[Cards suggestion] Change MV formula to exclude outliers

[9003]

My proposal is simple when calculating the MV for cards the system should do a rolling 10 average minus outliers.

why:
Excluding outliers makes the calculation much closer to the theoretical perfect Market value. If you look here https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... rket=cards you will see boatloads of cards that have been inflated by 1 or two sales at a high price. Disregarding if it is puppet to puppet or just a crazy one-off these cards* will never see a sale even close to 10% of their currently listed market value. This is harmful to newer players who don't understand how wildly inaccurate the market value stat is. In addition, these one-off sales do not reflect the market's attitude towards a card and thus its not fair to include them in the Market value.


How:
outliers are easy to calculate find the lower quartile, Q1; this is the data point at which 25 percent of the data are smaller. If the data set is even, average the 2 points around the quartile.

Subtract the lower quartile from the higher quartile to get the interquartile range, IQ.

Multiply the interquartile range by 3. Add this to the upper quartile and subtract it from the lower quartile. Any data point outside these values is an extreme outlier and thus should not be included in the MV calculation.

What this targets:
One-off inflation from bank transfers or one-off inflation.

Of note: This would not kill inflation rather just rejig the MV stat to a more accurate number for what you can reasonably expect for the card. For example, the #1 card would still remain highly inflated as none of its sales are outliers because there are several high trades.


*cards like Farrakhan would be unaffected as they have created a market for those cards and continuously buy them at or close to MV.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Fully support

[The Unified Missourtama States]

This is a good plan, that slows inflation without squashing it and makes the game fairer for everyone.

[NJ Cardfarm 9]

Completely agree, this will help stop inflated worthless cards but allow the market to still decide prices.

[Islands Of Ventro]

I agree but disagree, much of my deck value is built on these cards

[Fauxia]

This is a good plan, that slows inflation without squashing it and makes the game fairer for everyone.

Does it actually make the game fairer? This just means in order to inflate you have to transfer big money more than once on the same card. Is it the small farmers who are going to do that? No. As far as I can tell, this makes inflation more of an elitist activity than it already was.

Does seem a bit of a better way to calculate MV, just in the sense that it is more accurate for the going rates of a card by removing the value from one-off dump cards. I'm not totally against, but we shouldn't pretend that this is going to have some profound impact on decreasing the disparities in DV or really curb the influence of inflation on the top decks. It won't.

[The Python]

OK but there's also people like me who 10% of their deck space is inflated commons.

One possibility which would make inflating easy but deflating harder would be to exclude sales that are, say, less than 30% of the DV. Then it is easy to inflate but harder to deflate.

[Carrico]

I feel it should be harder to make a card’s value to go down. Perhaps your idea is good, however, I think a rule should be implemented that perhaps card values do not go down- or if they do it should be at a slower rate than they rise somehow.

[Drew Durrnil]

I agree but disagree, much of my deck value is built on these cards

same here ; - ;

[9003]

I feel it should be harder to make a card’s value to go down. Perhaps your idea is good, however, I think a rule should be implemented that perhaps card values do not go down- or if they do it should be at a slower rate than they rise somehow.

Out liars can always be on the low end too if a crazy low sale passes it would be ignored as a fluke.

[Caffeinated]

I’m wondering if outliers would fall in the category of gifts and selling the card to yourself when calculating the average (As in being ignored by the MV calculator and not bumping old trades out of the rolling average) or if they would be able to bump older trades while counting as null in the MV calculation.

[Fauzjhia]

This suggestion and the idea to take Median value are good idea that will slow down inflation

but Ronodin has proven he is able to make multiple transfer of 5000 between himself and his puppets, to Print a fake value of on his cards.

right now , testlandia s1, one of the most valuable card and rarest legs is now the 92th most valuable cards, which there is 90 cards with fake value that somehow worth more then testlandia, because some guy decided to manipulate the market value.


its a nice idea. but if we want to be serious, we need to consider some kind of informal max trade, and make any trades that goes beyond that max, have no effect on the market value of cards.
200 for rares, 400 for ultra rare, 1000 epic and none for legendary (who are rarely inflated )

that's just my 2 cents

[Ronodin]

My proposal is simple when calculating the MV for cards the system should do a rolling 10 average minus outliers.

why:
Excluding outliers makes the calculation much closer to the theoretical perfect Market value. If you look here https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... rket=cards you will see boatloads of cards that have been inflated by 1 or two sales at a high price. Disregarding if it is puppet to puppet or just a crazy one-off these cards* will never see a sale even close to 10% of their currently listed market value. This is harmful to newer players who don't understand how wildly inaccurate the market value stat is. In addition, these one-off sales do not reflect the market's attitude towards a card and thus its not fair to include them in the Market value.


