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

[AAFitz]

First, and foremost, since you are an “employee” of the site, making reference to Lack in your comment carries a certain weight. I’d prefer to see Lack comment here than for references to be made to potential understandings or goals that Lack may or may not have.

Well Im not an employee, but I can back up that that is lacks overall philosophy too. Any that have been here for years know this to be true.

One of the many reasons, and a very important reason for this websites success, is lacks desire to keep it as open and fun as possible...and while some assume this is soley for financial gain...I can only profess that I know this to not be the case. He genuinely wants the most for players, and wants to restrict them as little as possible. It is simply in his nature.

The reason he doesnt post as much as you might think he would, is because he actually does not want to. He does not want to exert too much of his opinion on how things run. He does not want to individually decide everything. He has let us as players, and mods create many of the aspects, rules and policies of this game as it has grown. Quite frankly, as good as he is at programming, he actually relies on us to some degree, because he simply does not immerse himself in the game itself, as many of us have done.

I myself have never seen anyone, be so willing to listen to ideas, implement ideas, and genuinely offer so much in an online game as lack. It is the reason I am still playing, and the reason I lose interest in any similar website near immediately.

This may sound like bs, or even ass-kissing, but I only offer it for those, who have not had the opportunity to get to know him, or get to see the site transition as many of us have.

Long story short, Andy is right, there is no way he 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.

When a new map comes out, I head for the best on it, and join, Knowing I will lose, but knowing after losing, that I will have saved a good amount of time learning.

NEW RECRUITS have to be protected, and new players should not be farmed to death...but in the end, keeping the options open is what CC is all about.

[AAFitz]

Yeah, sorry about that, but Andy hiding behind the same old excuse of "lackattack has a list set up from TWO YEARS AGO that protects all the newbies from being farmed", is quite old.

Whether or not your idea is better, we'll see. But this defense of his was weak a year ago, and it's weak now.

I am doing some research on maps and I will edit my original posting to reflect that research. As to Andy's weak defense, I didn't really consider it a defense of his argument, he simply alluded to Lack and attempted to speak for Lack, which I didn't really consider to be much of anything. He should allow Lack to make his own comments, and, yes, Lack should update the Map list for New Recruits (if nothing else.)

I'd just like to point out Lack surely can make his own comments (and does!), but he often doesn't always have the time--thus why we have Team CC. To be his eyes, ears, and sometimes mouth.


--Andy

Eh..fastposted...not to mention short posted

[Queen_Herpes]

C'mon guys - don't you think this is overdone? Banning new players from playing anything other than a classic clone? And only at setttings that you yourself find difficult - reality check methinks - some experienced players are rubbish at e.g. esc / complicated maps - should we ban them at that setting too?

What's happening here?

This is ridiculous and will prevent new players from enjoying many great fun maps.

If farming is the problem, shouldn't that be the thing that should be tackled?
Maybe a warning / guidance for new members when joining f/s, but there is cooks society Q&A for people that struggle.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut if you ask me.

Biggest thing thing on this site that puts off new members IMO is not being beaten but mean and abusive comments.

Condescending thread.....

You're failing to see the purpose of my suggestion. New Players are not banned. They challenge themselves to unlock new maps and new ways to play. This is not unheard of and it is unfair to refer to it as "banning new players from maps."

[AndyDufresne]

I think the idea has merit, as I have mentioned. But also as I mentioned, there probably needs to be more of a middle ground from what we have now, to what you are suggesting.


--Andy

[AAFitz]

C'mon guys - don't you think this is overdone? Banning new players from playing anything other than a classic clone? And only at setttings that you yourself find difficult - reality check methinks - some experienced players are rubbish at e.g. esc / complicated maps - should we ban them at that setting too?

What's happening here?

This is ridiculous and will prevent new players from enjoying many great fun maps.

If farming is the problem, shouldn't that be the thing that should be tackled?
Maybe a warning / guidance for new members when joining f/s, but there is cooks society Q&A for people that struggle.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut if you ask me.

Biggest thing thing on this site that puts off new members IMO is not being beaten but mean and abusive comments.

Condescending thread.....

You're failing to see the purpose of my suggestion. New Players are not banned. They challenge themselves to unlock new maps and new ways to play. This is not unheard of and it is unfair to refer to it as "banning new players from maps."

Its a great idea from that point of view, but it simply isnt going to happen, for all of the reasons given. It just isnt what CC is about. It honestly is against its fundamental philosophy, and you are only viewing it from the standpoint of winning or losing points, and not the overall gaming experience, in which points, simply do not mean as much as some think they do.

[Queen_Herpes]

First, and foremost, since you are an “employee” of the site, making reference to Lack in your comment carries a certain weight. I’d prefer to see Lack comment here than for references to be made to potential understandings or goals that Lack may or may not have.

Well Im not an employee, but I can back up that that is lacks overall philosophy too. Any that have been here for years know this to be true.

Exactly my point, let him talk, don't speak for him. By claiming you know what Lack has to say, you muddy the issue with your own opinion, and give weight to your argument by citing the owner of the site.

One of the many reasons, and a very important reason for this websites success, is lacks desire to keep it as open and fun as possible...and while some assume this is soley for financial gain...I can only profess that I know this to not be the case. He genuinely wants the most for players, and wants to restrict them as little as possible. It is simply in his nature.

Great!

The reason he doesnt post as much as you might think he would, is because he actually does not want to. He does not want to exert too much of his opinion on how things run.

Then don't speak for him on matters that decide how things run.

He does not want to individually decide everything. He has let us as players, and mods create many of the aspects, rules and policies of this game as it has grown. Quite frankly, as good as he is at programming, he actually relies on us to some degree, because he simply does not immerse himself in the game itself, as many of us have done.

I myself have never seen anyone, be so willing to listen to ideas, implement ideas, and genuinely offer so much in an online game as lack. It is the reason I am still playing, and the reason I lose interest in any similar website near immediately.

This may sound like bs, or even ass-kissing, but I only offer it for those, who have not had the opportunity to get to know him, or get to see the site transition as many of us have.

Wonderful! Doesn’t really speak to the point of my suggestion, but I appreciate it!

Long story short, Andy is right, there is no way he 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.

This is not about limiting the games, so you must not have read my initial post and therefore this is just a flame. So you can learn, my suggestion is to allow players to unlock maps and options as they become more familiar with the site over time spent playing games.

When a new map comes out, I head for the best on it, and join, Knowing I will lose, but knowing after losing, that I will have saved a good amount of time learning.

When a new map comes out, no one is the best on it, it is BRAND NEW! And a new player is not likely to run to the highest ranked player to get shellacked! You assume, also, that a new player will know how to find the best players…and then how to find who the best players are on existing maps!

NEW RECRUITS have to be protected, and new players should not be farmed to death...but in the end, keeping the options open is what CC is all about.

This is about keeping options open and it is about unlocking those options over time…over a VERY SHORT TIME. Lack currently has a lock on certain maps for new recruits, so for you to claim that Lack wouldn’t lock certain aspects of the site is incorrect. He has already done it! Precedent! New Recruits cannot access certain maps until after they receive their first promotion!

Ultimately, this recommendation is about improving the player experience for NEW RECRUITS. My goal is also to attempt to retain those recruits who clearly have not been sticking around. Most of you posting on here are so far away from being a new recruit that you likely have no concept of what it means to come to this site to get hammered by other players who are experts playing at an advanced level.

I completely understand that playing against a veteran not only offers insight into different and better strategies, but also affords the new recruit an opportunity to earn more points in the victory and learn the map. None of my suggestion prevents experienced players from playing against new recruits. It simply limits the interaction that a new recruit can have on this site to beginner settings and allows the new recruit (a beginner) to ease into the wonderful and complicated game options that this site affords us. Remember that before I started playing, there was no “Random Map” Option and there was no “Manual Deploy” Option. What options were present when you joined? What has been added?

[Queen_Herpes]

C'mon guys - don't you think this is overdone? Banning new players from playing anything other than a classic clone? And only at setttings that you yourself find difficult - reality check methinks - some experienced players are rubbish at e.g. esc / complicated maps - should we ban them at that setting too?

What's happening here?

This is ridiculous and will prevent new players from enjoying many great fun maps.

If farming is the problem, shouldn't that be the thing that should be tackled?
Maybe a warning / guidance for new members when joining f/s, but there is cooks society Q&A for people that struggle.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut if you ask me.

Biggest thing thing on this site that puts off new members IMO is not being beaten but mean and abusive comments.

Condescending thread.....

You're failing to see the purpose of my suggestion. New Players are not banned. They challenge themselves to unlock new maps and new ways to play. This is not unheard of and it is unfair to refer to it as "banning new players from maps."

Its a great idea from that point of view, but it simply isnt going to happen, for all of the reasons given. It just isnt what CC is about. It honestly is against its fundamental philosophy, and you are only viewing it from the standpoint of winning or losing points, and not the overall gaming experience, in which points, simply do not mean as much as some think they do.

Again, a fail on your part. This is not about protecting points. This is not about winning or losing points, this is about protecting the player experience. It is a complicated site, which is a good thing. The game has some complicated aspects, which is a good thing. This doesn't go against fundamental philosophy, it goes towards it. Make it something fun, understandable and improve the experience.

[AAFitz]

List of added features since joining...

speed
assassin
new recruits couldnt join team games
double turns were allowed in freestyle
manual
half of the maps
live chat
flame wars was there
wicked
fog
clickable maps
bob
I had to mail in my move in an envelope
Im sure im missing a few.

Again, all solid arguements, and a great idea...we are just pointing out, that it wont fit the CC philosophy that we have seen for the last 3 or more years. Youre welcome not to believe that opinion, and not trust it, but it really is the case.

[Queen_Herpes]

List of added features since joining...

speed
assassin
new recruits couldnt join team games
double turns were allowed in freestyle
manual
half of the maps
live chat
flame wars was there
wicked
fog
clickable maps
bob
I had to mail in my move in an envelope
Im sure im missing a few.

Again, all solid arguements, and a great idea...we are just pointing out, that it wont fit the CC philosophy that we have seen for the last 3 or more years. Youre welcome not to believe that opinion, and not trust it, but it really is the case.

Therefore you are saying that the CC philosophy is NOT: "Improve the player experience and retain members."
Instead, you are saying that the CC Philosophy IS: "Throw lambs into the fire pit and hope they keep coming back to the site."

[MrBenn]

I think there are merits in the idea of "unlocking" maps, in the same way that people have medals to work/aspire to. (I'm nearly on my terminator silver, and will then work on my speed silver).

You allude to settings/maps that increase in complexity - I'd agree that foggy games are harder than standard games, for example. Team games take a different mindset (I had the good fortune to team up with an experienced doubles player for my first doubles game) - I remember the the initial confusion about being able to deploy/fort to your teammate etc..

The first step would be to come up with some sort of (almost) universally accepted scale of complexity, and then try and work out suitable/appropriate thresholds. I guess the most practical way for it to work would be as some kind of "experience" medal, with each tier unlocking different complexities... If we were to sort all the maps into "Basic/Standard/Difficult/Complex", and the game features into similar strands, then there might be a more convincing case for unlocking things. However, I know from experience that these sort of ratings are incredibly subjective - and debates about map complexities (for example) have been going round in circles over the last couple of years

All in all, I think that the suggestion has promise, but that it would be better and more realistic if rather than a complete sliding scale, it was broken down into bigger chunks... You have to remember things like tournaments too - it needs to be crystal clear which settings would be open to whom, in order to make things like that work properly....

[AAFitz]

List of added features since joining...

speed
assassin
new recruits couldnt join team games
double turns were allowed in freestyle
manual
half of the maps
live chat
flame wars was there
wicked
fog
clickable maps
bob
I had to mail in my move in an envelope
Im sure im missing a few.

Again, all solid arguements, and a great idea...we are just pointing out, that it wont fit the CC philosophy that we have seen for the last 3 or more years. Youre welcome not to believe that opinion, and not trust it, but it really is the case.

Therefore you are saying that the CC philosophy is NOT: "Improve the player experience and retain members."
Instead, you are saying that the CC Philosophy IS: "Throw lambs into the fire pit and hope they keep coming back to the site."

No, I am clearly not saying that, you are.

I am saying your idea, while good, is simply your idea, and limits players too much, so wont be implemented as such. You are as I said, giving too much weight to the effect of losing a game. Again, this is for your benefit. You asked how Andy knew of lacks philosophy, and I helped explain.

[Queen_Herpes]

List of added features since joining...

speed
assassin
new recruits couldnt join team games
double turns were allowed in freestyle
manual
half of the maps
live chat
flame wars was there
wicked
fog
clickable maps
bob
I had to mail in my move in an envelope
Im sure im missing a few.

Again, all solid arguements, and a great idea...we are just pointing out, that it wont fit the CC philosophy that we have seen for the last 3 or more years. Youre welcome not to believe that opinion, and not trust it, but it really is the case.

Therefore you are saying that the CC philosophy is NOT: "Improve the player experience and retain members."
Instead, you are saying that the CC Philosophy IS: "Throw lambs into the fire pit and hope they keep coming back to the site."

No, I am clearly not saying that, you are.

