[Rules] Limit New Recruit for 16 games in settings and maps

[SirSebstar]

..........(extensive cutting away of text)............
I'm glad you want to make the site more new player friendly, QH. However, we first need to find out why people don't stick around. You say it's because the learning curve's steep. Well, maybe. Can we get some data that proves that, other than from people coming in here and finding this thread? Because from what I've seen here, we're roughly split on this, and unless there's an overwhelming majority of folks who would rather see a tiered scheme implemented, there's no compelling case to change the way players can access games on the site.

I believe it should be an addition instead of just a limitation, or at least a limitation that you can easily circumvent, much like in other games. After all there is and will be no training mode on CC.

I can supply another reason for implementing this suggestion. Think not only that it limits players, but instead gives players an incentive to keep on playing, and also to more or less get a sense of the things that have been added. In other words, look for those things that attract a user base. For this exercise I will name the suggestion a tutorial.
As before mentioned, there is a userbase that likes to try all, or at least have the option, and any limits detract from the experience. They like to know things others do not. These users will quickly find the shortcut way of disabling their ‘tutorial’

There is also a userbase, lets call it the "you have to catch them all" who will seek an achievement component. This setup will immediately appeal to them, while the current ranking and medals setup is not immediately comprehensively understood. (I should know this, I see the Q&A)

The userbase that is interested in the social aspect of the game should not care either way about the “tutorial”. They have full access to the forums and see a wealth of interaction there. On a side note, these players should meet a lot less farmers and specialists who are not out for social interaction, but easy prey, and thus see more players interested and new(ish) like them. This proposal will therefore give them a greater incentive to play because the proposal has the side effect of removing some of the bigger social detractors that have been mentioned in the forums.

In short there is a lot for each group to win with this proposal, and thus increase their interest to stay on this site.


Background reading:
http://www.cblt.soton.ac.uk/multimedia/ ... laying.pdf

http://lcc.gatech.edu/~bmedler3/papers/ ... llenge.pdf

[Queen_Herpes]

Preceding post by sirsebstar is right on the money.

[PLAYER57832]

..........(extensive cutting away of text)............
I'm glad you want to make the site more new player friendly, QH. However, we first need to find out why people don't stick around. You say it's because the learning curve's steep. Well, maybe. Can we get some data that proves that, other than from people coming in here and finding this thread? Because from what I've seen here, we're roughly split on this, and unless there's an overwhelming majority of folks who would rather see a tiered scheme implemented, there's no compelling case to change the way players can access games on the site.

I believe it should be an addition instead of just a limitation, or at least a limitation that you can easily circumvent, much like in other games. After all there is and will be no training mode on CC.

come again? Haven't you heard of the "cook's forum?"

[I can supply another reason for implementing this suggestion. Think not only that it limits players, but instead gives players an incentive to keep on playing, and also to more or less get a sense of the things that have been added. In other words, look for those things that attract a user base. For this exercise I will name the suggestion a tutorial.
As before mentioned, there is a userbase that likes to try all, or at least have the option, and any limits detract from the experience. They like to know things others do not. These users will quickly find the shortcut way of disabling their ‘tutorial’

There is also a userbase, lets call it the "you have to catch them all" who will seek an achievement component. This setup will immediately appeal to them, while the current ranking and medals setup is not immediately comprehensively understood. (I should know this, I see the Q&A)

The userbase that is interested in the social aspect of the game should not care either way about the “tutorial”. They have full access to the forums and see a wealth of interaction there. On a side note, these players should meet a lot less farmers and specialists who are not out for social interaction, but easy prey, and thus see more players interested and new(ish) like them. This proposal will therefore give them a greater incentive to play because the proposal has the side effect of removing some of the bigger social detractors that have been mentioned in the forums.

In short there is a lot for each group to win with this proposal, and thus increase their interest to stay on this site.


Background reading:
http://www.cblt.soton.ac.uk/multimedia/ ... laying.pdf

http://lcc.gatech.edu/~bmedler3/papers/ ... llenge.pdf

You begin with a false assumption. CC HAS a training program. It is, however strictly geared toward standard play and now team play on standard maps.

CC, however has diversity of maps.


