Toribash
Original Post
Activity check and Legendary clans news
Good morning to all of you,


Today's news have been in discussion for quite a while among the clan staff team, and today they can finally be announced to the public.

What exactly is the news?

We have 2 major news points.






Thank you all for reading, if you have any questions or objections feel free to point them out in this thread, cheers.
Last edited by duck; Jul 22, 2018 at 07:20 PM.
Originally Posted by Hattersin View Post
I like the turn things are taking right now, glad clan mods are taking the critique, although it took way too long for this kind of communication

props to you but to contribute to the discussion, let me bring up an issue
If you push for people to post more SP replays in the replay board, don't you think that'll affect the CNC?
It'll basically be inflation with more replays, of lesser quality

I'm honestly not looking for massive activity in regards to replays, just some. It's not the best solution by a longshot but that's what we have for now, we'll do our best to figure out a way to incorporate it the most effective way.

Originally Posted by fallu View Post
so what youre saying is that if we want to keep our clan we have to get rid of our old beloved friends who are literally the only reason we still hold on to this game

dum

No, you don't. Taking a look specifically at Parrot, if all the people who have played at least 1 game this month played 5, plus if you played a few wars, you'd be sitting on green. You're also still able to get a few more points from forum activity.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Why?

The purpose of the activity check is to make sure that official clans are active. If 6 people playing ingame qualifies a clan to be active what sense does it make that another larger and older clan who has 6 ingame active people fails that same test?

They are both producing the same amount of activity. Purely because the new system doesn't take into account inactive ranks, one clan now fails while the other passes. How is that more reasonable than my suggestion, which brings back a safeguard we had in the manual checks?

ALTERNATIVELY... You could always relent to the masses and award more points for forum activity. This ham-handed attempt at forcing clans ingame is really pissing people off.

The purpose of the activity check is to impose a standard on clans in regards to activity. As it has been for a long time and will continue to be because we honestly see it as best, a certain percentage of your clan should be active to be considered active. If you have a team of 10 developers in which 7 of them are actively pushing out work, you have an active team. But if you have a team of 60 and only 7 of them are working, your team is not active. I'd say that's pretty simple and reasonable, but feel free to disagree.

Clans have a chance to get 30 points for forum activity, which is more than halfway towards activity. We've caved in and let clans that are forum heavy get almost all the way to the top. Not only that, but we are now rewarding activity.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
There was another major point. Inactive ranks...

I'm amazed that people still bring this up. Have any of you read the OP?
"If 50% of your members are active (5+ games per month), you will get full points" - this line means that you're essentially allowed to keep half of your clan members completely inactive and still receive max points for activity. Yeah, that's your "inactive rank" with the exception that we don't force you to strictly moderate your roster.

With the way it's done now clans are saved from fiddling around with members' ranks every time some of them go inactive or return from inactivity and just allow half of clan members to be inactive no matter what. Instead, what you're asking for is to be able to explicitly list people who you think are inactive and only exclude them from the check while treating everyone else as active? How is that better? There would still be limitations on how many members you can have assigned to "inactive" rank (which would still be these 50% of total member count), and then we'd also have to only give full activity points if all other clan members are active (because you already defined which players of your clan are inactive, right? everyone else must be active in that case). What's the change then? To me it sounds like more manual (and useless) labor for clan leads with no actual difference.
Originally Posted by duck View Post
I'm honestly not looking for massive activity in regards to replays, just some. It's not the best solution by a longshot but that's what we have for now, we'll do our best to figure out a way to incorporate it the most effective way.



No, you don't. Taking a look specifically at Parrot, if all the people who have played at least 1 game this month played 5, plus if you played a few wars, you'd be sitting on green. You're also still able to get a few more points from forum activity.



The purpose of the activity check is to impose a standard on clans in regards to activity. As it has been for a long time and will continue to be because we honestly see it as best, a certain percentage of your clan should be active to be considered active. If you have a team of 10 developers in which 7 of them are actively pushing out work, you have an active team. But if you have a team of 60 and only 7 of them are working, your team is not active. I'd say that's pretty simple and reasonable, but feel free to disagree.

Clans have a chance to get 30 points for forum activity, which is more than halfway towards activity. We've caved in and let clans that are forum heavy get almost all the way to the top. Not only that, but we are now rewarding activity.




As for the activity in replays, you have to understand the game has evolved a lot since the time Aikido or Wushu was invented, I myself love to see the game develop as far as it has with sparring, MAS, and the replay aspect which is a great sub category.
Don't shut down a developing process.