I am saying your idea, while good, is simply your idea, and limits players too much, so wont be implemented as such. You are as I said, giving too much weight to the effect of losing a game. Again, this is for your benefit. You asked how Andy knew of lacks philosophy, and I helped explain.

Flame. Stop posting on this thread. You are neither contributing nor offering alternative options. You don't have the official decision of the site and yet you claim that this won't be implemented. Your comments demonstrate a reading of the last comment posted and do not demonstrate a reading of the original suggestion.

[chipv]

The first step would be to come up with some sort of (almost) universally accepted scale of complexity, and then try and work out suitable/appropriate thresholds. However, I know from experience that these sort of ratings are incredibly subjective - and debates about map complexities (for example) have been going round in circles over the last couple of years

Sympathise and agree with the sentiment. Never gonna happen, been tried and failed for the reasons you set out already (and you were also putting it mildly)

[Queen_Herpes]

i would keep it escalating as queen_Herpes said its what the board game had...

great idea, only thing i could think of is that maybe you should allow them a little more maps, lets say a choice between 5-10 all the very basic maps.. i feel it might be a happy middle ground for players that want to try a different map right away..

either way this idea is a good one

Thank you for the post, I am doing more research and attempting to determine which maps would be best. I will post an update to the original Suggestion by editing my first page comment before hte end of the week. I'm open to more ideas on how to improve this suggestion...

[Queen_Herpes]

I think there are merits in the idea of "unlocking" maps, in the same way that people have medals to work/aspire to. (I'm nearly on my terminator silver, and will then work on my speed silver).

You allude to settings/maps that increase in complexity - I'd agree that foggy games are harder than standard games, for example. Team games take a different mindset (I had the good fortune to team up with an experienced doubles player for my first doubles game) - I remember the the initial confusion about being able to deploy/fort to your teammate etc..

The first step would be to come up with some sort of (almost) universally accepted scale of complexity, and then try and work out suitable/appropriate thresholds. I guess the most practical way for it to work would be as some kind of "experience" medal, with each tier unlocking different complexities... If we were to sort all the maps into "Basic/Standard/Difficult/Complex", and the game features into similar strands, then there might be a more convincing case for unlocking things. However, I know from experience that these sort of ratings are incredibly subjective - and debates about map complexities (for example) have been going round in circles over the last couple of years

All in all, I think that the suggestion has promise, but that it would be better and more realistic if rather than a complete sliding scale, it was broken down into bigger chunks... You have to remember things like tournaments too - it needs to be crystal clear which settings would be open to whom, in order to make things like that work properly....

Yep, I totally hear you. I have a lot more work to do. Starting on the map research, moving then to breaking it down to bigger chunks, referring to tournaments, etc. THANK YOU.

[Queen_Herpes]

I think this is a terrible idea. The main reason I like conquer club so much is that there are so many maps to choose from, you don't have to just play the classic. I like the classic map, but if that was the only one I could play, I would have lost interest sometime in October.

I went to your page. You've played in 14 games, 7 of which were on Classic, and then 4 other maps. Of those 4 other maps, all 4 of them are on my short list for new recruits to play right away. This recommendation is evolving, as mentioned. I do not intend to prevent players from playing maps, but intend to give them an opportunity to explore the site a little bit more.

Since joining, you've played those 14 games over the course of three months. I'm interested in your opinion because I didn't stay as a non-premium for very long when I first started playing. you obviously have morepatience than I do and I hope you can come back to this suggestion and let me know how I'm doing with it.

[AAFitz]

List of added features since joining...

speed
assassin
new recruits couldnt join team games
double turns were allowed in freestyle
manual
half of the maps
live chat
flame wars was there
wicked
fog
clickable maps
bob
I had to mail in my move in an envelope
Im sure im missing a few.

Again, all solid arguements, and a great idea...we are just pointing out, that it wont fit the CC philosophy that we have seen for the last 3 or more years. Youre welcome not to believe that opinion, and not trust it, but it really is the case.

Therefore you are saying that the CC philosophy is NOT: "Improve the player experience and retain members."
Instead, you are saying that the CC Philosophy IS: "Throw lambs into the fire pit and hope they keep coming back to the site."

No, I am clearly not saying that, you are.

I am saying your idea, while good, is simply your idea, and limits players too much, so wont be implemented as such. You are as I said, giving too much weight to the effect of losing a game. Again, this is for your benefit. You asked how Andy knew of lacks philosophy, and I helped explain.

