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

[Queen_Herpes]

I remeber when i joined here,that my first games i couldnt use the spoils i had 5 and had to change but never get the optimal choice...i got frustated lol,first playing only without cards then leaving this site,(yes i playued the table game before but many years ago and i was too small to remeber it)luckily i comed back learnt how spoils go and im here.And didnt learn in 5 games...

So if got frustated only with spoils people will get frustated with some complex maps...and i dont think 5 games they could learn all maps easily(there are maps i cant understand after so many years,like Age of merchants,never understood well how bonuses work,probabilly because of my english) but yes you could unlock maps twice or thrice times for examples

till first 10 games you can play 30 maps
till second 10 games another 30 maps
and when you reach to 30 games all maps

of course different number,because Queen_herpes' idea is maybe a little slowly...CC strengh is because of the maps(not only) but if they only see classic or 4,5 maps then some will leave not having reached to the 5 games....

Great points, Darth Emperor, there is incredible opportunity for frustration amongst new members who don't understand the game settings and maps and so on. I've seen other suggestions on this board regarding the creation of a facebook app for CC. Great idea, but until problems of confusability and frustration are fixed, there will be more people dropping the app than using it.

As it stands, the Society of Cooks trains on the Classic map anyways, so....

[Doc_Brown]

new players don't have the same choices that lackattack had. Bummer.

You don't know how tempted I am to make this my signature!

[Queen_Herpes]

Just as a note flat rate should be first over escalating spoils. Many new players do not understand escalating, but flat rate and taking bonuses... yes.

Again, thank you for the insight!

[PLAYER57832]

I agree about warnings, though it gets a bit tiring when people cannot be bothered to read instructions that are there. At some point, if people won't put out a little effort, then its too bad if they get upset. Those are not the ones we need here, anyway.

The biggest problem I have is that the overwhelming majority of classification systems don't really take difficulty into account, they start with the assumption that classic is the base and anything off from that is "difficult". This is just not true. However, too often the people making these assessments have not really played the maps they consider "difficult". Or, they have played them a couple of times and then given up. Queen Herpes definitely fits that category. I played every map for a long time, though I haven't kept up with this very latest batch. (I believe you have also?)

I also think there needs to be just a tad more explanation for assassin the first time or two someone plays.

[Doc_Brown]

Just as a note flat rate should be first over escalating spoils. Many new players do not understand escalating, but flat rate and taking bonuses... yes.

Again, thank you for the insight!

Wow. Quoting a post from 5 months ago just to keep bumping this thread?

[Queen_Herpes]

I agree about warnings, though it gets a bit tiring when people cannot be bothered to read instructions that are there. At some point, if people won't put out a little effort, then its too bad if they get upset. Those are not the ones we need here, anyway.

The biggest problem I have is that the overwhelming majority of classification systems don't really take difficulty into account, they start with the assumption that classic is the base and anything off from that is "difficult". This is just not true. However, too often the people making these assessments have not really played the maps they consider "difficult". Or, they have played them a couple of times and then given up. Queen Herpes definitely fits that category. I played every map for a long time, though I haven't kept up with this very latest batch. (I believe you have also?)

I also think there needs to be just a tad more explanation for assassin the first time or two someone plays.

Exactly!! More explanation for assassin, more explanation on maps! There are many aspects to this suggestion, and you've keyed on a couple that could really benefit the site!!! I think I need to publish my reasoning behind grading the maps and how I graded each. Great response!

[AAFitz]

I agree about warnings, though it gets a bit tiring when people cannot be bothered to read instructions that are there. At some point, if people won't put out a little effort, then its too bad if they get upset. Those are not the ones we need here, anyway.

The biggest problem I have is that the overwhelming majority of classification systems don't really take difficulty into account, they start with the assumption that classic is the base and anything off from that is "difficult". This is just not true. However, too often the people making these assessments have not really played the maps they consider "difficult". Or, they have played them a couple of times and then given up. Queen Herpes definitely fits that category. I played every map for a long time, though I haven't kept up with this very latest batch. (I believe you have also?)

