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

[Queen_Herpes]

Though I've read and understood your argument, I'm not entirely convinced that it will be better than the current limitations we have in place.

--Andy

Andy,

I'd appreciate an opportunity to help convince you. Have you read the follow-up recommendation I posted that allows for greater access to the site?

[stahrgazer]

...Generally, I think your idea is a good one, but the devil is in the details. I think you may have suggested too many levels, too many things that have to be unlocked over time, with no clear rationale for why x map is at stage 8 while similar maps are at stage 4. If you simplify and reduce the levels and unlocking, you might find better support.

Agreed, There may be too many levels, too much to unlock. Ultimately, if mine is too complicated, a less complicated unlocking system could be devised by the powers-that-be to keep it simple.

I think you would be better off trying to figure out a happy medium with your original idea and selling THAT... because right now, you're trying to 'sell' (persuade to use) a system that the 'buyers' (powers that be) don't want, that the users are already seeing is a little too complex; and you're suggesting they do some more design work on it, too. I wouldn't go for it, despite I already like the general idea. Think about it.. before Apple and Microsoft MADE personal computers work, no one wanted to by the idea. Once they made it work, EVERYONE wanted in!

If you like, I'll offer you some thoughts in pm you might want to use to revamp your idea so that the 'buyers' do see the benefits of it enough to want to work on programming "levels" into the system.

[Queen_Herpes]

didn't read everything but I think after 10 games every option should be available! There are several people that are able to understand tactics fast. why limit them? escalating after 40 games? bs! manual after 65, why??? 75 games for fog?? I liked fog from the beginning!

Essentially you like the idea, but you think that the numbers I chose(80 games until everything is unlocked) are too harsh. I agree that the numbers may be too harsh, but since you agree in principle that this is the right way to go, perhaps everything can be unlocked after 10 games...as you mentioned. However, I think that would be too soon.

Thank you for the support and thank you for your post!!!

[shanksdigs]

Thank you for the comments thus far, I'm on Thanksgiving vacation and will get back to all of your PMs, Chat requests, Wall posts, and comments on this thread after December 1st. This has stirred up a lot of debate and input. Thank you. Only enough time this week to check in on my games and such.

QH

Since you're back, some folks might want to hear your responses. Keep up the great work. I thinks this is a great idea! If they don't put this idea into action, they probably should add a robot that beginners can play against with no concern/fear or losing points or gaining points.


.

.

.

.

[Queen_Herpes]

I think you have a lot of great ideas here. What about the guy who is invited by his friend. his friend starts a game, but then he discovers that he can't join it, because he hasn't unlocked those settings? That would be more frustrating than anything else.

There are several solutions:

The first is that the friend could buy premium and circumvent this process.

The second is that the friend could go through the process of being trained in the system.

The third, is that you (the inviter) could modify the settings on the game and help the friend to learn the simpler setting first. This option would be ideal as the friend would have someone (you, the inviter) who could directly affect the experience that the friend has on CC.

Assuming the two are friends (know each other outside of the CC world), the game will likely go faster as the inviter will explain the 24 hour turns and be online at the same time as the friend so explanations can happen in Real Time.

Thank you for your post...there are other ways to deal with this frustration. Ultimately, it isn't very long to wait to have the friend go through this short process to learn the game.

[Queen_Herpes]

You do realize that the 20000 not on the scoreboard aren't just New Recruits who left.

Actually the number of new recruits who left is much higher. Thank you for pointing that out. It is closer to 200,000 new recruits who have left. The total number of active users is 20,000. Its sad, and this recommendation attempts to answer to the retention problem.

[Queen_Herpes]

Again, I have nothing but admiration for the time and thought put into your idea.

Thank you.

The number of games has been called into question a number of times with some good reasons so why is there still a bewildering number of games to play to open all levels?

I’m open to input from players who think the number should be decreased. I’m also in complete agreement that players should earn a free speed game at each unlock. I guess that is a new idea that I am adding to this. Gotta revamp the massive initial post again, I think. 80 games is still a bewildering number of games, I fully agree. But so is 40. As the number decreases, I think there is a point where it is too low. If players were to earn a free speed game at each unlock, and completely unlock all the maps and options after 40 games, I think it would be a huge boost to getting players to stick around. Unfortunately, with that many free speed games, it will be a boon to multis. I have to think more about this.

Here is where we agree:
The information for new players about maps and game settings is poor and due a revamp.

Here is an attempt at providing some information on maps:

Map Information

Yes, as far as maps go, the site needs to advertise its biggest asset. A link to a map room that shows the maps to casual visitors to the site would be key. I will make a separate suggestion as I think this suggestion is too much for the powers-that-be to handle. Your link is a great step in that direction.

If enough information is readily at hand for new starters (maybe links in a welcome PM) there would be no need to invent an unnecessarily complex mechanism for player retention.

Yes and No. More “Welcome PMs” than just one PM. I don’t recall reading my Welcome PM. Perhaps multiple PMs at each unlock level will clue players in that there is some quality information being pushed upon them in the PMs. Might have made a player like me read it if I saw how many were there. Unfortunately, might create cognitive overload.

That is of course an opinion, it is also possible an incentive-based training system would also help retention, this is accepted but not as the suggestion stands.

