CC is declining again!

[owenshooter]

There was an issue with some games not being counted as "Finished Games". This caused some members to fall off the scoreboard despite still being active. This issue has now been fixed and the scoreboard is displaying properly.

TRANSLATION:

*The books have been successfully cooked.*

ok... i get it now... thanks for clearing that up...-Jésus noir

[BoganGod]

There was an issue with some games not being counted as "Finished Games". This caused some members to fall off the scoreboard despite still being active. This issue has now been fixed and the scoreboard is displaying properly.

TRANSLATION:

*The books have been successfully cooked.*

ok... i get it now... thanks for clearing that up...-Jésus noir

It is not cooking, girl guide cookies. Cookies nmom nom nom...... Guide games didn't count as completed games eh? So even if someone deadbeats a guide game. The game is completed.....

[owenshooter]

There was an issue with some games not being counted as "Finished Games". This caused some members to fall off the scoreboard despite still being active. This issue has now been fixed and the scoreboard is displaying properly.

TRANSLATION:

*The books have been successfully cooked.*

ok... i get it now... thanks for clearing that up...-Jésus noir

It is not cooking, girl guide cookies. Cookies nmom nom nom...... Guide games didn't count as completed games eh? So even if someone deadbeats a guide game. The game is completed.....

hey, if you can give them 1 star ratings in those games, why not count them as complete? *snicker*... cooking the jr. mint cookies...-Jésus noir

[BoganGod]

Rated, counted, and never seen again. Easy guide to numerical inflation though the simple act of changing sample criteria to weaken qualifying characteristics.

[owenshooter]

Rated, counted, and never seen again. Easy guide to numerical inflation though the simple act of changing sample criteria to weaken qualifying characteristics.

just believe the numbers... it is what it seems to be... the numbers do not lie...-Jésus noir

CC ACCOUNTING FIRM

[AndyDufresne]

I found a few more players in my attic. I'd like to add them to the scoreboard. Or trade them in for conquer stars.


--Andy

[ConfederateSS]

I'm thinking The High Command are using the old voting styles of Chicago in the 20th century..Taking names off the tombstones in the graveyards. ..ConfederateSS..out!!!..P.S..Lets see how long it Takes The High Command to defend more sneaky tactics..Should have just made it 50,000 members overnight...Man,makes me want to go gold and join a tourney..sweet!!!!I had this earlier then took it off..I'm putting it back..I deal in facts baby!!..Go to my last post in..old bobby lee..babble-on five..forum...The answer is blowing in the wind,is blowing in the wind..That deaf,dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball!!!!!!

[WILLIAMS5232]

10526...

Over 1100 new members in the last 24 hours??? I highly doubt it.... Something smells fishy on the full scoreboard page.

yeah, your number is bunk.

someone took it upon themselves to add all the new recruits that have not finished a game to the list. despite what it says at the top of the scorecard.

The scoreboard is updated every hour. Only players that have taken a turn within the past 30 days are listed. New Recruits are listed once they have finished a game. If you are not familiar with the ranks, they are described in the "Instructions" section.

we'll see what comes of this. till then the real number is 9224. which is the amount of players that have at least one game completed.

It is not my number, it is CC's, which means their number is bunk. Like I said, something smells fishy. Why are the new recruits without one completed game added to the total now (if in reality that is the reason for the spectacular jump of 1100+ members)? This just inflates the real number and is an attempt to disguise the rapid decline in active members.

the only thing bunk around here, is this site. it's getting bunker by the day.

10526...

Over 1100 new members in the last 24 hours??? I highly doubt it.... Something smells fishy on the full scoreboard page.

yeah, your number is bunk.

someone took it upon themselves to add all the new recruits that have not finished a game to the list. despite what it says at the top of the scorecard.

The scoreboard is updated every hour. Only players that have taken a turn within the past 30 days are listed. New Recruits are listed once they have finished a game. If you are not familiar with the ranks, they are described in the "Instructions" section.

we'll see what comes of this. till then the real number is 9224. which is the amount of players that have at least one game completed.

It is not my number, it is CC's, which means their number is bunk. Like I said, something smells fishy. Why are the new recruits without one completed game added to the total now (if in reality that is the reason for the spectacular jump of 1100+ members)? This just inflates the real number and is an attempt to disguise the rapid decline in active members.

