Do long term empires destroy the game?

[Demonic]

ya if CN gets reset idk if i come back b/c i donated money and it took me a long time to get where i am at now. i don't think i want to go thought it again.

[Van Hoo III]

I'd wager to guess that a good chunk of the alliances currently a part of the power superstructure would also have changing views should the game reset. With NS on an equal footing and it being much easier to rebuild (as it would be small nations we're dealing with, and seeing as how war stunts the growth in early stages - making it much less desirable), I'm certain many alliances would be much bolder. Let us be realistic though. A reset will not be happening anytime soon.

There is a lot of money tied up in this game. People pay for donations. I'd wager that at least a couple of thousand has been made in donations. People are going to want those benefits rolled over to their new nations. Then there is the time consumed by those who haven't made nations. There will be massive resistance.

I agree with both points, RV.

[Count Rupert]

A lot of that is still player-imposed. Surrender terms have gotten more and more draconian as the game has progressed.

Correction: war is damaging in the lower and middle ranks.

It can be plenty damaging in thr higher ranks as well. THIS nation has been at war for 13 days. In that time he's gone from 75,656.953 NS to his current 29,327.877.

Before the war:

Tech: 2,823.69

Infrastructure: 12,280.00

Land: 7,421.588 mile diameter. 5,044.922 in purchases

Current Status:

Tech: 1,641.34

Infrastructure: 6,466.99

Land: 1,939.729 mile diameter. 1,146.802 in purchases

That means he's lost 1,182.35 tech, 5,813.01 infrastructure, and 5481.859 miles of land (diameter, 3898.12 miles of purchases) in 13 days of fighting so far. That seems to be pretty damaging to have at least six months of nation building disappear in least than two weeks.

[eyriq]

From following CN history and looking at the political landscape you can definitely see the trend towards a more mature political system, which is a desirable result imo.

There is still work to be done though, mainly in how we identify with others on a macro level. For a nation the alliance becomes the greater identity. For alliances the bloc becomes the greater identity. You do not see nations belonging to multiple alliances, however there are alliances that belong in multiple blocs. I think this is a problem.

There are several different kinds of blocs, some militaristic in nature and others economic in nature. Belonging to one of each is not a threat because they relate to different aspects of the game and your loyalties to one won't be compromised by your loyalties to the other. Belonging to multiples of the same kind though does stretch your loyalties and creates a conflict of interest in your dealings. You cheapen your involvement in the bloc and also weaken that blocs individuality. In sum, joining blocs of the same orientation weakens your potency and the potency of the bloc all at the same time.

This is a problem for game play because you can reach a point where most blocs remain impotent to influence the world in a unique way thanks to shared elements with other blocs through shared partners. This is immature because it is a weaker version of what it tries to imitate, (though most likely unknowingly to all but a few), a one world bloc.

I think that if alliance leaders would begin to consolidate their involvement in blocs we would see a much more exciting and fluid political landscape, with more possibilities for newer alliances.

[ModusOperandi]

The simple fact that players can be chased from this game conflicts with the long-term objectives and financial benefits that its developers receive.

The more people that play the better.

[Doitzel]

It can be plenty damaging in thr higher ranks as well. THIS nation has been at war for 13 days. In that time he's gone from 75,656.953 NS to his current 29,327.877.

Before the war:

Tech: 2,823.69

Infrastructure: 12,280.00

Land: 7,421.588 mile diameter. 5,044.922 in purchases

Current Status:

Tech: 1,641.34

Infrastructure: 6,466.99

Land: 1,939.729 mile diameter. 1,146.802 in purchases

That means he's lost 1,182.35 tech, 5,813.01 infrastructure, and 5481.859 miles of land (diameter, 3898.12 miles of purchases) in 13 days of fighting so far. That seems to be pretty damaging to have at least six months of nation building disappear in least than two weeks.

