CyberNations and the magic beanstalk

[Saxplayer]

 
I would just make a MP 5k (10k?) NS, and anything besides possibly a WRC nothing.

An MP, (with 20 nukes) is worth 4k NS, yes, Ik it's the nukes that give the NS, just thought I would mention it

[hartfw]

An MP, (with 20 nukes) is worth 4k NS, yes, Ik it's the nukes that give the NS, just thought I would mention it

 

Aye.  And an MP with 0 nukes is 0 ns.

[Sephiroth]

Usually if a nation with a lot of wonders and MP hits ZI, its because they remain on enemy lists and keep getting hit after being ZIed, as well as run out of money. Rarely would a high infra nation with a massive warchest be willing to self ZI just to hit someone, or choose to stay there past the point the other side wants to peace out.

 

Also just the NS gain in tech would prevent nations with huge warchests from hitting low NS nations, as a nation usually only runs out of tech if they keep getting hit well past ZI.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Methrage

[Rush Sykes]

I stand strong by my stance that the best way to control warchests is to soft cap it. Every day your nation spends above the cap, you lose a point of happiness, indicating that citizens will simply not accept rulers not spending their tax dollars to improve their lives. It would force very large nations to buy REALLY expensive tech, or really squishy infra. As a suggested starting point, I would set the cap at $2 billion. But that number could be up for debate. 

 

You can also force wars to be shorter. This would require an active community moderator. When wars break out, the community monitors get a get a new panel that they are tasked with setting an alliance's current state to WAR or PEACE. It should also lock all nations at present on the alliance to have to reside on that AA until such time as their alliance is set back to PEACE. The effect of this setting is as follows : Peace - No effect. War: After 14 days (2 full cycles) war weariness begins to accrue on every nation in ever alliance at war. It will take tinkering and experimentation, and discussion to determine what effect war weariness will have. But the effect will ensure that the winning side has a price to pay for prosecuting long wars against defeated enemies. Defeated enemies are usually so soundly defeated that war weariness will have less an effect on them(but still the same TOTAL effect), and will force the winning side to seek faster resolution or risk making their "victory" far more damaging than it should have been. Again, times and effects are up for debate, discussion and testing, but the system, I believe, can and would work.

 

Also, to facilitate letting new nations get competetive quickly, a SIGNIFICANT increase in $$$ foreign aid caps (I personally would like to no caps on cash, and no tech permitted). If 6 alliance mates want to send a new guy who is active, or an old returning player $100 million, $200 million, they should be allowed to. It would make recruitment of new nations MEANINGFUL for alliances. I would, however, not implement this mechanic until ~120 days after the 1st suggestion, to prevent alot of large cash cows from building instant-capped new members with their bloated warchests.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Rush Sykes

[Dajobo]

I stand strong by my stance that the best way to control warchests is to soft cap it. Every day your nation spends above the cap, you lose a point of happiness, indicating that citizens will simply not accept rulers not spending their tax dollars to improve their lives. It would force very large nations to buy REALLY expensive tech, or really squishy infra. As a suggested starting point, I would set the cap at $2 billion. But that number could be up for debate.

If the max number was linked to NS in some way it could work. 2B is huge for most nations but the real large ones need much more than that for it to be fair.

[Rush Sykes]

If the max number was linked to NS in some way it could work. 2B is huge for most nations but the real large ones need much more than that for it to be fair.

I would counter that with that they dont really need more. The really large nations will fight fewer wars due to NS mechanics, and will , in most cases, fight much less time than others.  Although, having it tied to NS could be enough incentive for larger nations to purchase more infra than tech (because Infra 3:1 NS and price SHOULD be more bang for your buck than the 5:1 tech, allowing them to keep more cash on hand. But either way, if you tie it to NS, then there should maybe be 2 caps, 1 soft cap and 1 hard cap. Maybe something like $2 billion up to 100K NS. Then incremental increases  (maybe $50K) for each 1000 NS, but that number would need tested and tweaked as well).

[WorldConqueror]

It should be tied in some way to economy rather than power shouldn't it? Maybe some multiple of daily collection or bills.

[Starfox101]

I stand strong by my stance that the best way to control warchests is to soft cap it. Every day your nation spends above the cap, you lose a point of happiness, indicating that citizens will simply not accept rulers not spending their tax dollars to improve their lives. It would force very large nations to buy REALLY expensive tech, or really squishy infra. As a suggested starting point, I would set the cap at $2 billion. But that number could be up for debate. 

