Do long term empires destroy the game?

[Vilien]

I meant there will always be one alliance on top, not necessarily the same alliance, though. After NPO falls, another alliance will take its place. It'll be very hard to end up with the polarity that we had in the old days.

In a roundabout way, I'm basically saying that the game will cycle through empires and that after the NPO there'll be another evil empire ruling the game, it doesn't matter if we don't have the ability to use guerrilla tactics or secret aid.

You just admitted that there was no "evil empire" in the old days. It is possible to have a political situation without a clear dominating power.

[Grand Emperor Brian]

You just admitted that there was no "evil empire" in the old days. It is possible to have a political situation without a clear dominating power.

It'll be very hard to end up with the polarity that we had in the old days.

I also admitted that it was possible, just very unlikely. The most likely scenario would be that another alliance would basically take NPO's place after a short time.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Grand Emperor Brian

[shahman]

Just like in real life.

[Mentor]

I still advocate for a reset every two years or so. Easy solution to the problem.

I think that is a bad idea, better they just launch a new server once a year or something like that, people which are not happy with events in the old server can move there

[Mentor]

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.

thing is that those few on the top are also the most active and devoted ones, so keeping them happy is obviously the #1 priority i would say

[Prodigal Moon]

There will always technically be a top alliance, but I can't imagine anyone taking on NPO and her allies and remaining entact enough to dominate this much afterwards. So at the very least any war that disrupts the current hegemony is going to make things easier for new nations and alliances to make a run for the top spot afterwards. 21 mil NS is a pretty big head start, but if the remaining #1 AA is at 5 mil. NS it'll be a whole different game.

[eyriq]

This isn't true. I had a lengthy discussion once with someone from another country who plays political sims in a different language; the prevailing trend they described was that everyone was always ganging up on the guy at the top. The games were Francophone.

It's the prevailing attitude. If people will break free of the chains this game's society has shackled them with then we'd have a more dynamic gaming atmosphere with powers rising and falling all the time. It's possible, it's just that everyone is too afraid of losing this or failing at that. Such fears are perpetuated by punishments that can be imposed by others in the game, but those punishments can be circumvented. The real obstacle is ourselves, and our unwillingness to submit to and affect real changes.

Look across the political landscape; how many distinct, permanent identities can you readily see? NPO, NpO, MK, and the OBR are the some of the ones that I can think of off the bat. The most dominant single identity, the most pervasive culture, is easily Pacifica. This is I think do to three things; 1) They dominate a sphere all to themselves. 2)They crush rival superpowers 3) Their identity is much more mature and defined than any of the other alliances.

1) I see Color Sphere's as the equivalent to RL Cultural zones; i.e. Muslim, Western, Hispanic... This means that an alliance's identity is partly comprised by what color they reside on. If you dominant that color, you dominate that culture. Your sphere of influence is indisputable, your identity is second to none.

2) Pacifica has historically brought about directly or indirectly the downfall of any and all rivals that threatened or accomplished the dominance of a color sphere. By maintaining a state of competition within rival spheres, they lessened the likelihood of the emergence of a true Equal.

3) The stages that Pacifica has progressed through could be looked at as the natural maturation process of an alliance. Your culture begins as a symbol around which a few nations unite. It progresses to become a dominant culture on a color sphere, to then becoming the dominant culture on that sphere. Right now there are still alliances that are further down the ladder in this progression, and thanks to the political system that Pacifica has helped to create their progress is slowed and almost retarded completely. Pacifica has set it up so that you either join in their system and thereby forfeit you own identity development, or you don't join and you get crushed.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the concept of Alliances belonging to several different blocs, of which the major ones are all in some way connected to Pacifica, was a sign of the immaturity of the current system. This is exactly the system that Pacifica has helped to create with the sole purpose of maintaining themselves as the one and only dominant Identity on Bob. This is a system designed to retard the growth of other nations identities with the trade off of growing their stats. However, even this system must mature.

[JayOvfEnnay]

There will always technically be a top alliance, but I can't imagine anyone taking on NPO and her allies and remaining entact enough to dominate this much afterwards. So at the very least any war that disrupts the current hegemony is going to make things easier for new nations and alliances to make a run for the top spot afterwards. 21 mil NS is a pretty big head start, but if the remaining #1 AA is at 5 mil. NS it'll be a whole different game.

we need a big war withh even sides to really do the trick for this. wars now end way to quickyl to do any big amount fo damge. o.o youll have to forgive me if my posting sounds a little odd. if someone cant read it $%&@ them. its friday party in like 45 minutes.

if we take a look a t the last few large wars wev'e had theres UJW and war of the coaltion. both ended very quickly, and even tho they both caused a logt of damage to both sides they ended too quickly. imagine if we could have a war like that with only slightly mroe even sides (a ratio vetter than 2:1) that lasted 2 months. the damage you decsribed would be possible and there would be the chance of neutral allinaces skyrocketing to the top once more. i'd rather have gpa on top than NPO any day (no sexual pun intended) just because they wont mess with every single going-on in digiterra.

Now remind me ot spell check this post in the morninng or edit it uot completely pls.

