*Community Discussion #1*- "Basic" Game Settings

[JamesKer1]

This is the first of hopefully many to come Community Discussions.

As we consolidate more Game Settings, many have felt that there are simply "too many options" and that many new players are overwhelmed. There is even a possibility of discussion of something along the lines of this behind closed doors. But first, we want to hear from you. What maps should/shouldn't be included in "Basic" Game Settings? Gameplay Settings? How long should this be set as a standard in a player's career? How will we incorporate it into the website without messing up the current screen? How will we market advanced settings to newcomers as a reward to stick around for?

show: Some Reference Topics for Sparks

show: Official Suggestion

show: Re- Debatable Items

Discuss!

*As a note- there is a nice little thread set up of merged "suggestions" that are in actuality complaints about the system. Please do not contribute any "doomsaying" or anything that distracts or detracts from the conversation or I will happily redirect your post there. This is a suggestions area to create a new system, not an extra area to complain. We are trying to fix things and negativity doesn't help too much Also note that just because we come up with an idea as a community doesn't mean it will be implemented into the site or that this idea will necessarily take off into Submitted even. However, with all of the interest lately, I figured this may be nice.

[BigBallinStalin]

Overall constraints
The general problem with the "limited game settings/maps upon arrival" is that no one's really sure which limitations are optimal (i.e. would satisfy the greatest amount of newcomers). It's an unresolvable issue without sufficient marketing data (and no one really cares to conduct it, since it's too costly--or the CC heads aren't willing to share their alleged marketing datat). And the overall impact on newcomer rates of the 'limited settings' model is unknown since no one's really sure why there's a decline.

Also, there's the high chance of one's proposal being ignored by CC admin/relevant mods because the greater the change, the greater they'll resist the change.

inb4 "YOU'RE BEING NEGATIVE!!!" No, I'm being realistic, and I'm patiently explaining to some people why their suggestions really don't matter and/or are essentially shots in the dark which can be counter-productive, wasteful, or perhaps beneficial. People should know the path which has been frequently traveled before.


The Increasing Costs and the Rules of Decision-Making
Another problem is that even if you get a majority on which settings to close to newcomers (e.g. zombie spoils), then how much will that really limit? E.g. to free-up the clutter, you'd have to knock 50%-80% of the game settings in the Join/Start a New Game menu (unless you implement the [Advanced View] mode, this problem remains). Can we really get people to agree on eliminating 80% of the settings? How about 50% to 80% of the maps?

And what's the majority rule for closing each setting and map? Before people should have any hope of changing something, why not frame their expectations according to a sensible rule--e.g. 75% in favor for each closing setting determines what gets closed. Then, have fun voting out each option; it should take several months (recall the map categorization issue). You could do it by CC Fiat, but [insert argument about shooting in the dark--which has failed for years in reversing the Great Decline and which has allegedly slowed it], and if it's by CC fiat, then why bother participating?



tl;dr

My altruistic post should convince you that your time and resources are better spent elsewhere. You're welcome.

[JamesKer1]

It's an unresolvable issue without sufficient marketing data (and no one really cares to conduct it, since it's too costly--or the CC heads aren't willing to share their alleged marketing datat).

Here's some insight from mod forums.

Hello all,

Per recent discussion my #1 priority right now is new recruits.

I am opening this topic for everyone's thoughts.

I have lots of thoughts and am simultaneously working on a bunch of things, however I thought it might be an idea to just ask for people's independent ideas.

to give people some broader context of the problem, and for some data food for thought, here is a loose conversion pipeline for new users:

100% Come to Website > 13% Signup > 8.5% Start A Game > 1.9% finish a game > 0.6% become an active member > 0.15% become a premium member

...

• The conversion from Signup > Start A Game was improved significantly by Bots and then again by an autojoin link. However it not necessarily increase the % of people finishing games.
  
• The panel interface was actually just as much intended for new users as experienced users, at least from my pov. However it did not improve conversion from Start Game to Finish Game (did not change it).

And the overall impact on newcomer rates of the 'limited settings' model is unknown since no one's really sure why there's a decline.

See above... We are working on that

Also, there's the high chance of one's proposal being ignored by CC admin/relevant mods because the greater the change, the greater they'll resist the change.

