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

[Doc_Brown]

So, of course the right approach is to penalize the top end of the bell curve and make the site less fun (than it could be) for them and cater primarily to the average and below-average people. I guess if you want to retain more of the below-average people than the above-average people...

Hi, Doc, I'm trying to find out from you how this suggestion penalizes the top of the bell-curve. I respect your well-reasoned thoughts and responses to this thread and I am asking you with all honesty and good intentions. Thank yoU!

The above average players join this site with a decent back ground in strategy games (many of them are quite familiar with a related board game that will remain nameless). Many of them also have no trouble finding their way into the forums, the strategy guides, and the add-ons (I had BOB installed before I completed a single game). Those players are not only capable of handling the more complicated maps, they're eager to play them. In fact, that's one of the major draws for this site. As it stands right now, they can start games on any maps with any settings from the day they join this site. They can't join games already in progress, so they won't accidentally stumble into a game they're not ready for in their first couple games, but if they decide to take the initiative and create a game on one of the harder maps, it's assumed that they have some idea what they're doing.

Your proposal will set those players back by about two months. For many players, your proposal won't really affect them. It will funnel them towards maps they'd be more inclined to chose anyway if they had taken any initiative to find out about them. For those players, you're just protecting them for a few extra games so that they have a slightly higher rank when the finally enter the shark pit, and they end up losing slightly more points than they otherwise would have. But the higher end players will be the ones that really chafe under this suggestion. You're preventing them from doing exactly what they want to do. Those are they players that will happily play a much higher ranked player and won't mind (too much) losing because of not knowing various quirks on some of the maps. They'll learn from the losses and come back and be better players because of them. Or they would so long as your proposal isn't implemented. Those also happen to be the players most likely to leave if your suggestion is implemented (yet they're the ones I would personally most prefer to play against).

[jmyork82]

i think that is a great idea, if it werent for my interest in risk and my curiosity of all the different maps i saw, i would have dropped the site, but then again, i paid for premium cause i was tired of waiting on my first 4 games hahaha.

I really liked the idea of designing the "new recruit experience" to setting quick goals for them to acomplish to help them learn the site. I imagine that creating this experience would be difficult for programmers but then again maybe not, i dont know how to program haha

[jmyork82]

Doc, i just saw your comment about catering to the below average player and my thoughts are, i was a below average player when i first started but i got better from playing against different people. not everyone is gonna be good right off. QH is just trying to find a way to grow the site and make it more popular, harvesting new talent and new players to compete against....and yes some bad talent also but we are all experienced enough to avoid bad players.

[Doc_Brown]

jmyork: I don't disagree that we want to make sure the site is enjoyable for all, and it does need to be a good experience for the average and below average players. However, if you introduce major restrictions and lock the more advanced players out of the types of challenges that drew them to this site in the first place, you end up reducing the amount of high end new recruits that stick around. All I'm insisting on is that whatever new restrictions are introduced be such that players can "opt out." That way the "experience" is available for the average players, but players that feel they're ready can jump quickly into the more challenging maps and settings. Using QH's "unlocking" metaphor, think of it as players choosing to skip over the tutorial portion of a new video game and jump straight into the main game.

[jmyork82]

i see where you are coming from and i agree, i wanted to play all the new maps and i dont think i touched a classic map til my 10th game. I dont think QH is trying to keep anybody from diving in the site, i dont know, i just read the beginning post. just imagine if you were a newbie and your first map was city mogul that was fog and freesyle. some people dont read directions. I think QH just wants to have some cool begginer maps that dont have a lot of extra curricular bonuses or options to where the unsuspecting newb gets his ass kicked and says f this. QH is trying to find a way to leave a new player wanting more after their intial experience.

[Doc_Brown]

I agree. And I've said all along that I have no opposition to this suggestion so long as it is optional. Even if new recruits are initially enrolled in something like this and have to actively opt-out, it would be fine. I just don't want to see excited players blocked for what could be a couple months from playing the maps they want to play.