EDIt;

<Kryievla[Val]> you made some amount of sense

<Genmawr[littledrunk]> i need to decided whether or not to put it through a spell chck

<Kryievla[Val]> lol

<Kryievla[Val]> but are clearly drunk

Edited March 7, 2009 by Jofna

[eyriq]

Well, NSO certainly spices things up. What we have is a transcendent identity upon conception that already takes it beyond mere color, much like OBR and MK, with the political clout and prestige of the two Orders. To me it looks like the perfect recipe and probably just enough of a spark to get the current state of affairs into an even greater state of flux than before. Irreversible most likely. This will just go to show us that we are a long way off from having this game stagnate and die.

[Botha]

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.

I wonder what would happen if you could only make one war declaration at a time - and only be declared on by one nation at a time? Likely massive attrition damage suffered by all sides but it would certianly remove the ability for alliances to curbstomp.

Anyways, I would make changes to the war system before contemplating a re-set. I've dumped over two years of my time and some donations to built myself upto where I am now - if a re-set occured I'd likely quit - as would many, many others.

[Qaianna]

I think the main curse folks lob at the hegemony is how there isn't that much vying for things. The New Pacific Order's at the front, the Independent Republic of Orange Nations is next, and so on.

There does seem to be a similarity to NASCAR drafting. The leaders get in line and pull away from a pack that keeps fighting amongst each other. And sometimes causes a huge wreck, although if the leaders mess up it's an even huger one. Still, it seems to follow--after a bit of an event, Sparta has moved up past the Multi-Colour Cross-X Alliance, while admittedly the Grand Global Alliance has been trying to get the handling right after slipping back some spots, but still has drafting partners of a sort.

If you want to keep that model, though, that means there has to be a finish line. I think CN:TE is meant to have that, although I haven't gone there to test the waters.

As mentioned many times, the groups in the back need some real reason to break out and go for the lead. And there is a lot to lose--for both aggressor and victim. Who would win if there was an NPO vs IRON-MCXA war as mentioned earlier? Sparta, last I checked. How would you make it more appealing for them to turn on NPO? And all that is without the whole 'we really do like each other' aspects.

And how would you keep land as a scarcity? New nations arrive all the time, and each one gets a chunk of land. I think I saw this thread in the suggestion box before, with the same issues on how to actually make it work.

You'd have to make the 'take the victim's resources' idea optional. I like my nation's lead, but who else really does?

And how would caps make conflict better? If I'm at maximum (say, 4 million infra, 4M tech, 4M land), and there's no way to increase, what good is it to attack my maxed-out neighbour? I blow his stuff up, he blows mine up, and all the other 4 million nations watch and laugh.

Oh, and as to secret aid..the comparison was made to the Afghans in their conflict against the Soviet Union. Um..wasn't that aid provided by a HUGE BLOC?

Also remember, as has been mentioned a few times already..those of us here on the boards aren't always the majority of nations. It'd be interesting to see what the actual 10 minute grunts (as someone mentioned) think. I do remember being lured here by the idea of something only taking 10-30 minutes to play. Now look..oh well.

[greatmagnus]

What destroyed the game is alliances between alliances. Things got more and more muddled until you have the kluster**** that is the current MDP web.

[SoxNation]

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.

friendships don't die true. But if you truly believe every MDP out there is due to friendships and not real politiks, I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

[Timitz]

Ultimately, I don't think large alliances destroy the game. What does, is how other alliances react to the large alliances. This game is about politics and currently the political system is hegemonic. There are a variety of reasons for this, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that the majority of alliance leaders don't want to change the status quo. If we were to compare the alliances in game to countries that exist we can see this more clearly.

If the NPO is considered the United States in terms of power and Iron was considered China, then Sparta, MXCA, MHA, and NpO are considered Russia, Germany, England, and Japan respectively a few things become clearer.

Firstly, the hegemony isn't as solid. The combined strength of the other alliances can keep the NPO from doing some things. An example of this would be that the NPO can't just decide to stomp on IRON because they don't like a government member. Just as the US can't just go beat on China. They can't because of the treaty web. However, unless a number of alliances that combined are as strong as the NPO decide to fight them, they will always retain their hegemony.

Secondly, the treaty web currently does favor the NPO because alliances can choose who to side with if a fight looks likely and you will see a lot of treaties get canceled. An example of this was when everyone canceled their treaties with the NpO because they thought the NpO would lose. This comes back to the majority of alliance leader wanting to retain the status quo. In real life when enough nations want to revise the political structure, they start a war to do it. Examples of this can be seen in WWII and Bismark's wars of unification for people wanting to revise, and the Cuban Missile Crisis is an example of people not wanting to revise.

Thirdly, small alliances can't change anything. Andorra and Fiji can complain about and call the US evil all day, but they can't do anything about the US. So to can small alliances say the game is being broken the NPO is ruining the game, and so on. The fact remains only the bigger alliances are in any kind of a position to do anything, and unless they want to revise things, they won't. This is a good reason for the NPO to encourage small alliances and to prevent big alliances from getting to big.

