Plea to all CN players

[stockhunter]

I'm sure this type of subject has likely already been posted, but you can't beat this dead horse enough.

 

My plea really goes mostly for alliance leaders, but at a certain level it goes to all the players in the game.

 

[rant-speech-plea-pleaseseriouslyconsider]

Cyber Nations is decaying into the abyss, thousands of nations are deleting, and it's all a result of the current era of CN politics.

 

Right now the current treaty web pretty much ties everyone to everybody. The only time an alliance war is declared is when you have a trigger that sets off a snowball effect. That trigger requirement has become something more and more serious over time. This is because everyone has this mentality of "must protect our pixelz." We think that "oh warz make people quit playing, and our alliance shrink. We have to avoid war at all costs!"

 

If I remember correctly, wars used to happen a lot more frequently, yet the overall amount of players continued to grow.

 

Regardless, the current mentality of "only war when absolutely necessary!!!" is not working. The overall player count continues to dwindle. Admin can really only get people to sign up, it's up to us to make the game entertaining enough to keep those players for the long haul.

 

I even find myself personally getting more and more bored with it, choosing to play other browser based games.

 

The "good old days" were "good" and entertaining because there was A LOT more drama overall. You had feuds between AAs, more frequent wars, and lots of chatter on IRC. The drama made the game entertaining. It's what makes players stay around for the long haul. It causes people to form friendships and bonds that last literally years. The human aspect of this game is what really makes it enjoyable. Without it you see what we have now.

 

So basically what I'm saying is, what we are doing right now is NOT working. Let's try something different. Get some drama going!

[/rant-speech-plea-pleaseseriouslyconsider]

[Leftbehind]

The problem you are having is not with how things are playing out but with how you are playing. If you want to see more excitement then do something that will make you more interested. Not judging but you also sit in an Alliance that doesn't even make a sound or try to change things so maybe work on that level as well. 

[Hereno]

"Hey guys, go do something stupid so we can all roll you and have some fun! Come on, you're killing the game!"

[Leftbehind]

"Hey guys, go do something stupid so we can all roll you and have some fun! Come on, you're killing the game!"

 

Think the complaint is lack of division between alliances like there was when you had WUT and The League. Back then everyone made a clear choice on which side they stood behind and that was it. Now, it gets a little sticky. I do applaud NSO for not being scared of stirring the pot from time to time. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Leftbehind

[stockhunter]

For the record my AA merged into my current one not that long ago :)

 

I'll post a log from a chat I've had tonight that elaborates on what I've said so far. Please note that I've edited it a bit to pull out names and whatnot, but the point is still there.

 

 

 

[10:49:09 PM] someone: But think of all the lost pixels D:!

[10:49:23 PM] Stock Hunter: in reality, you gain more in the long run

[10:49:40 PM] someone: But pixels! D:

[10:50:02 PM | Edited 10:50:06 PM] Stock Hunter: all i know is, in the past we had more wars and nation count increased. We stopped having frequent wars and nation count is decreasing

[10:50:23 PM] Stock Hunter: but it's not just the wars, it's the drama that does it

[10:50:40 PM] Stock Hunter: people will wait up all night to see if another alliance is going to declare war

[10:50:46 PM] Stock Hunter: it's the suspense

[10:51:05 PM] Stock Hunter: think of it like a TV show or movie. you're not going to watch it if nothing interesting is happening. same goes for CN

[10:52:26 PM | Edited 10:52:34 PM] someoneelse: I think even with wars however, the number will still decrease. The interface isn't newb friendly and people may get frustrated and quit before they can learn.

[10:54:13 PM] Stock Hunter: they had that issue in the old days and the nation count grew

[10:54:33 PM] Stock Hunter: in fact the interface is more n00b friendly compared to then

[10:56:04 PM | Edited 10:56:09 PM] someoneelse: However, the website its-self appears old. Which may also be a deterrent to new comers.

[10:57:25 PM] Stock Hunter: the problem is not getting new players

[10:57:30 PM] Stock Hunter: the problem is keeping players

[10:57:46 PM] Stock Hunter: i can't tell you how many old players have deleted because the game is so boring now

[10:58:19 PM] Stock Hunter: i've even thought about it

[10:58:46 PM] Stock Hunter: logging on and collecting taxes is boring, then on top of that when a war does happen it's not very dramatic

[10:58:58 PM] Stock Hunter: the idea of POWs no longer exists

[10:59:28 PM] Stock Hunter: or is a lame deal, and AAs welcome those nations back with open arms instead of telling them to ****off because they turned their backs on their alliance

[11:01:21 PM] Stock Hunter: it goes back to what i said about movies/TV, if there is no drama, people won't watch

