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

[Queen_Herpes]

(...truncated this comment to remove blatant ass-kissing directed at lackattack and andydufresne...)
Long story short, Andy is right, there is no way he (lackattack) is going to limit games that closely. While it does make sense to protect them on some level...the game is a game, and quite frankly, the best way for players to learn, is to play against better players, and lose...

Just in case you forgot.

[Gogatron]

Wow you guys post fast!
Yes I am a real person and not a "multi" (??multiple account???)
I've been playing risk for a very very long time and I love the amount of maps on here for sure.
I stand firm with my argument that this is a bad idea. If I had not been able to see all the maps and play the different styles I really don't think I would have liked this site as much as I do. The only reason I bought premium was so I could play lots of games at once.

With one post and two games completed, I'm putting my money that someone who is REALLY against this suggestion just spent $25 to flame/post this thread. LOL! Can comeone please find out who's multi this is????

ROFL why in the WORLD would someone pay money to flame a thread, when if they have an account the could post just the same. Do you really think that? REALLY?



EDIT: also thanks for the welcomes. And I was a bit surprised I posted on the forums too. I hadn't been planning on it, but this thread caught my eye..

[Queen_Herpes]

Wow you guys post fast!
Yes I am a real person and not a "multi" (??multiple account???)
I've been playing risk for a very very long time and I love the amount of maps on here for sure.
I stand firm with my argument that this is a bad idea. If I had not been able to see all the maps and play the different styles I really don't think I would have liked this site as much as I do. The only reason I bought premium was so I could play lots of games at once.

With one post and two games completed, I'm putting my money that someone who is REALLY against this suggestion just spent $25 to flame/post this thread. LOL! Can comeone please find out who's multi this is????

ROFL why in the WORLD would someone pay money to flame a thread, when if they have an account the could post just the same. Do you really think that? REALLY?



EDIT: also thanks for the welcomes. And I was a bit surprised I posted on the forums too. I hadn't been planning on it, but this thread caught my eye..

My vote is still with multi and just so this multi Gogtron knows, I would happily pay $25 six or seven times a year to make a post as funny as this or to make a post to make a point. The only reason I wouldn't do it: against the rules.

I especially like that for his second post, he came BACK here and has now learned to quote, and not just quote, but quote in line in the center of the post.

Corbin Dallas MultiPass

[Gogatron]

Then Ma'am, you're a fool.
Believe what you want but I would never pay 25$ just so I could post "anonymously". That, is bullshit.
Don't be sad everyone doesn't agree with you.

[tkirby]

This is the best idea I've seen. As a new user to the site I would've benefited from a gradual introduction to the more complicated aspects of the game. Unlocking maps would make playing more rewarding as well.

[stahrgazer]

Good point, I'm hoping more people make more comments like this so that I may amend the list for logical, subjective concerns.

Except, in the next post, you posted your list again without any amendments in the areas i discussed.

[Queen_Herpes]

This is the best idea I've seen. As a new user to the site I would've benefited from a gradual introduction to the more complicated aspects of the game. Unlocking maps would make playing more rewarding as well.

...and that is the point. Make it more rewarding and provide a gradual introduction, just like it was for the rest of us. We all were introduced to new game options and new maps over time.

[Queen_Herpes]

Good point, I'm hoping more people make more comments like this so that I may amend the list for logical, subjective concerns.

Except, in the next post, you posted your list again without any amendments in the areas i discussed.

Right now I cannot make immediate changes to the order of unlocks nor the maps in the particular groups. If I was to do that, I might end up having to change the order and change the maps too frequently. It is tough enough getting this all together into a cogent argument for implementation. I honestly am hoping users make comments like the ones you have made so that I can get a consensus on what options should be unlocked when and which maps belong in particular groups. I hope you aren't offended. An upgrade is forthcoming.

[AAFitz]

Wow you guys post fast!
Yes I am a real person and not a "multi" (??multiple account???)
I've been playing risk for a very very long time and I love the amount of maps on here for sure.
I stand firm with my argument that this is a bad idea. If I had not been able to see all the maps and play the different styles I really don't think I would have liked this site as much as I do. The only reason I bought premium was so I could play lots of games at once.

With one post and two games completed, I'm putting my money that someone who is REALLY against this suggestion just spent $25 to flame/post this thread. LOL! Can comeone please find out who's multi this is????

ROFL why in the WORLD would someone pay money to flame a thread, when if they have an account the could post just the same. Do you really think that? REALLY?



EDIT: also thanks for the welcomes. And I was a bit surprised I posted on the forums too. I hadn't been planning on it, but this thread caught my eye..

My vote is still with multi and just so this multi Gogtron knows, I would happily pay $25 six or seven times a year to make a post as funny as this or to make a post to make a point. The only reason I wouldn't do it: against the rules.

I especially like that for his second post, he came BACK here and has now learned to quote, and not just quote, but quote in line in the center of the post.

Corbin Dallas MultiPass

I find it hard to not question your motives, as a new player named after the current conqueror, and supposedly advocating a better game for new players by removing options for them playing, and now posting cheating and accusations against a new member, who could just have easily posted with their actual account, or posted with a non premium account.

There is of course though the chance that it was me that created the multi, and you are free to make that accusation as well in the cheating and abuse reports, but this certainly isnt the place for it.

