Limit point exchange for cooks to reduce harvesting in quads

[thezepman]

When I read the various restrictions on new recruits, those appeared to be put in place at least partially because those players were not returning to the site. If a player is a cook, they are obviously still playing on the site, so why should they be limited as to what they can play?

On a side note, I recommend you send a mass PM (via the BCC button) to all those cooks in the games you examined and send them to wacicha and his Society of Cooks. That should improve their scores.

prevent players from over 3K to play any player under 1K, but allow players under 1K to play anyone. This will prevent players like sjnap who seeks out cooks only and joins freestyle team games with his teamates and prey against unknowledged players that dont understand the logic of 3/4 players making their moves all together at the same time and in even some cases, the same player making all the moves for the entire team.

prevent (high ranked) premium players from joining freestyle team games started by non-premium players. nothing against you snjapy. although, hopefully im representing my clan well

[Artimis]

Farang, I said 100 because I deem it to be a reasonable number, I certainly don't want it to go any higher as this would make onerous target to achieve for all the Freemiums that play here. I think that even 100 games may be too high for Freemium players, so maybe a duel restriction of 100/35 for Premium/Freemium players? The point being I don't want to discourage players from playing, especially if they suddenly can't play their favourite maps any more. So I think this next point has more merit:

prevent players from over 3K to play any player under 1K, but allow players under 1K to play anyone. This will prevent players like sjnap who seeks out cooks only and joins freestyle team games with his teamates and prey against unknowledged players that dont understand the logic of 3/4 players making their moves all together at the same time and in even some cases, the same player making all the moves for the entire team.

Fortunately e_i_pi has already put forward an excellent suggestion that would work along those lines, it's on the third page of this forum under the thread entitled Suggestion: Ranked gaming system. I consider that a far better suggestion than the one outlined in this thread, but the mods don't seem so keen on it because Private games would be unrestricted by that suggestion.

[FarangDemon]

Farming is a problem, almost everyone agrees to that, but it is not nearly bad enough to justify limiting cooks' freedom to play on whatever map they want.

They don't need to be barred from playing in those maps. Just make any game that fits the description of point harvesting automatically become a zero points game.

With this in mind, my question is what's in it for the cooks?

A scoring system where you can't get to the top by farming. One that measures skill and not farming techniques.

[Incandenza]

With this in mind, my question is what's in it for the cooks?

A scoring system where you can't get to the top by farming. One that measures skill and not farming techniques.

1. This scoring system you speak of is a fantasy. Given the wide variety of maps and game types, there are quite a few different "skills" on display at the top of the scoreboard. And by top, I don't mean the top ten, I mean a more representative sample, like the top 1000. Focusing on the top one or top ten is counterproductive to your aims.

2. I'm reasonably confident that the average cook doesn't give a shit about scores. Otherwise, they wouldn't be cooks.

[Joodoo]

With this in mind, my question is what's in it for the cooks?

A scoring system where you can't get to the top by farming. One that measures skill and not farming techniques.

1. This scoring system you speak of is a fantasy. Given the wide variety of maps and game types, there are quite a few different "skills" on display at the top of the scoreboard. And by top, I don't mean the top ten, I mean a more representative sample, like the top 1000. Focusing on the top one or top ten is counterproductive to your aims.

2. I'm reasonably confident that the average cook doesn't give a shit about scores. Otherwise, they wouldn't be cooks.

I think another point to consider is experience. Just because someone is a cook doesn't mean they don't have experience. I've played with several cooks (on my team) in team games before and their strategy is not bad at all. New Recruits are inexperienced (except for multis) so it's practically impossible for them to win against any high-ranked player. But cooks have experience, so they still have that ability to beat high ranked players (with good dice and other factors considered, and I'm sure that can happen, especially in team games).

[FarangDemon]

With this in mind, my question is what's in it for the cooks?

A scoring system where you can't get to the top by farming. One that measures skill and not farming techniques.

1. This scoring system you speak of is a fantasy. Given the wide variety of maps and game types, there are quite a few different "skills" on display at the top of the scoreboard.

Nope. Just restrict it so the top X% of players cannot get points from the bottom Y% of players. Across all maps and game types. You can call it fantasy but I think most would call it a simple and obvious solution.

2. I'm reasonably confident that the average cook doesn't give a shit about scores. Otherwise, they wouldn't be cooks.

Good, then let's do whatever they say.

[Blinkadyblink]

Farming is a problem, almost everyone agrees to that, but it is not nearly bad enough to justify limiting cooks' freedom to play on whatever map they want.

They don't need to be barred from playing in those maps. Just make any game that fits the description of point harvesting automatically become a zero points game.

My understanding of the current map restrictions on new recruits is that they cannot play at all on certain maps. Extending those restrictions to cooks seems like it would prevent cooks from playing at all on certain maps. If this is not your suggestion, I suggest changing your first post, because to me it sounded like you wanted to bar cooks from playing on restricted maps altogether.

