Do long term empires destroy the game?

[Heft]

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.

Conceptually, if not technically, this is probably the best suggestion in this thread so far. People have been complaining about the war system from the very beginning of the game, and it has undergone extensive changes since then, multiple times. Wars are damaging to nations, and they do hurt, and it is easier for larger nations to rebuild (if not held down by others) since they already have improvements and wonders. Not that the war system is perfect, but changing it won't change the fundamental problems raised here. Similarily, the rate of growth of nations isn't really that slow (though this could just be my "back in my day" viewpoint). Nations can grow relatively quickly. Yes, it's a slower game than others, but it is a good pace for this game. The problem is the distance they have to grow. To let new nations grow fast enough (without using complicated or intensive aid and other schemes) to catch up to the highest ranking nations would require some ridiculous, game-breaking changes. Also, eventually you'd still have the same exact problems, except all of the bars would be raised higher (suddenly, 10K or even 20K NS is a small nation).

The path that the game has been on since its beginning and is still on is natural and predictable. Things consolidate, things slow down, things calm down, things become more complicated and interwoven and interdependent, and major conflict decreases, and the game more or less stabilizes. People have more invested in the game than when it was young, in terms of personal relationships, donations, years of work, and a community that extends beyond the IC game, and so they aren't as willing to risk those things as they may have once been. Most of the people who are more or less in charge of the political landscape nowadays are people who think strategically and value long-term benefits. That's how they got to and have stayed in those positions. They are also capable of resolving almost any conflict or crisis diplomatically and politically. A simple fact of this game is that no war is ever necessary. Every war, and every conflict, is to at least a certain extent deliberately pushed and elevated, and the diplomatic resolution is simply not utilized. So we have a scenario where there is no need for conflict, where the people who would drive major conflicts are all skilled and competent enough to not create conflicts without a justifiable reason even as those reasons become harder to justify due to a wide array of factors. In other words, conflict is naturally and increasingly de-incentivized.

The suggestion I quoted is the first one I've read in this thread that actually addresses that issue in any adequate way. Why do entities in real life conflict? Conflicting interests, right? Well, in CN everyone's interests (at least those interested in long-term success for their alliance, and those are inevitably the ones in power) over time naturally align themselves and conflict less and less. There are essentially unlimited resources in CN. No scarcity. So everybody can ignore each other and grow infinitely large. So nobody has any reason to conflict, and plenty of reason to not conflict. What this guy's suggestion would do is introduce scarcity and make resources limited. Eventually, that would force conflict, as two growing factions are both eating through the same resource and can't really share it. The closest thing we currently have to this is the tech market, where we have constantly increasing amounts of large nations who want to buy tech, but not a great enough influx of small nations selling tech to keep the ratio at a level where everyone gets an adequate share. If the universal tightening of the tech market continues, then it's a reasonable guess that eventually it will begin to spur conflict, though that would require a radical paradigm shift in some ways, and would also to some degree require the complicity of tech sellers. I suppose it's possible that we would eventually see the "conquest" of other alliances being forced into tech selling, though that would be a very extreme and inefficient response and so would require the tech market to almost completely dry up and probably some other factors too.

Ultimately, it would be more effective if there were some sort of great big pile of Wonderflonium (for example) that everyone wanted a piece of. At first, there would be enough and everybody could share and not much would really change. But eventually, as more and more of it gets used and everyone becomes addicted to it and tries to keep up with everyone else, it would almost certainly spur conflict, either directly or indirectly. Or, as in the example above, if every color was capped at X nations, then.....well depending on the cap there could be lots of Wacky Hijinks Ensue going on there. Either way, scarcity incentivizes conflict. None of the other suggestions make conflict actually seem necessary, they just make some things easier and others harder in a series of ultimately futile band-aid attempts at jumpstarting a "stagnating" game.

[Snake Solidus]

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.

Simply changing an AA doesn't do alot. They could still used the same forums government ect. Just have different members use different AAs.

[BamaBuc]

A reset is the absolute worst idea that hes ever been proposed in the history of CN. By saying that, I don't mean to offend those who support it, but I cannot stress enough that it would be the death of CN.