[krikee]

I agree in general with your points, Queen_Herpes, though the best specific tier/unlock implementation may look a bit different.

My main concern is with getting accused of farming, especially since I start a lot of games on maps in your Level 1-2 tiers that often get filled with New Recruits. Many post to chat asking who's turn it is, why the game's so slow, &c. So clearly a lot of the new guys don't even understand the 24-hour turn deal or the graphic presentation, and I agree with you that a much more comprehensive user guide needs to be promulgated to new players and linked prominently from the main pages.

I do not think many of the objections about a tier/unlock system inhibiting site enjoyment have much merit. Most new players come to CC with a working knowledge of some version of boardgame RISK, and thus are new to the multiple maps, team play, advanced map features, manual deployment, reputation system, fog of war, fixed spoils (non-UK at least), &c, &c. Since New Recruits can play only four games, they cannot possibly experience all these options without staying for a few weeks/months. Thus, I do not think your system (or a similar) would needlessly or even greatly constrain new users' flexibility of play.

Thanks for taking the time and space to address one of CC's longstanding weaknesses!

[Woltato]

I like the general idea of this.

How about introducing unrated games where no ranking points are awarded. New recruits could be restricted to only palying unrated for the first few games while they get used to things.

Experienced players may also like an unrated option in order to try out new maps and settings.

[Queen_Herpes]

I like the general idea of this.

How about introducing unrated games where no ranking points are awarded. New recruits could be restricted to only palying unrated for the first few games while they get used to things.

Experienced players may also like an unrated option in order to try out new maps and settings.

We've heard this comment many times before. I agree with you, woltato, we need to have an option to play games that do not award points. There are many reasons to do this.

[PLAYER57832]

I like the general idea of this.

How about introducing unrated games where no ranking points are awarded. New recruits could be restricted to only palying unrated for the first few games while they get used to things.

Experienced players may also like an unrated option in order to try out new maps and settings.

This is the ONLY good point in this thread.
No matter how it is modified, limiting games, unlocking over time still a very bad idea. The limits will be set to those games the "majority" seem to like, and will mean almost no one will play the others.

[Queen_Herpes]

I agree in general with your points, Queen_Herpes, though the best specific tier/unlock implementation may look a bit different.

My main concern is with getting accused of farming, especially since I start a lot of games on maps in your Level 1-2 tiers that often get filled with New Recruits. Many post to chat asking who's turn it is, why the game's so slow, &c. So clearly a lot of the new guys don't even understand the 24-hour turn deal or the graphic presentation, and I agree with you that a much more comprehensive user guide needs to be promulgated to new players and linked prominently from the main pages.

I do not think many of the objections about a tier/unlock system inhibiting site enjoyment have much merit. Most new players come to CC with a working knowledge of some version of boardgame RISK, and thus are new to the multiple maps, team play, advanced map features, manual deployment, reputation system, fog of war, fixed spoils (non-UK at least), &c, &c. Since New Recruits can play only four games, they cannot possibly experience all these options without staying for a few weeks/months. Thus, I do not think your system (or a similar) would needlessly or even greatly constrain new users' flexibility of play.

Thanks for taking the time and space to address one of CC's longstanding weaknesses!

I agree. This and many other points in this suggestion are excellent.

[PLAYER57832]

Except... most of the people who agree are not long-term players.

The people who post here represent only a small contingent. Sure, a lot of people come here knowing "Risk", but as CC is evolving, that can change. I mean, if you want to go with just what the "most people" play, then you would ONLY have "classic" map. In fact, there was a big contingent that left over just such a dispute.

Among those who remain are many who PREFER the more unusual maps. Why is it that AOR is automatically classed as a "difficult" map. In truth, its one of the easiest to learn to play, as long as you don't use "I know Risk, so I know all CC maps" as your basis.

Either CC is more than Risk or its just another Risk copy-cat. Seems CC spent a LOT of time defending the fact that it was much, much more. You want to turn that back, because of your personal likes and dislikes.

