What exactly is killing the game?

[PaladinePSoT]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1321074034' post='2843561']
Yeah except not really.
[/quote]

Well that's a compelling enough argument for me o.O

[Ironfist]

[quote name='PaladinePSoT' timestamp='1321138479' post='2843897']
Well that's a compelling enough argument for me o.O
[/quote]

I apologise. I didn't know it needed an argument. Removing the number of defensive slots means nations can get completely decimated within a day. That won't help new players who are getting raided.

Though I like your other thing about the unlimited range for declaring upward. That has potential, but the first thing, nope.

[PaladinePSoT]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1321176850' post='2844062']
I apologise. I didn't know it needed an argument. Removing the number of defensive slots means nations can get completely decimated within a day. That won't help new players who are getting raided.

Though I like your other thing about the unlimited range for declaring upward. That has potential, but the first thing, nope.
[/quote]

Realistically speaking, any number of nations can take on a single nation on their territory, the limit is in how many you can go after yourself. It would actually make more sense to scale the offensive war limit by population/soldier count.

While it means there could be a dogpile, it's preventable in peacetime by threat of war, scope of raid (why have 7 guys raid 1 target with 200 tech and a few million in cash) on the low end, and mass nuclear anarchy on the high end, and in wartime by need to commit offensive slots elsewhere (why commit 10 nations to take out the enemy's top guy when they could be working elsewhere?). If 25 nations jump in on 1, that one would get hit hard, but could also refuse to peace and effectively take those offensive slots away from the attacker for the next 6 days. 25 offensive slots is a big waste in a war.

[Grealind]

[quote name='Maverick87' timestamp='1318681899' post='2825594']
What exactly is killing the game? All this talk about the game dying. I mean its a real turn off when someone comes in and sees 4-5 threads about how we can save the game or why the games dying and everyones just pointing fingers at each other.

Instead of writing a wall-o-text about how the game is dying more and more every day why don't you spend the time you made writing this (This goes for some of y'all replies as well) to actually do something to try and bring new members into the community from other worlds, RL, school, friends, Facebook. Which btw using FB would probably be the most advertisement you'll get free. So instead of just talking about whats killing the game lets talk about what we can do to bring this to a stop and bring in new players.
[/quote]

I've written up a few rather effective methods for individuals to be part of the solution. Read about it here: http://ansontx.info/cybernations.aspx

Also, and this may be a bit of an exploit of sorts, but if you start to create an advertisement on Facebook, and then cancel out of it, about a week or two later Facebook will send you some free advertising credits. You could always use that to promote Cybernations. Just a thought.

[Robert2424]

Hmm, how bout this, Smaller Nations can always declare on Larger nations. Could causes Larger Nations to always be on there toes as the largest Nation in CN could be declared on by anybody in the game. Though keep the strength range for the larger nations so there is no bullying. Though if I'm a larger nation, and i'm friendly that is a smaller nation that's under attack, I will want to help the smaller nation. Right now, I can only send Aid to them via money, solders, and tech. I wonder if there could be a way to help out the smaller country out more without it getting abused.

I'm just spit balling here.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='Anson' timestamp='1321241738' post='2844422']
I've written up a few rather effective methods for individuals to be part of the solution. Read about it here: [url="http://ansontx.info/cybernations.aspx"]http://ansontx.info/cybernations.aspx[/url]

Also, and this may be a bit of an exploit of sorts, but if you start to create an advertisement on Facebook, and then cancel out of it, about a week or two later Facebook will send you some free advertising credits. You could always use that to promote Cybernations. Just a thought.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if that website will help the new nations of Cybernations get a grasp on this game. Then again, if that's not what it's for, I apologise. That being said, if it's not, the facepalm factor is pretty high now.

[Generalissimo]

CyberNations isn’t kind to new players.
Join CyberNations, built your nation for a few week, and then get raided for everything you have.
It’s impossible to join the game without getting raided for technology.
Lots of newer players quit after their first major raid.
This has happened to everyone I’ve tried to recruit to the game.

