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

[Queen_Herpes]

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.

I struggled with Circus Maximus, its just so easy! I wasn't aware of its farmable potential, so thank you for the thought! I figure I'll get a lot more input and make some adjustments, but I don't think I'll move any map more than one group. Remember, Real Science and Math brought me to these groups!

USA, yes, arguably should be in Level 0.

Of the USA Map Pack (I think of them as the USA Interstate Maps) There are some that are much harder than others, some that end much faster than others (depending on game options, of course), and some that are much bigger than others. I can't imagine seeing them all released at once unless it was in a later round equivalent to the most complicated of the maps.

[safariguy5]

San Francisco isn't that hard of a map. Besides the Alcatraz territory being a no way out, the borders are clear and there aren't any tricky parts to it. I would say a Level 1 map, not a Level 3.

[Queen_Herpes]

San Francisco isn't that hard of a map. Besides the Alcatraz territory being a no way out, the borders are clear and there aren't any tricky parts to it. I would say a Level 1 map, not a Level 3.

That aspect of Alcatraz makes it unique. If moved to Level 2, it would be more difficult than most of the maps in level two because of that complexity.

[safariguy5]

San Francisco isn't that hard of a map. Besides the Alcatraz territory being a no way out, the borders are clear and there aren't any tricky parts to it. I would say a Level 1 map, not a Level 3.

That aspect of Alcatraz makes it unique. If moved to Level 2, it would be more difficult than most of the maps in level two because of that complexity.

That's true, but compared to Dust Bowl (Attrition) and Sydney Metro (Unique attack paths) I would say the existence of 1 unique territory wouldn't make the map more difficult than these two that are level 2. Again, this is all subjective, but I see much more potential with confusion as the number of unique territories increases.

[Queen_Herpes]

San Francisco isn't that hard of a map. Besides the Alcatraz territory being a no way out, the borders are clear and there aren't any tricky parts to it. I would say a Level 1 map, not a Level 3.

That aspect of Alcatraz makes it unique. If moved to Level 2, it would be more difficult than most of the maps in level two because of that complexity.

That's true, but compared to Dust Bowl (Attrition) and Sydney Metro (Unique attack paths) I would say the existence of 1 unique territory wouldn't make the map more difficult than these two that are level 2. Again, this is all subjective, but I see much more potential with confusion as the number of unique territories increases.

This is all great...If you find more, let me know. No matter what, some subjectivity will need to be considered with this list.

[stahrgazer]

I can't say that I agree. While fog may be fun to you now, a new player who doesn't know the maps can be farmed with fog, can potentially have no idea what is going on in a new map, and can get frustrated by the perceived lack of understanding of what is going on in the game.

While what you say is possible, I loved fog as a new player.

the doubles... one of the easiest ways to learn a map is to play on a team with a more experienced player, so not allowing doubles for that long doesn't make sense.

(about doubles)

Can't argue the multi thing, I agree with you there.
The rest.. the only problem I had with team games from the start is not knowing who were good teammates to play with.

Generally, I really think you're understimating the average newcomer to the site. I'm 47. I didn't grow up with vid games; I rarely got to arcades to play Galaga. As an older teen i got to play Pac Man, Donkey Kong, and Centipede. I was married before I got a Super Nintendo. Kids today use vid games like I had books to read: it's common, everyday stuff to them.

Like I said, I personally like most of your concepts...I also tend to think that farming extends way beyond ?s.

Magically on game 6 it's okay for some brigadier to lure a newcomer to freestyle waterloo... it's just not right, tho depending on the mod, it's "legal".. But that could be handled with different enforcement practices, too.

As for discouraging multis, I think a revised points system would help with that, too.... lower per game, or a 'per game" rather than "per rank" system, for example, making it "not worth it." Many of these ideas have been suggested and shot down.

Keep thinking, tho... maybe you'll hit on an idea that CC will implement.

[stahrgazer]

Level 3: American Civil War,
Level 4: Texan Wars,
Level 5: WWII Gazala.

I don't understand this distinction. While Gazala is bigger and appears odd, it has quite similar features to Civil War.

Civil War has Maryland, which can bomb ships as a 1-way attack. Gazala has a couple artillery places that can bomb 1-way, and an area with arrows that indicate 1-way (but so do easier maps like Midkemdil, in places - just not entire rows of 1-ways). In some ways, the bonus structure on Civil War are harder than Gazala... for example, the ships, so widely spaced; the major Union or major Confed cities circle bonuses; the Capitals bonus, and the areas of no bonus. Gazala has a 4-airfields bonus and areas of various-designed x-marks for the tanks - not that dissimilar from stars and circles, just a few more of them. In all, Gazala simply LOOKS more complicated than it is. Gazala does have one feature not found on Civil War: Free French all by itself is a +1 bonus.