My position is to push for better and easily accessible game/map information which reduces the need for protecting new players from the more complex maps and game types. As many people have said it is difficult to define a "one size fits all"
level scheme that will appeal to and work for the majority of new players as each person may be perfectly comfortable with different game settings so why not promote a better set of instructions and focus on that?

More instructions are definitely key. It should be hard data that is provided on the site as information…not posts in a forum about strategy or map info. I believe some form of incentive based program is necessary to spark additional interest among gamers and gamer elites out there. There needs to be more to the “game” than just playing the game. The more there is to it (medals, incentives, etc.) the more likely that interest will be piqued for players to join…then stick around.

As always, good luck with your endeavours.[/quote]
Thank you again, yours was a very thoughtful post and I’m sorry it took me so long to get a response to it.

[Queen_Herpes]

The SoC has turned out many good players. We Do not teach all in the SoC but what we do teach works well and players come out fine.

Putting that aside, not every player is going to be the same. Personally I do not play Waterloo, but a student of mine made major basically playing it. He has 80 games completed or so, most all on it. What does that tell me? It tells me just because a map is complex or hard to someone does not mean it is hard to all.

With that said CC has a group in place working on revising the rules, and later to add some You Tube type videos. Everything from how to use the site, to how to play a game, even to how to sweep an escalating game.

To add to your unlock at X games. If someone has never played feudal on fog, it would not matter if it was game 200 or game 1 for them. They would likely suck and lose. The only way to get better at any map / setting is by playing it.

The SoC is not completely bereft of purpose. Players need more than what the SoC offers. While SoC offers one method of learning, my suggestion offers a different kind of learning...one that does not rely on another player being available to help.

I'd be happy to take you up on your offer to discuss over IM. And

[Queen_Herpes]

...sorry continued from previous post:

...AND discuss things like learning styles and ways that people (students, or in our case members of CC) learn. Simply providing one method for learning does not recognize that there are some people who might not learn from that method. There are other methods available for teaching and learning on conquerclub and my suggestion offers an additional methodology.

[GoodGenes]

Flat Rate Spoils is a new concept even to the seasoned "Risk" player and takes some time to comprehend.

Actually, there is an option for that in some versions of RISK. 3 Infantry cards are worth 4 troops, 3 Cavalry cards are worth 6, etc.

As for the idea, I think it's pretty good except you have to play way too many games to unlock stuff. You should cut it down to about half, 80 games to 40 games, to unlock everything. Plus, unlocking manual shouldn't be that far down the list, since originally that's how you play RISK. Other than that, it's a neat idea.

[SuicidalSnowman]

QH, this is another well thought out idea for improving this site. However, similar to your last suggestion, here are my well reasoned thoughts:

Again, there are some issues with your numbers. First of all, this site currently supports the Society of Cooks, as others have alluded to. They train on Terminator. This cannot be locked down, in my opinion.

I don't see what is wrong with the Foundry links on the maps, personally. Also, there is a board of official strategies for the maps. Having said that, a PM with instructions is a great idea. My only concern is thus:
There are two major global rules. 1) No multiple accounts and 2) No secret diplomacy. Already people are arguing that these two giant font rules with the checkboxes are not memorable enough viewtopic.php?f=239&t=100622&start=15#p2339854 I don't think adding more things for people to read is the answer. The resources are available for people to look up if they want to. If they don't want to, they don't have to. Either way, it is readily apparent that this sites TWO rules are already too complicated for people.

These ideas are, as always, pretty cool in and of themselves. But the thing is, you have to make them fit to CC.

Few other things: As for the maps, I think 2 or 3 three levels is PLENTY. Any more than that and you are going to get lost in a debate of "Is Draknor harder than Battle for Iraq" for the rest of your life.

I think you misunderstand the issue surrounding levels of play as well. You say that locking down maps will force players to wait until they are better at them to play them. Not really. Yeah, during a player's first few games, they are usually lost. But after 10 or so games, it really comes down to that they will either take steps to improve, or are just bad players. Also, even though I had played a ton of games, the first time I tried Waterloo, I got destroyed. In fact, it took me 10-15 games on this map before I could make a game of it. And this was after I had completed several hundred games, and was rank of LT. Locking this down wouldn't have saved me any trouble.

Also, like some other people have mentioned, I think the 20,000 or so accounts that are inactive in terms of scoreboard numbers are not such a huge deal. This site is several years old. Plenty of people play for a year and leave. Also, I bet some of those accounts are banned accounts. Some people come, play some games, and stay for the message boards. I have taken vacations that caused myself to drop off. It isn't always new players leaving. And I think when new players leave, it isn't because they are scared off. I think they just don't like CC as much as they thought they would. I know in my case, "Global Domination Game with Risk and Strategy" is something that I am only halfheartedly interested in. I play 10 games with people I know. The rest of the time I am on the boards, because the community is fun here.

Basically, what I am trying to say is, I think if you are concerned with people leaving the site, find a way to make it more attractive to people who have been here for 6 months to a year and then get bored.

I dunno Queen_Herpes, you got some well thought out ideas, but I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. To me, it seems you have a solution, and so are looking for a problem to fix. Instead, I think you should identify a problem, and then develop the solution.

Also, slightly off-topic, you should try your hand at running tournaments. I think you could put something pretty cool together.

