DIFFERENT SCORING SYSTEM TO DETER FROM FARMING

[maxatstuy]

As long as there are ranks determined by points there will be farming, but it would be an improvement if recruit/multi/whatevers who never take a turn or deadbeat in the first 6 rounds or so
don't surrender any points.

Non-competitive games, such as the ones where klobber "out plays" seven recruits who all deadbeat,
should be as pointless as a game with no active participants actually is.

Whether or not farmers like myself look for games with noobs who we specifically think will deadbeat, we still run the same risk of finding noobs who will play and as a result losing. Even though people like owen are specifically trying to quote the terms of be being "Busted" in every opportunity possible, in the hundreds of noob games I have played, I have only joined 5 games against people who turned out being multis of people who I knew, (all of which I found out were multis after I joined.) Meanwhile, only one time was a multi JCKing's while the other 4 were manimals; in all leaving me 75 points down as a result.

what should be addressed is free points and the tactic of choosing games to specifically play deadbeats. That undermines the point system and demeans their worth completely.

AND as twill pointed out in a thread about maxatstuy and his cheating/farming (when he was stripped of his premium and removed from the scoreboard), most of the players that max farmed never returned for another game on CC. granted, alot of them were multiple accounts, but not all of them. that is the most harmful aspect of farming that these guys don't get. ultimately, they are harming the site and everyone's enjoyment, by chasing a few easy points that nobody respects them for gaining.-0

While I was apparently hurting owens enjoyment of the site- as a result of my pointing out that he has no justification for many of his posts because of his inability to justify himself on almost everything he says- Twill was not saying that my farming was hurting ANYONE's enjoyment. Furthermore, the point system was created to counter the efforts of farmers and is quite successful at doing so, I am just one of the select few who managed to farm successfully. Noobs dont care about the people who joins their games, and whether a high rank joins or a low rank, it is still farming, though one way the noob losses less points.

btw, Owen, your constant mentioning the wrongful bust only makes you look like a fool as you have been unsuccessful at telling me what rule I broke. Additionally, "alot" is two words, you might want to go back to elementary school to relearn that.

[owenshooter]

btw, Owen, your constant mentioning the wrongful bust only makes you look like a fool as you have been unsuccessful at telling me what rule I broke.

stripped of premium, had to buy back in, no longer on blitz's top lists and the lists you are on, you have an asterisks due to cheating... why? you are a cheater. i trust twill, i don't trust an egomaniacal 15yr old cheater.-0

[maxatstuy]

btw, Owen, your constant mentioning the wrongful bust only makes you look like a fool as you have been unsuccessful at telling me what rule I broke.

stripped of premium, had to buy back in, no longer on blitz's top lists and the lists you are on, you have an asterisks due to cheating... why? you are a cheater. i trust twill, i don't trust an egomaniacal 15yr old cheater.-0

You have yet to tell me HOW I broke the rules. I am not asking about the specifications of what happened as a result of the bust, I am asking WHY the bust occurred. Clearly you have no reasoning behind your comments other than to prove yourself as a conformist who is too intimidated by the intellect of a 16 year old. I have managed to annoy you by my persistent responses to your feeble attempts at telling me off, so you have to resort to calling him a cheater when you obviously have no way of justifying yourself since you believe it bothers me. If you would like to tell me what I did then I would love to continue this conversation in another thread where it wouldnt be considered thread hijacking, but until then, your constant mentioning of my bust is quite humorous.

[jnd94]

what intellect?

[maxatstuy]

what intellect?

its funny because you havent read any of the other threads to which this conversation is continuing off of.

Owen and 3 others tried to tell me off in two threads about a month ago and failed miserably. Now owen is calling me a cheater to attempt to get arise out of me because he is irritated that I emasculated him when I called him out on his inability to beat up on a child.

[jiminski]

what intellect?

its funny because you havent read any of the other threads to which this conversation is continuing off of.

Owen and 3 others tried to tell me off in two threads about a month ago and failed miserably. Now owen is calling me a cheater to attempt to get arise out of me because he is irritated that I emasculated him when I called him out on his inability to beat up on a child.

heheh, please call me by name if i am included?

[maxatstuy]

what intellect?

its funny because you havent read any of the other threads to which this conversation is continuing off of.

Owen and 3 others tried to tell me off in two threads about a month ago and failed miserably. Now owen is calling me a cheater to attempt to get arise out of me because he is irritated that I emasculated him when I called him out on his inability to beat up on a child.

heheh, please call me by name if i am included?

You werent...sorry to disillusion you.

I thought out conversation was more intriguing as it was you and I expressing our different perspectives on farming. At least the parts where you semi-justified yourself was interesting; the first half was you just bs'ing, but either way, you were not part of the initial conversation.

