Raising Game Awareness

[Dr William Westcher]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1333744478' post='2949229']
You are literally one of the worst users around here. You realize that in the span of this statement you imposed your condescending attitude onto others for wanting to use their standards, while at the same time imposing your own standards? Get off your !@#$@#$ high horse you hypocrite.
[/quote]


...

No he isn't?

Unless you mean his standards against ponychan... in which case I agree bring those pony$#@$ers on over to cybernations.

[potato]

[quote name='Dr William Westcher' timestamp='1333749469' post='2949274']
...

No he isn't?

Unless you mean his standards against ponychan... in which case I agree bring those pony$#@$ers on over to cybernations.
[/quote]

So, he's not imposing standards except on X, Y and Z. In other words, he's imposing standards.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1333750297' post='2949282']
So, he's not imposing standards except on X, Y and Z. In other words, he's imposing standards.
[/quote]

It's more public safety than it is "standards".

[Dr William Westcher]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1333750297' post='2949282']
So, he's not imposing standards except on X, Y and Z. In other words, he's imposing standards.
[/quote]


I thought it was a joke. Let me google that site real qui....




He was imposing humor.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333732206' post='2949122']
It's more like 14.6k, not 16k.

The elitism about who should and should not be invited to play here makes me ill. The good ones will stay, the rest will flame out fast enough. In the meantime we'll have more drama, something some of you have been whining for now for years.

[b]Hell, bring on 4chan, 2chan, 8chan, 420chan, Charlie Chan, and Jackie Chan, I don't care.[/b] Just no [url="http://www.ponychan.net/chan/"]ponychan.net[/url]. I've seen some pretty scary stuff on the Internet, some of it probably not even legal, but my god the horror...the horror.
[/quote]


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter sir.

[MrMuz]

I know an untapped source. Not really untapped, since that's where I came from and people shrugged off the game because the game mechanics sucked and too much recruitment spam. But too lazy to do all that noob guiding. Though Roq would probably bug me to do it now that I mentioned it

[Monster]

Would? I am.

[Alex987]

[quote name='Ch33kY' timestamp='1333689191' post='2948916']
When you're advertising the game remember to tell people about the most recent game updates.

Such as navy and wonders.








.
[/quote]

I chuckled

[Phineas]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333732727' post='2949128']
They're already here man.

As for the facebook ads thing, I've seen plenty.

For better or worse I actually invested in SA ads for GOONS lol
[/quote]

You monster!

[quote name='Unkajo' timestamp='1333748911' post='2949267']
ponies should be banned from cn
[/quote]

I lol'd. I, for one, welcome everyone, be they ponies, goats or even manbearpigs.

[Iserlohn]

Downvoted so hard, though it doesn't really need it.

Except for SRS, Reddit is the scum of the earth. And newbies don't stay because this is a stagnant, deeply flawed game.

[Phineas]

[quote name='Iserlohn' timestamp='1333782701' post='2949499']
Downvoted so hard, though it doesn't really need it.

Except for SRS, Reddit is the scum of the earth. And newbies don't stay because this is a stagnant, deeply flawed game.
[/quote]

FWIW, I have accounts at reddit as well as somethingawful and I find this to be a very engaging game, thanks in some measure to your alliance's "evil" role here

If you think it's stagnant or flawed, perhaps you might consider tweaking your political approach to something a bit more realistic politically?

To wit, Sardonic claims your alliance is [i]lawful evil[/i], but I find it to be a bit more [i]chaotic evil[/i]... perhaps your complaints with the game reside within yourself?

Edited April 7, 2012 by Phineas

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1333786603' post='2949511']
If you think it's stagnant or flawed, perhaps you might consider tweaking your political approach to something a bit more realistic politically?

To wit, Sardonic claims your alliance is [i]lawful evil[/i], but I find it to be a bit more [i]chaotic evil[/i]... perhaps your complaints with the game reside within yourself?
[/quote]
You're confusing the game itself with the political environment that the players choose to create. The game itself is out of date and lacks anything engaging or impressive, so unless new users want to put the time into getting involved in alliances then they will give up on it pretty quickly.

[Phineas]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1333788299' post='2949515']
You're confusing the game itself with the political environment that the players choose to create. The game itself is out of date and lacks anything engaging or impressive, so unless new users want to put the time into getting involved in alliances then they will give up on it pretty quickly.
[/quote]

This game is no more out of date than the game of chess. As I see it, this game is about developing interpersonal politics and how best to assemble or form majority interests from a wide array of contrasting characters to put those who disagree with me into submission, and then for them to try to do the same to me. Making fancier clicky booms really would add nothing to that imo.

[MrMuz]

Playing CN over [i]months[/i] gets tiring. I get bored of chess after a few days, it gets old after a month. And it is very out of date - I'd rather play the Total War games or Wesnoth for tactical fights, something like EU3 for turn based strategy (all of which have better graphics than chess).

