Tdans [noted/closed]

[owenator]

This is absolute tiresome. When I first started playing Feudal, I created hundreds upon hundreds of games via 1 vs. 1 under these settings: unlimited, foggy, escalating, seq. Look it up, I should have about 1500+ games under my belt. Does that constitute I'm farming? And if not? WHY not? This implication of players such as: KraphtOne, tdans, magiiiiiic, Tezu (trust me, I hate her), and myself to name a few, is a bit ridiculous. We paid our premium membership, we're given the right to do what we choose in terms of creation of games - that's why we paid money. And you're telling me this is a violation of some sort, to essentially create a game? I mean, that's what it really boils down to. This is not OUR problem. This is a problem that really deals with CC and the people behind it. Listen, if we paid money to support this site, we expect service, not being accused of some incredulous bullshit rule. You are ruining our enjoyment of playing these games. Really, what DOES our money go to? Because it's obviously not going into fixing a bug that would restrict new recruits from playing specific maps. If it's that much problems, wouldn't it be much simpler to restrict these new recruits JUST to 1 vs. 1 games? That would solve everything. K1 meant well, and it was to prove a point, is he bitter? Damn right, I'd be too. Personally speaking, I'm finding that a lot of people with remorse or hate towards another player will take the littlest thing and accuse someone else. Trivial and childish. This site is continually losing my interest and soon - my money when it comes time to renew.

[alster]

This is absolute tiresome. When I first started playing Feudal, I created hundreds upon hundreds of games via 1 vs. 1 under these settings: unlimited, foggy, escalating, seq. Look it up, I should have about 1500+ games under my belt. Does that constitute I'm farming? And if not? WHY not? This implication of players such as: KraphtOne, tdans, magiiiiiic, Tezu (trust me, I hate her), and myself to name a few, is a bit ridiculous. We paid our premium membership, we're given the right to do what we choose in terms of creation of games - that's why we paid money. And you're telling me this is a violation of some sort, to essentially create a game? I mean, that's what it really boils down to. This is not OUR problem. This is a problem that really deals with CC and the people behind it. Listen, if we paid money to support this site, we expect service, not being accused of some incredulous bullshit rule. You are ruining our enjoyment of playing these games. Really, what DOES our money go to? Because it's obviously not going into fixing a bug that would restrict new recruits from playing specific maps. If it's that much problems, wouldn't it be much simpler to restrict these new recruits JUST to 1 vs. 1 games? That would solve everything. K1 meant well, and it was to prove a point, is he bitter? Damn right, I'd be too. Personally speaking, I'm finding that a lot of people with remorse or hate towards another player will take the littlest thing and accuse someone else. Trivial and childish. This site is continually losing my interest and soon - my money when it comes time to renew.

Yeah. Fair enough. The restriction on ?s joining Feudal War games should solve this. It's obvious that this map needs to be covered by this restriction.

[Woodruff]

This implication of players such as: KraphtOne, tdans, magiiiiiic, Tezu (trust me, I hate her), and myself to name a few, is a bit ridiculous. We paid our premium membership, we're given the right to do what we choose in terms of creation of games - that's why we paid money. And you're telling me this is a violation of some sort, to essentially create a game? I mean, that's what it really boils down to. This is not OUR problem.

Quite correct. As long as they are not sending PMs/Emails inviting newbies into their games, it makes no sense at all to sanction them for games that they create (joining games is a different matter entirely).

The restriction on ?s joining Feudal War games should solve this. It's obvious that this map needs to be covered by this restriction.

But that WON'T be enough, because the "mass of newbies" will simply congregate on a different map, then making THAT map "farming territory" solely because newbies keep joining games there.

[stahrgazer]

It's really horrid that someone is 'farming' because they make public games on a setting and ? happen to join...

While there are those who ACTIVELY seek the "barely out of diapers" (who might have completed 7 or 8 games) to play them Freestyle on Waterloo, Mogul, and other complex or tricksy maps; who make that 90% or more of their games.

I'd think the latter is more an abuse of this gamesite and "noobs" than making public games.

[alster]

But that WON'T be enough, because the "mass of newbies" will simply congregate on a different map, then making THAT map "farming territory" solely because newbies keep joining games there.

Actually, these situations arise due to non-?s staying away from particular maps/settings. It's not so much about ?s having idiosyncratic preferences.

[Woodruff]

But that WON'T be enough, because the "mass of newbies" will simply congregate on a different map, then making THAT map "farming territory" solely because newbies keep joining games there.

