CyberNations and the magic beanstalk

[TBRaiders]

The ability to extend the length of a war is the only weapon that the losing side of our standard CN curbstomp can use. If you artificially shorten wars through some sort of moderator system, then you remove the benefit from having a well run alliance with the ability to keep it's nations motivated. You remove the element of will power that has for so long defined how well an alliance will fare in war.

 

My thoughts as well.  Without the large war chests we are basically making it whichever coalition has the most nations will win every war.  I am thinking instead of shorter wars, it would just mean completely wrecked nations who have nothing left to rebuild with.  A war chest is also a rebuilding chest.  Instead of trying to make excuses for game mechanic faults, maybe alliances shouldn't be such dicks and keep people at war for over a month.  That's like blaming the gun for killing people instead of the guy pulling the trigger.

[Crownguard]

Something to consider for smaller nations.

 

As a "newer" player (joined in '12) I got to experience at least some of the feelings mentioned by other players.  Consequently I hoped I might be able to offer a few thoughts:

 

1) One major issue of this game is acquiring tech.  Beyond my obvious bias being in Umbrella, most older players have a very vested interest in gaining cheap tech, and most newer players have a very real desire to grow quickly to be relevant.

 

The money from tech deals, unless someone is funneling aid money to grow a nation, is the primary means a newer nation grows.  Literally tech selling is the lifeline to grow as a newer nation.  The problem is that an alliance (mostly) doesn't have a huge vested interest in *growing* that new member; the need for a reliable seller is MUCH greater than graduating someone into the lower-mid tier.  Unless the new player is fully active and atypical etc.

 

Thus, an alliance has a bit of a tension inherent: new nation wants to grow and learn, older nations running the alliance want reliable tech and people who aren't going to burn them on deals.

 

Herein is the suggestion:

 

Implement a system where a neutral (computer) 'guaranteed market' sells tech at relatively unfavorable rates, say 6/100 or the like.  The caveat would be that a player could elect to purchase all six of their slots from this computer player, or they could mix buying from new sellers and such.

 

No limits on who can buy, the computer market has unlimited tech to sell, and anyone can fill up up to all 6 of their slots with that computer.  It could even be automated to send a tech offer as soon as a slot expires to the player, or you can make it like a 10 day wonder where you purchase and can't repurchase til time is up.

 

This would enable an unfavorable, though guaranteed means, of acquiring tech at reasonable rates for buyers.  For sellers, it would make them much more valuable and may take the 'sting' out of losing a reliable seller to yet another buyer to compete with.  Sellers could give their tech at much better rates, but would always have a one-up on the computer 'market'.

 

-----------------

 

OR alternately, implement benefits for tech selling within an alliance, such as a happiness bonus or a bounty to the seller so they get a bit more *zing* for trading with their alliance mates.  This would encourage more camaraderie and keep people sticking closer to their alliances instead of hunting around for sellers/buyers outside the ranks.

 

-----------------

 

2)  This idea is a bit more radical, but perhaps it could be something that people would find useful to make wars more painful and give a benefit for lower tiers:

 

Make it so PM is no longer an option for a player past a certain level of NS outright.  Say once you pass 20k NS or somesuch you no longer can go into peacemode during war.  No restrictions on war chests or anything else, but it would prevent a lot of wars dragging out as people cycle in and out of PM and wait for folks to elect to fight.  Wars would go a lot quicker as voices call for peace once they lose all their nukes, get zied, etc.

 

Smaller nations can prepare for 'the jump' to the serious wars.  Peace mode is a tactic sure, but it would be something where wars are faster and more furious because EVERYONE is a target, not just the non-peaced out ready ranks.

 

This would, again, let smaller nations know they can be 'safe' and grow to a certain degree, while the 'gap' doesn't grow so crazy large that they can never catch up.  It would literally *encourage* alliances to grow their new nations fast, because they will need numbers to fight.  It will make sure alliances prepare their newer nations, because they will be thrown into the meatgrinder with everyone else.

 

In short, it will encourage people to prepare newer nations for war, while making wars quicker as the outcry grows much more to end things when WCs run low.  Shorter, more painful wars.

-----------------

 

Just some off-hand ideas.  Feel free to pick away at them.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Crownguard

[Sephiroth]

With the addition of a Navy, that has created a huge money sink for nations fighting in the upper tiers and for nations to maintain who have been reduced in size. If something is to be done about people accumulating more money than they can spend, more things for people to spend it on like a navy is what we need. I've suggested people be able to militarize their moon and mars colonies, as well as war other people's colonies. Something like this could be whats needed for nations who accumulate a ton of cash to have something to spend it on.

