Conquer Club

I think it would be helpful to have a guide game labeled as such...eg. Like where the tournament name would go. This would help eliminate some of the confusion.

Thanks,

J

Wait, now farming includes playing games for no points? It's truly a brave new world, eh?

BBS, yes, the games do count towards the win percentage, but I would rather that they didn't.

When the guide games first came out, I don't think I had any opponents who stuck around for more than a turn or two, and that was even with sending them PMs. With the revamp in guide games, I haven't had a game that progressed past the fifth round, so none of those count toward win percentage.

JGhost, I agree. In the past, they were labelled as such.

Here's my current guide game: Game 14810411

My opponent moved twice, and we're up to the fifth round now.

Here are my previous games: http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?g ... &mode=find

Surely a guide can at least give some strategy advice at the start of the game? A brand new player wouldn't even know the most pertinent questions to ask.

That's why you prompt Caff, leading with direct questions.

jammyjames wrote:That's why you prompt Caff, leading with direct questions.

Yeah, but to say "if you have any questions just let me know" is virtually pointless.

jghost7 wrote:I think it would be helpful to have a guide game labeled as such...eg. Like where the tournament name would go.

EXACTLY!!!!! put this in suggestions...-el Jesus negro

iAmCaffeine wrote:

jammyjames wrote:That's why you prompt Caff, leading with direct questions.

Yeah, but to say "if you have any questions just let me know" is virtually pointless.

That's also not a direct question...

jammyjames wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

jammyjames wrote:That's why you prompt Caff, leading with direct questions.

Yeah, but to say "if you have any questions just let me know" is virtually pointless.

That's also not a direct question...

You realise we're agreeing right mate?

The whole point of guide games is to help newcomers to get something out of the game. Rather than getting farmed by people like JR24, they can now start a "request" game that offers 0 points. If you join a guide game, you are not joining it simply to kick some newbie's butt and up your win percentage (bot games do that anyway), but to give them some pointers on what to do. Sometimes, they won't speak, so there's not much you can do, but hope they actually learn something. Some games, I've just PM'd them on what they could do better in their next game, and wish them luck, if they are unresponsive in chat, but stuck it out.

Why do people always find the bad in everything? lol. I believe that they are open to anyone to join now, so if you guys want to do better than the previous guides, go for it, join one. Initially, it was just the society of guides who recieved the links as PMs. The links appear in global chat all the time now. I just don't have the time atm due to RL, but it can be satisfying when one of the players decides to finish their game and actually takes on your advice.

Shannon Apple wrote:The whole point of guide games is to help newcomers to get something out of the game. Rather than getting farmed by people like JR24, they can now start a "request" game that offers 0 points. If you join a guide game, you are not joining it simply to kick some newbie's butt and up your win percentage (bot games do that anyway), but to give them some pointers on what to do. Sometimes, they won't speak, so there's not much you can do, but hope they actually learn something. Some games, I've just PM'd them on what they could do better in their next game, and wish them luck, if they are unresponsive in chat, but stuck it out.

Why do people always find the bad in everything? lol. I believe that they are open to anyone to join now, so if you guys want to do better than the previous guides, go for it, join one. Initially, it was just the society of guides who recieved the links as PMs. The links appear in global chat all the time now. I just don't have the time atm due to RL, but it can be satisfying when one of the players decides to finish their game and actually takes on your advice.

the cover up continues!!!!-el Jesus negro

Shannon Apple wrote:The whole point of guide games is to help newcomers to get something out of the game. Rather than getting farmed by people like JR24, they can now start a "request" game that offers 0 points. If you join a guide game, you are not joining it simply to kick some newbie's butt and up your win percentage (bot games do that anyway), but to give them some pointers on what to do. Sometimes, they won't speak, so there's not much you can do, but hope they actually learn something. Some games, I've just PM'd them on what they could do better in their next game, and wish them luck, if they are unresponsive in chat, but stuck it out.

Why do people always find the bad in everything? lol. I believe that they are open to anyone to join now, so if you guys want to do better than the previous guides, go for it, join one. Initially, it was just the society of guides who recieved the links as PMs. The links appear in global chat all the time now. I just don't have the time atm due to RL, but it can be satisfying when one of the players decides to finish their game and actually takes on your advice.

