Limit New Recruits for 16 games, unlock settings and maps

[TheForgivenOne]

I haven't posted in this thread (Or the old one) for a long long time. I'll add my two cents in again.

I truly don't believe this will help much at all. I believe, considering how many people I see come into Live Chat asking questions, that people leave all because of the 4 game limit. THAT and they join 4 games, expect them to be fast, learn they aren't, and RAGE QUIT. None of this "These maps are too complex/These settings are too complex" stuff. I really doubt users go to Start A Game, see a choice of 190~ maps, and go "OMG THIS IS TOO CONFUSING". Same thing with the settings.

I see ample players come into Live chat that have just joined asking why nobody in their games are playing. I'm not kidding, I see at least 20 users in a couple hours ask the same thing over and over.

This whole stages thing, won't help. People that join this site usually don't comprehend that this is a casual gaming site, considering most of the other websites out there are Real Time. They join and expect a quick game. Not a casual game that takes a few days.

[PLAYER57832]

Beyond that, I have said all along that I think we need maps categorized by play style -- broadly, those that are like classic, the railroad groups, those that use resource pairs, several that are just plain complicated... etc, etc.

However, your suggestion does not seem to fix these problems better or at all.

I chose to group the maps according to "levels of complication." Things like continent bonuses, resource pairs, one-way attacks, etc. This suggestion attempts to slowly release access to those maps that are more complicated over time. Have the system send a brief PM that explains what complications are in cluded in the new set of maps that were unlocked.

Not really.

Like I said, I objected to this from the start, because I had already played every map made. I not only played, but liked a wide range of maps. I am one of those who just does not care for the standard maps. There are a lot of us. Not as many as like the "Classic clones", but still a significant contigent.

You came up with this idea before you had even played most of the maps you criticized. I have no idea where you stand now. I see you joined at least one clan dedicated to playing a range of maps, but the truth is this idea was based on lack of knowledge, not a full breadth of experience having played all the maps.

In fact, if you look at those people who LIKE your idea, you see a lot of people who have never played the wide range of maps. They are already self-limiting. Those who DISLIKE the idea the most are those who have regularly played each and every map.

This recommendation offers a reasonably achievable goal: participate in X games, unlock this cool thing; participate in X more games, unlock these other cool things; etc. A goal of this suggestion is to allow new Recruits to experience this great game with basic, beginner, understandable, game options that don’t give an unfair advantage to seasoned players.

This is where our long-standing disagreement begins. The REAL truth is there is no clear stair-step ladder to the various CC maps. I began with Age of Merchants and Coral Cairns. For a while, I did pretty well on those. Then Fuedal and AOR came along. They threw most people for a loop, but a lot of people have wound up enjoying them immensely. Now we have such a wide range of play styles the idea that any kind of a specific ladder such as you describe actually helping players to understand the maps just does not make any sense.

You started in one place, I started in a different place, that guy over there started in an even different place, but we all were limited and prevented from playing certain maps. None of us could play the maps that hadn't yet been developed, so we couldn't start there. [/quote]
You miss the BIG point. I started having actually played every map. Those most vocal against this have played every map! That does matter. Worse, you persist without paying the least attention to the people who truly play these maps.

Your list has no bearing on any step to learning, not really. I know you have begun playing more maps now, but that was after you already had this idea in mind, were already set on it being a good idea. The rest of us started by understanding the maps first and trying to tell you your idea just was off base.

The new recruits that join today are confronted with hundreds of maps and several settings whose funcationality is not readily apparent. Why not give new recruits these settings in a piecemeal fashion? We got to try the maps and settings in piecemeal form. I think new recruits should get that same benefit.

I understand that is your idea. The problem is it is not based on the actual, "on the ground" reality. When you bring up a list of thread responses showing 37 for, as if it were proof, that is a classic example of why so many of us say you just are not looking at the real data, don't (apparently) seem to understand the kind of data you would need to prove your hypothesis.

Sampling was a big part of my field, my profession. You have just not presented anything like a useful sample, for a lot of reasons.

[blakebowling]

I'll admit, I've skimmed the majority of this thread. But the main conflict seems to be that some users don't think this should be forced, while others think it would be extremely helpful. Why don't we make this optional when you join? "Would you like to go through the New Recruit Tutorial? NOTE: Pressing 'NO' will not allow you to return to the tutorial later".

[Queen_Herpes]

I'll admit, I've skimmed the majority of this thread. But the main conflict seems to be that some users don't think this should be forced, while others think it would be extremely helpful. Why don't we make this optional when you join? "Would you like to go through the New Recruit Tutorial? NOTE: Pressing 'NO' will not allow you to return to the tutorial later".

