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

[Evil Semp]

Hi Everyone,

I'm a Freemium NR and I am attracted to the sheer variety of maps on offer here. I look forward to playing a few casual games and gaining full access to this site. Please do not restrict my options. I hate unlockables as I'm a rather busy guy. Unlockables have thier place in video games (gotta keep the kids hooked) but being a working adult, I've always wished for a way to access ALL of the content that I paid for in a game without jumping through hoops or reaching for some "carrot on a stick". Sides, this is no video game as far as I'm concerned, it's RISK on steroids which I thinks is great.

Right now, I'm happy playing only a couple of casual 24hr games at once and I fear that if this idea became reality, I'd never get to see the content I want to see at the pace I'm going. Education is the answer here not restriction.

I suspect that would be the sentiment of EVERY new player coming to the site. I for one expect you will be allowed to try the site out as you please. I will certainly never stop trying to protect this right, for you, others like you, and CC in general. I feel at this point its obvious that this suggestion will serve no one on CC in any meaningful way, and will much more likely cost potential customers, rather than attract them with this....less is more, approach.

I think if you ask any new player if they would like to try difficult maps...or need to play some that others consider less difficult first, nearly every one would say yes. None would say, no...please dont let me try those maps. What is needed, is information about them, so you can join, fully educated, that this map, and these settings are advanced, and while you are welcome to give them a try, you should at least be prepared.

Also, since some come fully capable of learning these maps after a game or two on them...its just pointless to make them play maps they might not enjoy, simply because someone else considers them more or less difficult.

This suggestion will not serve you, and wont serve any like you. The stated goals are completely achievable with simple labeling, and I think that that has been established quite clearly at this point...especially from input of new players like yourself...or any that remember what they did when they first got here....

I myself had played risk for years....but I wanted to try the new maps...the new settings, the new options... I very may well have left if I was stuck playing a map that I already understood quite well. But thats just me. Perhaps not everyone wants to have freedom to decide what they'd like to try, what they enjoy playing, or deciding when they are ready...however...I suspect most would like that freedom. I am thankful that the owner of this site, has proven that this very freedom is the basis for nearly ever decision CC has ever made. Its why so many work hard to protect these freedoms.

Nice plant. This thread was efffectively dead until a player than joined a few days before found it on PAGE 3 of the sugs and bugs page.

Lack already locks players out of certain maps. Precedent. The plant has joined a luxembourg and canada game. More an example of self-regulating than anything else.

You say you want to make it better for new players and you accuse one of being a plant. But speaking of plants can you explain how these posts would not be considered a plant by you? These are earlier post in this thread.

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

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?

Someone disagrees with you and you have accused them personal attacks, flaming and baiting and now you accuse them of planting someone to disagree with you. Why would someone "plant" someone to bump a thread that could be considered dead?

Everybody has a right to post here even if they disagree. There have been some very good questions that never got answers.

[Doc_Brown]

Someone disagrees with you and you have accused them personal attacks, flaming and baiting and now you accuse them of planting someone to disagree with you. Why would someone "plant" someone to bump a thread that could be considered dead?

Everybody has a right to post here even if they disagree. There have been some very good questions that never got answers.

That's actually been one of my biggest frustrations with this whole discussion. In the original thread, I and another new recruit (I think I was either a new recruit or had just made PFC at the time) posted our objections to the idea of being restricted to the classic maps. QH responded by foe-ing me (she has since un-foed me) and grilling the other guy about his map preferences (with the insinuation being that he was either a multi or didn't really know what he was talking about). My point all along has been that the people this suggestion most directly affects are the newest players, and their feedback should carry a great deal of weight on it. I get the feeling that the people that favor this suggestion are not the ones thinking, "This is a great idea. I wish I didn't have to sort through so many options when I first joined and had just been limited to a few maps and game settings!" It's instead people thinking, "This is a great idea. It would mean that I will never end up getting stuck having to play against noobs anymore!" I may be off base on that, but I strongly suspect it is the case.

[Queen_Herpes]

Hi Everyone,

I'm a Freemium NR and I am attracted to the sheer variety of maps on offer here. I look forward to playing a few casual games and gaining full access to this site. Please do not restrict my options. I hate unlockables as I'm a rather busy guy. Unlockables have thier place in video games (gotta keep the kids hooked) but being a working adult, I've always wished for a way to access ALL of the content that I paid for in a game without jumping through hoops or reaching for some "carrot on a stick". Sides, this is no video game as far as I'm concerned, it's RISK on steroids which I thinks is great.

Right now, I'm happy playing only a couple of casual 24hr games at once and I fear that if this idea became reality, I'd never get to see the content I want to see at the pace I'm going. Education is the answer here not restriction.

I suspect that would be the sentiment of EVERY new player coming to the site. I for one expect you will be allowed to try the site out as you please. I will certainly never stop trying to protect this right, for you, others like you, and CC in general. I feel at this point its obvious that this suggestion will serve no one on CC in any meaningful way, and will much more likely cost potential customers, rather than attract them with this....less is more, approach.