I completely agree with the activity with Parrot as an example, eVo having 56 members we have a lot to keep up on but when a few members are down taking care of real personal issues as a clan we must pull together to fill in those brethren who are taking care of themselves so we can enjoy there company once more. Teamwork my dudes.




I think this last subject falls under what I stated above.






Other then that it is great to see the clan squad actually work to bring the community something new and to work towards, I look forward to see how this all plays out though in my opinion there are a few detailed small moves that you guys could have done to not only boost and help activity of clans, but the whole clan community is a very large part of the games community its self.


Side note: I did notice with all the new updates and what not that you are bringing to the community I did not notice much change or adjustment to the whole structure.
You flash all this new add-ons or additions but you have failed to mention any such change in most of what has been implanted already.

If I recall correctly the community is not very keen on the changes and I would understand that may be blinded by something shiny and new but in just about everything I read, I saw nothing about the squad changing or boosting anything that has already been put in place.


You may be able to fool the newheads, but all I see is masking something that resulted in failure and still trying to keep it going.


Regardless, it's nice to see at least some kind of a move on the squads part, the clans are a very big deal in this community and should never be taken lightly.




Last edited by Tripstone; Oct 14, 2018 at 08:04 PM.
Originally Posted by duck View Post
Good afternoon.

To start off, I apologize for how most of the upkeep in this thread has been handled. Some points went ignored, some we couldn't find a common ground to end up on.
I haven't been nearly the best at dealing with everything going on in this thread and decided to wait until I had something substantial to say before responding.


Nevertheless, I've scoured the thread since the post announcing the first official check and I'm now going to respond to the major points being brought up:

  • "Official was seen as something you get and then keep because checks were lenient"

    I take issue with how you worded this complaint. I don't think there's a single instance in which people insinuated it was because of lenient activity checks that we assumed we kept official. This seems like passing the buck.

    I understand that some people may have settled into the worry-free clan life because, as said, clan checks used to be very lenient and seldom happened.
    While this can explain why you would be upset, it does not excuse the general non-activity seen in clans today.
    I've previously said that passing our checks is not hard. This is still what I believe, but after a while I realized I was making a mistake thinking it was just the player's fault.
    This was mostly brought on, in our minds, by previous clan staff who accommodated inactivity due to lenient activity checks.
    Becoming used to that lifestyle and then being expected to be active in, well, almost any shape and form can be harder than we imagined.
    I realize I made a mistake in my thinking and I do sincerely apologize. I'd like to move on to the next point to talk about a related issue, and possibly a way to amend the situation.

    Hold up there, partner. Are you insinuating that we, the players, hold blame for this at all? Last I remembered, there was significant contribution to the suggestion thread as to what could be done to boost activity, but generally we saw few of these things implemented. If y'all see activity going down, my first question is, "what's wrong with the game" rather than, "what's wrong with my players". We don't need an excuse to not play the game, but we sure as hell do need an excuse to play the game.

    Again, I think you're wrong in your assumption that it's because of leniency of previous activity checks that make Clans complacent, what you're really looking at is just general disinterest with the game, and you're trying to force interest by attacking clans, before you actually try incentivizing them.

  • "We are being blackmailed to play the game without any rewards"

    Again, I think your conflating two separate points here. One complaint is that we are being blackmailed into activity in general. The other point is that there is no rewards system to play the game as a clan.

    At first, I found this comment ridiculous and stood my ground on the opinion that no matter what rewards exist or not, a reasonable standard for checks should be in place.
    This was the opinion that also made us launch the checks. After a good while of thinking about it and trying to see it from your eyes as best as I can, I realized the mistake.
    A reward scheme was in the works about a month after the checks were first announced, but we didn't prioritize it as much in that time.
    As said, we deemed the regulation of the checks as more important than the rewards.
    We still believe that this regulation has long since been needed, but I see now that it definitely should have been preceeded by, or gone hand in hand with the reward scheme.

    So essentially, sorrynotsorry. You recognize the mistake, but right before that you state that you're mistaken opinion is the whole reason this activity update exists, so there's not really much of an actual apology in here except to say that "I'm sorry you don't agree with what I'm doing".

    To progress from that, we have officially launched our Perk Shop project. I won't get into the nitty-gritty of it here, but there is a thread covering all the important info here: "Clan Perk Points and Shop"
    For questions, please use the thread and we'll answer everything to the best of our abilities. We want this project to be heavily influenced by the community, so we are open to hearing about any and all suggestions you have for the shop itself or additional perks.
    I recognize that this should have come sooner, and I apologize. I can only hope that we can use it now to make sure activity is both kept at a standard and properly rewarded.

