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

[the.killing.44]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

Explain to me how existing players will leave the site. I'd love to hear it, as I can't understand why.

Where did he say that. He means that fewer people will join and then stick around, getting fed up with not being able to play enough.

But I have no clue why I'm wasting my time with you.

[Queen_Herpes]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

Explain to me how existing players will leave the site. I'd love to hear it, as I can't understand why.

Where did he say that. He means that fewer people will join and then stick around, getting fed up with not being able to play enough.

But I have no clue why I'm wasting my time with you.

He is indicating that there will be fewer people playing, so there is an implication that existing players will leave the site. If the overall number of players decreases...and he is indicating that no new players will join...then the number of active players decreases because of....? But thank you for wasting your time and mine. Try reading.

[the.killing.44]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

Explain to me how existing players will leave the site. I'd love to hear it, as I can't understand why.

Where did he say that. He means that fewer people will join and then stick around, getting fed up with not being able to play enough.

But I have no clue why I'm wasting my time with you.

He is indicating that there will be fewer people playing, so there is an implication that existing players will leave the site. If the overall number of players decreases...and he is indicating that no new players will join...then the number of active players decreases because of....? But thank you for wasting your time and mine. Try reading.

You're assuming active players NEVER leave. People always leave. The way the site retains its number around 20k members is through new members coming in daily.

[Queen_Herpes]

You're assuming active players NEVER leave. People always leave. The way the site retains its number around 20k members is through new members coming in daily.

[/quote]

And my goal is to retain as many of those "new members that come in daily." Call me crazy, I'd like to see 25,000 active members next month. Hell, even 30,000. 40,000? I'd like to see more competition from more participants.

[Doc_Brown]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

Explain to me how existing players will leave the site. I'd love to hear it, as I can't understand why.

Where did he say that. He means that fewer people will join and then stick around, getting fed up with not being able to play enough.

But I have no clue why I'm wasting my time with you.

He is indicating that there will be fewer people playing, so there is an implication that existing players will leave the site. If the overall number of players decreases...and he is indicating that no new players will join...then the number of active players decreases because of....? But thank you for wasting your time and mine. Try reading.

Sorry, I've been busy lately and can't manage to keep up with your posting rate. In any case, my statement should not have been read to mean "... fewer players than there are now." It should have been understood as "... fewer players than there would be without these restrictions." Killing had it exactly right. Like I've told you time and again, if those restrictions were in place when I found my way over here, I would have left and found a different site that respected me enough to let me actually play here. Every other relatively new player (people with less than 80 games that presumably would all of a sudden have these restrictions dropped on them if this was implemented today) that has posted in here has said they would never stick around if they were subject to this proposal. You keep claiming that new players would like this. As a new player, I can tell you we wouldn't! I still challenge you to find a single person that is willing to honestly say that they would like being subject to these restrictions, that they would rather be locked off from most of the site content for the first 6-8 months of gaming here. Just to point out, if you hadn't purchased premium, you would just now be reaching the end of your restricted period. Can you honestly tell me that your experience here to date would have been far better if you could only access a handful of maps? If you can't say that, you're being hypocritical to claim that others would be better off with it.

[Doc_Brown]

You might not realize this, but an AI would have to be retrained for every single different map on which it was designed to play. That's currently 152 different AIs. If you want 3 different levels of play, that becomes 456 different AI players that have to be trained. At best, this would only ever be implemented on 1-2 maps. It's completely impractical to do otherwise. Most likely it would be implemented on the classic map only. So even if this was a good suggestion, it's far too much work to be remotely practical for this site.

[Queen_Herpes]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

Explain to me how existing players will leave the site. I'd love to hear it, as I can't understand why.

He is indicating that there will be fewer people playing, so there is an implication that existing players will leave the site. If the overall number of players decreases...and he is indicating that no new players will join...then the number of active players decreases because of....? But thank you for wasting your time and mine. Try reading.

