CN Player Numbers

[Blacky]

An answer to the question of member retention.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=50857

Having this safeguard will mean the possibility of more wars and also nations to stay around after being defeated in war.

[Londo Mollari]

More Players = more views = more alliances = more power struggles = more wars = less boredom = fun

I brought up a way to get literally hundreds of thousands of people to visit the CN homepage, the idea was presented here

I like your idea, and I will write such an article and post it in this thread for someone to do exactly that with.

[King DrunkWino]

There are a few main reasons that political power is so centralized and concentrated. The first reason is OPSEC. If you really don't have it at all, you'll wind up dead in this world. The more people you have involved in your strategic planning, the greater the possibility of a leak. The other reason is that there is basically a bell curve of activity/motivation to be politically active. The most active and competent people end up running successful alliances because it takes work to make a successful alliance, and of course access to the political game is part of the reward for the effort put forth to run an alliance

We are seeing more and more alliances crop up these days. I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is that most new alliances don't ever really do much. Conflict and interaction between alliances is stifled by two main things - the MDP web and the fact that entering into a conflict usually means that either you win a glorious victory, or your face gets stomped on for weeks or months as punishment for losing. Those two things are inter-related together, and ensure that conflict is slow to come, but very brutal and decisive when it does. The weeks and months leading up to a conflict are very exciting for the active few involved in alliance leadership, but not so much for the ordinary citizens of an alliance, as they aren't involved in the backroom plotting. The war itself may be exciting and fun for them, but wars themselves are becoming farther and fewer between.

These two things flow toghether when you think about it. First you have the idea that alliances have to have the smallest number of people possibly dealing with the sensitive (for lack of a better word,) things that require folks to keep their traps shut. It's actually the right idea when you think about it. Course, in that regards more alliance = more opportunity for players to get involved at that level. For whatever reason, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interactions between alliances that aren't already caught what basically has been and still is a game that revolves around the NPO.

/Don't get your drawers in a twist. If you honestly think about it, a whole lot of the game at large has revolved around the NPO and it's actions.

What I'd like to see is a break of that for a while. There are things possible in this game that I haven't seen yet and it surprises me a bit. Take for instance, two alliances are at war with each other. Both pound each other for a bit and as they start weakening, a third alliance that doesn't like either one jumps in against both of them. Now I know why this doesn't happen (convulsive MDP map) but it'd still be interesting to see.

One thing that might possibly help CN is the ending of the practice of protectorate treaties. On paper it looks like a good idea, but when you look at the system all it really does is keep alliance conflict down. I think alliances should stop signing protectorate treaties and sign something like an advice treaty with a smaller alliance instead. Because sure, they can protect the small alliance by locking them into their side of the MDP web, but that prevents the small alliance from exploring the world on its own and having a bit of conflict with others, because someone else is protecting those others. Of course the issue with the idea of doing away with protectorate treaties is that the smaller alliance is usually serving as a tech source for the larger alliance, which makes the smaller alliance a vital long term strategic military asset which needs to be protected. This basically means that instantaneous tech deals like 3x3's would pretty much have to become the norm, but that's not really so bad.

It's an interesting thought, but so long as small alliances log in and find things like their entire alliance being triple team raided by NEW ( ) it's improbable for it to happen.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I really like Shahman's idea.

[WcaesarD]

I'm going to make a similar suggestion to the one I made in the last thread of this topic. You want more players? Go to where people spend a lot of time online already. Start at popular messageboards, if you play other games, recruit people you know there.

Things like adverts and articles don't work as well as word of mouth. Everyone that reads this thread, go recruit someone today... from somewhere you've not tried before.

[hamlin]

It's an interesting thought, but so long as small alliances log in and find things like their entire alliance being triple team raided by NEW ( ) it's improbable for it to happen.

I think eliminating, or reducing the benefit of, tech raiding would be a good step towards improving this game. Many people want to play the game and be involved with a smaller alliance either with RL friends or just with a smaller group of online people however they don't want to deal with larger alliance curb stomping them.

In the real world this doesn't happen because other countries step in (even when treaties don't exist) and say "hey stop being a !@#$%" In CN that doesn't happen because there's 43 treaties for every alliance.

[Londo Mollari]

I agree with this. There is really no way for an alliance to become involved in a smaller contained "war" What this leads to is the vast majority of nations either never experiencing war, or only experiencing it when it's 3v1 or 1v3. Neither of those situations are really fun (I've been in both).

A reduction of the MDP/MADP web and the reduction of protectorates would improve this game greatly I think. However there's no way that admin could ever implement that as these things are entirely in the realm of player control. It's up to the powers that be to stop signing treaties, or it's up to those that aren't in power to become more active/involved and take power.

