elimination and cards

I'm entirely satisfied. We tried the experiment and we realized that the advanced rule has some good points but it's absolutely better not to incentivize it, otherwise beginners wouldn't learn how to play and cheaters would have much more possibilities. I will play with the advanced rule only people that I trust, since I think the idea to allow it only in password protected games is logical.

Thorpe. I read what you just wrote up there. One of them being against a good friend of mine on this site. I would just like to say this. The customer may not always be right, but going after the customer is ALWAYS wrong. Like our opinions or not, but don't think that you are going anywhere by pointing out one or two players in the game who complain about something that you apparently love. That is the fastest way to run people off in my opinion. Just a thought

oh, and I USED to be a premium member, so go ahead and thank me for my support. Point out my turns taken, months Ive played. Anything you want. But like you said come at me with facts about the subject. Not facts about players.

So the 'customer' can attack anyone for any reason (or no good reason, or informed reason, or explained with any actual facts reason, etc... as has been the case in a lot of these rants - not all, but a lot) but that person has to sit back, take the abuse and not counter argue with their own opinion, and yes, actual statistics to back it up? Sometimes going after the customer is neccessary if that customer is causing the loss of other customers or disrupts to a point it is much easier to succeed without them. Now before anyone goes stereotyping this response, there have been made -on both sides- valid arguements, suggestions and other things brought up to discuss in regards to this issue. What is not appreciated is when disrespect comes into play. Contructive Critisism is better than Destructive Critisism

Thank-you elysium5 who has a business and I had one. I have friends and family that play here also and when they are wrong in what they say then I will not support them. If they are right or somebody attacks them without cause then watch out. As for the facts...part of my statements are not about the person, but on the facts of what we look at. Think of it this way...a "unsinkable" ship hit a iceberge and they have the choice to go with their friends...even when they knew the ship was sinking...how did that work for them? And I do thank-you for your support. My point was why all the Destructive Critisism? Did they not attack Cireon without facts...just read all of the forum and you will know he really tryed to make everybody happy, even when others said not to have the option at all...which was most of the staff. To do so after he helped is just wrong. I guess no "good deed" goes unpunished. I am really done with this...so play and have fun. GOOD HUNTING!!!

i dont get the resistance to the 3+ being so extreme that its desired to be obscured by 'password' protection and what i have heard is the more laggy 'beta' create-a-game.. when you look at all the problems mentioned above in posts here and there, by those for or against the new card set thing, they are still mostly all solved by my simple suggestion of an A) and B) option,,, A) Advanced setting: 3+ B) Devolved setting: 5+ We cant have a new option and pretend its not actually a new option by obscuring the other option, its just silly

That is what I am trying to explain. If we give "noobs" (that is not meant degrading in any way) access to this option, the quality of the game goes down. We have tried using the advanced setting for over a year, and we saw the amount of suicide moves skyrocket and people leaving the site because of it. This was why the community (the staff incluis) eventually decided the old rule was better and the experiment should be terminated and considered failed. However, there was a select group of members that liked the new rule. I was opposed from adding a new option from the start. I have explained that several times, so look back in this thread for all the posts I made on that, but in short adding variety is dangerous. Capitals is probably the best example. People play capitals without knowing what it is about, resulting in ruined the game. So, adding more variety and options might be cool for all those expert players that want to try something new, but it also introduces these to other player, confusing them and - once more - making them ruin games. What I want to make clear is that I am looking at it from a consumer's point of view. People wanted that option, because what was the problem with adding an option, it is just another line of code, right? Well, it is not that easy, because you also have to look from the eyes of other users of this website. So, what to do next? People wanted that option really badly, but just adding an option like everybody is now shouting about would not have solved the problem at all. It is the same with capitals: noobs would still choose wrongly resulting in ruined games (yes, once more). I think this option is even more problematic than capitals, because the difference is a lot more subtle. Hence, we had to come up with a way to provide this option for that select group that still solved the problem. Behold, the current solution was born. "Hidden" as an advanced option beginners will not come in contact with this weird thing while creating games and thus they will not create games in which they are encouraged (or so they think) to suicide and ruin games. In the meanwhile, players can still choose to play the advanced rule with a single click, which would be just as many clicks as if it were made into an option. The only big obstacle I can see right now is the password protection. I completely agree that it is a suboptimal solution to limiting the access to these games. However, I have started a discussion on the staff forums to also improve the game entering process which hopefully allows us to remove the password requirement eventually. The requirement to use the new create game page I already explained before. I hope this explanation will calm down the discussion a bit. Yes, I understand some people are disappointed with this change, but we have a large userbase we have to keep satisfied and this change is something that is already showing its positive effects on this website. I am always open for improvements, but I (and the staff is probably with me on this) will only implement changes that are good for the whole userbase, not just for a few individuals. It is just impossible to keep everyone completely happy, but we are trying to do that as good as we can.

