iAmCaffeine wrote:However, I disagree that the problem is the range of settings available, but the lack of active players.
i kind of feel that this goes hand in hand. but i would not be willing to take away a setting that someone else enjoys just because i'm not a fan.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Advertising games in Callouts helps as well.
i've tried this in the past with not very good results. maybe i need to work on my charm.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Secondly, maybe try and freshen up the games you play or arrange some kind of challenge against someone? Re-jigging your habits often makes things more interesting. On occasion I decide to scrap my rank and play whatever I feel like playing.
i change up quite a bit. except i rarely venture into the newer settings other than poly games. mainly the 8 player games i used to enjoy seem less popular now than they were back then.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Finally, sixteen 1v1 Doodle Earth tournaments, really? Ever think maybe people are bored of that? I also think people are more selective in the games they play on a competitive level, which would result in that filling at a slower rate.
what1?!? youre telling me you don't want to play a 1v1 doodle bracket?????? i realize they're not for everyone, but it attracts the players that want alot of tournament medals, and the ones that have trouble getting them. not for the easily aggravated tho. there's still quite a crowd for it. like i said, they still fill in about 3 days while the others take a week or better. just had a 16 player 1v1 arms race bracket fill up in about 6 days. i do a wide range of tournaments and have been doing them for a fair amount of time enough to say i've noticed a slowing trend in how quickly they fill.
the holiday season may have a bit to do with it as well. maybe as we dive deeper into feb. things will start to pick up a bit more. i know i was kind of uninvolved for the past few months.
Fair enough mate, we pretty much agree. Athough I don't think new settings are driving existing players away, they could concern new users who see loads of things they aren't familiar with when all they did was Google for an online risk game. Perhaps a system should be introduced where new settings are unlocked after certain amounts of games played. Like Nuclear and Zombie after 50 games, Freestyle after 100, Parachute after 150.. No thought went into the figures, just examples.
I like this (last paragraph).. I'd say "suggestions" worthy
iAmCaffeine wrote:However, I disagree that the problem is the range of settings available, but the lack of active players.
i kind of feel that this goes hand in hand. but i would not be willing to take away a setting that someone else enjoys just because i'm not a fan.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Advertising games in Callouts helps as well.
i've tried this in the past with not very good results. maybe i need to work on my charm.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Secondly, maybe try and freshen up the games you play or arrange some kind of challenge against someone? Re-jigging your habits often makes things more interesting. On occasion I decide to scrap my rank and play whatever I feel like playing.
i change up quite a bit. except i rarely venture into the newer settings other than poly games. mainly the 8 player games i used to enjoy seem less popular now than they were back then.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Finally, sixteen 1v1 Doodle Earth tournaments, really? Ever think maybe people are bored of that? I also think people are more selective in the games they play on a competitive level, which would result in that filling at a slower rate.
what1?!? youre telling me you don't want to play a 1v1 doodle bracket?????? i realize they're not for everyone, but it attracts the players that want alot of tournament medals, and the ones that have trouble getting them. not for the easily aggravated tho. there's still quite a crowd for it. like i said, they still fill in about 3 days while the others take a week or better. just had a 16 player 1v1 arms race bracket fill up in about 6 days. i do a wide range of tournaments and have been doing them for a fair amount of time enough to say i've noticed a slowing trend in how quickly they fill.
the holiday season may have a bit to do with it as well. maybe as we dive deeper into feb. things will start to pick up a bit more. i know i was kind of uninvolved for the past few months.
Fair enough mate, we pretty much agree. Athough I don't think new settings are driving existing players away, they could concern new users who see loads of things they aren't familiar with when all they did was Google for an online risk game. Perhaps a system should be introduced where new settings are unlocked after certain amounts of games played. Like Nuclear and Zombie after 50 games, Freestyle after 100, Parachute after 150.. No thought went into the figures, just examples.
I like this (last paragraph).. I'd say "suggestions" worthy
rhp 1 wrote:interesting question...
I'm not sure.. I've been around long enough to have seen most come and go... I think overall the talent level is generally lower, though there are a lot of really good players here still...
though the median skill level? I'd say it's slightly lower though there are a lot less players, so I'm not sure......
Your profile says sept 2007.. That s long enough for me!
I don t feel like the general talent is lower that when I started, good players are replaced by talented newcommers, or by guys who had been there for a while that suddenly become good, or by people that were on a cc break that are comming back.
