A Rethink of the Farming Rules

[ben.cleuch]

I guess we need a rule that is easy to apply as a rule and also to the software.
How about extend the New Recriuit limit to 10 games. Also essentially restrict the maps and also settings. No fog, freestyle, nuclear. Fix the maps to 5 Classic style maps.
That way the rule on farming will apply for a longer period. The ? will get a feel for the site if they stay for 10 games and perhaps be tempted into buying premium. It may make multi hunting easier also, but not sure about that.

[jghost7]

Hello all,

I think that some changes may be needed, however I believe a clear definition should be provided. I don't think that punishments should be doled out on subjectively judged abuses without the player being aware that he is breaking a rule. This is part of the reason this is coming out like this. Some players do some of the same things and get over while others are brought up for similar actions get the book thrown at them. A player should know if a rule is broken and have the stated punishments enforced for it. When it is open to interpretation, misunderstandings and questions of fairness occur.

If you have a panel to review farming cases, what criteria would you use to submit them to the panel? How would the accused know he was breaking the rules? Simply put, a more clear cut definition needs to put into effect regarding farming. Using 'judgement calls' is a bad idea. Ideally, you want the accused to know he broke the rules when you punish him. Having someone who is just playing games get punished because someone 'thinks' he is farming will only make the situation worse. Either a person breaks the rules or he didn't. I know it sounds nice to be able to just pick a person you think is farming and say 'thou shalt be punished' but it really isn't fair to the players.

Another thing to think about is not making it too difficult on the rest of the players by having them to have to look up every player they play to see if they have enough experience to play them. To be clear, I am not advocating for farming, but for the regular player. I think that we should be able to know or verify a rule of the site so that we can play the games we want without being in violation of any site rules. So if you want to increase the required games for recruits, cool. If you want to be more specific in the farming definition, cool, we can work on that. But the idea of being accused of breaking a rule that isn't defined is not something that I think will improve the site.

When you are further refining this rule, please consider the regular player as well as the new player. If I set up a game, I do not control who joins. Therefore, joining is the responsibility of the player that joined and not the game creator. I also don't think that discrimination should occur by map or settings either. If a player sets up a map and settings they desire, then the game sits until it is filled. I know that it has been said before that they shouldn't set certain maps or settings because it 'promotes' farming, but I think that is a ridiculous statement.

The other problem is that putting more restrictions on who a player can play takes away from the general enjoyment of the game. Sometimes the best way to learn a map/settings is to play against those who are already good at it. There are plenty of players that rollercoaster from high to low to high scores. There are players who mentor and play with and against new/newer players. There are friends that play each other. There are new players who just join an open game. There are 'farmers'. There are a myriad of things to consider. I agree that it will be a difficult task putting a proper working definition of farming that will be easier to enforce and agreeable to the CC population at large, but I don't think an opinion based solution is the way to go.

Thanks all,

J

[Gold Knight]

Hello all,

I think that some changes may be needed, however I believe a clear definition should be provided. I don't think that punishments should be doled out on subjectively judged abuses without the player being aware that he is breaking a rule. This is part of the reason this is coming out like this. Some players do some of the same things and get over while others are brought up for similar actions get the book thrown at them. A player should know if a rule is broken and have the stated punishments enforced for it. When it is open to interpretation, misunderstandings and questions of fairness occur.

If you have a panel to review farming cases, what criteria would you use to submit them to the panel? How would the accused know he was breaking the rules? Simply put, a more clear cut definition needs to put into effect regarding farming. Using 'judgement calls' is a bad idea. Ideally, you want the accused to know he broke the rules when you punish him. Having someone who is just playing games get punished because someone 'thinks' he is farming will only make the situation worse. Either a person breaks the rules or he didn't. I know it sounds nice to be able to just pick a person you think is farming and say 'thou shalt be punished' but it really isn't fair to the players.

