Conquer Club

CC is declining again!

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby isaiah40 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:25 pm

9898 on Aug 6th, 2014
9874 on Aug 7th, 2014
24 more inactive players!

On August 5th, 2013 we had 13392 just before BigWham took over the site. In one year we lost 3518 players in just one year!!!!

On Sept 20th, 2012 we had 14604 just before ElJefe took over the site. In those few months ElJefe had the site we lost 1212 players.

On Aug 10th, 2011 we had 17900 active players. In the last 13 months of the reign of lackattack, we lost 3296 players. Of course this is because lack wasn't doing anything for the site.

So it looks like Big Wham has done more harm to the site in less time than lackattack did!! So where do we place the blame?
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby IcePack on Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:42 pm

......!
Last edited by IcePack on Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16689
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Robinette on Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:42 pm

Army of GOD wrote:
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


What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.



gee... let me think on this... ONE map, Classic RISK, with friends, and/or with other people around the world...
and with advanced graphics, just for the fun of it...
This sounds good to me, gonna have to give it a try...
But playing golf with a hooker,,, not so much.
Image
User avatar
Brigadier Robinette
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:32 pm
Location: Northern California

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:07 am

Army of GOD wrote:
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


What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.


Golf can be fun. Besides, it depends on how well the hooker plays golf.

Next!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby OliverFA on Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:40 am

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
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Army of GOD on Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:43 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
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


What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.


Golf can be fun. Besides, it depends on how well the hooker plays golf.

Next!


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.










































































like croquet
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:19 am

Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Fewnix on Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:42 pm

One day you might get a hole in one.

Army of GOD wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
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


What kind of idiots would buy this. Playing a board game on a console is like getting a hooker and playing golf with her.


Golf can be fun. Besides, it depends on how well the hooker plays golf.

Next!


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.










































































like croquet
Rule 1
show
User avatar
Cadet Fewnix
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:15 am
2

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby JamesKer1 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:23 pm

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


I wish it was paid!

No, we crazy people do all of this for the love of CC :ugeek:
Join CrossMapAHolics!

Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.




A new era of monthly challenges has begun...
User avatar
Private JamesKer1
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:47 am
Location: Good ol' Kentucky

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby jammyjames on Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:28 pm

I liked Lack, he engaged with the community.
Image
Corporal 1st Class jammyjames
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:17 am

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:36 pm

JamesKer1 wrote:
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


I wish it was paid!

No, we crazy people do all of this for the love of CC :ugeek:


I don't doubt it, but remember: even Hitler loved Germany.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Donald Fung on Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:06 pm

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.
8) 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.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Donald Fung
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:06 pm
Location: New York
2

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby isaiah40 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:37 pm

9820! And the decline goes on and on and on and on and on ...
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby AndyDufresne on Sat Aug 09, 2014 11:35 pm

It's time I come clean, guys. I had ten thousand some multis. CC is just returning back to the equilibrium. Probably.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Gillipig on Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:00 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
JamesKer1 wrote:
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


I wish it was paid!

No, we crazy people do all of this for the love of CC :ugeek:


I don't doubt it, but remember: even Hitler loved Germany.

The difference is that Germany loved Hitler back.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Mr Changsha on Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:04 am

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.
8) 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.


A superb piece...very well done indeed.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby clangfield on Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:53 am

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.
8) 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...
8) 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.
Lieutenant clangfield
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:57 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby isaiah40 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:14 pm

9804!
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:36 pm

isaiah40 wrote:9804!

Are you the new Gillipig?

Anyway, 9807. The recovery begins!
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 27905
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Donald Fung on Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:54 pm

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.
8) 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...
8) 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.


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.
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.
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.
7) Yeah, I can see that. The Cheating and Abuse team would be pretty busy :lol: But 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.
8 ) No skill in waiting until round limit, it just takes the fun out of those games.
And yep, I found out about how to remove the side chat, was very annoying. I agree with Conquer Stars as well, they are pretty much useless :(

Dukasaur wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:9804!

Are you the new Gillipig?

Anyway, 9807. The recovery begins!


:lol: 3 extra players! woohoo!
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Donald Fung
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:06 pm
Location: New York
2

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:24 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

7) Yeah, I can see that. The Cheating and Abuse team would be pretty busy :lol: But 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 agree about the Resign button.

8 ) No skill in waiting until round limit, it just takes the fun out of those games.

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.

It is a problem that players in round limit games stop playing about half-way through and start stacking. I've suggested that instead of final troop count, the winning should go by your final deploy, so that people keep fighting for bonuses all the way through. Other people have suggested other fixes. Bottom line though, is that while round limits are not ideal, they're better than nothing. Nobody benefits from a hung jury that drags on through 75 rounds.

And yep, I found out about how to remove the side chat, was very annoying.

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.

Donald Fung wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:9804!

Are you the new Gillipig?

Anyway, 9807. The recovery begins!


:lol: 3 extra players! woohoo!

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.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 27905
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:34 pm

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:46 pm

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.

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."

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."
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 27905
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:40 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
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.

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."

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 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."

Anyway, re: the underlined, would you care to explain your reasoning?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Is CC Declining?

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:14 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
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.

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."

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 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."

Anyway, re: the underlined, would you care to explain your reasoning?

I thought I had explained it clearly enough.

First, about your characterization of my post as waffling. Keep it in context: I was replying to DF, who made the positive claim that team games are the biggest factor leading to CC's success in the past. I was simply making the point that it's not so cut-and-dried, and that there are negatives to consider.

What negatives? There are two areas, game and forum.

The best players tend to withdraw from public games and play a preponderance of closed games, either between clans or within their clan. When they do venture out of their clan game world, they still have a tendency to play not multiplayer standard games but rather team games in which their teams are drawn from their clan circle. Thus, instead of 6 individuals meeting in a game and all ending up talking to each other, you have one group of 3 who only talk to themselves and and another group of 3 who only talk to themselves. Only on rare ocassions is there any interaction between members of opposing teams, so the one group of three leaves at the end, not really having "met" the other group in the social sense.

Besides clans taking activity out of game socialization, they also take activity out of the forums. The Strategy forum is dead and often goes weeks at a time without someone describing their strategy, while the forums of the clans are abuzz with strategy advice. This is a direct hit to the community, with some of the best advice being available to 30 members of a particular clan instead of the thousands of members at large. Ditto for other types of conversation. There have been more jokes posted in my clan forum this year than in the general forums. The forums seem dead, and yet thousands of clever words are being written to tiny audiences of 30 instead of to the broader community.

So, that's all the negative. I believe by interacting with a closed circle, team players reduce the amount of interaction, and especially high-quality interaction, that the rest of the community receives.

The positive is very simple, although possibly quite powerful. People who do all of the above may reduce the liveliness of the public areas, but they certainly increase the liveliness of their closed areas, which may in turn keep some poeple sticking around. A very definite positive to offset the negative.

So, which is greater. Looking at the above, I suspect that the negative is slightly greater than the positive, but that suspicion is largely underpinned by subjective observations and not by any hard numbers, which is why the low degree of certainty.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 27905
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

PreviousNext

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron