CC is declining again!

[IcePack]

omg. No you're wrong.
Just ask anyone that was there now and then.

Sorry for your butt.

um, i have... many prominent clan members... they agree with me.. and sorry about your LITTLE butt not knowing how to say, "sorry about your little butt." however, you get some points for the effort...-Jésus noir

i'd like to point out that after this exchange, my clan had it's status removed, without any warning or notification... CC, back to it's old ways... part of what began the great decline and apparently, the new guys haven't learned from the past transgressions of former team members...-Bj

when you don't think the clan wars are what they should be or as good as they used to be, why participate? the clan wars are garbage now, compared to what they were... and i challenge anyone to explain tribes to me...-Bj

The clan department didn't do anything after that exchange, awhile ago the clan status was moved to "hold" instead of active because you didn't have any recent activity. But this was done and discussed w you already, so not sure how there was no notification. I believe this (and tribes) was gone over with you and someone else....squishy maybe? Can't remember but there was a thread and series of pm exchanged as well.

[riskllama]

don't "clans" actually have to play games against other "clans" to be considered a "clan", owen? sounds to me like you got yourself a nice little usergroup there...
ps - shannonapple did it.

when you don't think the clan wars are what they should be or as good as they used to be, why participate? the clan wars are garbage now, compared to what they were... and i challenge anyone to explain tribes to me...-Bj

tribes, are stupid. next question.

[Keefie]

omg. No you're wrong.
Just ask anyone that was there now and then.

Sorry for your butt.

um, i have... many prominent clan members... they agree with me.. and sorry about your LITTLE butt not knowing how to say, "sorry about your little butt." however, you get some points for the effort...-Jésus noir

i'd like to point out that after this exchange, my clan had it's status removed, without any warning or notification... CC, back to it's old ways... part of what began the great decline and apparently, the new guys haven't learned from the past transgressions of former team members...-Bj

I see that Ice has already explained that nothing has happened.

Me, I'm not quite as diplomatic. So please let me respond in my own way - BULLSHIT

The last change to your clan's status was made by me on the 14th of June last year. Here's a copy of the log.

The Bullet-Proof Bandits Updated clan (Status changed: Active >>> Hold) Keefie 2015-06-14 07:22:55


It was done because your clan no longer had 10 active members and hadn't fought a war in over a year. Other clans had their status changed at the same time (see below), we weren't picking on poor old BPB. Just doing some housekeeping to the database.

The Magnificent Bastards
Death by Comity
Hard Day's Night
The Grim Reapers
The Pig Renters
Legio Invicta
The Pain Dispensers

If your Clan decides to become active again and have a war, then let me know. I can change you back to active in about 5 seconds.

Otherwise I guess you'd better follow your own advice and 'Suck it up Cupcake'

[owenshooter]

don't "clans" actually have to play games against other "clans" to be considered a "clan", owen? sounds to me like you got yourself a nice little usergroup there...
ps - shannonapple did it.

when you don't think the clan wars are what they should be or as good as they used to be, why participate? the clan wars are garbage now, compared to what they were... and i challenge anyone to explain tribes to me...-Bj

tribes, are stupid. next question.

when i think of one, i'll get back to you! thanks for the prompt response!! so, to clarify, "TRIBES ARE STUPID." thank you!!-BJ

[WILLIAMS5232]

don't "clans" actually have to play games against other "clans" to be considered a "clan", owen? sounds to me like you got yourself a nice little usergroup there...
ps - shannonapple did it.

when you don't think the clan wars are what they should be or as good as they used to be, why participate? the clan wars are garbage now, compared to what they were... and i challenge anyone to explain tribes to me...-Bj

Not caring to participate in clan wars?

Sounds like you're looking for a good usergroup to join. I hear there is this new one called the bullet proof bandits or something like that, they may be accepting members.

[The asylum]

I posted in this thread a while back and all I got in reply was people defending how the site is and telling me that I need to learn maps and settings which I didn't know or understand. I joined the site thinking it was risk online.

I have a few questions that might or probably not judging from past experience, lead you to realise what is the problem with gaining new members.

What were the maps that were in use when this site was at its peak membership?
What were the settings in use at this time?
How was the forum moderated during this period?

If I was the owner of this site I'd delete all maps that don't have risk type play! They won't lose any or many existing members and will see a huge rise in new members like myself that will stay.

[owenshooter]

I posted in this thread a while back and all I got in reply was people defending how the site is and telling me that I need to learn maps and settings which I didn't know or understand. I joined the site thinking it was risk online.

