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

[Queen_Herpes]

I can't keep up with you...but I will try.

[Mr Changsha]

I think the assumption of CC having 200,000 + members but ony 20,000 currently playing being due to problems for new players getting going is a bit flawed. I would think a large bulk of that number are people who were never going to play this game anyway...they just signed up probably because they sign up for lots of stuff. The site is not at fault if it loses these people...it never had them.

What percentage of the 200,000+ never even complete one game? I'd suppose it would be a sizeable minority (at least). These people were never really interested in playing Risk on-line. Forget about them.

The second group not currently on the scoreboard would include serious enough players who are either retired, semi-retired or just taking a break. I would think this would be a reasonably large number too...10,000+ maybe? As was pointed out up-thread, these are the people CC needs to be focussing its efforts on...

I still believe that any player not focused enough to read through the forums a bit and learn would never make that much of a go at CC anyway. CC is not rocket science.

[AAFitz]

I think the assumption of CC having 200,000 + members but ony 20,000 currently playing being due to problems for new players getting going is a bit flawed. I would think a large bulk of that number are people who were never going to play this game anyway...they just signed up probably because they sign up for lots of stuff. The site is not at fault if it loses these people...it never had them.

...or any chance of keeping them in the first place. Exactly, and obviously. There is no point in trying to keep most that leave around. It just isnt a game for everyone. The focus can only be to retain the players that might have stayed, and realistically, letting them see all the options before leaving, is the best way to do that. Though in its current state, the maps really are so disorganized, it may actually be hard to see all the options, as chip v stated.

What percentage of the 200,000+ never even complete one game? I'd suppose it would be a sizeable minority (at least). These people were never really interested in playing Risk on-line. Forget about them.

More than that, the percent that were multis is probably staggering too, but yes, for the most part, most were not really ever in the target market.

The second group not currently on the scoreboard would include serious enough players who are either retired, semi-retired or just taking a break. I would think this would be a reasonably large number too...10,000+ maybe? As was pointed out up-thread, these are the people CC needs to be focussing its efforts on...

To some degree, but honestly, you can only improve it so much for players that leave. To some degree, there will always be burn out, and if say a player like myself was going to leave, Im not sure there would be anything CC could do to keep me here. Taking away maps surely wouldnt be on the list of things that would. That being said, when manual deployment came out, I had a renewed passion for the game, and ended up playing much more than planed. I do think there are the ones in the deciding stage early on that need to be the focus of any efforts. Those are the players that might have stayed had something been different, and possibly even just slightly different.

I still believe that any player not focused enough to read through the forums a bit and learn would never make that much of a go at CC anyway. CC is not rocket science.

Though perhaps the most dedicated do use the forums, many players almost never do, but still play passionately. I do believe that there are many who might not actually be here, except for the forums though, and more the community feeling associated with it.

The important point of all of this, is that locking maps only takes the risk of losing customers, while offering very little chance of retaining them. Perhaps it even could be a good option that would make the game fun, or even better in some way, or "fresh", but it seems to me it would be a change simply to make a change, and the benefits...if there really are any at all, could never outweigh the risk of actually losing players, because they never got a chance to try some of the maps that may have kept them around, had they had the option to do so.

Honestly, its impossible for me to imagine anyone who could think that the way to keep 200000 people from leaving a site with well over 100 maps, would be to offer them only a fraction of that number. If they left with access, certainly denying access isnt going to sway their decision. The only way it could is if they left because they lost too much, or were overwhelmed, which I agree is very possible, but also very fixable, by just organizing and labeling the types and difficulty of games and maps better, (or at all) while still allowing each player, the personal freedom to play the map and game type of their choice, without someone dictating that they are not ready for it, or need to earn it, for some arbitrary and subjective reason.

[AAFitz]

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.

First of all, I dont speak for everyone else. I speak for myself, and post my opinion, not to say I dont have a good feeling for other peoples opinions as well. And I have not been here forever. Ive been here for 3 years. Again, you listed your "credentials" at the end of this suggestion, including your BS in philosophy. Does this imply you can speak for everyone else?

Its not in progress in my opinion. Its basic premise, which you have repeatedly suggested of locking maps arbitrarily based on your idea of what players should be able to play is still the same, and in my opinion flawed at it most basic level, and in more importantly cant reasonably be expected to achieve the goals you are saying it will.

Using a negative fact, such as the fact that people leave CC does not justify every suggestion, especially one, which is far more likely to cost CC players, rather than keep them.

I could suggest turning the screen pink, and turning it upside down, because so many leave, but that doesnt mean my suggestion will in anyway address the problem, or that the numbers support action on my suggestion in any way, if my change, cant be expected to actually improve those numbers.