Unfortunately, now you've made it clear that making a point and winning the argument is more important than actually benefiting CC. We now have to question every new player that agrees, because you said youd gladly make one just to make a point. Luckilly, many in here are not trying to make an arguement, but protect CC from what they think would be a penalizing change to the site, which simply would not improve it in any way.

The only objective is to protect new players from complex settings and maps, and that is easily achieved, by simply labeling them as such. There is just no need to lock them, but I agree there is a need to educate them, so that if they want to start with the easy ones they can, but if they want to have some fun with the tough ones, before deciding to play 40 games to test them, they are free to do so.

[Queen_Herpes]

Unfortunately, now you've made it clear that making a point and winning the argument is more important than actually benefiting CC. We now have to question every new player that agrees, because you said youd gladly make one just to make a point. Luckilly, many in here are not trying to make an arguement, but protect CC from what they think would be a penalizing change to the site, which simply would not improve it in any way.

The only objective is to protect new players from complex settings and maps, and that is easily achieved, by simply labeling them as such. There is just no need to lock them, but I agree there is a need to educate them, so that if they want to start with the easy ones they can, but if they want to have some fun with the tough ones, before deciding to play 40 games to test them, they are free to do so.

Not sure how you think that making a point is more important than benefitting CC, but that would be your opinion - not mine. Since we're guessing about each other, I'll make a guess and presume that you are over the age of 50 and/or you've had a very limited experience with video games. When Pong came out (when you were a teenager) it had no complexities and one level of play. As video games progressed they became more complex. In an earlier post someone pointed out "Mario" which is a reference to the game Super Mario Brothers. Mario is much more complex than Pong. Each version of Mario that came out for the SNES, N64, GameCube, and Wii was increasingly complex and had varied aspects of unlocking levels, skills, abilities, etc. After Mario, arguably, would be Zelda ("The Legend of Zelda") which in its first iteration back in the 1990s offered multiple aspects that had to be unlocked. Its further versions continued on the same theme. Most video games from the 1990s onward have had some aspect of unlocking a gun, a skill, a character, a map, a room, a teammate - you name it. We just bought Call of Duty 4 part 2 last night. We cannot play on all the aspects, with all the guns, nor on all of the maps. Yet, for some reason, we still paid $60 for this game and we will continue to pay for further iterations of this game whenever it comes out because -like ConquerClub- the Call of Duty Series is a fun video game and we enjoy unlocking the more difficult aspects of the game over time. We're accustomed to it. It is part of every video game. And yes, ConquerClub is a video game. My suggestions speaks to the many younger people out there who will be coming to this site now and forever whose experience with video games does not include Pong, nor Atari's Combat nor Mortal Kombat nor "going to an arcade." Their experience is, well, limited, to games that have unlockable aspects. It is part of the fun, part of the challenge, and people by the millions are paying WAY MORE than the fee here at ConquerClub to unlock aspects, skills, maps, etc on other video games adn they wil continue to do so.

My suggestion attempts to reach those players.

[Gogatron]

The only objective is to protect new players from complex settings and maps, and that is easily achieved, by simply labeling them as such. There is just no need to lock them, but I agree there is a need to educate them, so that if they want to start with the easy ones they can, but if they want to have some fun with the tough ones, before deciding to play 40 games to test them, they are free to do so.

DING DING DING DING WINNER WINNER!!!!!
QFT


As a game developer Queen I will tell you the reason for limiting game play elements in 2d and 3d action games.
There are two reasons(there are more but for your examples only two apply):
Reason 1) Difficulty, players may not be used to the controls and/or game features which in a real time action game(all the games you listed as examples) would hurt the game play because while everything is going on and the player is trying to figure out how to fire the rocket launcher, they die.
Why reason 1 doesn't apply here: the controls are a mouse and keyboard and the interface is a drop down menu and a button... Everybody and their mothers(and their mothers mothers now) uses computers and understands how to interface with and web browser. Not everybody knows how to play risk sure, but there are for sure people who don't play conquer club who could sit down and play with ease (ex: me and my friends who now play conquer club on all types of maps). Take the cool new features of conquer club(include the maps) away from us at the start and why would we play on this website when we could just play on a board at home like we have always done?
Reason 2) Re-playability, developers don't want players to have every element from the start because if they did, the game would be practically the same all the way through except for having different levels. This would make life relatively boring in a single play action game because by the end you would have done the same thing with the same weapons all the way through.
Why reason 2 is invalid here: MULTIPLAYER GAMES....Conquer club is played vs. other players...YAY that means that although there are many complex game features you only use a set of them at one time. And when you do that you use them with and against other players. The real fun comes from playing other players.

So in closing, if a feature is complex and not for noobs, label it such and then only the stupid noobs will play them. Definitely give a brief idea to noobs about what they should play at first and what a good starting path is, but if the player isn't a noob then they dont have to play like a noob. That's the key, not everyone coming into this site is a noob.

[AAFitz]

Unfortunately, now you've made it clear that making a point and winning the argument is more important than actually benefiting CC. We now have to question every new player that agrees, because you said youd gladly make one just to make a point. Luckilly, many in here are not trying to make an arguement, but protect CC from what they think would be a penalizing change to the site, which simply would not improve it in any way.

