Residency badge concerns?

[Jim the Baptist]

So Dabarastan and I noticed that Womble has almost 15,000 accounts within Chicken Overlords (and growing) and we are concerned about the residency badge. Based on the current trajectory, number of accounts and the fact that the accounts do not get deactivated, at a certain future date this will result in Womble occupying both the top 1% and 5% badges for this stat. That means that for players who either created their accounts or changed regions from today, every rank required for a top 1 or 5% residency badge would be occupied (or essentially blocked) by a Womble puppet by the time they would otherwise be eligible to have a badge for this stat. Would moderation do anything in this event?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Probably not. If you take a gander through the current top 1,000 nations, you'll see that a very large percentage of them are already from the same small group of regions/organisations, such as Eastern Roman Empire and Macedonia. Nobody in Chicken Overlords has a rank higher than about 17,000. I'd bet most of that top 1,000 will outlast the existence of Chicken Overlords.

[Riemstagrad]

This goes up for several other stats. It's called "the Womble Wall".

[Mallorea and Riva]

So Dabarastan and I noticed that Womble has almost 15,000 accounts within Chicken Overlords (and growing) and we are concerned about the residency badge. Based on the current trajectory, number of accounts and the fact that the accounts do not get deactivated, at a certain future date this will result in Womble occupying both the top 1% and 5% badges for this stat. That means that for players who either created their accounts or changed regions from today, every rank required for a top 1 or 5% residency badge would be occupied (or essentially blocked) by a Womble puppet by the time they would otherwise be eligible to have a badge for this stat. Would moderation do anything in this event?

Moderation wouldn't do anything, since it's not a moderation issue.

On the technical side, what would you propose as a solution (assuming there is a problem)?

[9003]

So Dabarastan and I noticed that Womble has almost 15,000 accounts within Chicken Overlords (and growing) and we are concerned about the residency badge. Based on the current trajectory, number of accounts and the fact that the accounts do not get deactivated, at a certain future date this will result in Womble occupying both the top 1% and 5% badges for this stat. That means that for players who either created their accounts or changed regions from today, every rank required for a top 1 or 5% residency badge would be occupied (or essentially blocked) by a Womble puppet by the time they would otherwise be eligible to have a badge for this stat. Would moderation do anything in this event?

Moderation wouldn't do anything, since it's not a moderation issue.

On the technical side, what would you propose as a solution (assuming there is a problem)?

Assuming that a massive number of nations is or could cause server issues implementing a soft cap on them similar to cards with deck capacity. There’s little to no reason to have more than 10k nations if you look at the biggest puppet owners most aside form Womble are under a couple hundred. For some data backing my claim up a little https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/ ... =733627866 this encompass the publicly listed puppets in the card’s community the highest card farmers are only at a few hundred (with the highest R/Ders not to far beyond that.

If the womble wall isn’t causing server issues than let it be sure stats get skewed and maybe we need a more random spawn stats but that feels like a lot of work for little reward.

[Jim the Baptist]

So Dabarastan and I noticed that Womble has almost 15,000 accounts within Chicken Overlords (and growing) and we are concerned about the residency badge. Based on the current trajectory, number of accounts and the fact that the accounts do not get deactivated, at a certain future date this will result in Womble occupying both the top 1% and 5% badges for this stat. That means that for players who either created their accounts or changed regions from today, every rank required for a top 1 or 5% residency badge would be occupied (or essentially blocked) by a Womble puppet by the time they would otherwise be eligible to have a badge for this stat. Would moderation do anything in this event?

Moderation wouldn't do anything, since it's not a moderation issue.

On the technical side, what would you propose as a solution (assuming there is a problem)?

One way would be an account cap enforced the same way as WA membership.

[Panagouge]

One way would be an account cap enforced the same way as WA membership.

No mod is willing to enforce nation ownership quotas. Nor is there any feasible technical solution to tracking people's puppets down that won't overload the serves. And it's not going to happen out of the blue after all these years of not doing it.

[Frisbeeteria]

Pretty much every suggestion here is wrong. I'm not going to break operational security and tell you why or how.

I'd love to see puppetry limited, and there is a known fix for it. The residency badge aspect is barely even the tip of the iceberg. All it takes is a complete revamp of the core code, and probably weeks or months of downtime. Needless to say, don't hold your breath waiting for it.

[Wallenburg]

I'd love to see puppetry limited, and there is a known fix for it.

