This world is tiny now

[He Who Has No Name]

[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1324144042' post='2880588']
As is pointed out in every thread of these that is created, there are on average 100 new nations that sign up to CN every day. With the change to resources, none of those should be just pure resource re-rolls which means we just need to do a better job of bringing those new players in and getting them engaged. It's the nature of this game that it's very hard for new nations to "catch up", but for many people that's the best time to be playing, before everything is cookie cutter and figured out.

This game has retained ~3.3% of the the nations created all time. I would hazard to guess that, that is a low percentage, but not too terribly strange for a game of this age. Especially when you consider that a certain percentage of those "lost" nations are multis, and nations that have re-rolled. There are people who study this sort of thing and even games like [url=http://www.artifex.org/~bonnie/WoW_retention_04_24_11.pdf]WoW keep less than 25% of their players after 2 years[/url]. After 5 years, I would assume that percentage is much closer to CN's adjusted number.

So, the fact is that games slow down. That doesn't mean it has to die, just that it's normal like every other game and as others have said, we can make of it what we will.
[/quote]

The root problem is that the majority of the game space - that is, the parts of the gameplay experience that actually allow any significant impact on something besides your "character" - has been constructed almost entirely as metagame aspects by players, and access has been kept extremely exclusive. The chances of any average Joe signing up for CN and being able to lead an alliance of even passing influence are, basically, zero.

That is a broken game. People are not going to bother sticking around if the best they can ever reasonably hope for are to be pawns in somebody else's chess game. The fact that CN still has as MANY nations as it does is a small miracle - and a waiting-to-happen psychology treatise on abusive relationships.

If Admin wanted to fix this game, he would need to confiscate the creation and control of those metagame aspects from the community and build them as functional, integral aspects of the core gameplay itself, in a way that the majority of the player base could feasibly hope to one day partake in. The player base powers-that-be right now will screech like little girls if that happens, and so it won't happen.

Backroom powerbrokers and kingmakers are ultimately going to be the death of this game. Fitting that they will ultimately destroy everything they worked so hard to keep for themselves.

[TehChron]

HWHNN, you're misunderstanding the draw entirely.

Actually, the true appeal of CN has little to do with power playing, it's all about the narrative.

Im gonna get into that in this thing Im writing up now.

Edited December 20, 2011 by TehChron

[He Who Has No Name]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324361466' post='2882435']
HWHNN, you're misunderstanding the draw entirely.

Actually, the true appeal of CN has little to do with power playing, it's all about the narrative.

Im gonna get into that in this thing Im writing up now.
[/quote]

Oh, I understand the draw entirely. It isn't there. The only reason I am still here is because of A) my FAN brethren, and B) I have a deep hatred of dictators and authoritarians, and of those I still have a few heads to take and names to cross off in this world, of people who wronged me years ago. YEARS ago. I have been here since working from the edges, content to engineer efforts and actions behind the curtains to create mayhem and undermine the status quo. I've had my hands in the black ops activity of various places of this gameworld for more than three years now, all out of revenge. I am not the average player and I am not the kind of statistics that a successful game or business model can be built around.

That said.

From what you've admitted, basically, the appeal of CN has nothing to do with CN itself and everything to do with the metagame created by the fanbase. Which isn't CN.

What you've just admitted is that the actual core appeal for the people still playing isn't CN. They could replace the entirety of the CN game system with their own homebrew formulas and dice roller app, and as long as everybody kept each other honest by posting their calculations and stats online, it would function pretty much the same - albeit slower.

Given that the core fanbase basically doesn't care about CN the game as much as they do CN the metagame they made around it, and that to them the game system itself is replaceable or very nearly disposable... that doesn't strike you as problematic?

There are no limited resources (space or fungible goods) in contention, no territory in conflict, no mutually exclusive designated goals. Even Minecraft, SimCity, and Spore have some of those elements included to drive gameplay and player engagement. CN has NONE of them. If Admin genuinely wants to fix the negative growth curve, he needs to get the pencil out and retool the game space and experience to focus on something more than "the narrative", because it ISN'T PART OF THE GAME.

