Ideas on Revitalizing CN

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1316039794' post='2800574']
It's better than setting everyone to zero and losing half the membership in a matter of hours.
[/quote]


I disagree. A full reset (including bans,) would easily see the numbers replicated and likely on the increase.

People saying they would quit if their nation would reset are either lying or aren't playing for any of the factors we've discussed here that stimulate growth.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1316040196' post='2800579']
I disagree. A full reset (including bans,) would easily see the numbers replicated and likely on the increase.

People saying they would quit if their nation would reset are either lying or aren't playing for any of the factors we've discussed here that stimulate growth.
[/quote]
We have TE for players who prefer the game be reset on a regular basis. Others have already articulated why your idea is a bad one. I'm not going to sit here and repeat what they said.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1316040723' post='2800586']
We have TE for players who prefer the game be reset on a regular basis. Others have already articulated why your idea is a bad one. I'm not going to sit here and repeat what they said.
[/quote]


TE is reset every x days. It's a hard-core type of playing. Very few people have time for multiple nations, let alone one that resets every x days. The notion that TE is a barometer to what a new SE would like is ridiculous.

SE is never reset. Just create another standalone SE with all bans removed and we'll find out how right I am. Hell, a certain other game in production saw everyone over there within minutes and its current production is basically going to just be that, by all indications. Kevin already has everything that could make something like that work, and no one would have to wait on more coding, etc. Their numbers in meer weeks is proof alone that it would work. Those numbers only declined with coding flaws becoming rampant and rapid development.

No argument presented against this has been given that isn't anything more than "I don't want my nation reset," or challenging the fact that in all likelihood a full reset would incentivize the current players to recruit more than any stupid mars or venus wonder that would/could be implemented to prolong this games death knell.

If something like the above isn't done, we'll all see eachother somewhere else soon.

Edited September 14, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Hereno]

Reset all nations to Hime Themis' level and all new nations start at that level.

Also, change the name to CyberNationsVille and put the game on Facebook.

And make Hereno a new, more powerful Admin to oversee the changes.

[Seerow]

What if instead of a hard reset, mechanics were introduced to rubberband people more towards the middle?


First step: Completely destroy tech selling/buying. That is rotten heart at the core of the game that makes it so even if someone joins they will never come remotely close to someone who's been active for years before them. Tech must be bought through your nation, like infra.

Second Step: Initiate some sort of on hand money degradation. People shouldn't be rewarded for not playing the game. And that is exactly what the current system does. People who sit idle and hold onto tens of billions of dollars so if they ever go to war they can never be defeated and jump right back to where they used to be is BAD. Money that isn't spent over some threshold slowly gets eaten away. The higher you are over the cap the faster it gets eaten away. So you can choose to store more money, but it becomes progressively less efficient as you store more.

Third Step: Some sort of rubber band effect on tech/infra. New nations should be capable of building faster to catch up to older nations. Not necessarily even based on age, but on size. If the average infra level in the world is say 8,000, everyone below 8,000 should be collecting more, to encourage faster growth, while those above should collect less. Possibly also allow extra incoming aid based on this rubber band effect. If a small nation can absorb a 10,000,000 aid slot rather than 3,000,000 and jump to mid ranks instantly then that's a huge advantage.

Fourth Step: Tech degradation. This is similar to the money degradation, but for a different reason: After taking away tech trading, those sitting on a mountain of tech have an insurmountable advantage. So tech should be fading away, the more you have the faster it fades away. If you do this, you can even change tech to always have a set price, so the real cost of higher tech comes in having to replace more of it. Say you set tech price at 30,000 per unit (ie identical to market price we've always bought at), but past a point you start losing tech with every day, and need to buy more tech to replace it. So you CAN have really high levels, but you'll be putting a lot of money into keeping that kind of tech level up, which works out since money degradation is discouraging hording your money anyway.





Basically the goal of the above is to reduce the gap between bigger and smaller nations, and over time drag people more towards the center. This avoids suddenly destroying ancient nations, and thus minimizes people leaving due to a sudden change or loss of power, while encouraging new players by giving them a more level playing field. Ideally new players would be capable of reaching top rankings within a reasonable time with high activity and good game knowledge, rather than knowing no matter how hard they try they'll never be part of the elite because they found the game too late.

