Which add-ons would you like to see built in first?

[rdsrds2120]

I think some things should be built into the site that are currently add-ons, or things that could be add-ons, speaking of which.

It isn't always about people who work, but also for the people who come, play the game, and aren't forum goers. These people probably aren't aware that we even have a tech forum, so at least giving them the same opportunity as everyone else while they play the games seems reasonable.

Then there's the browser debate. I personally can't stand Firefox, and only have it on here for Map Rank. I use Google Chrome for my other stuff, as it supports Clickable Maps, Assault Odds, and some other miscellaneous items that I enjoy using. If something like Map Rank annexed itself to the site, I would be more than pleased. I don't play CC at school or anything of the sorts, so it's really just more of a convenience issue.

-rd

[Doc_Brown]

There are a lot of great add-ons available, but many of them are best as add-ons. I use BOB, Assault Odds, Dice Analyzer and Conquer Stats among others. But having all of them turned on at once makes for a really cluttered game screen. I think most of the key functionality (clickable maps and some of the BOB features) have already been implemented in the site. I'm sure the Map Rank, Adjacent Spoils, and Watch this Game would be nice to have (though Watch this Game has been rejected as site functionality before), and they would add basic features without making things more complicated, so I wouldn't oppose adding those. But I like disabling add-ons that I'm not using to keep the game screen more streamlined and easy to use. Unless they know what they mean and why they're there, the extra tables of statistics and numbers will just end up confusing people and should be left as add-ons.

[drunkmonkey]

Sigh...you said:

Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer.

Then I said:

We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.

Then you said:

You are presuming - you DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. As I said before, that's my point. How can we possibly be "modeling CC to accomodate workplace restrictions" if we don't know what they are?

I don't understand your argument. You're saying CC should build in available add-ons, because some workplaces don't allow Firefox. I said workplace restrictions shouldn't be accommodated. Then you told me I don't know what restrictions are in place, after you told me what restrictions you want to work around.

You can't say "Firefox add-ons aren't good enough, because some workplaces don't allow Firefox" and "We can't accommodate workplace restrictions because we don't know what they are."

[PLAYER57832]

A LOT of people cannot use add-ons for all sorts of reasons. They take up extra computer space, you may not have Firefox, etc, etc, etc,

It is nice that people have created them, but unless they are integral to CC, it means some people get to use them and others.. premium or not, do not.

Things I would like:

#1. ability to have different colors. I am tired of playing green people on green maps!

#2. maprank. OK, its just fun, but I would like to see it or something very close. (maprank has been around a while, before moving it into CC proper might be a good time to consider if it needs tweaking).

#3 I really don't know any other add-ons. However, I do know I keep seeing suggestions I like, want and see the response "hey, that's already an add-on". It gets VERY FRUSTRATING!

[TheForgivenOne]

I personally do not like Firefox. In my opinion, Google Chrome > Firefox.

For me Firefox is slow, klunky, and seems a lot like Internet Explorer. While Google Chrome is a lot faster for me, and gives me more screen to use because it doesn't have any toolbars.

I may make it known to users that is available via an add-on for FF or GC, but doesn't mean I wouldn't support it being implemented onto the site. If I could choose 1 add-on to be put on first, I would personally pick Map rank.

[drunkmonkey]

A LOT of people cannot use add-ons for all sorts of reasons. They take up extra computer space, you may not have Firefox, etc, etc, etc,

Firefox is a free download, and scripts do not take up significant space.

#3 I really don't know any other add-ons. However, I do know I keep seeing suggestions I like, want and see the response "hey, that's already an add-on". It gets VERY FRUSTRATING!

Available add-ons can be found here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=527 Try them out. They're easy to use, and if you have trouble, the Tech team is there to help you.

If the issue is people who don't use the forums, why not a link to Tools on the side menu or top of the Games page?

[OliverFA]

If the issue is people who don't use the forums, why not a link to Tools on the side menu or top of the Games page?

That's a very good suggestion. Spend some time making integration with add-ons a lot more easier. Then players who don't go to forums can also benefit from it but the effort is much more smaller than implementing the add-on in the site.

[Woodruff]

Sigh...you said:

Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer.

Then I said:

We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.

Then you said:

You are presuming - you DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. As I said before, that's my point. How can we possibly be "modeling CC to accomodate workplace restrictions" if we don't know what they are?

I don't understand your argument. You're saying CC should build in available add-ons, because some workplaces don't allow Firefox.

I said workplace restrictions shouldn't be accommodated. Then you told me I don't know what restrictions are in place, after you told me what restrictions you want to work around.

You can't say "Firefox add-ons aren't good enough, because some workplaces don't allow Firefox" and "We can't accommodate workplace restrictions because we don't know what they are."

What you've missed is the part previous to the initial statement by me which you quoted above. My response there is directly toward the contention that someone made that was:
"My favourite browser is Internet Explorer, but I don't have any problem using Firefox for CC so I can use all the add-ons. I don't see it so hard."

So perhaps you can now see that my argument was against the idea that "I don't have any problem using Firefox, so neither should anyone else", NOT that it was "accomodating workplace requirements". Good Lord, it's not hard people...just follow the damn conversation.