And one thing I've faced when externally recruiting is that there's a lot of people who say "I've played that, was fun, but I got bored of the nerdrage/raiders/griefers". There are a lot of things people don't like about this game, and after a while, the negatives get stronger, and the initial fun you have when buying your MP or overthrowing the evil hegemony weakens. As GOONS is probably experiencing by now, there's only so many people who are attracted to a game like this.

Running the numbers, I think external recruiting doesn't really pay off that well. I mean, you do get giants like FOK, TOP, Fark, GOONS. But it's only a very small portion of an actual community, even if you have a very tight knit one. And with huge communities, you only end up with about 200-500 who still play the game after a few years. This is from really big forums and sites. Something scaled to much smaller, especially non-gaming communities, will not be able to do it as well.

Or you can look to like Facepunch or Flood Empire who really came in then didn't stay.

[Phineas]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1333809499' post='2949567']
Playing CN over [i]months[/i] gets tiring. I get bored of chess after a few days, it gets old after a month. [/quote]

I agree, I only play certain games sporadically since there simply is no game that I would want to play the same way for years.

[quote]And it is very out of date[/quote]

I understand the points people are making here, but I think political games like this depend more on what the players bring to the game than what game designers can do. Sure, there are discussions in the game change forums here, and some things do get added, but what I hear more is how some think this is a different game than it actually is. For illustration, when I was very young sometimes I played war with the pieces of my parents' chess set, but I was not playing chess. To a very large extent I simply do not feel that some people have come anywhere close to embracing the potential of how this game can be played for greater [b]fun[/b]. And yes, that example probably sounds insulting to some people here and frankly, it should be, myself included.

[quote]And one thing I've faced when externally recruiting is that there's a lot of people who say "I've played that, was fun, but I got bored of the nerdrage/raiders/griefers". There are a lot of things people don't like about this game, and after a while, the negatives get stronger, and the initial fun you have when buying your MP or overthrowing the evil hegemony weakens. As GOONS is probably experiencing by now, there's only so many people who are attracted to a game like this.

Running the numbers, I think external recruiting doesn't really pay off that well. I mean, you do get giants like FOK, TOP, Fark, GOONS. But it's only a very small portion of an actual community, even if you have a very tight knit one. And with huge communities, you only end up with about 200-500 who still play the game after a few years. This is from really big forums and sites. Something scaled to much smaller, especially non-gaming communities, will not be able to do it as well.

Or you can look to like Facepunch or Flood Empire who really came in then didn't stay.
[/quote]

Valid points, but in recruiting for games, I think there always will be that type of pay-off. I play a lot of strategy games and even the flashier designed ones do not hold my attention the way the more player-defined games do. I like a game that does not require any more regular input than once every few days. I think what I see in the negative replies to the OP here are mostly jaded responses from people who have played this game for too long, or maybe the same way for too long... or are playing some other game entirely here.

I've seen this feeling and this negativity in others gaming forums as well. Oftentimes it seems to be from people who are themselves afraid of changes in the game (note the reactions to inviting new players from this source or that). The anime and pony-haters here are especially amusing to me. Seriously, some people don't want other people who have different views than them to play a political game?

This almost has meme status now since it gets used so much in these games, but if people are really tired of how this particular game has been played or is being played, [i]do something about it[/i].

Edited April 7, 2012 by Phineas

[MrMuz]

Well, no, you can't really do anything about it because it depends on other people who don't want to do anything. I mean, for a comparison, look at modern soccer - it rewards diving, possession, and overpowered defense which are all really boring things that help them win. Everyone watches soccer for the goals, but the game doesn't reward attacking games that much. You can say that if everyone stopped playing so damn defensively, it would be a better game, but nobody wants to stop because they want to win, even if you sacrifice the beauty of the game to win.

CN is even worse. You're severely punished for getting into a war, even if you win. People push this pacifist morality. You're punished for being on the aggressive side, even if it's usually warranted. You're given tons of disincentives to do anything fun. I mean, I think it's the 'bad guys' who make this game worth playing, but they'll always lose because that's what happens to bad guys. The majority of CN alliances are just there to keep growing and fill up the power vacuums as they come, without touching any politics.

Conflict is fun. Most of the interesting wars and situations IRL are about conquest, about controlling resources. The problem with CN is that there is no natural conflict provided by the game itself. Everyone considers it a wargame, but the game, and the nukes are about [i]discouraging[/i] war. Probably the neutrals are the only ones playing it the way it was meant to be (that's why they're winning lol).

So no, it's not a game for everyone. It's for the ones who are willing to roleplay a little, make up a conflict, act on it, and accept the fact that they'll get rolled a few times for making the game more fun for everyone else.

