Conquer Club

The only maps that new recruits should not play are ALREADY blocked -- the truly complicated ones that do require some advanced knowledge.

Most of the others are no more complex than anything else. They may have a DIFFERENT game play, but are not complex. Were it not for Age of Merchants and Crossword, I likely would never have stayed 2 years. I stayed because of Fuedal, AOR (especially AOR2), Oasis, etc... etc... etc.

You are pre-assuming based on YOUR likes and disklikes what everyone else wants, but
A. far more people posting here are opposed to your ideas than for them
B. VERY few people even post here.

So, you are asking for a major,major change but have not done anything like the research needed to assess if this would or would not be a beneficial change

PLAYER57832 wrote:Most of the others are no more complex than anything else. They may have a DIFFERENT game play, but are not complex. Were it not for Age of Merchants and Crossword, I likely would never have stayed 2 years.

So you're the person that likes Crossword. I always wondered who it was.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Most of the others are no more complex than anything else. They may have a DIFFERENT game play, but are not complex. Were it not for Age of Merchants and Crossword, I likely would never have stayed 2 years.

So you're the person that likes Crossword. I always wondered who it was.

I played it a lot at first because it was unpopular.. I figured since people did not play it as much, I was more on an equal footing.

Its not a bad map, just unusual.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You are pre-assuming based on YOUR likes and disklikes what everyone else wants, but
A. far more people posting here are opposed to your ideas than for them

Where do you get your data? There are more people posting in favor of this idea, but more people like you who have posted more than five times to demonstrate your dislike.

I'll go with the majority and move on from your comments which have simply been repeated, without new information, over and over again.

Doc_Brown wrote:I joined the society of cooks as a new recruit and was invited to join (and joined) terminator games before my 5 games were complete. I didn't try to get invited to any of the blocked maps, but I'm pretty sure the blocked maps work the same way as blocked game settings.

Which settings are blocked?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Most of the others are no more complex than anything else. They may have a DIFFERENT game play, but are not complex. Were it not for Age of Merchants and Crossword, I likely would never have stayed 2 years.

So you're the person that likes Crossword. I always wondered who it was.

I played it a lot at first because it was unpopular.. I figured since people did not play it as much, I was more on an equal footing.
Its not a bad map, just unusual.

Ack. We shall have to agree to disagree on that point.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:I joined the society of cooks as a new recruit and was invited to join (and joined) terminator games before my 5 games were complete. I didn't try to get invited to any of the blocked maps, but I'm pretty sure the blocked maps work the same way as blocked game settings.

Which settings are blocked?

Read my post on the last page. Assassin, Terminator, teams, and Large Games ( 6+)

PLEASE IMPLEMENT THIS!!!!!!!!!

b00060 wrote:PLEASE IMPLEMENT THIS!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the support! I agree! New recruits could benefit from a system like this that operates as entertainment, education, and marketing.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

b00060 wrote:PLEASE IMPLEMENT THIS!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the support! I agree! New recruits could benefit from a system like this that operates as entertainment, education, and marketing.

If you read his suggestion + his 3 threads in C&A, you shall see why he wants this implemented. He just doesn't want to verse them.

I guess this is too broad.
You will be giving the player to win that easy.
Im sure you'll find a way.
goodluck.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

b00060 wrote:PLEASE IMPLEMENT THIS!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the support! I agree! New recruits could benefit from a system like this that operates as entertainment, education, and marketing.

If you read his suggestion + his 3 threads in C&A, you shall see why he wants this implemented. He just doesn't want to verse them.

Understood. I need to look into this a little deeper.

In all honesty, I can see this being either a good, or a bad thing. I can see how it may give new recruits and players an incentive to continue to pursue their CC career with the curiosity of, "What do I get to unlock next?", or at least it would give them a goal to aim for.

Secondly, the exact arrangement of the maps seems to be a big concern, if implemented I would have to say that would probably be decided on by the mods.

In addition, this would encourage more new recruits to play with each other, which would be fine, but could end up being the blind leading the blind when it comes to strategy. Sometimes it takes a tough loss to see where you've gone wrong, we learn better from our mistakes than successes, do we not? So limiting them from certain games could inhibit the potential growth of some players that would learn quicker than others. Like I said, I could see this going both ways, interesting post. -rds

rdsrds2120 wrote:I can see how it may give new recruits and players an incentive to continue to pursue their CC career with the curiosity of, "What do I get to unlock next?", or at least it would give them a goal to aim for.

Thank you for the post, your concerns are very good ones! There is definitely an incentive for new recruits to move forward with this process. Currently, New Recruits are limited and, yet, the site doesn't award them with anything once they've passed their limitations!

rds wrote:Secondly, the exact arrangement of the maps seems to be a big concern, if implemented I would have to say that would probably be decided on by the mods.