Sorry, I've been busy lately and can't manage to keep up with your posting rate. In any case, my statement should not have been read to mean "... fewer players than there are now." It should have been understood as "... fewer players than there would be without these restrictions." Killing had it exactly right. Like I've told you time and again, if those restrictions were in place when I found my way over here, I would have left and found a different site that respected me enough to let me actually play here. Every other relatively new player (people with less than 80 games that presumably would all of a sudden have these restrictions dropped on them if this was implemented today) that has posted in here has said they would never stick around if they were subject to this proposal. You keep claiming that new players would like this. As a new player, I can tell you we wouldn't! I still challenge you to find a single person that is willing to honestly say that they would like being subject to these restrictions, that they would rather be locked off from most of the site content for the first 6-8 months of gaming here. Just to point out, if you hadn't purchased premium, you would just now be reaching the end of your restricted period. Can you honestly tell me that your experience here to date would have been far better if you could only access a handful of maps? If you can't say that, you're being hypocritical to claim that others would be better off with it.

If the lock-out was truly a lock-out where new players couldn't see available games on maps they couldn't access, then new players wouldn't know what they are missing. As it stands it is next to impossible for new players to find the list of maps, so they are limited to finding maps via the available games pages. As a new player, if truly locked out, you wouldn't be able to see what you were missing.

[Doc_Brown]

If the lock-out was truly a lock-out where new players couldn't see available games on maps they couldn't access, then new players wouldn't know what they are missing. As it stands it is next to impossible for new players to find the list of maps, so they are limited to finding maps via the available games pages. As a new player, if truly locked out, you wouldn't be able to see what you were missing.

Speak for yourself. I found the list before I had started my first game. Also, there is plenty of discussion about the various maps in the forums. Or do you intend to lock players out of the forums until they've completed 80 games? I'm still waiting for you to tell me that you would have welcomed being subject to these restrictions and would have had a much better experience on this site for the last 9 months if you were only allowed to play a handful of maps and settings.

[Queen_Herpes]

If the lock-out was truly a lock-out where new players couldn't see available games on maps they couldn't access, then new players wouldn't know what they are missing. As it stands it is next to impossible for new players to find the list of maps, so they are limited to finding maps via the available games pages. As a new player, if truly locked out, you wouldn't be able to see what you were missing.

Speak for yourself. I found the list before I had started my first game. Also, there is plenty of discussion about the various maps in the forums. Or do you intend to lock players out of the forums until they've completed 80 games? I'm still waiting for you to tell me that you would have welcomed being subject to these restrictions and would have had a much better experience on this site for the last 9 months if you were only allowed to play a handful of maps and settings.

There is nothing to say here that would be a "speak for yourself" situation. Simply put, new players wouldn't know what they are missing. You found the list...but you are a rarity. If more new players knew where that list was...and there was some kind of training or lock out program on the site....then new players wouldn't play so poorly in their first games. Think of all the times you are playing a game where a new player says "how do you have so many trooops?" or "I'm lost, what am I doing here?" These and thousands of other quotes from new players proove the fact that there isn't reasonable access to, reasonable direction signage to, and reasonable enough information to find out about each map. Its that simple. You're one (and one of a few) who found their way to the map list and the forum information about each map. Simply put, you're a rarity, otherwise every game against a new player would be a challenge and there wouldn't be a thing called "farming" and there wouldn't be "noobs" on the site.

[Doc_Brown]

You found the list...but you are a rarity. If more new players knew where that list was...and there was some kind of training or lock out program on the site....then new players wouldn't play so poorly in their first games. Think of all the times you are playing a game where a new player says "how do you have so many trooops?" or "I'm lost, what am I doing here?" These and thousands of other quotes from new players proove the fact that there isn't reasonable access to, reasonable direction signage to, and reasonable enough information to find out about each map. Its that simple. You're one (and one of a few) who found their way to the map list and the forum information about each map. Simply put, you're a rarity, otherwise every game against a new player would be a challenge and there wouldn't be a thing called "farming" and there wouldn't be "noobs" on the site.

This is a big part of my point. How do you intend to accommodate players like me that would find your restrictions FAR too much of an imposition? I'm by no means unique either. I suspect that if you did a survey of all the players you've ever played that had completed fewer than 20 games, the solid majority did fine. They may not have played especially well, but you shouldn't expect new players to be experts. Much like complaints about dice, I think you're experiencing a memory bias where the bad experiences are much easier to remember than the good. I'm 100% in favor of making map and setting information readily available. But I am absolutely opposed to any sort of required training regiment that players like me would find overly restrictive and would make this site very uninviting. And let me pose one more question. If you had your choice, which player would you prefer to keep around, someone like me that was proactive in digging up as much information as he can find, or the "noob" that doesn't put any effort into figuring things out and gets upset when he starts losing every one of his first 10 games? Your suggestion will chase around players of the former type in favor of the later.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me that you would have welcomed being subject to these restrictions and would have had a much better experience on this site for the last 9 months if you were only allowed to play a handful of maps and settings.