Actually, these situations arise due to non-?s staying away from particular maps/settings. It's not so much about ?s having idiosyncratic preferences.

That doesn't follow, logically. For your premise to be true, there would have to be a very limited number of non-Feudal games available at any given time...which has NEVER been the case, in my experience...never mind with the consistency required to funnel the newbies to the Feudal games.

[alster]

But that WON'T be enough, because the "mass of newbies" will simply congregate on a different map, then making THAT map "farming territory" solely because newbies keep joining games there.

Actually, these situations arise due to non-?s staying away from particular maps/settings. It's not so much about ?s having idiosyncratic preferences.

That doesn't follow, logically. For your premise to be true, there would have to be a very limited number of non-Feudal games available at any given time...which has NEVER been the case, in my experience...never mind with the consistency required to funnel the newbies to the Feudal games.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say there.

Let me restate my point.

Re: KraphtOne's games. He set up: Feudal Wars - Standard - non-speed - Automatic - Freesyle - Escalting games. Apparently, the demand from non-?s (i.e. players who are theoretically deemed to at least vaguely know what they are doing) for these particular settings did not match the supply provided by KraphtOne. This caused these games, unfilled, eventually to float up to the top page of the waiting games list. This is where the ?s come in as they, in many instances, click on waiting games and join whatever the hell is floating around there. This is what caused the 82% ?-rate in KraphtOne's games on this particular setting. It's not like a bunch of new players to the site said, "Hey ho, look at that, it's a Feudal Wars - Standard - non-speed - Automatic - Freesyle - Escalting game, and there're free spots! wow, that's exactly what I wanna play!" (that my friend would be an idiosyncratic preference).

[Bruceswar]

that is what I said in the other thread... Supply and demand...

[owenator]

so according to alster's research K1's settings are as follows: Standard - non-speed - Automatic - Freestyle - Escalating games and 4 players, tdans settings: 5 players, sequential, chained, escalating, magiiiiiic: Freestyle (non-speed), chained, escalating, sunny, 4 players, me: sequential, escalating, foggy, chained, 4 players. Is there a trend? Possibly, but it would only be chained and escalating that is common. It's not like there aren't other games that aren't played in the same settings. And can not the same be said for example about, AOR1? This is excruciatingly painful to see how many accusations goes around with players simply favoring this map under their preferred settings. These accusations simply ruin our enjoyment of this site and gaming experience. Absolutely ridiculous. K1 was wrongly accused, and if tdans receives no warning then it would prove K1's point. And if tdans receives a warning, then so should I. This needs to go higher up. Again, tell lack to fix it so it prevents new recruits from joining types of games such as these.

[Queen_Herpes]

This is absolute tiresome. When I first started playing Feudal, I created hundreds upon hundreds of games via 1 vs. 1 under these settings: unlimited, foggy, escalating, seq. Look it up, I should have about 1500+ games under my belt. Does that constitute I'm farming? And if not? WHY not? This implication of players such as: KraphtOne, tdans, magiiiiiic, Tezu (trust me, I hate her), and myself to name a few, is a bit ridiculous. We paid our premium membership, we're given the right to do what we choose in terms of creation of games - that's why we paid money. And you're telling me this is a violation of some sort, to essentially create a game? I mean, that's what it really boils down to. This is not OUR problem. This is a problem that really deals with CC and the people behind it. Listen, if we paid money to support this site, we expect service, not being accused of some incredulous bullshit rule. You are ruining our enjoyment of playing these games. Really, what DOES our money go to? Because it's obviously not going into fixing a bug that would restrict new recruits from playing specific maps. If it's that much problems, wouldn't it be much simpler to restrict these new recruits JUST to 1 vs. 1 games? That would solve everything. K1 meant well, and it was to prove a point, is he bitter? Damn right, I'd be too. Personally speaking, I'm finding that a lot of people with remorse or hate towards another player will take the littlest thing and accuse someone else. Trivial and childish. This site is continually losing my interest and soon - my money when it comes time to renew.

Or we could restrict ?s from joining any games at all. Just let them start games. But then, anyone who joins games started by ?s would have to be considered farmers as well. Maybe restrict ?s to playing games with other ?s is the answer. Or, we could shut down ConquerClub until everyone gives up and doesn't visit the site anymore. Then re-open ConquerClub in say, ten years, (under a different URL) and all the players coming to play will be ?s, then no one will be a farmer. Wait, then everyone will be a farmer because all players will be ?s playing against other ?s. Jeez, I don't see a reasonable solution...

