New Years Resolution: Newbie Farming is not Cool.

[Jeff Hardy]

You can even increase your score to Conqueror. Just assemble a disciplined team and target teams containing cooks and no one ranked Lieutenant or above on Waterloo. If you are good enough at Waterloo you can win risk-free points in 60 out of 60 games. Your point gain is limited only to the number of games you can play.

thats what i did once, played dubs on waterloo...

the first noob was eliminated on round 3
2008-12-31 01:54:58 - Sun Tzup eliminated FarangDemon from the game

the other player put up more of a fight and did quite well but got eliminated round 5
2008-12-31 20:10:05 - Sun Tzup eliminated Americanpigdog from the game

for an easy win
2008-12-31 20:10:05 - Jeff Hardy, Sun Tzup won the game

and some easy points
2008-12-31 20:10:05 - FarangDemon loses 15 points
2008-12-31 20:10:05 - Americanpigdog loses 15 points
2008-12-31 20:10:05 - Jeff Hardy gains 15 points
2008-12-31 20:10:06 - Sun Tzup gains 15 points

[sailorseal]

Thanks for not locking the thread lack!

[King_Herpes]

Thanks for changing the title of the thread lack. Amen brother!

[a.sub]

just taking a leaf out of KH's book nice title lmao

[Mr Changsha]

while i agree with most of what youve said, i really failing to see how can someone lose 60 games in a row.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=75435

Check out the link I posted above. It explains in detail how in all 60 games containing a particular player on a particular map against teams consisting of at least one cook and nobody Lieutenant or above, the cook team lost every single one of the 60 games.

This shows that high ranked players that target teams containing cooks and no officers on Waterloo are exploiting a harvesting technique whereby they can win every game because their opponents can never win. Sure they would win eventually, given enough games, but they don't win enough to prevent technique from being profitable.

The implication is that harvesting of less skilled players may be possible on many different maps and map restrictions should be imposed to prevent players from exploiting this harvesting technique.

While Lack mentioned that the scoreboard was supposed to measure skill and not the use of harvesting techniques, he did not specifically define harvesting techniques. That is what my sug bug is attempting to do. Define harvesting techniques by looking at how often cook teams actually win against skilled, organized players.

Farangdemon's ideas remind me a lot of New Labour's social policies. Just as the poor (in New Labour's world) cannot be trusted to buy their own council house, or find their own job, or choose where their children go to school, or which hospital they want to be treated in; so our own poor (cooks) cannot be trusted to make their own gaming decisions here on CC. They need to be protected from their own incompetence, protected from the maxatstuy's and King H's of our world for their own good. Heaven forbid we ask our poor to stand on their own two feet! Luckily, Lack obviously has more sense with regards to the lower classes in his world. Here they have every right to get absolutely raped( ) time and time again by some unscrupulous high-ranker if they so desire. Just as the poor man in our societies has the right to throw his benefit check away in a casino week after week after week, so our cooks have the right to throw their points away (the horror!) in game after game on formats they don't slightly understand, or even want to understand. This is the nature of liberty, farangdemon. The liberty to completely waste your life without being sent to re-education camps (cook school), the right to idiotically hand over your wage to bookies because you can't be bothered to think about how to use the money more productively (point inflation), the liberty to quit job after job and therefore sink to the lowest socio-economic status (deadbeat).

Of course, you are merely following the path I said you would. Your social-engineering sort will never be content. You will continue to attempt to corrupt the liberties and freedoms of the people in your endless quest to remake a society in your own image. It is rank egoism. Once farming had been declared 'against the good of society' - which in your mind seems to roughly equate to the landlords exploiting the peasants - we now move on to cooks. But remember that once the landlords were liquidated in China (and I use the term correctly) it was replaced by collectivisation, mass poverty and starvation.

The trouble with the farangdemon's of this world has always been that on the surface they seem so virtuous, honest and good. They want equality, fairness and, most of all, order. Yet one must never be fooled. For every social-engineer is as selfish as any rank capitalist as well as being markedly less honest. He will demand equality in an effort to raise himself beyond the masses, preach fairness as he rigs the system as thoroughly as any fat cat CEO.

[FarangDemon]

I don't really see what these political labels have to do with fixing the scoring system to eliminate farming.