Another thing to think about is not making it too difficult on the rest of the players by having them to have to look up every player they play to see if they have enough experience to play them. To be clear, I am not advocating for farming, but for the regular player. I think that we should be able to know or verify a rule of the site so that we can play the games we want without being in violation of any site rules. So if you want to increase the required games for recruits, cool. If you want to be more specific in the farming definition, cool, we can work on that. But the idea of being accused of breaking a rule that isn't defined is not something that I think will improve the site.

When you are further refining this rule, please consider the regular player as well as the new player. If I set up a game, I do not control who joins. Therefore, joining is the responsibility of the player that joined and not the game creator. I also don't think that discrimination should occur by map or settings either. If a player sets up a map and settings they desire, then the game sits until it is filled. I know that it has been said before that they shouldn't set certain maps or settings because it 'promotes' farming, but I think that is a ridiculous statement.

The other problem is that putting more restrictions on who a player can play takes away from the general enjoyment of the game. Sometimes the best way to learn a map/settings is to play against those who are already good at it. There are plenty of players that rollercoaster from high to low to high scores. There are players who mentor and play with and against new/newer players. There are friends that play each other. There are new players who just join an open game. There are 'farmers'. There are a myriad of things to consider. I agree that it will be a difficult task putting a proper working definition of farming that will be easier to enforce and agreeable to the CC population at large, but I don't think an opinion based solution is the way to go.

Thanks all,

J

You make a lot of good points J, but the simple truth is that judgement calls are already being made in a variety of aspects. I bring up the account sitting issue that has also been an unsolved situation over the past couple of years. There was nothing setup in the cases of josko, COF, Blitz, etc that directly pinpointed what was and what was not abuse of this rule and system. Yet, the Admin and MHs took the extra time to look into such cases and had to determine the verdict, as (un)popular as the decision was. As ES pointed in a previous case against Rommel, even with the case of multis there is human interpretation with the tools and sometimes errors can be made.

While these aren't as subjective as the solution I bring up, they still bring the human element into the equation which I feel is needed. Sure, mistake have and will continue to happen, and there is a set of appeals and the e-ticket system to try to hash out those mistakes. But I stated in my first post, with the escalating punishment scale in place, those who were "farming" are not going to be outrightly banned from the site right off the bat. Hell, I dont even care if they get the almighty "Warning", just something to let them know that its not going unnoticed. Krapht was able to find a couple players in minutes that are creating MANY known farm-trap games in the GLG thread, and I seriously doubt they just love playing 4-5 player escalators on complex maps.

At the very least, this could be solved by the minimum score suggestion that would limit such low ranks from joining the games, but thats for another suggestion thats been getting kicked around for awhile.

[hmsps]

I have already suggested that when anyone sets up a game an option would be the maximum or minimum pts you would need to join. This would benefit players who are past the newbie stage but dont want to get continually farmed by much higher ranked and experienced players. This would give them time to build up their confidence and skills on maps with players who are at their skill level at the time.

We do put a lot of effort into catching newbie farmers and as someone pointed out you are classed as a newbie for 5 games on limited maps then you are suddenly a cook/cadet or private who is then subject to wall posts/emails or high rankers basically farming them. I consider this is much worse than people setting up games where anyone can join. I dont know what the fun or CC experience is like for these low rankers who some will never progress due to constantly being taken for a ride. Hopefully with a little support those in power may tweak the rules a little. It doesnt have to be complex but so long as any new rules are published and it is clear what they are and what the punishment is if you do x y or z then no one should have problems with it.

I am sure when the rules were first written they were meant well at the time but the site is growing all the time and if they want it to continue to do so they have to make it more user friendly especially in the initial stages.

[jefjef]

CC definitely does not want rank segregation...

How about expanding the farming rule to encompass cadets/cooks and NR's.

[anonymus]

CC definitely does not want rank segregation...

How about expanding the farming rule to encompass cadets/cooks and NR's.