I'd say both these are on par with the Texan Wars map.

[Queen_Herpes]

the doubles... one of the easiest ways to learn a map is to play on a team with a more experienced player, so not allowing doubles for that long doesn't make sense.

Noobs can be farmed or affected by multi in doubles games

The rest.. the only problem I had with team games from the start is not knowing who were good teammates to play with.

Impossible to distinguish a high ranking farmer from a benevolent high ranking teammate.

Generally, I really think you're understimating the average newcomer to the site. I'm 47. I didn't grow up with vid games; I rarely got to arcades to play Galaga. As an older teen i got to play Pac Man, Donkey Kong, and Centipede. I was married before I got a Super Nintendo. Kids today use vid games like I had books to read: it's common, everyday stuff to them.

I grew up with those video game as well. Though I'm younger than you, I played a lot of hte older video games and the newer ones. Unlocking maps, codes, levels, scenarios, etc., is so common today that youngsters coming to this site will totally get it. Protecting them from sharks will prevent them from getting frustrated and bailing on the site.

As for discouraging multis, I think a revised points system would help with that, too.... lower per game, or a 'per game" rather than "per rank" system, for example, making it "not worth it." Many of these ideas have been suggested and shot down.

I'm not going to touch the point system. My husband implemented a point system for a professional sport. There was constant flak for it from the players who perceived themselves to be punished by the system. There are probably always those who benefit and those who don't benefit from a system. Similarly there will be those who find ways to capitalize on the system. My point here is to attempt to prevent the victims of farming from having a bad experience and leaving the site.

[Queen_Herpes]

Level 3: American Civil War,
Level 4: Texan Wars,
Level 5: WWII Gazala.

I don't understand this distinction. While Gazala is bigger and appears odd, it has quite similar features to Civil War.

Civil War has Maryland, which can bomb ships as a 1-way attack. Gazala has a couple artillery places that can bomb 1-way, and an area with arrows that indicate 1-way (but so do easier maps like Midkemdil, in places - just not entire rows of 1-ways). In some ways, the bonus structure on Civil War are harder than Gazala... for example, the ships, so widely spaced; the major Union or major Confed cities circle bonuses; the Capitals bonus, and the areas of no bonus. Gazala has a 4-airfields bonus and areas of various-designed x-marks for the tanks - not that dissimilar from stars and circles, just a few more of them. In all, Gazala simply LOOKS more complicated than it is. Gazala does have one feature not found on Civil War: Free French all by itself is a +1 bonus.

I'd say both these are on par with the Texan Wars map.

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

[Queen_Herpes]

Map restriction list - and a couple more sniglets towards my idea:

Potential Names for each level: Level 0 - Beginner, Level 1 - Novice, Level - 2 Intermediate, Level 3 - Competitive, Level 4 - Advanced, Level 5 - Professional, Level 6 - Experimental

Unlock 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)

Unlock 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)

Unlock 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)

Unlock 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)

Unlock 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)

Unlock 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)

Unlock 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.”)

A New Recruit can circumvent this process by paying for Premium. Once Premium, all maps are unlocked, all options are unlocked.

[chipv]

I think your suggestion is well thought out and commendable.

However I can't get around a number of problems I see with it as it stands.

Firstly hiding maps from a new recruit with the proviso that paying the $25 will unlock all maps in one go
will force them into either leaving or paying as no new recruit is going to have the patience to go through the whole
unlocking process especially as they can't play speed games. How many games would it take to unlock everything, bearing in
mind they are playing a maximum of 4 games at a time?

By the time that new recruit has come to a decision they won't have even seen the best maps on CC and thus won't have had
the best experience they could have done.

I much prefer your idea of staggering game types - this is more sensible as players are more likely to be slaughtered on a new game type
than a particular map. Maps on their own aren't that difficult to fathom the first time you see them IMO, it's the combination of map and settings that provide the biggest challenge for a new recruit. Fog and Freestyle , for example, would be alien to a seasoned risk player. A seasoned risk player but new to this site may or may not appreciate the value in premium but it would come down to maps for money in the end.

As for farming, I don't agree it would cut down farming at all. It would cut down farming on the hidden maps, sure, but this system would make it easier to find new recruits and farm them because the maplist and settings for the first level can be used in a save search and then filtered trivially rather than sifting though pages of game finder results pages. I agree they would stand more of a chance with restricted settings of course.

I do like the video game analogy, I'd like to think a bit more about this as it seems at least to be well researched (I would at least publish your exact criteria for dividing up the maps, though, it certainly won't be accepted without decent explanation, and without fixed criteria you will be allowing people's preferences for maps to get in the way of nailing down a final set of map levels)

[TheScarecrow]

eeek! you would block the map i basically learned to play on for my first few games? (that being world 2.1)

i personally feel that this suggestion limits things too much and would make new recruits to the site most impatient.