[MrFiasco]

[quote name='zoskia' timestamp='1318243015' post='2822087']
I must say that I terribly miss the old "unbeatable" NPO... damn, I hated them so much, the most disgusting creatures that ever existed on Planet Bob, Hypocrytes, Manicheists, back stabbers and even fascists... and incredibly interesting!
It was so incredibly FUN to hate the NPO... The game was so amazing.
Typing "the NPO is stupid" was a terrible scandal and the leader of your Alliance would probably had to type an official appology and maybe offer reparations.
[/quote]

I rarely post, but just wanted to drop in and say that I completely agree with this. I hated the NPO so much. I remember being a tiny nation and being so scared of them during the BLEU/NADC war several years ago. It was awesome. Secretly, I was one of their biggest fans. Jerks.

These days, I just sit around waiting for someone to lob grenades into my yard.



Also... remove the aid cap. It allows for more lucrative deals and gets people into the game faster. Simple fix for some of the new player issues. The fact is that this game needs more wars. That's what gets people playing.

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1318211866' post='2821849']
More mergers and less protectorates. The complicated treaty web is killing the game through utter stagnation although the forces driving new players into creating new alliances as hinted at the OP is also a significant factor.
[/quote]

I think you're just projecting your personal taste onto the problem. There have ALWAYS been small alliances and protectorates. There has always been a complicated treaty web (which I actually think is MORE interesting, not less). They weren't killing the game in 2007 and they aren't now.

I'm afraid it's probably more fundamental than that. The problem is that new people will be more likely to get into some facebook game or find something on their phones. Text based online games aren't exactly where it's at. There are more options for this sort of thing than there were back then. I'm afraid the world is just getting beyond it. The ZORK franchise is pretty much dead too.

Edited November 22, 2011 by sammykhalifa

[Eumirbago]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1321974178' post='2849012']
I think you're just projecting your personal taste onto the problem. There have ALWAYS been small alliances and protectorates. There has always been a complicated treaty web (which I actually think is MORE interesting, not less). They weren't killing the game in 2007 and they aren't now.

I'm afraid it's probably more fundamental than that. The problem is that new people will be more likely to get into some facebook game or find something on their phones. Text based online games aren't exactly where it's at. There are more options for this sort of thing than there were back then. I'm afraid the world is just getting beyond it. The ZORK franchise is pretty much dead too.
[/quote]

I would have to agree with you. I guess text based online games doesn't appeal many anymore.

[GNC1700]

Get rid of aid slots, this allows you to do tech deals faster.

[Geerland]

Link the game to a facebook app.

[Daeryon]

There's a lot of problems with this game, and the person who started the thread identified some good ones, though if I were to fix the game, I'd probably not pursue the direction they would seem to want.

IMO there are 3 core problems with the game, 2 of which were identified by the poster:

#1. It is incredibly difficult for new players to achive any sort of relevancy in the game. The chips are too stacked against them.

#2. The original core of people who drove the intrigue and gameplay have largely moved on, and haven't been replaced with the same level of dedication and creativity. There are leaders out there now, but is anyone really thinking outside the box?

#3. (MY addition) The game mechanics are terrible in a lot of respects and need a complete re-work.

Discussion on issue 1 - Any game where it takes 2 to 3 YEARS to be a relevant force in the game needs to change the rules. Regardless of how you do it, someone should be able to make a new nation and be relevant on a military scale within 2 months. Now this isn't to say that they should be equal to people who have been here 3 to 4 years, but they should be able to compete in some fashion.

Discussion on issue 2 - There's not much to do here but hope for an influential second generation to take the reins. I'd encourage people to think outside the box: Just cause it's always been done that way...doesn't make it an official rule of the game. Think outside the mindless domino-effect treaty web. Come up with creative goals for your alliance.

Discussion on issue 3 - There's a lot of mechanical problems with the game, but if I had to single one area out, it would be the war mechanics. A war system needs to be developed that does more to a player's nation. Right now I go to war, I hire mercenaries, I lob nukes about with casual flair, none of my stuff really gets destroyed, and then afterward I rebuild for about 6 months to a year.
The following major changes should be implemented:
Any nation should be able to declare on any other nation. - If I have a mega-nation, and I piss off an alliance of 200 small nations, they can't do squat to me right now. They should ALL be able to declare war on me. (I understand that managing such things would be a strain on the server, so if not all, then at least my 3 slots worth).
During these wars there should be real consequences. - If I am nuked by this rogue nation I should stand a chance of losing a wonder. Why is my "great temple" immune to nuclear weapons? Why can't someone target my Anti-air defense network? If I am nuked 6 times over 1000 square miles, my AADN should be out of commission until I build a new one! Enabling this backwards progression and real consequences for wars would be a great equalizer, and would assist with issue #1. Also, if I lose enough infra so that I cannot support an improvement, I should lose that improvement! I shouldn't be able to carry 20 improvements through a war that I don't have infrastructure (or population) for!