I have a few questions that might or probably not judging from past experience, lead you to realise what is the problem with gaining new members.

What were the maps that were in use when this site was at its peak membership?
What were the settings in use at this time?
How was the forum moderated during this period?

If I was the owner of this site I'd delete all maps that don't have risk type play! They won't lose any or many existing members and will see a huge rise in new members like myself that will stay.

everything you suggested has been suggested, but in greater detail and in varying ways... for instance, there are far too many maps. when they made map making a MEDAL category, the deluge of garbage maps began. throw in a moderator pushing through a map that was of her part of the US, and the flood gates were opened. not only eliminating some, but also putting the maps into categories, like: CLASSIC RISK, MEDIUM LEVEL, DIFFICULT LEVEL, SPECIAL GAME PLAY. and having them unlock as you progress in games/experience. This would also include the settings. I personally believe that TRENCH is one of the main things strangling/killing the site.

People came for fast, fun games and it turned into boring, slow as all hell games, due to the Trench setting. Toss in parachutes, zombie, nukes, blah, blah, blah and it just seems gimmicky... i am so glad a new user has stated this. as far as the forums, don't even go there. we will just leave that one alone, because things have changed for the better, after the site made a concentrated effort to kill off the forums (that regime is no longer in place). I will say that this forum was consistently listed as the NUMBER ONE or within the TOP THREE forums on the internet, before the drastic take down.

nice observations, nice post... thanks for contributing... now, if only you knew how to spell REALIZE... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

[Donelladan]

nice observations, nice post... thanks for contributing... now, if only you knew how to spell REALIZE... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Realise and realize are different spellings of the same word, and both are used to varying degrees throughout the English-speaking world. Realize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and realise is preferred outside North America. The spelling distinction extends to all derivatives of the verb, including realised/realized, realising/realizing, and realisation/realization.

I think he knows. If only Americans knew how to spell English words.


EDIT :

Now on topic. His post is so wrong.
If he want, he can play classic risk maps with standard setting.

Right now there 336 games waiting on the classic map, that is more than on any other map.

If you want normal setting, there is 147 games waiting for player on classic map, no trench, escalating spoils, chained reinforcement. ( but I am assuming adjacent, unlimited, no spoils and flat rate would also be fine, 264 games on classic with any of those settings).

And well, this is only taking into account the classic map. There is many maps with no special gameplay that should be able to satisfy a player looking for the "normal" risk.

I posted in this thread a while back and all I got in reply was people defending how the site is and telling me that I need to learn maps and settings which I didn't know or understand. I joined the site thinking it was risk online.

I have no idea who replied you that, but that was total bullshit. You wanna play risk online, you can, it's available here. You want more options, you can have them, but you do not have to play those options, it's up to you.
Therefore everything coming after in your post is wrong as well.

They won't lose any or many existing members and will see a huge rise in new members like myself that will stay.

This affirmation is based on what ? All my favorite maps are maps that you would probably delete.
Also my favorite setting is trench ( thinking of owen post here), therefore I think CC would lose quite a few members if they'd do what you suggest.

But my main point is, why would they need to delete the setting and maps I like, while the one you want to play are still available and vastly played ?

What owen is saying though, splitting map into categories, making some settings basic and some other advanced, that would be a great things to do. Hopefully it will happen before site is dead

[yclee0206]

nice observations, nice post... thanks for contributing... now, if only you knew how to spell REALIZE... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Realise and realize are different spellings of the same word, and both are used to varying degrees throughout the English-speaking world. Realize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and realise is preferred outside North America. The spelling distinction extends to all derivatives of the verb, including realised/realized, realising/realizing, and realisation/realization.

I think he knows. If only Americans knew how to spell English words.


EDIT :

Now on topic. His post is so wrong.
If he want, he can play classic risk maps with standard setting.

Right now there 336 games waiting on the classic map, that is more than on any other map.

If you want normal setting, there is 147 games waiting for player on classic map, no trench, escalating spoils, chained reinforcement. ( but I am assuming adjacent, unlimited, no spoils and flat rate would also be fine, 264 games on classic with any of those settings).

And well, this is only taking into account the classic map. There is many maps with no special gameplay that should be able to satisfy a player looking for the "normal" risk.

I posted in this thread a while back and all I got in reply was people defending how the site is and telling me that I need to learn maps and settings which I didn't know or understand. I joined the site thinking it was risk online.

