I used to play 50-100 games all at once, mostly 1 vs 1. I played all sorts of new people, met many new folks, enjoyed conversation and generally tried to help them have a nice experience.
I suppose by new rules, I would be classed a "farmer" .. though my rank might disagree.
Bottom line.. I really could care less how anyone gets their rank. All I care is that they play "nicely".. don't badmouth people, make a basic attempt to help out someone who is new, particularly if they ask.
Paying too much attention to farming, limiting games just makes the site uncomfortable for everyone. Concentrating on "decent manners" or whatever you wish to call it does not.
Oh, and I would love to see an option for people to play games where they DON'T have to "mind their manners".. but seperated from other game types and with a rule that if you complain, if you don't like it there..(other than real threats, law enforcement stuff) you cannot play there (and if you do that stuff elsewhere, you get banned from non-flame games).
Pedronicus wrote:2 years on and farming is still a problem and nothing is done.
I liked the 50% either side of the players score as an entry pass to games with that player suggested by woodruff
Eh, you have to take in consideration of players that are very low in score. Anyone below 100 points will only have about 5 players that can possibly join there games. Someone at a score of 500 will only have about, something like 300 players that can possibly join there games.
Game 1675072
2018-08-09 16:02:06 - Mageplunka69: its jamaica map and TFO that keep me on this site
Anyone who ends up on 100 points should give up playing this game and booted off the site because they are point dumping.
Anyone who ends up on 500 points should consider giving up playing the game.
I'd like my girlfriend to be able to drive, but for some people, like her, you should never be given a licence and make the roads safer for everyone else.
Pedronicus wrote:Anyone who ends up on 100 points should give up playing this game and booted off the site because they are point dumping.
Absolutely. If you hit 100 points, you are unquestionably doing it on purpose.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
How about cutting it off by place on the scoreboard? The 3000th place can play 1000th place through 5000th place (with ties), or something along those lines...
mviola wrote:How about cutting it off by place on the scoreboard? The 3000th place can play 1000th place through 5000th place (with ties), or something along those lines...
That's an interesting thought. I think it would eliminate the weak-player-farming without the problem of the very lowest and very highest being so limited in who they can play. I think I like it better.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jgordon1111 wrote:I think neon has something here. A few tweaks and it would probably work. Even though rejected I say let this one back into the forum
It's still rejected, I notice...<ahem>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
AndyDufresne wrote:I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.
What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?
--Andy
If we're going to look at farming of low-rankers as well as NRs (and I absolutely think we should be), then the only data that's particularly relevant in my view is "where is the very top-end of scores and how flexible do we want those players to be allowed to play". Why is this relevant? Because it would allow us to set up a "filter of sorts" so that the game-initiator's current score would determine who could join that individual's games. For instance:
Let's pretend that the number we want to use is "within the range of 50% of the game-initiator's score" (we can argue about what percentage to use, I'm just throwing that number in to get the discussion ongoing). Based on that 50%, if a player with a rank of 3,000 started the game, anyone from 1500 through 4500 could join whereas if a player of 900 started the game, then only players from 450 through 1350 could join. And if a conqueror with a score of 5069 started the game, then only players with a rank of 2535 would be able to join (still leaving 250+ players to join their games). Again, don't focus on the "only 250 could join a conqueror's games" because that number can be adjusted as we see fit.
This method would eliminate the entire possibility of farming WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that newbies/cooks/cadets have PLENTY of reasonably competitive games that will further their enjoyment of the site, causing them to be more likely to invest in it.
The ONLY POSSIBLE downside that I've been able to come up with is the scenario where someone who has a significant rank gets a friend to join the site and they want to play games with their friend immediately...they wouldn't be able to until the friend ranked-up a bit. My response to that is...HELP THEM RANK UP BY TEACHING THEM and then you will be able to play against them.
There are no other downsides.
What about tournaments and clan matchups? It would seem to set this up they would have to build it in the code (as opposed to just making it an option in game creation). What if highlanderattack wins a battle royal and shoots up to a 4000 score. Are you going to tell him he can no longer join tourneys because the majority of people signing up are significantly lower in score than him? How about keeping Blitz from playing in a clan war game because the other team has a sargeant on the team (team games would be another issue)?