The only objective is to protect new players from complex settings and maps, and that is easily achieved, by simply labeling them as such. There is just no need to lock them, but I agree there is a need to educate them, so that if they want to start with the easy ones they can, but if they want to have some fun with the tough ones, before deciding to play 40 games to test them, they are free to do so.

Not sure how you think that making a point is more important than benefitting CC, but that would be your opinion - not mine. Since we're guessing about each other, I'll make a guess and presume that you are over the age of 50 and/or you've had a very limited experience with video games. When Pong came out (when you were a teenager) it had no complexities and one level of play. As video games progressed they became more complex. In an earlier post someone pointed out "Mario" which is a reference to the game Super Mario Brothers. Mario is much more complex than Pong. Each version of Mario that came out for the SNES, N64, GameCube, and Wii was increasingly complex and had varied aspects of unlocking levels, skills, abilities, etc. After Mario, arguably, would be Zelda ("The Legend of Zelda") which in its first iteration back in the 1990s offered multiple aspects that had to be unlocked. Its further versions continued on the same theme. Most video games from the 1990s onward have had some aspect of unlocking a gun, a skill, a character, a map, a room, a teammate - you name it. We just bought Call of Duty 4 part 2 last night. We cannot play on all the aspects, with all the guns, nor on all of the maps. Yet, for some reason, we still paid $60 for this game and we will continue to pay for further iterations of this game whenever it comes out because -like ConquerClub- the Call of Duty Series is a fun video game and we enjoy unlocking the more difficult aspects of the game over time. We're accustomed to it. It is part of every video game. And yes, ConquerClub is a video game. My suggestions speaks to the many younger people out there who will be coming to this site now and forever whose experience with video games does not include Pong, nor Atari's Combat nor Mortal Kombat nor "going to an arcade." Their experience is, well, limited, to games that have unlockable aspects. It is part of the fun, part of the challenge, and people by the millions are paying WAY MORE than the fee here at ConquerClub to unlock aspects, skills, maps, etc on other video games adn they wil continue to do so.

My suggestion attempts to reach those players.

I do understand the basis of your suggestion. The problem is, you are comparing apples to oranges...now....I regret having to say this, but unlocking the sniper rifle on bond is a hell of a lot more fun than playing ten games in here to unlock a few more maps.

Its just a different kind of game, and locking the maps will not keep people. There is litterally no way that one person ever left CC, because there were too many maps. Its simply ridiculous to think that was the reason. You have guessed accurately that Im older, but Im no where near 50 and certainly not over fifty.

The reason people are paying more for those other games, is not because they are unlocking more features, its because they HAVE more features to begin with. Those other games are far more complicated, far more graphics oriented, and far more real time, than what CC is. Because of this, CC must OFFER more. It cant afford to offer less, and make people wait to see other maps, because in a very real sense....as you have explained....people are paying much more, for many other competitors games...which all offer more. The basic CC game is very simple. Click on some armies, make an attack, get spoils, repeat as necessary.

Since I got here, it has expanded greatly, and while its possible Id still be here without the new maps, without the new features, and without the new challenges in the game....and in the forum....its possible I wouldnt be. I do not in any way play the same games I played when i got here. The new stuff is what keeps me coming back and sparking my interest. While on some level this supports your argument, on a basic level it does not, because CC is competing with those other games, and it has a very brief time to Hook a player. It has 10 to 30 games in my opinion, and quite possibly less. Either someone is hooked and becomes a regular or moves on.

Therefore, locking the site to these players for a longer period of time risks losing that player forever. If they leave the site, while having access to those maps, its simply illogical to think they would stay, without access to those maps, which means your suggestion simply wont achieve what you want it to achieve. You have correctly identified the problem, but have simply overlooked the underlying cause.

As was already pointed out, PEOPLE LEAVE CC BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL TIME. Its really that simple. They arent leaving because they cant unlock maps....they dont stay long enough to unlock maps, so it simply isnt a factor. All that unlocking maps would solve is some irrelevant farming issues at best, which really are not worthy of locking maps out for players. I do completely agree with you that players may very well get discouraged very early by jumping into an insanely difficult map, and therefore agree something should be done, but believe that labeling it as difficult is all that needs to be done.

I have rock star. Its great that it has expert. I try it every once in a while, and like the game very much. But I only can play it on easy. On rock star I have to play to unlock levels and maps....but this is not why I bought it. I WOULD GLADLY PAY MORE TO HAVE THOSE OPTIONS AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY. They dont make the game more fun, and I didnt buy it to unlock those levels, i bought it because it had enough features to make it fun.

Now, If i could try rock band for free, and had to waste too much time to get to those levels, I simply wouldnt. More importantly, I ALREADY BOUGHT ROCKBAND. With CC, it is not purchased. It is on a trial basis only. Those people should be allowed to try all of the game to see all that it offers. By limiting them to so few maps as you suggested, means that many new players will never even see the great percentage that CC has to offer, and in doing so, risks losing those customers.

All that needs to be done, is a simple labeling system. Once the maps are labeled by difficulty, the problem is solved with absolutely no downside whatsoever, and no risk whatsoever. The only problem is that new players get into difficult maps and settings without knowing it. Once you tell them, and make them available, they can then test each one, and make a truly informed decision whether to stay, but limiting means they dont even get to try the other maps, which may have convinced them to stay. They wont see the diversity, they wont see the complexity, or the variety and the sheer magnitude of the possibilities that CC has to offer, and they will be gone, and there's no getting them back.

