Jump to content

Monster

Members
  • Content Count

    5,003
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Monster

  • Rank
    DON'T PANIC

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Ghuxalia
  • Nation Name
    Energy
  • Alliance Name
    Mostly Harmless Alliance/Kashmir
  • Resource 1
    Marble
  • Resource 2
    Aluminum
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    None

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

5,413 profile views
  1. The game has always had the issue of mechanical competition being limited because it's tedious to be mechanically competitive and requires new players joining and being dependent on a small numbers of mechanically competitive alliances that would carry the load for the rest. The lack of new players and the fact that new players can't do much on their own means it's a death cycle. Many people are just keeping the nations around and as stewie pointed out, there's a massive lack of activity in the bigger alliances, so there is no incentive to fight because it's an organizational nightmare.
  2. Except most of these inflated alliances have super low activity and offensives require people to do stuff proactively rather than just getting hit and nuking back so they have very little proportionally to commit. Unless they are ready to disband and rogue out, which they aren't, it doesn't really make sense. If people were willing to log in to fight regularly and were agitating for war, you'd see either people leaving to rogue more often or ghosting for other alliances and/or pressuring alliance leaders to change things rather than having to be begged to show up with that usually not working.
  3. Monsters Inc isn't particularly eager to grow or consolidate politically so it lets them take more risks. The same goes with some of the other alliances. Both DK and MI6 played the game in a more conventional matter which makes them seem like a threat to people. If they were just playing to fight in a Monsters Inc fashion, it'd probably have been a non-issue. With MI6, the real issue was it was either you supported them 100% or they hated you and you knew you had to watch out for them act on that anger since it was part of their internal dynamic to feel they deserved to have more of a say. W
  4. It doesn't last long enough. Traditional pattern is for there to be a decline in activity in an alliance after wars are done. They inspire some people to become active, but not enough to sustain an alliance. While they were active, rather than cultivating new players, MI6 basically relied on ex-gov from various alliances and the game already being in severe decay in 2013 to be attractive to people from declining alliances on the premise that an alliance of active people despite being less than big statistically could have an impact of political events due to its relative activity. It's ulti
  5. I mean get the point is the death of the game is tied to the level of political competition. However, when there was a previous megabloc that lasted a year and a half, there was a downturn in overall player activity and decline in the playerbase when it collapsed, so it's never really borne fruit. People were plenty willing to do whatever it took to avoid getting stomped by the Continuum and were invested in the game nonetheless. The player count is usually reflective of the pool of potentially active players. In essence, the "Oculus killed the game" argument is that political competition/w
  6. It continued on a statistical trajectory it had been charting. The problem of personnel you bring up is a symptom and not a cause. If alliances don't gain new players that want to do stuff, then the old ones will have to stay or the alliances goes inactive. Alliances always had an issue of limited personnel wanting to do the work and actually stay consistent. Plenty of wanted titles but not the work. There aren't really that many people that would have wanted to preside over adminstering a growingly inactive group of people. Even if there was someone to replace the head of each alliance, there
  7. dem stats contradict muh feelings!
  8. Some people might pretend it's other sims, but it's mostly a small minority that goes to other sims. Most people due to becoming less interested in long-term gaming commitments stick to games where it's one off or it's just one session until the next one. A lot of the time when I used to still try to keep people in CN, I'd have to go up to them on steam and they were usually playing a variety of games. Some popular games are like Call of Duty, League of Legends, Overwatch, CSGO, Rainbow Six Siege, PUBG, and others of the sort along with the games that are single player but can be played on o
  9. The alliance governments are the only half-way active people. Most alliances have always been dependent on a large group of people that would let the leadership do stuff and then show up to fight. When the slightest inconvenience irl means someone is too busy to play the game or click links, then it's over. It's an increasing trend with the browser games as people get older, they don''t want to put any effort into the game anymore. It's just "Oh I started in x year and I'd rather not let it go" until they forget. It would be better if all the inactive alliances disbanded and deleted so we coul
  10. Not really sure what you expected to happen. It's a game with a limited lifespan and people don't have infinite regenerative capacity. The only recruiting alliances that maintained recruitment well for a long time are NPO/IRON/Polar. Everyone else didn't want to do the work of integrating new players, my alliances included, and the more you kept relying on old players to stick around forever to make non-recruiting alliances work, the worse it was going to get, especially as there was a decision to not grow the game. The game is a business at the end of the day and not a public service and the
  11. The thing LJ said was in terminator's signature recently.
  12. Sorry think we're crossing wires here while agreeing. I was replying to his point it looked worse to use discord vs a forum at his job or that it wasn't possible to use it. I think discord in the browser version would be more useful than a forum in fact due to it being real time. I was agreeing with what you're saying on the work point. If they're letting him do it at his job with a forum, then it's only worse with discord if it's more of laying low thing as discord is flashier than a forum, but there are go arounds. People can still participate regardless of time zone and locat
×
×
  • Create New...