Flame. Stop posting on this thread. You are neither contributing nor offering alternative options. You don't have the official decision of the site and yet you claim that this won't be implemented. Your comments demonstrate a reading of the last comment posted and do not demonstrate a reading of the original suggestion.

Its not a flame of any kind. You simply arent understanding the underlying philosophy. Id simply hate to see you put so much work into something that just isnt in line with how CC operates or ever will operate. Im sorry I disagree, but thats something you will find happens when posting a suggestion. My contribution, is that I think after years of playing, that I dont think it will EVER be implemented, because of the multiple reasons posted. Good luck with your project...but do so fully warned.

[Queen_Herpes]

Hi readers and commenters, Thank you for your posts. I look forward to continued additions to my suggestion. As mentioned, I am doing more research, talking to a lot of players, and thinking more and more about this suggestion. I will have an edit to my original suggestion by the end of the week.

Some great points have been made about different aspects of the suggestion!

[Pvt. Stroker]

Limit New Players to Classic

That was the catalyst that prompted my "terrible idea" reaction. It seems like this discussion has evolved somewhat, since we are talking about 5-10 maps. Personally, I think this number is too low. Almost all of the real world geography maps would be suitable for new players (such as myself) but obviously not Iraq and probably not World 2.1.

When I first logged in to this site, it was the plethora of maps I could choose from that made me want to continue. I am cautious about what kind of maps I play, but I like the idea of pretending to be Chingis Khan, a Roman general, or fighting in the Great Lakes (I'm from Michigan). If it looks like I have a lot of options, than I'm going to like this site a lot more.

I went to your page. You've played in 14 games, 7 of which were on Classic, and then 4 other maps. Of those 4 other maps, all 4 of them are on my short list for new recruits to play right away.

I have played 4 classic games, 2 Mongol Empire games, 2 Europe games, 2 great lakes games, one Imperivm Romanvm game, and one France game. I agree that these maps are simple (except maybe great lakes), but 12 is a different number than 14, and 4 is a different number than 7.

Limit New Players to sequential, escalating, adjacent, no fog, no manual (Sorry, Manual has fog for now and complicates things), no assassin, no terminator.

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be limited, but I personally disagree with limiting spoils, limiting forts to adjacent, and no terminator games. Flat rate spoils is a little trickier than escalating, but I think no spoils simplifies the game a lot, especially since new people (including myself initially) have a fetish for continents. I disagree with adjacent and terminator limitations because a lot of new people (including myself) are members of Society of the Cooks. The SoC teachers want us to play terminator games with unlimited fortifications. Also, I find that unlimited fortifications are easier to deal with than chained and adjacent fortifications.

What is your definition of a new player? Is it just question marks, or do cooks and privates also count? Is it based on experience or rank?

I believe the key is to make it so that a new player won't really notice he/she is being limited all that much. That way, when the time comes for other maps to be unlocked, the new player will say "frickin sweet!" instead of "frickin finally!"

I'm sorry, Queen Herpes, for saying "this is a terrible idea" and not thinking of a more polite way to disagree. Please don't infect me.

[Queen_Herpes]

Here is a sniglet of what I am going to add to this proposal by the end of the week:

6 Levels of Maps:
Level 0 - Basic Smaller Maps No Complications (25 maps identified)
Level 1 - Medium Sized Maps or One or two Complications in the map (21 maps identified)
Level 2 - Large Sized Maps or Two or Three Complications in the map (26 maps identified)
Level 3 - Extra Large Maps and/or Three or Four Complications in the map (25 maps identified)
Level 4 - Extra Extra Large Maps and/or Four or Five Complications in the map (17 maps identified)
Level 5 - Chaos, Maps that have Several Complications (21 maps identified)
Level 6 - The Random Map (1 map, but its not really a map, per se) and 6 Beta Maps
(Beta Maps would be ascribed a particular Level once taken out of Beta and considered a "final forge, quench.")

[StephenB]

yeah but real life Escalating is never played like CC Escalating... people want to chase bonuses, which flat rate more suits...

So let them play badly. No problem there. As long as they aren't confused about how the game works (which they wouldn't be) then all is well.

Oh... And I've been playing the board game for years. I very rarely go for bonuses when we play with 5 or 6 people and only take one when there's 4 of us if I'm set up nicely for it. Most people I play with play it this way. Maybe when you play risk in real life your opponents are beginners.