Label not limit. Its that simple. I agree something needs to be done, but not at the expense of changing the fundamental openness that is CC, and its one advantage over every other world domination game out there...........CC OFFERS MORE THAN EVERY OTHER ONE. ALWAYS HAS, ALWAYS WILL. I firmly believe this, which is why I dont mind spending some time trying to make it a better game from time to time.

[alex951]

Unfortunately, now you've made it clear that making a point and winning the argument is more important than actually benefiting CC. We now have to question every new player that agrees, because you said youd gladly make one just to make a point. Luckilly, many in here are not trying to make an arguement, but protect CC from what they think would be a penalizing change to the site, which simply would not improve it in any way.

The only objective is to protect new players from complex settings and maps, and that is easily achieved, by simply labeling them as such. There is just no need to lock them, but I agree there is a need to educate them, so that if they want to start with the easy ones they can, but if they want to have some fun with the tough ones, before deciding to play 40 games to test them, they are free to do so.

Not sure how you think that making a point is more important than benefitting CC, but that would be your opinion - not mine. Since we're guessing about each other, I'll make a guess and presume that you are over the age of 50 and/or you've had a very limited experience with video games. When Pong came out (when you were a teenager) it had no complexities and one level of play. As video games progressed they became more complex. In an earlier post someone pointed out "Mario" which is a reference to the game Super Mario Brothers. Mario is much more complex than Pong. Each version of Mario that came out for the SNES, N64, GameCube, and Wii was increasingly complex and had varied aspects of unlocking levels, skills, abilities, etc. After Mario, arguably, would be Zelda ("The Legend of Zelda") which in its first iteration back in the 1990s offered multiple aspects that had to be unlocked. Its further versions continued on the same theme. Most video games from the 1990s onward have had some aspect of unlocking a gun, a skill, a character, a map, a room, a teammate - you name it. We just bought Call of Duty 4 part 2 last night. We cannot play on all the aspects, with all the guns, nor on all of the maps. Yet, for some reason, we still paid $60 for this game and we will continue to pay for further iterations of this game whenever it comes out because -like ConquerClub- the Call of Duty Series is a fun video game and we enjoy unlocking the more difficult aspects of the game over time. We're accustomed to it. It is part of every video game. And yes, ConquerClub is a video game. My suggestions speaks to the many younger people out there who will be coming to this site now and forever whose experience with video games does not include Pong, nor Atari's Combat nor Mortal Kombat nor "going to an arcade." Their experience is, well, limited, to games that have unlockable aspects. It is part of the fun, part of the challenge, and people by the millions are paying WAY MORE than the fee here at ConquerClub to unlock aspects, skills, maps, etc on other video games adn they wil continue to do so.

My suggestion attempts to reach those players.

I do understand the basis of your suggestion. The problem is, you are comparing apples to oranges...now....I regret having to say this, but unlocking the sniper rifle on bond is a hell of a lot more fun than playing ten games in here to unlock a few more maps.

Its just a different kind of game, and locking the maps will not keep people. There is litterally no way that one person ever left CC, because there were too many maps. Its simply ridiculous to think that was the reason. You have guessed accurately that Im older, but Im no where near 50 and certainly not over fifty.

The reason people are paying more for those other games, is not because they are unlocking more features, its because they HAVE more features to begin with. Those other games are far more complicated, far more graphics oriented, and far more real time, than what CC is. Because of this, CC must OFFER more. It cant afford to offer less, and make people wait to see other maps, because in a very real sense....as you have explained....people are paying much more, for many other competitors games...which all offer more. The basic CC game is very simple. Click on some armies, make an attack, get spoils, repeat as necessary.

Since I got here, it has expanded greatly, and while its possible Id still be here without the new maps, without the new features, and without the new challenges in the game....and in the forum....its possible I wouldnt be. I do not in any way play the same games I played when i got here. The new stuff is what keeps me coming back and sparking my interest. While on some level this supports your argument, on a basic level it does not, because CC is competing with those other games, and it has a very brief time to Hook a player. It has 10 to 30 games in my opinion, and quite possibly less. Either someone is hooked and becomes a regular or moves on.

Therefore, locking the site to these players for a longer period of time risks losing that player forever. If they leave the site, while having access to those maps, its simply illogical to think they would stay, without access to those maps, which means your suggestion simply wont achieve what you want it to achieve. You have correctly identified the problem, but have simply overlooked the underlying cause.

As was already pointed out, PEOPLE LEAVE CC BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL TIME. Its really that simple. They arent leaving because they cant unlock maps....they dont stay long enough to unlock maps, so it simply isnt a factor. All that unlocking maps would solve is some irrelevant farming issues at best, which really are not worthy of locking maps out for players. I do completely agree with you that players may very well get discouraged very early by jumping into an insanely difficult map, and therefore agree something should be done, but believe that labeling it as difficult is all that needs to be done.

I have rock star. Its great that it has expert. I try it every once in a while, and like the game very much. But I only can play it on easy. On rock star I have to play to unlock levels and maps....but this is not why I bought it. I WOULD GLADLY PAY MORE TO HAVE THOSE OPTIONS AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY. They dont make the game more fun, and I didnt buy it to unlock those levels, i bought it because it had enough features to make it fun.