This is a self-contradictory statement.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'd love to see puppetry limited, and there is a known fix for it.

This is a self-contradictory statement.

Please unpack that for the benefit of those who aren't sure why you think that's the case.

[Seanat]

On the technical side, what would you propose as a solution (assuming there is a problem)?

Not specifically talking about Residency, I have previously suggested a technical change to reduce stat walls: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=509445

[Wallenburg]

This is a self-contradictory statement.

Please unpack that for the benefit of those who aren't sure why you think that's the case.

Let us assume these truths:
A: Fris knows of a fix to puppet spam.
B: Fris is an admin.
C: Fris wants to fix puppet spam.
Q: Fris does not attempt to fix puppet spam.

Let us also define these truth statements:
D: Fris has the power to fix puppet spam.
E: ¬Q (Fris attempts to fix puppet spam.)

A ∧ B ⇒ D (If Fris knows of a fix to puppet spam and is an admin, then Fris has the power to fix puppet spam.)
D ∧ C ⇒ E (If Fris has the power to fix puppet spam and wants to fix puppet spam, then Fris attempts to fix puppet spam.)
∴ A ∧ B ∧ C ⇒ E (If Fris knows of a fix to puppet spam, is an admin, and wants to fix puppet spam, then Fris attempts to fix puppet spam.)
or A ∧ B ∧ C ⇒ ¬Q

This is a valid argument, but obviously not a sound one, since we defined Q as true and ¬Q as false.
Thus, one of our defined truths is incorrect. We examine the possible truth states:
(A ∧ B ∧ C ⇒ ¬Q) ⇔ (¬(A ∧ B ∧ C) ∨ ¬Q)
∴ ¬A ∨ ¬B ∨ ¬C ∨ ¬Q

We know Fris is an admin (B) and that Fris does not attempt to fix puppet spam (Q), so:
(B ∧ Q) ∧ (¬A ∨ ¬B ∨ ¬C ∨ ¬Q)
(B ∧ Q ∧ ¬A) ∨ (B ∧ Q ∧ ¬C)
(B ∧ Q) ∧ (¬A ∨ ¬C)
∴ ¬A ∨ ¬C (Fris does not know a fix to puppet spam or does not want to fix it.) Q.E.D.

[Frisbeeteria]

B: Fris is an admin.

No, Fris is a Senior Game Moderator. Fris is not and never has been a coder.

I also don't know the math of the rest of your logic proof, but when your core assumption fails, so does your argument.

[Wallenburg]

B: Fris is an admin.

No, Fris is a Senior Game Moderator. Fris is not and never has been a coder.

I also don't know the math of the rest of your logic proof, but when your core assumption fails, so does your argument.

Ah, so the blue name means something else behind the scenes. In that case, it would seem that the reason for the apparent contradiction is that upper admin does not share your desire to fix puppet spam.

[Bears Armed]

No, Fris is a Senior Game Moderator. Fris is not and never has been a coder.

I also don't know the math of the rest of your logic proof, but when your core assumption fails, so does your argument.

Ah, so the blue name means something else behind the scenes. In that case, it would seem that the reason for the apparent contradiction is that upper admin does not share your desire to fix puppet spam.

Fris already explained why they're not doing it: "All it takes is a complete revamp of the core code, and probably weeks or months of downtime. Needless to say, don't hold your breath waiting for it."

[Mallorea and Riva]

No, Fris is a Senior Game Moderator. Fris is not and never has been a coder.

I also don't know the math of the rest of your logic proof, but when your core assumption fails, so does your argument.

Ah, so the blue name means something else behind the scenes. In that case, it would seem that the reason for the apparent contradiction is that upper admin does not share your desire to fix puppet spam.

It means Fris is a Senior Game Moderator - a more experienced game moderator. That has nothing to do with being an Admin.

You missed the point of Fris's post. It's not that we don't know of a way to limit multiple accounts - it's that implementing that fix is so labor intensive as to not be feasible, particularly in light of the fact that there isn't a clear, urgent problem in need of solving to justify the effort.

[WayNeacTia]

No, Fris is a Senior Game Moderator. Fris is not and never has been a coder.

I also don't know the math of the rest of your logic proof, but when your core assumption fails, so does your argument.

Ah, so the blue name means something else behind the scenes. In that case, it would seem that the reason for the apparent contradiction is that upper admin does not share your desire to fix puppet spam.

It literally says “Senior Game Moderator” right under Fris’s flag. Admins are clearly listed as Administrators……..