That's what the mods think about the community. Maybe some communication can clear that up. From the sounds of it, BW is willing to do just about anything to solve this problem.

inb4 "YOU'RE BEING NEGATIVE!!!" No, I'm being realistic, and I'm patiently explaining to some people why their suggestions really don't matter and/or are essentially shots in the dark which can be counter-productive, wasteful, or perhaps beneficial. People should know the path which has been frequently traveled before.

I try to be realistic as well. This is productive and some ideas/points we can work with. I see no issue with any of your comment.

Another problem is that even if you get a majority on which settings to close to newcomers (e.g. zombie spoils), then how much will that really limit? E.g. to free-up the clutter, you'd have to knock 50%-80% of the game settings in the Join/Start a New Game menu (unless you implement the [Advanced View] mode, this problem remains). Can we really get people to agree on eliminating 80% of the settings? How about 50% to 80% of the maps?

I doubt we can get anyone to agree to eliminate settings or maps. I don't support it for except maybe zombie. Even though it went through suggestions and submitted, that is the one thing I wish wasn't implemented. I will discuss with Suggestions Mods about removing some ideas from Submitted to prevent this from happening again.

Back on track, the bot page would be a good start, and we can add/subtract settings and maps from there. We will probably need a basic and advanced page.

And what's the majority rule for closing each setting and map? Before people should have any hope of changing something, why not frame their expectations according to a sensible rule--e.g. 75% in favor for each closing setting determines what gets closed. Then, have fun voting out each option; it should take several months (recall the map categorization issue). You could do it by CC Fiat, but [insert argument about shooting in the dark--which has failed for years in reversing the Great Decline and which has allegedly slowed it], and if it's by CC fiat, then why bother participating?

I think we should see considerable support for hiding settings from basic, 75% (or on a case-by-case basis) sounds fine with me.

tl;dr

My altruistic post should convince you that your time and resources are better spent elsewhere. You're welcome.

Serving the community is where my time should and shall be spent. If there is a better topic, feel free to mention it as a side note in a later post.

[Donelladan]

Nice topic.

1) What maps should/shouldn't be included in "Basic" Game Settings?

This seems very simple to me. Exclude any map with special rules. No killer neutral, no one way attack, no conditional border, no auto-deploy, no bombardement, no objective conditions, no losing conditions. Once you exclude all of this special rulse most of people coming to the site already played risk before and will be able to play the map. The only question is shall we keep extra big map like Hive and USA 2.1. Can be discussed, I think it will not matter much.

2) Gameplay Settings?

Game type : Standard
Initial troops : automatic, manual
play order : sequential
Spoils : escalating, flat rate, not spoils
Reinforcement : Chained, adjacent, unlimited
Special game play : fog
Round limt : keep all
Round length : keep all

I think for the basic game we should keep all the options that are available on the real board game and only these ones. I only added fog because I think most of people play fog on the site.


3)How long should this be set as a standard in a player's career?

Not even a day ! Since your first day you should have the possibility to play everything. Simlpy give the option to activate desactive advanced game setting.

4) How will we incorporate it into the website without messing up the current screen?

Right now the start a game page has a small option "Switch to bot game" which open a different start a game menu. We could simply add one with "switch to advanced settings".


5)How will we market advanced settings to newcomers as a reward to stick around for?

See my answer to 3. We shall not. We should allow them to play directly the advanced settings, but we should have two different game menu.


One of the important thing is, the basic game setting is not interesting only for new players. It is also interesting for old players that want to play the normal game without having all the new options.
I would like to be able to switch between a start a game menu with a tons of options, and one with a bit less.

Also, I think it is more the huge variety of complex maps that is a problem for new users, rather than the different settings.
A categorization of the maps should also be a top priority, for new player as well as for old player again.

[dakky21]

I say there should be a flash/youtube tutorial on how to play the game. The "click here, click there" video or animation.

[clangfield]

Slight disagreement: I think one should have to complete a basic game before moving on to advanced settings. That would help experienced users avoid deadbeat newbies (and thereby encourage retention).
I would also have Fog as an advanced setting: newcomers should be encouraged to see what others do before moving on. Anyone who can walk straight in and win a fog game is probably a multi

[JamesKer1]

Nice topic.

