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

[PLAYER57832]

Well, where would be the risk and reward of trying out a new map? You risk points to try out a map, and if you get good at it, you are rewarded in the end.

One needn't play professional football before one plays PeeWee, after all, he's only 7 years old.
-ancient Chinese Proverb

ergo "the Cook's forum".

there are more than 16 types of maps out there. And, many have little to do with any others. Does Age of Merchant tell you about Oasis? Does Lunar Landing tell you about Civil War? Your whole premise is just wrong and has been from the start.

[Queen_Herpes]

Is the original post up to date Queen_Herpes?

I need to update it. There is a need out there for a training regimen that is not the Cooks Forum. The Cooks Forum only catches those who are willing to find the forum and follow its guidelines.

Yes, I am suggesting something that is forced upon all new recruits and also considering the concept of an AI opponent or games that risk no points to help players learn a map. One of the better points made earlier in the thread was that a "no points" mode would be great for a map that is in beta-testing. After all, those maps tend to have bugs that invalidate the early games anyways.

I remember my first times on Stalingrad and how certain planes wouldn't attack the right targets, artillery wouldn't attack the right targets, etc. If those gmaes had been played sans points, I wouldn't feel as bad having taken so many points from those who didn't know what was working and what wasn't. Similarly, I would think there are some players out there who might still be playing the map if they hadn't lost due to similar issues.

[JoshyBoy]

I need to update it. There is a need out there for a training regimen that is not the Cooks Forum. The Cooks Forum only catches those who are willing to find the forum and follow its guidelines.

I think that a better idea would be to send a welcome PM to each new member saying something like "If you want to learn the basics of the game, then look in at SoC".

[Woodruff]

I need to update it. There is a need out there for a training regimen that is not the Cooks Forum. The Cooks Forum only catches those who are willing to find the forum and follow its guidelines.

I think that a better idea would be to send a welcome PM to each new member saying something like "If you want to learn the basics of the game, then look in at SoC".

That would seem to be more effective and certainly would be more efficient.

[Queen_Herpes]

I need to update it. There is a need out there for a training regimen that is not the Cooks Forum. The Cooks Forum only catches those who are willing to find the forum and follow its guidelines.

I think that a better idea would be to send a welcome PM to each new member saying something like "If you want to learn the basics of the game, then look in at SoC".

That has been suggested before, but still requires the user to visit the SoC, an action that relatively few take advantage of. It still relies on human support which has its errors and, we've seen, some of the members of SoC can have alterior motives and abuse the system. An AI or another forced educational system that unlocks progressively more difficult maps and settings provides a consistent and error-free education.

[mpjh]

Yes, of course, forcing people to jump through hoops as opposed to a more organic process of learning by doing worked well in the Soviet Union. It really, really doesn't make any sense, unless of course you are training people to join the circus.

[SirSebstar]

Yes, of course, forcing people to jump through hoops as opposed to a more organic process of learning by doing worked well in the Soviet Union. It really, really doesn't make any sense, unless of course you are training people to join the circus.

I assume you never had to graduate from one level in order to get to a university...

Having trolled that for long enough. I still think the original premise of queens proposal is solid.
Namely, the allowing of more settings and types of maps based on objective criteria (them being succes, attendance, premium or otherwise, i dont care)
I feel the SoC has much to offer. I feel the need to unlock stuff should also be able to be bypassed, but discouraged.

I do NOT think the SoC should be mandatory, but a pm on the creation of the account is worthwhile and should also have a link to a comprehencive guide of the first few games/maps, not just a wierd forum where someone should have to read and make a new post.

I have stated before, and will state here again that CC has truly grows. When i started, I grew with CC. But Currently i have played the majority of all maps, but a huge number of maps i have not played before. Some would have baffeled me if i had to play them in my first few days if i had had BOB. If i do not have bob, i am SURE i would have quit, should i have played certain maps. If i was unable to get bob, i would have quit cc a long time ago.

I have previously teached cc to a few noobs, including the art of teamgames, and the learningcurve only gets bigger and bigger for new players. Its way too easy to get overwhelmed. Hell i have seen old players like myself seek advice how to play a map.. as if they cant figure that out for themselves. I know they can, but it does take a lot of time, something that is a scarse comodity. But at least they have an incling of what they need to do. new players dont. there is no comparison data for them. Bombarding, nuking esc spoils, attack routes are totally alien concepts. I would not have minded a low eductation and encouragement to grow.

