Proposals for the Improvement of the CN Community

[Proest]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1328712953' post='2916715']
The only way getting rid of peace mode makes any sense would be if the gameplay gave any chance at all to the underdogs. Especially coupled with limiting warchests: you'd only see more lopsided wars, even more dogpiles, and still fewer players.
[/quote]

Then what I have always lobbied for is what needs to happen: total game reset.


But, then again, all of the cry baby pixel hugger's would rage-quit over losing their years of built up pixel's. Then again, that wouldn't really be a loss. 2006 was the best year of this world, I lived it.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1327930452' post='2910561']
You [i]could[/i] always try to enforce your play style onto everyone else via in-game means
[/quote]

It's amazing to me that anyone can say something like this with a straight face. What do you think you guys are doing if not forcing your style of play onto everyone else?

[EdwardNorton]

Self improvement is masturbation.

[Heft]

What we really need is more radio stations. Maybe admin can set up an automated radio station that is just a computer program "reading" blog posts. 24 hours a day. Awesome. Game saved. You can thank me later.

[Enamel32]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1329452397' post='2922312']
What we really need is more radio stations. Maybe admin can set up an automated radio station that is just a computer program "reading" blog posts. 24 hours a day. Awesome. Game saved. You can thank me later.
[/quote]
While I think that computer generated voice would probably annoy me to no end after a while, I do really like where you are going with the idea. Radio's do seem to get a lot of listeners. Especially talk shows.

[kuhnini]

After reading bits and pieces of this thread I started thinking about changes that could liven things up a bit. I wonder if there would be some way to implement "events" that alliances have to vote on. The vote then affects each nation in that alliance. For example, a certain event voted on in a certain way (either yea or nay) then affects a certain game mechanic. Let's say an alliance has to decide whether they will concentrate on economics or being war ready. If they vote to focus on economics for a 30 day period then trade slots only take seven days to expire where as military strength will weaken by x percent.

My point is I believe alliance decisions made on in game events could spice up the game a bit within an alliance and outside of the alliance. It seems the only decisions that affect an alliance's nations in game is war. I would like to see official alliance votes on in game events effect the nations within alliances.

As you can tell by my ramble I don't quite have this figured out yet but I got interested in this thread thus, the ramble. We need "new" alliance issues other than what happened years or months ago that people keep rehashing. It gets boring real quick for new players to the game unless you want to invest time equal to studying for a mid term or something to get up to speed on the politics.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327865734' post='2909658']
8. Start banning people for OOC attacks regardless of whether they were on-site or not.
[/quote]
Hmmm. This could be open to abuse, particularly with regard to fabricated evidence of 'OOC attacks'. What is an 'OCC attack' and who gets to define what an 'OOC attack' is? What standard of evidence would be required for a banning?