I think if you ask any new player if they would like to try difficult maps...or need to play some that others consider less difficult first, nearly every one would say yes. None would say, no...please dont let me try those maps. What is needed, is information about them, so you can join, fully educated, that this map, and these settings are advanced, and while you are welcome to give them a try, you should at least be prepared.

Also, since some come fully capable of learning these maps after a game or two on them...its just pointless to make them play maps they might not enjoy, simply because someone else considers them more or less difficult.

This suggestion will not serve you, and wont serve any like you. The stated goals are completely achievable with simple labeling, and I think that that has been established quite clearly at this point...especially from input of new players like yourself...or any that remember what they did when they first got here....

I myself had played risk for years....but I wanted to try the new maps...the new settings, the new options... I very may well have left if I was stuck playing a map that I already understood quite well. But thats just me. Perhaps not everyone wants to have freedom to decide what they'd like to try, what they enjoy playing, or deciding when they are ready...however...I suspect most would like that freedom. I am thankful that the owner of this site, has proven that this very freedom is the basis for nearly ever decision CC has ever made. Its why so many work hard to protect these freedoms.

Nice plant. This thread was efffectively dead until a player than joined a few days before found it on PAGE 3 of the sugs and bugs page.

Lack already locks players out of certain maps. Precedent. The plant has joined a luxembourg and canada game. More an example of self-regulating than anything else.

You say you want to make it better for new players and you accuse one of being a plant. But speaking of plants can you explain how these posts would not be considered a plant by you? These are earlier post in this thread.

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

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?

Someone disagrees with you and you have accused them personal attacks, flaming and baiting and now you accuse them of planting someone to disagree with you. Why would someone "plant" someone to bump a thread that could be considered dead?

Everybody has a right to post here even if they disagree. There have been some very good questions that never got answers.

It is completely legitimate to assume the post was from a plant. It is highly unlikely that a brand new player found his/her way to page three of sugs and bugs within his/her first week of membership. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. As far as the flaiming and baiting with the other member goes, I am completely justified in recognizing the flaiming and baiting. If I had time in my life, I would get to these comments much faster and put together reasonable responses. But you, a moderator, and two other members who post broad comments and multiple comments per day somehow assume I have plenty of time to commit to the responses such that I some how haven't answered your questions. The reason I haven't answered them? No time. I did respond to part of Doc_Brown's questionaire and it took me forever to get it all written down. So, take a chill pill, and realize that there is a world outside of conquerclub.

[Evil Semp]

It is completely legitimate to assume the post was from a plant. It is highly unlikely that a brand new player found his/her way to page three of sugs and bugs within his/her first week of membership.

Just as it is completely legitimate to assume any post supporting you would be plants.

I didn't need anyone to show me where the forums were when I first joined. My first post was four days after I joined. Your first post was less than a week after you joined. Why should you think other new players can't navigate around CC when you were able to?

If I had time in my life, I would get to these comments much faster and put together reasonable responses. But you, a moderator, and two other members who post broad comments and multiple comments per day somehow assume I have plenty of time to commit to the responses such that I some how haven't answered your questions.

You average post count 1.4 per day, my average post count 1.49 post per day. I don't assume you have any amount of time available.

So, take a chill pill, and realize that there is a world outside of conquerclub.

A world outside of CC!!! Blasphemy!!!

[PaulGT]

Must admint I didn't have time to read your post fully or the numerous replies. Just to say I agree whole heartedly with the principal that new recruits should be fed in gently to gain maximum enjoyment.

The Maproom is a particularly good idea. I know that all maps contain sufficient detail to work out their nuances eventually but sometimes, if it’s the first time you’re playing a particular map you need slightly extended instructions to confirm your interpretation of how it will work. I found this on Europe 1914 and Arms Race. There are many other maps that I haven’t tried yet because, without fuller explanation they look complicated and you’re uncertain what to do. E.g. Age of Merchants, Battle for Iraq, Poison Rome, WWII Ardenne etc.

The idea of earning your way in to additional maps & options is a good one. Unlocking additional maps & game options would be a good way to keep people hooked. It works very well in driving games where you unlock cars and first person shooters where you unlock weapons / skills etc. Although I think this should be applied to Premium account holders as well as non subscribers. Premium account holders are no more expert and can be put off just as easily. It gives everyone something to strive for.

I also think the proposed progression is too long winded and could be condensed down into perhaps four or five stages. E.g:
Novice up to 10 games
Amateur up to 25 games
Intermediate up to 50 games
Experienced up to 75 games
Veteran 100 games and over

You need to explain fairly obviously what’s going on though and briefly outline what additional facilities they can expect as they advance.

Maybe if you’ve got a premium account holder who’s a novice and sets up a game. Those games are visible only to novices / amateurs to join and so on.

If you’re a veteran and want to set up a novice, amateur etc game, (maybe you’ve just invited a new friend in and want to show them the ropes) you could have a an initial option when starting a game which then greys out or takes away maps / options above that level.