Please Mind, I dont want someone to play 100's of games before getting into freestyle or something, but to have at least SEEN the options availiable and to see that there is info to be learned in some other way that just to give them a website and have fun (but no fun because they dont have a clue, and never see the bullet comming)... Whether they do learn or not is irrelevant.

In this sense SoC differs in my view. You can graduate from SoC by achieving a rank, or something. All i suggest, and this was the original proposal as i understood it, is that new players do not get overwhelmed with a total maountain of maps and settings, but instead get to play a few maps and the get offered new maps and settings complete with a link to the strategy guide e.g.

not everybody will have need to do this, not everybody will even want to follow the links. But at least you can get a better retention-rate on the new players who now might leave becasue they dont know what is going on, and cant figure it out when they play fog freestyle next to nuclear fuedal...

well this post is getting a bit longer then i expected.
I think instituting a way of 'guiding' (automaticly, e.g. by instituting a welcome pm in chapters) new players, next to the SoC is a good idea.

thats all folks

[PLAYER57832]

My issue has and always has been that the "criteria" have too little to do with any real oveall success.

If this is implemented, the limits should be to the "standard" type maps, ONLY. That is, let anyone who wants try AOR, Dust Bowl, Oasis, etc. There is no real training program for them and skill on other maps has little to do with playing those. Folks who are willing to read will do OK. Those who don't want to ... are better gone anyway.

But, since there is a training program for standard maps and for team play, perhaps there could be some requirement that one utilize those programs before going out and playing with the "masses".

In other words, more or less the opposite of Queen Herpes suggestion. LET people play all the diverse maps, but limit the play on the "standard" maps, team play. Assassin and the highly, highly complicated maps like Waterloo are already reasonably limited. No other limits are really needed.

Anyone who cannot take losing doesn't belong here. PERIOD.

[PLAYER57832]

I need to update it. There is a need out there for a training regimen that is not the Cooks Forum. The Cooks Forum only catches those who are willing to find the forum and follow its guidelines.

I think that a better idea would be to send a welcome PM to each new member saying something like "If you want to learn the basics of the game, then look in at SoC".

That has been suggested before, but still requires the user to visit the SoC, .

It has not only been suggested, it is IMPLEMENTED. And, it works to the extent anything can. Yet another case of your failure to fully investigate your "idea".

The REAL problem here is that some people cannot be bothered to learn. Others, both good players and poor players, want to act like spoiled brats because others don't play how they want (too well, too poor or just different than they). Its called sportsmanship and no "training program" or "unlock" path will fix this failure. Maturity will help in many cases, which is why some clans are dedicated to older folks.

You need to give this idea rest. You brought it up, it failed.

[Queen_Herpes]

Yes, of course, forcing people to jump through hoops as opposed to a more organic process of learning by doing worked well in the Soviet Union. It really, really doesn't make any sense, unless of course you are training people to join the circus.

...so sayeth a society "instructor."

It is fundamentally more difficult to "train" a large group of new members organically than it is to have a preprogrammed system that shows them what each setting does. If this site ever blew up and had a few thousand new players join at once, the Society would not be able to accomodate them. As it stands, there are enough new players who never route themselves to the Society anyways, so who does it serve? This suggestion is about hitting every player that walks through the door with some basic instruction.

Technology brought the original board game to its current iteration on this site. A little more technology cannot hurt.

[MoB Deadly]

Hi QH!

I am not sure why I felt the urge to post my thoughts on this subject but for some reason I felt the need to. Reading the first post (as a pretty experienced player with 1,000+ games under my belt), I was thrilled about the idea. I don't think recruits should be allowed to play certain maps because one bad instance could detract them from the site instantly. Then I read the next couple pages to read input from others, and saw the mixed review. I didn't want to read past that because I did not want to give a biased opinion.

I just want to explain my process of experimenting this site as a noob, and what lead me to purchase a premium membership. First off, I will say that I tried out multiple "Risk" sites all at one time, before deciding soley with CC. I tried Landgrab.net and Lux (??, its for Mac, I forget). Lux was off the list pretty early so its not important anyway. I played multiple sites for over 3 months before making a decsion, so I did not take it lightly.

First impression of this site was pretty good, I did like the map selection a lot, limit of 4 games wasnt bad to me, I think just about every site had that same restiction so I was used to it.