How:
outliers are easy to calculate find the lower quartile, Q1; this is the data point at which 25 percent of the data are smaller. If the data set is even, average the 2 points around the quartile.

Subtract the lower quartile from the higher quartile to get the interquartile range, IQ.

Multiply the interquartile range by 3. Add this to the upper quartile and subtract it from the lower quartile. Any data point outside these values is an extreme outlier and thus should not be included in the MV calculation.

What this targets:
One-off inflation from bank transfers or one-off inflation.

Of note: This would not kill inflation rather just rejig the MV stat to a more accurate number for what you can reasonably expect for the card. For example, the #1 card would still remain highly inflated as none of its sales are outliers because there are several high trades.


*cards like Farrakhan would be unaffected as they have created a market for those cards and continuously buy them at or close to MV.

Off the bat, this idea makes sense, normalize the MV. However, many of my inflateds would become more inflated once initially inflated... to put it simply like this. I acquire all copies of a card, with 10 0.01 trades. If I inflate time and time again with 5000 bank (as is my style), the MV will not be affected until the number of 5K bank trades on the card aren't counted as outliers (I'm assuming maybe 3-4 times minimum). Thus, I can inflate the card 2K MV all the same. This is more or less my style of inflation, to inflate cards with less than 5 trades so the MV doesn't show and while inflating increases the potential MV of the card. This further revolutionizes inflation, I personally would abuse this as now there are many more cards I can inflate to the skies.

Per my personal opinion, this should be put in place as it makes MV more and more realistic, inflation also gets more difficult yet the resulting MV is well worth the effort. From the perspective of the market, I would say this isn't great. My inflations are causing chaos, and cards are starting to lose value faster than ever. This merely accelerates that.

In my opinion, the best (and possibly only fair) solution for this inflation arms race would be a new season, which appears to be public opinion as well. A new season would cause s2 cards to appear less often, and I wouldn't inflate s3 cards as cards are created on live nations, which means there are very few cte nations with cards... inflation would slow down drastically. However, the prolonged arrival of s3 doesn't help the situation, the market will dissolve into chaos if it hasn't already, cards will never be the same.

Ronodin

[Traden]

Response from The Shire, Lautfurt, Bavaria: "We support this due to past incidents."

[9003]

My proposal is simple when calculating the MV for cards the system should do a rolling 10 average minus outliers.

why:
Excluding outliers makes the calculation much closer to the theoretical perfect Market value. If you look here https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... rket=cards you will see boatloads of cards that have been inflated by 1 or two sales at a high price. Disregarding if it is puppet to puppet or just a crazy one-off these cards* will never see a sale even close to 10% of their currently listed market value. This is harmful to newer players who don't understand how wildly inaccurate the market value stat is. In addition, these one-off sales do not reflect the market's attitude towards a card and thus its not fair to include them in the Market value.


How:
outliers are easy to calculate find the lower quartile, Q1; this is the data point at which 25 percent of the data are smaller. If the data set is even, average the 2 points around the quartile.

Subtract the lower quartile from the higher quartile to get the interquartile range, IQ.

Multiply the interquartile range by 3. Add this to the upper quartile and subtract it from the lower quartile. Any data point outside these values is an extreme outlier and thus should not be included in the MV calculation.

What this targets:
One-off inflation from bank transfers or one-off inflation.

Of note: This would not kill inflation rather just rejig the MV stat to a more accurate number for what you can reasonably expect for the card. For example, the #1 card would still remain highly inflated as none of its sales are outliers because there are several high trades.


*cards like Farrakhan would be unaffected as they have created a market for those cards and continuously buy them at or close to MV.

Off the bat, this idea makes sense, normalize the MV. However, many of my inflateds would become more inflated once initially inflated... to put it simply like this. I acquire all copies of a card, with 10 0.01 trades. If I inflate time and time again with 5000 bank (as is my style), the MV will not be affected until the number of 5K bank trades on the card aren't counted as outliers (I'm assuming maybe 3-4 times minimum). Thus, I can inflate the card 2K MV all the same. This is more or less my style of inflation, to inflate cards with less than 5 trades so the MV doesn't show and while inflating increases the potential MV of the card. This further revolutionizes inflation, I personally would abuse this as now there are many more cards I can inflate to the skies.

Per my personal opinion, this should be put in place as it makes MV more and more realistic, inflation also gets more difficult yet the resulting MV is well worth the effort. From the perspective of the market, I would say this isn't great. My inflations are causing chaos, and cards are starting to lose value faster than ever. This merely accelerates that.

