Conquer Club

What do people think of this scenario:

A cook starts 5 games. A major and a colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five.

I have a major issue with this. I understand that any player can join any game and I like that. However, it seems rather unfair for a cook to have to play the same high-ranked players over and over again. Now, some might say, "tough shit." And that's fine and I understand that point. However, what someone like optimus or lack might appreciate is that this cook is going to dump this game if that's how it goes for him. So, if the cook was thinking about purchasing premium, he ain't going to do it anymore.

I understand that this is not against the rules, but perhaps it should be. Thanks.

edited

i guess it doesnt matter.

#1_stunna wrote:these 2?

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=114756&view=unread#unread

No. My scenario is a hypothetical. I edited my original post to protect the innocent (because they are).

k

i agree with you it should be against the rules.

Sir, how are those two innocent?

(I understand they're innocent by the law, but by general moral standards, me thinks they're guilty). Sir.

#1_stunna wrote:k

i agree with you it should be against the rules.

Thanks. My point is not to get the vigilantes out; just to get some discussion around this thing.

Yes there is a problem with it, the rules of farming should be changed.

And alstergren isn't innocent, he's clearly farming.

Look at the difference between JR's recent games and als's recent games. JR joins the game regardless of rank, alstergren picks out the low rank players he knows he can beat.

thegreekdog wrote:What do people think of this scenario:

A cook starts 5 games. A major and a colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five.

I have a major issue with this. I understand that any player can join any game and I like that. However, it seems rather unfair for a cook to have to play the same high-ranked players over and over again. Now, some might say, "tough shit." And that's fine and I understand that point. However, what someone like optimus or lack might appreciate is that this cook is going to dump this game if that's how it goes for him. So, if the cook was thinking about purchasing premium, he ain't going to do it anymore.

I understand that this is not against the rules, but perhaps it should be. Thanks.

I understand that it is ethically wrong for a player to keep playing a certain player because he knows that he can beat that player, but if we regulate high rank's joinablilty we will also have to regulate lower ranks joinablilty, i ilke playing games against cooks and cadets sometimes.

ok that could be bad...but if i was the cook i would like that they join the games...therefore i could learn more(unless they are doing an alliance in 3 player game,then nothing can be done)and i guess that after the cook wins once...they'll leave him and he'll learn a lot and even if he doesnt win there will be a moment that they will get 0 points for winning...so they'll leave and the cook im sure that he would have learned some tips and had more possibility to win more games...

thegreekdog wrote:What do people think of this scenario:

A cook starts 5 games. A major and a colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five.

I have a major issue with this. I understand that any player can join any game and I like that. However, it seems rather unfair for a cook to have to play the same high-ranked players over and over again. Now, some might say, "tough shit." And that's fine and I understand that point. However, what someone like optimus or lack might appreciate is that this cook is going to dump this game if that's how it goes for him. So, if the cook was thinking about purchasing premium, he ain't going to do it anymore.

I understand that this is not against the rules, but perhaps it should be. Thanks.

I have long railed against the idea that cadets and cooks should not be considered under the rules of farming. However, the site doesn't actually care about farming, they care about income and for whatever idiotic reason, the powers that be fail to see that this sort of activity costs the site money MORESO than what the current iteration of "farming" does.

it's bull and not classy at all, look at David Hoekstra he's up to 8th place and shows the missuse of this to full extend,

but you cant forbid this, if cadets and cooks are enjoying themselves by doing so, let them, most of them get a kick out of playing a high ranker. The problem with this "hypothetical" case is that he did not enjoy playing them over and over again and had even pm'ed them to stop joining his games.

there is an easy solution for this.... and it already in place: the foe button, now he knows and will probably use it

jaimito101 wrote:it's bull and not classy at all, look at David Hoekstra he's up to 8th place and shows the missuse of this to full extend,

but you cant forbid this, if cadets and cooks are enjoying themselves by doing so, let them, most of them get a kick out of playing a high ranker. The problem with this "hypothetical" case is that he did not enjoy playing them over and over again and had even pm'ed them to stop joining his games.

there is an easy solution for this.... and it already in place: the foe button, now he knows and will probably use it

Well that one didnt enjoy because he though that if it wasnt for them,and another people joined he would be out of being cook,that means he is already sure that he knows what he need to know about that map and/or settings...but of course if he couldnt win at least once,then i see it difficult that he know something useful for that map and/or settings...of course could be usefull if your opponents doesnt know about that.