[Queen_Herpes]

You found the list...but you are a rarity. If more new players knew where that list was...and there was some kind of training or lock out program on the site....then new players wouldn't play so poorly in their first games. Think of all the times you are playing a game where a new player says "how do you have so many trooops?" or "I'm lost, what am I doing here?" These and thousands of other quotes from new players proove the fact that there isn't reasonable access to, reasonable direction signage to, and reasonable enough information to find out about each map. Its that simple. You're one (and one of a few) who found their way to the map list and the forum information about each map. Simply put, you're a rarity, otherwise every game against a new player would be a challenge and there wouldn't be a thing called "farming" and there wouldn't be "noobs" on the site.

This is a big part of my point. How do you intend to accommodate players like me that would find your restrictions FAR too much of an imposition? I'm by no means unique either. I suspect that if you did a survey of all the players you've ever played that had completed fewer than 20 games, the solid majority did fine. They may not have played especially well, but you shouldn't expect new players to be experts. Much like complaints about dice, I think you're experiencing a memory bias where the bad experiences are much easier to remember than the good. I'm 100% in favor of making map and setting information readily available. But I am absolutely opposed to any sort of required training regiment that players like me would find overly restrictive and would make this site very uninviting. And let me pose one more question. If you had your choice, which player would you prefer to keep around, someone like me that was proactive in digging up as much information as he can find, or the "noob" that doesn't put any effort into figuring things out and gets upset when he starts losing every one of his first 10 games? Your suggestion will chase around players of the former type in favor of the later.

That is a tough question. "How do you intend to accommodate players like me?" I formerly thought that all players would pass through the unlocking levels quickly. You rightly pointed out to me that 80 games would take an eternity for freemiums like you. The real question would be, How many players are out there who come to the site and are immediately capable of navigating the site, the maps, and the settings such that they experience no difficulty in gameplay. My assumption is that the number of players like you is considerably smaller than the number of players who join and are somewhat lost at the beginning. To accommodate the minority is something I probably wouldn't consider, but in this case the particular minority is a group of people who we would want to have on the site. That is, your group is one that I want to see on the site, and I wouldn't want to disaffect your presence on the site with a change to the site. If I had the "power" to make this suggestion happen, I would direct you to (and this is a terrible idea, but all that I could come up with quickly...I'm open to suggestion) play as many one v one games as possible. They tend to go faster. like I said, terrible idea, but I am going to think about it and attempt to find some way to accommodate you. if you can think of ways that would be functional for you, please let me know. Another idea would be to allow new players to be immediately unlocked by opening an eticket. The mod who unlocks you would be able to determine if you are a multi and could unlock you within a day by doing an IP check or some other basic scan to ensure you aren't someone's multi trying to bypass the unlocking mechanism. For a player like you, I would suggest putting this "unlock quickly via eticket" information somewhere on the site where a good navigator like yourself could find the information...or if you were brought to the site by a friend the friend could direct you there....or if you were recognized as a good player an existing player could direct you there. I don't know. Thoughts. let me know what you think. i value your opinion.

To your next point, I've played a lot of players with fewer than 20 games under their belt. I've found that a vast majority of them play poorly and make errors of deployment, errors of fortification, and basically errors that show they don't know the map or the game settings well enough to have beaten me. Those that beat me typically: 1) go first, 2) start with either a bonus or a great drop, and 3) get remarkably good success on their first two turns with dice so as to minimize my chances of building up enough of an army to remediate their territory count and troop count. Even when they beat me, I see errors being made that serve to prolong the game and give me a chance at victory. Those errors are based on a lack of knowledge about the map, deployment, fortifications, and game settings more than anything else.

To your last question, who would I rather have around? I'd rather have both of you around. You are immediately a good opponent to play against. The other group mentioned would require some gleaning, some teaching, some massaging to become a good opponent to play against. So, I'm in support of keeping you around and keeping players like you around at the beginning whilst preventing the other group of players from getting "Shanghai-ed" and frustrated and bailing from the site.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me that you would have welcomed being subject to these restrictions and would have had a much better experience on this site for the last 9 months if you were only allowed to play a handful of maps and settings.