Overall a change in general player attitude would help as well. The vast majority of fights in CN have been started by something stupidly trivial which was multiplied 50x over by MDP/MADP webs (this war is a perfect example).

Most of this stuff is a pipe dream though. It all relies on people taking the play of this game more "serious" and this is the internet so I'm not gonna hold my breathe about that happening.

The attack on Ordo Verde was simply a looked-for entrance into a larger conflict that just about every alliance leader on Bob could see coming. It was one of several possible entrances to the war, it was chosen (by the NPO), and it ultimately proved to have been a very poor choice for the Hegemony. We didn't fight this war because NPO was angry at Ordo Verde, we fought this war because NPO wanted to eliminate C&G and Superfriends as potential threats before turning their guns on Citadel and continuing to carve a bloody path of victory across the face of the Planet. Now, if you want world wars to stop happening for reasons other than people disliking each other and old hatreds and cycles of revenge continuing ad infinitum... then you need some sort of change to the game itself IMO.

An answer to the question of member retention.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=50857

Having this safeguard will mean the possibility of more wars and also nations to stay around after being defeated in war.

That's not a perfect answer. It makes conflict less meaningful, really. That's about all it does. It's an idea, but I'm not sure it would be better for the game. Nor is it impossible to come back from a brutal stomping and win sweet victory against an opponent.

[hamlin]

The attack on Ordo Verde was simply a looked-for entrance into a larger conflict that just about every alliance leader on Bob could see coming. It was one of several possible entrances to the war, it was chosen (by the NPO), and it ultimately proved to have been a very poor choice for the Hegemony. We didn't fight this war because NPO was angry at Ordo Verde, we fought this war because NPO wanted to eliminate C&G and Superfriends as potential threats before turning their guns on Citadel and continuing to carve a bloody path of victory across the face of the Planet. Now, if you want world wars to stop happening for reasons other than people disliking each other and old hatreds and cycles of revenge continuing ad infinitum... then you need some sort of change to the game itself IMO.

I wasn't intending to speak on how just this war was or wasn't and I certainly wasn't trying to argue about the start of the war. That's a debate for another topic and is completely irrelevant to this one.

My point was that without the MDP/MADP web there we be far fewer combatants on *both* sides

[King DrunkWino]

I think eliminating, or reducing the benefit of, tech raiding would be a good step towards improving this game. Many people want to play the game and be involved with a smaller alliance either with RL friends or just with a smaller group of online people however they don't want to deal with larger alliance curb stomping them.

In the real world this doesn't happen because other countries step in (even when treaties don't exist) and say "hey stop being a !@#$%" In CN that doesn't happen because there's 43 treaties for every alliance.

I don't see how reducing the benefits of raiding would do much good. When you *really* think about it, raiding is a stupid way to try to grow your nation. It's cheaper in the long run to simply buy what you need. After all, eventually you're gonna raid the wrong guy and get smashed open like a ripe cantaloupe.

But yeah your right in that if the game were simpler for smaller alliances of friends then you'd see more activity all over the place. I think it'd be rather good to see current players go out and get several RL friends or other people they know online and start up new alliances based on those preexisting friendships.

[Nintenderek]

I would have no problem with having a larger CN community. If anything, we need some fresh faces in here. We've been fighting over the same old rivalries of a few old people for quite some time now. It would be interesting to see a change.

I tend to agree with him. People joked about this war being GW1 all over again, but with certain leaders in certain positions, it was very, very similar and was the same ole rivalries for the most part. We need something new.

[Londo Mollari]

/Don't get your drawers in a twist. If you honestly think about it, a whole lot of the game at large has revolved around the NPO and it's actions.

What I'd like to see is a break of that for a while. There are things possible in this game that I haven't seen yet and it surprises me a bit. Take for instance, two alliances are at war with each other. Both pound each other for a bit and as they start weakening, a third alliance that doesn't like either one jumps in against both of them. Now I know why this doesn't happen (convulsive MDP map) but it'd still be interesting to see.

You are 100% correct. But that won't be the case anymore. NPO's status has shifted from world superpower to great power already. (If you want to think in terms of superpowers, great powers, regional powers, small powers, etc.)

It's an interesting thought, but so long as small alliances log in and find things like their entire alliance being triple team raided by NEW ( ) it's improbable for it to happen.

A tightly organized, smart alliance, could grow and defend themselves from tech raiders just fine. If another group like the Gremlins came to this game, I have no doubt that they would be able to build up into a power, with or without a protectorate. All raiding like this does is force alliances to be smart. Also, I think this is one reason why most alliances have raid limits - so as not to destroy actual communities for no reason.