[Evil Semp]

Flat Rate Spoils is a new concept even to the seasoned "Risk" player and takes some time to comprehend.

Actually, there is an option for that in some versions of RISK. 3 Infantry cards are worth 4 troops, 3 Cavalry cards are worth 6, etc.

As for the idea, I think it's pretty good except you have to play way too many games to unlock stuff. You should cut it down to about half, 80 games to 40 games, to unlock everything. Plus, unlocking manual shouldn't be that far down the list, since originally that's how you play RISK. Other than that, it's a neat idea.

I learned to play Risk with flat rate cards and manual deploy. I don't think limiting game type would retain any new members. By limiting game types you risk losing the "seasoned Risk player" because they can't play the game they want to.

I agree more information is needed, and if a game limit is needed for progressing to harder maps I think maybe 15 game, enough for the new user to CC to get used to the mechanics of the CC site.

[mpjh]

Where is you evidence that low retention is caused by bad experiences with maps and settings? Maybe it was the foul FW and its advocates that until recently preyed on newbies. Do you have a survey or anything?

[Queen_Herpes]

As for the idea, I think it's pretty good except you have to play way too many games to unlock stuff. You should cut it down to about half, 80 games to 40 games, to unlock everything. Plus, unlocking manual shouldn't be that far down the list, since originally that's how you play RISK. Other than that, it's a neat idea.

Thank you for your support. I've had a number of comments suggesting that the number be reduced. Thank you for putting an actual number to your thought. 40 sounds good, I may drive in that direction when I redo this again.

Flat Rate Spoils is a new concept even to the seasoned "Risk" player and takes some time to comprehend.

Actually, there is an option for that in some versions of RISK. 3 Infantry cards are worth 4 troops, 3 Cavalry cards are worth 6, etc.

My husband and his cronies are the source of the data regarding seasoned Risk players. They'd never played it that way...and among the many of them they had claimed to have played against roughly 200 people in their combined lifetimes. They knew it existed, but didn't give it a second thought...kept to playing the traditional style.

[AAFitz]

Giving less options, which is what youre suggesting, is not really going to keep players around. You have incorrectly identified the reason why people are leaving, and really are just pushing your idea here, without actual consideration of its effects.

There is simply no sound reasoning to suggest that locking maps from players will make them stay, if they left in the first place, with access to them.

CC is and always has been a great open site, with less restrictions than any other gaming site out there for the freemium. You are suggesting giving less options for new recruits, in some backwards logic that less options will mean more fun, and therefore more players. However, players are not leaving because they dont have maps locked from them. I think its possible that not one player ever in the history of CC has left because they had too many maps to choose from.

Instead, many will leave anyways. There is no point worrying about the ones that simply were looking for a different kind of game. The ones that are worth effort, are the ones that may have stayed given some other option. Certainly not letting them see the whole site, is not an incredibly intelligent way to go about attracting them. What is most likely the reason that potential customers leave, is the lack of a real simple opportunity to play real time games...so they leave without really getting a taste for the site. That really is the key to keeping players here. Giving less maps to play certainly will never attract any more players. At best, you might get them to play a few more, in hopes that they might check the other maps out, but... if they left with options to play the map in the first place, as they have now...its silly to think they will stay after having unlocked them. It will be the same game, and all youve done is take the risk of losing players that may have stayed, had they been able to see the vast majority of maps and see how fun they are to play.

Your proposal to lock maps will cost CC players, not gain them.

The problem you are hoping to solve, is that they join games and get killed because they are difficult. That is easily solved by simply labeling the map as difficult.

In that way, a player can choose the difficulty, still have the option to play all of the various maps, and will not be surprised when a map is more difficult than they expected.

There is no way to reasonably argue that locking maps will somehow make the game better for someone trying out the site, and hoping to hook them on it, but conversely it is easily arguable, as many have already, that giving less options, and not letting players see all of the options may very well cost CC players.

Its actually painful at this point, to see someone push for something simply to push for their idea to be implemented, when it has been effectively shown to really do the opposite of its goal. Especially, when a much better option exists, that will not only achieve the goal, but risk no loss of player whatsoever.

[Queen_Herpes]

Your proposal to lock maps will cost CC players, not gain them.

You have missed the fact that maps are already locked for new players. FAIL on the part of AAFitz.

The problem you are hoping to solve, is that they join games and get killed because they are difficult. That is easily solved by simply labeling the map as difficult.

AAFitz FAIL. You have missed the point and apparently all these other well-meaning people understand the point. That is not the problem I am trying to solve...stick to your suggestion which (from my last glance) is somewhere off of page one.

By all means, please continue to post here if you want this suggestion to continue to get the attention that it has received from many players.

[AAFitz]

Your proposal to lock maps will cost CC players, not gain them.

You have missed the fact that maps are already locked for new players. FAIL on the part of AAFitz.

The problem you are hoping to solve, is that they join games and get killed because they are difficult. That is easily solved by simply labeling the map as difficult.

AAFitz FAIL. You have missed the point and apparently all these other well-meaning people understand the point. That is not the problem I am trying to solve...stick to your suggestion which (from my last glance) is somewhere off of page one.

By all means, please continue to post here if you want this suggestion to continue to get the attention that it has received from many players.

Yes, the maps are locked for newest players. Until they play 5 games. You want to lock some even after ten they played times that number.

