Limit New Recruits for 16 games, unlock settings and maps

[Dukasaur]

I've never participated in this thread before, but I've participated in similar debates in other online games. There is always someone saying, "newbies quit because we're too hard on them, we should....<INSERT RULE CHANGE> to make it easier."

It's just not true. Newbies are looking for the same things that veterans are looking for, an immersing, interesting experience. What immerses Tom might leave Dick and Harry bored to tears, so a certain percentage will try it, decide they don't like it, and quit. Rule changes won't change that, although too many rule changes might annoy enough veterans so as to make them quit.

It's always good to have training, tutorials, mentorship programs, and all those things, but they won't have any effect on the newbies leaving. Those that care enough to stick around will go into chat and search for mentors, they'll go into the forum and search for FAQ's, they'll take the initiative to ask for help and find it. Those who leave without asking for help are not leaving because help was unavailable, they are leaving because the overall experience was not interesting enough for them to bother. I'm very grateful for the help I got both from the SoC and from other people that have helped me with tips and advice, but quite honestly if I didn't find this game interesting, I would not have bothered asking for their help.


.

[natty dread]

It's always good to have training, tutorials, mentorship programs, and all those things, but they won't have any effect on the newbies leaving. Those that care enough to stick around will go into chat and search for mentors, they'll go into the forum and search for FAQ's, they'll take the initiative to ask for help and find it. Those who leave without asking for help are not leaving because help was unavailable, they are leaving because the overall experience was not interesting enough for them to bother. I'm very grateful for the help I got both from the SoC and from other people that have helped me with tips and advice, but quite honestly if I didn't find this game interesting, I would not have bothered asking for their help.

This is very well said and I agree with it 100%.

[SirSebstar]

edit: fastposted by 2 players, please read the player57832 post on the previous page

player57832, please stick to facts and quote me if you take issue with a statement I have made. Do not put words in my mouth please.
Most of the top half of your post above is either false, taken out of context or plain baiting /trolling. I am going to deal with a few statements you made in the top half of your post, let me know if an important issue remains unanswered and ill soon remedy that. My last paragraph will deal with your list comment.

To start off, since you have gotten me this far, QH states that there are few active players compared to the total amount of signups. Take it anyway you want, but player retention is a problem. This is the base problem. I am going to assume you mean to say QH failed to show how retention can be increased by the proposal. I could even agree with that, it’s a shot in the dark, but to me it makes sense. Why? Because of the studies I mentioned earlier https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006&p=2992497#p2992497
This suggests (suggests is not proving, but then nothing is ever proof until it’s over) that such a scheme might work for a number of people. Maybe not you, but then, it does not have to, you already passed the most difficult time successfully.

I am going to assume (because I am not god and therefore cannot KNOW) that by research QH means ongoing research, and therefore as time increases that argument gains validity. It might not be enough, but player, please lay of the personal baiting. QH did not launch this idea just to piss you off. The fact that I am a player and a discussion moderator is irrelevant in the interest of me in seeing this proposal succeed. I hold no special power here. Blake already locked down a thread and removed its sticky status because of trolling and baiting, and even if the troll and baiters went unpunished and unwarned, I know better to go down in flames here. I would think you would have gotten the hint and the verbal warning issued in the other thread too.

Having established some form of identification of a problem, some example of why this could work and I concur with another statement that you made. QH’s proposal is not ready by a long shot. However it is a start. I do appreciate some comments you have made in sofar that they seem to hold a deeper promise of examples and thought. However I keep being disappointed by your lack of links. I imagine this is just me, but may I request that the next time you refer either to work you have done, or to support of your statement by others, that you can either show a link or a quote? That way I too can see where you get your facts from.

Your list commentary:
I think QH needs more work on his listing of maps. I concur with that assessment, if that was what you were trying to say. I think the comment from you that

some maps ARE easier

makes me wonder, easier then never having played the game, or knowing only Hasbro maps?? Anyways the key point you stated is that QH seems deadest on this suggestion. I concur, if that was what you were saying. I am unsure if the proposal in any form will ever be, but we can at least come up with good idea’s how it might work, and maybe that in turn will lead to something much much better.

That’s all for now

[Queen_Herpes]

To provide further clarification on that point, I think that this option to drop the tutorial should be hidden. Available to players who had a benevolent friend bring them to the site, or available to the 99%ers who will take the time to read and search their way through the fora and rules and "how to play." Once found, then they can bypass the training...for good.

Which will never happen because they will have left the site by that point.

This is exactly right. The so-called "99%ers" (who, I suspect are more like 20+% of the people that join this site and stick around for any length of time) will simply not join in the first place once they realize how limited their options are. They won't stick around long enough to find the way to bypass training.

I think that comment is flat wrong. I've never, ever decided to "not play" or "not buy" or "not join" a game simply because my options were limited when I was a novice.

I have. Especially if I could find another option that maybe wasn't quite as polished but offered me a lot more freedom. It's one of the reasons many people chose the Android over the iPhone.

Further, let's take Junior Soccer as an example. When a 5 year old starts to play, they don't immediately play on the large field with a large ball. Instead, they are given a smaller ball, smaller field, and fewer players per team on the field. Each year, as they progress, the ball increases in size, the field gets larger, and more players are put on the field.

Granting for a moment that your analogy has any bearing on this situation (a position I would strongly dispute, but it's the least nonsensical of your analogies), your proposal assumes that everyone that signs up to play soccer is a 5-year old novice and treats them that way. It doesn't ask them if they're actually 20-year olds that have been playing soccer for years. It just tells everyone, "here's your beginner ball - now go play on the pint-size field. Next year you get a larger ball and larger field." So what do the 20-year olds do? A very few might go to the office and ask if there's any way they can go play on an appropriately sized field. Most will just say, "Screw this! I'm going across town to play there. The fields may not be as well kept, and they don't have the same quality referees, but at least I can play an enjoyable game!" Now, if you had 99% 5-year olds showing up and 1% of these experienced 20-year olds, it might not be an issue. But, just as a community soccer field is going to attract people anywhere from 5 to 50 with all sorts of different levels of experience, so this site attracts people with all manner of different preferences and skill levels.