Ok in that case how bout making a category of everyone who sucks ass (listed above) some because they are new and some because they suck ass, these people can only play each other until they reach a level where they dont suck as bad anymore and then they are fair game..

if farmers cant get to the sucers = no more farming..

maybe remove the restriction from teamgames so that the people that suck can still find good players to learn from..

/

[jefjef]

CC definitely does not want rank segregation...

How about expanding the farming rule to encompass cadets/cooks and NR's.

Ok in that case how bout making a category of everyone who sucks ass (listed above) some because they are new and some because they suck ass, these people can only play each other until they reach a level where they dont suck as bad anymore and then they are fair game..

if farmers cant get to the sucers = no more farming..

maybe remove the restriction from teamgames so that the people that suck can still find good players to learn from..

/

I have for a long time advocated that someone has to be a Private in order to be in a game with an officer. CC will not segregate ranks.

Now if the farming rule were broadened to include cooks and cadets along with new recruits. Even then though the GenLeeGettin would not quite be considered farming. Looks like the avge rank he plays is around Private 1st.

\

[chapcrap]

CC definitely does not want rank segregation...

How about expanding the farming rule to encompass cadets/cooks and NR's.

Agreed with this.

[hmsps]

which in itself is rank segregation?

[jefjef]

which in itself is rank segregation?

No. Still allowed to play against them. Just not endlessly take advantage of them...

[aad0906]

which in itself is rank segregation?

No. Still allowed to play against them. Just not endlessly take advantage of them...

This is a solid solution.

[b00060]

Can anyone tell me why ?s can't be filtered out in game settings. I think that if you are above x rank say 1600, you should be able to set up games and filter out ? . This would eliminate farming, eliminate higher ranks from being targeted by multis (seems to be growing daily as people do not want to pay for a membership and keep creating multipe accounts) and protect legitimate new recruits from getting their ass handed to them and souring their first experiences on the site.

Can anyone argue why a ? needs to play a major in their first game on CC or why a Major would need to play a ? I do not need to hear about a team game excuse.

[PLAYER57832]

Can anyone tell me why ?s can't be filtered out in game settings. I think that if you are above x rank say 1600, you should be able to set up games and filter out ? . This would eliminate farming, eliminate higher ranks from being targeted by multis (seems to be growing daily as people do not want to pay for a membership and keep creating multipe accounts) and protect legitimate new recruits from getting their ass handed to them and souring their first experiences on the site.

Can anyone argue why a ? needs to play a major in their first game on CC or why a Major would need to play a ? I do not need to hear about a team game excuse.

The reason is because its only by recruiting and retaining those (?) that the site grows. If anything, folks should be obligated to treat them BETTER, not to diss them as "unoworthy". And no, having a rank of 1600 means diddly. You have to be a major or above to start talking about "deserving" rank (other than cooks, maybe). There is just too much variation lower down.

And, to get to those Major ranks and above, most people stick to specific map types or playing styles. IF the rank measures skill, it is more a matter of relative skill for that particular playing type, not overall skill. That is, a major and up is generally going to be better than someone who barely touche Sergeant and a lot of cooks are just plain bad, but beyond that.. its mostly luck and variation.

[b00060]

so a ? playing a major on a map and setting he likes helps a new recruit how?

[PLAYER57832]

so a ? playing a major on a map and setting he likes helps a new recruit how?

It does not hurt him.

[PLAYER57832]

I have not read the entire thread, but the truth is I think all this worrying about farming is just wrong. Multis are an issue, but apart from farming. Even though some multis farm, its not about taking advantage of another person, its about gaining points by playing their own self so they can lose easily and give points to theirselves.

The theory behind farming being wrong is that some higher ranked players were regularly playing lower ranks, getting easy wins and then going up in rank. To contrast that, though, you have a lot of higher ranks who have always complained that a low rank can join their games win by pure chance and gain all sorts of points that are very hard to gain back once you reach a certain level.

Set aside the inanity of thinking that CC ranking means much of anything except a very, very broad measure of skilla nd luck combined. I mean, compare win on AOR2 to Waterloo or Iraq and call it a real assessment of over all skill? Really?