I fully understand the problems you are trying to solve. There are many. It is you who fail if you think I dont understand the complexity of the situation after 7000 games and 3 years on here. The fact that Im only addressing some of the failings here...but the most important one...which is that this suggestion will COST CC players, not gain them, is the important fact.

I will however put even more time into pointing out the logical errors of unlocking maps for you one more time however when I get a chance. Its actually simply marketing and psychology, but as I said, I truly believe at this point, given the number of qualified people who really know what they are talking about, explaining why the unlocking wont work, and the fact that you keep pushing for it....that Ive come to the conclusion that you are just pushing it simply because you want to, and not because you have actually considered it as fully as you claim to. This is not a personal attack. Its just an observation of what Im seeing. No doubt I could be wrong, and perhaps you will post AAFitz: FAIL again...but again, its just my opinion.

Again, I love how much work you've put into it. Its just that I think it would be catastrophic and against everything that CC has stood for, so I make sure others see that point of view as well. I think its fairly clear that this point is lost on you, which is fine.

I do enjoy the part where you say who cant post their credentials and why they feel they are able to discuss the matter....a paragraph before you provide your credentials though. I may not have a statistics degree...but I do know funny when I see it.

And for the record, my marketing degree, and sales experience, not to mention running my own company...does kind of help in the analysis of customer satisfaction I think. If the three years of actually playing the game really means nothing....as you said.

[Queen_Herpes]

Your proposal to lock maps will cost CC players, not gain them.

You have missed the fact that maps are already locked for new players. FAIL on the part of AAFitz.

The problem you are hoping to solve, is that they join games and get killed because they are difficult. That is easily solved by simply labeling the map as difficult.

AAFitz FAIL. You have missed the point and apparently all these other well-meaning people understand the point. That is not the problem I am trying to solve...stick to your suggestion which (from my last glance) is somewhere off of page one.

By all means, please continue to post here if you want this suggestion to continue to get the attention that it has received from many players.

Yes, the maps are locked for newest players. Until they play 5 games. You want to lock some even after ten they played times that number.

I fully understand the problems you are trying to solve. There are many. It is you who fail if you think I dont understand the complexity of the situation after 7000 games and 3 years on here. The fact that Im only addressing some of the failings here...but the most important one...which is that this suggestion will COST CC players, not gain them, is the important fact.

I will however put even more time into pointing out the logical errors of unlocking maps for you one more time however when I get a chance. Its actually simply marketing and psychology, but as I said, I truly believe at this point, given the number of qualified people who really know what they are talking about, explaining why the unlocking wont work, and the fact that you keep pushing for it....that Ive come to the conclusion that you are just pushing it simply because you want to, and not because you have actually considered it as fully as you claim to. This is not a personal attack. Its just an observation of what Im seeing. No doubt I could be wrong, and perhaps you will post AAFitz: FAIL again...but again, its just my opinion.

Again, I love how much work you've put into it. Its just that I think it would be catastrophic and against everything that CC has stood for, so I make sure others see that point of view as well. I think its fairly clear that this point is lost on you, which is fine.

I do enjoy the part where you say who cant post their credentials and why they feel they are able to discuss the matter....a paragraph before you provide your credentials though. I may not have a statistics degree...but I do know funny when I see it.

And for the record, my marketing degree, and sales experience, not to mention running my own company...does kind of help in the analysis of customer satisfaction I think. If the three years of actually playing the game really means nothing....as you said.

All well and good. I invite you to take your personal attacks against me to PM. I have read your arguments, so continuing to post them here AGAIN as a photocopy of what you have already said in this thread is baiting and flaming. You also show disregard to those who have posted here in a well-meaning intentional manner to either support or show where there are flaws in the theory that I have come up with. Is it the best idea ever? No. Is it a work in progress? Yes. Rather than being part of the problem, you are welcome to post your objections to the theory and mention where you think it will work and won't work...as you have already done this though, I'm not sure what you can add to the argument. If you don't like it, it is noted and anyone who has the power to implement this idea will have read your objections time...and again.

[Evil Semp]

Where is you evidence that low retention is caused by bad experiences with maps and settings? Maybe it was the foul FW and its advocates that until recently preyed on newbies. Do you have a survey or anything?

You failed to answer this question, which I think deserves an answer.

[Queen_Herpes]

Where is you evidence that low retention is caused by bad experiences with maps and settings? Maybe it was the foul FW and its advocates that until recently preyed on newbies. Do you have a survey or anything?

You failed to answer this question, which I think deserves an answer.

Going in order after having been distracted by another post. It will be answered as will Suicidal, You, and MPJH's in order.

[AAFitz]

Your proposal to lock maps will cost CC players, not gain them.

You have missed the fact that maps are already locked for new players. FAIL on the part of AAFitz.

The problem you are hoping to solve, is that they join games and get killed because they are difficult. That is easily solved by simply labeling the map as difficult.

AAFitz FAIL. You have missed the point and apparently all these other well-meaning people understand the point. That is not the problem I am trying to solve...stick to your suggestion which (from my last glance) is somewhere off of page one.

By all means, please continue to post here if you want this suggestion to continue to get the attention that it has received from many players.

Yes, the maps are locked for newest players. Until they play 5 games. You want to lock some even after ten they played times that number.