I watched this thread and entered into it incorrectly with a 4 card turn-in suggestion many moons ago. The thread had already been open for 18 months, through the time when the card rules were as they are currently and into the experimental trial of 3+ turn-ins, something I have played with since joining this site. Having played nearly 1000 games prior to my retirement decision, I can say with experience that I watched the amount of suicidal (kamikaze) attacks, rank attacks & team cheating rise at a phenomenal rate, my main reason for retirement! I read the thread and saw that the people calling for an end to the trial period had a valid point which, anyone who has a point of view to put here can only be fully aware of when they have taken on rank and suffered the very high rate of rank attacks and played a lot of Capital games. Any attacks on the staff over this matter I feel are unwarranted, as they have acted in a way that only suited ANYONE & EVERYONE who took part in discussions (for & against), did not dictate their point of view or ownership rights and considered only the facts before a very long deliberation on the matter! Even the points of view of some the programmers who had the laborious task of making it happen, were not considered, due to the overruling opinion of the players themselves, who on this site and this site alone, come first! The staff took all the information, the facts and the feedback and came to a final group decision. In every decision that affects a large group of people in life, there has to be a majority decision and the minority have to be overruled. The representation within this thread & the feedback (complaints etc) to the admin for the last year, represent the majority of the very large group of players here. As I said, this thread has been around a long time and at any time, all players here could have put their point of view and known facts to it and perhaps swayed the decision, but that never happened and therefore, by the very lack of input & involvement, all non partakers placed themselves out of the decision loop. I recall asking many many players in live chat to read this thread and place their point of view, way before the decision was made. I have not played the 5+ card rule yet, but am watching games and from what I've seen so far (barring lack of knowledge that the rule has changed), is that strategy levels are rising, kamikaze's are falling and rank attacks are less frequent! there would undoubtedly also be a lot more 'head work' involved for people to team and cheat for points. This could be a vital factor in my re-joining this fabulous community, something I felt reluctant to leave, but had little choice, due to what I felt was its inevitable demise! I am now filled with optimism and am happy to see light at the end of the tunnel.

There are just a few things that seem no one has thought about : 1. That its also map, game settings, starting drop, learning curve, bad attitudes,,various factors that prompt newbs and experienced to do dangerous 'suicidal' attacks , and not just cards. Sometimes in capitals we take another for land and some reinforcements and hoping we will be able to rebuild before getting popped,, so at best this is a partial solution ,with the trade off of losing more exciting unpredictable gameplay . 2. Doing a 'suicide' and 'suicidal' attacking are really two different things 3. 'ruined games' is usually an opinion/concept held by the losers and not the winners of those games 4. The consumers like both options 5. ''newb suicidal acts'' concerns as the main basis for obscuring the 2012-2014 setting , seems like overkill, because one makes the game they prefer or joins the games they prefer. If you dont like fog or same-time or newbs, D12 makes it easy enough to avoid accidently getting stuck in a game like that. 5. if someone quits and goes grey ,,is the game then 'ruined'? or just another thing to deal with? its a matter of opinion and in the end, its just a game, cant win em all,, and its not every game. 6. Chronic 'suicidal' attackers ( like the one whose name starts with a 'B' and ends with an 'h') are a problem, and energy put towards a 'Block certain players from joining' button in Game Creation may be an effective tool for dealing with our ''suicidal attacker phobia'' 7. its better to have seven points rather than six. ANyways, Cireon said the 'Password protection' is an obstacle worth solving , and i agree wholeheartedly . I will remain hopeful that people will speak up enough if they agree that a simple A)*default 5+ and B)*advanced 3+ choice should appear in the (better) Create a Game page, side by side, like ebony and ivory. And if good feedback is already coming in then you should have no concerns of the 5+ way being chosen more often . in the end they are just options, lets keep the D12 format of simplifying going,,( its user friendliness) not to mention the dignity of an option being where it belongs

[quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]1. That its also map, game settings, starting drop, learning curve, bad attitudes,,various factors that prompt newbs and experienced to do dangerous 'suicidal' attacks , and not just cards. Sometimes in capitals we take another for land and some reinforcements and hoping we will be able to rebuild before getting popped,, so at best this is a partial solution ,with the trade off of losing more exciting unpredictable gameplay .[/quote] Sure, there are a lot of factors, but this factor was influencing the games so much, it had to be solved. You can agree with it or not, but there was a large group of people calling out for a solution. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]2. Doing a 'suicide' and 'suicidal' attacking are really two different things[/quote] I agree, but as we do not have team games yet and everyone should thus play to win, a suicidal attack in this case is equal to losing. It is a desperate action which can ruin the game, as Matty explained in [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1379]this thread[/url]. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]3. 'ruined games' is usually an opinion/concept held by the losers and not the winners of those games[/quote] Not necessarily true. I also know a lost of people consider games they win as ruined and can even give examples of them. The community wholeheartedly agreed that there were way too many of these games. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]4. The consumers like both options[/quote] This seems like a bit of a weird thing to see, because this exactly was the reason why we kept the advanced rule around. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]5. ''newb suicidal acts'' concerns as the main basis for obscuring the 2012-2014 setting , seems like overkill, because one makes the game they prefer or joins the games they prefer. If you dont like fog or same-time or newbs, D12 makes it easy enough to avoid accidently getting stuck in a game like that.[/quote] Yes, that is true and that is also the main argument behind still having the option. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]5. if someone quits and goes grey ,,is the game then 'ruined'? or just another thing to deal with? its a matter of opinion and in the end, its just a game, cant win em all,, and its not every game.[/quote] It is the same as suicides. Sometimes you can just deal with it, but it often also changes the game in such a way that it can be considered ruined. The impact on people turning grey however is usually not as big as someone suiciding, because in the second case you almost certainly make someone a target for the next turn, so the games ruined ratio is way higher and thus the suiciding is a bigger problem than the people going grey. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]6. Chronic 'suicidal' attackers ( like the one whose name starts with a 'B' and ends with an 'h') are a problem, and energy put towards a 'Block certain players from joining' button in Game Creation may be an effective tool for dealing with our ''suicidal attacker phobia''[/quote] This is something that is quite high on our todo list. [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]7. its better to have seven points rather than six.[/quote] You actually have 8, because 5 is in there two times ;) [quote=Axobongo - Jan 4, 08:40 AM]in the end they are just options, lets keep the D12 format of simplifying going,,( its user friendliness) not to mention the dignity of an option being where it belongs[/quote] I still do not see how user friendliness has come into play now. You still have not explained to my what the advantage of having an option is over having the current toggle.

