For any site addon that you'd like to see incorporated, please create a new thread for specific things about the addon that you'd like to be able to use. Such as this one that was created for the snapshot portion of BOB: viewtopic.php?f=535&t=192998
Which add-ons would you like to see built in first?
In the coming weeks, I will compile links to suggestions to turn an add-on (script, greasemonkey, BOB, maprank, whatever) into a built-in component to the site.
This week we happily received the clickable maps (previously an add-on) as a built-in component to the site. Post here if you would like to see other applications made into permanent aspects of the site.
I'm taking a cue from another suggestion and self-reserving the next two posts so that more information can be added in those posts and edited over time...polls will come and go...results will order the add-ons in list of community desired priority...
List of add-ons in order of community desire:
First poll will determine the initial list
Links to various suggestions about turning an add-on into a built-in and a list of the add-ons that don't have a suggestion associated with them:
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
because I stickied it. I asked QH to make and maintain a list of the suggestions which are currently implemented by addons. This should help prioritize where the community stands on them.
well these i want to see implemented and activated in CC,im all ready explane everything in these links ------------------------------------------------------------ game log notification for assasin games
qwert wrote:well these i want to see implemented and activated in CC,im all ready explane everything in these links ------------------------------------------------------------ game log notification for assasin games
qwert, this isn't which suggestion you would like to see implemented, it's which ADD-ON's, such as BOB, Map Rank, chat glove, etc to be implemented onto the site. It's not a place to advertise your own suggestions.
Game 1675072 2018-08-09 16:02:06 - Mageplunka69: its jamaica map and TFO that keep me on this site
Bruceswar wrote:ugh bad idea... I vote neither... There are more pressing issues... QH and suggestions.. sigh
What is your problem? This is a work in progress. I'm going to get all of the suggestions together that ask for an add-on to be integrated into the site. CHeck your attitude, dude.
Bruceswar wrote:ugh bad idea... I vote neither... There are more pressing issues... QH and suggestions.. sigh
What is your problem? This is a work in progress. I'm going to get all of the suggestions together that ask for an add-on to be integrated into the site. CHeck your attitude, dude.
None at all, but seeing how your unlock idea went, I am sure you understand why people are skeptical.
Doc_Brown wrote:What about combining this with QH's other suggestion? The Add-ons are implemented, but you can't actually use them until you unlock them by winning a certain number of games. It would be like World of Warcraft where you don't get the more advanced abilities until you rank up to a certain level. And everyone like WoW, so obviously implementing the concept here would attract many more people to this site!
Doc_Brown wrote:What about combining this with QH's other suggestion? The Add-ons are implemented, but you can't actually use them until you unlock them by winning a certain number of games. It would be like World of Warcraft where you don't get the more advanced abilities until you rank up to a certain level. And everyone like WoW, so obviously implementing the concept here would attract many more people to this site!
or they are only unlocked by paying for membership
it is the premiums paying for the development of additional features
Doc_Brown wrote:What about combining this with QH's other suggestion? The Add-ons are implemented, but you can't actually use them until you unlock them by winning a certain number of games. It would be like World of Warcraft where you don't get the more advanced abilities until you rank up to a certain level. And everyone like WoW, so obviously implementing the concept here would attract many more people to this site!
or they are only unlocked by paying for membership
it is the premiums paying for the development of additional features
This isn't a bad idea. Unluck features such as BOB (built-in) with premium membership. Premium gets more content and we have more advantages for spending our money here.
Doc_Brown wrote:What about combining this with QH's other suggestion? The Add-ons are implemented, but you can't actually use them until you unlock them by winning a certain number of games. It would be like World of Warcraft where you don't get the more advanced abilities until you rank up to a certain level. And everyone like WoW, so obviously implementing the concept here would attract many more people to this site!
or they are only unlocked by paying for membership
it is the premiums paying for the development of additional features
This isn't a bad idea. Unluck features such as BOB (built-in) with premium membership. Premium gets more content and we have more advantages for spending our money here.
and if your premium lapses you loose those features. pay up and once again you enjoy the full CC experience
My humble opinion: Don't implement any existing add-on. We already have the functionality throught the add-on, and incorporating the functionality in the site is only a waste of the precious scarce resources available for CC development.