I also think there needs to be just a tad more explanation for assassin the first time or two someone plays.

Exactly!! More explanation for assassin, more explanation on maps! There are many aspects to this suggestion, and you've keyed on a couple that could really benefit the site!!! I think I need to publish my reasoning behind grading the maps and how I graded each. Great response!

Absolutely. There is a complete lack of information that absolutely should have been addressed before now. The explanation of the types of games and difficulty needs to be very quickly visible to all new players. Also the maps definitely need to be grouped into difficulty classifications so that new players can decide which type they would like to play, but understand before joining the difficulty level they are joining.

The only pare of this suggestion that most disagree with is preventing the players themselves, from the ability to try out the site how they see fit. But all agree more information is needed. Its just that most agree that players should be free to join those games armed with that information, and not have those decisions made for them.

Labeling the maps, not limiting players to them, is the obvious way to improve CC, and possibly reduce disgruntled new players. Further, limiting new players to playing those players with minimum ratings of 4.6 and above will keep them from further reason to leave the site, since below 4.5, its very likely that the player will not offer a very pleasant gaming experience.

[Queen_Herpes]

Okay, all of you posted like an entire essay in each post, so I haven't really read them all, I would just like to say that I like that you now have noobs able to start with multiple map options. I would maybe change the groups around slightly, but nothing important.

I still have two major suggestions: first, to allow recruits to play escalating games. I think other risk sites use escalating, so people might leave for other sites first of all, second of all normal risk (at least the risk I play) has escalating spoils, so many will already now how to play escalating, like to play it, and (think) they are good at it.

Also, I would suggest NOT letting new players play freestyle. Imagine them logging on (in Round 10 or something), seeing they have a turn, and clicking "start turn". They then proceed to sip their morning coffee while deciding what to do. Then (without noticing anything happening because they haven't been refreshing the screen) they are dead and the game is over. HUH!!!! They are utterly confused, really pissed at the major bugs this site has, and angry that their coffee is gone and their computer is fried, with big coffee splotches all over it . Ya, they're definitely going to stay on CC.

Thank you for the post, you make a very good point. Suggesting that new players should not play freestyle is a forward-thinking perspective showing concern for the new user and the potential for abuse and frustration.

[shanksdigs]

I like the idea of AI. I love(d) playing against AI Opponents on PS2 Risk. Sure, they're predictable, but it just wasn't as easy to play PS2 Risk against human opponents (hiding your cards, w8ting for opponents to take turns, etc.) I fiddled with the game settings and got the AI to make faster moves. It was nice to be able to play a game quickly and just screw around for awhile. Then I found this site. Its fun to play maps other than the Classic Map (based on the Risk game I grew up with.) But some of the maps are really, really tough to understand. Even if a player was to read all the map instructions, or print off a hard copy of the map and study it, there are some maps on here that are hard to learn! Some of the concepts like bombarding or territories that can only attack certain other territories in one direction or special bonuses for holding certain objects or territories that get armies added to them at the beginning of a turn and such require special strategies. Those strategies aren't going to be transparent to new, young, or inexperienced players. There's the problem. This site has a ranking system. I'm not sure if Queen_Herpes hit on that point in the suggestion. An experienced player or experienced players is/are going to earn points against an inexperienced player or players a majority of the time. This will earn points for the experienced player(s) and improve their rank. A ranking system needs to have integrity. Pitting inexperienced players against experienced players on difficult maps with the result being a win for the experienced player means that the ranking system (for those games mentioned) is not valid as a whole. I've read a bunch of the comments about farmers and the inexperienced victims that are their targets. Seems like the ranking system (for some players) shows their ability to capitalize on the inexperience of other players. The ranking system does not show player ability and strategy at outplaying their competitors. For some, certainly, the ranking system shows a rank that represents victories against experienced players. So that the ranking system earns some integrity, it would seem reasonable to implement the use of AI on this site where the result of the game does not earn the victors (hopefully the human competitors) any points and neither does it take away any points from their ranking score. If I'm understanding what Queen_Herpes is getting at with this suggestion, she is trying to help the inexperienced players in some way. I see it as also helping the integrity of the ranking system. I would spend time playing against the AI for completely different reasons, but I see the benefit of the reasons mentioned in my post here and in other posts for the AI to be supportive to the development of beginner players. Yes, putting the AI on the site will take some programming, and I also have read the point about the Ai needing to be programmed differently for each map. Sounds to me like Queen_Herpes is suggesting that it be done on the Classic Map first as a trial run. Maybe even programming it only for one-on-one? Not sure what she wants, but might be worth considering the AI aspects of her suggestion, if nothing else, can't hurt right? Seems like a lot of newer players to the site experience a bit of confusion, heck, even I find some of the maps and settings to be confusing and difficult!