In life guys, you dont learn a lot in a true ass kicking.. You learn to ball up and hate the game. There is a difference between being beat and learning from it, and getting your ass stomped in the ground by a coward looking for points.

people often complain about foe lists, but here they can make sense, foe these 2 guys and you are fine.

thegreekdog wrote:A cook starts 5 games. A major and a colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five. The cook starts 5 more games and the major and colonel join all 5 games and one of those two win all five.

I have a major issue with this. I understand that any player can join any game and I like that. However, it seems rather unfair for a cook to have to play the same high-ranked players over and over again.

First of all, I appreciate that this situation can be very discouraging from the player who is getting beaten. But, sometimes in life, you have to admit there are people who are better than you. In context - there are more knowledgable people around here who will thrash the living daylights out of you, tactically. The glory of learning is to sample the taste of bitter defeat, see what you did wrong, and to improve. If the player, however, doesn't learn how to overcome their opponents, then they either need to just give it up as a bad job and try different settings. It would be pretty dumb to play the same settings and map over and over again, especially if you're getting your arse spanked by higher ranks, and not learning anything.

Making a rule to prohibit exploiting your tactical superiority over an opponent would be completely absurd, dictatorial and hard to enforce, and would totally undermine the concept of the website.

pmchugh wrote:Yes there is a problem with it, the rules of farming should be changed.

And alstergren isn't innocent, he's clearly farming.

Look at the difference between JR's recent games and als's recent games. JR joins the game regardless of rank, alstergren picks out the low rank players he knows he can beat.

Think that is a bit harsh. alstergren doesn't have to farm to win. He isn't farming now. Looking back through his most recent games mostly freestyle dbs games, I got bored after counting 25different partners, ranging from ? marks to major. Maybe he is bored? Wants to try playing with different people? There is no clear pattern of targeting one individual. The majority of the games have been started by sarg and above. I don't what alstergren has done to offend you pmchugh but me thinks he would own you any day of the week.....

Has anyone else noticed that since he started joining whatever freestyle dbs that where up, with anyone as a partner his rank has dropped. Do the maths people, if you are a high major playing against a cook... Win 7out of 10games, and your still points negative. He is smart enough to do the maths, so clearly is just having a bit of fun

I want to re-explain, based on what I think is a misunderstanding from ObliterationX's post; I take full blame for not adequately describing the scenario. In my scenario, the colonel and the major are not just playing games against random cooks; they are targeting this cook specifically. In my scenario, I was trying to indicate that, hypothetically, a high ranked player could bully a lower-ranked player by joining many of that lower-ranked players games.

In real life, I'm the first person to say "suck it up, cupcake" or "sorry about your little butt" or something similar; and if I were placed in a similar situation as the hypothetical cook, I would certainly suck it up. However, I suspect if this happens on a regular basis (and I don't know if it does), more new players are going to quit rather than suck it up.

i dont see the problem here, yes it can be done and yes it sucks for the cook, but that is why there is a FOE button.

so where's the problem dawg?

jaimito101 wrote:i dont see the problem here, yes it can be done and yes it sucks for the cook, but that is why there is a FOE button.

so where's the problem dawg?

Yeah, FAMO is the answer I suppose.

thegreekdog wrote:I want to re-explain, based on what I think is a misunderstanding from ObliterationX's post; I take full blame for not adequately describing the scenario. In my scenario, the colonel and the major are not just playing games against random cooks; they are targeting this cook specifically. In my scenario, I was trying to indicate that, hypothetically, a high ranked player could bully a lower-ranked player by joining many of that lower-ranked players games.

In real life, I'm the first person to say "suck it up, cupcake" or "sorry about your little butt" or something similar; and if I were placed in a similar situation as the hypothetical cook, I would certainly suck it up. However, I suspect if this happens on a regular basis (and I don't know if it does), more new players are going to quit rather than suck it up.