Once again, I will state that I don't think that the add-ons should necessarily be put onto the site itself. But that's only my personal opinion, and I don't have any real justification for it. However, the arguments being put forth against it are quite frankly full of holes and not well thought-through.

[Woodruff]

Again, my contention for this thread is as greenoaks originally suggested...someone needs to just list ALL of the add-ons here, and we can vote for them. That is a much more efficient method than this current attempt is.

[vrex]

i'd have to agree with woodruff here, admittedly, bacause im too lazy to go find out which add-ons you guys are talking about

[blakebowling]

Again, my contention for this thread is as greenoaks originally suggested...someone needs to just list ALL of the add-ons here, and we can vote for them. That is a much more efficient method than this current attempt is.

That is what QH is supposed to be doing. Compiling a list of addons that could be implemented into the site here, and getting a general priority for them.

[Queen_Herpes]

Should I just list the addons? Or should I try to compile the ones suggested as becoming built-ins?

[blakebowling]

Should I just list the addons? Or should I try to compile the ones suggested as becoming built-ins?

Both. List the popular addons, and if they already have suggestion threads of their own, provide links to them.

[rdsrds2120]

Well, to help out, I'll nominate these:

Map Rank
Some of BOB (map inspect, snapshots)

-rd

[Woodruff]

Should I just list the addons? Or should I try to compile the ones suggested as becoming built-ins?

In my opinion, they should all be listed. Otherwise, how can we get a good judgement?

[Dako]

List them.

And to Woodruff. Talking about restrictions. Add-ons were designed for Firefox. If you like to use IE - it is your choice. But there are not physical restriction to install Firefox and use available tools. If you do not like it - it is you personal choice, no one has forced you to use IE. That is what people are talking there, because there can be no home PC that you use for leisure that cannot have Firefox installed there by some evil force.

[Woodruff]

And to Woodruff. Talking about restrictions. Add-ons were designed for Firefox. If you like to use IE - it is your choice. But there are not physical restriction to install Firefox and use available tools. If you do not like it - it is you personal choice, no one has forced you to use IE. That is what people are talking there, because there can be no home PC that you use for leisure that cannot have Firefox installed there by some evil force.

Dako, you seem to have entirely missed everything I was saying. I have not at all intimated anything about not using Firefox by choice. Could I get you to please re-read my posts?

[Dako]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

[Woodruff]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

Yes, which has nothing at all to do with "choice" or "like to use IE" which is what you said.

[drunkmonkey]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

Yes, which has nothing at all to do with "choice" or "like to use IE" which is what you said.

No one is limited to IE at home. You already made it clear that this isn't about accommodating workplace restrictions. So, please explain how a person can be limited to IE only.

[blakebowling]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

Yes, which has nothing at all to do with "choice" or "like to use IE" which is what you said.

No one is limited to IE at home. You already made it clear that this isn't about accommodating workplace restrictions. So, please explain how a person can be limited to IE only.

This thread is not about who can use which browser. It is to determine which addons people would like first, not if addons should be implemented before other suggestions. Essentially we are trying to get a community opinion on the features currently only implemented by addons, and determine which would be most beneficial to implement on the website.

[drunkmonkey]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

Yes, which has nothing at all to do with "choice" or "like to use IE" which is what you said.

No one is limited to IE at home. You already made it clear that this isn't about accommodating workplace restrictions. So, please explain how a person can be limited to IE only.

This thread is not about who can use which browser. It is to determine which addons people would like first, not if addons should be implemented before other suggestions. Essentially we are trying to get a community opinion on the features currently only implemented by addons, and determine which would be most beneficial to implement on the website.

But by making this thread a priority, you are saying that addons will be implemented before other other suggestions. There are many who would like to see the site implement suggestions that aren't already available, and we see this thread as just another example of the uselessness of this forum.

[Woodruff]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

Yes, which has nothing at all to do with "choice" or "like to use IE" which is what you said.

No one is limited to IE at home. You already made it clear that this isn't about accommodating workplace restrictions. So, please explain how a person can be limited to IE only.

Believe it or not, not everyone has a computer at home.

[blakebowling]

I have re-read them as of now for the second time. I haven't got a slightest urge to rephrase my post.

Didn't you say that some users might be limited to IE only?

Yes, which has nothing at all to do with "choice" or "like to use IE" which is what you said.

No one is limited to IE at home. You already made it clear that this isn't about accommodating workplace restrictions. So, please explain how a person can be limited to IE only.

This thread is not about who can use which browser. It is to determine which addons people would like first, not if addons should be implemented before other suggestions. Essentially we are trying to get a community opinion on the features currently only implemented by addons, and determine which would be most beneficial to implement on the website.

But by making this thread a priority, you are saying that addons will be implemented before other other suggestions. There are many who would like to see the site implement suggestions that aren't already available, and we see this thread as just another example of the uselessness of this forum.

Suggestions which receive community support, and which debate has concluded over, will be submitted and reviewed by the admins. This thread isn't for fast-tracking suggestions that are already available as an addon, but rather a way to weed out addons that would be the least beneficial if implemented site-wide.

[Doc_Brown]

Any update on that list of add-ons so we can start commenting on them? I doubt this will move in a productive direction until someone (presumably the OP) puts together such a list.