Where Have all the Nations Gone?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335097181' post='2957098']
Yes, exactly. I don't really remember anyone in the old heg being overly sophisticated. NPO had francoism, but that's it and it didn't really help anyone outside of NPO. Like could you attribute intellectual discussion to the Continuum? No.
[/quote]

I became active during GWII and in what I think of as the old days, Pacifican Francoism DID add a lot to the OWF in my eyes.

But yeah, by the time of Q? Arrogant brutes. And Q forums were crude and pointless.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Leerjet]

[quote name='Zhaan' timestamp='1335123182' post='2957251']
This is the truest answer to the decline. Even new games that want to maintain player base and attract new players are constantly updating and improving their games. It's a competitive market. For many of us, this place is our niche, but we can't do anything to avoid its inevitable demise. Only admin can do that.
[/quote]

This.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1335097033' post='2957097']
Pretty sure raiding was going on well before GW2.

And pretty sure there are several other contributing causes as well.

It's like freaky friday in here, what's going on?



Meh, some of the goons are not lame at all, and the old Heg was only better before they destroyed all the opposition, once the masks come off, they're all the same, jackbooted thugs, goons or \m/arauders...
[/quote]
Back before that time raiders were generally the most hated people here. I was attacked by an multiple alliances, and let's not forget Walford's Army of none. It wasn't really publicly acceptable until \m/ began building their alliance culture around it.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1335131619' post='2957326']
Back before that time raiders were generally the most hated people here. I was attacked by an multiple alliances, and let's not forget Walford's Army of none. It wasn't really publicly acceptable until \m/ began building their alliance culture around it.
[/quote]

> And we were hitting 17 day+ inactives.

Tech raiding at the moment is a different beast. A case can easily be made for the current practice being a detriment to CN's growth.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Xiphosis

[enderland]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1335133604' post='2957350']
> And we were hitting 17 day+ inactives.

Tech raiding at the moment is a different beast. A case can easily be made for the current practice being a detriment to CN's growth.
[/quote]

Heh I remember only being able to raid nations which were 10+ days inactive and who didn't respond to a "I'm going to raid you" PM after a day

[Monster]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1335124920' post='2957269']
You were more than happy to assist in the standing up for raiders during your tenure in PB gov, what changed Bob?

Not making a dig here, just curious.
[/quote]

The thing is, it wasn't even about the raiding or morality or anything. It was one man's ego-filled crusade that he didn't have the heart to follow through on when he realized he could dick over TOP instead. If he had at least followed through, then raiding alliances would have been damaged enough not to be in a dominant political position after.


Ironically, people accuse me of the same thing whereas that person was initially hailed as a savior. I guess I really need to work on speech writing.

[Ravnica]

I left because I was bored with the game. Ended up turtling in a major war when I was a big, huge tier 3 bank for MK. I came back because I stopped playing WoW and needed some level of social interaction outside of work, and the small ring of friends I could hang out with.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Ravnica

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1335131619' post='2957326']
Back before that time raiders were generally the most hated people here. I was attacked by an multiple alliances, and let's not forget Walford's Army of none. It wasn't really publicly acceptable until \m/ began building their alliance culture around it.
[/quote]

Umm, let's also remember that Walford's Army of none was stamped out of existence with overwhelming force. There might have been more vehement anti-raiders, and raiding rules and practices have certainly degenerated since, i will give you that, but let's not exagerate it either. I was essentially tech-raided out of existence the first two weeks of my current nations existence, until I joined a larger alliance, and that was January 2007.

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1335134378' post='2957362']
Heh I remember only being able to raid nations which were 10+ days inactive and who didn't respond to a "I'm going to raid you" PM after a day
[/quote]

That was a relatively civilised rule. Unfortunately inactives no longer give profit I understand.

[Hereno]

I mean I became a nation ruler in early 2008 (a few months before I made my forum account) and my first alliance's raid rules were AA's under 5 or unaligned nations. Considering the world came to be in 2006, and it is now 2012, it seems like we've had relatively lax raiding rules for a lot longer than we ever had the strict ones. I would be interested to see the population alongside a graph of the years to see if raiding coincided with a decline in nations.

[AgentAwesome]

Game features and game advertising. I have NEVER seen an advertisement for Cyber nations...NEVER. I accidentally stumbled upon it while researching countries and their cyber security capabilities.

Also, the game content has almost NEVER changed. That little "suggestion" section of the forums here is a bunch of B.S. The mods know it and whoever owns CN knows it.

Frankly, if whoever owns CN wants this game to die, its best just to give it some respect and shoot it...instead of letting it waste away. ...but hey what do I know? I'm just some guy on the internet....