Add in teams, assassin, various spoils options, and you have a lot of wonderful maps and playing fun, but assessing the overall skill.. no.

So, the real answer is what does this site want? Does it want to attract only people who are going to go for Conquerer and who will quit if they don't reach it, or does this site want people who just want to play some fun games, maybe do some general competitions and so forth along with some who are more competetive?

Either way, farming only really matters if they are nasty to the people they play. Other than that, if people cannot take losing.. they don't deserve to be here.

I can see rules along the lines of "don't join multiple games with the same person at the same time without their permission" Or even don't join more than x games with the same person without permission. That CAN be irritating to anyone, particularly when you are freemium and are trying to get medals, etc and the same person just keeps joining to be a jerk.

[Gillipig]

I would suggest some sort of mentoring program where new players can ask experienced users about tactics, rules or other cc related stuff. The mentors would not be allowed to play games with or against their pupils, making sure that only none farming mentors will sign up.
I know we have the Society of Cooks and the Q&A forum but SoC isn't flexible enough. It's a school, your are supposed to play certain maps with certain settings, ask for advice in a certain thread and other restrictions apply. Now SoC is a great initiative but it's not for everyone.
Schools and fun rarely go hand in hand. And it's a bit unpersonal, sorry SoC mentors but it's true. I know I wouldn't mind answering some of the questions new players have. And it will definitely make more new players stay.
They will get a warmer welcome than just the standard admin messages and a better idea of what the site is about. This would also deal with the farming issue because not only would new players have better tactics, they would also be on the look out for farmers because they would be warned about them. Does anyone think the cooks and cadets that Gen.LeeGettinhed has farmed enjoyed playing that foggy freestyle game on City Mogul?
How many new players hasn't he made to feel like crap and chased away with his farming?
He's the most notable but he's far from the only one to do this. He lures his victims with promises of a quick game because he knows that they have a game number restriction and would like to play more games at a time. To me he's like a pedophile luring naive children with candy because he know they like candy.
The problem with the Q&A forum is that you often have some jerk trying to make himself feel better by putting down new players. *cough* AoG *cough*

[QoH]

A quick defense for GLG... He was the one who first introduced me to waterloo, and while he didn't perfect my basic strategy, he set me on the path to success... Now its my best map.

No, he didn't bribe me to post this.

[PLAYER57832]

I would suggest some sort of mentoring program where new players can ask experienced users about tactics, rules or other cc related stuff. The mentors would not be allowed to play games with or against their pupils, making sure that only none farming mentors will sign up.
I know we have the Society of Cooks and the Q&A forum but SoC isn't flexible enough. It's a school, your are supposed to play certain maps with certain settings, ask for advice in a certain thread and other restrictions apply. Now SoC is a great initiative but it's not for everyone.
Schools and fun rarely go hand in hand. And it's a bit unpersonal, sorry SoC mentors but it's true. I know I wouldn't mind answering some of the questions new players have. And it will definitely make more new players stay.
They will get a warmer welcome than just the standard admin messages and a better idea of what the site is about. This would also deal with the farming issue because not only would new players have better tactics, they would also be on the look out for farmers because they would be warned about them. Does anyone think the cooks and cadets that Gen.LeeGettinhed has farmed enjoyed playing that foggy freestyle game on City Mogul?
How many new players hasn't he made to feel like crap and chased away with his farming?
He's the most notable but he's far from the only one to do this. He lures his victims with promises of a quick game because he knows that they have a game number restriction and would like to play more games at a time. To me he's like a pedophile luring naive children with candy because he know they like candy.
The problem with the Q&A forum is that you often have some jerk trying to make himself feel better by putting down new players. *cough* AoG *cough*

A good set of suggestions.