1) What maps should/shouldn't be included in "Basic" Game Settings?

This seems very simple to me. Exclude any map with special rules. No killer neutral, no one way attack, no conditional border, no auto-deploy, no bombardement, no objective conditions, no losing conditions. Once you exclude all of this special rulse most of people coming to the site already played risk before and will be able to play the map. The only question is shall we keep extra big map like Hive and USA 2.1. Can be discussed, I think it will not matter much.

Very nice. I'll run up a list of those maps later tonight. Keep in mind USA 2.1 has some special gameplay, either killer or decay, near Alaska. (Couldn't quickly remember it, but for all intents and purposes both are probably destructive to include.)

2) Gameplay Settings?

Game type : Standard
Initial troops : automatic, manual
play order : sequential
Spoils : escalating, flat rate, not spoils
Reinforcement : Chained, adjacent, unlimited
Special game play : fog
Round limt : keep all
Round length : keep all

I think for the basic game we should keep all the options that are available on the real board game and only these ones. I only added fog because I think most of people play fog on the site.

See clangfield's comment below on fog. That is debatable, but I agree with the other settings personally, as he appears to as well.

3)How long should this be set as a standard in a player's career?

Not even a day ! Since your first day you should have the possibility to play everything. Simlpy give the option to activate desactive advanced game setting.

Interesting Let me think over this one.

4) How will we incorporate it into the website without messing up the current screen?

Right now the start a game page has a small option "Switch to bot game" which open a different start a game menu. We could simply add one with "switch to advanced settings".

I like this. The only other option that has been suggested before and that I can think of is to have "Create an Advanced Game" on the left navigation panel. Either would work I believe, just throwing that possibility out there. I would rather have the switch between tabs though personally.

5)How will we market advanced settings to newcomers as a reward to stick around for?

See my answer to 3. We shall not. We should allow them to play directly the advanced settings, but we should have two different game menu.

Simple enough- sounds good!

One of the important thing is, the basic game setting is not interesting only for new players. It is also interesting for old players that want to play the normal game without having all the new options.
I would like to be able to switch between a start a game menu with a tons of options, and one with a bit less.

+5000 to this. Convinces me further that we need the tabs option.

Also, I think it is more the huge variety of complex maps that is a problem for new users, rather than the different settings.
A categorization of the maps should also be a top priority, for new player as well as for old player again.

Agreed, again

I say there should be a flash/youtube tutorial on how to play the game. The "click here, click there" video or animation.

See here. I agree, but administration has stated it would be hard to maintain and produce, as not only the video effects and graphics but the content would become outdated quickly.

Slight disagreement: I think one should have to complete a basic game before moving on to advanced settings. That would help experienced users avoid deadbeat newbies (and thereby encourage retention).
I would also have Fog as an advanced setting: newcomers should be encouraged to see what others do before moving on. Anyone who can walk straight in and win a fog game is probably a multi

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I also agree with Donell (see comments above). Maybe there is some median out there. Let me think about this.

[Endgame422]

I agree with donedellan description of the basic maps and settings, however I think New recruits need to be stuck playing a bot game immediately after joining. Most people cruising the web to play some risk online are not thinking about playing a turn tomorrow or in a few days when the game they create fills. They want to try it now and play right away. I would estimate that the retention rates.of people who play a few bot games while they wait for real people could only increase.
Also, I think New recruits should be allowed a few free speed games to attempt to whet their appetite. I'm thinking when they sign up they get x amount of regular slots(limited to joining and creating "basic" games) a speed slot with some kind of limit(3-5) and an automatic 4 player bot game(classic,flat rate,sunny). The key is to keep the average internet browsers attention for long enough to care about all of the other much more complex things about this site that keeps people coming back(tournaments,clans,advanced maps/settings).
This site comes with lots of promises when your brand new about options but you start with no games and no clue. These are the two problems that need to be addressed through speed and bot game availability for new recruits. The fact that this is coming to the community with even limited official backing is exceptional and most certainly a step in the right direction.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree with donedellan description of the basic maps and settings, however I think New recruits need to be stuck playing a bot game immediately after joining. Most people cruising the web to play some risk online are not thinking about playing a turn tomorrow or in a few days when the game they create fills. They want to try it now and play right away. I would estimate that the retention rates.of people who play a few bot games while they wait for real people could only increase.