Now, If i could try rock band for free, and had to waste too much time to get to those levels, I simply wouldnt. More importantly, I ALREADY BOUGHT ROCKBAND. With CC, it is not purchased. It is on a trial basis only. Those people should be allowed to try all of the game to see all that it offers. By limiting them to so few maps as you suggested, means that many new players will never even see the great percentage that CC has to offer, and in doing so, risks losing those customers.

All that needs to be done, is a simple labeling system. Once the maps are labeled by difficulty, the problem is solved with absolutely no downside whatsoever, and no risk whatsoever. The only problem is that new players get into difficult maps and settings without knowing it. Once you tell them, and make them available, they can then test each one, and make a truly informed decision whether to stay, but limiting means they dont even get to try the other maps, which may have convinced them to stay. They wont see the diversity, they wont see the complexity, or the variety and the sheer magnitude of the possibilities that CC has to offer, and they will be gone, and there's no getting them back.

Label not limit. Its that simple. I agree something needs to be done, but not at the expense of changing the fundamental openness that is CC, and its one advantage over every other world domination game out there...........CC OFFERS MORE THAN EVERY OTHER ONE. ALWAYS HAS, ALWAYS WILL. I firmly believe this, which is why I dont mind spending some time trying to make it a better game from time to time.

very persuasive. Label not limit. i agree with what you posted, it makes sense cc is not halo3. i remember when i first started playing i didnt like it and was thinking of just forgetting this dam site. i made my mind up by game 3 that i was going to stick around and try the different maps. if i was limited to the same map i would probably have decided that this site sucked

[mccallan25]

I love the idea of noobs not being able to play World 2.1. It's the only map I play. I get 1-2 "ghost" players/accounts per game...hence the reason I stopped being a premium member and paying for others to be a premium member. It's tiring having 2 people not show up in a 5 person game in almost every game I start. It would be nice too if there were a few more hoops for someone to go through before being able to play like typing in these two words and then clicking on a hyperlink sent to their email. This like other sites reduces the ability of computer generated accounts which is what I see day after day on this site. When the day comes that they decide to eliminate these ghost accounts I will go back to paying 250+ a year for several accounts for friends and myself.

[Queen_Herpes]

The only objective is to protect new players from complex settings and maps, and that is easily achieved, by simply labeling them as such. There is just no need to lock them, but I agree there is a need to educate them, so that if they want to start with the easy ones they can, but if they want to have some fun with the tough ones, before deciding to play 40 games to test them, they are free to do so.

DING DING DING DING WINNER WINNER!!!!!
QFT


As a game developer Queen I will tell you the reason for limiting game play elements in 2d and 3d action games.
There are two reasons(there are more but for your examples only two apply):
Reason 1) Difficulty, players may not be used to the controls and/or game features which in a real time action game(all the games you listed as examples) would hurt the game play because while everything is going on and the player is trying to figure out how to fire the rocket launcher, they die.
Why reason 1 doesn't apply here: the controls are a mouse and keyboard and the interface is a drop down menu and a button... Everybody and their mothers(and their mothers mothers now) uses computers and understands how to interface with and web browser. Not everybody knows how to play risk sure, but there are for sure people who don't play conquer club who could sit down and play with ease (ex: me and my friends who now play conquer club on all types of maps). Take the cool new features of conquer club(include the maps) away from us at the start and why would we play on this website when we could just play on a board at home like we have always done?
Reason 2) Re-playability, developers don't want players to have every element from the start because if they did, the game would be practically the same all the way through except for having different levels. This would make life relatively boring in a single play action game because by the end you would have done the same thing with the same weapons all the way through.
Why reason 2 is invalid here: MULTIPLAYER GAMES....Conquer club is played vs. other players...YAY that means that although there are many complex game features you only use a set of them at one time. And when you do that you use them with and against other players. The real fun comes from playing other players.

So in closing, if a feature is complex and not for noobs, label it such and then only the stupid noobs will play them. Definitely give a brief idea to noobs about what they should play at first and what a good starting path is, but if the player isn't a noob then they dont have to play like a noob. That's the key, not everyone coming into this site is a noob.

Gogatron, what is your favorite map?

[Gogatron]

not sure yet, I really like then WWII ones, but ancient Greece is pretty nice.

[Queen_Herpes]

not sure yet, I really like then WWII ones, but ancient Greece is pretty nice.

Which WWII maps are your favorite?

[Doc_Brown]

I've only read the first page of this thread, so I can't comment on all that has been said. But I think this proposal is a very bad idea. I've only completed 11 games so far, even though I've been a (freemium) member of the site for a month and a half and have consistently been involved in a full complement of 4 games. The great thing about this site has been the variety of different settings and maps. I didn't even bother with classic-style maps until I joined the Society of Cooks.

If I had only been allowed to play the classic maps with specific settings until I had been a member of the site for 1-2 months, I would have quit within my first week or never bothered to join in the first place. I didn't join this site because I wanted an online version of the board game. I joined because I wanted to play games that used the Risk model and applied it with all sorts of variations.