...
...
...wait...
...
We could permaban anyone who starts a game. Yep. Problem solved. From here on out, anyone who starts a game will be considered a farmer and will be permabanned. Then, we can get back to what this site is all about: posting on the forum and making base accusations about one another's sexuality and intelligence.

[jefjef]

Why would CC care about farming. This is a CASUAL GAMING SITE. Should be no such thing as farming.

CC is all about the forums. All effort should be exerted to police them.

[alex951]

this is a witch hunt!!!!!

[Queen_Herpes]

this is a witch hunt!!!!!

I'd like to thank alex951 for increasing his/her post count with this comment. It wasn't funny, it didn't demonstrate that he/she has read the topic, it doesn't help the discussion, and it probably meant that my incredibly funny comment posted earlier will not be read by as many people.

[Snowgun]

CC is all about the forums. All effort should be exerted to police them.

ROFL, I think I peed my pants a little when I saw this.

[Mr Changsha]

CC should either...

a) enforce rank restrictions for all public games as it is quite nonsensical to forbid us from playing NR's (even when we create the games and don't invite them) but allow us to invite players with SIX completed games to have a bash with us on freestyle waterloo.

or

b) return to the old system of players being free to play who they want how they want...the system I myself much prefer.

It simply doesn't make sense to differentiate between NR's and cadets or privates. For a 2000+ player on their main settings these players are all, in general, easy prey. So if we can't play NR's in any number then logically we shouldn't play the cadets or privates either. Of course, that is not that I want..I believe we should be free to play as we like. If we farm, then the community knows it and our achievements are naturally devalued as a result.

With regards to the present issue, the hunters allowed themselves to be swayed by the (without question) forceful advocacy of Fitz, Jr, Alstergren and others. Their views, by the way, make complete sense within the confines of the current regulations. The trouble, is that the current regulations were ill-thought through at their conception.

Now we have the spectacle of more and more high ranking players falling into the 'farming trap' and as each one is noticed he cries "But what about x, y or z?" Apparently they are all farming too.

No.

Farming is the specific act of JOINING NR's (or v.low ranking players) games to feed off of easy points or INVITING the above to play in specifically created games. It is NOT feudal players (who have often played over 1000 games on the map) continuing to set up the games they've always played but now find that they are being swamped with NR's due to the restrictions Lack enforced a few months ago.

The hunters should retract their decision but I don't expect that to happen. Instead we will see this tiresome spectacle continue to be played out...tiresome because it was created by the unthinking farming regulations brought forward months ago.

BTW...I predicted all this would happen at the time.

[Queen_Herpes]

Lol, Mr. Changsha, that's quite the rank for having played only 175 games. Congrats.

[stahrgazer]

Farming is the specific act of JOINING NR's (or v.low ranking players) games to feed off of easy points or INVITING the above to play in specifically created games.

As I stated below, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that someone is 'farming' for creating multi-player public games to their preferences without specifically trying to invite low ranks. Especially if someone isn't farming even when he specifically targets and actively lures low ranks onto maps and settings he knows they don't know.

Actually, we'll see if farming includes the low ranked player specific invites and lures on freestyle maps like Mogul and Waterloo, as I've had a c&a (through etickets) pending for a couple weeks now, on a player who does just that.

[king achilles]

stahrgazer, your ticket has already been read and we apologize if it is taking some time to respond to your report. It's still being reviewed.

As for this report, if you can produce as many games where tdans appear to be farming, then we can look into this further.

If not, we can proceed in closing this.

[JCKing]

King A,
The point is tdans is not farming. This farming thing needs a specific outline of what is, and what is not farming. It started out as join ?'s 1v1 know they're going to deadbeat. Now it's growing into oh my gosh, that guy is playing a map he likes, and what!!! NR's are joining, THAT'S FARMING!!! Hence were taking a map a player likes away from them b/c they can't start games on them.
I agree with Mr. Chang's points. What farming actually is:
1) Joining NR's games. (As there is a method that works 90% of the time, that can make it so they don't play)
2) Inviting low rank players into a game, so you can destroy them
3) Setting Up Private games and giving low ranks the Password to Join (on the lines with #2)

This has become out of hand on what is farming and what is NOT farming. I think there needs to be a post in this C&A thread STICKIED saying what is farming and what isn't farming.
And again the fact is. Feudal War is not impossible for New Recruits to win. I've seen it done before.

[KraphtOne]

happens all the time...

