The Great Decline

[BigBallinStalin]

In 2011, there were about 17,000 active users. In 2014, about 10,000. So, CC is losing about 1,750 users per year. If the current trend continues, then CC will have 0 users in 5.7 years.

Caveats:

1. The marginal rate of decline may lessen as the trend eats into the more hardcore population, a.k.a. "CC Lifers."
2. The statistics aren't awesome, but since this is CC, it's good enough.

What has not worked internally:

1. Thinking about suggestions.
2. Implementing suggestions.
3. Changing the Head of CC.
4. financial incentives for enticing nonpayers to join (?)
5. marketing that targets potential CC users abroad (?)
6. changes in the Mod hierarchy (?)
7. Superficial changes like the homepage and the stupid buttons.


What has not changed internally:

1. adminstrators (?)
2. capital like server stuff (?)
3. ConquerClub, the game itself. (sure, marginal changes have occurred, but it's basically still Risk CC).



What has changed externally:

1. Increased consumer demand for vidya games--e.g. the rapidly growing flash-based game market.
2. Consumer demand for games like CC has fallen (right?)

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's your nightmare scenario:


Since the flash-based games are all the rave, and if CC cannot capture some of that market by somehow mimicking its successes, then CC will end in roughly 5.5 years. What also matters for CC's lifespan?

1. The marginal rate of decline may decrease as the hardcore players leave at a slower rate, or it may increase as fewer games are made and as fewer players remain.

2. Although the minimum number of users, which yields to the owner a profit that offsets the opportunity cost, is unknown, this minimal profit amount does shorten the lifespan of CC.

3. If you knew CC was going to end in 6 months, would you join games that take >6 months to complete? Probably not, so the expected lifespan may overestimate CC's actually diminished lifespan.

After years of reform, CC still sinks. Get ready to pack your shit, folks. The Great Decline seems inevitable.

[jefjef]

There will always be a niche and market for a great risk like game.

BUT. What is a recurring issue and complaint and a major fail for CC is the unbelievable fake "random" that they feed us.. Fix that and just maybe there won't be a great decline.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, some demand for risk-esque games will endure for awhile, but at what price and at what quantity supplied will the market for Risk games clear? The issue at hand depends on the supplier of such games, e.g. ConquerClub, and it depends on the minimum number of users needed to convince the owner to not scrap the whole ordeal--or to do something more profitable with his effort and time. In other words, regardless of the longevity of their demand, CC and similar providers probably won't be around within 5 years.


Even if CC bought a gazillion lines of code or whatever from random.org, or even if CC used the best random randomizer ever, I'd expect the level of complaints to be about the same. The Random Crisis is dominated by psychological biases, and nothing can fix that but the users themselves.

[natty dread]

Ok... I didn't want to post another serious post. But what the hell, I guess this dead horse could use one last beating...

Why CC is dying is because it's not changing. It's not adjusting to modern days. The new administration is looking backwards and trying to re-realize the glory days of CC by trying hard to figure out "what went wrong"...

There's nothing wrong with CC per se. It's just stuck in the early 2000s internet. We're halfway through the 2010s already though so whatever it was that made CC popular initially isn't going to cut it anymore.

What needs to be done is toss out the constraints. Stop being a risk clone, stop being constrained to a format that only caters to an increasingly narrow niche. Being able to play risk online was novel enough in the early internets to draw people in. The novelty was extended by being able to then play the same game but using custom maps.

The novelty has now worn out. An online game like CC can never provide the same things the real boardgame can, so it's pointless trying to provide a boardgame anymore. It's time to move on and do something more.

Another thing: all the current maps needs to be scrapped. This is because these have all been designed around a web engine that was already dated 10 years ago. The UI on CC is laughable. Numbers printed on static jpg images? What the f*ck, this isn't the dark ages anymore. We need proper, interactive maps with proper UI. MajorCommand sort of partially had the right idea about that, apart from using the idiotic, craptastic, slow, buggy, programmed by a bunch of mentally handicapped monkeys... yeah, I'm talking about Flash. Flash needs to die a slow and painful death. Anyway... apart from flash, MC also ran to the same mistake of being constrained by the "risk" boardgame. Especially with CC already filling that niche.


So to recap, main points: CC needs to cut off the old dead weight, stop clinging to the past, and move on. Scrap everything and start fresh. Move beyond just "online risk", and instead start offering a more varied strategy-based gaming suite. Different game engines, different types of strategy games, move beyond the "board game" format because real boardgames already do that much better. Modernize the UI, create a flexible engine with modern web technologies.