First of all, in political terms, a reset would change NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. I know I'd keep on playing it the same way I have been, and I think TOOL would too. We'd sign all the same treaties. There's a reason we signed them in the first place: Our treaty partners are our friends. I see no reason to end friendships just because we all had to restart our nations. In fact, I don't see anyone changing their treaties at all. The equalization of NS, a touted argument for a reset, is a mirage. The "power cluster" still would have an overwhelming numbers advantage over any cohesive force in the game. Barring a massive, perfectly coordinated joint invasion from GOONS, FAN's gun forums, and every disbanded alliance in history, CN would be the same political landscape. No benefit for anyone, but as I'm about to explain, a staggering cost.

Second, and even more importantly, THOUSANDS of players would quit the game. We OWF peanut-throwers would be interested in the international incidents caused by a reset, but we often forget that the majority of this game's players just run their nations as something to do for 10 minutes a day. People who have spent months or years on their nations without a care for the lolitics would quit in droves. They'd see it as their long work being ruined. You can "lol pixel builders" all you want, but guess what? Most CNers don't give a damn about our politics. To this silent majority, a reset would be the end of their CN experience.

-Bama

[Joe Kremlin]

It's much better than admin making changes to the game just to try and hamstring alliances for being better at the game than others.

[Snake Solidus]

A reset is the absolute worst idea that hes ever been proposed in the history of CN. By saying that, I don't mean to offend those who support it, but I cannot stress enough that it would be the death of CN.

First of all, in political terms, a reset would change NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. I know I'd keep on playing it the same way I have been, and I think TOOL would too. We'd sign all the same treaties. There's a reason we signed them in the first place: Our treaty partners are our friends. I see no reason to end friendships just because we all had to restart our nations. In fact, I don't see anyone changing their treaties at all. The equalization of NS, a touted argument for a reset, is a mirage. The "power cluster" still would have an overwhelming numbers advantage over any cohesive force in the game. Barring a massive, perfectly coordinated joint invasion from GOONS, FAN's gun forums, and every disbanded alliance in history, CN would be the same political landscape. No benefit for anyone, but as I'm about to explain, a staggering cost.

Second, and even more importantly, THOUSANDS of players would quit the game. We OWF peanut-throwers would be interested in the international incidents caused by a reset, but we often forget that the majority of this game's players just run their nations as something to do for 10 minutes a day. People who have spent months or years on their nations without a care for the lolitics would quit in droves. They'd see it as their long work being ruined. You can "lol pixel builders" all you want, but guess what? Most CNers don't give a damn about our politics. To this silent majority, a reset would be the end of their CN experience.

-Bama

The threads not asking for a reset its asking for change.

[Il Principe]

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.

wow, I totally missed this great idea when I red this topic first.

Ultimately, it would be more effective if there were some sort of great big pile of Wonderflonium (for example) that everyone wanted a piece of.

There allready is something that could be used as Wonderflonium, and it is called Happiness.

[Ardus]

You could impose caps on NS or, more effectively, infra, tech, and land. This would limit how far ahead established players could get and drive them to take more dynamic actions once they reached those caps.

[BamaBuc]

The threads not asking for a reset its asking for change.

I'm aware. My post was in rebuttal to those proposing a reset as the way to achieve that change.

-Bama

[Reason]

I'm aware. My post was in rebuttal to those proposing a reset as the way to achieve that change.

-Bama

I concur - no need for reset. I suggest playing with the game as it is.

[Master-Debater]

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.

Because without change games stagnate and its players leave. Until recently the trend of membership in CN was down. Just from the standpoint of players the fewer players there are the less fun it is. Is it fun to play a game like this if you are 1 of 500 players?

Yes the game gets new additions to the game but even those are not real change. Wonders are basically improvements on HGH.

Adding a Navy was a huge thing to the game and was a good addition. But just adding thing doesnt mean anything will change.

Also the higher nations make up a much smaller percentage of players. It would be good to keep a majority of players happy in the game rather than just a small percentage of nations with high NS.

[alpreb]

Unless you can make losing just as fun as winning, there is no way to solve the issue of factions dominating a game which in time leads to stagnation.

Edit:

You could impose caps on NS or, more effectively, infra, tech, and land. This would limit how far ahead established players could get and drive them to take more dynamic actions once they reached those caps.

There might be an earlier example, but 5k infra used to pose a very hard cap for infra since buying more would in fact decrease your daily income. Was later increased to 8k infra iirc and today it doesn't really exists (or exists at a very high number).