Leaving the bot option open is sufficient. Customers typically don't like it when they're forced to do something, so it doesn't make sense to force them to play a bot game. They'll sign up for speeders and for standard whatev's.

Also, I think New recruits should be allowed a few free speed games to attempt to whet their appetite. I'm thinking when they sign up they get x amount of regular slots(limited to joining and creating "basic" games) a speed slot with some kind of limit(3-5) and an automatic 4 player bot game(classic,flat rate,sunny). The key is to keep the average internet browsers attention for long enough to care about all of the other much more complex things about this site that keeps people coming back(tournaments,clans,advanced maps/settings).
This site comes with lots of promises when your brand new about options but you start with no games and no clue. These are the two problems that need to be addressed through speed and bot game availability for new recruits. The fact that this is coming to the community with even limited official backing is exceptional and most certainly a step in the right direction.

Agreed. At this point, we should try this. Everything else is failing, but at least that offer incentivizes newcomers to stay.

[JamesKer1]

I agree with donedellan description of the basic maps and settings, however I think New recruits need to be stuck playing a bot game immediately after joining. Most people cruising the web to play some risk online are not thinking about playing a turn tomorrow or in a few days when the game they create fills. They want to try it now and play right away. I would estimate that the retention rates.of people who play a few bot games while they wait for real people could only increase.
Also, I think New recruits should be allowed a few free speed games to attempt to whet their appetite. I'm thinking when they sign up they get x amount of regular slots(limited to joining and creating "basic" games) a speed slot with some kind of limit(3-5) and an automatic 4 player bot game(classic,flat rate,sunny). The key is to keep the average internet browsers attention for long enough to care about all of the other much more complex things about this site that keeps people coming back(tournaments,clans,advanced maps/settings).
This site comes with lots of promises when your brand new about options but you start with no games and no clue. These are the two problems that need to be addressed through speed and bot game availability for new recruits.

I can't tell you how much I agree with this. However, there is nothing in my power to do this, and at one point speed games were allowed for freemiums under certain limitations, but that has been removed. Also, new users are guided to play a game with Coach Bot, but not forced to.

The fact that this is coming to the community with even limited official backing is exceptional and most certainly a step in the right direction.

This just made my night. Thank you



Official Suggestion Updated (see spoiler in Original Post)- let me know if anything is missing or if there is something to be added or changed. Feel free to speak up, this is a community suggestion after all

[Jatekos]

I would suggest to expand the idea to the "Join a Game" and "Game Finder" pages as well.

I.e. create a "Join a basic game" and a "Find a basic game" button within these pages so that all basic games can be listed that are waiting for players without having to select any detailed options directly.

This would generate a lot of traffic towards the basic games. Once a player would want to try out new maps and settings he could choose games from an advanced interface.

[JamesKer1]

I would suggest to expand the idea to the "Join a Game" and "Game Finder" pages as well.

I.e. create a "Join a basic game" and a "Find a basic game" button within these pages so that all basic games can be listed that are waiting for players without having to select any detailed options directly.

This would generate a lot of traffic towards the basic games. Once a player would want to try out new maps and settings he could choose games from an advanced interface.

I like! The official suggestion has been updated for the Game Finder page. However, the join a game page would be tricky... Maybe this should be in the form of a filter and checkbox on the "Join a Game" page instead? (i.e. "Show Advanced Games?") If you are agreeable to this, I will actually revamp the umbrella this suggestion covers and make it anything referring to ease of access in these three pages, and maybe we can get more ideas flowing in.

[Jatekos]

I like! The official suggestion has been updated for the Game Finder page. However, the join a game page would be tricky... Maybe this should be in the form of a filter and checkbox on the "Join a Game" page instead? (i.e. "Show Advanced Games?") If you are agreeable to this, I will actually revamp the umbrella this suggestion covers and make it anything referring to ease of access in these three pages, and maybe we can get more ideas flowing in.

Join a game page could show the basic games under the public games tab by default, while games with advanced settings and maps would only appear if a link to expand the games ("Show Advanced Games") would be clicked.

