Conquer Club

Fyi, Queen_Herpes i know her in real life. She is coming out with a more determined update to her suggestion. I have read everything here from the blatant nay-sayers to the objective ones who are posting comments with input to help understand the point. There are some people who post blatant support and others who post support with more input. My g

You can take what i'm posting as support if you'd like, but you can take it as against the idea as well.

I was heavily involved with the redevelopment of beach volleyball as a sport after a substantial change in the rules, game operation, and function of the sport. I was originally among a group who was diametrically opposed to the changes in the sport. The changes included: a different ball with different PSi made out of a synthetic material not leather, a smaller court size, points earned per play instead of per point served, serves could hit the net, antennas were added, and ball handling was modified to accept a less-strict interpretation.

The changes made separated the sport into two camps. It separated the sport into two sports. "Old schoolers" and "New schoolers" or within the sport they were "Big Court" versus "Little Court." Some saw the changes as restrictive and changing the spirit of the sport. They felt the sport was just fine how it was and didn't look to see why changes were made. I was in this group, i supported the old school big court.

In short time I learned the purpose of the changes being made. The changes were made to make the sport more attractive to more people. Beach volleyball had become mired in the same group of people playing in the same places. The sport was not growing outside of those places and new participants were not joining up. The rules changes were intended to make or allow indoor players an easier transition from playing indoor volleyball to playing beach volleyball. The rules changes allowed more people to enjoy playing the sport recreationally without restrictive rules on ball handling. The new ball was less affective on the body resulting in fewer injuries to the shoulder and less strain on the shoulder of a new-comer compared to the leather ball. i saw promise in the changes in the new rules and welcomed them wholeheartedly when i knew they were intended to invite more people to the camp of beach volleyball. Eventually the new-schoolers won and the sport's bigger than ever.

Changes in rules are difficult to accept for those who have been playing by the same rules for a long time. Because one or two people, or three, or four, or ten really like the way it is does not mean that those people are right. all the same, if ten or twenty or two hundred people think that this is a great idea to change the rules, does not make them right either. I see Queen_Herpes suggestion here on an open forum to be an invitation for debate on the topic. i'd be interested in reading more real debate on the topic and less editorializing and opinionating. The length of time is neither an issue that allows a person the right to say that they're right and if they haven't been here very long it isn't enough to say that they are wrong. To take the word of a few new players or the word of a few existing players isn't right for either side of the argument.

I'm editorializing, so i'll make my comment worthwhile by adding my two cents. Change is good. Thomas Jefferson said "a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing." And if it wasn't Jerfferson, it was one of the founding Fathers, so don't shoot me. When I started playing I was preyed upon by farmers. I had no idea what I was doing and I got yelled at in the game chat and ruined games and lost a lot and got really frustrated at the dice and at the other players and at the settings in the game and everything. I would have appreciated an opportunity to not get hawked and to not get screwed and to get TAUGHT! If I had been locked out of certain maps I would have stayed and I would have joined faster. I came here to play the original risk map. When I found other maps, I really liked it. I hated the tough maps at first because no one was helping me to play them. I'm interested to see how Queen-Herpes is going to change her suggestion. My bet is that she will do so and incorporate some of the other ideas posted here.

Great idea!

<Thought I posted this last night, sorry...I will get another reply out tomorrow to your post from today AA>
Finally, AAFitz, I feel like I am reading a rebuttal that takes into account a formed argument and some examples and supportive data that cite your perspective. I'm sorry, but your intial response to this thread on page one turned me off. Now, I'm on.

AAFitz wrote:Its just a different kind of game, and locking the maps will not keep people. There is litterally no way that one person ever left CC, because there were too many maps. Its simply ridiculous to think that was the reason.

Nope, they leave because they start on a map or with game options that are too tough to understand. They leave because they get hammered by sharks. They leave because there is no training program to help them. Over 300,000 user accounts: less than 20,000 with a ranking. The current system doesn't work.

AAFitz wrote:The reason people are paying more for those other games, is not because they are unlocking more features, its because they HAVE more features to begin with. Those other games are far more complicated, far more graphics oriented, and far more real time, than what CC is. Because of this, CC must OFFER more. It cant afford to offer less, and make people wait to see other maps, because in a very real sense....as you have explained....people are paying much more, for many other competitors games...which all offer more. The basic CC game is very simple. Click on some armies, make an attack, get spoils, repeat as necessary.

Yes, the basic game with beginner game options is very simple. Thank you for illustrating my point. Add fog, freestyle, unlimited, manual, and a complicated map and it is NOT by function very simple. Why are you so opposed to “keeping” more of the players who come to the site and open an account?