But yeah... I realize there's pretty much 0 chance that any of this will happen. What's more likely to happen is, the current owners will try to squeeze as much profit as they can from the site with minimal investment... and the site will keep declining, until it no longer makes a profit, and then it'll quietly fade away.

[BigBallinStalin]

natty dread, formerly known as natty_dread, if you owned a site just like CC with its current problems, what do you envision? Your talk about modernizing the UI and "creating a flexible engine with modern web technologies" is interesting, so can you explain what you visualize?

[Metsfanmax]

BBS, how do you know that the things you labeled "not working" are really not working? Perhaps they have resulted in a slower decline than we otherwise would have had.

[isaiah40]

natty dread, formerly known as natty_dread, if you owned a site just like CC with its current problems, what do you envision? Your talk about modernizing the UI and "creating a flexible engine with modern web technologies" is interesting, so can you explain what you visualize?

Mybe he's talking about html5 and using the canvas feature??

[natty dread]

natty dread, formerly known as natty_dread, if you owned a site just like CC with its current problems, what do you envision? Your talk about modernizing the UI and "creating a flexible engine with modern web technologies" is interesting, so can you explain what you visualize?

Well BBS, I'm glad you asked. I'll have to explain in parts.

Firstly, modernizing the UI. Apart from the nostalgia value - which is pretty hard to capitalize on, since we're talking about something that is nostalgic maybe to 20k people at most - the current UI simply doesn't satisfy the needs of a modern gamer. Even if we're talking about a strategy game where flashy graphics and effects aren't as crucial as in the latest Gears of Whogivesafuck, an interface consisting of a static image background with coloured numbers overlaid on top... it just doesn't cut it anymore.

What I mean by modern UI is not so much technology - although, using modern web technologies would also be part of it. A lot can be done with CSS alone these days! But what I actually mean is creating a responsive, functional and intuitive UI, one that can be used equally well with desktop/laptop computers (mouse/touchpad input) or tablets/phablets (touch/stylus input).

Like as an example: if we're talking about a boardgame map, instead of a static background image, we should have maps that really respond to the gameplay situation. Territories that change appearance according to the gameplay. Something like what was done on MajCom where the colours of the territory indicate the owner would be a good first step. Use hover-on graphics and popups to increase the information density without cluttering the map, thus optimizing the usability of the GUI by providing both a clear overview and an easy and intuitive way to peruse the details of the game situation.

We could also have things like representative game pieces on territories, and these could respond to hover, click, drag... the UI should be so intuitive that you don't need instructions. Of course responsiveness should also be a top priority - invest in hosting with plentiful bandwidths and minimal latencies.

And responsiveness in the other, more fashionable sense of the word... all designs and UIs should be scalable. Get rid of the hacky idea of using two separate, slightly-different-sized images (seriously... what the hopping holy f*ck were they thinking with that one) and instead design the game UI so that the graphics scale smoothly to any resolution. It's not that hard: use vector graphics where possible, and when bitmaps are necessary, use smart scaling methods to interpolate smoothly between various detail levels.

Oh and when it comes to graphics... hire some proper artists and designers. The site could still have the "map foundry" or similar, but having some paid staff for artwork would do wonders to the standards - it would set the bar for design quality of user contributions, as well.


Then we get to the second part: flexible engine... what I meant by this is mainly that the game engine should support games other than risk. The rules of the game shouldn't be constrained to the risk model. There shouldn't have to necessarily be troops that attack by throwing dices... frankly, a big part of the current maps on CC pretty much already rape the risk game mechanics as much as they can, it's pointless to pretend that maps like Cricket have anything to do with risk... so why have that constraint at all?

So what I'm saying is, instead of just having the one game engine, that sets a strict framework within which all maps have to function, CC should have a game engine that supports various types of games: there could be risk-type games, there could be Axis&Allies -type of maps, there could be chess, checkers, go, scrabble, monopoly... all of course modified slightly enough to prevent the copyright sharks from harshing our buzz.

The main focus could still be on strategy games, but I'm just saying... what's the point of trying to shoehorn everything under the sun into the risk gameplay mechanics? Why have a "chinese checkers" map that plays like risk, when we could just be playing chinese checkers? (Ok, bad example, no one wants to play chinese checkers... that game sucks donkey dick. Still, you get the point).