[Dukasaur]

Also, I think New recruits should be allowed a few free speed games to attempt to whet their appetite. I'm thinking when they sign up they get x amount of regular slots(limited to joining and creating "basic" games) a speed slot with some kind of limit(3-5) and an automatic 4 player bot game(classic,flat rate,sunny). The key is to keep the average internet browsers attention for long enough to care about all of the other much more complex things about this site that keeps people coming back(tournaments,clans,advanced maps/settings).
This site comes with lots of promises when your brand new about options but you start with no games and no clue. These are the two problems that need to be addressed through speed and bot game availability for new recruits. The fact that this is coming to the community with even limited official backing is exceptional and most certainly a step in the right direction.

Agreed. At this point, we should try this. Everything else is failing, but at least that offer incentivizes newcomers to stay.

It was tried for almost eight months. Didn't work, unfortunately... I had high hopes for that one too.

[JamesKer1]

I like! The official suggestion has been updated for the Game Finder page. However, the join a game page would be tricky... Maybe this should be in the form of a filter and checkbox on the "Join a Game" page instead? (i.e. "Show Advanced Games?") If you are agreeable to this, I will actually revamp the umbrella this suggestion covers and make it anything referring to ease of access in these three pages, and maybe we can get more ideas flowing in.

Join a game page could show the basic games under the public games tab by default, while games with advanced settings and maps would only appear if a link to expand the games ("Show Advanced Games") would be clicked.

Looks like we are talking about the same thing. Added to OP.

[stahrgazer]

Halloweeen Hollows and San Francisco have unusual gameplay; Halloween with bombards and San Francisco with Alcatraz.

If these special circumstances are allowed, then other maps with bombards or can't-escape options such as Arms Race should be allowed too.

Similarly, American Civil War has special bonuses that aren't much different from say, AOR maps - bonuses where certain regions that may not be adjacent, have bonuses too. (Plus, Civil War has the one-way assault from Maryland that is a special gameplay option.)

Point is, if you're going to limit any complex maps, then look at more than the way they're laid out or their size. Instead, look at whether they have special assault/bonus options, and limit ALL maps with any of the taboo options, or limit none of them, rather than discriminate against some that have the same options as others.

Similarly, don't discriminate against any simple maps. The Americas maps, for example, may be large, but they're simple, and as such, why debate them? Same with Hive. No special options and while it's often not easy to look at, its gameplay is straightforward as far as bonuses and assaults - there are merely many of them. It shouldn't be discriminated against just because it's large.

Be totally consistent whatever options you choose.

[JamesKer1]

Halloweeen Hollows and San Francisco have unusual gameplay; Halloween with bombards and San Francisco with Alcatraz.

If these special circumstances are allowed, then other maps with bombards or can't-escape options such as Arms Race should be allowed too.

Similarly, American Civil War has special bonuses that aren't much different from say, AOR maps - bonuses where certain regions that may not be adjacent, have bonuses too. (Plus, Civil War has the one-way assault from Maryland that is a special gameplay option.)

Point is, if you're going to limit any complex maps, then look at more than the way they're laid out or their size. Instead, look at whether they have special assault/bonus options, and limit ALL maps with any of the taboo options, or limit none of them, rather than discriminate against some that have the same options as others.

Similarly, don't discriminate against any simple maps. The Americas maps, for example, may be large, but they're simple, and as such, why debate them? Same with Hive. No special options and while it's often not easy to look at, its gameplay is straightforward as far as bonuses and assaults - there are merely many of them. It shouldn't be discriminated against just because it's large.

Be totally consistent whatever options you choose.

Thank you for pointing that out. The inclusion of those maps is a mistake on my end and they will be removed. I've also gone back over the list and removed Midguard, British Isles, Cairn's Coral Coast as well as others. I copied from the bot maps list and it appears it wasn't as complete as it should be. I'll be making some changes to the list to meet the criteria completely.

Balkan Penninsula is now debatable for issues with bonus regions (even vets get confused).

As for the large maps, they are debatable for a reason Good point on it. See the spoiler "Re- Debatable Items" for the reasoning included behind that (just in case you missed it). I believe they are very simple and straightforward, but I am hesitant to include them only for the game length factor.