I have been here a long time, much longer than Queen Herpes. What I see driving people off is a variety of things. Some leave because of "forum disputes" of many types. Some leave because they stop advancing and then decide that the "dice suck"/"games are boring", etc. Many more leave just because they stop wanting to make appearances here every day. That last is probably the main reason most long-standing players leave. I mean, I like CC, but over 2 years of daily play is a bit much for anyone.

Those who stay either "specialize". They find a group of people (a clan, a group of friends or a group of maps) they like. Many will start with one group and then move on after a bit. I see a lot of people who started liking one map, then moved on to another. There is a whole group of us who regularly plays the newer maps, for example. There is another group that sticks mostly to team play. Etc.

You are both half correct in saying that people will stay when they get new opportunities. The problem is that you want to decide what opportunities are and are not available. Right now, CC has enough variation to keep people here. Not everyone. You cannot please everyone, period. You wish to act as though that sheer variety is itself a negative. Yet, in truth you have not provided any data to back it up. AND, many, many, many experienced players have stepped in to say you are just wrong. (many no longer bother.. that does NOT mean they are convinced!).

What CC needs is more maps, more variety. The more it gets the more it grows. If there is an issue, it is that the maps ought to be classified better. But limiting the maps won't accomplish anything. Particularly not the kind of classifications you suggest. All your groupings will result in is more people NOT playing the full diversity of maps available. You will cause people who might otherwise stay to turn away.

You have this idea that CC has to be like other sites and that this will make the site more attractive. Well, CC is not other sites. And most of us here like the fact that it isn't.

[natty dread]

Blocking the options from new players is not going to make them more likely to stay. The fundamental logic behind this suggestion is flawed. It's comparing CC to a video game, when CC is an online game with a high social element. The concept behind CC is a relatively simple one. There is more and more competition for CC. The one trump card CC has is it's diversity of maps and options. If you take that away, new players are going to go somewhere that doesn't treat them like babies.

Video games are different than online games like this. In a video game, there is no social element, you play to basically challenge yourself, and this is why it is appropriate for a video game to present challenges like unlocking levels and secrets, etc. However an online game like CC is seen more as a service: the site provides a service to you, the player, and you evaluate the service you get and consider if it is something you want to subscribe to and possibly pay for. The diversity of maps and options are the best selling points CC has for a new player. It doesn't matter if you could "turn off" the unlocking mode, because first impressions are important. And there will inevitably be players that won't notice that there is a way to turn off the tutorial mode, and will leave because of lack of content.

Some like to point out that we already have limitations for new recruits. True, but they only last for 5 games, and they are in place for very different reasons than the ones behind this suggestion. I say we don't need any more limitations than the ones we already have.

[Queen_Herpes]

I can supply another reason for implementing this suggestion. Think not only that it limits players, but instead gives players an incentive to keep on playing, and also to more or less get a sense of the things that have been added. In other words, look for those things that attract a user base. For this exercise I will name the suggestion a tutorial.
As before mentioned, there is a userbase that likes to try all, or at least have the option, and any limits detract from the experience. They like to know things others do not. These users will quickly find the shortcut way of disabling their ‘tutorial’

Great point. The incentive was part of the reason I came up with the suggestion in the first place.

[JoshyBoy]

I can supply another reason for implementing this suggestion. Think not only that it limits players, but instead gives players an incentive to keep on playing, and also to more or less get a sense of the things that have been added. In other words, look for those things that attract a user base. For this exercise I will name the suggestion a tutorial.
As before mentioned, there is a userbase that likes to try all, or at least have the option, and any limits detract from the experience. They like to know things others do not. These users will quickly find the shortcut way of disabling their ‘tutorial’

Great point. The incentive was part of the reason I came up with the suggestion in the first place.

I agree guys.

I also disagree, because Queen_Herpes has insulted and disrespected me in the past.

[Queen_Herpes]

I sure hope I don't have any alterior motives.

When someone is heavily involved in the SoC and makes posts that support the SoC as an alternative to this suggestion, it seems a bit self-serving.