Edited December 20, 2011 by He Who Has No Name

[TehChron]

It doesn't strike me as particularly problematic, since the greater number of persisting communities in CN have their origins based in other games/communities/sites.

FAN included.

So what in particular is wrong with the most engaging part of CN being it's metagame/narrative/community?

All that matters is if it's interesting.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='He Who Has No Name' timestamp='1324360637' post='2882433']
The root problem is that the majority of the game space - that is, the parts of the gameplay experience that actually allow any significant impact on something besides your "character" - has been constructed almost entirely as metagame aspects by players, and access has been kept extremely exclusive. The chances of any average Joe signing up for CN and being able to lead an alliance of even passing influence are, basically, zero.

That is a broken game. People are not going to bother sticking around if the best they can ever reasonably hope for are to be pawns in somebody else's chess game. The fact that CN still has as MANY nations as it does is a small miracle - and a waiting-to-happen psychology treatise on abusive relationships.

If Admin wanted to fix this game, he would need to confiscate the creation and control of those metagame aspects from the community and build them as functional, integral aspects of the core gameplay itself, in a way that the majority of the player base could feasibly hope to one day partake in. The player base powers-that-be right now will screech like little girls if that happens, and so it won't happen.

Backroom powerbrokers and kingmakers are ultimately going to be the death of this game. Fitting that they will ultimately destroy everything they worked so hard to keep for themselves.
[/quote]


I disagree. I was a government member at 15 days old, an alliance leader at 60 days old, a 1 million NS+ alliance leader at 170 days old, a 5 million NS+ alliance leader at 400 days old, and so on. I think I accomplished a fair amount. I could also point to other people like Hoo who became major alliance leaders pretty quick. Roquentin was a relatively unknown MK member before he became leader of Umbrella. It does take a lot of work and dedication to rise to the level of politically influential alliance leader, but it is certainly possible, and lesser degrees of activity confer lesser rewards. It is not a winner take all system.

[Indian Bob]

It's certainly possible to become influential in the many democratic alliances, albeit with a lot of hard work as Londo points out.

What I find ironic is that the logical conclusion to this line of reasoning is that there needs to be MORE alliances, not less. The popular wisdom from what I can tell on these forums is that there needs to be fewer alliances. Personally, I think the reality needs to be more alliances, less treaties, but I don't know if that will ever happen.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1324371253' post='2882491']
I disagree. I was a government member at 15 days old, an alliance leader at 60 days old, a 1 million NS+ alliance leader at 170 days old, a 5 million NS+ alliance leader at 400 days old, and so on. I think I accomplished a fair amount.[/quote]

Yeah that would be fair saying that from what around 4 years ago, when the world was over 3 times more populated. Even then as of now most new alliances can be classed as splinters from other alliances and those that aren't tend to die of death due to lack of membership, as no one wants to join an obscure tiny alliance of unknowns and treated to unknowns...

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1324402114' post='2882617']
It's certainly possible to become influential in the many democratic alliances, albeit with a lot of hard work as Londo points out.

What I find ironic is that the logical conclusion to this line of reasoning is that there needs to be MORE alliances, not less. The popular wisdom from what I can tell on these forums is that there needs to be fewer alliances. Personally, I think the reality needs to be more alliances, less treaties, but I don't know if that will ever happen.
[/quote]

I've been saying that for years. And the whole time people want to whine about the consequences of the large-alliance-centric system, while mercilessly dissing anyone that actually tries to do something else.

[Doitzel]

[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1324402114' post='2882617']
It's certainly possible to become influential in the many democratic alliances, albeit with a lot of hard work as Londo points out.

What I find ironic is that the logical conclusion to this line of reasoning is that there needs to be MORE alliances, not less. The popular wisdom from what I can tell on these forums is that there needs to be fewer alliances. Personally, I think the reality needs to be more alliances, less treaties, but I don't know if that will ever happen.
[/quote]
That's assuming everyone wants to become such a player. A lot of people want to simply participate in the broader international politics without the responsibility of leadership. Games like this are escapist. A richer public aspect to the game allows the more casual people to dip in and participate at their leisure and also makes it easier for the more talented and ambitious to present themselves. In either case the backroom exclusivity is not a benefit. A diaspora to even more, smaller alliances only further fractures the community and with the relative isolation of non-leadership players that sort of regression is not sustainable.