[11:06:08 PM] Stock Hunter: that and idk how to describe it, but when I was in my first AA everyone used to be hardcore for it. to the point of almost everyone going "o/ AA!" in a post even if they had nothing to say other than that

[11:06:12 PM] Stock Hunter: showing their support for the alliance

[11:06:30 PM] Stock Hunter: and not just posts, on IRC 2

[11:06:33 PM] someoneelse: interesting

[11:06:51 PM] Stock Hunter: you'd show up in the memeber's chat and do a "o/ AA!" and you'd get almost everyone replying with the same

[11:07:39 PM] Stock Hunter: makes the game more enjoyable

[11:10:40 PM] Stock Hunter: i don't know how long you've been playing, but CN used to be so much more fun

[11:10:51 PM] Stock Hunter: staying up late, getting ready to do a quad attack with your alliance mates

[11:11:07 PM] Stock Hunter: hearing rumors of some alliance getting ready to declare on someone else

[11:11:22 PM] Stock Hunter: feuds left and right between alliances, just because (no reason, or "real" reason)

[11:11:44 PM] Stock Hunter: getting to rebuild after the war is over and doing it again

[11:12:19 PM] Stock Hunter: the real victory was in helping your AA win the war (or at least put a good hurt on the enemy), not in that you are rank ####

[11:12:32 PM] Stock Hunter: being ZI'd for your alliance was a big honor

 

 

[Neo Uruk]

all i do is YOLO

[Mogar]

My entire existence is creating drama.

[Beauty]

StockHunter you've raised some good points but it's hard to get a joint contribution to aiding in the survival of the game. Everyone is too set on having no hope for the games growth  :(

 

To put it in a different perspective "These hoes ain't loyal". Morale needs to be increased and I believe the only way to do that is to start showing them proof the game is growing. That growth will have to come from a single player or a chance coincidence.

 

 

My entire existence is creating drama.

 

Roleplaying a girl on the OWF and now making threads completely about yourself.

 

I've raised you well, young padawon.

 

Making drama & Turning threads about different topics into focusing on you is now added to the list.

 

I need to start claiming you on my income taxes.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Rotavele

[Mogar]

forever following in my footsteps is your entire existence elevator.

[Beauty]

forever following in my footsteps is your entire existence elevator.

 

Tis a fine "No u" but no.

 

Also sorry for distracting from your plans StockHunter just wanted to point it out to Mogar so he wouldn't use a "I never said that" later on. My apologies boo.

[Kyriakos Raanb Dorou]

I'm not sure I agree that the political situation has ever had an extreme effect on nation count. We can definitely make CN more enjoyable for individual players by how we ourselves interact with those players; but I get the feeling that even players who focused 100% internally (never once looked at the OWF or cared about what the global situation was) were far more active "back in the day" than they would be now. Does a group like GPA suffer more or less player attrition than a regular warring alliance? I think the overall rate for all AA's is about the same.

The 2006-2008 time-frame of CN's popularity, and its following decline, seems to coincide with wider external trends (rather than being a unique CN phenomenon). Back then a game like CN was more desirable as a time-sink, while with the passing years other options have become more varied and better publicized. My theory then is that in the early days, naturally occurring activity caused/created better politics, rather than politics creating activity.

We would see the same effect today if we had a mass influx of players. New blood brings new alliances, new leaders for the old alliances, and new ideas across the board - all of which affect politics. Perhaps players in the present time can spice things up, but I don't believe the average player or alliance now is less interesting than the average of 2007. It only seems that way because, with so many more players coming into the game naturally back then, you also got a higher rate of characters coming in.

tl;dr - I believe activity has a greater effect on politics than politics has on activity; although we should all be mindful of what we can improve as individuals

[Sephiroth]

I think the solution tends to be to focus more on personal relationships, rather than just be cog which moves according to how the treaty web dictates. If you're always not doing what you want because you don't want to bring any trouble your alliance's way, then maybe you need to be more willing to take independent action. If your alliance is doing nothing while a war is going, if you feel you'd rather be fighting than watching; then I don't think its bad to take a temporary leave of absence from your normal alliance to join who you want during a war.
 
I remember during the noCB War, I was in FCC and they weren't acting, so I left for the first time to join MK during the war. I fought for them during the war and helped with rebuilding a few weeks after, but eventually when I returned to the FCC; I was voted King unanimously after a new charter was written up so we would have a King. So sometimes bold action even if others in your alliance are to hesistent to be willing to risk anything can pay off, as those thinking they can't do anything about the decision process, can see you're the kind of leader willing to take risks and someone who wants to do exciting things rather than just sit around all the time.
 