I figured someone would go in this direction. I can tell you that, right now, if I tried to play in a softball league I would need the beginner help. As an adult with limited experience in that sport, there is a lot for me to learn. I would need to have people hand-hold me through my development. I had my hand held through learning here on this site. Although I play a lot of online video games and board games and games in general, I didn't immediately understand this gaming site. Conquerclub simply is not an obvious game with readily apparent rules. The people who come here, create a membership, then leave immediately to never return are leaving because there is zero directional signage and zero information on how to play the game given the controls. The "How to play" link tells you what to do once you have entered a game and the game has started. However, finding out how to "start" a game is not intuitive.

I've brought people to this site, people that are young, others who are adults. Only one of them has been able to stick with the site, and that is because I spent a great deal of time with that person teaching him "how to." He is an avid gamer, plays board games, and even played Risk in his youth. Yet, as an intelligent individual, he was not able to grasp this site without additional assistance. The others I brought here couldn't figure it out and I didn't have enough time to show them the ropes. They frequently mentioned that they didn't know how to perform tasks on this site. They also mentioned how much they liked playing, but that the confusion they experienced turned them away, time and time again. Again, some of them were young (middle school and high school) and some of them were adults. They haven't come back. I've tried to get them to play. Some of them played Risk with my husband, others still occasionally play Risk. The bottom line is that there are quite a few people who, without the "drive" to figure this out on their own, cannot figure it out despite the fact that they enjoy the game.

This site is too elitist if it thinks that new recruits should have the drive to figure this all out on their own. There are good gamers, good strategists out there and a tutorial just might help them continue to play here. I challenge you to come up with something that will help those many individuals who have come to this site and experienced some level of frustration that made them choose to not return. Again, I challenge you to come up with an automatic training program to help them understand this site and this game.

[Nendreel]

If the goal is to keep new players from quitting, then locking the maps for 16 games will just change who stays and who quits. One of the best ways to learn the more difficult settings and maps is to just enter a game and figure it out. Yes, some of the more impatient and dumber players will need to have their hands held throughout a training process, but that's not really a good reason to punish the smarter players.

I figure there are three ways to help keep more members without having to lock anybody out of the cool maps for 16 games.

1. Revamp the Instructions page.
Add better explanations for game modes and options and include some pictures for examples.

2. Push the Society of Cooks program a little more.
Those who need to have their hand held through a training program can do it here.

3. Organize the maps into difficulty levels.
This is pretty much the only part of the suggestion I agree with. What maps go where is a discussion for another time, but if the maps are organized into some difficulty levels it's a lot less likely that new players will be getting into the more difficult maps without realizing it.

Honestly, there's no reason to start locking things up when better organization can solve the problem.

[Doc_Brown]

I figured someone would go in this direction. I can tell you that, right now, if I tried to play in a softball league I would need the beginner help. As an adult with limited experience in that sport, there is a lot for me to learn.

Sure. But you would need a different type of help than a 5-year old would. And you would want help. You wouldn't want the league to just hand you a smaller bat, lighter ball, and a smaller field and then tell you to go have fun. Your proposal doesn't actually provide any instruction to new players. It doesn't restructure the site into a more understandable form. It doesn't even actually hide anything that new players would be confronted with prior to joining a game. The only thing is does is cause fewer games to be shown on the "Join a Game" list.

You said that this suggestion is targeted at the people that register and never join a game. But the suggestion would only affect people that joined more than 5 games! In other words, your suggestion does nothing to solve the problem you're worried about.

I've brought people to this site, people that are young, others who are adults. Only one of them has been able to stick with the site, and that is because I spent a great deal of time with that person teaching him "how to." He is an avid gamer, plays board games, and even played Risk in his youth. Yet, as an intelligent individual, he was not able to grasp this site without additional assistance. The others I brought here couldn't figure it out and I didn't have enough time to show them the ropes. They frequently mentioned that they didn't know how to perform tasks on this site.

I don't want to denigrate you or anyone else, but I'm not sure how this site could be made more intuitive! There's a nice big menu over the at the top left of the screen and the second option is "Join a Game." I can understand the "Start a Game" screen being confusing to some people, but your proposal doesn't have anything to do with restructuring that menu. You click "Join a Game" and see a nice long list of available games, all with big blue links next to them labeled "Join Game." It's one of the more intuitive game sites I've played at.

I've got 8 people listed on my site referral list that can provide direct information about. Two of them never played a single game (one being my brother). I've talked to both, and they joined because I encouraged them to do so, but they poked around a bit and decided they didn't have the time to get involved in another game site (and my brother had limited access at work anyway). I can tell you for certain that for both of those two, if I told them they'd spend 4 months on restricted play before they could try some of the crazier maps and features, it would be a huge disincentive for them.
Two of the people on my list joined games but deadbeated in their first games and never returned. I don't know either of those two - they apparently came via a comment I posted on another site. One of those two played several turns and seemed to have a reasonable idea of what was going on but just never stuck with it. The other was the all-to-common person that joined games and got tired of waiting for them to start and never came back. In both cases, reducing the number of available maps (they were new recruits, so they couldn't access the alternative game types anyway) would not have changed the outcome.
The next one on my list stuck around for two months and was part of the SoC, so he had much more help than your proposal would have offered. He also decided he wasn't interested.
The remaining three played for about a year or more before drifting elsewhere. All three left well after the end of the period covered by your proposal, so none of them would have been encouraged to stay if it were in place (and I know based on conversations that at least one of them would have left very quickly rather than sticking around for nearly 100 games).