[Indian Bob]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1324425017' post='2882869']
That's assuming everyone wants to become such a player. A lot of people want to simply participate in the broader international politics without the responsibility of leadership. Games like this are escapist. A richer public aspect to the game allows the more casual people to dip in and participate at their leisure and also makes it easier for the more talented and ambitious to present themselves. In either case the backroom exclusivity is not a benefit. A diaspora to even more, smaller alliances only further fractures the community and with the relative isolation of non-leadership players that sort of regression is not sustainable.
[/quote]

Non leadership players would not be the one's creating the "more, smaller alliances". The people who don't have ambition can collect taxes just as easily in an alliance of 200 as one of 20. The reason the backroom is exclusive is because there's only a few who have access to it. The way to make something less exclusive is to let more people in and the only people who legitimately have a reason to be there are alliance leaders. There are plenty of people who want to try and do their own thing but every time they try they get shouted down and told to disband or merge because the world doesn't need more alliances.

It's not more alliances that are causing the problem it's less. The more alliances there are, the more people who are actively trying to get new members and they'll pull them from wherever they can. And yes, even many elite alliances that are invite only want new members, they just don't mass recruit for them. If somehow the power structure was splintered a bit then a few, know nothing, noob alliance leaders who've lucked into a good theme and amassed a few treaties and a couple million NS between them could be off in their OWN back rooms stirring up trouble and mattering. As it stands now they can never be anything other than pawns in the larger game played by people with no more qualifications than they clicked a link a few years earlier.

The logical conclusion of the "no new/noob alliances" ethos is that there will end up with a half a dozen alliances all staring at each other waiting for one to show weakness so the other five can jump on them. I'd certainly rather have some micro drama rather than that.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1324425017' post='2882869']
That's assuming everyone wants to become such a player. A lot of people want to simply participate in the broader international politics without the responsibility of leadership. Games like this are escapist. A richer public aspect to the game allows the more casual people to dip in and participate at their leisure and also makes it easier for the more talented and ambitious to present themselves. In either case the backroom exclusivity is not a benefit. A diaspora to even more, smaller alliances only further fractures the community and with the relative isolation of non-leadership players that sort of regression is not sustainable.
[/quote]

Given how easy it is to suffer a damaging loss of PR by engaging in dealings in public, how would you propose to move away from a world of backroom deals to a more public one? (p.s. it's been all backroom for a long long time, certainly since i've started playing).

Furthermore, how is a weaker force supposed to make plans against a stronger one if not in secrecy? How do you think Karma was put together? I'm not suggesting that you and Vox didn't contribute, but Karma wouldn't have happened without the will and ability to make political manuvers in secrecy.

How do you propose to encourage a more public political scene? I don't think we even have one of those in real life.

[TehChron]

Heh.

A simple answer, Londo. All you need is a good narrative, and the people will flock to it in interest.

It's all about the story. That's been the major failing of CN post-Karma.

Frankly the story being built up by those with power has been pretty damn boring. Make things interesting enough in the OWF for the public to be swept up in it, and there won't be a need to worry about stagnation from a lack of access.

It just needs to be interesting.

Edited December 21, 2011 by TehChron

[Atlas]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1324240655' post='2881340']
these complaints about how CN isn't as good as it used to be aren't as good as they used to be.
[/quote]
I agree with this.

Furthermore:
[quote name='admin' timestamp='1295307861' post='2579043']
I'm a fan of the Dallas Cowboys football team. During the regular season the team was having trouble getting wins. They interviewed one of the players and he said, "We go into these team meetings to discuss what's going on with the team. You go in there with an idea of what the problem is, and then everyone starts giving their input, and you leave the meeting with a sense that the problem is much more worse than it really is."

That's what these threads have become. Everyone is giving their input on the situation, placing blame all over the place and making the problem seem much worse than it really is all the while resolving nothing. This game is 5 years old. I didn't expect it to last 5 months. We still have 20,000 playing the game. Enjoy.
[/quote]

Closed.