I would suggest 3 separate levels:

Level One - Consisting of the Classic maps and the smaller maps on CC
Level Two - Unlockable after completing 8 games. Larger maps like World 2.1
Level Three - Unlockable after completing 16 games. Complicated maps like Actium and those with special rules (bombarding) like Feudal Wars.

Here we have a decent progression and gradual step-up map wise.

I would suggest however in the PM new players receive that they receive links explaining the rules for each different game play (standard, terminator, assasin and the spoils).

By all means block access to certain maps. But part of what attracted me to CC was the vareity of gameplay (more to do with the TYPES of games rather than the number of maps).

I would also suggest OP that you stop calling perfectly legitimate posts flames. There isnt a single flame in this thread

[Queen_Herpes]

I think your suggestion is well thought out and commendable.

Danke Schon. More to come...I've written volumes and drawn pictures and stuff...

Firstly hiding maps from a new recruit with the proviso that paying the $25 will unlock all maps in one go
will force them into either leaving or paying as no new recruit is going to have the patience to go through the whole
unlocking process especially as they can't play speed games.

Au contraire mon Frer! If you can only play on four maps at a time, you cannot possibly think that you are being held back from the whole site because you are being offered a limited number of maps. You're held back because you can only play four at a time. You wouldn't be able to play all the maps until you've played 141 games, assuming you're dumb enough to play each map only once with the ridiculous goal of "experiencing the site."

How many games would it take to unlock everything, bearing in mind they are playing a maximum of 4 games at a time?

Easter Egg Unlocked: Only 80 games to unlock everything. Let the comments begin!!!! I had hoped to let that out later with the full new suggestion, but I figure there aren't too many dedicated people that are reading the comments to the original post.

I much prefer your idea of staggering game types - this is more sensible as players are more likely to be slaughtered on a new game type than a particular map. Maps on their own aren't that difficult to fathom the first time you see them IMO, it's the combination of map and settings that provide the biggest challenge for a new recruit. Fog and Freestyle , for example, would be alien to a seasoned risk player. A seasoned risk player but new to this site may or may not appreciate the value in premium but it would come down to maps for money in the end.

Part of the next update to the suggestion....sniglet later tonight.

As for farming, I don't agree it would cut down farming at all. It would cut down farming on the hidden maps, sure, but this system would make it easier to find new recruits and farm them because the maplist and settings for the first level can be used in a save search and then filtered trivially rather than sifting though pages of game finder results pages. I agree they would stand more of a chance with restricted settings of course.

Last sentence most important: "They would stand more of a chance." Farmers prey on the untrained, the new, those who are "tossed into the Lions Den." This keeps them out of the Lions Den and allows them to play in situations more amenable to understanding, victory, pleasure, frustration-free.[/quote]

I do like the video game analogy, I'd like to think a bit more about this as it seems at least to be well researched (I would at least publish your exact criteria for dividing up the maps, though, it certainly won't be accepted without decent explanation, and without fixed criteria you will be allowing people's preferences for maps to get in the way of nailing down a final set of map levels)

I won't publish the criteria publicly, that is akin to suicide for this idea. It will turn this thread into a conflagration of complaints about the method, methodology, criteria, etc. As it stands, there are sufficient complaints like "send this map into group two" or "These three maps belong in group one." I can handle those because there are a few borderline maps whose inclusion in one map or another will require some subjective movement. What would become a cluster is if everyone is arguing the methodology, the logic, etc., so I won't post that here.

Thank you for your thoughts...if you see any maps on any of the lists that are glaringly placed in the wrong group, please advise on the thread, I'd like to hear your opine on those as I'm sure other readers would as well.

[Queen_Herpes]

eeek! you would block the map i basically learned to play on for my first few games? (that being world 2.1)

I like that map, too. An important strategy to consider is knocking the opponents' territory count down so that they don't start their next turn with more and progressively more armies (even without bonuses). 2.1 is HUGE. Its easy to farm even with basic game options, and its easy to get behind really quickly.

i personally feel that this suggestion limits things too much and would make new recruits to the site most impatient.

I would suggest 3 separate levels:

Level One - Consisting of the Classic maps and the smaller maps on CC
Level Two - Unlockable after completing 8 games. Larger maps like World 2.1
Level Three - Unlockable after completing 16 games. Complicated maps like Actium and those with special rules (bombarding) like Feudal Wars.

Here we have a decent progression and gradual step-up map wise.

