Suggestion: New Recruit Amnesty (with Poll)

[Jeff Hardy]

cc really needs this

[Jeff Hardy]

• I made the decision to farm
• It is my decision to make
• The games I join are of no business to anyone
• Any limitation of who people should join games against is against our rights as customers
• There is a point system put in place to prevent against farming, and it works

no offence max, but WHAT BULLSHIT!!!!

if i made a secret alliance with another player in a game, would that be ok?
after all, im a customer and its my decision to make
not letting me make secret alliance or even a multi is against my rights as a customer

and no, the system obviously doesnt prevent farming, you are living evidence of that[/list]

[spiesr]

if i made a secret alliance with another player in a game, would that be ok?

The difference there is that is actually against a rule...

[PepperJack]

I support the idea of New Recruit Amnesty and have voted as such but I feel there are concerns that have yet to be addressed.

The first of which has been previously mentioned. That being the throwing of game to new recruits. In a terminator game eliminations could work as currently constructed but what about standard games? Would a new recruit win mean that no points are exchanged? Would the points go to second, but the unique defeats go to the n.r.? Should new recruits just be limited to terminator only scoring to try and dodge the problem entirely? Just spitballin'.

The second concern I have is this, what good is new recrut amnesty if the graduates are still just as clueless as before? There are plenty of members on the site that have played 1000s of games and still attack 3v3, attack every neutral in sight, and go for "zone" bonuses in escalating. A true "Noob Island" atmosphere needs to be created to minimize noobish behavior in the general population. Whether this is through the creation of the previously suggested flash tutorial, forcing players to read the instructions once (specifically regarding freestyle), a volunteer run big brother program (like the Society of Cooks but more mandatory) or something else, it should happen in conjunction with this idea. Again, just spitballin'.

[maxatstuy]

I don't think we can go ahead with this. Even though it will prevent abuse, people will be pissed off much more when they are stuck with a New Recruit Deadbeat (NRD). The NRD issue would become a much bigger problem than it is now, because the points act like compensation for the bad experience of playing with a NRD.

The decision was already rendered in another thread

The lame duck arguments put forth put the "farmers guild" only make me think that this must be a good idea as they are fighting so hard to stop it.

C.

The Farmers Guild is not commenting, I am, and the only reason I am commenting as much as I currently am is not as a result of my believing this will be put through otherwise, it is because I find the absurdities which you people are not answering rather humorous. Noobs are not allowed to join some games, but they start plenty, and as a result, team games are created.

no offence max, but WHAT BULLSHIT!!!!

if i made a secret alliance with another player in a game, would that be ok?
after all, im a customer and its my decision to make
not letting me make secret alliance or even a multi is against my rights as a customer

and no, the system obviously doesnt prevent farming, you are living evidence of that[/list]

The reason why rules are created is to better the site, and making multiple accounts would prevent people from purchasing premium as they could gain the same benefit of unlimited games without. Noob games do not prevent the new recruits from returning, it is just utilizing my knowlege that they probably will for my advantage. It does not hurt anyone or detract from others scores in any way like secret alliances would, and chosing to play people who I enjoy playing is the reason for why my premium was purchased; so yes, the changes proposed would infringe on my rights as a customer.

I play games I find fun. If you dont find them enjoyable then there is no reason you should partake in playing them. However, it is my right to play whomever I chose.

[trinicardinal]

A great suggestion, and one that has come up before.

A question from me about the incentive of it - a lot of newbies will play higher ranks specifically because of the point incentive. How do you:
a) inform them that they shouldn't go find the highest ranker because it's not going to get them points
b) keep them incentivized (is that a word) if they don't win points for their first 5 games if points are such a big motivator?
c) encourage other users to play newbies if they aren't worth anything and tend to deadbeat?

How about an automated pm from the admins descrbing farming in detail and how to avoid it and how to make the best out of their 5 games they have of losing no points
Ex: keep to simple maps like classic set or shapes and stay away from fedual war of AoR maps till u get the hang of things

Nice idea btw

I like the automated pm idea. Also if the "Noob" training school is adequately highlighted up front then i think it would be accepted. New players should be careful about what games they join as well. If they are warned they can hopefully make better decisions.

