Does this behaviour constitute farming?

[e_i_pi]

Were these people already Cooks/Cadets/Privates when they all had a game with this player? Or were they still new recruits at the time? I don't think we have a rule that specifically prohibits players from playing lower ranked opponents. A player is still a player even if he is "low ranked" right now.

Understood KA (re: player still being a player). Here's some stats I compiled. These are records of all the games since Jan-01, which is when the farming rules were put into place:

Number of 1v1 games played: 50
Wins: 42
Losses: 8

RR Median: 0.396078
RR Average: 0.384499

Players Current Score: 2431

Median Opponent Score: 963
Average Opponent Score: 935

Number of games opponent has played /// Number of opponents that fall into this category

Code: Select all

0     -     5 ..... 3
6     -    10 ..... 5
11    -    20 ..... 10
21    -    50 ..... 9
51    -   100 ..... 6
101   -   250 ..... 9
251   -   500 ..... 7
501   -  1000 ..... 0
1001  - 10000 ..... 1


The pool of opponents this player has played against includes 3 New Recruits, a further 30 players that had played less than 100 games, and two players who played their very last game at the site against this player, quitting thereafter.

[AAFitz]

Were these people already Cooks/Cadets/Privates when they all had a game with this player? Or were they still new recruits at the time? I don't think we have a rule that specifically prohibits players from playing lower ranked opponents. A player is still a player even if he is "low ranked" right now.

Well, that answers a lot of questions and clears up the situation. I was hoping the hunters might take the opportunity to gain some flexibility in defining farming, to include not just new recruits, but to include very new players...say under 10 or 20 games.

But for now, it is ok to join an unlimited number of games against a player with 6 games, but not 4, technically. Personally, I think it could still be considered a gross abuse of the game, and if someone does it too much, then things will change.

I do regret that this does mean open season on the newest players. I almost wish it was never brought up...by myself included, because before at least there was perhaps a little gray area.

Farm away. Just dont farm the ?'s.

It will change eventually, so get them while you can.

[Fruitcake]

Players Current Score: 2431

Wait a minute....am I missing something?

This is a farmer? Who only has 2431 points?

He/She's not very good at it really are they.

Or maybe I have missed some vital piece of info.

[AAFitz]

Players Current Score: 2431

Wait a minute....am I missing something?

This is a farmer? Who only has 2431 points?

He/She's not very good at it really are they.

Or maybe I have missed some vital piece of info.

Well maybe they dont have a green thumb, but they certainly are plowing the fields and planting the seeds.

[Bruceswar]

Players Current Score: 2431

Wait a minute....am I missing something?

This is a farmer? Who only has 2431 points?

He/She's not very good at it really are they.

Or maybe I have missed some vital piece of info.

Low game count will give you a lower score...

[e_i_pi]

A win rate of 84%, with average opponent score being 935 would have pointed towards farming I believe.

[pistebasher]

[quote="AAFitz"]

But for now, it is ok to join an unlimited number of games against a player with 6 games, but not 4, technically. Personally, I think it could still be considered a gross abuse of the game, and if someone does it too much, then things will change.

Agreed - this is gross abuse - unfortunately I doubt if things ever will change!

A couple of months ago, a colonel was warned for just this. Since then he has virtually exclusively still joined 1v1 games against low ranks who have often completed less than 10 games, which he gets them to set up via 'call outs' on difficult maps that they have NEVER played before in fog and freestyle! Then in the game chat, he leaves a comment to King Achilles claiming ' not a new recruit - completed x games'

They have completed as few as 5 or 6, and one had been a member of the site for less than 4 hours! pretty damn NEW!

[AAFitz]

A win rate of 84%, with average opponent score being 935 would have pointed towards farming I believe.

It is of course, but I still think the rank is irrelevant in the farming. If a player has played enough games, and should know how to play and be at least used to how to play, he is fair game. The score is more likely a result of the types of games, not necessarily skill.

If herpes played assassin doodle games for a few days, hed lose 3000 points....it wouldnt change his skill. And if I didnt start my 40 world 1v1 games, (of which I was ironically...if comically accused of farming) id still be over 3k points. At 3k points, its simply impossible to win points on that map on sequential 1v1...but it is fun. I Digress...The point is, the score is less important than the number of games.

