ARCHIVE PLEASE

[natty dread]

Perhaps a solution, based on a concept raised by another member, is to have certain maps 'unlock' after a degree of experience playing CC. Most new recruits know the Classic map, that's a given, and other straightforward maps could be added to that catalogue for new recruits to play. But certain others (City Mogul, Waterloo, Oasis, etc) require a better understanding of things like freestyle, manual deploys, fog of war, etc etc (things that to the average newcomer to CC are totally foreign to the board game they thought they knew). A mere 5 games' experience is paltry considering the many maps and variables now available on this site, therefore it would protect an inexperienced player if he/she was to have to take steps towards unlocking the more complex maps (esp those renowned for farming).

i think this would work.. it also gives an incentive to come back since you unlock achievements and get rewards along the way.. i don't see the harm in locking some maps/settings as well as keeping say the 5 first games points-free as tutorial games.. and then game 5-20 would be about unlocking certain settings/maps..

every computer-game in the world uses this structure of rewards for completing tasks.. makes us humans feel all warm and fuzzy inside..

/

CC is not a video game. CC is an online service. What motivates people who play a game on xbox or whathaveyou and people who find a site to play online board games is very different.

We already have certain maps and settings blocked from new recruits. I don't think any further restrictions would be productive. The wealth of maps and settings, the freedom you have of customizing your gaming experience is the biggest selling point CC has, and obfuscating that would not be a smart business move.

I do support a "tutorial mode" for new recruits, but it needs to be 100% voluntary and something you can turn off whenever you want.

[jgordon1111]

Natty I have a question are those maps blocked if ? are invited into them?

[Evil Semp]

That was a possible point that I had mentioned earlier anonymus.

The point I was going to bring up after greenoaks posted, (most likley not enough support) Is this
for some reason on this sight as soon as one or two nay sayers hit the forum saying they dont like it, for usually a reason like ? wont want to do that.
The suggestion dies, Not because it cant be done, but because those entrenched in CC say someone else not even here yet wont like it.

I think he suggestions that greenoaks is talking about died not because "those entrenched in CC say someone else not even here yet wont like it" but because those who are entrenched in CC don't want people to have limits. The suggestion dies not because it can't be done, IMHO it dies because it is wrong.

The gall and audacity of the mind readers here shocks me. The site rules are outdated in some circumstances, 5 game rule for instance.

Aren't you being a mind reader also? By putting your limits on NR's aren't you saying they will have a more enjoyable start on CC? Some people learn faster some slower but how are they supposed to get experience on maps or settings if you won't let them because of limits?

Unfortunantley I am like a pitbull once I start something, I keep fighting I dont accept, It just cant be done or Thats just the way it is.

I am also like you. When I see something that I think is wrong I try to fight it. I think more limits on NR's is wrong.

And thats just the way it is, LOL thats saying we want it that why because we like it. (We want easy Wins).

If people like to play setting for easy wins who are you to say it is wrong? Take the high road a play ranked opponents, harder maps and settings.

If lack can write the programs to put this site up and run it, I think He can make the adjustments to change the 5 game for ? to be a little safer and capable on the site.

I don't think farming [against the rules] or ranching [not against the rules] is that big of a problem. I think the problem is people don't like someones style of play and want to force them to change.

Nobody said lack can't program the site the way you want it. I think the limits already in place are the limits he wants.

[JCR]

After reading all the responses I have change my mind and agree that SOC being a requirement is probably not a good idea.
Unless I am mistaken I get the impression that there seems to be a consensus at least in this forum that some form of extension of the 5 game minimum and map restrictions is something that may take hold.

I acknowledge that due to the presumed cost associated with implementing these changes all of this may just be mental masturbation, but I would rather be in a conversation about solutions rather than accusations or arguments.

To those aginst the idea.You are not alone in the opinion that there is no problem with "farming" or "ranching". Obviously others disagree. I come somewhere in the middle. I am not truly in one camp or the other. I am however, I am sure there are others, a little tired of the constant back and forth over the issue. I think we can find some sort of compromise that would minimize what some see as a problem with farming and multis, while at the same time increasing the chances of new members staying longer and reducing the MHs workload. Look at it this way, If something is done to reduce what some see as foul play, then they will have to leave it alone or find some new cause.

