A Vision for CyberNations?

[Kyrilnys]

If I was admin I would update alliance strength to work similar to nation strength. This would act as an overall level of strength that would limit the target alliances an AA can declare upon based on this number by either making it impossible for the AA to declare war and/or put into effect, either immediately or over time, attrition modifiers that would make it increasingly harder for larger AAs specifically in soldier/tank battles. This wouldn't be a big deal since the larger nations of big AAs that declare upon smaller AAs tend to just sit back and  act as banks for their underlings anyway- the warchest of these "bank" nations would drain much faster as a result of the modifier as more war aid would be required.

 

Sorry, guys, but I agree with Johnny Apoc. Hate me for it all you want.

[Tiberius]

A question based around merging alliances, maybe.

If the alliances ranked 20 and above were to merge to form 1 or 2 alliances that would make a good bit of difference to the politics of the game. There is too many dead husks of alliances with one or 2 people running them. When you add those one or two together you are effectively creating an active alliance with enough hands to run it. 

[jerdge]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

A question based around merging alliances, maybe.

If the alliances ranked 20 and above were to merge to form 1 or 2 alliances that would make a good bit of difference to the politics of the game. There is too many dead husks of alliances with one or 2 people running them. When you add those one or two together you are effectively creating an active alliance with enough hands to run it. 

This is a brilliant question, thank you.

[Tiberius]

12 hours ago, Kyrilnys said:

If I was admin I would update alliance strength to work similar to nation strength. This would act as an overall level of strength that would limit the target alliances an AA can declare upon based on this number by either making it impossible for the AA to declare war and/or put into effect, either immediately or over time, attrition modifiers that would make it increasingly harder for larger AAs specifically in soldier/tank battles. This wouldn't be a big deal since the larger nations of big AAs that declare upon smaller AAs tend to just sit back and  act as banks for their underlings anyway- the warchest of these "bank" nations would drain much faster as a result of the modifier as more war aid would be required.

 

Sorry, guys, but I agree with Johnny Apoc. Hate me for it all you want.

Alliances would simply spread their membership across a number of alliances or create a hit alliance with the Nations they are going to use for the 1st round etc. 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

On 8/11/2019 at 7:56 PM, jerdge said:

Questions we could ask include:

 

1. If you could decide one thing to happen in Cybernations, what would you choose? (list of choices)

2. What do you most like in Cybernations? (list of choices)

3. What do you most dislike in Cybernations? (list of choices)

4. What would convince you to invite your friends to Cybernations? (list of choices)

5. What would cause you to leave the game? (list of choices)

 

What do you think of these questions? What choices would you list for each?

 

Why give a list of choices? Make it open ended, perhaps add additional questions for specific concepts that may be attempted.  by adding a list of choices it limits input and may prevent the user from expressing what would really draw them back in because the survey creator simply didn't conceive of it.

[jerdge]

2 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

Why give a list of choices? Make it open ended, perhaps add additional questions for specific concepts that may be attempted.  by adding a list of choices it limits input and may prevent the user from expressing what would really draw them back in because the survey creator simply didn't conceive of it.

On 8/12/2019 at 10:27 PM, jerdge said:

Quote

Do you want it to be a checkbox or an essay answer

With 2.8k people receiving the link to the survey, we'd probably (hopefully) have hundreds of replies, and aggregating hundreds of essays would be impractical.

I thus imagine checkboxes, where the last one could be "other, please specify" and the encouragement not to use it if at all possible.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

13 minutes ago, jerdge said:

 

 

The problem with that method is that those posting the solutions would have already come up with solutions and have the ability to attempt and test them, the problem is they have not developed said solutions. Therefore it is not likely any of the selection options would result in any real change otherwise they'd have already been attempted. 
 

When you're out of ideas, you ask for new ones.. you don't ask the populace which of the failed concepts are the ones they like most. Yes, it will be hard filtering through all the possible responses. This is why you create teams in the community to help you parse them and then slowly filter to the ones you think are most effective and viable.

