Average opponent's score displayed

[Inhuman14]

Concise description:

• This suggestion would add the average points count of all enemies fought alongside the % of games won on everyone's profile.

Specifics:

• Pretty much self-explanatory, this would post the average points count of enemies fought.
• This would also be improved by the idea that has been floated of an average # of players in each match alongside the % of games won.
• A separate rank order of the top 100 players that fight the lowest average point count. A wall of noob farming, if you will. You see where I'm getting at, here. The conqueror label would still be under the old conditions.
• This would not work ex-post facto - This would only take into account the games won from the point of installment.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• LESS NOOB FARMING
• More competitiveness among the higher ranks to fight better and better opponents and win.

[FabledIntegral]

This would accomplish absolutely nothing.

I foe a lot of cooks because I hate playing with cooks. What does that say about me? They end up joining my games - I don't want them.

A lot of other noob farmers foe all the high ranks because they don't want competition.

Then should I be scared now to foe other high ranks I dislike for fear of this? Etc.

Baddd idea.

[lancehoch]

Fabled, he is talking about opponents, as in Foes in battle.

[Inhuman14]

Damn I should reword that good point.

[denominator]

Interesting concept...

I like this idea of cutting down on noob farming better than your other ones. Like the Turns Taken %, it likely won't do much in the ways of actually affecting points or anything, but it allows everybody to see if you beat up on low ranked players or play evenly matched games.

The only question I have is, will the average points count of enemies be constantly updating as your past foes score changes, or is the number you played them at the number that is always registered?

[FabledIntegral]

Fabled, he is talking about opponents, as in Foes in battle.

Oh... well there are already many topics about this isn't there? And it's already in map rank if you want to use it, just look at relative rank.

[Ogrecrusher]

This would only be a fair comment on the people who join games last and choose who they're playing against. I play a lot of sequential doubles, hardly noob farming, sometimes my games fill up with high rankers, and sometimes identical settings will not fill until the games hit the front page and the cooks find them. I started a game on Forbidden City because it's new and looks interesting, only joiners (apart from my partner) are three cooks. Does this make me a farmer? I think not.
I think this stat would be worthless information, drowned by random noise of who joins after you!
Or is it intended to help the high ranks who only play passworded games in fear of a private taking all their points? Those people are almost as bad as the farmers.

[FabledIntegral]

Or is it intended to help the high ranks who only play passworded games in fear of a private taking all their points? Those people are almost as bad as the farmers.

As if you had any idea what the hell you're talking about. That has nothing to do with fear of losing points - if you had any knowledge of hte game you'd realize that. If you can't compete at their skill level, you won't win at least 1/8 of your games, I assure you. Then you'd drop out of the point range.

[Bruceswar]

Or is it intended to help the high ranks who only play passworded games in fear of a private taking all their points? Those people are almost as bad as the farmers.

As if you had any idea what the hell you're talking about. That has nothing to do with fear of losing points - if you had any knowledge of hte game you'd realize that. If you can't compete at their skill level, you won't win at least 1/8 of your games, I assure you. Then you'd drop out of the point range.

100% true. Some people play these high ranked games, because they find beating cooks and the like no fun anymore. Some people want to play the best there is. No fault of them. BTW this idea is not going to change much. We all know who farms, and who does not. For those who do not know they can ask, and 50 people will tell you who. This would be hard to manage if you ask me, and would only push people further away on this site.

[Geger]

If I'm not wrong, "MAP Rank" add-0n has it. There is a "Relative Rank" in the rightest column. Maybe the developer can split it to two columns, 1 for Winning and 1 for Losing

[Ogrecrusher]

Wow you guys seem to have taken a lot of offence to my light hearted closing comment. Considering the topic starter isn't exactly high rank, I didn't exactly believe that was the real reason!

I'll assume everyone agrees with the serious stuff I wrote then!

[BaldAdonis]

I'll assume everyone agrees with the serious stuff I wrote then!

I'm not sure that (differentiating between games started and games joined) can be figured out easily. I know it looks like it's easy to tell who is who, the game logs only record who starts play, and the order after that. So you won't be able to access the numbers from archived games, unless you look at each one individually.

