172,800,000 seconds of Cyber Nations

[Shan Revan]

[color="#FF0000"][size="4"][center][b]172,800,000 seconds of Cybernations
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb[/b][/center][/size][/color]

Today I join a very small percentage of nations, that have preceded me to a rather impressive landmark - 2000 days. Of the 4656 nations that were in existence when I created my nation, only 60 remain. Much of that list is a veritable whos-who of previous generations, perhaps the age group most densely populated with alliance leaders and world changers. Many names that were once famous, or are still famous - much more so than myself.

I have no intention of re-hashing tired stories or boring everyone with five and a half years of shout-outs, many of which no longer exist in this world. I will just say that I have met a lot of amazing people within Cyber Nations, far more good than bad, and that although there have been plenty of bad times, I definitely consider this to have been a great time... perhaps not the most wisely invested time but a lot of fun.

Rather than all that clichéd stuff, I decided to take a look at Cyber Nations itself. Yesterday, in preparation for tonight I went trawling through the "display all nations" list and compiled a large set of data, much of which I am still making interesting stuff with. However for this thread tonight I decided to condense it down to a select core of a few interesting points and made some tables for you.


[b]Summary of nation distribution by years[/b]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/CGBm5.gif[/IMG]
This one is quite interesting as you can see the growth and decline of Cyber Nations, but what is really quite interesting is the massive retention seen from nations created in 2008, compared with years since. In fact 2008 has more nations in it remaining than 2009 and 2010 combined, which is really surprising. Also 2010 saw a huge change in the rate of nation creation. I wonder if there was something in particular that made kept people from joining in 2010? We can also extrapolate based on current trends for this year that only around 46.5K nations will be created in 2011. This is however a far more consistent drop with previous years than 2010 was. Barring another 2010 style drop, Cyber Nations has another solid 3 to 4 years left of decent nation creation.

[b]Nation Distribution by Quarters (click for 2006 to present - BIG IMAGE)[/b]
[url=http://i.imgur.com/rRYIm.gif][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jToa1.gif[/IMG][/url]

This second one, when viewed in full, is a far more detailed break down of where nations are. You can see that a full quarter of our nations are less than 3 months old. That's pretty staggering. The rest of this year (Jan-1 to Jun-30) make up another 17%. Meanwhile nations such as myself, who were created before April 2006 make up half a percent.

I have a lot more data so I might make a full analysis thread later but for now I will just say Thank you Admin for this interesting game and community and that through the many things I have done, I have no regrets and would do it all again. So here's to another 2000? (OH PLEASE GOD NO)

Edited September 7, 2011 by Shan Revan

[Captain Enema]

You sir can have your way with my sister anytime you please. Just be sure to not let her roll over on you in your sleep, you'll be smothered to death.


and first..

Edited September 7, 2011 by Tidy Bowl Man

[Haflinger]

The 2010 nations are facing an extremely uphill climb in terms of competing militarily. Nations like mine (created in 2007) are going to wipe the floor with them, no matter what they do, while nations created in 2008 can be in the elite category. Add into that the long wars, which are ruinous to young nations on both sides, and you see the obvious reason for poor retention of the young nations.

[Shan Revan]

I can certainly agree that modern warfare is detrimental to retaining nations.

[Melancholy Culkin]

This makes me wish I had never re-rolled

Congrats on the milestone.

[nippy]

Don't you mean "love the Bob"?

[D34th]

Nice stats Shan Revan, but is sad to see that only 1,91% of the nations that were created in my quarter(2006 Q3) still remain.

Also congrats for your 2000 days!

[Hereno]

2008 nation reporting in.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315398219' post='2796278']
The 2010 nations are facing an extremely uphill climb in terms of competing militarily. Nations like mine (created in 2007) are going to wipe the floor with them, no matter what they do, while nations created in 2008 can be in the elite category. Add into that the long wars, which are ruinous to young nations on both sides, and you see the obvious reason for poor retention of the young nations.[/quote]

Assuming you want a full set of wonders, and buy a wonder every month, it takes 31 months to pull that off. Logically, you aren't going to be able to buy a wonder the first couple months in the game (oh you can if you get pumped with money, but that's not typical) and there are going to be a few months here and there you may not be able to buy a wonder or are delayed in buying a wonder due to circumstance (recovering from war, not enough cash to buy on the "wonder day", you forget and let a couple extra weeks slip by, etc.). A good estimate on when you should have a full set therefore is three years into the game.

We can argue back and forth what constitutes an "elite" category nation. Does it take 31 wonders? No. 24? Perhaps. If you are looking at strictly military power, then you can probably get by with even fewer, with the purchase of the WRC being the mark of an elite military nation. So realistically you are looking at 18-20 months to gain elite status. I have no idea how long it takes to get to have an "elite" character in WoW or an elite nation/colony/empire/organization in other browser based games either (though LW was similar), but it would be interesting to find comparable games to CN and do an "apples to apples" comparison to see if it takes longer in CN to get to an elite level, a shorter period, or if CN is somewhere in the middle. My sense is that CN is in the latter category.