Your teams identify the responses by number that they think are most relative. Those responses are then put onto the forum for general analysis by the public and for feed back. Based on that feedback, improvements are made. Ten teams of maybe 2-3 people asked to parse 10 responses results in 100 replies processed. Give it processing time a one week period (max) and you can do 400 a month to help refine the quantitative/qualitative response process.

Ask to keep essay responses per answer to around 500 words or less and it shouldn't even take much time to process.

Moderation and administrators implementing the changes would have to be aware that the teams selected will likely have an internal bias in favor of nations like themselves so they will have to be ready to filter out any obvious attempts to seriously wreck game balance.

The other problem is you have to be willing to implement the changes to some degree. You cannot expect people to put in work without a hope for an improvement in the game they are seeking to improve, so some form of feature gain must occur or you will effectively shoot yourself in the foot and seal the nail in the game's coffin by proving that nothing is going to effectively change.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Maelstrom Vortex

[jerdge]

12 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

[...] When you're out of ideas, you ask for new ones.. you don't ask [...]

Well I'm not out of ideas for CyberNations and I'm not looking for new ideas, I would "just" like to know what the other people would like to see.

 

16 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

[...] Moderation and administrators implementing the changes [...]

As Imperial Emperor noted on page 1, the last change to the game mechanics was 4 new wonders in July 2014: over five years ago. I don't think anyone will implement any changes to the game anymore. Exactly for this reason, my intention is to ask for ideas that the players can implement by themselves.

 

16 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

[...] The other problem is you have to be willing to implement the changes to some degree. You cannot expect people to put in work without a hope for an improvement in the game they are seeking to improve, so some form of feature gain must occur or you will effectively shoot yourself in the foot and seal the nail in the game's coffin by proving that nothing is going to effectively change.

Nothing is going to effectively change in the game, we already know that - see above.

If you disagree, try to convince admin/the mods to change something in the game: we have a Suggestion Box forum for that. But be aware that that forum as well has been idle since one year ago, and the last suggestions that had a significant discussion (replies) actually date back to 2016. Because by then the majority of players had already realized that they weren't listened to anymore.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I see. I hope then that in your quest to find new things that players can do ourselves you are successful, but honestly.. if we had these ideas wouldn't someone have tried them by now? Anyway, hopefully this charge for new innovation is successful. We would all like to see this game survive, that is the one thing we have in common, but... I question if this will really generate any new traction, after all if you have ideas as a player there's nothing other than co-operation preventing you from testing them already.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Maelstrom Vortex

[jerdge]

1 minute ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

I see. I hope then that in your quest to find new things that players can do ourselves, but honestly.. if we had these ideas wouldn't someone have tried them by now? Anyway, hopefully this charge for new innovation is successful. We would all like to see this game survive, that is the one thing we have in common, but... I question if this will really generate any new traction, after all if you have ideas as a player there's nothing other than co-operation preventing you from testing them already.

I don't even know if I will actually start the operations (and finish them) with this "survey" project. The result might convince me (or others) that something interesting could be tried... or not.

What might be attempted would at least be based on a sample of the actual interests and desires of the entire playerbase, which would be something really new for CN.

 

(Should such a survey provide a clear indication of something the playerbase would like to see implemented in the game mechanics, that would be forwarded to the staff as well, for sure. Maybe at least one question about that would be warranted, after all.)

[Rebel Virginia]

1 hour ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

I see. I hope then that in your quest to find new things that players can do ourselves you are successful, but honestly.. if we had these ideas wouldn't someone have tried them by now? Anyway, hopefully this charge for new innovation is successful. We would all like to see this game survive, that is the one thing we have in common, but... I question if this will really generate any new traction, after all if you have ideas as a player there's nothing other than co-operation preventing you from testing them already.

One thing players could decide not to do is ally with everyone else. When 90% of all alliance is tied together through a bloc or two it is a recipe for nothing ever happening again. That guarantees stagnation. People then lose interest, leading to more stagnation. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Also, people need to once again learn to be dicks IC. I can get along with plenty of people when I am myself, but to keep things interesting for both myself and others at times it is necessary to be a bit of dick and stir things up for the sake of stirring things up. That can be enough to create some in game grudges, which in turn will keep people interested in the game.