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

Im not avoiding it and that is not a Precedent, the numbers are so vastly different its histerical to even suggest it is. I even support blocking those maps, I even suggest blocking more of them, and protecting players for more than the 5 games. However comparing blocking a new recruit, who has never seen the site before, from some of the most difficult maps so they can get comfortable with some of the dynamics, in their first 5 games is in any way shape or form comparable to locking players from maps after they have played as many as 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and even 80 games as youve suggested. There simply is no similarity at that level. You're just trying to make a point by even mentioning it.

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

I am ignoring it because I see nothing wrong with it. Im simply disagreeing with the locking of the maps. Any training whatsoever, or medals and listing will obviously be a benefit unto themselves. It is the locking of maps which would be the greatest mistake, and the suggestion with the greatest impact, and in my opinion, the greatest potential to diminish CC. And while Im confident nothing of this caliber would ever be implemented, I think it would be so bad for CC, Im making sure that its obvious to everyone before even thinking about it. And as much time as Ive put into this, im not inclined to discuss a medal which would realistically just not matter in any significant way, so all things being equal, it might as well be there, except that too many medals, can cheapen the entire point of them in the first place.

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.

Again, its no where near the same logic as blocking a player for 5 games. To keep comparing it is really the illogical part. Comparing 5 games to 80 is just silly really. At this point, you should really be embarrassed for comparing your suggestion to the initial block.

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.

Your analogies are completely mistaken. In the case of Ford, no, you cant own every model when you choose one. BUT YOU CAN TEST DRIVE EVERY MODEL BEFORE BUYING THEM. And Im almost certain that if I go to a Chevy dealership and want to buy a Corvette, they wont make me drive a citation, then a cavalier, then an SUV, until they feel Im ready to try the Corvette. What youre suggesting is that I have to drive the focus for five days before buying the Mustang. Go pitch that to Ford if you like, but Im gonna guess you get the same result there.

Again you compare the cheatcodes of other games to CC, and again you miss the difference. They are NOT the same, and people have already bought those games, and typically, have purchased them, after a massive marketing campaign, so they ALREADY know about the games features. But more importantly, the freemium is a SAMPLE OF CC. But you are suggesting making the sample smaller, and somehow expecting that to attract more players. I fully understand the faulty comparisons you have been making along the way, but it still is wrong. The people are not leaving because they have all the options too early, and the objective has been achieved as it is on those other games. WITH CC THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE. Its a collection of objectives, and a collection of maps, and to give a sample to keep people here, you have to actually give them the sample.

Locking them out, only wastes valuable time in the decision process, without possibly hooking them with some of the other maps. New players are already blocked and limited. They can only play 4 games at a time. Luckilly, they can try the variety of the maps, many which are in your upper tier, which brings an element to the game that most maps in the lower tiers do not even address. Luckilly, we still have players, because they did try out those other maps early, and stayed around to play them exclusively, and were not stopped from trying them for 80 games or so, in which time it is nearly certain that many would have left after having to wait to try them out, before committing any more time to the site. I understand why you think this would help, and why you are wrongly comparing it to other games, but also know you are missing the forest for the trees, and are just looking to copy something that may or may not work, on a different type of game, and really just for the sake of doing it at all I think.

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.

Yeah, grand strategy locks some stuff too. I left. And again, you are comparing first person shooter games to CC. Not to say there is no comparison. Further, players can only join 4 games at a time. That is blocking them. To try all the maps theyd have to play 100 games anyways. However, making them play 40 games before trying some of the other maps isnt going to make them like the other maps more, and more importantly, if they do try the other map, and decide they still dont like it...than locking them in the first place has had no gain. Further, just because another website and game locks stuff, does not mean they should.

The idea is to actually attract players and get them playing. Offering just the basics, and just 4 games, and not being able to make private games, and no speed games....is simply insane. It risks not attracting so many players, on the false hope that they will somehow come to play the game more, if given less options. It is far better to give them the options...and them let them decide...as your Ford example showed perfectly. Test drive them all you want before buying. If you dont like them, you arent going to buy it anyways.

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.

Because you never once answer it. And there is always a threshold. The player can already only play 4 games at a time. Id say that's sufficient unlocking available. I just feel the actual player should have the option to decide what that threshold is. Not you.

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.