I think SoC is great, but this suggestion is better. As mentioned, this suggestion automates some basic education. This allows the new recruit to experience the site in a less frustrating manner than simply being "thrown to the dogs." The SoC relies, IMO, too much on the support of people who can, at times, be unavailable, aloof, or uncaring. Certainly the SoC and the Strategy guides are helpful in developing strategy - which my suggest most certainly does not do for the new recruit.

[PLAYER57832]

You call SOC "aloof" and "uncaring?' Hmmm... well, getting 3 months free premium sems a lot more caring than artificially limiting games. If SOC has a problem it is not that people within are aloof and uncaring, it is that they concentrate on just one map type. There are plans to perhaps expand eventually, but it takes volunteers, time, etc. In fact, there are more than a few informal "training programs" out there. There are people who do take newbies in hand and help them learn games. THAT is part of what CC is about.

Once again, you have not proven your case. You ignore what really happens here, why people stay and why they leave. Limiting maps will drive far more people away than it will help.

[Woodruff]

You ignore what really happens here, why people stay and why they leave. Limiting maps will drive far more people away than it will help.

I tend to agree. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but I can't imagine that I would have stayed if I had either thought there were so few maps (the huge number of maps was my primary motivation in staying) or that I wasn't able to access those large numbers of maps for a while. It would have pissed me off.

(And I'm hearing the calls now for retroactively implementing this for me...<grin>)

[SirSebstar]

You ignore what has been writen above, then why should i respond to your empty post... Well I am such a nice guy
If you did not know better would you have minded? Assuming you did not read the FAQ, or the pm's that would accompany this system to help you and point out information..
Obviously if you did read the above statements, you would know this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings. It would give players a more reasonable chance to get to knew what the settings mean instead of just reading something about freestyle, just to point out an example.

Assuming you did not read the above, i can only conclude you are in fact in agreement with me.
If so, thanks!

You ignore what really happens here, why people stay and why they leave. Limiting maps will drive far more people away than it will help.

I tend to agree. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but I can't imagine that I would have stayed if I had either thought there were so few maps (the huge number of maps was my primary motivation in staying) or that I wasn't able to access those large numbers of maps for a while. It would have pissed me off.

(And I'm hearing the calls now for retroactively implementing this for me...<grin>)

[JoshyBoy]

You ignore what really happens here, why people stay and why they leave. Limiting maps will drive far more people away than it will help.

I tend to agree. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but I can't imagine that I would have stayed if I had either thought there were so few maps (the huge number of maps was my primary motivation in staying) or that I wasn't able to access those large numbers of maps for a while. It would have pissed me off.

(And I'm hearing the calls now for retroactively implementing this for me...<grin>)

Amen brothers.

[Queen_Herpes]

You ignore what really happens here, why people stay and why they leave. Limiting maps will drive far more people away than it will help.

I tend to agree. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but I can't imagine that I would have stayed if I had either thought there were so few maps (the huge number of maps was my primary motivation in staying) or that I wasn't able to access those large numbers of maps for a while. It would have pissed me off.

(And I'm hearing the calls now for retroactively implementing this for me...<grin>)

Fortunately for us, you joined back when there were fewer maps and fewer game options/settings! Good thing (and amazing considering your post) that you stuck around! Cheers! FYI, New recruits are limited to certain maps and settings.

[JoshyBoy]

FYI, New recruits are limited to certain maps and settings.

If this is the case, why restrict them further?

[PLAYER57832]

Fortunately for us, you joined back when there were fewer maps and fewer game options/settings! Good thing (and amazing considering your post) that you stuck around!

Not amazing. The diversity of maps is WHY people stick around. But, and this is key, its not so much that people say because they see 100 maps. They stay because within those 100+ maps are some they like.

If there is an issue, it is helping people wade through the diversity to find the types they like. Your suggestion does not help that at all. In fact, you start with the utterly false assumption that you can decide which maps some people might like. And.. you keep with that assumption despite all evidence to the contrary.

Cheers! FYI, New recruits are limited to certain maps and settings.

They are limited (and for 5 games ONLY) to make people play a couple of games before launching into the most complicated maps, game types. It is a limit, not a further encouragement to stay.