[jiminski]

heheh another dream shattered

[maxatstuy]

heheh another dream shattered

yeah, out of curiosity I decided to look up which threads it was that I was referencing:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67356&st=0&sk=t&sd=a- the first 4 pages

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66920- pages 5 and 6

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67256- scattered throughout the first several pages in a desperate attempt to change the conversation

Those were the threads that were the basis of my earlier posts though.

[jnd94]

No, I've read all the threads. But I guess being so smart you'd know if I'd read every thread or not.

I don't see your intellect. All I see is a little kid trying to rationalize cheating, and playing it off like he didn't do it.

[maxatstuy]

No, I've read all the threads. But I guess being so smart you'd know if I'd read every thread or not.

I don't see your intellect. All I see is a little kid trying to rationalize cheating, and playing it off like he didn't do it.

I would have no problem saying that I cheated had I done something wrong. Maybe if you read a couple of the threads which I have posted in, you would finally come across a nice long post which no one, including Twill himself, has responded to. Until someone does answer my questions, I find it hard to admit to something when I am not being accused of anything.

Oh, and at the time which those threads were written, I was not busted for anything; but you probably knew that and just decided to ignore it when you made your last post.

[maxatstuy]

his brother's account which he took over to bitch and moan in chat both during his chat ban and after his multi bust.

There is a very large difference between me asking my brother to go on and defend me and going on his account and doing it myself. During my absence, he had a conversation with king_achilles who can contest that it wasnt me talking.

Furthermore, I have no idea which multis you are referring to seeing that I was not assuming any accounts other than my own and you have not stated any accounts to which I was a multi with.

To add fuel to the fire, Max was skating a very thin line on "gross abuse of the game" already by feeding almost exclusively off of new recruits - most of whom never came back after playing him.

I play many noobs who never show up, but their decision not to return has nothing to do with me persuading them to leave. In every game I play, when the noob shows up, I offer to play real time, not using delay tactics as many others do, and even give advice so that they can learn and play better in the future.

To add further fuel to the fire, JCKing has been busted for creating multis which were farmed by Max, and potentially others.

Apparently, I joined one game against someone whose IP read Japan that turned out to be JCKing. I had no knowledge that it was him I have no idea what you are trying to show by mentioning it.

To add yet further fuel to the fire, Max has repeatedly been accused/suspected of sitting abuse and had multiple blocks on his account (we all remember the "little" *manimal bust that took all those accounts with it because of previous blocks with Max)

Mentioning the accusations which were CLEARED and the multi who took 94 of my points has nothing to do with me being guilty of anything. Clearly you are reacting to peoples opinion of me rather than on my guilt. There was no reason for me to be busted and I have yet to receive and information as to the reason for the bust.

Max found some great loopholes in the scoring system, he pissed off a lot of people and skated on some pretty thin ice with regards to the rules. There's going to be a lot of emotion on several sides about this, but Max dug his own grave in the end. He crossed the line he shouldn't have and now it's his choice what he does with his position.

Your opinion of me should have no factor to my remaining on this site. I play noobs and that is my prerogative. Playing for my friends when they need to leave is not against the rules and I have dont nothing that could be considered cheating. I would still love to hear what I was ACTUALLY busted for because as of this moment, you have yet to accuse me of anything.

[MrMoody]

but the problem with THIS is if SJ (5393) beats Alangary(1), then SJ would get :

((1/5393)*20-((5393-1)/1000) = 0-5.4 = -5.4 (rounded), a NEGATIVE number! He'd lose points, even though he won. THAT would stop farming cooks!

Well there could be a bottom cap at 1 or 0, there is a top cap at 100 so there's no reason for there not to be one on bottom.

With a cap at the bottom this could really work.cap it at zero so no gain to farmers.



Now that we are back on topic please no more thread hijacking.

[porkenbeans]

I wish that I would have seen this thread before starting '' Better point system''. I would have gone ahead and posted it here. Tell me what you think.

[maxatstuy]

but the problem with THIS is if SJ (5393) beats Alangary(1), then SJ would get :

((1/5393)*20-((5393-1)/1000) = 0-5.4 = -5.4 (rounded), a NEGATIVE number! He'd lose points, even though he won. THAT would stop farming cooks!

Well there could be a bottom cap at 1 or 0, there is a top cap at 100 so there's no reason for there not to be one on bottom.

With a cap at the bottom this could really work.cap it at zero so no gain to farmers.



Now that we are back on topic please no more thread hijacking.

The reason why this system doesnt work is because all it does is make it easier for people like *manimal to find high ranked games and take all of their points. This system promotes low ranks taking advantage of their situation by joining games with people knowing they wont lose anything if they lose the game. New recruits are not the only people who this system refers to and as a result, people that are cooks and cadets, will have a reason to join 8-players knowing that if they play 50 times, they might win once and come out hundreds of points ahead.

