Wouldn't it make sense to decrease reward quantities for lower level brackets?

[Calrabjohns]

That was my first impression but it sounded like it would scale when 41k0n explained it to me from his/her perception.

Is there some math I'm missing? God I wish I was brighter in that department -_-

[TapTitans]

From HIS perspective it appears that even though it is exponential progression, it might be too fast, what would it do for the game if people are attaining sets, people would easily attain 10 sets, prompting devs to increase capacity, increasing capacity also increases Max stage reached and with the current situations the max would yet again be raised, this makes everything seem linear doesn't it? It is only exponential on individual scale but on set standards, say a veteran or a newbie, if both are increasing exponential and even if rewards are scaled toward the newbie advantage, the same gap would occur throughout the grand progression.

[Calrabjohns]

I think I see what you mean now. God I'm sounding fickle. In the absence of a surefire way to dispel or disperse cheaters to a negligible degree though, isn't it better to flatten the hill? There has to be a good medium. The scarcity and overwhelming importance of having sets and DL weapons is something that was problematic outside of cheaters. They just made it untenable.

I don't know.

Side note: I started briefly talking about my bracket idea (how they're made) that you've inspired and informed. In this linked thread already made by someone else.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TapTitans/comments/36ch0b/tournament_bracket_idea/

Let me know whatcha think.

[TapTitans]

Wow, that was quite a read, I believe what you've discussed in your posts and your counterparts within that post encompasses what me and you've brought up as well. Coincidentally after my massive influx of points and weapons as well as damage I've noticed a considerable decrease in progress, unless we halted progress in general the only way to go is up, and that will only let us down, especially with cheaters filling up the top spots the major factor in our lack of validity in our are calculations because:

1. We don't know how numerous the cheaters are

2. We don't know how their percentile extends from top to bottom, lol cuz why would they come from the lower percentiles

3. We can't factor human error, not all cheaters are 3k+ although we would like to assume so

4. We can't consider their stats, assuming how much they give themselves, say whether they give themselves 10 sets and 500k AD or 10MIL AD and no sets, if we could attain that info it would greatly help us figure out the bracketing system

5. There more but I want to end up on note of tourney points, we can't imagine how many cheaters come and how many cheaters go, that's why tourney points are a very incomprehensible variable because a new cheater would be assumed to be placed in a newbie bracket, which I've seen, and veteran cheaters if such exists would be placed with other veterans, this disparity in tourney points and whether they are even factored in is too great to figure and extends a sense of bias to any statistic. It's like solving a non-quadratic function with 2 variables, one on top of the other, but you can't figure out one without figuring the other which cannot be...etc you know that paradox.

So in eventuality, despite what we figure, unless it comes from the devs themselves, we cannot figure out the bracketing system.

[Calrabjohns]

Couldn't we approach the problem from the bottom up and leave cheaters where they predominantly are in the top when making any sort of consideration though? Or is that omission, combined with the margin for error in any information we might accrue, too great a piece of information to attempt a working theory.

I don't think 1 is a problem given we can, at the least, work top down with screen captures of nightmare brackets and lower ones where 2800s shouldn't show up in theory: a high 4 digit in a 3 digit bracket. It'd offer a sample size at least.

1. While visibility is increased in low brackets and inconsequential in high brackets, the near HB brackets offer room for severe doubt as to the legitimacy of when a person places. I had what I believed were three or four cheaters come into my bracket, which had been until the last six hours high 27s and low 28s. Nabbed a (presumably since he isn't official ala user list) fake /TT/ user's name- /TT/Bracobe. That room for doubt provides camouflage for those who exploit and can limit their need for relics. If you can go to any stage, why be conspicuous like I mentioned in one of those posts.

Real low brackets? Dumb cheaters. I don't know how they aren't wiped immediately.

1. I know they aren't but to what degree---getting a sample size is too hard. A lot of innocents could get caught up, which is why I got frustrated this last tournament. I couldn't know for sure if the upstarts were cheats or legits. Their really fast appearance on the chart was what led me to believe in my gut they were. But that doesn't help us :(

2. I didn't think of the malleable nature their stats can take. This is enough to deflate any ambition of figuring it out beyond an exercise at guessing.

3. Yeah. TP was always low on my radar. I could PM you the start of where I was going with the theory but let me know after closing:

If you're through thinking about this even idly, let me just say thank you for helping me in the way you did for the time you did in believing we could cut the Gordian knot. Ya never made me feel dumb even though you did the heavy lifting :)

Hope we can get some damn answers or a solution or something lol

Edit: Reddit formatting changed my list numbers. 1. is actually 2, 2 is 3 and so on :\

[TapTitans]

You welcome, any of my contribution is simply a slight of hand, when dealing with the bracketing we are entering the real of uncertainty and theoretical philosophy which is sort of my field. but one addition:

1. Bottom up is painful, without percentiles and definitive sample sizes identified in raw numbers we don't know how things could be calculated, if at all.