Yes, I would have welcomed these restrictions. Since I was afforded the opportunity to watch my husband play, I knew of the maps and knew which ones to avoid. Since my husband allowed me to tell him what moves to make (as part of my learning process) I knew how to win on the "tougher" maps. If I was told that I couldn't play Feudal War until I had completed 25 games, I'd happily wait and build up my skills. I'm familiar enough with training to know that most everyone that goes through a training (whether it be sports, a job, or whatever) is prevented from "taking the bull by the horns" until they have "proven themselves" and/or got a taste of what it is all about. You rarely see a freshman starting at quarterback for a college football team, yet, we saw that this year with USC. I played a collegiate sport and none of our freshmen nor sophomores "started." When I was in my freshman and sophomore years, I understood the reasoning behind being "locked out" of starting games. The vast majority of people in any field benefit from NOT being "thrown to the slaughter."

Does that answer your question?

[skeletonboy]

But, if you had your husband guiding you, then you aren't the standard noob. If I came in as a completely new player and saw that there weren't many settings or maps that I could play, I would leave and find a better site.

The best way to learn how strategy is to lose to more experienced players. It's one thing to be told how to play a particular map, but then all new players would use exactly the same strategy, which farmers could use to their advantage. You need to play and lose to develop a strategy that you like, and if you block settings and maps they wont stay long enough to discover what the site really has to offer.

If you did a survey of every new recruit, I think you'd struggle to find a single one that would want to be restricted.

[PLAYER57832]

To your next point, I've played a lot of players with fewer than 20 games under their belt. I've found that a vast majority of them play poorly and make errors of deployment, errors of fortification, and basically errors that show they don't know the map or the game settings well enough to have beaten me. Those that beat me typically: 1) go first, 2) start with either a bonus or a great drop, and 3) get remarkably good success on their first two turns with dice so as to minimize my chances of building up enough of an army to remediate their territory count and troop count. Even when they beat me, I see errors being made that serve to prolong the game and give me a chance at victory. Those errors are based on a lack of knowledge about the map, deployment, fortifications, and game settings more than anything else.
?

Yes, new players often don't play quite as well as older, more experienced players.

SO WHAT! You are complaining because you get a few games that are not the most competetive? If its "manners"... well the other side of the coin is dealing with "experienced" players who are overly aggressive, expect only "perfect" play .. are just plain obnoxious.

If you play a new player, you have an OPPORTUNITY to help someone, to give someone a good experience and hopefully KEEP THEM HERE. If you did a survey, I can virtually gaurantee the main thing that has kept people here was other people.

Beyond that, as I already mentioned, your ideas of the maps that are and are not "appropriate for new players" is not based on much real and true experience with those maps.

If you dislike helping new players.. play private games. END.

[Queen_Herpes]

But, if you had your husband guiding you, then you aren't the standard noob. If I came in as a completely new player and saw that there weren't many settings or maps that I could play, I would leave and find a better site.

The best way to learn how strategy is to lose to more experienced players. It's one thing to be told how to play a particular map, but then all new players would use exactly the same strategy, which farmers could use to their advantage. You need to play and lose to develop a strategy that you like, and if you block settings and maps they wont stay long enough to discover what the site really has to offer.

If you did a survey of every new recruit, I think you'd struggle to find a single one that would want to be restricted.

I think if you did a survey of any person anywhere and asked them "Would you like to be restricted?" you'd probably get the same result. This isn't about "restricting" for restricting's sake.

The problem with the current system is that there is no way for a new player to know the maps, deployments, fortifications, and game settings. The first set of losses has nothing to do with strategy, rather everything to do with not understanding how the territories connect, not understanding bombardments, not understanding fortifications, etc. These are "operational functions" and not strategies. The goal of this suggestion is to teach the maps, the settings, and the operational functions. I agree that strategy is learned via human to human contact.

That being said, marines at quantico are taught from books, cadets at West Point are taught from books, cadets at AFACAD are taught from books before they climb into a plane, Midshipmen at Annapolis are taught from books before they climb aboard ship. You have to know how to clean and maintain your weapon, then learn how to fire the weapon, before you can strategize its implementation on the battlefield. Similarly, officers need to know the effectiveness of the weapons, the abilities of the weapons, etc. before being able to deploy them strategically on the battlefield. Would you place a howitzer on the front line? Would you deploy 100 troops to defend your howitzer if it was 10 miles from the front lines? You have to know the answers to these questions and learn the operational functionality before "going to battle" otherwise you army gets pwned.