I think we should protect all players under 30 games from farming. Maybe more, but 30 seems like a nice starting point.

I made a suggestion as such if youre interested:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=90177

[AAFitz]

But for now, it is ok to join an unlimited number of games against a player with 6 games, but not 4, technically. Personally, I think it could still be considered a gross abuse of the game, and if someone does it too much, then things will change.

Agreed - this is gross abuse - unfortunately I doubt if things ever will change!

A couple of months ago, a colonel was warned for just this. Since then he has virtually exclusively still joined 1v1 games against low ranks who have often completed less than 10 games, which he gets them to set up via 'call outs' on difficult maps that they have NEVER played before in fog and freestyle! Then in the game chat, he leaves a comment to King Achilles claiming ' not a new recruit - completed x games'

They have completed as few as 5 or 6, and one had been a member of the site for less than 4 hours! pretty damn NEW!

A Colonel...lol... I just asked if Demonfork was guilty of it... He was cleared though. It is nice to see that it is not just new recruits being protected, though that does seem to be the stated policy.

OK thank you for that.

Here is the ruling which sheds some light on the policy. It can very well be farming, if the numbers are significant enough, even if they arent new recruits. Personally, I believe that is implied in the rules anyways....

We took some time in reviewing the games Old Macdonald has been playing. Granted that he comes into live chat at certain times to find players he can have games with, basically most of his games are played with ranks lower than his. There are games with new accounts but we could say that they are not yet significant enough for a disciplinary measure. Even though that most of these new accounts do come back and play games regularly, personally, I could consider this as a close call and I strongly advise that Old Macdonald shy away from joining games with new accounts for the meantime.

Be warned that if we get another report that you are again joining games with new accounts and their numbers are noteworthy, a score reset will be the next step.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Now all we have to do, is get the definition of new account defined. Certainly the same loophole will exist out of that definition, but at least then, it will be players with 31 games or so...instead of 6.

At least we know now, that it is possible to get a warning for systematically joining new players, and not just new recruits. Its just a matter of how many. And what constitutes a new player.

[demonfork]

But for now, it is ok to join an unlimited number of games against a player with 6 games, but not 4, technically. Personally, I think it could still be considered a gross abuse of the game, and if someone does it too much, then things will change.

Agreed - this is gross abuse - unfortunately I doubt if things ever will change!

A couple of months ago, a colonel was warned for just this. Since then he has virtually exclusively still joined 1v1 games against low ranks who have often completed less than 10 games, which he gets them to set up via 'call outs' on difficult maps that they have NEVER played before in fog and freestyle! Then in the game chat, he leaves a comment to King Achilles claiming ' not a new recruit - completed x games'

They have completed as few as 5 or 6, and one had been a member of the site for less than 4 hours! pretty damn NEW!

A Colonel...lol... I just asked if Demonfork was guilty of it... He was cleared though. It is nice to see that it is not just new recruits being protected, though that does seem to be the stated policy.

OK thank you for that.

Here is the ruling which sheds some light on the policy. It can very well be farming, if the numbers are significant enough, even if they arent new recruits. Personally, I believe that is implied in the rules anyways....

We took some time in reviewing the games Old Macdonald has been playing. Granted that he comes into live chat at certain times to find players he can have games with, basically most of his games are played with ranks lower than his. There are games with new accounts but we could say that they are not yet significant enough for a disciplinary measure. Even though that most of these new accounts do come back and play games regularly, personally, I could consider this as a close call and I strongly advise that Old Macdonald shy away from joining games with new accounts for the meantime.

Be warned that if we get another report that you are again joining games with new accounts and their numbers are noteworthy, a score reset will be the next step.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Now all we have to do, is get the definition of new account defined. Certainly the same loophole will exist out of that definition, but at least then, it will be players with 31 games or so...instead of 6.

At least we know now, that it is possible to get a warning for systematically joining new players, and not just new recruits. Its just a matter of how many. And what constitutes a new player.

You just can't let this go...