 

While I accumulate tax collections for my rebuild, while my infra bills are low with 2,437.67 infra left and I'm just keeping my Aircraft Carriers, Submarines and Destroyers of my navy; both my improvement and navy daily bill are higher than my infrastructure bill. My wonder bill is the fourth largest expense, not far behind my infra bill.

 

So when nations full of wonders and improvements reach ZI or near ZI levels, they already have a lot of additional costs they need to deal with in order to avoid bill lock beyond what a new nation has to deal with. So the advantages do come with a cost. Trying to nerf these advantages could tip the balance towards older nations no longer staying. Something extra people can spend their money on will ignite more interest.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Methrage

[conistonslim]

Something to consider for smaller nations.

 

As a "newer" player (joined in '12) I got to experience at least some of the feelings mentioned by other players.  Consequently I hoped I might be able to offer a few thoughts:

 

1) One major issue of this game is acquiring tech.  Beyond my obvious bias being in Umbrella, most older players have a very vested interest in gaining cheap tech, and most newer players have a very real desire to grow quickly to be relevant.

 

The money from tech deals, unless someone is funneling aid money to grow a nation, is the primary means a newer nation grows.  Literally tech selling is the lifeline to grow as a newer nation.  The problem is that an alliance (mostly) doesn't have a huge vested interest in *growing* that new member; the need for a reliable seller is MUCH greater than graduating someone into the lower-mid tier.  Unless the new player is fully active and atypical etc.

 

Thus, an alliance has a bit of a tension inherent: new nation wants to grow and learn, older nations running the alliance want reliable tech and people who aren't going to burn them on deals.

 

Herein is the suggestion:

 

Implement a system where a neutral (computer) 'guaranteed market' sells tech at relatively unfavorable rates, say 6/100 or the like.  The caveat would be that a player could elect to purchase all six of their slots from this computer player, or they could mix buying from new sellers and such.

 

No limits on who can buy, the computer market has unlimited tech to sell, and anyone can fill up up to all 6 of their slots with that computer.  It could even be automated to send a tech offer as soon as a slot expires to the player, or you can make it like a 10 day wonder where you purchase and can't repurchase til time is up.

 

This would enable an unfavorable, though guaranteed means, of acquiring tech at reasonable rates for buyers.  For sellers, it would make them much more valuable and may take the 'sting' out of losing a reliable seller to yet another buyer to compete with.  Sellers could give their tech at much better rates, but would always have a one-up on the computer 'market'.

 

-----------------

 

OR alternately, implement benefits for tech selling within an alliance, such as a happiness bonus or a bounty to the seller so they get a bit more *zing* for trading with their alliance mates.  This would encourage more camaraderie and keep people sticking closer to their alliances instead of hunting around for sellers/buyers outside the ranks.

 

-----------------

 

2)  This idea is a bit more radical, but perhaps it could be something that people would find useful to make wars more painful and give a benefit for lower tiers:

 

Make it so PM is no longer an option for a player past a certain level of NS outright.  Say once you pass 20k NS or somesuch you no longer can go into peacemode during war.  No restrictions on war chests or anything else, but it would prevent a lot of wars dragging out as people cycle in and out of PM and wait for folks to elect to fight.  Wars would go a lot quicker as voices call for peace once they lose all their nukes, get zied, etc.

 

Smaller nations can prepare for 'the jump' to the serious wars.  Peace mode is a tactic sure, but it would be something where wars are faster and more furious because EVERYONE is a target, not just the non-peaced out ready ranks.

 

This would, again, let smaller nations know they can be 'safe' and grow to a certain degree, while the 'gap' doesn't grow so crazy large that they can never catch up.  It would literally *encourage* alliances to grow their new nations fast, because they will need numbers to fight.  It will make sure alliances prepare their newer nations, because they will be thrown into the meatgrinder with everyone else.

 

In short, it will encourage people to prepare newer nations for war, while making wars quicker as the outcry grows much more to end things when WCs run low.  Shorter, more painful wars.

-----------------

 

Just some off-hand ideas.  Feel free to pick away at them.

 

Some excellent suggestions Crownguard, particularly your suggestion of buying tech from a "guaranteed market" at the rate you suggest, I really love that idea. With regards to your PM suggestion I would rather see a max limit of x number of days then being forced out of PM. I'm a relatively large nation and would like the ability to hit PM to reload if the opportunity arose, just not indefinitely.  Long term PM is what drags out wars imo and eliminating that would go long way to shorten them.   