Sorry, I'm sort of old-fashioned in that when I think of "war" I think of a equitable forces duking it out rather than 20-on-1 curb-stomps.

If fought properly and in the cases of large alliances the damage incurred by smaller nations that don't have every single improvement and two dozen wonders is significantly less than that of smaller nations.

[Prodigal Moon]

I'd say it's the combination of pixel-hugging after years of nation growth, plus game mechanics that facilitate that attitude. Growth is extremely slow in this game, and I can totally understand why someone wouldn't want to watch 2 years of infra building get wiped out in a few weeks.

I'm not so sure that making it easier to rebuild or grow would be that great either. When you can just respawn in a game, it makes the whole concept of death almost meaningless. It's fun to see year-long feuds and rivalries (the rare times they are made public), and I think the long-term nature of the game is what makes it so compelling. If you piss people off, you really do have a lot to lose in terms of time and effort (maybe even RL money) put into your nation's development.

Rather than change that aspect, I think if the game were designed to make conflict a more natural part of existance by introducing opportunities for conflict. Right now, senate seats and maybe sanctions are the only limited resource that people vie for. Imagine if only a certain number of AA's could fit on each team, and those who didn't make it onto a team had to be on gray. I just made that up and don't know how well it'd work, but that's the kind of stuff we need. It'd be hard to sit back and simply outgrow everyone else from a position of political dominance when the other alliances are actively losing out due to your growth.

Also, I think Jake Eric is really onto something. Maybe CM's and bombing runs could destroy infra based on density as well as attacking tech? The fact that infra costs go up the more you have seems to address the issue of higher damage costs due to more advanced development.

[enderland]

That means he's lost 1,182.35 tech, 5,813.01 infrastructure, and 5481.859 miles of land (diameter, 3898.12 miles of purchases) in 13 days of fighting so far. That seems to be pretty damaging to have at least six months of nation building disappear in least than two weeks.

That's exactly why every war is a beatdown gangbang because even if people fought a roughly even war the losses on both sides as far as "time" would amount in the months or maybe even years.

[Lord Boris]

Unfortunately the game is designed to ensure that people who've been here longer have a natural advantage.

The game used to be balanced out by the possibility of new alliances or invasion alliances making their way to the top. But that's impossible now that there is an established superstructure and communities whose nations are years ahead and who have a massive organisational head start. In a way this is why even a reset won't help.

I think that is probably true.

And I think fundamentally the issue in CN regarding stagnation, is not the fact that a dominant power structure exists, but that those who oppose the current power structure have not convinced the moderate and unaffiliated players that they have a truly better alternative, and one that won't wind up simply generating a new power structure following the current status quo. While recently groups such as Vox Populi have extensively ramped up the abilities of the anti-establishment groups due to their high profile membership and their willingness to at least try to do something other than moan about it, there is still much more they would need to do if they ever wish to bring about the change they desire.

[Doitzel]

I think that is probably true.

And I think fundamentally the issue in CN regarding stagnation, is not the fact that a dominant power structure exists, but that those who oppose the current power structure have not convinced the moderate and unaffiliated players that they have a truly better alternative, and one that won't wind up simply generating a new power structure following the current status quo. While recently groups such as Vox Populi have extensively ramped up the abilities of the anti-establishment groups due to their high profile membership and their willingness to at least try to do something other than moan about it, there is still much more they would need to do if they ever wish to bring about the change they desire.

We have no way to materially fight back. Everything else is fear. Nobody will sway because they're scared pantsless. Largely because:

That's exactly why every war is a beatdown gangbang because even if people fought a roughly even war the losses on both sides as far as "time" would amount in the months or maybe even years.

That's true (and yes I realise it sort-of contradicts what I was saying above).

[Sancus]

Since this is an OOC area I'm assuming that by destroy the game you mean the actual servers and the game's source code. As such the answer you seek is no, no one is going to destroy cybernations.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Sancus

[ModusOperandi]

One simple change that is realistic: Make from nukes proportional to the infrastructure and tech of the target.