[PLAYER57832]

You ignore what has been writen above, then why should i respond to your empty post... Well I am such a nice guy

Coming from someone who said CC doesn't have a training program??

Anyway, both Woodruff and I have followed Queens various suggestions. Niether one of us can truly understand why this one persisted into a sticky. Because it just plain runs counter to what CC is about.

That said:

...this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings. It would give players a more reasonable chance to get to knew what the settings mean instead of just reading something about freestyle, just to point out an example.

Folks ALREADY HAVE the chance to select or not select games. As a non-option, this idea stinks. As an option, it is a pure waste of admin programming time and server space.

(And I'm hearing the calls now for retroactively implementing this for me...<grin>)

I think I got you beat on that one ... (but then, I have had longer to irritate people )

[Queen_Herpes]

Obviously if you did read the above statements, you would know this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings. It would give players a more reasonable chance to get to knew what the settings mean instead of just reading something about freestyle, just to point out an example.

Excellent job reading the posts, SirSebstar! As mentioned, I fully support the notion (and it wasn't mine originally) that a new recruit can go in to deselect this training program. Certainly I support that this training would be an automatically selected set-up for all new recruits.

Because you can read, SirSebstar, I'm sure you also understand that this suggestion supports the concept that the new recruits would not be able to "see" the maps that they cannot play. I'm on the fence on that, though. What do you think?

[angola]

Because you can read, SirSebstar, I'm sure you also understand that this suggestion supports the concept that the new recruits would not be able to "see" the maps that they cannot play. I'm on the fence on that, though. What do you think?

Wait, you want to limit how many maps the new recruits can even see?

Wow, that will really drive people away. If I signed up for this site and thought it only had 16 maps, I'd be out of here quick.

Also, I was playing lots of different Risk-type games when I stumbled upon Conquer Club (damn Grand Strategy servers kept going down) and I think it is ridiculous to limit new recruits any more than they already are.

I like the PM to the new recruits about the Society of Cooks. That seems reasonable.

[JoshyBoy]

Wait, you want to limit how many maps the new recruits can even see?

Wow, that will really drive people away. If I signed up for this site and thought it only had 16 maps, I'd be out of here quick.

Also, I was playing lots of different Risk-type games when I stumbled upon Conquer Club (damn Grand Strategy servers kept going down) and I think it is ridiculous to limit new recruits any more than they already are.

I like the PM to the new recruits about the Society of Cooks. That seems reasonable.

Amen brother.

[PLAYER57832]

I like the PM to the new recruits about the Society of Cooks. That seems reasonable.

They already get that pm. (maybe not when you started, but now they do).

I, of course, agree with the rest of what you have said.

[SirSebstar]

You ignore what has been writen above, then why should i respond to your empty post... Well I am such a nice guy

Coming from someone who said CC doesn't have a training program??

I cannot remember saying such a thing. I assume you are confused with someone else.

Anyway, both Woodruff and I have followed Queens various suggestions. Niether one of us can truly understand why this one persisted into a sticky. Because it just plain runs counter to what CC is about.

QH did not make it a sticky and I do not think a sticky requires your approval anyways so i fail to see the relevance here.

That said:

...this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings. It would give players a more reasonable chance to get to knew what the settings mean instead of just reading something about freestyle, just to point out an example.

Folks ALREADY HAVE the chance to select or not select games. As a non-option, this idea stinks. As an option, it is a pure waste of admin programming time and server space.

If i followed that line of thinking then players should not even be limited in the first 5 games. If that is what you mean then tough luck. I am trying to expand the time players find it cool to hang around on this site. As has been presented before, it is a fact that there are several groups of players, each with their own desires wishes and dislikes. The option of an extended time of exploration is intended to keep as many players interested as possible. The shortcut method of disableing said period is meant for those users who like to try everything right now.. But not everybody is like that. To get back to your argument, if people have the option to not play freestyle they need to know what freestyle is before they are shanghai’d and leave this place for cheaters paradise that it is.

(And I'm hearing the calls now for retroactively implementing this for me...<grin>)

I think I got you beat on that one ... (but then, I have had longer to irritate people )[/quote] yes you do, please stay out of here unless you want to either improve on the design or post a helpful comment. I will note that you disapprove of this idea, and you can post when you have something relevant to add.