In conclusion to the wall of text no one will want to read; the problem isn't big players. The problem is the decisions people make. People can always do something about it, the fact is, not enough people want to. If the game is dying, it is because of us as players not keeping it alive. The problems and solutions are to be found in those of us who are interested in the political aspects of the game. To finish the real life analogy, China is a long term Empire, they have won some and lost some, their existence hasn't broken real life, because of the actions of the diplomats and national leaders to balance and revise things more to their favor.

That's my two cents.

Tl;Dr Blah, blah, blah. Long winded rambling. Analogy that probably didn't make sense.

[Solidus117]

And how would you keep land as a scarcity? New nations arrive all the time, and each one gets a chunk of land. I think I saw this thread in the suggestion box before, with the same issues on how to actually make it work.

Three words: negative land growth.

Increased population density begets increased population dissatisfaction, which in turn provides greater impetus to not only buy land (an increased cash drain), but to take it by force. Perhaps it would polarize the current situation further, whereby the large take land to get larger.

Perhaps the above could be augmented by an increasing land growth up to a certain level, plateaus somewhere in the middle (say .. 5k infrastructure), then goes backwards.

Perhaps, perhaps...

[animea90]

If anything, the fact that it takes a betrayal by a single high-level user with extraordinary powers reveals that perhaps the network is a little too strong; it should have been easier for Goonsquad GoonSwarm to take BoB down, because the system as it stands now means that political intrigue is where the excitement lies, and that leaves out (in a power-law distribution of clans and alliance sizes) the majority of the users.

This is what kills the game. The majority of the users are not in it.

[shahman]

This is what kills the game. The majority of the users are not in it.

Sir, that much is obvious, but what is causing the majority of users to not be into it?

[DinendelDucky]

What the game needs is:

a lower "soft ceiling"

A method of regulating tech levels.

penalties for larger nations (population/boarder control problems)

Benefits for smaller nations.

[StalinsRevenge]

while it would be nice for something to help smaller nations... like making new nations perhaps start larger to fit in better with the times or more aid being able to be send, larger nations really should not be punished for getting big themselves.

[DinendelDucky]

while it would be nice for something to help smaller nations... like making new nations perhaps start larger to fit in better with the times or more aid being able to be send, larger nations really should not be punished for getting big themselves.

No, but there should be stages in building nations. That is, as a young nation your challenge is to build, discover the social/political aspects of the game, learn your military limits, etc. As a larger nation you challenge should change to maintaining your nation, dealing with political problems, dealing with large population, larger boarders and population should be tougher to maintain, easier to pick on (spies, terrorism, etc). Gameplay on the meta level shouldn't take place only on external forums.

Higher level nation building should not be only adding benefits, hoarding tech, and purchasing military. There are too much military/improvements already.

[Mustakrakish II]

I believe that one large alliance that has a decisive hold of power in the game is infact a "bad egg" so to say. It creates boredom as everyone not allied to the big guys are afraid to do anything, and the ones that do something are easily crushed. As for the alliances that are allied to the bigger ones, they have the ability to prosper, even through wars, and if they even start to become a threat, they can easily be crushed.

I think the admin should create a Cybernations "World 2" to hopefully bring competition back to the game, though preventing an immediate take over by an alliance would be tough, there are few other ways to create true competition in the game again, unless there is a massive rebellion (which is possible, but success of such a rebellion is not probable)

[King Croixy]

[quote name='Mustakrakish II' timestamp='1237327561' post='1343774']
I believe that one large alliance that has a decisive hold of power in the game is infact a "bad egg" so to say. It creates boredom as everyone not allied to the big guys are afraid to do anything, and the ones that do something are easily crushed. As for the alliances that are allied to the bigger ones, they have the ability to prosper, even through wars, and if they even start to become a threat, they can easily be crushed.

I think the admin should create a Cybernations "World 2" to hopefully bring competition back to the game, though preventing an immediate take over by an alliance would be tough, there are few other ways to create true competition in the game again, unless there is a massive rebellion (which is possible, but success of such a rebellion is not probable)
[/quote]

New nations can choose whether they want to be created on Earth or Mars. Only connection between the two is foreign aid, trades, pms, and Alliance Affiliations. All nations that start on Mars have infra that is twice as expensive as that of earth, but they have access to Mars bonus resources as base resources. Wars fought on Mars are affected much more heavily by tech.

Note: For foreign aid between planets, the sender needs to have a space program. For trade, there would be a new wonder called Interplanetary Trade Station. Both trade partners would need to have this wonder to trade.

Edited September 27, 2010 by King Croixy

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1235597501' post='1298011']
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.
[/quote]

Yes, correct. I'm not opposed to war per se, I'm opposed to risking the loss of over two years of work just so people can have their "fun" or for something that has no connection to me or my friends.

[Schattenmann]

How do these happen, I wonder? Do people like click off the wiki or something?

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285548577' post='2465654']
How do these happen, I wonder? Do people like click off the wiki or something?
[/quote]

I doubt it's on the wiki, it's not an important enough thread. This is probably deliberate. It's a pretty relevant gravedig though.