[PepperJack]

I don't think we can go ahead with this. Even though it will prevent abuse, people will be pissed off much more when they are stuck with a New Recruit Deadbeat (NRD). The NRD issue would become a much bigger problem than it is now, because the points act like compensation for the bad experience of playing with a NRD.

The decision was already rendered in another thread

I would hardly call that a decision. Lack merely voiced his concerns with the idea. As such, the discussion continues. If a [Rejected] tag had been put on the topic, you'd have been right.

no offence max, but WHAT BULLSHIT!!!!

if i made a secret alliance with another player in a game, would that be ok?
after all, im a customer and its my decision to make
not letting me make secret alliance or even a multi is against my rights as a customer

and no, the system obviously doesnt prevent farming, you are living evidence of that[/list]

The reason why rules are created is to better the site, and making multiple accounts would prevent people from purchasing premium as they could gain the same benefit of unlimited games without. Noob games do not prevent the new recruits from returning, it is just utilizing my knowlege that they probably will for my advantage. It does not hurt anyone or detract from others scores in any way like secret alliances would, and chosing to play people who I enjoy playing is the reason for why my premium was purchased; so yes, the changes proposed would infringe on my rights as a customer.

I play games I find fun. If you dont find them enjoyable then there is no reason you should partake in playing them. However, it is my right to play whomever I chose.

Max, your rights as a customer would not be infringed on at all. You would be free to play all the noob games you wanted still. Also, you did not pay for the ability to play noobs.

In return for your support, Premium Membership earns you the following benefits:

* Play UNLIMITED simultaneous games
* Play thrilling real-time SPEED games
* Create password-protected PRIVATE games (which Free members may join, too)
* Have a GOLDEN rank icon display next to your name
* Feel that WARM and FUZZY feeling you get from supporting a website that you love

I do not see farming in those bullets. The scoring system is identical for both paying and non-paying customers, therefore changing it is immaterial to "contract" you entered into with CC as a consumer. And if I remember correctly, its not like you actually paid for your own membership.

[maxatstuy]

In return for your support, Premium Membership earns you the following benefits:

* Play UNLIMITED simultaneous games
* Play thrilling real-time SPEED games
* Create password-protected PRIVATE games (which Free members may join, too)
* Have a GOLDEN rank icon display next to your name
* Feel that WARM and FUZZY feeling you get from supporting a website that you love

I do not see farming in those bullets. The scoring system is identical for both paying and non-paying customers, therefore changing it is immaterial to "contract" you entered into with CC as a consumer. And if I remember correctly, its not like you actually paid for your own membership.

Its reasons like this why I love the English language...UNLIMITED simultaneous games is granted by the purchasing of premium membership. UNLIMITED implies that I can play as many games as I can at once, which implies that I can play any public game I chose, hence by not allowing me to play noobs, that UNLIMITED would be infringed upon, similarly to the way which the block infringes on my rights as a customer. No points for nobs is not what I am referring to, I am refrencing the other rooms for noobs alone to play in.

The person who paid for my account is irrelavant. Premium was purchased for maxatstuy, and maxatstuy's games would be limited.

[yeti_c]

Its reasons like this why I love the English language...UNLIMITED simultaneous games is granted by the purchasing of premium membership. UNLIMITED implies that I can play as many games as I can at once, which implies that I can play any public game I chose, hence by not allowing me to play noobs, that UNLIMITED would be infringed upon, similarly to the way which the block infringes on my rights as a customer. No points for nobs is not what I am referring to, I am refrencing the other rooms for noobs alone to play in.

No it doesn't - it directly refers to the 4 game LIMIT that is lifted by becoming Premium as opposed to being Freemium.

It doesn't say - and in fact cannot say - that you can play any game you wish or please - as that is impossible - there are many games on this site that I cannot play - private games, tournament games that I am not in, games that have already started... by your rather lame attempt at saying "unlimited" games implies that I have a right to enter any and all games despite their stipulations... so - I suggest you leave one of your games - I have a categorical right to play in it - and you're in the way.

C.