Precisely!

rds wrote:This would encourage more new recruits to play with each other, which would be fine, but could end up being the blind leading the blind when it comes to strategy. Sometimes it takes a tough loss to see where you've gone wrong, we learn better from our mistakes than successes, do we not? So limiting them from certain games could inhibit the potential growth of some players that would learn quicker than others. interesting post. -rds

I agree that playing against a better opponent can be a better learning experience. However, a player can learn the map by playing against anyone in a sunny game. Also, New players who play against high ranked farmers oir high ranked unconcerned players will not learn the game from these players. They will simply get owned and may receive little to no positive help and may receive negative help instead! But, this suggestion is not about rank restrictions. This suggestion is about creating a positive learning environment for new players, one where they are given the opportunity to learn each skill in piecemeal form before attempting to tackle the challenge of tough maps mixed with tough settings.

correct

Queen_Herpes wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:I can see how it may give new recruits and players an incentive to continue to pursue their CC career with the curiosity of, "What do I get to unlock next?", or at least it would give them a goal to aim for.

Thank you for the post, your concerns are very good ones! There is definitely an incentive for new recruits to move forward with this process. Currently, New Recruits are limited and, yet, the site doesn't award them with anything once they've passed their limitations!

rds wrote:Secondly, the exact arrangement of the maps seems to be a big concern, if implemented I would have to say that would probably be decided on by the mods.

Precisely!

rds wrote:This would encourage more new recruits to play with each other, which would be fine, but could end up being the blind leading the blind when it comes to strategy. Sometimes it takes a tough loss to see where you've gone wrong, we learn better from our mistakes than successes, do we not? So limiting them from certain games could inhibit the potential growth of some players that would learn quicker than others. interesting post. -rds

I agree that playing against a better opponent can be a better learning experience. However, a player can learn the map by playing against anyone in a sunny game. Also, New players who play against high ranked farmers oir high ranked unconcerned players will not learn the game from these players. They will simply get owned and may receive little to no positive help and may receive negative help instead! But, this suggestion is not about rank restrictions. This suggestion is about creating a positive learning environment for new players, one where they are given the opportunity to learn each skill in piecemeal form before attempting to tackle the challenge of tough maps mixed with tough settings.

Alright, i haven't posted in here in a while, so i'm poking my head in again.

I want to point out some key things i've seen as i've been watching the thread.

A) This protects New Recruits against farmers, and high ranked players. True - But, it still won't stop them, once they come out of said 16 games, of being annihilated by a high rank. Just because they got in a bonus of 11 more games to be NR, doesn't mean they will be any better.

B) This gives them a better chance at learning new/more maps. True- I find this point appealing, as it took be a while to find maps i really liked. So thumbs up.

C) One downfall i see, as this could impact a lot of NR's who plan on staying, because of playing with other NR's, who, as we all know, like to deadbeat after realizing how slow the process is. I know if i was waiting 2-4 days in between turns in certain games, i more than likely would have given up on this site.

After taking a step back from the thread, and seeing what the community has to think about this, i personally think it is split down the middle. This suggestion could bring in more Recruits, based on the Video Gaming aspect "Hey, if I play more, i get more options " Or, this could further shoo players away "Oh man, I only get limited with these dumb options? If i wanted to play something where i unlocked more over time, i would have picked up my N64 and played Zelda". As it is now, players are protected from hard settings, only partially. As many people know, they can not join certain maps or settings. But, they can START on these maps or settings.

IF something was to be implemented that changed how New Recruits were handled, this is how i would have it. Remember, this is MY OPINION.

1. New Recruits can not play on the restricted settings or maps. Period. That means they can't start or join said maps/settings.
2. New Recruits can not play anyone over the Officer rank. So that would be 1600+
3. After 10 games, said player can play against Lieutenants. 15 = Captain. 20 = Major. So on and so forth. This would stop high ranking players (I won't name names) From targeting players as soon as they are out of NR stage.
4. After 10 games, Terminator is unlocked. 15 = Doubles. 20 = Triples. 25 = Qauds. 30 = Assassin. With each unlock, a PM is received with instructions on what each game type is like, and certain aspects are for each game type.
5. I would personally tweak QH's unlocking maps however. After 10 games, said player can unlock Level: 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. This would give players, who think they are ready for tougher maps, to choose what pack they want. Then at 20 games They unlock another level of their choosing, and unlock a new one after 10 games again.

Those are my thoughts for now.

A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

rdsrds2120 wrote:A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

Actually, there is a 2/3 majority of members in favor vs. members against!

Queen_Herpes wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

Actually, there is a 2/3 majority of members in favor vs. members against!

But, as I noted before, the people that posted in this thread as NRs (I was one if you recall) - the people that this suggestion would directly affect - were nearly unanimous in their opposition. Also, ForgivenOne's approach has the significant drawback that it prevents NRs from joining the SoC for a minimum of 10 games, and realistically more like 20+ (since many of the SoC instructors are Cpts and Majors).

i find a little mistake
>WWI Western Front.<

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

Actually, there is a 2/3 majority of members in favor vs. members against!

