Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:Who volunteers to take on the job of doing the research?
Funkyterrance wrote:
-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules
jsnyder748 wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:
-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules
That is impossible. end of discussion
jsnyder748 wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:
-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules
That is impossible. end of discussion
Agent 86 wrote:jsnyder748 wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:
-More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules
That is impossible. end of discussion
FT, I think your cause is a noble one...but your quest would fail. Let's just make sure all future conquerors are worthy of the title
greenoaks wrote:reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.
reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.
Funkyterrance wrote:greenoaks wrote:reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.
reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.
I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?
I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.
greenoaks wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?
I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.
you mean like how the death penalty has eliminated severe crimes in the states that still have it.
jsnyder748 wrote:I mean there is always going to be a new way to reach conqueror. some of the ways people used to do it were not thought of as a gross abuse of the game until....we all realized it was.
Finding a legit conqueror is impossible. There would be a new one every day if everyone was on the same playing field. People who deserve it wouldnt get it, but those who walk the borderline of edging out points would eventaully get it and we consider this to be cheating. (farming, playing with really low ranking people on your team only)
Not tht cheaters shouldn't loose their ill begotten gifts, but what we all want is someone who plays at a high level while playing good opponents on a map/settings everyone respects as legit. To be able to reach 4500 points playing this way is currently impossible. If I were to play doubles on das schloss (A popular team game amongnst clans) there would be no way to get to a high enough score. I may be good at the map and I may win 50 percent vs other teams who know the strategy.
That is why it is impossible to get to conqueror while not bending the rules/what others find as fair play and get there.
this wasn't very well worded ,but maybe you will get my point.
The suggestion is good but this line "More players will strive for this position if they know it can only be achieved and retained without bending the rules" is the essence of who conqueror is. A rule "bender" or innovator, if you will. There is no way to get enough points without it.
Funkyterrance wrote:greenoaks wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:greenoaks wrote:reviewing past Conquerers will not make future Conquerers more legit.
reviewing current or soon to be Conquerers will. keep your focus on the present contenders.
I see where you guys are coming from with the "ancient history" argument but please hear me out on this?
I'm saying that historically, conquerors have been able to bend the rules/cheat and these players are still talked about as "conquerors" as though they are the same caliber of those players who didn't commit gross abuse of the game. If these players were stripped of their medals after the fact, it would convey the message that yeah, you may be able to become conqueror by bending the rules but it won't "count" in the long run. I feel this would deter cheating on the high end of the spectrum because the goal of most conquerors is to make some sort of hall of fame so to speak. Take away this reward and future cheaters just won't bother.
you mean like how the death penalty has eliminated severe crimes in the states that still have it.
No, not like that at all.
For the most part people don't commit crimes that get them the death penalty in order to become famous/infamous. You are focusing on the punishment after the fact(if you can even call stripping of the conqerer medal a punishment), I'm not. The suggestion is more akin to the removal of something that wasn't deserved in the first place. I'm talking about eliminating the motivation to do the crime in the first place. See the difference?
greenoaks wrote:i get the difference, but as jsnyder is pointing out Conquerers get there by pushing the boundaries. what we now consider to be going too far may not have been back then. to apply today's morals to yesteryear's actions and then hand out punishments is wrong.
Funkyterrance wrote:greenoaks wrote:i get the difference, but as jsnyder is pointing out Conquerers get there by pushing the boundaries. what we now consider to be going too far may not have been back then. to apply today's morals to yesteryear's actions and then hand out punishments is wrong.
Ok but see here, it's been established that the scores reached by past conquerors cannot be beaten by legit gameplay. Do you see the conundrum that arises from this? Without retroactive practices you may never have another legit conqueror. This calls for taking away things gained in the past. It's the only way.
All a cheater has to do is slip through the cracks for a while then not play any more games and they will sit at the top indefinitely until another cheater knocks him off in an endless cycle. The current conqueror as well as the previous one are prime examples of this. Your system is counting way too heavily on people continuing to play once they've reached the top. It also has the downside of not being able to right past wrongs. CC can't practically have a statute of limitations.
greenoaks wrote:you don't need to beat the scores of past Conquerers. you only need to beat the scores of current players.
chapcrap wrote:Is this substantially different that this: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1#p3717624
It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.
Funkyterrance wrote:chapcrap wrote:Is this substantially different that this: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171#p3717624
It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.
I think it is...
You can't effectively file a report against someone cheating when they did the cheating a year or two ago. I feel anyone holding the conqueror title's record should be scrutinized(even retroactively) more so than your average player since they are in a "role model" position and more strongly represent the site's tolerance of fair play, etc. There will always be cheating that goes unchecked due to limited resources but the conqueror position should be one of zero-tolerance in this regard.
chapcrap wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:chapcrap wrote:Is this substantially different that this: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1#p3717624
It seems like the only difference is that this suggestion focuses on the Conqueror Medal.
I think it is...
You can't effectively file a report against someone cheating when they did the cheating a year or two ago. I feel anyone holding the conqueror title's record should be scrutinized(even retroactively) more so than your average player since they are in a "role model" position and more strongly represent the site's tolerance of fair play, etc. There will always be cheating that goes unchecked due to limited resources but the conqueror position should be one of zero-tolerance in this regard.
So... What's the difference? Both ideas want medals removed for cheating.
greenoaks wrote:bending the rules is not against the rules.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users