Sure, there are certain advantages to the concept of unlocking content, but the unlocking has to occur within a reasonable time frame, or the players lose interest. At the speed my games are going, I would have to play for 6 months under this suggestion to gain access to a reasonable portion of the content on the site. It would go faster if I was able to play more games, but until I have more experience with the game mechanics, I wouldn't want to have too many games going at once anyway. I should also point out that in 11 games, I've won 2 of 2 on World 2.1, won 1 of 1 in doubles on Age of Merchants, and have won 2 of 6 terminator games on classic shapes. I've also won a couple foggy games. I don't claim to be an expert, and I suspect most of you would probably beat me under most game settings. Most of my games have been against lower ranked players and new recruits. The point is that new players are going to gravitate towards games that are mostly composed with newer and lower-ranked players. They can handle complicated maps if they're primarily playing against people that are equally inexperienced. They'll all have a fun time on the maps together.

I think a far better suggestion would be to apply certain default settings to the "Join a Game" screen. Leave it set by default to the restricted settings that new recruits have when they join the site. Then, in your control panel, allow people to change their personal default options. The changes wouldn't be allowed until the current 5 games are completed, at which point, they would receive an email with more details about the options. That way inexperienced players can go in and enable, say terminator and doubles games but opt to stick with the simpler map set for a while.

[Gogatron]

not sure yet, I really like then WWII ones, but ancient Greece is pretty nice.

Which WWII maps are your favorite?

Western front is cool, but I still haven't really decided as I'm playing most of these maps right now.

Whats your point....

[Queen_Herpes]

I've only read the first page of this thread, so I can't comment on all that has been said. But I think this proposal is a very bad idea. I've only completed 11 games so far, even though I've been a (freemium) member of the site for a month and a half and have consistently been involved in a full complement of 4 games. The great thing about this site has been the variety of different settings and maps. I didn't even bother with classic-style maps until I joined the Society of Cooks.

If I had only been allowed to play the classic maps with specific settings until I had been a member of the site for 1-2 months, I would have quit within my first week or never bothered to join in the first place. I didn't join this site because I wanted an online version of the board game. I joined because I wanted to play games that used the Risk model and applied it with all sorts of variations.

Sure, there are certain advantages to the concept of unlocking content, but the unlocking has to occur within a reasonable time frame, or the players lose interest. At the speed my games are going, I would have to play for 6 months under this suggestion to gain access to a reasonable portion of the content on the site. It would go faster if I was able to play more games, but until I have more experience with the game mechanics, I wouldn't want to have too many games going at once anyway. I should also point out that in 11 games, I've won 2 of 2 on World 2.1, won 1 of 1 in doubles on Age of Merchants, and have won 2 of 6 terminator games on classic shapes. I've also won a couple foggy games. I don't claim to be an expert, and I suspect most of you would probably beat me under most game settings. Most of my games have been against lower ranked players and new recruits. The point is that new players are going to gravitate towards games that are mostly composed with newer and lower-ranked players. They can handle complicated maps if they're primarily playing against people that are equally inexperienced. They'll all have a fun time on the maps together.

I think a far better suggestion would be to apply certain default settings to the "Join a Game" screen. Leave it set by default to the restricted settings that new recruits have when they join the site. Then, in y.our control panel, allow people to change their personal default options. The changes wouldn't be allowed until the current 5 games are completed, at which point, they would receive an email with more details about the options. That way inexperienced players can go in and enable, say terminator and doubles games but opt to stick with the simpler map set for a while.

Then read the rest of the suggestion and the input on other pages. The suggestion is no longer tied to limiting new players simply to the classic maps.

Yet, you illustrated a great point for me by pointing out that you ddi not read anything else in this thread: noobs go out of their way to join game, make comments and yet they have no idea whaat is going on. Case in point: you. You don't know what is going on because you didn't take the time to read the other pages of the suggestion.

[Queen_Herpes]

not sure yet, I really like then WWII ones, but ancient Greece is pretty nice.

Which WWII maps are your favorite?

Western front is cool, but I still haven't really decided as I'm playing most of these maps right now.

Whats your point....

I'm just curious, which ones have you played? You're an anomaly to me, but you may be a representative sample of everyone who comes to the site. I'm wondering what it is that attracted you to the site. I'm also interested in which WWII maps you've played because I also like those AND I also feel that there is a definite attraction to war-based maps, especially war maps based on WWII. If the WWII maps are so attractive (for whatever reason) maybe they should be highlighted on the homepage, or tagged for web searches. In addition to my other questions, did someone introduce you to the site, how did you find it?

[Doc_Brown]

Then read the rest of the suggestion and the input on other pages. The suggestion is no longer tied to limiting new players simply to the classic maps.

Yet, you illustrated a great point for me by pointing out that you ddi not read anything else in this thread: noobs go out of their way to join game, make comments and yet they have no idea whaat is going on. Case in point: you. You don't know what is going on because you didn't take the time to read the other pages of the suggestion.

Interesting. You read the first sentence of my post and keyed in on that without paying any attention to the rest of it - i.e. you did exactly what you're complaining about me any other new players of doing.

I did finally get a few minutes here at work to scan through the rest of the thread, and I stand by almost everything I wrote. I probably wouldn't have joined, and I certainly wouldn't have stuck around if my choices were either to pay $25 or wait for several months to be able to access a significant part of the material on this site. Unfortunately my work situation is in flux and I'm on a very tight budget, and am therefore unable to purchase a premium membership. Hopefully that will change soon.

