Conquer Club

degaston wrote: Of course there is such a sequence. The most obvious (though unrealistic) example is a data file that contains all the same number:

It is meaningless to ignore the symmetry between the attacker and the defender. That is, yes, every time you attacked from this sequence, you would lose; but every time you defended from this sequence, you would win. The battle outcomes would be significantly different than the expected ones for random chance in this case, but nevertheless on average no one would benefit (which has been the relevant point the whole time). In practice the actual sequence in question was never this far from the extreme, and so while there may have been a shift in the expected battle outcomes I would guess it is small. But the relevant point isn't that, so much as whether there's a bias from hitting some particular patch. And you can only get a meaningful result if you consider that you're likely to be on the receiving end of that bad patch as often as you are to be the one defending from that advantage.

degaston wrote:

Serbia wrote:Based on your count then, we're closer to 4000 active paying members. That's a problem. And sadly, it doesn't seem the count is going up; it's going down.

This is why I suggested unlimited wait-lists for freemiums, and implementing a game matchmaker.

There aren't enough users to fill games quickly like they used to. Games that sit unfilled for a long time make the site seem dead, and cause both paid and freemium members to drop out. These suggestions would help fill games quicker and could help renew interest in the site.

I think those are excellent suggestions. All these changes that are currently being made, such as conquer stars, auto tournaments, etc., are not going to help build this site. Changes to the actual game will. Changes like these suggestions from degaston. They need to revamp the whole game page. There are far too many maps, and they're all lumped in one giant list. They should be broken down into type; basic game play, large maps, conquest maps, advanced, intermediate, and any other options that are out there. There should be enough options that various maps might fit in more than one category. For the number of players currently on this site, there are now too many gameplay options; it makes filling games much more difficult. The whole process of joining and creating games is not simple for someone new to the site.

Bollocks.

Metsfanmax wrote:

degaston wrote: Of course there is such a sequence. The most obvious (though unrealistic) example is a data file that contains all the same number:

It is meaningless to ignore the symmetry between the attacker and the defender. That is, yes, every time you attacked from this sequence, you would lose; but every time you defended from this sequence, you would win. The battle outcomes would be significantly different than the expected ones for random chance in this case, but nevertheless on average no one would benefit (which has been the relevant point the whole time). In practice the actual sequence in question was never this far from the extreme, and so while there may have been a shift in the expected battle outcomes I would guess it is small. But the relevant point isn't that, so much as whether there's a bias from hitting some particular patch. And you can only get a meaningful result if you consider that you're likely to be on the receiving end of that bad patch as often as you are to be the one defending from that advantage.

For me, the relevant point has always been that if the dice are not truly random, then you don't know how the game is being affected. If the data file is changing the attacker's win rate from what it would be if the dice were random, then it doesn't matter that things will "even out" when you're defending, because players are playing under a false assumption of how many troops will be needed in order to attack or defend a territory.

If they can't even get something as basic as random dice to function correctly, then who cares how many bells and whistles they tack onto the site?

degaston wrote: If they can't even get something as basic as random dice to function correctly, then who cares how many bells and whistles they tack onto the site?

Well, there's a reason I don't have a colored name anymore.

Serbia wrote:They need to revamp the whole game page. There are far too many maps, and they're all lumped in one giant list. They should be broken down into type; basic game play, large maps, conquest maps, advanced, intermediate, and any other options that are out there. There should be enough options that various maps might fit in more than one category. For the number of players currently on this site, there are now too many gameplay options; it makes filling games much more difficult. The whole process of joining and creating games is not simple for someone new to the site.

Yes. I think something similar to the Amazon search page would be great.

Site needs a UI overhaul first and foremost. It looks so archaic.

meanwhile, Oct reflects a 5.9% decrease.

i know November will rack up thousands of new and old users into the ranks.

9569

9520

9511

holy shit... the number of members is set to collide with my number of forum posts!!! the apocalypse is nigh!!!-Jésus noir™

I've noticed a decline in Premium users honestly. Makes me wonder about the future of this place. In just watching threads alone, I've seen so many freemiums myself included who just haven't bothered repaying for their status. Is it worth it anymore?

asellas1025 wrote:I've noticed a decline in Premium users honestly. Makes me wonder about the future of this place. In just watching threads alone, I've seen so many freemiums myself included who just haven't bothered repaying for their status. Is it worth it anymore?

Nope.

Bollocks.

9491

degaston wrote:

Serbia wrote:Based on your count then, we're closer to 4000 active paying members. That's a problem. And sadly, it doesn't seem the count is going up; it's going down.

This is why I suggested unlimited wait-lists for freemiums, and implementing a game matchmaker.

There aren't enough users to fill games quickly like they used to. Games that sit unfilled for a long time make the site seem dead, and cause both paid and freemium members to drop out. These suggestions would help fill games quicker and could help renew interest in the site.

How about joining games instead of endlessly creating them? Or inviting people to join your games? Or advertising them in callouts? I don t get it.

Also regarding the premium freemium stuff: there are a lot of people still premium that have left the scoreboard due to their inactivity. Not all of the premium members are listed on the scoreboard.

betiko wrote:How about joining games instead of endlessly creating them? Or inviting people to join your games? Or advertising them in callouts? I don t get it.

Which game should I join? There are 6255 games waiting for players right now, and freemiums can only join up to 4. What if I choose one that doesn't fill for months? Better for me to try to find a game that is almost full before joining it, so I have a chance of playing soon instead of doing nothing. But how can I do that? There's no "sort by player's needed", and who wants to browse through 63 pages of games to find one that is almost full and has settings I'm interested in playing.