With this in mind, my question is what's in it for the cooks?

A scoring system where you can't get to the top by farming. One that measures skill and not farming techniques.

How would that benefit cooks? If they cared about their score, it seems unlikely that they would still be cooks, and even if they really did want to advance on the scoreboard, it's even more unlikely that a farmer's score would fall below that of a cook's just because he couldn't farm anymore. In order to farm cooks, you have to play significantly better than one. Unless there is some cook who is so upset that people raise their scores by farming that every time he sees the scoreboard it drives him crazy, I fail to see any benefit for cooks.

[FarangDemon]

My understanding of the current map restrictions on new recruits is that they cannot play at all on certain maps. Extending those restrictions to cooks seems like it would prevent cooks from playing at all on certain maps. If this is not your suggestion, I suggest changing your first post, because to me it sounded like you wanted to bar cooks from playing on restricted maps altogether.

I don't need to change my first post. I have made it quite clear, actually. I suggest you read it again more carefully. The last bullet at the top of the post.

I suggest allowing anybody to play on restricted maps as long as no points will be exchanged.

[Blinkadyblink]

Ah, now I see it. Sorry.

[Artimis]

I've given it some more thought, in view of another discussion taking place in Announcements I've come to the opinion that this is not the approach to take. There are other, better ways of addressing the issue of farming. Here are two that show promise:

• Simple farming fix (By The Neon Peon)
• no points awarded (By JOHNNYROCKET24)

[HardAttack]

Although point 1 is hilarious, I wish to address a different point.

3. If a cook IS HAPPY TO LOSE vast numbers of games against a top player then bully for him.

Maybe you are on the other side of the looking glass mirror, but this means you actually WANT a system where the person that gets to the top has to focus on playing cooks.

You are in the vast minority of the site. See the poll.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 78&start=0

And if you think coming up with a farming proof system is an intractable problem you're not even kidding yourself. People will always be whining about whatever they want to whine about, but they will be whining about a system that does not encourage farming because it does not reward harvesting techniques. You play your peers to get ahead, period.

You are in the vast minority of the site. See the poll.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 78&start=0

pardon me mate cos i can not stop laughin
question is how did you decide that vast minority or majority with such less than 50 votes.... thank you i m not in the words but really rofl ling

[HardAttack]

Let me start by saying that I don't like restrictions. I understand putting restrictions on the community's gaming interaction with ?'s as a business decision, but anything beyond that starts to smack of elitism of varying stripe.

Besides, restrictions are a slippery slope, proven out by the fact that some people want to extend the protection given new recruits to cooks. What next, cadets? Privates? Higher? Then what? Maybe we should just get rid of freestyle, that's certainly the key to point gain for many many top players. And while we're at it, Waterloo simply has to go, 'cause unless you've played a hundred games on it you'll never win. Maybe team games should be next. After all, it's pretty unfair for a well-coordinated, experienced team (especially if they're communicating via MSN or, god forbid, in person or on the phone) to play against people that have never been on the same team before. And let's just go ahead and ban clickable maps. And BOB. Hell, let's stop giving out points so no one has to feel bad. You see where I'm going with this? No system will ever be completely fair. Whenever there is potential for exploiting unfairness, people will exploit it. It's simply a matter of degree.

Another point: to say that any given concept in sugs and bugs has wide community support, or to classify anyone's position on this matter as being in the vast minority, is a complete fallacy. A hundred people could be in here clamoring for change, and it would be but a mote in the storm of the overall CC concept.

The big point I'd like to make is this: rather than trying to revise the scoreboard to something different but equally flawed (and considerably more restrictive, which again, is not a good thing), why not agitate for a sortable scoreboard? Or simpler yet, when looking at the scoreboard, just screen out the people above you that play a different game? Given the variety of maps and settings on CC, any two given people can be playing what's essentially a completely different game. No scoreboard will ever be able to reflect that variance accurately, so it would be nice to be able to have an overall scoreboard, say, then one for freestyle, one for sequential, one for dubs, etc, based on a percentage of games played.

I dont want to or intend to blow up the issue here, but i must state that i m very mercyfull and appreciated with this paragraph written by Incandenza. Congradulations for reading my mind then putting all in wordssss...

[FarangDemon]

I dont want to or intend to blow up the issue here, but i must state that i m very mercyfull and appreciated with this paragraph written by Incandenza. Congradulations for reading my mind then putting all in wordssss...

I agree. I backed many of those same suggestions a few months ago. They all died in sugs and bugs. Now I'm trying something else. I've laid out the facts plain and simple for all to see. Playing cooks on complex maps in quads games is a harvesting technique. Since all the other sugs and bugs to put equity and reliability into the scoring system have died, I have made a new one. I'm drawing on Lack's words for the rationale, that the scoreboard should reflect skill and not harvesting techniques.