Excellent site.

Cheers

Paul

[Outnumbered]

I began following this thread cause frankly, it bugs the crap out of me. I want the freedom to pick a fight on any map I choose whether I'm qualified or not. I'm a big boy, if I get my ass whipped, I'll take it like a man.

I hate the "unlockables" model as it applies to video games and I sure as hell don't want it applied to a board game that's been around since 1959. I've seen threads from seasoned vets who want to quit this site cause the dice have turned against them one to many times and they are having a serious run of bad luck. I think applying Unlockables to a game system that runs on dice is just plain nutz!

The only people who seem to want these restrictions are vets.

[Queen_Herpes]

Must admint I didn't have time to read your post fully or the numerous replies. Just to say I agree whole heartedly with the principal that new recruits should be fed in gently to gain maximum enjoyment.

The Maproom is a particularly good idea. I know that all maps contain sufficient detail to work out their nuances eventually but sometimes, if it’s the first time you’re playing a particular map you need slightly extended instructions to confirm your interpretation of how it will work. I found this on Europe 1914 and Arms Race. There are many other maps that I haven’t tried yet because, without fuller explanation they look complicated and you’re uncertain what to do. E.g. Age of Merchants, Battle for Iraq, Poison Rome, WWII Ardenne etc.

The idea of earning your way in to additional maps & options is a good one. Unlocking additional maps & game options would be a good way to keep people hooked. It works very well in driving games where you unlock cars and first person shooters where you unlock weapons / skills etc. Although I think this should be applied to Premium account holders as well as non subscribers. Premium account holders are no more expert and can be put off just as easily. It gives everyone something to strive for.

I also think the proposed progression is too long winded and could be condensed down into perhaps four or five stages. E.g:
Novice up to 10 games
Amateur up to 25 games
Intermediate up to 50 games
Experienced up to 75 games
Veteran 100 games and over

You need to explain fairly obviously what’s going on though and briefly outline what additional facilities they can expect as they advance.

Maybe if you’ve got a premium account holder who’s a novice and sets up a game. Those games are visible only to novices / amateurs to join and so on.

If you’re a veteran and want to set up a novice, amateur etc game, (maybe you’ve just invited a new friend in and want to show them the ropes) you could have a an initial option when starting a game which then greys out or takes away maps / options above that level.

Excellent site.

Cheers

Paul

Your post is well-written, has a clear statement of your support, and adds some new ideas. Thank you! I do think, however, that the number of games you suggested is too many. My original suggestion is too many games as well. The suggestion needs to change to accomodate players who are freemiums who cannot play 80 or 100 games in less than one year.

Great Post!

[AAFitz]

I began following this thread cause frankly, it bugs the crap out of me. I want the freedom to pick a fight on any map I choose whether I'm qualified or not. I'm a big boy, if I get my ass whipped, I'll take it like a man.

I hate the "unlockables" model as it applies to video games and I sure as hell don't want it applied to a board game that's been around since 1959. I've seen threads from seasoned vets who want to quit this site cause the dice have turned against them one to many times and they are having a serious run of bad luck. I think applying Unlockables to a game system that runs on dice is just plain nutz!

The only people who seem to want these restrictions are vets.

Actually, most vets dont want this. Vets have enjoyed the openness of CC, and the many options for years. Its why we are vets and have kept coming back. Not many would suggest taking perhaps the best part of CC away from other players, especially when its clear its not something they would want, ask for or require.

Oh, and thanks for posting. Ill meet you for coffee on tuesday.

[Outnumbered]

If there is no ulterior motive here, then I apologize.
This plan smacks of Newb/Vet segregation when you look at it from other angles.

Till Tuesday

[Doc_Brown]

I think you're exactly right in your guesses. AAFitz is correct that most veterans don't want this, but I suspect (with you) that many (not all) who do are trying to "keep the n00bs out of my games."

[Queen_Herpes]

Keep the great comments coming everyone! This suggestion is getting some traction! Love it!

[Doc_Brown]

Keep the great comments coming everyone! This suggestion is getting some traction! Love it!

I'm starting to wonder if we're being trolled!
If so, I have to say, very well done QH. This would have to rank as one of the best trolls I've seen in a long time!

[Queen_Herpes]

I, for one, love to play against noobs. They tend to make terrible moves, they don't know the maps, they are, well, NOOBS. It generally results in a win for me if a noob joins my game. Now, as to the experience the noob has against me, I cannot speak to that. I can only assume that there is some frustration, some negativity. I've certain read some comments and received some ratings from players with < 10 games played that shows a certain amount of frustration. Now, don't get me wrong, I can be an oppressive arrogant bitch sometimes in the game chat. And, when I am, I expect and sometimes receive low ratings and rude comments that mirror my own malevolent words and actions. It is the commentary and the ratings that I receive when I play nice and say nice things that leads me to believe that there is some level of frustration for a noobly noob experiencing his noobly noobiness.

