Retired Characters on "current" stat lists (in General)

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 1:57 PM EST

Retired characters are at the top of Score and Streak statistics currently. I am told they have been there for some time. That seems sort of lame.

Score and Streak are, by their very nature, "current" metrics. Retired teams should not be included.

All of the other standings seem fine for retired teams, in my opinion.

Anyone else have thoughts/opinions on this?

QBRanger February 20 2006 2:00 PM EST

I concur.

Since Score and Win streak are very labile by the nature of the game, perhaps PBM is correct.

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 2:06 PM EST

OK, streak has been taken care of in a roundabout way, but the same thing will not work for Imp...

SNK3R February 20 2006 2:19 PM EST

*big chat log of the conversation between Mushu, Ranger and Special_J*

AdminShade February 20 2006 2:36 PM EST

imo, that shouldn't have been done...

how lame it would be of thrak to have a character with a 1000 winning streak, he should first be notified of any actions wanting to be taken against it imo.

shame on you mrwuss...

Special J February 20 2006 2:42 PM EST

How lame is it to tie up the streak with a character that is of not use except to tie up the streak spot?

And the entire conversation was not required, anyone with 2 cents can figure out how I took care of it.

AdminShade February 20 2006 2:51 PM EST

why didn't you just inform the player himself before going through with your action?

and that censorism wasn't needed, as you said yourself you already had 'dealt with it' in a way everybody could have seen (inspect character battles)

Vaynard [Fees Dirt Cheap] February 20 2006 2:59 PM EST

Personally, I like the fact that that winning streak was ended. It would have been different if it was just 'winning streaks', but no, it is 'current winning streak.' And if you are retired, that is unfair since your character is no longer a currently active character in CB2.

Besides, the best part of the CWS is that anyone can try to take it. If someone saved up 10000ba, used it all in one night, and retired, that would hardly be fair to any of the rest of us.

Just curious, how much of a winning streak did the aforementioned character have anyway?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 20 2006 3:05 PM EST

Weak...find something better to do than worry about how a retired char has better stats than you...

Special J February 20 2006 3:18 PM EST

I took care of an issue that needed to be addressed, CURRENT winning streak is not the same as HIGHEST winning streak.

If the CURRENT winning streak is not really CURRENT, then why is it called such?

I am sure the intent of the winning streak was not to include retired characters who were created just to get to the top then shelved. Had it been the same situation as IMP I would have taken another route. IMP's score was earned and held, a 1k winning streak fed by 1PR characters one night when CB is slow is not exactly an accomplishment and should not be held as one.

Don't you people have something else to complain about? Like the NUB, or the weather? The bandwagon complex is getting rather worn out.

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 3:23 PM EST

Scout's streak was 1000.

This isn't about jealousy, or worry, or any such issues. It is about having accurate, pertinent statistics on the Standings page.

Score varies wildly around here. We will see a large push up, and then a fall down. I have absolutely no reason to believe (and do not believe) jayuu rode a high score wave just to get way up and then retire. But the top score is now patently meaningless. We can talk forever about how to break it, why it matters, or how Special_J "fixed" one of the issues. The bottom line, however, is, "Do retired characters makes sense on a ever-changing, timely, dynamic list?"

Let's analyze all the main statistics:

SCORE: You know where I stand. High score list is no place for retired characters, because it cannot be assured that retired players will ever be left in the dust.
STREAK: Streak means current/now. As another poster said, should I hoard BA and just be a pain by rattling off 10,000 battles so that I have a streak? Such a streak is meaningless for a retired player, and having a retired player at the top of the streak makes the list meaningless for everyone else.
MOST POWERFUL: If someone wants to retire a character with a bunch of powerful items on it in order to keep this standing, then more power to him/her. I have no problem with retired characters being on this list.
MOST POWERFUL BLOW: A powerful blow is a powerful blow. Doesn't matter how it got there. Leave retirees there.
MINION PR: A retired character will eventually fall off the list, but record of their active, unable-to-be-staged work should remain.
RICHEST: Just like MOST POWERFUL, if someone wants to retire a character with a lot of cash on it, more power to him/her. Bye bye, cash!
BATTLES AS CHALLENGER: Retired characters will fall lower and lower, and battles is another figure that cannot be faked. Allow retirees.
NET WORTH: Same answer as MOST POWERFUL. Allow retirees.

So, in summary (and in my opinion), SCORE fluctuates too wildly and STREAK is too easy to stage to keep retired characters on a meaningful list.

Anyone who would like to discuss that topic (not whether or not I should "worry" about it or whether or not Special_J's actions were appropriate), please weigh in.

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 3:27 PM EST

Special J, I agree with you (and am going about remedying it in my usual "whine about it" way.

However, I think people mainly may be taking issue because you went about it by doing something no one else could. You used your powers to unretire a character, beat him, then re-retire it. This is not something anyone else could have done, and it was an entirely unilateral move.