[Doc_Brown]

It's not the option of an AI that anyone is objecting to (though some of us would say that there are other far more important changes on the to-do list than an AI), it's QH's proposal to force people to play against the AI for any length of time. An option would be fine. Required games against it? Not so much. That's pretty much the complaint against the majority of QH's suggestions. More information and options are great ideas. Forcing new players (who come in with a wide range of experiences) to follow some narrow pre-set training program is a very bad idea.

[AgentSmith88]

So you're saying you like the idea. Thanks AAFItz.

Yes, I like the any idea that adds to the site, including an optional AI, if someone felt like making it, and blocking low rated players from new recruits to perhaps keep them. Its nice to see you agree with this, and I hope this means you see the logic of treating new players well from now in chat and not farming them as much..two things you wrote you do for some odd reason, all while spending hours making suggestions blocking them from the best maps and options CC has to offer.... in some interesting goal of keeping them around.

Im sure the other world domination sites are thankful you are working so hard to make suggestions to keep new players from staying at CC, but its Its nice to see you will be changing your ways and actually working to keep them around from now on. As a benefit, your ratings will go up too...and your goal of improving the site for those "noobs" as you so lovingly refer to them, will be much more believable.

I knew eventually you would come around. Sorry, its been such a long road getting there.

I'm glad you like AI. I like it also.

As to the remainder of you, having AI available is good practice. When you go to the gym to "shoot baskets" or "practice free-throws" or "run layups," you are essentially "practicing" against a non-human opponent. You are "range-finding" and testing your limits and improving your ability to make deifficult plays. When you are done "practicing" you then move on to playing a game or two against opponents.

When you go to the gym to "lift weights" or "run on the track" or "get on the erg" or "run on the treadmill" or "take a spinning class" you are helping your body to "practice" for your future athletic endeavors. Most experiences in the weight room or on an elliptical machine are solitary where the experience is preparing you for whatever interactive athletic event comes next in your life.

When you "draw up a draft" or "take notes" or "read a text book" or "perform online research," you are preparing for discussing your research paper with a colleague and preparing for presenting your thesis to a board of review.

When you "draw up a lesson plan" or "photocopy reproducibles" or "read a teacher's edition textbook," you are preparing for teaching a lesson to a group of students. Perhaps you run through the lesson once before you are in the classroom.

When you play against AI, you are practicing and preparing yourself for games against human opponents.

It is ridiculous to assume that by adding AI to the Conquer Club that the site would suddenly fall into the likes of an "addictinggames.com" where all of the users would simply play against AI.

Conquer Club has an opportunity to improve itself exponentially by providing an AI that can be used as practice for the players who need the practice. Players new to the site need an opportunity to learn the maps and the game settings in a safe environment where they can also practice skills before playing against human opponents. Existing players need an opportunity to hone their skills, learn maps, understand game settings and jump into and out of the AI opponent games while playing human opponents.

Every advanced, successful video game provides a "campaign" or "vs. Computer" option. Of those games that also have an online component, players still play online versus real opponents in those games.

This is a new phenomenon that has only come about in the last 30-40 years with the invention of the video game. Every other game in the history of man has been "muliplayer" from tag to football to yahtzee and everything in between. This site is based on a board game. Board games are meant to be played with other people, period.