The option is part of the suggestion. However, my thought is that new recruits would need to work to find the "off" button.

[Queen_Herpes]

This whole stages thing, won't help. People that join this site usually don't comprehend that this is a casual gaming site, considering most of the other websites out there are Real Time. They join and expect a quick game. Not a casual game that takes a few days.

I agree that there are plenty of surfers out there who are looking for a quick game and realtime. I've tossed around the idea in the suggestion that a single speed game would be awarded (a-la lackattacks awarding of them in the past) at each unlock level. It would add an additional carrot-on-a-stick for each unlock level and would introduce the new recruit to the speed games. The stages and unlocking are part and parcel to any gaming online whether a video game or an online game. I play "games" online all the time where the unlocking is simply part of advancing in just about every game I've played. A player who buys WoW doesn't get to be level 99 right away, a facebook user who loads Farmville doesn't get a fully loaded farm right away, etc. I think that adding some stages/unlocks/levels to the new recruit "experience" will make the experience more compelling.

[natty dread]

The stages and unlocking are part and parcel to any gaming online whether a video game or an online game.

Not true.

A player who buys WoW doesn't get to be level 99 right away

Totally different. WoW is a role-playing game, and the levels are something you achieve in the game itself. You could compare them to CC score.

a facebook user who loads Farmville doesn't get a fully loaded farm right away, etc.

Again, totally different. You're stretching for a point here... The purpose of Farmville is (apparently) to build farms, so OF COURSE you do not get a ready-made farm from the start. That doesn't mean that a farm is "locked content" in the way you imply.

Like I have said earlier, online gaming is very different from video games, particularly a game like CC which is not really like a video game at all. CC is more a service through which you get to play games, not a game in itself.

[SirSebstar]

So how does that compare to say casualcollectiv or Kongregate. They are both services through which you can play games. Most of those games have some kind of a tutorial, esp if they let you play against other players.

[Darwins_Bane]

Alright, you've all had your chance to say what you wanted. If all your going to do is bicker about which one of you is right, then move along. If you have something further to actually add to the topic, then do so, or let others do so.

[PLAYER57832]

I'll admit, I've skimmed the majority of this thread. But the main conflict seems to be that some users don't think this should be forced, while others think it would be extremely helpful. Why don't we make this optional when you join? "Would you like to go through the New Recruit Tutorial? NOTE: Pressing 'NO' will not allow you to return to the tutorial later".

No, that is not my primary objection. My objection is that it won't truly help anything. Having it optional won't help, becuase some folks, not yet understanding the system may well say "tutorial.. SURE!". Then, they will miss out on finding those maps they might otherwise have enjoyed.

See, getting new members is not about catering just to the majority. It is about finding places for everyone who might be interested.

Before starting any such plan, one needs to show a direct link between people leaving and the problems. THEN one needs to show clearly how this plan will improve those noted problems. QH has not truly done this. I realize she claims she has, but it is just not true.

[Doc_Brown]

One point that I made early on in the history of this suggestion is the time factor. If you're freemium (which is probably the case for the vast majority of new players), you're limited to 4 simultaneous games. I suspect that the majority of NRs gravitate towards games with more than two people. The inevitably end up in some games where one or more opponents deadbeat. As a result, in a typical game, they may take a turn about every 2-3 days. Assuming a typical game lasts 10 rounds, it takes them 3-4 weeks to complete a single game. They can play four games consecutively, but it will still take 3-4 months to complete 16 games. These numbers closely match my completion rate early on - I was averaging around one game completed per week.

Under the current system, even new recruits can completely bypass the 5-game restriction by starting games on any settings they like. Also, the can be invited to games with any settings, even before they've completed their first five. Some NRs are invited to the site by friends that have been here quite a while. They would get much better training being able to play with their friends than they would by going through some restrictive "tutorial." Under the current system, these new players can start complicated games and their friends can join immediately (they could also be invited by the experienced friend, but that requires the friend to be premium which isn't always the case).

Much has been made about unlocking in video games. A couple points on that: If you wanted to have analogous situation to the video game method, new players should be required to win a certain number of games per category before the next set is unlocked. Also, the proposed suggestion is more like telling people, "Let's play chess, but you only get a king and two rooks for you first ten games. After you learn to move those pieces, we'll let you have bishops, and if you play long enough, you'll eventually get to use knights and the queen!"

I think the ability to bypass the proposed restrictions should be an easily located option. Here's a question though: Given the question, "Would you like to go through a 16-game tutorial that restricts the maps and settings you have access to and gradually unlocks them?" what percentage of new players do you think would choose yes? My guess is that it would be on the order of 25%. If you told them there was a medal at the end of it, the number might jump to 50-60%. But, if that's the case, doesn't it immediately say that the majority of the people that would be affected by this suggestion would oppose it?