So that's all I have to say. CC as it was is already dead, CC as it is is on life support... the only way forward is to shed away the old cruft, stop trying to resurrect the glory days and instead create something new. It would be a lot of work, would take some serious investment, and would still be risky to try... which is sadly why it probably won't happen, and the owners will probably opt for something "safer" which will keep the site alive enough that they can make some profit and then call it a day when people lose interest...

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, how do you know that the things you labeled "not working" are really not working? Perhaps they have resulted in a slower decline than we otherwise would have had.

Motherfuckin' Mets comes into the place with his empirical guns blazin'!!

The problem of the counterfactual is certainly a bitch, and it's not like I can run (or even bother to run) a fixed effects regression since there's no control and experimental groups. The data are limited and the cost of running a time-series regression is too high. To be clear, the (?) factors mean that I don't really know, so those are up for debate. Even though the non-(?) categories presumably have not contributed much, I admit that some of the them may have reduced the rate of decline; however, it is clear that no reforms have reversed the trend, which is my main concern.

If you have information which indicates that some factors have reduced the rate, then please share. If not, then it is not clear that the recent reform measures have been effective in reversing the trend. Again, we're running into the the counterfactual conundrum, but beyond these empirical concerns, we must work with what we have--and what we have is not at all promising.

[Metsfanmax]

The problem of the counterfactual is certainly a bitch, and it's not like I can run (or even bother to run) a fixed effects regression since there's no control and experimental groups. The data are limited and the cost of running a time-series regression is too high. To be clear, the (?) factors mean that I don't really know, so those are up for debate. Even though the non-(?) categories presumably have not contributed much, I admit that some of the them may have reduced the rate of decline; however, it is clear that no reforms have reversed the trend, which is my main concern.

A major problem here, though, is that we've been through three different administrations, all of which had different visions for where to take the site. It's possible that, given more time on any one of these strategies, they would have worked in reversing the decline. We just don't know which, if any, because of the counterfactual problem. However, it seems logical to suppose (in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary) that reforms that do not significantly change the website are not likely to drive long-term growth.

If you have information which indicates that some factors have reduce the rate, then please share. If not, then it is not clear that the current reform measures have been effective in reversing the trend. (Nor is it clear that the recent measures have retarded the rate of decline, but again there's the counterfactual conundrum).

For example, bigWham pointed out that after he changed the home page, signups increased dramatically -- but then the rate of retention did not change. If we had combined that with some effort to significantly improve the new user experience, perhaps that would have changed the story. The problem is that we don't know if it's enough to just make it easier for a new user to get started, or if we really need the Gears of Whatchamacallit effect to keep contemporary gamers on the site.

It would be interesting to see an analysis that looks at the rate of change of users as a function of time, and look for correlations with site changes. It might be possible to derive from the other thread in this forum. However, without a real analysis of the data, it would be pretty difficult to pick anything out because it could be conflated with other factors (seasonal and yearly trends, etc.).

[BigBallinStalin]

natty dread, formerly known as natty_dread, if you owned a site just like CC with its current problems, what do you envision? Your talk about modernizing the UI and "creating a flexible engine with modern web technologies" is interesting, so can you explain what you visualize?

Well BBS, I'm glad you asked. I'll have to explain in parts.

Firstly, modernizing the UI. Apart from the nostalgia value - which is pretty hard to capitalize on, since we're talking about something that is nostalgic maybe to 20k people at most - the current UI simply doesn't satisfy the needs of a modern gamer. Even if we're talking about a strategy game where flashy graphics and effects aren't as crucial as in the latest Gears of Whogivesafuck, an interface consisting of a static image background with coloured numbers overlaid on top... it just doesn't cut it anymore.

What I mean by modern UI is not so much technology - although, using modern web technologies would also be part of it. A lot can be done with CSS alone these days! But what I actually mean is creating a responsive, functional and intuitive UI, one that can be used equally well with desktop/laptop computers (mouse/touchpad input) or tablets/phablets (touch/stylus input).

Like as an example: if we're talking about a boardgame map, instead of a static background image, we should have maps that really respond to the gameplay situation. Territories that change appearance according to the gameplay. Something like what was done on MajCom where the colours of the territory indicate the owner would be a good first step. Use hover-on graphics and popups to increase the information density without cluttering the map, thus optimizing the usability of the GUI by providing both a clear overview and an easy and intuitive way to peruse the details of the game situation.