    No complaints here. Good on you guys.
  • "Clan discords should be counted towards activity"

    This one is also somewhat tricky. As mentioned, IRC checks used to be a thing, but were also dropped before my time as lead. With IRC, the argument could be made that there is still somewhat of an association with Toribash.
    But Discord is entirely removed from the community. It does not sit on any sort of toribash server, it's not officially recognized as a Toribash platform.
    Not only that, but monitoring activity is somewhat of a pest. For one, measuring activity with an outside bot is not exactly the most reliable system. Clan ranks in discords are random, some people don't even have a set clan rank.
    Having a bot that's in the hands of someone else in your discord server might be an unappealing idea for some. And it would most likely be very easy to manipulate.

    All inn all, it boils down to the fact that discord is too removed from the community for us to spend nearly as many resources on trying to count it towards activity as it might require.

    Fair. I can't blame you for saying that a non Toribash related site doesn't count towards activity.
  • "SP clans are getting the short end of the stick"

    This is a troublesome one. On one hand, it's true. If a clan's entire activity comes from SP, there's virtually no way to accurately see that.
    I was pointed out this point before the first check ran and the best way I could measure SP activity is by seeing if clan members have been posting replays.
    Unfortunately, that is basically the best we have at this point in time. On the other hand, SP clans are also a very fringe case, as not a lot of activity in general is coming from singleplayer.
    In any case, if your clan's activity does mostly come from singleplayer, please make sure you are posting replays to the Replays board so I can take that into account.

Sure, good temporary solution. Should have a system implemented though to track activity of single player eventually.

As far as I can see, these have been the biggest points of contention with this change. I am truly sorry that I didn't take the time to respond to your concerns sooner and that I handled this poorly.
I hope my answers to your worries are sufficient, but I'm ready to hear anything you have to say. I'll do my best to learn from this situation and to better my approach in the future.

For the most part I'm happy with this post, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw. I still think the activity checks are a waste in general right now considering the activity of the game, and I don't think that this change is going to increase activity all that much even with the incentivization. I still find this to be a bad idea in general, and I would urge you to again reconsider your actions.
Last edited by VitaminKay; Oct 15, 2018 at 02:18 PM.
Communism offends me
Pls ban Communism and pedos
See the problem is toribash's player base is erm... dehydrated. So many of the players feel that the creation of clan checks was to keep them playing the game. While in reality clan checks were made to make sure official clans (the ones that should be the posterchild of a clan) are going to keep representing what a clan should be like. I feel like this would be a good move if the game wasn't around 150 active players daily.








Wow a post that isn't a shitpost from me? ISANE
Activity checks are not a waste of time, it keeps the clan system tidy and not over run with hundreds of clans like we have today. The general activity check needs a good fair structure that works with the player base and the standards. If the clan system was managed and run correctly through out the years we would not have this issue today.
The change will not increase activity nor will help draw older players back into the game, most likely it will boost the % for a small time then you will notice it drop even harder then it is now. (failure on a failure)


Honestly if Toribash was trying to give off an image of what a clan should be and what it should represent then they should not have let a clan become official within a month that gives off a bad example of what is expected while you have clans who not only put effort, time, and initiative into there clans but gives off a more than excellent example of how a clan should act, what is expected, and the effort they put in to help other players achieve there goals.
Originally Posted by sir View Post
I'm amazed that people still bring this up. Have any of you read the OP?

Good opener. Really sets the ground for a productive dialogue. I'll return the favour.
Originally Posted by sir View Post
With the way it's done now clans are saved from fiddling around with members' ranks every time some of them go inactive or return from inactivity and just allow half of clan members to be inactive no matter what. Instead, what you're asking for is to be able to explicitly list people who you think are inactive and only exclude them from the check while treating everyone else as active? How is that better? There would still be limitations on how many members you can have assigned to "inactive" rank (which would still be these 50% of total member count), and then we'd also have to only give full activity points if all other clan members are active (because you already defined which players of your clan are inactive, right? everyone else must be active in that case). What's the change then? To me it sounds like more manual (and useless) labor for clan leads with no actual difference.

No sir. It's almost like YOU DIDN'T READ MY SUGGESTION (you only read my username). That's not what I suggested AT ALL.

I suggested that if a small clan achieves full ingame activity points for having 6 members playing, ALL clans with 6 members (or more) playing receive full points too.

