Conquer Club

pmchugh wrote:

natty dread wrote: however, that's simply not true - not all new users are risk players, and many new players find maps that are nothing like classic easier than classic.

I don't have any stats but I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the people who join here knew and had played the game risk before they did.

of course.. or they wouldn't google the word "risk"..

CC is not advertising itself, so only people who search can find it.

pmchugh wrote:Yeah CC is pretty good at keeping people once they are here for a few months but I think it struggles to welcome new players.

I remember being confused by all the game options when I first joined and that was before trench, manual, nukes and round limits. I remember disliking some "standard" maps too. I think there should be a "basic" game type that excludes most of the options to make it easier to get started.

nope, the community holds itself together. CC does very little to keep their members.

Map Foundry has little support from CC staff, especially on new features, the technology in this website hasn't upgraded in like forever. and even if you're lucky enough for your suggestion to be approved, it just gets a more fancy bin.

I think your on to something here....I would like to see if we could make new recruits... stick to a certain amount of training maps before they go live...kinda like a baby training tutorial... they could also build some skills before they go live and get frustrated...

machrs wrote:I think your on to something here....I would like to see if we could make new recruits... stick to a certain amount of training maps before they go live...kinda like a baby training tutorial... they could also build some skills before they go live and get frustrated...

yeah and if their first 5 real/live/official games have no point/score effect, farmers will stop harassing them and giving them a tough and shit first impression.

pmchugh wrote:I don't have any stats but I am pretty sure

I stopped reading at this point...

machrs wrote:I think your on to something here....I would like to see if we could make new recruits... stick to a certain amount of training maps before they go live...kinda like a baby training tutorial... they could also build some skills before they go live and get frustrated...

They already are, new recruits are limited in which maps / game types they can join.

OliverFA wrote:In my opinion, which is just that, an opinion, we could be in the turning point if well played. I know you will say that I am partial in all this because the suggestion just implemented is the one I championed, but I will backup my opinion with an explanation:

The problem about CC the last times was the perception of a static site. And by static I mean a site not implementing new features and not listening to suggestions. From now on, and if the next big update doesn't take too long to arrive, there will be evidence to demonstrate this has changed.

There are still things to fix, but this one might be the most important one in convincing newcomers that it's worth to stay.

Trouble is, people should have said something of this kind during many recent updates, and yet they didn't.

When the long-standing suggestion of making clickable maps native was adopted.
When the long-standing suggestion of round limits was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of 1-minute turns was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of Mass Wall Clear was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of embedding youtube videos in forum posts was implemented.

Any or all of these should have made people sit up and say, "they're making some changes, they're listening to our suggestions, they're making the place better." Instead, the meme of "admins don't give a shit, lack doesn't listen, nothing ever changes, blah blah blah" continues to be repeated.

Morale has a momentum of its own, and the chorus of negativity seems to be highly resistant to empirical evidence of positive change.

Dukasaur wrote:Trouble is, people should have said something of this kind during many recent updates, and yet they didn't.

When the long-standing suggestion of making clickable maps native was adopted.
When the long-standing suggestion of round limits was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of 1-minute turns was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of Mass Wall Clear was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of embedding youtube videos in forum posts was implemented.

Any or all of these should have made people sit up and say, "they're making some changes, they're listening to our suggestions, they're making the place better." Instead, the meme of "admins don't give a shit, lack doesn't listen, nothing ever changes, blah blah blah" continues to be repeated.

Morale has a momentum of its own, and the chorus of negativity seems to be highly resistant to empirical evidence of positive change.

Yeah, with the attitude of team CC members being like that, it's no wonder people are leaving. Maybe it would be useful for the site to actually listen to the concerns of members instead of dismissing them as "whining" every time?

Sure, we get some updates, like paid tournaments and youtube videos or wall clearing options... Those however are the kind of things that are just icing on the cake, and no matter how much icing you slab on it, it doesn't help if the filling is full of crap.