Obviously you really only want this suggestion to go through. Certainly you arent putting all this work hoping you can get another player to play because youre bored? I mean, it would be easier to just email people, or perhaps pm any of the 20000 players that are available. But if the 20,000 players here you keep mentioning arent enough for you, perhaps you want more even still... well, I know how we can make you stay then... Perhaps we should block you from 18000 players on your first 1000 games, block you from 150000 players on your next 1000, 12000 on your next 1000. Now youll get to just play 1000 games and open up all those other players to play. Surely having them all to play now must not be as fun...oh wait, you just said you wanted more players to play. Hmm...maybe we should keep the options open and let you decide who to play after all.

I agree, participation medals, however silly...may help. Better map info and organizagion is absolutely needed. And I agree that challenges need to be there, including the option to play some of the trickier maps...most of which aren't all that much trickier...and letting players decide which ones might appeal to them

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

This has nothing to do with locking maps for players that are registered after playing a certain amount of games. I completely agree that more information is good and more opportunities to see the maps and play them is good, which is why I disagree with locking the maps. As far as letting Visitors see them, by all means, and if they join, let them try which ever one they think would be fun.

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.

Actually I joined at the end of 2006. At that time they also didnt lock me out of the other maps, so theres no saying Id have stuck around had they done that as you suggest. Certainly, it wasnt having less options that made me stick around. I think its actually very likely that by locking them, people will leave. Luckily, when I got here, every option was made available, so I could try it out fully. I decided to buy the same day I got here though, because it was exactly what I was looking for, so this suggestion would only have been annoying to me if I wanted to try out some of the maps and make a decision before committing more time to it. And dont worry, the reason Im putting so much time into this, is indeed to make sure CC doesn't lose customers.

But why is it that you stayed, even while you were able to play any map you wanted, and try out every setting, and really, would it have been more fun having to play the maps someone else chose for you? Further, by doing so, you actually limit yourself because now all those new players, WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PLAY ON THOSE MAPS. Youd actually end up playing less people, not more, especially if they left before trying some of the more fun maps which you want to block them from for 50 games or more. By then, they have left the building, and you lost any chance of ever getting them back.

[Mr Changsha]

I think the assumption of CC having 200,000 + members but ony 20,000 currently playing being due to problems for new players getting going is a bit flawed. I would think a large bulk of that number are people who were never going to play this game anyway...they just signed up probably because they sign up for lots of stuff. The site is not at fault if it loses these people...it never had them.

...or any chance of keeping them in the first place. Exactly, and obviously. There is no point in trying to keep most that leave around. It just isnt a game for everyone. The focus can only be to retain the players that might have stayed, and realistically, letting them see all the options before leaving, is the best way to do that. Though in its current state, the maps really are so disorganized, it may actually be hard to see all the options, as chip v stated.

What percentage of the 200,000+ never even complete one game? I'd suppose it would be a sizeable minority (at least). These people were never really interested in playing Risk on-line. Forget about them.

More than that, the percent that were multis is probably staggering too, but yes, for the most part, most were not really ever in the target market.

The second group not currently on the scoreboard would include serious enough players who are either retired, semi-retired or just taking a break. I would think this would be a reasonably large number too...10,000+ maybe? As was pointed out up-thread, these are the people CC needs to be focussing its efforts on...

To some degree, but honestly, you can only improve it so much for players that leave. To some degree, there will always be burn out, and if say a player like myself was going to leave, Im not sure there would be anything CC could do to keep me here. Taking away maps surely wouldnt be on the list of things that would. That being said, when manual deployment came out, I had a renewed passion for the game, and ended up playing much more than planed. I do think there are the ones in the deciding stage early on that need to be the focus of any efforts. Those are the players that might have stayed had something been different, and possibly even just slightly different.

I still believe that any player not focused enough to read through the forums a bit and learn would never make that much of a go at CC anyway. CC is not rocket science.

Though perhaps the most dedicated do use the forums, many players almost never do, but still play passionately. I do believe that there are many who might not actually be here, except for the forums though, and more the community feeling associated with it.

The important point of all of this, is that locking maps only takes the risk of losing customers, while offering very little chance of retaining them. Perhaps it even could be a good option that would make the game fun, or even better in some way, or "fresh", but it seems to me it would be a change simply to make a change, and the benefits...if there really are any at all, could never outweigh the risk of actually losing players, because they never got a chance to try some of the maps that may have kept them around, had they had the option to do so.

Honestly, its impossible for me to imagine anyone who could think that the way to keep 200000 people from leaving a site with well over 100 maps, would be to offer them only a fraction of that number. If they left with access, certainly denying access isnt going to sway their decision. The only way it could is if they left because they lost too much, or were overwhelmed, which I agree is very possible, but also very fixable, by just organizing and labeling the types and difficulty of games and maps better, (or at all) while still allowing each player, the personal freedom to play the map and game type of their choice, without someone dictating that they are not ready for it, or need to earn it, for some arbitrary and subjective reason.