The same is true for sports. Do you tell your basketball players to guard the middle of the court all game? If so, you'll never score, and your opponent will score all game. That would be poor deployment of your players. Do you tell your football players to stick to the sidelines on defense? If so, your team will get pwned as the opponent will run up the middle for touchdowns all game long. These kinds of mistakes are made by new players all the time at Conquer Club. New players deploy troops on some maps in locations that are equivalent to the sidelines of a football field, and the center of the court on a basketball court. Those new players get mauled in these situations. Why not offer them a systematic, designed program that helps them to learn the maps and settings in a manner that allows them to learn, rather than get destroyed?

[Queen_Herpes]

Yes, new players often don't play quite as well as older, more experienced players.

If you play a new player, you have an OPPORTUNITY to help someone, to give someone a good experience and hopefully KEEP THEM HERE. If you did a survey, I can virtually gaurantee the main thing that has kept people here was other people.

The point here is that it would be next to impossible to see the site grow beyond the 19,000 odd players it has now if counting on the people to keep people here. I don't discount the concept that some players have kept some players here. My interest is designing a system that allows new players to be systematically trained and guided to a point where the game is what keeps them here. Is the conversation fun? Sure. But all of us can go to other sites for forums and flames and all of that. This is a video game site. It has a social aspect to it, but it is a video game site.

You comment is indicative of someone who is entrenched in the idea that the Society of Cooks is a functional way to keep a lot of players on this site. The Society of Cooks does a great job affecting a small percentage, a very small percentage, of visitors to this site to continue playing here. Unfortunately, SoC relies upon human teachers who might: leave the site for their own reasons, might not log on for a few days, and essentially are not available all the time. A design like mine (if not exactly like mine, then similar enough to repair some of the issues of my design) is available all the time. Again, unlocking maps and providing automatic emails is available all the time. Providing comprehensive instructional data on the site (not simply a forum that gets clouded with nonsense comments) would make the site stronger and would provide a new player with help not only from the "get-go" but also at any time.

[Doc_Brown]

The same is true for sports. Do you tell your basketball players to guard the middle of the court all game? If so, you'll never score, and your opponent will score all game. That would be poor deployment of your players. Do you tell your football players to stick to the sidelines on defense? If so, your team will get pwned as the opponent will run up the middle for touchdowns all game long. These kinds of mistakes are made by new players all the time at Conquer Club. New players deploy troops on some maps in locations that are equivalent to the sidelines of a football field, and the center of the court on a basketball court. Those new players get mauled in these situations. Why not offer them a systematic, designed program that helps them to learn the maps and settings in a manner that allows them to learn, rather than get destroyed?

Absolutely. Offer it to them. Don't force every one of them into it. To carry your basketball analogy a bit farther, what you're proposing is to take every single person that wants to play on your team and making them dribble in place for two weeks. Then once they've done that for long enough, you'll let them stand at the free-throw line and shoot baskets for another two weeks. They then spend more weeks on various other drills before they get 2v2 games against each other. In fact, you won't let them play a real game until they've been on the team an entire year. This program might be great for the people that have never touched a basketball in their lives. But a good portion of the people that sign up initially will be those that have played street ball or that have played for other teams. Maybe you even start to recognize that those people would chafe under your program and you tell them they can get through in half the time, but they'll have to test out of each skill. Their other choice is to go down the street to the other team. That team doesn't have as nice a gym to play in, but if you join that team, you'll be playing real games in 2 weeks tops. How big do you think your team will be? Furthermore, what do you think the overall quality will be of the players that join and stick around?

Also, to comment on your other analogies, bear in mind that CC is not as complicated or as dangerous as a fighter jet. And while people study books to learn the proper use of equipment, it's a well-known fact that experience is a far better teacher. If the new players in your game deploy troops behind the lines, why not point it out to them politely? I suspect if you did so instead of insulting them, they'll know better and avoid making the same mistake on the next game. If they have to sit and read a whole bunch of tips on how to play, one of which is to make sure and deploy troops on the front lines, do you think they'll remember it? Losing a game due to a mistake is a far more effective teacher.

You know what your proposal reminds me of? The "Defense against the dark arts" program designed by Delores Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. My apologies if that reference doesn't make sense, but for those that have read the book, I'm sure you'll see exactly what I mean.