On a side note, video games themselves are moving away from the single-player mode. The best selling games today are ones that are bought mostly for their multiplayer aspects (Halo 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are the top 2 selling games of all time and both are played for their multiplayer). The single-player or campaign mode is now used like a movie - to tell a story.

Forcing new players into a single player game is not the way to get people to stick around, especially those expecting a "RISK" experience. As an option to play, it might be alright. I might use it to learn a new map, but that would be it.

[PLAYER57832]

On the other hand, if the immediate cause is frustration caused by other players with bad attitudes, then AAFitz's idea to protect new players from players with poor ratings sounds like one worth pursuing.

I presented a similar idea a while ago (not saying I was the first, but I did). In fact, when the ratings were redesigned, there was hope that they could be tied to this somehow.

The problem is that current ratings are so "dilute".. that is, all it takes is one good game and you can erase 100 bad ones, so many people just either don't rate or give all 5's..etc. It would be very hard to implement in a meaningful way.

Another suggestion was to prevent people who either had a lot of foes or who were foed a lot from playing new people.

Personally, I think for this to work, the rating would have to be re-worked, probably with some categories specific to how nice one was to newbies and so forth.

[Queen_Herpes]

It's not the option of an AI that anyone is objecting to (though some of us would say that there are other far more important changes on the to-do list than an AI), it's QH's proposal to force people to play against the AI for any length of time. An option would be fine. Required games against it? Not so much. That's pretty much the complaint against the majority of QH's suggestions. More information and options are great ideas. Forcing new players (who come in with a wide range of experiences) to follow some narrow pre-set training program is a very bad idea.

I'm willing to withdraw the requirements of playing against the AI for any length of time if it means that AI will get implemented. From the perspective of a learning tool, having AI present on the site would be a great addition.

[Queen_Herpes]

I like the idea of AI. I love(d) playing against AI Opponents on PS2 Risk. Sure, they're predictable, but it just wasn't as easy to play PS2 Risk against human opponents (hiding your cards, w8ting for opponents to take turns, etc.) I fiddled with the game settings and got the AI to make faster moves. It was nice to be able to play a game quickly and just screw around for awhile. Then I found this site. Its fun to play maps other than the Classic Map (based on the Risk game I grew up with.) But some of the maps are really, really tough to understand. Even if a player was to read all the map instructions, or print off a hard copy of the map and study it, there are some maps on here that are hard to learn! Some of the concepts like bombarding or territories that can only attack certain other territories in one direction or special bonuses for holding certain objects or territories that get armies added to them at the beginning of a turn and such require special strategies. Those strategies aren't going to be transparent to new, young, or inexperienced players. There's the problem. This site has a ranking system. I'm not sure if Queen_Herpes hit on that point in the suggestion. An experienced player or experienced players is/are going to earn points against an inexperienced player or players a majority of the time. This will earn points for the experienced player(s) and improve their rank. A ranking system needs to have integrity. Pitting inexperienced players against experienced players on difficult maps with the result being a win for the experienced player means that the ranking system (for those games mentioned) is not valid as a whole. I've read a bunch of the comments about farmers and the inexperienced victims that are their targets. Seems like the ranking system (for some players) shows their ability to capitalize on the inexperience of other players. The ranking system does not show player ability and strategy at outplaying their competitors. For some, certainly, the ranking system shows a rank that represents victories against experienced players. So that the ranking system earns some integrity, it would seem reasonable to implement the use of AI on this site where the result of the game does not earn the victors (hopefully the human competitors) any points and neither does it take away any points from their ranking score. If I'm understanding what Queen_Herpes is getting at with this suggestion, she is trying to help the inexperienced players in some way. I see it as also helping the integrity of the ranking system. I would spend time playing against the AI for completely different reasons, but I see the benefit of the reasons mentioned in my post here and in other posts for the AI to be supportive to the development of beginner players. Yes, putting the AI on the site will take some programming, and I also have read the point about the Ai needing to be programmed differently for each map. Sounds to me like Queen_Herpes is suggesting that it be done on the Classic Map first as a trial run. Maybe even programming it only for one-on-one? Not sure what she wants, but might be worth considering the AI aspects of her suggestion, if nothing else, can't hurt right? Seems like a lot of newer players to the site experience a bit of confusion, heck, even I find some of the maps and settings to be confusing and difficult!

