Why CC's Membership is (actually) Declining

[neanderpaul14]

15013 results on 61 pages

one thing all new players look for are real time games. playing games
over long periods of time is something they need to get used to. being able
to play speed games would definitely help keep new players interested and
willing to stick around. my guess is, over time, bigger share of them would
get hooked and go premium.

abandoning some of the options would not help with new players. maybe
limiting some of the settings would help so they don't get overwhelmed.
losing some of the options would only alienate veterans who prefer to have
all possible game settings available.

excellent article Mr Changsha

[TDK]

I think the one change mentioned in this tread that would make all the difference is making the speed games open to all. Limit the number of simultaneous games, limit the number of maps available, limit just about anything, but let the freemiums have speed games - chances of them getting hooked enough to drop dollars is much higher.

[Funkyterrance]

Ok I read the first four pages of this and am hoping what I have to say is not repeating anyone.
I will admit that when I first joined the site I was interested in simply playing a game of risk when I could not play in rl.
I am not sure, however, that casual gamers leaving is the reason for the decline. Could it be that the element of rank spoils the "casual" atmosphere for every player, veteran or new? Winning a game loses some of its thunder when its overshadowed by the fact that you are "still a private". Its a disgusting film that covers this site. It sucks the life out of the game tbh.
Its like hanging out in a casino, everyone is supposed to be having fun but look around you and most people look miserable, or at least much more serious than you can be to enjoy a game as you should.
My suggestion, if this is the point of this thread, is to have a whole separate area of games where scoring is not affected. Rank will not matter during these games, I don't care how you figure this possible, just make it so. I'm sure you all can work something out.
Picture this:
You are invited to your friends house and after dinner you all decide to play a game of risk. Only when the game starts, everyone puts on costumes according to how many games they have won in the past. Your friend's Dad has a fekking crown on his head, get what I mean? You get a shabby overcoat. You make this a regular thing but no matter how many times you beat your friends dad (about half the time) he still gets to wear the crown and you the shabby coat because he plays seven days a week and you can only fit in one. He beats your friends' other friends constantly because they are just there for the food and therefore racks up more and more points on his little scoresheet. He's not even fun to play against, he just sits there silently, checking his scoresheet from time to time. One week you are invited to come over for the usual game and you tell him you can't because you have to wash your hair.

[72o]

My favorite games are 8-man escalating on Classic. There are still tons of those games available publicly. I play in a lot of them, and join around 10 a week.

[kentington]

Ok I read the first four pages of this and am hoping what I have to say is not repeating anyone.
I will admit that when I first joined the site I was interested in simply playing a game of risk when I could not play in rl.
I am not sure, however, that casual gamers leaving is the reason for the decline. Could it be that the element of rank spoils the "casual" atmosphere for every player, veteran or new? Winning a game loses some of its thunder when its overshadowed by the fact that you are "still a private". Its a disgusting film that covers this site. It sucks the life out of the game tbh.
Its like hanging out in a casino, everyone is supposed to be having fun but look around you and most people look miserable, or at least much more serious than you can be to enjoy a game as you should.
My suggestion, if this is the point of this thread, is to have a whole separate area of games where scoring is not affected. Rank will not matter during these games, I don't care how you figure this possible, just make it so. I'm sure you all can work something out.
Picture this:
You are invited to your friends house and after dinner you all decide to play a game of risk. Only when the game starts, everyone puts on costumes according to how many games they have won in the past. Your friend's Dad has a fekking crown on his head, get what I mean? You get a shabby overcoat. You make this a regular thing but no matter how many times you beat your friends dad (about half the time) he still gets to wear the crown and you the shabby coat because he plays seven days a week and you can only fit in one. He beats your friends' other friends constantly because they are just there for the food and therefore racks up more and more points on his little scoresheet. He's not even fun to play against, he just sits there silently, checking his scoresheet from time to time. One week you are invited to come over for the usual game and you tell him you can't because you have to wash your hair.

FunkyT-Bone, I agree with you here. I don't know that others feel this way, but I have often wished for unranked games. I think the flaming in those sections would be a lot less. The only problem I see with this is that deadbeaters will increase. Possible solution is that premiums can use a filter so that they don't have to play against those with a deadbeat level of -1 or lower. Whatever that ranking would be.

