Muratus del Mur

While i appreciate anyone doing this quest, and i also know its not an easy task to make a 3d printer work (took me a while first time), i don't think that just printing a dragon you found somewhere, means that you built it. If you come up with your own design, regardless how horrible it comes out, and you print that, or at least considerably modify an existing model and personalize it, then print it properly, then i can consider this a valid entry, otherwise, not.

How about the most extreme option, i do a score from all sorts of factors such as active days, consecutive, wishpoints, credits, medals, etc, and calculate a voting power based on that? Question is, should less evolved characters be able to count significantly in this popularity score? Or older players will always have the strongest vote?

I was thinking to change vote power based on consecutive days in the past 30 days. Someone with 15 consec, will vite with 100% poser, someone with 30 days or more will vote with 200% power and someone with 3 days will vote with 20% power. An alternative...with different implications, would be to consider fight based honor score for voting power. Other ideeas are welcome, what would make a player more important than an other when it comes to vote this? How about a vote based on wishpoints obtained in the last 6mo? @I am Bored for now voting is mandatory. Maybe later i will add additional checks to prevent alts voting.

What we can see here, is that the top 3 positions are far above the rest, Fang reached the last position, and Ledah is a very controversial character, as he has a lot of votes but his overall score does not go to much above or below zero. Iashtal and Lazarus are in a similar situation, i wonder is it a coincidence that all these 3 are somehow "dark" roles? Fyrd lost the perfect score just this last round, he had 18/18 not too long ago, i am impressed that someone managed to get so many positive votes, i guess the garden was very popular Half of the people voted for Chew, one way or an other, so he wins the top position for most received votes of any kind followed by Fyrd (obviously) ...and..Ledah (3rd most voted person) Your comments on all this are most welcome.

Laaadiiiess and gentlemen , the results of the votes so far:

I am not sure where this will lead... This way, popular people will have more voting power, keeping themselves more popular, while the others will have less influence on the final score. The concept of weighted voting power i like, but i am not sure it will be good for this vote, that influences in turn the voting power itself. I think this mechanism will be great for whatever OTHER things, the popularity score will allow you to vote. For example, if we have to vote for a public event or feature, i prefer people that are more appreciated by the community (with positive score), to vote with higher power than people that are not so involved or well accepted the community. But for the same purpose, i could just use the final score as the voting power, meaning you vote with a power equal to positive-negative votes you received. This would achieve same power distribution as Aia's mechanism. Also, i could make the score CONSUMABLE, so you gather score over time, and use it to vote whenever you want with that cummulated power, or a fraction of it. This way, staying "popular" longer time allows you more involvement in decision taking.

vote results will be published again later this week, you could start placing your bets

you mean, to adjust the vote power to be the popularity score? So someone with -100, when they vote, they burry anyone else?

I know, just saying

life hurts your feelings all the time, I know its "better" just to give everyone the impression it all evolves around positive feelings and such, but i'm not like that, so md is not like that.

yes, exactly, and thats why i didn't publish the recent votes. I don't want people to vote just to "adjust" whatever results they see. Its so tempting, the new results are very very interesting.. but i will publish them later as Ledah suggested.

Actually what i get by this method is to increase the sensitivity of the extremes. I lose the entire middle range votes, indeed, but the ends of the spectrum become more highlighted. In a version where everyone could sort everyone by numbers, all wpuld get some sort of vote/rating. In this version, only the people that made someone vote them in place of everyone else will show up on the list, completely eliminating the middle range. Obviously its not the only wau to achieve the desired result, but right now i think that voting too much too often is not a good thing. Having to vote two people only (up and down) keeps things simple and less annoying.

Think of it this way. One person can mess with 2 votes, one good, one bad. Two votes mean a lot if there are few total, but mean nothing if there are more. If a group of people act together, then its more than just a personal hate issue.

voting repeatedly for same person is not a problem. On each round others vote too, and getting constant negative votes, or positive votes, its a sign you still have that sort of influence on those people. Imagine, if your haters get bored hating you and find better people to hate, they move on, but if they don't, then you are someones obsession..and that needs to reflect in your score somehow. Just some people are "haters" by nature, not so many. Sad thing is that with just a few people, the power of the crowd will be less obvious.. but with a fair amount, having someone obsessed downvoting you will not be noticeable. If you have several people downvoting you constantly, then its you having a problem, not them. Voting yourself negatively is not an option and never will be. The ideea of this mechanism is to force all to decide in terms of good and bad. You can only vote two people, so your area of influence is limited to your own good&bad. I will be careful not to consider the negative votes as a sign of "really bad" because they are often just a sign of "really don't know much about that guy" (that actually means just 'unpopular', not 'bad') Of course someone could risk creating an alt just for dumping bad votes of others (don't), but then, the good votes will still mean what they mean, and thats what i am after actually. After eliminating alts, several possible problems got solved, but there is still a problem of "too popular" , i have a plan for that too, when the situation demands it. There are many things still experimental with this feature, but i will see over time if it makes sense using it for what i had in mind or not. The more votes it has, the more accurate this will become... but i will still give it room for absolute error. So far it looks good.