AAFitz wrote:Since I got here, it has expanded greatly, and while its possible Id still be here without the new maps, without the new features, and without the new challenges in the game....and in the forum....its possible I wouldnt be. I do not in any way play the same games I played when i got here. The new stuff is what keeps me coming back and sparking my interest. While on some level this supports your argument, on a basic level it does not, because CC is competing with those other games, and it has a very brief time to Hook a player. It has 10 to 30 games in my opinion, and quite possibly less. Either someone is hooked and becomes a regular or moves on.

Precisely. I am attempting to get more players hooked with my recommendation. The current system leaves more opportunity for frustration.

The following argument fails the logical test, but I will rebut nonetheless.

AAFitz wrote:Therefore, locking the site to these players for a longer period of time risks losing that player forever. If they leave the site, while having access to those maps, its simply illogical to think they would stay, without access to those maps, which means your suggestion simply wont achieve what you want it to achieve. You have correctly identified the problem, but have simply overlooked the underlying cause.

AAFitz wrote:Therefore, locking the site to these players for a longer period of time risks losing that player forever.

First, by locking the site, we risk both losing the player forever and keeping the player forever. Locking the site is a challenge (some people like challenges and this might motivate them to accept the challenge.) Locking the site offers a carrot-on-a-stick. Why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? It’s the same philosophy CC has for keeping speed games, private games and an unlimited number of total games under lock and key to be opened by paying for premium. Recall that New Recruits are already locked out of certain parts of CC.

AAFitz wrote:If they leave the site, while having access to those maps, its simply illogical to think they would stay, without access to those maps, which means your suggestion simply wont achieve what you want it to achieve.

This is only true if you think the reason they are leaving is related solely to the maps. I think they are leaving because they attempt maps and game options that are out of their reach on a first attempt. Some of the maps on this site are very attractive, but deceptively complex to the first-time player. Some of the options are deceptively attractive. If faced with choosing Manual or Automatic, what first-timer wouldn’t want to “do it on their own” and choose Manual? I played WWII: Poland Beta last night. I missed several opportunities in my first go at the map to win the game. I missed those opportunities because the map is complex, and even a reasonably seasoned player like me can miss things on a map on the first attempt. I played with what I consider to be beginner game options. Imagine how much a New Recruit can miss on that map. Imagine if a New Recruit played that map with complicated game settings. There is considerable room for frustration there.

AAFitz wrote:You have correctly identified the problem, but have simply overlooked the underlying cause.

Well, there is more to the problem than what you are focusing on, AAFitz, and there is more to the cause as well.

AAFitz wrote:They arent leaving because they cant unlock maps....they dont stay long enough to unlock maps, so it simply isnt a factor. All that unlocking maps would solve is some irrelevant farming issues at best, which really are not worthy of locking maps out for players. I do completely agree with you that players may very well get discouraged very early by jumping into an insanely difficult map, and therefore agree something should be done, but believe that labeling it as difficult is all that needs to be done.

Simply labeling will send players to their doom. It will highlight certain maps as “cool” and drive players to those maps. There will be opportunity for more issues by offering a labeling as you have suggested, eloquently, in another thread.

AAFitz wrote:By limiting them to so few maps as you suggested, means that many new players will never even see the great percentage that CC has to offer, and in doing so, risks losing those customers.

Customers already leaving in droves: Over 300,000 Usernames - Under 20,000 Ranked players. Give new players a taste of the site, offer them a challenge to reach more, communicate with them, keep them here. Little risk to losing new customers considering how many have been lost thus far.

Label them, let them see the games, and keep those complicated games within reach after a short time.

To you-know-who: If your post count outnumbers your completed games count, your posts about gameplay are suspect.

Queen_Herpes wrote:To you-know-who: If your post count outnumbers your completed games count, your posts about gameplay are suspect.

actually I dont know who

Gogatron wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Gogatron wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Gogatron wrote:not sure yet, I really like then WWII ones, but ancient Greece is pretty nice.

Which WWII maps are your favorite?

Western front is cool, but I still haven't really decided as I'm playing most of these maps right now.

Whats your point....

I'm just curious, which ones have you played? You're an anomaly to me, but you may be a representative sample of everyone who comes to the site. I'm wondering what it is that attracted you to the site. I'm also interested in which WWII maps you've played because I also like those AND I also feel that there is a definite attraction to war-based maps, especially war maps based on WWII. If the WWII maps are so attractive (for whatever reason) maybe they should be highlighted on the homepage, or tagged for web searches. In addition to my other questions, did someone introduce you to the site, how did you find it?

WWII Western Front is the only WWII map Ive played. But Id say all the maps of ancient civilizations and war situations are very appealing to me right now and will be tried out soon.

Yes my roommate and my good friend play on this site. People whom I play table top risk with all the time.

Why I'm attracted to the site...the game modes and variety of maps. Like you cant play fog of war in table top risk lol...And fog of war is sick

I'd like to ask again, how did you get introduced to the site? Websearch? Were you the first to the site or was one of your friends?

