Moderator: Community Team


Army of GOD wrote:What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.AndyDufresne wrote:This may or may not be relevant: Risk is on its way to consoles (Polygon Article).
Ubisoft today announced that it is bringing the global military strategy sim, first launched as a board game in the U.S. back in 1959, to Xbox One, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 3. It will be released in September via a Hasbro Game Channel that will also include Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit. A spokesperson for Ubisoft told Polygon that the Hasbro Game Channel will be free to download, but that prices for individual games have yet to be decided.
...
In Risk, players place armies on various territories around the world, and seek to conquer neighboring countries using dice rolls. The console version of the game will allow would-be Napoleons to take on opponents locally or online. Graphics for the game are based on modern weapons.
"We're bringing Hasbro's classic games to the digital age, capturing all the excitement and fun of these timeless games," said Ubisoft's Chris Early. "The new console experiences will offer a brand new channel with both familiar and new gameplay modes, various missions, achievements and rewards for endless fun with friends and family."
--Andy

Golf can be fun. Besides, it depends on how well the hooker plays golf.Army of GOD wrote:What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.AndyDufresne wrote:This may or may not be relevant: Risk is on its way to consoles (Polygon Article).
Ubisoft today announced that it is bringing the global military strategy sim, first launched as a board game in the U.S. back in 1959, to Xbox One, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 3. It will be released in September via a Hasbro Game Channel that will also include Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit. A spokesperson for Ubisoft told Polygon that the Hasbro Game Channel will be free to download, but that prices for individual games have yet to be decided.
...
In Risk, players place armies on various territories around the world, and seek to conquer neighboring countries using dice rolls. The console version of the game will allow would-be Napoleons to take on opponents locally or online. Graphics for the game are based on modern weapons.
"We're bringing Hasbro's classic games to the digital age, capturing all the excitement and fun of these timeless games," said Ubisoft's Chris Early. "The new console experiences will offer a brand new channel with both familiar and new gameplay modes, various missions, achievements and rewards for endless fun with friends and family."
--Andy
I love golf. I try to play every weekend. But if I'm paying money for a hooker, I'm not going to use that time to play golf with her. I'm going to do other stuff that involves shafts and balls and holes and scoring.BigBallinStalin wrote:Golf can be fun. Besides, it depends on how well the hooker plays golf.Army of GOD wrote:What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.AndyDufresne wrote:This may or may not be relevant: Risk is on its way to consoles (Polygon Article).
Ubisoft today announced that it is bringing the global military strategy sim, first launched as a board game in the U.S. back in 1959, to Xbox One, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 3. It will be released in September via a Hasbro Game Channel that will also include Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit. A spokesperson for Ubisoft told Polygon that the Hasbro Game Channel will be free to download, but that prices for individual games have yet to be decided.
...
In Risk, players place armies on various territories around the world, and seek to conquer neighboring countries using dice rolls. The console version of the game will allow would-be Napoleons to take on opponents locally or online. Graphics for the game are based on modern weapons.
"We're bringing Hasbro's classic games to the digital age, capturing all the excitement and fun of these timeless games," said Ubisoft's Chris Early. "The new console experiences will offer a brand new channel with both familiar and new gameplay modes, various missions, achievements and rewards for endless fun with friends and family."
--Andy
Next!
Army of GOD wrote:I love golf. I try to play every weekend. But if I'm paying money for a hooker, I'm not going to use that time to play golf with her. I'm going to do other stuff that involves shafts and balls and holes and scoring.BigBallinStalin wrote:Golf can be fun. Besides, it depends on how well the hooker plays golf.Army of GOD wrote:What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.AndyDufresne wrote:This may or may not be relevant: Risk is on its way to consoles (Polygon Article).
Ubisoft today announced that it is bringing the global military strategy sim, first launched as a board game in the U.S. back in 1959, to Xbox One, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 3. It will be released in September via a Hasbro Game Channel that will also include Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit. A spokesperson for Ubisoft told Polygon that the Hasbro Game Channel will be free to download, but that prices for individual games have yet to be decided.
...
In Risk, players place armies on various territories around the world, and seek to conquer neighboring countries using dice rolls. The console version of the game will allow would-be Napoleons to take on opponents locally or online. Graphics for the game are based on modern weapons.
"We're bringing Hasbro's classic games to the digital age, capturing all the excitement and fun of these timeless games," said Ubisoft's Chris Early. "The new console experiences will offer a brand new channel with both familiar and new gameplay modes, various missions, achievements and rewards for endless fun with friends and family."