One glaring problem with this "hypothetical" is that to most people that stay on top of current affairs, it was asking the community what they thought about the actions of two well know players..... Good hypothetical question. Your timing just SUXED BALLS and might even be thought of as deliberate.... I dislike anything that appears to ask for more regulation rather than less, on the whole this site is well run, most of the mods exercise their powers well, and the vast majority of players abide by the rules and play within the "spirit" of the site/game. What people sometimes forget, in particular those on site to say not play. THIS IS A WAR GAME, there have to be winners and losers. We all started somewhere, and getting beat by people with more experience taught us a few things. I learn the hard way, by making mistakes, and scoff at instructionals. Learn by doing, knowledge earnt is knowledge retained, don't cry cause someone is whupping your arse. Think of a way to whup them twice as hard.

BoganGod wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I want to re-explain, based on what I think is a misunderstanding from ObliterationX's post; I take full blame for not adequately describing the scenario. In my scenario, the colonel and the major are not just playing games against random cooks; they are targeting this cook specifically. In my scenario, I was trying to indicate that, hypothetically, a high ranked player could bully a lower-ranked player by joining many of that lower-ranked players games.

In real life, I'm the first person to say "suck it up, cupcake" or "sorry about your little butt" or something similar; and if I were placed in a similar situation as the hypothetical cook, I would certainly suck it up. However, I suspect if this happens on a regular basis (and I don't know if it does), more new players are going to quit rather than suck it up.

One glaring problem with this "hypothetical" is that to most people that stay on top of current affairs, it was asking the community what they thought about the actions of two well know players..... Good hypothetical question. Your timing just SUXED BALLS and might even be thought of as deliberate.... I dislike anything that appears to ask for more regulation rather than less, on the whole this site is well run, most of the mods exercise their powers well, and the vast majority of players abide by the rules and play within the "spirit" of the site/game. What people sometimes forget, in particular those on site to say not play. THIS IS A WAR GAME, there have to be winners and losers. We all started somewhere, and getting beat by people with more experience taught us a few things. I learn the hard way, by making mistakes, and scoff at instructionals. Learn by doing, knowledge earnt is knowledge retained, don't cry cause someone is whupping your arse. Think of a way to whup them twice as hard.

Obviously the timing of the OP was related to current affairs; I had not thought of it until now (which, in and of itself might indicate that this is a non-issue).

In any event, as I said, it's one thing to get your ass whipped on a regular basis; it's another thing to get your ass whipped by the same dude in your first 20 games on the site because the guy keeps joining your games. There is a difference between the former and the latter... call it targeting of a specific player. If I'm a cook and I'm getting my ass kicked by 20 different players in 20 different games, I probably wouldn't think I was being bullied. If I'm a cook and I'm getting my ass kicked by 1 guy in 20 different games, that's a different story.

thegreekdog wrote:

BoganGod wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I want to re-explain, based on what I think is a misunderstanding from ObliterationX's post; I take full blame for not adequately describing the scenario. In my scenario, the colonel and the major are not just playing games against random cooks; they are targeting this cook specifically. In my scenario, I was trying to indicate that, hypothetically, a high ranked player could bully a lower-ranked player by joining many of that lower-ranked players games.

In real life, I'm the first person to say "suck it up, cupcake" or "sorry about your little butt" or something similar; and if I were placed in a similar situation as the hypothetical cook, I would certainly suck it up. However, I suspect if this happens on a regular basis (and I don't know if it does), more new players are going to quit rather than suck it up.

One glaring problem with this "hypothetical" is that to most people that stay on top of current affairs, it was asking the community what they thought about the actions of two well know players..... Good hypothetical question. Your timing just SUXED BALLS and might even be thought of as deliberate.... I dislike anything that appears to ask for more regulation rather than less, on the whole this site is well run, most of the mods exercise their powers well, and the vast majority of players abide by the rules and play within the "spirit" of the site/game. What people sometimes forget, in particular those on site to say not play. THIS IS A WAR GAME, there have to be winners and losers. We all started somewhere, and getting beat by people with more experience taught us a few things. I learn the hard way, by making mistakes, and scoff at instructionals. Learn by doing, knowledge earnt is knowledge retained, don't cry cause someone is whupping your arse. Think of a way to whup them twice as hard.

Obviously the timing of the OP was related to current affairs; I had not thought of it until now (which, in and of itself might indicate that this is a non-issue).