[maxatstuy]

Its reasons like this why I love the English language...UNLIMITED simultaneous games is granted by the purchasing of premium membership. UNLIMITED implies that I can play as many games as I can at once, which implies that I can play any public game I chose, hence by not allowing me to play noobs, that UNLIMITED would be infringed upon, similarly to the way which the block infringes on my rights as a customer. No points for nobs is not what I am referring to, I am refrencing the other rooms for noobs alone to play in.

No it doesn't - it directly refers to the 4 game LIMIT that is lifted by becoming Premium as opposed to being Freemium.

It doesn't say - and in fact cannot say - that you can play any game you wish or please - as that is impossible - there are many games on this site that I cannot play - private games, tournament games that I am not in, games that have already started... by your rather lame attempt at saying "unlimited" games implies that I have a right to enter any and all games despite their stipulations... so - I suggest you leave one of your games - I have a categorical right to play in it - and you're in the way.

C.

Unlimited games means that you can play as many as you want. Virtually you can join every game up as long as it is not password protected or with someone who is a foe. As a result, if there are only 100 games up that meet those specifications, you have the ability to join all 100 of them, and if 10 of them are against noobs, saying that you cannot play people because of their rank is limiting you maximum game capacity by 10%, that is not unlimited.

[PepperJack]

Unlimited =/= Every

I have the right to vote, but I can't vote in every state. I can't believe there are elections that happened without my voice!

[Nikolai]

This is an excellent idea. EXCELLENT.

[hecter]

Unlimited games means that you can play as many as you want. Virtually you can join every game up as long as it is not password protected or with someone who is a foe. As a result, if there are only 100 games up that meet those specifications, you have the ability to join all 100 of them, and if 10 of them are against noobs, saying that you cannot play people because of their rank is limiting you maximum game capacity by 10%, that is not unlimited.

1. As it has been stated, unlimited =/= every
2. This suggestion will mean that you're more than welcome to play as many games as you like against as many new recruits as you like, though you won't gain or lose any points versus them.

[cicero]

Unlimited games means that you can play as many as you want. Virtually you can join every game up as long as it is not password protected or with someone who is a foe. As a result, if there are only 100 games up that meet those specifications, you have the ability to join all 100 of them, and if 10 of them are against noobs, saying that you cannot play people because of their rank is limiting you maximum game capacity by 10%, that is not unlimited.

I think you need to check your logic Maxastuy. "Unlimited games means that you can play as many as you want." - check. I agree. After that your logic falters ...
In the scenario you describe there are 90 games you can play. If you want to play more games then start some more. There is no limit on the number of games you can play.
There is only a limit on the type of games you can play. As you rightly point out you cannot join private games and foe prohibited games. This suggestion is for an extension to that list of types. It won't affect the number of games you can play. That will remain unlimited.

[e_i_pi]

Its reasons like this why I love the English language...UNLIMITED simultaneous games is granted by the purchasing of premium membership. UNLIMITED implies that I can play as many games as I can at once, which implies that I can play any public game I chose, hence by not allowing me to play noobs, that UNLIMITED would be infringed upon, similarly to the way which the block infringes on my rights as a customer. No points for nobs is not what I am referring to, I am refrencing the other rooms for noobs alone to play in.

The person who paid for my account is irrelavant. Premium was purchased for maxatstuy, and maxatstuy's games would be limited.

I'm not suggesting that you couldn't play noobs max. You can still play noobs to the exclusion of everyone else, just as you do now. You simply wouldn't get 4 points a game for it. Really max think about it, it's just 4 points a game, that's 20 points. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the 4500 odd you have now, in fact it's less than half a percent. And as an added bonus, you wouldn't run the risk of losing points, which I notice you point out quite often. It's a win win situation for you.

[e_i_pi]

I support the idea of New Recruit Amnesty and have voted as such but I feel there are concerns that have yet to be addressed.

The first of which has been previously mentioned. That being the throwing of game to new recruits. In a terminator game eliminations could work as currently constructed but what about standard games? Would a new recruit win mean that no points are exchanged? Would the points go to second, but the unique defeats go to the n.r.? Should new recruits just be limited to terminator only scoring to try and dodge the problem entirely? Just spitballin'.