Unlocking 50 maps at a time? You should just unlock the whole shebang. Since the players cannot play in all 50 maps in each of their first 8 games, it seems like you're suggesting to open an obscene number of maps relative to the number of games they could play. Suggesting that all the maps are unlocked after 16 games is probably quicker than the current scenario. I don't know how Lack has it set up, but there are players who are locked out of the known farmable maps like Feudal until they get, I think, their first rating. Not sure how many games that takes, but I don't see why a new player would need to play feudal or the other difficult maps so quickly. They just get pwned and ruin the experience for the other players on the map. I owned a noob today in feudal and tried to help him out. He just kept babbling about his ridiculous strategy and, though interested in what I had to say, clearly wasn't listening. But I digress...

I would suggest however in the PM new players receive that they receive links explaining the rules for each different game play (standard, terminator, assasin and the spoils).

Its in the upgrade to this suggestion, but thanks.

By all means block access to certain maps. But part of what attracted me to CC was the vareity of gameplay (more to do with the TYPES of games rather than the number of maps).

When I'm not logged in, I cannot find the maps, so I'm curious as to how so many people were attracted to the site because of the maps. If you can only play in four at a time as a non-premium, I just don't see how you would be frustrated by being protected from certain maps at the beginning. I'm currently watching a kid play Assassin's Creed. He had to unlock some cool skills like "Counter Attack" and it gave him the "Short Blade" and he had to play for two hours consistently in order to do that. He just pointed out that he didn't get there until going throught he training mode first...blah...blah...blah.

I would also suggest OP that you stop calling perfectly legitimate posts flames. There isnt a single flame in this thread

Some of them were flames. Yours isn't. Blind Opinions full of useless Banter saying this suggestion won't work are flames. Opinions saying why this won't work supported by reasoning, descriptions, and asking solid questions are not flames.

[chipv]

Firstly hiding maps from a new recruit with the proviso that paying the $25 will unlock all maps in one go
will force them into either leaving or paying as no new recruit is going to have the patience to go through the whole
unlocking process especially as they can't play speed games.

Au contraire mon Frer! If you can only play on four maps at a time, you cannot possibly think that you are being held back from the whole site because you are being offered a limited number of maps. You're held back because you can only play four at a time. You wouldn't be able to play all the maps until you've played 141 games, assuming you're dumb enough to play each map only once with the ridiculous goal of "experiencing the site."

How many games would it take to unlock everything, bearing in mind they are playing a maximum of 4 games at a time?

Easter Egg Unlocked: Only 80 games to unlock everything. Let the comments begin!!!! I had hoped to let that out later with the full new suggestion, but I figure there aren't too many dedicated people that are reading the comments to the original post.

I have quoted and highlighted some text above.
Here is the problem. You joined around 5 months ago and have played almost 1000 games.

People who work for a living cannot play non-speed games at this rate period let alone if they are restricted to 4 active at a time - that's about 6 or 7 completed games per day.

So 80 games is actually a big deal let alone 141. Nobody who works for a living is going to fight their way through this many maps just to see a few more because it will take too much time - either they will pay up (in which case they probably would have done so regardless of having maps locked) or leave. You don't appear to recognise this point so I'm assuming you don't work for a living.

My advice is to revisit this. As for the other points I raised, along with this one, you can take them on board or ignore them, but in either case I wish you good luck with your efforts.

[Mr Changsha]

First of all great work from Queen_Herpes, who yet again proves the point that it is us, the members, who tend to drive forward the development of this site. Not that you'd know it from the way we are treated when we question the administration...

That doesn't mean I agree with much of your suggestion though..

My first concern is that you are seeing everyone's CC experience through your own prism (or possibly your chap's as well) rather than attempting to think this through in a wider sense. I've been fortunate enough to introduce five other regular players to this site (all v. good friends and family) and they have all come at CC in a different way.

One chap immediately tanked on classic (and the simple maps)...I mean went cook on me. It took some intensive team games with me (after about 10 games for him) to get him up to speed and even now I wouldn't trust him on his own on much other that 2.1.

An other also tanked the simple maps and settings but found his niche on the hard maps (1vs1) with fog, escalating...

An other jumped straight on to the British Isles and without that map (as she tanked everything else) surely would have quit.

Another quickly worked out he could win 20% of his 6-8 man flat games while playing some team games with me.

If I'd had to play escalating first I would have quit (remember that the European version of Risk encouraged us to play flat) and quickly found 2.1 to augment classic..which I already knew how to play.

Some have seen escalating as easier while others jumped for flat, some found fog to be a boon whille others just had to have it sunny side up. Some found the simple maps the way forward (say 5 man standards) while another lost 20 in a row of those AND WOULD HAVE QUIT if it hadn't been for the complex maps on 1vs1...the exact setting you would say is the 'farming setting'.

