.The declining participation

[JonBoy16]

Its no secret that for the last few rounds, fewer and fewer nations have been participating in Tournament Edition. Personally, I enjoy the game and don't care about winning a flag for being the strongest nation at the end of the round. Perhaps this is the problem many people have, that is driving people away. Maybe they just don't have any drive to win a simple flag and because of it, they have no ambition to learn to play better. Because of not learning to play better their nations suffer. Because of their nations suffering, they don't find the game to be as much fun and end up leaving.

Here is my suggested solution. Provide a better prize for winning the round. Most people are motivated by money, so a small cash award may be a great idea. Perhaps $50 for 1st, $25 for 2nd, and $10 for 3rd. Maybe it could be a refund of their donations, or free donations next round (or reduced by a % for the 2nd and 3rd place nations) could be more effective and less ironic. I'm sure that with a monetary award, more people would be motivated to succeed and perhaps willing to donate (thus giving you more money, admin) to their nation to that end. The increased reward would likely bring in more players, thus more donations and therefore paying for the rewards (with extra cash in your pocket, admin).

Perhaps also having awards for other things such as most attacking casualties would contribute to a more broad range of players as well.

Any thoughts?

Edited April 18, 2010 by JonBoy16

[lonewolfe2015]

I'd rather see a real tournament system in place where 1st, 2nd and 3rd get a prize of sorts. Be it a donation, badge/award, flag, etc.

The flag at the end of the round in SE is an issue in the sense that it is all some people do. But the other problem with participation is squarely placed on the alliances that lead the game. We've seen a declining participation with the reigning alliances as RE/TP(F/C) for the past rounds.

The game will only grow with change, change creates interest. If admin is not changing it, we as players need to change.

[Tiberius C Nero]

The shorter rounds aren't helping things.
Also the death of Treaty blocs had an adverse effect aswell.
when rounds were 3 months, we had 2 months to build and one month to fight.
Now it's death and destruction straight out of the gate.
My suggestions would be to bring back the 3 month rounds and
bring back the rivalries that were present when Treaty blocs existed..

[Fizzydog]

I comepletely disagree with money prizes. This game is non profit, so admin would be losing lots o greens, and I'm sure his wife wouldn't be happy about that.

[Arrnea]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='18 April 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1271559356' post='2264554']I comepletely disagree with money prizes. This game is non profit, so admin would be losing lots o greens, and I'm sure his wife wouldn't be happy about that. [/quote]
I agree with this, however donation prizes don't really cost admin anything and with the precious few he'd be giving out for TE, I'm sure it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the usual trade in donations being done.

[JonBoy16]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='17 April 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1271559356' post='2264554']
admin would be losing lots o greens
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the financial prizes would bring in more money to admin than what he would have to spend in prizes.

[Son of Taeper]

Good point.

Perhaps kerbing alliance size and restricting protectorates might help.

Also, restricting all battles to uphill fights would give the guys that are new to the game a fighting chance. The latter would be easy enough to code in but the prior would have to be alliance led on the whole.
Coding in alliance size, seniority, nation age et al to compensate would be the ultimate waybut that would require some coding.
Just maths though and that's what the game is about.

[JimKongIl]

It seems like numbers have kinda stabilized around 2000. It seems like a few rounds ago we started out with 1,800 so I thought it had gotten a little better. I like the flag prize and I like the players that care nothing about the flag and just want to fight. Those two groups together create a recipe for chaos.
What we need is an SE recruitment drive and not steer them towards any alliance in particular just TE in general. Messages to SE nations, posts on Fark.com, reddit.com, Digg.com etc right before the round ends.
I think the flag prize is a nice enticement for many 100 man alliances to join. It can also be billed as a training ground for alliances to get some war experience without tearing up their SE stuff.
We know TE is an enjoyable experience we just need to sell it to people not playing.

Edited April 18, 2010 by JimKongIl

[White Chocolate]

I'm constantly telling people who I invite over to TE to join an alliance of over 10 people at least as their VERY FIRST act - before spending any money. I also say it's highly possible that they will get attacked soon after buying any troops. Especially if they move over from SE and are use to the idea of a short peace mode period when they start - they are not expecting an attack literally the first day. This may not be a popular opinion, but I think one or two days of a peace mode option would not hurt. I also preferred the longer rounds.

[Viscerator]

TBQH, the flag isn't worth much to the bigger alliances in CN - those close to sanction should actually be encouraged NOT to win one through CN:TE.

MK learned this the hard way.

When a big alliance (say, 190 members) wants to play TE for a flag in-game, they can probably expect to get ~50 people to play (more if they're very active, possibly less). That's 50 who won't play currently.

The way to (slightly) encourage participation? Allow victorious nations to change their flag if it's an alliance flag, and that alliance gains sanction.

[Janitor]

I too try and bring in as many as I can but there usually don't last too long because of the uodate time and advantage being awake at update gives you.

If admin wants this thing to grow, the day needs to be either 23 or 25 hours long so everyone gets the advantage at some point every round.

