Unlock Settings with Games Played

[iAmCaffeine]

This has been suggested before:
viewtopic.php?t=102006

I was 100% opposed to it then, and I remain so now. Here's the basic reason: A significant portion of new players coming to the site have extensive board game experience and are ready for the complicated settings from day 1. They may not excel on them, but they see the most complicated settings as a challenge. They start playing games (as freemium players) and realize that unless they stick to 2-4 player games, it's taking 5-7 days to complete a game. They're looking at 3-6 months to unlock some of the features of this site that are most interesting. So, given the choice between playing settings they don't care about for a few months to unlock the games they really want to play or to go find another online gaming site that allows them to immediately jump into interesting and challenging gameplay, where do you think they end up?

If the choice is between scaring away newbies with an abundance of options or boring new advanced players with limited functionality, then it becomes a question of which type of player the site would prefer to keep around.

Yeah, pretty much.

I'd opt for more advanced players since the market for newbies is being engulfed by flash player games. CC is in an aging market. Limiting people's opportunities won't encourage them to wait 3-6 months.

What if settinga were unlocked for beating unique opponents rather than games played?

[agentcom]

To me, this looks like just another version of this: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=102006&p=2283192

[iAmCaffeine]

To me, this looks like just another version of this: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=102006&p=2283192

I had a quick skim and that suggestion went too far. I am not restricting maps any more than they currently are.

What are people's thoughts about using unique wins over games played?

[Metsfanmax]

Unique wins would almost certainly make it slower, because you're not likely to win most of your first few games.

[BigBallinStalin]

This has been suggested before:
viewtopic.php?t=102006

I was 100% opposed to it then, and I remain so now. Here's the basic reason: A significant portion of new players coming to the site have extensive board game experience and are ready for the complicated settings from day 1. They may not excel on them, but they see the most complicated settings as a challenge. They start playing games (as freemium players) and realize that unless they stick to 2-4 player games, it's taking 5-7 days to complete a game. They're looking at 3-6 months to unlock some of the features of this site that are most interesting. So, given the choice between playing settings they don't care about for a few months to unlock the games they really want to play or to go find another online gaming site that allows them to immediately jump into interesting and challenging gameplay, where do you think they end up?

If the choice is between scaring away newbies with an abundance of options or boring new advanced players with limited functionality, then it becomes a question of which type of player the site would prefer to keep around.

Yeah, pretty much.

I'd opt for more advanced players since the market for newbies is being engulfed by flash player games. CC is in an aging market. Limiting people's opportunities won't encourage them to wait 3-6 months.

What if settinga were unlocked for beating unique opponents rather than games played?

[repeat argument].

Why lock the settings in the first place? To encourage more people to keep trying? How do you know that would come about?

I could easily see people getting frustrated at the limited settings, getting quickly bored at the high unlock requirements, and then leaving.

[iAmCaffeine]

This has been suggested before:
viewtopic.php?t=102006

I was 100% opposed to it then, and I remain so now. Here's the basic reason: A significant portion of new players coming to the site have extensive board game experience and are ready for the complicated settings from day 1. They may not excel on them, but they see the most complicated settings as a challenge. They start playing games (as freemium players) and realize that unless they stick to 2-4 player games, it's taking 5-7 days to complete a game. They're looking at 3-6 months to unlock some of the features of this site that are most interesting. So, given the choice between playing settings they don't care about for a few months to unlock the games they really want to play or to go find another online gaming site that allows them to immediately jump into interesting and challenging gameplay, where do you think they end up?

If the choice is between scaring away newbies with an abundance of options or boring new advanced players with limited functionality, then it becomes a question of which type of player the site would prefer to keep around.

Yeah, pretty much.

I'd opt for more advanced players since the market for newbies is being engulfed by flash player games. CC is in an aging market. Limiting people's opportunities won't encourage them to wait 3-6 months.

What if settinga were unlocked for beating unique opponents rather than games played?

[repeat argument].

Why lock the settings in the first place? To encourage more people to keep trying? How do you know that would come about?

I could easily see people getting frustrated at the limited settings, getting quickly bored at the high unlock requirements, and then leaving.

[repeat argument]

Why would new players even care about the vast variety of settings that can't use until they're unlocked? The high majority of people joining are looking a convenient way to play risk and that's exactly what they get.