In any event, as I said, it's one thing to get your ass whipped on a regular basis; it's another thing to get your ass whipped by the same dude in your first 20 games on the site because the guy keeps joining your games. There is a difference between the former and the latter... call it targeting of a specific player. If I'm a cook and I'm getting my ass kicked by 20 different players in 20 different games, I probably wouldn't think I was being bullied. If I'm a cook and I'm getting my ass kicked by 1 guy in 20 different games, that's a different story.

If you are a cook and getting killed by the same player in every game, why dont you just foe them? Or learn?

I myself have absolutely smashed some players repeatedly, and they sure werent cooks, and they sure werent noobs. Some have foed me for it, and some havent...and those who havent, I have no problem joining knowing I have a near 75% chance of winning against. But all they have to do is hit foe, and it ends...or, they change their strategy and learn, which is what I try to do when the players that beat me 75% of the time join against me.

Im not necessarily condoning targeting players, but if the player doesnt like it they need only click foe, and they will never, ever, ever see that player again....so its just an irrelevant point of discussion in the end.

Yes, FAMO is a good solution; except that a new player doesn't necessarily now the foe button and would likely leave the site rather than figure out that he can foe a player. I have no stats to back that theory up, I'm just thinking about when I was new.

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, FAMO is a good solution; except that a new player doesn't necessarily now the foe button and would likely leave the site rather than figure out that he can foe a player. I have no stats to back that theory up, I'm just thinking about when I was new.

I hear ya, I just think the likelyhood of many players leaving before figuring out another solution...or actually finding a way to win, seems slim.

I have however, argued many times for anti-farming regs to protect the newest users, but in doing so, have realized the complete logistical nightmare of doing so, and in the end, its a game, and we all really do have to learn sometime. And at any time if a player wants to win games, they just have to hit 2 player on any ordinary map.

Its an option I didnt even have in the beginning, so how any player can possibly get frustrated by losing a whole bunch of games, and not just starting an easy 2 player game is beyond me. And if they cant win on an easy 2 player map..well, theres really just nothing that can be done at that point, its on them to learn.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BoganGod wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I want to re-explain, based on what I think is a misunderstanding from ObliterationX's post; I take full blame for not adequately describing the scenario. In my scenario, the colonel and the major are not just playing games against random cooks; they are targeting this cook specifically. In my scenario, I was trying to indicate that, hypothetically, a high ranked player could bully a lower-ranked player by joining many of that lower-ranked players games.

In real life, I'm the first person to say "suck it up, cupcake" or "sorry about your little butt" or something similar; and if I were placed in a similar situation as the hypothetical cook, I would certainly suck it up. However, I suspect if this happens on a regular basis (and I don't know if it does), more new players are going to quit rather than suck it up.

One glaring problem with this "hypothetical" is that to most people that stay on top of current affairs, it was asking the community what they thought about the actions of two well know players..... Good hypothetical question. Your timing just SUXED BALLS and might even be thought of as deliberate.... I dislike anything that appears to ask for more regulation rather than less, on the whole this site is well run, most of the mods exercise their powers well, and the vast majority of players abide by the rules and play within the "spirit" of the site/game. What people sometimes forget, in particular those on site to say not play. THIS IS A WAR GAME, there have to be winners and losers. We all started somewhere, and getting beat by people with more experience taught us a few things. I learn the hard way, by making mistakes, and scoff at instructionals. Learn by doing, knowledge earnt is knowledge retained, don't cry cause someone is whupping your arse. Think of a way to whup them twice as hard.

Obviously the timing of the OP was related to current affairs; I had not thought of it until now (which, in and of itself might indicate that this is a non-issue).

In any event, as I said, it's one thing to get your ass whipped on a regular basis; it's another thing to get your ass whipped by the same dude in your first 20 games on the site because the guy keeps joining your games. There is a difference between the former and the latter... call it targeting of a specific player. If I'm a cook and I'm getting my ass kicked by 20 different players in 20 different games, I probably wouldn't think I was being bullied. If I'm a cook and I'm getting my ass kicked by 1 guy in 20 different games, that's a different story.

If you are a cook and getting killed by the same player in every game, why dont you just foe them? Or learn?

A reasonably new cook or someone who doesn't get into the fora at all may not have any idea what "foeing" is if they didn't pay close attention to the rules and such.