But, I think the key there is not the farming per se, but the attitude. That is hard to control, but its not just being beat that drives people off.. or, not that drives people off we want to stay. If you cannot stand to lose.. good riddance! We don't need more spoil sports. BUT, someone who plays, wins and then laughs about it or refuses to even help with tactics, etc. ... that is what we don't want. Losing itself is not so bad. A simple "hey, keep it up.. you are doing well" and such go al ong way. When the person really is playing badly, saying "hmm.. maybe don't attack everything on your first round.." or such is much better than saying "he he I won! sucker!".

I can remember playing a lot of higher ranked people early on and folks who mayber were not high ranked then, but who quickly went up. I enjoyed playing them because even if competetive, they were "nice". That is, maybe they did not chat a lot, but they were not nasty.

[PLAYER57832]

A quick defense for GLG... He was the one who first introduced me to waterloo, and while he didn't perfect my basic strategy, he set me on the path to success... Now its my best map.

No, he didn't bribe me to post this.

This is a key point. People can be good, play newer, poorer players and help or hinder. Its not the win or lose that matters, it really is how they play, if we are talking about retention.

And.. as I have always said. Those who DO care, who just cannot stand to lose..w ell, good riddance!

[Gillipig]

A quick defense for GLG... He was the one who first introduced me to waterloo, and while he didn't perfect my basic strategy, he set me on the path to success.

QoH you are basically the only low rank (at the time) he's given advice to like that. In your case he gave you good advice and you walked out of that game feeling good even though you lost. But this is certainly an exception.

I would suggest some sort of mentoring program where new players can ask experienced users about tactics, rules or other cc related stuff. The mentors would not be allowed to play games with or against their pupils, making sure that only none farming mentors will sign up.
I know we have the Society of Cooks and the Q&A forum but SoC isn't flexible enough. It's a school, your are supposed to play certain maps with certain settings, ask for advice in a certain thread and other restrictions apply. Now SoC is a great initiative but it's not for everyone.
Schools and fun rarely go hand in hand. And it's a bit unpersonal, sorry SoC mentors but it's true. I know I wouldn't mind answering some of the questions new players have. And it will definitely make more new players stay.
They will get a warmer welcome than just the standard admin messages and a better idea of what the site is about. This would also deal with the farming issue because not only would new players have better tactics, they would also be on the look out for farmers because they would be warned about them. Does anyone think the cooks and cadets that Gen.LeeGettinhed has farmed enjoyed playing that foggy freestyle game on City Mogul?
How many new players hasn't he made to feel like crap and chased away with his farming?
He's the most notable but he's far from the only one to do this. He lures his victims with promises of a quick game because he knows that they have a game number restriction and would like to play more games at a time. To me he's like a pedophile luring naive children with candy because he know they like candy.
The problem with the Q&A forum is that you often have some jerk trying to make himself feel better by putting down new players. *cough* AoG *cough*

A good set of suggestions.

But, I think the key there is not the farming per se, but the attitude. That is hard to control, but its not just being beat that drives people off.. or, not that drives people off we want to stay. If you cannot stand to lose.. good riddance! We don't need more spoil sports. BUT, someone who plays, wins and then laughs about it or refuses to even help with tactics, etc. ... that is what we don't want. Losing itself is not so bad. A simple "hey, keep it up.. you are doing well" and such go al ong way. When the person really is playing badly, saying "hmm.. maybe don't attack everything on your first round.." or such is much better than saying "he he I won! sucker!".

I can remember playing a lot of higher ranked people early on and folks who mayber were not high ranked then, but who quickly went up. I enjoyed playing them because even if competetive, they were "nice". That is, maybe they did not chat a lot, but they were not nasty.

I can relate to that even today. I don't really care if I lose a game if I have fun along the way. One of the most fun games I've ever played I was bleeding troops and strategy wise everything was going to hell, but I had so much fun chatting with the other players, I actually stayed and posted in the game chat even after I had been eliminated. I also remember a stalemate game where all 3 remaining players hated each other and just kept firing foul words at one another for 100+ rounds. I ended up winning that game because finally one player got under the others skin a bit too much and he suicided into him and gave me the win. That was one of the most depressing games I've ever played!
I think CC is underestimating the importance of warm welcomes. SoC doesn't provide that, it provides a school where players can learn the basics of the game. Nothing more.