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1335134378' post='2957362']
Heh I remember only being able to raid nations which were 10+ days inactive and who didn't respond to a "I'm going to raid you" PM after a day
[/quote]

Yeah. I can't really bring myself to raid anymore, I liked looting the inactives but !@#$@#$ up actives just for the hell of it isn't really my thing.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335072366' post='2956997']
Honestly it isn't a 'heart and minds' issue; the reason this game is stagnant is because there are zero 'new' nations that can influence changes within the current diplomatic webs.
[/quote]

Getting into the position to have an impact doesn't have to mean starting up new alliances from scratch. It can be as simple as someone spending the time to work their way up through the ranks in an existing alliance. That is harder to do in some alliances than others, but it can be done and isn't related significantly to nation development. All you need is time, a willingness to contribute, and the right fit alliance-wise.

[quote name='Zhaan' timestamp='1335123182' post='2957251']
This is the truest answer to the decline. Even new games that want to maintain player base and attract new players are constantly updating and improving their games. It's a competitive market. For many of us, this place is our niche, but we can't do anything to avoid its inevitable demise. Only admin can do that.
[/quote]

[i]OOC: Ever play a Zynga game? A robot with a bad twitch could play them. They are popular because they have lots of flashy graphics, encourage Facebook friends to interact, and they are comprehensible by a 6th grader. The amount of strategy required isn't above "Oregon Trail" level. You can't lose playing their games, only have your growth slowed a bit in relation to others. The games are specifically designed that way, along offering proportionately bigger rewards for donations and more active players.

All that said...

I have said for some years now on these very forums that ALL role-playing games (and this is one), but most especially computer-based ones have to continue develop or they die. In the print RPG world new adventures, new supplements, and rules clarifications/additions ensure that the fan base will continue to invest in your game. In the computer world, updated graphics, software patches and modifications serve the same purpose. The last update the game rules was 9-17-2011 (changeable resources). The last major addition, 7-27-2009 (Mars/Moon colonies). The look and feel of the game haven't changed since...well has it ever?

We do need change and yes, Admin must drive it, but we must also offer our support and our loyalty. It also would be helpful as I suggest to think differently about new players. More nurture, less destroying for lulz.[/i]

[Dorsaiwolf]

I currently have 104 empty improvement slots. I have built all the wonders I can. Except for the annual once a year War, my nation buys tech and does a 20 day sled. Rinse repeat every 20 days. Occasionnally someone drops out of CN and I have to find another trade partner or I get to pick an option from a event but otherwise nation upkeep is very simple and is like farmville without the reward of watching the wheat grow on the farm.....
Alliance loyalty and friendships keep me from not collecting taxes and letting my nation delete.

After looking at the game suggestion section of the forum and noticing some great ideas that have not been acted on in the last 4 years, maybe it is time for admin, who has obviously moved on to bigger and better things than CN, to sell CN on ebay to someone who wants to expand/grow/advertise the game. The fault of the decline of CN is not on the players but on Admin. If admin were to sell CN he could use the money to work on his new projects.

Suggestion.... Some loyal players of CN could pull some money together and offer to buy CN from admin with the goal of improving the game. However at this point even a buyer on ebay would do more to improve CN then what we are getting now.

[ControlVolume]

OOC

Admin can get his support and loyalty when he actually contributes to CN again in a meaningful way. CN is not admin's gift to us, the playerbase. It is not a work of art, it is a game. More importantly, if it's subsisting off of "donations," it is a product among a sea of many. We, the consumer, should not be required to take action against a shrinking playerbase. That is wholly the responsibility of admin, and any action on our part is just delaying the inevitable demise of a rotting game.

Also, my comment about zynga was that it revealed that browser games could indeed be viable and profitable, and that browser games as a whole (including zynga games, as much as I despise them) are advancing as a result.
/OOC

[Monster]

Though, the thing I personally hate the most is the lack of ambition and the fact that people don't get called out on being follower alliances unless your name is MHA. Ideally, the political game would be very competitive between various factions like the Game of Thrones analogy Gairyuki made. Being inept, unambitious, and complacent should get you rolled.

ooc; people are already trying to buy the game.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Roquentin

[enderland]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1335155168' post='2957616']
Yeah. I can't really bring myself to raid anymore, I liked looting the inactives but !@#$@#$ up actives just for the hell of it isn't really my thing.
[/quote]

You and me, both not raiding?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1335124920' post='2957269']
You were more than happy to assist in the standing up for raiders during your tenure in PB gov, what changed Bob?

Not making a dig here, just curious.
[/quote]
In Bipolar? I was pretty new in VE at that time, and only one government member out of several. And once our allies chose a side there was really no choice in the matter for VE. 'More than happy'? Well, let's just say you must not have been there.

