Jam Session on "Systematic Farming"

[BigBallinStalin]

Definition:

Systematically Farming "New Recruits"

If you are found guilty of New Recruit Farming---that is, systematically joining games with New Recruits. Systematically Farming "New Recruits" may also systematically creating unappealing games that more savvy users avoid because of unpopular or niche game settings, thus luring New Recruits into stumbling into said games. Either of these practices are done in order to "farm" newbies for points, and if you find yourself doing one or both of these practices, you will find yourself escalating on the New Recruit Farming Vacation scale.

New Recruits = ?'s, I presume.


1) Is this current guideline satisfactory? If not, what do you want to eliminate/add?

2) Okay, now you got your desired rule.

3) Then, we attempt to draft the policy in order to make it effective while trying to foresee its consequences.


Go!

[Crazyirishman]

please use the word bogrolling, we are trying to implement an ideological change.
Thanks

[BigBallinStalin]

HEY! GET OUT!


Anyway, instead of hearing people throw B&M parties about how slow the Suggestions are and how Bogrolling has run rampant, we have a thread here for us, to implement policy, to do something constructive.

[thegreekdog]

HEY! GET OUT!


Anyway, instead of hearing people throw B&M parties about how slow the Suggestions are and how Bogrolling has run rampant, we have a thread here for us, to implement policy, to do something constructive.

Use the word "bogrolling" or I'm locking this thread.

All joking aside, I think the question is whether the bogrolling rules should be adjusted to account for non-?s. Frankly, I am under the impression that most high ranked players achieve their points from low-ranked, non-? players who are playing on unfamiliar maps and settings. I don't know if I'm mistaken in my impression, but, well, that's what I think anyway. That being said, I don't like restrictions that try to level playing fields. Call me an anarcho-capitalist, but those kinds of things bother me. What may be more beneficial is a different scoring system. And I've seen those in the suggestions forum. However, given my lack of attention (and lack of knoweldge) to how scores are tabulated or how scoreboards are created, I have not commented on those suggestions.

[Dukasaur]

Definition:

Systematically Farming "New Recruits"

If you are found guilty of New Recruit Farming---that is, systematically joining games with New Recruits. Systematically Farming "New Recruits" may also systematically creating unappealing games that more savvy users avoid because of unpopular or niche game settings, thus luring New Recruits into stumbling into said games. Either of these practices are done in order to "farm" newbies for points, and if you find yourself doing one or both of these practices, you will find yourself escalating on the New Recruit Farming Vacation scale.

New Recruits = ?'s, I presume.


1) Is this current guideline satisfactory? If not, what do you want to eliminate/add?

2) Okay, now you got your desired rule.

3) Then, we attempt to draft the policy in order to make it effective while trying to foresee its consequences.


Go!

You're at least two months late. The idea of writing new anti-farming rules has been beaten to death in this forum at least two months ago, possibly more.

The fact is, no matter what rules you write, the rules lawyers will immediately set about finding loopholes and new ways to subvert the intent of the rule while obeying the letter of it. New rules are not the answer. The answer is changing the scoring system to take away the incentive to farm.

Ask yourself: why do the Pittsburgh Pirates not come down and challenge your local Peewee League team? Is it because there's a law against it? No, in fact there is no such law. In fact, such games are allowed, and once in a while major league players do play in some local game as some kind of charity event. The reason they don't happen normally is because there is no incentive. Nobody is going to pay the players a hundred thousand or whatever they make per game in the big leagues, and the game won't count toward the pennant.