So there's my survey of 8 people I have direct experience with. None of them would have had an improved experience or have been more likely to stick around if your proposal was implemented. Also, none of them complained about the structure of the site or found it too confusing.

[PLAYER57832]

edit: fastposted by 2 players, please read the player57832 post on the previous page

player57832, please stick to facts and quote me if you take issue with a statement I have made. Do not put words in my mouth please.
Most of the top half of your post above is either false, taken out of context or plain baiting /trolling. I am going to deal with a few statements you made in the top half of your post, let me know if an important issue remains unanswered and ill soon remedy that. My last paragraph will deal with your list comment.

To start off, since you have gotten me this far, QH states that there are few active players compared to the total amount of signups. Take it anyway you want, but player retention is a problem. This is the base problem.

Stop here, because this is just not true. That is, you cannot just say "we only retain x numbers, so we have to do better". Let me give you an example. I have done a lot of network marketing. It is entirely a "numbers game". You call x people and you know most will say "no", but you keep on until you get that one "yes". You don't worry about the "no's", not really. (if you did, you would go crazy because you always get a LOT more "no's" than "yes's" ). It is no different here. EXCEPT that the numbers for internet retention are actually much lower. Any figures I cite will be off, and I am sure Lack has the most up-to-date info, so I won't quote anything here (you might ask him). Now, in fact, I KNOW, from previous conversations with Lack (yep, he used to talk to us individually, before he got overrun). That he was pretty happy with the retention rates in the past. We had some significant drops, in particular when Classic was changed. (either you remember or you don't)., but overall, he was happy.. at least dating back to a year ago. That is, Lack was happy about the numbers even while QH was promoting this idea.

Maybe that changed. (quite possible!!!), maybe he is no longer happy with the numbers. If so, I would like to know that. Instead, what I believe he says is "sure, we would like improvement". What manager/owner wouldn't! Well, actually, as I stated earlier, there was a point when CC had reached capacity. Lack then added servers, made some various improvements. Maybe now he is at a point where he does want a bigger push to bring in members.

*****OK, now let me stop there, because I want to be sure you don't misunderstand. Until Lack says there is a problem recruiting. So far, I don't truly believe he has. What he HAS said is "we can improve", "we would like to improve".

Now why is that distinction important? It is important because any change you make comes with a risk of causing more harm than good. If there is a real and true problem, then it might be worth making more risky choices, might be worth making "stab in the dark" attempts to fix problems. Even then you want as much evidence as possible, want to make the best choice you can, but some risk is acceptable.

IF there is no real, fundamental problem, then does that mean we stay put? No, of course not. As another saying goes "to stay is to go backwards." BUT, it does mean that there needs to be a LOT more care and consideration into making anything but minor changes.

Take the feedback system. I am sure there were people who left, who still leave because of it (far fewer now). Lack knew that would happen, but the change was necessary because the old system just took too much time (etc, etc, etc.. you can go back and read the old threads if you really want to know about it). Even so, he went through a process, took many, many, many comments, had a big banner in the game page for people to come in and comment/vote, etc. And then POOF, the new system was implemented. It still has problems, but Lack stated when it was implemented that he wanted it to work for a while before making further changes. We are now about there, but that is for other threads.

The point is that this system you present will make an even more fundamental change and yet there is no overridingly important reason to install it. Again, simply saying "only 4% stay" is NOT enough. It just isn't. As you and QH both were told earlier, to even prove there is a problem with retention, you have to show that this site has a much lower retention rate than other similar websites. My understanding is, again, that the retention rates here ARE very comparable to other sites.

The NEXT step is to figure out why people are leaving. QH's basic theory is that people are leaving because there are too many options, too many maps. You have backed her up by saying this is what you believe also. Fine, as far as it goes. HOWEVER, neither of you stop there. You both want to say you have proof that this is true. This is where the rest of us take serious issue. The truth is you have not presented scientifically or statistically/mathematically significant evidence of your theory. You have presented opinion and anecdotal evidence, but that contrasts directly with what the majority of posters feel and see.

For some reason neither QH nor you seem willing to accept or understand those basic points.
That is, the points that you have not really shown there to be a problem OR clearly and correctly defined the problem.

Unless and until you do that, NO idea you present will solve anything, because, you are not directing it at a real problem.

Within this thread are some good ideas. I have, you could say, "spun off" a couple of threads based on ideas I thought of based on things presented here. However, that does not justify in any way even considering this idea further, never mind implementing it.

I am going to assume you mean to say QH failed to show how retention can be increased by the proposal. I could even agree with that, it’s a shot in the dark, but to me it makes sense. Why? Because of the studies I mentioned earlier https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006&p=2992497#p2992497

DO NOT ASSUME when communicating with someone! I believe I have been both thorough and clear. If not, then ASK, DO NOT ASSUME! You will almost always be wrong, as you indeed are here!

My problem is far more fundamental. To be clear, I do not think her idea will solve anything, but until you understand the above, there is really no point in even getting into that.

I am going to assume (because I am not god and therefore cannot KNOW) that by research QH means ongoing research, and therefore as time increases that argument gains validity.

Again, please don't assume! The evidence is there. When I say QH did not do any research, that this idea was not developed based on research, it is because I have seen this idea from its beginning. QH has modified her debate, etc, but for her to claim she did research and came up with this idea is just not true. Go back and visit the ORIGINAL threads, not QH's postings, but the responses.. and you will see a lot of what I am saying (if you wish to take the time). Or, you could just consider that when so many older, normally very considerate players are making such statements, perhaps there is a bit more than just spurious acusations.