On the other hand, I don't think it matters who you intended to play against, just who you actually play. If you make 10 games, and cooks join 9 of them, then that's the level of competition you're facing. If you really wanted to play against officers, you could join a tournament or start private games. Map rank will tell you the actual (relative) levels of your opponents.

[The Neon Peon]

It seems to be working along the principles of Denunciation, which is the theory behind shaming penalties. Shaming penalties work by expressing the community's moral condemnation of an act (in this case, noob farming), which instills a sense of shame in the offender and lowers his or her social status.

The problem with this theory in this particular situation is twofold.

1. The larger part of the Conquer Club community that goes to the forums will have seen that noob farming is going on, and will know about who has been "guilty" of the act. I would think it is hard to hear about noob farming in the forums, and not also hear who are the ones doing it.

Those people who do not go to the forums will not be affected by this at all. A noob farmer generally plays either very low ranks (in the individual case of JOHNNYROCKET24), or new recruits. Seeing as those people who do not go to the forums would probably not go around looking into people's profiles, only those who the farmers are playing would see the statistics and find something new (the rest of us know who is farming).

Not only do they generally not have access to the people's profiles, but those who do not go to the forums, will have little or no idea about what noob farming is, and I doubt they will care that much when they find out either.

So, let us consider the average new recruit that has a game joined by a farmer, seeing as that is the only type of person who will have access to the person's profile and may potentially care. As we can see by looking into any farmer's games played, only a very small portion of new recruits actually stay at the site long enough to complete even 5 games. This shows a rate of apathy, or dislike for the site. Few people choose to stay here after the first few games, as we can see by the several hundred thousand members of the site compared to the less than 20 thousand that are active. So in effect, the person who will see this statistic and learn about the player's game history will quit the site anyways.

2. If shaming penalties work by instilling a sense of shame and lowering the offender's social status, they can only be effective with those who care about the loss of social status and have some status to lose.

So, the question needs to be asked, how does one earn a status in Conquer Club? The answer, whatever that may be, is not by farming. A typical farmer is still well known in Conquer Club for that fact, but I have not seen them being given much respect or what you might call a "status" for some reason.

Therefore, since there is no status to lose. The whole theory of a shaming penalty will not work.

You might say that they do hold a status because of their high ranks, and I will agree. However, looking over the suggestion, I do not see anything that would take away their rank. If you still think that the shame by their average rank of opponent statistic will remove this "status" in the community, I suggest re-reading the first part of this post.

Now, it would be wonderful if someone actually took the time to read that.

[Inhuman14]

I think that the chief point of my suggestion is that it would provide a second type of leadership board - those who truly have the skill to play and beat high ranked players.

For those who think that the shame is a bad idea, it's only shameful if they think it is. They could keep noob farming as much as they want. This won't stop them. They'll still have their conqueror label. It just shows people who really earned their rank and who didn't.

I think the community of conquer club needs to decide, on a fairly rapid basis, the direction of this site when it comes to noobs farming. I don't see anything wrong with advanced players playing against newer players for fun, but earning higher ranks based on their ability to cream the worthless and clueless just doesn't seem right somehow.

Another point is that while we can't see who does and does not noob farm, the people who do diminish the ranks of those around them that don't.

[The Neon Peon]

Another point is that while we can't see who does and does not noob farm, the people who do diminish the ranks of those around them that don't.

Are you telling me that you do not know who farms and who doesn't? I have trouble believing you do not.

If yes, then disregard everything I said above.
If no, then please re-read the part explaining that those who don't know have a very high chance of not caring.

[Inhuman14]

I actually don't know who does and does not noob farm. I am interested in knowing, but I'd rather see the statistics than ask someone who may or may not know what they are talking about to find out. There's others like me, I guarantee it.

[The Neon Peon]

See, the farmers are actually a thoughtful lot. They made things very convenient for us to recognize them.

If you want their own list of who farms, click here => (clicky)

[Inhuman14]

That's helpful, but there are more than just that. And it's not visible to the layman player.

