Talk:Anti-Farm Code

Two remarks/questions: -- 02:49, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) Do we really need a separate article for this? The informnation can easily be covered by the [[farm] article.
 * 2) If we keep it, as per GW:ULC the name of the article should be Anti-farm code.

In fact, this could be a seperate lemma as there are several points which may be questioned... I think it would be interesting if anybody got any information on these points to share -- Sai Qui 19:16, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * When does the anti-farm code "kick in"?
 * Does killing different monsters avoid the activation of the code?
 * How long is it in effect?
 * Is it possible to determine whether it is in effect?

The problem is, in order to make a separate page, we need more information with testing, since ANET won't give out that information easily. and testing on this code is kinda hard, its like finding a needle in a sea. -- Cwingnam2000 19:21, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

I'd really like to see this topic expanded with more detail so it actually justifies its own article since I am really curious about what actually triggers this and what its effects are. Is there any experimental information about this anywhere? Or even if a bunch of people here just contributed there own experiences with it, we might be able to form some crude guidelines or something like that. BigAstro 14:22, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * A merge with Farm and a redirect from here seems adequate given the limited knowledge we have on this. There's really not enough info to justify it being an article; it would be comparable to adding a unique article for each note or trivia entry associated with NPCs, missions, or quests.
 * The problem is that it's really not something that can be easilly or reliably tested. Even after as long as this has been in place, we haven't found a way to objectively define/test/verify the most basic elements of this farming restriction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Maybe Merge For Now
I think that it can be merged for the time being, until more information is known (if ever known). Anyone think that this would be a good solution?--Greeves 23:10, 17 September 2006 (CDT)