[jgordon1111]

Thank you Doom I like where you went with your proposal, Put those 3 items in the initial email to all new recruits letting them know they might want to check those areas out and read the warnings that could be placed there for them.

Thank you ES, Good counter points to every thing I stated in my post. The point I will stick by is The NR's need more than five games to be ready to play here.
Why do I think this point is valid, There would never have been a rule implemented for farming, if those that set up the site didnt forsee unscrupulous players taking advantage of other newer players not familiar to the site.

When the 5 game limit was set on NR's the site was different and it was at the time appropriate. The site has changed alot, 5 games is no longer enough.

About even on those for mandatory training and those against.

Most are agreeing 5 games is not enough of a limit on NR's

Strong support for a level up type of program so far

[natty dread]

The point I will stick by is The NR's need more than five games to be ready to play here.

How do you know that?

Some people have risen to the 1st page of the scoreboard in only 70 games. Some people play hundreds of games without ever achieving lieutenant rank.

It's all very much up to the individual, and trying to force all the NR:s to the same mold is doomed to failure.

[jgordon1111]

thank you, Natty that you said some people,exactly how many have risen to the first page in (70) games. Real low number most likely.

and then you say some play hundreds without reaching lieutenant. Real high number most likely.

Which of those 2 numbers is bigger,do you think,and by what margin? Real big margin difference,that most players take alot longer to even reach Lt.

The changes in the types of maps and types of styles, is exactly why My opinion is the 5 game rule is outdated.

A suggestion has been put forward to let the NR's know in their first email about SoC and strategy guide threads along with a list of approved maps for beginners.

That along with giving them more games to get used to different maps may make the difference in farmers and ranchers leaving them alone.

So right now a consensus on just how many games might be best and whether to use a level up type of system to get there.

therefore they can choose to join SoC or use the other tools, or just go out on their own on what maps they want.
just X amount of games so they dont get farmed or ranched

[Chariot of Fire]

The point I will stick by is The NR's need more than five games to be ready to play here.

How do you know that?

Some people have risen to the 1st page of the scoreboard in only 70 games. Some people play hundreds of games without ever achieving lieutenant rank.

It's all very much up to the individual, and trying to force all the NR:s to the same mold is doomed to failure.

Some people. Like Kiron for example. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=162598

Given that the dice balance out over a large sample of games there really is no way a player can get to p.1 of the scoreboard in <100 games without resorting to farming or cheating.

Back on topic.....I guess this whole conversation deserves two separate headings: 1. How to help new members become better-acquainted with the game and the potential pitfalls, and 2. How to prevent/punish systematic farming. I'm really only interested in the latter, for we all managed (as noobs) to adapt to the site without any help so why start now? However the vast majority of players also managed to earn a rank that is deserving of their ability, without resorting to dodgy tactics that everyone can see is wrong yet for which there are inadequate rules in place.

[jgordon1111]

I cant see a concise clear rule change anytime soon, maybe never.

That is why I am trying to change the way NR's are brought into the sight.

By just adapting or adjusting some small part of the system that is already in place.

Add to the first email a few other options and adjust how many games they are protected under instead of just 5

[Geger]

OK, so far I can see, not all agree to expand the 5 games for new recruits, please keep the discussion about it

But (I think) everyone is agree, that a warning should be sent to NR's or an information about types of games, complex maps, etc should be given, and should be easily to be found by NR:s.

And last night by accident I found an old thread in Strategy Forums, posted by AAFitz :

I suggest avoiding these, only if you are worried about points, or losing. If you just want to have fun, and challenge yourself, join away, just be realistic about your odds of winning.

Freestyle. If you do not have click maps, and if you do not know all the tricks, just avoid it for a while..or play one or two, but not too many

Big maps. Most of the big maps give veterans an advantage. There are more choices and therefore more chances to miss something. For veterans, the bigger the better, for the new player, the smaller the better, in general.

Technical or specialty maps Again, this is only if you care about winning or points. These maps are alot of fun, but the people who play them regularly have an unbelievable advantage on them. Examples are Mogul, Age of realms 1, 2 & 3, waterloo, etc. Always look at the map first before joining. If it looks complicated, either join expecting to lose, which is what I do, or simply join a less complicated one.

Team Games. If you dont know who youre partner is going to be, and you join a game with an established team and experienced players, there is little chance of winning. The bigger they get, the less likely your odds. Again, you have to learn sometime, but finding a consistent partner would be better place to start, than randomly hoping for one.