I also disagree that experienced risk players new to CC are looking for new settings. It's the younger MMO generation that would be more interested in that.

Also, don't forget new players still get three fort types, three spoils types, up to 12 player games and doubles, triples and quads. That is quite a big variety for anyone just starting.

[BigBallinStalin]

"The high majority of people joining are looking a convenient way to play risk and that's exactly what they get."
"I also disagree that experienced risk players new to CC are looking for new settings. It's the younger MMO generation that would be more interested in that."

So, here's one problem. No one really knows the answer to this because no one bothers conducting surveys on newcomers.

That is, no one really knows (1) what CC's target market actually is, and (2) what that target market actually wants.



"That is quite a big variety for anyone just starting."
Sure--in your opinion, but what of the opinions of the newcomers? We both really don't know.


This thread is a great example of 'shooting in the dark'. It's how nearly all of CC policies have been implemented, and it's been consistently led by a minority within the forum. Over the years, we've seen membership dwindle significantly. Some say, "it's a changing market out there," and others say, "we just need the right kind of changes." But that kind of thinking itself has led to our dwindling membership because we don't bother asking what newcomers actually want. We'd rather throw something on the wall and see if it sticks. Does it stick because the wall is sticky or the suggestion is sticky? Don't know, don't care. Insert one's post-hoc ergo propter sum reasoning.

[iAmCaffeine]

Fair argument. When I get a chance I will look at games that new players are playing and we can go from there.

[OliverFA]

Why you need to play 65 games before being bake to play trench? I think it's something that should be available from day 1

[iAmCaffeine]

Why you need to play 65 games before being bake to play trench? I think it's something that should be available from day 1

Care to explain why?

[Gweeedo]

I think this is a good idea. I would suggest locking a couple of the game boards along with the options.
Some of the more complicated boards.

I turned three of my friend onto this site.
They started off with WWII Poland...bad choice! Long story short, they will not play CC ever again.

As a newcomer enters CC for the first time they will want to gain the full experience. They want it all and will try it all, right off the bat.
Not knowing what they are doing...learning from trial and error.
Not knowing about Medals, rank, Score, game options, etc.
Their rank takes a big hit, their score takes a hit, rating, etc.
CC takes a hit. Few month time a freemium opts out and becomes a multi, wiping the slate clean.
Or they simply give up and leave.

Risk players enter to play Risk...give them risk. Curiosity will get the best of them and they will wish to experience all that CC has to offer. Giving them something to work towered. Oppose to taking some heavy blows right out the gate.

If this does get implemented I think Cooks should be unfoeable for one month or until they clear a number of games played.
Opening up games to join.

[Lord_Bremen]

This is a cool idea.

But I would keep out freestyle, it's not really an "advanced" setting and a lot of new people enjoy it a lot more (e.g. less waiting, especially for freebies). We don't want those people to not stick around because they get bored of waiting in sequential games.

Also I think Polymorphic is a lot more advanced than trench, I'd switch them.

[Kaskavel]

I have not read all the topic, but some of my ideas (I am strongly in favour of the suggestion, I had a similar one in mind)
Advantages
1.New recruits enjoy better the game and do not get confused
2. Psycological. New players feel that they need to play in order to unlock new possibilities
3. Unlikely to get frustrated by settings they do not understand
4. A side-effect is that it will prevent farming
5. Another side-effect is that it will prevent multis
6. New players understand new settings one by one, meaning that they understand them better, they play better and they are less likely to get bored soon
I had the intention of making a similar suggestion with some extra features
1. A kind of tutorial, explaining the settings one by one
2. Advertising the next "level" to the player to keep him hot
3. Also restrict the maps. Seperate them in 3-4 groups and give access to them through progress of the player
4. Perhaps create specific game settings missions like "In order to unlock polymorphic, finish 10 team games"
I am sorry if I repeated things already told, which I definately have, stay focus on those that are new

[iAmCaffeine]

This is a cool idea.

But I would keep out freestyle, it's not really an "advanced" setting and a lot of new people enjoy it a lot more (e.g. less waiting, especially for freebies). We don't want those people to not stick around because they get bored of waiting in sequential games.

Also I think Polymorphic is a lot more advanced than trench, I'd switch them.

Some new players play freestyle but most play sequential. Since a good portion of these players have found the site because they like the board game, freestyle will be a totally new concept to them.

