Jump to content
kingly

Nation count within CN and trends

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MaineGOP said:

 

 

Which is why if I owned it I would open a second server, I would maintain bob for those who want to conitnue teh legacy and large nations. The new server would be a fresh start..

 

If admin ever wanted to do this and give us a reasonable amount of time, I think a lot of us could recruit people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to what im noticing, since the day you posted this thread, Jan 10, in 20 days we dropped by 70 nations lol. The end is coming faster than expected!? Current # of nations: 3948

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So weird because we are up around 20 nations from our low point and we aren't losing many of the new members, we might have gone up 25-30 and are up around 20 right now.... over the last couple of months.   New members are joining and if you keep them active and interested they stay... At least so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wasso said:

According to what im noticing, since the day you posted this thread, Jan 10, in 20 days we dropped by 70 nations lol. The end is coming faster than expected!? Current # of nations: 3948

 

3 hours ago, MaineGOP said:

So weird because we are up around 20 nations from our low point and we aren't losing many of the new members, we might have gone up 25-30 and are up around 20 right now.... over the last couple of months.   New members are joining and if you keep them active and interested they stay... At least so far

 

Forget not that nations can disappear for reasons other than inactivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Otto Pilot said:

 

 

Forget not that nations can disappear for reasons other than inactivity.

 

 

quit kicking people! I mean at this point i'd rather have an army of multis then have the game shut down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I keep reminding people, I was one of the last 20 something (if that) cybercitizens left. Stop freaking out and help make CN great again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Razgriz24 said:

Like I keep reminding people, I was one of the last 20 something (if that) cybercitizens left. Stop freaking out and help make CN great again!

 

I agree there are clearly pockets of good activity, alliances bringing in new members and growing, and then there are dead husks where there is no activity.  I feel bad for the one or two active people left in those husks, don't be a slave to history, have fun with the rest of the game, make new stories to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 9:37 PM, Devialance said:


In truth tho nothing could have been done, With Alliances like NPO &Co. controlling the world, and no one to ad a balance nothing the from a development team would have changed a damn thing.

 

I think you have it the wrong way around: the political situation is a product of the game mechanics, not vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ch33kY said:

 

I think you have it the wrong way around: the political situation is a product of the game mechanics, not vice versa.


I would have to disagree, tell me what game changes could have been made in order to change the political situation?, I have seen this happen in many games, when given the choice people will team other with others they think can 1) protect them 2) make the stronger, No one wants to team up with someone who is going to cause them more harm and cause them losing control.

I have respect for NPO they are the top dog and have always been even after Karma NPO was still top dog even pay reps, if you do not believe me what has happened to all those alliances that turn on NPO or betrayed them?, they are 1) Gone 2) sucking up to NPO  now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Devialance said:


I would have to disagree, tell me what game changes could have been made in order to change the political situation?, I have seen this happen in many games, when given the choice people will team other with others they think can 1) protect them 2) make the stronger, No one wants to team up with someone who is going to cause them more harm and cause them losing control.

I have respect for NPO they are the top dog and have always been even after Karma NPO was still top dog even pay reps, if you do not believe me what has happened to all those alliances that turn on NPO or betrayed them?, they are 1) Gone 2) sucking up to NPO  now.

 

I completely agree.  

 

I hear all the time the mechanics around tech mean that no one can compete with the top.... Well yes when all the top tech nations are allied or those who aren't are one by one picked off. 

 

Those are choices made by certain alliances. I've never had any interest in joining a large alliance or one tied to the "winning" side. To me thats not fun. I mean to each their own, i'm not saying how others play the game is wrong. I just have no interest in it.

 

I came to this game in 2006 with a group from another forum and we founded the FCC, for a long time we had no entangling treaties until we formed Citadel with Umbrella, Gramlins, OG, and TOP. We fought in Karma. I had some short stints at Gramlins and Onyx Hand during that time.  Then when I returned I knew I wanted to be in a good group of people who were mid-size. I made a great choice at TTK. and I say that with the knowledge that I joined days before we got rolled. I fought over 30 wars in 3 months, only went to PM once for the minimum time. That was fun, being rolled isn't the horror people think it is. I would rather that possibility than sign a bunch of treaties out of fear and run around rolling other people just because.