Actually, I am toying with taking a full break from CC. I might be one of those lost players soon enough. The reason? I find the forum environment is not suitable for my brand of humour anymore and have thus lost the joy of writing here; I can't think really what I can be bothered to achieve score-wise these days (and yes I am one of those who gains enjoyment from such a shallow, superficial thing as rank), I have little to no interest in branching out into different styles and I kind of feel I made my mark here, in my own small way and so think...."now what?"

[AAFitz]

I think the assumption of CC having 200,000 + members but ony 20,000 currently playing being due to problems for new players getting going is a bit flawed. I would think a large bulk of that number are people who were never going to play this game anyway...they just signed up probably because they sign up for lots of stuff. The site is not at fault if it loses these people...it never had them.

...or any chance of keeping them in the first place. Exactly, and obviously. There is no point in trying to keep most that leave around. It just isnt a game for everyone. The focus can only be to retain the players that might have stayed, and realistically, letting them see all the options before leaving, is the best way to do that. Though in its current state, the maps really are so disorganized, it may actually be hard to see all the options, as chip v stated.

What percentage of the 200,000+ never even complete one game? I'd suppose it would be a sizeable minority (at least). These people were never really interested in playing Risk on-line. Forget about them.

More than that, the percent that were multis is probably staggering too, but yes, for the most part, most were not really ever in the target market.

The second group not currently on the scoreboard would include serious enough players who are either retired, semi-retired or just taking a break. I would think this would be a reasonably large number too...10,000+ maybe? As was pointed out up-thread, these are the people CC needs to be focussing its efforts on...

To some degree, but honestly, you can only improve it so much for players that leave. To some degree, there will always be burn out, and if say a player like myself was going to leave, Im not sure there would be anything CC could do to keep me here. Taking away maps surely wouldnt be on the list of things that would. That being said, when manual deployment came out, I had a renewed passion for the game, and ended up playing much more than planed. I do think there are the ones in the deciding stage early on that need to be the focus of any efforts. Those are the players that might have stayed had something been different, and possibly even just slightly different.

I still believe that any player not focused enough to read through the forums a bit and learn would never make that much of a go at CC anyway. CC is not rocket science.

Though perhaps the most dedicated do use the forums, many players almost never do, but still play passionately. I do believe that there are many who might not actually be here, except for the forums though, and more the community feeling associated with it.

The important point of all of this, is that locking maps only takes the risk of losing customers, while offering very little chance of retaining them. Perhaps it even could be a good option that would make the game fun, or even better in some way, or "fresh", but it seems to me it would be a change simply to make a change, and the benefits...if there really are any at all, could never outweigh the risk of actually losing players, because they never got a chance to try some of the maps that may have kept them around, had they had the option to do so.

Honestly, its impossible for me to imagine anyone who could think that the way to keep 200000 people from leaving a site with well over 100 maps, would be to offer them only a fraction of that number. If they left with access, certainly denying access isnt going to sway their decision. The only way it could is if they left because they lost too much, or were overwhelmed, which I agree is very possible, but also very fixable, by just organizing and labeling the types and difficulty of games and maps better, (or at all) while still allowing each player, the personal freedom to play the map and game type of their choice, without someone dictating that they are not ready for it, or need to earn it, for some arbitrary and subjective reason.

Actually, I am toying with taking a full break from CC. I might be one of those lost players soon enough. The reason? I find the forum environment is not suitable for my brand of humour anymore and have thus lost the joy of writing here; I can't think really what I can be bothered to achieve score-wise these days (and yes I am one of those who gains enjoyment from such a shallow, superficial thing as rank), I have little to no interest in branching out into different styles and I kind of feel I made my mark here, in my own small way and so think...."now what?"

I think your humor or humour is more appreciated than you think, and you've done a fine job of continuing it, albeit a few more restrictions...as have we all. As far as branching out...that is really kind of the best part about CC. There always is an area to branch out into. I myself have tried most of them, and usually ignored the scoring as I have done so.

As far as the possible "now what?"...perhaps just use CC less, and add to the conversation when you want. Though cold turkey is the easiest way to drop a site like this...it isn't completely necessary. All of us go through periods of differing commitment levels, and while I agree...you going to top your score may be somewhat silly...it doesn't mean that you cant still have fun, if less often.

It does illustrate however, how CC does hold something different for every player. All seem to find their own personal niche that seems to keep them happy, whether it be a setting, or map or any combination of those, and that is why I think it would be dangerous to decide for players, in the early days of their decision to stay, which of those they get to try, based on what really is an arbitrary, and subjective description of difficulty. Really, this suggestion in the end simply comes down to locking them, for the sake of locking them.