 

In all honesty, the mechanics of CN have never been stellar. The only reason we all stick around is the drama. NPO understood that once, and Ivan never lost sight of that. It's the reason he started NSO. Yes, it is true NSO never became the driving global force Ivan envisioned, but for a small to mid tier alliance we did do a disproportional amount of pot stirring.

 

I still think some of the best years of CN were when people still treated it more as a game than as job. In 2006 NPO attacked NAAC for stealing it's air. A completely made up CB just to cause drama. Later that year the Maroon Team drama threatened to blow the world into war at least weekly. There were times when hundreds of people would be posting on the forum, if you can believe it. The wars were almost balanced and came down to organization and tactics more than sheer numbers.

 

But somewhere along the lines people lost interest in taking risks. Maybe it is because the wars were too destructive and too hard to rebuild, but it doesn't matter. The culture among alliance leaders breeds stagnation. They just don't want things to happen. This NG war could have turned into Oculus vs RFI if certain people didn't ax those plans. Instead you get a boring NG beat down. I'm not saying such a war would have saved CN, as the mindset I spoke of took root years ago.

[Thrash]

46 minutes ago, Rebel Virginia said:

Oculus vs RFI if certain people didn't ax those plans.

 

This isn't the first time that's happened.

[Master Hakai]

There's nothing to fix. The majority of alliances got tired of losing infra and all at in wars so they signed oculus and now it never has to happen again. BOOM PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

There's always other games if you like challenges n activity n stuff but it won't never be in this game ever. But jedge you seem like a cool dewd if im bein honest and i think it's neat that u tryin.

[Stewie]

6 hours ago, Rebel Virginia said:

One thing players could decide not to do is ally with everyone else. When 90% of all alliance is tied together through a bloc or two it is a recipe for nothing ever happening again. That guarantees stagnation. People then lose interest, leading to more stagnation. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Also, people need to once again learn to be dicks IC. I can get along with plenty of people when I am myself, but to keep things interesting for both myself and others at times it is necessary to be a bit of dick and stir things up for the sake of stirring things up. That can be enough to create some in game grudges, which in turn will keep people interested in the game.

 

In all honesty, the mechanics of CN have never been stellar. The only reason we all stick around is the drama. NPO understood that once, and Ivan never lost sight of that. It's the reason he started NSO. Yes, it is true NSO never became the driving global force Ivan envisioned, but for a small to mid tier alliance we did do a disproportional amount of pot stirring.

 

I still think some of the best years of CN were when people still treated it more as a game than as job. In 2006 NPO attacked NAAC for stealing it's air. A completely made up CB just to cause drama. Later that year the Maroon Team drama threatened to blow the world into war at least weekly. There were times when hundreds of people would be posting on the forum, if you can believe it. The wars were almost balanced and came down to organization and tactics more than sheer numbers.

 

But somewhere along the lines people lost interest in taking risks. Maybe it is because the wars were too destructive and too hard to rebuild, but it doesn't matter. The culture among alliance leaders breeds stagnation. They just don't want things to happen. This NG war could have turned into Oculus vs RFI if certain people didn't ax those plans. Instead you get a boring NG beat down. I'm not saying such a war would have saved CN, as the mindset I spoke of took root years ago.

 

 

I for one welcome our NPO and IRON funpolice

[Tiberius]

23 hours ago, Rebel Virginia said:

One thing players could decide not to do is ally with everyone else. When 90% of all alliance is tied together through a bloc or two it is a recipe for nothing ever happening again. That guarantees stagnation. People then lose interest, leading to more stagnation. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Also, people need to once again learn to be dicks IC. I can get along with plenty of people when I am myself, but to keep things interesting for both myself and others at times it is necessary to be a bit of dick and stir things up for the sake of stirring things up. That can be enough to create some in game grudges, which in turn will keep people interested in the game.