[THE ARMY]

You guys are rediculous, in order for manimal to win an 8 player game with high ranks he/she would have to play 1,555,562,123,161,612.56, if you lose to Manimal then quite frankly you don't deserve to be a top rank, plain and simple

but the problem with THIS is if SJ (5393) beats Alangary(1), then SJ would get :

((1/5393)*20-((5393-1)/1000) = 0-5.4 = -5.4 (rounded), a NEGATIVE number! He'd lose points, even though he won. THAT would stop farming cooks!

Well there could be a bottom cap at 1 or 0, there is a top cap at 100 so there's no reason for there not to be one on bottom.

With a cap at the bottom this could really work.cap it at zero so no gain to farmers.



Now that we are back on topic please no more thread hijacking.

The reason why this system doesnt work is because all it does is make it easier for people like *manimal to find high ranked games and take all of their points. This system promotes low ranks taking advantage of their situation by joining games with people knowing they wont lose anything if they lose the game. New recruits are not the only people who this system refers to and as a result, people that are cooks and cadets, will have a reason to join 8-players knowing that if they play 50 times, they might win once and come out hundreds of points ahead.

[FabledIntegral]

no matter what the system is, there will always be ways to get around it, wouldnt it be easier to just make it so that new recruits can only play players with ranks below 1500. that way the highest a farmer can get is to 1500, then he is up to his own merit.

You'd have to limit that to 1v1 seeing as people rank 1400 ish could play in 8-man games with people rank 3500 etc.

y so? you often see 8 man games with a bunch of question marks and a brigadier that arent some sort of point-farming scam?

I'd say 99% of 8-man speed games with brigadiers fall under the criteria of having sub 1500 point players. Very rarely does this not happen, and it's already hard to fill them as it is.

So the answer is yes, I see often, if not almost always, see a brigadier with 1500 and below players involved.

[THE ARMY]

and who the heck is manimal, i was guessing he/she was a low ranked player by the context of your post, but anyways, your's and my post go for any low ranked player

[porkenbeans]

The scoring formulas is someone here's baby, and they won't admit its ugly no matter how many negative effects you point out.

Don't worry, there is no farming problem on this site. It's all made up nonsense by a bunch of troublemakers who can't get over 4000 points.

RIGHT ON Hey you sound like the kind of person that would fit well into our group, The Clean Group. We are 2 dozen strong and only accept referalls. We were founded on the need for change. We even have our own insigneas and ranks. I may after further study and vetting, offer your name for consideration by our board. If you are interested that is. We are fairly new, But we are determind to play it our way. We will be using CC for our basic platform, If they wont make some changes that are needed. We will. We will use our sigs.for our own ''rolling Leaderboard''. Below is a prototype of what it may look like.

[maxatstuy]

and who the heck is manimal, i was guessing he/she was a low ranked player by the context of your post, but anyways, your's and my post go for any low ranked player

*manimal is a multi who is also the fastest player on conquer club...I was referencing his joining casual, multi-player games, as he does on may of his accounts before they are busted

[FabledIntegral]

You guys are rediculous, in order for manimal to win an 8 player game with high ranks he/she would have to play 1,555,562,123,161,612.56, if you lose to Manimal then quite frankly you don't deserve to be a top rank, plain and simple

but the problem with THIS is if SJ (5393) beats Alangary(1), then SJ would get :

((1/5393)*20-((5393-1)/1000) = 0-5.4 = -5.4 (rounded), a NEGATIVE number! He'd lose points, even though he won. THAT would stop farming cooks!

Well there could be a bottom cap at 1 or 0, there is a top cap at 100 so there's no reason for there not to be one on bottom.

With a cap at the bottom this could really work.cap it at zero so no gain to farmers.



Now that we are back on topic please no more thread hijacking.

The reason why this system doesnt work is because all it does is make it easier for people like *manimal to find high ranked games and take all of their points. This system promotes low ranks taking advantage of their situation by joining games with people knowing they wont lose anything if they lose the game. New recruits are not the only people who this system refers to and as a result, people that are cooks and cadets, will have a reason to join 8-players knowing that if they play 50 times, they might win once and come out hundreds of points ahead.

Plain and simple - you have no idea the f*ck you're talking about. Manimal's strategy sense may be that of no more than a high captain/low major but it doesn't mean he can't take advantage of his connection and get steals. If you don't think a major can win 8-player games... well you're not even that now are you?

To max - the system is still functioning properly then. If statistically they have *that* many less points than you, it means that if they shouldn't win one out of 50. If they do, then the points will be readjusted to show that.