 

You can also force wars to be shorter. This would require an active community moderator. When wars break out, the community monitors get a get a new panel that they are tasked with setting an alliance's current state to WAR or PEACE. It should also lock all nations at present on the alliance to have to reside on that AA until such time as their alliance is set back to PEACE. The effect of this setting is as follows : Peace - No effect. War: After 14 days (2 full cycles) war weariness begins to accrue on every nation in ever alliance at war. It will take tinkering and experimentation, and discussion to determine what effect war weariness will have. But the effect will ensure that the winning side has a price to pay for prosecuting long wars against defeated enemies. Defeated enemies are usually so soundly defeated that war weariness will have less an effect on them(but still the same TOTAL effect), and will force the winning side to seek faster resolution or risk making their "victory" far more damaging than it should have been. Again, times and effects are up for debate, discussion and testing, but the system, I believe, can and would work.

 

Also, to facilitate letting new nations get competetive quickly, a SIGNIFICANT increase in $$$ foreign aid caps (I personally would like to no caps on cash, and no tech permitted). If 6 alliance mates want to send a new guy who is active, or an old returning player $100 million, $200 million, they should be allowed to. It would make recruitment of new nations MEANINGFUL for alliances. I would, however, not implement this mechanic until ~120 days after the 1st suggestion, to prevent alot of large cash cows from building instant-capped new members with their bloated warchests.

War weariness is a great idea. There's no way a nation would accept rulers hoarding money, and waging endless wars without taking up any problem with it. There should be a happiness drag, and random events that can be triggered daily while at war, such as riots breaking out, or citizens turning to terrorism against it's own government. It would be a random occurrence and last until a nation is no longer at war. The warchest cap is great as well, but there's no way you're going to be able to sell that to all the larger nations of CN. They will take a quick objection to that, as good as the idea is.

 

Another issue I've seen is that there are simply no more characters. Back in the day, I used to essentially roleplay a freedom fighter who fought anyone who was in power. It was fun. We also had Pacificans taking on darker characters in a large number. Now all we have are people who act like they don't take the game seriously and pretend they are too cool to create a character, yet they check CN daily and are active political participants. Rayvon is one of the few here who actually have one, and I think it would do alot of good if people adopted a character. Hell, DBDC could take the character of Light Yagami from Death Note. Just ideas like that would make the political world more interesting. I've been thinking of one for myself lately. Would be much better if we did this in large numbers and adopted our play styles to match it. The cycle of war once to twice a year, and then massive periods of peace is dull. We need more individual politics.

 

Also, why hasn't CN had a mobile app created yet? There is a large market for crappy cell phone games, and CN is much better than a great majority of those that are frequently played.

[Lord Hershey]

Also, why hasn't CN had a mobile app created yet? There is a large market for crappy cell phone games, and CN is much better than a great majority of those that are frequently played.

I think that's possible now especially since the Admin changed the rules about having nations share a same IP recently. I think the admin should give it a shot making a CN app now because of that implementation. Edited July 3, 2014 by Lord Hershey

[FearUnited]

I stand strong by my stance that the best way to control warchests is to soft cap it. Every day your nation spends above the cap, you lose a point of happiness, indicating that citizens will simply not accept rulers not spending their tax dollars to improve their lives. It would force very large nations to buy REALLY expensive tech, or really squishy infra. As a suggested starting point, I would set the cap at $2 billion. But that number could be up for debate. 

 

You can also force wars to be shorter. This would require an active community moderator. When wars break out, the community monitors get a get a new panel that they are tasked with setting an alliance's current state to WAR or PEACE. It should also lock all nations at present on the alliance to have to reside on that AA until such time as their alliance is set back to PEACE. The effect of this setting is as follows : Peace - No effect. War: After 14 days (2 full cycles) war weariness begins to accrue on every nation in ever alliance at war. It will take tinkering and experimentation, and discussion to determine what effect war weariness will have. But the effect will ensure that the winning side has a price to pay for prosecuting long wars against defeated enemies. Defeated enemies are usually so soundly defeated that war weariness will have less an effect on them(but still the same TOTAL effect), and will force the winning side to seek faster resolution or risk making their "victory" far more damaging than it should have been. Again, times and effects are up for debate, discussion and testing, but the system, I believe, can and would work.