For whatever reason, everyone seems to enjoy a part of the game, or many parts of the game more than others. It think its silly for anyone else to decide which of those they can play.

[Queen_Herpes]

Is it among your goals to provide my suggestion with more attention? I can't understand why you are quoting lines and lines and lines of statements (and in some cases mis-quoting me when the author was someone else.) Is it because you want to fill this suggestion with more pages of material?

You , AAFitz, keep saying the same thing over and over again. STOP. There are people in this thread who are making suggestions to alter my suggestions, and I can only say that I will give them their due attention.

You have a personal vendetta against this suggestion which is bordering on the obsessed and you have refused to take this to PM where it belongs. Please, take your personal attacks to PM.

[nippersean]

Queen Herpes,

AAFitz does not have a personal vendetta against your suggestion.
He is not saying the same thing over and over again. That is you!

Please leave it now, your suggestion is just not very good. For all the reasons mentioned.

I could add, like this is the best site (by a country mile) because of the choices, maps etc., possibly has the most retention record (who knows)

I could add that in my first 8 games I won all 4 that were in the fog, the only one I lost would have been the one I was allowed to play under your regime..

All people aren't the same as you. They don't take 7,000 games to enjoy the site + learn - you have been told this 20 times now.

Just drop it. You'll wear yourself out flogging this dead horse.

You have 1 good point. There should be some more instruction to new players.
I doubt they leave due to freedom of choice, but ChipV's guide (stickied somewhere more accesible, a possible "degree of difficulty" guide, may be helpful. When I started I used t-o-m's sticky in strategy forum, then picked all the complicated ones as I new they'd give me (personally) the most chance.

The whole basis of your argument / incessive postings is based on falsehoods. Mostly, "everyone is the same is me." and "There's something wrong with CC"

I suggest you drop this now. Perhaps you can set up a rival site and show Lack where where he screwed up.

Quick joke to lighten my comments,

Medussa goes into shrink:

Medussa: I've got a problem, I'm into necrophilia, bestiality, and flaggelation.
Shrink: You're flogging a dead horse there mate..

[shanksdigs]

Queen_Herpes

Keep up the effort. There are others who agree with you.

It is nice to see that the site allows you and everyone else who is a member to provide suggestions which are truly suggestions and not something that the site is just going to add because you said it.

I like the part about a participation medal and think you should pursue that part more than anything. If keeping the interest of the members and keeping the players around and "retaining" members is what you are looking to accomplish, the best bet is with little things that tell players they are wanted. Unlocking maps has its upsides and downsides and members are polarized in one direction or the other on that topic.

Maybe you should add a poll?

[Queen_Herpes]

Queen_Herpes

Keep up the effort. There are others who agree with you.

It is nice to see that the site allows you and everyone else who is a member to provide suggestions which are truly suggestions and not something that the site is just going to add because you said it.

I like the part about a participation medal and think you should pursue that part more than anything. If keeping the interest of the members and keeping the players around and "retaining" members is what you are looking to accomplish, the best bet is with little things that tell players they are wanted. Unlocking maps has its upsides and downsides and members are polarized in one direction or the other on that topic.

Maybe you should add a poll?

Thank you. You mean well. However, by appearances there are some people on here who view me as a pariah of sorts. Those players are affecting my enjoyment of the site as they have been tearing into me on this thread. They mask their personal attacks as jokes and such and I feel bullied. I might continue, I might not. I might just quit entirely. We'll see.

[shanksdigs]

Queen_Herpes

Keep up the effort. There are others who agree with you.

It is nice to see that the site allows you and everyone else who is a member to provide suggestions which are truly suggestions and not something that the site is just going to add because you said it.

I like the part about a participation medal and think you should pursue that part more than anything. If keeping the interest of the members and keeping the players around and "retaining" members is what you are looking to accomplish, the best bet is with little things that tell players they are wanted. Unlocking maps has its upsides and downsides and members are polarized in one direction or the other on that topic.

Maybe you should add a poll?

Thank you. You mean well. However, by appearances there are some people on here who view me as a pariah of sorts. Those players are affecting my enjoyment of the site as they have been tearing into me on this thread. They mask their personal attacks as jokes and such and I feel bullied. I might continue, I might not. I might just quit entirely. We'll see.

ADD A POLL!

[AAFitz]

Is it among your goals to provide my suggestion with more attention? I can't understand why you are quoting lines and lines and lines of statements (and in some cases mis-quoting me when the author was someone else.) Is it because you want to fill this suggestion with more pages of material?