These comments may be disorganized and repetitive but there was alot to cover, sorry. [quote=naathim - Jan 3, 03:10 AM]Axo makes fair point about set-up. Why such a harsh reaction to the 3 turn in vs. 5 turn in option? (stop ranting axo you sound like you're wearing a tin foil hat). And Cireon, wow you sound like a douche and a half there, cool the 'Better Than Thou' attitude. ... TLDR. Old fogies are butt-hurt because the newbs are stomping on their carefully manicured games; the new kids are righteously butt-hurt because the 'Man' changes the rules. Really this WAS an issue for people who only play boring ol' increasing caps, which are EXTREMELY predictable no matter what the set-up. Jump on that steamroller when it comes around boys! (can't resist a dig there).[/quote] Axobongo may be a bit extreme in his appraisal of the situation, but he is not entirely wrong. [quote=Thorpe - Jan 3, 03:46 AM]LOL. I love the "Old fogies" word. As I pointed out this was for the whole site, not just for me. As for it being an "option" you are lucky Cireon put it in...he is against anymore options. ... Give reasons why this is not the right step. The rule we have, "5+", is the standard for all of "Risk" players on board games and other sites.[/quote] First off, Ditto on "Old fogies" excellent word choice :D Thorpe, I may not always agree with you (obviously) but I do respect your opinion. I think much of the uproar stems from varied definitions of a "good" or "fun" game. As naathim mentioned games are predictable. I do enjoy games that are "strategic" to a point (as I've mentioned before, a stalemate that must be ended by an admin without a clear winner may be the worst game I can imagine) but, at times, I do find the unpredictable, "hail-Mary" entertaining, win or lose. Granted, it blows when game after game is a suicide-fest, but that's where you choose who plays and, as Axobongo suggests, avoid noobs for a while. Keep in mind that no matter what rules are changed, some players will never play the "right" way. Advanced players must play with noobs to help them to learn the best way that works for their play style, be it conservative or reckless or somewhere in between. As far as Cireon's generosity in allowing another option, well I am glad there is an option, but the prejudiced way in which it was implemented leaves much to be desired. Password protected games only, seriously? Seeing how the new create game page necessitates selecting a crapload of stuff manually to get a game going anyway, why not allow it for any game and let the users choose what suits them? [quote=naathim - Jan 3, 04:06 AM]I really do think of this almost in terms of a generational issue. There's a group of people who started playing this game on the board game. Where the rules are the rules and there's no options, really not much customization? Then there are younger players who have only played on-line games where anything and everything is optionable (a lot of the games with bots, cards can be turned in with three, which is where this whole idea arose from?). It's a dichotomy I think between traditional players and new. Fascinating really. I have no real preference to the +5 or +3, and it's a VERY good idea to try them out first before making a decision one way or the other. (Try it green eggs and spam :P) Thank you powers that be for allowing time to adjust and NOT actually cutting players off at the knees like some thing they have been. Thank you Thorpe for providing some history and thank you Cireon for going against your guns and adding the option for those who prefer it.[/quote] I like more options. I've said it several times. More options make it possible for all players to create the specific game type they enjoy. [quote=Thorpe - Jan 3, 02:45 AM]-10000 for Cireon...do not blame some-one that really did not want this. or Matty...the main blame is that Thorpe guy. I gave reasons for it and the why...never did I use my anger to get my way. We had losted a lot of great players that quit because of the cards...they are coming back. ... [/quote] Believe me, I am well aware that you were a leading proponent for the (re)implementation :D. I don't doubt that some players have come back. I merely suggest choices with equal availability. [quote=Thorpe - Jan 3, 02:45 AM]As for A "GENERAL CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE OF CERTAIN STAFF THAT MADE SITE LESS FRIENDLY" it is the response given from the rudeness of say...Axobongo...must give pause... Of all the staff to come after Cireon is just wrong...he was the one that did not want the change and came back with an option on just "Advanced Capitals". Please when you respond give or put the blame on the correct party. The staff puts a lot of hours into this site and a thank-you goes a long way...more than all the lies. As for buying premium it seems funny you would say you were thinking about buying it, but not now. You have 298 Games Played, Taken 1936 Turns "0" number of players referred all for free and you joined in June of 2013. Thx for all your ...uh....support. As for SpamFree...he loves to watch a good fight. But at least he has reffered "1" player, Joined on 04 July 2013, Games Played 1010, Turns Taken 6164 and he has not bought premium also. In business you need to make money, this site is no different, so as a business side...you give what the premium players want more than the free players want. They do pay for the bills so that is smart business. Right? Why do you not help do what the staff is doing and keeping a eye on the chat, watching the numbers, membership enrollment, programing, map making, responding to giltched games, etc...than to get chewed out in the forum for doing what they feel is best for the D12. If you do continue with the rudeness...please feel "Free" to leave and let some other site put up with it. If you continue to play on D12, bring facts to the table and have fun. [/quote] I don't dispute that Axobongo may have been a bit brash in his statements. I am definitely not disputing the fact that Staff often have thankless jobs and are deserving of gratitude for the work they do that makes the site as good as it is. I think much of my ire that happened to be focused on Cireon was more the vastly unequal implementation of the setting that was compounded by the condescending tone of his remarks. I regret that this may be the very first "contact" I've had with Cireon. I would have preferred to have made contact with him sooner, maybe in a few games, but I suppose what's done is done. [quote=Thorpe - Jan 3, 02:45 AM]This is for both of you...SpamFree and Axobongo: "Rules 3. No name calling or harassing players You can tell a player that they made a bad move if you take the time to explain why, but you cannot call the player names. Attack the strategy but not the person. If an Admin or Moderator reminds you of this rule and you continue to call them names then game chat will be disabled on your account. To harass means to annoy persistently. Do not constantly criticize the same player for the same thing over and over again. Do not follow players around to all their games to make negative comments about them. Do not message someone who has told you to stop messaging them. If an Admin receives multiple complaints about the same player saying or doing annoying things then they will receive an official warning. " This is your [b][i]official warning[/i][/b]. [/quote] I don't see where this applies. I didn't call anyone a name (that I can recall anyway). I wasn't terribly persistent although it may have been annoying to some a time or two where I was criticizing the (re)implementation and to an extent what I believe to be the motives behind it's inequality of access. Didn't follow anyone around. No messages to players. Basically it seems I disagreed openly a couple times and suddenly a rule had to be found to stop me. I still don't believe this one fits but whatever. (On a side note, maybe somebody could design an official seal or something that could be affixed to an "official warning." Just seems to me that it would be even cooler that way. Maybe something serialized and suitable for framing.) [quote=Cireon - Jan 3, 09:47 AM]But... it is an option? It is just not the default, so what gives? Giving it a default has two advantages: [list type=decimal] [li]People that play the normal turn in don't have to click, which statistically means half of the people.[/li] [li]Beginning players will often go for default and thus will not play advanced turn in as much which is, as the experiment taught us, a good thing.[/li] [/list] So... the only thing you want changed is to make it an actual option. So... another box on that page? Well, we can't make boxes on that page for everything, unless you want to scroll endlessly to finally make your game, so speaking from an interface design aspect: not a good idea. Then, you would also require all players creating a game making an additional click, even the "default guys", while as for now, only people that want an advanced, special option that (I once more stress) was never supposed to be there have to click something. So again from an interface design aspect: not a good idea. Finally, the fact that members are drawn to defaults and as the last year has clearly proven: the quality of games in general drastically decreases on advanced turn in rules. It is only fun if you play with people who know what they are doing. So from a staff members' and players' point of view: not a good idea. This is actually something I brought up about two days ago in the staff forums and we are currently discussing the best way to do this. Why thank you! I do my very best. On a more serious note: I won't bother defending myself on that aspect.[/quote] Cireon, to answer the question you posed in chat, yes I do think there are some things that are very good, but the new create game menu isn't one of them. I think the radio buttons with defaults selected was much cleaner than the text menus, but the map display is very nice. The main reason I wanted to very briefly reply to your comments directly is to say that while I don't like everything here, [b]I do appreciate the work that you and all the staff do to try to keep the site up and running well [/b] the majority of the time. As naathim mentioned, your comments were not very well received, particularly by me, however, your reply to naathim above made me chuckle and I bear you no ill will (You'll be happy to know, I threw out the voodoo doll I was making, too). Anyway, as I've said repeatedly, I like options and I had hoped this one would be equally available. BTW I hadn't read aeronautic's comments while editing this huge post but I am glad he is reconsidering quiting :) I also hadn't read Axobongo's nor Cireon's most recent comments but think it'll be ok :) [size=14][b][i]tl;dr Axobongo and I may be ranting at times but sometimes have to voice our opinions (sometimes something just catches me wrong and I can be a bit overzealous). I still think "Advanced" (a set is a set) and "Default" (5+ to trade mid-turn) should be equally available. I've got no beef with Cireon or staff and they ALL to do a great service. Official warnings need a seal. aeronautic is gonna play again :) [/i][/b][/size] [size=8]Cireon, note that some of the smileys are incorrectly auto-generated. That's what I was talking about[/size]

