Suggestion: New Recruit Amnesty (with Poll)

[Digital Jihad]

by don't u guys take it to FW fourm

Because I have yet to flame him nor do I desire to flame him...its a waste of time

this is about new recruits amnesty

Yes it is but you're trying to deter it so you can proceed you're pathetic way of getting points.

[maxatstuy]

We risk more than anyone else by playing noobs and it is clearly not as easy as everyone is pretending it to be, or many more people would be field marshals and generals.

I rofled when I read that part and spelled it right. Yes its really hard to risk points playing people who most likely deadbeat. Also it is that easy just people have lives.

actually no, I had that conversation with someone:

rofl = rolling on the floor laughing

I used it as a verb with the same meaning as the abbreviation so it takes on the additional "f" since "I rolling on the floor laughinged" makes no sense at all. (it is used in both ways just to clarify)

And whether farming is easy or not, apparently not everyone can do it since, as you said, people have lives. That means that it takes an additional quality to farm which not everyone can do.

As I said before, if it is so easy, do it yourself and try and get field marshal. tbh, you would do well because there isnt much further down you can go, so give it a try; you dont even need to join noob games to make points.

In that sense most people would have interpreted it as rolled on the floor laughing at that comment... lol


So wait to be a farmer you can't have a life? Well I certainly can never be a farmer sure glad of that.

Yes true I have only 7 games. Though hopefully I can split even with the two eight players I'm in. But guess what I just do not enjoy reading your moronic comments. You're going to be the first person on my foe list.

I never said one off topic comment since you made this post, and even in my response I was on topic...lol

The only thing I said before that post which can be construed as off topic was that I found it funny that Grim called noobs slow (which is still on topic)

as for why you are trying to divert attention I am unaware however. Nevertheless, lets focus on the matter at hand; this system which is designed to prevent noob games from filling, henceforth motivating them to leave the site in frustration.

[FabledIntegral]

Mabey have them get three no point games ohh and the automated pm should include a discourgement from joining 8 player games for a while since they are slow

I roffled when I read that last part

I make 4 points a game btw, I lost 2 about a week or two ago and I am still working back the points

• 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

Anyone who wants to join and start the games we (farmers) play that is your decision, but it is not your right to limit our choice in games, or prevent us from playing them in any way. We risk more than anyone else by playing noobs and it is clearly not as easy as everyone is pretending it to be, or many more people would be field marshals and generals.

Max, I haven't spoken out much before because you've admitted you farm and such, but once you start virtually making stuff up it's a little far.

"The games I join are of no business to anyone." - yes they are, they affect the scoreboard and the argument is there isn't an accurate representation of skill from the scoreboard. And that is the intention of the scoreboard, to accurately represent skill, not "hard work" or "effort." Thus people view it as flawed and want it redone.

"Any limitation of who people should join games against is against our rights as customers." - wrong again. If it's viewed as the betterment of the community and from a business perspective as a valid option, then of course the business owner reserves that right. They aren't prohibiting you from playing people, just prohibiting new members. Just as on many sites new members have to post in certain areas before being allowed to post in others. It's the same concept.

"There is a point system put in place to prevent against farming, and it works." - most would disagree, hence a suggestion to "fix" it. If you joined vs other players of rank Brigadier and such, I'm sure your score would plummet, same gametype of whatever you play. Farming, aka being able to pick off on the new members that haven't quite come to care about the site, is different than outthinking and outplaying your opponent. Which is why the ELO system for point scoring doesn't take into account the first 4 or so games when scoring a person's score, because they feel it's an inaccurate representation because you could have a trash player at that 1000 score or an amazing player at that 1000 score.

[maxatstuy]

Max, I haven't spoken out much before because you've admitted you farm and such, but once you start virtually making stuff up it's a little far.