[PLAYER57832]

EDIT, to clarify, both Doc Brown and I dislike this idea.

[Woodruff]

This recommendation offers a reasonably achievable goal: participate in X games, unlock this cool thing; participate in X more games, unlock these other cool things; etc. A goal of this suggestion is to allow new Recruits to experience this great game with basic, beginner, understandable, game options that don’t give an unfair advantage to seasoned players.

This is where our long-standing disagreement begins. The REAL truth is there is no clear stair-step ladder to the various CC maps. I began with Age of Merchants and Coral Cairns. For a while, I did pretty well on those. Then Fuedal and AOR came along. They threw most people for a loop, but a lot of people have wound up enjoying them immensely. Now we have such a wide range of play styles the idea that any kind of a specific ladder such as you describe actually helping players to understand the maps just does not make any sense.

You started in one place, I started in a different place, that guy over there started in an even different place, but we all were limited and prevented from playing certain maps. None of us could play the maps that hadn't yet been developed, so we couldn't start there.

It's really not a sound argument to suggest that your idea of limiting maps is good because you were limited from "playing on maps that hadn't yet been developed".

The new recruits that join today are confronted with hundreds of maps and several settings whose funcationality is not readily apparent. Why not give new recruits these settings in a piecemeal fashion? We got to try the maps and settings in piecemeal form. I think new recruits should get that same benefit.

You see that as a benefit. I see that as a negative. My view has ALWAYS been that the more maps I can play, the better. In fact, the thing I love about the random map selection is that I can play any map at any time with no regard for any limitation to what I can play. Personally, I would not have stayed at this site if I were limited to so few maps upon joining. I'm personally even against the anti-farming-complicated-map limitation imposed, because I would have hated that restriction to be put on me.

I'll admit, I've skimmed the majority of this thread. But the main conflict seems to be that some users don't think this should be forced, while others think it would be extremely helpful. Why don't we make this optional when you join? "Would you like to go through the New Recruit Tutorial? NOTE: Pressing 'NO' will not allow you to return to the tutorial later".

In being given the option of "Would you prefer to have all of our maps available to you or would you prefer to have maps given to you a set at a time?", do you think there will be a large clamoring for the second option? I can't imagine there are a LOT of people who would see that question and think "Sure, I'd rather not have access to all of the maps now". It just doesn't make sense to me. Thus, if this were implemented as only an option as you suggest...the very limited use of it in comparison to the very large time required to implement it would seem to be a rather large negative.

This whole stages thing, won't help. People that join this site usually don't comprehend that this is a casual gaming site, considering most of the other websites out there are Real Time. They join and expect a quick game. Not a casual game that takes a few days.

I agree that there are plenty of surfers out there who are looking for a quick game and realtime. I've tossed around the idea in the suggestion that a single speed game would be awarded (a-la lackattacks awarding of them in the past) at each unlock level. It would add an additional carrot-on-a-stick for each unlock level and would introduce the new recruit to the speed games. The stages and unlocking are part and parcel to any gaming online whether a video game or an online game. I play "games" online all the time where the unlocking is simply part of advancing in just about every game I've played. A player who buys WoW doesn't get to be level 99 right away, a facebook user who loads Farmville doesn't get a fully loaded farm right away, etc. I think that adding some stages/unlocks/levels to the new recruit "experience" will make the experience more compelling.

ConquerClub really cannot logically be compared to WoW or Farmville. The very nature of those games is entirely different than this is.

[Evil Semp]

Here is the original post:

*Attempting to solve the problem of 372895 user accounts but only 19183 active members. (November, 2009) 5.144%
*Still attempting to solve the problem of 432102 user accounts but only 19679 active members. (June, 2010) 4.554%
*Still trying to solve the problem of 442051 users but only 19350 actives. (August, 2010) 4.377%
*Still striving to solve the problem of 505438 accounts, but only 21664 actives. (February, 2011) 4.286%

I think the biggest problem with new users staying is that they don't like the type of game like Risk. I bet any game company would be happy with a 4% retention rate of anyone who played the games that they make.

[Queen_Herpes]

Here is the original post:

*Attempting to solve the problem of 372895 user accounts but only 19183 active members. (November, 2009) 5.144%
*Still attempting to solve the problem of 432102 user accounts but only 19679 active members. (June, 2010) 4.554%
*Still trying to solve the problem of 442051 users but only 19350 actives. (August, 2010) 4.377%
*Still striving to solve the problem of 505438 accounts, but only 21664 actives. (February, 2011) 4.286%

I think the biggest problem with new users staying is that they don't like the type of game like Risk. I bet any game company would be happy with a 4% retention rate of anyone who played the games that they make.