I disagree with polymorphic and trench too. Nearly every single game of Risk I've played has been2v2, as some variants like LotR are designed to be played in that way. There are no alternatives that incorporate trench.

I have not read all the topic, but some of my ideas (I am strongly in favour of the suggestion, I had a similar one in mind)
Advantages
1.New recruits enjoy better the game and do not get confused
2. Psycological. New players feel that they need to play in order to unlock new possibilities
3. Unlikely to get frustrated by settings they do not understand
4. A side-effect is that it will prevent farming
5. Another side-effect is that it will prevent multis
6. New players understand new settings one by one, meaning that they understand them better, they play better and they are less likely to get bored soon
I had the intention of making a similar suggestion with some extra features
1. A kind of tutorial, explaining the settings one by one
2. Advertising the next "level" to the player to keep him hot
3. Also restrict the maps. Seperate them in 3-4 groups and give access to them through progress of the player
4. Perhaps create specific game settings missions like "In order to unlock polymorphic, finish 10 team games"
I am sorry if I repeated things already told, which I definately have, stay focus on those that are new

I agree with everything you said and repeating anything is not a problem as it just reinforces those points.

I had assumed this was dead, but perhaps not.

[IcePack]

As long as all restrictions are lifted upon purchase of premium, I'd be fine with it. Another reason to purchase premium early on, and doesn't discourage new players from exploring settings early.
That was another reason I bought early, wanting to try out all the settings.

[Kaskavel]

This is a cool idea.

But I would keep out freestyle, it's not really an "advanced" setting and a lot of new people enjoy it a lot more (e.g. less waiting, especially for freebies). We don't want those people to not stick around because they get bored of waiting in sequential games.

Also I think Polymorphic is a lot more advanced than trench, I'd switch them.

Some new players play freestyle but most play sequential. Since a good portion of these players have found the site because they like the board game, freestyle will be a totally new concept to them.

I disagree with polymorphic and trench too. Nearly every single game of Risk I've played has been2v2, as some variants like LotR are designed to be played in that way. There are no alternatives that incorporate trench.

I have not read all the topic, but some of my ideas (I am strongly in favour of the suggestion, I had a similar one in mind)
Advantages
1.New recruits enjoy better the game and do not get confused
2. Psycological. New players feel that they need to play in order to unlock new possibilities
3. Unlikely to get frustrated by settings they do not understand
4. A side-effect is that it will prevent farming
5. Another side-effect is that it will prevent multis
6. New players understand new settings one by one, meaning that they understand them better, they play better and they are less likely to get bored soon
I had the intention of making a similar suggestion with some extra features
1. A kind of tutorial, explaining the settings one by one
2. Advertising the next "level" to the player to keep him hot
3. Also restrict the maps. Seperate them in 3-4 groups and give access to them through progress of the player
4. Perhaps create specific game settings missions like "In order to unlock polymorphic, finish 10 team games"
I am sorry if I repeated things already told, which I definately have, stay focus on those that are new

I agree with everything you said and repeating anything is not a problem as it just reinforces those points.

I had assumed this was dead, but perhaps not.

Dead? Not at all. Your suggestion is going to increase the financial profits from CC. New recruits will be more fascinated with the game, more succesful, less victims to farming, more anxious to unlock new stuff, quicker to learn, with constant interest about new things to explore and more interested to keep playing as a result of them learning faster, having better results and not getting farmed. The company should seriously consider this idea.

[iAmCaffeine]

As long as all restrictions are lifted upon purchase of premium, I'd be fine with it. Another reason to purchase premium early on, and doesn't discourage new players from exploring settings early.
That was another reason I bought early, wanting to try out all the settings.

Isn't polymorphic the only setting unlocked by premium?

Kaskavel speaks a lot of sense.

[IcePack]

As long as all restrictions are lifted upon purchase of premium, I'd be fine with it. Another reason to purchase premium early on, and doesn't discourage new players from exploring settings early.
That was another reason I bought early, wanting to try out all the settings.

Isn't polymorphic the only setting unlocked by premium?

Kaskavel speaks a lot of sense.

I'm saying if your going to restrict all these settings as you proposed, they better unlock 100% when someone's paid regardless of game count

[iAmCaffeine]

As long as all restrictions are lifted upon purchase of premium, I'd be fine with it. Another reason to purchase premium early on, and doesn't discourage new players from exploring settings early.
That was another reason I bought early, wanting to try out all the settings.