I am and always have been in favor of better explanations. The problem is that a lot of people just don't want to bother. But, guess what? Those people often don't stick around anyway! Your idea will do nothing to encourage new members, it will only discourage a contingent that doesn't happen to think like you. It is a terrible, horrible, bad idea.

[Queen_Herpes]

I like the general idea of this.

How about introducing unrated games where no ranking points are awarded. New recruits could be restricted to only palying unrated for the first few games while they get used to things.

Experienced players may also like an unrated option in order to try out new maps and settings.

This is a good idea and it seems, Woltato that you play a lot of games. As most have noticed, the concept for this idea comes from lackattack. Lackattack, for those who do not know, is the owner of the site and the webmaster. Lackattack has chosen to limit new recruits from playing on certain maps. This idea, supported by a seemingly endless list of players, looks to continue the concept that lackattack implemented by structuring the introduction of the site to new players. Thank you, Woltato for being yet another accomplished player who likes this idea!

[Doc_Brown]

Except... most of the people who agree are not long-term players.

The people who post here represent only a small contingent. Sure, a lot of people come here knowing "Risk", but as CC is evolving, that can change. I mean, if you want to go with just what the "most people" play, then you would ONLY have "classic" map. In fact, there was a big contingent that left over just such a dispute.

Among those who remain are many who PREFER the more unusual maps. Why is it that AOR is automatically classed as a "difficult" map. In truth, its one of the easiest to learn to play, as long as you don't use "I know Risk, so I know all CC maps" as your basis.

Either CC is more than Risk or its just another Risk copy-cat. Seems CC spent a LOT of time defending the fact that it was much, much more. You want to turn that back, because of your personal likes and dislikes.

I am and always have been in favor of better explanations. The problem is that a lot of people just don't want to bother. But, guess what? Those people often don't stick around anyway! Your idea will do nothing to encourage new members, it will only discourage a contingent that doesn't happen to think like you. It is a terrible, horrible, bad idea.

I agree. This and many other points [opposing] this suggestion are excellent.

[blakebowling]

QH, Could I get a quick recap of exactly what you're asking to be changed from the way it currently is (so I don't have to re-read the 38 pages).
Thanks.

[Queen_Herpes]

QH, Could I get a quick recap of exactly what you're asking to be changed from the way it currently is (so I don't have to re-read the 38 pages).
Thanks.

1. Converting the current system imposed by lackattack with respect to new recruits
FROM "New Recruits not allowed to play on about 35 maps"
TO "New Recruits not allowed to play on roughly 90 maps"

2. Implementing a development system whereby New Recruits remain New Recruits for longer than 5 games. Further, they sequentially unlock access to more and more maps over time in a systematic manner. If possible, implement a method whereby players can bypass this system if they have sufficient capability and/or knowledge and experience.

3. Determining how functional it would be to develop a "vs. AI" on one map to be beta'd as a "training mode" for all players, with specific attention being provided to New Recruits.

4. Find a way to set up games without risking points. Among the many reasons for players that support this idea includes those who want to limit the presence of untrained/clueless individuals in their games. They dislike the U/C for the simple reason that the untrained/clueless can cause a loss whereby teammates or other participants lose points. By creating a system where players can choose whether or not a game is going to earn/lose points, players can play with/against the u/c without fear of losing rank or position.

[blakebowling]

QH, Could I get a quick recap of exactly what you're asking to be changed from the way it currently is (so I don't have to re-read the 38 pages).
Thanks.

1. Converting the current system imposed by lackattack with respect to new recruits
FROM "New Recruits not allowed to play on about 35 maps"
TO "New Recruits not allowed to play on roughly 90 maps"

2. Implementing a development system whereby New Recruits remain New Recruits for longer than 5 games. Further, they sequentially unlock access to more and more maps over time in a systematic manner. If possible, implement a method whereby players can bypass this system if they have sufficient capability and/or knowledge and experience.

3. Determining how functional it would be to develop a "vs. AI" on one map to be beta'd as a "training mode" for all players, with specific attention being provided to New Recruits.