I think QH needs more work on his listing of maps. I concur with that assessment, if that was what you were trying to say. I think the comment from you that

some maps ARE easier

makes me wonder, easier then never having played the game, or knowing only Hasbro maps?? Anyways the key point you stated is that QH seems deadest on this suggestion. I concur, if that was what you were saying. I am unsure if the proposal in any form will ever be, but we can at least come up with good idea’s how it might work, and maybe that in turn will lead to something much much better.

That’s all for now

NO! and that type of "summary" are precisely why you are getting something akin to personnal attacks. For you to even claim that my primary objection is that QH needs a better list of maps means you have not understood a THING I have said. The problem is that EVERY ASPECT OF HER FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENTS AND YOURS ARE UNPROVEN.. and, most of us feel plain wrong.


As for the rest.. I have no idea where you get the idea that I am not familiar with these games or other games. I was the first person to have played every map when there were just 100 out there. I kept up not just playing, but winning at least 10 times, every map up until my second year of premium expired and I no longer had the funds to continue. I have been involved in many other aspects of this site, including several discussions not open to the public. I also have a background in sampling design and statistics. I can no longer just whip out the various formulae, but I definitely understand the concepts, sometimes better than those who are actively using those stats now.

it seems like this has become a personal challenge for not just QH, but you. you both want to see this passed, no matter what. I just wish you would stop and actually pay attention to what so many of us are saying.

[Queen_Herpes]

I figured someone would go in this direction. I can tell you that, right now, if I tried to play in a softball league I would need the beginner help. As an adult with limited experience in that sport, there is a lot for me to learn.

Sure. But you would need a different type of help than a 5-year old would. And you would want help. You wouldn't want the league to just hand you a smaller bat, lighter ball, and a smaller field and then tell you to go have fun. Your proposal doesn't actually provide any instruction to new players. It doesn't restructure the site into a more understandable form. It doesn't even actually hide anything that new players would be confronted with prior to joining a game. The only thing is does is cause fewer games to be shown on the "Join a Game" list.

You said that this suggestion is targeted at the people that register and never join a game. But the suggestion would only affect people that joined more than 5 games! In other words, your suggestion does nothing to solve the problem you're worried about.

I have stated time and again that mine is certainly not the best, but I do belive it would be an option that allows for easier understanding. If they see fewer games on game finder, I think that is better for them. The umpteen games on game finder can be likened to a shark going after a school of fish: too many choices, the shark cannot pick out just one, the shark doesn't eat. Provide a shortened list of available games and I believe that the result will be more likely that the new recruit will choose a game and proceed forward. As to the softball suggestion, I would imagine they would toss the ball at me more slowly, I would use a lighter bat until I can swing the heavy one, and someone would tell me to run to first instead of third (I do know that much from watching baseball, and I have seen adults run from home to third when playing softball (presumably for the first time.)) There would be a novice introduction to the game for an adult.

I've brought people to this site, people that are young, others who are adults. Only one of them has been able to stick with the site, and that is because I spent a great deal of time with that person teaching him "how to." He is an avid gamer, plays board games, and even played Risk in his youth. Yet, as an intelligent individual, he was not able to grasp this site without additional assistance. The others I brought here couldn't figure it out and I didn't have enough time to show them the ropes. They frequently mentioned that they didn't know how to perform tasks on this site.

I don't want to denigrate you or anyone else, but I'm not sure how this site could be made more intuitive! There's a nice big menu over the at the top left of the screen and the second option is "Join a Game." I can understand the "Start a Game" screen being confusing to some people, but your proposal doesn't have anything to do with restructuring that menu. You click "Join a Game" and see a nice long list of available games, all with big blue links next to them labeled "Join Game." It's one of the more intuitive game sites I've played at.

Certainly "Join a Game" is intuitive. However, once you get there, I don't believe it is very intuitive. I think most new players simply click on whatever games are on page one. I've added in the commentary to this suggestion (and haven't updated the First Post with this tid bit yet) that page one of game finder should have the newest games...not the oldest ones. You and I know that that games on page one (currently) are the games that no one else wanted to play. They have stuck around the longest because the settings combined with the map and number of players is not conducive to a successful or enjoyable experience...ergo...they linger until they reach page one...then the new recruits join them, the games don't start right away, the new recruits deadbeat.

"Start a game" is intuitive only for the fact that you can hit the "start" button and a game is initiated. Well, it isn't started. Maybe Start A Game should be called "Build a Game'? If changed to "Build a Game" then the new recruit will understand that the game won't start RIGHT AWAY. The controls within the start a game menu are not intuitive. What is Terminator? What is Assassin? Choosing a map? And, for the record, the "start a game" menu is the only place where a new recruit can see a list of all the maps. They can click on "browse maps" and get a huge screen with our hundreds of maps as small clickable icons. The link found under each map tells players about the quenching process and other really useless cartography and map building informatoin about the map. (Useless to the new recruit.) Since this is the only place they can find all the wonderful maps on the whole of conquerclub, I fail to see how they could possibly be disaffected by learning that they will only have access to 25 maps for their first 4 games. They couldn't possibly know about all of the maps. Not possible. If they are not a member, they browse this site, there is no information about "all of the maps." Just doesn't exist.