"The games I join are of no business to anyone." - yes they are, they affect the scoreboard and the argument is there isn't an accurate representation of skill from the scoreboard. And that is the intention of the scoreboard, to accurately represent skill, not "hard work" or "effort." Thus people view it as flawed and want it redone.

"Any limitation of who people should join games against is against our rights as customers." - wrong again. If it's viewed as the betterment of the community and from a business perspective as a valid option, then of course the business owner reserves that right. They aren't prohibiting you from playing people, just prohibiting new members. Just as on many sites new members have to post in certain areas before being allowed to post in others. It's the same concept.

"There is a point system put in place to prevent against farming, and it works." - most would disagree, hence a suggestion to "fix" it. If you joined vs other players of rank Brigadier and such, I'm sure your score would plummet, same gametype of whatever you play. Farming, aka being able to pick off on the new members that haven't quite come to care about the site, is different than outthinking and outplaying your opponent. Which is why the ELO system for point scoring doesn't take into account the first 4 or so games when scoring a person's score, because they feel it's an inaccurate representation because you could have a trash player at that 1000 score or an amazing player at that 1000 score.

You pay for the service to play games and to have fun, I enjoy playing new recruits and testing out the strategy for game selection which I devised. That is my prerogative and perfectly within my rights. By limiting those games by creating a separate room, they are limiting my rights as a customer to have fun.

As I have said before, the scoreboard is not a representation of how good someone is, it is a representation of how hard they try and I probably try harder then the 20,000+ people who I pass. The only reason why people are here in the forum trying to devise methods of preventing farmers from joining games is because they are too lazy to allocate their time on figuring out a way to pass me through playing games and instead are trying to create additional rules to make themselves feel better.

The only problem with the point system is that, while I agree that my score would probably plummet if I played people around a similar position on the scoreboard, I would lose close to 50 points to a major and around 40 points to a colonel while I would only make 10 points by winning. Even against a brigadier such as yourself, I would lose over 30 points in one loss. The risk reward is not there for people who have scores above 4k and as a result there is no purpose to me playing brigadiers when I can make a third of the amount in games I feel comfortable playing.

[FabledIntegral]

You pay for the service to play games and to have fun, I enjoy playing new recruits and testing out the strategy for game selection which I devised. That is my prerogative and perfectly within my rights. By limiting those games by creating a separate room, they are limiting my rights as a customer to have fun.

Yes, that is within your rights. Yet if CC decides that it's detrimental to the CC playing experience they hold every right as a business to take away your happiness in the terms of this situation. You highly over think "rights to have fun," as an obligatory debt the company has to you for your paid membership.

A gym may decide to get rid of a specific type of treadmill, yet still offer treadmills at the gym. The customer, even if they preferred the old treadmill, will not be able to sway the company decision, especially if that person is a minority and the company decides it's in their own best interest.

As I have said before, the scoreboard is not a representation of how good someone is, it is a representation of how hard they try and I probably try harder then the 20,000+ people who I pass. The only reason why people are here in the forum trying to devise methods of preventing farmers from joining games is because they are too lazy to allocate their time on figuring out a way to pass me through playing games and instead are trying to create additional rules to make themselves feel better.

And as I just said and apparently you read right over, that obviously isn't the intention of a scoreboard. If what you claim is true, and it is indeed a representation of how hard someone tries, then most likely CC will want to change that. As rarely will you find scoreboards in any type of game where effort outbeats skill.

The only problem with the point system is that, while I agree that my score would probably plummet if I played people around a similar position on the scoreboard, I would lose close to 50 points to a major and around 40 points to a colonel while I would only make 10 points by winning. Even against a brigadier such as yourself, I would lose over 30 points in one loss. The risk reward is not there for people who have scores above 4k and as a result there is no purpose to me playing brigadiers when I can make a third of the amount in games I feel comfortable playing.