Other areas that need to be looked at are aid limits - Why can I only get $3 mill in aid at a time? That's silly. Bill payment/collection cycles - Why can I carry labor camps all month long, then swap for one day and not have economic consequences for using my population as slave labor?

[Instr]

I've considered changing the war limits myself as a type of solution. It would work in the sense that you would be able to deal catastrophic damage to a large nation; nuke, then launch large waves of attacks against a foe with little ground attack ability. There would be ways around it, however. For example, the large nation could simply turtle; and thus by sacrificing the ability to attack / defend tech via the ground, you'd be limiting your ground damage to one DA a day.

One problem with the proposed change, is that it's potentially too radical. It would make it so that the established players would have no real advantage over newcomers with significant forces. The cost of the various nations would also change dramatically; it simply makes the game unplayable for elite alliances to face the threat of being mobbed by throngs of zerging nations that only cost 6 months to build.

There is also the issue of long-term logistics; for example, the zergers typically would have very low warchests, and thus would be unable to sustain a long-term attack. They will run out of warchest faster than the large nation would; especially if the large nation denies them earnings through turtling, and when that happens, the small nations are just wrecked, without the logistic potential to rebuild, and are likely to quit the game.

While the problem with the game is the relevancy of new players and new structures, making it so that old nations would be completely endangered would make it so that the existing playerbase would be further incentivized to depart. Going too far in one direction, to the point where you completely remove the advantages of the existing playerbase, is not a solution.

[Endurance]

[quote name='PaladinePSoT' timestamp='1321073476' post='2843553']
Remove the limit to the number of defensive wars.

Problem solved.

Think about it.
[/quote]

Yes it would. Then which ever alliance has the most people, win. Wait, how does that change things? There is also the problem with the server overload. Let say, I declare war on everyone in my range, and everyone declares war on everyone else (a rogue paradise) I wonder what would happen?


[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1321176850' post='2844062']
I apologise. I didn't know it needed an argument. Removing the number of defensive slots means nations can get completely decimated within a day. That won't help new players who are getting raided.

Though I like your other thing about the unlimited range for declaring upward. That has potential, but the first thing, nope.
[/quote]

No, at worst you get nuke once with 1 defeat alert and however many of CMs and bombings. It's pretty bad but not 1 day, unless, of course, you keep buying back troops for people to hit you with. Please keep in mind that there is also the NS ranged limit. Bigger nations have fewer enemies and smaller nations... do they matter?


[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1324429584' post='2882913']
I've considered changing the war limits myself as a type of solution. It would work in the sense that you would be able to deal catastrophic damage to a large nation; nuke, then launch large waves of attacks against a foe with little ground attack ability. There would be ways around it, however. For example, the large nation could simply turtle; and thus by sacrificing the ability to attack / defend tech via the ground, you'd be limiting your ground damage to one DA a day.

One problem with the proposed change, is that it's potentially too radical. It would make it so that the established players would have no real advantage over newcomers with significant forces. The cost of the various nations would also change dramatically; it simply makes the game unplayable for elite alliances to face the threat of being mobbed by throngs of zerging nations that only cost 6 months to build.

There is also the issue of long-term logistics; for example, the zergers typically would have very low warchests, and thus would be unable to sustain a long-term attack. They will run out of warchest faster than the large nation would; especially if the large nation denies them earnings through turtling, and when that happens, the small nations are just wrecked, without the logistic potential to rebuild, and are likely to quit the game.

While the problem with the game is the relevancy of new players and new structures, making it so that old nations would be completely endangered would make it so that the existing playerbase would be further incentivized to depart. Going too far in one direction, to the point where you completely remove the advantages of the existing playerbase, is not a solution.
[/quote]

I disagree because you are forgetting the NS range limit.