Roquentin is right, as well, raiding wasn't the real reason behind most of that war, but it still brought together a coalition of raiders against a coalition of non-raiders, roughly speaking, and the alliances who aren't strongly in either camp made sure that the raiders won. Supporting raiding may not have been the intent of those alliances but it was certainly the outcome.

[Monster]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1335203637' post='2957839']
In Bipolar? I was pretty new in VE at that time, and only one government member out of several. And once our allies chose a side there was really no choice in the matter for VE. 'More than happy'? Well, let's just say you must not have been there.

Roquentin is right, as well, raiding wasn't the real reason behind most of that war, but it still brought together a coalition of raiders against a coalition of non-raiders, roughly speaking, and the alliances who aren't strongly in either camp made sure that the raiders won. Supporting raiding may not have been the intent of those alliances but it was certainly the outcome.
[/quote]

Well, alliances like Valhalla and BAPS raided. TORN as well. pretty much any coalition that is nominally against raiding will consist of raiders and a raider coalition will have non-raiders. UjW is another example.

[Bob Janova]

Uh right, I forgot to say, 'in general'. Yes, there were raiding alliances on the Polar side and non-raiding ones (though I'm not sure about 'anti-raiding' ones) on the PC side, but the balance was very clearly in one direction.

[Buzzin]

I hate to say it, but I agree. I have talked with a lot of old players. They all say that most people have left because war is not fun anymore. They left because back then people were trying to stop war and create peace...now Alliance just declare war over stupid things. War isn't exciting anymore...I miss the old days.

[JohnGulager]

[quote name='cookavich' timestamp='1334980255' post='2956391']
Admin has abandoned us. How can we hope to prosper if our deity cares not to interfere in the affairs of man?
[/quote]

Admin helps those who help themselves.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1334983473' post='2956424']
Considering a majority of the replies have come from you guys, I guess that's the way it's leaning. You were mentioned once. Calm down. You got your attention. Don't worry.
[/quote]
You're clearly being disingenuous. The OP specifically calls for concerted international action against us to alter our tech-raiding policy.

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1334977905' post='2956362']
Now, as the main offender and propagator of techraiding, I look at GOONS, essentially playing the same card as the old \m/ did. Your alliance culture is based upon it, and you all will be so offended at the thought of not being allowed to do it. I know you will not willingly change. [b]Now, then, I suggest that GOONS be forced to change. International pressure is required in this situation. Something has to be done, and everyone who stands idly by is allowing the pillaging and destruction of new nations, and the community. I'm not calling for war by any means, but a crackdown on techraiding.[/b] Perhaps initiate certain rules, such as not raiding nations under 100 days of age. Or perhaps not raiding nations under 10,000 NS. An aged, strong nation knows the risks. A new, young nation does not. Why should we show him the door by destroying him? There needs to be a solution, and fast.
[/quote]

Edit: Furthermore, I would contend that your assertion that we are the "main offender and propagator of techraiding", while somewhat flattering, is most likely a falsehood. If you can provide evidence to support your assertion (i.e. concrete and comparative stats on the number of tech raids we have launched vs the number others have launched over a decent period of time, demonstrating that we are the pre-eminent tech raiders around about the traps), I would be willing to change my mind, of course.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[SpoiL]

IC forum..

Edited April 24, 2012 by SpoiL

[johnathan buck]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1335154056' post='2957604']
I mean I became a nation ruler in early 2008 (a few months before I made my forum account) and my first alliance's raid rules were AA's under 5 or unaligned nations. Considering the world came to be in 2006, and it is now 2012, it seems like we've had relatively lax raiding rules for a lot longer than we ever had the strict ones. I would be interested to see the population alongside a graph of the years to see if raiding coincided with a decline in nations.
[/quote]


Hereno, we have finally found something we can agree on.

I remember when I was in an alliance that allowed raiding, it was the same rules as Hereno's first one, for unaligned we had that we couldn't raid them if they were in tech deals (out of kind) and that we couldn't use Air strikes, or Cruise missiles to attack with.

Over the time I've been on the game, I have noticed a drastic change in the raiding rules. I've also joined alliances that don't allow any form of raiding.

At one point, if I saw a nation being raided I actually had a big enough war chest back when they were really harped on that you needed them. I would go to war with the raider and help the other guy get peace by hitting the raider hard enough that they would back off. Of course this got me attacked and ZI'd by \m/, but fighting \m/ was fun, and it taught me quite a bit.

So, as Hereno said a chart with the raiding stats, and the decline in nations would be interesting to see.

Another thing I'd like to see done, is alliances tighten their raiding rules so that we can see if that helps with the population of the game. Just an experiment for us to run.

[Lusitan]

I think by now we should stop making up IC excuses for OOC reasons.