There was an issue with some games not being counted as "Finished Games". This caused some members to fall off the scoreboard despite still being active. This issue has now been fixed and the scoreboard is displaying properly.

please cc, all i have left is tracking the decline. if you take that away from me, i've got nothing. please don't make the scoreboard bunk too. now that the scoreboard is bunk, all my hard work is basically gone down the chute. the freaking poot chute. (robin williams)
please reverse the decision to make inactive members not count on the scoreboard.

current "active" members according to the scoreboard;

this goes on for pages and pages.

i mean seriously. how did this ever become worth contemplating. what a joke!

[Dukasaur]

we'll see what comes of this. till then the real number is 9224. which is the amount of players that have at least one game completed.

please cc, all i have left is tracking the decline. if you take that away from me, i've got nothing. please don't make the scoreboard bunk too. now that the scoreboard is bunk, all my hard work is basically gone down the chute. the freaking poot chute. (robin williams)
please reverse the decision to make inactive members not count on the scoreboard.

Actually, now that I've had a day to think about it, it really is the correct way to count it.

In the old days, if someone came to the site, joined a game, took only one turn and deadbeated out, that game would eventually end and he would be counted on the scoreboard. (If it was a 1v1 game it would end as soon as he deadbeated. If it was a multiplayer game it might end later, but as long as it was within the 30 days of his taking the first turn, it would count.

This really isn't any different. Now, if the NR deadbeats out of the game, it is deleted, so it doesn't show as a completed game, but the level of activity is basically the same as it always was (NR signs up and joins a game.) The word "completed" never did mean that he stuck around until the end. As long as he took one turn, the game would eventually end and put him on the scoreboard.

[WILLIAMS5232]

we'll see what comes of this. till then the real number is 9224. which is the amount of players that have at least one game completed.

please cc, all i have left is tracking the decline. if you take that away from me, i've got nothing. please don't make the scoreboard bunk too. now that the scoreboard is bunk, all my hard work is basically gone down the chute. the freaking poot chute. (robin williams)
please reverse the decision to make inactive members not count on the scoreboard.

Actually, now that I've had a day to think about it, it really is the correct way to count it.

In the old days, if someone came to the site, joined a game, took only one turn and deadbeated out, that game would eventually end and he would be counted on the scoreboard. (If it was a 1v1 game it would end as soon as he deadbeated. If it was a multiplayer game it might end later, but as long as it was within the 30 days of his taking the first turn, it would count.

This really isn't any different. Now, if the NR deadbeats out of the game, it is deleted, so it doesn't show as a completed game, but the level of activity is basically the same as it always was (NR signs up and joins a game.) The word "completed" never did mean that he stuck around until the end. As long as he took one turn, the game would eventually end and put him on the scoreboard.

damn loopholes.

well, i guess you got me there duk. but can we agree that it's dumb at least?

i mean, it's kind of stupid to want to count members that don't really play a point scoring game right? after all, it's on the scoreboard where it's being counted.

[Dukasaur]

we'll see what comes of this. till then the real number is 9224. which is the amount of players that have at least one game completed.

please cc, all i have left is tracking the decline. if you take that away from me, i've got nothing. please don't make the scoreboard bunk too. now that the scoreboard is bunk, all my hard work is basically gone down the chute. the freaking poot chute. (robin williams)
please reverse the decision to make inactive members not count on the scoreboard.

Actually, now that I've had a day to think about it, it really is the correct way to count it.

In the old days, if someone came to the site, joined a game, took only one turn and deadbeated out, that game would eventually end and he would be counted on the scoreboard. (If it was a 1v1 game it would end as soon as he deadbeated. If it was a multiplayer game it might end later, but as long as it was within the 30 days of his taking the first turn, it would count.

This really isn't any different. Now, if the NR deadbeats out of the game, it is deleted, so it doesn't show as a completed game, but the level of activity is basically the same as it always was (NR signs up and joins a game.) The word "completed" never did mean that he stuck around until the end. As long as he took one turn, the game would eventually end and put him on the scoreboard.

damn loopholes.

well, i guess you got me there duk. but can we agree that it's dumb at least?

i mean, it's kind of stupid to want to count members that don't really play a point scoring game right? after all, it's on the scoreboard where it's being counted.

Oh yes, I will agree with you on that. If I was designing a scoreboard from scratch, I wouldn't include anyone who deadbeated more than 50% of their games, so they would have to have at least 2 completed games and play out at least one of them.

I was just saying it's okay to keep counting the way you always have been. If you want to compare apples to apples, the new scoreboard is no more corrupt than the old one.

[WILLIAMS5232]

Oh yes, I will agree with you on that. If I was designing a scoreboard from scratch, I wouldn't include anyone who deadbeated more than 50% of their games, so they would have to have at least 2 completed games and play out at least one of them.

I was just saying it's okay to keep counting the way you always have been. If you want to compare apples to apples, the new scoreboard is no more corrupt than the old one.

actually, it's one thing to count deadbeaters that actually lose points, it's quite another to count them when they play a bot game with no points at risk. apples to apples..... i think not. more like bananas to grapes, or peanuts to almonds.

this has just been implemented. it's not like it was going on before, then something broke and they fixed it. someone intentionally felt like adding these flakes was a positive direction for what this site should be. you defending it;

Actually, now that I've had a day to think about it, it really is the correct way to count it.

makes it sound more like you just jump right on any old wagon that says it's headed to find the gold.

[josko.ri]

If you want to know real decline or incline trend of CC, you should rather look at monthly scoreboards rather than on overall scoreboard. Monthly scoreboard qualification criterium is completed at least 20 games per a month, so that shows better about actual activity of members. Whoever finishes more than 20 games per month can be called really active member, very likely premium member, so I think trend of overall CC activity can be better tracked from that data.

12/2014: 1998
11/2014: 1994
10/2014: 1953
09/2014: 1919
08/2014: 2003
07/2014: 2076
06/2014: 2193
05/2014: 2364
04/2014: 2540

There is no data available before April 2014, although data were tracked since October 2013. I believe that bigwham cleared the data before April 2014 when he fixed the long lasting problem about site lag bug.
The lag bug was fixed on October 12th, 2014, so we can observe that long lasting decline of at least 6 consecutive months was converted into at least 3 consecutive months of incline, in terms of number of players per month who finished at least 20 games. It will be interesting to see if the incline will continue, with new site additions from December/January. Currently, there are 1689 players in monthly scoreboard for January, with 7 more days still to go.

[IcePack]

If you want to know real decline or incline trend of CC, you should rather look at monthly scoreboards rather than on overall scoreboard. Monthly scoreboard qualification criterium is completed at least 20 games per a month, so that shows better about actual activity of members. Whoever finishes more than 20 games per month can be called really active member, very likely premium member, so I think trend of overall CC activity can be better tracked from that data.

12/2014: 1998
11/2014: 1994
10/2014: 1953
09/2014: 1919
08/2014: 2003
07/2014: 2076
06/2014: 2193
05/2014: 2364
04/2014: 2540

There is no data available before April 2014, although data were tracked since October 2013. I believe that bigwham cleared the data before April 2014 when he fixed the long lasting problem about site lag bug.
The lag bug was fixed on October 12th, 2014, so we can observe that long lasting decline of at least 6 consecutive months was converted into at least 3 consecutive months of incline, in terms of number of players per month who finished at least 20 games. It will be interesting to see if the incline will continue, with new site additions from December/January. Currently, there are 1689 players in monthly scoreboard for January, with 7 more days still to go.

Thank you for sharing, very interesting info / insight

[Dukasaur]

this has just been implemented. it's not like it was going on before, then something broke and they fixed it. someone intentionally felt like adding these flakes was a positive direction for what this site should be. you defending it;

No, the deleting of guide games was a relatively new phenomenon. I'm not sure how new, but only a few months. In the past, if someone joined a game, that game would stay in the system no matter what, regardless of how it ended, unless there was some kind of a bug. It would count even if they deadbeat out. Now, that game is deleted, but counting those "flakes" is closer to the way things were than not counting them.

As far as bot games go, that's a seperate issue, but I think if a person completes a game they complete a game. None of us really administer knows who are oppenents anyway. If my games were played by a bot, and you played against me, how would you know?

Actually, now that I've had a day to think about it, it really is the correct way to count it.

makes it sound more like you just jump right on any old wagon that says it's headed to find the gold.

No, it makes it sound like I took a day to think about the ramifications before posting. I don't think that's unreasonable at all, or particularly bandwagonny.

[WILLIAMS5232]

If you want to know real decline or incline trend of CC, you should rather look at monthly scoreboards rather than on overall scoreboard. Monthly scoreboard qualification criterium is completed at least 20 games per a month, so that shows better about actual activity of members. Whoever finishes more than 20 games per month can be called really active member, very likely premium member, so I think trend of overall CC activity can be better tracked from that data.