Maybe that s not a good scale, but brigs and up are 120 as per today. If anyone has an idea of the figure a year ago and so...?
I can remember that a score of 2900 got a player into the top 100 back in 2010, currently one would require 3060 points (and I have seen it higher than that recently). I can also remember that when I started playing quite a chunk of the first page included majors... I also notice that now one needs a score of 2714 to reach the first page, I can remember back in 2010 about 2500 would do it, and further back to 2008 then under 2400. So I think we can say that there are more players able (or interested in) to achieve scores around the 3000 mark, and many more players capable of getting up to 2500. This is interesting of course, because the overall active list as dropped by about a half.
So can I say that the quality has gone up as the quantity has dropped? Or that the good players have stayed more often than not and the weaker ones left?
Many seem to say that the cause of this is points inflation (and no doubt it is in part), but I would suggest that MORE players over time have learned how to gain a high score, as well as of course new good players continuously arriving increases the numbers of players gaining a high score as well.
If one considers that there are A LOT of players who are capable of achieving a high score but choose to not do so, then one can only say that there are a lot of good players here on CC.
Here is a question for you: We currently have 12646 active players and 424 with a score of 2500 and over, however how many other players on CC have reached such a score before? How many 'colonel-quality' players are there?
Might I suggest that about 8% of players here on CC are colonel-quality?
wow.. what a loaded question.... colonel quality... hmm.... if I played everything under the sun (which I woudn't enjoy), I'd probably hover around 1800-2000 +/- 100 points... if I strictly controlled all of my games, I'd hover around 3200-3500 +/- 200 points (which I would also not enjoy).. my score, atm, reflects that I do something in between those two extremes.. so I'm not even sure what "colonel quality" is..
rhp 1 wrote:interesting question...
I'm not sure.. I've been around long enough to have seen most come and go... I think overall the talent level is generally lower, though there are a lot of really good players here still...
though the median skill level? I'd say it's slightly lower though there are a lot less players, so I'm not sure......
Your profile says sept 2007.. That s long enough for me!
I don t feel like the general talent is lower that when I started, good players are replaced by talented newcommers, or by guys who had been there for a while that suddenly become good, or by people that were on a cc break that are comming back.
Maybe that s not a good scale, but brigs and up are 120 as per today. If anyone has an idea of the figure a year ago and so...?
I can remember that a score of 2900 got a player into the top 100 back in 2010, currently one would require 3060 points (and I have seen it higher than that recently). I can also remember that when I started playing quite a chunk of the first page included majors... I also notice that now one needs a score of 2714 to reach the first page, I can remember back in 2010 about 2500 would do it, and further back to 2008 then under 2400. So I think we can say that there are more players able (or interested in) to achieve scores around the 3000 mark, and many more players capable of getting up to 2500. This is interesting of course, because the overall active list as dropped by about a half.
So can I say that the quality has gone up as the quantity has dropped? Or that the good players have stayed more often than not and the weaker ones left?
Many seem to say that the cause of this is points inflation (and no doubt it is in part), but I would suggest that MORE players over time have learned how to gain a high score, as well as of course new good players continuously arriving increases the numbers of players gaining a high score as well.
If one considers that there are A LOT of players who are capable of achieving a high score but choose to not do so, then one can only say that there are a lot of good players here on CC.
Here is a question for you: We currently have 12646 active players and 424 with a score of 2500 and over, however how many other players on CC have reached such a score before? How many 'colonel-quality' players are there?
Might I suggest that about 8% of players here on CC are colonel-quality?
wow.. what a loaded question.... colonel quality... hmm.... if I played everything under the sun (which I woudn't enjoy), I'd probably hover around 1800-2000 +/- 100 points... if I strictly controlled all of my games, I'd hover around 3200-3500 +/- 200 points (which I would also not enjoy).. my score, atm, reflects that I do something in between those two extremes.. so I'm not even sure what "colonel quality" is..
A player who is capable (regardless of settings) of holding his rank over 2500 if they so choose.
Of course, then you get into the issue of the grasping colonel, desperately minimising variety to squeak over 2500, or the comfortable colonel, who can play as he or she likes and maintain that level.
I suggested that about 8% of players are 'colonel-quality', on the basis that a player could hold at that level regardless of effort, I would think the percentage that could do it 'comfortably' would be less.