Imagine a nuclear bomb going off in a Sudanese village.

Imagine the same nuclear bomb going off in New York, Tokyo or Berlin.

Would the loss be equal in both?

If you have more you should lose more. This is how it works in real life and it's how it should work in CN. This is why groups can threaten major powers with home made rockets, because if you have large advanced cities all it takes is a couple of homemade rockets to cause a huge mess. If you are hiding in caves or slums a few rockets won't cause much damage.

You have made a wonderful suggestion.

I wish I read your post entirely before submitting my two cents; this could be the catalyst that this game needs.

Along with shorter rebuilding periods, I see no reason why this idea would not be effective.

[Mogar]

Since this is an OOC area I'm assuming that by destroy the game you mean the actual servers and the game's source code. As such the answer you seek is no, no one is going to destroy cybernations.

no by destroy the game they mean losing over 10,000 players since it's peak(and arguable the best political landscape this game had) and generally having the game stagnate to death, much like the moon game or medieval game have done.

[Snake Solidus]

It can be plenty damaging in thr higher ranks as well. THIS nation has been at war for 13 days. In that time he's gone from 75,656.953 NS to his current 29,327.877.

Before the war:

Tech: 2,823.69

Infrastructure: 12,280.00

Land: 7,421.588 mile diameter. 5,044.922 in purchases

Current Status:

Tech: 1,641.34

Infrastructure: 6,466.99

Land: 1,939.729 mile diameter. 1,146.802 in purchases

That means he's lost 1,182.35 tech, 5,813.01 infrastructure, and 5481.859 miles of land (diameter, 3898.12 miles of purchases) in 13 days of fighting so far. That seems to be pretty damaging to have at least six months of nation building disappear in least than two weeks.

Thats 3 on one of course hes going to get destroyed. Also, Jake Eric, just make a topic in the suggestion box.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Snake Solidus

[steodonn]

I hear GOONS kicked their $@!'s.

This so something will happen in CN sooner or later

[Snake Solidus]

This so something will happen in CN sooner or later

Yeah, cn will be different once SA invades. Or how about Fark?

Everywhere that could invade pretty much has.

[Mirreille]

You have made a wonderful suggestion.

I wish I read your post entirely before submitting my two cents; this could be the catalyst that this game needs.

Along with shorter rebuilding periods, I see no reason why this idea would not be effective.

I disagree, this is already factored into the game in that the higher your infrastructure level goes, the more costly any loss is to replace. Making nations lose even more infra that is more expensive to begin with is not a great idea. There would be no incentive to grow larger at all.

[Master-Debater]

As has been pointed out part of the problem, I believe, is that it takes to long to rebuild after a war. A nation prepared can rebuild pretty fast and if your on the winning side it doesn’t take time at all to rebuild because your gutting your enemy and taking what they had and putting it on your nation. The lack of ability to build and rebuild to higher levels fast enough really is what kills. If it was easier and faster to build up odds of wars would go up huge amounts because people wouldn’t be as afraid to lose 6 months of growth in two weeks.

If you cold build to those levels in a much shorter time then people wouldn’t be so worried about getting thrashed in a war. Some of the best games around are games where a major war occurs every moth or two because people rebuilt fast enough to challenge the "top" alliances again.

2-3 months to get to 5k infrastructure is just to long. How many people quit this game because all you can do is buy 10 infrastructures each day and wait to see if a war happens? People want a faster paced game and quit the ones that just stagnate and don’t go anywhere.

As far as super alliance destroying the game. No. Alliances themselves don’t kill the game. What kills the game is groups of super alliances all joining the same bloc to stifle any opposition and kill anyone they want to, along with spineless alliances who just talk instead of act or suck up to alliances so they don’t become the curb stomp of the month.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Master-Debater

[Snake Solidus]

We should reduce the number of defending slots to two or possibly one while keeping attacking slots at 3. Even a slight change liek this would drastically change the way wars are waged.