That's something that happens now with people throwing games to higher ranks, so it's not like it would open a Pandora's box. Also, keep in mind that if a New Recruit deadbeats, they automatically lose. Throwing a game to a noob wouldn't necessarily yield the results you're after. Also, this behaviour you're suggesting is against the rules, and therefore punishable. I would argue that it is easier to spot someone throwing a game than it is to detect a secret alliance.

The second concern I have is this, what good is new recrut amnesty if the graduates are still just as clueless as before?

As I pointed out in the first post:
This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Points farming of New Recruits will no longer occur
• Overall points inflation from New Recruits joining only to leave immediately will no longer occur
• New Recruits get a chance to learn the basics of how to play and how to use the game page before they risk losing points
• New Recruits will be more likely to be returning players, and so paying customers
• Creating multi's as sacrifical points lambs will no longer occur
• Ex players who have been permabanned will no longer be able to create a new account to attack established players points

All of these points, all of the original points, still remain valid. This isn't about making unstoppable noobs. A neat side-effect is that it would open an opportunity to create a true newbie area to practice in.

I started playing EVE Online about 3 months ago. I played for 3-5 days, thought it was great, and paid the $50 to play for more than the 2 week noob period. Little did I realise that EVE suffers from the same thing CC suffers from. Experienced players hanging round on the fringes picking off noobs constantly. I stopped playing EVE about 7 days after I started, 2 days after I purchased. That's right, I stopped after handing over $50, because my experience was so marred by getting farmed. The farming that occurs here is as bad, or worse, than EVE.

Something a lot of people don't realise is that site traffic has stagnated over the past 12 months. After having steady rises for over a year, it has flattened off. I'm not talking about the seasonal trend, where people play less this time of year. I'm talking about it flattening off over a 1 year period. If you don't believe me, go here. I remember seeing a post by Twill of the site traffic from inception. It shows the period prior to October '07, with a steady rise from 0 to 15k. Since Dec '07, it has meandered between 23k and 30k. This is despite more and better quality maps being on offer, more tournaments than ever, and more clans than ever. I strongly doubt the removal of Classic, and the wicked fiasco caused the inhibition of a projected 7k-10k extra customers. I think if you read through the forums, you'll see quite clearly what are the main detractions from the site... take this thread as an example - 89 replies, 686 views.... in 5 days.

[AndrewB]

How about limiting who you can play against? I.E. a person with rating of 1500 can only play guys in lets say 1000-2000 points range...

I've suggested that several times...

[hecter]

How about limiting who you can play against? I.E. a person with rating of 1500 can only play guys in lets say 1000-2000 points range...

I've suggested that several times...

And it's a terrible idea that's been rejected many times.

[spiesr]

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
[list]
[*]Points farming of noobs will be reduced
[*]Overall points inflation from New Recruits joining only to leave immediately will be reduced
[*]New Recruits get a chance to learn the basics of how to play and how to use the game page before they risk losing points
[*]New Recruits will be more likely to be returning players, and so paying customers I don't see how this would necessary happen, not being able to gain or lose points for the first five games would not likely lead to an increase of paying members.
[*]Creating multi's as sacrifical points lambs will take longer
[*]Ex players who have been permabanned will have to spend more time to be able to create a new account to attack established players points[/list}

Edits in blue...
This isn't exactly the magic solution you claim it to be.

[hecter]

Point farming of noobs will be greatly reduced if not eliminated, as you won't get any points from them until they gain a rank, at which point it's impossible to tell how many games they've played (short of looking at their profile, which I doubt you'd want to do for up 7 players a game and a grand total of four points). Over all point inflation from people joining and leaving right away will be just about eliminated, as most people who do that join four games and never come back. So for all those people who stick around for 6 games, you're probably only looking at maybe 1000 points added to the pool a month. New recruits will be more likely to return because when they come in and find that the first game they play is a map that makes absolutely no sense against an opponent on the first page of the scoreboard, and end up getting their ass kicked. First impressions mean everything and that's a pretty bad one. A lot of people will go on and on about how NR's care oh so much about points, but really, when I first came here I didn't even realize there was a point system let alone cared, and I think that's pretty common for most people who stick around long enough to take more than a turn or two (that number would increase exponentially if you included the New Recruit deadbeats). Besides, it's five games. If you're so desperate to get points that five games without them will make you want to leave, that's just pretty sad and I don't think you'll be staying long anyway.