Hmm, if you have any particular example where smileys are wrongly generated, please post about it in the [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1391]smiley-related thread[/url] and I will look into it.[/offtopic] @SpamFree, an important thing I said in one of my last posts you didn't read is that we as staff are looking into improving the join game procedure to hopefully get rid of the password requirement. This will hopefully make the option more accessible in the future. As far as the new create game page goes, feedback is always most welcome in [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=771]this thread[/url], though this page is another thing that has been discussed before, so you're also a bit "late" on this as well ;) Edit: oh, haha, I know what is going wrong with emoticons. It is a small bug which I will try to solve.

[quote=Cireon - Jan 4, 12:05 PM]Hmm, if you have any particular example where smileys are wrongly generated, please post about it in the [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1391]smiley-related thread[/url] and I will look into it.[/offtopic] @SpamFree, an important thing I said in one of my last posts you didn't read is that we as staff are looking into improving the join game procedure to hopefully get rid of the password requirement. This will hopefully make the option more accessible in the future. As far as the new create game page goes, feedback is always most welcome in [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=771]this thread[/url], though this page is another thing that has been discussed before, so you're also a bit "late" on this as well ;) Edit: oh, haha, I know what is going wrong with emoticons. It is a small bug which I will try to solve.[/quote] OK, cool, I must've missed the thing about getting rid of password requirement. I'll check out the Create Game Thread, eventually. I miss much in the forum and normally only find my way here when some folks (Read mostly: Thorpe, aeronautic, urgul) alert me to an item of interest. I hope to browse about more to see what the buzz may be. I guess you saw the note on smileys (should've probably made it a bit bigger). Cheers :)

WHY DO THE SMILEY'S HAVE GOOGLY EYES?!?!?!?!?! YOU HAVE JUST BEEN THREAD-JACKED.

@naathim, What is the ransom.... On second thoughts, you can keep this one!