A Rethink of the Farming Rules

[chapcrap]

Maybe this would be a solution:

"?" doesn't apply to 5 games played, but 5 games played on one peculiar map (in case of farming).

That actually make a lot more sense than the current system. I like it.

So if a BETA map comes out and I play a lot immediately and then I play against some people who haven't played yet, does that make me a farmer? I'm not quite sure how that rule would work.

It seems to me that the specific map used is generally irrelevant to the farming idea. Of much greater importance is the style of game being played. That being said, some few maps would fall into being different enough on their own as to apply in the way you're describing (Stalingrad or King's Court, for instance).

King's Court is easy peasy!

[lynch5762]

I personally think that the term "farming" is now an obsolete term because it is being used for too many variables...

For example; (and I apologize if this has been discussed already) my interpretation of the rule is that "farming" refers to only brand new players with ? however, many have been referring to different maps and settings, etc in regards to "farming"

Correct me if I am wrong, but you cannot even play on these maps until you have completed "X" amount of games...

I will be the first to admit that even after having played 4,000 games I am still being taken advantage of on certain maps. Let's be honest here, There are different strategies for every single map and every single setting. So if someone was to say to me that I have been "farmed" in a particular situation because I didn't know what to do then I would say..... "no big deal, I got farmed" (many people, myself included, make it a habit to learn certain maps at certain settings and it really doesn't matter your rank at this point because if you don't know the strategy than you are at a disadvantage)

I think that there is a stark difference between that scenario and the following:

systematically searching for new members on the sight with little or no experience and inviting them to games with the sole intention of winning.


I think that we should probably rethink the whole term and rule in general and maybe even consider a new term or set of rules such as "stalking"

I know that "stalking" is not a word to be taken lightly but maybe that is what is required to curb the behavior that so many seem to disagree with because the term "farming" is quickly becoming widely accepted as okay on this site (for reasons other than the actual rules)

Just my thoughts----

[macbone]

s3xt0y has a good point - five games on a particular map is enough to give players a working knowledge of how it operates.

systematically searching for new members on the sight with little or no experience and inviting them to games with the sole intention of winning.

systematically searching for new members on the site with little or no experience and inviting them to games with the sole intention of winning.

If this isn't the definition of farming, it should be.

[Symmetry]

This is kind of a bad way to go about it. I hope that people keep giving suggestions, but there's also the element of how it works out in practice. CC has an ever increasing number of maps, and even established players would be farmed under the idea 5 game experience idea.

Plus, maps aren't entirely what define a game. There are other settings.

Practically setting a five game minimum on invites for maps would virtually eliminate invites except between top tier players.

[natty dread]

setting a five game minimum on invites for maps would virtually eliminate invites except between top tier players.

This is a horrible idea. When I beta-test maps, I often make games on my new maps and invite some friends to play - with this rule, this would be forbidden also, since no one has any games played on new maps. Or if I want to try out a new map with friends, and none of us have played on it? Then I'd have to make the game and send pm:s... this would just make things more inconvenient for everyone, and it wouldn't deter the "farmers" at all - there will always be people who figure out ways to "game" the system within the rules, no matter what further restrictions you add.

No more new limitations to who you can or can't play against, period. If you're so concerned about the "integrity of the scoreboard", then suggest some change to the scoring system.

And if you want to "protect" the new players, then how about a classification system for maps that puts maps in different categories. How about giving better information about different types of maps, and integrating this information into the join a game and game finder pages. Give more information to new players and then let them make informed decisions, if they then still want to accept an invite from a field marshal then it's their business.

[Woodruff]

This is a horrible idea. When I beta-test maps, I often make games on my new maps and invite some friends to play - with this rule, this would be forbidden also, since no one has any games played on new maps. Or if I want to try out a new map with friends, and none of us have played on it? Then I'd have to make the game and send pm:s... this would just make things more inconvenient for everyone, and it wouldn't deter the "farmers" at all - there will always be people who figure out ways to "game" the system within the rules, no matter what further restrictions you add.