The point is that the admin should concentrate on the fundamentals first before implementing gimmicks and novelties. No amount of youtube videos is going to fix the fact that the UI is poorly designed, or that we need some long overdue XML updates, or the account sitting feature, etc. To me it seems that lately lack has only concentrated on flashy, gimmicky updates that look fun and please the masses for a while, things that are sort of good as additions... but the really useful, utilitarian updates? Nothing for a long time.

If you want natty we can start up a poll on the number of players who had played risk prior to coming on here, but I think intuition should tell you the answer we will get.

CC bring out lots of updates, just because you haven't got one or two you specifically want doesn't mean shit. Stop whining.

natty dread wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Trouble is, people should have said something of this kind during many recent updates, and yet they didn't.

When the long-standing suggestion of making clickable maps native was adopted.
When the long-standing suggestion of round limits was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of 1-minute turns was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of Mass Wall Clear was implemented.
When the long-standing suggestion of embedding youtube videos in forum posts was implemented.

Any or all of these should have made people sit up and say, "they're making some changes, they're listening to our suggestions, they're making the place better." Instead, the meme of "admins don't give a shit, lack doesn't listen, nothing ever changes, blah blah blah" continues to be repeated.

Morale has a momentum of its own, and the chorus of negativity seems to be highly resistant to empirical evidence of positive change.

Yeah, with the attitude of team CC members being like that, it's no wonder people are leaving. Maybe it would be useful for the site to actually listen to the concerns of members instead of dismissing them as "whining" every time?

I thought I was citing evidence of CC listening to the concerns of members.

natty dread wrote:Sure, we get some updates, like paid tournaments and youtube videos or wall clearing options... Those however are the kind of things that are just icing on the cake, and no matter how much icing you slab on it, it doesn't help if the filling is full of crap.

The point is that the admin should concentrate on the fundamentals first before implementing gimmicks and novelties. No amount of youtube videos is going to fix the fact that the UI is poorly designed,

Well, I don't buy this premise that the UI is badly designed. It seems great to me. One of the things I love most about CC is the seamless integration of the game with its ancillary features -- game, wall profile, etc., are all one environment.

This is the thing that pissed me off most about every previous online game that I've been involved in, where the game is run in a Jave Runtime Environment window that doesn't behave according to the rules of the browser, doesn't integrate with the forums, can't be resized, and hangs for 3 or 4 seconds if you <ALT><TAB> from another window. The kind of thing that we do here on CC, where you hop with no delay and no change of environment from a game to a forum article about that game, to a wall message about that game, to post in game chat, etc., etc. etc., makes this place great.

CC barely makes a dent in physical memory and sucks up very little bandwidth. It rarely crashes. Compared to every other online game I've been on, with their system-crashing demands for more memory, their massive downloads, and their ceaseless demands that you update your JRE every 15 minutes, CC is simply a dream come true. (Mind you, in the past I was always playing with Windows 98 and Internet Explorer. I started playing CC around the time that I upgraded to Vista and Firefox, so to be honest my comparisons might suffer from a bit of apples to oranges effect. Still, overall I don't have a single complaint about the interface here, so even without comparing it to anything, I can't buy your assertion that there's something profoundly wrong with the interface.)

natty dread wrote: or that we need some long overdue XML updates, or the account sitting feature, etc. To me it seems that lately lack has only concentrated on flashy, gimmicky updates that look fun and please the masses for a while, things that are sort of good as additions... but the really useful, utilitarian updates? Nothing for a long time.

One man's flashy gimmick is another man's necessity. At least 2 of the examples I cited above are things that most people very much wanted: round limits to prevent stalemates and faster Speed settings. Yes, we all have our own wish list that remains unfulfilled, and the turn-sitting mechanism is on many people's list. But when I look at some of the stuff you're asking for, like conditional attacks and stuff, I think most people would call that a flashy gimmick. Most of the people I talk to prefer basic honest maps like the basic Germany and Italy and Hong Kong maps, rather than all these self-indulgent monstrosities that have been coming out of the foundry lately. Still, my point is not to insult your wish list; it's just to say that everyone's list is a little different. These judgements are a matter of opinion.

