Where Have all the Nations Gone?

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1335025237' post='2956614']
I have to agree with lebubu. This world could be just as intriguing with 1000 nations if more alliances had some ambition, principles, or willingness to rock the boat. There is little incentive to bring new life into this world and, yea, little incentive to remain tied to this world except to justify previous commitment.
[/quote]

I think this sums up the biggest problem. Yeah tech raiding causes some issues I'm sure, if I just started playing a game and I got attacked right out the gate then I would highly think about just not playing. On the flip side you got a 50/50 shot of a new nation staying anyway.

Also the nation itself is a problem. As some of you know, I've built strong communities in my time here. People will follow me where ever I go and this group is close and we have a lot of fun, but even with that new nations still tend to die out. Now you could say that I've never been on to focus hardcore on military or economics and that drives people out, but I'd say that if you arent willing to be apart of the community you sure as hell arent going to get involved in the governmental/political aspects of the alliance.

But back to the post I quoted. I think this is the largest problem. Everyone seems fine with just sitting where they are, regardless of what side they are on.

That issue flows into my next problem. (Now note I'm not singling any alliances out when I mention names, they are just examples.) GATO, if my memory serves GATO has been on the wrong end of most conflicts during its history. So what have we seen them do? Made friends and eventually joined CnG, a bloc that is heavily invested with the current powers in PB. In a survivalist standpoint it is a great move, from a game aspsect it is not. Another case, and problem a bigger on imo, is NPO. NPO was taken down in Karma by the powers that be today. The Pacific kingdom was torn down and not only that, but they were pre empted and rolled again during the NpO-VE affair. Now I would think that this would piss off most people and they would vow revenge. What do we see? NPO shacking up with CnG, joining the power structure. Another opportunity to start something gone. Now note I'm not speaking out against PB or anything, but they are in control and it is in the best interest of the "game" and politics to have a strong force opposing them at this point. It would hopefully drive both sides to recruit from outside the "game" and moves pieces around on the chess board.

OOC: A example that I'm starting to relate to CN is the WCW. Now I didnt watch the WCW, I was a WWF guy, but I still own a DVD called the Monday Night Wars that talks about the business side of both businesses and how they fought each other. Now for those who remember and for those who dont know, the WCW had a faction in side it called the NWO, it was 3 guys. As the storyline grew they got more powerful and they started adding more people to the NWO, 4, 5, 6 people and it went on until people couldnt remember who was in and who wasnt. People were complaining about constantly being beaten up by the NWO and eventually they would get included into the NWO. So what happened? The NWO story line collapsed. So many people joined the one side that it fell apart and I equate that into what you see now.

We say The League and Aegis try to take on TI, TI split into two and they fought it out. Karma rose up to doom NPO. There was always alliances on the other side of the power structure trying to start something that could take them down and that is gone. It seems you fall into three categories: A) Join the power structure. B) Lazy and constantly just go with the flow, whether that be constantly getting rolled or constantly winning. C) Trying to shake things up, but cant find any partners to do it with.

Of course it is not as easy as it was in the past when there were fewer blocs and fewer spheres of influence. We see blocs not in power start to fight, IE Mj vs SF. So what does PB, or whoever else would of been in power at the time, have to do? Pick a side and watch them kill each other. Current power stays around and others hurt themselves. So it is not as simple as it use to be, but that doesnt mean it cannot be done, or at least tried.

On an individual alliance level, no one wants to make a dramatic move. Causing drama can easily put you in a bad light in a heart beat, this fuels people to not make big crazy moves. This is good on an alliance level and bad on a "game" level. Say what you want about GOONS pushing reps on Kaskus/Mongols, but it caused drama didnt it? People were actively paying attention and voicing opinions and who knows how that war could shape the future via opinions on both goons and kaskus. We saw a few pre-empts during the last war, some people loved it, some hated it, but it caused drama and made things interesting. Legacy cancelled on CSN/GOD and in the same thread signed with DT/NoR, CSN/GOD's hated enemies, some people loved it, some people hated it, but it caused drama. Pre-empting NPO caused drama, the CSN DT rep stuff caused drama.

Until people are willing to roll the dice to try to stir the pot, things will never improve.

I have never typed such a big post in my life. I usually look at long posts and think, pfft someone needs a hobby! And with that said I'm gonna go sob for a few minute then go practice my golf swing.