Baby, you can declutter my map--if you know what I mean.

We could also have things like representative game pieces on territories, and these could respond to hover, click, drag... the UI should be so intuitive that you don't need instructions. Of course responsiveness should also be a top priority - invest in hosting with plentiful bandwidths and minimal latencies.

And responsiveness in the other, more fashionable sense of the word... all designs and UIs should be scalable. Get rid of the hacky idea of using two separate, slightly-different-sized images (seriously... what the hopping holy f*ck were they thinking with that one) and instead design the game UI so that the graphics scale smoothly to any resolution. It's not that hard: use vector graphics where possible, and when bitmaps are necessary, use smart scaling methods to interpolate smoothly between various detail levels.

Ohh~ natty!, I'll certainly be intuitive to your hovering, clicking, and dragging--especially the dragging (!).

Oh and when it comes to graphics... hire some proper artists and designers. The site could still have the "map foundry" or similar, but having some paid staff for artwork would do wonders to the standards - it would set the bar for design quality of user contributions, as well.

I don't mean to divert from our sexcapade, but--as you are well aware of---the profitability of your proposal is dubious. It just adds more uncertainty to the enterprise. Of course, if we imagine a fresh new start, then the initial investment may well be worth it since its attractiveness would (for once) compete within the modern web-based games market. (just read your last paragraph, and yeah I agree)

Then we get to the second part: flexible engine... what I meant by this is mainly that the game engine should support games other than risk. The rules of the game shouldn't be constrained to the risk model. There shouldn't have to necessarily be troops that attack by throwing dices... frankly, a big part of the current maps on CC pretty much already rape the risk game mechanics as much as they can, it's pointless to pretend that maps like Cricket have anything to do with risk... so why have that constraint at all?

So what I'm saying is, instead of just having the one game engine, that sets a strict framework within which all maps have to function, CC should have a game engine that supports various types of games: there could be risk-type games, there could be Axis&Allies -type of maps, there could be chess, checkers, go, scrabble, monopoly... all of course modified slightly enough to prevent the copyright sharks from harshing our buzz.

Did I just smell a whiff of free market sentiments? Mmmmmmm.....

The main focus could still be on strategy games, but I'm just saying... what's the point of trying to shoehorn everything under the sun into the risk gameplay mechanics? Why have a "chinese checkers" map that plays like risk, when we could just be playing chinese checkers? (Ok, bad example, no one wants to play chinese checkers... that game sucks donkey dick. Still, you get the point).

This is great, and this is what should've been done. Diversification into other games through one main site/platform is the wisest strategy for surviving in the modern, dynamic marketplace. Either the owner doesn't have vision, or he's too risk-averse for such an endeavor; however, I fully agree with your implications that this is how one avoids stagnation and stays on top of the game.

So that's all I have to say. CC as it was is already dead, CC as it is is on life support... the only way forward is to shed away the old cruft, stop trying to resurrect the glory days and instead create something new. It would be a lot of work, would take some serious investment, and would still be risky to try... which is sadly why it probably won't happen, and the owners will probably opt for something "safer" which will keep the site alive enough that they can make some profit and then call it a day when people lose interest...

Regarding the underlined, that's not something to lament because f*ck CC and its higher level management. Rest assured, there are people on this site who are aware of the drama and experiences of reform, so a few of them could definitely use this knowledge to create something better and different. There is hope, and there's possibly a profitable opportunity for you here.

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed it in more ways than one!

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem of the counterfactual is certainly a bitch, and it's not like I can run (or even bother to run) a fixed effects regression since there's no control and experimental groups. The data are limited and the cost of running a time-series regression is too high. To be clear, the (?) factors mean that I don't really know, so those are up for debate. Even though the non-(?) categories presumably have not contributed much, I admit that some of the them may have reduced the rate of decline; however, it is clear that no reforms have reversed the trend, which is my main concern.

A major problem here, though, is that we've been through three different administrations, all of which had different visions for where to take the site. It's possible that, given more time on any one of these strategies, they would have worked in reversing the decline. We just don't know which, if any, because of the counterfactual problem. However, it seems logical to suppose (in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary) that reforms that do not significantly change the website are not likely to drive long-term growth.

If you have information which indicates that some factors have reduce the rate, then please share. If not, then it is not clear that the current reform measures have been effective in reversing the trend. (Nor is it clear that the recent measures have retarded the rate of decline, but again there's the counterfactual conundrum).