Regardless, what I was trying to point out in my post is that not everyone that has played fewer than 10-15 games needs to be restricted to a small subset of the maps and settings. I can understand that there are people who can get overwhelmed by what is available, and I offered a compromise: Apply default game search settings that are customizable in everyone's control panel. Incorporating your ideas, there would be an option with several different levels of maps, along with the various setting combinations. Both the "Game Finder" and "Join a Game" would only search within the subset of available games based on the specified personalized settings. New recruits would be unable to change the options. However, once a player receives his initial promotion, he should be free to enable the other options. To protect players even further, you might include some sort of instructional page with basic tips and concepts that would be displayed the first time a player attempts to enable any one of the more advanced options. They would have to confirm their desire to play on the more complicated maps and settings before the option was enabled.

The problem is that there are many different levels of players that come to this site. I have been playing strategy board games for years, including several years spent playing Axis&Allies type games via email. I've spent a good bit of my available time reading through the forums (with particular emphasis on the strategy forum), and I daresay I could offer a reasonably competitive game against corporals and sergeants on the majority of maps and settings on this site. Where I lack is not in the ability to develop a strategy or determine how the bonuses or boundaries work on a given map, but simply in terms of experience and the corresponding knowledge of which strategies work well on a given map or game type. Other people and provided anecdotal reports of new players coming from a totally different perspective who get overwhelmed and frustrated with the available options. But should players like me be automatically penalized simply to protect players of the other sort? I suspect the goal of this site is to attract all sorts of people, but I also imagine that players like me, who have some experience and really enjoy digging into the intricacies of strategy on the more advanced maps, are the ones that really keep this site going. And by applying to many restrictions, it's going to be players like me that will be chased away.

So in short, by all means, protect newer players in appropriate ways, but don't do so at the expense of players that are up for the challenge of all this site has to offer!

[Mr Changsha]

Then read the rest of the suggestion and the input on other pages. The suggestion is no longer tied to limiting new players simply to the classic maps.

Yet, you illustrated a great point for me by pointing out that you ddi not read anything else in this thread: noobs go out of their way to join game, make comments and yet they have no idea whaat is going on. Case in point: you. You don't know what is going on because you didn't take the time to read the other pages of the suggestion.

Interesting. You read the first sentence of my post and keyed in on that without paying any attention to the rest of it - i.e. you did exactly what you're complaining about me any other new players of doing.

I did finally get a few minutes here at work to scan through the rest of the thread, and I stand by almost everything I wrote. I probably wouldn't have joined, and I certainly wouldn't have stuck around if my choices were either to pay $25 or wait for several months to be able to access a significant part of the material on this site. Unfortunately my work situation is in flux and I'm on a very tight budget, and am therefore unable to purchase a premium membership. Hopefully that will change soon.

Regardless, what I was trying to point out in my post is that not everyone that has played fewer than 10-15 games needs to be restricted to a small subset of the maps and settings. I can understand that there are people who can get overwhelmed by what is available, and I offered a compromise: Apply default game search settings that are customizable in everyone's control panel. Incorporating your ideas, there would be an option with several different levels of maps, along with the various setting combinations. Both the "Game Finder" and "Join a Game" would only search within the subset of available games based on the specified personalized settings. New recruits would be unable to change the options. However, once a player receives his initial promotion, he should be free to enable the other options. To protect players even further, you might include some sort of instructional page with basic tips and concepts that would be displayed the first time a player attempts to enable any one of the more advanced options. They would have to confirm their desire to play on the more complicated maps and settings before the option was enabled.

The problem is that there are many different levels of players that come to this site. I have been playing strategy board games for years, including several years spent playing Axis&Allies type games via email. I've spent a good bit of my available time reading through the forums (with particular emphasis on the strategy forum), and I daresay I could offer a reasonably competitive game against corporals and sergeants on the majority of maps and settings on this site. Where I lack is not in the ability to develop a strategy or determine how the bonuses or boundaries work on a given map, but simply in terms of experience and the corresponding knowledge of which strategies work well on a given map or game type. Other people and provided anecdotal reports of new players coming from a totally different perspective who get overwhelmed and frustrated with the available options. But should players like me be automatically penalized simply to protect players of the other sort? I suspect the goal of this site is to attract all sorts of people, but I also imagine that players like me, who have some experience and really enjoy digging into the intricacies of strategy on the more advanced maps, are the ones that really keep this site going. And by applying to many restrictions, it's going to be players like me that will be chased away.

So in short, by all means, protect newer players in appropriate ways, but don't do so at the expense of players that are up for the challenge of all this site has to offer!

This is an excellent post and kudos to gogatron too.

Queen_Herpes here you have two new players telling you the same thing Fitz and I said: that of new players not wanting a prescriptive introduction to the game, but rather wanting to work this site our for themselves and (most importantly) knowing that they are more than intelligent enough to do so.

This suggestion isn't going to fly and, may I just say, insulting people who have been good enough to engage with you, but happen to disagree with you, is surely not going to help you to get this idea through.

Quite a few people HAVE read through this entire thread (including me) but the trouble is that the revisions aren't going to help. The basic concept (that of gradually unlocking game styles on an achievement basis) is inherently flawed with regards to CC and it has been quite clearly pointed out why.