I will be honest, I was attracted to Landgrab more than CC at the time. Their interface looked "cooler" at the time, and I really liked the colorstyle of the maps they used. I liked how you got to pick a color and I liked fortresses and Commanders. You could have a lot of people in a game, like 15+

Now I am going to tell you why I picked CC over Landgrab. I was attracted to how much CC didn't limit me, and I could nearly test out each aspect of the site before making a purchase. Feudal War attracted me 100%, for some reason I had the strongest urge to play that map, and for some unknown reason it is my favorite map to this day. On your 'unlocks' it is a level 4 map. If I had to wait 25+ to unlock feudal, I do not know I would be here today. In addition, I wanted to test all the options this site had to offer before deciding to purchase. I was in a tournament within the same month I joined this website. Also within 1 month I also joined a clan. Just the fact that CC embraces new members and does not try to restrict them made me want to become a part of this site.

(just took a glance at my games, somehow I ended up on Blitzaholics team on Game Game 4840733 .. how did that happen lmao? Im kinda impressed lol) I probably had no idea who he was back then.

In my opinion, there are very few things I would restrict a new recruit from playing. and those are the really complicated maps that would completely overwhelm a new player. And seeing your list, I think about the second half of the Level 6 maps should be restricted for a very short amount of time. And I am a supporter of, you learn through experience. I dont think a new recruit is going to join ridiculous looking maps right from the start. A good example of that is the AoR series. I accidentally clicked join 1v1 on AoR 2 instead of a different game i wanted to join. I was always overwhelmed with its map key and assumed I would never understand the map. But through experience I realized its not difficult at all, and AoR is one of my favorite maps now.

There are many maps I have played only once or not at all that could be definitely interesting. Clandemonium, Castle Lands, Das Schloss, Kings Court. One of those could easily turn into one of my favorite maps if I take the time to learn them, but almost all the learning is done through experience.

I just have the opinion that restricting what people are allowed to explore, hurts more than helps potential customers. Some player could easily be attracted to the war themed maps, or someone could really be attracted to a map with a ton of territories. Some people could be attracted to freestyle risk.

[SirSebstar]

I would like to point out that some, like me , supports this idea becuase it is meant to help people, but it should also be optional. In the FAQ pages it should be told how to unlock all the gameoptions. That way you at least have the option to explore all now, AND you give it to those who can actually use the forum...

Other then that, you joined over 2 years ago, CC has more then doubles in options since that time..

[macbone]

That has been suggested before, but still requires the user to visit the SoC, an action that relatively few take advantage of. It still relies on human support which has its errors and, we've seen, some of the members of SoC can have alterior motives and abuse the system. An AI or another forced educational system that unlocks progressively more difficult maps and settings provides a consistent and error-free education.

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

I think we need to examine why people are leaving Conquer Club after playing for only a little while. What is CC's attrition rate compared to other sites? I know I've opened accounts at game sites in the past, played enough games to know the site wasn't for me, and moved on. The trouble is there's no way to survey those players, unless you send a "We've missed you" type of email with a link to a survey if the player doesn't log on for a month or two.

Here's a comparison to another game site. Over at gameknot.com, a chess site, they have 1,142,002 players registered, and there are currently 112,654 games ongoing. If every player is playing only one game each, that's less than 20% of registered users who are active on the site, but I know I personally have 8 games ongoing, and I'm not a premium over there. They're probably looking at 5% of their player base being active, too. It can't be because the settings or boards are too varied. I don't think they even have Blitz functionality.

There are a ton of maps on Conquer Club that I haven't played and I don't plan on playing soon. Truthfully, I wasn't wild about the Society's choice of teaching on Classic because nearly everyone on this site has played the Classic map before coming here (kind of like how nearly everyone's played the one board that GK has). I don't need an artificial limit telling me I can't play Foggy Nuclear Assassin on Poison Rome.

When I was a player, I did what you're describing. I limited myself to maps and settings that I understood, and gradually branched out. But I chose what those maps and settings were, and when I finally do play Foggy Nuclear Assassin in Poison Rome, it'll be when I'm ready, not when I've unlocked the ultimate Super Secret Level.

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.

[Queen_Herpes]

Hi QH!

I am not sure why I felt the urge to post my thoughts on this subject but for some reason I felt the need to. Reading the first post (as a pretty experienced player with 1,000+ games under my belt), I was thrilled about the idea. I don't think recruits should be allowed to play certain maps because one bad instance could detract them from the site instantly. Then I read the next couple pages to read input from others, and saw the mixed review. I didn't want to read past that because I did not want to give a biased opinion.