[lonewolfe2015]

To be honest, I'd rather enable a variable update so that each nation's update is hidden without spy ops and if you update strike someone then they could very well update strike you when you aren't paying attention.

The advantage gets reversed.

[Asa Phillips]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='23 May 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1274645995' post='2309386']
To be honest, I'd rather enable a variable update so that each nation's update is hidden without spy ops and if you update strike someone then they could very well update strike you when you aren't paying attention.

The advantage gets reversed.
[/quote]
Doing something to do away with the quad attack update advantage is a good step in the right direction I think if you want to take a military aspect of improvement, and doing away with donations or lessening their impact is one when you take a non military aspect.

Lets be honest, people are competitive by nature. Some keep track of casualties, some keep track of nations put into anarchy, some keep track of how their alliance does, some keep track of tech and land raided... but the majority keep track of how they stack up compared to everyone else.

Someone who may suck at the game, only need to donate once and they have a respectable set up, donate twice and they're bad $@! compared to nearly all of the players who don't. What do those non-donating players have to look forward to? doing well in the non-donators bracket?? No, sooner rather that later they're going to figure out they can't compete in the way they want to and they stop playing.

The first round of TE ever had a tremendous amount of players, something like 6k I believe, and there was no donations.

[GetaBeer]

[quote]Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:20 PM - lonewolfe2015

To be honest, I'd rather enable a variable update so that each nation's update is hidden without spy ops and if you update strike someone then they could very well update strike you when you aren't paying attention.

The advantage gets reversed.
[/quote]

That is the best idea i've heard, when you make your nation you set your update time and its locked for the current round.

Edited May 29, 2010 by GetaBeer

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Asa Phillips' date='29 May 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1275152003' post='2315629']
Doing something to do away with the quad attack update advantage is a good step in the right direction I think if you want to take a military aspect of improvement, and doing away with donations or lessening their impact is one when you take a non military aspect.

Lets be honest, people are competitive by nature. Some keep track of casualties, some keep track of nations put into anarchy, some keep track of how their alliance does, some keep track of tech and land raided... but the majority keep track of how they stack up compared to everyone else.

Someone who may suck at the game, only need to donate once and they have a respectable set up, donate twice and they're bad $@! compared to nearly all of the players who don't. What do those non-donating players have to look forward to? doing well in the non-donators bracket?? No, sooner rather that later they're going to figure out they can't compete in the way they want to and they stop playing.

The first round of TE ever had a tremendous amount of players, something like 6k I believe, and there was no donations.
[/quote]

Well, quadding is a tool that should stay. But the problem is in the fact that update is really inconvenient for the majority of TE's player base. In SE it's not so bad because wars happen less often so you may be willing to rough it out for a little while.

As for donations, it is very possible to overcome them, I've never donated in TE and have been a top 10 nation a few rounds, top 5% majority of the rounds I played actively. The problem comes when a nation donates who actually knows what they are doing in building, as there are probably 5-10 in TE currently who know how to use donations and could effectively build up such a huge disparity in ranges that you can't attack them. There was one round where the OP nation nearly managed to do that but they couldn't anarchy me to keep me from hitting him.

Point is, I think TE needs to have a variable update if you want to increase the number of participants so that they don't have such a huge disadvantage of being quadded and likely anarchied and destroyed within 2-3 days, once you're dead in TE once, the fun is usually gone for the entire round unless you're really prepared for the fight, or aren't looking to be among the top nations.

[Asa Phillips]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='29 May 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1275154670' post='2315678']
Well, quadding is a tool that should stay.[/quote]

Why? if this is an online nation simulation game, and no such thing exists in the real world? then why is it a necessity that it should stay?

I've quadded more than my fair share of players in the past, I've even set my alarm to get me up after having been asleep after only an hour to do so with little concern at all. I can honestly say rarely ever have I been on the wrong end of a quad, so supporting it should be something I too would be for, but I'm not... because its not any type of simulation of anything in the real world, and I've seen what I've done to others using it. To have a completely mauled nation by the time my opponent logs on again I can imagine is more than a little disheartening.

If quadding is a necessary feature of the game, then I don't understand why you have to wait 24 hours between launching nukes.

[quote]But the problem is in the fact that update is really inconvenient for the majority of TE's player base. In SE it's not so bad because wars happen less often so you may be willing to rough it out for a little while.[/quote]

Truth.

[quote]As for donations, it is very possible to overcome them, I've never donated in TE and have been a top 10 nation a few rounds, top 5% majority of the rounds I played actively. The problem comes when a nation donates who actually knows what they are doing in building, as there are probably 5-10 in TE currently who know how to use donations and could effectively build up such a huge disparity in ranges that you can't attack them. There was one round where the OP nation nearly managed to do that but they couldn't anarchy me to keep me from hitting him.[/quote]

Theres no +/- 250 range on TE? Even the top nation should have 250 nations able to hit it regardless of strength. The only things stopping that should be political positioning in regards to allies.