[Dukasaur]

Halloweeen Hollows and San Francisco have unusual gameplay; Halloween with bombards and San Francisco with Alcatraz.

If these special circumstances are allowed, then other maps with bombards or can't-escape options such as Arms Race should be allowed too.

Similarly, American Civil War has special bonuses that aren't much different from say, AOR maps - bonuses where certain regions that may not be adjacent, have bonuses too. (Plus, Civil War has the one-way assault from Maryland that is a special gameplay option.)

Point is, if you're going to limit any complex maps, then look at more than the way they're laid out or their size. Instead, look at whether they have special assault/bonus options, and limit ALL maps with any of the taboo options, or limit none of them, rather than discriminate against some that have the same options as others.

Similarly, don't discriminate against any simple maps. The Americas maps, for example, may be large, but they're simple, and as such, why debate them? Same with Hive. No special options and while it's often not easy to look at, its gameplay is straightforward as far as bonuses and assaults - there are merely many of them. It shouldn't be discriminated against just because it's large.

Be totally consistent whatever options you choose.

I disagree. Total consistency is over-rated. Things don't fit neatly into nice neat categories, there are always grey areas, and good judgement means evaluating all possible factors, not slavishly following an algorithm.

The special little rule about Alcatraz doesn't change the fact that overall, it's a pretty simple map. One little quirk is pretty easy to figure out. On the other hand, the extreme visual overload on the Hive makes it an extremely confusing map. There is simply too much information for most people -- even very experienced players -- to take in without becoming bewildered.

My general rule about maps would be:
exclude all maps with one-way doors
exclude all conquest maps
include everything else.

But that's just the starting point. I would then make all kinds of adjustments, such as that (often irrelevant) one-way ride to Alcatraz.

[iAmCaffeine]

It wasn't long ago free members got something like four speed games on classic a month right? That was taken away, but I think it should be brought back. The 'taster' idea for new recruits could include this, starting on their second month, with four speed games allowed in their first month of whatever kind, within the usual limits.

I'd basically exclude anything but the original settings for new recruits, so their options would be:

• Automatic
• Sequential
• Escalating, Flat Rate, No Spoils
• Chained, Adjacent, Unlimited
• Round Limits

That should be the default for new players on the Start A Game page, but there should be a tab to click "Advanced Games" and then all the settings are available. There should also be links to the different settings made more obvious and included on this page. The in-game links are subtle and the help page is pointless really. A hovering bullet point over each setting would be enough.

Note: I think it should say "Advanced Games" and not options or something else, to make it extremely obvious what's on offer. This shouldn't allow complicated maps though.

I don't think specialist/complicated maps should be unlocked as soon as a rank is received either. It should take longer, like 10-15 games.

[Donelladan]

I am not sure giving speed game is a very good idea. There is often weird map/settings on 1vs1 speed that could discourage new player. If we allow them to play 1vs1 speed freestyle for their first map they may not like it at all.

If we give speed game to new player it has to be with constraint on the setting/map.

Also people playing speed are often not nice with newbies or when they have bad dice, and very frequently you meet people with bad behaviour when you play speed, either deadbeat, or insult you, or CC if their dice suck. That could give a bad first image of CC.

For those reasons I am not 100% sure speed game would increase retention of new player rather than making them leave faster.
But anyway, this is off-topic right?



Concerning the maps. If there is debate, then just take them away. Less map for a start is better than too many. But also advertise somewhere than advanced game include a lot of extra maps?

[iAmCaffeine]

I am not sure giving speed game is a very good idea. There is often weird map/settings on 1vs1 speed that could discourage new player. If we allow them to play 1vs1 speed freestyle for their first map they may not like it at all.

They would obviously restricted in their speed games the same way as their casual games.

[jackal31]

Appealing to the new player is a much needed strategy when it comes to the business aspect of running the site. Personally, asking the community to contribute to the well-being of the site is a nice idea since we all have the experience, however, whom of us are going to get compensated for it? That's what hiring a business advisor is for.