Premiums can join as many as they want, but if they join more than they want to actually play at one time, then they'll get overloaded. Better for them to wait until a game is almost full before joining, so that they can play soon, and don't get swamped with too many active games.

So it's like a giant game of chicken - all of these games sit idle that could be filled, but the system discourages joining games. This is where unlimited wait-lists could help.

Freemiums aren't the ones endlessly creating games, but I can kind of understand why people do it. Suppose you want to play on a particular map where you care about some of the settings, but not about others. You don't know what other people will want to play, so it makes some sense to create a bunch of slightly different games and see which ones get filled. But this just adds to the problem, because there's no way for people to indicate which games they would be willing to play. This is where a game matchmaker could help.

Not everyone has a large group of friends here, or wants to play with the same people over and over. Not everyone goes to the forums, and even so, how is creating a game not a callout for people to join? These things are available, but they apparently aren't popular enough options to solve the problem. These are the problems that my suggestions should fix.

degaston wrote:Suppose you want to play on a particular map where you care about some of the settings, but not about others. You don't know what other people will want to play, so it makes some sense to create a bunch of slightly different games and see which ones get filled. But this just adds to the problem, because there's no way for people to indicate which games they would be willing to play. This is where a game matchmaker could help.

It would be great if they could revamp the Start a Game page. All fields should start empty. When you select a field, such as Initial Troops, the number of games waiting with the particular setting you've selected should show up in real time. As you select additional settings, the number of like games will naturally decrease. This would be a version of the matchmaker idea that you have dega.

This is much, much, MUCH more necessary than rearranging the damn forums. But admin around here has it's priorities, that's for sure!

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:

degaston wrote:Suppose you want to play on a particular map where you care about some of the settings, but not about others. You don't know what other people will want to play, so it makes some sense to create a bunch of slightly different games and see which ones get filled. But this just adds to the problem, because there's no way for people to indicate which games they would be willing to play. This is where a game matchmaker could help.

It would be great if they could revamp the Start a Game page. All fields should start empty. When you select a field, such as Initial Troops, the number of games waiting with the particular setting you've selected should show up in real time. As you select additional settings, the number of like games will naturally decrease. This would be a version of the matchmaker idea that you have dega.

This is much, much, MUCH more necessary than rearranging the damn forums. But admin around here has it's priorities, that's for sure!

Bollocks.

The variety of settings seems to be too big comparing to the number of actually active users!

Pirlo wrote:

Serbia wrote:

degaston wrote:Suppose you want to play on a particular map where you care about some of the settings, but not about others. You don't know what other people will want to play, so it makes some sense to create a bunch of slightly different games and see which ones get filled. But this just adds to the problem, because there's no way for people to indicate which games they would be willing to play. This is where a game matchmaker could help.

It would be great if they could revamp the Start a Game page. All fields should start empty. When you select a field, such as Initial Troops, the number of games waiting with the particular setting you've selected should show up in real time. As you select additional settings, the number of like games will naturally decrease. This would be a version of the matchmaker idea that you have dega.

This is much, much, MUCH more necessary than rearranging the damn forums. But admin around here has it's priorities, that's for sure!

Bollocks.

The variety of settings seems to be too big comparing to the number of actually active users!

This too. Far too many options. New players want simple games. Many veteran players are bored with simple settings and want the new complicated stuff. So we cater to the vets, and which then chases the newbies away.

Bollocks.

Thought this post from the Matchmaker thread might be worth posting here

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=207822

Fewnix wrote: I love the idea of a matchmaker service on CC and there are several versions possible that should attract new people and keep the regulars happy .Not always a happy ending but happy for a while and coming back for more

For example how about you can switch your Available status by checking a box to show you are online now and may be up for action now or talk about action now? So when someone logs into CC- a newbie, a freemium, premium, someone just checking out this site, they can get invites to games, speed or 24 hours, within minutes, through basic invites they can accept or decline OR through PMs or Live Chat. they can ignore or file for future reference. " Hi Fred, you seem to be a fine young fella, up for some Feudal Epic, Feudal War, , Pelep, I like escalating spoils, foggy, but am open minded , willing to rry new things, call me ?"
. .

Pirlo wrote:

Serbia wrote:

degaston wrote:Suppose you want to play on a particular map where you care about some of the settings, but not about others. You don't know what other people will want to play, so it makes some sense to create a bunch of slightly different games and see which ones get filled. But this just adds to the problem, because there's no way for people to indicate which games they would be willing to play. This is where a game matchmaker could help.

It would be great if they could revamp the Start a Game page. All fields should start empty. When you select a field, such as Initial Troops, the number of games waiting with the particular setting you've selected should show up in real time. As you select additional settings, the number of like games will naturally decrease. This would be a version of the matchmaker idea that you have dega.

This is much, much, MUCH more necessary than rearranging the damn forums. But admin around here has it's priorities, that's for sure!

Bollocks.

The variety of settings seems to be too big comparing to the number of actually active users!

9494

out of curiosity, what was the high-water mark in CC membership?

riskllama wrote:out of curiosity, what was the high-water mark in CC membership?

Eleventy billion and six.

Bollocks.

riskllama wrote:out of curiosity, what was the high-water mark in CC membership?

somewhere in the ballpark of 23,500 according to somewhere in this thread.

it was back in like 2008 or something like that.

thats a 60% decrease in 6 years time.

I just visited Live Chat, and for the first time I can ever remember there was nobody lurking in there.