[Choson]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1335070592' post='2956974']
OOC: A game reset solves nothing, if that is where you are going. This a "hearts and minds" issue and players have to change their attitude about some things to fix it, because all a reset would be is a massive reroll and we'd soon be right back to where we were before in short order, minus some people who decided that rebuilding just wasn't worth it.
[/quote]

[i][ooc]A game reset would solve some things, maybe. But I'd personally advocate for a revamping of the ruleset.

Let's talk about wonders for a second. For some of the nations that have any (or even ALL) wonders, it gives them such a massive [b]permanent[/b] advantage over any other nation who may end up being in a war with them. This isn't like changing one's government or religion or having one of those +2 Happiness, -$1 citizen income things, where eventually the "problem" or "bonus" goes away. Well, you might be saying "But Choson, those nations have worked hard and a long time to get where they are!", but how is it any more fair to pit a hulked out nation with full wonders that has the same NS as a nation who has none? Plus, once you have a full set of wonders, what then!? Where does one go from there other than just collecting taxes and getting bigger? Maybe making wonders temporary and only allowing a limited number out of the full-set, so that a nation would have to carefully pick and choose which would best suit their given needs would be better?

How about the archaic ruleset for being able to buy nukes and aircraft, for example? With tech deals (and tech raiding) feeding a global economy, anyone can reasonably just make it to the limits of being able to build nukes and have the best navy/air force. And going back to wonders, having a Manhattan Project makes it just that much easier to constantly get nukes, even if one is at a relatively low NS. Just have to buy up to 1000 infra and 75 tech? That's incredibly easy, especially for someone with all the other wonders that a nation can get.

Basically, the game rewards those who have been here the longest, while offers no or little incentive for new nations.[/ooc][/i]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1335311595' post='2958707']
I think by now we should stop making up IC excuses for OOC reasons.
[/quote]
Well, when that's all the recourse we have...

[Monster]

Yes, new nations are at a disadvantage and there's little incentive for some to grow like GOONS since I know a lot of people in GOONS sell off infra after getting MP and stuff like beefspari.

[Starfox101]

That's a good point. Manhatten Project should be removed. Nukes used to be prestigious.

[Phineas]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1335479316' post='2959884']
That's a good point. Manhatten Project should be removed. Nukes used to be prestigious.
[/quote]

I am not sure what I think of that, since it gives newer nations a fighting chance, but your comment really reminded me of this:

[img]http://oi46.tinypic.com/2cwpr2r.jpg[/img]

Are you a mutant?

[Hereno]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1335385712' post='2959133']lots of words here
[/quote]

I agree that there's not a lot of incentive to continue being a nation ruler, and that the affairs of running a nation are extremely monotonous and dull. However, I disagree that there isn't any incentive to shake things up. I shook things up with Tetris when I went after Legion, and we had a fun war and were all entertained. That was the only reason to shake things up, and things went poorly for us politically and NS-wise, but something still happened. Of course, it wasn't game-breaking, but our alliance was like 1.2m NS at the time. If things aren't happening, it's because people don't want them to happen, or are sitting around waiting on somebody else to make something happen. Nobody needs a bunch of accomplices to shake things up. All they have to do is grow some balls and do something. Legion growing some balls, throwing caution to the wind and saying "$%&@ it, we're not gonna take that lying down" also helped quite a bit. I shouldn't take all the credit for that.

Anyway, if there were absolutely no disincentives for doing things, everybody would always be doing things and then we'd be bored of wars and all quit anyway. Yeah, sure, there are lots of people who don't want anything to happen at all and are content growing their nations, roleplaying, being neutrals, or some combination of the three. But I don't hold that against them, because it isn't their job to make things happen because they don't care either way. If you care about making something happen but don't make any effort to do so, it's really your fault that nothing is happening and that you're frustrated.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Hereno

[Choson]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335484335' post='2959915']
I am not sure what I think of that, since it gives newer nations a fighting chance
[/quote]
If only the top 5% of all the nations can have nukes, newer nations would hardly ever be in a position to face nukes.

[quote name='Admin']
Your nation will need a technology level of 75 or greater, an infrastructure level of 1,000 or greater, access to uranium for nuclear weapon production, and be ranked within the top 5% nations in order to begin purchasing nuclear weapons...
[/quote]

Also, if one is in the top five percentile of all nations here, don't you think that the amount of infra and tech needed should be based on a sliding scale in line with what the bottom most nation currently has?

[the rebel]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1335490164' post='2959948']
If only the top 5% of all the nations can have nukes, newer nations would hardly ever be in a position to face nukes.[/quote]

Swings and round-a-bouts, if nukes went back to the top 5% then future wars after that date would increase tenfold in length as amount of damage done a day to combatants would be decreased and not as damaging especially to tech, would take what seems like forever to lower.