 

Also, to facilitate letting new nations get competetive quickly, a SIGNIFICANT increase in $$$ foreign aid caps (I personally would like to no caps on cash, and no tech permitted). If 6 alliance mates want to send a new guy who is active, or an old returning player $100 million, $200 million, they should be allowed to. It would make recruitment of new nations MEANINGFUL for alliances. I would, however, not implement this mechanic until ~120 days after the 1st suggestion, to prevent alot of large cash cows from building instant-capped new members with their bloated warchests.

 

I agree *Rush Sykes(I'm a bit tired so I apologize for the misspelling) in this aspect. There really should be no cap on aid. If you wanted to send your alliance mate 200 million so he can build, and your nation has the funds available, it should be allowed.

Edited July 3, 2014 by FearUnited

[Sarkin]

Hell, DBDC could take the character of Light Yagami from Death Note.

 

Nah, I've got that market cornered.

 

 

 

Also, why hasn't CN had a mobile app created yet? There is a large market for crappy cell phone games, and CN is much better than a great majority of those that are frequently played.

 

In terms of increasing (1) ease of use and (2) number of players, this is by far the most important suggestion made so far. 

 

 

 

I would counter that with that they dont really need more. [...] Maybe something like $2 billion up to 100K NS. Then incremental increases  (maybe $50K) for each 1000 NS, but that number would need tested and tweaked as well).

 

I don't think you quite understand how expensive war is when you've got 20k+ tech and a WRC.

[Auctor]

Some kind of war chest cap based on NS would be great for encouraging lower tier griefers to actually grow their nations.

[Knights111]

I agree with most things said here. The game is slowly dying and that is leading to many players boredom.

There indeed was a time when sanctioned alliances had 500 members, like back around the time of Atlantis. Now look, we are competing in the 100's, and GPA and IRON in 200's i think.

[Mayzie]

Your cap on warchests is to basically write off the best part of two years of me hoarding cash & buying tech when I might as well just have been going rogue every other month, isn't it?

[The Warrior]

Agreed on the creation of a mobile app. If we could get one created it could be relatively simple for the (presumably) thousands of CN players who have smart phones or tablets to download it and leave a positive rating and review. If we could get such an app into the top X number of apps in the app stores, recruiting will basically start taking care of itself.

[Mr Vicarious]

The ability to extend the length of a war is the only weapon that the losing side of our standard CN curbstomp can use. If you artificially shorten wars through some sort of moderator system, then you remove the benefit from having a well run alliance with the ability to keep it's nations motivated. You remove the element of will power that has for so long defined how well an alliance will fare in war.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Mr Vicarious

[Knights111]

Agreed on the creation of a mobile app. If we could get one created it could be relatively simple for the (presumably) thousands of CN players who have smart phones or tablets to download it and leave a positive rating and review. If we could get such an app into the top X number of apps in the app stores, recruiting will basically start taking care of itself.

definetly. When i am on my phone, i have to zoom in a bunch and it is hard to read.

[Starfox101]

I agree with most things said here. The game is slowly dying and that is leading to many players boredom.

There indeed was a time when sanctioned alliances had 500 members, like back around the time of Atlantis. Now look, we are competing in the 100's, and GPA and IRON in 200's i think.

Sanctioned alliances at one point had 1200 or so.

 

Agreed on the creation of a mobile app. If we could get one created it could be relatively simple for the (presumably) thousands of CN players who have smart phones or tablets to download it and leave a positive rating and review. If we could get such an app into the top X number of apps in the app stores, recruiting will basically start taking care of itself.

Launching a brand new game and loading it with 3-4k positive reviews detailing years of play would be a great start for any app.

 

 

Nah, I've got that market cornered.

 

 

In terms of increasing (1) ease of use and (2) number of players, this is by far the most important suggestion made so far. 

 

 

I don't think you quite understand how expensive war is when you've got 20k+ tech and a WRC.

I guess, but I don't see you going around writing nations names in your book. :P

Edited July 3, 2014 by Starfox101

[Rayvon]

Following along with the run of mobile ideas; I found when I made our forum Tapatalk-ready at the request of one or two members that we ended up having many use it .. It also provides it's own way of advertising to other Tapatalk users for the recruitment side of it .. But, most importantly, a Tapatalk-ready forum seeded right next to a mobile app make the most mobile-accessible it can be for what we do .. A mobile app for the in-game is semi-useless without it (I say semi because, even without the forums, it would be really cool to have that better mobile nation access - but it's like using Blu-Ray on a CRT, you just don't get the full experience ) ..

