Lets REWRITE the RULES!!!!!

[TeeGee]

That's right, the entire site is set for a major overhaul.

I'm not just talking forum rules, I am ready to set new game rules, new chat rules etc. If it has anything to do with Conquer Club, it will be looked at.

And I NEED your HELP

I already have a few brave people to assist on what will be a mammoth task, but CC rules were written in 2006, some are not applicable now.
And now we have tablets and phones we can connect and play on as well so that is another area to look at.

There is a LOT that will be covered, so I am looking for members who really care about the future of this site and want to see it succeed.
I don't need everyone to agree with me, debate is good. If you disagree with what I am saying I want to hear from you too.

Do you have the dedication to join the new Rules and Discipline committee? Come help out and make a difference.

PM me if interested and lets get CC running the way it should be.

[iAmCaffeine]

How long is this process predicted to take?

[Lord Arioch]

2.27 hours...
pm sent!

[AntarcticDave]

Im interested in contributing to the discussion. Im relatively new compared to many of the players here, but I'd love to contribute what I can!

[grt]

count me in - will do what I can to help out - offering constructive critism or suggestions for the way forward. Totally agree CC needs an overhaul and bring it up to speed with new technologies and modern websites.

[MrJody]

cleared

[alex951]

i vote at least 3 multis per user

[SilverWill]

i vote at least 3 multis per user

Personally I disagree with this. What is there to stop someone from having one account on each team in a team game then turning the game in favor for the team they liked the best?

I would be willing to help if you need someone, TeeGee.

[ClasslessFool]

I would help

[Bishup]

My two cents:
The ability to manually select cities, as many of us do IRL games. Have a preselected amount of cities user is able to select each turn. Turns progress until choosing is finished.
An alternate time counter could also be used to help with game flow on speed games, where this feature would mainly be applicable (possibly another perk for subscription, increasing sub. numbers)
Example: 4 player game selected. 2 terts per turn at 1 min max. Actual gameplay selected seperatly at 3 min.

The second penny:
The ability to wager cc stars in a public game. Creator chooses number and value. Person who jions gets a pop up warning of details to make shure. The winner collecting the prize pool. Would increase value of stars, the amount of people who collect them, and add a dimension of the wager; making the whole game of higher value and suspence.

The time to read this, and all the work you do for be site, is much appreciated. Thank you for what sounds like a major overhaul.
P.s
I am one of those people who play on a phone. Have to use atomic something or whatever because Google and safari don't like this place. And city Mogul on speed is impossible with constant reloads that reset screen. Looking forward to the added support. It's a major demographic atm, and I don't see that going away. Best wishes.

[Orwell]

The rating system is a joke.

[TeeGee]

How long is this process predicted to take?

How long is a piece of string? I can't give a fixed time, but we have already started debating some rules.. It may be over a period of timeand the new rules will gradually replace the old ones one at a time.. some of the old rules/guidelines will stay, but its something I want the community involved in and not left to just a few admin/mods.

[grt]

The rating system is a joke.

Maybe you can elaborate. Hard to make changes if not clear what the problems are.

[FrenchPupil]

Pm Sent

[iAmCaffeine]

i vote at least 3 multis per user

Personally I disagree with this. What is there to stop someone from having one account on each team in a team game then turning the game in favor for the team they liked the best?

I would be willing to help if you need someone, TeeGee.

Bahahaha you're fucking stupid. If SilverWill is in this committee I'm ruling myself as of now. Why on earth would you take that comment seriously? Well played though Alex.

How long is this process predicted to take?

How long is a piece of string? I can't give a fixed time, but we have already started debating some rules.. It may be over a period of timeand the new rules will gradually replace the old ones one at a time.. some of the old rules/guidelines will stay, but its something I want the community involved in and not left to just a few admin/mods.

Well yeah, obviously, but I would've thought that there would be some kind of plan in place, from which you would give a rough estimate of time scale. If there's no kind of plan then.. Well, I don't need to say any more. I'm interested anyway, though not sure how much time I can dedicate hence the original question.

[Orwell]

The rating system is a joke.

Fair enough.

- 5 stars across the board is the standard. Trying to applying a 3-star standard is useless because it functions as, and is perceived as, a penalty.
- There is no weight given to the number of games played making it very difficult for a player to lose rank or gain it.
- Ratings have no consequence or reward to the giver.
- The tags are inadequate, often redundant, and ultimately meaningless since they have no value bearing on the rating itself.

Some suggestions:
- Thumbs up or thumbs down in four categories: Strategy / Tactic / Personality / Behavior
- Tags add or decrease value to rating
- Lifetime ratings and Monthly or Annual Ratings
- Weigh number of games played to a standard (so a player who has say 250 games is comparable to a player with 2500 games).

[erikiscool]

I like the rules they way they are.
I think everything is pretty fair.
Be careful that you don't break a winning formula.
There's an old saying - "if it ain't broke ..."
Just my two cents.

[waauw]

The rating system is a joke.

Fair enough.

- 5 stars across the board is the standard. Trying to applying a 3-star standard is useless because it functions as, and is perceived as, a penalty.
- There is no weight given to the number of games played making it very difficult for a player to lose rank or gain it.
- Ratings have no consequence or reward to the giver.
- The tags are inadequate, often redundant, and ultimately meaningless since they have no value bearing on the rating itself.

Some suggestions:
- Thumbs up or thumbs down in four categories: Strategy / Tactic / Personality / Behavior
- Tags add or decrease value to rating
- Lifetime ratings and Monthly or Annual Ratings
- Weigh number of games played to a standard (so a player who has say 250 games is comparable to a player with 2500 games).

• 3 stars are only perceived as a penalty because that's the standard. Standards can be altered. If you add a button "nothing special to remark" to automatically rate someone by 3 stars, standards will change as a consequence.
• those 4 categories are too similar to one another. Strategy and tactic will often get confused for each other and so will personality and behavior. If you use these specific terms anyway.
• Why not just remove tags all together? People will always think some tags should be added and others should be removed. Why not just leave people the option to leave behind a message.
• I like the idea of lifetime/annual/monthly ratings, though I think 3-monthly would be better suited than monthly.
• And I agree ratings should have consequences, maybe offering conquer stars for good behaviour could be a good idea. For instance offer a drab star for every 5 good ratings you receive, but offer a rare star like yellow or pink if you can be nice for an entire year. Or something of the sort.

[Orwell]

I don't disagree about the standard, just being realistic about what the standard is. 5 stars is considered the norm; anything less is generally a slight - which is why it's problematic.

As for the four categories i suggested, just ideas. I do not see Fair Play or Game Play to actually be that clear - they are, of course, subjective - but could interchangeable in some situations (taking out another player, for example, can be viewed as unfair even if it's good game play, helping another player survive may be fair but not necessarily good play...etc).

[SilverWill]

i vote at least 3 multis per user

Personally I disagree with this. What is there to stop someone from having one account on each team in a team game then turning the game in favor for the team they liked the best?

I would be willing to help if you need someone, TeeGee.

Bahahaha you're fucking stupid. If SilverWill is in this committee I'm ruling myself as of now. Why on earth would you take that comment seriously? Well played though Alex.

Caffeine,

Even if it is a joke, there are people that will take it seriously and maybe Alex was serious about it? I just made note as to why we shouldn't since TeeGee mentioned that any of the rule with the exception of a few might be changed but there is no list of the rules that will stay the same yet so any of them could have people wanting to change. Sometimes jokes can become reality so becareful what you say.

[Dukasaur]

Sometimes jokes can become reality so becareful what you say.

Yeah, Dubya got elected to a second term.

[codierose]

lets get CC running the way it should be.

or the way it was RIP CC

[AlexTo]

Recently, my brother, father, and I rejoined CC after a multi-year hiatus. We are all thoroughly impressed with the gameplay just as it is. I don't believe there is any need for new rules.

However, if you wish to add new rules, I would strongly recommend that you preserve the ability to use current rules so that people can still play the game as it is.

Forgive me if this rule already exists, but I would like the option to toggle in-game chat on/off. As in, if I create a game I want the ability to decide if in-game chat can be used or not. This is important to me, because the best way to achieve the purity of the players' brainpower is to remove any ability to influence each other. I play this game to see the purity of stupidity. I want it unadulterated!

[Zoanthrope]

Just a little adjustment is all i see is needed. in general the rules work well but sometimes they fail.

An example, while playing an assassin game with nuclear reinforcements, I had to play a set of cards, due to having 5, which resulted in me having to nuke my last remaining zone, ending the game prematurely. I suggest that in zombie and nuclear games that the number of cards that can be held be increased to possibly 7, to prevent this from happening and automatically ending assassin games. This is also very damaging to a players points value as it is seen as a complete failure.

Another suggestion would be a proper alliance/truce system between independent players. It would only have to be a simple system where a player clicks on another player with suggest alliance/truce pop-up with a defined round length. This could be tied in to prevent these "partnered" players from attacking each other during this period of "peace". Too many times have i seen truces breached by unscrupulous players who usually have an unfair advantage afterwards.

Although i know these are more along the lines of system changes rather than rules, I feel that any suggestions of this nature should be given some consideration and discussion for future game development.

[AlexTo]

As long as I can disable the formal truce option. It should be obvious to players when a truce is needed. It doesn't need putting into words or fixed via programming.