4. Find a way to set up games without risking points. Among the many reasons for players that support this idea includes those who want to limit the presence of untrained/clueless individuals in their games. They dislike the U/C for the simple reason that the untrained/clueless can cause a loss whereby teammates or other participants lose points. By creating a system where players can choose whether or not a game is going to earn/lose points, players can play with/against the u/c without fear of losing rank or position.

#1. Is complete
#2. Needs discussion about how to determine who gets to surpass this New Recruit System. IMO It's completely unnecessary, It would remove the part of this improvement that makes creating MULTI's harder and more rediculious.
#3. Needs discussion. IMO the first five (or so) games should be played against, and only against the computer, for no points. Once the five training games have been completed the "vs. AI" mode would be gone. Also the five games would be available on Classic with standard(easy) settings ONLY.
#4. IIRC has been rejected before. Points are not to be a currency with which to bet, instead it is an attempt to measure skill. I don't think this part will go through.

Right now, #1 Could most likely go through to submitted on its own. However #2 and #3 needs more discussions, and a #4 needs a very good reason to continue.

[oldrisky44]

I didn't read the whole thread to check, but I like the idea, I may have already said that.

[Doc_Brown]

There's one issue that's gotten lost in all this discussion: Freemium NRs usually join their full complement of games immediately and will typically join a new one as soon as one of their games finish. What this means, is that by the time you've completed 5 games, you're already typically well into 8 games (more for Premiums).

So, if you intend to dramatically reduce the functionality new players are able to access, you need to pay more attention to how long that sort of thing will actually affect them. I'd say that requiring more than 1 completed game to unlock functionality up to what NRs are currently allowed to access is going to have a significant impact on new player retention. People already come, join a few games, and realize it's going to be a while before they get to play much, so they never come back.

I joined about a year ago. I had actually briefly looked at the site a few times prior to that, but never really got around to joining. This was my initial train of thought:
"I really prefer Axis and Allies type games to Risk (in fact, I'm not sure I actually like Risk when it comes down to it), but I'll take another look at this site. Hmmm. There are some really wild maps here that really make this a completely different game. Wait... I can't actually play on some of those maps... Oh. I just have to complete 5 games. That's maybe not so bad, and there's still some pretty crazy looking maps I can play on. Ah, and I can start games on those other maps if I want - I just can't join those games. Well, that's all right then. Let's check this out!"

Now, QH has proposed hiding the map list from people until they start unlocking games and to only offer a handful of maps early on. In that case, here would have been my thought progression:
"I really prefer Axis and Allies type games to Risk (in fact, I'm not sure I actually like Risk when it comes down to it), but I'll take another look at this site. Ok. There are some different looking maps, but it's really still just Risk. And they are really asking $25 to play more games there?? Meh. Pass."
If the map list was visible, I might have stuck around, but once I realized it would be months before I'd get to play on the (initially) most appealing looking maps, I probably would have left.

Personally, I think the current system is fine. The restrictions aren't overly intrusive, but they at least flag settings and maps as potentially much more difficult. I don't think I've seen a single post complaining about this site having too many maps/features/options. The people who do want some hand-holding want to be able to jump free from the restrictions as soon as they feel ready. For some people, it may be longer than QH's proposed system. Others are ready to jump into the most challenging maps from the beginning. The current system is a nice compromise.

AI games would be a reasonable variation. Presumably they would effectively be speed games (since the AI players should take their turns immediately). If you said that NRs have to complete 1 unranked game on the Classic Map vs. AI before they're allowed to create/join any other games, that would likely be beneficial. It would give them a taste of real-time play and provide immediate gratification. Furthermore, if you kept the AI available even after they've started playing other games, it would provide enough incentive to stick around until they get fully hooked. For that to work, you'd probably want the AI to only offer Standard 1v1 games on Classic, probably sunny, chained, escalating (though it might need to be a different map to avoid any possible copyright issues). AI games would not be retained on the server, would not be ranked, and would not count towards the 4 game limit. With a pretty dumb AI, you'll have limited interest in using it once people start playing other maps and settings, but they'd be able to get an immediate "CC fix" often enough to keep them coming back for more. It might also provide more incentive for people to purchase premium to be able to play speed games.

