GrimReaper.]

... 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.

the beauty of the thing is that this is not the economy we can experiment and then but things back the way they were!

[PepperJack]

It's a double edged sword sully (and Timminz). You start lower down the ladder, but if you are on par with the average CCer (ie, should be about 1200?pts) then you will get on average 15-20% more points than them, and climb to your true level soon enough.

Inflation is a problem, but not in the way a lot of people see it. The only real way around it is to do a scoreboard adjust every so often. If I suggested anything, it would be:
A) Once a month have a look at all players who has become inactive for 3-4 months (ie - 12-16 weeks)
B) Total their score differences from 1000, multiply by the number of (12-16wk) inactive players, divide by the number of active players
C) Minus or add that many points from every active CCer
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.

Using pi's idea as a jumping point, I came up with an admittedly rudimentary idea.

Total points in the system / Active users = Points per user
Points per user / 1000 = Rate of inflation (could be deflation as well)
User points / Rate of inflation = New score

So with made up numbers and me as an example we get this...
big number/ 20223 - approx. 1200 (stolen from above)
1200 / 1000 = 1.2
2135 / 1.2 = 1779

Applied to all users this would put the scoreboard back in line with site creation. The first adjustment would be massive, but if there were upkeep adjustments every 1 or 3 or whatever months, subsequent adjustments would be far smaller.

Alternatively, people like their points so this could be done separately as an Inflation Adjusted Scoreboard or even just Inflation Adjusted Points in profiles to keep public outcry minimized.

Essentially, its pi's idea, but it removes the waiting period of inactivity. Higher ranks will still have absurd piles of points but I think that is perfectly acceptable seeing as how they, if they are good at how they approach the scoreboard, will have points work up to them.

Good or not so much?

[Downey]

everybody who's in the top 250 must get point resets....

problem solved!

joking!

[ctgottapee]

while something for point inflation needs to be done, i'm not sure this idea works

maybe we should look at how inflation, like economic or otherwise, is controlled or adjusted for in other systems and use those working solutions as a model.

solving the ranking class sytem is fairly easy though. to better use the titles of the ranking system (ie General, Major, Private) it should be more like real life where the amount of each is controlled and based on overall rank amongst the total population. so the top X people are General, and the next 1000 are Majors, and so on down the line. this does fix the inflation problem as far as titles go and gives you an easy to figure rank based on the whole system. the real military is like this, only so many of each class is needed. over time, the limits of each rank could be adjusted for the total population. we would also probably need to delist the masses at the bottom so as not to affect the rank of current players. retired players should keep their ranks - you can adjust the total amount allowed into a rank to account for the retired members of that rank.

as far as point inflation goes, a one time reset could put things back in order, whatever the decided order is. this doesn't really solve the problem, it just rolls back some of the accumlated damage, and pisses a whole lot of people off in the process.

some fixes for point inflation could include
Living Minimum Wage: the starting point value for newbs increases [this obviously adds 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 or tournaments
Charity: ability to give a small percentage of points away annually

[lt.pie]

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

[e_i_pi]

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

[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.