There would be no members ranks, there would be no need to edit the script. All it takes is for one clan staff member to discern the smallest clan that got full ingame points. Then it's just a matter of looking at the failing clans and if they have more members playing than the previous clan, give them full ingame points too.
Originally Posted by duck View Post
The purpose of the activity check is to impose a standard on clans in regards to activity. As it has been for a long time and will continue to be because we honestly see it as best, a certain percentage of your clan should be active to be considered active. If you have a team of 10 developers in which 7 of them are actively pushing out work, you have an active team. But if you have a team of 60 and only 7 of them are working, your team is not active. I'd say that's pretty simple and reasonable, but feel free to disagree.

Team A has 7 active developers, Team B has 7 active developers... Both developing the same amount of content (i.e. same activity). Why would you disband Team B? That's unreasonable.

Again, I ask why? You haven't given me a reason, other than 'it just should be this way'. This isn't taxes. A 'relative' activity standard isn't needed. Why are you and sir so keen on neglecting to fix this oversight?

Originally Posted by duck View Post
Clans have a chance to get 30 points for forum activity, which is more than halfway towards activity. We've caved in and let clans that are forum heavy get almost all the way to the top. Not only that, but we are now rewarding activity.

You didn't cave at all. You haven't adjusted the formula at all (throughout this whole thread you've been reluctant to change it). Forum is still only worth 30%. Ingame activity is still counted 3 times over.

On rewarding activity... Being blackmailed into playing the game is still being blackmailed into playing the game, even if now your leader can have a custom usertitle. You're still serving us shit, even if it's with a side of fries.
Last edited by Ele; Oct 15, 2018 at 04:00 AM.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
On rewarding activity... Being blackmailed into playing the game is still being blackmailed into playing the game...

P R E A C H
R
E
A
C
H
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
No sir. It's almost like YOU DIDN'T READ MY SUGGESTION (you only read my username). That's not what I suggested AT ALL.

I suggested that if a small clan achieves full ingame activity points for having 6 members playing, ALL clans with 6 members (or more) playing receive full points too.

There would be no members ranks, there would be no need to edit the script. All it takes is for one clan staff member to discern the smallest clan that got full ingame points. Then it's just a matter of looking at the failing clans and if they have more members playing than the previous clan, give them full ingame points too.

You suggested two completely different things in your posts, I responded to one that didn't make any sense at all in hopes that it won't be ever brought up again. First time you complained about us not allowing clans to specify who to exclude from checks, second time you complained about small clans getting an advantage due to having less players.

Second complaint is legit, I can agree that there should be a minimum required amount of players for official clans to get full points for activity. Historically, clans system treats any clan with over 5 members as active, and with 50% members active required to get full points it means that such a clan can have only three members playing the game to pass the ingame activity check.



Regarding that Team A Team B thing... Honestly, you're arguing for the sake of it here (as usual?). Team A has 100% of its members active and thus is active as a whole, whereas Team B isn't. That's it and you can't argue with that.
Actually I know that you can and most probably will, but that'd make no sense.
Originally Posted by sir View Post
You suggested two completely different things in your posts, I responded to one that didn't make any sense at all in hopes that it won't be ever brought up again. First time you complained about us not allowing clans to specify who to exclude from checks, second time you complained about small clans getting an advantage due to having less players.

Then why did you respond to my 'second' suggestion with an explanation that has nothing to do with it? You responded as if I were making my first suggestion (which wasn't really a suggestion anyway, just an observation).

You didn't read my post. That's why only now, below, are you responding to the actual point I made in it.
Originally Posted by sir View Post
Second complaint is legit, I can agree that there should be a minimum required amount of players for official clans to get full points for activity. Historically, clans system treats any clan with over 5 members as active, and with 50% members active required to get full points it means that such a clan can have only three members playing the game to pass the ingame activity check.

My 'complaint' isn't about installing a minimum required amount of players for full activity. It's about ensuring that the level of activity required for a passing grade is the same among all clans.

Originally Posted by sir View Post
Regarding that Team A Team B thing... Honestly, you're arguing for the sake of it here (as usual?). Team A has 100% of its members active and thus is active as a whole, whereas Team B isn't. That's it and you can't argue with that.
Actually I know that you can and most probably will, but that'd make no sense.

What does it matter that Team A is 'active as a whole'? Team B has just as many active people. Why should Team B fail?

The task these teams have isn't to develop some major project before a deadline. The task is playing a turn-based physics game. Why punish Team B for not being 'active as a whole', when they have just the same (or more) people playing than Team A? What sense does that make?
Last edited by Ele; Oct 15, 2018 at 02:59 PM.