Also when creating Limitless Nexus, I didn't mean for it to be just regular alliance in you can see all the members on the AA. I also meant Limitless Nexus to be a network of individuals, willing to help each other out at times and work together to make CN better and more interesting. So for those who want to become part of the Limitless Nexus family, it will open limitless ways for us to work together without restricting anyone.
 

Limitless Treaty

 

This treaty allows signatories to help each other out in limitless ways, but does not limit the actions of signatories in any way.

Signed for Limitless Nexus,

Methrage, Sovereign of the Nexus

The Limitless Treaty can either be signed by individuals for themselves or for entire alliances. If enough people sign something like this, then the treaty web can't restrict you. I like to think Limitless Nexus can become sort of global alliance, where individuals from all over the treaty web can find common ground to work together towards making things more fun and not always feel your actions are limited to just honoring whatever treaties you're alliance has signed. So if more people want to sign something like this, it could help the situation of most players feeling powerless from taking any action and isolated into only doing as your alliance tells you.
 
So I think what could help is more individuals being willing to take action even if their alliance can't decide on doing anything, and more alliances being willing to take action when they don't have a treaty obligating them to go war. The treaty like the one I just proposed could potentially allow many alliances and individuals to get networked together, who otherwise never. Unlike most treaties this one doesn't restrict signatories in anyway, but just opens up new opportunities in how to act and who you interact with. So even if your alliance eventually ends up at war with another signatory, the treaty wouldn't prevent you from fulfilling your obligations to your alliance. However members of the Nexus who are on enemy sides could help each other by trying to push for lighter terms or white peace for those they are fighting who are also part of the Nexus.
 
So if you're willing to sign a treaty as a first step in promoting cooperation to try making CN more fun for us all, then that will open up many future actions you could take in cooperation with others to try meeting some of your goals; but without being forced into anything ever by signing it. Most players join an alliance early on and then only see things from the limited perspective of that alliance the entire time they play, without ever really cooperating with other players outside their alliance.
 
Those interested in the concept of a Limitless Treaty with no restrictions on signatories can PM me and maybe we can make it a reality. As I agree to many people are focused entirely on what is going on internally with their alliance, so they end up missing out on everything exciting going on without their alliance's involvement. If we can create a mindset and growing group of individuals able to think and act outside the restraints of their alliance's positioning, then we can start working on ways to make things better and be free to assist each other as much as we want without any of the obligations common in many treaties.
 
The name could probably use work, but just throwing the idea out here for now to see if more people might be interested in being part of such a treaty. If many individuals from all parts of the treaty web are working together for the common good, then a lot more interesting situations could be created as a result. For a long time the glaring problem with how a lot of alliances conduct their affairs is they need a treaty to act in any situation, but also the wrong treaty could force an alliance into doing something they don't want. So if an alliance just has one treaty, unless that one alliance they have a treaty with gets into a war and asks for assistance, often times the members don't get to participate in any wars even if they want to. As they allow the treaty web to dictate their actions, rather than being willing to take whatever actions they want.
 
To often you see some of the big alliances signing so many treaties all over the place because they feel they need a treaty to be able to do anything, but then they also get themselves tied up with a bunch of obligations they might not want later. So for those who let their treaties decide their actions for them, its a delicate process having the right treaties lined up so they will cause you to act in a way you want later. Edited June 29, 2014 by Methrage

[HM Solomon I]

I'm not sure I agree that the political situation has ever had an extreme effect on nation count. We can definitely make CN more enjoyable for individual players by how we ourselves interact with those players; but I get the feeling that even players who focused 100% internally (never once looked at the OWF or cared about what the global situation was) were far more active "back in the day" than they would be now. Does a group like GPA suffer more or less player attrition than a regular warring alliance? I think the overall rate for all AA's is about the same.

The 2006-2008 time-frame of CN's popularity, and its following decline, seems to coincide with wider external trends (rather than being a unique CN phenomenon). Back then a game like CN was more desirable as a time-sink, while with the passing years other options have become more varied and better publicized. My theory then is that in the early days, naturally occurring activity caused/created better politics, rather than politics creating activity.

We would see the same effect today if we had a mass influx of players. New blood brings new alliances, new leaders for the old alliances, and new ideas across the board - all of which affect politics. Perhaps players in the present time can spice things up, but I don't believe the average player or alliance now is less interesting than the average of 2007. It only seems that way because, with so many more players coming into the game naturally back then, you also got a higher rate of characters coming in.

tl;dr - I believe activity has a greater effect on politics than politics has on activity; although we should all be mindful of what we can improve as individuals

 

Agreed.  Those that become inactive don't become inactive because they don't like the politics, they become inactive because they never get to the point where they can interact with the politics.  The political world of this game is where the real fun is; it's certainly not in clicking a few buttons each day.  Politics give context to those button clicks, they make the nation building side of things interesting.  That doesn't mean everyone has to be a leader or involved with international relations (politics is more than just that, it's the overall interaction between players and entities established by them outside of the game proper), but to really get invested in the game, it's virtually necessary that players significantly experience the political side to the game.