I have no idea who replied you that, but that was total bullshit. You wanna play risk online, you can, it's available here. You want more options, you can have them, but you do not have to play those options, it's up to you.
Therefore everything coming after in your post is wrong as well.

They won't lose any or many existing members and will see a huge rise in new members like myself that will stay.

This affirmation is based on what ? All my favorite maps are maps that you would probably delete.
Also my favorite setting is trench ( thinking of owen post here), therefore I think CC would lose quite a few members if they'd do what you suggest.

But my main point is, why would they need to delete the setting and maps I like, while the one you want to play are still available and vastly played ?

What owen is saying though, splitting map into categories, making some settings basic and some other advanced, that would be a great things to do. Hopefully it will happen before site is dead

+1
I don't know if we need tens of US maps, but we need trench and different types of maps.

EDIT: but better explanations about different settings could be needed.

[yclee0206]

What about having a 'Default setting' tab in the join games page? That way, all the players who only want risk-style settings could find what they want easily.

[rockfist]

If they are going to get rid of maps for the love of God get rid of the stack and blast formulaic maps.

[Arama86n]

But my main point is, why would they need to delete the setting and maps I like, while the one you want to play are still available and vastly played ?

+1 times infinity.
For the love of god, play what you want people and don't try to stop the rest of us playing what we want.
I was pissed off enough when they started revamping old maps, cause a few people thought they were "ugly" #/¤&...
The day maps start being deleted to appease a few whining selfish people, is the day I will QUIT.

Look, I'm all for restrictions for NEW RECRUITS, and even extending what "N.R." entails to make it easier for new members. But I can't for the life of me see how the site will be bettered by limiting the options of people who have been here for years.

[The asylum]

nice observations, nice post... thanks for contributing... now, if only you knew how to spell REALIZE... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Realise and realize are different spellings of the same word, and both are used to varying degrees throughout the English-speaking world. Realize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and realise is preferred outside North America. The spelling distinction extends to all derivatives of the verb, including realised/realized, realising/realizing, and realisation/realization.

I think he knows. If only Americans knew how to spell English words.


EDIT :

Now on topic. His post is so wrong.
If he want, he can play classic risk maps with standard setting.

Right now there 336 games waiting on the classic map, that is more than on any other map.

If you want normal setting, there is 147 games waiting for player on classic map, no trench, escalating spoils, chained reinforcement. ( but I am assuming adjacent, unlimited, no spoils and flat rate would also be fine, 264 games on classic with any of those settings).

And well, this is only taking into account the classic map. There is many maps with no special gameplay that should be able to satisfy a player looking for the "normal" risk.

I posted in this thread a while back and all I got in reply was people defending how the site is and telling me that I need to learn maps and settings which I didn't know or understand. I joined the site thinking it was risk online.

I have no idea who replied you that, but that was total bullshit. You wanna play risk online, you can, it's available here. You want more options, you can have them, but you do not have to play those options, it's up to you.
Therefore everything coming after in your post is wrong as well.

They won't lose any or many existing members and will see a huge rise in new members like myself that will stay.

This affirmation is based on what ? All my favorite maps are maps that you would probably delete.
Also my favorite setting is trench ( thinking of owen post here), therefore I think CC would lose quite a few members if they'd do what you suggest.

But my main point is, why would they need to delete the setting and maps I like, while the one you want to play are still available and vastly played ?

What owen is saying though, splitting map into categories, making some settings basic and some other advanced, that would be a great things to do. Hopefully it will happen before site is dead

I really have no interest in dissecting your post but I'm speaking about this site in general. You probably have your rank due to certain maps and settings and are therefore rather biased towards keeping these maps which have no resemblance to risk.

The reason I'd delete these maps is because most people that come to this site will more than likely google "risk online" and then find that they have been directed to a site with games that are completely different to risk. Its like googling chess and finding that you've been directed to a backgammon site. Whilst some people on this site might enjoy these maps they are the only people out of a worldwide population of 7 billion that know these games. Therefore I feel that this site is alienating itself to a much greater audience to appease a few. And the reason I say this? I'd like to test my skills in risk against people and I presume the vast majority of people that register here and leave very quickly feel exactly the same as myself.

In a business sense the culling of unlike risk maps makes perfect sense. You have a dwindling fan base here that will gradually get smaller and smaller. I totally understand your defence of these maps but it certainly won't do the site any good.

[rockfist]

I'm all for having maps be "unlocked" by new recruits as they gain rank or number of games played. That would accomplish what The Asylum wants and allow the rest of us to continue playing on our preferred settings.