Then, if the scoreboard was accurate, one would generally conclude that you have a highly overinflated rank. For someone to have a rank such as yours, they *should* be able to beat a Brigadier at least 3/4 times to maintain ever. If they don't, they shouldn't be a field marshall. Note that you're virtually one of the only ones. Thus obviously it's at a rank that's "near impossible to achieve." It's the same concept to argue "I should just stop playing because it's virtually impossible for me to hit 6k points." Well - no one is that good in the first place. Points aren't on a straight scale. As you increase, you'll obviously increase at slower rates, until finally hitting a medium where you fluctuate.

If you play Generals/Brigadiers/Colonels and plummet down to a General status, and then plateau around there, then that's where your actual skill level would about reside against others around the same point values. Basically, the reason that you can only gain points from ?'s as you state, is because your point value is overinflated. Just as I can play Starcraft and infinitely bash a newcomer 500x, it won't make me better than the korean profession players that could kick my ass in teh first few minutes of the game, nor would any valid scoreboard represent that.

Max, no one is keeping you from playing ?'s with this suggestion. All people want is a more accurate representation of the scoreboard. I'm sure you'd admit yourself, in a scoreboard based off skill, you don't deserve to be at your current location. Sure - it might make you happy, but that's irrelevant. Because it bothers the rest of the community that sees a major flaw in that area. You can play as many ?'s as you want under the new system, and in fact, your score wouldn't plummet as you lose. You already state that a major problem you face is the chance that a multi may be hosting one of those games. This will get rid of that problem for you as well.

[maxatstuy]

You pay for the service to play games and to have fun, I enjoy playing new recruits and testing out the strategy for game selection which I devised. That is my prerogative and perfectly within my rights. By limiting those games by creating a separate room, they are limiting my rights as a customer to have fun.

Yes, that is within your rights. Yet if CC decides that it's detrimental to the CC playing experience they hold every right as a business to take away your happiness in the terms of this situation. You highly over think "rights to have fun," as an obligatory debt the company has to you for your paid membership.

A gym may decide to get rid of a specific type of treadmill, yet still offer treadmills at the gym. The customer, even if they preferred the old treadmill, will not be able to sway the company decision, especially if that person is a minority and the company decides it's in their own best interest.

As I have said before, the scoreboard is not a representation of how good someone is, it is a representation of how hard they try and I probably try harder then the 20,000+ people who I pass. The only reason why people are here in the forum trying to devise methods of preventing farmers from joining games is because they are too lazy to allocate their time on figuring out a way to pass me through playing games and instead are trying to create additional rules to make themselves feel better.

And as I just said and apparently you read right over, that obviously isn't the intention of a scoreboard. If what you claim is true, and it is indeed a representation of how hard someone tries, then most likely CC will want to change that. As rarely will you find scoreboards in any type of game where effort outbeats skill.

The only problem with the point system is that, while I agree that my score would probably plummet if I played people around a similar position on the scoreboard, I would lose close to 50 points to a major and around 40 points to a colonel while I would only make 10 points by winning. Even against a brigadier such as yourself, I would lose over 30 points in one loss. The risk reward is not there for people who have scores above 4k and as a result there is no purpose to me playing brigadiers when I can make a third of the amount in games I feel comfortable playing.

Then, if the scoreboard was accurate, one would generally conclude that you have a highly overinflated rank. For someone to have a rank such as yours, they *should* be able to beat a Brigadier at least 3/4 times to maintain ever. If they don't, they shouldn't be a field marshall. Note that you're virtually one of the only ones. Thus obviously it's at a rank that's "near impossible to achieve." It's the same concept to argue "I should just stop playing because it's virtually impossible for me to hit 6k points." Well - no one is that good in the first place. Points aren't on a straight scale. As you increase, you'll obviously increase at slower rates, until finally hitting a medium where you fluctuate.

If you play Generals/Brigadiers/Colonels and plummet down to a General status, and then plateau around there, then that's where your actual skill level would about reside against others around the same point values. Basically, the reason that you can only gain points from ?'s as you state, is because your point value is overinflated. Just as I can play Starcraft and infinitely bash a newcomer 500x, it won't make me better than the korean profession players that could kick my ass in teh first few minutes of the game, nor would any valid scoreboard represent that.

