CN Player Numbers

[DogeWilliam]

I would love for there to be more players. 27k seems pathetic. We should have around 50k at least. But, I honestly don't know what is feasible to increase the size of CN.

[Lord Boris]

A reduction of the MDP/MADP web and the reduction of protectorates would improve this game greatly I think.

You may be onto something on the first part, but on the second part you're out of your mind. One of the surest ways we could drive off new players is to raid them out of existence right when they stepped through the door. Since not every alliance out there has the firepower and political webbing to prevent said raids, it makes sense to have protectorates as they stand now, as it allows for experimentation in diverging communities, while not putting those budding groups in such a position where they get stomped out right away.

[shahman]

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

I really like Shahman's idea.

Thanks guys, I'm glad influential members noticed it.

Londo, good luck.

[SunnyInc]

Alot of people leave the game because they think Cybernations is just a page of stats and all the RP takes place on the big boards. I think if individual alliances did a better job of engaging new members we would see much higher retention rates.

[Starfox101]

45k would be a great number.

Too bad, we could be there but we let the poison stay on top and run the game.

Bringing us to 27k.

[Varianz]

A great deal has been said about people leaving the game because they think they can never catch up to the more powerful nations. Some people have responded by saying that it is entirely possible to grow to that level with dedication. Yes, it is possible to grow very large, but we have to remember that new players do not have the benefit of experience that we more experienced players have. They don't know that they can grow very quickly, which drives them away from the game. Part of the problem, in my mind, is the startup aid. It's not really big enough to entice players to stay, because it doesn't get them to an "interesting" point in nation growth (for example, being able to buy improvements is an interesting point). Perhaps an increase in startup aid could be implemented, but that's a discussion for the suggestion box.

Another problem with player retention is that many people start out and think that there isn't really that much to the "nation governing" side. The government position selection is limited, and the government positions don't really affect your nation much (besides, everyone goes monarchy or capitalist for the benefits). Maybe increase the nation governing aspect, to increase interest from political buffs?

Some people have also posted an interest in re-starting Bob, or making a second Bob. Personally I think that re-starting is a good option, because it would give the community a chance to reset itself, to start over using what we have learned.

[delgursh]

I liked its size during the Great War days

[Randleman]

Larger, I want more figures in the game, but only a few major key figures to represent.

[mykep]

Needs 40,000 mmmk?

I recruited 40 people from my school. It ended in a gladiator battle for who stayed...I won.

[anenu]

i would like to see more players in the game. i think some new faces in governments along with new decently powerful alliances could help ease and eliminate some of the old pointless tensions that still exist. I do believe that we will be seeing an increase in players though since no 1 power if firmly in control we will see a more politically cutthroat time and such things attract player.

Also a reset is a bad idea as it will essentually get rid of all the effort not only individual players put into the game but multiple alliances that have struggled and are now highly ranking in score (TOP, Gremlins, MK) will be completly taken out of power and no matter how good their aid systems are they would be no match for larger membership alliances like MHA and NPO plus its not like friendships or rivalries would die off instead it would simply be a shifting of power.

[ChairmanHal]

Actually the numbers decreased after the War of the Coalition/GW V to about what they are now and then slowly recovered until they were finally over 30,000 again.

This too will pass.

This game is always better off with more players. More players means more site revenue and Admin will be more motivated to spend the time required to make improvements to the game and fix known issues (I'd say he could also look at hiring contractors to do some programming, but that would depend on the revenue stream and business plan).

This game is advertised elsewhere, but best advertisement for it is simple word of mouth. Tell your friends (I have), have them sign up from home or their own web-enabled device.

[White Chocolate]

Oh wow. Another interesting topic. Ok, this is only my opinion. I say that now because some people may not like it so at least I gave warning. I disagree with many, many of the common beliefs and ideas that I see written on the forum - remember, you (in a general way - I'm not talking to just one person) asked...

I am of the opinion that the more, the better. Thus these comments address that:

1. Do NOT assume that EVERYONE wants conflict or that everyone is in this game for the "war" aspect of it. I'm not and I recruit people making it clear that our alliance is not. Yes, some of them say "no thanks, I like war" (which is greatly appreciated) and then they don't join. But I've had a number of people join US exactly because they are NOT interested in joining some alliance and then getting attacked before they even have a chance to figure who how to play the basics - not to mention the more subtle "unwritten rules" of the politics here. It's not that I'm a "hippy" - frankly, it's that there are a LOT more games that do the war side of gaming much, much better. What I like about CN is the diplomatic aspects and the primary reason I'd keep war as an option (even if it were not forced) is that what fun is testing one's diplomatic abilities if there isn't some sort of risk involved?

2. Their are way too many "unwritten rules" and not enough explanations (at least all in one spot) to explain them to new people. Thus a new person comes on, does something against the norm - like attacks someone in an alliance BECAUSE they assume this is a "nation simulation game" (as it says it is) and they are doing what they think that means and - thump, thump, thump...they are "taught a lesson" and never return. Basically - let new people be new people. Or at the very least, make it easy to find what the unwritten rules actually are. I think this would need to be updated now and then as they change.

3. There should be some kind of "peace mode" that doesn't kill a nation for being in it. I realize that there are real concerns that this could be misused as a war tactic. So find some creative way to make it not worth it as a war tactic but livable if the person doing it really wants to just be left alone to grow. I'm sure something can be figured out here as there are a lot of experienced players who are also creative enough to find some way. This would help everyone assuming that the rest of us can still trade with the people in peace mode. After sitting through my second large war, it's clear that war and trades being dropped (as people leave due to the war) go hand in hand.