You , AAFitz, keep saying the same thing over and over again. STOP. There are people in this thread who are making suggestions to alter my suggestions, and I can only say that I will give them their due attention.

You have a personal vendetta against this suggestion which is bordering on the obsessed and you have refused to take this to PM where it belongs. Please, take your personal attacks to PM.

You Queen Herpes, have made the same suggestion in at least two threads, and possibly three. Further, by making a suggestion, you are asking for input. You are welcome to ignore every word I write, and disagree with every point, however valid and coherent I try to present them, and completely ignore that while you are trying to make CC better in your way, I am trying to protect CC from what I think would be the biggest mistake it could possibly make.

I have no personal attacks of you. Ive posted this many times. I think its great that you want to improve CC. Its great that you took the time. I however think you are ignoring what could be massive ramifications of implementing a suggestion such as this, and am spending as much time as I see fit, to make sure others consider everything about it that I have.

Im sorry if you think its a personal attack that I disagree with you, but it is not. But please, quote my personal attacks of you. I think you even accused me of flaming you at one point and were going to report me. Again, please show me these attacks.

You made a massive post, complete with credentials and references and other posts of why YOU think it should be implemented, and post the same thing repeatedly yourself, but when I comment on the suggestion, which will affect myself, and the game I play, you tell me to STOP? Im sorry, but that is not how suggestions work. People are allowed to post why they disagree, and when it is a large scale suggestion, and one with large scale consequences, and one that I personally feel ignores the actual community spirit, and basic ideology of CC's open gaming, and offering as much game for its buck...or even for free...over and above what any two gaming sites offer combined, then youll either have to ignore those comments, or address them in full. Obviously, you were hoping that everyone would just say, yes, lets lock out all the new players right now, because Queen Herpes does not think they are ready, that they might stay with less choices, and because other games do it, so CC should too...but that is not the case, and never will be the case.

You are free to suggest whatever kind of suggestion you want. I encourage it. If its a good one, Ill support it. If however, its one that I think would be detrimental to CC, I will have no problem posting that.

By all means however, pm me with quotes of the "personal attacks" Here, or by PM. No doubt I take this serious, because of the overwhelming affect on CC that such a suggestion would make, but "personal attacks"... telling me to STOP, posting AAFitz: Fail... and saying I only am here to personally attack you, and am simply repeating the same content over and over, in the identical suggestions you keep making, is as personal an attack as anything Ive posted.

Once again, correct me where my logic fails here. I strongly disagree with you. I suspect alterior motives and some kind of odd agenda on your part, and think you are ignoring the actual impact of this suggestion, as you push forward and ignore any posters who disagree. That is not a personal attack. It is my opinion of the situation, and is based only on what youve posted, and directly critical to any analysis of the suggestion itself. It also honestly highlights why I might strongly disagree.

Now Im sure you dont enjoy reading such an opinion. But it is not a personal attack. Its speculation, and speculation aimed at getting others to take a real look at this suggestion, which warrants some real though, and logical though to realize it will not achieve its objective, and is possibly just being continued, simply to be continued. That is not a reason to accept a suggestion. A suggestion needs to be accepted because it is a good one, and not one that does harm, or has the potential to do more harm than good, as I and many, feel this one does.

It is clear you want this to go through. And it is clear you do not appreciate those who do not want it to go through. But it is an open forum, the point is to discuss the suggestion. You are as I said, free to ignore my opinion, but not free to tell me to STOP offering it, any more than I am free to tell you to STOP pushing your ideas.

[AAFitz]

Queen_Herpes

Keep up the effort. There are others who agree with you.

It is nice to see that the site allows you and everyone else who is a member to provide suggestions which are truly suggestions and not something that the site is just going to add because you said it.

I like the part about a participation medal and think you should pursue that part more than anything. If keeping the interest of the members and keeping the players around and "retaining" members is what you are looking to accomplish, the best bet is with little things that tell players they are wanted. Unlocking maps has its upsides and downsides and members are polarized in one direction or the other on that topic.

Maybe you should add a poll?

Thank you. You mean well. However, by appearances there are some people on here who view me as a pariah of sorts. Those players are affecting my enjoyment of the site as they have been tearing into me on this thread. They mask their personal attacks as jokes and such and I feel bullied. I might continue, I might not. I might just quit entirely. We'll see.

You are not being bullied. You made a very large suggestion. Had it been one I agreed with, and many parts of it I do...and hope to see implemented, I would post as much. You made your original post, and politely we mentioned that lack really likes to keep CC open and as fun as he can. Its the reason we all have stayed and played as much as we do. You took offense to this, which was expressly explained to save you some time on a suggestion that probably didnt fit the very core of CC ideals.

