Conquer Club

I agree with this, however based on the recent rule change to lessen the punishment for farming instituted to IMO protect friends. seen here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=162184this conversation and others like it I fear are little more than mental masturbation.

It is clear that the rules can and will be changed rather easily, but considering that MANY have brought up this topic for apparently quite a long time with no action ever having been taken, this suggestion too will be ignored.

I hate to be cynical but it appears to me that open season has been declared for farming and ranching, quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.

MichelSableheart wrote:Proving intent is impossible, of course.

So you want to give more power in the hands of the moderators to arbitrarily decide who gets punished and who doesn't?

Smart.

natty_dread wrote:

MichelSableheart wrote:Proving intent is impossible, of course.

So you want to give more power in the hands of the moderators to arbitrarily decide who gets punished and who doesn't?

More power? Your use of that phrase in this context confuses me.

I have gone on medal hunts often...when I want to get some points and I've been on a medal hunt I will "target" higher ranked players in speed games because I figure I am somewhere around 50% to win and the points differential is such that by winning 50% of those games I will win a lot more points than I lose. Would this constitute picking on a specific group of players and thus be farming?

rockfist wrote:I have gone on medal hunts often...when I want to get some points and I've been on a medal hunt I will "target" higher ranked players in speed games because I figure I am somewhere around 50% to win and the points differential is such that by winning 50% of those games I will win a lot more points than I lose. Would this constitute picking on a specific group of players and thus be farming?

I suppose an argument could be made for it (I do precisely the same thing) however, I would disagree...in my view, a "rancher" (if you will) fully expects to win a vast majority of their games due to the tremendous difference in skill levels whereas in what you're describing you are hoping to win around 50% of the games. There a LOT more risk involved in your strategy than in the "rancher" strategy...far more.

I hope to win somewhat more than 50% (although realistically not more than 60). I am just cocky (stupid) enough to think I can.

rockfist wrote:I hope to win somewhat more than 50% (although realistically not more than 60). I am just cocky (stupid) enough to think I can.

Ok, but you surely understand the point I'm making. <smile>

Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

I still haven't heard a good answer to this question.

natty_dread wrote:Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

I still haven't heard a good answer to this question.

Another good question is who would join or create a game that they don't think they will win?

natty_dread wrote:So you want to give more power in the hands of the moderators to arbitrarily decide who gets punished and who doesn't?

No more power or arbitrariness then they already have. In the current farming rules, they have to determine the difference between occasional and systematic. They already have to determine what use of language is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. Determining intent is of a similar magnitude, and can be expected from good, fair moderators. Whether or not we have those is another issue, that should not influence this discussion IMO.

rockfist wrote:I have gone on medal hunts often...when I want to get some points and I've been on a medal hunt I will "target" higher ranked players in speed games because I figure I am somewhere around 50% to win and the points differential is such that by winning 50% of those games I will win a lot more points than I lose. Would this constitute picking on a specific group of players and thus be farming?

Picking on a specific group of players isn't the only part of the proposed farming rule. There's also the "intent to take advantage" part. What you describe would probably be picking on a specific group of players, but without intent to take advantage, there's no problem.

natty_dread wrote:Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

Following the rules proposed, you're free to play whatever maps and settings you want, as long as you play all comers. It's not illegal to play games you know you'll likely win, it's illegal to systematically play opponents you'll likely win against. Why should it be? Because that behaviour creates a poor playing experience for those players.

Jippd wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

I still haven't heard a good answer to this question.

Another good question is who would join or create a game that they don't think they will win?

I would. I don't want an easy win, I want the fun of actual competition.

Woodruff wrote:

Jippd wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

I still haven't heard a good answer to this question.

Another good question is who would join or create a game that they don't think they will win?

I would. I don't want an easy win, I want the fun of actual competition.

I would too. For medals or to learn new maps.

chapcrap wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Jippd wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

I still haven't heard a good answer to this question.

Another good question is who would join or create a game that they don't think they will win?

I would. I don't want an easy win, I want the fun of actual competition.

I would too. For medals or to learn new maps.

My point is that every map I play (whether I know it or not), I go into the game planning on winning whether I will or not is a different question.

Jippd wrote:My point is that every map I play (whether I know it or not), I go into the game planning on winning whether I will or not is a different question.

Fair enough.

Jippd wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Jippd wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Why should it be illegal to play games you know you'll likely win?

I still haven't heard a good answer to this question.