[skeletonboy]

You know what your proposal reminds me of? The "Defense against the dark arts" program designed by Delores Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. My apologies if that reference doesn't make sense, but for those that have read the book, I'm sure you'll see exactly what I mean.

That is exactly what its like, good example

[Queen_Herpes]

The same is true for sports. Do you tell your basketball players to guard the middle of the court all game? If so, you'll never score, and your opponent will score all game. That would be poor deployment of your players. Do you tell your football players to stick to the sidelines on defense? If so, your team will get pwned as the opponent will run up the middle for touchdowns all game long. These kinds of mistakes are made by new players all the time at Conquer Club. New players deploy troops on some maps in locations that are equivalent to the sidelines of a football field, and the center of the court on a basketball court. Those new players get mauled in these situations. Why not offer them a systematic, designed program that helps them to learn the maps and settings in a manner that allows them to learn, rather than get destroyed?

Absolutely. Offer it to them. Don't force every one of them into it. To carry your basketball analogy a bit farther, what you're proposing is to take every single person that wants to play on your team and making them dribble in place for two weeks. Then once they've done that for long enough, you'll let them stand at the free-throw line and shoot baskets for another two weeks. They then spend more weeks on various other drills before they get 2v2 games against each other. In fact, you won't let them play a real game until they've been on the team an entire year. This program might be great for the people that have never touched a basketball in their lives. But a good portion of the people that sign up initially will be those that have played street ball or that have played for other teams. Maybe you even start to recognize that those people would chafe under your program and you tell them they can get through in half the time, but they'll have to test out of each skill. Their other choice is to go down the street to the other team. That team doesn't have as nice a gym to play in, but if you join that team, you'll be playing real games in 2 weeks tops. How big do you think your team will be? Furthermore, what do you think the overall quality will be of the players that join and stick around?

Also, to comment on your other analogies, bear in mind that CC is not as complicated or as dangerous as a fighter jet. And while people study books to learn the proper use of equipment, it's a well-known fact that experience is a far better teacher. If the new players in your game deploy troops behind the lines, why not point it out to them politely? I suspect if you did so instead of insulting them, they'll know better and avoid making the same mistake on the next game. If they have to sit and read a whole bunch of tips on how to play, one of which is to make sure and deploy troops on the front lines, do you think they'll remember it? Losing a game due to a mistake is a far more effective teacher.

You know what your proposal reminds me of? The "Defense against the dark arts" program designed by Delores Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. My apologies if that reference doesn't make sense, but for those that have read the book, I'm sure you'll see exactly what I mean.

Yep, and I get the Umbridge reference, and, yes it hurts that you write that. So I hope you are proud of the success you are having in being hurtful.

I am attempting to help. You ignored my responses to your other comments and yet chose to focus on this comment and put your energy in to finding out how you could make my analogy into something that it is not. Do basketball players need to learn ball-handling skills by dribbling in place? Yes, they do. And when they are playing for the first time, handling a ball for the first time, they get taught by dribbling in place.

I have, time and again, refuted your erroneous commentary that believes that these suggestions systems are attempts to teach strategy. I do agree with you that strategy is taught/learned via competition against human opponents. My goal here is to teach the aspects of this game that are quantifiable, measureable, and concrete. Those aspects are the maps, the game settings, and basic gameplay.

Try going back and reading the comments I wrote on preceding pages. I put time and effort into responding to your questions which seem now (with your analogy comparing me to Umbridge) to just be flames, rather than questions which you wanted answered.

[Doc_Brown]

Yep, and I get the Umbridge reference, and, yes it hurts that you write that. So I hope you are proud of the success you are having in being hurtful.

I am attempting to help. You ignored my responses to your other comments and yet chose to focus on this comment and put your energy in to finding out how you could make my analogy into something that it is not. Do basketball players need to learn ball-handling skills by dribbling in place? Yes, they do. And when they are playing for the first time, handling a ball for the first time, they get taught by dribbling in place.

I have, time and again, refuted your erroneous commentary that believes that these suggestions systems are attempts to teach strategy. I do agree with you that strategy is taught/learned via competition against human opponents. My goal here is to teach the aspects of this game that are quantifiable, measureable, and concrete. Those aspects are the maps, the game settings, and basic gameplay.