[Sarmatian Empire]

It's over, let it go

[Phineas]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1333823557' post='2949645']
Well, no, you can't really do anything about it because it depends on other people who don't want to do anything. I mean, for a comparison, look at modern soccer - it rewards diving, possession, and overpowered defense which are all really boring things that help them win. Everyone watches soccer for the goals, but the game doesn't reward attacking games that much. You can say that if everyone stopped playing so damn defensively, it would be a better game, but nobody wants to stop because they want to win, even if you sacrifice the beauty of the game to win.

CN is even worse. You're severely punished for getting into a war, even if you win. People push this pacifist morality. You're punished for being on the aggressive side, even if it's usually warranted. You're given tons of disincentives to do anything fun. I mean, I think it's the 'bad guys' who make this game worth playing, but they'll always lose because that's what happens to bad guys. The majority of CN alliances are just there to keep growing and fill up the power vacuums as they come, without touching any politics.

Conflict is fun. Most of the interesting wars and situations IRL are about conquest, about controlling resources. The problem with CN is that there is no natural conflict provided by the game itself. Everyone considers it a wargame, but the game, and the nukes are about [i]discouraging[/i] war. Probably the neutrals are the only ones playing it the way it was meant to be (that's why they're winning lol).
[/quote]

I like where you are going here. The problem here is this game cannot be won, no matter how many goals are scored, which makes it so charming and addictive.

If there were a way to chip away at the total risk aversion to global wars, to be more like a game and less like real life, without requiring multiple logins per day, I'd be curious to see how to do that.

Going back to how we approach this game as nation leaders instead of how the game can be changed mechanically, a huge game changer can still come from the players following global wars. Wouldn't it be something to see a victorious side aiding and rebuilding some of their foes a la Marshall Plan instead of keeping them paralyzed via months of reparations? The increased use of white peace is a big step in the right direction, but I think there is still more that can be done by us.


[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1333823557' post='2949645']
So no, it's not a game for everyone. It's for the ones who are willing to roleplay a little, make up a conflict, act on it, and accept the fact that they'll get rolled a few times for making the game more fun for everyone else.
[/quote]

I completely agree.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Phineas

[Blacky]

This thread was created with the best intentions. Even if you dislike reddit or any other community, that just means there is a potential for future drama.

I have been, and will continue to make an effort to try and recruit new players.

[Monster]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1333779859' post='2949489']
You monster!



I lol'd. I, for one, welcome everyone, be they ponies, goats or even manbearpigs.
[/quote]

I am the monster. :>

[Manis B]

i leave posts about CN where ever I go.

I wish admin would do more to market the game (ive given you ideas!)

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1333823557' post='2949645']snip
[/quote]

Well said. Good stuff.

That's why I'm a fan of forced mergers as reparation terms. Heh.

[Monster]

The King of the Hill or rare resource thing would be cool.

[Hereno]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1333823557' post='2949645']
CN is even worse. You're severely punished for getting into a war, even if you win. People push this pacifist morality. You're punished for being on the aggressive side, even if it's usually warranted. You're given tons of disincentives to do anything fun. I mean, I think it's the 'bad guys' who make this game worth playing, but they'll always lose because that's what happens to bad guys. The majority of CN alliances are just there to keep growing and fill up the power vacuums as they come, without touching any politics.[/quote]

I agree with the rest of your post, but take issue with this paragraph. There are disincentives to shedding NS, but I wouldn't say any of the influential/powerful alliances got there by avoiding war. A lot of influential alliances pick their battles and don't jump head-first into whatever war opportunity comes along, but then I'm not sure I'd want to play a game where logical thinking isn't an advantage. Anyway, the alliances who infra-hug and don't learn/don't care about war are the ones either constantly losing wars, being completely irrelevant to the political climate, or both. The most influential alliances right now aren't the militarily strongest ones, nor the ones with the most NS.

And when have the good guys ever been on top? In the past few years we've gone from NPO on top, to a multi-polar world, and now to a multi-polar world where the "bad guys" are the most powerful grouping of power. I'd hardly call that "the bad guys always losing". It's easy to blame the pacifists/moralists/whatever for ruining the game, but the fact of the matter is that those alliances aren't ever the ones with the most control over what goes on. You say that the "bad guys" make the game fun, but the "bad guys" are the ones who have the greatest say right now in what goes on and you're here with everyone else complaining how boring things are. That doesn't make the least bit of sense.

[KenoCore]

I'll throw my 2 cents in. Instead of necessarily going to forums why not games?

Starcraft:
CSN
Gramlins (i believe)
and another alliance ( forgot the name made by the starcraft game Silent.)
AcTi had Starcraft players

And hey looky their Starcraft II came out Blizzard makes some of the best and most massively played games. Look at Starcraft the games like 10 years old and it still has 20-30k active users even with Starcraft 2 out. So perhaps starcraft 2 is an idea?