[SirSebstar]

....Because you can read, SirSebstar, I'm sure you also understand that this suggestion supports the concept that the new recruits would not be able to "see" the maps that they cannot play. I'm on the fence on that, though. What do you think?

considering the comments i think players should not be able to select certain options untill they more or less qualify for it.(much like the first 5 games) Do i want them invisiable or greyed out, then i would suggest greyed out over invisiable. After all, if you do not know what else is out there, you might not want to run as fast and there are a lot of groups out there that really do want to do everything as fast as possible. Also the got to have em all crowd needs to clearly see whats out there for them to get
So i'd propose visiable and tempting..

[Woodruff]

You ignore what has been writen above, then why should i respond to your empty post...

f*ck you and your assinine presumption that a brand new newbie would understand a PM trying to explain this to them or that they would be able to figure out how to do it.

If you did not know better would you have minded?

Yes, because the primary thing I love about this site is the tremendous number of maps involved.

Obviously if you did read the above statements, you would know this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings.

I've already addressed that.

Assuming you did not read the above, i can only conclude you are in fact in agreement with me.
If so, thanks!

f*ck off.

I think I got you beat on that one ... (but then, I have had longer to irritate people )

yes you do, please stay out of here unless you want to either improve on the design or post a helpful comment. I will note that you disapprove of this idea, and you can post when you have something relevant to add.

Yes PLAYER...if you disagree, you should just shut the hell up.

[Woodruff]

Obviously if you did read the above statements, you would know this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings. It would give players a more reasonable chance to get to knew what the settings mean instead of just reading something about freestyle, just to point out an example.

Excellent job reading the posts, SirSebstar! As mentioned, I fully support the notion (and it wasn't mine originally) that a new recruit can go in to deselect this training program. Certainly I support that this training would be an automatically selected set-up for all new recruits.

Because you can read, SirSebstar, I'm sure you also understand that this suggestion supports the concept that the new recruits would not be able to "see" the maps that they cannot play. I'm on the fence on that, though. What do you think?

You sure are a sanctimonious bitch.

[Queen_Herpes]

Obviously if you did read the above statements, you would know this is a voluntary limitation that you as a player can end yourself, but then you need to change some settings. It would give players a more reasonable chance to get to knew what the settings mean instead of just reading something about freestyle, just to point out an example.

Excellent job reading the posts, SirSebstar! As mentioned, I fully support the notion (and it wasn't mine originally) that a new recruit can go in to deselect this training program. Certainly I support that this training would be an automatically selected set-up for all new recruits.

Because you can read, SirSebstar, I'm sure you also understand that this suggestion supports the concept that the new recruits would not be able to "see" the maps that they cannot play. I'm on the fence on that, though. What do you think?

You sure are a sanctimonious bitch.

Um, I don't know what sanctimonious means. Please elaborate. As to this suggestion, I don't think this particular comment is on topic. Please stay on topic. Thank you!

[Queen_Herpes]

Because you can read, SirSebstar, I'm sure you also understand that this suggestion supports the concept that the new recruits would not be able to "see" the maps that they cannot play. I'm on the fence on that, though. What do you think?

Wait, you want to limit how many maps the new recruits can even see?

Wow, that will really drive people away. If I signed up for this site and thought it only had 16 maps, I'd be out of here quick.

Also, I was playing lots of different Risk-type games when I stumbled upon Conquer Club (damn Grand Strategy servers kept going down) and I think it is ridiculous to limit new recruits any more than they already are.

I like the PM to the new recruits about the Society of Cooks. That seems reasonable.

Probably stirring controversy more than anything. I put a suggestion forward that never got much traction related to putting the maps on display. Currently, they are hidden if a visitor to the site is not a member. Then...if you are a member, they are not "easy" to find. I figured since everyone was so hyped up about the maps being what attracts players to this site, that (with the other suggestion) I was simply trying to get conquerclub to advertise those maps in a more effective manner. However, hardly anyone commented on that thread and it faded away. So, I must ask, if we limit the number of maps visible to a new recruit...are we really changing much for a new member?