Yes, we absolutely should not even try to do anything about a problem that is widely recognized as one. Status quo ho!

[natty dread]

Yes, we absolutely should not even try to do anything about a problem that is widely recognized as one. Status quo ho!

Yes, we absolutely should not allow any criticism to any proposed solutions to (perceived) problems, even if those solutions are flawed and cause more harm than the (perceived) problems do in the first place. Populism ho!

[jgordon1111]

How about we just forget points and go with kills. Your rank depends on how many people you have beaten. Esc games,if your the last one standing good for you how many people did you take out to win? 1, well thats how many points you have. Terminator you killed 2 people out of eight,good 2 points for you. team games dubs,trips quads, you get one point each member. Then throw on a bonus for the last guy standing in esc and term games 2 points for him for being that lucky or that good. team games one more point for the winning team. This will allow for multi's being found in games if killed prior to being found out 1 point,if after the fact you get nothing. Just start from ground zero on a day that is picked by lack and admin,Boom reset points for everyone to 1000. I think this might stop alot of the arguing that is going on about points. Also do not allow anyone to play on any map with someone who is 2 ranks higher than them. Dont allow private games except clan games,and at the same time make these,tournament and team games the only ones that can be made private. Also if you constanly play the same people over and over again good got a solution for that,after say 15 times you have beat someone on the same map congratulations now you are playing just for the points gained from being the last one in the game. Do not make allowances for settings changes make it map wins period. That would keep things in perspective. Let strategy be the real indicator to who is the best, not devious gameplay or farming.

[Woodruff]

Yes, we absolutely should not even try to do anything about a problem that is widely recognized as one. Status quo ho!

Yes, we absolutely should not allow any criticism to any proposed solutions to (perceived) problems, even if those solutions are flawed and cause more harm than the (perceived) problems do in the first place. Populism ho!

I'm not sure how you managed to make that incredible leap to "not allow any criticism", but that's a pretty strong twisting of what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you're literally making the statement that "nothing will help, so why bother"?

[natty dread]

Yes, we absolutely should not even try to do anything about a problem that is widely recognized as one. Status quo ho!

Yes, we absolutely should not allow any criticism to any proposed solutions to (perceived) problems, even if those solutions are flawed and cause more harm than the (perceived) problems do in the first place. Populism ho!

I'm not sure how you managed to make that incredible leap to "not allow any criticism", but that's a pretty strong twisting of what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you're literally making the statement that "nothing will help, so why bother"?

Oh ho! I get it now!

When you do it it's just logical and good debating... when I do the exact same thing (ie. take something out of context and exaggerate it way out of proportion) then it's "twisting what you're saying".

Gotcha.

[Woodruff]

Yes, we absolutely should not even try to do anything about a problem that is widely recognized as one. Status quo ho!

Yes, we absolutely should not allow any criticism to any proposed solutions to (perceived) problems, even if those solutions are flawed and cause more harm than the (perceived) problems do in the first place. Populism ho!

I'm not sure how you managed to make that incredible leap to "not allow any criticism", but that's a pretty strong twisting of what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you're literally making the statement that "nothing will help, so why bother"?

Oh ho! I get it now!

When you do it it's just logical and good debating... when I do the exact same thing (ie. take something out of context and exaggerate it way out of proportion) then it's "twisting what you're saying".
Gotcha.

All I did was go by your own precise words. I suppose I can quote them for you here, if you don't want to bother going and looking at them. You made that statement, not I. Perhaps you can explain then how you made that logical and good debating step from my statement to it being about not allowing any criticism...can you manage that one?

[WILLIAMS5232]

Yes, we absolutely should not even try to do anything about a problem that is widely recognized as one. Status quo ho!

Yes, we absolutely should not allow any criticism to any proposed solutions to (perceived) problems, even if those solutions are flawed and cause more harm than the (perceived) problems do in the first place. Populism ho!

