CC is declining again!

[Dukasaur]

9783

9789.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Or six.

[jammyjames]

9785. I guess when 4 of them realised the distance they were about to cover jumped ship and ran for it.

[Army of GOD]

9780

[Donald Fung]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

[OliverFA]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

[iAmCaffeine]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

[Gillipig]

I feel superfluous to this thread now, you guys are doing the counting for me. I'll chip in a little bit though.

9747



As a bit of a reminder, here's a quote from this thread made two years ago, this was what was considered alarmingly low.

To everyone's great surprise I can now report that we've hit a new low. 14433 souls.

Now it almost seems like the glory days.



Also a bit interesting to note is that the number of players who are Colonel or above has NOT decreased during this whole decline, in fact it has increased since I was active playing games two or three years ago. A sure hint that the decline has nothing to do with not pleasing the regulars, it's all about the site not being fun for newcomers anymore. It has gotten too complex and drifted too far away from the original gameplay which was fairly simple. "Re-simplify" it, is the way to go. If one cares about the site's existence that is, which at least this one does not, it is interesting to follow a website in decline though, much can be learned from watching the mistakes of others.

[jammyjames]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

And thats where you have a CHOICE to surrender. I feel if needed to surrender, it would help a lot to actuall be able to and save me bullshit time wasting.

Second to that, speed games - I sometimes have to run out on a job while im playing at work lol. Instead of missing turns and ruining my attendance from having to leave - I could complete the game without doing so.

[Army of GOD]

what a drop since yesterday so far. Down to 9744 (down 36).

[Donald Fung]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

Domination victories is a good idea as well. But sometimes, there are turnarounds, especially in escalating games.
If its truly a stalemate, can't the three of you play it out on another map and whoever wins takes both?
And once again with the personal attacks on me. Idk what stick you got up your ass but please stop. You have no right to call me a bad player if you never even played any games with me and everyone has a right to make suggestions.

[OliverFA]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

Domination victories is a good idea as well. But sometimes, there are turnarounds, especially in escalating games.
If its truly a stalemate, can't the three of you play it out on another map and whoever wins takes both?
And once again with the personal attacks on me. Idk what stick you got up your ass but please stop. You have no right to call me a bad player if you never even played any games with me and everyone has a right to make suggestions.

Factor the card set into the domination condition. Let's say that if a player has a set, those armies count as reinforcement for the next turn, so the domination victory would not happen.

[Donald Fung]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

Domination victories is a good idea as well. But sometimes, there are turnarounds, especially in escalating games.
If its truly a stalemate, can't the three of you play it out on another map and whoever wins takes both?
And once again with the personal attacks on me. Idk what stick you got up your ass but please stop. You have no right to call me a bad player if you never even played any games with me and everyone has a right to make suggestions.

Factor the card set into the domination condition. Let's say that if a player has a set, those armies count as reinforcement for the next turn, so the domination victory would not happen.

hmmm... I see your point but how exactly would this be calculated? You would need a 75% lead in troops + troops due + troop amount from set & territories?

[Dukasaur]

what a drop since yesterday so far. Down to 9744 (down 36).

9767.

I think we may finally have bottomed out.

[iAmCaffeine]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

Domination victories is a good idea as well. But sometimes, there are turnarounds, especially in escalating games.
If its truly a stalemate, can't the three of you play it out on another map and whoever wins takes both?
And once again with the personal attacks on me. Idk what stick you got up your ass but please stop. You have no right to call me a bad player if you never even played any games with me and everyone has a right to make suggestions.

Escalating is the least likely setting to find yourself in that situation. It's much more common in no spoils, nuclear and zombie.

No, because the other players don't want to play a deciding game.

No personal attacks. I believe it's called replying to you.

[Dukasaur]

what a drop since yesterday so far. Down to 9744 (down 36).

9767.

I think we may finally have bottomed out.

9769.

[Gillipig]

what a drop since yesterday so far. Down to 9744 (down 36).

9767.

