Ideas on Revitalizing CN

[Henry Rollins]

Give members of sanctioned alliances trade bonuses for trading with members of their own sanctioned alliance.

Create Alliance Wonders. Only 12 should suffice. Someone smarter can create a formulae for this. Alliance Wonders are unique in that when one is built it cannot be built by any other alliance. Alliance Wonders expire. The benefit of having a particular Alliance Wonder is that its effects are only given to members of the particular alliance which constructs it.

For example, a Missile Defense Shield Alliance Wonder would give all the members of an alliance the benefit of the SDI National Wonder.

[Instr]

The reason the game is dying is because the game is old. It's hard to get set up in a new alliance these days, and with the tech change, a long long time ago, that determined the dominance of elite alliances, there's no real point to recruit.

[IYIyTh]

I'm having fun. I don't know about you all. :/

[Proest]

Fun is a lie. :v

[deth2munkies]

Really, what needs to happen is for everything to get much, much cheaper at lower levels so smaller nations can build faster than they can right now. Aid restrictions should be proportional to how small the nation is, the smaller it is, the more aid they can receive at once. This means that powering nations up to the point where they can actually participate in a war within a few months of them starting the game would be a possibility.

In addition, there need to be more incentives for huge nations to grow further. If someone actually hits the ceiling in the game then there's no real point.

Also the game needs to be spread a bit more through word of mouth because the number of people hearing about it and joining are less and less each passing month.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1315372322' post='2796176']
The reason the game is dying is because the game is old. It's hard to get set up in a new alliance these days, and with the tech change, a long long time ago, that determined the dominance of elite alliances, there's no real point to recruit.
[/quote]
I didn't find it too difficult.

The issue is that people convince themselves it's hard instead of getting out there and doing.

That said, some technical fixes wouldn't hurt.

Pure age has nothing to do with it. A balanced game can grow indefinitely.

[Instr]

HoT, I can't remember if it was you or someone else who won WPE 2011, but I love your avatar.

I've since made a post in Gameplay discussions, focused solely on what's wrong with the game, but let me add in my 2 cents:

Is UE ever going to be politically relevant? You can get a ton of members signed up, but will those members ever amount to much militarily? Will your military potential ever get you into a significant game-controlling political unit?

[Gn0xious Jr]

My suggestion? Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies, and need to start over.

[IYIyTh]

I wouldn't be opposed to a reset. Honestly.

For all the people saying "I threw real life money into a pixel game, one that was explicitly stated being a "Donation," I demand compensation or I'll take my ball and go home!"

Go home.

I guarentee you I will find more people to replace you than you will find of yourself.

Good riddance.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1315874788' post='2799470']
I wouldn't be opposed to a reset. Honestly.

For all the people saying "I threw real life money into a pixel game, one that was explicitly stated being a "Donation," I demand compensation or I'll take my ball and go home!"

Go home.

I guarentee you I will find more people to replace you than you will find of yourself.

Good riddance.
[/quote]

There's more of us [i]against [/i]a reset. But good for you.

[IYIyTh]

The only reason to be against a reset is that you have acquired a modicum of pixels relative to others.

Which while valid, is not a progressive approach to ways to help the game in the least.

"I want change, sort of!"

[potato]

The game can change and improve without ruining years of clicking here and there, you know.

[IYIyTh]

Not if you expect to attract an audience of anyone other than a select few random forum invasions, and even then barely by a thread maintain them.

The underlying problem is a lack of people.

We can pretend like implementing new features to keep the current people here interested is doing anything other than treating the symptoms, but, in the end, you're all full of !@#$.

People don't remain here because they love their tech,and if they do, it's because they love their tech because they can have fun with that other guy from new zealand or england that they've met in this game and built a relationship with. Less people, less relationships.

In reality, it's simply harder for me to rationalize trying to get someone interested in the game because I would have to upsell the actual mechanics of the game and get them interested in the secondary stuff (politics.) In reality the mechanics and feasibility of creating a strong and powerful nation is what drives people to start playing and the politics evolve thereafter.

Reset the bans, reset the game, have at it. (Just a one-time event, hell, create a new standalone SE and keep this one intact.)

Restart recruitment endeavors and I'm sure we could all do the rest.


It would cut into your competition, too, Kevin.

It's probably the only way.

A super-Mars-Uranus-Neptune wonder might keep 2-3 thousand of the people in this game interested, but the rest, not so much.

The trades were a start, but fundamentally everyone's avoiding the massive startup gap that prevents new nations from entertaining the idea of playing the game in a serious manner, let alone entertaining the idea of getting involved in the process where we are today.

We're at stage five, either reinvent and reinvigorate or we die.

Edited September 13, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Ironfist]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1315908259' post='2799696']
Not if you expect to attract an audience of anyone other than a select few random forum invasions, and even then barely by a thread maintain them.

etc
[/quote]

I'm glad you know exactly what the game needs. Why didn't we consult you earlier?