I would tend to agree if not for the fact that the people took the time to create an account. If they didn't like the type of game this is, I don't think they would have made an account.

[Queen_Herpes]

One point that I made early on in the history of this suggestion is the time factor. If you're freemium (which is probably the case for the vast majority of new players), you're limited to 4 simultaneous games. I suspect that the majority of NRs gravitate towards games with more than two people. The inevitably end up in some games where one or more opponents deadbeat. As a result, in a typical game, they may take a turn about every 2-3 days. Assuming a typical game lasts 10 rounds, it takes them 3-4 weeks to complete a single game. They can play four games consecutively, but it will still take 3-4 months to complete 16 games. These numbers closely match my completion rate early on - I was averaging around one game completed per week.

You are correct about the time factor. Here are two things that could benefit the new player, IMO:
1. Re-order the "Join a Game" pages so that the top of page one is the most recently "started" game. (As opposed to the current system where the most recently "started" game is on the bottom of the last page.)

I believe most new players join those games that none of the rest of us want to join because the settings and map chosen aren't appealing to most players. The games on page one have been sitting in the system for long enough and everyone except new recruits has chosen to "not play." The new recruit clicks on "Join a Game" and probably just selects what is sitting there on page 1. (This harkens to the concept of the short attention span where they want to play now and play in real time...Unbeknownst to them (but knownst to us) that they've joined an 8 player game on a map that hardly anyone chooses to play.)

2. Restrict (yep, I know most of you don't like that word) the New Recruit to 1v1 games.

Remember that I'm not trying to teach strategy to the New Recruit. I'm just trying to ease them into the settings and maps. AND a 1v1 game is more likely to be completed in a shorter amount of time. More often than not, a 1v1 game will be completed in "rt" and the short-attention span new recruit will get to play in real time without being frustrated that the game "didn't start" or that the other players aren't online to take their turns, whatever it is...1v1 tends to answer those frustrations.

I also believe that the New Recruit who selects "Start a Game" sees all the options and thinks, "Hey, 8-players! Cool, 4-players!" etc., and starts games that often won't truly "start" until well after the new recruit has logged off.

3. This one would never fly, but I am also keen on the concept of not allowing the new recruit to "start" games, at least for a short while. Really, though, do we want someone who has never played a game, or never finished a game, or never taken a turn in a game to be the one who selects the settings and map? How often do you scroll past the games on join game where a New Recruit has started an 8 player, foggy, flat rate, Classic game? Just curious...

...but I'm always curious to hear your thoughts on these ideas. My apologies for not getting to everyone's responses, I am reading them.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is the original post:

*Attempting to solve the problem of 372895 user accounts but only 19183 active members. (November, 2009) 5.144%
*Still attempting to solve the problem of 432102 user accounts but only 19679 active members. (June, 2010) 4.554%
*Still trying to solve the problem of 442051 users but only 19350 actives. (August, 2010) 4.377%
*Still striving to solve the problem of 505438 accounts, but only 21664 actives. (February, 2011) 4.286%

I think the biggest problem with new users staying is that they don't like the type of game like Risk. I bet any game company would be happy with a 4% retention rate of anyone who played the games that they make.

I would tend to agree if not for the fact that the people took the time to create an account. If they didn't like the type of game this is, I don't think they would have made an account.

1. Most sites require some kind of registration.
2. A few have very brief trial periods, before requiring you to pay. That compares to the CC freemium, not to your trial period.
3. As I noted earlier, I do not have current retention rates for other web sites. I DO remember this being discussed a long time ago (maybe 1-2 years) and that CC's retention rate was very comparable to other sites. You cannot just say "4% is a low number... we have a problem". You have to say something like "the average retention rate for sites like this is 4%, but ours is only 1%... we seem to have a problem". Even then, you cannot just make guesses about why people leave, which, well, includes relying on a poll like yours where 37 people (out of 20K active) voiced an opinion. A small sample can be usefull, but it has to be a proper sample with limited variables. Even with a well constructed sample, the error rate will be high if the sample size is so small. And, you have to get into the fact that what people respon on a poll like this is not necessarily a reflection of reality. (people often answer poorly, for example) Threads like this are useful mostly just to shoot around ideas for admin to consider. THEY then decide if the idea has merit. The poll doesn't really do much of anything. I can go on about polls and sampling, but the point is that there is a reason so many of us have dismissed your figures as invalid or irrelevant.