Max, no one is keeping you from playing ?'s with this suggestion. All people want is a more accurate representation of the scoreboard. I'm sure you'd admit yourself, in a scoreboard based off skill, you don't deserve to be at your current location. Sure - it might make you happy, but that's irrelevant. Because it bothers the rest of the community that sees a major flaw in that area. You can play as many ?'s as you want under the new system, and in fact, your score wouldn't plummet as you lose. You already state that a major problem you face is the chance that a multi may be hosting one of those games. This will get rid of that problem for you as well.

that is not true at all because skill is not based on your ability to beat people who are only at your rank, it is on your ability to beat people of any rank. I am probably the best at playing new recruits and therefore I have rank that is an accurate portrayal of it. Others who might be the best at beating colonels might be terrible at beating new recruits and I am sure that if you yourself only played them, you would end up deranking as well, meaning that your score is inflated too. To limit people from playing a certain rank, you are limiting them from being a well rounded player and hence on becoming worthy of their rank.

As for your comment about the gym, eliminating a specific type of treadmill may be well within their rights, but it is also within the rights of the customer to ask for a refund for their remaining time left on their membership; something which is refused by conquer club administrators.

[FabledIntegral]

You pay for the service to play games and to have fun, I enjoy playing new recruits and testing out the strategy for game selection which I devised. That is my prerogative and perfectly within my rights. By limiting those games by creating a separate room, they are limiting my rights as a customer to have fun.

Yes, that is within your rights. Yet if CC decides that it's detrimental to the CC playing experience they hold every right as a business to take away your happiness in the terms of this situation. You highly over think "rights to have fun," as an obligatory debt the company has to you for your paid membership.

A gym may decide to get rid of a specific type of treadmill, yet still offer treadmills at the gym. The customer, even if they preferred the old treadmill, will not be able to sway the company decision, especially if that person is a minority and the company decides it's in their own best interest.

As I have said before, the scoreboard is not a representation of how good someone is, it is a representation of how hard they try and I probably try harder then the 20,000+ people who I pass. The only reason why people are here in the forum trying to devise methods of preventing farmers from joining games is because they are too lazy to allocate their time on figuring out a way to pass me through playing games and instead are trying to create additional rules to make themselves feel better.

And as I just said and apparently you read right over, that obviously isn't the intention of a scoreboard. If what you claim is true, and it is indeed a representation of how hard someone tries, then most likely CC will want to change that. As rarely will you find scoreboards in any type of game where effort outbeats skill.

The only problem with the point system is that, while I agree that my score would probably plummet if I played people around a similar position on the scoreboard, I would lose close to 50 points to a major and around 40 points to a colonel while I would only make 10 points by winning. Even against a brigadier such as yourself, I would lose over 30 points in one loss. The risk reward is not there for people who have scores above 4k and as a result there is no purpose to me playing brigadiers when I can make a third of the amount in games I feel comfortable playing.

Then, if the scoreboard was accurate, one would generally conclude that you have a highly overinflated rank. For someone to have a rank such as yours, they *should* be able to beat a Brigadier at least 3/4 times to maintain ever. If they don't, they shouldn't be a field marshall. Note that you're virtually one of the only ones. Thus obviously it's at a rank that's "near impossible to achieve." It's the same concept to argue "I should just stop playing because it's virtually impossible for me to hit 6k points." Well - no one is that good in the first place. Points aren't on a straight scale. As you increase, you'll obviously increase at slower rates, until finally hitting a medium where you fluctuate.

If you play Generals/Brigadiers/Colonels and plummet down to a General status, and then plateau around there, then that's where your actual skill level would about reside against others around the same point values. Basically, the reason that you can only gain points from ?'s as you state, is because your point value is overinflated. Just as I can play Starcraft and infinitely bash a newcomer 500x, it won't make me better than the korean profession players that could kick my ass in teh first few minutes of the game, nor would any valid scoreboard represent that.