Edited July 6, 2014 by conistonslim

[Crownguard]

Minor addendum: 20 days, not 10.  20 days would make it what it is now, rather than 100 tech every 10 days (and thus better than actual dealing)

[Sarkin]

With regards to your PM suggestion I would rather see a max limit of x number of days then being forced out of PM. I'm a relatively large nation and would like the ability to hit PM to reload if the opportunity arose, just not indefinitely.  Long term PM is what drags out wars imo and eliminating that would go long way to shorten them.   

 

I think that this is the right balance to strike. Instead of nerfing warchests, make people use them more often. It's also worth noting that the early stages of war are more damaging than later stages of war, because the value of what's being destroyed is dramatically different.

 

My suggestion here would be two weeks before being forced out, and after being forced there's a cool-down period of 1-2 months before you can go back into peace mode. 

[Groucho Marx]

I'd prefer it if our members who can't always fight during every war had the option to sit in PM as long as they needed or wanted to. Some people are on deployments or otherwise busy. There should be no hard cap on forcing a player out of peace mode, but I am on board with a longer cool down before you can re-enter it. Steeper economic penalties that go beyond the initial amount set now would also be a start.

[Lorne]

As I read through this thread one think that struck me with the nuclear turrets savaging smaller nations issue is how much of it goes beyond game mechanics.  

 

If Alliance X has won, in the sense it controls everything above a certain strength cut off, that that point the war is now over peace terms.  X wants to impose its will on Y in some manner Y doesn't want and so the war drags on with Y using superior skills and wonders to dominate a lower level.  X meanwhile is content to let cheaper nations be broken and instead strive to force terms on Y.

 

This is legitimate gameplay from both parties, but it also appears to hurt the game in that smaller members of X will be quitting the game in disgust.  X shrugs its shoulders and says "Well our strategic objectives for larger nations matter more than ## newbies." which again is true.

 

The problem is it is bad for the game despite being fair play by both parties.  Talking about this to some folks on IRC it seems the big problems are that poaching is casus belli and war desertion is frowned upon.  I personally think we need to reconsider that.  It should be legit for other groups in the community to go to the smaller guys in X and say "Hey you guys are getting destroyed for the benefit of your alliance's elite core, we won't treat you like that, come join us."  Then it becomes Alliance X's duty to convince its soldiers the cause it worth it as are the post war gains.  If they don't the soldiers will leave, but at least hopefully they'll remain in game instead of leaving entirely.  It seems odd to judge someone and stigmatize them for war desertion unless they have a chronic history of it as opposed to they just made a bad choice with the first alliance they joined.

 

That leaves the folks who want to fight for months at various levels free to do it, but also lets those who don't want to sit around for six months and eat nukes based on the promise of "Hey we'll aid drop you after the war" free to move on.  

[Saxplayer]

Imo, when you start to have people who just give out Tech for eternity and never get any money in return, that becomes a problem because it creates two entirely separate gameplay experiences, One of the Tech Monger, who worries little about the nations below him and only worries about when the next war is, and one of the Tech Slave, who can never buy tech and grow his/her own nation, basically limiting the game for those people. If people feel that they will never be able to get to the top (Top in this case being 100k NS) then they will quit. 

[Rayvon]

There's no skill involved in being an aged and wondered turret nation picking apart brand new nations that haven't even hit 1999.99 infra for their first time.

Poaching isn't a cb, it's an excuse. It's an alliance's own fault if the grass really is greener on the other side.

Most alliance'sonly consider war desertion an issue if they've put time and effort into a player and then that person leaves at the first sign of loss - that's not realization of an ill-fitting alliance.


I like the harsher PM penalties Marx mentions, and agree with his point about forcing players. We have military members as well which have been affected by wars.

[Lorne]

Imo, when you start to have people who just give out Tech for eternity and never get any money in return, that becomes a problem because it creates two entirely separate gameplay experiences, One of the Tech Monger, who worries little about the nations below him and only worries about when the next war is, and one of the Tech Slave, who can never buy tech and grow his/her own nation, basically limiting the game for those people. If people feel that they will never be able to get to the top (Top in this case being 100k NS) then they will quit. 

 

Some of that is education and goals though.  You can't rationally expect to catch up with people who have an eight year head start in an open ended game.  Changing that means changing the nature of the game.  You need to teach your members that rush right up 100k is pointless.  I'm sure you could do it by being infra heavy and warchest light nation who burns hard in the first war.  However from the look of game mechanics 5k infra and nuclear is not that hard to do (it seems limited more by elder nations activity and an alliance's ability to keep them active).  For example I'm currently going through a round of trial deals to make sure I'm not a screwup, after which longer term deals with the cash front loaded will take me places.