I fully understand the problems you are trying to solve. There are many. It is you who fail if you think I dont understand the complexity of the situation after 7000 games and 3 years on here. The fact that Im only addressing some of the failings here...but the most important one...which is that this suggestion will COST CC players, not gain them, is the important fact.

I will however put even more time into pointing out the logical errors of unlocking maps for you one more time however when I get a chance. Its actually simply marketing and psychology, but as I said, I truly believe at this point, given the number of qualified people who really know what they are talking about, explaining why the unlocking wont work, and the fact that you keep pushing for it....that Ive come to the conclusion that you are just pushing it simply because you want to, and not because you have actually considered it as fully as you claim to. This is not a personal attack. Its just an observation of what Im seeing. No doubt I could be wrong, and perhaps you will post AAFitz: FAIL again...but again, its just my opinion.

Again, I love how much work you've put into it. Its just that I think it would be catastrophic and against everything that CC has stood for, so I make sure others see that point of view as well. I think its fairly clear that this point is lost on you, which is fine.

I do enjoy the part where you say who cant post their credentials and why they feel they are able to discuss the matter....a paragraph before you provide your credentials though. I may not have a statistics degree...but I do know funny when I see it.

And for the record, my marketing degree, and sales experience, not to mention running my own company...does kind of help in the analysis of customer satisfaction I think. If the three years of actually playing the game really means nothing....as you said.

All well and good. I invite you to take your personal attacks against me to PM. I have read your arguments, so continuing to post them here AGAIN as a photocopy of what you have already said in this thread is baiting and flaming. You also show disregard to those who have posted here in a well-meaning intentional manner to either support or show where there are flaws in the theory that I have come up with. Is it the best idea ever? No. Is it a work in progress? Yes. Rather than being part of the problem, you are welcome to post your objections to the theory and mention where you think it will work and won't work...as you have already done this though, I'm not sure what you can add to the argument. If you don't like it, it is noted and anyone who has the power to implement this idea will have read your objections time...and again.

Well, I am posting arguments Ive posted before I admit, but this is a new suggestion is it not. And there is no personal attack here. My attack is only of the suggestion, and the many reasons why I feel its bad for CC.

As far as the discussion of credentials etc, that is a subject you brought up in your suggestion body yourself. You tried to post the reasons why people could give for them posting, that were not acceptable, and then posted your credentials right after. Its not a flame to find humor in that.

As far as being a work in progress, I simply do not think it is in progress. Youve simply posted the same suggestion numerous times, over and over again...which is why I point out the reasons it wont work, and why Id hate to see it over again.

The suggestion is to limit players greatly on what maps they can play. It is partly meant to educate, and retain players as you suggest as part of the reasons. However, I and many, simply do not see any way in which giving players less maps will in any way enhance their experience. Not one. You are essetially dictating to them which ones You think they should play first, and take the decision out of their hands, and then say its for their own good. This is your suggestion.

I simply think that all you have to do is label the difficult maps, the objective maps....and explain them better...which has been done with an entire strategy guide for each map. I simply dont believe that making someone play 70 games, before they get to try a setting, or a map will in any way enhance their experience. It simply goes against any marketing logic possible.

The idea is to attract the new players and keep them hooked, and some of those maps you want to keep locked for 60 games are so, are great maps, and very well could be the reason why a player might stay. In any case, its certainly more logical to assume they would be more likely to stay after trying one of those maps and seeing the variety, than that they might leave, because they were able to actually play on it...and that somehow made the site more fun.

I simply cant imagine any scenario, in which locking the maps will retain customers. It simply wont solve any problem whatsoever, and will just lock the maps and options for the sake of locking them.

Now, I do agree, that there is a virtual sea of maps out there, with many settings and options, and that for a new player coming to the site, that its impossible to know which ones to join, and they can easily be farmed on them. However, there is even something to say about being farmed as an experience, because I myself, often go get farmed from the best on the site on a particular map, just to see how its done. I love seeing someone play a game perfectly and killing me and it teaches me how to play the map, and further, inspires me to get better at it.

I believe you have possibly confused losing with not having fun, and are trying to protect players from losing in hopes that they will stay longer. I agree that for some players, who cant find a way to win, that maybe that is reason enough to leave, but since thousands of players do stay, who constantly do lose, its obvious that is not the reason they are leaving....so your suggestion simply will not keep many, if any from leaving. On the converse, it greatly risks the player that might stick around, had they played one of those interesting maps you feel they aren't ready to play earlier.

CC is a massive game, it has many options... I have been here for over 3 years, I have played over 7000 games, and while this means nothing to you, it does give me the experience enough to know that even after all those games there are still maps I have not played, and settings I do not use, and some that I am just not good enough to play. However, I do have many settings and maps that I prefer, and they are based on personal taste and choice, and not ability...so locking me out of an option I might like, is simply not fair, isnt going to add to my fun, isnt going to let me try out all the options I want to, in order to try out the site, and risks me leaving after not fully trying every option....which is the real risk here, and why so many have posted as much...and why I keep repeating it....

Its the most important point. You risk losing customers with this suggestion, and cant be reasonably assured of attracting even one. This risk is obvious to many, and has been pointed out many times, but you are still avoiding it. That is the reason for the repetition.