But regardless of whose list the next update is plucked from, it's a lie to say that nothing is changing or that nobody is listening. I've only been here 18 months, and there have been huge changes in CC just in the time that I've been here.

The biggest problem cc faces is that people try to go online to try and play a real time game of risk and just happen to find conquer club. They then sign up and join their 4 games before realizing that these games are not real time at which point they leave and never come back. If cc could find a way to make users stay on the site and play a few more games we would see the community grow as a result.

There are plenty of ways that lack could provide this feature, but i think the easiest way would be to allow first time players to play a few speed games so that they get hooked. You could even make the speed games only be 1 vs 1 classic/6 man classic or stuff like that so people dont just keep making new accounts to get the free initial speed games. and if he is really worried about how this costs him money without immediate profit, he could even throw in short adds between rounds or something like that. I know there is a no advertising policy but i dont really think there would be a huge concern among users if advertising was used in conjunction with an effort to attract new users. Then once their allotted speed games are up if they have enjoyed playing $25 a year doesn't really seem like much even if you are only going to come back once in a while.

ljex wrote:The biggest problem cc faces is that people try to go online to try and play a real time game of risk and just happen to find conquer club. They then sign up and join their 4 games before realizing that these games are not real time at which point they leave and never come back. If cc could find a way to make users stay on the site and play a few more games we would see the community grow as a result.

There are plenty of ways that lack could provide this feature, but i think the easiest way would be to allow first time players to play a few speed games so that they get hooked. You could even make the speed games only be 1 vs 1 classic/6 man classic or stuff like that so people dont just keep making new accounts to get the free initial speed games. and if he is really worried about how this costs him money without immediate profit, he could even throw in short adds between rounds or something like that. I know there is a no advertising policy but i dont really think there would be a huge concern among users if advertising was used in conjunction with an effort to attract new users. Then once their allotted speed games are up if they have enjoyed playing $25 a year doesn't really seem like much even if you are only going to come back once in a while.

Yes, I've thought that, too. I don't think the ads would even be necessary. I think enough new people would buy premium once they've had a taste of it, that the policy would pay its own way.

Dukasaur wrote:

ljex wrote:The biggest problem cc faces is that people try to go online to try and play a real time game of risk and just happen to find conquer club. They then sign up and join their 4 games before realizing that these games are not real time at which point they leave and never come back. If cc could find a way to make users stay on the site and play a few more games we would see the community grow as a result.

There are plenty of ways that lack could provide this feature, but i think the easiest way would be to allow first time players to play a few speed games so that they get hooked. You could even make the speed games only be 1 vs 1 classic/6 man classic or stuff like that so people dont just keep making new accounts to get the free initial speed games. and if he is really worried about how this costs him money without immediate profit, he could even throw in short adds between rounds or something like that. I know there is a no advertising policy but i dont really think there would be a huge concern among users if advertising was used in conjunction with an effort to attract new users. Then once their allotted speed games are up if they have enjoyed playing $25 a year doesn't really seem like much even if you are only going to come back once in a while.

Yes, I've thought that, too. I don't think the ads would even be necessary. I think enough new people would buy premium once they've had a taste of it, that the policy would pay its own way.

I agree fully, i know when i first joined the site it was to play a real time game and basically said screw it when i found out i couldnt play a real time game. It took a friend telling me about it a few months later for me to join...but if not for that i would never have come back.

Dukasaur I understand what your getting at and don't necessarily disagree. However I take issue with one key thing you've mentioned:

Well, I don't buy this premise that the UI is badly designed. It seems great to me. One of the things I love most about CC is the seamless integration of the game with its ancillary features -- game, wall profile, etc., are all one environment.

Seamless is not the word I would use. CC has a lot of great stuff but seamless and user friendly are largely two points I wouldn't agree with. You sign up for tournaments and the only way to track these are to bookmark the page. You play clan wars yet you can't easily search for clan games, only tournaments using game finder which brings so much more than clan games. I can't use a scroll to find KOA vs ___ (anyone) I have to dig thru hundreds of games to find this.