You can rant about politics all you want, but in the end everybody knows that you favor a system where the only way to get to the top is by using harvesting techniques. Why don't you stick to the topic and address this?

Many of you guys keep posting saying the same old arguments:

1. Low skilled players deserve to lose points.

Rebuttal: Nobody says they don't. Rather, the whole community prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming. If certain lower skilled players are unable to get farmed as a result of keeping with this community goal, then so be it. Their protection is NOT the reason for the anti-farming countermeasures, but is a by-product of a competitive scoring system that does not allow one to farm their way to the top.

2. Cooks should be able to play any map they want.

Rebuttal: Yes they should. Just make sure that points are not exchanged if historical data show that the map settings and players' skill levels correspond to point harvesting.

3. It is impossible to prevent farming of low skilled players

Rebuttal: Just extend the initial countermeasures that Lack has instituted to prevent farming of Newbies to cover all proven harvesting techniques. Let the data decide.

4. Farangdemon is a whiner for wanting a scoring system where you cannot farm your way to the top.

[Mr Changsha]

I don't really see what these political labels have to do with fixing the scoring system to eliminate farming.

You can rant about politics all you want, but in the end everybody knows that you favor a system where the only way to get to the top is by using harvesting techniques. Why don't you stick to the topic and address this?

Many of you guys keep posting saying the same old arguments:

1. Low skilled players deserve to lose points.

Rebuttal: Nobody says they don't. Rather, the whole community prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming. If certain lower skilled players are unable to get farmed as a result of keeping with this community goal, then so be it. Their protection is NOT the reason for the anti-farming countermeasures, but is a by-product of a competitive scoring system that does not allow one to farm their way to the top.

2. Cooks should be able to play any map they want.

Rebuttal: Yes they should. Just make sure that points are not exchanged if historical data show that the map settings and players' skill levels correspond to point harvesting.

3. It is impossible to prevent farming of low skilled players

Rebuttal: Just extend the initial countermeasures that Lack has instituted to prevent farming of Newbies to cover all proven harvesting techniques. Let the data decide.

4. Farangdemon is a whiner for wanting a scoring system where you cannot farm your way to the top.

Let's consider the defence...

Many of you guys keep posting saying the same old arguments:

No, that would be you. My arguments have been continuously inventive, original and, dare I say it, obviously completely over your head - judging by your last response.

You can rant about politics all you want, but in the end everybody knows that you favor a system where the only way to get to the top is by using harvesting techniques

Have you even read anything I have written on this topic? I sometimes wonder. You know I couldn't care less who is at the top of the table or, for that matter, how they got there. You also know that what concerns me are efforts to limit the kinds of games players can play. That is my real concern. I also believe that your efforts are entirely self-centred. I don't for one minute think you care a fig about the low-ranking players on CC. You care absolutely about your own progression up the leaderboard. That's your concern and you're welcome to it. What truly, absolutely and completely bothers me is that you would be happy to limit other player's enjoyment of the game in your pursuit of, what, the top 50?

Now I am a much more reliable and trustworthy scribe. For one, I have already achieved my objective: to be a large singles games player at the major rank. Unlike you, I can be completely objective about the whole thing for I have no personal interest in being in the top 250. If I could make colonel eventually that would be great, but such an ambition is entirely unrelated to what you, or anyone else, is doing on CC. Secondly, I play low-ranking players all the time as the majority of my games are large, public, singles games. I play everyone and anyone. On that basis, I am well-qualifed to consider whether cooks, cadets or privates (because you can't just stop at cooks once you start down your path) should be playing in my games.

So...

2. Cooks should be able to play any map they want.

Rebuttal: Yes they should. Just make sure that points are not exchanged if historical data show that the map settings and players' skill levels correspond to point harvesting

Glad you agree lower ranks should be able to play maps they like playing. Maybe there is hope for you yet! How about being able to play WHO they want to play? Not sure from your answer, but I'm guessing that's ok too. But they can't lose points? Ah, the poor little deluded lambs. Better get Big Brother to look after them, huh? Let me let you into a secret. I play 2.1 large singles games with no cards. The cooks never win. Not once. The cadets, privates and even corporals are going to be pushed to win 1 in 16, even 1 in 24 on that map and that setting. You wouldn't consider it farming, but it may as well be from the cooks perspective. They always lose. Should they give up their points? If a cook plays 1 on 1 with King H on any map freestyle they'll lose. You know it, he knows it and I know it. They'll just as surely lose if they join an 8 man no card seq. on 2.1. The cook is sure to lose in both, but I'm guessing I would get to keep his points under your system but King_H would not. For the life of me I can't see what the difference is from the cook's perspective. But then I suspect we differ in that I consider this issue from both perspectives. You seem to only think about it in relation to how it will influence the top of the scoreboard.