[owenshooter]

be careful... lest we all forget the forum goers created the escalating scale for bigotry and then soon found ourselves being pushed up the scale for ALL INFRACTIONS with a claim by management that we had asked for it... so, be wary of what you create...-el Jesus negro

[thegreekdog]

be careful... lest we all forget the forum goers created the escalating scale for bigotry and then soon found ourselves being pushed up the scale for ALL INFRACTIONS with a claim by management that we had asked for it... so, be wary of what you create...-el Jesus negro

Yeah, I suppose that was kind of my point as well (i.e. my impression of high rankers is that they play inexperienced low rankers to gain their points). I have not tested my impression and I certainly don't want to cast aspersions on all high ranked players, but if my impression is correct, then a change in the bogrolling rules will affect a lot more people than the supporters of such rules intended.

[jefjef]

be careful... lest we all forget the forum goers created the escalating scale for bigotry and then soon found ourselves being pushed up the scale for ALL INFRACTIONS with a claim by management that we had asked for it... so, be wary of what you create...-el Jesus negro

What Psalm is this?

Excellent point owen! We should be careful of the landmines we bury.

[Johnny Rockets]

Guys, contribute or GTFO. Just because the fact that the topic has been rehashed a million times should not deter the will to reform.

Would it not be possible to implement a "diminishing rate of returns" system for ranks that are 3 or 4 or 5 ranks below you? After playing "X" number of cooks, they just wouldn't be worth the 1 point to play them. The current conk gets ahead by "reducing the risk" system. If you make that system nonviable, then problem solved no?You could even implement it only for the games you start and only one on ones that you start or join.

Also, implement that you have to join so many games in ratio to the ones that you start.

What say you?

JRock

[jefjef]

Guys, contribute or GTFO.

And who the f*ck you spewing this crap at? Every post here is on topic.

Also, implement that you have to join so many games in ratio to the ones that you start.

Yeah. I'm not going to join as many games as I make. Not going to happen. Some people pretty well only join games cuz they don't care to make them. Those that ranch would find opponents to create games for them to "satisfy" the condition. Not a fix.

So like owen stated: be wary of what you create

Thanks for your thoughts though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Guys, contribute or GTFO. Just because the fact that the topic has been rehashed a million times should not deter the will to reform.

Would it not be possible to implement a "diminishing rate of returns" system for ranks that are 3 or 4 or 5 ranks below you? After playing "X" number of cooks, they just wouldn't be worth the 1 point to play them. The current conk gets ahead by "reducing the risk" system. If you make that system nonviable, then problem solved no?You could even implement it only for the games you start and only one on ones that you start or join.

Also, implement that you have to join so many games in ratio to the ones that you start.

What say you?

JRock

Well, we already have that diminishing returns point system, so from what I understand is that you want higher ranked players to earn less after defeating a lower ranked player (3 to 5 ranks below).


What happens if a lower rank player beats a higher ranked player? The lower rank gains a substantial amount of points, yet the higher ranks couldn't earn as much from playing them. So, wouldn't more higher ranked players want to avoid any games with lower ranked players? That would wreak havoc on team games and tournaments because this policy creates a stronger incentive for higher ranked players to not to play lower ranked players...

Basically, you're increasing the price of any high ranked player for playing a game with lower ranked players. The supply of games with higher ranked players would decrease for lesser ranked players, i.e. the demanders. The quantity of games with higher rankers and lower rankers would decrease. What are the consequences?

1) There would very likely be decreased opportunities for lower ranked players to play with higher ranked players, thus decreased opportunities for the lower ranked to improve or face bigger challenges.

2) Higher ranked players would have a stronger incentive to avoid games with lower ranked players; therefore, team games which have a lower ranked player on one side might not be acceptable to the higher-ranked team. The game, i.e. exchange, wouldn't occur.

3) Significant decrease in ranching--but maybe not because the bogrollers have to play more games against lower rankers maintain a higher score. So, the intended cause is unknown. If we had empirical date on these trends (lol), we could figure the #3 issue out.


Conclusion, or tl;dr for others:
It seems that this policy would isolate higher ranked players from lower ranked players. I wouldn't want to discourage people from playing with each other. So, this policy might greatly reduce ranching, but to me, the costs would very likely outweigh the benefits. Decreased opportunities for lower ranked players to improve, decreased team games between higher ranked and lower ranked, an increased isolation of the higher ranked players, yet a probable decrease in bogroller-lower ranker games.