Isn't polymorphic the only setting unlocked by premium?

Kaskavel speaks a lot of sense.

I'm saying if your going to restrict all these settings as you proposed, they better unlock 100% when someone's paid regardless of game count

I see no reason why they should. There are enough benefits from purchasing premium anyway, and this suggestion optimises the game experience for new players. I would rather they upgraded and continue to enjoy the proposed system, rather than upgraded and then got bombarded by loads of confusing things and quit.

[IcePack]

One of the things that drew me (and several others I know) is all the options and maps.
If all my games were restricted upon sign up, I'd be less inclined to stay. If I'm willing to pay to be a member, I'd like to enjoy all aspects. Half the fun of going premium and playing here in the beginning was learning all those settings.

If the proposed system didn't include that premium unlock caveat, it'd lose my support at all. Which is a shame cuz I think it could be a good suggestion.

[Doc_Brown]

This is rehashing all the arguments I went through with Queen Herpes in her thread (which had a virtually identical proposal). The burden is on you to demonstrate that restricting options and settings on this site will make people more interested in sticking around. At the time QH started her suggestion, I had only been here a few months. I didn't want to play 1v1 games, and I didn't buy premium. As a result, I averaged about 1 games completed per week despite maintaining 4 active games at all times. If someone told me he knew much better than I what games would be best for me to play and that I'd have to play for a good 4-6 months before I got to play the maps/settings I was most interested in, I'd have never stuck around.

Maybe too many settings scare people off. Fine. Wall off some of them as advanced settings and make newer players click through some instructions/pointers/recommendations to join SoC/etc... before they join their first advanced games (they can't until after completing 5 games anyway). Just let people play what they want to play. My contention is that the people most likely to leave because they get overwhelmed with too many settings are people who will get bored with any site of this nature in fairly short order. The people that would most likely be chased away by your proposal are the more strategically-minded people that are looking for new challenges. If you let them do what they want, they're the ones that will stick around and actually benefit the site.

[Lord_Bremen]

When I first started online Risk, I only played Freestyle. I didn't want to wait more than 24 hours to take a turn. Given that freebies only get 4 games, I imagine I'm probably not alone in finding sequential games much too slow. I doubt I would have stuck around if I had only been given a turn every few days.

[Dukasaur]

This is rehashing all the arguments I went through with Queen Herpes in her thread (which had a virtually identical proposal). The burden is on you to demonstrate that restricting options and settings on this site will make people more interested in sticking around. At the time QH started her suggestion, I had only been here a few months. I didn't want to play 1v1 games, and I didn't buy premium. As a result, I averaged about 1 games completed per week despite maintaining 4 active games at all times. If someone told me he knew much better than I what games would be best for me to play and that I'd have to play for a good 4-6 months before I got to play the maps/settings I was most interested in, I'd have never stuck around.

Maybe too many settings scare people off. Fine. Wall off some of them as advanced settings and make newer players click through some instructions/pointers/recommendations to join SoC/etc... before they join their first advanced games (they can't until after completing 5 games anyway). Just let people play what they want to play. My contention is that the people most likely to leave because they get overwhelmed with too many settings are people who will get bored with any site of this nature in fairly short order. The people that would most likely be chased away by your proposal are the more strategically-minded people that are looking for new challenges. If you let them do what they want, they're the ones that will stick around and actually benefit the site.

+2 (+1 for each paragraph.)

I do think there should be an "Advanced Settings" button that protects people from accidentally wandering into games without understanding that they're getting themselves into something difficult. But I would always let people intentionally choose any setting whatsoever.

What you or I hate, someone else may love. I hate Freestyle, some people love it. I now love Escalating, but back when I first joined, coming from a lifetime of playing standard flat rate Risk, I thought Flat Rate was the only way to play and Escalating was a bizarre abomination. I now enjoy 1v1, but back when I first started here, I hated it. I hate Unlimited on big maps, although I can handle it on the smaller maps. Some people think it's the only way to play.

No matter what setting you name, there will be people who love it and people who hate it. Let them make their own choices!

[iAmCaffeine]

I gave up on this a while ago anyway.

[Foxglove]

I think I'm going to merge this with the Queen Herpes thread, last call for objections.