[ChairmanHal]

no by destroy the game they mean losing over 10,000 players since it's peak(and arguable the best political landscape this game had) and generally having the game stagnate to death, much like the moon game or medieval game have done.

The "moon game" stagnated because the admin stopped developing it. It pretty clearly had a broken aid and combat system and rather than take the time to properly fix these things, he started on a completely unrelated project (the "medieval game") and only made minor tweaks instead. Beyond that, the highest level colonies had no real development challenges once they reached a certain level. The game boiled down to collecting, collecting, collecting...and there was no new goals to reach for between wars. You see evidence that it was the game, not the politics, in the "reset" edition of the "moon game". The number of players it is attracting simply aren't anything remotely like the original.

Kevin has pretty skillfully avoided that trap up until now. He's shown that he's not afraid to fix things and give players something new to strive for...perhaps why the game is now increasing in the number of nations again (over 29k at last count) and not continuing to slide.

As for the current political situation in CN, I'd say it's pretty much evolving as I thought it might 2 year ago.

[Ish]

Capping the maximum number of people who can fly a certain alliance affiliation would do wonders for this game.

[Snake Solidus]

Capping the maximum number of people who can fly a certain alliance affiliation would do wonders for this game.

They would just splinter off and use different AAs while still remaining the same alliance.

[Il Principe]

The solution in terms of CN, would be to make it easier for alliances to rebuild. It takes far too long to build the infra/tech up for a young alliance (or a group of alliances that has lost a war) to compete with a more established alliance.

Lowering the cost of infra/tech for nations under 5 or 6k infra, would give them more opportunity to be able to fight. Just a thought.

Another solution could be to make war more profitable. All alliances seem to want to sign as much treaties as possible with as large alliances as possible just to be safe.

There is no benefit in taking risks or reason to oppose other(larger) alliances other as'making the game 'more interesting, there are only benefits(protection) in trying to ally with them.

I dont now how this could be corrected. An possible option would be in-game peace terms. For instance surrender in a war by giving away infra, tech, land or 5 even happines. It would give alliances an (economic) incentive to try to win wars and would give nations/alliances a reason to try to overtrow dominant alliances.

(but I realise, if done wrong it would just have the opposite consequence by giving dominant alliances more instruments to dominate other alliances )

Edited February 25, 2009 by Il Principe

[Ish]

Potentially, yes. It would however add to the amount of interest and strategy - each different AA could potentially hold a different government structure or different social structure than their brothers and sisters. Each could also be divided up into differing nation strengths. So people with up to 25k over here, beyond that over there, etc., etc. I think tactically it'd be far more interesting if groups were capped, just due to the sheer amount of elitism that would go on in alliances. No one would want dead weight, and capping the alliance structure as it would basically eliminate that through rigorous application processes. It'd also eliminate ghosting if it were hard coded that once an alliance reached it's maximum membership, the AA was removed.

Ultimately yes, they could just potentially splinter off, but that is fine, as it is exponentially more difficult to keep several smaller alliances held together - it'd be more of just a treaty web, wouldn't you say? The amount of constant communication required to hold something like that together would be pretty intense, and would reward the players who invest more time, which is what the game is not doing now to a certain extent.

[Reason]

Why does there need to be a change, though? I would beg to argue that the lack of affirmative action for change indicates contentment with the system. Do the most powerful and largest players wish for this kind of change, and if they don't, then why is it warranted? The truth would be to answer that the games structures are formed on the basis of their power; those who demand for difference and fairness are too weak to bring such 'fairness' into reality themselves. What greater way is there to do something than but by one's own work? Certainly, the current political structure is the superior system and its adherents are efficient enough to resist opposition. It is not a matter of game mechanics - you do not need to change the rules unless you are too weak to win in current conditions - but one of finally proving better than this system.