Now, finally my point.
If I want to play a game that focuses on war, I wouldn't play a text-based game. The problem with Cyber Nations, I believe, is that the focus has shifted to alliance wars and tech raids and away from politics and nations building. Look at all these people above me, talking about annihilation, battle tactics, war logistics. What? What the hell? I'm sure there are better games out there for those! Even flash games do a better job! What happened to the days where people make youtube videos to declare some sort of belief and actually negotiated and role-played as nations? Now-a-days I see alliances doing bro-dances in secret then go into war. Wasup bro? you respect me bro? no respect bro? BRO LETS ROLL! So, how are you going to increase "politics and nations buildings" elements exactly? How are you going to change that? I don't know, so good luck with that! Merry X-mas.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Endurance' timestamp='1324433579' post='2882957']I disagree because you are forgetting the NS range limit.[/quote]
I think that getting rid of the (upward) NS range limit is the point behind his discourse.
Your last point isn't bad, by the way.

[der Rote Baron]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1321974178' post='2849012']
I think you're just projecting your personal taste onto the problem. There have ALWAYS been small alliances and protectorates. There has always been a complicated treaty web (which I actually think is MORE interesting, not less). They weren't killing the game in 2007 and they aren't now.

I'm afraid it's probably more fundamental than that. The problem is that new people will be more likely to get into some facebook game or find something on their phones. Text based online games aren't exactly where it's at. There are more options for this sort of thing than there were back then. I'm afraid the world is just getting beyond it. The ZORK franchise is pretty much dead too.
[/quote]
This.

TBH I never thought much of this game, I only play it because it's simple and we players can be entertaining when we get bored with other games and life in general. So I play mostly out of habit and because I like my little character and have a few friends here I find interesting. I do appreciate the forum dwellers with thousands of posts about nothing though, or all the 14 year old 90 pound interwebz tough guys here or irc who act like they are big brute men because their alliance is so awesome; the community is definitely the best part.

This game has been "dying" since I joined though... maybe it's my fault

[Instr]

Endurance, Jerdge, I disagree.

The three aspects of the game, nation-building/alliance-building, war, and politics are integrated. Politics is fundamentally based on the desire to blow other alliances up for some perceived slight back when you were a zygote, or just to blow them up for fun. This is how politics is related to war. Nation-building, alliance-building; all of this is to enable alliances to matter when it comes to war, and by mattering when it comes to war, nation-building/alliance-building is now related to politics. Rephrasing it: Alliance-building provides power. Politics leverages power. War expresses power.

At the end of the day, though, it's true that the game is not a war-game. When we do discuss things like changing war mechanics to save the game, we are talking about changing the expression of power in order to change the system of political interactions.

[TehChron]

Sorry if Im coming in on a random tangent, but I think that (as I've detailed elsewhere) the problem is not one that can be related to game mechanics in any way. Rather it is an issue of the leading political players being boring and undynamic. Which leads to significantly fewer people being interested, which spirals into fewer people caring to participate despite the lack of incentive of becoming a dominant alliance leader.

The thing that the past success of the game's heyday had going for it was a passionate, engaging political narrative. Until one develops, all other hypothesizing is irrelevant, because that's the only way to retain most players in the long term.

The average player is not ambitious. Attempting to cater exclusively to the desires of the ambitious in the hopes of that being a cure-all is mistaken, and therefore overreaches based upon a flawed premise.

Sorry if you disagree, but stuff like seniority and wonder counts don't matter if you find the actual narrative of events interesting enough to play regardless. That is paramount.

[Marebito]

[quote][quote]I think that getting rid of the (upward) NS range limit is the point behind his discourse.
Your last point isn't bad, by the way. [/quote][/quote]

Edited January 17, 2012 by Marebito

[Instr]

As far as a passionate, engaging, political narrative goes; this is an expression of the malaise affecting the game, but it's not the malaise itself.

Quite simply, we are in a deflationary era. Tech becomes more and more precious every day, if not on a direct level, but because the tech markets are in the process of collapsing. At a certain point, all the tech available in the game will have to be bought by buyers themselves to the dearth of sellers, and at that point, tech becomes extremely, extremely, expensive. A point of tech spent today is more valuable than a point of tech spent tomorrow; so consequently, because it's so hard to recover from your losses, people are less inclined to take risks.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1324895186' post='2886566']
As far as a passionate, engaging, political narrative goes; this is an expression of the malaise affecting the game, but it's not the malaise itself.

Quite simply, we are in a deflationary era. Tech becomes more and more precious every day, if not on a direct level, but because the tech markets are in the process of collapsing. At a certain point, all the tech available in the game will have to be bought by buyers themselves to the dearth of sellers, and at that point, tech becomes extremely, extremely, expensive. A point of tech spent today is more valuable than a point of tech spent tomorrow; so consequently, because it's so hard to recover from your losses, people are less inclined to take risks.
[/quote]
That has no real effect on the average, active player.