[e_i_pi]

Some stark differences here spiesr. Misqouting someone doesn't work when the original is just a few pages back. Let me demonstrate:

• Points farming of noobs will be reduced
• Overall points inflation from New Recruits joining only to leave immediately will be reduced
• New Recruits get a chance to learn the basics of how to play and how to use the game page before they risk losing points
• New Recruits will be more likely to be returning players, and so paying customers I don't see how this would necessary happen, not being able to gain or lose points for the first five games would not likely lead to an increase of paying members.
• Creating multi's as sacrifical points lambs will take longer
• Ex players who have been permabanned will have to spend more time to be able to create a new account to attack established players points

Edits in blue...
This isn't exactly the magic solution you claim it to be.

ORIGINAL TEXT

• Points farming of New Recruits will no longer occur
• Overall points inflation from New Recruits joining only to leave immediately will no longer occur

I wasn't talking about noobs, I was talking about New Recruits. There is a difference. Noobs are generally regular to the site, New Recruits are not necessarily. New Recruits are a subset of noobs - ie, all New Recruits are noobs, but not all noobs are New Recruits.

New Recruits will be more likely to be returning players, and so paying customers I don't see how this would necessary happen, not being able to gain or lose points for the first five games would not likely lead to an increase of paying members.

In a nutshell, people generally don't have fun being farmed. You can argue the case if you like, but I don't think you'll find much support for it. I explained this in the post above:

I started playing EVE Online about 3 months ago. I played for 3-5 days, thought it was great, and paid the $50 to play for more than the 2 week noob period. Little did I realise that EVE suffers from the same thing CC suffers from. Experienced players hanging round on the fringes picking off noobs constantly. I stopped playing EVE about 7 days after I started, 2 days after I purchased. That's right, I stopped after handing over $50, because my experience was so marred by getting farmed. The farming that occurs here is as bad, or worse, than EVE.

...and this...

Noob Zones are the lifeblood of online gaming. That is why every MMORPG has one.

But I can see your point. I guess Blizzard, Sony Online Entertainment, Square Enix, FunCom, and Origin Systems must all have it wrong You should write to them and tell them that noob zones are pointless and do nothing for their customer base.

• Creating multi's as sacrifical points lambs will take longer
• Ex players who have been permabanned will have to spend more time to be able to create a new account to attack established players points

These last two I'll pay. With the caveat that I have yet to hear a reason why taking longer for these things to occur is to the detriment of the site.

In fact, I haven't heard a single argument as to why this would be bad for the site. All I have heard is people whining about their rights as farmers, and the odd person saying that scoring zero points for 5 games would be boring. Scoring -20 to -80 points for 5 games of course being far more interesting. As I have said before, every MMORPG has a newb zone. Newb zones work, they are tried and true, contribute to a new players enjoyment at being welcomed to the game, and help ease the transition between not knowing whats going on to being in competition with a vast pool of experienced players

[Twill]

OK, first things:

Max, shut up, you're just being plain annoying at this point (and I don't tell people that often). You do NOT, under any moral, ethical, legal or religious framework have any right to do whatever you want. The only right you have unequivocally, is to leave should you not like the way this business is run.

The scoreboard is there to reflect skill, not "hard" work. We limit how people play in many ways already - you are not allowed to create multis, you are not allowed to strategically account sit, you are not allowed to engage in secret alliances. CC takes the stance that we protect the integrity of the many, not the one and all of these limitations reflect that. Yes, these are rules which limit what people can and cannot do, and yes, we may make a rule to limit new recruit farming, it is within our right to stop abuses of the game and the scoring system. So, just stop making that argument, it's right up there with the argument that we are Nazi's. It's lame and it is just beating a dead horse. It's dead. It's not going to get any dead-er. Move on.

Yeesh.

Ok, rant over.