Fact is people like to have a good time, if they have a good time playing risk, chess or another type of internet game doesn't really matter much to them. So instead of focusing on the game itself, I think we should focus on what happens around the game.
Will new players have a good time their first couple of days? And if not how can we make them have a good time in the beginning even though they are losing? My answer to that problem is mentors. Mentors will increase the players knowledge and therefore likeability to win, but also make the site more appealing due to the personal connection they will feel with the mentor and site. How many web gaming sites have mentors for new players? Not many sites could make their experienced users even interested in such a program. But on this site where we produce our own maps and have a lot of voluntary staff, we actually have a lot of members who wouldn't mind doing that. A mentor program if done correctly would not only deal with farming of low ranks, it would also deal with the decline in numbers of users. Andy said the decline in number of active users is do to less sign ups but instead of trying to make more people sign up, how about we try to make more of those that do sign up to stay?

[PLAYER57832]

I would actually go further on the SOC. While it is a decent program for teaching straight "classic" style maps and play, so much emphasis on that one style actually discourages people from trying other maps that often are easier to play and that just plain offer variations you don't get out of ANY board game. I would like to see a bit less emphasis on SOC being the way to learn, and more on helping people find their own "niche"... whatever it is.

A mentor program, along with a guide to the maps would go a LONG way towards that. However, I am not even sure we really need a true mentor program. There is one, I know unofficially. However, my point in this thread is that often a lot of thise "anti-farming" stuff actually hurts the people who ARE decent players. Anyone who plays a lot of lower ranks or who just plays a lot of one particular map risks being labeled a "farmer".. just because they do that. I know of a couple of people who used to play AOR2 exclusively. I played them fairly often because it was/is one of my favorite maps. Then they disappeared. Why? Because starting so many maps of the same type was considered "farming".

[Geger]

I would actually go further on the SOC. While it is a decent program for teaching straight "classic" style maps and play, so much emphasis on that one style actually discourages people from trying other maps that often are easier to play and that just plain offer variations you don't get out of ANY board game. I would like to see a bit less emphasis on SOC being the way to learn, and more on helping people find their own "niche"... whatever it is.

Can you change the name from Society of Cooks?

Someone, who knew risk before, started playing here and won some games (sometimes because of beginner's Luck), then started loosing. He realizes he has to learn how to play better. Good, there is a SoC that can help him. But he says to himself, "I am sure, I'm not a good player, but I'm not a Cook either. I'll join later, if my points drop to Cook".

Sorry, I don't want to make a joke about SoC here, but many will agree with me, that is what (most) NRs think about SoC.

I think CC-School or CC-Academy is a better name.

P.S : I was in SoC for a few weeks, and have learned many things

[b00060]

Exactly, it only hurts the higher rank!

[PLAYER57832]

I would actually go further on the SOC. While it is a decent program for teaching straight "classic" style maps and play, so much emphasis on that one style actually discourages people from trying other maps that often are easier to play and that just plain offer variations you don't get out of ANY board game. I would like to see a bit less emphasis on SOC being the way to learn, and more on helping people find their own "niche"... whatever it is.

Can you change the name from Society of Cooks?

Someone, who knew risk before, started playing here and won some games (sometimes because of beginner's Luck), then started loosing. He realizes he has to learn how to play better. Good, there is a SoC that can help him. But he says to himself, "I am sure, I'm not a good player, but I'm not a Cook either. I'll join later, if my points drop to Cook".

Sorry, I don't want to make a joke about SoC here, but many will agree with me, that is what (most) NRs think about SoC.

I think CC-School or CC-Academy is a better name.

P.S : I was in SoC for a few weeks, and have learned many things

Make another suggestion.

And yes, I don't mean to say that SOC is bad. It is a good program. It is just limited.