--Andy
Next!
like croquet
I wish it was paid!OliverFA wrote:IMHO we don't just have to look at numbers but also at trends. The trend started long ago and none of the three owners has been able to reverse it. However, the one that seems to be trying harder is the current owner.
Regarding the volunteer system, don't know how it is now, but to me it looked like not paid work. Not sure if that changed with BigWham
Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.
I don't doubt it, but remember: even Hitler loved Germany.JamesKer1 wrote:I wish it was paid!OliverFA wrote:IMHO we don't just have to look at numbers but also at trends. The trend started long ago and none of the three owners has been able to reverse it. However, the one that seems to be trying harder is the current owner.
Regarding the volunteer system, don't know how it is now, but to me it looked like not paid work. Not sure if that changed with BigWham
No, we crazy people do all of this for the love of CC
The difference is that Germany loved Hitler back.BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't doubt it, but remember: even Hitler loved Germany.JamesKer1 wrote:I wish it was paid!OliverFA wrote:IMHO we don't just have to look at numbers but also at trends. The trend started long ago and none of the three owners has been able to reverse it. However, the one that seems to be trying harder is the current owner.
Regarding the volunteer system, don't know how it is now, but to me it looked like not paid work. Not sure if that changed with BigWham
No, we crazy people do all of this for the love of CC
A superb piece...very well done indeed.Donald Fung wrote:CC is going downhill because it picked the wrong business model. Rather than working on appearing welcoming to new players, CC decided to cater to veteran players, many who seemingly have no friends in RL and decides to spend their time excelling at some of the game's most obsolete settings. CC's efforts in trying to 'modernize' itself by introducing all these different styles of game play essentially backfired because it brought CC away from the typical risk game that everyone knows into a type of game for a closed community. When I returned about a year ago, I was pissed at many of the changes and I still am today and I would imagine most, if not all, returning players would agree with me and new players even more.
Here are some correction methods the site should take into consideration:
1) focus more on team games. Team games is something that the original risk and many of our competitors do not have. Team games are easy to learn the only additional thing it involves is trust and coordination. This is the only unique aspect the game needs to differentiate itself and it also helps to build communities. More players should be involved in teams and clans so that there are always friends and competitors, an element essential for any game.
2) get rid of some of the insanely complex and unreadable maps. Sorry for all the hard work you did cartographers but these complex maps are ruining the beautiful simplicity of the game and catering to those no life score whores who do not give a rat's ass about the game's decline and only care about winning.
3) I would even go as far as to say get rid of freestyle. I know its been around for a long time but freestyle simply gives too much room for abuse and is not how risk is played. It destroys a big part of the risk element and instead leads to time tracking and clicker add-ons, and a whole lot of other unnecessary stuff for the average casual risk player.
4) get rid of nuclear, zombie, and no spoils. really, it sucks when you have to nuke or zombify your own territories because you have no other choice because you got 5 cards and they are all your spots. Ultimately, all 3 of these settings delay the amount of turns it takes to finish a game. The average casual risk player wants to play quick games that finish in under 20 rounds, especially freemiums. No one wants to spend another 20 rounds to win because you have so many territories you end up always nuking and zobifying your own. Same thing with no spoils, no one has an incentive to kill or even hit someone else. Takes forever.
5) get rid of parachute. the whole point of reinforcements is that you have troops from the back line to send to the front line or vise versa. Or to stack or spread out. Basically defensive vs offensive play. Parachute is just random. Too much freedom, there should be no reason for the troops you are stacking up on NYC to magically fly to Sydney in Classic imo.
6) restrict trench to certain maps. I can see trench lux or classic being fun but not trench hive or feudal. These big maps are deadly with trench. Also, TRENCH ESCALATING. nuff said. Annoying as hell when there's 3 players left each with 20,000 troops. Obviously no one's gonna attack or else you lose. Therefore, the game goes on for an eternity.
7) And while we're at it... please add a surrender button. Maybe put it in when the winner is twice the size of any other players by troop count or something to prevent abuse and destroying the quality of games. but at a certain point, a player should be allowed to surrender. especially for trench. PLS.
Round Limits. It shouldn't be that when it reaches to round limit, the highest troop count wins. This encourages people with a lead to sit there and not try at all because if they keep their troops, they win anyways. And it makes logically sense because why take the risk when you can win without doing so? This needs to be changed. Maybe no one wins if the win doesn't come before time limit is a bit too strict but I think half the normal score (ex. 1% rather than 2%) should be fair.
And last but not least...
