PLAYER57832 wrote:..........HOWEVER, saying people first come here for that reason is not the same as saying people stay here for that reason.
There have been repeated comments about why people stay. Most are backed by a fair amount of evidence. Only partially anecdotal evidence. For the most part, these claims have not even been truly refuted, just "well, no one really knows, so.." and so forth.
I disagree with your statement that the information i supplied is anecdotal. I have supplied 2 studies to why people in general stay or leave. From there making an extrapolation to CC is not that big a leap of faith. Ofcourse i can be wrong, but i have seen no counter evidence so far.
I said only partially anecdotal.
The evidence is that limiting maps in this way will cause far more people to leave than to stay.
This is not a case where you can simply look at averages, because there is such a wide diversity within the maps. That is the point Q. keeps missing. She has still not played all the maps, though she is now playing more than when she first came up with this suggestion.
From the start, those of us who DO play all the maps or who like the "unusual" maps have come out against this suggestion. Those who agree are almost all those who just like one type of map, who think maps like Lunar Landing, AOR2, etc are "garbage".
Really, this comes down to one more attempt to cut back on the full diversity of maps available, to set out restrictions not based on evidence.
I can see upping the limit to playing Gaza, Waterloo, some of the other more complicated maps. I can see requiring those playing Assasin games to go through a brief quiz that shows they understand the game type (though, in truth, I think a lot of people hitting the wrong target may be simply forgetting they are playing Assassin on that map..lol)
SirSebstar wrote:When person after person comes and says "people stay in large part because of the number of maps".. and virtually no one (other than Queen Herpes) says that people are leaving because there are too many maps,........
It is not just maps, but also settings that are confusing. There are a variety of reasons for someone to go, and only one to stay (because i want to). This suggestion appeals to 2 of the 3 major groups. the 3th major group likes to do everything right now, and all they have to do is change a setting..[/quote]
Based on what?
Any poll here is hardly representative. We KNOW that. Only the barest fraction of people go to the forums. The people you play? How much do you actually play the wide diversity of maps?
If we need something, we need the maps categorized. I have trumpeted THAT for some time. I even created a list, kept it updated up until roughly last summer. (should be back in General Discussions somewhere.. but its a very, very old post, over a year, maybe even 2 years). It went nowhere.
Again, the "majority" of whom you speak don't want to play the wide diversity of maps. They want to play standard, territory maps. Nothing prevents them from doing that. This suggestion will keep those of us with other likes from playing the games WE like. Are we in the minority? Yes. BUT, we are a dedicated minority.
There ARE problems. The biggest fixable pproblems, specifically are that maps are not very well categorized or described. The second problem is that Assassin is not very well explained. Having too many maps does not even rank on this list, just giving people a better way to find particular maps perhaps.
The plan supposedly also gives out a better explenation with the unlocking of new settings and maps. I would conclude from that, that this plan would therefor solve your remark.[[/quote]
Then you did not read my suggestion, AT ALL.
MY suggestion is to offer categories so that people can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES, that we give people INFORMATION.
This suggestion is to limit access. VERY DIFFERENT INDEED!
The TRUE big problems.... people who just cannot be bothered to read and poor sports. ....
Agreed. This suggestion does NOT heal mankind, cure diseas and end the hunger.. to paraprase what you said; You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But we are trying to bring the player close to the water, and make it less murky (as you have stated that it alread is) We do try to keep the reasons for leaving to be more limited.[[/quote]
NO, you are trying to dictate and limit how people play, not "bring them to water"
If people don't understand, then do a better job of explaining, open up the Cook's forum to non-standard game types... ETC.
SirSebstar wrote:If there are other suggestions that might be more deserving of a sticky according to you, then I have to say that I find that a pretty invalid way of arguing. I am not sure if you see any merit in this suggestion, but you find other problems more pressing or that you do not see any merit whatsoever.
However, as you can see your concerns have been adressed. I hope that means you will support this.
OH PLEASE. This "suggestion" has been around for about 2 years. It has been blasted by all but a few, mostly newer members, the entire time.
And, I HAVE been placing multiple other suggestions, some have even been accepted. I have no idea why this suggestion was elevated to sticky level. It should have died a LONG time ago! Mostly, I think folks just get tired of arguing with Q.H. It has nothing to do with liking the suggestion, not really, not in the greater CC world.