[Funkyterrance]

Kentington, good point on the deadbeating aspect. No rank/scoring could lead to increased apathy in regard to completing games.
I am trying to follow the train of thought of the OP and bring this all to its natural conclusion. His theory is that most people who try out the game are actually casual users and are really just looking for a place to play risk in its purest form. While these new players may or may not stay for the long haul and eventually become premium members, they must at least find the fix they are looking for in order to give the site a chance. Admittedly a new player could find his first experience discouraging, never coming back. It is one explanation that could explain the decline of cc.
I myself agree in part with the OP's theory in that the reason the site is in decline is because it has drifted away from the original spirit of the game. Yes, convoluted maps and strange settings, while they bring a temporary breath of fresh air to the game, end up being havens for point farming and tend to scare away "casual" players. But I think at the root is the points system, for these maps and settings would be far less popular without it.

The site has a tendency to create a sort of evolution in a player once they become acquainted:

Brand New player- "This is so cool, I can play risk anytime I want!" ---> (level 10 fun meter)
Learning the ropes- "Hmm, Seems like ranks means a lot in this community..." --->(level 8 fun)
Climbing the ladder- (level 5-8 fun, depending on how much you win) --->
Plateau- Here is where a lot of players leave I think. The site focuses so much on points that I believe a lot of people lose interest. Unless you have a very strong lust for competition or are involved socially, this site could become a real drag, some would say fatally flawed. With the spirit of the game robbed by the points system, each game becomes a means to an end. The hugely successful board game was never like this. There was much more "living in the moment" excitement. Some people may pay for premium while in the frenzy of seeking higher rank but will they re-subscribe? Most likely not.
The more games players want to play, the more likely they will buy premium. If the general mood of the site were shifted by a major overhaul of not disposal of the points sytem I think that new/casual players would stay longer and want to play more games. This leads to more premium subscriptions. As far as the dissolution of the current hierarchy, most people believe in their heart of hearts that tournaments are a better sign of skill than rank anyway so let that determine the conqueror and even all rank.
My only suggestion about something that would draw players into a premium membership is maybe to have that be a condition to being a member of a clan? The whole axis of the site would have shifted at this point so who knows, maybe clan wars/tournaments would be the driving force of the site, pick up games becoming tools to hone our skills. Doesn't it all sound glorious? Let us break the chains of sad attachment to rank and let the teaming masses clash.

[Woodruff]

Ok I read the first four pages of this and am hoping what I have to say is not repeating anyone.
I will admit that when I first joined the site I was interested in simply playing a game of risk when I could not play in rl.
I am not sure, however, that casual gamers leaving is the reason for the decline. Could it be that the element of rank spoils the "casual" atmosphere for every player, veteran or new? Winning a game loses some of its thunder when its overshadowed by the fact that you are "still a private". Its a disgusting film that covers this site. It sucks the life out of the game tbh.
Its like hanging out in a casino, everyone is supposed to be having fun but look around you and most people look miserable, or at least much more serious than you can be to enjoy a game as you should.
My suggestion, if this is the point of this thread, is to have a whole separate area of games where scoring is not affected. Rank will not matter during these games, I don't care how you figure this possible, just make it so. I'm sure you all can work something out.
Picture this:
You are invited to your friends house and after dinner you all decide to play a game of risk. Only when the game starts, everyone puts on costumes according to how many games they have won in the past. Your friend's Dad has a fekking crown on his head, get what I mean? You get a shabby overcoat. You make this a regular thing but no matter how many times you beat your friends dad (about half the time) he still gets to wear the crown and you the shabby coat because he plays seven days a week and you can only fit in one. He beats your friends' other friends constantly because they are just there for the food and therefore racks up more and more points on his little scoresheet. He's not even fun to play against, he just sits there silently, checking his scoresheet from time to time. One week you are invited to come over for the usual game and you tell him you can't because you have to wash your hair.