To your point that you don't think that my suggestion has anything to do with "start a game" it absolutely does. Just as non premiums are disallowed to start password games or start speed games, a new recruit would see that they could not start an assassin game or an 8 player game, etc. I can see that someone may be pissed that they cannot start an assassin game, but since they have never played one, why would it bother them that they would have to wait "4 games" until they could? What if an "or" statement was put in that said "or buy premium." If they really want an eight player game on Waterloo or AOR2, couldn't they wait until they finished 4 games? or 8? If they were really, really hurting to play a map they've never seen before, they could buy premium and then their wait would be over. Or, honestly, its not that difficult to complete a few games before "advancing." We're not talking rocket science here. They get to play, they play on maps they've never seen before, then they get new maps and new settings that (once again) they've never seen before.

I've got 8 people listed on my site referral list that can provide direct information about. Two of them never played a single game (one being my brother). I've talked to both, and they joined because I encouraged them to do so, but they poked around a bit and decided they didn't have the time to get involved in another game site (and my brother had limited access at work anyway). I can tell you for certain that for both of those two, if I told them they'd spend 4 months on restricted play before they could try some of the crazier maps and features, it would be a huge disincentive for them.
Two of the people on my list joined games but deadbeated in their first games and never returned. I don't know either of those two - they apparently came via a comment I posted on another site. One of those two played several turns and seemed to have a reasonable idea of what was going on but just never stuck with it. The other was the all-to-common person that joined games and got tired of waiting for them to start and never came back. In both cases, reducing the number of available maps (they were new recruits, so they couldn't access the alternative game types anyway) would not have changed the outcome.
The next one on my list stuck around for two months and was part of the SoC, so he had much more help than your proposal would have offered. He also decided he wasn't interested.
The remaining three played for about a year or more before drifting elsewhere. All three left well after the end of the period covered by your proposal, so none of them would have been encouraged to stay if it were in place (and I know based on conversations that at least one of them would have left very quickly rather than sticking around for nearly 100 games).

So there's my survey of 8 people I have direct experience with. None of them would have had an improved experience or have been more likely to stick around if your proposal was implemented. Also, none of them complained about the structure of the site or found it too confusing.

My theory with respect to your friends who didn't stick around is that if they were restricted to 1v1 games at the start, and the join a game menu showed the newest games first, the likelihood that their game(s) would have actually started (after creating them in the improperly named "start a game" menu) and they could have played them quickly and learned fast. I think they would have stuck around.

In long ago posts, you mentioned that freemiums (like you once were) could only finish 4 games in like one month at best. The reason being that most new recruits join those 8-player games on page one. Do I like multiplayer games? Sure I do! But the problem is that a new recruit (looking for a fast experience) is not going to get a real-time, play-right-now experience by signing up to play a 4 player game on World 2.1. Direct them, guide them, towards the fastest possible games on the maps that require the least amount of reading/studying/learning time with settings that are straightforward and I believe they will enjoy that experience and hunger for more. By the time they've bored of 1v1, they will have played enough games to get out of this tutorial. They leave the tutorial (and I agree it is pseudo-tutorial and doesn't really "teach" them) and they know a little bit about how to play (not how to win, I don't pretend that this teaches strategy.) My choice of words to "direct them" and "guide them" really are the same thing as "restricting them." However, by limiting what choices they can make, I believe they can more easily make a choice, move forward, play more games in a short period of time.

[Doc_Brown]

I'm one of those people that doesn't really like 1v1 games. If your suggestion was in place, I would have registered for the site, looked at the available games and then never come back. I believe Dukasaur noted that suggestion may retain some people while causing others to leave. That is exactly correct. But consider the particular types of people that you're encouraging to stay vs. encouraging to leave. The ones that will leave are the ones that like different challenges and feel confined and restricted with a small subset of the available options. The ones that will stay are the ones that prefer hand-holding and will stick with a smaller set of maps and settings that they get used to. But the ones you chase away are the ones that would be your map beta-testers and are the ones that come up with unique ideas for game options. They also happen to be the ones more likely to be loyal to the site and more likely to stick around long-term.

[Queen_Herpes]

I'm one of those people that doesn't really like 1v1 games. If your suggestion was in place, I would have registered for the site, looked at the available games and then never come back. I believe Dukasaur noted that suggestion may retain some people while causing others to leave. That is exactly correct. But consider the particular types of people that you're encouraging to stay vs. encouraging to leave. The ones that will leave are the ones that like different challenges and feel confined and restricted with a small subset of the available options. The ones that will stay are the ones that prefer hand-holding and will stick with a smaller set of maps and settings that they get used to. But the ones you chase away are the ones that would be your map beta-testers and are the ones that come up with unique ideas for game options. They also happen to be the ones more likely to be loyal to the site and more likely to stick around long-term.

They would play 1v1 games for a VERY short period of time and it would accelerate their introduction to the game AND it would allow them to achieve that aspect that we all know is a big part of this: real time games that give them what they want, right away.

Imagine if the 1v1v1 was unlocked after 2 completed games of 1v1. The new recruit might see that the 1v1 games go faster than even the 1v1v1 games go, and may stick with those 1v1 games to "figure things out." If after the 4th game, 1v1v1v1 games and 2v2 games are unlocked, I think the player might be more tuned to the system to join a 2v2, but who knows? While I am a bad example, I can finish 5 or 6 1v1 games (non-speed) in about one hour (assuming the opponent is similarly motivated.) This allows me to keep game slots open for multiplayer games and tournament games. I think the new recruit would enjoy learning the game quickly, playing a lot of games in a short period of time. It certainly is possible for a new recruit to blast through enough games in one afternoon to unlock most (if not all) of the settings and maps.

Again, the goal is to keep them here. I hear what you are saying, but I think you can appreciate the speed benefit for a new recruit to join, start, play, and complete games in a short period of time.

[Nendreel]

They would play 1v1 games for a VERY short period of time and it would accelerate their introduction to the game AND it would allow them to achieve that aspect that we all know is a big part of this: real time games that give them what they want, right away.