Everyone has a different kind of intelligence. Some 'get' freestyle straight away, others don't. Some can't handle the classic standard games but master a hard map and progress from there. Some 'get' foggy while others (like me) literally feel like they are playing in a fog! You can't say that just because you and your chap found some things obviously easier than others that everyone is the same.

Secondly, I have to agree with Fitz (it does happen!!) about the main philosophy of this site, at least as far as the gaming is concerned. We are free to make our own mistakes, but we are also free to find our niche wherever it may be. And many people find there thing on maps and settings that I simply cannot fathom, but there it is...we are all different.

Finally, farming is, and has always been, a problem that bothers those at the top of the table far more than it does those at the bottom. Don't fall for the 'high ranker who cares about farming' line. Seriously. All they care about is other high rankers getting the jump on them..mainly due to the NR DEADBEATING. I'd imagine that most NR's don't even know what the bloody ranks represent in their first few games or even care. The idea that they leave because a Colonel beat them up in a 1vs1 freestyle has always been laughable. However, the idea that many a first-pager gets furious because 5 out of the top 10 farm is very real indeed. (btw not the current top 10...though many of them do indeed farm).

[Queen_Herpes]

Here is the problem. You joined around 5 months ago and have played almost 1000 games.

People who work for a living cannot play non-speed games at this rate period let alone if they are restricted to 4 active at a time - that's about 6 or 7 completed games per day.

Chipv, you joined 1.5 years ago and have played 500 games, yet made 1500 posts. Thats a rate of 3 posts for every game played. You're also a moderator. Each player is going to find his or her own niche on this site. I wouldn't be able to post as often as you post, but I've found plenty of time to cheat on my worktime and cheat on my sleeptime to play games. Reading posts and making comments that not only make sense but aren't a waste of other reader's time takes a lot of time for the poster making appropriate, intelligent comments on threads. I've noticed that fact over the past two weeks as my post count has increased at a faster rate than my game count.

So 80 games is actually a big deal let alone 141. Nobody who works for a living is going to fight their way through this many maps just to see a few more because it will take too much time - either they will pay up (in which case they probably would have done so regardless of having maps locked) or leave. You don't appear to recognise this point so I'm assuming you don't work for a living.

Tough assumption to make, and since I work full time...this comment falls short. Same point that I made above, everyone finds their own way - eventually. Some will play at work, while others are blocked out of the site at work. Some will play at home, while others don't have an internet connection at home. Saying that players will either "pay up or leave" ignores the fundamental aspect of gaming that I've cited previously: Gamers are accustomed to unlocking aspects of games. I hate citing the Mattel Risk games, but it is now time to do so, given your comment. In the PS2 version of Risk, players unlock "special dice," they earn "medals," and unlock certain game options and unlock special AI opponents. All of this is done over time, yet the PS2 version requires victories to unlock these aspects. Some of the victories are even tied to specific scenarios so that a player would need to play a specific scenario to unlock specific things. My suggestion is different, more fun, less competitive, but still achieveable and challenging: unlock maps and options based on participation not victories. And no, I don't think players would revert to an "all-or-nothing" attitude as you have suggested Chipv. As it stands, currently a lot of players are joining and never coming back...so if you truly think that my suggestion is going to cause this (and you really didn't provide a reson for this to happen) then my suggestion is really no worse than the current situation. We have to try SOMETHING.

My advice is to revisit this. As for the other points I raised, along with this one, you can take them on board or ignore them, but in either case I wish you good luck with your efforts.

I appreciate the comments even though you don't agree.

[Queen_Herpes]

First of all great work from Queen_Herpes, who yet again proves the point that it is us, the members, who tend to drive forward the development of this site. Not that you'd know it from the way we are treated when we question the administration...

That doesn't mean I agree with much of your suggestion though..

No problem, you included a lot of reasons why my idea might not work. Better than most who just comment saying, “This won’t work, blah, blah, I’m important, blah, blah, I know what this site needs and it isn’t this, blah, blah.” Your comment is intelligent and well thought out, and I appreciate that.

My first concern is that you are seeing everyone's CC experience through your own prism (or possibly your chap's as well) rather than attempting to think this through in a wider sense. I've been fortunate enough to introduce five other regular players to this site (all v. good friends and family) and they have all come at CC in a different way.

Not looking at just one player, looking at several hundred. I’ve done a lot of good solid research on this. The “player” I refer to is mythical but based upon my research fits the typical new player. You have some examples listed of players who have experienced the site in other ways, but none of them have experienced the site with a comprehensive training program with interesting, challenging and rewarding benefits!

If I'd had to play escalating first I would have quit (remember that the European version of Risk encouraged us to play flat) and quickly found 2.1 to augment classic..which I already knew how to play.

Good point, I’ve revisited this and feel that no spoils is a better starting point, then unlocking flat rate, then unlocking Escalating.