Thanks for adding that you’ve played tabletop. I never played it, but the person who introduced me to this site (and to this game) grew up playing the tabletop game from a very young age.

Gogatron wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:In addition to my other questions, did someone introduce you to the site, how did you find it?

Yes my roommate and my good friend play on this site. People whom I play table top risk with all the time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^this response might not have been clear but it was there...

i.e. my roommate and friend introduced me

Gogatron wrote:

Gogatron wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:In addition to my other questions, did someone introduce you to the site, how did you find it?

Yes my roommate and my good friend play on this site. People whom I play table top risk with all the time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^this response might not have been clear but it was there...

i.e. my roommate and friend introduced me

Aha! You were introduced to the site like I was introduced. You and I are not the players who would benefit from the training suggested herein. Yes, being a player like you and like me, we would be frustrated to be limited to certain maps and styles, especially if someone we know is telling us all about the cool stuff on the site. Lets play some singles games on a map you'd like to learn and I'd be happy to teach!

Queen_Herpes wrote:To you-know-who: If your post count outnumbers your completed games count, your posts about gameplay are suspect.

I suspect this is directed at me. If so, you might want to search for my posts. This is the third post I have made (all 3 in this thread) that hasn't been in the Society of Cooks forum where I have been actively discussing my games and working to better my sense of strategy and ramp up my skill level on this site as quickly as possible. Since I joined this site, I have consistently played in a full complement of 4 games. So if this comment is directed at me, I'd have to point out that you're yet again completely ignoring the points I've tried to make and are preferring to take more of an ad hominem approach.

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:To you-know-who: If your post count outnumbers your completed games count, your posts about gameplay are suspect.

I suspect this is directed at me. If so, you might want to search for my posts. This is the third post I have made (all 3 in this thread) that hasn't been in the Society of Cooks forum where I have been actively discussing my games and working to better my sense of strategy and ramp up my skill level on this site as quickly as possible. Since I joined this site, I have consistently played in a full complement of 4 games. So if this comment is directed at me, I'd have to point out that you're yet again completely ignoring the points I've tried to make and are preferring to take more of an ad hominem approach.

Well, she's writing arse anyway but I suspect it was at me. 926 posts and 170 odd games since mid. 2008. I'm perfectly happy with that record.

Mr Changsha wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:To you-know-who: If your post count outnumbers your completed games count, your posts about gameplay are suspect.

I suspect this is directed at me. If so, you might want to search for my posts. This is the third post I have made (all 3 in this thread) that hasn't been in the Society of Cooks forum where I have been actively discussing my games and working to better my sense of strategy and ramp up my skill level on this site as quickly as possible. Since I joined this site, I have consistently played in a full complement of 4 games. So if this comment is directed at me, I'd have to point out that you're yet again completely ignoring the points I've tried to make and are preferring to take more of an ad hominem approach.

Well, she's writing arse anyway but I suspect it was at me. 926 posts and 170 odd games since mid. 2008. I'm perfectly happy with that record.

Well, the entire you dont know what youre talking about because of how many games or how long you havent been here long enough is a dangerous slope anyways...

Especially for a player who joined 4 months ago...who initially completely ignored Andy who was here before CC even began I think. Some get locked on an idea and cant let it go. I think in this case, it was just a matter of emotion coming through.

This idea actually does have some merit on a basic level. The problem is the original idea was so limiting that it made it unworkable. To make people wait 80 games to try out a map, when they typically leave well before 80 games simply cant possibly get them to stay. It makes no sense to think they would stay now because they CANT get at a map. Further, because they CAN get at a map now, and if they played it....and still leave, its just ridiculous to suggest that if they are forced to play games on other maps first, that they will stay because of that.

I actually could agree that unlocking maps could have benefit, and I believe I stated something like that....but it would have to be at such an accelerated rate, that it would make it nearly pointless. However, deciding players can only play 4 games at a time. There are 140 maps, and they typically leave long before 140 games I would suspect. Theoretically, some could be blocked....the thing is, blocking them wont add any fun to it.

Some people simply will never like the game. My friend tried it out. Ive been playing board and card games for 20 years together. He certainly didnt leave because the maps were too difficult, or he couldnt win. He simply didnt like the game. He plays WOW instead. Its the only game he plays. Before that he played online poker. I myself put tons of time into CC, but have only ever played poker online before this, and only for a month at a time. Ive even tried other conquest sites. I only stay at this one. And I did not leave those sites because they were too difficult. In fact, if I found them difficult, and if they had more maps....I may have been tempted to keep playing them. However, as a new player, id have had to play 80 games to get to those maps by this model, and would have left before trying them out.