So, if the cook plays 1 on 1 freestyle he's stuffed. If he plays 8 man no cards or escalating he is just as stuffed, just quicker. If 3 cooks play your triples team then, you guessed it, they're stuffed. Want me to go on?

But they should have the right to jump into a top 8 man escalating game (and I've always respected those boys for keeping them public) and they should take the consequece (5 points) if they lose. They should be able to join King_H, get beat and lose those points too. It is their decision to join the game and THEY MUST take the consequence of doing so. Otherwise, what's the point of them playing at all?

[FarangDemon]

The majority of the community (this includes people of all ranks) prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming. If certain lower skilled players are unable to get farmed as a result of keeping with this community goal, then so be it. Their protection is NOT the reason for the anti-farming countermeasures, but is a by-product of a competitive scoring system that does not allow one to farm their way to the top.

You acknowledge the flaws in the scoring system that promote harvesting techniques. But because you have achieved your own limited, personal score goal, you turn around and demand that everybody else be content with the scoring system, simply because you lack the ambition, confidence or skill to excel further against your peers.

You want players to be able to farm their way to the top. That's why you crap on any suggestion that would curtail farming. Either that, or you have a personal crusade against FarangDemon's posts. Maybe that is why you derive so much pleasure from writing article-length rants about world politics and other unrelated topics in an attempt to demonize the demon instead of addressing your own reasons for defending farming.

[Mr Changsha]

This site currently has 22159 active players and 89 pages of scores. While many seem to consider that page 1 has more importance than say page 30, I don't. There are paying members throughout the scoreboard who should be treated equally by CC and so, therefore, should have the right to play any game they want and win and lose points in any game as well.

Any measures to limit lower ranks gaming options is wrong on this basis.

With regards to my own motivations you can be sure I am not short on gaming confidence, or ability at what I do. One of the great differences between us is simply due to the kinds of games we play. My games are positively enhanced by a mix of abilities, while trips and quads are surely better played when the teams have a roughly comparable level of ability.

I have written before that the ideal solution would be for players to be divided into seperate leagues based on game style. If the majority of your games are trips, you would sit on the teams scoreboard. Maybe it could be divided between freestyle teams and sequential teams as well. Singles players could be divided into large singles players (5 and up) and small sinlges players (2, 3 and 4). However, all ranks must still have the ability to join (and learn!) from any game they so choose. To give you an example, say I asked KingH to teach me 1 on 1 freestyle over 30 games on his 5 best maps. He would probably win almost all of them. Some would say I was point dropping, others would say simply cheating to artifically inflate my pal King H's score. They might well be right. But MAYBE I really just wanted to learn how to play 1 on 1 freestyle from a top player?

So to conclude:

1. Yes, the scorebord is a joke. We all know this. However, suggestions should not be implemented that limit players enjoyment to try and tweak a scoreboard that, by its very conception, is junk.

2. Therefore, the scoreboard should be divided. Why this hasn't been done already is beyond me.

3. I have been known to write with an eye to the style of writing. However, there is usually a serious point in there somewhere and sometimes it is even CC related!

4. I'm picking on you because you write well and sensibly, farangdemon. I can't be bothered to debate with idiots.

[Sun Tzup]

I think I see the arguments here.

Farangdemon: we should have a rating system that has the most skilled players moving up to the top as opposed to the players who most carefully join only games they know they will win based upon their opponents being bad, unskilled, disorganized or ignorant. Right now our system rates people in such a way as to reward a technique of playing a whole bunch of low skill players and beating them more than it rewards playing highly skilled players and beating them. If one wants to be king they must play team games against n00bs or they will make enough points to stay high in the rankings.

solution proffered: outlaw the practice of farming.