Edited February 26, 2009 by alpreb

[anenu]

I don't think that long term empires destroy a game because once they get to strong they become the target of all the smaller/medium alliances. And while this is not an immediate threat slowly these alliances will gain strength and likely, as is the way in online games, a handful of people who were key in the creation of the dominate power leave and the dominate power becomes weaker since they don't have to worry about attacks and as such they eventually do fall.

Also someone mentioned earlier that damage from nukes and CM's should increase against nations with high infra/tech as a bomb hitting New York does more damage than a bomb hitting a farm. I completely agree with this and think it should be implemented.

[WhatOnceWas]

You could impose caps on NS or, more effectively, infra, tech, and land. This would limit how far ahead established players could get and drive them to take more dynamic actions once they reached those caps.

I agree with this post.

[Prodigal Moon]

Thanks to Heft for very elqoeuntly elaborating on that typo-ridden post I made. You really summed up a huge part of the factors that make this world way more stagnant than it could be. As long a we can continue creating infinite resources from thin air, there's not much in-game reason (beyond pride) to risk a 3-year-old nation/alliance by going for the top position.

Also:

without a care for the lolitics would quit in droves.

Was that a typo, Freudian slip, or hilarious new term?

[BamaBuc]

Was that a typo, Freudian slip, or hilarious new term?

It was intentional, but hardly new.

-Bama

[Prodigal Moon]

It was intentional, but hardly new.

-Bama

P is so close to L, I wasn't sure Thanks, gotta start using that.

[jerdge]

The tl:dr of the blog is that giant alliances who have effectively won the game by controlling the game's economy and political landscape create boredom and apathy in the game world and cause the slow demise of the game world simply by their existance and that it is in the game designer's best interest to create systems in the game for single players to topple these large alliances for the good of the game world.

The current political landscape is far from being "won" by a single alliance. The second and third strongest alliances united (IRON and MCXA) would no doubt win over the first one (NPO) in case of an open conflict.

The real dominating entity in CN is the BLOCK, not the alliance... And do you know a thing? Blocks (and alliances) are all but monolithic and eternal. We may claim that we're all having pure and innocent thoughts only, but in reality every major player in the Continuum has its agenda to ensure its own safety for the possibility moment in which the block will fracture; that moment may be very far in the future (I'm not in the know...) but admittedly it's wise to be prepared.

Even single alliances aren't that solid, mainly because there's absolutely no in-game feature that really holds the nations together. The MCXA-TSO recent divide is just an example, and that same silent majority Bama was talking of is another factor of instability (or it can be, if properly exploited): most players are only vaguely loyal to their alliance and they can be induced to leave it.

The Continuum's hegemony is political in nature, and the "right" political drives, if properly exploited by a determined and organized foe, have all the needed potential to topple it.

On the other hand, no in-game feature can really act over the alliance politics, in the long period. They're just in disconnected realms...

[Edit: improving a word]

Edited February 26, 2009 by jerdge

[Cortath]

What I think some people who are calling for change are failing to recognize is that whatever change you make, people will conform to the change and equilibrium will establish again.

The problem with online games such as this is that they are unchanging. You can change the world, but the powers in the world will adapt to meet those changes. There will be a period of change and adaptation and then an equilibrium will be established again. So with any change proposed in this thread.

[Reachwind]

I wonder if the game simply needs an in game method for alliance command and control. Similar to the senate system or perhaps wonder driven?

For instance, what if in order to form an alliance you needed to build a united nations wonder. This wonder gave the alliance founder the ability to create the name, add the flag and post the charter. In addition the founder could select a number of leadership seats (similar to the team senate) in which players could vote for the leaders of their alliance. The alliance leaders would have the ability to invite new alliance members or kick existing alliance members from the alliance.

With a setup such as this perhaps the idea of a hard cap on alliance size would make more sense?

[Homura]

I would agree with Heft that the primary resistance to conflict more than anything else is lack of competition for limited resources.

A reset would be damaging for the game outside of alliance politics. A lot of players either aren't a part of it or just keep playing because they've been playing for a long time and long since lost interest in the game. It's not really likely that resurrected alliances taking advantage of such a situation would survive long either.