FunkyT-Bone, I agree with you here. I don't know that others feel this way, but I have often wished for unranked games. I think the flaming in those sections would be a lot less. The only problem I see with this is that deadbeaters will increase. Possible solution is that premiums can use a filter so that they don't have to play against those with a deadbeat level of -1 or lower. Whatever that ranking would be.

The site is not interested in doing this because it holds the idiotic idea that it would corrupt the ranking system. Yeah, that system that already is corrupted so badly that it's worthless.

[kentington]

Ok I read the first four pages of this and am hoping what I have to say is not repeating anyone.
I will admit that when I first joined the site I was interested in simply playing a game of risk when I could not play in rl.
I am not sure, however, that casual gamers leaving is the reason for the decline. Could it be that the element of rank spoils the "casual" atmosphere for every player, veteran or new? Winning a game loses some of its thunder when its overshadowed by the fact that you are "still a private". Its a disgusting film that covers this site. It sucks the life out of the game tbh.
Its like hanging out in a casino, everyone is supposed to be having fun but look around you and most people look miserable, or at least much more serious than you can be to enjoy a game as you should.
My suggestion, if this is the point of this thread, is to have a whole separate area of games where scoring is not affected. Rank will not matter during these games, I don't care how you figure this possible, just make it so. I'm sure you all can work something out.
Picture this:
You are invited to your friends house and after dinner you all decide to play a game of risk. Only when the game starts, everyone puts on costumes according to how many games they have won in the past. Your friend's Dad has a fekking crown on his head, get what I mean? You get a shabby overcoat. You make this a regular thing but no matter how many times you beat your friends dad (about half the time) he still gets to wear the crown and you the shabby coat because he plays seven days a week and you can only fit in one. He beats your friends' other friends constantly because they are just there for the food and therefore racks up more and more points on his little scoresheet. He's not even fun to play against, he just sits there silently, checking his scoresheet from time to time. One week you are invited to come over for the usual game and you tell him you can't because you have to wash your hair.

FunkyT-Bone, I agree with you here. I don't know that others feel this way, but I have often wished for unranked games. I think the flaming in those sections would be a lot less. The only problem I see with this is that deadbeaters will increase. Possible solution is that premiums can use a filter so that they don't have to play against those with a deadbeat level of -1 or lower. Whatever that ranking would be.

The site is not interested in doing this because it holds the idiotic idea that it would corrupt the ranking system. Yeah, that system that already is corrupted so badly that it's worthless.

I see your point and raise you five.
While what you say may be true, I am just posting what would make it more enjoyable for me. I don't think my idea will actually be implemented. So, why do I still post it? Just to exercise my free speech.

Yes, the point system is hurting. As long as you have ranks you will have those who abuse the system to get the highest ranks. Which is why I avoid any top rankers in games. They usually haven't gotten there without a lot of grinding and some abuse, whether intentional or not.

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) The truth is that we are only a small sample, and our area of concern (?'ers) are completely missing from our analysis.

In order to understand the problem and find ways to effectively expand, they'd have to conduct basic marketing research (e.g. surveys).

Until then, we're just spinning our wheels--on the issue of new recruits. On other issues it's different:


(2) Over time, some veterans do get bored, but with all the updates, new maps, etc. most veterans remain, but this may change (again, lacking statistics on subgroup behavior doesn't help).

(3) Finally, if the perceived profits of addressing the problem fail to offset (lackattack's) the opportunity cost, then we can expect CC to ignore the problems, or not take the problems seriously.

[kentington]

(1) The truth is that we are only a small sample, and our area of concern (?'ers) are completely missing from our analysis.

In order to understand the problem and find ways to effectively expand, they'd have to conduct basic marketing research (e.g. surveys).

Until then, we're just spinning our wheels--on the issue of new recruits. On other issues it's different:


(2) Over time, some veterans do get bored, but with all the updates, new maps, etc. most veterans remain, but this may change (again, lacking statistics on subgroup behavior doesn't help).

(3) Finally, if the perceived profits of addressing the problem fail to offset (lackattack's) the opportunity cost, then we can expect CC to ignore the problems, or not take the problems seriously.