Actually they wouldn't. I've been playing quite a few 1v1s lately and very few of them happen in realtime. A few rounds can go by quickly, but unless you arrange it ahead of time almost none will finish on the same day.

Imagine if the 1v1v1 was unlocked after 2 completed games of 1v1. The new recruit might see that the 1v1 games go faster than even the 1v1v1 games go, and may stick with those 1v1 games to "figure things out." If after the 4th game, 1v1v1v1 games and 2v2 games are unlocked, I think the player might be more tuned to the system to join a 2v2, but who knows?

Except that there are some NRs that are tuned to the system after 1 or 2 games and could play 2v2s or 8 player games. If we limit them, they would probably just leave after 2 or 3 games. Its just catering to one group at the expense of another.

While I am a bad example, I can finish 5 or 6 1v1 games (non-speed) in about one hour (assuming the opponent is similarly motivated.) This allows me to keep game slots open for multiplayer games and tournament games. I think the new recruit would enjoy learning the game quickly, playing a lot of games in a short period of time. It certainly is possible for a new recruit to blast through enough games in one afternoon to unlock most (if not all) of the settings and maps.

While it is possible it isn't very likely. As I mentioned I've been playing a lot of 1v1s lately and they still take the better part of a week to complete. To finish 16 1v1s would take nearly a month. Had this been in place when I joined up I certainly would have quit long before I unlocked the other options and maps.

Again, the goal is to keep them here. I hear what you are saying, but I think you can appreciate the speed benefit for a new recruit to join, start, play, and complete games in a short period of time.

So letting them play speed games would help them more than limiting them.

[SirSebstar]

To start off, ...... what so many of us are saying.

Thanks player57832 for such a coherent piece. I don't agree with all your points, but I do agree I want the best for this site, just like you.
Let me recap and say that this proposal is not going to make it in this form. You admitted it had some good points. Its up to the community to keep the good and remove the bad.
For now I will keep developing the idea, but only because I believe in the premise. I would have liked to have had the choice in the start. But other then that, I think I understand where you come from, so I'll take that into account.

for now I am going to take a break from this idea and do some more research. Maybe something else will give me an idea how ti fix it, or if its unfixxable, what is worth keeping and what is not..
after all, thats why suggs is here..

[PLAYER57832]

To start off, ...... what so many of us are saying.

Thanks player57832 for such a coherent piece. I don't agree with all your points, but I do agree I want the best for this site, just like you.
Let me recap and say that this proposal is not going to make it in this form. You admitted it had some good points.

NO, in fact I did not. I said it had spun off some other ideas.

I have said, from the first time QH presented this idea about 2 years ago, that it was not a good idea. It is based on false information and false premises. No matter how well intentioned, that is what I have seen from the start.

[Woodruff]

In being given the option of "Would you prefer to have all of our maps available to you or would you prefer to have maps given to you a set at a time?", do you think there will be a large clamoring for the second option? I can't imagine there are a LOT of people who would see that question and think "Sure, I'd rather not have access to all of the maps now". It just doesn't make sense to me. Thus, if this were implemented as only an option as you suggest...the very limited use of it in comparison to the very large time required to implement it would seem to be a rather large negative.

I agree with you Woodruff. I think that this option to drop the tutorial should be hidden. Available to players who had a benevolent friend bring them to the site, or available to the 99%ers who will take the time to read and search their way through the fora and rules and "how to play." Once found, then they can bypass the training...for good.

So, you're acknowledging that new players would not voluntarily choose this option. You're, in essence, telling them:

We're going to make this site a lot less fun for your first four months here because we don't trust you to not screw up our games. We know better than you do what's good for you, and we're going to force you to jump through some arbitrary hoops in a fixed track based on arbitrary and subjective ideas about what settings are easiest for everyone. Even though there is no teaching involved, we're going to call this "training." And we're going to reduce the amount of fun you are able to have on this site for your first four months because we know that when you have fewer opportunities for enjoyment here, you're much more likely to stick around.

So the site was "unfun" when there were only a few dozen maps and two settings?

It absolutely was LESS fun. Unquestionably. Why do you try to twist everything like this? You do a tremendous disservice to your own arguments.

[Queen_Herpes]

So the site was "unfun" when there were only a few dozen maps and two settings?

It absolutely was LESS fun. Unquestionably. Why do you try to twist everything like this? You do a tremendous disservice to your own arguments.

I don't think I did a disservice to the suggestion. The point is this: people still played, people stayed. Was it less fun than it is now? Apparently. Yet members played, paid, and stayed. If we restrict new recruits to a small number of maps and settings, they would be offered the same experience the initial members of conquerclub all had when they first joined. If they stayed...wouldn't it be possible that the new recruits might stay?

[PLAYER57832]

So the site was "unfun" when there were only a few dozen maps and two settings?

It absolutely was LESS fun. Unquestionably. Why do you try to twist everything like this? You do a tremendous disservice to your own arguments.

I don't think I did a disservice to the suggestion. The point is this: people still played, people stayed. Was it less fun than it is now? Apparently. Yet members played, paid, and stayed. If we restrict new recruits to a small number of maps and settings, they would be offered the same experience the initial members of conquerclub all had when they first joined. If they stayed...wouldn't it be possible that the new recruits might stay?

With all due respect, this is precisely the type of post that makes the rest of us frustrated, even a tad angry (becuase you persist in it!).

You start by talking about how this will increase numbers. Now, whether you realize it or not, you are saying "so what if people don't like it, some will stay". You cannot have it both/all ways.

Try this: write out, in one short sentence, what the goal is of your plan. No paragraphs of explanation, just one short sentence. THEN, as short and direct as possible, write down your proof, your evidence (what the evidence is, where and how you obtained this evidence, etc.) that your plan will work.