At some point you will love playing these maps, but the game is more easily understood on the more basic ones. Once you have some fun with those, the principles will apply to the bigger ones.

A very good post and suitable to use as a warning to NR: s

The problem is, this post or thread is buried on page 6 or 7 (I do not even remember), and posted almost 3 years ago. I doubt you can find this post, and I'm 100% sure NR:s can't find it.

My idea is simple, it needs only a little cooperation from mods : MAKE THAT THREAD STICKY!!

show

[cookie0117]

I have not read everything in every thread about this because life is too short but after reading as much as I have, surely the simplest solution with the least restrictions is going to be the best.

When someone joins, everything happens as normal apart from the ? last for 10 games, then map/settings restrictions are removed from that player and they become ?* (or some other icon). This last untill they reach 20 games and then they join the normal rank structure. These extra 10 games will give people more time to get used to the site, spend more time with SoC and mingle with players. They also get to play the more complicated settings and maps with the less experienced players. So its like this:

Player joins the site has access to simple maps and settings as currently. They are also directed to SoC, although its not compulsary.

Player completes 10 games, rank changes to ?* has access to all maps and settings

Player completes 20 games, let them go free around the site.

At least people will have completed more games before they are set free. Then it is their choice who they play. You will never stop people "ranching" and if that is how people want to play then let them do it. There are people who will always prey on the weaker or those they believe to be weaker. Just extend the protection of ? further. This included with updating the game log to record the rank of each player when the game starts will make the whole process of stopping people who break the rules easier.

[Woodruff]

I am still convinced that one of these two posts could resolve the "ranching" problem entirely with very minimal downside:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=104889&p=3551362&hilit=percentage#p3551362

or

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=104889&p=3551236&hilit=scoreboard#p3551236

[cookie0117]

The reason I dont like these is I have had a few friends join the site. As soon as they have joined I wanted to play them and under these systems I would be banned from playing them. Should another friend join the site I fully intent to play them, im pretty sure that of my 1750+ games 7 or 8 with a ? does not make me a farmer but these systems will ban me from playing my friends when they join.

As the site has no interest in restricting who can play who, providing further protection to new recruits is the only way forward. Extend the period that someone stays as a ? and are covered by the excisting rules, while developing their skills.

After that just bombard anyone you consider a "ranchers" with invites to maps and settings that you have a specialism in and they can either prove themselves as pussies who will only play the weak and decline or they will except and beat you, then they deserve their position on top.

[jgordon1111]

LOL well spoken cookie

[JCR]

I have not read everything in every thread about this because life is too short but after reading as much as I have, surely the simplest solution with the least restrictions is going to be the best.

When someone joins, everything happens as normal apart from the ? last for 10 games, then map/settings restrictions are removed from that player and they become ?* (or some other icon). This last untill they reach 20 games and then they join the normal rank structure. These extra 10 games will give people more time to get used to the site, spend more time with SoC and mingle with players. They also get to play the more complicated settings and maps with the less experienced players. So its like this:

Player joins the site has access to simple maps and settings as currently. They are also directed to SoC, although its not compulsary.

Player completes 10 games, rank changes to ?* has access to all maps and settings

Player completes 20 games, let them go free around the site.

At least people will have completed more games before they are set free. Then it is their choice who they play. You will never stop people "ranching" and if that is how people want to play then let them do it. There are people who will always prey on the weaker or those they believe to be weaker. Just extend the protection of ? further. This included with updating the game log to record the rank of each player when the game starts will make the whole process of stopping people who break the rules easier.

This is a simpler version of my suggestion, and simpler is always better. I could get on board with this.

Side note:My wife Sprinkles was invited to a freestyle city mogul 1v1 by a well known rancher today.(no rules broken here but dont tell me this is good sportsmanship) She has never played a single freestyle game nor city mogul to my knowledge but he wanted her to help him practice a new strategy. I am just now convincing her to get back into the site. My first thought was to tell him to ,well never mind that, my second thought was of sending a PM to all players below a certain rank to warn them of invites from the more well known ranchers. My concern is that this would be considered spamming so I will likely be avoiding that option, but it got me thinking, what if there were simply an automated email sent to everyone on site and especially NRs warning them of this practice. This alone should dramatically reduce the available players from whom to "ranch." If they choose to ignore the warning then so be it (no lifegaurd on duty). You will never stop the practice no matter what is put in place so the most you can do is to try to warn the prey.