I believe it is the reason why people leave that is misdiagnosed here. Certainly some do leave, because they cant or dont want to figure it out...though its reasonable to assume that anyone who cant figure out one of the 4 games they settup, probably wouldnt enjoy this site anyways. So, it probably isnt the main reason why people leave, so it isnt worth limiting other players in hopes that less options will somehow mean more players in some kind of reverse logic.

I do agree that players are jumping into a pool of difficult options and settings and maps, and really do need some guidance, and some labeling. As surprising as this may be, I actually think I could jump on board with some kind of 40 game entry program only because inside of 40 games, there would still be 100 maps not played. The problem is, players cant be blocked from maps simply because they are objective, large or difficult. They need to be able to try those out too, to see what they think of them, which makes unlocking them once again just pointless, and the only action needed labeling them as such.

I think if the main objective really is to get more players, than any complex unlocking should simply be ignored, if for no other reason than the number of players kept, wont justify the time put into programing it. Programming and labeling the maps would take a fraction of that time, and would yield nearly the same results in the long run. The saved time, could then be put into improving access to real time games, which is really what I think are keeping people from staying.

I think a whole section of semi-speed games could be set up for new players, perhaps even with limited maps and options there...ie, no manual freestyle games...because any player without knowledge of these would usually be wiped out.

I think the problem does exist at the entry level. It think the site has grown too complex for the new comer, and some order really could help keep a player or too. I just dont think they need a systematic program to get them there....some labels and suggestions would protect any player that has a reasonable chance of staying enough to make the difference. Any limiting program really isnt so much going to retain players, as limit the ones that would have stayed anyways. Maybe it will increase their fun, or frustrate them, but it wont achieve the actual objective it is meant to achieve.

Most importantly, and why I started in here in the first place. Limiting options and maps really is against the fundamental openess that CC has had, and has stood for since inception. Its an open casual site, set up to reduce rank discrimination at all costs, and I simply dont see it happening based on the years of observation, let alone my year or so in team CC, and actually seeing how decisions were made and why.

At this point though, the situation has been illustrated to the point where I actually would like to see something done...and actually would settle for a limiting program, because that might actually be better than doing nothing in the long run. I just think a little reorganization would be easier, achieve the goals, and be in line with CC's open gaming nature.

Kudos to Queen once again here. Absolutely impressed with the time spent on this, even despite the warnings...and continued warnings that it probably wont work.

Queen_Herpes wrote:
Then read the rest of the suggestion and the input on other pages. The suggestion is no longer tied to limiting new players simply to the classic maps.

Yet, you illustrated a great point for me by pointing out that you ddi not read anything else in this thread: noobs go out of their way to join game, make comments and yet they have no idea whaat is going on. Case in point: you. You don't know what is going on because you didn't take the time to read the other pages of the suggestion.

Well, QH, being you've been on the site awhile, you should know by now that you COULD have changed the forum topic to indicate the change in topic content. Seriously, this noob v. ageds thing is crazy; insulting the guy for not wanting to read pages and pages of inane comments along with meat; especially when those with some time are unwilling to take 3 extra seconds to make it slightly easier by changing the topic to reflect what the topic has become.

As for this idea in general: It's beating the wrong horse.

Some newbies are going to be fine. Most newbies are going to want to challenge themselves. The people who should be penalized are those who consistently attempt to play complicated settings games with people who have insufficient experience on the maps or settings being used... farming rules should apply to more than just ?

Farming rules shouldn't apply to games being set in public, but should apply to active attempts to find babies to take their candy. Instead, this site does the opposite: if the game was set up from live chat, per the judgements that have been handed down, it's OKAY to go after people with only 6 or 7 total games, and it's OKAY to consistently go after (actively seek) people in freestyle x map, with or without speed, when that person has never even played a sequential on x map. It's even okay to lure them with a false promise of teaching them that map (those who actively strive to teach do not fall into the same category). But it's not okay to set up a ton of games because you have time to play a ton, and be willing to play whoever joins, because, omg, some ? might join a few of them.

The part of the idea that has merit is the idea of minimizing multis. Changing the points system could do that, too; place a maximum number of points that could be nabbed, for example... but only if, at the same time, those who consistently pluck at ANY inexperienced players - not just ? (because one doesn't automatically "get" all the maps and all the settings on game number 6) are penalized for those practices under "general abuse of the game" even if the definition of 'farming' remains the same.

Queen_Herpes wrote:Players who are new won't understand the complexities of the exceptional and varied maps on Conquer Club. Fog-of-war is an especially difficult concept for a new player on maps they've never seen before. Chained forting takes a few games to understand. Flat Rate Spoils is a new concept even to the seasoned "Risk" player and takes some time to comprehend. The game log is a new and helpful tool that takes time to understand, once understood it is very helpful! The Game Chat can be distracting, but likely not a problem for most gamers. Further, new players can really screw up team games for several reasons already often discussed on these forums.