Everyone has a different kind of intelligence. Some 'get' freestyle straight away, others don't. Some can't handle the classic standard games but master a hard map and progress from there. Some 'get' foggy while others (like me) literally feel like they are playing in a fog! You can't say that just because you and your chap found some things obviously easier than others that everyone is the same.

Again, not based on my experience, but several hundred player experiences. Research, friend. And I get the whole “different kinds of intelligence” thing. Unfortunately this suggestion is probably dumbed-down to the lowest common demoninator, it allows for players to get things in a systematic way and does ignore the genius in some of us. It also ignores the special powers that some may have over others to understand one part and not understand another.

Look at where this site is going! We are getting more and more game options. Lack’s “to do list” is full of them. We are getting more and more maps. The foundry is buzzing with activity and commentary. There is an ever-increasing list of add-ons like “clickable maps” and “maprank.” All of these things are great! For players who have been here for a long time, these changes have come about over time, slowly, and long-time players have had the opportunity to learn each aspect as it comes out. Rarely, if ever, has the site dumped a bunch of new game options and maps on the players at once. Yet, we assume that new players will be able to “get it” and understand everything whence the entirety of the site is dumped upon them when they join! Where do you think this site will be in two years? At the current pace, I’m thinking 250 maps, and 20 game options (currently there are what, 10?) I think that will be great for me and I look forward to it. I think it will be absolutely terrible for new players who join on November 7, 2011 if there isn’t a comprehensive training program (like mine…or another) to help them navigate the site.

Finally, farming is, and has always been, a problem that bothers those at the top of the table far more than it does those at the bottom. Don't fall for the 'high ranker who cares about farming' line. Seriously. All they care about is other high rankers getting the jump on them..mainly due to the NR DEADBEATING. I'd imagine that most NR's don't even know what the bloody ranks represent in their first few games or even care. The idea that they leave because a Colonel beat them up in a 1vs1 freestyle has always been laughable. However, the idea that many a first-pager gets furious because 5 out of the top 10 farm is very real indeed. (btw not the current top 10...though many of them do indeed farm).

Farming doesn’t bother me for the “points” and it doesn’t bug me that there a players who have a hollow rank. The system allows for it and whether you think players are abusing it or not, the system allows for it. I don’t think that players leave because a colonel beat them. I think they leave because neither a player nor the system stepped up to help them. This suggestion steps up the system to help new players and benefit their experience…which will affect the retention rate on the site.

[Mr Changsha]

First of all great work from Queen_Herpes, who yet again proves the point that it is us, the members, who tend to drive forward the development of this site. Not that you'd know it from the way we are treated when we question the administration...

That doesn't mean I agree with much of your suggestion though..

No problem, you included a lot of reasons why my idea might not work. Better than most who just comment saying, “This won’t work, blah, blah, I’m important, blah, blah, I know what this site needs and it isn’t this, blah, blah.” Your comment is intelligent and well thought out, and I appreciate that.

My first concern is that you are seeing everyone's CC experience through your own prism (or possibly your chap's as well) rather than attempting to think this through in a wider sense. I've been fortunate enough to introduce five other regular players to this site (all v. good friends and family) and they have all come at CC in a different way.

Not looking at just one player, looking at several hundred. I’ve done a lot of good solid research on this. The “player” I refer to is mythical but based upon my research fits the typical new player. You have some examples listed of players who have experienced the site in other ways, but none of them have experienced the site with a comprehensive training program with interesting, challenging and rewarding benefits!

If I'd had to play escalating first I would have quit (remember that the European version of Risk encouraged us to play flat) and quickly found 2.1 to augment classic..which I already knew how to play.

Good point, I’ve revisited this and feel that no spoils is a better starting point, then unlocking flat rate, then unlocking Escalating.

Everyone has a different kind of intelligence. Some 'get' freestyle straight away, others don't. Some can't handle the classic standard games but master a hard map and progress from there. Some 'get' foggy while others (like me) literally feel like they are playing in a fog! You can't say that just because you and your chap found some things obviously easier than others that everyone is the same.

Again, not based on my experience, but several hundred player experiences. Research, friend. And I get the whole “different kinds of intelligence” thing. Unfortunately this suggestion is probably dumbed-down to the lowest common demoninator, it allows for players to get things in a systematic way and does ignore the genius in some of us. It also ignores the special powers that some may have over others to understand one part and not understand another.