Try going back and reading the comments I wrote on preceding pages. I put time and effort into responding to your questions which seem now (with your analogy comparing me to Umbridge) to just be flames, rather than questions which you wanted answered.

I did look through your other comments, and I think others responded to them. I do realize you're trying to help, and the reference to Umbridge was not an attempt to compare you to her. I only mean to suggest that your approach would be as limiting as her teaching methods in her "Defense" class. I also hope you'll understand that I feel the same frustration in thinking that virtually all my major points have been left unanswered. I've pointed out that every newer player (players that this idea is meant to help) that has commented on this idea is unanimously opposed to it.

Your solution to accommodating players like me is to tell me to play 1v1 games to get through the 80 as quickly as possible. That is really no solution. I haven't played a single 1v1 since I've started here. I much prefer the larger games. If that was the true solution, I would never have joined.

I think you're trying to do two things: 1) Help new players get a running start and encourage them to stick around, and 2) Minimize multis. Unfortunately, these two goals can be at odds, and I think your solution leans much to far towards stopping multis. I mentioned early on a possible solution for helping players that wouldn't be so restrictive to more advanced players. In fact, it was the last paragraph of the very first post I made on this topic:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=100563&start=105#p2300505
I expanded on that in the second part of my first post in your new thread:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006&start=0#p2312727
I think you now fully recognize my concerns, so go back and read those two posts and see if they wouldn't provide a reasonable balance to your proposal. The basic idea is to allow more advanced players a reasonably straightforward way to opt-out of your training regimen. In fact, my proposal would allow people to re-apply certain restrictions if they felt they weren't ready for certain map levels or settings types even after they had completed the minimum required number of games. More advanced players could remove all restrictions immediately. The goal is to allow the player to take the responsibility for what he thinks he is ready for.

My proposal doesn't address multis, but I think applying limitations just to make multi creation more tedious is not the answer. Perhaps they can implement an automated multi scan for every player that completes 5 games. Bear in mind that a huge portion of the players listed on the scoreboard are people that signed up for the site, registered for a game or two, and then decided it wasn't quite as interesting as they thought. So they never came back a second time (a couple of the people I recruited did that very thing except that they were nice enough not to actually register for any games). Nothing you do (with the possible exception of allowing 5 speed games or an optional AI player so they can play immediately) will keep those people around.

Other people have made other suggestions that would provide players with more information, allowing them to decide what restrictions are suitable. Maybe new players could be allowed 5 point-free games so that any losses they take early don't affect them. Or maybe new players could initially be given an "exhibition" account. They don't win or lose points in any games they play (and neither do those they play against). Once they convert their account to "competitive" they can't go back. There are a whole host of things you could do to make games less frustrating and provide more information without forcing players into a set mold (one that none of us that would be subject to find appealing).

[Queen_Herpes]

Maybe new players could be allowed 5 point-free games so that any losses they take early don't affect them. Or maybe new players could initially be given an "exhibition" account. They don't win or lose points in any games they play (and neither do those they play against). Once they convert their account to "competitive" they can't go back. There are a whole host of things you could do to make games less frustrating and provide more information without forcing players into a set mold (one that none of us that would be subject to find appealing).

I think this is a great idea and I wonder if you would allow me to incorporate it into my suggestion.

As to the Potter reference, I hope you understand that the comparison, albeit unintentional, wasn't received well.

If there are questions that you have posed, and I haven't answered them, I will attempt to go back right now and answer them.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, new players often don't play quite as well as older, more experienced players.

If you play a new player, you have an OPPORTUNITY to help someone, to give someone a good experience and hopefully KEEP THEM HERE. If you did a survey, I can virtually gaurantee the main thing that has kept people here was other people.

The point here is that it would be next to impossible to see the site grow beyond the 19,000 odd players it has now if counting on the people to keep people here. I don't discount the concept that some players have kept some players here. My interest is designing a system that allows new players to be systematically trained and guided to a point where the game is what keeps them here. Is the conversation fun? Sure. But all of us can go to other sites for forums and flames and all of that. This is a video game site. It has a social aspect to it, but it is a video game site.

I see, so you believe the rest of us are simply playing automons... hmm, interesting. I always thought I was playing people. Creating a computer program to play all the CC maps with any kind of effectiveness would be very, very difficult. The only way to do this IS to play other people.