GET RID OF THE FUCKING SIDE CHAT!!! We do not need it! Stop trying to make this like FB because guess what, it doesn't work that way. For example, when I'm trying to look at the maps under the maps tab on the top, I can't even x out of a map that I clicked on because this stupid chat is in the way of the x button. And it makes the screen smaller and doesn't fit in with the rest of the site's colors. Just looks bad, inefficient, and hindering some of the basic functions of the site.
Hope you see my point in at least some of these. I'm no CC expert but I think it is pretty obvious where CC went wrong. It is not about the specific site owners or volunteers, they have done their job. This change needs a group effort and the veterans to support it. Sadly, the latter might be difficult.

Donald Fung wrote:CC is going downhill because it picked the wrong business model. Rather than working on appearing welcoming to new players, CC decided to cater to veteran players, many who seemingly have no friends in RL and decides to spend their time excelling at some of the game's most obsolete settings. CC's efforts in trying to 'modernize' itself by introducing all these different styles of game play essentially backfired because it brought CC away from the typical risk game that everyone knows into a type of game for a closed community. When I returned about a year ago, I was pissed at many of the changes and I still am today and I would imagine most, if not all, returning players would agree with me and new players even more.
Here are some correction methods the site should take into consideration:
1) focus more on team games. Team games is something that the original risk and many of our competitors do not have. Team games are easy to learn the only additional thing it involves is trust and coordination. This is the only unique aspect the game needs to differentiate itself and it also helps to build communities. More players should be involved in teams and clans so that there are always friends and competitors, an element essential for any game.
2) get rid of some of the insanely complex and unreadable maps. Sorry for all the hard work you did cartographers but these complex maps are ruining the beautiful simplicity of the game and catering to those no life score whores who do not give a rat's ass about the game's decline and only care about winning.
3) I would even go as far as to say get rid of freestyle. I know its been around for a long time but freestyle simply gives too much room for abuse and is not how risk is played. It destroys a big part of the risk element and instead leads to time tracking and clicker add-ons, and a whole lot of other unnecessary stuff for the average casual risk player.
4) get rid of nuclear, zombie, and no spoils. really, it sucks when you have to nuke or zombify your own territories because you have no other choice because you got 5 cards and they are all your spots. Ultimately, all 3 of these settings delay the amount of turns it takes to finish a game. The average casual risk player wants to play quick games that finish in under 20 rounds, especially freemiums. No one wants to spend another 20 rounds to win because you have so many territories you end up always nuking and zobifying your own. Same thing with no spoils, no one has an incentive to kill or even hit someone else. Takes forever.
5) get rid of parachute. the whole point of reinforcements is that you have troops from the back line to send to the front line or vise versa. Or to stack or spread out. Basically defensive vs offensive play. Parachute is just random. Too much freedom, there should be no reason for the troops you are stacking up on NYC to magically fly to Sydney in Classic imo.
6) restrict trench to certain maps. I can see trench lux or classic being fun but not trench hive or feudal. These big maps are deadly with trench. Also, TRENCH ESCALATING. nuff said. Annoying as hell when there's 3 players left each with 20,000 troops. Obviously no one's gonna attack or else you lose. Therefore, the game goes on for an eternity.
7) And while we're at it... please add a surrender button. Maybe put it in when the winner is twice the size of any other players by troop count or something to prevent abuse and destroying the quality of games. but at a certain point, a player should be allowed to surrender. especially for trench. PLS.
Round Limits. It shouldn't be that when it reaches to round limit, the highest troop count wins. This encourages people with a lead to sit there and not try at all because if they keep their troops, they win anyways. And it makes logically sense because why take the risk when you can win without doing so? This needs to be changed. Maybe no one wins if the win doesn't come before time limit is a bit too strict but I think half the normal score (ex. 1% rather than 2%) should be fair.
And last but not least...
GET RID OF THE FUCKING SIDE CHAT!!! We do not need it! Stop trying to make this like FB because guess what, it doesn't work that way. For example, when I'm trying to look at the maps under the maps tab on the top, I can't even x out of a map that I clicked on because this stupid chat is in the way of the x button. And it makes the screen smaller and doesn't fit in with the rest of the site's colors. Just looks bad, inefficient, and hindering some of the basic functions of the site.
Hope you see my point in at least some of these. I'm no CC expert but I think it is pretty obvious where CC went wrong. It is not about the specific site owners or volunteers, they have done their job. This change needs a group effort and the veterans to support it. Sadly, the latter might be difficult.