[Chancellor Bismarck]

I remember when alliances were above 1k members. I want that era to return.

[SmashBrother299]

More players = more tech sellers.

But yes, I am in favor of more players and more alliances. I'd love to see every color with 10 good sized alliances.

[iMatt]

The reason many people leave the game or never get into the game in the first place is

1)-because for those who aren't involved or have no desire (or time) to be very involved in the politics of the game, there is no chance to reach the same heights that the old nations now have reached (ie Wonder Clock, tech importing problems), and

2)-because the old nations have nothing left to strive for (no more Wonders, a cap on the level of infra that's useful, the monotonous tech importing, unused improvement slots, etc, etc, etc...)

We will never see another increase in CN membership that lasts any amount of time until these problems are fixed, it's as simple as that.

[King DrunkWino]

You are 100% correct. But that won't be the case anymore. NPO's status has shifted from world superpower to great power already. (If you want to think in terms of superpowers, great powers, regional powers, small powers, etc.)

Yet, as we speak, the politics of the game still revolve around them. Post war, I still see politics revolving around them as alliances prepare for what they will assume will be the inevitable counter attack. It'll make things interesting in new ways, like whether or not a post-war NPO attempts to rearm itself and go for a straight up counterstrike against who's fighting them now, will they attempt to form new diplomatic ties for that purpose (or even to protect itself for a period of isolation,) or whether they get really sneaky and attempt things like turning current alliances that are involved in Karma against each other through any kinds of underhanded (but rather ingenious,) methods. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather new powers take the forefront for a while, but the game player that I am actually looks forward to what the NPO is going to do long haul.

Long story short; the world will still revolve around the NPO for a while. It's not really a good thing since it makes the game rather one dimensional.

A tightly organized, smart alliance, could grow and defend themselves from tech raiders just fine. If another group like the Gremlins came to this game, I have no doubt that they would be able to build up into a power, with or without a protectorate. All raiding like this does is force alliances to be smart. Also, I think this is one reason why most alliances have raid limits - so as not to destroy actual communities for no reason.

Some have tight reigns on raiding, others disallow it altogether, but some still practice tech raiding in all its perverse^* glory and all it takes is one botched raid to esclate into something major that has the potential to screw up a new alliance, especially one that has a lot of new members.

/* I use the word perverse cause raiding really sucks to actually acquire tech. It does a little better at getting land, but lets face it, land is mostly useless. I honestly think most raiders go a-raidin' just to break the monotony a bit. Which would be fine except the raider ends up screwing with another player. A much better system would be having inter-alliance sanctioned wars.

//then again, that's a whole other topic.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

We need to populate Yellow and Pink.

[kingly]

one way that iv heard of is if a new round of permanent nations was started on a separate planet bob, though i doubt that the admin would ever go for it

[WcaesarD]

one way that iv heard of is if a new round of permanent nations was started on a separate planet bob, though i doubt that the admin would ever go for it

I still wouldn't have a problem with a blanet Dod, as oppoesd to Bob, just make it available WELL in advance, don't start it until a couple months after it's announced. But, I still like the idea of an end time for Bob.

Before you say "all this hard work people would put in would have been for nothing" and "nobody would go for it", listen. What if Admin says in 18 months, planet Bob will reset, the rankings will be recorded and things will start over, all fresh. It gives people AMPLE time to prepare, it would make the game interesting, everyone would be working towards a goal, be the best alliance by that date, work your nation up the rankings, etc. If you're worried about donation deals, make them carry-over to the new nations. Say that any donations made in the last 6 months of the game follow to your new nation at half the amount you would have gotten. That way people will still donate, and it'll matter in the future.

Then, there is a break, we take a day or two off, then the whole mess starts anew. It puts every nation at or near a level field, it created the excitement of a new game, and brings back a way to build your nation from equal age.

Thoughts?

[Stonewall Jaxon]

I still wouldn't have a problem with a blanet Dod, as oppoesd to Bob, just make it available WELL in advance, don't start it until a couple months after it's announced. But, I still like the idea of an end time for Bob.

Before you say "all this hard work people would put in would have been for nothing" and "nobody would go for it", listen. What if Admin says in 18 months, planet Bob will reset, the rankings will be recorded and things will start over, all fresh. It gives people AMPLE time to prepare, it would make the game interesting, everyone would be working towards a goal, be the best alliance by that date, work your nation up the rankings, etc. If you're worried about donation deals, make them carry-over to the new nations. Say that any donations made in the last 6 months of the game follow to your new nation at half the amount you would have gotten. That way people will still donate, and it'll matter in the future.