I think we're getting away from the point here. This proposition isn't about labeling and punishing noob farmers, though that could be a side effect if the community chooses. The proposition is creating a new form of competition, where people fight against the best players and win.

[denominator]

The point of this goes beyond simple noob farmers. Plus, I can guarantee that for ever noob farmer out there that wants to be recognized, there are 2 that don't.

This, to me, is much like the % of turns taken statistic. It has no "true" value in terms of joining games or points or anything, but for anyone that cares to check, you can see beforehand how consistently that player takes his turns.

So an average point count would show, instantly, if the player often plays high ranked players or low ranked players. You know going in if the player is actually as good as his rank says, or if he tends to beat up recruits to gain points.

Sure, there will be a number of people that don't care about the poor status it gives them, just like there are people that don't like the poor status that comes with the turns %. But for a number of people, having it publicly written on their profile can cause definite status loss, so it would be worth it.

[Inhuman14]

The point of this goes beyond simple noob farmers. Plus, I can guarantee that for ever noob farmer out there that wants to be recognized, there are 2 that don't.

This, to me, is much like the % of turns taken statistic. It has no "true" value in terms of joining games or points or anything, but for anyone that cares to check, you can see beforehand how consistently that player takes his turns.

So an average point count would show, instantly, if the player often plays high ranked players or low ranked players. You know going in if the player is actually as good as his rank says, or if he tends to beat up recruits to gain points.

Sure, there will be a number of people that don't care about the poor status it gives them, just like there are people that don't like the poor status that comes with the turns %. But for a number of people, having it publicly written on their profile can cause definite status loss, so it would be worth it.

Exactly right.

I also think that a new breed of player will evolve that tries to fight the best players to get the highest combined average points count and total score.

[BaldAdonis]

So in effect, the person who will see this statistic and learn about the player's game history will quit the site anyways.

I disagree. You can't say why they don't return: many may leave because of poor experiences in their first games (courtesy of farmers). Judging by the proportions who have joined and stayed from a year ago, compared to today, there is definitely a correlation with the rise of farming.

[Thezzaruz]

Judging by the proportions who have joined and stayed from a year ago, compared to today, there is definitely a correlation with the rise of farming.

Correlation perhaps but that's a long way from proving it to be the cause.

[lancehoch]

Inhuman, I know chipv was looking at implementing this into his Map Rank GL script, but instead he decided upon using the relative rank. There were two reasons for this, if I am not mistaken. The first is that the relative opponent rank is easier to calculate because of the way points are transferred and since points are not recorded for each user at the end of each game. The second was that it might give a better view of who someone will play. Example:
if a cook at about 600 points only plays other cooks at 600 points, the average opponent score will be ~600, but the relative rank will be 1.00; if a sergeant first class at 1500 points plays other SFCs at ~1500 points, the average opponent score would be ~1500, but again the reelative rank would be 1.00.
I believe that the relative rank will show if people play others around their rank or above or below and will be an acceptable alternative to the average score.

[BaldAdonis]

Judging by the proportions who have joined and stayed from a year ago, compared to today, there is definitely a correlation with the rise of farming.

Correlation perhaps but that's a long way from proving it to be the cause.

Thanks, I had no idea.

[FarangDemon]

Another point is that while we can't see who does and does not noob farm, the people who do diminish the ranks of those around them that don't.

Are you telling me that you do not know who farms and who doesn't? I have trouble believing you do not.

If yes, then disregard everything I said above.
If no, then please re-read the part explaining that those who don't know have a very high chance of not caring.

Of course they will care. It is like "loser" being tattooed on their profile.

Keeping these statistics could allow for a 2nd metric to be kept: competitive conqueror or something like that. Only those players who play lower than a certain percentage of cooks/new recruits could be eligible. Players that do not satisfy the criteria might not be able to maintain their rank in battles with peers. This should be taken into consideration with any ranking system. It is pertinent information about the skill level of the player.

I'm not near enough to the top to care enough to research how many of them are farmers, so maybe this is a moot point if none of them can even make it that far by farming.