AlexanderRM

I think the idea of incentives for playing TE makes some sense and would definitely increase playing of TE, but IMO it wouldn't be quite as great to fill TE with lots of people who are only playing for the SE advantage and don't actually enjoy TE, either for them or for the people who do enjoy TE. Rewards based on play time would just lead to people logging in and collecting taxes every 10 days continually, rewards based on end-of-round nation size would lead to pretty much the same except even some people who like TE would want to avoid warring and some of them would get angry when attacked since it sets back their non-resetting SE nations. Rewards based on reaching a certain level of casualties or damage dealt makes more sense, although I'm still not sold on the idea of attracting tryhards aiming for a mechanical advantage it would at least cause them to try out TE, and some people might decide they like TE and stay on after achieving the minimum necessary for the reward. I like the idea of update changes. Update at a specific time gives a huge advantage to those living in certain places and/or with certain schedules (or who consider online games more important than sleep) over others, and even beyond that update attacks destabilize war a good deal. I'm not sure what a good system would be, a 12 hour cooldown sounds even worse than staying up to 1 am (would turn CN into Farmville with people waking up at 4 am so their blueberries don't die), a 24 hour cooldown would still be better but would still force people to get on at *exactly* the same time each day to avoid losing time. I would say the ideal system would be... something where every player effectively has daily attacks regardless of where they live or what their schedule is (you log in and do one day of attacks, you log in at around the same time the next day- or at least within the same time range- and do another day of attacks). Perhaps this could be something like a 24 hour cooldown but with rounding, so that say time were sorted into slots of a certain number of hours, and if you attacked within one slot one day, the next day you could start attacking as early as the beginning of the same slot. @ the warchest limit... speaking as someone who has always been utterly terrible at warchesting in TE and thus could only gain from a cap on the warchests of others, and also never gotten beyond 1.5k infra, I don't see much reason for those; as noted in TE everyone starts out on the same footing every 1-3 months and if you do badly it's because you're not good at TE, like I am (or because you warred a lot, which is another matter- if you said you wanted to cap warchests and make ramping-up or capped infra and tech to give people and incentive to spend their warchest on war, that would make sense, but it's still a very clunky mechanism for doing so).

I think this is a great idea, although how to deal with alliance size is something of an issue. It might make more sense to make it the highest average NS rather than total NS (since the latter would just give the award to whichever alliance has the most people... which would often by the same alliance or the same couple of alliances), although that would give an incentive to simply kick everyone too weak which, while doable, isn't really the point of aiming to be the strongest alliance. Perhaps it could be something like the X strongest nations in an alliance (5 or 10, for round numbers; the ideal number woudl vary depending on the total TE population and various dynamics thereof, which IMO isn't a good design) counted? One issue some might see with this is that it incentivises for the entre alliance or at least a large part of it to avoid major wars or minimize damage they take, whereas currently only the frontrunners have that incentive (still a bit of an issue arguably, but one that affects fewer people), which takes away from the constant massive bloodshed aspect of TE. One way to fix this would be to do the same thing but instead of NS have it be based on damage dealt to enemies (not damage taken in the way that most destructive war works, that sounds silly to me IMO).

Chintain, I don't think I've thanked you for this before (forgot my forums password for awhile), just logged in to say how useful this has been for me. Without this I'd probably just have my Mars wonders at around 50% all the time. >_>

OK, first of all just to confirm, TE accounts are continuous between rounds, correct? I'm *sure* I hadn't created a new one for quite some time, but I just wanted to confirm that. Anyway, yesterday after TE came back up, I tried logging in and got an "incorrect username or password" error, I tried a couple more times with the same result. I didn't have much time then so I decided to deal with it today. Anyway, today I tried again and naturally the problem was still there. I tried the "forgot password" option and it says my username wasn't on record or w/e. I then tried creating an account with the same username (AlexanderRM), and it was in fact available. Fortunately, since it was my TE account in between rounds no harm done, I just created a new account. I mostly posted this to make sure that it's OK for me to make the new account, though I'm also wondering what happened. I was thinking that the accounts might have been wiped this reset, but if it had happened to everyone I'm sure someone would have asked about it by now.

These all sound good. Really? I've heard that people referred to that as the "phony war" (during that period, that is), but I suppose either works. On the subject of using RL war terms, Cold War might also work, but in some ways it's the opposite- the real Cold War was opposing and sometimes fighting each other without being officially "at war", while this was people being officially "at war" without much fighting going on. Well, it's winning now that the person who started the thread has deliberately rigged it based on their personal biases... Seriously, in a historical sense I don't think Worst War Ever is going to work. I just can't see people seriously using that as the name of the war in all the ways they'd talk about it months from now, it's just not the name of the war. Same goes for all the inappropriate ones like Blue Balls/Constipated war. I do find them funny, but they aren't going to be written down by a historian as the title of a wiki article about the war or something. They're the things people throw out as joke names for the war. I think ??? war also sounds a bit odd in that sense (it's not like a weird term or anything, but... I dunno), and while Cyber Nations: Trench Warfare Edition is highly amusing, it's a bit long, and more notably it, as a name of a war it doesn't really sound right- I guess because it doesn't have the word "war" in the title and doesn't really imply that it was event. Perhaps "The CN:TWE war"? That makes it short and shows that it was a "War". So, I'd say it's between the Peace mode war, the CN:TWE war, and Sitting/Phony war. I'm gonna have to go with the Peace Mode war because, while it's not as humorous, it very accurately describes the war, and it does seem to be rather funny- it's the fact that it's a "war" involving people being in peace mode, which the other ones didn't quite have. (plus, the Trench Warfare comparison wasn't quite accurate. You could make progress in trench warfare, just with really high casualties)

