Jump to content

Ideas on Revitalizing CN


Tigerking
 Share

Recommended Posts

(Just a note: I've never really posted on the OWF before, so I suppose introductions are in order: I'm Tigerking, loyal member of the NPO, longtime forum lurker, and player of CN since 2007 and the First Unjust War. It's good to finally meet all of you... :P)

By now, I trust we've all notice the gradual decline of CN membership, which I believe has continued since mid-2009 until now. I also trust we all want more people to join CN, and have the community be more active, like back when we had 30000-40000 nations in the game. So then, this is a thread for people to speculate, theorize, and debate how best to revive CN and get more nations created, so we can all enjoy the spectacle of 1000+ member alliances, and a more active community.

Of course, I wouldn't start a thread like this without proposing one of my own ideas to get the ball rolling. I always liked the idea of having a giant, multialliance offsite recruiting contest, where alliances could compete to recruit people both to CN and to their own alliance. It creates an incentive for the alliances to participate, I would think.

Take it away!

Edited by Tigerking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My suggestion would be to visit other games and join them and join an alliance or guild that they have there and mention CN to them as a game they might like to play as a five minute a day thing. Because that is all it really takes to play CN if you aren't in an alliance govenment, so we could make that our selling point. "CN the five minute a day game."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banning people who post topics like this rather than making things interesting on their own boards.

Create your own drama if you can't get enough here.

Srsly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1311757766' post='2765065']
Banning people who post topics like this rather than making things interesting on their own boards.

Create your own drama if you can't get enough here.

Srsly.
[/quote]

There ends the thread.

If you think CN is boring/dying/in need of revitalisation/whatever else. Then stop making topics about "we must do something about it" and actually [i]do something about it.[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More mergers, less protectorates and micros. The issue isn't people joining the game because people continue to sign up, the issue is people remaining in the game, people stick around for the sense of community found in an alliance. It's sad to say but larger alliances have larger and better developed communities than smaller ones.

Edited by Charles Stuart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigerking' timestamp='1311754297' post='2765044']
(Just a note: I've never really posted on the OWF before, so I suppose introductions are in order: I'm Tigerking, loyal member of the NPO, longtime forum lurker, and player of CN since 2007 and the First Unjust War. It's good to finally meet all of you... :P)

By now, I trust we've all notice the gradual decline of CN membership, which I believe has continued since mid-2009 until now. I also trust we all want more people to join CN, and have the community be more active, like back when we had 30000-40000 nations in the game. So then, this is a thread for people to speculate, theorize, and debate how best to revive CN and get more nations created, so we can all enjoy the spectacle of 1000+ member alliances, and a more active community.

Of course, I wouldn't start a thread like this without proposing one of my own ideas to get the ball rolling. I always liked the idea of having a giant, multialliance offsite recruiting contest, where alliances could compete to recruit people both to CN and to their own alliance. It creates an incentive for the alliances to participate, I would think. the process, I would think.

Take it away!
[/quote]

Actually it's been declining a lot longer than that, but you probably weren't watching the numbers. When I joined up (Feb. 2007) there were around 37-38,000 nations IIRC. There have been periods of increase (usually just before major wars), and somewhat longer periods of decline that followed (after major wars), along with long stretches of stable numbers, but so long as I've been around the overall trend has been down.

With that bit of sobering news, here's my proposal.

1. Stop talking about declining numbers. New players have a tendency to want to bail early on a "dying game". This game will only die when we lose faith in it, or if Kevin Marks finally wins the lottery and flies off to Tahiti and leaves this headache behind (Kevin, you know you'd do it and I'd email you travel brochures).

2. Stop talking about declining numbers. Get your friends/family/significant other to play on their own IP address. This game can be played on a smart phone for christ's sake and doesn't have to eat all your waking hours unlike a certain game involving sling shotting bird heads at pig heads. If each person playing recruited just 1 new long term player, we're back at late 2006/early 2007 player numbers.

3. Stop talking about declining numbers. On a given day at least 150+ new nations are created. Nurture new players, make friends with them. They will be much more likely to stick around long term and become contributing members of the community, even if they aren't part of your alliance. While you're at it, stop telling people their resources suck (your "suckass" resources are just what someone else needs to complete their 8 BR trade circle on another team color...people who get convinced their resources suck quit and not all of them re-roll), stop telling people you'll make them quit (no [b]you[/b] quit--statistics show players who are only in this game for the "frags" get bored and quit in far larger numbers than people who start slow and are trying to figure out how to play long term), and stop demanding 45 gazillion dongs and 2.3 gigflops of tech because someone had the gall to shoot back at you in a war (high reps = player loss, Kevin is right).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a game to "win". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1311768459' post='2765130']
More mergers, less protectorates and micros. The issue isn't people joining the game because people continue to sign up, the issue is people remaining in the game, people stick around for the sense of community found in an alliance. It's sad to say but larger alliances have larger and better developed communities than smaller ones.
[/quote]

Mergers usually don't make the game more interesting, they just put already like-minded people into one alliance, usually having the opposite effect of containing them by shrinking their government to even more pragmatic leadership.

Here's a perfect example:

Zoom x3 was the leader of PC, and is not even a part of the Triumvirate of NG.

Edited by IYIyTh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1311772451' post='2765169']
Nothing can be done.