Another good question is who would join or create a game that they don't think they will win?

I would. I don't want an easy win, I want the fun of actual competition.

I would too. For medals or to learn new maps.

My point is that every map I play (whether I know it or not), I go into the game planning on winning whether I will or not is a different question.

Well, of course. But that's really not the sort of thing that's the problem...that's just simple competitiveness. That's a far different thing from knowing you're getting an almost certain victory.

MichelSableheart wrote:Why should it be? Because that behaviour creates a poor playing experience for those players.

How do you know that? Why can't those players make up their own minds about that? Maybe they also like the challenge.

natty dread wrote:

MichelSableheart wrote:Why should it be? Because that behaviour creates a poor playing experience for those players.

How do you know that? Why can't those players make up their own minds about that? Maybe they also like the challenge.

We have a current situation where a very high-ranking player who has made a serious habit (19% of his games, I believe) of playing against ?s AND has joined games even at the explicit request of these players that he not join them. Of course, these players are so new that they don't know about or understand the function of the FOE list and how that could help them. At least one of these players (that I am personally aware of) has not returned to the site since this very high-ranking player joined his fourth or fifth game against him, which followed that request by one or two games. So the site is actually losing customers by supporting this sort of gameplay, but they don't seem to care.

Of course, when the multi-hunters are allowed to serially multi-ban newbies that they're playing against in games and nothing is done about it...well, what can you really expect, I suppose.

Natty_Dread wrote:How do you know that? Why can't those players make up their own minds about that? Maybe they also like the challenge.

If it didn't create a poor playing experience for those players, we wouldn't have a sergeant complaining in the C&A forum just a week ago, nor would we have player's requesting other players not to join their games. I don't have the time to do thorough research, but the complaints come up in the C&A forum when it's not against the rules and when only a small percentage of users uses the forums. That indicates that there is a problem.

Woodruff wrote:At least one of these players (that I am personally aware of) has not returned to the site since this very high-ranking player joined his fourth or fifth game against him, which followed that request by one or two games. So the site is actually losing customers by supporting this sort of gameplay, but they don't seem to care.

If the site (which actually has no feelings of its own) doesn't care, then why did they just implement new rules to ban farmers from joining games against NRs? It seems like the site explicitly cared about this situation, because the new punishment takes into account this exact type of thing.

chapcrap wrote:

Woodruff wrote:At least one of these players (that I am personally aware of) has not returned to the site since this very high-ranking player joined his fourth or fifth game against him, which followed that request by one or two games. So the site is actually losing customers by supporting this sort of gameplay, but they don't seem to care.

If the site (which actually has no feelings of its own) doesn't care, then why did they just implement new rules to ban farmers from joining games against NRs? It seems like the site explicitly cared about this situation, because the new punishment takes into account this exact type of thing.

Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

Woodruff wrote:Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

It can be more liberally used. And it already was used in the case that you spoke of earlier.

How many people are actually farming? Not a lot. There's a lot of people bogrolling and go after lower ranks. But not many actually farming.

chapcrap wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

It can be more liberally used. And it already was used in the case that you spoke of earlier.
How many people are actually farming? Not a lot. There's a lot of people bogrolling and go after lower ranks. But not many actually farming.

I agree with what you say here, but I still maintain that it is irrelevant. If the rule has no teeth, no actual punishment, it is irrelevant. So someone is forced not to play newbies...does the player have any actual incentive NOT to play newbies? No...not that I can tell. As far as I can tell, this rule ENCOURAGES people to play newbies, because it formalizes that there is no actual punishment to the action. Yes, I am serious.

Woodruff wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

It can be more liberally used. And it already was used in the case that you spoke of earlier.
How many people are actually farming? Not a lot. There's a lot of people bogrolling and go after lower ranks. But not many actually farming.

I agree with what you say here, but I still maintain that it is irrelevant. If the rule has no teeth, no actual punishment, it is irrelevant. So someone is forced not to play newbies...does the player have any actual incentive NOT to play newbies? No...not that I can tell. As far as I can tell, this rule ENCOURAGES people to play newbies, because it formalizes that there is no actual punishment to the action. Yes, I am serious.

I can't say that I fully disagree with the sentiment. If I decided to start farming, then I would get a warning and a subsequent NR ban for the second time. It stops the farming, but I could have a real nice go of it first.

Oh ok

jgordon1111 wrote:Lmaof

lmfao?