Now that you mention it, I see the benefit of AI on the integrity of the ranking system. As mentioned in my response post immediately prior to this one, I'm willing to drop the other aspects of this suggestion to move forward with implementing AI. If AI gets implemented and is present for new players to choose to play (and I think they will choose to play against AI) it will help new players to get the hang of the site. If there was to be any limit placed at all, I would probably limit the number of AI games any player could create. Otherwise the server could get overloaded with 1v1 games user vs. AI.

BTW, Nice use of paragraphs to break up your thoughts into measurable units.

[Queen_Herpes]

This is a new phenomenon that has only come about in the last 30-40 years with the invention of the video game. Every other game in the history of man has been "muliplayer" from tag to football to yahtzee and everything in between. This site is based on a board game. Board games are meant to be played with other people, period.

Yes, and every board game has a rule book and examples of how to play. AI could be useful as a "How-to." Even stupid football players run simulations.

On a side note, video games themselves are moving away from the single-player mode. The best selling games today are ones that are bought mostly for their multiplayer aspects (Halo 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are the top 2 selling games of all time and both are played for their multiplayer). The single-player or campaign mode is now used like a movie - to tell a story.

Campaign is also used to learn how to play the game, how to get the best use out of the controller or keyboard, how to control different settings. AI can help players here on conquerclub.

As an option to play, it might be alright. I might use it to learn a new map, but that would be it.

Exactly, a great way to learn a map! This would be wonderful for a new player trying to learn the site and the game.

[shanksdigs]

I like the idea of AI. I love(d) playing against AI Opponents on PS2 Risk. Sure, they're predictable, but it just wasn't as easy to play PS2 Risk against human opponents (hiding your cards, w8ting for opponents to take turns, etc.) I fiddled with the game settings and got the AI to make faster moves. It was nice to be able to play a game quickly and just screw around for awhile. Then I found this site. Its fun to play maps other than the Classic Map (based on the Risk game I grew up with.) But some of the maps are really, really tough to understand. Even if a player was to read all the map instructions, or print off a hard copy of the map and study it, there are some maps on here that are hard to learn! Some of the concepts like bombarding or territories that can only attack certain other territories in one direction or special bonuses for holding certain objects or territories that get armies added to them at the beginning of a turn and such require special strategies. Those strategies aren't going to be transparent to new, young, or inexperienced players. There's the problem. This site has a ranking system. I'm not sure if Queen_Herpes hit on that point in the suggestion. An experienced player or experienced players is/are going to earn points against an inexperienced player or players a majority of the time. This will earn points for the experienced player(s) and improve their rank. A ranking system needs to have integrity. Pitting inexperienced players against experienced players on difficult maps with the result being a win for the experienced player means that the ranking system (for those games mentioned) is not valid as a whole. I've read a bunch of the comments about farmers and the inexperienced victims that are their targets. Seems like the ranking system (for some players) shows their ability to capitalize on the inexperience of other players. The ranking system does not show player ability and strategy at outplaying their competitors. For some, certainly, the ranking system shows a rank that represents victories against experienced players. So that the ranking system earns some integrity, it would seem reasonable to implement the use of AI on this site where the result of the game does not earn the victors (hopefully the human competitors) any points and neither does it take away any points from their ranking score. If I'm understanding what Queen_Herpes is getting at with this suggestion, she is trying to help the inexperienced players in some way. I see it as also helping the integrity of the ranking system. I would spend time playing against the AI for completely different reasons, but I see the benefit of the reasons mentioned in my post here and in other posts for the AI to be supportive to the development of beginner players. Yes, putting the AI on the site will take some programming, and I also have read the point about the Ai needing to be programmed differently for each map. Sounds to me like Queen_Herpes is suggesting that it be done on the Classic Map first as a trial run. Maybe even programming it only for one-on-one? Not sure what she wants, but might be worth considering the AI aspects of her suggestion, if nothing else, can't hurt right? Seems like a lot of newer players to the site experience a bit of confusion, heck, even I find some of the maps and settings to be confusing and difficult!