I'm not sure how you managed to make that incredible leap to "not allow any criticism", but that's a pretty strong twisting of what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you're literally making the statement that "nothing will help, so why bother"?

Oh ho! I get it now!

When you do it it's just logical and good debating... when I do the exact same thing (ie. take something out of context and exaggerate it way out of proportion) then it's "twisting what you're saying".
Gotcha.

All I did was go by your own precise words. I suppose I can quote them for you here, if you don't want to bother going and looking at them. You made that statement, not I. Perhaps you can explain then how you made that logical and good debating step from my statement to it being about not allowing any criticism...can you manage that one?

get a room. you know you both want each other.

[Geger]

How about giving better information about different types of maps, and integrating this information into the join a game and game finder pages.

We already have this.

If we click on a Thumbnail, below the map we can see a link "discussion topic", that links to Viewing Gallery in Map Foundry : http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=358.

Hm.. maybe another link to the Official Guides http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=374 can be a good addition.

.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i think a warning statement on the register page could go along way. just something to make you aware of what may happen. kind of like where it tells you not to create multiple accounts.

but still, i think this could all be fixed by giving the C&A mods the ability to make some judgement calls. you say no, because some people may not understand the rules on it clearly ( AKA try and push the limits ) but with a 3 step program you would have to just be a renegade to get a serious talking to.

[natty dread]

All I did was go by your own precise words. I suppose I can quote them for you here

Fine, go ahead and show me where I said that I want nothing to be done to a "widely recognized problem". I'm waiting.

We already have this.

Not really. We have links to map threads on the map browser, but those aren't very helpful to new players.

What I'm talking about is dividing all the maps in categories according to the type of gameplay, and then giving helpful information for new players about which categories of maps are suitable for new players, and also which game settings are easiest to learn. These could be integrated to the join game/game finder pages. Like when a new player is about to join a manual freestyle fog game, there could be a warning that this game type is hard for new players and a suggestion of easier game types.

Sometimes, even new players consciously want to challenge themselves and play hard settings against more experienced players. We shouldn't deny that from those who know the risks and want to do it, rather we should inform and educate the new players about the risks and let them make informed choices.

[Geger]

We already have this.

Not really. We have links to map threads on the map browser, but those aren't very helpful to new players.

You're right! Those are helpful for "old" players, but have no experience for some maps (like me ).

What I'm talking about is dividing all the maps in categories according to the type of gameplay, and then giving helpful information for new players about which categories of maps are suitable for new players, and also which game settings are easiest to learn. These could be integrated to the join game/game finder pages. Like when a new player is about to join a manual freestyle fog game, there could be a warning that this game type is hard for new players and a suggestion of easier game types.

Sometimes, even new players consciously want to challenge themselves and play hard settings against more experienced players. We shouldn't deny that from those who know the risks and want to do it, rather we should inform and educate the new players about the risks and let them make informed choices.

I like this : A warning before joining specific games in the join a game/game finder pages.

.

[chapcrap]

I agree with natty about categorizing maps. Perhaps a new thread is needed...

[Moontzy]

when i was being messaged by the General to play a speed game against him, I realized he was just trying to get an easy win under his belt. He beat me pretty easily, but only gained 5 points from it. If I had won i would have won 80, making the risk for him pretty high.

I knew he was messaging me because im a noob, but I didn't mind playing him that much because of the risk/reward.

But, on the other hand, he shouldn't be allowed to rake in easy points against people who don't even have 20 wins under their belt. High ranked players should only be allowed to play other high ranked players

[jgordon1111]

Why not just let the society of cooks handle the new players. Once you join CC you are automatically in the SoC for say your first 20 games. And there you are given the choices of maps to play that are set up under the SoC instructors. Woodruff the simplest ideas are usually the best. Your words are what made me Think of the SoC. Plus they will learn to use alot of other CC options why they are there. Let Dall,MAC and the other instructors choose maps to teach on if they feel the players have gotten the hang of classic. And only the SoC team can release them even at game 20,If they are not doing well enough. I believe this might stop the farming.