These are not final, there might be others that could vote but didn't logged in yet. Also, there will be no decision made based on these results, maybe when there will be enough votes, over a longer period, i will do something about it. I plan to work on integrating these results into role dispatchers and shared item rules.

Here are the voting results of the first "popularity" voting. Only those with minimum 3 consecutive days got to vote or to be voted. Please don't ask who voted who because those details will not become public. I am thinking to create a page, maybe in log room, where you will be able to see such stats monthly, or realtime.

Are you still getting this? Maybe you tried while it was in work

try it out, its a small map 9x9 but with 1 human and 3 ai players. The small map makes it more fun i think.

First kingdom map is ready. currently the fights are limited to a couple of variations, no AI difficulty change and no landscape change, but you can play smaller and larger maps and mostinteresting is the 1 vs 3 ai fights There is nothing at the end of winning the kingdom map yet, but i'll be working on that soon. Next step is to make AI players use different/configurable ai, so the kingdom map makes sense and areas are harder and harder to defeat. Right now, the AI, even in 1 vs 3 mode, is super easy to beat once you understand how it works. It lacks the aggressiveness and its not taking advantage of obvious opportunties. This won't change too soon, i don't want AI really difficult to beat, its supposed to be just a replacement when there are no players to fight.

Kingdoms page - currently in work It will be a map with settlements and fortifications that can be conquered by players in pvp or vs AI fights. I still need to decide the final visual style and other concepts. I will update here when i will have first art ready. Current progress: preselecting artists for the map Dev speed: super slow, expect weeks or months till completion, unless i expand the team with a new coder. Suggestions are welcome

it has already happened, but at the same time its "identity-less". Imagine all this as a "plane" of possibilities, crossed by routes that connect "checkpoints". One idividual can go one way or an other, changing his own path, having free will, and create his own series of checkpoints on this plain. I believe time is not linear, we just see it as linear because we can only interpret it based on our experience, and see just its causal nature. For one individual, there is past present and future indeed, but if you could look from above, this is just a road on a field of events that already exists, like a map. Things could be more boring than it looks like, because this field of possible events, its not some fantasy map, its just the "area" between "existance" and "nothing". At this level things can gen really complicated to visualize, but give it a try. I discovered long ago that a strong feeling can create "checkpoints" on this event field, and while you might think a strong will or desire can get you where you want, this is just partially true. You could create an attractor on this time field, but its not given that you will be the one that reaches it, this still depends on your actions. Someone else might be attracted and its path could be changed, based on something you wished into reality. When the cell splits in two, might just be a checkpoint of that path. Think that people evolve based on their DNA, and most of the times a child continues the curses and blessings of his parents, they are part of the parent path, as well as distinct individuals on their own path. I don't know what to consider the start or end of such a path to be, but i know the overall form of how these things work. Long..complicated..talk. Many things to understand, and so weird to discuss this in writing without knowing if the one reading this follows the chain of thoughts or not

I'm not participating for the wp, but here are mine Excuse the incredible mess!! I could blame my little one for it but its just me i guess :)))

thanks for the report. It was due to a module i was experimenting with, for now i disabled it so things should be fine It looks that the reason for this is that the creature icons on the creatures page generate too many requests and this triggered the lock. I am not sure yet how to disable this just on that script, maybe Chew finds a way later (mod_evasive in apache)

retrocausality either you agree that events in the future are "stronger" (maybe more real) than events in their past, then it means that whatever you experience in the present is following a purpose in its future, and everything are just "roots". or you consider events in the past "stronger" than whatever might follow them, meaning that everything in the future is totally meaningless and just a causal result of whatever happened before. The second version is what people find easier to accept and the first is for some plain outrageous. There are niche experiments that proved events in the future change events in the past (scientifically, look for "quantum eraser"), there is religion that talks about similar concepts (regardless of religion). However, direct, simple, observation can only tell the story of causality, you do one thing then the next event is the effect of what you did, cause and effect. My personal belief is that viewing things as causal, is dark ages level. I strongly believe that we observe reality (or our side of what we call reality), in a single, causal way, but it actually holds both sides. I think events happen at some point in "time" then spread their roots into the future AND the past, joining "threads" that will eventually confirm their existence and lead to it.

super hard to accept indeed. I say the system chooses its winners, because if you change the rules even just a little, an other winner might emerge. Its equally hard to accept that elements of randomness such as coin flips, or of free will, such as players, somehow have some degree of "awareness" about what the other, unrelated participants, do. Grab the first coin you find and flip it... you have 50/50 chances to get either side.... yet do this on a pile of coins, and you will see an abnormally even distribution of results, as if the coin flip "game" you just did had a knowledge of what side to pick next to achieve such an even distribution. In the organized form i proposed, having one of the participants that _always_ flips on one side, its equally strange. Again, all this is mathematically logical and not abnormal, but from a huma perspective, its not so logical. The explanation, in my belief at least, is that the outcome is so "fixed" that it causes its roots in such way. In reality, a coin can land on its side sometimes, or two players deciding on a draw, but in this example i eliminate such possibilities from the start, so the "genes" of such an event, are simply not there, so the final outcome can not be one of draw or undecisive flip. What happens in the coin flip experiment, is that we eliminate all possibilities that don't match the rules.