The average player either becomes recruited into an alliance and becomes introduced to the political narrative by that means, or they get raided and go to the OWF or the alliance boards of the individual hitting them to complain/respond/etc and get exposed that way. Or they just leave.

Either way, such issues as the potential value of tech have nothing to do with it.

[Instr]

As you've mentioned yourself, there is no real political narrative to speak about. Leaders are not dynamic players because the game will not allow them to be dynamic players. The moment you get beat down, you are looking at another 2-3 years of building back up. The time involved is simply astounding and most players cannot tolerate this type of crap.

Simply put, the intelligent alliance leader will not take the risks inherent in playing dynamically, because getting beat down means they will be politically irrelevant for years.

One way to handle this problem by itself is simply to change the game to decrease the total amount of damage that can be dealt; say, to implement concepts like peak infra or peak tech (which in a naive implementation is easily abusable), but it will not evade the population deflation problem.

Right now, what's going on politically is that people are passing around the weeaboo stick; the person who is least popular at the end of the war gets picked as the target for the next war and gets brutally beaten down because people get bored and want to have a war. There is no real potential for any new hegemony or radical maneuvering because the risk involved is too high.

And, sometimes, it's not just 2-3 years between you and recovery. Alliances go inactive, and alliances die. We've seen the end of some significant, promising, and respected micros and minor alliances in the recent past; DF is now a part of Umb, OSA, I believe, has passed away, and Ronin is no longer extant; an alliance lead by MK's MoFA during the glory years.

It's a question of stellar formation and stellar death. The game has changed to the point where only stellar death is possible and stellar formation has become impossible. Alliances can merge and become more relevant than they once were, but we really will never have the new kid on the block threatening the world and shaking the place up.

[TheApollo]

Treaty Web, Raiding New Natons, itch for war, and dumb politics are my reasons for CNs decrease of life.

I've been playing this game since 2008. Back in that time, it was so much fun. I remember someone talking about NPO bein bad ass, and they were fun to hate. It's true...

I was in The Order of Light....loved it. Had ups and downs, but had an amazing time. I just don't feel like those times are in this world anymore. But they can be.

All that needs to be done is, stop raiding the new nations. Keep them alive for alliances to use.

If you have treaties with alliances just because you like their leader/someone is interesting. Drop it, it's useless. I tired of the treaty web, it's not even a web. It's like someone made a pot of pasta and threw it at the wall....you can't see wtf is going on. You're going to war bc your "friends" are and then you're attacking another ally or an alliance you don't want to attack....what is the point.

So many wars with bull !@#$ CBs....where is the legitimacy in CN. "I'm attacking you because in the last war ÿøü were mean and made us cry.......waaaaaa waaaa" GROW UP.

Cyber nations can live and can be fun again. Mergers can work, but I feel like newer alliances should become unique. Usually, if you're in one alliance you've been in them all. That is why my alliance The College of Winterhold takes a new approach and becomes a little more unique and customized to the theme. People love that. And how about quality presentation.?? Not anymore.


That's my own opinion. I just hope we can get back into the days where it was (more) fun to log in and be on IRC with all my buddies. I miss those days.....

[mallthus]

I'm a fairly new player at 445 days, so I can see a lot of the problems, but haven't been here to see how they became problems.

That said, the issues aren't wholly unlike those faced in the current "real world" financial crisis and downturn. The 1% of nations that are oldest, biggest and richest are so divorced from the issues of nation building faced by other players that they operate in a different sphere. On the other hand, the new player is utterly powerless. The rate of initial development is glacial at best. I'm going to guess that the strategic scrimping and saving needed to progress to the point where you're buying wonders and what not is just too boring for most new players.

I've had the good fortune (!?!?) of being unemployed or underemployed during the entire life of my nation, so I'm able to devote time each day to building my nation. Even with that, the recent world war that just wrapped up for my small alliance so devastated my nation that I seriously considered quitting the game. It's tough to be the top nation in a small alliance and so face 6 nukes without anyone being able to assist. I'd like to see some mechanism where not only were wars between nations restricted to like sized nations, but where wars were further restricted to like sized alliances.

I think this would be both strengthen interest in smaller alliances and prevent newer players from being destroyed into disinterest.

Just my 2¢...