Have you considered how many people will leave if their nations are just randomly turned back to 0? My aim from the beginning of the game was to get to 100k nation strength. That was what I told myself I needed to do before I could contemplate quitting. I've done it now, I'm happy, but what about those who haven't had that chance? It just royally screws over everyone who put so much work into it.

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. It's also a periodic thing. It'll only benefit those who join on THAT day. Unless you have a monthly reset, where - oh wait no, that's TE.

[Captain Enema]

New SE, but simpler game. One thing I've always liked about CN is that it's easy to play. Been getting more and more complicated since I started in before GW3.

Though in the end.. I think with all the other browser games out there that have animation and such.. the problem with having a game like this.. not enough catchy bells and whistles to get people interested.

[Cerridwyn]

If you want a reset, you do another SE server and I think it's too late for that. It would have worked a year or so ago. With the idea of 1 count per server. Many games do that. No more developer work, really, and players can create servers with different personalities.

Yes, we sort of have that with TE, but that's a purely war based server.

But.. consider this one.

Allow a second account, at a cost - 10 bucks/mo
Rules: Cannot trade resources, give aid. secret or otherwise.

Count would jump tremendously. And there would be a huge amount of energy involved.

[nippy]

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1315919689' post='2799727']
If you want a reset, you do another SE server and I think it's too late for that. It would have worked a year or so ago. With the idea of 1 count per server. Many games do that. No more developer work, really, and players can create servers with different personalities.

Yes, we sort of have that with TE, but that's a purely war based server.

But.. consider this one.

Allow a second account, at a cost - 10 bucks/mo
Rules: Cannot trade resources, give aid. secret or otherwise.

Count would jump tremendously. And there would be a huge amount of energy involved.
[/quote]

Sounds like a techraider's dream! I'm in.

e: oh, I thought you meant the new rules for a new server. That would make sense. Who would pay 10 bucks for another account on this one? :\

Edited September 13, 2011 by nippy

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1315679900' post='2798200']
HoT, I can't remember if it was you or someone else who won WPE 2011, but I love your avatar.

I've since made a post in Gameplay discussions, focused solely on what's wrong with the game, but let me add in my 2 cents:

Is UE ever going to be politically relevant? You can get a ton of members signed up, but will those members ever amount to much militarily? Will your military potential ever get you into a significant game-controlling political unit?
[/quote]
Hello! And thanks. *brohoof*

I was in fact voted WPE, after some serious campaigning on my end. Some last minute vote rallying with some friends, and MK wtf'd as they woke up to a different result than they went to bed with. Good times all around.

United Equestria is here to stay. Right now, our focus is internal, on growth and on getting everything set up. What you see before you is merely the first recruitment wave. There are more in store for the future, as well as some big upcoming events, so stay tuned!

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1315908259' post='2799696']
Not if you expect to attract an audience of anyone other than a select few random forum invasions, and even then barely by a thread maintain them.

The underlying problem is a lack of people.

We can pretend like implementing new features to keep the current people here interested is doing anything other than treating the symptoms, but, in the end, you're all full of !@#$.

People don't remain here because they love their tech,and if they do, it's because they love their tech because they can have fun with that other guy from new zealand or england that they've met in this game and built a relationship with. Less people, less relationships.

In reality, it's simply harder for me to rationalize trying to get someone interested in the game because I would have to upsell the actual mechanics of the game and get them interested in the secondary stuff (politics.)
[/quote]
Stopped reading here. CN is first and foremost a politics game. Clicking buttons doesn't retain membership, being part of a community does. What do you think I'm doing with UE? We've only lost ~25 members thus far after a peak of 110, I currently predict we're going to settle somewhere between 70-80 members in this first wave. That is 70-80 new, active, interested, and contributing members, BTW. Joe Nobody who doesn't participate in politics or community, and just clicks buttons on his nation, adds nothing to the game. And he's left feeling useless, alone, and bored, and he ups and leaves after a few weeks of clicking those buttons.

Addressing another post I saw somewhere:

Besides the impending fix to the trade system, updating mechanics will not gain membership. The trade fix helps, because the current system is [i]broken[/i] and has a [i]negative[/i] impact on retention. But outside of that, you have to realize that more bells and whistles isn't going to cut it for a new signup. CN is the internet equivalent of D&D. Pen and paper, or in this case, spreadsheets. It should stay that way.

We're actually approaching the point where the complexity and subsequent lack of an in-game tutorial can be a turn off. An in-game walk-through would be massively helpful, instead of just dropping them on their nation page and sending them on their way.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1315930739' post='2799777']
Stopped reading here. CN is first and foremost a politics game. Clicking buttons doesn't retain membership, being part of a community does. What do you think I'm doing with UE? We've only lost ~25 members thus far after a peak of 110, I currently predict we're going to settle somewhere between 70-80 members in this first wave. That is 70-80 new, active, interested, and contributing members, BTW. Joe Nobody who doesn't participate in politics or community, and just clicks buttons on his nation, adds nothing to the game. And he's left feeling useless, alone, and bored, and he ups and leaves after a few weeks of clicking those buttons.