It would be nice to see other uses for money and other resources (especially land), which would also help with getting excess money out of the game faster, but that is an entirely different topic from just "What would encourage the game to turn around"



Other things that could help with turnaround:
-Faster rebuilding from war. With warchests basically obsoleted, and rubber banding in effect for new players, wars shouldn't be a long term devastation for a nation. If nations kept track of highest infra level achieved, and made it easier to buy back to that level of infrastructure after getting destroyed (or at least to some point close to it. Like within 75%), then people would be less hesitant to go to war. Right now people have wars separated by a span of months because war is devastating, and even the winner can take months to recover, and nobody wants to go to war until they're ready. If a nation can be war ready again within a few weeks rather than a few months, you could easily see the cycle of agression pick up, and smaller CBs would be acted upon more frequently, rather than waiting for the stars to align. Remember way back in 06 when we had wars every month because everyone was small and built back up almost instantly? Yeah. We as a community haven't gotten any less aggressive, just more cautious.

-Some sort of facebook integration. Facebook games are popular these days, and the game should act to take advantage of that. While it shouldn't be mandatory, being able to access CN via facebook would open up a much broader audience, and one who is already used to the concept of a game that you only play for 5 or 10 minutes a day.

[IYIyTh]

It's possible, but again you face the problem of losing the newer recruits due to the still somewhat high barrier to entry.

Those of us that remain today (mostly,) have all the tools to grow at an optimum level, and it's a matter of implementation.

A tech market would be interesting in that it would add emphasis to Infra, which would be quite funny.

[Ashoka the Great]

Two words: 'Troll Norway'

[kingly]

just start CN:SE round 2, and run it separately, but at the same time as this one, eventually that would would become dominate, but it would be a slow phasing in as oposed to a sudden reset.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1316046345' post='2800636']
What if instead of a hard reset, mechanics were introduced to rubberband people more towards the middle?


First step: Completely destroy tech selling/buying. That is rotten heart at the core of the game that makes it so even if someone joins they will never come remotely close to someone who's been active for years before them. Tech must be bought through your nation, like infra.

Second Step: Initiate some sort of on hand money degradation. People shouldn't be rewarded for not playing the game. And that is exactly what the current system does. People who sit idle and hold onto tens of billions of dollars so if they ever go to war they can never be defeated and jump right back to where they used to be is BAD. Money that isn't spent over some threshold slowly gets eaten away. The higher you are over the cap the faster it gets eaten away. So you can choose to store more money, but it becomes progressively less efficient as you store more.

Third Step: Some sort of rubber band effect on tech/infra. New nations should be capable of building faster to catch up to older nations. Not necessarily even based on age, but on size. If the average infra level in the world is say 8,000, everyone below 8,000 should be collecting more, to encourage faster growth, while those above should collect less. Possibly also allow extra incoming aid based on this rubber band effect. If a small nation can absorb a 10,000,000 aid slot rather than 3,000,000 and jump to mid ranks instantly then that's a huge advantage.

Fourth Step: Tech degradation. This is similar to the money degradation, but for a different reason: After taking away tech trading, those sitting on a mountain of tech have an insurmountable advantage. So tech should be fading away, the more you have the faster it fades away. If you do this, you can even change tech to always have a set price, so the real cost of higher tech comes in having to replace more of it. Say you set tech price at 30,000 per unit (ie identical to market price we've always bought at), but past a point you start losing tech with every day, and need to buy more tech to replace it. So you CAN have really high levels, but you'll be putting a lot of money into keeping that kind of tech level up, which works out since money degradation is discouraging hording your money anyway.





Basically the goal of the above is to reduce the gap between bigger and smaller nations, and over time drag people more towards the center. This avoids suddenly destroying ancient nations, and thus minimizes people leaving due to a sudden change or loss of power, while encouraging new players by giving them a more level playing field. Ideally new players would be capable of reaching top rankings within a reasonable time with high activity and good game knowledge, rather than knowing no matter how hard they try they'll never be part of the elite because they found the game too late.

It would be nice to see other uses for money and other resources (especially land), which would also help with getting excess money out of the game faster, but that is an entirely different topic from just "What would encourage the game to turn around"



Other things that could help with turnaround:
-Faster rebuilding from war. With warchests basically obsoleted, and rubber banding in effect for new players, wars shouldn't be a long term devastation for a nation. If nations kept track of highest infra level achieved, and made it easier to buy back to that level of infrastructure after getting destroyed (or at least to some point close to it. Like within 75%), then people would be less hesitant to go to war. Right now people have wars separated by a span of months because war is devastating, and even the winner can take months to recover, and nobody wants to go to war until they're ready. If a nation can be war ready again within a few weeks rather than a few months, you could easily see the cycle of agression pick up, and smaller CBs would be acted upon more frequently, rather than waiting for the stars to align. Remember way back in 06 when we had wars every month because everyone was small and built back up almost instantly? Yeah. We as a community haven't gotten any less aggressive, just more cautious.

