Conquer Club

How about some Team games (doubles only) for Guide Games?

I think this would be a much better option for a NR than a 1v1 game. Sure it will take longer to fill but when the site states "The idea is to... give the new recruit the best introduction to the club possible."... a 1v1 is NOT that.

Example: "Hello NR, I'm Bob. I'm here to help you but let me break your bonus and destroy as many of your units I can before I answer your questions"... isn't a good way to introduce someone to a game.

Pairing them up with someone who's willing to answer any questions they have AND help them win the game sounds like a much more pleasurable experience IMO.

sounds good, E - just don't ask me to join up...

while it sounds ice, too many new recruits in guide games are a no-show

also, they should learn 1v1 1v? before team games

MSpitts24 wrote:while it sounds ice, too many new recruits in guide games are a no-show

also, they should learn 1v1 1v? before team games

No-shows because A) too impatient for the game to start and B) Nobody to talk to while they're waiting.

They aren't learning much in a 1v1 guide game when the person that's there to "help" is also trying to make the NR lose the game.

Not sure what the correct course of action would be for that. Most NRs don't even wait around for a game to start because they expect it to be instantaneous. They are literally gone within 30 seconds.

I will agree that when playing a 3 or 4 player guide game, I have noticed veteran players who want to win it at all costs, and I'm like "Geez, they're super serious about the game."

I have deliberately played kinda crappy in many of them to allow them to feel like they're getting a game out of it (if that makes sense). I let them catch up and if they follow the pointers I gave them, like "take smaller bonuses at first because they're easier to hold" they actually have a chance of beating me. If they take North America, I'm breaking that. It's dishonest to just let them win without any effort, but it's also really mean to go into those games with the intention of beating the crap out of some noobs. Where's the fun in that?

People who treat guide games the same as any other game really need to reconsider that strategy. It costs them nothing to give the newbie some genuine advice and let them take a shot at actually beating you. You lose no points and if they win, the site might have gained a half-decent new player who takes what they've learned and builds on it.

@ Shannon

yep, well said.

Elaterate wrote:

MSpitts24 wrote:while it sounds ice, too many new recruits in guide games are a no-show

also, they should learn 1v1 1v? before team games

No-shows because A) too impatient for the game to start and B) Nobody to talk to while they're waiting.

They aren't learning much in a 1v1 guide game when the person that's there to "help" is also trying to make the NR lose the game.

Lies

As Shannon said, most Guide Games end where the NR Deadbeats rather quickly and most games end with the NR does not even take a turn.

BUT something needs to be done to help the few NR who truly want to learn. I would (somehow) encourage the NR who played 1v1 to allow a 2nd Guide Game as a Doubles team. And I further suggest that the opponent team be BOTS only to fill it quickly.

While here, I will suggest that if a Guide Game is waiting more than 60 seconds, that any empty slots (in triples or quads) to be filled by Bots, so that the game can start ASAP. Most NRs will not wait even 3 minutes; the quicker the Guide Game starts, the better chance we have to keep the NR playing.

Shannon Apple wrote:Not sure what the correct course of action would be for that. Most NRs don't even wait around for a game to start because they expect it to be instantaneous. They are literally gone within 30 seconds.

I will agree that when playing a 3 or 4 player guide game, I have noticed veteran players who want to win it at all costs, and I'm like "Geez, they're super serious about the game."

I have deliberately played kinda crappy in many of them to allow them to feel like they're getting a game out of it (if that makes sense). I let them catch up and if they follow the pointers I gave them, like "take smaller bonuses at first because they're easier to hold" they actually have a chance of beating me. If they take North America, I'm breaking that. It's dishonest to just let them win without any effort, but it's also really mean to go into those games with the intention of beating the crap out of some noobs. Where's the fun in that?

People who treat guide games the same as any other game really need to reconsider that strategy. It costs them nothing to give the newbie some genuine advice and let them take a shot at actually beating you. You lose no points and if they win, the site might have gained a half-decent new player who takes what they've learned and builds on it.

More useful, are there any metrics for regular games created by hooks, and how they are progressing and if they are actually learning anything more, less or the same?
Old system, 24 hour games were auto assigned, now they have to wait for it to fill, is this being accomplished?
Has that achieved faster filled games?