In my opinion, the best (and possibly only fair) solution for this inflation arms race would be a new season, which appears to be public opinion as well. A new season would cause s2 cards to appear less often, and I wouldn't inflate s3 cards as cards are created on live nations, which means there are very few cte nations with cards... inflation would slow down drastically. However, the prolonged arrival of s3 doesn't help the situation, the market will dissolve into chaos if it hasn't already, cards will never be the same.

Ronodin

It never should "solve" inflation as inflation is a fair and vailed thing. This proposal is to more accurately reflect the MV of cards, if it requires you to make more sales at the big price tag then it's working as it's much closer to the realistic MV vs a one-off trade.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

On principle I support this. I have a few problems with the current system that I think I've outlined in (sometimes very angry) detail in the cards discord, but I can basically sum it up like this:

- the current MV system disproportionately favors a single style of play, which is hoarding low-owner cards and doing a few trades on them at ridiculous prices. currently there are two ways to enter the top 10: you either have to have played since the start or nearly the start of cards, or you have to inflate cards in this way. all other ways of gaining deck value involve more than twice the effort to produce less than half the reward. and even the veteran legendary hoarders have started to move toward this practice, since inflation has proven so imbalanced that even institutional players like Koem Kab and Mikeswill have felt their positions threatened enough that they need to embrace it.

- CTE spawn rates (as well as the one-minute piggyback clock) currently make this incredibly easy to execute with very little threat of heisting or the inflation ever being undone by normal trading. It takes weeks or months for a single inflation to be undone and the value to normalize again (if it ever does), and by that time the inflater will likely have done dozens if not hundreds more inflations.

- at the same time, the season 2 legendary market is beginning to collapse under its own weight. It has become untenable to gain deck value by collecting cards that aren't specific inflation targets - CTE commons and uncommons have become the only "safe" investment as they do not spawn enough for their value to ever be threatened.

I suppose this is just a longer version of my usual sword-rattling "destroy inflation" argument - but that is not ever what I've actually been arguing for. I just want balance. I don't want inflation to die, I just want effort put in to equal value gained out regardless of playstyle. As someone who does not "(and has no plans to) actively inflate cards, but still wants to rank up in my preferred way, it is incredibly frustrating.

[HumanSanity]

This is a good idea but not a solution for all the reasons outlined by Ronodin. This is not the balance we need, it still gives far too much power to inflators, but it can't hurt.

[Fauzjhia]

a simple would be to change the average value to the median value

the median is not affected by extreme sales

it might also be a good idea to take more than the last 10 sales to establish the market value of a card. so it would take more effort to inflate a card to a ridiculous number.

[Merni]

the median is not affected by extreme sales

If there are a lot of trades on a card, yes. But once the inflatory trades become half or more of the card's last 10 (or however many) trades, the median will be one of those.

[Fauzjhia]

the median is not affected by extreme sales

If there are a lot of trades on a card, yes. But once the inflatory trades become half or more of the card's last 10 (or however many) trades, the median will be one of those.

I'm sure taking more trades into account is not that hard of a fix.
for example, last 20. it would not take 10 BIG inflated trade to set the value of a card.

[Islands Of Ventro]

It kind of already does that since it takes the average of the last ten sales (excluding junks and gifts) if they are say
.10
.10
.10
10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10

The average of this would be 1.09 which is a reasonable price for this card considering that someone DID buy it for 10 MV.

[9003]

It kind of already does that since it takes the average of the last ten sales (excluding junks and gifts) if they are say
.10
.10
.10
10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10

The average of this would be 1.09 which is a reasonable price for this card considering that someone DID buy it for 10 MV.

I have a deck full of cards that would disagree as more often then not the 10 was a fluke like a bank transfer or one-off inflation attempt not a value buy.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

It kind of already does that since it takes the average of the last ten sales (excluding junks and gifts) if they are say
.10
.10
.10
10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10

The average of this would be 1.09 which is a reasonable price for this card considering that someone DID buy it for 10 MV.

That is not how modern inflators work, they transfer the card on 100 to 1000 bank usually

[Fauzjhia]

That is how modern inflation does (or to be more precise, MODERN MARKET VALUE MANIPULATION)

.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
(suddenly, right in the last second of the 9th, 5000/ 9999 bank transfer
and BAM the card is worth 1000, and it can only increase...

[Barlyy]

It kind of already does that since it takes the average of the last ten sales (excluding junks and gifts) if they are say
.10
.10
.10
10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10

The average of this would be 1.09 which is a reasonable price for this card considering that someone DID buy it for 10 MV.

That is definitely not how we do it.