[Woodruff]

Here is the original post:

*Attempting to solve the problem of 372895 user accounts but only 19183 active members. (November, 2009) 5.144%
*Still attempting to solve the problem of 432102 user accounts but only 19679 active members. (June, 2010) 4.554%
*Still trying to solve the problem of 442051 users but only 19350 actives. (August, 2010) 4.377%
*Still striving to solve the problem of 505438 accounts, but only 21664 actives. (February, 2011) 4.286%

I think the biggest problem with new users staying is that they don't like the type of game like Risk. I bet any game company would be happy with a 4% retention rate of anyone who played the games that they make.

I would tend to agree if not for the fact that the people took the time to create an account. If they didn't like the type of game this is, I don't think they would have made an account.

How would they know they didn't like it before the created an account in order to play it?

[Woodruff]

You are correct about the time factor. Here are two things that could benefit the new player, IMO:
1. Re-order the "Join a Game" pages so that the top of page one is the most recently "started" game. (As opposed to the current system where the most recently "started" game is on the bottom of the last page.)

It really puts the oldest first? I guess that's another reason not to use the Join A Game page. So yes, I would definitely see this as an improvement, personally.

2. Restrict (yep, I know most of you don't like that word) the New Recruit to 1v1 games.

Oh heavens, bad idea. I personally don't care for 1-vs-1 at all (I put up with them in tournaments because I love tournaments) and would certainly have never considered staying if I was told I had to play a certain number of games in that mode. I certainly understand that would get the new recruit their turns more quickly, but I don't think the tradeoff there would be a benefit to the site overall as far as numbers who stay.

3. This one would never fly, but I am also keen on the concept of not allowing the new recruit to "start" games, at least for a short while.

I don't have a particular problem with this one, necessarily...but I'm not sure there's much of a benefit to it either.

[PLAYER57832]

One point that I made early on in the history of this suggestion is the time factor. If you're freemium (which is probably the case for the vast majority of new players), you're limited to 4 simultaneous games. I suspect that the majority of NRs gravitate towards games with more than two people. The inevitably end up in some games where one or more opponents deadbeat. As a result, in a typical game, they may take a turn about every 2-3 days. Assuming a typical game lasts 10 rounds, it takes them 3-4 weeks to complete a single game. They can play four games consecutively, but it will still take 3-4 months to complete 16 games. These numbers closely match my completion rate early on - I was averaging around one game completed per week.

You are correct about the time factor. Here are two things that could benefit the new player, IMO:
1. Re-order the "Join a Game" pages so that the top of page one is the most recently "started" game. (As opposed to the current system where the most recently "started" game is on the bottom of the last page.)

It used to be that way.
It was changed so that people would not just play the most recent games.

I believe most new players join those games that none of the rest of us want to join because the settings and map chosen aren't appealing to most players. The games on page one have been sitting in the system for long enough and everyone except new recruits has chosen to "not play." The new recruit clicks on "Join a Game" and probably just selects what is sitting there on page 1. (This harkens to the concept of the short attention span where they want to play now and play in real time...Unbeknownst to them (but knownst to us) that they've joined an 8 player game on a map that hardly anyone chooses to play.)

You want CC to cater to the laziest individuals? Why? If people cannot be bothered to make a little effort, do we want them here, really? People who are too lazy to read directions, etc are the biggest complainers here and, in my experience, tend not to be the ones buying premium memberships. We need fewer of them, not more!

2. Restrict (yep, I know most of you don't like that word) the New Recruit to 1v1 games.

The play, entire dynamics of 1 vs 1 differs from multi-player games. A lot of people, myself included happen to like 1 vs 1. A lot of other people hate them, because then tend to be one-sided, are more impacted by dice, drop and spoils luck, etc. I do recommend it as a good way to "learn the rules" quickly, without investing the time in a big, long game. However, that OPTION exists already for those who choose that route. Forcing people to play that way would send many people our of CC.

Remember that I'm not trying to teach strategy to the New Recruit. I'm just trying to ease them into the settings and maps.

This makes absolutely no sense, and actually doesn't agree with what you said earlier. The only logic behind any stair stepping IS if it were to provide training, experience. Since you now say your plan won't do that (what many of us have said all along), then why even have the plan?

AND a 1v1 game is more likely to be completed in a shorter amount of time. More often than not, a 1v1 game will be completed in "rt" and the short-attention span new recruit will get to play in real time without being frustrated that the game "didn't start" or that the other players aren't online to take their turns, whatever it is...1v1 tends to answer those frustrations.

Again, you are trying to dictate how people play. CC has options so people can choose for themselves.

[rdsrds2120]

Here is the original post:

*Attempting to solve the problem of 372895 user accounts but only 19183 active members. (November, 2009) 5.144%
*Still attempting to solve the problem of 432102 user accounts but only 19679 active members. (June, 2010) 4.554%
*Still trying to solve the problem of 442051 users but only 19350 actives. (August, 2010) 4.377%
*Still striving to solve the problem of 505438 accounts, but only 21664 actives. (February, 2011) 4.286%

I think the biggest problem with new users staying is that they don't like the type of game like Risk. I bet any game company would be happy with a 4% retention rate of anyone who played the games that they make.

I would tend to agree if not for the fact that the people took the time to create an account. If they didn't like the type of game this is, I don't think they would have made an account.

It's possible that they had no idea of the dynamics of CC before they joined. Actually, I'd hope they wouldn't, because then they're probably a multi!

Using the fact that they made an account (something that takes 2-3 minutes) isn't necessarily a good measure of whether they like the game or not. When you see a movie, you don't know if you're going to like it or not from the beginning (100% anyway, not to say you don't have a hunch), but does that mean since you paid for either the movie or a theater seat, that it must then be an awesome movie? No.

-rd

[macbone]

2. Restrict (yep, I know most of you don't like that word) the New Recruit to 1v1 games.

Remember that I'm not trying to teach strategy to the New Recruit. I'm just trying to ease them into the settings and maps. AND a 1v1 game is more likely to be completed in a shorter amount of time. More often than not, a 1v1 game will be completed in "rt" and the short-attention span new recruit will get to play in real time without being frustrated that the game "didn't start" or that the other players aren't online to take their turns, whatever it is...1v1 tends to answer those frustrations.

I also believe that the New Recruit who selects "Start a Game" sees all the options and thinks, "Hey, 8-players! Cool, 4-players!" etc., and starts games that often won't truly "start" until well after the new recruit has logged off.

I know you're suggesting this in order to speed up game play, but if this had been an option when I first joined, I doubt I would have stuck around. For one thing, I love playing strategy games with my friends, and I always try to get as many people together to play Axis & Allies or Samurai Swords or what have you. The more the merrier, and I personally don't enjoy the dynamics of 1v1 games (though I know many others do).

Secondly, points. In a 6- or 8-player game, there are a lot more points out there to win than in a 1v1 player game. I know a lot of folks don't play for points, but I sure do, and to riff on your WoW comparison for a moment, there's nothing better than going up a level in an RPG, even if it means just having some new spells or HP. If I were a new recruit, I wouldn't want to be limited to the amount of points I could go for in my first games.

[Queen_Herpes]

2. Restrict (yep, I know most of you don't like that word) the New Recruit to 1v1 games.

Remember that I'm not trying to teach strategy to the New Recruit. I'm just trying to ease them into the settings and maps. AND a 1v1 game is more likely to be completed in a shorter amount of time. More often than not, a 1v1 game will be completed in "rt" and the short-attention span new recruit will get to play in real time without being frustrated that the game "didn't start" or that the other players aren't online to take their turns, whatever it is...1v1 tends to answer those frustrations.

I also believe that the New Recruit who selects "Start a Game" sees all the options and thinks, "Hey, 8-players! Cool, 4-players!" etc., and starts games that often won't truly "start" until well after the new recruit has logged off.

I know you're suggesting this in order to speed up game play, but if this had been an option when I first joined, I doubt I would have stuck around. For one thing, I love playing strategy games with my friends, and I always try to get as many people together to play Axis & Allies or Samurai Swords or what have you. The more the merrier, and I personally don't enjoy the dynamics of 1v1 games (though I know many others do).

Secondly, points. In a 6- or 8-player game, there are a lot more points out there to win than in a 1v1 player game. I know a lot of folks don't play for points, but I sure do, and to riff on your WoW comparison for a moment, there's nothing better than going up a level in an RPG, even if it means just having some new spells or HP. If I were a new recruit, I wouldn't want to be limited to the amount of points I could go for in my first games.

If a new recruit is coming to this site for the first time, they are either:
-a risk player
-a non-risk player

I can see how a risk player wouldn't be interested in playing 1v1. However, this site does add the dynamic of the neutral armies. When my husband came to this site, he thought he had to attack and eliminate all the neutral armies. It took a few games for him to realize this. Even though my husband taught me how to play, I had a tough time figuring out how to use the neutrals to my advantage and how to avoid attacking them in certain situations. Certainly dealing with the neutrals is more of a strategy, which I am not trying to teach with my suggestion herein. However, knowing what the neutrals are and that they do not attack is something that takes one or two games to figure out - especially if you are the player who loses the game or gets eliminated early. Playing 1v1 can help a player to see (quickly) that the neutrals do not attack. There was a game called "Attack!" on facebook which was a risk clone all games were realtime. When a player quit the game, a bot took over for them. The bot did not attack. However, a new player could take over the bot at any point in time. Defense was necessary against the bot in case some other player took over the position. This doesn't happen on conquerclub, but there may be some former attack! players or players (like me) who have played other games where an army, troop, or team can be taken over by a new player when the original player quits. All I am saying is that the neutral army concept is one that can be readily discovered and learned about by playing 1v1.