Are you the new Gillipig?isaiah40 wrote:9804!
1) What I mean is that team games was one of the brilliant options CC put up. Right now, I would imagine CC is still more attractive than many other competitors because we still have more players but at a point where that is not true, team games will be the best differentiating factor. Obviously, it doesn't suit everyone but it is a community builder. Also, sorry for the generalizing, just trying to make a point of how more people play for score now rather than community.clangfield wrote:Donald Fung wrote:CC is going downhill because it picked the wrong business model. Rather than working on appearing welcoming to new players, CC decided to cater to veteran players, many who seemingly have no friends in RL and decides to spend their time excelling at some of the game's most obsolete settings. CC's efforts in trying to 'modernize' itself by introducing all these different styles of game play essentially backfired because it brought CC away from the typical risk game that everyone knows into a type of game for a closed community. When I returned about a year ago, I was pissed at many of the changes and I still am today and I would imagine most, if not all, returning players would agree with me and new players even more.
Here are some correction methods the site should take into consideration:
1) focus more on team games. Team games is something that the original risk and many of our competitors do not have. Team games are easy to learn the only additional thing it involves is trust and coordination. This is the only unique aspect the game needs to differentiate itself and it also helps to build communities. More players should be involved in teams and clans so that there are always friends and competitors, an element essential for any game.
2) get rid of some of the insanely complex and unreadable maps. Sorry for all the hard work you did cartographers but these complex maps are ruining the beautiful simplicity of the game and catering to those no life score whores who do not give a rat's ass about the game's decline and only care about winning.
3) I would even go as far as to say get rid of freestyle. I know its been around for a long time but freestyle simply gives too much room for abuse and is not how risk is played. It destroys a big part of the risk element and instead leads to time tracking and clicker add-ons, and a whole lot of other unnecessary stuff for the average casual risk player.
4) get rid of nuclear, zombie, and no spoils. really, it sucks when you have to nuke or zombify your own territories because you have no other choice because you got 5 cards and they are all your spots. Ultimately, all 3 of these settings delay the amount of turns it takes to finish a game. The average casual risk player wants to play quick games that finish in under 20 rounds, especially freemiums. No one wants to spend another 20 rounds to win because you have so many territories you end up always nuking and zobifying your own. Same thing with no spoils, no one has an incentive to kill or even hit someone else. Takes forever.
5) get rid of parachute. the whole point of reinforcements is that you have troops from the back line to send to the front line or vise versa. Or to stack or spread out. Basically defensive vs offensive play. Parachute is just random. Too much freedom, there should be no reason for the troops you are stacking up on NYC to magically fly to Sydney in Classic imo.
6) restrict trench to certain maps. I can see trench lux or classic being fun but not trench hive or feudal. These big maps are deadly with trench. Also, TRENCH ESCALATING. nuff said. Annoying as hell when there's 3 players left each with 20,000 troops. Obviously no one's gonna attack or else you lose. Therefore, the game goes on for an eternity.
7) And while we're at it... please add a surrender button. Maybe put it in when the winner is twice the size of any other players by troop count or something to prevent abuse and destroying the quality of games. but at a certain point, a player should be allowed to surrender. especially for trench. PLS.
Round Limits. It shouldn't be that when it reaches to round limit, the highest troop count wins. This encourages people with a lead to sit there and not try at all because if they keep their troops, they win anyways. And it makes logically sense because why take the risk when you can win without doing so? This needs to be changed. Maybe no one wins if the win doesn't come before time limit is a bit too strict but I think half the normal score (ex. 1% rather than 2%) should be fair.
And last but not least...
GET RID OF THE FUCKING SIDE CHAT!!! We do not need it! Stop trying to make this like FB because guess what, it doesn't work that way. For example, when I'm trying to look at the maps under the maps tab on the top, I can't even x out of a map that I clicked on because this stupid chat is in the way of the x button. And it makes the screen smaller and doesn't fit in with the rest of the site's colors. Just looks bad, inefficient, and hindering some of the basic functions of the site.
Hope you see my point in at least some of these. I'm no CC expert but I think it is pretty obvious where CC went wrong. It is not about the specific site owners or volunteers, they have done their job. This change needs a group effort and the veterans to support it. Sadly, the latter might be difficult.
1) Curious that you're fundamentally saying it should get back to the basics of the board game - then suggesting a focus on something that make it different. Team games certainly don't suit everyone. It's a bit of a generalisation to say that people on here don't have real life friends; but certainly not everyone would be comfortable trusting their points to a complete stranger, and there's immense frustration when they miss turns. It's a useful option but I don't think it should be the focus.