All that needs to be done to achieve the goal of keeping players from unexpectedly being farmed, or joining a game tougher than they thought, is to let them know what they are joining. I agree that getting smashed by someone on round 3 is no fun, if they were hoping to have a chance, but by labeling the map as very difficult...anyone qualified to play the game in the first place would already know at joining, that they might get smashed, especially if the opponent was highly ranked. Its not a difficult assumption, and I know when I joined, as I have joined other sites, that I expected to lose. It is in losing that you learn.

The point is, that limiting players to certain maps and unlocking them, simply will risk losing players that may have stayed, while not achieving the goal of making the game more fun. People have personal tastes, and personal abilities that vary on a massively large scale, and for someone to tell them which ones they have to play first, is simply wrong, unfair, and risks losing those customers. The basic logic here, is just that, basic logic.

You have yet to address this in any real way whatsoever, and simply keep pushing the idea, even though no one really thinks it will be better for players in any way, and more importantly, many have explained...as you said repeatedly, that there are other easier, more viable options, such as labeling the difficulty of maps, organizing them so that the goals are achieved, with no downside whatsoever.

Its great that you passionately believe in this suggestion, but I wont apologize for passionately believing it is flawed at its basic level, as I have since it was first presented. Locking the maps is just a bad idea, that can only risk losing customers, while not ever hoping to actually keep even one. Its simply not logical to think that less options will convince people to stick around.

However, if you can actually address how someone who decides to leave, after having the option to try out all the sites potential, might actually decide to stay without even having access to it, then perhaps this wont be as repetitive. However, its clear the idea to unlock is simply taken from other games, but also fundamentally different types of games. More importantly, the unlocking on those games, is almost always done after the game has already been purchased, and not as a sampler, which is essentially what a freemium is...a sampler. Also, I personally believe Lack likes that people from around the world can enjoy the game, and tries to give them as much as he reasonably can, which is what he has always done. The options and features on CC are vastly greater than any other site, and the value is barely comparable to many, who limit players much more...as you are suggesting CC should do.

Ive been on those other sites, ive paid premiums on those other sites...I'm not there any more. What keeps me coming back to CC is the variety, and great value that CC offers. Even for premiums, allowing freemiums such access is a good thing. It allows a much more diverse group of people, and allows those who cant afford the premium, a chance to compete everywhere on the site. Really, its just great. I definitely agree that it needs to be reorganized, but that the basic premise, of giving as much as can be given is the true reason for CC's continued success. Myself, I wouldn't put two minutes into this place if it wasn't for that atmosphere, or if I didnt know that atmosphere was genuine, which I in fact do.

So again, how does telling a player he cant play a map make him want to stay, more than just telling him what the maps are like, and letting him decide what hes ready for?

More importantly, how could limiting a player from a map, inspire them to stay, especially if they left with access to those very maps in the first place? It is this basic logic I can't see.

Why would a player who can only play 10 maps, be more inclined to stay than someone who was given the option to try 100 maps?

And further, Why should people be forced to play maps unlocked, on an arbitrary basis, when it really serves no real good, beyond perhaps just locking them for the sake of locking them, especially considering, that the player might very well like, and be better at the "more difficult" maps, the day they get here?

Most importantly, if the maps are all labeled and grouped as you suggested, and it is clear to a player what they are joining, then why would they have to be locked in the first place?

And, wouldn't it stand to follow, that if they wanted to try the tough maps, while giving the site a try, that they should be able to?

And, isnt it more likely, that someone may try one of those locked maps, and stick around, rather than them being hooked by having to play a bunch of maps and waiting to play the ones they really like?

[Queen_Herpes]

It is you who fail if you think I dont understand the complexity of the situation after 7000 games and 3 years on here... And for the record, my marketing degree, and sales experience, not to mention running my own company...does kind of help in the analysis of customer satisfaction I think. If the three years of actually playing the game really means nothing....CC is a massive game, it has many options... I have been here for over 3 years, I have played over 7000 games.

You're right, you've been here forever. When last I checked, that didn't determine grounds for speaking for everyone else on the site. Similarly, I don't speak for everyone, which is why I'm taking comments and responding accordingly. Roughly 380,000 user accounts...and roughly 20,000 active members. You've spoken your peace. This is a work in progress.

I simply cant imagine any scenario, in which locking the maps will retain customers. It simply wont solve any problem whatsoever, and will just lock the maps and options for the sake of locking them...The point is, that limiting players to certain maps and unlocking them, simply will risk losing players that may have stayed, while not achieving the goal of making the game more fun. People have personal tastes, and personal abilities that vary on a massively large scale, and for someone to tell them which ones they have to play first, is simply wrong, unfair, and risks losing those customers. The basic logic here, is just that, basic logic...Locking the maps is just a bad idea, that can only risk losing customers, while not ever hoping to actually keep even one. Its simply not logical to think that less options will convince people to stick around.

You are avoiding the point that this site already blocks players from accessing 50-some maps when they are a new recruit. Precedent.

Oh, and you're ignoring the rest of the suggestion, which attempts to improve the player experience and positively affect member retention.

So again, how does telling a player he cant play a map make him want to stay, more than just telling him what the maps are like, and letting him decide what hes ready for?

