Talk:Rank farming
The detail about how autobalance works is wrong, I think. It states that the number of places on the losing side has to be an even number to trigger autobalancing. That's not correct; I've definitely seen it trigger at 7v5 (where 5 is the losing side, and - obviously - odd). I'm guessing that it will actually trigger when the difference between the two team sizes is at least 2, because that's both what it feels to me is happening and the way I'd have coded it myself - but that's a little tricky to check definitively, because (a) differences greater than 2 don't seem to happen much when I'm in the winning team, and (b) it's not really obvious quite when autobalance triggers - there's quite a delay between the numbers going unbalanced and the request for volunteers, during which there's time for more people to have moved to spectator. But it would be downright odd if the game were to ask for volunteers at, say, 7v5 but not the even more imbalanced 8v5.
- The article says "Players must ensure there are an even number of spaces in the losing team during autobalance. Autobalance will not create a free space in the winning team if there are an odd number of spaces in the losing team." This is not the same as "It states that the number of places on the losing side has to be an even number to trigger autobalancing." First, when it says "even spaces", it means the difference between the teams, not the number of people on the losing team. So your "odd" example, 7v5, is actually even: 7-5=2. Secondly, with odd spaces, autobalance will trigger just fine, but it will leave red with one extra person, thus preventing anyone in spec from being able to join red. I see why you got confused, though, so I'll give the line a rewrite. --Idris (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well - basically, when you wrote your original words, you were thinking of the difference between the two teams, and then interpreting that as unfilled gaps in the losing team. That's certainly one way of looking at it, but not necessarily the most obvious unless you explain what you mean. Whereas I saw "even number... ...in the team" and read that as "number of players" - because, in my mind at the time, players were what a team is formed of. (For what it's worth, I spent 5 years once giving technical support to customers, and I know for a fact that, when you're confident that you've written something in a way that is absolutely clear and unambiguous, the first 3 customers that read it will find at least 4 different interpretations. And not one of those will be what you thought you said...)
- Either way, though, with the "volunteer" button (which I presume to be evidence of autobalance starting) currently visible to both teams at present, it's easier to watch what's going on, and I'm confident that my guess was correct - I've definitely seen autobalance trigger when the difference was odd, and I've been a beneficiary of such an autobalance, too. And frankly, it doesn't make sense the other way - why autobalance when the difference is 2, but not when the difference is much bigger but odd (5, say)? (I wouldn't suggest changing the words immediately - but do keep an eye out, because I'm confident I'm correct.) Doghouse13 (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Violation of the Rules of Conduct[edit]
"22 While participating in Plaver-vs-Player (PvP) gameplay, you will not participate in any form of match manipulation. Match manipulation is defined as any action taken to fix or manipulate the outcome of a match or alter or manipulate the rankings or ratings of the ladder. This also includes disrupting other people’s game experience by not actively participating in matches in good faith, a.k.a leeching"
Rank farming is (or should be) a bannable thing, it shouldn't be encouraged on the wiki. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- According to a dev, it is not a bannable offense. He described it as "playing oddly". ANet have no problem with rank farms since rewards scale with active playtime. Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/farm-servers/first#post4426311 --Leen (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's a pretty lazy way of admitting that they stopped enforcing their own rules. What is this if not match manipulation? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Match manipulation only matters if they're competing against players who, themselves, are expecting competition. If it's an open queue, like Hero Battles in the previous game, people trying to farm points are going up against people trying to play real matches. That's frustrating for both parties. But if they're completely separate, and the people farming rank are well versed in the rules of their custom arena, what "harm" is there? Who actually loses out, who is being "hurt" by some people in their own tiny area playing stupidly to make a meaningless bar go higher in a free online video game?
- The most "harm" you could claim those people are doing is farming rank-up chests, but those don't drop anything particularly gamebreaking or economy shattering and there's a set number of 'em anyway. Definitely a minor issue. -Auron 08:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is indeed a minor issue, but only because Anet let this run rampart eversince Skyhammer farming to the point where ranks are almost completely meaningless. Afaik in GW1 they used to ban people for GvG and HA wintrading, and this is exactly what's happening here but in a less competitive environment (and HB was removed due to its wintrading nature). They don't ban leechers either, you can cap close for the 10 points in Ranked (to be eligible for the 500 rank point reward) then just go afk, and you'll never get banned - point is, even if Anet doesn't care that doesn't mean the official wiki should encourage RoC violations. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you regarding the wording of TOS, but you might just as well say that ANet are too lazy to update their TOS to reflect their decision regarding rankfarms. The fact remains that it is not up to you or me to decide what's bannable or what's considered an exploit. There are good arguments for and against rank farms, and ANet have spoken. I wish that their decision and what's written in the TOS were consistent (either way) but ANet like to be super vague when it comes to exploits. That has led to actual problems in the past; this isn't one of them. :) --Leen (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is indeed a minor issue, but only because Anet let this run rampart eversince Skyhammer farming to the point where ranks are almost completely meaningless. Afaik in GW1 they used to ban people for GvG and HA wintrading, and this is exactly what's happening here but in a less competitive environment (and HB was removed due to its wintrading nature). They don't ban leechers either, you can cap close for the 10 points in Ranked (to be eligible for the 500 rank point reward) then just go afk, and you'll never get banned - point is, even if Anet doesn't care that doesn't mean the official wiki should encourage RoC violations. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's a pretty lazy way of admitting that they stopped enforcing their own rules. What is this if not match manipulation? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