I do, however, also enjoy playing against experienced players. Go figure. I like the competition. I like it when a noob gets a bonus on the drop, goes first, then I'm challenged to beat her/him. I also like it when I start with a bonus and get beat by an experienced player. Its fun.

My concerns are based on the player experience for the noob. While some relish the challenge, I think most get pissed and leave. I'm just trying to be a nice gal helping out the newest players to encourage them to stick around. As to the rest of you, well, I can only assume you prefer to see noobs get pwned and blown out of the site. Sucks for them, considerin how many of you care so little compared to the compassion I am attempting to bring to them.

[AAFitz]

I, for one, love to play against noobs. They tend to make terrible moves, they don't know the maps, they are, well, NOOBS. It generally results in a win for me if a noob joins my game. Now, as to the experience the noob has against me, I cannot speak to that. I can only assume that there is some frustration, some negativity. I've certain read some comments and received some ratings from players with < 10 games played that shows a certain amount of frustration. Now, don't get me wrong, I can be an oppressive arrogant bitch sometimes in the game chat. And, when I am, I expect and sometimes receive low ratings and rude comments that mirror my own malevolent words and actions. It is the commentary and the ratings that I receive when I play nice and say nice things that leads me to believe that there is some level of frustration for a noobly noob experiencing his noobly noobiness.

I do, however, also enjoy playing against experienced players. Go figure. I like the competition. I like it when a noob gets a bonus on the drop, goes first, then I'm challenged to beat her/him. I also like it when I start with a bonus and get beat by an experienced player. Its fun.

My concerns are based on the player experience for the noob. While some relish the challenge, I think most get pissed and leave. I'm just trying to be a nice gal helping out the newest players to encourage them to stick around. As to the rest of you, well, I can only assume you prefer to see noobs get pwned and blown out of the site. Sucks for them, considerin how many of you care so little compared to the compassion I am attempting to bring to them.

So basically, and correct me where Im wrong, but basically, you want this to protect yourself from having to play noobs. You cant control yourself in games and obviously dont care about their gaming experience. You also have no problem considering them sub-par players, and think you know which maps they should play or not play. Along with all this, you claim this idea is to help noobs. Sure.

Now, unlike you, I help the occasional new player out as much as possible. Sometimes I actually join to protect them against an "oppressive arrogant bitch" like yourself, knowing that this behavior is sure to send them packing. Not to say Ive never had words, but in general, any new player that isnt a cheater should be immune from any real harsh suggestions for a while. Obviously you only care about your gaming experience, and are willing to block new players that have every right to try out CC fully before making their decision. They however deserve to try it, and CC deserves it as well. It is of course the many options and incredible maps that makes CC shine above most competitors, along with the fact that most other sites are much, much more restrictive. Its just too bad more players like yourself didnt have some self control, because then we'd really be able to keep more. Maybe we can just block noobs from players with low ratings like yours of 4.5 or lower.

Now that is a suggestion to help noobs. Its not too many maps that makes people leave here....or too many fun options... its players like you who simply dont care about their gaming experience, or that of CC in general.

In any case, its been clear all along your motives on this. Your oppressive arrogant bitch style of complaining about every suggestion, bashing the management, and pushing your supposedly helpful suggestions repeatedly with more frivolous bumps than a mogul run in Vancouver, do not go unnoticed. Since the beginning, any that really followed this could see very clearly that your goal had nothing to do with making the site better, but pushing your agenda, the way you do in your games with your idea of a good move, or who should be in that game in the first place. Its nice to see you actually admit it, though as I said, most of us already knew it.

So, my suggestions based on everything in your thread, to really make the place better for noobs would be:

1. Block new players for 50 games from players with low ratings at 4.5 or lower. At 4.5 its very likely, that a game will not be a positive experience for a new player. They shouldn't have to deal with such players, since most are actually much better than that, and more respectful. Or maybe have a sliding scale. 5 games 5.0 players, 10 games 4.9 players
20 games 4.8 players 30 games 4.7 players, 50 games 4.6 players, 80 games 4.5 players. This will insure they will not have to deal with as much of the arrogant bitching in the chat, that undoubtedly sends many packing before they get to meet the actual great community of positive players we actually have here.

2. Label and group the maps very clearly into difficulty categories, so at a glance a new player can know difficult a game will be.

3. Label the settings or have a difficulty page to show the levels of complication that various game types might offer. This will allow players to choose the difficulty level that they are looking for

4. Continue with the Society of Cooks which helps train the few new players that dont just want to have fun learning on their own.
(Most players dont care about instructions, or teaching. They are intelligent and like figuring out new maps and styles on their own. Thats the actual fun of the game, and is why new maps are joined so quickly after being made.)

5. Continue to add maps, options, and keep them available for new players, so they can try out the many options that CC has available, so they can make a truly informed

6. Change the ratings for new players, so they are not unfairly hit with a low rating simply because of percentages.

7. Continue the ongoing great work on improvements on the site, even while many spend all their time trying to complain this isnt happening.