Max, no one is keeping you from playing ?'s with this suggestion. All people want is a more accurate representation of the scoreboard. I'm sure you'd admit yourself, in a scoreboard based off skill, you don't deserve to be at your current location. Sure - it might make you happy, but that's irrelevant. Because it bothers the rest of the community that sees a major flaw in that area. You can play as many ?'s as you want under the new system, and in fact, your score wouldn't plummet as you lose. You already state that a major problem you face is the chance that a multi may be hosting one of those games. This will get rid of that problem for you as well.

that is not true at all because skill is not based on your ability to beat people who are only at your rank, it is on your ability to beat people of any rank. I am probably the best at playing new recruits and therefore I have rank that is an accurate portrayal of it. Others who might be the best at beating colonels might be terrible at beating new recruits and I am sure that if you yourself only played them, you would end up deranking as well, meaning that your score is inflated too. To limit people from playing a certain rank, you are limiting them from being a well rounded player and hence on becoming worthy of their rank.

As for your comment about the gym, eliminating a specific type of treadmill may be well within their rights, but it is also within the rights of the customer to ask for a refund for their remaining time left on their membership; something which is refused by conquer club administrators.

Skill generally is considered beating people at your own rank in every type of ladder, if you think otehrwise you are highly mistaken. Check any type of match that uses a ranking system, such as chess, starcraft, etc. You play your skill level rank and if you beat them, you advance to a new rank and play that new rank.

As to the comment about the gym, a customer has every right to complain, but that complaining is meaningless; the gym is under no obligation to provide any sort of refund. I suggest you take a business class before you try to argue rights of customers.

[e_i_pi]

Thank you for your comments FabledIntegral, you obviously see where I am coming from. This idea was put forward to assist in building the reputation of CC and preserve the new customer base, the hardest customer base to keep with any business.

I'll respond to a few of the comments I have read so far:

Sure another great idea filled with boundless possibility and good cause. But you're failing to see the big picture. Think outside of the box for once people and realize that there is no real answer to this except to just make it against the rules.

Interesting way to deflect this towards a bureaucratic measure KH. Unfortunately, the CC staff do not want to create more tasks when they are already overworked. This suggestion effectively solves the farming problem without creating more work for the mods.

Then what is the incentive to play a question mark?

For a farmer, nothing...

Think outside of the box for once...

You should tell yourself the same thing. The only reason you are against this is because it would hamper your efforts on the scoreboard.

.....

I have this guy on ignore as he is a troll who offers nothing positive to the site. I can see from the responses other people have given that he is simply trolling.

What I find funny about the 30 responses to this thread (which I posted last night) is that the only "shouting down" that has occurred has come from the people who stand to lose the most from it. 2 people. That's right folks, a whole two...

"Why is everyone dropping the games I join"?, the new target frustratingly asks.

"The new target". That pretty displays the underlying notion of KH and max in this argument.

And a final response to max...

* 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

* And the administration can make the decision to discourage it
* And it is your decision to make as to whether you'd join games if they were worth zero points
* The games you join are of business to CC, if it is affecting sales and revenue, which is in fact no business to you
* Your rights as a customer is defined by CC, not by yourself, however important you think you are
* The point system is put in place to measure skill, and is routinely abused by you and others. It is not against the rules to do what you do, but I and many others believe it is unethical and to the detriment of the site. Ultimately, if the administration feels likewise, then the suggestion will be implemented, and that implementation will similarly not be against the rules.