But, as I noted before, the people that posted in this thread as NRs (I was one if you recall) - the people that this suggestion would directly affect - were nearly unanimous in their opposition. Also, ForgivenOne's approach has the significant drawback that it prevents NRs from joining the SoC for a minimum of 10 games, and realistically more like 20+ (since many of the SoC instructors are Cpts and Majors).

There were/are three of you NR's that posted against. 3 NR's also posted in favor. Wash.

NR's certainly have a place to post their thoughts here, but without having played more than 5 games, I guess I am confused as to what they could speak about? They've hardly even had the chance to know what's up.

Incidentally, the one of the other NR's who posted against this has never returned to ConquerClub. The other, Gogatron, was premium the same day he posted here. You and Gogatron are representative of a group of players who come to the site who are "great from the start" and the learning curve doesn't really have a meaning to you. However, I firmly believe in the bell curve, and that a majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, which means average understanding of everything (at best.)

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

Actually, there is a 2/3 majority of members in favor vs. members against!

But, as I noted before, the people that posted in this thread as NRs (I was one if you recall) - the people that this suggestion would directly affect - were nearly unanimous in their opposition. Also, ForgivenOne's approach has the significant drawback that it prevents NRs from joining the SoC for a minimum of 10 games, and realistically more like 20+ (since many of the SoC instructors are Cpts and Majors).

There were/are three of you NR's that posted against. 3 NR's also posted in favor. Wash.

NR's certainly have a place to post their thoughts here, but without having played more than 5 games, I guess I am confused as to what they could speak about? They've hardly even had the chance to know what's up.

Incidentally, the one of the other NR's who posted against this has never returned to ConquerClub. The other, Gogatron, was premium the same day he posted here. You and Gogatron are representative of a group of players who come to the site who are "great from the start" and the learning curve doesn't really have a meaning to you. However, I firmly believe in the bell curve, and that a majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, which means average understanding of everything (at best.)

So, of course the right approach is to penalize the top end of the bell curve and make the site less fun (than it could be) for them and cater primarily to the average and below-average people. I guess if you want to retain more of the below-average people than the above-average people...

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

Actually, there is a 2/3 majority of members in favor vs. members against!

But, as I noted before, the people that posted in this thread as NRs (I was one if you recall) - the people that this suggestion would directly affect - were nearly unanimous in their opposition. Also, ForgivenOne's approach has the significant drawback that it prevents NRs from joining the SoC for a minimum of 10 games, and realistically more like 20+ (since many of the SoC instructors are Cpts and Majors).

There were/are three of you NR's that posted against. 3 NR's also posted in favor. Wash.

NR's certainly have a place to post their thoughts here, but without having played more than 5 games, I guess I am confused as to what they could speak about? They've hardly even had the chance to know what's up.

Incidentally, the one of the other NR's who posted against this has never returned to ConquerClub. The other, Gogatron, was premium the same day he posted here. You and Gogatron are representative of a group of players who come to the site who are "great from the start" and the learning curve doesn't really have a meaning to you. However, I firmly believe in the bell curve, and that a majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, which means average understanding of everything (at best.)

So, of course the right approach is to penalize the top end of the bell curve and make the site less fun (than it could be) for them and cater primarily to the average and below-average people. I guess if you want to retain more of the below-average people than the above-average people...

How does this suggestion puenalize the top end of the bell curve?

How does it not?

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:A big problem with this whole idea though is that it is all perspective, as you said: it's split down the middle. Will this ever come to an end? The world may never know.

Actually, there is a 2/3 majority of members in favor vs. members against!

But, as I noted before, the people that posted in this thread as NRs (I was one if you recall) - the people that this suggestion would directly affect - were nearly unanimous in their opposition. Also, ForgivenOne's approach has the significant drawback that it prevents NRs from joining the SoC for a minimum of 10 games, and realistically more like 20+ (since many of the SoC instructors are Cpts and Majors).

There were/are three of you NR's that posted against. 3 NR's also posted in favor. Wash.

NR's certainly have a place to post their thoughts here, but without having played more than 5 games, I guess I am confused as to what they could speak about? They've hardly even had the chance to know what's up.

Incidentally, the one of the other NR's who posted against this has never returned to ConquerClub. The other, Gogatron, was premium the same day he posted here. You and Gogatron are representative of a group of players who come to the site who are "great from the start" and the learning curve doesn't really have a meaning to you. However, I firmly believe in the bell curve, and that a majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, which means average understanding of everything (at best.)

So, of course the right approach is to penalize the top end of the bell curve and make the site less fun (than it could be) for them and cater primarily to the average and below-average people. I guess if you want to retain more of the below-average people than the above-average people...

Hi, Doc, I'm trying to find out from you how this suggestion penalizes the top of the bell-curve. I respect your well-reasoned thoughts and responses to this thread and I am asking you with all honesty and good intentions. Thank yoU!