Ok only 40 people responded to my poll. But for a population of 20,000 people and a sample size of 40 people, the margin of error is 15.5%, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. (when it is not actually evenly split, the margin of error is less)

Margin of Error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
Margin of Error Calculator: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

That means given the current 73% (for) to 27% (against) split, even at the extreme end of the margin of error, the outcome would still be 57.5% to 42.5% in favor of preventing someone from achieving conqueror status by farming. So the poll shows clear support for the measure among the CC community, despite the fact that only 40 of 20,000 people participated. That is statistics.

Fear not! The freedom of the cooks is not in danger! They will just not lose/gain points from playing in certain harvestable settings with higher ranks, WHICH THEY INEVITABLY LOSE ANYWAY (60-0). This will make Conquer Club more competitive by stopping points inflation by farming and encouraging more peer to peer play among the higher ranks.

[FarangDemon]

Admins, since

1) data show that this is a harvesting technique
2) no one has contested that this is a harvesting technique
3) 73% (+/- 15%) of the CC community have said that the scoreboard should not reflect harvesting techniques
4) Lack has said that the scoreboard should not reflect harvesting techniques

Will you do anything to prevent players from gaining points from this harvesting technique?

[karelpietertje]

Concise description:
Extend map restrictions to cooks to reduce harvesting

maybe only extend map restrictions to new recruits?

[FarangDemon]

I have updated my initial post with links to the 60 games. I know that Lack and many players do not want to restrict cooks from being able to lose points to top-ranked players. I accept this.

I am only continuing to post here because several posters have insinuated that my data is bogus and that the games I refer to do not exist. I want people to recognize that the games are real, the 60 wins out of 60 games is real, and this a real, fool-proof harvesting technique.

Should some renegade faction of mods actually want to stop points inflation, they should understand that there is no possible solution while this method of risk-free point gain remains viable.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

The system works fine with players who have similar points. But it Breaks down when there is a big difference in the number of points between players. Two things add to the problem: the points should really be worked out on a logistic scale and the maximum 100 point loss makes playing a weak player worth the risk.

Sometimes you have to get back to basics. Alas the basics here are the maths/stats behind the system.

Can anyone remember the math behind the point system?

E.G.

[obliterationX]

This is just getting silly now. Soon people with less than 1000 points won't even be able to play at all!

[PLAYER57832]

Farang, who do you think should play against the lower ranked players? It seems that you feel that anyone playing against a cook 1v1 is harvesting.

You are avoiding the topic. Please discuss the merits of my suggestion rather than make faulty assumptions about how you think I feel about unrelated things.

This sug bug is about high ranked players targeting cooks in quads games on difficult maps like Waterloo. The data shows it is a proven harvesting technique. Win 60, lose 0. Post on topic if you believe that this is not a harvesting technique, in other words, a risk-free way to gain points from inexperienced players and inflate the scores of the farmers.

Otherwise it is obvious that your off-topic postings are merely an effort to distract readers away from an argument that you oppose and yet cannot win by reasoned discussion.

If data showed top ranked players playing against cooks 1 on 1 will tend to gain points over time, I would allege that it is indeed harvesting. I'm not sure that is possible and have not researched it. Lack researched the same thing with New Recruits instead of cooks and decided it was a harvesting technique and made it illegal.

Lack kept his mind open and used numbers to make a decision. That is what I also advocate here and for research into any type of harvesting technique. Your opinions seem to be based on feelings instead of measurements - that is why you make no attempt to analyze or contest the mathematical facts behind this harvesting technique yet you continue to rail against the suggestion, blindly trolling off-topic.

You have 3 basic options.

Either points are mostly skill ... and you will get point inflation as the early good players will continue to win and increase in points until the lower folks, even those who are themselves good, just cannot keep up.

OR you have farming, where there is some benefit to higher ranked players in playing lower ranked players.

OR You have it entirely luck-based ... and then you might as well play Yatzee.


As for the whole cooks/etc. Speaking as someone who has gone from Leiutenant and now is pretty close to cook (probably will get there if the games keep going the way I think...) , AND as someone who has beaten more than one conquerer....(when they started, I will add ) Rank, other than the very top esceleon, has very little to do with skill. That is, you need skill to reach the top, but luck, luck and luck alone will readily put you at the bottom.

I got there because I play all the maps. Some I play more often, but when I reach in to play those I am not so good at ... I lose. I still play them. Why? I like challanges, I get bored, like plaing differant people ... and I like being able to say that I have won all the maps.

Any "solution" will have problems. I can see giving folks a warning before they join some of the more complicated maps. BUT, that could also be fixed by simply ensuring that some instructions are more clear. Bombardments, versus remote attacks for example. I would like to see restrictions on Assassin games.

But, overall ... playing cooks is just part of the game.

[secondheaven]

Farang, who do you think should play against the lower ranked players? It seems that you feel that anyone playing against a cook 1v1 is harvesting.

i think some people take this game to seriously