 

Anyways, my point was these are choices that are made. Own the choices, don't blame mechanics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with the mechanics. If there is a way to win the game, a be all end all mechanic, then someone will beat it. To heavily weight tech and add innovations like the WRC, raised tech sending limits,  ranked declares(a 900k ns can declare on 215k ns) means whoever possesses the most people who are willing to pursue the goal regardless of the sacrifice some will incur  will come out on top regardless. It's an inevitability. This heavily favors alliances with more centralized systems and high membercounts. Whoever doesn't have that will eventually decay due to natural attrition and fall behind in tech creation/importation. It was a mechanical decision to make tech faster to import and it's always been the case whoever had the ability the ability to procure the highest quantity of tech in the shortest period of time would do better. The game incentivizes having a bunch of people who send tech to nations who don't send anything out or pay the cheapest rates. The reason it didn't happen before is that the bigger count alliances hadn't structured themselves around tech funneling when they had and still have the best position to enact such schemes. The process is in motion and short of internal collapses, it is destiny. There is no incentive for these alliances to act against their own self-interest if there is no reason for conflict especially when activity is so low.

Edited by Monster
tense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is still a choice there

 

All what you say is true. The members still choose to join an alliance where they are just a number, funneling tech to the top nations. The structure you talk about would collapse if nations didn't choose to join it.

 

I could tomorrow choose to join an Oculus alliance, become a cog, and claim victory. But how is that fun? I would know the victory has nothing to do with me. I have no issues with what you all do as alliances, of course we all use the mechanics to our advantage, that was the whole idea behind Citadel, we were 5 of the highest average NS alliances, all focused on growth and efficiency. Clearly that is not what I take issue with. I don't understand the cogs. I don't understand that mentality.

 

I mean I'm the same way in real life politics though, I don't understand sheep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

if tech stops flowing soothing has to happen

 

 

There are enough multis to keep the tech flowing for many. That has always been one of the more fascinating aspects of this endeavor - the lengths that folks will go to circumvent the actual point of a political simulator. Instead of using discourse and negotiations they try to 'win' by gaming the system.

 

Where is the joy in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

Wilcroft you're still alive? 

Yup! Didn't get to be one of the 10 oldest nations by quitting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 6:35 PM, eejack said:

 

There are enough multis to keep the tech flowing for many. That has always been one of the more fascinating aspects of this endeavor - the lengths that folks will go to circumvent the actual point of a political simulator. Instead of using discourse and negotiations they try to 'win' by gaming the system.

 

Where is the joy in that?

 You do realize a lot of the people dedicated to sending tech are often more active than the bigger nations and often make up the core actives of these alliances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Monster said:

 You do realize a lot of the people dedicated to sending tech are often more active than the bigger nations and often make up the core actives of these alliances?

 

I am certain there are a few folks who take great pleasure in sacrificing all nation development to puff up the upper tier of their alliances. I cannot imagine that there are hundreds and hundreds of these folks, unless there are lots of folks who want to roleplay being worker drones and have found that this political simulator fills that need like no other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're delusional if you think people have ever played CN because of it's innovative and engaging game mechanics.  You're also delusional if you think injecting money or innovation in a game like this would have ever saved it.  People played this game because of the people playing this game.  Those people had goals and stories to tell. They worked to develop levels of intrigue and interest strong enough to keep the rest of us that were there playing the strangest Co-Op Excel Spreadsheet ever experienced.  It didn't matter who was on top or how strong a hold they had on the game.  People used to call that motivation to 'do something about it'.  They were able to coordinate and plan wars and drama that were interesting enough to keep people checking their nations and putting in insanely long hours of work trying to build better and better organization systems within their own communities.  Now all we got are those systems, and no one active left who knows how to do anything but build them. Some of us may have been there, when they were, but apparently none of us have the skill set or give-a-damn necessary to make anything genuinely interesting out of what remains. The game is dead because no one thought to teach enough of the following generations of a player driven game how to drive the game forward.  And that's probably for the best.  I'd rather remember the fun I had then try to shoot this place up with adrenaline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

 

 

Let the past die...kill it

 

 

yes and no the past is to be honored

 

 

but some of the problems in CN are people clinging to old alliances

 

how many are left that have maybe 2 active leaders and a shell of inactive members, if they all merge together you get a group of active players large enough to at least help  corral the rest of the new alliance, the truly dead players get left behind but you get teh ones who can be ressurected....

 

 

As someone who loves CN history, the past is the past and its time to let go. come together, smaller active alliances have a place now, lets have some fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2018 at 9:27 AM, eejack said:

 

I am certain there are a few folks who take great pleasure in sacrificing all nation development to puff up the upper tier of their alliances. I cannot imagine that there are hundreds and hundreds of these folks, unless there are lots of folks who want to roleplay being worker drones and have found that this political simulator fills that need like no other.

Us old folks are bored with a conquered world. Anyone "newer" who wants to partake in politics or whatever is going to have a !@#$ nation for the rest of planet bob's existence regardless of what they do in nation-building. Hence, the more active players are the weak players that might as well funnel tech to the larger nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×