 

If I had to complain about the mechanics, it will be more that when a larger nation stumbles and drops through my range, the damage ratio won't be slightly in his favor, it will be heavily in his favor and all my work will burn away in exchange for minimal damage to a hostile assuming my target has a WRC and tech stockpile.  Hitting a certain number is subjective, collecting military wonders and nukes is a bigger thing for me right now.  To me this speaks to either nerfing the tech damage, which has problems in that nations are built on that strategy, but reduces the incentive to keep people in tech serf dom or making your tech increase your war chest burn even more when you play nuke turret.  

 

Beyond that, one idea someone could try is to look for nations who are active sellers but getting poor tech deals.  Poach the tech serfs to freedom.  

[The Pansy]

Come on people, with the new aid system, it isn't hard to get a newer nation a MP pretty quickly, 2-3 months of gameplay and alliance attention can do such. If a nuclear protection was given for that kind of period for new nations even extending this to say 4 months, then it would alleviate the destruction of new people in wars, and those that haven't chased that important wonder in favour of higher NS are risking that destruction.

Education is the key there, and it gives an alliance a choice on how to play with their new nations, farm them for tech for bigger nations from the get go, or help them build the key wonders before they embark on a period of tech selling.

How we engage the new players has to change more than the mechanics, alliance leaders are too busy focusing on the needs of the larger nations.
One thing that both Pacifica and Polar do well is engage the newer nations with multiple opportunities within their alliances, hence why they have a higher retention of new players.

Any changes that we do need to be focused on early game protection of players to allow them time to catch the bug, rather than alienating older players who have invested years into the game, and highly likely some amount of money.

[Saxplayer]

Come on people, with the new aid system, it isn't hard to get a newer nation a MP pretty quickly, 2-3 months of gameplay and alliance attention can do such. If a nuclear protection was given for that kind of period for new nations even extending this to say 4 months, then it would alleviate the destruction of new people in wars, and those that haven't chased that important wonder in favour of higher NS are risking that destruction.

Education is the key there, and it gives an alliance a choice on how to play with their new nations, farm them for tech for bigger nations from the get go, or help them build the key wonders before they embark on a period of tech selling.

How we engage the new players has to change more than the mechanics, alliance leaders are too busy focusing on the needs of the larger nations.
One thing that both Pacifica and Polar do well is engage the newer nations with multiple opportunities within their alliances, hence why they have a higher retention of new players.

Any changes that we do need to be focused on early game protection of players to allow them time to catch the bug, rather than alienating older players who have invested years into the game, and highly likely some amount of money.

 

I agree whole-heartedly there needs to be more of a focus on getting new nations active and growing, and not a focus on continually building up older nations.

[IYIyTh]

There also needs to be game changes to reflect that though.

 

Most of the new game updates are for older nations (ie wonders that should only be attained 1-2 years into the game assuming the nation never goes to war and deals / receives aid flawlessly.)

[Saxplayer]

There also needs to be game changes to reflect that though.

 

Most of the new game updates are for older nations (ie wonders that should only be attained 1-2 years into the game assuming the nation never goes to war and deals / receives aid flawlessly.)

It IS possible to become a Tech Buyer in less than 100 or, at least, around 100 days. It's just that for many people, and in many cases, it does take a year or two.

[IYIyTh]

Unless they're getting free money (which shouldn't be an assumption we're making on new, poorly informed neophytes,) that's not going to be the case for an overwhelming majority of new players.

[Saxplayer]

I think I became a tech buyer at 120 days in. I had a rouge attack on my nation right as I was going to become a buyer too, so I think 100 is plausible. I never received free money.

[IYIyTh]

Again,

 

 

The overwhelming majority of new cn players don't find the OWF in 100 days, let alone become a tech buyer.

 

Comparing genuinely new players to non typical situations is unproductive in discussion of how to make the game better via the average new entrant.

Edited July 8, 2014 by IYIyTh

[JoshuaR]

 The expense of a war is relative. Everyone's WC would essentially be the same. Everyone's expenses would also be roughly the same. It really would not put you at an disadvantage relative to others. If pissing off a few whales (who, lets be frank, are going nowhere), in order to entice more new players to stay with the ability to quickly get relevant nations. then I call it a net win.The original vision of the game did not (and it is clear that it did not) envision nations getting as bloated as they are. It is an unforeseen "bug" in the game mechanics , so to speak. It does need addressed. We can pretend like it is no problem, but I have talked to literally HUNDREDS on new players over the last 2 years(I would be shocked if it was less than 500)... and the vast majority of them felt like their nations would never be relevant. This needs fixed. It does not need, as has been done for 8 years now, ignored.