Asked and answered in numerous responses to your comments. Every video game player in the history of gaming is accustomed to unlocking aspects of the game that are either more difficult or provide a better gaming experience. You don’t like unlocking??? Try PONG or Atari’s COMBAT. Some of the maps are more difficult AND provide a better gaming experience for the challenge that they represent to the gamer. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? It’s the same logic that keeps new recruits currently locked out of 50-ish maps. It’s the same logic that keeps freemium players from the power to perform private invites and participate in speed games.

The carrot-on-a-stick is a well-known, widely-practiced functionality of pretty much every commodity. If you buy a pair of Lee Jeans, do you get to own a pair of every style of jean that Lee makes? If you buy a Ford F-150, do you get an F-250, F-250, E-350 Econoline Van and every other model that Ford makes for free? They are all fun cars and offer different functionality, yet, somehow, Ford is still able to sell one car to one person and the buyer doesn’t expect to get 45 other models for free.

When gamers play video games, they don’t expect to have every aspect of the game unlocked at the outset. That’s why there are hundreds of websites out there dedicated to passwords, cheat codes, and unlock codes that cater to the penchant of thrill seekers who are unwilling to take the 6-8 hours of gameplay that is required to unlock some of the cooler aspects of thousands of video games.

More importantly, the unlocking on those games, is almost always done after the game has already been purchased, and not as a sampler, which is essentially what a freemium is...a sampler.

And yet, when I watched someone play the City of Heroes sampler two nights ago, the sampler had levels to unlock, experience to gain, and powers to gain. Every sampler has the unlocks and the XP and the Manna that the real game carries. Gamers don’t get anything “free” in terms of unlocks, etc., when they get a sampler compared to buying the real game. There are still maps on Red Alert 2 that aren’t unlocked until a player has either completed the “Campaign” or won 10 games against advanced AI opponents or online opponents. I mean, come on, the list goes on…and on…and on.

More importantly, how could limiting a player from a map, inspire them to stay, especially if they left with access to those very maps in the first place? It is this basic logic I can't see.

Why do you keep repeating the same question OVER and OVER again? The inspiration to stay comes from knowing that there are more interesting, more challenging maps out there that the player can attempt once they’ve passed a certain threshold. The arguments herein this thread are attempting to determine what that threshold should be. You think: “no threshold.” Noted.

Why would a player who can only play 10 maps, be more inclined to stay than someone who was given the option to try 100 maps?

You claim to run a company, yet you cannot see the forest for the trees. The point of the whole suggestion is to stimulate an all-inclusive inspiration to all players to stick around and play. Play fair, play for fun, and be inspired to compete. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Gestalt thinking…you’ve considered it in your academic preparation for your position as “running your own company?” If a gamer arrived here and was presented with participation medals, better map information, and the challenge of unlocking the more challenging aspects of the site, I think they’re more apt to stay. The current situation doesn’t work…or does it? Maybe you enjoy playing the same 100 players every night? I want more players, more challenges, more medals, more fun.

REMINDER: Visitors to the site CANNOT SEE the maps. Even registered members can only “see” all the available maps by clicking the “Browse Maps” button on the “Start a Game” page.

See this suggestion for more info:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=103116

And, isnt it more likely, that someone may try one of those locked maps, and stick around, rather than them being hooked by having to play a bunch of maps and waiting to play the ones they really like?

“World 2.1” wasn’t here when you joined back in the Cretaceous Period, yet somehow you stuck around. If a player cannot access that map, it stands to reason that if you stuck around when you couldn’t access it, others will stick around if they cannot access it when they first join. The same goes for any other map that was not available when the site first went live.

[Doc_Brown]

I want to chime in once again even though tt appears that QH is ignoring my posts, which is disappointing because I put quite a bit of thought and effort into my post on page 1 of this thread. It appears that she's foed me, and since we've never played any games together or had any contact apart from this thread and the first incarnation of it, I have to conclude that she simply considers me an "uppity noob" that doesn't have a right to express an opinion. However, I find such an attitude to be ironic given that I am the very class of player that this proposal targets. Shouldn't my feedback and that of others at my level and number of games played be critically important in weighing the validity of this concept?

QH: You claimed elsewhere in this thread that your

suggestion offers a different kind of learning.

I fail to see how. AAFitz and the others are quite right that learning comes through experience. By cutting off access to maps and options, you are in no way preparing people to play on them. I gave you a specific example of how this can rather stunt the strategic growth of players in my previous post. I believe there is a class of players that can become overwhelmed with the number of maps and options available. But that is a very small group that is far less likely to stick around very long anyway. I believe your proposal could be of some short-term benefit to them, but it comes at the expense of newcomers to this site that are already fairly advanced when it comes to strategy games in general and Risk in particular. I put myself in the later group, and while I only have 21 games complete, my win percentage is close to 50%, and my rank is steadily climbing. And since you made formal education valid credentials in this discussion, know that I have a BS in Mathematics and a PhD in Optical Physics.

But let me make you an offer. wacicha, mpjh, Georgerx7di, and firstholliday are all highly experienced players that have played several games with me and can comment on my abilities. If you can get any one of them to explain how your proposal would have benefited me in any significant manner, I will withdraw all protests and endorse your proposal.