For example, bigWham pointed out that after he changed the home page, signups increased dramatically -- but then the rate of retention did not change. If we had combined that with some effort to significantly improve the new user experience, perhaps that would have changed the story. The problem is that we don't know if it's enough to just make it easier for a new user to get started, or if we really need the Gears of Whatchamacallit effect to keep contemporary gamers on the site.

It would be interesting to see an analysis that looks at the rate of change of users as a function of time, and look for correlations with site changes. It might be possible to derive from the other thread in this forum. However, without a real analysis of the data, it would be pretty difficult to pick anything out because it could be conflated with other factors (seasonal and yearly trends, etc.).

The steady rate of retention is a systemic issue, so it needs to be treated in a fundamental way. The problem has not been sufficiently engaged. Research and risk are required for this kind of endeavor. If bigWham wants to steadily increase newcomer rates which surpass retention rates, then he likely needs to implement something as risky as what natty is suggesting. (Honestly, paying natty to use his brain might prove a good idea).

RE: 2nd paragraph, Dude, yeah, research is necessary for preventing owners from shooting in the dark. Nearly all successful firms rely on good 'ol statistics to clear up the clutter in order to maximize the effectiveness of reform. Unfortunately, from my POV the current owner will very likely continue to shoot from the hip. He needs to sit down, pay/do the empirical research, and plan accordingly. (Seriously, if he doesn't know how effective what kind of reform is, then he'll lack the knowledge for reaping greater profits).

[Dukasaur]

RE: 2nd paragraph, Dude, yeah, research is necessary for preventing owners from shooting in the dark. Nearly all successful firms rely on good 'ol statistics to clear up the clutter in order to maximize the effectiveness of reform. Unfortunately, from my POV the current owner will very likely continue to shoot from the hip. He needs to sit down, pay/do the empirical research, and plan accordingly. (Seriously, if he doesn't know how effective what kind of reform is, then he'll lack the knowledge for reaping greater profits).

On this point you can be satisfied. BW is pretty thorough about collecting statistics and weighing the value of things.

The problem is that we can't do traditional market research, where you send focus groups into different rooms to try different versions of a product. The site can only afford one server, one full-time programmer, and a small group of part-time programmers, so at any given moment there's only one version of the site. When something is changed, we can compare the numbers before and after, but even with the best effort we can't be sure if the changed numbers reflect the independent variable or other factors that changed during the same interval.

Another, far greater cost, is that each attempt at change pisses off some of the existing customer base that is fairly change-resistant, so that every attempt, successful or not, to improve the new member retention rate, carries a heavy cost in terms of existing members lost. This further limits the number of new things that can be tried, and puts additional stress on an already stressed system.

[natty dread]

Baby, you can declutter my map--if you know what I mean.

Ohh~ natty!, I'll certainly be intuitive to your hovering, clicking, and dragging--especially the dragging (!).

Oh BBS, you really know how to click my buttons... when did you become such a smooth operator?

I don't mean to divert from our sexcapade, but--as you are well aware of---the profitability of your proposal is dubious. It just adds more uncertainty to the enterprise. Of course, if we imagine a fresh new start, then the initial investment may well be worth it since its attractiveness would (for once) compete within the modern web-based games market. (just read your last paragraph, and yeah I agree)

Yes, but the profitability of the site as it is now is even more dubious. There's no risk-free solution to running a site like CC...

Did I just smell a whiff of free market sentiments? Mmmmmmm.....

Oh, you know I'm totally on board with free markets. We don't maybe always agree on how to best achieve market freedom, but I don't think there's ever been any question of its necessity...

Regarding the underlined, that's not something to lament because f*ck CC and its higher level management. Rest assured, there are people on this site who are aware of the drama and experiences of reform, so a few of them could definitely use this knowledge to create something better and different. There is hope, and there's possibly a profitable opportunity for you here.

Maybe. On the other hand, CC already has resources, some brand recognition and a customer base (albeit a shrinking one). Doing another spinoff of CC runs the risk of just ending up as another MajCom... CC's biggest asset right now is the people. Also CC has capital and infrastructure, which could be reutilized for the new endeavour.

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed it in more ways than one!

It was good for me too, baby.