I think we may finally have bottomed out.

9769.

Click image to enlarge.

[pimpdave]

THIS THREAD SUCKS

[Donald Fung]

I've played USA 2.1 with trench enough. I'm not disagreeing with that theory, but did you look at the game he linked? Idiocy at its finest. This is the kind of game were a surrender button would be useful: Game 13043479.

However, there are other solutions. The best is putting a round limit on a game. Secondly, in stalemate situations, make a "tie-breaker" game. If the issue is just mopping up then get over it.

Why would that game need a surrender button? It seems at least 2 players have a fair chance of winning. Meanwhile, for the game I linked, my team has to spend a bunch of turns to take out someone at the tip of South America.

Domination victory would solve that problem. WHen a single player (or team) has 75% of territories AND troops AND reinforcements, give the game to that player

I don't want a surrender button, but my game would be more suitable for one than yours. It's a stalemate. You can't see behind the fog and obviously didn't read the game log. This is why bad players just shouldn't make game suggestions.

I still disagree with domination victories. I have turned games around when I have had under 15% of regions, troops and reinforcements and come out to win.

Domination victories is a good idea as well. But sometimes, there are turnarounds, especially in escalating games.
If its truly a stalemate, can't the three of you play it out on another map and whoever wins takes both?
And once again with the personal attacks on me. Idk what stick you got up your ass but please stop. You have no right to call me a bad player if you never even played any games with me and everyone has a right to make suggestions.

Escalating is the least likely setting to find yourself in that situation. It's much more common in no spoils, nuclear and zombie.

No, because the other players don't want to play a deciding game.

No personal attacks. I believe it's called replying to you.

Dominating victories would be much more easier to achieve in escalating (and nuclear/zombie if someone stacks big) with a chance of a turnaround but this was before counting spoils into the troops due category was mentioned. Unless players have huge stacks for you to nuke or zombify or players have huge bonus regions, I don't see how turnarounds are more likely in those settings.

And why don't you guys want to play a deciding game? Wouldn't that be the best way to solve the problem? Because if it was truly a stalemate as you stated, why would anyone want to surrender when they still have a chance to win? Surrender option should be added only so that games don't have to drag out for an extended unnecessary periods, otherwise, it would allow room for abuse.

Its a personal attack if you're calling me names like "bad player" and "tournament quitter." If that's the sort of reply you're gonna give, please don't reply to me.

[owenshooter]

Its a personal attack if you're calling me names like "bad player" and "tournament quitter." If that's the sort of reply you're gonna give, please don't reply to me.

i have called you neither... however, calling someone a bad player is a matter of another players opinion... you can't really stop that... and i assume you can only call someone a "tournament quitter" that has quit a tournament... if it's factual, i don't know how you can really complain... anyway... we are still bleeding players at an epic rate!!!-eJn

[Donald Fung]

Its a personal attack if you're calling me names like "bad player" and "tournament quitter." If that's the sort of reply you're gonna give, please don't reply to me.

i have called you neither... however, calling someone a bad player is a matter of another players opinion... you can't really stop that... and i assume you can only call someone a "tournament quitter" that has quit a tournament... if it's factual, i don't know how you can really complain... anyway... we are still bleeding players at an epic rate!!!-eJn

No not you, I was talking to Caffeine, sorry for not being specific. I'm asking Caffeine to stop bringing in things that have nothing to do with the topic of stopping CC's decline into this thread.

[owenshooter]

9,762... and the part i love is how i just logged in and global chat is under siege by someone bitching about the great decline.. ha!! i am sure that is what that envisioned when they created it...-eJn

[BigBallinStalin]

owen, how much does this site mean to you?

[owenshooter]

owen, how much does this site mean to you?

THE. WORLD. -eJn

[Serbia]

what a drop since yesterday so far. Down to 9744 (down 36).

9767.

I think we may finally have bottomed out.

9769.

Your positive outlook is a source of great entertainment for me. I hope you never change.

Bollocks.