Again, I can see how a seasoned risk player would be more interested in playing free-for-all more than 2 players, however, the additional settings (which differ from the board game) carry a specific learning curve with them. What does flat rate mean? Well, you and I understand it. I'm going to return to my husband's experience because he was raised on a risk gameboard. He is also the quintessential ADD, short attention span, real time, give it to me now, impatient kind of guy and admits that he never read the rules of the site. It took him a while to figure stuff out. He eventually found his way to some of the rules...namely the one about flat rate spoils. By the time he taught me how to play, he had read that info. Because of his benevolent teachings, I had the information I needed right away. This example is part of the way to my point with respect to having a system that gives new recruits each setting in piecemeal form: not every new recruit is going to have a benevolent teacher leading them into the site, not every new recruit is going to READ the rules and how-tos.

Now, if you're never player risk before. Wouldn't it be helpful to learn the game in a restricted single-setting environment? I tend to think so. I'm a big proponent of mastery learning and while I would support a way to have a user demonstrate mastery of a particular setting, I can see how that would take too long. This shortened version of an introduction to the game's settings and how-tos functions from an educator's perspective and a coach's perspective.

[Queen_Herpes]

This recommendation offers a reasonably achievable goal: participate in X games, unlock this cool thing; participate in X more games, unlock these other cool things; etc. A goal of this suggestion is to allow new Recruits to experience this great game with basic, beginner, understandable, game options that don’t give an unfair advantage to seasoned players.

This is where our long-standing disagreement begins. The REAL truth is there is no clear stair-step ladder to the various CC maps. I began with Age of Merchants and Coral Cairns. For a while, I did pretty well on those. Then Fuedal and AOR came along. They threw most people for a loop, but a lot of people have wound up enjoying them immensely. Now we have such a wide range of play styles the idea that any kind of a specific ladder such as you describe actually helping players to understand the maps just does not make any sense.

You started in one place, I started in a different place, that guy over there started in an even different place, but we all were limited and prevented from playing certain maps. None of us could play the maps that hadn't yet been developed, so we couldn't start there.

It's really not a sound argument to suggest that your idea of limiting maps is good because you were limited from "playing on maps that hadn't yet been developed".

The argument comes from the fact that all of us who are here playing games and conversing in fora are still here despite the fact that we were gradually eased into each of the new settings and new maps over time. We all stuck around because new facets of the site, new functionalities, new settings, and new maps were introduced piece by piece. Imagine if the new clickable maps built-in was dropped on us + at the same time that the new game-page layout was introduced + at the same time that manual deploy was set in + at the same time that etc. etc. We are all comfortably accepting the new clickable maps built-in because we've received each piece of this conquerclub puzzle one piece at a time over a long time. I'm suggesting that this is less frustrating than dumping a ton of new settings, layouts, etc. upon us as users all at once. I'm suggesting that we do the same for new recruits.

The new recruits that join today are confronted with hundreds of maps and several settings whose funcationality is not readily apparent. Why not give new recruits these settings in a piecemeal fashion? We got to try the maps and settings in piecemeal form. I think new recruits should get that same benefit.

You see that as a benefit. I see that as a negative. My view has ALWAYS been that the more maps I can play, the better. In fact, the thing I love about the random map selection is that I can play any map at any time with no regard for any limitation to what I can play. Personally, I would not have stayed at this site if I were limited to so few maps upon joining. I'm personally even against the anti-farming-complicated-map limitation imposed, because I would have hated that restriction to be put on me.

Any new recruit can only play 4 maps at one time, and they can only physically be taking turns on one map at a time. The new recruit is limited to certain maps and restricted from other maps. I think that restriction is a good idea. Why not introduce them to the settings on maps that are less complicated? Remember that a new recruit doesn't know that the system currently restricts maps and settings and they don't know which ones. Additionally, a casual visitor to this site cannot see the maps without creating an account. If a new recruit gets to play on 25 maps when they join, but they are informed that they will "unlock" about 25 more maps after completing a few games, I don't think that would be a deterrent. They know that the maps are there...and they can access them by playing games.

I'll admit, I've skimmed the majority of this thread. But the main conflict seems to be that some users don't think this should be forced, while others think it would be extremely helpful. Why don't we make this optional when you join? "Would you like to go through the New Recruit Tutorial? NOTE: Pressing 'NO' will not allow you to return to the tutorial later".

In being given the option of "Would you prefer to have all of our maps available to you or would you prefer to have maps given to you a set at a time?", do you think there will be a large clamoring for the second option? I can't imagine there are a LOT of people who would see that question and think "Sure, I'd rather not have access to all of the maps now". It just doesn't make sense to me. Thus, if this were implemented as only an option as you suggest...the very limited use of it in comparison to the very large time required to implement it would seem to be a rather large negative.

I agree with you Woodruff. I think that this option to drop the tutorial should be hidden. Available to players who had a benevolent friend bring them to the site, or available to the 99%ers who will take the time to read and search their way through the fora and rules and "how to play." Once found, then they can bypass the training...for good.

This whole stages thing, won't help. People that join this site usually don't comprehend that this is a casual gaming site, considering most of the other websites out there are Real Time. They join and expect a quick game. Not a casual game that takes a few days.

I agree that there are plenty of surfers out there who are looking for a quick game and realtime. I've tossed around the idea in the suggestion that a single speed game would be awarded (a-la lackattacks awarding of them in the past) at each unlock level. It would add an additional carrot-on-a-stick for each unlock level and would introduce the new recruit to the speed games. The stages and unlocking are part and parcel to any gaming online whether a video game or an online game. I play "games" online all the time where the unlocking is simply part of advancing in just about every game I've played. A player who buys WoW doesn't get to be level 99 right away, a facebook user who loads Farmville doesn't get a fully loaded farm right away, etc. I think that adding some stages/unlocks/levels to the new recruit "experience" will make the experience more compelling.

ConquerClub really cannot logically be compared to WoW or Farmville. The very nature of those games is entirely different than this is.

Conquerclub is unique among games: Yet, it is a game, a pseudo-simulation, a statistical gamble, a strategic endeavor, etc. We "play" the game. There are similarities in this game to other games and other gaming and so on. I like playing this game. I like gaming this game. What I don't like is getting an easy win from a new recruit who doesn't have a clue how to play by the particular settings. I also don't have a ton of time available in my day to "teach" every new recruit in teh game chat. I often get questions from new recruits or players who have barely dropped the "?" rank like, "How did you get all those troops?" "How do I turn in the spoils?" "Why did you get so many more armies than I did?" "What do the white question marks mean on the board?" "How did you just attack me there?" and so on and so forth. Occasionally I have time to answer their questions. Most of the time, I don't! This suggestion is geared towards helping those new recruits learn each of the settings of this game in a piece-by-piece fashion. By "unlocking" certain elements, the new recruit gets and opportunity to be entertained and challenged to move forward. We are essentially saying, "hey, pay your dues, unlock these cool settings and maps so that we can play you in an open format! We want you to learn how to play without frustrating you!"

[Queen_Herpes]

You are correct about the time factor. Here are two things that could benefit the new player, IMO:
1. Re-order the "Join a Game" pages so that the top of page one is the most recently "started" game. (As opposed to the current system where the most recently "started" game is on the bottom of the last page.)

It really puts the oldest first? I guess that's another reason not to use the Join A Game page. So yes, I would definitely see this as an improvement, personally.

Yes, if the Join a game had the newest games, the old games that no one in their right mind would play get buried on the LAST page.

2. Restrict (yep, I know most of you don't like that word) the New Recruit to 1v1 games.

Oh heavens, bad idea. I personally don't care for 1-vs-1 at all (I put up with them in tournaments because I love tournaments) and would certainly have never considered staying if I was told I had to play a certain number of games in that mode. I certainly understand that would get the new recruit their turns more quickly, but I don't think the tradeoff there would be a benefit to the site overall as far as numbers who stay.

I agree that it is not the most interesting way to play on conquerclub. However, it is potentially fast and satisfies the likelihood that most new recruits are looking for as-close-to a realtime experience as possible. It is more likely (because of fewer participants in the game) that a 1v1 game will be finished in a shorter period of time. By giving the new recruit this option and essentially directing them towards 1v1 games by limiting them to 1v1 games, the new recruit may stick around a little longer by playing those games that likely will be finished in realtime.

3. This one would never fly, but I am also keen on the concept of not allowing the new recruit to "start" games, at least for a short while.

I don't have a particular problem with this one, necessarily...but I'm not sure there's much of a benefit to it either.

Well, this comes from the concept that there are plenty of new-recruit-started-games that get lost in gamefinder where the majority of participants in teh game end up getting kicked for missed turns.

[blakebowling]

Personally, I don't see the need for a tutorial at all. I was simply suggesting an alternative to what was suggested before.