It's not about just finding the bad. It's about looking at a long pattern of stupidity and then seeing a recent innovation which is trying to promote 'new member cohesiveness'. I just can't help but wonder if all that farming was still on net beneficial, then it got punished, so people played with less newcomers, membership fell, and now CC in all its genius creates a new form of farming (0 points, positive win rate!).

When do people stop and think, "why don't we stop being so stupid and just allow people to join the games that they want?" The answer has been: "NOOOOOO!!!! It's not fair!!! I don't like tactic X!!! I don't care if people voluntarily join games which farmers might host!! PUNISH FARMING!"


The main lesson that CC teaches us is about governance. There's a big problem when the dictator/bureaucracy is very keen to listen to either the 'majority' or rather the loud minority of the forum. They'll move the firm in the loud minority's direction without pondering about unintended consequences and caring too much about the silent majority. Much of the planning--in terms of punishment--was entirely unnecessary and seemed very counter-productive. When you strive to placate a few members, you push yourself systematically away from the large, silent majority, so it's no surprise that this place is failing.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Shannon Apple wrote:The whole point of guide games is to help newcomers to get something out of the game. Rather than getting farmed by people like JR24, they can now start a "request" game that offers 0 points. If you join a guide game, you are not joining it simply to kick some newbie's butt and up your win percentage (bot games do that anyway), but to give them some pointers on what to do. Sometimes, they won't speak, so there's not much you can do, but hope they actually learn something. Some games, I've just PM'd them on what they could do better in their next game, and wish them luck, if they are unresponsive in chat, but stuck it out.

Why do people always find the bad in everything? lol. I believe that they are open to anyone to join now, so if you guys want to do better than the previous guides, go for it, join one. Initially, it was just the society of guides who recieved the links as PMs. The links appear in global chat all the time now. I just don't have the time atm due to RL, but it can be satisfying when one of the players decides to finish their game and actually takes on your advice.

It's not about just finding the bad. It's about looking at a long pattern of stupidity and then seeing a recent innovation which is trying to promote 'new member cohesiveness'. I just can't help but wonder if all that farming was still on net beneficial, then it got punished, so people played with less newcomers, membership fell, and now CC in all its genius creates a new form of farming (0 points, positive win rate!).

When do people stop and think, "why don't we stop being so stupid and just allow people to join the games that they want?" The answer has been: "NOOOOOO!!!! It's not fair!!! I don't like tactic X!!! I don't care if people voluntarily join games which farmers might host!! PUNISH FARMING!"


The main lesson that CC teaches us is about governance. There's a big problem when the dictator/bureaucracy is very keen to listen to either the 'majority' or rather the loud minority of the forum. They'll move the firm in the loud minority's direction without pondering about unintended consequences and caring too much about the silent majority. Much of the planning--in terms of punishment--was entirely unnecessary and seemed very counter-productive. When you strive to placate a few members, you push yourself systematically away from the large, silent majority, so it's no surprise that this place is failing.

+1

Game 12489038
Game 12489036
Game 12489038
Game 12474230
Game 12474228
Game 12402481
Game 12402480
Game 12402477
Game 11642650
Game 11642649
Game 11492987

Sure farming never been a problem, and I am 100% sure more of this kind of game would increase CC membership. The noob that have been farmed played those games definitely enjoyed it and decided to stick around. Long live farming !

Let's think about that. If those kinds of games were banned with perfect enforcement, do you think newbs would be playing (a) more games or (b) less games? (What happens when supply shifts down?)

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's think about that. If those kinds of games were banned with perfect enforcement, do you think newbs would be playing (a) more games or (b) less games? (What happens when supply shifts down?)

i think they should limit new players to a certain amount of maps... as they progress in rank, release more maps to them... people have already suggested this, some sort of unlocking achievement thingy that goes on in the vidya games these days... i think it would benefit the site enormously...-el Jesus negro

owenshooter wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's think about that. If those kinds of games were banned with perfect enforcement, do you think newbs would be playing (a) more games or (b) less games? (What happens when supply shifts down?)

i think they should limit new players to a certain amount of maps... as they progress in rank, release more maps to them... people have already suggested this, some sort of unlocking achievement thingy that goes on in the vidya games these days... i think it would benefit the site enormously...-el Jesus negro

That unlock incentive does work on other games, but will it work on here? What are the attrition rates of newcomers who play on standard (dull) maps? If the 'membership loss rate' is high on basic maps and settings, then this policy won't address the issue.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's think about that. If those kinds of games were banned with perfect enforcement, do you think newbs would be playing (a) more games or (b) less games? (What happens when supply shifts down?)