Now that you mention it, I see the benefit of AI on the integrity of the ranking system. As mentioned in my response post immediately prior to this one, I'm willing to drop the other aspects of this suggestion to move forward with implementing AI. If AI gets implemented and is present for new players to choose to play (and I think they will choose to play against AI) it will help new players to get the hang of the site. If there was to be any limit placed at all, I would probably limit the number of AI games any player could create. Otherwise the server could get overloaded with 1v1 games user vs. AI.

BTW, Nice use of paragraphs to break up your thoughts into measurable units.

Yeah, I could have done better to get my point acrost. I think you'd be better off making this an Artificial Intelligence recommendation. Seems like that's the way you are going anyways. I see where you are coming from to help new players and I think the AI woul dbe the quickest and easiest suggestion to push forward. Seems like you have some support even from those that don't appear to like other aspects of your SUG.

[shanksdigs]

This suggestion should be buried somewhere deep IMO.

I realize I'm not helping by posting into it, but....

If I had to wait 50 or even 30 or even 5 games before I could play human players on this site, I probably would have quit on my first day here.

Also, the blocking of maps for 50, 80 games, is the same. It's ok that some maps are blocked for the first 5 games, but after you've played 5 games, you're not as likely to deadbeat out of games anymore, so you should be allowed to play what you want.

The players here who support this suggestion... get over it. I'm sure it's easy to say now that you have hunderds of games under your belt. If playing noobs truly bothers you, join a clan or go to callouts to find some friends of matching rank.

Lastly, Queen Herpes... I do not believe you are trolling per se. I do believe you think your suggestions would improve the site. However, you should give it a rest already. You will not get this suggestion going anywhere. There are lots of actually good suggestions on this forum, with far less opposition, that haven't gone anywhere... I'd say this suggestion has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Sorry for being so blunt, but I believe that just is the case.

Now, as for some constructive input... to address the issues which this suggestion tries to address (although not very successfully), I'd say some kind of "tutorial mode" for new recruits, which would not restrict any maps or options (except for the current 5 game restrictions) but instead, all the game options would be much more verbose. All the options and buttons would have additional explanations. So when you join a game or start a game, you'd be forced to read what exactly each setting means. The tutorial mode could be turned off anytime the player likes, but it would be on by default.

Something like this could be feasible.

I think this user is trying to suport you on the tutorial side, Queen_Herpes. But doesnt want to see any restrictions on being forced to play a cretain number of games. I'm in support of remoing those restrictions as well.

[Queen_Herpes]

Further, limiting new players to playing those players with minimum ratings of 4.6 and above will keep them from further reason to leave the site, since below 4.5, its very likely that the player will not offer a very pleasant gaming experience.

Lol, and obvious rip at me as my rating was 4.4. However, it should be noted that a rating of 4.4 implies an average between 4 and 5. 4.4 is a B+/A- average. The rating of 4 is considered "Above Average" and the rating of 5 is considered "Excellent." Why then, if no other reason than to bait me into an argument with you or passive-aggressively mock me, would you claim that the gaming experience with a player whose rating is below 4.5 would be "not pleasant?" Heck, an average of "4" would indicate the player is at least average and at best excellent.

I encourage you, again, to take your suggestions to your own thread. Your continued repetition of alternative suggestions is off-topic. In addition, many of your replies are simply attempt to bait me into arguing with you.

My recommendation in this suggestion is based off of lackattack's decision to prevent new players from playing on a large number of maps. Those in support of this suggestion are of the same mindset that new players should be given the opportunity to learn the game, the maps, the settings in an environment that is conducive to their continued involvement as an active member of conquerclub.com.