Seriously. Give it up and enjoy this last war (if it ever happens).
[/quote]
this

if the actual creator/coder doesn't care about the success of his own game, why should anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gameplay mechanics need to change. Aid amounts need to be updated; new stuff to build; changes to war; etc.

If I had to choose one change to make, it would be to make war far less damaging. I'd advocate reducing damage by 75%. With the tech bonus, WRCs, and unrestricted nuclear warfare, an alliance at war can lose 50% of its strength in a week. That makes war a huge risk. If it were far less damaging--as it was in the days before the tech bonus--we'd see many more brush wars and far less hesitance to commit without massive support. In today's wars, there's a clear winner and a clear loser, and that demotivates people from fighting. If war were far less damaging, an alliance could lose a war but not be reduced to rubble. That would make taking risks easier, and it'd also reduce stagnation by not removing defeated parties from political significance for long periods of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the "stop talking about it and do something about it" comments never help anything, its important to remember the onus the game's survival is really on us, the players. Admin can advertise all he wants, but its up to us to take control of the TRUE game dynamics (and I'm not talking about collecting taxes, paying bills, and buying infra.. hippies. :P) The forum community is where the game is really played.. and not just the OWF, but the alliance forums. Take care of your members. Be a community. Don't just be like "LOL CN IS SO GRAYT SELL ME TECH NEWB" because that's boring. People won't get invested/hooked.

If you feel led to, go recruit like hell at some random website. Clearly its worked well before (GOONS, Fark, etc).

Or, hang out in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=57"]the Suggestion Box[/url] to add/subject/change certain aspects of the actual game mechanics in an effort to make it better/more efficient/etc. Get involved in the threads there.. and be smart about it. (Just saying "I want this change to make my nation have 100+ more happiness cuz it rawkz lawl" won't help.)

Welp, I think that covers most of the bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1311766586' post='2765109']
There ends the thread.

If you think CN is boring/dying/in need of revitalisation/whatever else. Then stop making topics about "we must do something about it" and actually [i]do something about it.[/i]
[/quote]
I'd like to think it's better than the endless tides of anniversary threads that seem to be the main focus of this forum. And if you think one person can do something major like what is required with no support and by themselves in CN, never lose your naivete. It makes me smile.

[quote]if the actual creator/coder doesn't care about the success of his own game, why should anyone else?[/quote]
I'd also like to think it's because the community here, the overall atmosphere, and even the game itself, is worth preserving and continuing on with. Is CN inherently broken? Do people still play it and the giant game of interalliance politics that goes with it for fun? If no to the former and yes to the latter, than I believe CN is worth keeping around.
[quote]
If I had to choose one change to make, it would be to make war far less damaging. I'd advocate reducing damage by 75%. With the tech bonus, WRCs, and unrestricted nuclear warfare, an alliance at war can lose 50% of its strength in a week. That makes war a huge risk. If it were far less damaging--[b]as it was in the days before the tech bonus[/b]--we'd see many more brush wars and far less hesitance to commit without massive support. In today's wars, there's a clear winner and a clear loser, and that demotivates people from fighting. If war were far less damaging, an alliance could lose a war but not be reduced to rubble. That would make taking risks easier, and it'd also reduce stagnation by not removing defeated parties from political significance for long periods of time.[/quote]
When exactly was the tech bonus put in place?

Wickistan - maybe we should go back to trawling \b\ for people :P Good ideas though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigerking' timestamp='1311790978' post='2765417']
I'd like to think it's better than the endless tides of anniversary threads that seem to be the main focus of this forum. And if you think one person can do something major like what is required with no support and by themselves in CN, never lose your naivete. It makes me smile.
[/quote]

So tides of "CN is dying" threads are better than the tides of anniversary threads? Do you know how many of these threads you'll see on a regular basis? Then factor in how many more people feel the need to post a blog about how the game is dying and what needs to be changed. Personally I would rather read the anniversary threads as they're actually celebrating something rather than just sitting and sulking that nobody else is holding their hand and playing the game the way it "should" be played (replace "should" with whether you're a tech raider, anti mico, anti large alliances, anti MDPs, anti ODPs, etc.)

Would you like to show me where I said that you could do something major? At the end of the day if more people took responsibility for their own, or their alliances, enjoyment in the game then more players might actually stay here. Instead we all sit around waiting for someone else to do something that will make it interesting. On that level an individual can make a difference. Get involved in your alliance, talk to new members, help them to understand the game, actually give them a reason to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of this thread isn't to be my little area to sit and sulk. You may have noticed how I didn't come out and say "large alliances are killing CN" or "too many micros are killing CN". I'm not trying to blame anyone or anything.

This is a place to discuss ideas and ways to fix the problem. This is not a thread so I can blame people. This is not a thread so that I can sit and whine how people don't play the game the way I want them to. If you're getting that vibe from what I've posted, than I've already failed. I don't blame you for thinking that was my point however, as I've noticed a bunch of the other threads that were posted here on the subject were for the purpose of leveling blame.

And also Vladisvok, what I've also noticed is that generally, if people involve themselves in CN to the point where they join an alliance (especially one as application-intensive as the NPO) we generally don't have to worry about them staying. The problem seems to be before they even get to that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...