[Choson]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1335635486' post='2960451']
Swings and round-a-bouts, if nukes went back to the top 5% then future wars after that date would increase tenfold in length as amount of damage done a day to combatants would be decreased and not as damaging especially to tech, would take what seems like forever to lower.
[/quote]
My point is that before Manhattan Projects were a "thing", nukes were a thing to be used extremely sparingly and cautiously. Wars didn't last ten times as long as they do now. In fact, I'd say that they lasted approximately the same amount of time. All that is changed is the amount of potential damage that each aggressor can do once nuke capable.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1335406536' post='2959437']
Let's talk about wonders for a second. For some of the nations that have any (or even ALL) wonders, it gives them such a massive [b]permanent[/b] advantage over any other nation who may end up being in a war with them.
[/quote]
The advantage is in no way permanent considering a new nation can buy a new wonder each month and I can't buy a new wonder each month, so if they keep buying them eventually they will catch up in wonders. If anything the wonders give a new nation the goal of trying to get them, which nations who have all the good ones don't have anymore later on (although by having the wonders it motivates an old nation to stick around and keep their nation alive to avoid losing them).

[the rebel]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1335640275' post='2960468']
Wars didn't last ten times as long as they do now.[/quote]

Of course they didn't because everyone was tiny and skint unlike today.

[Choson]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1335648943' post='2960520']
The advantage is in no way permanent considering a new nation can buy a new wonder each month and I can't buy a new wonder each month, so if they keep buying them eventually they will catch up in wonders. If anything the wonders give a new nation the goal of trying to get them, which nations who have all the good ones don't have anymore later on (although by having the wonders it motivates an old nation to stick around and keep their nation alive to avoid losing them).
[/quote]
A "new" nation can't buy wonders. Also, the old nation would lose a LOT more than just wonders if they didn't stick around, so that argument is pointless. It would take a nation, at a minimum, of 36 months to get a full set of wonders. That is if they had all the money and prerequisites to do so.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1335726089' post='2960821']
A "new" nation can't buy wonders. Also, the old nation would lose a LOT more than just wonders if they didn't stick around, so that argument is pointless. It would take a nation, at a minimum, of 36 months to get a full set of wonders. That is if they had all the money and prerequisites to do so.
[/quote]

And realistically it might take 40. So what's your point?

The nations that have them already have put in those months and bought them. We spent huge amounts of time and money on them. A brand spanking new nation can still be essentially caught up in a year. Yes, they wont have EVERY wonder in that time but all the really important ones are quite doable.

Any 'solution' that involves just taking them away after rulers have spent years working to gain them is just a non-starter. It would do far more damage than it's worth.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1335635486' post='2960451']
Swings and round-a-bouts, if nukes went back to the top 5% then future wars after that date would increase tenfold in length as amount of damage done a day to combatants would be decreased and not as damaging especially to tech, would take what seems like forever to lower.
[/quote]
Seldom in wars do they last as long as they have because a faction wishes to inflict a specific amount of damage. Terms are offered near as early nowadays as they used to. The variables which changed is the preparedness everyone has and their willingness to fight a protracted conflict before accepting terms. Removing nuclear weapons from the possession of the majority of nations might have the effect of increasing the duration of conflict because one side does not feel defeated but at the same time it could also have an effect where because one side can't be effectively defeated easily there's less dictation of terms and more in the way of negotiations. We can't properly predict what effect it will have.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Hyperbad

[the rebel]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1335737925' post='2960876']
We can't properly predict what effect it will have.[/quote]

You bring up a fine counter point, so I guess the outcome would be dependent on which alliances are in said situation.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1335735094' post='2960861']
And realistically it might take 40. So what's your point?

The nations that have them already have put in those months and bought them. We spent huge amounts of time and money on them. A brand spanking new nation can still be essentially caught up in a year. Yes, they wont have EVERY wonder in that time but all the really important ones are quite doable.

Any 'solution' that involves just taking them away after rulers have spent years working to gain them is just a non-starter. It would do far more damage than it's worth.
[/quote]

The point is it's selfish for a community to think of advancing gameplay in terms of making it marginally more fun for existing players rather than sacificing past effort for the potential of enticing new players -- the actual goal.

[denkimon]

OP is a good read, but in the end it's just a hypothesis. Other than anecdotal evidence, what supports this hypothesis? Do nations leave because of tech-raids? Yes. Yet nations leave for many reasons. In the end, something like "total number of nations" is a result of many factors, with tech-raiding being just one of them.