My suggestion to accomplish the end goal of farangdemons would be to have a rating difference cap on speed games or something where a guy can only play people within a range of say 1000 points. This would keep players of relatively the same skill level playing each other. Obviously this would be met with outrage and not really work well because it would be a nightmare to hunt down players of the same ranking as you to play against. as we all want to play that would suck with such a small CC community.

I dont have a solution but I agree that it sucks that to be at the top you need to play less games and the games you play become the strategy to the top. specialization and the exclusion of learning new maps or playing sequential games or multiplayer games etc as well as farming are the only way to stay brig and go up. It even becomes pointless to play in tournaments. so many of our "best players" refuse to play in tourneys unless its a colonel and above only tourney or something like that. It would be nice to be able to play everyone without then having the excuse of "your rating is too low" imo.

The argument against:

Look this is a place where we come to play risk. regulations will just result in a morass of bull which will end up causing more problems than it solves. Farming is part of the way this site is set up and played. deal with it or go home.

My .02 is that although this might be generally true a real problem is being pointed out and should be addressed. Dont attack the messenger just address the issue he brings up. How can we make it so that rank becomes a better measure of strategic acumen and all around skill as opposed to who can most effectively farm n00bs and cherry pick their games and rely on their strengths? I dont think a rule against farming is the answer as its too arbitrary to judge and when you start grey lining people will go apeshit. There might be perhaps that you dont gain any points from someone who is more than 1000 points below you or something like that. That would change everything. maybe 2000? to be safe. that would change eeeeverything. farming wouldnt exist anymore. just an idea.

[Artimis]

Mr Changsha,

I think multiple scoreboards would be a good idea, especially considering how many different game types that are available that all require a different approach to achieve success. As in Diablo 2, multiple score boards allow players that excel at one approach to the game to be recognised for their achievements. I suspect this may already have been put forward in Sugs & Bugs, perhaps one of us could resurrect the appropriate thread?

FarangDemon,

I side with Mr Changsha on not implementing changes that would limit a players freedom of choice(especially a paying customer!) to pick and choose maps at their discretion. That's why I'm not keen on extending map restrictions to Cooks, because periodically I end up de-ranking when I join a bunch of games on a new map. I don't see why I or other players like me should be forced to mind our scores just so as to continue playing on maps we like. So maybe another approach is needed?

[Sun Tzup]

multiple scoreboards seems a fair way to address the problem. We could have a farmers board, a multi map board, 8 man 7 man etc. what would the boards be and where would we draw the line?

[x_lord_of_war_x]

I agree with lack on this, people dont like losing so therefore it could really affect his buisness, but i think that those who take offense to this are probably the ones doing it...There are ways to fix this and my suggestion would be to make it where only people within a certain rank can play games vs provisional status members...this would possibly stop the problem...Ive started multi player games before & ended up winning because of deadbeats but that was never my intention because you risk losing more points to a lower rank then you would vs a higher rank...To be more specific I suggest that only members ranked sergeant 1st class & under can play against provisional status members in 1v1 games..

[Incandenza]

Mr Changsha, even though I'm pretty sure it's not biologically possible outside of third-rate Governator movies, I want to have your babies. Seriously, your last few posts in this thread have been absolutely world-class.

[sailorseal]

Mr Changsha, even though I'm pretty sure it's not biologically possible outside of third-rate Governator movies, I want to have your babies. Seriously, your last few posts in this thread have been absolutely world-class.

WOW

[FarangDemon]

There are paying members throughout the scoreboard who should be treated equally by CC and so, therefore, should have the right to play any game they want and win and lose points in any game as well.

In principle you could have a farming-free system that allows the best to play against the worst AND for points to always be exchanged.

However, the points exchanged would have to be calculated so that it is not a lucrative harvesting technique to farm the lower ranked as it currently is.

What I mean by this, is that if players of a certain skill level can win 95% of games against players of a lower skill level, if the high ranked player wins 1 point for each victory and loses 19 for each loss, it would not be a lucrative farming technique, because in the long term it would even out +19 - 19 = 0. Historical data can be used to determine how many points should be exchanged so that peer play is more lucrative than playing someone much lower in skill.