As for poor retention of young nations, having a financial system in place to help small nations grow rapidly and recover quickly from calamity (rogue attacks, collapsed trade circles on the eve of a major back collect, wars, etc.) is essential. That tends to favor large, wealthy alliances and its no coincidence that historically alliances such as NPO grew very large and still retain a substantial number of members despite both external (reduction in web traffic to CN) and in game (exclusion from the current hegemony) issues.

[jerdge]

Shan Revan, great post, thanks for the interesting information.

It's also nice to see you're still around, also because you make me feel "young" (I remember you at the head of IRON FA back in the day when I was a newbie, and I am not [i]really[/i] new to the game...)


[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315398219' post='2796278']The 2010 nations are facing an extremely uphill climb in terms of competing militarily. Nations like mine (created in 2007) are going to wipe the floor with them, no matter what they do, while nations created in 2008 can be in the elite category. Add into that the long wars, which are ruinous to young nations on both sides, and you see the obvious reason for poor retention of the young nations.[/quote]
True, although this isn't a war game. If new players could quickly get into CN politics they'd have enough to keep their hands full for all the time needed to eventually find themselves in control of a military elite nation.
I anyway suspect that the uphill climb to get into CN politics is even [i]steeper[/i].

[Iceknave]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315398219' post='2796278']
The 2010 nations are facing an extremely uphill climb in terms of competing militarily. Nations like mine (created in 2007) are going to wipe the floor with them, no matter what they do, while nations created in 2008 can be in the elite category. Add into that the long wars, which are ruinous to young nations on both sides, and you see the obvious reason for poor retention of the young nations.
[/quote]
<-- late 2008 nation, sooooo not elite by nearly any measure I can think of, . Close to 60% of my time in CN = no wonder purchased... I suppose it's a "side benefit" of being in the NPO for so long. The 2010 nations will be at an extreme disadvantage for at least a year and a half, probably close to 2 (after factoring in a ruinous war) before they might reach lower middle class (MP, a few other military wonders and a decent number of economic wonders). Not sure what people consider to be "middle class".

I agree with jerdge. The climb to get into CN politics is even higher, between the enormous number and diversity of alliances (even if it can be distilled to a bare minimum, you're still looking at interactions between a dozen or more alliances today), the somewhat hostile environment against other alliances and newbies, and the history that drives the game (some, who have never experienced some of the history, don't truly understand what it means to be, for instance, a tech farm for another alliance for several months to a year).

Edited September 7, 2011 by Iceknave

[deth2munkies]

I have no idea what happened for about half of 2010 in game, maybe wars drove people off after getting pounded shortly after joining, or maybe it's just the fact that over the last few years, F2P games have gotten increasingly sophisticated and common throughout the internet.

Mechanically, CN can't compete with most of the other browser-based or F2P persistent world games out there except on a level of political discourse between people on the forums, which is by and large not most peoples' bag. Most people would be more satisfied with something like Farmville or Mafia Wars to suck up their extra time, and people who identify themselves as "gamers" would be more taken by MMO offerings from people like Turbine and Nexon, or shooters like the free Battlefield or upcoming Firefall.

With all the competition, I can't help but think that CN is facing a much more difficult time in appealing to people because it's such a niche game.

Doom and gloom aside, grats on the landmark Shan, good to see some of the old guard still around.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1315405457' post='2796310']
I anyway suspect that the uphill climb to get into CN politics is even [i]steeper[/i].[/quote]

I went from someone who literally fell from the sky from fark.com in mid-February 2007 to a Triumvir of a sanctioned alliance by the end of August. Next alliance was much smaller but I was in the top leadership there within 3 months and was leading another sanctioned alliance by the end of 2008.

Getting to the top is as much about luck as skill and longevity and it always has been, both here and IRL.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Hell Yeah!!! 2008 represent!!!

Thanks Shan Revan for taking the time to do this.

[quote]How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb[/quote]
The last person to use this sentence in my presence was Ramirus Maximus....


[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1315410438' post='2796339']
I went from someone who literally fell from the sky from fark.com in mid-February 2007 to a Triumvir of a sanctioned alliance by the end of August. Next alliance was much smaller but I was in the top leadership there within 3 months and was leading another sanctioned alliance by the end of 2008.

Getting to the top is as much about luck as skill and longevity and it always has been, both here and IRL.
[/quote]
Most times ascension is a function of being there while others are waiting for the next war. Being a person that actively brings about the next war by pitching in with other malcontents also helps. Simply sitting about griping about how stuff never happens here, is the surest way of not having anything fun happen to you, ever. At best one would get swept up in someone else's fun, once or twice a year.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Alfred von Tirpitz

[KainIIIC]

Here's a 2009 nation right here, been through 3 brutal wars, 1.06m casualties, and never past 5k infra. I suppose I am now a 'middle class' nation

Edited September 7, 2011 by KainIIIC

[Horatio Longworth]

Thank you Shan Revan, I absolutely love stats.

