Total CN nation count.

[DogeWilliam]

The current total for nations in the game is 27,892. What does everyone think of that number? Do you think it is too low, too high, or just right? 27,892 players is certainly nothing to laugh at, but I have always though it should be higher. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there about 32k nation at some point. What was the high mark in terms of nations?

I ask this question to the community as I am a fan of CN and wonder what could be done to popularize the game so that we have an overall growth in number of nations.

Edited June 6, 2009 by DogeWilliam

[lonewolfe2015]

A year ago when I first started playing it was over 30k

[DogeWilliam]

A year ago when I first started playing it was over 30k

So what can we attribute the declining nation count to? Why isn't there a steady influx of new members to replace those who quit?

[enderland]

So what can we attribute the declining nation count to? Why isn't there a steady influx of new members to replace those who quit?

Large wars normally cause people to quit for a whole variety of reasons.

[Otherworld]

Yeah, it was about 30k before the war.

It goes up and down in cycles apparently. It will go back up again most likely.

[Näktergal]

As far as I can remember, the peak of activity was just under 40k, just before GWIII broke out.

After GWIII, a number of curbstomps led multiple alliances to be destroyed, and at least some of the playerbase left with them. There was a long period of contraction where every day there'd be fewer nations than the day before (triggering a lot of "CN IS DYING!" discussions), until it hit about 30k and stabilized again.

Now it tends to wobble back and forth between 27k to 30k or so.

Personally, I think the game only gets better the more people are playing (more players means more smaller alliances, larger big alliances, an easier time getting trades, etc), but I don't think there's any real way we're ever going to manage to boost our population much higher than it currently is. Basically, I think 27k to 30k is about the equilibrium point of CN.

[lonewolfe2015]

If you want to boost it, you might as well start advertising campaigns...

But if we were to advertise CN would need to cease being a beta and have a full reset. Clean the system, implement new changes that are tested in TE if at all possible or tested before the reset date.

Give vouchers to nations that have been donated on, say max of 5 of their donations can be given to their nation... things like that.

The only other way I can see it changing is if we stop having so many 1-sided wars and things start evening out. The smaller, more even wars tend to leave everyone happy on both sides and people don't mind the rebuild.

[DogeWilliam]

Now it tends to wobble back and forth between 27k to 30k or so.

Personally, I think the game only gets better the more people are playing (more players means more smaller alliances, larger big alliances, an easier time getting trades, etc), but I don't think there's any real way we're ever going to manage to boost our population much higher than it currently is. Basically, I think 27k to 30k is about the equilibrium point of CN.

Yea, I agree with you. The more the merrier. Maybe I'm biased, but I find the game so fun that it seems odd to me that the player base isn't larger.

[thedestro]

Efficient upgrades will only increase the numbers.

[Zikawe]

It was 40k when I joined.

And it has been below 30k for a long time now. It went above for a short time after the jarhead influx, but they all quickly died away.

And I wish it was a lot higher, but I don't think it will go up, I expect it to keep going down.

[enderland]

Efficient upgrades will only increase the numbers.

Or at worst maintain them.

[King Irwin]

I don't expect that the population will ever drastically increase here. There is always going to be attrition as members get bored or don't have the time anymore, so the question is how do we replace them? The way it currently is, it's not terribly appealing for new nations, because they are over 3 years behind, so it would take many years for them to ever stand a chance of growing to the ranks of the top players. However, a drastic measure like a system reset and major advertising as mentioned earlier would likely bring in a lot of fresh members, but at the expense of a lot of core older members. Many people that spent 2-3 years building their nations and alliances would not want to start over, and would find that a convenient time to quit.

I agree with previous posters that the more the merrier, but I don't think substantial growth is likely. I just hope it doesn't decline much more than the 27-30k range it has been in.

[DogeWilliam]

I don't expect that the population will ever drastically increase here. There is always going to be attrition as members get bored or don't have the time anymore, so the question is how do we replace them? The way it currently is, it's not terribly appealing for new nations, because they are over 3 years behind, so it would take many years for them to ever stand a chance of growing to the ranks of the top players. However, a drastic measure like a system reset and major advertising as mentioned earlier would likely bring in a lot of fresh members, but at the expense of a lot of core older members. Many people that spent 2-3 years building their nations and alliances would not want to start over, and would find that a convenient time to quit.