[nebsmith]

as a fairly recent recruit i disagree with all of this. what was attractive about this site was all the new and complex maps and the fact that i only needed to complete 4 games to have full access.

I agrre with doc_brown i probably wouldn't have stuck around if i had to wait weeks to access the complex maps.

The AI, ok as an option, but only as an option not compulsory. I joined this site because i was fed up with playing against AI and the classic map is boring. And having to play a 1v1 game against AI - horrible thought.

I also don't like the idea of games without points. why shouldn't you risk something when learning a new map.As for the untrained and clueless, well if they are you should either clue them in or beat them.If you really don't like playing with new recruits then use the already available facility to create a private game

[Crazy Frog]

Idea to go along with the above: Allow older and experienced players to post "Charity Games" (where they get a token of say 5 or 10 points awarded to them regardless of outcome) So that the Newbies can enter the game and play the better players with the older players literally "Talking them through it"
Showing them how to look at the map... what the symbols mean... the strategies that are commonly used... How to understand the troop bonuses and all of that stuff that New folks would choke on the first few days...

[IcePack]

I played all settings (sunny/fog, adjacent/chain/unlimit, seq/free, esc/flat) except a few within my first 10 games. I also played one or two new maps.

By limiting what I would have been able to do, I would have been less likely to stay. I enjoyed the challenges of the site. I've invited almost a dozen people to the site, they've all loved it. The one thing that drew them all to this site as opposed to others was the versatility and desire to try new maps, settings, and spoils together.

There is no way I would have gotten any of them to stay on limited settings - limited maps maybe. But after a few games they were wanting to delve into private games of more complicated maps to learn and enjoy together as standard 8 player games etc.

And even with the varied settings and everything (although mostly on classic my first 10), I still won 5 of the 10 vs random ppl.

[Darwins_Bane]

Idea to go along with the above: Allow older and experienced players to post "Charity Games" (where they get a token of say 5 or 10 points awarded to them regardless of outcome) So that the Newbies can enter the game and play the better players with the older players literally "Talking them through it"
Showing them how to look at the map... what the symbols mean... the strategies that are commonly used... How to understand the troop bonuses and all of that stuff that New folks would choke on the first few days...

This part won't go through for the simple reason that, as already stated before, the points you have are a reflection of you skill, and not points to be bartered, rewarded or given away.

[TheForgivenOne]

(where they get a token of say 5 or 10 points awarded to them regardless of outcome)

I predict people would just use this to up their rank. So I say a nay on this area.

Maybe get a medal for doing this charitable work? I dunno

[Crazy Frog]

Idea to go along with the above: Allow older and experienced players to post "Charity Games" (where they get a token of say 5 or 10 points awarded to them regardless of outcome) So that the Newbies can enter the game and play the better players with the older players literally "Talking them through it"
Showing them how to look at the map... what the symbols mean... the strategies that are commonly used... How to understand the troop bonuses and all of that stuff that New folks would choke on the first few days...

This part won't go through for the simple reason that, as already stated before, the points you have are a reflection of you skill, and not points to be bartered, rewarded or given away.

The point of the sujestion is them being able to play a game with a Mentor who is actually educating and not just "Cherry Picking" as someone called it above...
The older players only have a points reasons to play with Newbies anyway and there is normally little doubt as to the outcome of that type of game.. so make it a medal and No points... or a set fee... whatever works.... But do it in such a way that it becomes easy for newbies in the first few games to get some astute council...

Cooks society did not really work that well for me... It was clumsy to try and find, enter into or get info out of... It was a good attempt but I agree with Queen Herpes that we need to get Newbies off to a better start.

Another thing that drives Newbies away is the Rudeness of some people in this site... Vulgarity, Insults etc... That is probably already a topic in another thread though...