That there is a problem in how NR's first approach the site is without question. They need more guidance, need to be able to get into decent games and need to know where they can go if they get a bit stuck. But once they've achieved that first promotion they must be free to explore as they will.

[Gogatron]

not sure yet, I really like then WWII ones, but ancient Greece is pretty nice.

Which WWII maps are your favorite?

Western front is cool, but I still haven't really decided as I'm playing most of these maps right now.

Whats your point....

I'm just curious, which ones have you played? You're an anomaly to me, but you may be a representative sample of everyone who comes to the site. I'm wondering what it is that attracted you to the site. I'm also interested in which WWII maps you've played because I also like those AND I also feel that there is a definite attraction to war-based maps, especially war maps based on WWII. If the WWII maps are so attractive (for whatever reason) maybe they should be highlighted on the homepage, or tagged for web searches. In addition to my other questions, did someone introduce you to the site, how did you find it?

WWII Western Front is the only WWII map Ive played. But Id say all the maps of ancient civilizations and war situations are very appealing to me right now and will be tried out soon.

Yes my roommate and my good friend play on this site. People whom I play table top risk with all the time.

Why I'm attracted to the site...the game modes and variety of maps. Like you cant play fog of war in table top risk lol...And fog of war is sick

[AAFitz]

Ok, QH, at first I was perhaps a bit more argumentative in this thread, but it was because you jumped down Andy's throat to some degree, after he posted, quite frankly, what the situation was. I somewhat wrongly assumed your motivation was a little more self-satisfying than I do now, after this rather in-depth discussion. I do still completely resist limiting players, because I think it just wont achieve the objective you think it will, however, I do realize more WHY you thought it would, and where the rationale came from.

You are making this more personal than it has to be, and more personal than it is, because Im not entirely sure you realize the motivation of people that have been here for a long time, and have really watched CC grow into what it has. Some are protective of it, and some even over-protective. That being said, I dont think that is the case here.

However, the thread does highlight the problem, and probably will be instrumental in making some kind of change. I myself hope that change involves grouping the maps in difficulty categories. When I made that suggestion, I did so, because you were complaining that people were just telling you why your idea wouldnt work, and werent contributing. I made a new suggestion that I think will solve most of the problems, but instead of supporting the move to achieve your objectives, you posted that it was essentially a bad idea.

This does made it hard to trust your motivations, but Ive decided you truly do want to make improvement, and are not just arguing to be right. Dont take that personally....it happens all the time, and while I try to make sure I dont fall into the trap of arguing a position simply to be right...it does happen.

The important thing to do when trying to make a change, is to view the objective. The objective is the only thing that matters.

In this case, the objective is to increase new player satisfaction and retention, and reduce farming. By labeling the maps by difficulty level, farming will be reduced and satisfaction increased, possibly even retention. By letting new players try any map they want, and showing them ALL that CC has to offer, satisfaction is again increased, and retention more likely.

The suggestion to limit games, and open them up over time, will create a certain lure to play and open maps...however, that will achieve the objective of increased satisfaction, and reduced farming, but will most likely not help retention. Realistically, it couldnt possibly positively affect it. If a player leaves after playing some options, it really is just impossible to believe they might have stayed if they had less options to play in the first place. Certainly it wasnt too many options that made them leave, it was other factors, and probably the lack of real time games. However, it is likely, that if maps are blocked, new players dont get to see all the options, and decide to leave based on less than full information. It is very likely that a blocked map, might just catch someones eye, and make them want to stay, whereas its really unlikely, that they will stay, just because they might get to see that map...if they play more games....Its just an impossible rationale really as you go through the decision process.

It is much better to show more of the site, to achieve maximum new player retention, than to hope that opening them up, will somehow make the difference.

I will agree that its possible, that for those that decide to stay, that this suggestion, possibly could make them enjoy it more...however, it comes at a price of losing other new players, and limiting other players...that really just dont deserve to be limited.

I more than understand, because of the work that youve put into this why youve taken it personally that people disagree...but I do hope you see that its not just people being nay-sayers, or trying to be negative, but people truly interested in whats best for CC. I for one fully commend your commitment to this, simply because its obvious you are trying to make an improvement...but I do suggest you really read the consenting views yourself, and see that it isnt just people attacking you for the sake of it...but people trying to help achieve the same objectives you are...but that simply disagree with your suggestion of how to do it. I offer this as an olive branch of sorts....and while I doubt youre going to just give up and give in...I do hope this makes it easier for you to realize this is not some personal argument...but just a discussion of possible ways to make the site better....and I do hope you dont discount the experience of some of the players...including myself, who literaly have been here for years, have played every single day in that time...and for fun, have put some serious time into thinking about how to make CC fun, simply for the sake of making it fun. If nothing else, I hope you realize you are respected for your effort, and disagreement with an idea, does not mean a lack of respect...but just disagreement... the difference is huge...and since you put so much time into this...It would just be a shame for you not to realize people do appreciate any effort made...even when they disagree.

Oh, and gogatron is not my multi...even though if I really wanted to make my point, id have made a multi and posted all the things he said. I honestly suspect the two of us myself...so I know it had to have crossed someones mind out there...lol

seriously...we arent...