My Opinion on What's Really Killing this Game

[Crymson]

Of all the reasons this game is in irrevocable decline, one stands out the most: alliances sign pointless treaties that create linkages all across the treaty web, thus polluting the web and removing the game further and further from the multipolar world a political simulator is supposed to have and thrives upon.

Up until Great War III, the world was multipolar. There were, at the least, two defined sides (three if GUARD is included), and there were virtually no linkages between them. After GW3, alliances began signing treaties with everyone and their mother. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. Every interlocking treaty that was signed made the game that much more pointless, as a political simulator is meant to have tension between clearly defined parties.

Sadly, the pollution of the treaty web has been increasing inexorably since GW3, and the game's decline has continued apace. Every needless treaty that is signed kills the game a bit more. It has for a long time taken a minor miracle for wars to occur, and even when a war occurs in today's CN, the linkages between the two sides often make it a mess.

There are certainly other factors that have ruined the game--the WRC and the tech bonus come to mind, as the ability they give to virtually destroy alliances in a week or two motivates alliances to be extremely cautious in committing themselves to or starting any conflicts--but I think this one is the greatest. Those alliances who continue to sign treaties rather than consolidating a proper sphere should, in my opinion, take this into account; they should also remember that while they may be very careful in signing treaties, it is very unlikely that all of those with whom they sign treaties will be so careful. If one's treaty partners accumulate allies like a car does parking tickets in Washington D.C., then it's inevitable that one will end up with allies by relation across the web.

That's my 2c. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will listen, because "We want to be treaty partners with every alliance we're friends with" and "We want to be completely safe and have no enemies" will almost always beat out "This game should have a point to it and be interesting."

Thanks for reading.

[Delta1212]

What's killing the game is all of the effort people put into developing theories on why the game is dying instead of doing something interesting.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1308284579' post='2732891']
What's killing the game is all of the effort people put into developing theories on why the game is dying instead of doing something interesting.
[/quote]

This may be the most simpleminded post I've ever seen you make.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Crymson

[supercoolyellow]

Its actually GOONS

I kid I kid


Honestly I think most of all its competition. There are so many games like this out here today. People who play this one know we are different b/c of the politics, but people have ot play this for a while to figure that out.

[Believland]

No new game developments, no new political developments and people care about their stats. That's what is killing this game.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1308285086' post='2732899']
No new game developments, no new political developments and people care about their stats. That's what is killing this game.
[/quote]

The current game mechanics themselves are a huge issue as well, I agree.

[Chief Savage Man]

The game has evolved from 2007:
Beat up the other guys, rebuild in a couple months because we're small, do it again.

to 2011:
Have a knockdown drag em out nuclear battle royale, obliterating months of nation building in a few days, using warchests that take months/years to build, etc. Rebuild over the course of the next year, do it again.

I mean I'm not saying any other reason is invalid but that has to be a contributing factor.

[Emperor Brutus]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1308284881' post='2732897']
Its actually GOONS
[/quote]

I blame GGA.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1308285242' post='2732903']
The game has evolved from 2007:
Beat up the other guys, rebuild in a couple months because we're small, do it again.

to 2011:
Have a knockdown drag em out nuclear battle royale, obliterating months of nation building in a few days, using warchests that take months/years to build, etc. Rebuild over the course of the next year, do it again.

I mean I'm not saying any other reason is invalid but that has to be a contributing factor.
[/quote]

Ya. As I noted, the WRC/tech bonus is killer as well. Brush wars were far more common before they came along, because an alliance could be at war for a week and lose maybe 10% of its strength. In GW3, it took months for Legion to lose 60% of its NS. In the WotC (the first major war after the tech bonus came about), Polaris lost over 50% of its strength in a week.

Unfortunately, the game mechanics are out of our control. What we do as alliances is not.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Crymson

[Duncan King]

I think it's just the passage of time. When many players started, they were in high school or college. Five years later, they're in college or out of school. I know that for me, I started in my Junior year of college and played through college, law school, and grad school. The further I got in school, the less time I had to devote to CN. Once I snag the fabled real job, I'll have to scale back even more and may even quit playing actively.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Duncan King

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308284837' post='2732894']
K. Why don't you go sign a treaty or something...
[/quote]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308284837' post='2732894']
K. Then make it happen... or sit still and wait for someone else to do it, as is likely your wont.
[/quote]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308284837' post='2732894']
This may be the most simpleminded post I've ever seen you make.
[/quote]
That's a lot of edits.

To respond to all three of them, what exactly is it that this topic is meant to accomplish? You haven't said anything that hasn't been complained about [i]ad nauseam[/I] for over three years now. We get one of these threads every few months and I'm of the very firm opinion that they do more harm than good. Everyone knows the problems that exist. Repeating them and reasserting that the game is dying is only going to help convince more people that it isn't worth playing any longer. When this comes from the casual players that almost certainly doesn't really know how to get into a position to do anything themselves, I groan a little bit and move on. When it comes from someone that I [I]know[/I] can get things done, whether I agree with those things or not, it leaves me more than annoyed.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1308285667' post='2732908']
That's a lot of edits.
[/quote]

Yeah, I chose not to be snotty. It has been a long night already, so my first response was a bit crappy.