[lynch5762]

I still think a simple solution would be as follows:

change the ranking system to the following formula --- Total points accumulated multiplied by the "relative rank" percentage equals score/rank.

The "relative rank" is already computed and in the system. If you run the numbers you will find that most of the top players on the scoreboard would remain right there, however, those that live on beating low ranks will suffer tremendously.

Not only is this fair (and actually a more accurate way of ranking players), it would probably eliminate the need for a "farming" rule altogether.

At first it may seam that this would discourage normal players from playing low ranked players but i don't think this would be the case... (most relative ranks average from .700 to .800)

My question would be --- why wouldn't we want to factor in the average rank of opponents faced when considering a player's rank? it seams to me to be a factor that needs to be considered if you want a true depiction of one's skills as a player

Just a thought

[Geger]

what if there were simply an automated email sent to everyone on site and especially NRs warning them of this practice. This alone should dramatically reduce the available players from whom to "ranch." If they choose to ignore the warning then so be it (no lifegaurd on duty). You will never stop the practice no matter what is put in place so the most you can do is to try to warn the prey.

That!

After 5 games, every NR:s get a congratulation's message (I myself forgot what was in it), so the solution is simple, just adding a warning here (eq. types of games and group of players to avoid).

[jgordon1111]

seems to be a general consensus on the email to players warning of the farming, Sounds good. It should also describe what farming is and let them know some examples of how its done.

And that Ranching will most likely continue until they are experienced on the site, accept Invites at their own risk.

[Woodruff]

seems to be a general consensus on the email to players warning of the farming, Sounds good. It should also describe what farming is and let them know some examples of how its done.

And that Ranching will most likely continue until they are experienced on the site, accept Invites at their own risk.

While I agree that the email is a good move...that's really not going to stop anything, you do realize that, right? I thought the intent was to stop the farming/ranching, not to make it palatable?

[JCR]

While I agree that the email is a good move...that's really not going to stop anything, you do realize that, right? I thought the intent was to stop the farming/ranching, not to make it palatable?

perhaps just one piece of the puzzle. Compromise is finding small steps most people can agree to. Besides it is unlikely dramatic change will take place. small change, maybe.

[jgordon1111]

Lets see if everyone who has posted so far can at least agree to this concession. Then we find the next part we can agree on.

[Crazyirishman]

Maybe would could just permaban farmers/rancher and kill their firstborn, then nobody would take the risk to try and get points from low ranks

[jgordon1111]

Thanks CI but I dont think we can do that. Not legal and all that. But the Idea is to make it harder to farm or ranch. And If it involves harsher punishment for doing it, then I would say yes it is an excellent Idea. Make it, you get one warning and if you do it again perma ban, no appeal. Easiest way to do this would be to send a community wide PM to all members stating a change in rules is in effect. Consider this your only warning, As of today (MM/DD/YY) if you get caught farming or intentional ranching you will be perma banned no appeal. Ie,. Intentionally setting up multiple games designed to draw in new recruits. Or the systematic inviting of less knowledgeable players into games that they are not familiar with.

[Woodruff]

Thanks CI but I dont think we can do that. Not legal and all that. But the Idea is to make it harder to farm or ranch. And If it involves harsher punishment for doing it, then I would say yes it is an excellent Idea. Make it, you get one warning and if you do it again perma ban, no appeal. Easiest way to do this would be to send a community wide PM to all members stating a change in rules is in effect. Consider this your only warning, As of today (MM/DD/YY) if you get caught farming or intentional ranching you will be perma banned no appeal. Ie,. Intentionally setting up multiple games designed to draw in new recruits. Or the systematic inviting of less knowledgeable players into games that they are not familiar with.

For me personally, it is the inviting that's the big key. I don't care if ?'s and newbies jump into every single game you start, and I don't care if someone determines that "those settings draw newbies like flies to honey". For my money, that's irrelevant, because you can't control who joins your games and you should be free to start any bloody game you want to. But if you're systematically and consistently joining games with ?s or newbies (ranching) and ESPECIALLY and far more importantly if you're inviting them into your games (and in my view, this does not need to be a consistent thing, though more than rare), then we have a real problem.

[jgordon1111]

ok let everyone play thier own games then, but inviting them and consistently playing is the big no no then.