Concise description:

• Limit New Players to the Classic Maps

ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE IDEA!!!!!

I realize that a whole group of people here are fixated on "this is classic .. Its all about Classic.. learn classic first...etc."

BUT the reality is that CC is far, far more than one map. The people who play classic tend to be very, very, very good. The Cook's forum takes people through that format. If someone wants to learn, that is the route for learning Classic.

But not everybody wants to do that. Not everybody even LIKES Classic (though a lot do, of course).

The negative -- you play, you lose. SO WHAT! IF you are not mature enough to take a few losses with grace then you are not someone we want here.

There already are limits in much playing. I can definitely see keeping folks from playing Waterloo, etc on their first few tries. Assassin needs a brief explanation, at least, the first few times. AND, I can see warning people who try one of the Conquest maps, etc that "this map is different, be sure to read the rules before playing..."

But beyond that... either you play and like it or not. Worrying too much about those people who just don't belong here to begin with is a mistake. Folks who are going to leave because they lose their first few games qualify in that category.

and YES, I HAVE PLAYED EVERY SINGLE MAP HERE... AND most of those no longer open. I have WON all but Das Schloss and the very newest maps not just once or twice, but at least 10 times. In most cases, many more.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

First, this will likely put an end to multis. I cannot fathom why someone would want multiple accounts, it is difficult enough for me to handle my account and the games I play. If it would take an eternity for a player to earn the right to play in maps as a new player, I would think that multis would see less interest in investing time in “building” a new multi.

And harm far, far more people than it helps.

The biggest problem with multis is that they tend to be absolute jerks. Losing -- no big deal. We all lose now and then. Too high a rank? Again, I really could care less. If that's what "floats their boat", so be it.

BUT, folks who are willing to completely disregard rules are mostly (a few exceptions, mostly to do with forum bans and the like) folks who could care less about other people in general. They will be discovered.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Second, this will improve the game experience of new players. With automatic emails and links to helpful information on closed topics (no flaming, no rabble to read through) new players will (more than ever before) be provided with information on how to understand each aspect of the game, new maps, and game options.

BALONEY! Pure and simple.

The real issue that a lot of people want to play without reading rules. If anything, flashing a warning "this game is non-standard, be sure to read the rules... are you sure you want to play?".. the first few times someone plays (regardless of how old or new they are!) Would do far more and be far more to the point than trying to play "Nanny"

I got my start playing Age of Merchants for a large part, and Coral Coast. If I had had to play only Classic, I doubt I would have stuck around. There are many maps and ALL are very much a part of what CC is. You want to limit CC to only those who like Classic, but that is NOT all of CC... not by a long shot!

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Third, this will also put an end to farming. There have been quite a few players who have been restricted, banned, or otherwise for contacting new recruits and sucking them into complicated maps with complicated options. While farmers could still set game options that new players are allowed to play in, ConquerClub could also limit communication between new recruits and seasoned players. Farmers could also sit and wait until a player has unlocked all of the options. However, by the time a player has unlocked all the maps and all the game options, they would hopefully be less of a “sucker” and would provide more competition to the traditional farmer.

No, it won't end farming. It will just change who farms who.

You want CC to play Nanny. The fact is this is more about people who won't read directions and think they should not lose than anything else. Know what? I can plain do without those folks!

Let CC be. Flash warnings, becuase new people really don't know what all is involved in many maps. BUT... that is all. Either folks read and learn or they don't.
THE END!!!!!!!

stahrgazer wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:
Then read the rest of the suggestion and the input on other pages. The suggestion is no longer tied to limiting new players simply to the classic maps.

Yet, you illustrated a great point for me by pointing out that you ddi not read anything else in this thread: noobs go out of their way to join game, make comments and yet they have no idea whaat is going on. Case in point: you. You don't know what is going on because you didn't take the time to read the other pages of the suggestion.

Well, QH, being you've been on the site awhile, you should know by now that you COULD have changed the forum topic to indicate the change in topic content. Seriously, this noob v. ageds thing is crazy; insulting the guy for not wanting to read pages and pages of inane comments along with meat; especially when those with some time are unwilling to take 3 extra seconds to make it slightly easier by changing the topic to reflect what the topic has become.

Exactly!

And many of us have seen similar ideas so many times, we just don't ahve the time to keep going through every single argument in the thread.

stahrgazer wrote: As for this idea in general: It's beating the wrong horse.

Yes, and most of my arguments apply, which is why I left them even after seeing this post.

stahrgazer wrote:Some newbies are going to be fine. Most newbies are going to want to challenge themselves. The people who should be penalized are those who consistently attempt to play complicated settings games with people who have insufficient experience on the maps or settings being used... farming rules should apply to more than just ?