You comment is indicative of someone who is entrenched in the idea that the Society of Cooks is a functional way to keep a lot of players on this site. The Society of Cooks does a great job affecting a small percentage, a very small percentage, of visitors to this site to continue playing here. Unfortunately, SoC relies upon human teachers who might: leave the site for their own reasons, might not log on for a few days, and essentially are not available all the time. A design like mine (if not exactly like mine, then similar enough to repair some of the issues of my design) is available all the time. Again, unlocking maps and providing automatic emails is available all the time. Providing comprehensive instructional data on the site (not simply a forum that gets clouded with nonsense comments) would make the site stronger and would provide a new player with help not only from the "get-go" but also at any time.

Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but I predate the "cook's forum" by a good deal. The Cook's forum has issues, is definitely not perfect. I would personally like to see them use a different map, but that's just my opinion. Classic is the most popular, so I understand the reasoning.

Bottom line.. if people stay, they stay because they were willing to read the many guides and things ALREADY AVAILABLE. (a few more are pending,too) OR they were helped by someone, simply liked the camaraderie.

People who leave because they lose ... sorry, but we don't need them here! Losing IS a part of this game and if they cannot accept that, I am happy to see them go.

As for older people "having to put up with" newer players. I am pretty tired of the grousing. We ALL were new at some point. I feel I have an obligation to help newer players. If you don't, if you cannot bothered ... then stick to private games!

You know what your proposal reminds me of? The "Defense against the dark arts" program designed by Delores Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. My apologies if that reference doesn't make sense, but for those that have read the book, I'm sure you'll see exactly what I mean.

LOL very good!

[Queen_Herpes]

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.

If this isn't difficult to program, then I would agree. However, wouldn't this allow new players to join games with the settings that they haven't yet attempted?

[PLAYER57832]

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.

If this isn't difficult to program, then I would agree. However, wouldn't this allow new players to join games with the settings that they haven't yet attempted?

Some maps, the maps that consistantly cause new people trouble ARE limited at first.

As for the "personal settings" .. its called "Game Finder" You can limit as much or as little as you like.

As for limiting who can join your games... the problem is heavy discrimination against new players, NOT limiting games to new players (except as already noted).



PS. There already are a few "comprehensive" guides to "how to play CC". Few people bother to read them.

[Queen_Herpes]

But I (and others) have pointed this out over and over again. In my view, you have the following major questions that have been raised but that you've never really addressed:
1) How will cutting people off from various settings and maps make them more likely to stay?
2) How can your suggestion account for new players with a wide variety of skill sets?
3) What are your criteria for determining which maps and settings are appropriate for every single player that has completed X games?
4) How does preventing a person from playing on a wider variety of maps better prepare them to play those maps?
5) Can you provide evidence, even anecdotal evidence, of people that quit the site because there were too many options available to them? In particular, would those same people have been more likely to stay if there were draconian restrictions placed on the playability of the site as opposed to offering them more immediate access to information and assistance?
6) Will not confining new players to a very limited set of games mean that they are more likely to end up in games composed almost exclusively of newer players who have some propensity to deadbeat? How will that improve the enjoyability of the site or the capacity for the new players to improve their skills?
7) Could most of your goals involving player retention and enjoyment be achieved by a tutorial program from which new players could opt out?

1) They won't know the maps exist. Current players would be grandfathered in.
2) There would need to be a way to opt out per your recommednations in other comments.
3) I don't know which settings to open up first. I'm open to suggestion. As far as the maps go, I have already listed those in the other suggestion.
4) Players can gain experience on less complicated maps and then apply what they have learned on those maps to then have somewhat of a leg up when compared to players who play five games then play waterloo.
5) Cognitive dissonance combined with simulus overload is theoretically why players would get frustrated and leave. There is no information on how to play, how to deal with settings, etc., on this site such that a player can join, go to the info page, learn basic info, then play. The only way this site offers to learn is to jump into games. Once done, you get an email saying "join the Society of Cooks" which is a meaningless title of a group to a new player.
6) Good point, you've found another way that the enjoyment level could decrease. I think if you go to my other suggestion, you will see that there is a solution with AI opponents. the AIs don't deadbeat.
7) Opting out, as mentioned in another post, would be a viable way to deal with it. However, you made a better suggestion as to a solution for the higher achieving new players and how they can opt out of the training.

[Queen_Herpes]

PS. There already are a few "comprehensive" guides to "how to play CC". Few people bother to read them.

Point out where they are located.