Secondly, "noob islands" only work if there are incentives (you are getting weapons, armour, exp in MMO islands) and if there is training (you're learning how to control the character). With a CC noob island, there is training, but little incentive under the current proposal.

Third, Here's my ideal solution to this problem, but this is a MASSIVE project for Lack to undertake, so pick and choose if you will but I doubt much of this will ever see the light because it would require significant changes to underlying code. If it does, it will be long in the future, so don't hold your breathes.

1) No points for new recruit deadbeats - this deals with the problem of farming deadbeats but still leaves an incentive open for the new players to finish and score. If it's only deadbeats, it also solves the problem of throwing games to newbies.
2) Limit maps to Classic, Asia, USA for the first 2 games completed, open up to "simple" maps after 2 games completed and complex maps after 5 games - this limits the general "farm circus/waterloo" because noobs think these maps are cool but oh boy are they wrong. It also gives people a target to work towards - "look at all those maps, I really want to try map xyz, I better finish 2 games"
3) Change the 3 day boot rule to a 1 day "vote off the island" rule - after 24 hours if 75% of players in the game vote to remove the player from the game then they are removed or their turn is skipped. There is no limit on how long you can wait before voting. A message would appear asking for the users to attempt contact as common courtesy before booting, but they can ignore it - This deals with the annoyance of having 6 players deadbeat out of a game if you are limited to only 4 games, thus removing the largest barrier to no points from new recruit deadbeats (it's 6 days instead of 18 days of waiting). It also means that in a game of friends, one can go away for a week and not have to miss a turn if everyone is willing to wait.
4) We are already working with the Society of the Cooks to scale up their model to provide training to new recruits on a semi-formal basis.
5) Create a system where new players are allowed 1 no-points speed training game with a Society trainer (with a trainer rating system). There are many safeguards built into this system that do not need to be elaborated here. This solves training, "get right into the action" problems where people are impatient and gets that first game out of the way really quick.

I think that was it. It's the combination of several large ideas which have been floated of proposed over the years. Any one of these is a relatively major undertaking from a coding or logistical standpoint. Together, they could be a fricking nightmare, but hey, if you guys can think of an easy way to cut down the amount of work then I'm all ears


As for ways to create a simple way to reduce the problem of NRD's, I'd say that if it can be framed as a training time, with an incentive to get to more maps (each completed game reveals a new batch of maps) then yes, it could be done to remove points entirely from new recruits. This does not solve King Maker problems where you throw the game to a NR, so that will need addressing...and while a rule could work, it generally doesn't


Twill

[stahrgazer]

Zero points from/for New Recruits to minimize multis? FANTASTIC idea!

New recruits can play each other if nothing else, but I'm usually willing to help someone learn the game, and I know others who are, as well. I'd be even MORE willing if I knew they can't be out to manipulate me into stealing my points, as I've so often had because of my willingness to coach a new player.

"half points" compromise? Why bother? 500 points is still a lot of rank for multis.

Third compromise: New players start with 5 points, gain 1 point, lose 1 point, when they play. Gives them the general idea and feeling without being SO MANY points that it's worth multi-isms or discouraging to a higher rank who'd otherwise be helpful.

[Jeff Hardy]

1) and 2) are the best
both would stop farming

1) No points for new recruit deadbeats - this deals with the problem of farming deadbeats but still leaves an incentive open for the new players to finish and score. If it's only deadbeats, it also solves the problem of throwing games to newbies.
2) Limit maps to Classic, Asia, USA for the first 2 games completed, open up to "simple" maps after 2 games completed and complex maps after 5 games - this limits the general "farm circus/waterloo" because noobs think these maps are cool but oh boy are they wrong. It also gives people a target to work towards - "look at all those maps, I really want to try map xyz, I better finish 2 games"

a shame this will never

see the light

[yeti_c]

"Throwing a game to a NR" isn't *that* big of a problem... because if someone does it (and is successful) NO-one loses any points whatsoever...

So at least throwing a game to the NR doesn't negatively impact the player who might have won (i.e. reducing their score).

Unlike the kill the noob so the colonel only takes 5 points from me instead of 50 which I feel is probably a bigger problem.

C.