Farming rules shouldn't apply to games being set in public, but should apply to active attempts to find babies to take their candy. Instead, this site does the opposite: if the game was set up from live chat, per the judgements that have been handed down, it's OKAY to go after people with only 6 or 7 total games, and it's OKAY to consistently go after (actively seek) people in freestyle x map, with or without speed, when that person has never even played a sequential on x map. It's even okay to lure them with a false promise of teaching them that map (those who actively strive to teach do not fall into the same category). But it's not okay to set up a ton of games because you have time to play a ton, and be willing to play whoever joins, because, omg, some ? might join a few of them.

I agree. This whole idea that "farming" is such a big crime is plain baloney.

Know what? I PLAYED many of the biggest farmers. I have beat a few. If my rank were higher, I would likely be accused of farming because I just happen to like playing the more unusual games. I am not alone.

The REAL problem is that there is a whole group of people who think they are not supposed to lose, that everyone has to play they way THEY play and that cannot be bothered to even take the time to explain anything to someone who is new.

I take King Herpes as an example. (hmm.. funny name cooincidence there...) I have played him many times. Now, I cannot speak for his behavior in other games, but in mine, he was always polite. Did he beat me? Sometimes. Did I beat him? Sometimes. So what? What matters is that he did not haul off with a long string of blather.

Had he, there is a simple tool -- the foe list. That, itself, does have issues. However, those are covered in many other threads, have several suggestions supposedly approved (in some cases for over a year, I believe .. ) so I won't get into them here.

stahrgazer wrote:The part of the idea that has merit is the idea of minimizing multis. Changing the points system could do that, too; place a maximum number of points that could be nabbed, for example... but only if, at the same time, those who consistently pluck at ANY inexperienced players - not just ? (because one doesn't automatically "get" all the maps and all the settings on game number 6) are penalized for those practices under "general abuse of the game" even if the definition of 'farming' remains the same.

Nothing will truly eliminate multis becuase the bottom line is some people are jerks and cheats. The best we can do is weed them out quickly.

stahrgazer wrote:Well, QH, being you've been on the site awhile, you should know by now that you COULD have changed the forum topic to indicate the change in topic content.

Or you could simply start a NEW thread, given that you wanted to suggest a NEW topic.

stahrgazer wrote:Well, QH, being you've been on the site awhile, you should know by now that you COULD have changed the forum topic to indicate the change in topic content.

Yes, yes, yes! I'm getting there! Unfortunately my new suggestion (the one similar to this one) is going to be more like an encyclopedia and probably won't get many reads.

stahrgazer wrote:The part of the idea that has merit is the idea of minimizing multis. Changing the points system could do that, too; place a maximum number of points that could be nabbed, for example... but only if, at the same time, those who consistently pluck at ANY inexperienced players - not just ? (because one doesn't automatically "get" all the maps and all the settings on game number 6) are penalized for those practices under "general abuse of the game" even if the definition of 'farming' remains the same.

Yes, multis can be minimized by this suggestion. Farming can be minimized, too. Does it completely stop both? No. If a player is determined to earn points without being truly competitive, no one will stop them. But we can hamper their ability to abuse the site. I believe my suggestions does hamper the multi and the farmer.

Sorry that I picked only one part of your comment to respond to. I'm overwhelmed with attempting to get out the new topics, and responding to every meritable post (like yours) is getting harder to do. I certainly shouldn't have responded to a few of the other posts, I'm moving onward now.

No. If you limit new/inexperienced players to classic only then there would be almost no point to the whole conquer club idea and all those awesome new maps people have been coming up with. Furthermore, If you limited new players, they would not want to come back to the website because if they arent good then they will be stuck with the classic map and the full potential of conquer club would not be perceived.

z19z4 wrote:No. If you limit new/inexperienced players to classic only then there would be almost no point to the whole conquer club idea and all those awesome new maps people have been coming up with. Furthermore, If you limited new players, they would not want to come back to the website because if they arent good then they will be stuck with the classic map and the full potential of conquer club would not be perceived.

If htey aren't good, it doesn't matter what map they play on, so why allow them to screw up other players games? Why allow them to get farmed? There is no full potential of conquer club to be perceived that is encapsulated by playing on every single map and with every single game option.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

z19z4 wrote:No. If you limit new/inexperienced players to classic only then there would be almost no point to the whole conquer club idea and all those awesome new maps people have been coming up with. Furthermore, If you limited new players, they would not want to come back to the website because if they arent good then they will be stuck with the classic map and the full potential of conquer club would not be perceived.

If htey aren't good, it doesn't matter what map they play on, so why allow them to screw up other players games? Why allow them to get farmed? There is no full potential of conquer club to be perceived that is encapsulated by playing on every single map and with every single game option.

yes but if conquer club wants to attract more players/members they should not limit new players or they wont come back.