12/2014: 1998
11/2014: 1994
10/2014: 1953
09/2014: 1919
08/2014: 2003
07/2014: 2076
06/2014: 2193
05/2014: 2364
04/2014: 2540

There is no data available before April 2014, although data were tracked since October 2013. I believe that bigwham cleared the data before April 2014 when he fixed the long lasting problem about site lag bug.
The lag bug was fixed on October 12th, 2014, so we can observe that long lasting decline of at least 6 consecutive months was converted into at least 3 consecutive months of incline, in terms of number of players per month who finished at least 20 games. It will be interesting to see if the incline will continue, with new site additions from December/January. Currently, there are 1689 players in monthly scoreboard for January, with 7 more days still to go.

Thank you for sharing, very interesting info / insight

yes, i agree. this may have saved the decline for me. it will just take a while getting used to.

No, the deleting of guide games was a relatively new phenomenon. I'm not sure how new, but only a few months. In the past, if someone joined a game, that game would stay in the system no matter what, regardless of how it ended, unless there was some kind of a bug. It would count even if they deadbeat out. Now, that game is deleted, but counting those "flakes" is closer to the way things were than not counting them.

As far as bot games go, that's a seperate issue, but I think if a person completes a game they complete a game. None of us really administer knows who are oppenents anyway. If my games were played by a bot, and you played against me, how would you know?

to be fair, No. i didn't pay attention to how it was tallied before. but i'm pretty sure that if you sorted by finished games the last person on the list showed to have completed a game. now the last person (or hundreds of last persons) have completed 0 games.

which when you check out their game history, it will show that they have played one or a couple of guide, bot, or scenario games and deadbeated out or just lost. well my argument is that they were not there, before, they get no score from the game, yet it was decided that they should be added to the place of the site that will show what their score is... blah blah blah...

you know what. the more i try to explain myself the less i see this really matters. yay! for more members to fight for last place . this is what it's all about!!

No, it makes it sound like I took a day to think about the ramifications before posting. I don't think that's unreasonable at all, or particularly bandwagonny.

whatever we can do to to slow the decline let's do it. i'm happy that we have a slew of new members on board to play games with.
matter of fact, i'm going to go find one right now and invite him to a game.

[Dukasaur]

[

No, the deleting of guide games was a relatively new phenomenon. I'm not sure how new, but only a few months. In the past, if someone joined a game, that game would stay in the system no matter what, regardless of how it ended, unless there was some kind of a bug. It would count even if they deadbeat out. Now, that game is deleted, but counting those "flakes" is closer to the way things were than not counting them.

As far as bot games go, that's a seperate issue, but I think if a person completes a game they complete a game. None of us really administer knows who are oppenents anyway. If my games were played by a bot, and you played against me, how would you know?

to be fair, No. i didn't pay attention to how it was tallied before. but i'm pretty sure that if you sorted by finished games the last person on the list showed to have completed a game. now the last person (or hundreds of last persons) have completed 0 games.

which when you check out their game history, it will show that they have played one or a couple of guide, bot, or scenario games and deadbeated out or just lost. well my argument is that they were not there, before, they get no score from the game, yet it was decided that they should be added to the place of the site that will show what their score is... blah blah blah...

I'm not disagreeing with you. These people that come in, sign up for four games, finish none of them, can't really be thought of as members. All I'm saying is that they always did count for the scoreboard, so nothing has changed in that respect.

Let's take one real example. (Found this one in this thread:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=207240&start=25#p4566833)
Billy the Kid. Signed up July 11th, 2007, stayed for 3 minutes, never came back. Joined one game, Game 622690. Took two turns and left. A few days later, was duly kicked out of the game for missing three turns. (2007-07-17 09:53:48 - billy the kid was kicked out for missing too many turns) A few minutes later, somebody finished the game, and it was over. At that point, Billy the Kid, who had deadbeated out after taking only two turns, would have been counted as having finished one game, and he would have appeared on the scoreboard. Then he would have remained on the scoreboard until August 10th, 2007, 30 days after the day he took his two turns.

The only difference between then and now is that now if Billy the Kid shows up, he is steered toward a guide game, and the rule with guide games is that if the NR deadbeats out, the games are automatically deleted so the veterans don't have to waste time playing them out.