For example, I'll just leave this here:

Average new nations per day for all of CN history: 209.4
Average new nations per day for the past 10 days: 87.6

Seems like that's a bigger problem to me.

[Derwood1]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1335311595' post='2958707']
I think by now we should stop making up IC excuses for OOC reasons.
[/quote]

Great point.

[Jake Liebenow]

Aww, Sardonic! You got another badge of honor to wear What is this, topic #29149849857954 singing your praises?

[OOC]

I have a crazy idea to try to support the reinvigoration of this game. Why not add in a military academy improvement, with the ability to buy add-ons for that improvement as your level of tech increases? As more add-ons are built, you get access to new abilities which you can assign to your armies, such as tank frontal assault, infantry flank, wedge formation, guerrilla ambush, attack dogs, explosives experts, booby traps, etc. You can select up to 3 at a time with which to assign to forces, with the ability to change them between attacks. These buffs can act in this sort of manner:

http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html

For those of you unaware, this is an expanded version of rock paper scissors. Different formations counter each other, or simply have no effect on the battle. This would take very little time to code.

Let me emphasize that last part - [b]THIS WOULD TAKE VERY LITTLE TIME TO CODE.[/b]

Just a thought.

[/OOC]

Edited April 30, 2012 by Jake Liebenow

[ControlVolume]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1335758317' post='2960998']
Let me emphasize that last part - [b]THIS WOULD TAKE [s]VERY LITTLE[/s] TIME TO CODE.[/b]
[/quote]
If admin were reading this topic, you would have lost him right here.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1334980209' post='2956390']
Deinos is another top 30 alliance that actively tech raids. I'd imagine that at least a dozen of the top 30 do so, making your assumption that [b]GOONS is single-handedly ruining the experience for new rulers[/b] rather ridiculous.
[/quote]

Did he say that? Nope. You're a stupid tool.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1335479316' post='2959884']
That's a good point. Manhatten Project should be removed. Nukes used to be prestigious.
[/quote]

Wash your mouth out you fiend!

Seriously though this game was never initially designed for people to play for years on end in mind. Everyones nations are far far too developed for the way the mechanics are designed. Total game reset is what springs to my mind. You should get more frequent short lasting wars with AA's full of tiny nations without crazy warchests. You would probably also see instant mergers of many AA's into more active larger super Alliances. More simplification to the treaty web would no doubt help as well. Only problem is the threat of mass rage quits so some admin PR would be required to sell the benifits to the people. Add in some major game upgrades to the reset and people may see the bonus.

[potato]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1335772397' post='2961079']
Wash your mouth out you fiend!

Seriously though this game was never initially designed for people to play for years on end in mind. Everyones nations are far far too developed for the way the mechanics are designed. Total game reset is what springs to my mind. You should get more frequent short lasting wars with AA's full of tiny nations without crazy warchests. You would probably also see instant mergers of many AA's into more active larger super Alliances. More simplification to the treaty web would no doubt help as well. Only problem is the threat of mass rage quits so some admin PR would be required to sell the benifits to the people. Add in some major game upgrades to the reset and people may see the bonus.
[/quote]

A game reset is such a dumb idea. What would a reset change? Do you think the mentalities would change? Do you think GOONS and CoJ would be friends in this CN 2.0? Or Roq and MK? Or TOP and Polaris? The whole thing would be pretty much the same: allies will ally allies from CN 1.0 and fight enemies from CN 1.0. 99% of the game will be the same, save from a bunch of treaties and a bunch of people trying something else. The only difference is that our nations would be smaller.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1335777086' post='2961083']
A game reset is such a dumb idea. What would a reset change? Do you think the mentalities would change? Do you think GOONS and CoJ would be friends in this CN 2.0? Or Roq and MK? Or TOP and Polaris? The whole thing would be pretty much the same: allies will ally allies from CN 1.0 and fight enemies from CN 1.0. 99% of the game will be the same, save from a bunch of treaties and a bunch of people trying something else. The only difference is that our nations would be smaller.
[/quote]

This. But also some of us would leave if we have our nations zeroed. Years of genuine work being evaporated for the sake of envious new players is a ridiculous suggestion.

[AdmiralBlackbar]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1335792535' post='2961127']
This. But also some of us would leave if we have our nations zeroed. Years of genuine work being evaporated for the sake of envious new players is a ridiculous suggestion.
[/quote]
yes because cybernations requires copious amounts of genuine work to be successfully played.