And for those who think it's so difficult to rebuild, it's not, when you have all the improvements and wonders you had before. There's a wonder that raises aid caps to 4.5 million - make everyone in your alliance with a big enough nation buy it and you can aid in reconstruction even faster. Even new alliances with brand new members have a chance at becoming something, provided they are more innovative than existing alliances. And if you're not different from existing alliances, why are you creating a new one? Perhaps I should ask that every time some new upstart posts their DoE.

Running an alliance well and maintaining diplomatic relations are a lot harder than most people think though. It's not just a simple thing to throw away trust that took months building especially when that could damage one's reputation with everybody, and influencing people and getting things done your way takes a lot of skill. The sheer complexity of relationships has a stranglehold effect on the ability to cause mayhem, which will take some sort of strong impetus to break. The people who think "if I was running things we wouldn't have this hegemony" are deluding themselves. Nobody all got together and decided to make the game boring. Rather, there isn't enough to compete over yet to cause major conflicts that outweigh the loss of established relationships.

So if you're bored, try diplomatically isolating somebody. Just don't cry if they come back to bite you. Everything has risks and learning to do that well takes a lot of effort. Unless you're Ephriam Grey. Then again he got caught...

[General Vengeance]

A suggestion would be to do away with team colors altogether. No more, Red, Black, Blue, Brown, etc. Now you trade with whom you wish to, and can economically cripple other alliances simply by not trading with them. Even in a large alliance, if other alliances hold your alliance in distain, external trades will be hard to come by.

How many trades do most people have outside of their own alliance now to better their nation? I would imagine it is a majority of players. Internal alliance trades will benefit most but not all, and the alliance will lose members, not gain them. An individual nation will wield more power with who they will, and who they won't trade with.

People on weaker color spheres won't have to concern themselves with the difficulty of obtaining trades. The +1 Happiness bonus can instead be rewarded for length of the trade, if a trading partner exceeds 30 days both nations are rewarded with a +1 Happiness bonus for the trade.

What about team senators? Abolish them, there wouldn't be anymore need for them.

Edited February 26, 2009 by General Vengeance

[The General]

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.

I agree with this. If you want serious change, I say change defensive slots to 1 and eliminate the 7 day war expiry. I say make the nations stay in a war until both declare peace. That would make things interesting.

[Slayer99]

I have to agree with most of that. But I would argue that it's pretty easy to get to 4999 infra under the current system. A well designed aid chain can get you from 0-4999 in 2-3 months. At 4999 infra you are netting quite a nice amount of cash. MPs make it easier for younger nations to have an impact as well. Look at how fast NpO recovered as another example.

CN reset wouldn't change much either politically. Friendships don't die with a reset.

Mebbe 6k infra, increasing the amount of tech that can be moved up to a certain infra level. There could be all sorts of ways to tweak the current system to make it easier for an alliance to grow quickly.

[Fighter26]

I hear GOONS kicked their $@!'s.

This is still debated in the eve community, I'm in a corp that has some friends that were affected by this upstart. There is not much that happened in the larger scope of BOB, because close to 80% of them joined K (the second largest alliance in the game now) and they hold sovereignty over most of the space controlled by BOB. tbh the Goons and Bob both trade losses every now and then. I'm the same name in eve, contact me if you are looking for more info. The sandbox format of EvE protects it from anyone completely ever controlling it.

[Saber]

Posts by Heft and Prodigal Moon are the idea that I believe has most merit. It is what is essentially making the world stagnant, and what could change the game into more dynamic, chaning enviroment.

Right now war is not profitable. There is no reason to wage war in economic terms. Only reason to wage war is "fun" or to defuse a potential future threat. Both those reasons are being used even today but with rise of nations and higher cost to rebuild such wars become scarcer and scarcer. Hegemony tighter.

If the game created some commodity that there was not enough to go around, or if there was some reason to wage war (profit, territory, ...) the game would become much more dynamic. One problem we need to realize is that in this game there are a huge number of people who are not in major alliances. Major alliances would almost certainly be able to fill those slots through sheer force and the most likely losers of such system would be newbies, small alliances and unalligneds. I think it will be hard to create a system using fixed number of nation slots that would seriously change alliance politics.

Fixed number of alliance slots is also not the answer. All it would do is make alliance "sell their AA", or use united AAs. Hell, all of Continuum could join under 1 slot as The Continuum. It would be easily avoided problem.

Right now I am not seeing a solution. At least a simple permanent one. What we need is make conflict desirable, and perhaps even profitable. Everything else will ultimately lead to stagnation.