Some of your suggestions are very good. They have sparked nearly every one of these suggestions, and I feel every one of these if implemented would actually improve CC for all new players, and hopefully help retain a few of them, and increase premium purchases.

I think as players we can help too. We can be more respectful of them in game chat. We can target them less. We can help them when and where we can. Most importantly however, we can continue to fight for the ideals of openness that made CC great in the first place, and in my opinion is the very reason it is the top world domination game in the world. Bar none.

[AAFitz]

Keep the great comments coming everyone! This suggestion is getting some traction! Love it!

I'm starting to wonder if we're being trolled!
If so, I have to say, very well done QH. This would have to rank as one of the best trolls I've seen in a long time!

If no one already suspected this long ago, perhaps this would be the case. But someone going around complaining CC management is horrible, making suggestions that in all likelyhood would actually reduce players on CC, not only suggests trolling, but a person who admittedly loves farming noobs, and at the same time admits to being an arrogant bitch in the chat with them...not only suggests actual trolling just for fun, but even raises the possibility that it could be a plant from another gaming site literally trying to just make CC a worse game, and cut down on its success...which some of these suggestions would no doubt do.

CC's main competitive advantage over ALL other sites, is the massive quantity of new maps that it offers. Also, its non-restrictive nature is also unique. Even a premium on other sites is restricted to a cap on total number of games at one time.

Now, another site would love this suggestion to go through. It would help make them competitive again. They already steal the maps at will anyways, but now, they could even steal a map, and offer it to a new player, even before a CC new player would ever have a chance at playing it.

Now, I really doubt this is the case. I myself truly thinks she wants to make improvement, but simply is blinded by the ambition of pushing the suggestion through. Also, without quite the depth of experience, she simply hasnt factored in all the other ramifications or compared how other sites work, and probably never realized that CC's main competitive edge really is the new maps, and the fact that all are able to try them after only five games.

I doubt she ever considered that another site could steal one of these maps, put it on their site, and while people are waiting to finish 50 games here, could go play that map that was made for CC specifically, on another site. I doubt she realizes that many of this saw this potential from the beginning, because instead of focusing on one suggestion, and making it work no matter what, that some of us look at the actual big picture, all the ramifications including the actual gaming market, customer psychology, as well as being very well knowledgeable about what has worked for CC all along.

At the same time, her list of references and qualifications certainly indicate that she is more than capable of understanding all of these things, but the refusal to accept them, and willingness to ignore them and still push for a suggestion which would quite frankly be dangerous to CC, does suggest something other than a willingness to make the site better for noobs...who she herself, claims to enjoy farming, and berating in the chat.

In short, dont worry. The many inconsistencies are not lost on many who have followed this. Ive been on team CC. I know the people who work hard to make this site better, and while not perfect...they strive very hard to improve CC as do many. And while some get caught up in personal missions...the collective work together to make the best decisions possible, to help CC evolve as it has.
Not everyone will always be happy with everything...but there is no question, that they wont stop trying to make most players happy, and improve CC, and most are based on the one main principle of an open gaming site, with the best maps, the best players, and the most unrestricted access to them. I am not worried for one minute that they would ever take away these basic elements to CC's past and continued success.

My posts at this point are actually to insure other players that have been fooled by blocking of players, to see the other side of it, and why it is such a bad idea. I already know the owner, and the management at large believe in a gaming site that is completely contrary to the very idea...and it is that very reason, that I do not mind spending some of my time to defend that principle, and insure all know how important and vital it is to CC's actual success.

Ive had alot of fun in here, and unlike some who make suggestions for fun, and their own personal wishes, agenda, or even gain... my time is spent to make CC better for others, not just as a personal plaything...as some seem to use it.

[Queen_Herpes]

I know everyone is eagerly awaiting an update from me. Real life has been calling. I don't own my own company, so I don't have the time that some of the posters have on here. But I do have other things in real life that have kept me from posting.

One idea I have is to implement a "ONE V. Computer" game option where all players can play games against the computer. The computer would likely be a terrible player, but with time invested into coding maps for a computer strategy, the admins could code a "beginner computer," "intermediate computer," and "Advanced Computer." to choose as an opponent. Players would not lose points if they lose to the computer and would also not gain points by playing against the computer. While it might take some time to code for one map, over time more maps could be coded. This would allow new players to try maps and options without risking losing points or disaffecting the experience of more experienced players in team games.

This concept could be incorporated into my plan here such that new players woulud be required to play against the computer in 80 games before advancing to tougher maps and settings. Since the computer wouldn't need 24 hours to take its turn, the game could essentially be a "speed" game where the computer's turn takes all of 15 seconds, then the new player has the option to take his/her turn right away or wait 24 hours.

This concept would also introduce new players to the idea of speed games....and perhaps encourage them to pay for premium.

I think with this added to my suggestion (taking out having to face real opponents to unlock maps) that even AAFitz would have to say *gasp* "Good idea."