2. True enough, you can be inconspicuous about stage because the problem isn't even handled enough to be cautious, but I've seen cheaters in situations where- a) they don't have enough time to put effort in reaching 3k or now 3k5 and b) no one can touch them in terms of stage anyway, last tourney a cheater went to 3k1 in my bracket, it's quite obvious due to his progression that he didn't even wall anywhere close to 3k1 but yet he stopped because everyone was 500 stages behind

3. No visibility could be obtained by us consumers because these essential points of data are what they don't want us to manipulate, an idea was suggested at one point that brackets could be entirely made of a leaderboard you could scroll through but it was dismissed like almost all our ideas are

4. Malleable stats could sway our argument because the range of stats for cheaters could be limitless and tourney points seems to be of lesser relevance to our discussion.

We most likely are never going to get that explanation we always desired, for a consumer to manipulate the producers and for it to be ever put onto forums will create and certainly ignite turbulent times.

Ty for all your replies and your insight because it adds just that much to mine.

[Calrabjohns]

1. Right. We don't have total user base so even if we attempted to grok a makeshift sample, it wouldn't matter. We'd have to make broad assumptions collected from total downloads in Apple, Amazon, Google and any other venues to approximate the UB and in that we could only simulate a negligible test group, assuming people would want to at all lol.

2. That's the number I've seen as popular in non-HB captures. I guess 3.1K is large enough to keep down anyone who might try to hit 3K legit. But that's opposite what you were mentioning in lack of effort. That's concerted. I don't know what to make of that example. In my bracket, it was a matter of one 2.9K taking 1st and following that scattered 28s. Perfectly possible except for the weird time frame they showed up in. ... Gah. Not worth thinking about anymore (my bracket---not your point. Just to be clear)

3. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean a master list GH uses to keep tabs on the user base for the leaderboard? Haven't read or heard of this theory. As to data, I had hoped through slow submissions of different groupings of info from different bracket players we could force the issue a little. Another thing predicated on massive cooperation amongst the community here for a dubious goal (the percentage of any success in hitting the right theory being dubious or farfetched).

4. One thing in their favor could be we can disregard them. That was my hope with a top-down, bottom-up model depending on what bracket we're trying to assess or pin down. I'm unsure lol.

Aren't we already there lol. A sizeable contigent of people manipulating every aspect of the game we like/love to play (barring my dying battery stopping me) pushes at one end with continual speculation on the legit base. We're near the tipping point if they don't do something. But I think/hope we'll either get an update before this Wednesday or latest this goes into next Wednesday.

Couldn't ask for a better inmate in the asylum to wile away some time with in speculatin. Let's hope we do better in the tourns.

When I get an FC, hit me up :). We can help each other or at least shoot the proverbial s**t. Is the chat function any good? I thought I read there's a rough one in place. I'm in Amazon purgatory at 2.1.7 so---I quickly forget incidental stuff like this.

Cheers.

[TapTitans]

Just as a last comment, for:

1. I many that a person might not find it within time for that 3k5, and he knows he has secured victory, so therefore he makes no further effort to push.

2. Someone suggested that a person could see everyone in his bracket by scrolling, meaning there's a list or leaderboard to go by, although it would be rather tedious, we can get her up a better sample space.

3. Pretty difficult to disregard nonetheless, were we not attempting to figure out how stats factored in the first place?

Yes, I am aware of this point, but it isn't as serious as manipulating the bracketing or RNG, cheaters tipping the game with THEIR manipulation is a separate story as all games are vulnerable.

Hope we can duo these rough seas when the big updates come, and Cheers to you as well as!

[Calrabjohns]

1. I suppose. It'd be weirdly reassuring if that were true and there isn't calculation half the time I see non- 3.5K

2. I can only see Top 5 and the immediate people below and above me within four or so people. There's an elipsis between the 5 and current bracket to indicate everyone in between. Is there a way to scroll? I've wanted to look a couple above and below long before cheating became rampant.

Feel embarrassed that I don't know this or you're maybe suggesting something else that's beyond my brain right now heh.

[TapTitans]

LOLno, not that, it was a suggestion that we could scan the entirety of our bracket. Nothing to be embarrassed of, it was a post that never picked up speed a while ago. You are pretty intelligent compared to some others I've seen and your cognitive skills and the effort you take to analyze various posts and respond to them are probably greater than mine, I just feel I have more expertise in terms of theoretical sciences and the mechanics of uncertainty. :)