I think it was funny, and I have little problem with it. I am betting thrak would laugh too, as I am betting he was trying to make a point with Scout. I cannot be sure of that, though. It is one thing to guess someone else's thoughts and another to go through it. Had Scout been my character, I probably would have raised a bit of heck about a CB staffperson doing such a thing... Especially when the same could be accomplished by Jonathan adding a " AND NOT Retired" onto a couple SQL statements (which is what I am pushing for).

QBOddBird February 20 2006 3:31 PM EST

I think it is funny, myself. ^_^

It's not like he's supposed to have to fill out a formal request to use his admin powers for a specific purpose or blah blah blah. He did the most efficient thing. Unretire, fight, retire.

/me grins.

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 3:47 PM EST

I agree, it was efficient.

However, if I ran my IT department that way (fixing each issue instead of fixing the underlying cause), we would never get anywhere. *smile*

Basically, it all depends on whether or not Jonathan even thinks there is anything wrong with the status quo. If he does, I would assume a query change would be the optimal solution. If he doesn't, then there is no need for sub-admins to be "fixing" things.

SNK3R February 20 2006 3:50 PM EST

I humbly agree with that, Sutekh, but shouldn't we have waited for a response from Jonathan first before a sub-Admin. intervention of fixing it? Perhaps it was Jon's intention in letting retired characters be in the Current Winning Streaks list. In that case, the intervention was, indeed, inappropriate. However, if not, then Jon would surely fix something he didn't want happening.

SNK3R February 20 2006 4:00 PM EST

P.S. And I still don't understand why my post was edited by an Admin. It just seems that Special_J didn't want to see himself incriminating himself. Although, the *exact* same thing was said on this thread multiple times, but that wasn't edited, either.

I still agree with the initial post that retired characters should not be allowed to be on the Current Winning Streaks. I, however, disagree with how it was handled.

AdminG Beee February 20 2006 4:05 PM EST

If I remember correctly CB1 worked this way with "Thing" being at or near the top for many stats despite the fact he had been retired.

colonel [penny pincher] February 20 2006 4:57 PM EST

I agree Sutekh/PoweredByMushu except for the Richest category and Net Worth category should not include admin characters. However, I surmise this may be a little more tricky to address and thus expect it is more unlikely to happen. I'll just have to power my way ahead of Admin Beee.

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 5:18 PM EST

Excellent point, colonel... Yes, I am thinking admins might have a different bit of data behind them, but probably still doable. *smile*

SNK3R, I completely agree, and my main intent with this original post was to get Jonathan's thoughts on it.

Special J February 20 2006 5:49 PM EST

Your post was edited because it was pointless, any other questions?

"Sub-Admin" or not, I was not elected by the public into my position, I was appointed by Jon. If Jon has an issue with something I do with my powers then I will talk to Jon about it, not the public.

Mushu, I can not fix the underlying issue, but I did bandaid it, which is the best I can do. If everyone waited around for someone else to tell them to do something, what is the point of having admins to begin with?

{cb1}dyno February 20 2006 5:54 PM EST

a) since when do the admins delete anything that is considered "pointless" from the forums, and b) how can one individual accurately label what is "pointless" and what is not? I would have liked to see what SNK3R had posted, regardless of how important it was (or wasn't) to other people. If it's within the PG Borders, what makes it unworthy of the forum?

SNK3R February 20 2006 5:56 PM EST

I hate to keep arguing with you, but my post did serve a point: to show *how* the "problem" was handled.

Thraklight Resonance February 20 2006 6:07 PM EST

Scout was just a placeholder or a target similar to the Mendoza line in baseball (well, more of an inverse Mendoza line). If you were able to pass 1,000 while actively fighting, you were either one of the top players on CB2, like Ranger, or you were likely a NUB player that was so new and low that no one had yet placed you on a favorites list (I observed both happen from time to time).

It doesn't bother me at all not to have it up there anymore, and I would have ended it on my own had I been given a chance to participate in this discussion. I'm just surprised that it took so long for someone to actually start the discussion. :-)

QBsutekh137 February 20 2006 6:10 PM EST

Well, I am an admin of sorts, an IT Manager. And unless I know EXACTLY what I am fixing and the best way to fix it, I wait. I listen to my end-users (which would be Ranger and I and thrak in this CB case) and then talk with my overlords (Jonathan, in the CB case) to see how to handle it.

If I am left with any question in my mind, I err on the side of caution and do nothing until I hear from all sides. I do this especially if the problem (in this case a somewhat meaningless stat having a somewhat lame Number One scenario) is nothing remotely urgent. Yes, it means a lot of waiting and re-hashing, etc. etc. Such is life.

If I am not mistaken, that is all that some folks on this thread are mentioning... You are right, you are a sub-admin and can do anything you wish. I can too (in my real-life job), but that doesn't mean I always do.

(Again, for the record, I will say I find Special_J's "fix" very fun and amusing).

Special J February 20 2006 6:46 PM EST

No SNK your post was a complete scroll of the screen worth of chat log in which I stated in a single line, mind you, that I unretired the toon and defeated him, then put him back in retire. The entire conversation was not required to point this out, that is why it was edited.

If you would like to continue this conversation please do so with me in CM, otherwise the conversation is over with.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001iL3">Retired Characters on "current" stat lists</a>