[ender516]

I know everyone is eagerly awaiting an update from me. Real life has been calling. I don't own my own company, so I don't have the time that some of the posters have on here. But I do have other things in real life that have kept me from posting.

One idea I have is to implement a "ONE V. Computer" game option where all players can play games against the computer. The computer would likely be a terrible player, but with time invested into coding maps for a computer strategy, the admins could code a "beginner computer," "intermediate computer," and "Advanced Computer." to choose as an opponent. Players would not lose points if they lose to the computer and would also not gain points by playing against the computer. While it might take some time to code for one map, over time more maps could be coded. This would allow new players to try maps and options without risking losing points or disaffecting the experience of more experienced players in team games.

This concept could be incorporated into my plan here such that new players woulud be required to play against the computer in 80 games before advancing to tougher maps and settings. Since the computer wouldn't need 24 hours to take its turn, the game could essentially be a "speed" game where the computer's turn takes all of 15 seconds, then the new player has the option to take his/her turn right away or wait 24 hours.

This concept would also introduce new players to the idea of speed games....and perhaps encourage them to pay for premium.

I think with this added to my suggestion (taking out having to face real opponents to unlock maps) that even AAFitz would have to say *gasp* "Good idea."

I think this idea is independent enough of the original that it is worthy of its own topic.

[Queen_Herpes]

Even AAFitz can't deny the beauty of it.

[Doc_Brown]

Keep the great comments coming everyone! This suggestion is getting some traction! Love it!

I don't own my own company, so I don't have the time that some of the posters have on here.

One idea I have is to implement a "ONE V. Computer" game option where all players can play games against the computer. ... This concept could be incorporated into my plan here such that new players [would] be required to play against the computer in 80 games before advancing to tougher maps and settings.

Even AAFitz can't deny the beauty of it.

Ok. I'm completely convinced. Whether or not this ever was a serious suggestion, it's now a giant troll.

[Queen_Herpes]

Are you kidding me Doc? How can you not see the value of the one v. Computer as a tutorial? For one, it quelches AAFitz's belief that I am a farmer who is opposed to new players. For another, IT IS F-ing cool! Any player could play a theoretical speed game against the computer as the computer's turn would take place in less than 15 seconds.

We could require new players to play one v. computer for 80 games before they jump into the general population. How can you not see the seriousneses of the suggestion?

And FYI, It is impossible to troll your own suggestion.

[AAFitz]

Are you kidding me Doc? How can you not see the value of the one v. Computer as a tutorial? For one, it quelches AAFitz's belief that I am a farmer who is opposed to new players. For another, IT IS F-ing cool! Any player could play a theoretical speed game against the computer as the computer's turn would take place in less than 15 seconds.

We could require new players to play one v. computer for 80 games before they jump into the general population. How can you not see the seriousneses of the suggestion?

And FYI, It is impossible to troll your own suggestion.

It was not my belief that you were a farmer, who was opposed to new players. I was merely including what you said, which was that you loved playing noobs, and almost always won. Those were your words, and by definition that is farming. Further, given that you also admitted to being harsh in the chat, its safe to say you obviously don't care about them sticking around, or you would control yourself in the game. I based this all on your statements about yourself however, and merely repeated them.

Also, playing against a computer is easy. There are many programs that offer it. They are also all junk and pointless. Ive played many, and while it gives you some idea how the basic game is played, it teaches you nothing about how to play against other humans. Playing against a computer is simply playing against settings. If you choose settings too easy, you win every time, too hard you never win. Its fun enough, but there is no better way to learn CC, than to play CC. More importantly, playing against a computer is actually not a good way to learn, because it is predictable, and does not take into account retribution, which for the most part, is one of the core basic strategies of playing the game.

CC is a psychological game, not a mathematical one. It would be quicker to learn by playing people. And Id certainly rather see lack programming game options for everyone to play, and not some random useless computer player that has been available for 20 years. We came here for the humans, because no one plays like humans. I do understand why this seems like a good idea, but ive played thousands of games on the top computer generated risk game. Id trade every game I played for one game in here. Its just a waste of time. Believe me, Im not making this up. I played it extensively. It was the reason I searched for CC in the first place. If you have played against the computer, and you like it, thats fine, but if you have not, all I can say is trust me...it wont prepare you for CC except for the basic functions, which might as well be learned against real people. I strongly urge you to go try a few against a computer, and you will see what I mean.

Its all irrelevant anyways, we have a million awesome updates getting programmed, and many more to come, theres no way he would justify putting programming time into something that this site is the successor of. Its just going back in time.

Also, he would need to consult someone about how to program the computer to win.

Im not saying its a bad idea. If it was easy enough, there would be no downside, but I doubt its easy, and I know it wont achieve what one might think it would at first glance. If I had a 3.5 floppy disk drive, I could throw the game in right now, but wouldnt waste my time for a second with it. Even the maker of it has moved on to human v human games, though not as successfully. Quite frankly, I think lack beat him to the punch. He had a fairly well known product back in the days of shareware, and I haven't looked lately, but it didnt seem like his site was exploding. Ive tried most of them...this is the only one worth playing, and its because it offers more to all players, especially new recruits, than any other site out there...