-Some sort of facebook integration. Facebook games are popular these days, and the game should act to take advantage of that. While it shouldn't be mandatory, being able to access CN via facebook would open up a much broader audience, and one who is already used to the concept of a game that you only play for 5 or 10 minutes a day.
[/quote]
These are absolutely fantastic ideas. I love the idea of tech/money degradation and how they actually play off each other quite well. Unfortunately all we'll see anytime soon is being able to choose your trades. Woo.

[Botha]

[quote name='Manis B' timestamp='1311862750' post='2766164']For example, mini animation screens for things that you do, like in advance wars. Hes done it once with CMs, although not animated, they had a noise and frame by frame sequence of events. Im pretty sure it also scared the crap out of everyone.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]That cruise missile noise used to routinely drive Mrs.Botha nuts. Update time is around bedtime here, so whenever there was a big war and the cruise missiles were flying off, Mrs.Botha would be yelling from the bedroom, along the lines of "for crikes sakes stop blowing up things, you got work tomorrow so come to bed...." or some similar complant.

Mrs.Botha knows absolutely nothing about CN... except for cruise missiles and what they sound like.[/color]

[Jaiar]

What keeps war from happening and why? Tech takes too long to build up. Get rid of tech deals completely. Have it only be bought from your nation page, no importing. Many nations will reach a limit obviously as it will get too expensive. 1000 tech would probably be the new norm (about $100mil to buy in a bunch rather than the 300tech/$25mil) and some nations with large war chests could probably reach for 2000 tech.

[size="5"]AND[/size]

Have tech be like land and not destroyed but taken as loot.

Think about it.... tech raids would actually be tech raids. You could go to war to build up your tech because you sure as hell won't want to pay billions to build it up. Tech raids would drive wars and alliance politics.

Building up to war readiness would be easier if rebuilding tech did not take a year to do as it does with the current crappy system.

Tech is evil.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Jaiar

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='kingly' timestamp='1316127451' post='2801108']
just start CN:SE round 2, and run it separately, but at the same time as this one, eventually that would would become dominate, but it would be a slow phasing in as oposed to a sudden reset.
[/quote]

Completely agree. The political dynamics of a new server would be pretty interesting to see I think.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='kingly' timestamp='1316127451' post='2801108']
just start CN:SE round 2, and run it separately, but at the same time as this one, eventually that would would become dominate, but it would be a slow phasing in as oposed to a sudden reset.
[/quote]

How would that change anything? Same game, different server. Same alliances. The only difference it would make is that nations would be the same size for awhile.

So what?

[the rebel]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1316041860' post='2800599']
SE is never reset. [b]1:Just create another standalone SE with all bans removed and we'll find out how right I am. Hell, a certain other game in production saw everyone over there within minutes and its current production is basically going to just be that[/b], by all indications. Kevin already has everything that could make something like that work, and no one would have to wait on more coding, etc. Their numbers in meer weeks is proof alone that it would work. Those numbers only declined with coding flaws becoming rampant and rapid development.

[b]2: No argument presented against this has been given that isn't anything more than "I don't want my nation reset,"[/b] or challenging the fact that in all likelihood a full reset would incentivize the current players to recruit more than any stupid mars or venus wonder that would/could be implemented to prolong this games death knell.[/quote]

1: Interesting idea of having another standalone SE, though the problems with that is probably 99% of it will be the same people we have already as there is [b]very little/zero[/b] advertising of cybernations on the internet and effective advertising to bring new blood requires a healthy bank balance.

2: For most its community and/or nation building so just reseting would lose the majority of nation builders in an instant and never come back as who would want to spend another a couple of years plus rebuilding and getting the wonders [b]again[/b].

[Ironfist]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1316391796' post='2803349']
1: Interesting idea of having another standalone SE, though the problems with that is probably 99% of it will be the same people we have already as there is [b]very little/zero[/b] advertising of cybernations on the internet and effective advertising to bring new blood requires a healthy bank balance.