I'm only endorsing the "band aid" approach to limit harvesting techniques because the mods ignore all suggestions to change the scoring formula to stop farming. So since we cannot increase the amount of points the low ranked get from beating the highest ranked, the only resort is to limit exchange of points from known points harvesting techniques altogether.

I'm glad you guys are in favor of changing the scoring system. But I think the people who run this site are misunderstanding your opposition to clamp down on farming techniques as support for the status quo.

Back to my suggested band-aid:

Do you seriously think the harm of preventing cooks teams from gaining/losing points if they beat a team of 4 brigadiers on Waterloo outweighs the good it would do to the system by curtailing point harvesting? Look at the historical data. The cooks teams in question lost 60 out of 60 games to players in the top 0.5% of the scoreboard. Also, as you pointed out, they practically never win in large escalating games either. So actually, they lose nothing by not gaining points from winning because they are unable to win under these map settings.

If further point harvesting can be prevented, the inflation will stop. Eventually, the highest scores will deflate into ranges that are more conducive to peer play under the current scoring system.

[ws1]

check out PFO. perfect example

[ws1]

befa75 another example

[BoganGod]

Naming people like that, not cool bro. Act of a *^&%*(insert derogitory expletive of most insulting nature)! If your not, then retract. I don't know either players but think is a low act on your part. After less than 100games do you even know enough about the game to comment? I'm definately not the most skilled player on site.... But have found that when I lose to higher ranked players I can learn a lot about tactics and pick up a lot of useful little tricks. Deliberate targeting of lower ranked players is a negative tactic and is ultimately illogical(get more points from beating higher ranked opponent eh). Slagging people off and naming them is also negative. If you have a problem with someone, report to moderators, or go to flame wars.

[PFO]

WS1 what makes you say I am farming for points? I signed up for a game against you. I do not play to get a ranking or points. I play because it is fun to me. I have played over 900 games, I don't miss turns and I am not bitter or mean to people in any of my games. Personally I usually play 2 person sequential games because they are the most fun to me. I honestly don't care if the point system changes to stop people from farming points. I play for fun and to try to prove it to you, I'll play against you anytime, just invite me to a game. Just don't randomly accuse me of something I am not.

[cicero]

WS1 if you have a substantiated allegation to make please make a report in the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum.

In any event this thread is to discuss the Newbie Farming announcement. It is not to discuss individual players.

If this post raises any questions or comments, please PM me.

Cicero

[owenshooter]

The majority of the community (this includes people of all ranks) prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming.

is this the 74% that you have yet to prove exists yet OR a different majority. i could get behind you, if you would just stop making up numers and polls and data that don't truly exist and have no factual backing or existence.-0

[FarangDemon]

The majority of the community (this includes people of all ranks) prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming.

is this the 74% that you have yet to prove exists yet OR a different majority. i could get behind you, if you would just stop making up numers and polls and data that don't truly exist and have no factual backing or existence.-0

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70978&p=1749217&hilit=solution#p1749217

[owenshooter]

The majority of the community (this includes people of all ranks) prefers a system where you cannot get to the top by farming.

is this the 74% that you have yet to prove exists yet OR a different majority. i could get behind you, if you would just stop making up numers and polls and data that don't truly exist and have no factual backing or existence.-0

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70978&p=1749217&hilit=solution#p1749217

that is a poll with a total of 40 votes!!! that is FAR from a majority on a site with over 20K members... in fact, you are showing me a poll where 19 people agreed with you!!! so, let's toss that claim out the window, it is false. a majority of 40 is not a majority of CC. if you are going to base all of this off of forum polls, you need to realize that less than 3% of CC members visit the forums on a regular basis. sorry, but that 73% shown in the link you posted is not an accurate sampling of the CC community on a whole...-0

p.s.-before lack made his farming changes, he contacted current and former members that had left the site after a few games to find out why. this took a lot of time and a ton
of effort, but he wanted actual input into what the problem was, and how it was perceived by current and former players. he didn't just come into the forums and ask 40 people for an opinion!

[porkenbeans]

The sampling may be small, but 73% of those responding are agreeing with Demon. Yes, it would be a more accurate indication of the communities druthers, if there were more payers in the poll. My guess is the number would be higher, if that were the case.