I just want to explain my process of experimenting this site as a noob, and what lead me to purchase a premium membership. First off, I will say that I tried out multiple "Risk" sites all at one time, before deciding soley with CC. I tried Landgrab.net and Lux (??, its for Mac, I forget). Lux was off the list pretty early so its not important anyway. I played multiple sites for over 3 months before making a decsion, so I did not take it lightly.

First impression of this site was pretty good, I did like the map selection a lot, limit of 4 games wasnt bad to me, I think just about every site had that same restiction so I was used to it.

I will be honest, I was attracted to Landgrab more than CC at the time. Their interface looked "cooler" at the time, and I really liked the colorstyle of the maps they used. I liked how you got to pick a color and I liked fortresses and Commanders. You could have a lot of people in a game, like 15+

Now I am going to tell you why I picked CC over Landgrab. I was attracted to how much CC didn't limit me, and I could nearly test out each aspect of the site before making a purchase. Feudal War attracted me 100%, for some reason I had the strongest urge to play that map, and for some unknown reason it is my favorite map to this day. On your 'unlocks' it is a level 4 map. If I had to wait 25+ to unlock feudal, I do not know I would be here today. In addition, I wanted to test all the options this site had to offer before deciding to purchase. I was in a tournament within the same month I joined this website. Also within 1 month I also joined a clan. Just the fact that CC embraces new members and does not try to restrict them made me want to become a part of this site.

(just took a glance at my games, somehow I ended up on Blitzaholics team on Game Game 4840733 .. how did that happen lmao? Im kinda impressed lol) I probably had no idea who he was back then.

In my opinion, there are very few things I would restrict a new recruit from playing. and those are the really complicated maps that would completely overwhelm a new player. And seeing your list, I think about the second half of the Level 6 maps should be restricted for a very short amount of time. And I am a supporter of, you learn through experience. I dont think a new recruit is going to join ridiculous looking maps right from the start. A good example of that is the AoR series. I accidentally clicked join 1v1 on AoR 2 instead of a different game i wanted to join. I was always overwhelmed with its map key and assumed I would never understand the map. But through experience I realized its not difficult at all, and AoR is one of my favorite maps now.

There are many maps I have played only once or not at all that could be definitely interesting. Clandemonium, Castle Lands, Das Schloss, Kings Court. One of those could easily turn into one of my favorite maps if I take the time to learn them, but almost all the learning is done through experience.

I just have the opinion that restricting what people are allowed to explore, hurts more than helps potential customers. Some player could easily be attracted to the war themed maps, or someone could really be attracted to a map with a ton of territories. Some people could be attracted to freestyle risk.

I had a tough time deciphering your position. Seems like you like the idea of limiting players, but you are concerned aboutt he impact on a player like yourself...."what would have happened when you yourself joined if these limitations were in place?" is a question you are asking. Rightfully so. There are plenty of potential members out there who are smart like you were. However, there are many more potential members out there who aren't that quick, perhaps slightly less apt at figuring things out. There is a lot of potential (sorry to re-use that word with multiple meanings for it) for a new recruit to eventually be good at this game and get accustomed to this site.

The hurdles the new recruit has to overcome when the new recruit is not as motivated, when he is not as skilled at navigating a website that is new to him, are formidable here at conquerclub. Remember that for must of us that have come so far as to post in the suggestions forum, we're likely in that top percent of motivated, gifted browsers and gamers. We have to step outside of ourselves, think outside the box, and try to imagine the site from the perspective of the less motivated, less "qualified?" and less, well (intelligent doesn't work here as there are people who are much smarter than I am who have tried out the site and bailed.) Make the site more accessible to the lowest common denominator.

Now, when I have hinted at dumbing it down in the past, there were some jeers and flames and concerns about quantity over quality. I could even be quoted saying, "quantity over quality." The reality is that a new recruit who comes here with the worst skills of all, the least material (in terms of strategy), and perhaps is a lot less social than we would desire COULD become a worthy opponent. My goal is to not only bring more of them in....but to also keep them here once they have arrived.

Smarter people than I have suggested that there be an "opt out" of this "training" (if it were to be implemented) for the 99th percentilers who could likely find the opt out in the FAQ section or something...or be guided there by a friend or benevolent member. I like that idea. Implement this suggestion and keep some of the lower denominators around a little longer, and allow the smartypants to find the opt out. Thoughts?

[SirSebstar]

I for one concur with the above suggestion

[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>)