Since I am consistently playing 4 games at a time, I think my rate of game completion is probably about average. With your proposal it will take me nearly a full year before I am ever allowed to play a Beta map. It would be a full 6 months before I got my first taste of a doubles game. This means that people that are invited to the site by friends that have been here a while would be unable to team with said friends for far too long. I guarantee that this fact alone will drive people away. I was attracted to this site because of the options available. It is true that new players are unable to join certain maps and game types for the first 5 games, but they can get around those restrictions either by starting their own games or by receiving invitations (I was invited to terminator games well before my first 5 games were completed). If your proposal was in place, I probably would have quit around 10 games or so when I saw that that was all I had finished in a month and a half and I had another 6 months to go before I could access a significant portion of the content on this site. The only way this idea could be feasibly implemented without risking driving away a majority of new players would be if the new players received ~3 months free premium membership so that they could play enough games to unlock the remaining content. And even then I think many of us would find it quite tedious to be forced to follow a single specific track of strategic development. You have an education degree and should know that different people learn in very different ways.

As far as I can tell, this proposal only helps two types of people: 1) The few that are overwhelmed by the layout of the content on this site (, and 2) Advanced players that have a strong dislike for newer players because of a few games they've lost because of those players deadbeating or exhibiting exceedingly poor strategy. The first group would be accommodated by my suggestions on page 1 of this thread without introducing draconian restrictions on others. The second group may have a valid complaint, but this proposal is not the right solution.

[Queen_Herpes]

[quote="Doc_Brown"]I want to chime in once again even though tt appears that QH is ignoring my posts, which is disappointing because I put quite a bit of thought and effort into my post on page 1 of this thread. It appears that she's foed me, and since we've never played any games together or had any contact apart from this thread and the first incarnation of it, I have to conclude that she simply considers me an "uppity noob" that doesn't have a right to express an opinion. However, I find such an attitude to be ironic given that I am the very class of player that this proposal targets. Shouldn't my feedback and that of others at my level and number of games played be critically important in weighing the validity of this concept?

Your first comment was lost in the fog...I've been fighting a fire in here instead of responding to well-meaning and good-intentioned detractors like yourself. I will get to both comments this week, Next Monday at the latest.

Thank you for the comments and the support. In general, you are right, 80 games to unlock everything is too much for a freemium and would take forever-and a-day. I'm attempting to come up with a better number of games and a better set of unlcks grouped probably more like what you said in your first comment.

[Doc_Brown]

You are avoiding the point that this site already blocks players from accessing 50-some maps when they are a new recruit. Precedent.

Those recruits are not blocked from accessing the maps altogether. They are only blocked from seeing them in the "Join a Game" area. They are free to create games on any of the maps and with any of the settings. They are also allowed to accept an invitation to join a game on any of these maps. Even with the restrictions, it takes about 2 weeks to finish the first 5 games, which is not an unreasonable waiting period to be able to access all the site content.

Every video game player in the history of gaming is accustomed to unlocking aspects of the game that are either more difficult or provide a better gaming experience. You don’t like unlocking??? Try PONG or Atari’s COMBAT. Some of the maps are more difficult AND provide a better gaming experience for the challenge that they represent to the gamer.

If a video game required you to play only the first few levels for 6 months before players were able to unlock significant portions of the content it would never sell.

The carrot-on-a-stick is a well-known, widely-practiced functionality of pretty much every commodity. If you buy a pair of Lee Jeans, do you get to own a pair of every style of jean that Lee makes? If you buy a Ford F-150, do you get an F-250, F-250, E-350 Econoline Van and every other model that Ford makes for free? They are all fun cars and offer different functionality, yet, somehow, Ford is still able to sell one car to one person and the buyer doesn’t expect to get 45 other models for free.

Non sequitur. If Ford tried to sell an F-150 that wouldn't go in reverse until you had driven 1000 miles in it or that wouldn't go into high gear until you had 5000 miles on it, how many do you think they would sell?

When gamers play video games, they don’t expect to have every aspect of the game unlocked at the outset. That’s why there are hundreds of websites out there dedicated to passwords, cheat codes, and unlock codes that cater to the penchant of thrill seekers who are unwilling to take the 6-8 hours of gameplay that is required to unlock some of the cooler aspects of thousands of video games.

Exactly! Many people are unhappy having to play video games for just a few days before they're able to unlock certain content. How happy do you think those people would be if they have to wait a year to unlock content on this site?

The inspiration to stay comes from knowing that there are more interesting, more challenging maps out there that the player can attempt once they’ve passed a certain threshold.

Actually, the inspiration comes simply from knowing that there are more challenging maps still to win on. It is completely unnecessary (and is more likely counter productive) for those maps to be blocked from the player.

If a gamer arrived here and was presented with participation medals, better map information, and the challenge of unlocking the more challenging aspects of the site, I think they’re more apt to stay.

I agree on the first two. The last would only be true if the time required to unlock content was sufficiently small (I'd say it should be reasonably accomplished by most players in 1-2 months tops).

REMINDER: Visitors to the site CANNOT SEE the maps. Even registered members can only “see” all the available maps by clicking the “Browse Maps” button on the “Start a Game” page.

I think this is why we have so many registered players that don't stick around. They register for the site and look around at the content and perhaps don't find it so interesting after all. I've recruited a number of players from another gaming site I used to play at. Of the 7 people that have registered here based on my referral, only 3 have ever started a game, and 1 of those appears to have quit.