Just as people say "well luck states that due to the luck of the dice someone should lose at least on enough occasions to reach a plateau around 3000 points or so," we can conclude that then in such cases the point cap *should* be around 3000 points or so. If it's "no longer beneficial to play certain types of games," that has nothing to do with a point system flaw, it concerns that the difference in points amongst the higher ranks is more significant. Ie. the difference between rank 3100 and 3200 is more significant than the difference between 1400 and 1500.

[maxatstuy]

Plain and simple - you have no idea the f*ck you're talking about. Manimal's strategy sense may be that of no more than a high captain/low major but it doesn't mean he can't take advantage of his connection and get steals. If you don't think a major can win 8-player games... well you're not even that now are you?

To max - the system is still functioning properly then. If statistically they have *that* many less points than you, it means that if they shouldn't win one out of 50. If they do, then the points will be readjusted to show that.

Just as people say "well luck states that due to the luck of the dice someone should lose at least on enough occasions to reach a plateau around 3000 points or so," we can conclude that then in such cases the point cap *should* be around 3000 points or so. If it's "no longer beneficial to play certain types of games," that has nothing to do with a point system flaw, it concerns that the difference in points amongst the higher ranks is more significant. Ie. the difference between rank 3100 and 3200 is more significant than the difference between 1400 and 1500.

Fabled- THE ARMY didnt know who *manimal was

btw, what I was saying about the system not working is that many players who are currently cooks and cadets would join games knowing that in this new system, even if they lose, they wouldnt lose any points. It doesnt matter how many games you play, your score is not adjusting if you dont gain anything by beating these players while they are taking 100 every time you lose

[FabledIntegral]

Plain and simple - you have no idea the f*ck you're talking about. Manimal's strategy sense may be that of no more than a high captain/low major but it doesn't mean he can't take advantage of his connection and get steals. If you don't think a major can win 8-player games... well you're not even that now are you?

To max - the system is still functioning properly then. If statistically they have *that* many less points than you, it means that if they shouldn't win one out of 50. If they do, then the points will be readjusted to show that.

Just as people say "well luck states that due to the luck of the dice someone should lose at least on enough occasions to reach a plateau around 3000 points or so," we can conclude that then in such cases the point cap *should* be around 3000 points or so. If it's "no longer beneficial to play certain types of games," that has nothing to do with a point system flaw, it concerns that the difference in points amongst the higher ranks is more significant. Ie. the difference between rank 3100 and 3200 is more significant than the difference between 1400 and 1500.

Fabled- THE ARMY didnt know who *manimal was

btw, what I was saying about the system not working is that many players who are currently cooks and cadets would join games knowing that in this new system, even if they lose, they wouldnt lose any points. It doesnt matter how many games you play, your score is not adjusting if you dont gain anything by beating these players while they are taking 100 every time you lose

1. Then he shouldn't have been retarded and commented on him as if he did.
2. I wasn't aware you were referring to the proposed system.

[King_Herpes]

*manimal will rule the world!

[maxatstuy]

Plain and simple - you have no idea the f*ck you're talking about. Manimal's strategy sense may be that of no more than a high captain/low major but it doesn't mean he can't take advantage of his connection and get steals. If you don't think a major can win 8-player games... well you're not even that now are you?

To max - the system is still functioning properly then. If statistically they have *that* many less points than you, it means that if they shouldn't win one out of 50. If they do, then the points will be readjusted to show that.

Just as people say "well luck states that due to the luck of the dice someone should lose at least on enough occasions to reach a plateau around 3000 points or so," we can conclude that then in such cases the point cap *should* be around 3000 points or so. If it's "no longer beneficial to play certain types of games," that has nothing to do with a point system flaw, it concerns that the difference in points amongst the higher ranks is more significant. Ie. the difference between rank 3100 and 3200 is more significant than the difference between 1400 and 1500.

Fabled- THE ARMY didnt know who *manimal was

btw, what I was saying about the system not working is that many players who are currently cooks and cadets would join games knowing that in this new system, even if they lose, they wouldnt lose any points. It doesnt matter how many games you play, your score is not adjusting if you dont gain anything by beating these players while they are taking 100 every time you lose

1. Then he shouldn't have been retarded and commented on him as if he did.
2. I wasn't aware you were referring to the proposed system.

I apologize then for my ambiguity...I shouldnt be posting when I am tired...lol

I dont see a problem with the current system setup though, even though I do lose a ridiculous amount of points every time I lose. I chose who I play against and I live with the consequences. However, with that said, the games I play are of no concern to anyone but myself; premium was purchased for me to play whatever games I want and it is no ones business. If you think it is easy to farm then go ahead and try it yourself, but creating a new point system because you are too lazy to improve and raise your rank from whatever games you chose is ridiculous.