I know I can be wordy, too. However, I can also be concise. This is not a political discussion with a thousand shades of grey. If you cannot explain in a couple of short sentences, then you have not a well thought out idea.

Once you have done those 2 things, then see if any of our various posts (Woodruff's mine, etc) dispute what you are saying. OR, simply wait for us to respond.... again.

either way, think seriously about our objections. Don't just leap into any kind of argument you can to try and prove us wrong. Don't do as you have in the past few posts and try to make opposition seem as if it were approval.. if only you made a few small tweaks. This is not a debate team challenge where the goal is just to win the debate. This is a question of a potentially very serious and significant change to CC, which will impact how many new people come, how the site evolves. Consider our specific points and counter those specific points, truly. Then, you can try to counter them, but again... in one or two short sentences.

[Queen_Herpes]

So the site was "unfun" when there were only a few dozen maps and two settings?

It absolutely was LESS fun. Unquestionably. Why do you try to twist everything like this? You do a tremendous disservice to your own arguments.

I don't think I did a disservice to the suggestion. The point is this: people still played, people stayed. Was it less fun than it is now? Apparently. Yet members played, paid, and stayed. If we restrict new recruits to a small number of maps and settings, they would be offered the same experience the initial members of conquerclub all had when they first joined. If they stayed...wouldn't it be possible that the new recruits might stay?

With all due respect, this is precisely the type of post that makes the rest of us frustrated, even a tad angry (becuase you persist in it!).

You start by talking about how this will increase numbers. Now, whether you realize it or not, you are saying "so what if people don't like it, some will stay". You cannot have it both/all ways.

Try this: write out, in one short sentence, what the goal is of your plan. No paragraphs of explanation, just one short sentence. THEN, as short and direct as possible, write down your proof, your evidence (what the evidence is, where and how you obtained this evidence, etc.) that your plan will work.

I know I can be wordy, too. However, I can also be concise. This is not a political discussion with a thousand shades of grey. If you cannot explain in a couple of short sentences, then you have not a well thought out idea.

Once you have done those 2 things, then see if any of our various posts (Woodruff's mine, etc) dispute what you are saying. OR, simply wait for us to respond.... again.

either way, think seriously about our objections. Don't just leap into any kind of argument you can to try and prove us wrong. Don't do as you have in the past few posts and try to make opposition seem as if it were approval.. if only you made a few small tweaks. This is not a debate team challenge where the goal is just to win the debate. This is a question of a potentially very serious and significant change to CC, which will impact how many new people come, how the site evolves. Consider our specific points and counter those specific points, truly. Then, you can try to counter them, but again... in one or two short sentences.

Player,
You persist in making claims that are false. This is why I have ignored your comments. I cannot respond to your comments when you make glaringly incorrect statements. Case-in-point, you have claimed, not once, but several times that I had not played any of the maps I was categorizing and grouping back when I started this discussion. Well, the discussion started in November, 2009. I had cross map gold in September, 2009. To put it in straightforward terms, I had played and won on enough maps prior to November, 2009. That claim of yours that I hadn't played enough of the maps, was false.

Another false claim is that this suggestion was "not" based upon research. I performed research, and I metnioned it in the locked suggestion. I also hold a position of some value (at least my fellow executives and the board think this way) at a prominent video game company. This position allows me to be aware of research, statistics (including retention figures), and trends at our company as well as the industry as a whole. There really is no need for me to bring up this information, as it really shouldn't be relevant, but you keep claiming that you've been here longer, played more games, know more about this and that, etc., that I felt it was time to open your eyes a bit to at least one person who is involved in this discussion. Really though, this site is fun, I enjoy it, and I thought I could toss some information out there that could be helpful. I honestly thought I could start a discussion that would hope to affect some change in the form and format that this gaming site operates.

You have changed your way of discussing this topic and edited at least one post where you attacked me personally. This post of yours to which I respond now is evidence of attacking me, and not dealing with the discussion. Truly, keep it off of me, and return it to the topic.

To your point that I am somehow avoiding the discussion, first, I don't have as much time as you do to post on the fora. What time I do have, I attempt to respond to discussion points. I don't have the time to respond as frequently as I would like. I have sent PMs to members who made points and let them know that it would take some time for me to respond to them fully. Woodruff was one of them, Doc_Brown and others (who keep this out of the personal attack realm) have also received PMs from me letting them know that I will get to their posts in time. Now you've taken time that I could have spent discussing the suggestion and the responses. Try to limit your post to discussing the suggestion, not discussing me, not discussing how I am responding to the comments, not claiming (falsely) that I haven't played enough of the maps, not telling me how I am not consise, not rambling on about things that have nothing to do with the suggestion.

To you point that was on topic, "You start by talking about how this will increase numbers. Now, whether you realize it or not, you are saying "so what if people don't like it, some will stay". You cannot have it both/all ways." This comment of yours, player, doesn't make sense. In no way would I pretend that my suggestion would make 100% of new recruits stay at the site. I do think it will improve to a more reputable percentage closer to 6% or 7%. I would be very surprised if the retention percentage increased to a level more in line with the industry standard.

As for everyone else, I will attempt to get back to your responses as soon as I have time. I appreciate your comments, especially the ones that argue against the suggestion.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,
You persist in making claims that are false. This is why I have ignored your comments. I cannot respond to your comments when you make glaringly incorrect statements. Case-in-point, you have claimed, not once, but several times that I had not played any of the maps I was categorizing and grouping back when I started this discussion

.
Correction, I say you had not played ALL the maps in question. .. and at the time you had not, because I checked.. back then.

Similarly, what you call "research" just does not meet standards. Sorry, but it doesn't. I did explain why and what is needed, but that was one of those posts you considered a "personal attack".