2: For most its community and/or nation building so just reseting would lose the majority of nation builders in an instant and never come back as who would want to spend another a couple of years plus rebuilding and getting the wonders [b]again[/b].
[/quote]

Pretty much. It's not that I don't want to lose my nation. I'd happily use it to go to war. But to have it levelled just for the sake of "it'll bring more people, in my opinion", is just the incentive I need... to not bother with CN anymore.

Having a nation to use is the fun part. It lets politics work. People who want a reset are simply asking everyone to put in another year or so of nation building to become a decent size again. There's a reason against it.

Another server is just pointless, as I addressed above.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ironfist

[Denial]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1316046345' post='2800636']
<snip>
[/quote]
Someone get this man a promotion.

[Botha]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1315916884' post='2799715']Have you considered how many people will leave if their nations are just randomly turned back to 0?[/quote]

+1 who would leave.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1315916884' post='2799715']Your same argument can be reversed. The people who do want a reset are just irritated that they'll never reach the starry heights of Hime Themis (someone who has put in a lot of work). It's completely selfish to just make everyone come back to square 1 because new players want to fit in.[/quote]

Amen. Also a reset is communist - and as we all know, communism doesn't work, makes people stink, and is generally just a ghey idea.

[IYIyTh]

I highly doubt it.

The fact remains that even this most recent update does very little and will only accellerate the gap between the new user and the highly effecient ultra-actives, who despite all of their attempts at decrying that any change not favorable to them would cause them to leave, would likely still stay anyway.

Edit---

I want to be clear, you'd have to roll back all the bans too. Everyone starts fresh.

A lot of movers, shakers, innovators, and indeed recruiters came from these people who are content with building empires elsewhere, but I'm sure would be enticed with a clean start.

Edited September 20, 2011 by IYIyTh

[potato]

What exactly would a reset change? The "heart and soul" (lol) of CN is the politics. And whether our nations are 350,897,617,324 or 1 NS won't change much: are Valhalla and STA suddenly going to join the same bloc because everyone has smaller nations? Are TOP and NpO going to share an unbreakable MDAP because of the reset?

Yes, your nation is on par with everyone but who cares? The casual players. Is that really what you want? A bunch of inactive people who will mostly bring very little to the game except a bunch of 0s and 1s for some alliances? It is the same with every single game ever made (TF2, PES, FM, CN... you name it): you're always going to be smaller/not as good as someone who has played longer. If people are put off by not being the biggest/most badass as soon as they join, they should only play Minesweeper. Although I'd be wary of those pesky little red flags if I were them.

Edited September 20, 2011 by potato

[Daeryon]

A reset would kill the game IMO.

The current problems are due to a few things:

#1. Boredom. Let's face facts, this game can get REALLY boring. It's been around for quite a while now and has reached a point where a lot of the original older players who first made it interesting in a lot of ways have moved on. In addition, there's nothing new to figure out. I can go to almost any alliance and find handbooks on how to grow my nation. It's all written down. I don't have to think in most cases.

#2. Lack of intersting politics (really a subcategory of boredom). Now I'm not intimate with all the politics out there in Bob, but it seems to me like there's very little ambition from a lot of the allliances in the game. Some of our biggest alliances are rather.....laissez faire with global politics: MHA, GPA, WTF. The remainder are either being very careful not to draw attention (Those not in the ruling coalition), or don't want to shake things up because they'd risk losing some of their current control of Bob (those in the ruling coalition).

#3. Damage taken in the last couple of wars. Some alliances in this game have really been set back, or downright forced out of existence due to a combination of lack of activity, and the damage inflicted in Karma and every war afterward. The damage causes reluctance to engage in a war in the future. If it took me 6 months to regroup from the last war...why risk it all to start over again? Expecting drama, conflict, and interest out of these alliances is silly.

#4. Lack of unique ideas. When NPO in the past took the entire red sphere under it's wing and swaggered around Bob it created interest, drama, they had some neat ideas about how to shape Bob going forward. Always pressing new boundaries. Who does that now? The goal of those who took the power from NPO seems to have been twofold: Stop things from happening like NPO used to do, and keep NPO down. They've accomplished those goals, ad nauseum over the past couple years. Problem is what now?

The solution to revitalizing CN is for politics around here to unstagnate. Someone has to step up and change things politically. Make it interesting.