I agree with previous posters that the more the merrier, but I don't think substantial growth is likely. I just hope it doesn't decline much more than the 27-30k range it has been in.

Good point. Though I would think that new players don't understand yet how long it takes to create a big nation. I don't know. I think it has a lot to do with the word not being spread. That's up to admin I guess.

[Drai]

The more the better in my opinion. What I would actually prefer though is more nations/alliance.

[willirica]

As far as I can remember, the peak of activity was just under 40k, just before GWIII broke out.

After GWIII, a number of curbstomps led multiple alliances to be destroyed, and at least some of the playerbase left with them. There was a long period of contraction where every day there'd be fewer nations than the day before (triggering a lot of "CN IS DYING!" discussions), until it hit about 30k and stabilized again.

Now it tends to wobble back and forth between 27k to 30k or so.

Personally, I think the game only gets better the more people are playing (more players means more smaller alliances, larger big alliances, an easier time getting trades, etc), but I don't think there's any real way we're ever going to manage to boost our population much higher than it currently is. Basically, I think 27k to 30k is about the equilibrium point of CN.

This ^

Although i think a reset would increase the population of CN quite a bit

[enderland]

The more the better in my opinion. What I would actually prefer though is more nations/alliance.

I rather strongly agree with this. Lots of large alliances make the game more interesting.

Unfortunately, the game is only fun for a small handful of those who want to be in charge of something in large alliances and as a result large alliances have lost their populatity.

[Näktergal]

But if we were to advertise CN would need to cease being a beta and have a full reset. Clean the system, implement new changes that are tested in TE if at all possible or tested before the reset date.

I'd be willing to bet very large sums of real world money that a full reset would lose far more current players than it manages to pull in via new recruits. As such, it would basically accelerate the decline, rather than reversing it.

However, a drastic measure like a system reset and major advertising as mentioned earlier would likely bring in a lot of fresh members, but at the expense of a lot of core older members. Many people that spent 2-3 years building their nations and alliances would not want to start over, and would find that a convenient time to quit.

I think a lot of newer players would be amazed at just how strong a force OCD can be. I'd probably have quit CN a hundred times over whenever it tended to get boring or RL started to get a bit busy, if not for the fact that I'd already invested so much damned time in my nation. The sheer inertia of my nation being so old means I feel almost obligated to keep it alive, even when I can barely manage to log in once a week to keep it running. Even after you lose interest in the community, or simply don't have the time for it, you still feel like you have to keep that nation from purging.

But if I woke up one day, and admin had done a full reset, the odds of me making a new nation would be almost nil. I just don't have the time these days that I used to, and I could never devote as much time to a new nation as I did to my old one.

I think the same mentality is why we see a lot of nations simply disappear during every major war - once you've been ZIed, it's much easier to let go than it is when you've still got all your NS. Even more so if you lose the war and are expected to conform to terms that require you to destroy stuff - at a certain point, it's just so much easier to let go of the past because most of it is already gone.

I'd say there are almost certainly a LOT of people playing the game today - to varying degrees of activity - who are only still here because they've already been here so long. And a lot of those people wouldn't bother to reroll if a reset came, because they'll have lost the nostalgic connection that was still keeping them here.

Although i think a reset would increase the population of CN quite a bit

Resets don't seem to have led to CN:TE becoming all that popular. And having older citizens die off to maintain a level of parity sure as hell didn't help keep Cyber Citizens alive.

The real problem with a reset, though, is that it probably really wouldn't solve anything. Nearly every alliance in the game would simply switch right back into the new version of the game, so the large alliances (in terms of membership) now would still dominate a post-reset world. The only thing that would change is NS - and the older players would still be better at playing the game and recovering their lost NS than new players (especially since they'd be experienced enough to know about aid chains and organized enough to run them), so a sort of caste system would quickly re-establish itself, with newbies on the bottom and old-timers on top.

About the only thing a reset would do is take down the powerhouse alliances - and the current war pretty much leveled that particular playing field.