I don't think that's a good idea.

[jefjef]

Want to enact real fix?

Looking at the scoreboard there are active only 88 players that have 3000+ points. 31players with 3500+ points. Once a player achieves a certain score of like 3000 or 3500 auto block all players that are below a specific rank, like Sargent 1st or even Lt, from the generals games. Joining or being joined. Tourney and clan wars excluded.

Many players that are in and above that rank range are very competent, competitive and experienced players. A lot harder to be "ranched".

[Johnny Rockets]

Want to enact real fix?

Looking at the scoreboard there are active only 88 players that have 3000+ points. 31players with 3500+ points. Once a player achieves a certain score of like 3000 or 3500 auto block all players that are below a specific rank, like Sargent 1st or even Lt, from the generals games. Joining or being joined. Tourney and clan wars excluded.

Many players that are in and above that rank range are very competent, competitive and experienced players. A lot harder to be "ranched".

Yeah, sorry for the gtfo remark. Got a little pissy on the "don't bother, nothing will come of it crowd"

This proposal should be looked at. It's simple and would be pretty effective.

J

[jefjef]

Want to enact real fix?

Looking at the scoreboard there are active only 88 players that have 3000+ points. 31players with 3500+ points. Once a player achieves a certain score of like 3000 or 3500 auto block all players that are below a specific rank, like Sargent 1st or even Lt, from the generals games. Joining or being joined. Tourney and clan wars excluded.

Many players that are in and above that rank range are very competent, competitive and experienced players. A lot harder to be "ranched".

This proposal should be looked at. It's simple and would be pretty effective.

J

I'm sure this would appease the outraged at ranching crowd, add validity to the top of the scoreboard and it would directly affect so few players they really couldn't complain about it being segregation.

REQUEST FOR HELP FROM CC'S SUGGESTION LEAGUE!

I think this is simpla and valid enough suggestion as it is presented here that it could almost be copied and pasted in the Sugs forum. I'll confess that I'm not a fan of writing the sugs forms (they require a specific form and I'm more of a freestyle writer) and then periodically checking them to see if the sugg gets submitted (and perhaps lobbying for justice to smite evil with its relentless hammer). Luckily, I know several people enjoy that. To make a long story short, can anyone open suggestion in re of the aforementioned suggestion and politic for it? (this could be a long lasting partnership of CC suggs!)?

Thanks in advance!

jj

[chapcrap]

You know that I would do that for you, but I think that there are already suggestions in the forum that deal with rank segregation of some kind and all get shot down because of said rank segregation.

While, I would be in favor of it, I do not think it will have big enough wings to fly.

[jefjef]

You know that I would do that for you, but I think that there are already suggestions in the forum that deal with rank segregation of some kind and all get shot down because of said rank segregation.

While, I would be in favor of it, I do not think it will have big enough wings to fly.

Well Mr "tourney director", there have been suggs in the past about segregating ranks between the masses, but no real or valid sugg like this one that only blocks the very few from their easy pickings. Most everyone of that level do not systematically target cadets,corporals, privates. This would effectively solve the grazing issue while only directly affecting the very very few.

The proposed block could even be done at the 4500 point level. Thats only 3 players and I bet 2 of them wouldn't have any real issue with a block. They already mostly and freely play Sarge and above...

Now go post it please. I asked nicely.

[chapcrap]

You said Mr "tourney director" like I'm not really a Tournament Director.

I'll think about posting the sugg though.

[Crazyirishman]

Awe... you two are so cute

[jefjef]

Awe... you two are so cute

contribute or GTFO.

[L M S]

How about taking away a players right to invite people to games to the list of consequences for this? May not deter but sure would make it more difficult ahem, for some players to continue.