[natty dread]

High ranked players should only be allowed to play other high ranked players

Here's a scenario for you. Let's say player A joins this site. He plays a lot of games, likes the game and does well at it. He rises to a high rank. Eventually, he enjoys the site so much that he wants to spread the word and introduce his friends to the site as well, let's call them players B, C and D.

Now player A is really high rank, and players B, C and D are really low ranks. So you're saying that player A couldn't play with/against his friends simply because he joined the site earlier?

Way to suck out all the fun out of playing.

[Woodruff]

High ranked players should only be allowed to play other high ranked players

Here's a scenario for you. Let's say player A joins this site. He plays a lot of games, likes the game and does well at it. He rises to a high rank. Eventually, he enjoys the site so much that he wants to spread the word and introduce his friends to the site as well, let's call them players B, C and D.

Now player A is really high rank, and players B, C and D are really low ranks. So you're saying that player A couldn't play with/against his friends simply because he joined the site earlier?

Way to suck out all the fun out of playing.

If they're very good friends, player A should be helping players B, C and D to become better players themselves. That process is not likely to take long, given the considerable score-differences that have been allowed in almost all of the plausible scenarios. Thus, the problem is solved.

[natty dread]

If they're very good friends, player A should be helping players B, C and D to become better players themselves.

But maybe players B, C, and D don't care so much about that. Maybe they just want to have some fun, get to know the site by playing against someone they know, who also knows the site already.

Are you saying that's wrong?

That process is not likely to take long, given the considerable score-differences that have been allowed in almost all of the plausible scenarios.

The amount of time doesn't matter, because the whole premise is flawed. You want to restrict the freedom of everyone to curb the abuse of a few. If I can make an analogy, it's like people who ask for welfare programs to be eradicated because there are a few people who abuse them. Punish everyone because of a few misbehavers. From your earlier posts, I've always thought you were against such measures.

Let's take another scenario. Say you and a few of your friends get together to play a game of risk. Let's say a couple of your friends really suck at it, while one of your friends is really awesome at the game. Would you say to the one friend that is good at the game that he can't play with the rest of you, because he's better than everyone else?

[Pedronicus]

These 4 people could enter as a team in a tournament. Tournaments could be exempt from the high rank low rank rule.

now I know that this opens up a new realm of possibilities to farmers, but they would then have to run a tournament to achieve the settings they want to farm on.

Ever run a tournament? With newbs? - It's a fucking nightmare...

[Woodruff]

If they're very good friends, player A should be helping players B, C and D to become better players themselves.

But maybe players B, C, and D don't care so much about that. Maybe they just want to have some fun, get to know the site by playing against someone they know, who also knows the site already.
Are you saying that's wrong?

Not at all, nor do I believe I even implied anything of the sort.

That process is not likely to take long, given the considerable score-differences that have been allowed in almost all of the plausible scenarios.

The amount of time doesn't matter, because the whole premise is flawed. You want to restrict the freedom of everyone to curb the abuse of a few. If I can make an analogy, it's like people who ask for welfare programs to be eradicated because there are a few people who abuse them. Punish everyone because of a few misbehavers.

Good analogy, but I believe this situation is more akin to someone needing welfare for a short period of time until they're on their feet, at which point they are taken off of welfare.

Let's take another scenario. Say you and a few of your friends get together to play a game of risk. Let's say a couple of your friends really suck at it, while one of your friends is really awesome at the game. Would you say to the one friend that is good at the game that he can't play with the rest of you, because he's better than everyone else?

Personally, I'm not likely to want to play a lot of games with that group, regardless of whether I'm the really awesome player, one that sucks or one that's in-between. I'm too bloody competitive to be happy in that situation, in any regard. But I do recognize that for many, that's not the case and they would still enjoy it.

[WILLIAMS5232]

you'll never be able to draw a line that everyone can agree on.

not on conquer club, nor the real world.

just let em farm.