Moderator: Community Team
JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:So with the current rules in place, Sjnap will be permitted to play only cooks to increase his score. Its within the rules at the present time and has nothing to do with the mods being disorganized or preserving harvesting.
Kotaro wrote:Why do you post 30 threads about the same subject, adding nothing new each time?
Fact: Farming has been reduced greatly since the new rule has been put in place.
Fact: King_Herpes, our conqueror that you seem to love to flame and insult constantly, has played very little low ranks since the rule came out. And the ones he has, have joined his 1v1 City Moguls, not him joining games against them.
Fact: The mods have warned everyone who has been accused of farming noobs.
Fact: You see noobs as everyone below a certain rank. Since this game is based on a large percentage of pure luck, that is often not the case. You see noobs where there are none.
Fact: This thread will turn into another thread that has flaming, because you refuse to listen to any logic, and you attack the "Mods that don't care", when they've done a lot, and tolerated a lot of shit from you, that they don't deserve.
premio53 wrote:I have been searching but can't seem to find anything about this new rule. Could someone explain what that rule is? Thanks.
premio53 wrote:I have been searching but can't seem to find anything about this new rule. Could someone explain what that rule is? Thanks.
comic boy wrote:But why are you so obsessed with the scoreboard, if as you suggest points are not a measure of skill then it shouldnt worry you that somebody else has more
owenshooter wrote:premio53 wrote:I have been searching but can't seem to find anything about this new rule. Could someone explain what that rule is? Thanks.
yeah, that whole New Years Resolution: Newbie Farming is not Cool,thread that has been at the top of the announcements on and off since new's year is hard to see... not to mention how many times it has been quoted and linked to... sigh... here you go, call off the massive and in depth search you have been conducting!!!
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73745
enjoy the thread... the black jesus has spoken...-0
comic boy wrote: But why are you so obsessed with the scoreboard, if as you suggest points are not a measure of skill then it shouldnt worry you that somebody else has more
FarangDemon wrote:I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques. Mods I've talked to are also in favor of fixing it, but leadership is obviously lacking. Lets discuss it..
FarangDemon wrote:comic boy wrote: But why are you so obsessed with the scoreboard, if as you suggest points are not a measure of skill then it shouldnt worry you that somebody else has more
I have made other contributions in sugs and bugs. I worked to recompute win rate to make it a more meaningful measurement that is not biased by number of opponents played.
This poll is just to get people to start thinking "Why haven't they fixed this obvious flaw in 3 years, while the majority of players and many mods alike agree it should be fixed?"
I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques. Mods I've talked to are also in favor of fixing it, but leadership is obviously lacking. Lets discuss it.
Why calculate scores and give people meaningless ranks when we could give them ranks that are a better indicator of relative skill?
I'm perplexed that so many high ranked, competitive players can't understand this.
Lets discuss it. This is not about FarangDemon, it is about the scoring system, the opinion of 73% of CCers and many mods.
owenshooter wrote:FarangDemon wrote:I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques. Mods I've talked to are also in favor of fixing it, but leadership is obviously lacking. Lets discuss it..
where do you come up with these numbers? less than 3% off CC members even visit the forums, and that is a generous percentage! how do you know that close to 3/4 of the community want this changed/fixed? you are making up numbers that you simply can not back up!!! just as i asked you/challenged you to show me the "data" you claimed to have that showed teams win 60 out of 60 games on certain settings. if a 100% win percentage is possible, i have yet to see anyone master it. i just can't get on board with someone that continually makes up numbers, data, studies, research, etc... show me this 73% of the community, and please let me know how you contacted them. seriously, you can not assume that some vote in the forums is an overall indicator of how the community at large feels (i am assuming this proof you have is going to be some poll where less than 200 people voted for a change.. far from a majority on a site with over 20K members). i just don't believe half of what you say. you are a teacher, right? as my math teacher used to say to me, "show me your work". until then, you are making wild accusations without any sound evidence, other than your own mind, to back it all up... lack has taken a positive step in the correct direction, and i'm sure more will follow... the black jesus has spoken...-0
owenshooter wrote:FarangDemon wrote:Data has shown that they will win 60 out of 60 times, the results are the inflated scores you see on the scoreboard.