I have to say I love it when people can give pretty sound theories and still manage to be entertaining. It may be because I picture Jack Nicholson in a dinosaur outfit saying all of this stuff.

[Funkyterrance]

(1) The truth is that we are only a small sample, and our area of concern (?'ers) are completely missing from our analysis.

In order to understand the problem and find ways to effectively expand, they'd have to conduct basic marketing research (e.g. surveys).

Until then, we're just spinning our wheels--on the issue of new recruits. On other issues it's different:


(2) Over time, some veterans do get bored, but with all the updates, new maps, etc. most veterans remain, but this may change (again, lacking statistics on subgroup behavior doesn't help).

(3) Finally, if the perceived profits of addressing the problem fail to offset (lackattack's) the opportunity cost, then we can expect CC to ignore the problems, or not take the problems seriously.

1st Point:

I'll address the ?s. They are the ones who come to the site and find that links to the site are basically false advertising in that you can't play free risk online here. That is, without waiting a day or so to take your first turn.

2nd Point:

I agree that most veterans won't leave. I, however, think this has little to do with new updates. They are just hooked. Those that leave are either pissed at the management, dice, precious time being lost or are just simply tired of risk (most rare).

3rd Point:

True, and the fact that the paying customers of cc seem more motivated to investigate market research of the site than its profiteer only reenforces the suspicion that he doesn't think its worth the venture.

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) The truth is that we are only a small sample, and our area of concern (?'ers) are completely missing from our analysis.

In order to understand the problem and find ways to effectively expand, they'd have to conduct basic marketing research (e.g. surveys).

Until then, we're just spinning our wheels--on the issue of new recruits. On other issues it's different:


(2) Over time, some veterans do get bored, but with all the updates, new maps, etc. most veterans remain, but this may change (again, lacking statistics on subgroup behavior doesn't help).

(3) Finally, if the perceived profits of addressing the problem fail to offset (lackattack's) the opportunity cost, then we can expect CC to ignore the problems, or not take the problems seriously.

1st Point:

I'll address the ?s. They are the ones who come to the site and find that links to the site are basically false advertising in that you can't play free risk online here. That is, without waiting a day or so to take your first turn.

My intuition leads me to agree with you; however, since we are both lacking the empirical evidence, this hypothesis has yet to be verified.

My main point is that rational planning requires information which is currently insufficient. Without that, we could "shoot from the hip" but accidentally shoot ourselves in the foot.*

2nd Point:

I agree that most veterans won't leave. I, however, think this has little to do with new updates. They are just hooked. Those that leave are either pissed at the management, dice, precious time being lost or are just simply tired of risk (most rare).

See my response to your 1st Point.

3rd Point:

True, and the fact that the paying customers of cc seem more motivated to investigate market research of the site than its profiteer only reenforces the suspicion that he doesn't think its worth the venture.

What is to be done?

Shall we start a vanguard?




*I'm not sure why I'm saying "we" because "we" are not shareholders. Of course, "our feedback is important to them," but it's amusing how I identify with this site. That might not be healthy. Might have to engage in another Stalinist purge soon.

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) The truth is that we are only a small sample, and our area of concern (?'ers) are completely missing from our analysis.

In order to understand the problem and find ways to effectively expand, they'd have to conduct basic marketing research (e.g. surveys).

Until then, we're just spinning our wheels--on the issue of new recruits. On other issues it's different:


(2) Over time, some veterans do get bored, but with all the updates, new maps, etc. most veterans remain, but this may change (again, lacking statistics on subgroup behavior doesn't help).

(3) Finally, if the perceived profits of addressing the problem fail to offset (lackattack's) the opportunity cost, then we can expect CC to ignore the problems, or not take the problems seriously.

I have to say I love it when people can give pretty sound theories and still manage to be entertaining. It may be because I picture Jack Nicholson in a dinosaur outfit saying all of this stuff.

[thegreekdog]

I actually came here to play Risk on maps other than classic.

OH NO! TGD JUST THREW A WHOLE MONKEY WRENCH INTO THE THING! RUN!

[Woodruff]

I actually came here to play Risk on maps other than classic.

Me too. For me, the tremendous map variance is why I'm still here. And pretty much the only reason.