[friendly1]

stahrgazer, your ticket has already been read and we apologize if it is taking some time to respond to your report. It's still being reviewed.

As for this report, if you can produce as many games where tdans appear to be farming, then we can look into this further.

If not, we can proceed in closing this.

Well, I really will not post about Tdans or any other player, but I will post regarding myself.

Honestly, I feel Krapht has a fair point and I agree with it. Regardless of what the rules and decisions are, they MUST be uniformly enforced. I don't play feudal as much anymore, but there was a time I very much enjoyed playing 4 player feudal games. In my opinion Krapht received a warning unfairly unless he was actively attempting to engage new players to his games, but that is just an opinion.

I would like to know if I started creating these 4 player feudal games again if it would considered a form of trolling or in any way be against the rules.

Note: These are only the 4 player games which I created and won, there are numerous more. (Sometimes I really suck at risk hehe)

Game 1633167
Game 1682812
Game 1683006
Game 1683271
Game 1690404
Game 1690511
Game 1698463
Game 1698729
Game 1699349
Game 1706214
Game 1756891
Game 1764393
Game 1773572
Game 1785429
Game 1887325
Game 1935122
Game 1943081

friendly1

Ohh, as a side note, Krapht I will happily set up as many public 4 player feudal games as you would like as long as you join every one of them as the second player!!!! Easy points for you And I believe as long as we both join this does not break any rules???

All kidding aside, I still love the map, pm me if you want games - I like 4 or 5 player, and I'm sure the games would fill very very quickly!

[nippersean]

Friendly - you only posted 17 - is that it?

Along with the vast numbers of spurious threads, don't you see what is actually being accused (not Tdans my 100% [1/1] dubs partner - cleared) - considered a problem?

It's not 17 games it's 70++ - if you agree with the "verdict" or not different question.

The accusation is this if I understand it correct - people setting up 100 games will therefore only attract experienced players to say 20 of them.

The rest drift to the top of "join a game." These are therefore the first a new player sees, thus joins. Call it "back door farming"

This is the nub. Whether you agree either way.

Personally I don't see blocking new players joining Feudal the answer as it's great fun and ain't so complicated - except to play well. Just like any skill game - chess / backgammon / othello etc.

Can I be the first to say I'm getting bored of these anti-feudal rants. Baby / bathwater whatever your opinion.

Nips

[KraphtOne]

The rest drift to the top of "join a game." These are therefore the first a new player sees, thus joins. Call it "back door farming"

personally my games were filled within a couple hours... hardly any drifting...

not sure what the deal is really... if i set up arms race games they don't fill up...

it's a feudal thing...

[nippersean]

It is totally agree - see my last two lines.

Still like the idea of back door farming tho.. i think that's why ex mrs nippersean permanently foed me..

[friendly1]

Friendly - you only posted 17 - is that it?

Along with the vast numbers of spurious threads, don't you see what is actually being accused (not Tdans my 100% [1/1] dubs partner - cleared) - considered a problem?

It's not 17 games it's 70++ - if you agree with the "verdict" or not different question.

The accusation is this if I understand it correct - people setting up 100 games will therefore only attract experienced players to say 20 of them.

The rest drift to the top of "join a game." These are therefore the first a new player sees, thus joins. Call it "back door farming"

This is the nub. Whether you agree either way.

Personally I don't see blocking new players joining Feudal the answer as it's great fun and ain't so complicated - except to play well. Just like any skill game - chess / backgammon / othello etc.

Can I be the first to say I'm getting bored of these anti-feudal rants. Baby / bathwater whatever your opinion.

Nips

Actually I do understand that very well nip, was waiting for this response so I could then ask - so how many games are allowed then?

If I set up one, 5, 10, 20, 50 etc. Its not a rant, its about defining it. You state 70+, so if someone is only doing 20 games is that ok?

I honestly think this is a good place for discussion, I'm simply trying to bring opinions forward to help the mods and admins create rules that we are all aware and operate within.

Secondly, as Krapht has had a ruling resulting in a warning, why is this ruling not being applied to everyone? Farming is not easy to define, but once definition is given in rulings, it needs to be enforced uniformly. I can't imagine that the mods, admins, lack, etc would want a situation where rulings are not applicable to everyone, and I think there is potential here for that to happen. I'm not trying to rant in any way, and I do believe that there is likely good discussion regarding this happening behind the scenes by those in authority.

I also think that discussion about this (in an intelligent, non flaming, non ranting form and not biased by or towards individuals hehe) can be helpful.

friendly1