Also, top 5% is nothing special, I've regularly reached that myself without ever donating and rarely ever even going after a perfect trade set, and even reaching top 10 ranked (position, not percentage) isn't special... unless you actually hold it. Were there any rounds you [i]finished[/i] in the top 10, because we see the top ten nations turnover frequently during the course of a round and I'm sure most of them haven't donated, but you can be sure that all of the nations that finish in the top ten, barring any purposeful attacking of the top 10 at the end of a round, have donated at least once.

[quote]Point is, I think TE needs to have a variable update if you want to increase the number of participants so that they don't have such a huge disadvantage of being quadded and likely anarchied and destroyed within 2-3 days, once you're dead in TE once, the fun is usually gone for the entire round unless you're really prepared for the fight, or aren't looking to be among the top nations.
[/quote]

I agree with this 100%, [i]if[/i] the idea of quadding [b]has[/b] to stay. But a means to come up with a more fair update time for each individual is going to be tough and will more than likely promote rerolls like we've never seen before if its generated randomly. Especially if people are dissatisfied with their update time with one roll and their resources with another.

Which is why getting rid of quadding is the more fair and easier answer and just making it 24 hours between attacks instead. Collaboration between members of an alliance will still be important because of ganging up on targets and coordinating attacks, it just makes it more reasonable for more people to be able to do so if update isn't part of the equation.

[lonewolfe2015]

Admin has said on numerous occasions the game is not designed to be entirely realistic, something like quadding will not go away without the addition of a wonder Hime Themis suggested that would allow for a time delay between any and all military attacks once declaring, even then you can quad after the delay if you time it right.

Quads are not as devastating if you are aware of the attacks coming too.

[Asa Phillips]

Again, I ask why "quadding is a tool that should stay"?

Changes have been made to plenty of other more important aspects of the game... improvement have benefits increased/decreased, resources as well, even the donations sytem. Must the attitude toward the idea of the games entire player base relying on a 10 minute window out of 24 hours be so closed minded?

I proposed to admin quite while ago the idea of email notification when someones nation is attacked, he originally balked at the idea and then implemented it a few weeks later. I doubt anyone can argue it was a bad idea, even though admin felt it was at the time it was suggested, so the argument that "admin says" doesn't really mean he's right does it?

I imagine that last comment in your reply was unrelated to this topic, but rensitive to our respective alliances current war? It didn't really fit into the subject matter other wise and is fairly obvious information to any reader who is even slightly experienced. I did find it slightly funny tho.

[lonewolfe2015]

No... it did fit into the subject at hand. Because you can survive a quad attack if you are aware of the attack coming. Because with the wonder Hime suggested you'd be aware of the attack coming.

The only time you have to worry about the quad attack scenario is when you could be declared on at a moment's notice. And even then being properly prepared won't affect you very severely because you could avoid anarchy (I have avoided a triple quad attack's anarchy effects before)

While yes, there are aspects of the game to be changed, arguing about quadding in here will do nothing, rarely does a mod do much about TE suggestions, the chance to fix quads would be if you had a solution and presented it in the SE suggestion box and had admin test the theory in TE.

Trust me on that one.

[Schad]

Even with a variable update time (an idea that I like) I wouldn't be in favour of doing away with quadding, because it's one of the few ways that an alliance can gain a defined military advantage during a conflict. In TE, having the ability to get the upper hand with a quad emboldens small alliances to believe that they can take on larger alliances if they execute well, and provides a route for an alliance that has been attacked to regain the initiative.

[Homura]

[quote name='Asa Phillips' date='04 June 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1275672405' post='2323551']
Theres no +/- 250 range on TE? Even the top nation should have 250 nations able to hit it regardless of strength. The only things stopping that should be political positioning in regards to allies.
[/quote]
There is no +/- 250 range in TE, which is what keeps someone like me who currently has 15k NS at #3 from stomping on a bunch of little nations with less than 1/3 of my infrastructure and no nuclear capability around #250. If this was added to TE, someone would be whining to remove it as soon as I did that.

[lonewolfe2015]

I argued for the ability to aggressively attack top nations even from a disadvantageous NS, that would help hurt you if someone had a nuke rogue outside of your range.

[JimKongIl]

I think the game is great as is. We just need to recruit.

[Bionic redhead]

SE politics have an effect on TE participation. People were too busy fighting the last war in SE to participate in TE.

[Clash]

[quote name='Bionic redhead' date='08 June 2010 - 05:24 AM' timestamp='1275996252' post='2328721']
SE politics have an effect on TE participation. People were too busy fighting the last war in SE to participate in TE.
[/quote]
This is true, as is what JimKong said..

SE has 25,000 players, TE has less than 2,000. SE is by far the best place to get new players for TE. It's difficult to get players for TE from places outside CN completely, and I've tried. TE is harder than SE because of all the war. In SE you mostly just work on economics and growth. In TE, you have to grow - then watch it get destroyed, and some people do cling to their infra. Learning to war right - so you don't get too killed - can take time too. New players to CN have so much to learn they can get discouraged very easily.

I think the best idea is JimKong's.
We need to recruit more from SE.