Then, there is a break, we take a day or two off, then the whole mess starts anew. It puts every nation at or near a level field, it created the excitement of a new game, and brings back a way to build your nation from equal age.

Thoughts?

1) People have spent actual money on these nations, so a reset would really stir the pot

2) That's why we have TE

[WcaesarD]

1) People have spent actual money on these nations, so a reset would really stir the pot

2) That's why we have TE

Well, have all donations carry over then, why not, it's fair.

And TE goes TOO fast, and there isn't a comparable player-base. I'm talking a reset once every 5 years, not months.

[Delta1212]

Have donations carry over and suddenly everyone who has donated has a huge advantage. Hell, I'd start out with a few thousand infra myself. Against a planet full of people who literally have nothing and no way to get aid except from me and others like me, that effectively translate the upper crust from "people who have spent a lot of time on CN" to "people who have spent a lot of money on CN" and I honestly think that's worse.

[Londo Mollari]

The reason many people leave the game or never get into the game in the first place is

1)-because for those who aren't involved or have no desire (or time) to be very involved in the politics of the game, there is no chance to reach the same heights that the old nations now have reached (ie Wonder Clock, tech importing problems), and

2)-because the old nations have nothing left to strive for (no more Wonders, a cap on the level of infra that's useful, the monotonous tech importing, unused improvement slots, etc, etc, etc...)

We will never see another increase in CN membership that lasts any amount of time until these problems are fixed, it's as simple as that.

To 1) - the #10 nation is a mere 634 days old. Plenty of nations around that one are nearly twice as old. Yes it takes time to build a really strong nation, but it is doable. Had I been a hippy or an infrahugging coward (and joined an alliance with a good nation building program right off) I would probably have 8-9k tech and 90,000-100,000 NS now. And I'm only like 450 days old. What's more is that you can work for plenty of goals - personally I want to make sure that I can make any nation in my range suffer a great deal in a war, so I am working towards more tech (between a 1:1 infra to tech ratio or 1:1.5 sounds about right), a WRC (I have never had more than 6,000 infra due to Hegemony curbstomps), and an enormous warchest. 100 days of bills is a bare minimum.

To 2) - Every game has a level cap (and most force specialization that doesn't exist in CN but which I would like to see) , but many games still have ways you can improve your character or nation. Rare magic item drops, in certain games, having to "kit out" new characters with magic items, etc etc etc. Can you think of a way to add a "magic item" type feature to the game?

I think a reset is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. Let's fix the world we are on, instead of trying to throw it away and make a new one. Unless we understand how to fix this one, we will have to throw any and every world away. Progress.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Londo Mollari

[Blacky]

That's not a perfect answer. It makes conflict less meaningful, really. That's about all it does. It's an idea, but I'm not sure it would be better for the game. Nor is it impossible to come back from a brutal stomping and win sweet victory against an opponent.

As NoCB war vets from the losing side I think we both know it's doable. Of course the point is that this would be something there to tie players to the game, something to ensure them that "all is not lost". After being severely defeated this would definitely reduce the number of nations which simply leave after a beat down. More importantly, it would mean there were wars more often. If you've seen activity trends they peak around the time of war. Maybe the current 28,000 or so is more than enough, they just don't come out enough to play due to periods of inactivity caused by stagnation.

I'm not foolish enough to believe it's a "perfect answer" but when faced with a situation like this a fix can sometimes be more damaging than it is beneficial and it's important to watch out for that. Right now a fix isn't necessary as we still have a massive player base.

[WcaesarD]

Have donations carry over and suddenly everyone who has donated has a huge advantage. Hell, I'd start out with a few thousand infra myself. Against a planet full of people who literally have nothing and no way to get aid except from me and others like me, that effectively translate the upper crust from "people who have spent a lot of time on CN" to "people who have spent a lot of money on CN" and I honestly think that's worse.

I agree, but it seems everyone else does not. I don't think it would be entirely fair that all of the donations previously made suddenly meant nothing, but also they shouldn't mean overly much either. This is why I suggested a date well in the future for the reset, so people would know when the money would count until.

[Asriel Belacqua]

If we do that ("reset") I would say do what the moon-game did, and keep this "planet" alive, but close registration, and just make the "new planet" the open-registration one.

I am not really for this, as, like Londo said, it's very possible to build up your nation in a relatively short amount of time (I have had to do this several times, my nation is over 1000 days old, and I'm currently at 600 infra and no tech because I'm tech-dealing, and it's relatively quick already to build up to a "good" level).