4. The "treaty web" is insane!!! My alliance has only three treaties where we have war as an option and their all "optional" (which I think is way under used and not given enough credit by the vast majority of alliances out there) and I'm very proud of that fact! If you all want some "fun" in war, than allow for a system where who will win and who will lose can not be figured out just by adding up a bunch of numbers. For that matter, who decided that we are required to post treaties in the first place? If that were not required, I bet the alliance wars would be a lot more interesting! I might consider not being so "hippy like" - if that were the case

Perhaps people who don't like the current system should drop most of their treaties and start over.

Also, one does not have to use the same treaties that everyone else does. Just because most say you can drop them after three days doesn't mean that all MUST say that (ours do not). If that's what the group actually wants - good! However if not, then why is it being done that way? A treaty should be unique to the groups involved in my opinion. I think too many people are lazy about their treaty writing (and some end up paying for that mistake in the end).

5. EZI has got to go. Ok, so I don't know all the history but from the little I do know, it sounds like at least some of those who are no longer around because of EZI or can't say they are because of PZI - if nothing else, helped add excitement to CN. Careful what you wish for when you successfully get rid of your enemies...

6. Just because something got tried before and didn't work, doesn't equal that it will NEVER work. I think new people with ideas who post them and it has "been tried before" get knocked down (verbally) too quick. Just because it didn't work then doesn't mean that it will not work now. Things change and society progresses.

Thanks for listening

[Neo Uruk]

3. There should be some kind of "peace mode" that doesn't kill a nation for being in it. I realize that there are real concerns that this could be misused as a war tactic. So find some creative way to make it not worth it as a war tactic but livable if the person doing it really wants to just be left alone to grow. I'm sure something can be figured out here as there are a lot of experienced players who are also creative enough to find some way. This would help everyone assuming that the rest of us can still trade with the people in peace mode. After sitting through my second large war, it's clear that war and trades being dropped (as people leave due to the war) go hand in hand.

You can't peace mode through everything without consequence. It doesn't work that way, anywhere. Look at animals who try to be peaceful, they're at constant risk from humans because they rarely retaliate to violence.

5. EZI has got to go.

I think that's already been ended with this war.

[King DrunkWino]

I think that's already been ended with this war.

EZI has become an unpopular thing, however it's probably not a dead practice yet.

[White Chocolate]

EZI has become an unpopular thing, however it's probably not a dead practice yet.

Thank you. I realize that it is unpopular at this point. But there are alliances in our "might makes right" world who still practice it and can because they are powerful enough to do so...

I don't remember seeing anyone who was under EZI coming back without getting "permission" from the alliance that could otherwise stop him or her yet or at the very least - protection from an alliance big enough to make it not worth it.

Edited June 24, 2009 by White Chocolate

[White Chocolate]

You can't peace mode through everything without consequence. It doesn't work that way, anywhere. Look at animals who try to be peaceful, they're at constant risk from humans because they rarely retaliate to violence.

This is Planet Bob, not old earth.

[Lycurgus Rex]

More players are needed. I remember when Fark invaded, was great fun looking at their increasing numbers every few hours.

[Epiphanus]

I think recruiting from other MMO's would be a good idea.

[SunnyInc]

45k would be a great number.

Too bad, we could be there but we let the poison stay on top and run the game.

Bringing us to 27k.

Actually, we were closing in on 31,000 just before the Karma War so I'm afraid your little cheap shot doesn't pack much of a punch. I mentioned earlier that we could increase new player retention rates by getting new players involved in the community and educating them about game mechanics and Pacifica has done quite alot on this front. When they held the number one spot, they would process hordes of applicants, teach them how to play the game and give them a small taste of global politics. Every applicant would be thoroughly interviewed, every academy member had access to some of the best guides available and a mentor to assist him with his studies or answer any other questions he might have.

Not to mention the fact that the academy is probably the most user friendly, comprehensive and successful on Planet Bob. The sheer numbers of new players the Pacifican academy and applications staff had to deal with coupled with the amount of time, effort and attention invested in each applicant presented a logisitcal operation, that was greater in scale, than of any its kind; probably in the history of Cybernations. There are no hard stats to support this but personal experience tells me that the Pacifican academy has nurtured more new nations into active and educated players than any other alliance. Some have moved onto other alliances, like me, and some have stayed with Pacifica and contributed to the Pacifican experience that is so engaging for new players.

Now, I usually sit on the fence when it comes to Pacifica but I pay credit when credit is due. I know Pacifica might have scared away a few nations during a few stompings but large chunk of these nations left because they could not accept that losing was part of the game somtimes. That being said, it was poor form chasing away nations through the practices of EZI, PZI and eternal wars but in some cases, I can definately see how Pacifica had no other option. I also understand that other alliances have done their bit to help new players sink their teeth into the meat of the CN RP experience but nobody can pretend they have achieved this on the same scale as Pafica.

[anenu]

This is Planet Bob, not old earth.

But Bob was created to have some realism and be based off of earth. Also players that don't want war can join a smaller alliance with few/no treaties.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

Just need to recruit more out of game.

[Azaghul]

Major wars make the game more fun for active players and make them stay while at the same time getting rid of relatively inactive players who do little more than collect taxes and buy infra because they get destroyed in wars.

[Tritonia]

You can't peace mode through everything without consequence.

Peace mode is probably the single most debilitating condition in this entire game. I understand why the penalties are there, for balance reasons, but it's rather harsh even for the minimum duration.

Look at animals who try to be peaceful, they're at constant risk from humans because they rarely retaliate to violence.

I think I've done fine over the course of the past year, but not everyone is willing to play the game like I do.

[wintermoon]

Also players that don't want war can join a smaller alliance with few/no treaties.

That doesn't stop the wars, it just makes you an easier target.

[Alterego]

The myth that NPO were driving people away has been busted.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Alterego