Create the drama and people will pay attention.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1316528343' post='2804496']
#4. Lack of unique ideas. When NPO in the past took the entire red sphere under it's wing and swaggered around Bob it created interest, drama, they had some neat ideas about how to shape Bob going forward. Always pressing new boundaries. Who does that now? The goal of those who took the power from NPO seems to have been twofold: Stop things from happening like NPO used to do, and keep NPO down. They've accomplished those goals, ad nauseum over the past couple years. Problem is what now?

The solution to revitalizing CN is for politics around here to unstagnate. Someone has to step up and change things politically. Make it interesting.

Create the drama and people will pay attention.
[/quote]

Must admit, it's hard not to become bored when the "hegemony that refuses to be a hegemony" claims to be much different and far more laid back, and then refuses to do anything different at all. For a few seconds, I thought "Oh, MK doing something and attacking NPO just for fun". At first I thought it was disastrous that they do something like that, and I thought all the politics would drain away from this game. If anything, it did the opposite. Now that NPO are all beat up again (and treaty-ing their attackers left right and centre), there's nothing to do. No controversial moves to play.

Do something spontaneous, Mr Hegemony. It'll make people mad. Finally.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Ironfist

[IYIyTh]

Most of the people clamoring for war in no position to start one are the same who will immediately attempt to butt out via "I don't like the reason," (I don't like the odds,) or who will seek peace after a round or two of war.

[Mr flubb]

[color="#8B0000"]What if a coalition formed to crush new and micro alliances so the number of alliances will decrease thus decluttering the treaty web even a bit while larger alliances gain more members and thus tensions will rise between them. even if this doesnt work, the political repercussions of this coalition would be quite interesting. [/color]

[kingly]

i think something needs to be done about the whole sharing an ip problem, as i fear inviting anyone here at my school would result in myself getting flagged for duplicate ip

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1316528343' post='2804496']
A reset would kill the game IMO.

The current problems are due to a few things:

#1. Boredom. Let's face facts, this game can get REALLY boring. It's been around for quite a while now and has reached a point where a lot of the original older players who first made it interesting in a lot of ways have moved on. In addition, there's nothing new to figure out. I can go to almost any alliance and find handbooks on how to grow my nation. It's all written down. I don't have to think in most cases.

#2. Lack of intersting politics (really a subcategory of boredom). Now I'm not intimate with all the politics out there in Bob, but it seems to me like there's very little ambition from a lot of the allliances in the game. Some of our biggest alliances are rather.....laissez faire with global politics: MHA, GPA, WTF. The remainder are either being very careful not to draw attention (Those not in the ruling coalition), or don't want to shake things up because they'd risk losing some of their current control of Bob (those in the ruling coalition).

#3. Damage taken in the last couple of wars. Some alliances in this game have really been set back, or downright forced out of existence due to a combination of lack of activity, and the damage inflicted in Karma and every war afterward. The damage causes reluctance to engage in a war in the future. If it took me 6 months to regroup from the last war...why risk it all to start over again? Expecting drama, conflict, and interest out of these alliances is silly.

#4. Lack of unique ideas. When NPO in the past took the entire red sphere under it's wing and swaggered around Bob it created interest, drama, they had some neat ideas about how to shape Bob going forward. Always pressing new boundaries. Who does that now? The goal of those who took the power from NPO seems to have been twofold: Stop things from happening like NPO used to do, and keep NPO down. They've accomplished those goals, ad nauseum over the past couple years. Problem is what now?

The solution to revitalizing CN is for politics around here to unstagnate. Someone has to step up and change things politically. Make it interesting.

Create the drama and people will pay attention.
[/quote]

#1 Boredom - I hear people talk about this all the time, but Bob is what you make of it. If you're active enough (and have even a moderate pair) then it can be very exciting even when the missiles aren't flying. One thing that might combat that is to make the controls more accessible to those that aren't super-active. Controls for nations are great and really don't need to be changed, but if there were more controls/displays for alliance and inter-alliance relations I think that it would spike interest. I mean how many of the average rulers have even seen the Treaty Web? If that was made more accessible it may even clear things up some and prompt quicker wars.

The Trade Resource change and Stats downloads were steps in the right direction. Now I'm hoping that they move over the Alliance controls from TE as well. Beyond that I'd like to see some Admin generated graphical displays of the treaty web. I'd also like to see alliance stats displayed in a rank-able format similar to those used in Fantasy Football.