can you please post this data that you claim exists and has shown you that high ranked teams will win 60 out of 60 games? that is just an absurdly impossible statement. nothing is 100%, i simply don't believe that statement. the black jesus has spoken...-0
FarangDemon wrote:Look genius, I already provided the link. Everything is there. Spend more time reading the posts that you troll instead of dropping 'black-jesus' quotes.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=75435&start=30
Artimis wrote:I've given it some more thought, in view of another discussion taking place in Announcements I've come to the opinion that this is not the approach to take. There are other, better ways of addressing the issue of farming. Here are two that show promise:
joecoolfrog wrote:At least 50% of the top 50 do not farm or prey on noobs, I play a fair few of them regularly, as for those who do.....who cares ! Some people like to pitch their skill against the best,others get their rocks off by slowly increasing points ( which mean little in themselves ), at the end of the day we all have a pretty good idea who the solid players are and thats what really matters.
owenshooter wrote:anyway, you did not provide the list of 60 games in which he won 60 in a row. your sample is it.pies overall games!!! soooo, going and plucking out 60 games he has won and declaring it is 60 out of 60 is just not accurate.
farangdemon wrote:I wanted to collect stats on low ranked teams playing high ranked ones on difficult map settings. I found it expedient to search on lt.pie's quads Waterloo games. This is not an attack on lt.pie, I just found it easier to restrict my data collection in this manner.
I counted that out of 60 games where he played against teams containing at least one cook and no opponent below lieutenant, he won all 60.
FarangDemon wrote:Owen, seven minutes elapsed between the posting of my last post and your response. It probably took you a few minutes to write it. How much time did that leave you to actually read the posts that you are 'responding' to?owenshooter wrote:anyway, you did not provide the list of 60 games in which he won 60 in a row. your sample is it.pies overall games!!! soooo, going and plucking out 60 games he has won and declaring it is 60 out of 60 is just not accurate.
Did it give you long enough time to read this part?farangdemon wrote:I wanted to collect stats on low ranked teams playing high ranked ones on difficult map settings. I found it expedient to search on lt.pie's quads Waterloo games. This is not an attack on lt.pie, I just found it easier to restrict my data collection in this manner.
I counted that out of 60 games where he played against teams containing at least one cook and no opponent below lieutenant, he won all 60.
True, I did not list all 60 game numbers, but I did describe the parameters I used to generate my sampling. None of the other contributors to this suggestion thread requested all 60 game numbers, and I'm sure as heck not going to the trouble for an out and out troll such as yourself. Especially when you have shown that you are unable to click on one clearly provided link, let alone 60 links.
You are the first person who has challenged the veracity of the data in that thread (though you did it in the wrong thread). I think it is a result of you not reading the posts carefully enough, or at all. If you wish to continue your trolling, might I suggest you post to the original thread in Sugs and Bugs, that is if you have not been banned from there already.
The proof is in the pudding. You are a troll. You are not even bothering to read the suggestions before you begin to flame them. I will have to update my allegation with this example.
FarangDemon wrote:Why calculate scores and give people meaningless ranks when we could give them ranks that are a better indicator of relative skill?
I'm perplexed that so many high ranked, competitive players can't understand this.
FarangDemon wrote:I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques.
Incandenza wrote:FarangDemon wrote:Why calculate scores and give people meaningless ranks when we could give them ranks that are a better indicator of relative skill?
I'm perplexed that so many high ranked, competitive players can't understand this.
That's an excellent question. Speaking as someone who would directly benefit from some of your proposed changes, let me try and break it down for ya:
1. You inflate, obfuscate, and otherwise commit vile injustices against data. Let's start with this statement, which has been repeated by you quite often in recent days:FarangDemon wrote:I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques.
First off, the 73% you cite comes from this thread, where indeed 73% of respondants voted yes to the poll. However, the poll question was this: "Have scoreboard display option to only show players who sometimes play peers (are not farmers)?" Not only is the question very vaguely worded, but it seems to me to imply that you are suggesting a different way to view/sort the scoreboard, rather than a full-blown revamp of the scoring system itself.
Furthermore, you extrapolate this 73% approval of an imprecisely-worded question about a topic seemingly different from your core contention across all of CC. As has been noted, there were 40 respondants to your poll. Statisticians have a term known as "small sample size", which would seem to be a perfect fit in this case. It seems disingenuous to map the opinions of a group of people that could fit comfortably in a schoolbus onto a population that would fill Madison Square Garden.
2. You claim that this isn't about you, when it clearly is about you. What you don't seem to understand is that, when someone makes a suggestion that would directly benefit him/her, people will naturally be suspicious.
3. You favor restricting the types of games that repeat customers can join. By suggesting that the map restrictions placed on new recruits be extended to cooks, you're trying to keep nearly 2000 repeat customers (many of them paying customers) from playing on roughly half of the maps on CC. You want to restrict these people from playing games because, in effect, you don't think they're good enough, all in the name of effecting "a just scoring system" that will really only affect page one of the scoreboard, if not just the top 100 or so.
4. You favor de facto rank segregation. If your suggestions were implemented, high ranks would stop playing low ranks immediately. Open team games would become a thing of the past. Even stripers wouldn't be able to get games against people over 2000 points, because they wouldn't fall within the 2/3rds threshold that's the centerpiece of your suggestion thread cited above.
5. You are uninterested in constructive criticism, instead defaming others like myself and owen as trolls. You even created a whole thread about owen. You don't seem to understand that people may disagree with you for reasons that have nothing to do with trolling or farming. Speaking only for myself, I disagree because I do not like restrictions on the types of games that people can play, I do not think that any scoring system can accurately convey the variety of game types available here, and I think that lack's time would be considerably better spent on other outstanding upgrades and features.
There's more, but that's about as much effort as I'm willing to expend.
FD, if I may make a suggestion, if you want to make a positive impact on CC, then there are far more rewarding and less inflammatory ways to do so. Mentor a cook or two. Visit the foundry and become a regular commenter. Volunteer for one of the many ad-hoc groups.
The fact is, you're clearly an excellent player and an intelligent bloke. But this crusade of yours makes you look shallow, petty, and manipulative of both people and data. I strongly suggest you set it aside, confident that you've made your point (many times over, in fact), and find another way to give back to this marvelous website.
In closing, I'd like to return to your quote that I put at the top of this post. The fact that so many highly-ranked, competitive players disagree with you should give you pause in your pursuit of this issue. In theory, players like myself, who don't farm and don't play freestyle, should be strongly in favor. That they aren't is an indication of how exactly you're going about this.
FarangDemon wrote:I wanted to collect stats on low ranked teams playing high ranked ones on difficult map settings. I found it expedient to search on lt.pie's quads Waterloo games. This is not an attack on lt.pie, I just found it easier to restrict my data collection in this manner.
I counted that out of 60 games where he played against teams containing at least one cook and no opponent below lieutenant, he won all 60. This indicates that higher ranked players, if they are able to target teams like this, will be able to gain risk-free points.
(This is not an allegation that he targeted/targets teams like this.)
I don't have the time to count every game by hand including people of x, y and z rank, but I think you would find that many maps currently restricted to new recruits would produce similar results.
nagerous wrote:When I first joined this website, I was farmed instantly by joining a team game alongside 2 fellow deadbeats
game log wrote:2008-03-08 21:24:53 - KLOBBER eliminated Jeff Hardy from the game
2008-03-08 21:57:20 - KLOBBER won the game
2008-03-08 21:57:20 - Jeff Hardy loses 12 points
2008-03-08 21:57:20 - KLOBBER gains 70 points
Incandenza wrote:1. You inflate, obfuscate, and otherwise commit vile injustices against data. Let's start with this statement, which has been repeated by you quite often in recent days:FarangDemon wrote:I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques.
First off, the 73% you cite comes from this thread, where indeed 73% of respondants voted yes to the poll. However, the poll question was this: "Have scoreboard display option to only show players who sometimes play peers (are not farmers)?" Not only is the question very vaguely worded, but it seems to me to imply that you are suggesting a different way to view/sort the scoreboard, rather than a full-blown revamp of the scoring system itself.
Furthermore, you extrapolate this 73% approval of an imprecisely-worded question about a topic seemingly different from your core contention across all of CC. As has been noted, there were 40 respondants to your poll. Statisticians have a term known as "small sample size", which would seem to be a perfect fit in this case. It seems disingenuous to map the opinions of a group of people that could fit comfortably in a schoolbus onto a population that would fill Madison Square Garden.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users