[quote]
To respond to all three of them, what exactly is it that this topic is meant to accomplish? You haven't said anything that hasn't been complained about [i]ad nauseam[/I] for over three years now. We get one of these threads every few months and I'm of the very firm opinion that they do more harm than good. Everyone knows the problems that exist. Repeating them and reasserting that the game is dying is only going to help convince more people that it isn't worth playing any longer. When this comes from the casual players that almost certainly doesn't really know how to get into a position to do anything themselves, I groan a little bit and move on. When it comes from someone that I [I]know[/I] can get things done, whether I agree with those things or not, it leaves me more than annoyed.
[/quote]

What was it meant to accomplish? Well, nothing, aside from sharing my thoughts, which I felt like doing. I lack the vanity to think that my words could ever change the course of what alliances tend to do.

[Mathias]

The game's dying because older players are deleting and we aren't bringing in (or retaining) enough new players at a high enough rate to replace them.

No matter how many times the argument is rehashed the politics of this game aren't what's killing it. People will be quitting no matter what's going on. Especially when you consider how many people are in small irrelevant alliances. Even if CN was at the peak of excitement if your alliance isn't a mover or shaker you're pretty much just along for the ride or not involved at all which makes it just as boring as if nothing was going on. CN needs to catch the attention of new players and draw them in, and politics won't do that. That's what will keep them playing down the road once they are experienced enough to move into government positions. What we need is a way for new nations to catch up to old ones without simply building for years without losing a war, and a way to get those new players here to begin with.

[Duncan King]

I wouldn't put the blame on treaties as much as what happens after they're actually used. The last four major wars (WoTC, Karma, TOP/CnG, VE/NpO) have seen the losing party locked into surrender terms that take months to clear. The extreme length of terms combined with the current trend of turning wars into lengthy wars of attrition means that it can take almost a year to go from DoW to clearing turns. This is almost a year that the losing alliance is effectively removed from the world stage. If these wars stayed small, it wouldn't be that huge of a deal. But since wars are so huge now and involve so many alliances, at least 1/3 of the active alliances at any given time are blocked from fully participating in the games due to war or surrender terms. This limits the pool of people who are able to participate equally and makes things less fun for everyone.

[Dagrr]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308284424' post='2732889']
Of all the reasons this game is in irrevocable decline, one stands out the most: alliances sign pointless treaties that create linkages all across the treaty web, thus polluting the web and removing the game further and further from the multipolar world a political simulator is supposed to have and thrives upon.Up until Great War III, the world was multipolar. There were, at the least, two defined sides (three if GUARD is included), and there were virtually no linkages between them. After GW3, alliances began signing treaties with everyone and their mother. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. Every interlocking treaty that was signed made the game that much more pointless, as a political simulator is meant to have tension between clearly defined parties. Sadly, the pollution of the treaty web has been increasing inexorably since GW3, and the game's decline has continued apace. Every needless treaty that is signed kills the game a bit more. It has for a long time taken a minor miracle for wars to occur, and even when a war occurs in today's CN, the linkages between the two sides often make it a mess.
[/quote]

People sign treaties with everyone because there's no reason not to. From 2007-Karma we had a series of curbstombs because one side was poorly connected to the side in power. Once those one or two connections were severed by treaty cancellations on the eve of war, there was really no chance of the defending side emerging victorious. If you have treaties with lots of alliances, odds are you can muster up a good core of people willing to fight and win.


[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308285316' post='2732906']
Ya. As I noted, the WRC/tech bonus is killer as well. Brush wars were far more common before they came along, because an alliance could be at war for a week and lose maybe 10% of its strength. In GW3, it took months for Legion to lose 60% of its NS. In the WotC (the first major war after the tech bonus came about), Polaris lost over 50% of its strength in a week.Unfortunately, the game mechanics are out of our control. What we do as alliances is not.
[/quote]

Actually Legion lost that 60% in one month of conventional warfare. If it had been nuclear, like pretty much every war since then, it would've been worse. I've mentioned this before, but I really think nukes and multibillion dollar warchests are bad for the game. We did have more wars before every single one became nuclear and both sides lose half their NS. I don't think any of this is going to change unless its hardcoded into the game.

[Mogar]

remove warchests, leave in nukes, wars will be much better.

[Crymson]

Some good points have been made here. I see I failed to consider a bunch of other factors.

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308285877' post='2732910']
Yeah, I chose not to be snotty. It has been a long night already, so my first response was a bit crappy.
[/quote]

Truth be told, all three of your responses were crappy and quite a bit snotty.

[Mogar]

Warchests are the sole factor, making anarchying someone absolutely pointless removes how war works GW1 til the UjW.
[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1308287202' post='2732921']
Truth be told, all three of your responses were crappy and quite a bit snotty.
[/quote]
kinda have to agree here, this is an OOC forum, no need for snottyness.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Mogar

[Mathias]

No one is going to agree to get rid of warchests.

Plus that's a laughable explanation of what's killing CN. Too many treaties is a better explanation than that.

[D34th]

I gave up complaining or pointing out CN flaws a long ago, since nothing will be done to fix it.

[Allan a Dale]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1308285667' post='2732908']We get one of these threads every few months and I'm of the very firm opinion that they do more harm than good. Everyone knows the problems that exist. Repeating them and reasserting that the game is dying is only going to help convince more people that it isn't worth playing any longer.[/quote]

Well said.