Look at where this site is going! We are getting more and more game options. Lack’s “to do list” is full of them. We are getting more and more maps. The foundry is buzzing with activity and commentary. There is an ever-increasing list of add-ons like “clickable maps” and “maprank.” All of these things are great! For players who have been here for a long time, these changes have come about over time, slowly, and long-time players have had the opportunity to learn each aspect as it comes out. Rarely, if ever, has the site dumped a bunch of new game options and maps on the players at once. Yet, we assume that new players will be able to “get it” and understand everything whence the entirety of the site is dumped upon them when they join! Where do you think this site will be in two years? At the current pace, I’m thinking 250 maps, and 20 game options (currently there are what, 10?) I think that will be great for me and I look forward to it. I think it will be absolutely terrible for new players who join on November 7, 2011 if there isn’t a comprehensive training program (like mine…or another) to help them navigate the site.

Finally, farming is, and has always been, a problem that bothers those at the top of the table far more than it does those at the bottom. Don't fall for the 'high ranker who cares about farming' line. Seriously. All they care about is other high rankers getting the jump on them..mainly due to the NR DEADBEATING. I'd imagine that most NR's don't even know what the bloody ranks represent in their first few games or even care. The idea that they leave because a Colonel beat them up in a 1vs1 freestyle has always been laughable. However, the idea that many a first-pager gets furious because 5 out of the top 10 farm is very real indeed. (btw not the current top 10...though many of them do indeed farm).

Farming doesn’t bother me for the “points” and it doesn’t bug me that there a players who have a hollow rank. The system allows for it and whether you think players are abusing it or not, the system allows for it. I don’t think that players leave because a colonel beat them. I think they leave because neither a player nor the system stepped up to help them. This suggestion steps up the system to help new players and benefit their experience…which will affect the retention rate on the site.

Well, I've given you the benefit of my wisdom...I'm afraid I'm not a details chap, so not too concerned about your map levelling (which will always be subjective), but I will implore you to allow for as much flexibility in your 'training regime' as you can!

Good luck!

[Queen_Herpes]

Another sniglet of the revamped suggestion:

## Completed Games> Unlocks: (Option/Map)
05 Completed Games> Unlocks: Terminator
10 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 1 Maps
15 Completed Games> Unlocks: Flat Rate
20 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 2 Maps
25 Completed Games> Unlocks: Unlimited
30 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 3 Maps
35 Completed Games> Unlocks: Assassin
40 Completed Games> Unlocks: Escalating
45 Completed Games> Unlocks: Adjacent
50 Completed Games> Unlocks: Doubles
55 Completed Games> Unlocks: Triples + Quads
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 4 Maps
65 Completed Games> Unlocks: Manual
70 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 5 Maps
75 Completed Games> Unlocks: Fog
80 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 6 Maps

[natty dread]

## Completed Games> Unlocks: (Option/Map)
05 Completed Games> Unlocks: Terminator
09 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 1 Maps
13 Completed Games> Unlocks: Flat Rate
17 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 2 Maps
21 Completed Games> Unlocks: Unlimited
25 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 3 Maps
30 Completed Games> Unlocks: Assassin
34 Completed Games> Unlocks: Escalating
38 Completed Games> Unlocks: Adjacent
42 Completed Games> Unlocks: Doubles
46 Completed Games> Unlocks: Triples + Quads
50 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 4 Maps
54 Completed Games> Unlocks: Manual
58 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 5 Maps
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Fog
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 6 Maps

I would go with this instead. 80 games is a bit much for freemiums, who can only play 4 games at a time.

[AAFitz]

I believe even suggesting that a player has to play 80 games, before he/she is able to say just jump into a game with a friend that may have refered them to the site is so constrictive, as to almost be malicious. I cant imagine someone actually suggesting that they have to play 80 games, before they jump into a map, simply because "someone" thinks they arent ready for it.

There have been people that in 70 games have earned 2000-3000 points, and are better than players that have played 6000 games.

There is nothing wrong with the basic premise, and it seems like a good idea on the surface, but in the end, it is just blocking peoples fun, with no real benefit to anyone whatsoever. If the idea was to work at all, the number of games to unlock maps would have to be dramatically lower. I honestly think it would be insulting to new players to say, im sorry, youve only played 60 games, you cant play this map yet. Thankfully, I know this there really is no fear of this ever being implemented. But if it were to work, the numbers would need to be so much less, as to make it pointless in the first place.

The fun of joining a game on a map that you dont know, has been seriously discounted. I myself am an absolute noob on many maps, and simply love joining against players that I KNOW...and I mean KNOW will beat me 95% of the time. In an effort to "protect" me from this, you will constrain my fun to a degree of silliness, that is just unwarranted. I have fun trying to win against insurmountable odds. Many people do. More importantly, many people forget this. People forget that to most, the points mean NOTHING. They are just trying to have some fun playing a game, which is all CC ever was, is, and ever will be about.

I myself will never stop arguing that this would perhaps be one of the biggest mistakes in CC's history, if they implemented anything like this. It would also go against its basic philosophy, of a nice fun game for the casual player, or the extremely dedicated(addicted one).