[Premier2k]

Lack also has a list of maps that are immediately viewable to New Recruits. Others they cannot view until they reach their promotion. I think every new map gets put on this list for a duration of time. Eventually Lack will go through the list, and shuffle maps out of those prohibited for New Recruits---and may add others in, if they seem to contribute to New Recruits leaving the website.

--Andy

The list needs to be reevaluated. Now. Not in a few weeks, not when lack feels like it, but now. Many players are receiving unwarranted and unjust warnings because your laziness to fix a problem that has been present for months now, going all the way back to the first warning you gave Tezu.

Fix your current problems before you add more features and more problems.

Great suggestion and I completely agree with Kotaro's post. The list does need to be reevaluated. It can be very fustrating when a new player comes in and plays a map that he/she doesn't understand. It can ruin the enjoyment for the players that do know what's going on. An inexperienced Novice can serious imbalance a game at the detriment of other players.

That said, I'm not sure there is a need to gradually unlock all maps, I think only the more difficult maps should be locked until the player has played a few games and understands how the game and it's various maps and options work. A happy medium needs to be found.

[Queen_Herpes]

OK, another sniglet...let the huzzahs and complaints begin! Know that this was from days and hours of real, scientific and mathematical research!

Level 0: Classic Shapes, Classic Art, Archipelago, Canada, Caribbean Islands, CCU, Circus Maximus, Conquer 4, Doodle Earth, France, Haiti, High Seas, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indochina, Ireland, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Middle East, Mongol Empire, Netherlands, Oceania, Portugal, Puget Sound, WWII Iwo Jima. (25)

Level 1: Alexander’s Empire, Ancient Greece, Arctic, Australia, Brazil 2, British Isles 2, Cairns Metro, Discworld, Draknor - Level 1, Egypt: Lower, Egypt: Upper, Extreme Global Warming, Iberia, Land and Sea, Midgard, Midkemdil, Montreal, South America, U.S. Senate, USA, USA West, WWII Eastern Front. (22)

Level 2: 8 Thoughts, Africa, Asia, BeNeLux, Chinese Checkers, Dust Bowl, Egypt: Nubia, Egypt: Valley of the Kings, Europe, France 1789, Gilgamesh, Great Lakes, Greenland, Philippines, San Marino, Soviet Union, Sydney Metro, Tamriel, Triple Alliance, USA New England, USA Rockies, USA Southeast, USA Southwest, WWI Ottoman Empire, WWII Australia. (25)

Level 3: American Civil War, Battle of Actium, Berlin 1961, Cairns Coral Coast, Castle Lands, Charleston, Crossword, Duck and Cover, Europa, Greater China, Halloween Hollows, Imperium Romanum, Indian Empire, Italy, King of the Mountains, Malta, North America, San Francisco, Scotland, Space, USA Great Lakes, USApocalypse, Wales, World 2.1, WWI Western Front. (25)

Level 4: Arms Race!, Conquer Man, D-Day: Omaha Beach, Eastern Hemisphere, Europe 1914, Feudal War, Holy Roman Empire, New World, NYC, Oasis, Pearl Harbor, Poker Club, Route 66, Texan Wars, The Citadel, Treasures of Galapagos, WWII Europe. (17)

Level 5: Age of Merchants, Age of Realms 1, Age of Realms 2, Age of Realms 3, Bamboo Jack, Battle for Iraq!, City Mogul, Forbidden City, Madness, Operation Drug War, Poison Rome, Prohibition Chicago, Rail Australia, Rail Europe, Rail USA, Siege!, Solar System, Supermax: Prison Riot!, Waterloo, WWII Ardennes, WWII Gazala. (21)

Level 6:
-The Random Map (1 map, and it is not really a map per se as much as it is an option to play from one of all the maps, ergo a player would need to have unlocked all the maps via the preceding Unlock Levels in order to use the Random Map function in its current iteration.)
-All Beta Maps (Currently (November 5, 2009) there are 6 Beta Maps available to play) (Beta maps would be ascribed a particular level once they come out of Beta and have achieved their “final forge, quench.”)

[alex951]

age of realms can be put in level 3 because you just need to be beaten a least twice to understand the gameplay

[Tupence]

Based on your reasoning for the "Levels" of different maps, I'd take Circus Maximus out of Level 0 - it's well-known as a map that's often used for farming.

I think the USA map should be in Level 0 instead, as it's a basic map with 42 regions (like Classic). And am I right in thinking that it was the first map on the site after Classic?

Also, I'd introduce the whole of the USA Map-Pack at the same time, but that's just personal preference, based on the fact that I think that's how the map-pack was designed.