[GrimReaper.]

bottom line this is a great idea

[Gold Knight]

I also like the idea originally stated, almost as an introduction to the Society of Cooks type system. I recently played in a clan challenge against a cook, and although he was better than most of his point range, to me it really wasnt enjoyable to know exactly what to do and know that they had no idea how to counter-act in a game. I really dont mind player lower ranks as points dont make or break a good game, but it would be nice that they had some idea of how to play so the abuse they face when they first start a game isnt unexpected.

Give the farmers a little bit of a challenge at least...

[lt.pie]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

[FabledIntegral]

I don't understand why we can't just set a point limit. "New recruits can't join games with Major and up." Or something of that sort.

[maxatstuy]

I don't understand why we can't just set a point limit. "New recruits can't join games with Major and up." Or something of that sort.

A noob playing against a stripper is no different from a noob playing against a field marshal. A field marshal my have more experience, but he has that same advantage in every game he plays. No matter who joins the game that a noob sets up, it is still farming; against me the noob just loses less points.

[Digital Jihad]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

[maxatstuy]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

lt.pie is a hilarious guy, Ill give him that. He farmed his way up to almost 4800 and now he stopped farming so he is brig again. Hes a farmer, just like herpes, or many of the other people in The Farmers Guild. He just chooses not to admit it.

[Digital Jihad]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

lt.pie is a hilarious guy, Ill give him that. He farmed his way up to almost 4800 and now he stopped farming so he is brig again. Hes a farmer, just like herpes, or many of the other people in The Farmers Guild. He just chooses not to admit it.

The difference is people like lt.pie unlike you.

[maxatstuy]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

lt.pie is a hilarious guy, Ill give him that. He farmed his way up to almost 4800 and now he stopped farming so he is brig again. Hes a farmer, just like herpes, or many of the other people in The Farmers Guild. He just chooses not to admit it.

The difference is people like lt.pie unlike you.

a comma in that sentence would really help...anyway, I chose who I am friends with and I tell off anyone who I dont respect, maybe if I stopped telling everyone off and went into denial like pie, more people would like me

Oh, and this is off topic (once again)...if you want to say something to me publicly, make another thread, otherwise dont talk in this thread unless you are referring to New Recruit Amnesty

[Digital Jihad]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

lt.pie is a hilarious guy, Ill give him that. He farmed his way up to almost 4800 and now he stopped farming so he is brig again. Hes a farmer, just like herpes, or many of the other people in The Farmers Guild. He just chooses not to admit it.

The difference is people like lt.pie unlike you.

a comma in that sentence would really help...anyway, I chose who I am friends with and I tell off anyone who I dont respect, maybe if I stopped telling everyone off and went into denial like pie, more people would like me

Oh, and this is off topic (once again)...if you want to say something to me publicly, make another thread, otherwise dont talk in this thread unless you are referring to New Recruit Amnesty

Maybe if you weren't a jackass people would like you. Once again you responded to me. So your derailing the thread.

[maxatstuy]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

If you dont know when you are getting off topic, then I agree with grip earlier in this thread

Mabey have them get three no point games ohh and the automated pm should include a discourgement from joining 8 player games for a while since they are slow

[Digital Jihad]

I think it's a great idea eipi. waterloo assassin games would be more fun if i didn't stand to lose 93 points to a question mark. it would stop the multi's too,which is great.

If only max was a stand up guy, like you.

If you dont know when you are getting off topic, then I agree with grip earlier in this thread

Mabey have them get three no point games ohh and the automated pm should include a discourgement from joining 8 player games for a while since they are slow

Lol I did derail, but you didn't have to respond.

[hecter]

How about you both just stop? I think that's the best option...

[e_i_pi]

How about you both just stop? I think that's the best option...

Thank you hecter

A poll is up. It seems this thread is turning into the usual "whoever yells the loudest thinks their opinion counts the most", so let's just see the numbers here

[Digital Jihad]

Alright I'm done I voted with this idea.

[dfaarc]

i voted no for obvious reasons

[maxatstuy]

i voted no for obvious reasons

yeah, because it is a stupid idea that only hurt new recruits trying to play a game