The following suggestion thread link is NOT the same as this suggestion and should not be merged.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=101498

The link does, however put together some of the most basic aspects of my suggestion in terms of appealing to new recuits, new members, etc.

Queen_Herpes wrote:The following suggestion thread link is NOT the same as this suggestion and should not be merged.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=101498

The link does, however put together some of the most basic aspects of my suggestion in terms of appealing to new recuits, new members, etc.

Ultimately, though, I still think that limiting new recruits to Classic is a great idea.

I think it's reasonable to limit them to classic-style maps; those with easy legends and area bonuses that follow the simple style.... but only for 1v1v1's.

I think that anyone should be allowed to team up for other maps.

AAFitz wrote:Ok, QH, at first I was perhaps a bit more argumentative in this thread, but it was because you jumped down Andy's throat to some degree, after he posted, quite frankly, what the situation was. I somewhat wrongly assumed your motivation was a little more self-satisfying than I do now, after this rather in-depth discussion. I do still completely resist limiting players, because I think it just wont achieve the objective you think it will, however, I do realize more WHY you thought it would, and where the rationale came from.

Ultimately, AA, Andy and Lack already limit the new recruits. On the other end, experienced players are already limited when the appearance of impropriety comes up. I really don’t think it is fair for seasoned players to get locked out of maps and options (and/or suffer bans or other blocks) simply because they play options that are deemed to be “farming.” If I’ve played 1000+ games and I get told I cannot play a certain map because I “play it too much” or I get told I am farming because I join too many new players games, I do not think that is fair. This suggestion goes in the other direction. It prevents new players from playing in situations where they can be farmed. It will help the admin from having to deal with spurious accusations against players who aren’t farming these new players.

AAFitz wrote:You are making this more personal than it has to be, and more personal than it is, because Im not entirely sure you realize the motivation of people that have been here for a long time, and have really watched CC grow into what it has. Some are protective of it, and some even over-protective. That being said, I dont think that is the case here.

This isn’t about anything personal, this is about helping CC to continue to grow. I harken back to the comment I made in a previous post regarding where CC is now compared to where CC was in 2006. Anyone who joined in 2006 has had an opportunity to take the changes made at CC at pace. I’m guessing, but I’ve read a bunch of old posts to attempt to figure it out: no speed, no fog, no freestyle, etc. What were there, like 10 maps? If you joined in early 2006, you had the benefit of learning maps as they came out. You also had the benefit of learning the game options as they came out. The same is true for players who joined in 2007, 2008, and even early 2009. There have been options added since I joined in Juneish. I did, however, have a bunch of options to navigate when I first joined and I saw lots of players join at the same time who crashed and burned on the tougher options and tougher maps. Those players that crash and burn would benefit from being blocked from the toughest options and the toughest maps. You could say that I was “blocked” from playing Third Crusade for the first 5 months of my time on CC. I was blocked because it didn’t exist and wasn’t on BETA until November. Why not do this suggestion?

AAFitz wrote:However, the thread does highlight the problem, and probably will be instrumental in making some kind of change. I myself hope that change involves grouping the maps in difficulty categories. When I made that suggestion, I did so, because you were complaining that people were just telling you why your idea wouldnt work, and werent contributing. I made a new suggestion that I think will solve most of the problems, but instead of supporting the move to achieve your objectives, you posted that it was essentially a bad idea.

Sorry, you missed my intentionally black sarcasm. I thought I actually quoted your words in your first comment on this suggestion when I said, “I’ve been here for a long time and this will never work.” While it wasn’t a direct quote, it was the spirit of your first comment that I was “quoting” as I felt your first comment didn’t really speak to anything except your intense desire to make Andy happy and to simply state that you object. Your first objection had no basis and no supporting reasoning. I’m sorry that I was sarcastic in response to your suggestion.

AAFitz wrote:This does made it hard to trust your motivations, but Ive decided you truly do want to make improvement, and are not just arguing to be right. Dont take that personally....it happens all the time, and while I try to make sure I dont fall into the trap of arguing a position simply to be right...it does happen.

Lol, it felt as though you were arguing to be right until you started to give reasons for your objection. I am not arguing to be right. I am arguing a very effective suggestion that will benefit this site on many levels.

AAFitz wrote:The important thing to do when trying to make a change, is to view the objective. The objective is the only thing that matters.

In this case, the objective is to increase new player satisfaction and retention, and reduce farming. By labeling the maps by difficulty level, farming will be reduced and satisfaction increased, possibly even retention. By letting new players try any map they want, and showing them ALL that CC has to offer, satisfaction is again increased, and retention more likely.