While I applaud the idea, I don't see how limiting players from playing each other won't backfire in some aspects. I think farming is a rediculously stupid waste of time (you gonna put that you were conqueror on your resume? Maybe brag to your girlfriend so you can get laid?) and I think it is worthy to implement measures to stop people from ruining other people's good times. However, limiting players from playing each other based on score, rank, place on scoreboard or in any other way based on the arbitrary scoring system on the site is counter-productive to the main purpose of us all being here: to have fun.
(I will admit I did not read every post in this thread, so there may be a good idea out there, but I had to get that out).
king sam wrote:
quit facebook stalking me... and Im a sailor all I do is drunk, cuss and make illegitimate kids when Im away from CC
Tournaments would be open to any rank to play any rank.
In English football, we have leagues. Teams in these leagues are of similar abilities and either get promoted or demoted each year. But then we also have the FA cup where a tiny side gets the chance to make a giant killing against a top side.
AndyDufresne wrote:I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.
What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?
--Andy
If we're going to look at farming of low-rankers as well as NRs (and I absolutely think we should be), then the only data that's particularly relevant in my view is "where is the very top-end of scores and how flexible do we want those players to be allowed to play". Why is this relevant? Because it would allow us to set up a "filter of sorts" so that the game-initiator's current score would determine who could join that individual's games. For instance:
Let's pretend that the number we want to use is "within the range of 50% of the game-initiator's score" (we can argue about what percentage to use, I'm just throwing that number in to get the discussion ongoing). Based on that 50%, if a player with a rank of 3,000 started the game, anyone from 1500 through 4500 could join whereas if a player of 900 started the game, then only players from 450 through 1350 could join. And if a conqueror with a score of 5069 started the game, then only players with a rank of 2535 would be able to join (still leaving 250+ players to join their games). Again, don't focus on the "only 250 could join a conqueror's games" because that number can be adjusted as we see fit.
This method would eliminate the entire possibility of farming WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that newbies/cooks/cadets have PLENTY of reasonably competitive games that will further their enjoyment of the site, causing them to be more likely to invest in it.
The ONLY POSSIBLE downside that I've been able to come up with is the scenario where someone who has a significant rank gets a friend to join the site and they want to play games with their friend immediately...they wouldn't be able to until the friend ranked-up a bit. My response to that is...HELP THEM RANK UP BY TEACHING THEM and then you will be able to play against them.
There are no other downsides.
What about tournaments and clan matchups? It would seem to set this up they would have to build it in the code (as opposed to just making it an option in game creation). What if highlanderattack wins a battle royal and shoots up to a 4000 score. Are you going to tell him he can no longer join tourneys because the majority of people signing up are significantly lower in score than him? How about keeping Blitz from playing in a clan war game because the other team has a sargeant on the team (team games would be another issue)?
That's an EASY solution...you simply disable it for tournaments (which clan wars could be considered), as is done with the FOE capability.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Pedronicus wrote:In English football, we have leagues. Teams in these leagues are of similar abilities and either get promoted or demoted each year. But then we also have the FA cup where a tiny side gets the chance to make a giant killing against a top side.
Indeed...in fact, the football promotion/relegation system is the ONE BEAUTIFUL THING about soccer.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
AgentSmith88 wrote:I think farming is a rediculously stupid waste of time (you gonna put that you were conqueror on your resume? Maybe brag to your girlfriend so you can get laid?) and I think it is worthy to implement measures to stop people from ruining other people's good times. However, limiting players from playing each other based on score, rank, place on scoreboard or in any other way based on the arbitrary scoring system on the site is counter-productive to the main purpose of us all being here: to have fun.
Just start everyone out with a cook hat.
Give them 500 points.
After they have played 5 games give them the other 500....For that matter start them with 1 point and award the other 999 upon completion of 5 games.
Make ? indistinguishable from cooks, and start them with far less points so the risk/reward is even greater.
This way even if people were farming it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Done.
“One of God's own prototypes.....never even considered for mass production.
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”
Whoops, hit the rim and it went into Submitted for a second. Had to get the rebound and put it in the main area.