Addressing another post I saw somewhere:

Besides the impending fix to the trade system, updating mechanics will not gain membership. The trade fix helps, because the current system is [i]broken[/i] and has a [i]negative[/i] impact on retention. But outside of that, you have to realize that more bells and whistles isn't going to cut it for a new signup. CN is the internet equivalent of D&D. Pen and paper, or in this case, spreadsheets. It should stay that way.

We're actually approaching the point where the complexity and subsequent lack of an in-game tutorial can be a turn off. An in-game walk-through would be massively helpful, instead of just dropping them on their nation page and sending them on their way.
[/quote]

Politics evolve from being able to distribute who gets what. When that is unattainable, it's logical to think that younger nations are less likely to engage in them.

Not only that, but your loss of nearly 30% of your intiial membership probably isn't due to a lack of mars wonders.

I'm willing to bet that no one would've been able to prevent your alliance getting rolled other than yourself upon entry to this game.

To say that every member of your alliance (and probably, more than 10% of it,) is actively involved in politics is probably bananas.

Hell, even in democracies in this game, much of the internal dynamic is created by a subset of the alliance and the votes are merely a result of their work.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1315916884' post='2799715']
I'm glad you know exactly what the game needs. Why didn't we consult you earlier?

Have you considered how many people will leave if their nations are just randomly turned back to 0? My aim from the beginning of the game was to get to 100k nation strength. That was what I told myself I needed to do before I could contemplate quitting. I've done it now, I'm happy, but what about those who haven't had that chance? It just royally screws over everyone who put so much work into it.


[/quote]

It's almost as if you type this, then turn around in your chair and raise and gesture an open palm towards yourself to no one.

People don't have to listen, but they're only fooling themselves.

Yes. Not many compared to the total left playing the game in two-three years at this rate.
Sitting around waiting to get to 100k might be a cool goal and all, but it's not doing anything to promote the "revitilization," of CN as this topic indicates we are searching to find.
If anything, this would actually let more nations set more short-term and long-term goals, ie, 10k, 25k, etc.

Edited September 13, 2011 by IYIyTh

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1315933922' post='2799793']
Politics evolve from being able to distribute who gets what. When that is unattainable, it's logical to think that younger nations are less likely to engage in them.

Not only that, but your loss of nearly 30% of your intiial membership probably isn't due to a lack of mars wonders.

I'm willing to bet that no one would've been able to prevent your alliance getting rolled other than yourself upon entry to this game.

To say that every member of your alliance (and probably, more than 10% of it,) is actively involved in politics is probably bananas.

Hell, even in democracies in this game, much of the internal dynamic is created by a subset of the alliance and the votes are merely a result of their work.
[/quote]

You'll note I said "community" and not just "politics." Not everyone can be a politician, but everyone can participate in the community. We have solid activity rates thus far, and will shortly be taking measures to improve in that area.

The people who we lost were 95% the kind of people who sign up for a nation and then never log into it again. Community helps encourage players to log in again. Because they're a part of something bigger than themselves, and that gives a great sense of satisfaction.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1315947497' post='2799926']
You'll note I said "community" and not just "politics." Not everyone can be a politician, but everyone can participate in the community. We have solid activity rates thus far, and will shortly be taking measures to improve in that area.

The people who we lost were 95% the kind of people who sign up for a nation and then never log into it again. Community helps encourage players to log in again. Because they're a part of something bigger than themselves, and that gives a great sense of satisfaction.
[/quote]

Wouldn't it make sense then to take measures to make the community to be more enviable?

It's hard to say having 200k ns + nations with warchests that last unto eternity are exactly the bastion of equal play and invitingness to newer players.

Hell, an 100 member invasion alliance would be considered a force, not a tech farm.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1315977175' post='2800215']
Wouldn't it make sense then to take measures to make the community to be more enviable?

It's hard to say having 200k ns + nations with warchests that last unto eternity are exactly the bastion of equal play and invitingness to newer players.

Hell, an 100 member invasion alliance would be considered a force, not a tech farm.
[/quote]
The cool thing about UE is that we don't !@#$%* about these things. We just hang out and have a good time.

[IYIyTh]

That's great and all, but in reality relying on that's not exactly a winning strategy to save the game.

Edited September 14, 2011 by IYIyTh

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1316029628' post='2800500']
That's great and all, but in reality relying on that's not exactly a winning strategy to save the game.
[/quote]
It's better than setting everyone to zero and losing half the membership in a matter of hours.