My dad actually used to broker some strategy games back in the day, and may even have carried one of his shareware versions for a while, but Im not sure. In any case, computer players are passe, and do not teach you how to play against humans. Humans teach you how to play against humans.

Its too bad that the Internet tech was not good enough at the time to support the strategy games online, because they were all against the computer, and every single one of them vanished once human v human became available.

Let me summarize:

You can masterbate all you want, but it will never make you good in bed. For that, you need practice with another person. The same is true of world domination games.

And both will make you go blind if you do it too often

[Queen_Herpes]

Are you kidding me Doc? How can you not see the value of the one v. Computer as a tutorial? For one, it quelches AAFitz's belief that I am a farmer who is opposed to new players. For another, IT IS F-ing cool! Any player could play a theoretical speed game against the computer as the computer's turn would take place in less than 15 seconds.

We could require new players to play one v. computer for 80 games before they jump into the general population. How can you not see the seriousneses of the suggestion?

And FYI, It is impossible to troll your own suggestion.

It was not my belief that you were a farmer, who was opposed to new players. I was merely including what you said, which was that you loved playing noobs, and almost always won. Those were your words, and by definition that is farming. Further, given that you also admitted to being harsh in the chat, its safe to say you obviously don't care about them sticking around, or you would control yourself in the game. I based this all on your statements about yourself however, and merely repeated them.

Also, playing against a computer is easy. There are many programs that offer it. They are also all junk and pointless. Ive played many, and while it gives you some idea how the basic game is played, it teaches you nothing about how to play against other humans. Playing against a computer is simply playing against settings. If you choose settings too easy, you win every time, too hard you never win. Its fun enough, but there is no better way to learn CC, than to play CC. More importantly, playing against a computer is actually not a good way to learn, because it is predictable, and does not take into account retribution, which for the most part, is one of the core basic strategies of playing the game.

CC is a psychological game, not a mathematical one. It would be quicker to learn by playing people. And Id certainly rather see lack programming game options for everyone to play, and not some random useless computer player that has been available for 20 years. We came here for the humans, because no one plays like humans. I do understand why this seems like a good idea, but ive played thousands of games on the top computer generated risk game. Id trade every game I played for one game in here. Its just a waste of time. Believe me, Im not making this up. I played it extensively. It was the reason I searched for CC in the first place. If you have played against the computer, and you like it, thats fine, but if you have not, all I can say is trust me...it wont prepare you for CC except for the basic functions, which might as well be learned against real people. I strongly urge you to go try a few against a computer, and you will see what I mean.

Its all irrelevant anyways, we have a million awesome updates getting programmed, and many more to come, theres no way he would justify putting programming time into something that this site is the successor of. Its just going back in time.

Also, he would need to consult someone about how to program the computer to win.

Im not saying its a bad idea. If it was easy enough, there would be no downside, but I doubt its easy, and I know it wont achieve what one might think it would at first glance. If I had a 3.5 floppy disk drive, I could throw the game in right now, but wouldnt waste my time for a second with it. Even the maker of it has moved on to human v human games, though not as successfully. Quite frankly, I think lack beat him to the punch. He had a fairly well known product back in the days of shareware, and I haven't looked lately, but it didnt seem like his site was exploding. Ive tried most of them...this is the only one worth playing, and its because it offers more to all players, especially new recruits, than any other site out there...

My dad actually used to broker some strategy games back in the day, and may even have carried one of his shareware versions for a while, but Im not sure. In any case, computer players are passe, and do not teach you how to play against humans. Humans teach you how to play against humans.

Its too bad that the Internet tech was not good enough at the time to support the strategy games online, because they were all against the computer, and every single one of them vanished once human v human became available.

Let me summarize:

You can masterbate all you want, but it will never make you good in bed. For that, you need practice with another person. The same is true of world domination games.

And both will make you go blind if you do it too often

Your summary comments are funny, perhaps an attempt to lighten the mood, and I will take them as such. But, for the record, I've had sex with men who had never masterbated (prior to their first sexual experience with a woman--me), and had sex with men who had masterbated before their first sexual experience with a woman(which happened to be with me). There is a big difference between men who have experienced themselves and men who had no experience. So your reference, unfortunately for you, helps prove my point.

I get it that playing against humans is better than playing against computers. It certainly is why we are here. We could play the PS or PS2 Risk game or the Hasbro Online Risk game against computerized opponents. Instead, we choose to play here. Well, truth be told, I've picked up the PS2 and popped the PS2 Risk game in the machine to play on several occasions in the past year. As I was introduced to this site and this game by my husband, so also did he introduce me to the PS2 versions. For lack of a tutorial program at conquerclub, the computerized opponents were a huge benefit to me to learn the game.