K. Yep.

AAFitz wrote:The suggestion to limit games, and open them up over time, will create a certain lure to play and open maps...however, that will achieve the objective of increased satisfaction, and reduced farming, but will most likely not help retention. Realistically, it couldnt possibly positively affect it. If a player leaves after playing some options, it really is just impossible to believe they might have stayed if they had less options to play in the first place. Certainly it wasnt too many options that made them leave, it was other factors, and probably the lack of real time games. However, it is likely, that if maps are blocked, new players dont get to see all the options, and decide to leave based on less than full information. It is very likely that a blocked map, might just catch someones eye, and make them want to stay, whereas its really unlikely, that they will stay, just because they might get to see that map...if they play more games....Its just an impossible rationale really as you go through the decision process.

If a player has less options and less maps, certainly it could be less interesting to stick around on this site. However, thousands have stuck around prior to fog, prior to the 30th map, prior to manual deploy. Simply having fewer options and fewer maps will not make people leave. I return to my original comment that a player cannot play 141 maps in their first 80 games.

AAFitz wrote:It is much better to show more of the site, to achieve maximum new player retention, than to hope that opening them up, will somehow make the difference.

I will agree that its possible, that for those that decide to stay, that this suggestion, possibly could make them enjoy it more...however, it comes at a price of losing other new players, and limiting other players...that really just dont deserve to be limited.

Let them see it, let them know that it takes some time to open up those maps, but that the amount of time isn’t very long. If they don’t like the system, they’ll leave, sure. Dangling this carrot-on-a-stick in front of them can’t hurt.

AAFitz wrote:I more than understand, because of the work that youve put into this why youve taken it personally that people disagree...but I do hope you see that its not just people being nay-sayers, or trying to be negative, but people truly interested in whats best for CC. I for one fully commend your commitment to this, simply because its obvious you are trying to make an improvement...but I do suggest you really read the consenting views yourself, and see that it isnt just people attacking you for the sake of it...but people trying to help achieve the same objectives you are...but that simply disagree with your suggestion of how to do it. I offer this as an olive branch of sorts....and while I doubt youre going to just give up and give in...I do hope this makes it easier for you to realize this is not some personal argument...but just a discussion of possible ways to make the site better....and I do hope you dont discount the experience of some of the players...including myself, who literaly have been here for years, have played every single day in that time...and for fun, have put some serious time into thinking about how to make CC fun, simply for the sake of making it fun. If nothing else, I hope you realize you are respected for your effort, and disagreement with an idea, does not mean a lack of respect...but just disagreement... the difference is huge...and since you put so much time into this...It would just be a shame for you not to realize people do appreciate any effort made...even when they disagree.

Tank Ewe. Olive branch accepted. What I am proposing is essentially a rule, and nobody likes rules. I get it that my rule seems harsh and “not fun” because it is affiliated with “limiting” and “blocking”. Let me say that I love this game. I think there are others who love it more. I think that a player is going to be more apt to join and stick around if they are limited to the basic options at first. Give them a chance to love the game before they get farmed or abused. Provide a method, like mine, to add a new level to the challenge of the site.

AAFitz wrote:Oh, and gogatron is not my multi...even though if I really wanted to make my point, id have made a multi and posted all the things he said. I honestly suspect the two of us myself...so I know it had to have crossed someones mind out there...lol

seriously...we arent...

It is simply funny to think of it that way, and if it were legal to do so, I would do something like that one million times over because I would find it intensely hilarious.

I'm just hoping that the higherups see past the few people who are against this and check out the real science involved.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

z19z4 wrote:No. If you limit new/inexperienced players to classic only then there would be almost no point to the whole conquer club idea and all those awesome new maps people have been coming up with. Furthermore, If you limited new players, they would not want to come back to the website because if they arent good then they will be stuck with the classic map and the full potential of conquer club would not be perceived.

If htey aren't good, it doesn't matter what map they play on, so why allow them to screw up other players games? Why allow them to get farmed? There is no full potential of conquer club to be perceived that is encapsulated by playing on every single map and with every single game option.

If you think that, then you have not played most of the maps in CC.

I am not very good at Classic. If I had had to be limited to Classic, I would never have bought 2 years of premium, probably would not have stayed more than a month or so.

Yet, I do well enough at some maps to rate in more than one of Blitz's "top ten" maprank lists.

Bottom line .. CC is about far FAR more than Classic and trying to limit is is completely misguided, based upon YOUR likes and dislikes, but has little or nothing to with what other new people want.

Also, your whole idea that "if they lose, they will quit" is just plain poor sportmanship. Losing is a part of any competetive game. If you cannot stand playing "poorer players", then it is YOUR attitude that needs work, not theirs!

PLAYER57832 wrote:Bottom line .. CC is about far FAR more than Classic

I am most certainly in agreement with this statement. Though Classic is surely a driving force of Conquer Club (and something that keeps people coming back), we've evolved as a website that offers a diversity of settings, maps, and opponents.


--Andy