Yeah, I was thinking recently of the way I've never seen or heard about any war that was anywhere near even. It's always been a complete and rapid slaughter by one side or the other. So it seems the only way to have an "even" war is to have no fighting at all and for both sides to just sit in peace mode. We just DID enact our strategy, I believe. Our strategy was to wait in peace mode to avoid advance attacks (or something...) and then have the 85K+ nations leave peace mode and ambush you guys, and continue leaving peace mode and doing the same thing range by range. Unfortunately you stole our strategy and used it as well. I, too, would love to actually do some fighting in this war. Um, what? Seriously? So we rejected the white peace by declaring war on you? That has to be funkiest sort of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

I think one thing with the peace mode accusations might be that those making the accusations are not in peace mode, and the ones on the other side who are in peace mode are the ones in range of them. They don't realize/notice/consider that people lower down/higher up than them on their own side are also in peace mode. That's sorta the problem, only with entire sides. Yeah. The 2 sides should have just agreed to all come out of peace mode at the same time and to not use the jump-out-of-peace-mode strategy. But of course, then you'd have inactives and whatnot, people who honestly got into peace mode late and couldn't leave it for awhile (I, for one, can't enter war mode until the 4th, and will probably go inactive at just that time... #%@!), and such, and you'd have people accusing each other of deliberately violating the agreement. You also might have some people/alliances who actually did violate the agreement and used the strategy. However, as the OP pointed out there are still some people in war mode; why couldn't they fight each other and maybe have the PMers gradually come out of peace mode, or come out all at once for that jump they were planning? I know there's a range discrepancy but it's not like there are absolute limits or something. People at the edge of the peace mode/not peace mode border could come out of peace mode. Edit: I've got it- just enough people on one side or each side could leave peace mode so as to jump on those on the other side who are in war mode, and not give up any of the first-strike advantage, then the other side could do a similar thing to hit those on the other side who just left peace mode, and it would reverberate back and forth until everyone was out of peace mode.

I think the idea is to make TPF be only seriously damaged rather than completely destroyed. Sure, TPF is seriously screwed but at least we can stop it at that point rather than having them completely and totally screwed. I'll be a white peace before any actual fighting occurs. I'm almost tempted to go rogue and attack whoever anyway... except that I can't leave peace mode until tomorrow anyway. You know, I'd think we could have had the 85K+ nations attacking those nations within range of them not in peace mode- in other words, using basically the same strategy we'd planned to use. Once they took those out, or if there weren't any of them in war mode, the people in those ranges could have left peace mode and declared on any war-moders in their range, and so on down the line. Just ignoring the people in peace mode, it's really as if they weren't there... though I suppose they could come out later and get the drop on us. Still, we'd have gotten the drop on the them first and severely weakened their lower ranges, and possibly scared off any wavering allies by initially winning, so they'd likely get owned. I liked the Peace Mode War. While it doesn't quite sound so silly, it certainly does seem to capture the essence of the war. So, we still have the strategy of having everyone run and hide in unison. Really, once you figure out that 1 simple concept, and accomplish the relatively simple task of having all your members click the 1 easy button, there's then no strategy at all, instead of just strategy that doesn't really matter (or perhaps strategy that everyone is more or less close enough in for it not to matter).

Ah... The Feather didn't see fit to say what he was linking to on there. Uh... as far as I can tell, someone used my E-Mail in CN:TE. Or something... I'm just going to give up on this.

May I ask exactly what would qualify as "Winning"? Would it be like highest NS, most nations defeated...? I suggest having multiple awards: One for high NS at the end, one for defeating a lot of nations total, one for, say, most nukes bought and/or one for most nukes launched... as well as alliance awards for most members, most nukes, highest total NS, and of course highest score, and/or for the total of the things done by their members. Because, really, if you have an award for highest NS at the end (and no OTHER awards) then it kinda... I'd say it kinda defeats the purpose of a tournament edition. You have all the nations joining big alliances for protection, and the big alliances don't want to war with each other because the damage to a rival won't be worth the damage done to them. You wind up with what LW apparently is, and people look back to the good old days before awards were added. Therefore, I suggest that the most important award would be most damage done. This would create quite a strategic issue, because you want to become strong enough before war that you can do a reasonable amount of damage, but you don't want to wait to long before you start attacking or you won't have time to attain your full potential. You might also either have a major bonus for causing global radiation or a separate award for most nukes launched.

Is there any official topic to do it in? I don't see any sticky/pinned topic on any of the CN:TE forums. Do we just make a new topic every time it comes up, or is there something in-game that I missed? Anyway, I have one to report: http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1004080 At least, evidently. I can't actually tell anything apart from that it's a nation link due to being unable to log in and view it, so if it turns out that someone decided to play a practical joke on me, it's not my fault.

Well, there you have another problem with the issue, that you'd have to be able to use two different user names if you want. However, it does seem kinda unfair to hog two names, though I suppose that any names that would be really contested have probably already been taken... Also, I'm pretty sure that, yes, my user name has been stolen, but I can't check to find the person... on that note, how did Freek find the impostor nation?

It would be nice if we could just run one CN nation and one CN:TE nation from the same account. Not sure if that could be worked out if you want to use a different ruler name, and there are probably some other problems, but it would fix issues with stealing names (can't use a CN ruler- or nation- name in CN:TE unless you're the same person) and would, for example, allow me to check if someone has stolen my CN name... Also, I'm getting an error that says that either my ruler name, OR my email, is evidently already taken... I'm not sure if this is because of my CN nation or because of some impostor, however, and I can't check since I can't log in on CN:TE.