It is already clear as crystal, the rule is against the joining "NEW RECRUITS" not ranked players..

Postby lancehoch on Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:36 pm
The rules implemented are worded and were implemented to stop the farming of New Recruits not ranked players.

Postby king achilles on Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:13 am
If the player is no longer wearing a "?" rank, we can consider him as no longer a new recruit, therefore, he can play games with anyone. More so, if the new player is the one who created the game, then whoever joins his game will be following his preferred settings. Looking at demonfork's 1 vs 1 freestyle games, I think generally it is still pretty much a mix of different ranked players. It has also helped demonfork's case that most of these "new" members he has played with has stayed around and became regular players of the site so far.

Cleared. Locked.

Postby lackattack on Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:07 pm
"Newbie Farming" is the technique of setting up as many games as possible (either by starting or joining them) with New Recruits to gain easy points by taking advantage of difficult game options and the fact the New Recruits are more likely to deadbeat. Some players have been farming extensively - even sending hundreds of PMs to the latest members to get them into their games.

Why are you still trying to beat this dead horse?

[e_i_pi]

Why are you still trying to beat this dead horse?

It never ceases to amaze me that the people that "aren't farming" always get so defensive whenever the topic is raised.

[AAFitz]

Why are you still trying to beat this dead horse?

Im not beating anything. I just quoted another case, where they warned someone for attacking lots of new players and they were NOT new recruits.

In fact, like you, he was mocking the mods about it...and got warned...

Make no mistake, its only a matter of time before aiming at new players will be explicitly against the rules. And if you do it too much, its already against the rules ie gross abuse of game.

I fully admit, that in your case, you werent there yet, but you were certainly heading in that direction. By all means test it.

Ill keep my on standby.

Oh, and by the way, I set up maybe 30 or 40 world 2.1's trying to farm again. One or two new recruits actually joined. I hope no one else reports me. ...

[lancehoch]

This seems to be more of a Q&A thread than a C&A thread. Moved for you.

[a.sub]

This seems to be more of a Q&A thread than a C&A thread. Moved for you.

well played Team CC

[tyche73]

why not just change the mulipule
instead of your score divided into theirs and muliplied by 20
change to, your score divided into theirs, gives you a number which puts you into a category that determines your muliple that could be anything from 50 to 5 so top players farming would gain maybe 1 point and if they lose could be 500

[BaldAdonis]

I play a lot of 1v1 AmCivWar on Chained, No Spoils, Seq settings.

Up for a few games?
Also, whoever it is is definitely farming. Some folks can't be helped. I just hope they eventually find internet poker and beat the feckless players there instead.

[e_i_pi]

I play a lot of 1v1 AmCivWar on Chained, No Spoils, Seq settings.

Up for a few games?
Also, whoever it is is definitely farming. Some folks can't be helped. I just hope they eventually find internet poker and beat the feckless players there instead.

Yeah I have a thread in callouts if you're interested

[e_i_pi]

why not just change the mulipule
instead of your score divided into theirs and muliplied by 20
change to, your score divided into theirs, gives you a number which puts you into a category that determines your muliple that could be anything from 50 to 5 so top players farming would gain maybe 1 point and if they lose could be 500

I agree that scalability to the points system would definitely stop farming altogether. I figured the easiest way to do it would be to compare ranks, divide the difference by say 3, round to nearest integer, and add/subtract that from the points gained.

e.g. -

A player of score 4000 (General, #2 on the rank list) plays against a player of score 1000 (PFC, #12 on the rank list).
As it stands, they could win 5 points or lose 80 points.
Compare the ranks, 12 - 2 = 10, then 10/3 = 3.33, which rounds to 3
So with "weighting" the General would stand to win 5-3 = 2 points, and stand to lose 80+3 = 83 points.