Honestly, aside from the game, there are many other problems new users are faced with than just playing the game. The management of the site needs good leadership. Before passing judgement, hear me out on this. I was in GD and somone was in a thread discussing how they cant stand the moderation of what a person can and cannot say while there. It disgusts me there isnt more moderation for the better of the site. The first amendment rights allow freedom of speech, but what many people dont understand is the limitations that go along with that. I think if the rules were in place to regulate the things being said, just like at CBS, ESPN, and other public news sites, then that would offer a more fun atmosphere without all the trash. I think by getting rid of the trash it will open up more attractiveness to the new people.

To add to the above, I just read about a player reported in the C & A who is "believed" to be a multi. This also presents a poor welcome. This player could end up reading this and get offended and leave. The community has a very strong say in what goes on it seems, and not all of it is constructive. I still feel like over the last month, there have been business decisions that impacted the community in a negative way. So it's not just the community that is contributing to the problem.

On to the settings. If I were a new player I would want to try and play everything. But knowing the risk game as it is, it would be good to limit the settings to only a few maps and offer a "reward" for completing a certain number of games. Maybe start with 10 maps (Classic, North America, World 2.1, Oasis, Tamriel, Madness, Europe, and Madagascar to name a few) for settings of standard with flat/esc/no spoils and adj/ch forts while sunny. After 5 games, open up team play with a few more maps. Also, offer only a limited amount of speed games (8?) to give the flavor of speed play. BOT games should be a premium setting. Conquest maps should be a premium setting. Right now, playing here for free is allowing free players to enjoy all the aspects of the site and when addressing it from a business aspect, it is not nudging them to pay for the advanced settings.

To make this site more attractive to the new user, an overhaul of moderation needs to happen with the basic game play. I know this is discussion #1, but this all needs to be considered. I also propose some sort of welcome commity to introduce new players to the world of CC. This could be two separate tours; one with new sign-ups and one for new premium members.

[jammyjames]

I Personally think opening up speed games to new / non premium members would do a lot for the site.

Allowing non freemium's access to a restricted speed game setting, such as:

Classic
Automatic
Escalating
Chained
No fog
Between 1&4 players

This would start to bring back some activity into the speed games section of the site. Which i believe in turn would lead to more memberships being paid for as freemiums get more of a taste of what the site is like. Rather than just joining a public game and getting farmed the shit out of.

[Dukasaur]

I Personally think opening up speed games to new / non premium members would do a lot for the site.

It was tried. Freemiums got a free speed game every month for almost eight months back in 2013. It didn't work, unfortunately. I say this without any bias because I was very much in favour of that idea, but it just didn't work. The freemiums who tried free speed game didn't have any better percentage of sticking around than the players who didn't. Of the few who did like it, some found a bug exploit that gave themselves unlimited speed games, but even that would have been tolerable if only the basic premise -- increasing the percentage that stick around -- would have worked.

[stahrgazer]

My general rule about maps would be:
exclude all maps with one-way doors
exclude all conquest maps
include everything else.

These rules you suggested would, indeed, exclude the very maps I mentioned. Halloween Hallows has some one-ways. Civil War has some one-ways. And, like it or not, Alcatraz on SF is a 1-way.

I used to be in favor of excluding maps. My post maybe makes it sound like I still am. But I'm not, so I'll clarify.

The ONLY reason to exclude maps is to prevent farming of noobs. That, essentially, punishes the victim rather than the perpetrator. Instead of excluding players from any maps, we should take a closer look at near-farmers or as someone called it, "cherry pickers."

Yes, yes, some of the settings and some of the maps can be very complex. Some folks can handle it. Some folks even like it. The only way they'll know is if they try.

Kids these days are a lot more savvy about different things than kids used to be. I highly doubt "the maps are too complex" is why many don't stay. Instead, I think most kids think of "bored games" rather than board games when they see non-moving gameplay like CC. Most want bang-em-up games these days. Those that do enjoy board games can probably handle even the complex maps.

Now, on an opposing argument, f2p newbies may get tired of large maps and default. That's where a default button could come in handy; and let them default with no penalty might actually be an option if we ever get there for a default button. Just keep an eye on how many defaults a single player is making, and if possible, code things so that someone who'se played/won on a given map they're now defaulting on, DOES lose points.

Punish the "criminals" not the "potential victims" and let the potential victims roam central park if they want.