Zealed v ZIed and a Suggestion

[RedPhx]

I first off want to say that I used the term "Zeal" because I had remembered seeing it somewhere not sure where and when I saw ZI the I always looked like a l (first is a capitol i and second a lower case L) and my mind just connected the two.

As for my suggestion. There have been a lot of big wars involving a dozen or two alliances on each side, there have been alliances who have said we will fight this war with our allies but we think that the CB is bogus, and there have been more and more players who say that these massive wars have driven away players thus hurting Cyber Nations as a game. My suggestion to fixing these three problems is this, whenever an alliance wants to fight their long time rivals they could just go to them and say we don't like eachother lets fight. I know several players who like fighting and feel that this is a war game so there are some alliances that may go for this. Both alliances bring in their 3 closest allies who want to fight in the war and it just remains to those 8. I know that there are some who will dismiss this idea right off the bat but I feel that whenever there is a problem then the best thing to do is not to complain or point fingers but rather to start throwing out suggestions and this is mine.

[Shan Revan]

1. ZI= Zero Infrastructa = zi.

2. Is it a solution? Perhaps. Is it going to happen? Hell no, it's not going to happen, for numerous reasons but mostly because then you'd collectively be at a disadvantage for the next "real" war that came up. Politics is a zero-sum game, if you want to play politics, you don't needlessly hand away your percentage of strength with frivolus "just for fun" wars. If people really want a war that badly without good or any reason then they might as well accomplish something with it at the same time.

Of course if you don't want to play politics then you're free to do so but then again alliances who don't play politics aren't likely to be in this war.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Shan Revan

[Unknown Smurf]

WTF does Zealed mean?

[Mephala]

[quote name='RedPhx' timestamp='1340024247' post='2987573']
As for my suggestion. There have been a lot of big wars involving a dozen or two alliances on each side, there have been alliances who have said we will fight this war with our allies but we think that the CB is bogus, and there have been more and more players who say that these massive wars have driven away players thus hurting Cyber Nations as a game. My suggestion to fixing these three problems is this, whenever an alliance wants to fight their long time rivals they could just go to them and say we don't like eachother lets fight. I know several players who like fighting and feel that this is a war game so there are some alliances that may go for this. Both alliances bring in their 3 closest allies who want to fight in the war and it just remains to those 8. I know that there are some who will dismiss this idea right off the bat but I feel that whenever there is a problem then the best thing to do is not to complain or point fingers but rather to start throwing out suggestions and this is mine.
[/quote]

I appreciate your desire to throw out suggestions and improve the game. I disagree with this particular suggestion, however. The fun of CN is the political intrigue, the rivalries, and the fact that huge numbers of alliances can get screwed over in one war. For the "bad guys" of the game, being unfair is fun. Brutally punishing people you don't like and all their friends is part of the fun. For the "good guys," having a moral issue to motivate your alliance is fun. Brutally crushing the "bad guys" is what gets you on the game.

It sounds like your idea is to turn CN into purely a sport. Our wars would look less like wars and more like basketball games. I prefer the political simulator myself.

[Diego18]

Just for fun wars are in TE

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1340028707' post='2987629']
WTF does Zealed mean?
[/quote]

Zero Everything-Admin Level. It blank slates your entire nation of land, tech and infra. Even takes your natural growth.

[tamerlane]

this topic is zealin.

[RedPhx]

[quote name='Mephala' timestamp='1340032544' post='2987675']
I appreciate your desire to throw out suggestions and improve the game.[/quote]

Glad that someone got the idea. Even when I was thinking over the idea last night I knew that most if not all would flat out say bad idea, but the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of the suggestion are what I see as the reason why CN is slowly dying off which is because one bad war and there goes 3 or 4 years if not more of growing often times in a war that your alliance didn't start but went with it because of a treaty. If anyone has another idea even if no one else likes it, it isn't doing anyone any good staying in your head.

[New Frontier]

well your suggestion sounds good but is it constitutional?? i don't know but i think we have to let the courts decide

[Joe Kremlin]

Your alliance should try this first and let us know how it works out in practice.

[IYIyTh]

frankly i just wish i had half the zeal the OP does.

[Drai]

I support the common law practice of zealing.

[Mephala]

[quote name='RedPhx' timestamp='1340081759' post='2988571']
Glad that someone got the idea. Even when I was thinking over the idea last night I knew that most if not all would flat out say bad idea, but the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of the suggestion are what I see as the reason why CN is slowly dying off which is because one bad war and there goes 3 or 4 years if not more of growing often times in a war that your alliance didn't start but went with it because of a treaty. If anyone has another idea even if no one else likes it, it isn't doing anyone any good staying in your head.
[/quote]

Yes, I doubt there is a whole lot that we, as players, can do. People complaining of boredom are often complaining that the political structure of the game changes too slowly. That's because a couple alliances can corner a particular strategy and, through treaties, dominate the game for long periods of time.

New game mechanics might be a way to change the situation. There needs to be some way for new and upstart groups of players to have some kind of leverage, be it however small, against the more established players. Perhaps make it easier to destroy tech or make it so that more than three nations can attack any particular nation at a time. Or perhaps, in keeping with the RL problems of the world, make it so that small nations could engage in some kind of terrorism against larger nations like suicide bombing themselves. Maybe those small nations would be deleted and cause 50% of their infra level in damage to the targeted player. This would allow alliances to create waves of suicide bombers to try and soften the upper tiers of alliances. Maybe you could also add in odds of success based on spy levels and similar features.

That's just a random idea. Other feature could simply use attributes of CN that already exist. For instance, maybe if you attack a nation that has the same religion as you, there will be some chance that your soldiers will simply refuse to attack out of solidarity with their fellow religious initiates. Economic warfare is another idea. You could spy a nation and find out what kind of currency they have, switch your currency to the same kind they have and then use spy attacks to "inflate" their currency and decrease the amount they collect from their citizens in tax revenue.

Anyway, that's just stuff off the top of my head. Take it or leave it.

[RedPhx]

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1340082582' post='2988594']
Your alliance should try this first and let us know how it works out in practice.
[/quote]

If it comes up I will argue for it but since I'm not in the gov for my alliance there isn't much I could do. Also another way to shake things up is the paperless alliance idea that has gained ground in a very far and distant land (pretty much an alliance with no treaties and relies on their FA departments rather then treaties for support) which would help with situations where alliances don't agree with the war but join anyways as well as boost cooperation between alliances since you need to keep them on your side if you want to stay strong. In response to questions that came up about it in the far off land it isn't an out for your alliance when it comes to allies but it isn't a chain to be used to drag eachother into wars.