[Queen_Herpes]

Now, as for some constructive input... to address the issues which this suggestion tries to address (although not very successfully), I'd say some kind of "tutorial mode" for new recruits, which would not restrict any maps or options (except for the current 5 game restrictions) but instead, all the game options would be much more verbose. All the options and buttons would have additional explanations. So when you join a game or start a game, you'd be forced to read what exactly each setting means. The tutorial mode could be turned off anytime the player likes, but it would be on by default.

Something like this could be feasible.

I think this user is trying to suport you on the tutorial side, Queen_Herpes. But doesnt want to see any restrictions on being forced to play a cretain number of games. I'm in support of remoing those restrictions as well.

Agreed. An AI tutorial would be perfect for this site and has been integrated into my suggestion. I also withdraw any restrictions at this time.

[natty dread]

I'd think about the AI from the perspective of server resources. If it would eat lots of server resources, then I'd rather see those server resources used for something like increasing the number of players, or some cool XML features, or something. However if it would be possible to make this AI without taxing the server too much, then I wouldn't be opposed to it, as long as it is strictly as an option and learning tool and not a mandatory thing for new players...

[Queen_Herpes]

I'd think about the AI from the perspective of server resources. If it would eat lots of server resources, then I'd rather see those server resources used for something like increasing the number of players, or some cool XML features, or something. However if it would be possible to make this AI without taxing the server too much, then I wouldn't be opposed to it, as long as it is strictly as an option and learning tool and not a mandatory thing for new players...

Yes, I'm going for creating a basic AI that is essentially "dumb" and has a predictable strategy. And, yes, creating that AI for one map only for now. As the Society of Cooks trains on Classic, I think it is best to continue on the path of an AI opponent for the classic map. Also, plenty of code exists out there in the programming world for AI for that particular map anyhow. There could be some time savings to borrow pre-existing code. Some of it is likely freeware that could be obtained without stepping on any patent or ownership rights.

And, yes, I've removed restrictions. I just want to see a basic tutorial-like AI put in place to help out new players. Will it take up a lot of server space? That's a question for lackattack, he mentioned he's been interested in this topic.

[TheForgivenOne]

Stickied

[00iCon]

Did anyone actually read all that?
Here's my suggestion: At 1000 games, unlock an extra Die!!!

[TheForgivenOne]

I hope that is a joke. That will deter new players away. If you truly think it's a smart suggestion, make a new Thread for it

[stahrgazer]

In theory, this is a good suggestion.

First, I think that an overall restriction from playing on any map is just plain wrong.
Instead, I'd support a restriction from 1v1 games on certain maps, while allowing those "younger players" to join teams on the otherwise-restricted maps, more than I'd support, "You just aren't old enough on CC yet to play Waterloo," type rules. Even better if there's a way to program the site so that a "restricted" player could only join on a team that includes an "unrestricted player" - in other words, enables teaming on any maps, hopefully for teaching purposes.

The next devil is in figuring out which map should be which level, because not all noobs are equal. I don't mean by that, that some are more experienced at general gameplay from other sites or board games (although it's true) - no, I mean by that, that some people can grasp seemingly complex maps more quickly than seemingly simple maps. Plus, which-map-is-harder-than-which is, by nature, subjective.
To compromise, perhaps pick levels similar to what you have already done, then allow the generally-agreed-on 'easiest' of the next level, to be placed in the previous level. In other words, if AoR is generally considered level 3, then the 'easiest' AoR map would be rated level 2.
Again, that could compensate for some learning more quickly than others, or some learning certain style maps more quickly than others, while overall, helping limit new players being taken advantage of. (Nothing will STOP new players from being taken advantage of, but limiting is good.)

Game guides is a good idea, and a thread is now created to develop them. But even the best guide is no replacement for experience, so just having guides doesn't eradicate the merits of QH's suggestion here.

I just think it needs tweaks, like the ones I've mentioned, so that EVERYONE gets the best of all worlds.

Still.. while rules and rulings indicate that only ?s are off-limits to points-grungers, the practice of plucking unripened cadets is likely to continue, no matter what we do to help it "not happen".