I still enjoy going back and playing the computer opponents, "AI" is probably the right term. As the PS2 opponents are programmed with different strategies AND can be differentiated to "easy," "intermediate," and "difficult," there are some varieties in strategies that I have seen and still, oddly, feel as though I can learn from. Of course, their only application is towards what we at CC refer to as the "Classic Map."

I believe the type of learning that is available via playing against AI is valuable. It can help a new player learn a map without the possibility of getting "farmed" or being mistreated by the opponent. Ocassionally, I like playing the computers so that I can have a less-spirited interaction against an opponent that won't deadbeat, won't bitch to me about dice, and won't allow me an easy win because they use terrible strategy or don't know the map.

I would relish the opportunity to play many of the maps I've never played at CC as well as the new maps that haven't been entered onto playable maps list AGAINST AI. I would love to learn the map that way before playing it against humans. I think there are other out there that would enjoy that opportunity at first as well.

I also think there are other players out there who would enjoy playing against AI to learn maps or settings. I think new players would especially enjoy the opportunity.

Further, I think new players and freemium players would enjoy an opportunity to play an opponent in "real time" as you...AAFitz...have pointed out as an important part of the reason that players leave the site. Restated, AAFitz feels that players leave the site because they don't want to wait 24 hours for their opponents to take turns. The additional aspect of adding AI to the site would allow new players to get that "speed game" experience without having to pay for premium. This may be enough to turn those players into permanent players....rather than players who bail after logging in for the first time.

So the question to you, AAFitz, and others...do you want more players on CC? Do you want those players to have the knowledge of the maps and the settings before they play you? Or do you want to play against noobs who don't know the map, don't know how the territories are connected, and don't know the settings? It would seem to me that an opponent of AI would necessarily be a proponent of farming. AI can only help the site. I challenge you to prove how AI could ruin the experience of players on CC and how it would turn players away.

[Doc_Brown]

[To self] Don't feed the troll.
DON'T feed the troll.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

... You're going to feed the troll aren't you?

Heh. Now that we've gotten that out of the way...
Yes QH, I think this idea is even worse than your original one. Sure, having AI opponents available would be a nice feature. But you yourself noted when you first brought this up that the computer players were likely to be pretty bad. Forcing brand new players to go up against computer opponents for 80 games will just reinforce very bad habits. As with your original suggestion, my complaint is not with the availability of these things as options, and even options that new players are strongly encouraged to make use of, it's with forcing new players to follow a single set path that every single player with fewer than 50 games that has commented on your idea has vociferously opposed! Put another way, the people you are purporting to help are unanimous in telling you that it would not be helpful to them. In addition, I, and others, have noted myriad ways in which your concept of bottling people up into a single approach to learning (I'll note again, someone that has a graduate degree in education should surely know a bit more about the ways people learn!) this game will stunt their strategic growth far more than it will help them.

Just as an aside, I also want to take issue with your comment about people who own their own businesses having more time on here. Clearly you have never owned your own business or been close to someone who has. Very rarely do small business owners manage to work less than 50-60 hours per week. You have more posts per day than I do, so I'd recommend dropping the whole bit about not having as much time to respond as others on here (though I guess meaningless - and demonstrably false - posts like "Keep the great comments coming everyone! This suggestion is getting some traction! Love it!" can pad your post count without offering any additional substance). There are still quite a few questions in this thread (and the other one) from a month or more ago that you never bothered to respond to. Instead of addressing substantive challenges, you spend your time on here coming up with new variations that are even worse than before.

This is why I've come to the conclusion that you're not really serious about this idea. I think you've realized that this idea is fundamentally flawed, but you find it amusing to keep baiting the rest of us (would that make you a master baiter? ). Troll is the term that best fits. I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I try to be optimistic and think the best about people, though it's true I sometimes give people far too much credit.

[Queen_Herpes]

AI is a great idea...and you Doc_Brown are a moron. Your posts here ask questions that are, at best, rhetorical. At worst, you are the troll.

AI answers all the questions you were asking about and circumvents the remainder.

[Doc_Brown]

AI is a great idea...and you Doc_Brown are a moron.

See, there's this thing called "reading comprehension:"

Sure, having AI opponents available would be a nice feature.

Your posts here ask questions that are, at best, rhetorical.

And rhetorical questions have no merit?

AI answers all the questions you were asking about and circumvents the remainder.

It would if you had it as an option, or even if it was required for the first 1-3 games. There's no way in hell I would join a site that told me I had to play 80 games against a crappy AI before I was allowed to play a real human. Besides that, you should look into what it takes to program an AI. I've done quite a bit of programming through the years, and my guess is that it would take lack a good 1-2 months of full time work to get the simplest of AIs working on a single map. It would be enough to teach people how to attack and enter moves. That's about it. It's a huge undertaking to try to train a decent AI, and it's completely impractical for this site. Even if it was possible to get one up and running, playing against it for 80 games is essentially the same thing as playing against a single person for 80 games. At the end of that time you don't learn to play well against anybody, you learn to play well against your specific opponent, and it reinforces bad habits that take far longer to unlearn.