Conquer Club

When I look at the number of online users, I see it's like only 60% of the number I used to find a year ago.

This indicates CC is not even stable and non-growing; rather, it's declining!

17315 are the current users. I think they used to be +20.000 last year.

show: May 20th

There is a summer lull every year. I also look at how many online when I am. Used to be 1100, recently 800 and today says 600.

Well its still up and running, so I am guessing lack is still making that green!

I feel that it is

assassin07 wrote:I feel that it is

I disagree. Sure while some have left, there is new blood flowing in. The 1st page is harder to get on than ever. This is a game where people can only play so long before they tire of it. With that said, CC is still fine even with a slight summer decline in people. It will start picking up again soon.

Bruceswar wrote:

assassin07 wrote:I feel that it is

I disagree. Sure while some have left, there is new blood flowing in. The 1st page is harder to get on than ever. This is a game where people can only play so long before they tire of it. With that said, CC is still fine even with a slight summer decline in people. It will start picking up again soon.

Maybe your right and yes the 1st page is hard to get on ...Who knows maybe it will sky rocket

Bruceswar wrote:

assassin07 wrote:I feel that it is

I disagree. Sure while some have left, there is new blood flowing in. The 1st page is harder to get on than ever. This is a game where people can only play so long before they tire of it. With that said, CC is still fine even with a slight summer decline in people. It will start picking up again soon.

finally reconsidering your earlier statements that by like 6 months ago we would see majors on the front page again?

I'm not sure if this will have much weight, but CC moved pretty strongly in favour of established members a while ago. Paying or non-paying, The features became vastly more complicated. A culture of "extra features" kind of overcame the idea of streamlining.

Declining? No, just not growing. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different thing.

Symmetry wrote:I'm not sure if this will have much weight, but CC moved pretty strongly in favour of established members a while ago. Paying or non-paying, The features became vastly more complicated. A culture of "extra features" kind of overcame the idea of streamlining.

Declining? No, just not growing. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different thing.

Bad thing for the site... Maybe good for me. At least in the short term.

If the site isn't growing and only catering towards members who have been around for a while, then where will it be in 5 years? 3 years even? Not everyone will still be here. I know that I love the site and don't plan on leaving, but someday I will. Let's be real. When we all leave, who will be left? New blood is ALWAYS needed.

chapcrap wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I'm not sure if this will have much weight, but CC moved pretty strongly in favour of established members a while ago. Paying or non-paying, The features became vastly more complicated. A culture of "extra features" kind of overcame the idea of streamlining.

Declining? No, just not growing. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different thing.

Bad thing for the site... Maybe good for me. At least in the short term.

If the site isn't growing and only catering towards members who have been around for a while, then where will it be in 5 years? 3 years even? Not everyone will still be here. I know that I love the site and don't plan on leaving, but someday I will. Let's be real. When we all leave, who will be left? New blood is ALWAYS needed.

very good point Symm. but I think the leaving people are more than those joining.

It would be cool to see a graph of the amount of users vs. time since the start of the site. I wonder when the biggest increase (gross increase, not percent increase) was and if the amount of users is declining and how much per year.

Army of GOD wrote:It would be cool to see a graph of the amount of users vs. time since the start of the site. I wonder when the biggest increase (gross increase, not percent increase) was and if the amount of users is declining and how much per year.

I think Alexa can help.

Wow, ok. So I used waybackmachine.com and looked at the scoreboard for the past few years and since 2008, the number of users on the Scoreboard at the beginning of September has been going down at ~1000 per year. Considering there's only around 18,000 members, that's a pretty significant number.

Army of GOD wrote:Wow, ok. So I used waybackmachine.com and looked at the scoreboard for the past few years and since 2008, the number of users on the Scoreboard at the beginning of September has been going down at ~1000 per year. Considering there's only around 18,000 members, that's a pretty significant number.

yes. lack should get sponsors and start paying his mods to take this site to a professional business phase. just a suggestion.

I think it is. Something major needs to be implemented or revamped to recapture peoples attention.

I always think the homepage is a bit crappy. There's a .gif doing its thing with poorly-scaled images from a couple of maps and an overall sense of overwhelmingness (wat) with all the different things happening, which might turn a few potential new players away.

i think that add twiter and facebook in home page,are wrong move,because you distract new people from main idea here.Actualy Lack advertise Twiter and Facebook,instead to focus on hes site. Before even implement these two advertise, never number of active player drop so low.
These is mine oppinion,maybe im wrong and maybe no>

Yeah- again I know I'm not going to be popular for saying this, but the main attraction of this site is for people who like playing Risk. Fewer people play that game now, but the reason it was so succesful was that it was fun to play.

Most people who know me know that I've always been freemium, and that I stopped playing a while ago, while still posting in the community forums. One of the reasons I stopped playing was that the types of games grew distant from the basic game. It was increasingly hard to find a map that followed the basic tactics. And it was increasingly hard to find a set of rules that stuck to the basics.

Most new players here are likely to be confused. Fog of war rules, bombardment, speed games, instant victories? Join the site and you will lose your first game, not because you are bad at Risk, but because you have no idea how to play the map that players on this site created, and you don't know how the rules work.