2) If you don't like the maps, don't play them. In another thread, there is a debate on "Basic" settings; certainly dividing (or perhaps rating) maps so one can avoid the complex would be beneficial. I think you do need challenges for those that wish them, otherwise you risk losing the most proficient players due to boredom.
3) Why remove a popular option?
4) Why remove options? Again, all you'll do is remove variety and upset those who like them. How is this going to help retain or increase membership?
5,6) You just have to choose sensible options for a map. Don't play it where it's likely to lead to a problem.
7) Been suggested and rejected many times. Too open to multi abuse. If only humans were nicer people...
As with 3,4,5,6 - it's all about variety. Skill levels and requirements differ; I can't see how removing option makes the site more attractive to a wider audience.
Side chat can be removed in settings. I agree it was a bit of a shock, but you don't have to have it.
Personally I find the Conquer stars annoying, but that's because I have no intention of using them. I'm prepared to put up with them (although it would be nice to have an option not to receive them) to allow others to take advantage of them.
Dukasaur wrote:Are you the new Gillipig?isaiah40 wrote:9804!
Anyway, 9807. The recovery begins!
I'm not sure if team games are a community builder. Team games led to clans, and clans led to many of the best players disappearing from the general population and locking themselves in their clan fortresses.Donald Fung wrote: 1) What I mean is that team games was one of the brilliant options CC put up. Right now, I would imagine CC is still more attractive than many other competitors because we still have more players but at a point where that is not true, team games will be the best differentiating factor. Obviously, it doesn't suit everyone but it is a community builder. Also, sorry for the generalizing, just trying to make a point of hw more people play for score now rather than community.
Games are filling up a lot slower because there are fewer people. Restricting their choices would temporarily force them into some of the unfilled games, but in the long run would simply drive more away and exacerbate the problem.2) I like the map rating based on suitability/complexity. Obviously, people can avoid certain maps but if people have to be picky with so many options, games take forever to fill which as most of you may notice, games are filling up a lot slower now.
I challenge the assumption that variety is a disease. Risk is at its core a pretty dull and simplistic game. It doesn't take long for someone to get sick of it. Multiplying the number of different settings and maps on CC allows someone to find new ways to enjoy it and staves off the boredom much longer.3-6) Some of these options hurt the game play severely. Obviously, its easy to say 'choose sensible options' but it seems to be easier said than done. Simply put, we never needed all these options. You are right, removing them will take a small toll on some veteran players. It's like curing any disease; there is a sacrifice.
I agree about the Resign button.7) Yeah, I can see that. The Cheating and Abuse team would be pretty busyBut as I said, if they could make the button only appear at a certain point, when its basically 99% obvious who will win, then I think it shouldn't cause much problem.
I don't like round limit games either. Unfortunately, they are indispensible for making tournaments run on time. Before round limits, tournaments would get hung up for months waiting for 1 game in a round to end, while everyone else in that round had finished their games and was waiting to move on. That still happens to some degree, but the situation has improved vastly. I wouldn't want to go back to the way it was before.8 ) No skill in waiting until round limit, it just takes the fun out of those games.
Conquer Club was the only game I've ever encountered in my life that didn't have real time live chat on the same page as the games. Not one of several, but quite literally the only. (Edit: that's admittedly a small sample. Other than CC, I've only played WarOfConquest, Nodiatis, Pogo, and Project Entropia. Still all 4 of those have real time global chat, so 100% of what I've seen.) The social aspects of gaming are the most important part of it, and although the forums and the old Live Chat did fill the gap to some degree, they required you to make a choice between playing the games or going on to the forum and socializing. Being able to do both at once is a crucial step forward. If you want to disable it, that's your right, but I think participating in the community in real time, without having to leave the games, is putting it on the right road to healing.And yep, I found out about how to remove the side chat, was very annoying.
It's largely a joke. We've had bigger false recoveries than that, and the decline resumed. Still, nobody knows when the real recovery will begin, and every little blip refills my cup of hope.Donald Fung wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Are you the new Gillipig?isaiah40 wrote:9804!
Anyway, 9807. The recovery begins!3 extra players! woohoo!
What I said was, "I'm not sure if team games are a community builder. Team games led to clans, and clans led to many of the best players disappearing from the general population and locking themselves in their clan fortresses."BigBallinStalin wrote:The initially frustrating part of CC was being unable to join a trustworthy team. There's no 'newb clan' for people to meet like-minded players who care about teamplay, so newcomers have to eat high costs for awhile until they can join a clan or find enough likeminded players.
I'm not sure how the rise of clans itself has contributed to the decline. The clans dominate the supply of high quality teamwork. If you eliminated that, then... somehow CC would thrive? Somehow increasing the costs for people to learn and coordinate with others builds up the community?
Sure, clans tend to play against other clans.. so what? It's not like they'd behave the same if their clans were eliminated. Would they magically join the masses and play with whomever? Why wouldn't they team up with the same crew and do the same thing?
Clans aren't the problem. The problem is the high costs in joining a clan (and the general unwillingness of anyone starting a newcomer clan to reduce such costs). Eliminating clans doesn't resolve the issue, so blaming the existence of clans seems silly.
I wasn't addressing your claim personally because of the usual problems in dealing with your posts. E.g. across two posts you've gone from "I'm not sure but here's a negative depiction of clan as fortresses," "there's benefits and costs, but I'm not sure," and then there's "on net team games are on net a small loss, but I'm not sure," and finally to essentially, "you posed some questions and claims which I'll ignore, so I won't be updating my previous beliefs."Dukasaur wrote:What I said was, "I'm not sure if team games are a community builder. Team games led to clans, and clans led to many of the best players disappearing from the general population and locking themselves in their clan fortresses."BigBallinStalin wrote:The initially frustrating part of CC was being unable to join a trustworthy team. There's no 'newb clan' for people to meet like-minded players who care about teamplay, so newcomers have to eat high costs for awhile until they can join a clan or find enough likeminded players.
I'm not sure how the rise of clans itself has contributed to the decline. The clans dominate the supply of high quality teamwork. If you eliminated that, then... somehow CC would thrive? Somehow increasing the costs for people to learn and coordinate with others builds up the community?
Sure, clans tend to play against other clans.. so what? It's not like they'd behave the same if their clans were eliminated. Would they magically join the masses and play with whomever? Why wouldn't they team up with the same crew and do the same thing?
Clans aren't the problem. The problem is the high costs in joining a clan (and the general unwillingness of anyone starting a newcomer clan to reduce such costs). Eliminating clans doesn't resolve the issue, so blaming the existence of clans seems silly.
There's a high degree of uncertainty there.
I think Clans contribute to the problem, but they may also contribute to the solution. (Maybe people who aren't interested in socializing with the community at large can still find a subcommunity that they are interested in socializing with, and that keeps them around.)
There may be a small net gain or there may be a small net loss. I suspect a small net loss, but my level of certainty is low. That is why I said "I'm not sure."
I thought I had explained it clearly enough.BigBallinStalin wrote:I wasn't addressing your claim personally because of the usual problems in dealing with your posts. E.g. across two posts you've gone from "I'm not sure but here's a negative depiction of clan as fortresses," "there's benefits and costs, but I'm not sure," and then there's "on net team games are on net a small loss, but I'm not sure," and finally to essentially, "you posed some questions and claims which I'll ignore, so I won't be updating my previous beliefs."Dukasaur wrote:What I said was, "I'm not sure if team games are a community builder. Team games led to clans, and clans led to many of the best players disappearing from the general population and locking themselves in their clan fortresses."BigBallinStalin wrote:The initially frustrating part of CC was being unable to join a trustworthy team. There's no 'newb clan' for people to meet like-minded players who care about teamplay, so newcomers have to eat high costs for awhile until they can join a clan or find enough likeminded players.
I'm not sure how the rise of clans itself has contributed to the decline. The clans dominate the supply of high quality teamwork. If you eliminated that, then... somehow CC would thrive? Somehow increasing the costs for people to learn and coordinate with others builds up the community?
Sure, clans tend to play against other clans.. so what? It's not like they'd behave the same if their clans were eliminated. Would they magically join the masses and play with whomever? Why wouldn't they team up with the same crew and do the same thing?
Clans aren't the problem. The problem is the high costs in joining a clan (and the general unwillingness of anyone starting a newcomer clan to reduce such costs). Eliminating clans doesn't resolve the issue, so blaming the existence of clans seems silly.
There's a high degree of uncertainty there.
I think Clans contribute to the problem, but they may also contribute to the solution. (Maybe people who aren't interested in socializing with the community at large can still find a subcommunity that they are interested in socializing with, and that keeps them around.)
There may be a small net gain or there may be a small net loss. I suspect a small net loss, but my level of certainty is low. That is why I said "I'm not sure."
Anyway, re: the underlined, would you care to explain your reasoning?