While CC does a lot of things right - they do have a difficult time retaining newer players and I think natty (I think) made a good point. Instant gratification of an RT (speed) game isn't met so they leave. Another game site I play has the same issue, you sign up but there it takes a week or two to begin, which by that time only a hardened, excited about the concept die hard player is going to remember to check on time for when it starts. Then when it does, seasoned vets make a mockery of them vocally or smashing them to bits. So unless you find someone early to teach you the finer points, or read forums on ur own without prompt for strategy most leave. And that's if you got past the sign up problems.

CC has similar issues with retention, vet vs noob unfriendly experience etc but not as pronounced. But the effects are very much the same.

IcePack

IcePack wrote:Dukasaur I understand what your getting at and don't necessarily disagree. However I take issue with one key thing you've mentioned:

Well, I don't buy this premise that the UI is badly designed. It seems great to me. One of the things I love most about CC is the seamless integration of the game with its ancillary features -- game, wall profile, etc., are all one environment.

Seamless is not the word I would use. CC has a lot of great stuff but seamless and user friendly are largely two points I wouldn't agree with. You sign up for tournaments and the only way to track these are to bookmark the page. You play clan wars yet you can't easily search for clan games, only tournaments using game finder which brings so much more than clan games. I can't use a scroll to find KOA vs ___ (anyone) I have to dig thru hundreds of games to find this.

While CC does a lot of things right - they do have a difficult time retaining newer players and I think natty (I think) made a good point. Instant gratification of an RT (speed) game isn't met so they leave. Another game site I play has the same issue, you sign up but there it takes a week or two to begin, which by that time only a hardened, excited about the concept die hard player is going to remember to check on time for when it starts. Then when it does, seasoned vets make a mockery of them vocally or smashing them to bits. So unless you find someone early to teach you the finer points, or read forums on ur own without prompt for strategy most leave. And that's if you got past the sign up problems.

CC has similar issues with retention, vet vs noob unfriendly experience etc but not as pronounced. But the effects are very much the same.

IcePack

you can search tournaments by organizer or by partial title which means you can do this for clans as well

pmchugh wrote:I think intuition should tell you the answer we will get.

I stopped reading again at this point.

Dukasaur wrote:Well, I don't buy this premise that the UI is badly designed. It seems great to me. One of the things I love most about CC is the seamless integration of the game with its ancillary features -- game, wall profile, etc., are all one environment.

What's wrong with it is that it's poorly organized. For example, why do we need to have a left side bar constantly stuck to the side of the screen, taking space from the game and maps - if you remove that you'd get 200 px more room for displaying the map and/or other valuable information - stick it in the top of the page, as a scrollable feature. It's not like it's something that is constantly needed when you play a game.

Dukasaur wrote:This is the thing that pissed me off most about every previous online game that I've been involved in, where the game is run in a Jave Runtime Environment window

Ok that's a strawman argument, because nowhere I have even mentioned Java or Flash or any other kind of cumbersome and ancient platform.

I would advocate a HTML5-based interface over any of those, but that's beside the point - the main point is the UI needs to be redesigned.

Dukasaur wrote:I can't buy your assertion that there's something profoundly wrong with the interface.

Personal experience does not count as empirical data.

Dukasaur wrote:One man's flashy gimmick is another man's necessity. At least 2 of the examples I cited above are things that most people very much wanted: round limits to prevent stalemates and faster Speed settings. Yes, we all have our own wish list that remains unfulfilled, and the turn-sitting mechanism is on many people's list. But when I look at some of the stuff you're asking for, like conditional attacks and stuff, I think most people would call that a flashy gimmick. Most of the people I talk to prefer basic honest maps like the basic Germany and Italy and Hong Kong maps, rather than all these self-indulgent monstrosities that have been coming out of the foundry lately.

Oh, most people do, huh? Weird, I guess I was only imagining AoR or Feudal War or King's court being hugely popular maps, then...

I think you're projecting your own preferences over the general population here. If CC was to stick only to classic-style gameplay for all maps, pretty soon every map would be the repetition of the same thing, only with different graphics - there's only so many ways you can arrange a group of territories into continent bonuses, no matter what names you give the territories. There's no way CC could have become what it is today with only classical gameplay.