In my personal opinion, it seems this suggestion is being pushed more for a personal goal to get it established, than an actual appraisal of the actual situation, and any genuine desire to actually improve the game for either veterans, or especially new players. Certainly I would not expect any new player to ever want such restrictions, so it can never be said that they are an effort to improve their gaming experience. It can only ever hinder and block their experience, en masse.

It is of course just a differing opinion, but I cant imagine anyone, who actually really wants to make CC better, would really not see, how much of a negative impact on new players this would have. It is branding them, telling them they arent good enough, and segregating the site to a point that it was never meant to be.

Luckily, I have seen enough of CC to know, this kind of segregation, has always, and forever been expressly against the basic philosophy of CC. The reason CC is the best world domination site out there, is because it offers the most to its members. It offers unlimited games to premiums, and unlimited games to freemiums...though 4 at a time. It offers every map, every setting, and every chance to fit individual needs and wants, for the greatest variety of players and individuals possible.

I believe this suggestion, is in essence a suggestion to eliminate CC's most unique and strongest strength as an online game. It is done with the honest motivation of making it better, by trying to eliminate some issues, but is made while ignoring its number one strength.

Keep CC open. Let players decide what they want to play. Let them have fun learning and trying new things.

DO NOT TRY TO PUNISH NEW PLAYERS BY RESTRICTING THEIR PLAY, BECAUSE SOME PLAYERS, HAVE IN THE PAST TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THEM.

[natty dread]

Many people do. More importantly, many people forget this. People forget that to most, the points mean NOTHING. They are just trying to have some fun playing a game, which is all CC ever was, is, and ever will be about.

I agree 100%.

[Queen_Herpes]

## Completed Games> Unlocks: (Option/Map)
05 Completed Games> Unlocks: Terminator
09 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 1 Maps
13 Completed Games> Unlocks: Flat Rate
17 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 2 Maps
21 Completed Games> Unlocks: Unlimited
25 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 3 Maps
30 Completed Games> Unlocks: Assassin
34 Completed Games> Unlocks: Escalating
38 Completed Games> Unlocks: Adjacent
42 Completed Games> Unlocks: Doubles
46 Completed Games> Unlocks: Triples + Quads
50 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 4 Maps
54 Completed Games> Unlocks: Manual
58 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 5 Maps
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Fog
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 6 Maps

I would go with this instead. 80 games is a bit much for freemiums, who can only play 4 games at a time.

I like the idea and this kind of response shows some thought and dedication to a player-oriented construction of the site.
I've noticed that there are a lot of players that create accounts, play a few games, then never return. I've encountered some of these players in real life. One of the great things about this site is that the players get a chance to help out the site. Here in this discussion thread we are helping out those players that haven't yet reached the site. Doubtful that we will be able to recover the players who left, for whatever reason.

Its also nice that we're all working on trying to get players to continue using the site, which is what my suggestion is attempting to accomplish. The number of players who have inactive accounts is staggering.

I'm so glad this suggestion is being considered and even happier that the site moderators and admin are posting on here and that it has a realistic chance of being implemented! Thank you everyone who has been posting on this thread with suggestions about how this can work better and with logical arguments against why it wouldn't work.

[Woodruff]

## Completed Games> Unlocks: (Option/Map)
05 Completed Games> Unlocks: Terminator
09 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 1 Maps
13 Completed Games> Unlocks: Flat Rate
17 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 2 Maps
21 Completed Games> Unlocks: Unlimited
25 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 3 Maps
30 Completed Games> Unlocks: Assassin
34 Completed Games> Unlocks: Escalating
38 Completed Games> Unlocks: Adjacent
42 Completed Games> Unlocks: Doubles
46 Completed Games> Unlocks: Triples + Quads
50 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 4 Maps
54 Completed Games> Unlocks: Manual
58 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 5 Maps
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Fog
60 Completed Games> Unlocks: Level 6 Maps

I would go with this instead. 80 games is a bit much for freemiums, who can only play 4 games at a time.

I like the idea and this kind of response shows some thought and dedication to a player-oriented construction of the site.
I've noticed that there are a lot of players that create accounts, play a few games, then never return. I've encountered some of these players in real life. One of the great things about this site is that the players get a chance to help out the site. Here in this discussion thread we are helping out those players that haven't yet reached the site. Doubtful that we will be able to recover the players who left, for whatever reason.

Its also nice that we're all working on trying to get players to continue using the site, which is what my suggestion is attempting to accomplish. The number of players who have inactive accounts is staggering.

I'm so glad this suggestion is being considered and even happier that the site moderators and admin are posting on here and that it has a realistic chance of being implemented!

It might even happen before the turn of the century, if we're fortunate.