Do you think this kind of games make them want to stick around?
Dead after 3 round without having understood anything of what happened?

I think this kind of game prevent them to joining other game. So I'd say, (a) more games.

Donelladan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's think about that. If those kinds of games were banned with perfect enforcement, do you think newbs would be playing (a) more games or (b) less games? (What happens when supply shifts down?)

Do you think this kind of games make them want to stick around?
Dead after 3 round without having understood anything of what happened?

I think this kind of game prevent them to joining other game. So I'd say, (a) more games.

Sure. How many nonfarm games do people join where they become "Dead after 3 round without having understood anything of what happened"? (I'll answer this; please bear with me).

The problem with the anti-farming crowd is that they blame intentions but neglect outcomes. Nonfarm games still generate the same outcomes when the inexperienced are pitted against the experienced--regardless of the intentions of the experienced.

The inexperienced used to have three types of games (1) farm games, (2) games with mostly inexperienced, and (3) games with mostly experienced--especially team games. The good thing about farm games (1) was that they targeted the inexperienced, so the inexperienced were offered more games. When farming was punished, then there'll be little incentive to target the inexperienced, thus less games are offered to the inexperienced--all else being equal. Now:

When (1) is removed, the supply of games is reduced. You're arguing that there's a substitution effect, such that the inexperienced will join more (2) and (3) games. The problem is that (3) results in the same "3-round, clueless death" syndrome, so an increased supply from (3) won't follow from your argument. [More importantly, farm games (1) and 'farm' games (3) equally offered the inexperienced a chance to learn from their mistakes. People aren't static].

Finally, this leaves (2), games of mostly inexperienced, but where's the evidence of a greater supply of (2) games--after the anti-farm policy?

Then there's further problems: the anti-farm policy is vague, which doesn't prevent the experienced from joining (2) games, so long as it isn't 'systematic', and the anti-farm policy doesn't prevent 'farming' (the (3) type games). Predation of the inexperienced still remains.

tl;dr
It seems that anti-farming policy has (a) had no effect on membership (cuz pure substitution effect) or (b) has reduced the prolonged membership of newcomers--since newcomers are not targeted (offered) more games. In order to get on net more games, you'd need an income effect (e.g. a decrease in "3-round, clueless death" syndrome may create new games, but it won't decrease because (3) games still exist, and people still learning by playing (regardless of game type 1 or 3).

Well - no.
When you play a 6 classic escalating game and are a noob, you may learn something.
When you play one of the game I quoted, the only thing you can learn is that having a team of quad ready to play freestyle will you grant automatic win against unorganized team - maybe a good thing to learn but won't help that much.

Playing game (2) and (3) you'll lose or win because of your mistake, playing the kind of game I quote, your mistake was to join that game, with close to no strategy when they are objective freestyle ones.

Furthermore, playing games type (3) it is indeed possible that the players you are facing are willing to give advice. I've experienced it, giving and receiving advice. Playing a game against farmer, I highly doubt they are willing to teach.

where's the evidence of a greater supply of (2) games--after the anti-farm policy?

Well, if there is people willing to play, they'll join games. If games (1) disappear, people that would have join games (1) will join game (2) or (3). There is no lack of games to be joined. There is lack of people joining them only.


Where you may be right, is that the case I quoted are a kind of extrem - manual deployement, quad games, freestyle, objective map. And that maybe "anti-farm crowd" did fight against less unusual kind of setting, and against map that actually "noob" would like to play and could learn. I do not know about that, and am unable to set the precise limit of what should be, should have been, forbidden.

i would be quite happy if some of you would join the silent majority.

tigerbob wrote:i would be quite happy if some of you would join the silent majority.

well, if we all lived in Arkansas and had sisters, er wives, as cute as yours... i'm sure we'd be quiet...-eJn

owenshooter wrote:well, if we all lived in Arkansas and had sisters, er wives, as cute as yours... i'm sure we'd be quiet...-eJn

i'm not so sure. and i'd like to have back that 2'52" of my life.