[Lord Arioch]

So ive been here for a year...
What strikes me is the MASSIVE critizism of the site, the owner and the mods... hell i dont know maybee they all deserve it.
Buuuut wouldnt it be better if we all tries to come up with some constructive thinking and suggestions on how to help em out instead of busting there balls all the time...? I dont know shit about programming so i cant really be of help here ... But i think its time to start some positive thinking here ... u know the bridge will be there if u are positive:) ...Kellys heroes freely quoted

[bigg chief]

CC is dying a slow death,believe it ,all the points made in this thread are valid,shit just happens that way,C.R.E.A.M

[Tenebrus]

I still think that the problem with CC is clans. The real problem is not so much with people leaving I think but that fresh blood isn't replacing it. The reason for that is that CC doesn't offer something compelling to people looking to get started. And by that I mean speed games. That's what got me hooked. You just aren't going to get a lot of new people playing unless you can get them in with the crack cocaine of speed games. 24hr games are bit like playing correspondence chess - they're great if you have the time and the patience for them or you're already hooked on the game. They just aren't immediately compelling enough to get people *started* - if I was looking for a new timesink, there's no way I'd get into CC that way. Remember to log on every 24 hours and take turns, and the game will take a few weeks to play? No thanks. That might have worked when the internet offered less in the way of quick fix entertainment, but it's definitely not possible now. People need an early sugar rush, or they will buy their candy elsewhere.

All the fun in CC is now mostly directed to clans (where most of the good, sensible people congregate) and farming - setting up your quads team full of 3000+ pointers and waiting, or open games on difficult maps (which, from the point of view of a new player is farming).

Clans are just too involved though to attract newbies. They're something you graduate to, over time. Unfortunately though - as with any site that depends on player vs player interaction, its the quality/fun of the established players that make it fun enough to attract the newbies. On CC these days, everyone is clan-wanking. The problem with that though is that masturbation is something you end up doing with yourself.

Something needs to be done to encourage/force good players to play properly open games. I doubt that will happen though as the powerbase of CC is mostly involved and having fun in clans.

You just need to look at the evolution of speed games to see how things are going. The diversity of players/games up there has declined along with the number of players. You can count the number of high ranked, quality people who play decent open games on the fingers of one hand. (Special props to Kaskavel on that front).

[Lord Arioch]

Can time be a chosable option when u start games ... like 1 hour, 3 hour and so on like all the others then u can have some semi speed also:) i love speed but my connection at home cant seem to handle it and plauying it at work.. and in comes the bozz:)

Again i think contibute with ideas to the CC admin instead of busting their balls... well we need to do that also after all we are customers...

[demonfork]

8. Major changes to the Freestyle format. FS format was essentially gutted and made to resemble Sequential.

Back in the day, on any given night there were several multi-player FS games going on with a huge FS population to support it.

The day that Dinkus destroyed the FS format that all went away.


P.S. The last time an 8 player FS speed game was played was on 5/29/14.


P.S.S. In 2011 there were 16,000 (8) player Freestyle speed games played. So far this year there have only been 89 played.

[BigBallinStalin]

Another plausible reason why CC can't prevent the Great Decline:

People hate dice because the dice are a clearly visible cause to be blamed. Although many popular games of today also seem to have some random or 'random' algorithm for determining battle outcomes, their 'dice' aren't visible, so their users lack that incentive to lash out against the game.

If this factor explains the increasing demand for fancy internet games, then CC has no chance to survive. Please make your time.

[Robinette]

this thread is great stuff...

[asellas1025]

I also believe the dice rolls and the clans are part of the problem myself. I am an ok player I guess, but I only play for fun. I careless about my rank anymore, nor do I actually care about winning or losing. To be honest some of the player base is also to blame as well. New players come on and get into a game, and then get rated and blasted because they're new and haven't gotten the hang of things yet. People rage and block, and then that also limits the games you can play. One wrong move and then boom, that rating system says you suck essentially which is a warning system to others potentially. The player base just seems to not wanna squeeze in others for open games. It's all clanned, perhaps open it up a bit? Something to push everyone out more.

[owenshooter]

Can time be a chosable option when u start games ... like 1 hour, 3 hour and so on like all the others then u can have some semi speed also:) i love speed but my connection at home cant seem to handle it and plauying it at work.. and in comes the bozz:)

Again i think contibute with ideas to the CC admin instead of busting their balls... well we need to do that also after all we are customers...

i think you should go submit this in the Suggestions forum... what a great idea...-el Jesus negro

[isaiah40]

And the great decline continues as I have now left the building!