I don't really see what these political labels have to do with fixing the scoring system to eliminate farming.
You can rant about politics all you want, but in the end everybody knows that you favor a system where the only way to get to the top is by using harvesting techniques. Why don't you stick to the topic and address this?
Many of you guys keep posting saying the same old arguments:
1. Low skilled players deserve to lose points.
Rebuttal: Nobody says they don't. Rather, the whole community prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming. If certain lower skilled players are unable to get farmed as a result of keeping with this community goal, then so be it. Their protection is NOT the reason for the anti-farming countermeasures, but is a by-product of a competitive scoring system that does not allow one to farm their way to the top.
2. Cooks should be able to play any map they want.
Rebuttal: Yes they should. Just make sure that points are not exchanged if historical data show that the map settings and players' skill levels correspond to point harvesting.
3. It is impossible to prevent farming of low skilled players
Rebuttal: Just extend the initial countermeasures that Lack has instituted to prevent farming of Newbies to cover all proven harvesting techniques. Let the data decide.
4. Farangdemon is a whiner for wanting a scoring system where you cannot farm your way to the top.
Let's consider the defence...
farangdemon wrote:Many of you guys keep posting saying the same old arguments:
No, that would be you. My arguments have been continuously inventive, original and, dare I say it, obviously completely over your head - judging by your last response.
farangdemon wrote:You can rant about politics all you want, but in the end everybody knows that you favor a system where the only way to get to the top is by using harvesting techniques
Have you even read
anything I have written on this topic? I sometimes wonder. You know I couldn't care less who is at the top of the table or, for that matter, how they got there. You also know that what concerns me are efforts to limit the kinds of games players can play. That is my real concern. I also believe that your efforts are entirely self-centred. I don't for one minute think you care a fig about the low-ranking players on CC. You care absolutely about your own progression up the leaderboard. That's your concern and you're welcome to it. What truly, absolutely and completely bothers me is that you would be happy to limit other player's enjoyment of the game in your pursuit of, what, the top 50?
Now I am a much more reliable and trustworthy scribe. For one, I have already achieved my objective: to be a large singles games player at the major rank. Unlike you, I can be completely objective about the whole thing for I have no personal interest in being in the top 250. If I could make colonel eventually that would be great, but such an ambition is entirely unrelated to what you, or anyone else, is doing on CC. Secondly, I play low-ranking players all the time as the majority of my games are large, public, singles games. I play everyone and anyone. On that basis, I am well-qualifed to consider whether cooks, cadets or privates (because you can't just stop at cooks once you start down your path) should be playing in my games.
farangdemon wrote:2. Cooks should be able to play any map they want.
Rebuttal: Yes they should. Just make sure that points are not exchanged if historical data show that the map settings and players' skill levels correspond to point harvesting
Glad you agree lower ranks should be able to play maps they like playing. Maybe there is hope for you yet! How about being able to play WHO they want to play? Not sure from your answer, but I'm guessing that's ok too. But they can't lose points? Ah, the poor little deluded lambs. Better get Big Brother to look after them, huh? Let me let you into a secret. I play 2.1 large singles games with no cards. The cooks never win. Not once. The cadets, privates and even corporals are going to be pushed to win 1 in 16, even 1 in 24 on that map and that setting. You wouldn't consider it farming, but it may as well be from the cooks perspective. They always lose. Should they give up their points? If a cook plays 1 on 1 with King H on any map freestyle they'll lose. You know it, he knows it and I know it. They'll just as surely lose if they join an 8 man no card seq. on 2.1. The cook is sure to lose in both, but I'm guessing I would get to keep his points under your system but King_H would not. For the life of me I can't see what the difference is from the cook's perspective
. But then I suspect we differ in that I consider this issue from both perspectives. You seem to only think about it in relation to how it will influence the top of the scoreboard.
So, if the cook plays 1 on 1 freestyle he's stuffed. If he plays 8 man no cards or escalating he is just as stuffed, just quicker. If 3 cooks play your triples team then, you guessed it, they're stuffed. Want me to go on?
But they should have the right to jump into a top 8 man escalating game (and I've always respected those boys for keeping them public) and they should take the consequece (5 points) if they lose. They should be able to join King_H, get beat and lose those points too. It is their decision to join the game and THEY MUST take the consequence of doing so. Otherwise, what's the point of them playing at all?