As an example, if Bob was implemented in the site, we would not get anything because we already use Bob. But we would lose another feature that could had been implemented but was not.
Better use that development time for more XML updates. That will result in better maps. Maps are the soul of the site. A great interface without maps would be worth nothing.
Or use the development time to implement engine updates. Like Infected Neutrals. Or Adjacent Attacks. Providing more variety to the site and thus more interest.
My favourite browser is Internet Explorer, but I don't have any problem using Firefox for CC so I can use all the add-ons. I don't see it so hard.
greenoaks wrote:why don't you just give us a list of all the add-ons
Really...then maybe we all vote for them? This seems like the more efficient method.
OliverFA wrote:My favourite browser is Internet Explorer, but I don't have any problem using Firefox for CC so I can use all the add-ons. I don't see it so hard.
Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer. No, it wasn't at MicroSoft. <grin>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
OliverFA wrote:My humble opinion: Don't implement any existing add-on. We already have the functionality throught the add-on, and incorporating the functionality in the site is only a waste of the precious scarce resources available for CC development.
Woodruff wrote:Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer. No, it wasn't at MicroSoft. <grin>
But CC is supposed to be played from home or a similar place. Definitely not from work. Usually, people have full access to computers they used for leisure.
It's just my opinion, but I think that expanding the game will bring (and retain) a lot more players than improving the interface. Of course, if both things can be done, that's even better. But if I have to choose between interface or gameplay features, I choose the second.
Woodruff wrote:Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer. No, it wasn't at MicroSoft. <grin>
But CC is supposed to be played from home or a similar place. Definitely not from work. Usually, people have full access to computers they used for leisure.
It's just my opinion, but I think that expanding the game will bring (and retain) a lot more players than improving the interface. Of course, if both things can be done, that's even better. But if I have to choose between interface or gameplay features, I choose the second.
Many workplaces also restrict internet access. We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.
Woodruff wrote:Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer. No, it wasn't at MicroSoft. <grin>
But CC is supposed to be played from home or a similar place. Definitely not from work.
Says who? I didn't see that anywhere when I logged in.
I don't really disagree with your position regarding add-ons, but I very much disagree with your rationale for it.
drunkmonkey wrote:
OliverFA wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer. No, it wasn't at MicroSoft. <grin>
But CC is supposed to be played from home or a similar place. Definitely not from work. Usually, people have full access to computers they used for leisure.
It's just my opinion, but I think that expanding the game will bring (and retain) a lot more players than improving the interface. Of course, if both things can be done, that's even better. But if I have to choose between interface or gameplay features, I choose the second.
Many workplaces also restrict internet access. We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.
You DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. That's my point. You're presuming that ALL workplaces have those restrictions, and that certainly is not the case.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:You DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. That's my point. You're presuming that ALL workplaces have those restrictions, and that certainly is not the case.
I'm not presuming anything. I'm simply stating,
drunkmonkey wrote:We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.
Woodruff wrote:You DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. That's my point. You're presuming that ALL workplaces have those restrictions, and that certainly is not the case.
I'm not presuming anything. I'm simply stating,
drunkmonkey wrote:We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.
You are presuming - you DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. As I said before, that's my point. How can we possibly be "modeling CC to accomodate workplace restrictions" if we don't know what they are?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer. No, it wasn't at MicroSoft. <grin>
But CC is supposed to be played from home or a similar place. Definitely not from work.
Says who? I didn't see that anywhere when I logged in.
I don't really disagree with your position regarding add-ons, but I very much disagree with your rationale for it.
I think everyone made his point and gave his reasons. It's not really useful to continue debating about this. I only hope that the few resources available for CC development are used in the best way possible.
[/quote]