So you went and prepared a thesis, and tried to essentially argue that the suggestion had to be implemented, but still many disagree, and it still goes against the ideals of CC, and for me, one of the most important reasons, why I will devotes some time to doing my part to make it better. And simply because we disagree, with your suggestion again, you somehow feel bullied? You are not being bullied. No one is saying stop suggesting things. Our posts are meant to keep the ones we disagree with being implemented, and I for one, did not want anyone to be confused by the perponderance and size of the post, by its basic flaws in reasoning, and be mistaken for something that it is not. Further, I only offer my opinion. Like your suggestion, people will make up their own minds, and I certainly do not want to do that for them. I do however, want to point out the various aspects that they may have overlooked, and may not have thought of, and may not have analyzed as I have.

That's the process. When you make a suggestion, you are asking for people to comment, asking for differing opinions, and asking for other points of view. If you arent, then you are not making a suggestion, you are making a demand, which is totally acceptable, if you have the power to make such demands. Luckilly, even lack himself typically gets input before making such changes...not all agree, but he actually listens to them, which as you did point out, makes CC great. If you feel you have to leave, because you could not get this one suggestion passed, than by all means do what makes you happy. I myself am glad I didnt leave, after the many criticisms of the various suggestions I have made. For me, I just want whats best for CC, and respect the opinions of others who actually have played the game along side me, in some cases, for years.

[mpjh]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

[AAFitz]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

There is no evidence, and one would have to do a survey to find out.

However, reasons for leaving can be reasonably assumed. As Mr. Chanagra pointed out, as others have: this game isnt for everyone, so there is no way to keep everyone here.

Some may very well have gotten frustrated by getting killed easily by a high ranker. The thing is, anyone that joins a game that theyve never played, and joins against someone who has played for years and with thousands of games of experience, and doesnt expect to get killed, might actually lack the skills to play the game and have fun with it anyways. That isnt to say, the game shouldnt be easier for them to understand, which games will present the most challenge, which I think it should.

Also as mentioned by many, one of the main reasons a freemium probably leaves, is the lack of a really integrated real-time system for them. They join when their bored, stumble on the game site somewhere, join, and expect to play. Unfortunately, unless they join a 1v1, there is hardly any chance of that happening, and unless they join the right 1v1, there is also a great chance the 1v1 wont be real time. This is probably the number one reason why a player that may have stayed longer probably left. Any real efforts to customer retention would need to be put in this area.

The forum, certainly will contribute to players staying too, and possibly make some leave, but the game play doesnt really affect the forum too much, so its not worth considering.

What is unlikely, is that players have showed up, had an option to play all the maps, and then leave because they have that option. It certainly doesn't make sense, that if they left after having the option to try all those maps, that they would somehow want to stay more, by being forced to play more games, in order to be able to try all those maps, and then after going through all that trouble, would somehow like the site more. The people who left, had everything that is being suggested being locked. They left anyways. If they had less options in the first place, and it still takes at least as many games to try out the same number of maps, so they are already locked to some degree, how is telling them which ones to try first better?

It just isn't. Let new players decide for themselves. Give them new information about the difficulty levels....and basic easy to read information, because no one coming to a new game is really interested in the directions.....they just want to play. The key is making sure they can play, and I think perhaps one speed game upon arrival, or at some interval would be helpful, but that is obviously contingent upon site resources, so it may just be impossible. It would also create a rather large plantation for farming, the likes of which CC has never seen.

What is interesting, is that after less than a year, Queen Herpes is now considering leaving, essentially only because many people disagree with one suggestion, and really only one part of that suggestion, but have taken the time to explain specifically why in great detail out of respect for the time she put into it. However, anyone who leaves after 80 games is irrelevant to the discussion, because by then all maps would have been locked anyways. Its only the players that leave in the beginning, the ones that have potential of staying if something was just a little different that are important, and I think giving those players every chance to see what the site has to offer, on their schedule, is the best way to go about achieving that objective.

[Evil Semp]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

During a framing complaint I had checked on the ?'s who joined the games. There were 43 ?'s that I looked at and just under 50% never came back to the site after their first visit.

[Queen_Herpes]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

During a framing complaint I had checked on the ?'s who joined the games. There were 43 ?'s that I looked at and just under 50% never came back to the site after their first visit.

"Framing" isn't allowed?

[Bruceswar]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

During a framing complaint I had checked on the ?'s who joined the games. There were 43 ?'s that I looked at and just under 50% never came back to the site after their first visit.

"Framing" isn't allowed?

That is why he had to look into it. He is a C&A Mod. It is not allowed and it was reported as such.