While new players may be discouraged by the amount of effort they have to put in to become a world power, we're currently in a period where any player who is intelligent, determined, and willing to sink a ton of time into the game can easily become a mover and shaker politically. And even after a reset, the people who AREN'T willing to invest that time and effort are rapidly going to drift into mediocrity. CN has always been - and likely will always be - a time-intensive game for anyone who really wants to play the political side of things.

[Lord Xnut]

The biggest problem is that no one finds CN and start playing it by themself anymore, most of the current players have been recruited by someone to come over and give CN a try.

What we need is a better front page. We need to show of how the game actually plays and the fun we have on the forums.

A few "cool" pictures of nukes, tanks and planes just don't cut it.

The sample nation helps a bit, but let's face it it really doesn't jump out as something you just have to try out for yourself.

Another thing is that for a new player that somehow finds out they want to sign up for CN probably won't stay around for that long since it does not seem like anything is happening. Just a few wars around the world and most nations appears to be 1-2 weeks inactive. Many of them don't even know that there is a whole world of activity on off-site forums and that what seems as inactivity in CN is actually part of the game play. A lot of new players only manages to find themself one trade before they get bored and goes 20 days inactive.

[Thorgrum]

While I am no means a long term player of the game the one comment I can make that I dont think has been covered yet is the lions share of the interactions, decisions and intamacy of Cybernations is largely played out on IRC.

This isnt necessarily bad but it does somewhat narrow the opportunities for some players. Some simply cant wile away the day on IRC and lets be honest high level alliance decisions that affect a great deal of players are made in private IRC channels by a small group of individuals.

This isnt a gripe, I understand this is just how it is. This post was simply to introduce a potential piece of the puzzle that I hadnt seen addressed yet. Essentially a good portion of the players of the game do not have access to the events that dictate world events. In my view this has to play some part in the decrease of players.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Thorgrum

[Näktergal]

While I am no means a long term player of the game the one comment I can make that I don't think has been covered yet is the lions share of the interactions, decisions and intimacy of Cybernations is largely played out on IRC.

This isnt necessarily bad but it does somewhat narrow the opportunities for some players. Some simply cant wile away the day on IRC and lets be honest high level alliance decisions that affect a great deal of players are made in private IRC channels by a small group of individuals.

This is actually a good point - one of the major reasons why I've drifted away from the CN political scene over the last year or two is because of the ever-lessening importance of the forums and PMs towards IRC.

I'm definitely not a fan of IRC even on its own merits, not to mention how it makes it so much easier for people to take almost any quote or comment out of context to manufacture a CB, since people are writing faster and thus are more likely to blurt out stupid things. I have no desire to chat on IRC at all, let alone spend tens of hours a week there, to the point where it almost feels like a second job - and one I'm not getting paid for!

This might be more of a problem for the older players than the teen and college crowd (older players having less free time in general, while younger players are probably more comfortable with online chatting in general), but it definitely might discourage newer players from getting involved.

[enderland]

It's hard too because most new players have no idea that the entire out of game community exists.

[DogeWilliam]

It's hard too because most new players have no idea that the entire out of game community exists.

Yea. Alliance forums and irc is so important to this game, and a new random player would know nothing about that and basically would have to get lucky and get recruited instead of raided and deleted.

Edited June 13, 2009 by DogeWilliam

[enderland]

Well and getting hit with 40+ messages in the first day doesn't help most likely.

I can imagine now I would go "wtf this is stupid why am I getting so many messages" and quit if i didn't have an understanding of how these types of games work from having played CN and similar games.

Edited June 11, 2009 by ender land

[thedestro]

I rather strongly agree with this. Lots of large alliances make the game more interesting.

Yeah but if you have so many, they don't look large anymore.

And I liked it back in the day when alliances were bigger.

[WcaesarD]

I gave this a little thought, tried to come up with something creative, how about Admin says, the game will reset on X Date. The highest ranked alliance/nations will be declared the winner on that date.

Make it like a year or more ahead. Gives people PLENTY of time to get ready to the adjustment, and it would also make the last 3-6 months REALLY exciting. Of course we'd most likely end up with a GPA or TDO victor, but it'd still be pretty neat.

Also, I liked the idea of donations carrying over.