Edited June 29, 2014 by HM Solomon I

[Knights111]

I agree with pretty much everything said here. Although, it is hard to almost want to bring war, and then say you like the real, human-like aspect.

[Charles the Tyrant]

The current state of the game is a direct result of the plague of micros, protectorates and inactive AAs stagnating the whole treaty web. Get rid of them.

[Auctor]

The current state of the game is a direct result of the plague of micros, protectorates and inactive AAs stagnating the whole treaty web. Get rid of them.

 

Completely disagree. If you got rid of those, the alliances that would be left would all have treaties with one another.

[Knights111]

 

Completely disagree. If you got rid of those, the alliances that would be left would all have treaties with one another.

sorry Charles, but gonna have to go with Auctor here.

[Dreadlock Doc]

I'm sure this type of subject has likely already been posted, but you can't beat this dead horse enough.
 
My plea really goes mostly for alliance leaders, but at a certain level it goes to all the players in the game.
 
[rant-speech-plea-pleaseseriouslyconsider]
Cyber Nations is decaying into the abyss, thousands of nations are deleting, and it's all a result of the current era of CN politics.
 
Right now the current treaty web pretty much ties everyone to everybody. The only time an alliance war is declared is when you have a trigger that sets off a snowball effect. That trigger requirement has become something more and more serious over time. This is because everyone has this mentality of "must protect our pixelz." We think that "oh warz make people quit playing, and our alliance shrink. We have to avoid war at all costs!"
 
If I remember correctly, wars used to happen a lot more frequently, yet the overall amount of players continued to grow.
 
Regardless, the current mentality of "only war when absolutely necessary!!!" is not working. The overall player count continues to dwindle. Admin can really only get people to sign up, it's up to us to make the game entertaining enough to keep those players for the long haul.
 
I even find myself personally getting more and more bored with it, choosing to play other browser based games.
 
The "good old days" were "good" and entertaining because there was A LOT more drama overall. You had feuds between AAs, more frequent wars, and lots of chatter on IRC. The drama made the game entertaining. It's what makes players stay around for the long haul. It causes people to form friendships and bonds that last literally years. The human aspect of this game is what really makes it enjoyable. Without it you see what we have now.
 
So basically what I'm saying is, what we are doing right now is NOT working. Let's try something different. Get some drama going!
[/rant-speech-plea-pleaseseriouslyconsider]

So instead of convincing your alliance to go to war, you though you would come here to ask the rest of us to start a war for you and keep you entertained?

[Xavier Harkonnen]

My pixels bring all the boys to the yard, and they are certainly better than yours. Why would I give that up?

[ChairmanHal]

"Hey guys, go do something stupid so we can all roll you and have some fun! Come on, you're killing the game!"

Sums it up.

Though what's actually "killing the game" are rants about how the game is dying. Want to improve the numbers around here? Shut up and go find more people to play.

[Dreadlock Doc]

[/quote]

For the record my AA merged into my current one not that long ago :)
 
I'll post a log from a chat I've had tonight that elaborates on what I've said so far. Please note that I've edited it a bit to pull out names and whatnot, but the point is still there.

I think this is what entertains you personally.

For what it's worth, the user interface is exactly the same as I remember it from 2007. Edited June 29, 2014 by Dreadlock Doc

[D34th]

I want the game to die, so I'll finally stop to waste my time with it. 

[Gopherbashi]

So basically what I'm saying is, what we are doing right now is NOT working. Let's try something different. Get some drama going!

 

Just on a personal note, the drama I see from half a dozen micros has probably caused me to actively avoid parts of the OWF more than anything else I can remember.

[Mogar]

 

Tis a fine "No u" but no.

 

Also sorry for distracting from your plans StockHunter just wanted to point it out to Mogar so he wouldn't use a "I never said that" later on. My apologies boo.

provide a single shred of evidence you have done anything to educate me and haven't just tried to steal my act.

[Neo Uruk]

Just on a personal note, the drama I see from half a dozen micros has probably caused me to actively avoid parts of the OWF more than anything else I can remember.

Sorry for having fun~

For what it's worth, I try not to announce most of the irrelevant daily happenings at LPH. Sometimes, such as in Methrage's thread, I need to post that knights111 is under my protection -- or whatever else the case may be -- instead of dragging out another thread!