You will lose points to those people, and your first experience will be a loss in ranking. Not the best introduction.

You make some decent points, though I disagree, or rather the heavy Risk emphasis was not necessarily by CC's choice. CC has become much, much more. If there is a problem, it is that by tying itself to Risk, folks can be dissappointed if that is what they seek.

I have LONG thought the maps needed to be differentiated by play better. I worked up a list, a few people liked it, but because it was not tied to Risk, (more or less), it met with opposition.

CC cannot be a "Risk" site. Hasbro won't allow it, AND it just is not necessary. CC has become much, much MUCH more. However, it does need to market what it IS better so that people who want what CC has will stay.

Gotta go, so that's it for now, will add more later.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You make some decent points, though I disagree, or rather the heavy Risk emphasis was not necessarily by CC's choice. CC has become much, much more. If there is a problem, it is that by tying itself to Risk, folks can be dissappointed if that is what they seek.

I have LONG thought the maps needed to be differentiated by play better. I worked up a list, a few people liked it, but because it was not tied to Risk, (more or less), it met with opposition.

CC cannot be a "Risk" site. Hasbro won't allow it, AND it just is not necessary. CC has become much, much MUCH more. However, it does need to market what it IS better so that people who want what CC has will stay.

Gotta go, so that's it for now, will add more later.

But that's how it started out, what it was based on. I appreciate the copyright problems, but the basic game mechanics are the same. I'm not sure if this is a relevant comparison or not, but it's as if this site based itself on chess, wants to attract people interested in chess, and then rewarded people who are good at that 3-D chess game on StarTrek.

I don't think that this needs to be Risk, just that it needs to be what worked. I find innovations on the site as interesting as anyone, but they usually add complexity to a game that was actually pretty successful and popular in its own right.

But it's not like adding new features takes away from the risk aspect. You can still play classic map, esc spoils, no fog, etc... You can play classic settings, that is still an option. But if all they had was the classic settings, and only a few 'basic' maps, I bet you 75 percent of the CC population would get bored and leave much sooner than they leave now.. Sure you might get a few more people to join, but when people leave twice as fast as they are coming in, is it really worth it?

iamkoolerthanu wrote:But it's not like adding new features takes away from the risk aspect. You can still play classic map, esc spoils, no fog, etc... You can play classic settings, that is still an option. But if all they had was the classic settings, and only a few 'basic' maps, I bet you 75 percent of the CC population would get bored and leave much sooner than they leave now.. Sure you might get a few more people to join, but when people leave twice as fast as they are coming in, is it really worth it?

I think you're right, and that basically it comes down to how the site caters to new members vs how the site caters to established members. Attracting people to the site isn't enough if they won't stay.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You make some decent points, though I disagree, or rather the heavy Risk emphasis was not necessarily by CC's choice. CC has become much, much more. If there is a problem, it is that by tying itself to Risk, folks can be dissappointed if that is what they seek.

I have LONG thought the maps needed to be differentiated by play better. I worked up a list, a few people liked it, but because it was not tied to Risk, (more or less), it met with opposition.

CC cannot be a "Risk" site. Hasbro won't allow it, AND it just is not necessary. CC has become much, much MUCH more. However, it does need to market what it IS better so that people who want what CC has will stay.

Gotta go, so that's it for now, will add more later.

CC IS RISK. It's not even debatable. It's just a lot more complex and diverse than basic RISK.

Also, the colors on the whole site are kind of eye-dissolving.

Symmetry wrote:

iamkoolerthanu wrote:But it's not like adding new features takes away from the risk aspect. You can still play classic map, esc spoils, no fog, etc... You can play classic settings, that is still an option. But if all they had was the classic settings, and only a few 'basic' maps, I bet you 75 percent of the CC population would get bored and leave much sooner than they leave now.. Sure you might get a few more people to join, but when people leave twice as fast as they are coming in, is it really worth it?

I think you're right, and that basically it comes down to how the site caters to new members vs how the site caters to established members. Attracting people to the site isn't enough if they won't stay.

This is it. However, you also have to realize that any site like this is going to lose members in time. I have been here for a LONG time CC-wise (others have been here longer, but still...). That means I have "shown up" every single day for years. I did take a couple of breaks, definitely spend time in the forums, etc.

AND.. even though I came here for RISK, in fact found it through googling Risk... I have long since decided I much prefer AOR2, a lot of other maps. I really detest playing classic, particularly since its not really "classic' any more.

The thing is, CC HAS to change and grow. Holding onto "we are just Risk".. while a good baseline is not going to keep people here. People who will stay here are those who enjoy many different maps, not just thsoe who want to play classic.

What I DO dislike, extremely is the new rating system (total waste of time.. worse than nothing, as far as I am concerned.. and have said so basically from the time it changed) and some of the stuff that has gone on in the forums. I also think the emphasis on farming is off, though I am not saying we need a "free for all" on new players.

i don't think it matters too much if cc has 21 or 18 thousand members.

what i'd like to know is how many are premium? we pay for this site so are our numbers increasing, decreasing or stagnating?