The thing is, I think each of us has maps that we'd rather not ever play on - and you really need not play on them. Sometimes I choose to "take one for the team" in clan games, but unless you are in a clan you don't need to do that.

[Mad777]

Why not you just go back playing more than your 4 games and explore the variety that is fully available (settings, amount of player, and more), it amaze me how a player that is registered since a bit more than 3 months, played 3 different map in 4 four games and come with this kind of criticism without exploring what the site can offer.

Do you know you can create your own game with your own settings and wait for player to join? May I suggest you to seek assistance on understanding how the site works?

You said "Its like googling chess and finding that you've been directed to a backgammon site", so can you explain what you can't find in this site that makes you feeling "that are completely different to risk"?

I'm sure it is not easy to navigate/understand all at first glance when you arrive here but day after day I'm sure you will find what you are looking for .

[boberz]

He is talking about there being too much choice and he is right.

[Mad777]

He is talking about there being too much choice and he is right.

I don't see how this could cause a problem, if you use the game search and select what you want to play then it only take few seconds to setup, yes there is a lot of choices but that is needed to have enough variety for the whole crowd, less choice by eliminating settings and maps will have this site becoming bore, I can join owen's comment to have locked feature to less scare new player(s), but even without it and again, I don't think it should be a hurddle for new comer to see all this stuff.

I remember whenb I first started...7 years ago ...it was more choice that a RISK board game could offer and was kind of curious to explore what those new things are, but at anytime I was able to retrieve the standard game I was used and playing the classic map with the settings I was enjoying with the board game, but after times and discovering the new way, new map, and more made me feeling that the board game was more to be store in a closet since all was there in few click (less the real friends that I was playing with at home ).

[rockfist]

There is too much choice and inequality on this site. To make the site fair every dice roll should be a 3.5 all the time for each person. Then we wouldn't have some people with Hats or Stars and some people as Cooks. We could all be equal.

They should also eliminate every map besides Doodle Earth, so its not confusing. Heck if they did just that, not even the dice thing, I bet I could beat the very best players on the site...

[boberz]

To concentrate activity choices (importantly maps!) need to be removed. If we don't want to concentrate activity then don't remove the maps. But it is an obvious change that would help the business and keep the site alive. It isn't going to be a popular decision (nor indeed one I think the powers that be will make) but it would improve the first impression of the site.

[TeeGee]

I thought we did restrict new recruits to basic maps, let me investigate

[IcePack]

I thought we did restrict new recruits to basic maps, let me investigate

Yep

[WILLIAMS5232]

I thought we did restrict new recruits to basic maps, let me investigate

Yep

What is it? 5 games? I don't think that's what people have in mind when they want to restrict new players.

Personally I like locking out maps in groups. Very few players would do well on some of the more complicated maps after 5 games.

[Donelladan]

Locking maps isn't a good solution. Some people may want to explore new maps asap.
The good solution is to sort then into at least, classical risk map and non classical, so that people that want to play normal risk can find it quickly and easily.
Same goes for the settings.

[TheMissionary]

I've been on this site for a few years. More than some, less than others. My interest started to diminish, when clan wars became more about choosing the most difficult map and settings. I personally enjoyed it more when we were tested on skill, rather than diversity. Most of the people who were good at the classic game of risk, have started to move on. There's less competitive drive for the classic risk on this site.

[owenshooter]

I've been on this site for a few years. More than some, less than others. My interest started to diminish, when clan wars became more about choosing the most difficult map and settings. I personally enjoyed it more when we were tested on skill, rather than diversity. Most of the people who were good at the classic game of risk, have started to move on. There's less competitive drive for the classic risk on this site.

thank you so much for stating this publicly... i feel as if this is such an underrated reason for what is going on around here... i feel as if the clan world is a microcosm for the site, as a whole, in terms of gaming.... when the games in the clan world became DIFFICULT MAP/IMPOSSIBLE SETTINGS/TRENCH vs. DIFFICULT MAP/IMPOSSIBLE SETTINGS/TRENCH, it was a reflection of the site as a whole.... i truly believe the bogged down settings and creation of more and more settings, is the largest contributor to the decline... forget the crap maps from the "map medal race" era, they have far less an impact than the overwhelming settings that simply SUCK for the casual gamer that isn't interested in keeping that 45pts vs. a low ranked player...

anyway, thank you for stating what pretty much everyone in my clan expressed as they began long vacations from CC...-Bj