This would discourage farming, but still allow say Capts/Lieuts to play Corporals (the average rank) without losing too many points to the weighting (only 1 point in this case)

[AAFitz]

why not just change the mulipule
instead of your score divided into theirs and muliplied by 20
change to, your score divided into theirs, gives you a number which puts you into a category that determines your muliple that could be anything from 50 to 5 so top players farming would gain maybe 1 point and if they lose could be 500

I agree that scalability to the points system would definitely stop farming altogether. I figured the easiest way to do it would be to compare ranks, divide the difference by say 3, round to nearest integer, and add/subtract that from the points gained.

e.g. -

A player of score 4000 (General, #2 on the rank list) plays against a player of score 1000 (PFC, #12 on the rank list).
As it stands, they could win 5 points or lose 80 points.
Compare the ranks, 12 - 2 = 10, then 10/3 = 3.33, which rounds to 3
So with "weighting" the General would stand to win 5-3 = 2 points, and stand to lose 80+3 = 83 points.

This would discourage farming, but still allow say Capts/Lieuts to play Corporals (the average rank) without losing too many points to the weighting (only 1 point in this case)

It is ironic that the discussion of scoring has come full circle since my start here. Two and a half years ago or so, the main complaint was the massive difference in point gain, and that it was too large. Now the main complaint is that it is not big enough.

The problem with making the spread any bigger, is it limits the field of players one can play and win points quite dramatically.
While it certainly will stop farming, it will also stop players from being able to play each other reasonably, and will segregate the site even more than it is right now. Personally, I think a more targeted system, just to control farming and farmers would be better.

[jefjef]

Simple... Block ? - cooks - cadets from joining games with officers in them and vice a versa...................

[a.sub]

Simple... Block ? - cooks - cadets from joining games with officers in them and vice a versa...................

a lot of them happen to be good friends and like to play with each other

[AAFitz]

Simple... Block ? - cooks - cadets from joining games with officers in them and vice a versa...................

this is simple, but massively stifling... points should not dictate who can play with who. Its almost a ridiculous idea, even though it would solve farming...but Its a cure worse than the illness solution I think.

CC is a game after all. If theres some point issues so be it, but to structure it so that people cant play together, that just takes all the fun out of it. Certainly lower ranks love the challenge of going against the better players, and to some degree are better for it. I certainly play against the best players when I get a chance...and even when I know I will probably lose.

I think some realistic moderation would be fine. Define new players as under 30 or even 50 games. Make it illegal to farm them. If people still target low ranks, thats unfortunate, but hardly as bad...killing bad players is hardly as problematic as killing new ones, who simply arent used to the game yet.

[jefjef]

It does not take many games to earn a stripe. & it would reduce those of rank farming new players & it would also reduce some multi accounts..................................

[obliterationX]

I've got a question: what behaviour does not constitute farming?

[FarangDemon]

It is ironic that the discussion of scoring has come full circle since my start here. Two and a half years ago or so, the main complaint was the massive difference in point gain, and that it was too large. Now the main complaint is that it is not big enough.

The problem with making the spread any bigger, is it limits the field of players one can play and win points quite dramatically.
While it certainly will stop farming, it will also stop players from being able to play each other reasonably, and will segregate the site even more than it is right now. Personally, I think a more targeted system, just to control farming and farmers would be better.

People are CURRENTLY unable to play each other. Someone ranked #3 (4586 points) out of 200,000 can't play someone ranked #1 (6332 points). The conqueror would win/lose 14/27. This requires winning 2/3 of games to maintain the lead. So it IS kaput already at the top at least.

The problem with making the spread any bigger, is it limits the field of players one can play and win points quite dramatically.

It would not result in a unilateral decrease in the field of players one can play. Immediately, yes, there will be a decrease in the profitability of playing someone who is extremely lower in rank (as there should be!!!). I've analyzed the effect on low, mid and high ranks below:

Effect on high ranks

• Curbing the harvesting techniques of the highest ranks would have the effect of lowering their scores over time, thus enlarging the pool of players that can play against each other as peers within the top 10% of the scoreboard.

Effect on mid ranks

• It would not positively or negatively affect the middle ranked. Under current scoring system, they are already able to play peers and low rankers and this change would affect them by like one point only if a captain played a cook or something like that.

Effect on low ranks

• The low ranked would gain more points and would not be targeted quite as much from the apex of the scoreboard.

So it would just shift the focus of where people can profitably play each other a little bit away from the bottom of the scoreboard but would greatly extend the pool of high ranked peers who can play each other.