[AAFitz]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

During a framing complaint I had checked on the ?'s who joined the games. There were 43 ?'s that I looked at and just under 50% never came back to the site after their first visit.

"Framing" isn't allowed?

No, farming (of new recruits...under some circumstances)is not...typically allowed... but typos are.

[zimmah]

i like the idea of a tutorial program, and as well do i like the idea of introducing them to the site step-by-step.

this needs some work tho.

btw http://chipv.freehostia.com/ for the closest thing there is to a list of maps.

[Evil Semp]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

During a framing complaint I had checked on the ?'s who joined the games. There were 43 ?'s that I looked at and just under 50% never came back to the site after their first visit.

"Framing" isn't allowed?

I think you understood what I meant. Can you add any evidence as to why players are leaving?

[zimmah]

I still see absolutely no evidence concerning why they left, or is this just an "assume whatever facts you want" thread?

During a framing complaint I had checked on the ?'s who joined the games. There were 43 ?'s that I looked at and just under 50% never came back to the site after their first visit.

"Framing" isn't allowed?

I think you understood what I meant. Can you add any evidence as to why players are leaving?

taken from another website:

Plus I've just joined Conquer Club. The maps are pretty good, especially the "Battle for Iraq!" map - the different mechanics of Cities and Provinces inspirational. It gives me an idea to make my own map and employ some of my variation mechanics - but I don't know xml, and I don't have photoshop on this computer
At best I can draw and scan, but I could use some help if someone would lend it...

6 days later:

It take it back - conquer club will accuse you of nothing and will ban at a pin's drop with absolutely no reason. Some people are just too abusive of their authority.

i looked up on that specific user and game he was talking about, and i found out the reason for his ban (and leave) that he was unaware of how this site/game settings worked, therefore got a ban, and therefore left in anger, leaving negative comments about conquerclub, while less then a week ago he was freely advertising CC as being an awesome website.

(here's the game Game 3289364)

the main reason new players leave this site is:

• Lack of help
• Lack of improvements/too slow rate of improvements
• Making too much errors in banning people
• all of those things and other little things that make it look like you don't care for your customers

it's not that hard to figure out, the truth is all over this place, and even beyond this place.

at least act like you care for your customers, improve this site without relying too much on user-based updates (ok, userbased maps are cool, but really, lots of the good thngs are still userbased scripts, that should allready be build into this website years ago)

if you want to keep your customers happy, and make new players happy, and make people actually spread POSITIVE comments on conquerclub (note that this form of advertisement is the best advertisement, and it's free too!) then the following 'suggestions' are next to mandatory:

• A good guide to new players (like the one described here)
• Faster rate of updates, try to implement some scripts like BoB and make them useable on all platforms
• At least listen when someone comes up with good ideas to improve the website, and if it's not possible to implement anything, come up with good arguements, instead of just telling it can't or won't be done

i mean, it's your choice, but we all want what's best for CC, don't we?


oh, and above example is just one of many examples that can be found easily if you just open your eyes for the truth.

[Doc_Brown]

Actually, the user in question was busted for being a multi:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=63487&p=1601385&hilit=Wyvern#p1601385

I agree with your main point, that the best way to retain new people is to provide them with plenty of instruction and help. Perhaps new players could be immediately pointed to the Society of Cooks, or maybe it would be worthwhile to set up a group of newbie mentors of sorts - people that would be willing to guide newbies around the site, answer questions, and maybe play a couple of different types of games with the new players or at least point the new players to a couple of different games and help them through those games until they feel like they at least know how to get around this site.

It might even be worth considering setting up an area with teaching games specifically targeted for new players. Use a variety of different maps and settings to hold their interest. Maybe it would only be accessible by new players and by specifically approved people that have a reputation for being friendly and helpful in games.

Anyway, I think you're right overall, though this particular guy appears to be someone that wasn't worth keeping around. Based on the way he talked in game chat, it's possible that Fractal was his brother or something, but it's definitely a lot more than him being confused about the site.

[Doc_Brown]

One more thought for QH: I think the general feeling from most of us is that it's great that you've put a lot of thought into this concept, and it's certainly a worthwhile goal. But I think we would all jump on board if the solution was something that gave new players more tools and the freedom to learn and enjoy the site on their own without being confined to a preset path. We all learn in different ways, we all come to this site with widely varying skill levels, and we all find different aspects of the site most enjoyable. If you can figure out a way to provide the training and encouragement you're targeting without imposing actual restrictions, I think you'd have a winner.

[ronsizzle]

i now think aafitz and queen herpes are multis!

either that, or they are made for each other. i am not sure which one is more long winded....