[Kubla Khan]

525,600 MINUTES!
HOW DO YOU MEASURE?
MEASURE A YEAR?

or something like that

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1315413615' post='2796371']
Most times ascension is a function of being there while others are waiting for the next war. Being a person that actively brings about the next war by pitching in with other malcontents also helps. Simply sitting about griping about how stuff never happens here, is the surest way of not having anything fun happen to you, ever. At best one would get swept up in someone else's fun, once or twice a year.[/quote]

You speak truth. Anyone can rush off and attack anyone in range anywhere at anytime so long as Peace Mode isn't involved. Seeing a plan come together....

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mve8RtGexsM/TajrSPhIXmI/AAAAAAAABIk/Z5D-VGORXKM/s1600/Hannibal_a-team.jpg[/img]

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1315410438' post='2796339']
I went from someone who literally fell from the sky from fark.com in mid-February 2007 to a Triumvir of a sanctioned alliance by the end of August. Next alliance was much smaller but I was in the top leadership there within 3 months and was leading another sanctioned alliance by the end of 2008.

Getting to the top is as much about luck as skill and longevity and it always has been, both here and IRL.
[/quote]

Yeah, and depending on how you want to play the game you can do these sort of things.

I think it's a no brainer that as alliances progress they tend to put in stops to prevent these sort of things to happen, ex: requirements etc.

For good reason, but inevitably turning people away from the political aspect.

There's something to be said about the internal dynamic of alliance politics, which, far often than in recent memory, has played an ever increasing role in the game.

[Mixoux]

Didn't realize 2008 made up such a huge portion these days. I joined late 2006 and felt like I was already late to the party; apparently not anymore!

[Schattenmann]

Hey Shan, seen you around lately, but you took your hiatus seriously; I thought you had re-rolled not just taken a break.

Maybe the Pax Pacifica is responsible for retention. The vast majority of alliances--in an age where AAs were in the 600-1200-member range--were all on top of things, and while there was lots of war, most aligned nations would have been insulated from the spirit-dampening effects of all that war (victory, and the physical limitations of slots keeping them from going to war even during a war). By contrast, new nations in 2009 and 2010 when all those AAs would have got the opposite, followed by reps preventing their AAs from supporting them (retaining them) post-war. The 2008ers that were exposed to the same power-shift would have a higher retnetnion rate because they've invested more of their time into it, they've seen that things can get better, and their nations would have been better prepared to last. The alliances that destroyed the Pax Pacifica are not the sorts of mass-recruiters and nation-retainers that the old guard were, so there's less of that going on overall.

(sorry, not my most eloquent work, but I'm in the last 30 mins of work)

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1315405457' post='2796310']
It's also nice to see you're still around, also because you make me feel "young" (I remember you at the head of IRON FA back in the day when I was a newbie, and I am not [i]really[/i] new to the game...)[/quote]
That Medal of Friendship from you to Shan/IRON is still one of the greatest OWF moments of all time in my book.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Schattenmann

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1315422019' post='2796434']
Yeah, and depending on how you want to play the game you can do these sort of things.

I think it's a no brainer that as alliances progress they tend to put in stops to prevent these sort of things to happen, ex: requirements etc.

For good reason, but inevitably turning people away from the political aspect.

There's something to be said about the internal dynamic of alliance politics, which, far often than in recent memory, has played an ever increasing role in the game.[/quote]

In my experience, if you are active, available on IRC, engage in conversation with leadership, and volunteer for stuff and actually finish what you start, you advance, if for no other reason but you are viewed as reliable. That might not get you to the top of the alliance, but it will put you into a position to advance into senior leadership at least by attrition if nothing else.

I will grant you however that there are some alliances where the top spots are locked up pretty much permanently and there exists a "glass ceiling" of sorts. My advice to anyone in that situation is either be content with being part of the team or go seek out an alliance that doesn't have a glass ceiling and work on advancing there.

[Kzoppistan]

OP: You are incredibly awesome.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Kzoppistan

[Artigo]

o/ Shan

One of the good guys

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1315430693' post='2796484']
In my experience, if you are active, available on IRC, engage in conversation with leadership, and volunteer for stuff and actually finish what you start, you advance, if for no other reason but you are viewed as reliable. That might not get you to the top of the alliance, but it will put you into a position to advance into senior leadership at least by attrition if nothing else.

I will grant you however that there are some alliances where the top spots are locked up pretty much permanently and there exists a "glass ceiling" of sorts. My advice to anyone in that situation is either be content with being part of the team or go seek out an alliance that doesn't have a glass ceiling and work on advancing there.
[/quote]

I don't know, it's actually quite fun to achieve what others find too much effort or not worth it.