 

In all honesty, the mechanics of CN have never been stellar. The only reason we all stick around is the drama. NPO understood that once, and Ivan never lost sight of that. It's the reason he started NSO. Yes, it is true NSO never became the driving global force Ivan envisioned, but for a small to mid tier alliance we did do a disproportional amount of pot stirring.

 

I still think some of the best years of CN were when people still treated it more as a game than as job. In 2006 NPO attacked NAAC for stealing it's air. A completely made up CB just to cause drama. Later that year the Maroon Team drama threatened to blow the world into war at least weekly. There were times when hundreds of people would be posting on the forum, if you can believe it. The wars were almost balanced and came down to organization and tactics more than sheer numbers.

 

But somewhere along the lines people lost interest in taking risks. Maybe it is because the wars were too destructive and too hard to rebuild, but it doesn't matter. The culture among alliance leaders breeds stagnation. They just don't want things to happen. This NG war could have turned into Oculus vs RFI if certain people didn't ax those plans. Instead you get a boring NG beat down. I'm not saying such a war would have saved CN, as the mindset I spoke of took root years ago.

Alliances have always been tied together via the treaty web. What used to happen is one side would pluck the others allies away. Mass cancellations would happen and then a war would happen. Look how quickly the continuum fell when karma wanted to bring down NPO. These days no one seems to want to spend months coalition building, or their opsec is terrible. On top of that too many people are friends across spheres, which as you allude to means there is invariably 0 grudges and rivalry. 

[jerdge]

30 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

These days no one seems to want to spend months coalition building, or their opsec is terrible. On top of that too many people are friends across spheres, which as you allude to means there is invariably 0 grudges and rivalry. 

Too many friends everywhere may render coalition opsec virtually impossible.

 

[Tevron]

On 8/16/2019 at 8:16 AM, Stewie said:

 

 

I for one welcome our NPO and IRON funpolice

So the theory is that VE/DT/GLoF/Polaris all support you...? Then why aren't they helping you?

[Stewie]

1 hour ago, Tevron said:

So the theory is that VE/DT/GLoF/Polaris all support you...? Then why aren't they helping you?

That's the first I've heard about others supporting us.

 

Yay Friends

[Tevron]

8 hours ago, Stewie said:

That's the first I've heard about others supporting us.

 

Yay Friends

You and I struggle at communication. My questions were meant to point out the untruth of the statements you seemed to be agreeing with.

[Lysergide]

2 minutes ago, Tevron said:

You and I struggle at communication. My questions were meant to point out the untruth of the statements you seemed to be agreeing with.

 

No, you struggle at communication. Stewie is pretty clear on what he says and means.

[Tevron]

14 minutes ago, Lysergide said:

 

No, you struggle at communication. Stewie is pretty clear on what he says and means.

I mean you and he speak the same lingo, so yeah.

[Lysergide]

47 minutes ago, Tevron said:

I mean you and he speak the same lingo, so yeah.

 

Yeah, we speak English. Not some contrived pseudo intellectual babble like you attempt.

[kingzog]

I'm in an odd position, possibly unique among remaining CN players. I signed up in 2006 and have gone through multiple nations. My longest break from CN was nearly two years, and I've had breaks of that length at least twice. If there's anyone who has gone away (for as long as I have) and come back as many times as I have, I'm unaware of them.

 

Anyway, I left for the first time (and stopped donating to the game) owing to rampant, unchecked cheating. That was a decade ago. Every now and then I come back to see if the lights are still on, sell some tech to people I know....

 

From my perspective, if you want to fix CN, you're going to need a time machine.

 

Not sure how to fit that into a questionnaire.

[Tevron]

12 hours ago, Lysergide said:

 

Yeah, we speak English. Not some contrived pseudo intellectual babble like you attempt.

When did question marks become pseudo intellectual babble? Get over yourself.

[Lysergide]

4 hours ago, Tevron said:

When did question marks become pseudo intellectual babble? Get over yourself.

 

You are the one spinning conspiracy theories, maybe you should take a break, this mental exercise must really be straining the few brain cells you have left.