The rest of your statement has nothing truly to do with my post.
Except, I will say that having access to data and knowing how to use it are 2 very different things. And I have had that conversation with plenty of PhDs, so its not an insult to anyone's intelligence. Its just a statement of fact.

[Queen_Herpes]

Lets return to topic. At present, I'd like to know how players woud like to group the maps:
- whether part of this suggestion or not.
- whether this suggestion gets submitted or approved or shredded.

It seems that most people agree that the way the maps are displayed to all users (especially new users) is not the best.

1. My concept of how to group the maps is listed in the original post....what is your thought?
2. There should be a link to the "map room" on the title bar across the top of the page.
3. There should be a link to "strategy guide" when a player opens a map to review it. Same link should be available on a game in progress.
4. The link to the "discussion topic" when a player opens a map to review it should be removed, it doesn't really help anyone.
5. Map Room should be broken down into categories of maps.

Thoughts?

[Woodruff]

So the site was "unfun" when there were only a few dozen maps and two settings?

It absolutely was LESS fun. Unquestionably. Why do you try to twist everything like this? You do a tremendous disservice to your own arguments.

I don't think I did a disservice to the suggestion.

Once again, that's not what I said.

The point is this: people still played, people stayed. Was it less fun than it is now? Apparently. Yet members played, paid, and stayed. If we restrict new recruits to a small number of maps and settings, they would be offered the same experience the initial members of conquerclub all had when they first joined. If they stayed...wouldn't it be possible that the new recruits might stay?

NOT IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE BEING UNNECESSARILY THROTTLED, NO. You see, it's a perspective shift. We played and stayed and we knew we had the full run of the place. If I had been throttled like this back then EVEN AT THE LEVEL THAT I ACTUALLY PLAYED AT, I almost certainly would have left. It's all about perspective.

[Woodruff]

It seems that most people agree that the way the maps are displayed to all users (especially new users) is not the best.

I DON'T actually agree...but I also don't consider it particularly important enough to argue against.

2. There should be a link to the "map room" on the title bar across the top of the page.

Sure, why not.

3. There should be a link to "strategy guide" when a player opens a map to review it. Same link should be available on a game in progress.

Good idea.

4. The link to the "discussion topic" when a player opens a map to review it should be removed, it doesn't really help anyone.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that once someone has opened up the strategy guide to review it the first time, then that link is removed? Not sure if that's good or not. Also not sure if I even got that right. <smile>

5. Map Room should be broken down into categories of maps.

Again, I don't really see the need. But I don't really care either.

[Queen_Herpes]

4. The link to the "discussion topic" when a player opens a map to review it should be removed, it doesn't really help anyone.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that once someone has opened up the strategy guide to review it the first time, then that link is removed? Not sure if that's good or not. Also not sure if I even got that right. <smile>

Currently, if a player browses a map on the "browse maps" function on the "Start a Game" menu, there is a link that says "discussion topic." When a player clicks on the "discussion topic" link it takes them to the foundry with info on forging the map, quenching, etc. I propose that this link be removed.

[Woodruff]

4. The link to the "discussion topic" when a player opens a map to review it should be removed, it doesn't really help anyone.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that once someone has opened up the strategy guide to review it the first time, then that link is removed? Not sure if that's good or not. Also not sure if I even got that right. <smile>

Currently, if a player browses a map on the "browse maps" function on the "Start a Game" menu, there is a link that says "discussion topic." When a player clicks on the "discussion topic" link it takes them to the foundry with info on forging the map, quenching, etc. I propose that this link be removed.

Oh! Well, I've used that from time to time...not frequently certainly, but that's because I haven't really had a lot of problems with the maps. The times that I did use it was to go to the map's discussion topic so that I could recommend a change to the map.

[Queen_Herpes]

4. The link to the "discussion topic" when a player opens a map to review it should be removed, it doesn't really help anyone.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that once someone has opened up the strategy guide to review it the first time, then that link is removed? Not sure if that's good or not. Also not sure if I even got that right. <smile>

Currently, if a player browses a map on the "browse maps" function on the "Start a Game" menu, there is a link that says "discussion topic." When a player clicks on the "discussion topic" link it takes them to the foundry with info on forging the map, quenching, etc. I propose that this link be removed.

Oh! Well, I've used that from time to time...not frequently certainly, but that's because I haven't really had a lot of problems with the maps. The times that I did use it was to go to the map's discussion topic so that I could recommend a change to the map.

I can see how that would be beneficial to the seasoned user. Would it be better for the person looking for help on a map to have a link to the strategy guide in that location? Or perhaps have both links?

[Woodruff]

4. The link to the "discussion topic" when a player opens a map to review it should be removed, it doesn't really help anyone.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that once someone has opened up the strategy guide to review it the first time, then that link is removed? Not sure if that's good or not. Also not sure if I even got that right. <smile>

Currently, if a player browses a map on the "browse maps" function on the "Start a Game" menu, there is a link that says "discussion topic." When a player clicks on the "discussion topic" link it takes them to the foundry with info on forging the map, quenching, etc. I propose that this link be removed.

Oh! Well, I've used that from time to time...not frequently certainly, but that's because I haven't really had a lot of problems with the maps. The times that I did use it was to go to the map's discussion topic so that I could recommend a change to the map.

I can see how that would be beneficial to the seasoned user. Would it be better for the person looking for help on a map to have a link to the strategy guide in that location? Or perhaps have both links?

I would say "both", personally. A link to the strategy guide has obvious usefulness. But I wouldn't want to eliminate the link to the discussion topic, for the reason I mentioned above about recommending changes/fixes on maps.

However, this isn't really relevant to the topic, and should probably be a different topic.