New players aren't discouraged because they will never have as much money as me. They will. At one time I personally probably had one of the largest warchests in the game outside of literally a handful of neutrals. Now I am probably more on par with the upper tier fighting nations (not the super-tier savers) because I have fought so many recent very expensive wars. In my tier I no longer have the advantage of a super warchest. And if you look at nations that were behind me in warchest but didn't fight in the last war? They've caught up and possibly passed me. But what does that matter?

 

My advantage as a bloated whale (I agree with you on that point) is not in my cash reserves, it is in my TECHNOLOGY reserves (and my wonder complement). Warchests can be grown to a suitable level quite quickly. There is no technology plateau, however. More technology is always better. It always costs near the same amount, and technology growth is linear. New nations don't look at my nation and mope about how they'll never have as much useless money as I have. They'll look at my nation and mope about never having the technology, at least until I get knocked about a few more times.

 

The only way to fix that is to eliminate technology trading or enable a mechanism for newer nations to obtain technology at a faster rate.

 

With regards to wonders, I think it's fair to add a NS value to each wonder, as was suggested in this thread. In such a way, a nuke turret will outrange an empty-wondered new player and prevent that discrepancy. Without that, the game is still fun without being a top nation because you still get to enjoy the fight in your own tier.

 

My point is in agreeing that there are class discrepancies, but a warchest adjustment won't solve the biggest issues: technology and wonders.

[Caladin]

My advantage as a bloated whale (I agree with you on that point) is not in my cash reserves, it is in my TECHNOLOGY reserves (and my wonder complement). Warchests can be grown to a suitable level quite quickly. There is no technology plateau, however. More technology is always better. It always costs near the same amount, and technology growth is linear. New nations don't look at my nation and mope about how they'll never have as much useless money as I have. They'll look at my nation and mope about never having the technology, at least until I get knocked about a few more times.

Maybe make it cheaper to purchase tech on one's own up to a certain point, maybe 3k tech, and decrease the effectiveness of tech beyond a certain point; I think I've suggested a log graph in the past.

It would help the smaller nations catch up and it would mean that catching up all the way isn't as important, while also not totally destroying years of tech imports.

[D34th]

Daily reminder that CN is dying.

[conistonslim]

Daily reminder that CN is dying.

 

Honestly Death I expected better from a former alliance mate I respect.
 

Edited July 9, 2014 by conistonslim

[Dajobo]

Honestly Death I expected better from a former alliance mate I respect.

So did I but at the end of the day CN is just like anything else in life. What you get out of it is heavily influenced by what you put into it.

[Stewie]

The best route would be to introduce a NS for different wonders.  IE give 0.1k NS for every 1 million it cost to purchase (at base rate).

 

• Agriculture Development Program - 3k NS
• Anti-Air Defense Network - 5k NS
• Central Intelligence Agency - 4k NS
• Disaster Relief Agency - 4k NS
• Fallout Shelter System - 4k NS
• Federal Aid Commission - 2.5k NS
• Federal Reserve - 10k NS
• Foreign Air Force Base - 3.5k NS
• Foreign Naval Base - 20k NS
• Great Monument - 3.5k NS
• Great Temple - 3.5k NS
• Great University - 3.5k NS
• Hidden Nuclear Missile Silo - 3k NS
• Interceptor Missile System (IMS) - 5k NS
• Internet - 3.5k NS
• Interstate System - 3.5k NS
• Manhattan Project - 10k NS
• Mars Base - 10k NS
• Mars Colony - 10k NS
• Mars Mine - 10k NS
• Mining Industry Consortium - 2.5k NS
• Moon Base - 5k NS
• Moon Colony - 5k NS
• Moon Mine - 5k NS
• Movie Industry - 2.6k NS
• National Environment Office - 10k NS
• National Research Lab - 3.5k NS
• National War Memorial - 2.7k NS
• Nuclear Power Plant - 7.5k NS
• Pentagon - 3k NS
• Scientific Development Center - 15k NS
• Social Security System - 4k NS
• Space Program - 3k NS
• Stock Market - 3k NS
• Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) - 7.5k NS
• Superior Logistical Support - 8k NS
• Universal Health Care - 10k NS
• Weapons Research Complex - 15k NS

Edited July 9, 2014 by Stewie

[Starfox101]

There would some insane NS' after that.