[Auctor]

Your cap on warchests is to basically write off the best part of two years of me hoarding cash & buying tech when I might as well just have been going rogue every other month, isn't it?

 

 

If it were a soft cap wherein you stopped making more money if you were at lower levels of infrastructure than you are now, would it really ruin your war chest advantage? You'd still have that two years saved up.

[JoshuaR]

I don't think you quite understand how expensive war is when you've got 20k+ tech and a WRC.

Seems like it.

 

I don't see how warchest caps would help the game. Don't we all WANT more frequent (shorter) wars? I spend a few billion dollars every time I go to war, and if I knew I'd deplete my mandatory small warchest every time I went to war, I'd care a lot about avoiding war. That's the problem we already have with tech. People are afraid to lose months or years worth of work in accumulation and avoid war. Capping a warchest would make that situation even worse.

[Starfox101]

Seems like it.

 

I don't see how warchest caps would help the game. Don't we all WANT more frequent (shorter) wars? I spend a few billion dollars every time I go to war, and if I knew I'd deplete my mandatory small warchest every time I went to war, I'd care a lot about avoiding war. That's the problem we already have with tech. People are afraid to lose months or years worth of work in accumulation and avoid war. Capping a warchest would make that situation even worse.

Nah, back in the day nobody had warchests and everybody had relatively small nations. It wasn't uncommon to lose everything in a week. Yet, there were much more frequent wars, and a whole lot more politics.

[Rush Sykes]

Seems like it.

 

I don't see how warchest caps would help the game. Don't we all WANT more frequent (shorter) wars? I spend a few billion dollars every time I go to war, and if I knew I'd deplete my mandatory small warchest every time I went to war, I'd care a lot about avoiding war. That's the problem we already have with tech. People are afraid to lose months or years worth of work in accumulation and avoid war. Capping a warchest would make that situation even worse.

 The expense of a war is relative. Everyone's WC would essentially be the same. Everyone's expenses would also be roughly the same. It really would not put you at an disadvantage relative to others. If pissing off a few whales (who, lets be frank, are going nowhere), in order to entice more new players to stay with the ability to quickly get relevant nations. then I call it a net win.The original vision of the game did not (and it is clear that it did not) envision nations getting as bloated as they are. It is an unforeseen "bug" in the game mechanics , so to speak. It does need addressed. We can pretend like it is no problem, but I have talked to literally HUNDREDS on new players over the last 2 years(I would be shocked if it was less than 500)... and the vast majority of them felt like their nations would never be relevant. This needs fixed. It does not need, as has been done for 8 years now, ignored.

[Rayvon]

 The expense of a war is relative. Everyone's WC would essentially be the same. Everyone's expenses would also be roughly the same. It really would not put you at an disadvantage relative to others. If pissing off a few whales (who, lets be frank, are going nowhere), in order to entice more new players to stay with the ability to quickly get relevant nations. then I call it a net win.The original vision of the game did not (and it is clear that it did not) envision nations getting as bloated as they are. It is an unforeseen "bug" in the game mechanics , so to speak. It does need addressed. We can pretend like it is no problem, but I have talked to literally HUNDREDS on new players over the last 2 years(I would be shocked if it was less than 500)... and the vast majority of them felt like their nations would never be relevant. This needs fixed. It does not need, as has been done for 8 years now, ignored.

 

This post would fit well over [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/122795-wonder-effectiveness/]here[/url] too.

[Sephiroth]

I don't think nerfing the gameplay for many who have stuck with CN for a long time is a way to improve anything. Admin has already been adding more content, which is good and he's on the right track with that. I've suggested a mobile app before and still think its a good idea, as that could bring a lot more players. Beyond that its up to the players to make things interesting and trying to get the game nerfed to remove any advantages others have worked for already is not a way to make people put more effort in. Instead that will make people feel like the effort they already have put in has been a waste of time.

 

Every suggestion I've heard so far to try removing any advantage older players have already worked for has been really bad imo. Removing aid caps I think could be good though.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Methrage