Billy the Kid was on the scoreboard in 2007, and if Killy the Bid shows up and does basically the same thing in 2015, he will appear on the scoreboard, but there will be no "completed" game to show because it will have been deleted.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that these people should be counted. I'm only saying that they always were, so if you want to compare apples to apples, if you want to compare 2007 numbers to 2015 numbers and make it a meaningful comparison, you need to count such people in 2015 because they were counted in 2007.

[Army of GOD]

10223

[AndyDufresne]

We must be inclining. There are two topics in the GD, a day apart from one another, that are asking about the largest cashing per set bonus for escalating. The mighty are rising?!?!?!!!!?!?

?!?!


--Andy

[TheMissionary]

There is actually 1649 players that have been added to the scoreboard. These are obviously all people that have googled online risk and registered and got bored/disillusioned with the site before finishing one game! So the actual number is around 8550 active players. And we will have a steady decline for the next 9 months guaranteed.

That's over 3k less than just one year ago, even with the dwindling numbers the lack of interest is gaining even more momentum. There is two answers to this:- rid the site of non risk sstyle maps and the multitude of settings or charge the existing members more and more as the numbers fall. Which option will BW choose?

[Conchobar]

[quote="WILLIAMS5232"][/quote]

Hey Will, quit yer moanin & play some games!

Seriously though, I have to wonder if there isn't more that could be done to boost the site membership.
Do you guys advertise anywhere at all ever? I don't think I've ever seen an ad for CC on the interweb or any apps.

[Serbia]

Nice that you're still pining for HighlanderAttack and rdsrds2120. A couple more whiners who quit CC because they disagreed with some trivial decision or other. Their existence is as insignificant as yours.

Well aren't you a piece of fucking shit. I bet you weren't running around saying HA and rds were insignificant before they left, but now you're calling them insignificant whiners who quit over something trivial simply because they aren't here anymore. Go fuck yourself, fuckface. Belligerent fucker.

This bog is thick and easy to get lost in,
Cause you're a dumb and belligerent fucker,
I hope it sucks you down,
Down... down... down...

Bollocks.

[owenshooter]

Nice that you're still pining for HighlanderAttack and rdsrds2120. A couple more whiners who quit CC because they disagreed with some trivial decision or other. Their existence is as insignificant as yours.

wow, man... you really stepped over a line here... volunteers talking about other volunteers that contributed a lot to the site and left for what many of us felt were GREAT reasons. if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. the level of disrespect you hit with that post is shocking. you should apologize, makes team CC seem very petty and immature. rd and HA were great while they were here and many of us agreed with them. while you are at it, why don't you belittle all the work that TWILL did around here or for that matter, Lack or Big Yeti... you know what, i don't agree with a lot of the things that andy did, but i know he was doing his job and what he was asked to do. and if i talk shit in the forums, he is here to defend himself. at the end of the day, no matter what andy did, i appreciate all the hard work and time he put into this site. and that is coming from a guy that he banned for almost 2 years in total. you'd better check yourself, before you wreck yourself...-Jésus noir

[thegreekdog]

Nice that you're still pining for HighlanderAttack and rdsrds2120. A couple more whiners who quit CC because they disagreed with some trivial decision or other. Their existence is as insignificant as yours.

Well aren't you a piece of fucking shit. I bet you weren't running around saying HA and rds were insignificant before they left, but now you're calling them insignificant whiners who quit over something trivial simply because they aren't here anymore. Go fuck yourself, fuckface. Belligerent fucker.

This bog is thick and easy to get lost in,
Cause you're a dumb and belligerent fucker,
I hope it sucks you down,
Down... down... down...

Bollocks.

Wait. RDS and HA left? When and why?

Also Duksaur - you suck. Seriously.

[Dukasaur]

Nice that you're still pining for HighlanderAttack and rdsrds2120. A couple more whiners who quit CC because they disagreed with some trivial decision or other. Their existence is as insignificant as yours.

wow, man... you really stepped over a line here... volunteers talking about other volunteers that contributed a lot to the site and left for what many of us felt were GREAT reasons. if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. the level of disrespect you hit with that post is shocking. you should apologize, makes team CC seem very petty and immature. rd and HA were great while they were here and many of us agreed with them.

Actually I really liked them both. I wasn't really attacking them, I was just attacking the nonsense that Confed posted, and they just happened to be in it. Kind of like when you start swinging in a bar fight and you accidentally hit the bartender. I apologise to rds and HA, no disrespect intended.