Secondly, you're again making the mistake of assuming that complex features can only be used to create complex gameplay. It all depends on how you use the feature and how well the gameplay and map interface is designed.

Dukasaur wrote:Yes, we all have our own wish list that remains unfulfilled

It's not about fulfilling "my wishlist" but doing something useful for CC for once. This has nothing to do with "lists" or preferences. You can objectively see that the active member count of CC is declining - there's 3000 members less than there were at the same time last year. That's a huge drop, on a site of this scale. And trivial updates aren't going to fix it.

What we need are truly innovative, game-changing updates, something that truly improve the user experience. Something that will keep people interested for a long time, not novelties and gimmicks that only appeal to some people. Something that makes using this site, playing games here more of a pleasant experience.

It appears natty has no intuition or common sense.

natty dread wrote:What we need are truly innovative, game-changing updates, something that truly improve the user experience. Something that will keep people interested for a long time, not novelties and gimmicks that only appeal to some people. Something that makes using this site, playing games here more of a pleasant experience.

None of your mentioned updates do any of these things.

pmchugh wrote:It

I stopped reading at this point.

natty dread wrote:

pmchugh wrote:It

I stopped reading at this point.

Natty every person who writes a war title a different way. Me typing KOA will still bring up all war games. Anyway, I'm just saying its not seamless. It's a pain.

IcePack

I'm not disagreeing with you

Maybe Risk itself is not popular enough game to have enough of new players looking for online Risk alternative?

Nowadays there so many new and a lot more interactive types of entertainment, so I wouldn't be surprised that risk based gameplay is simply outdated and overshadowed by other forms of digital fun. Why do we assume that there definitely is an untapped source of people who just need to be reached and they would gladly start playing risk? Maybe there isn't and no matter what CC admins do there won't be significantly more players.

Are there some other similar websites to CC that have significantly more active players?

Wasn't there once a facebook game or something that had something like 100 000 players?

Herbas wrote:Maybe Risk itself is not popular enough game to have enough of new players looking for online Risk alternative?

Bingo.

The way CC will continue to survive will not be to run off the old players and try to recruit new ones. It will be through continuing to improve and retain its loyal contingency while gaining new true risk players.

People play games for stats and ranks, CC has a crappy rank system compared to virtually every successful game. It took a guy creating his own scoreboard server to track stats per map! And finally gave up and that is no longer.

People play games for a strong clan/guild system. There needs to be stronger systems in place including guild stats and perhaps special perks for encouraging clan play.

People play games that are convenient and fair. The conqueror has never and still isn't decided on a fair system. And YOU STILL CANNOT create more than one game at a time for example. Small convenient things that add up.

People play games that are Loyal to them... Ask the mapmakers if they feel appreciated or heard here.

CC is declining, that much is obvious just as you go through forum. not that many new faces, and half of old faces doesnt show up anymore... and its not a question "maybe Risk isnt popular anymore". this is strategy based game, there is not a single unpopular thing about it. its like you say "maybe chess isnt popular anymore because you have barbie action figures now". im pretty sure those two things doesnt have same group of interest as their target.
but this is internet. ppl come here because they are bored, have no social life or they are too perverse to talk publicly about their sex life(or lack of it). and on top of that, you have facebook now to fight against. im guarantee you, if CC was part of facebook gaming community, youd have 250% increased population with 251% decreased intellectual capacity(even though reading through forum makes me wonder is it possible). so when you look at it, there is no magic wand or site development that would drag ppl to CC. unless you get to see home made porn video of person you beat, and since im pretty sure its not going to happen, we will have to learn to go with the flow... and try to enjoy it!

freakns wrote:this is internet. ppl come here because they are bored, have no social life or they are too perverse to talk publicly about their sex life(or lack of it).

Which category are you in then?

Personally, I can talk about my sex life all day long. Yesterday I was having a wank and accidentally jizzed all over my face. Man I was glad no one was watching, it was so ridiculous.