CN Player Numbers

[New Frontier]

I'll have to disagree with you there. The vast majority of people who play CN are not politically active, and a great many really couldn't give a flying frack who's in power. To assume that swapping out NPO for some of the sub-factions within Karma will magically change that fact seems to be a heavy dose of wishful thinking.

While some dead alliances will (and have) come back, the bulk of membership tends to be derived from people who still played even after the initial fall of those groups.

You've summed up my thoughts rather well.

People like to blame NPO for everything, but I really doubt they're the reason that "newyorkyankees69" would leave the game.

[Starcraftmazter]

I'll have to disagree with you there. The vast majority of people who play CN are not politically active, and a great many really couldn't give a flying frack who's in power. To assume that swapping out NPO for some of the sub-factions within Karma will magically change that fact seems to be a heavy dose of wishful thinking.

While some dead alliances will (and have) come back, the bulk of membership tends to be derived from people who still played even after the initial fall of those groups.

While this is true for some people, I know for a fact that countless people quit from countless alliances, simply because their community was driven from the game, and they no longer felt as though they belong in it. These people may very well come back, as these communities are being re-created.

[James Wilson]

I would say 60,000 would be a good number. Can really boost alliance numbers, more active posters on the boards, more drama. I think it would be awesome. Maybe to entice newer members, holy admin could make it easier for smaller nations to grow bigger?

[KingEsus]

Not too fussed about numbers. Seems inevitable giving the age of the game and new games coming up all the time.

But some new faces would be good. After 3 years there are some pretty nasty ingrained rivalry's and barely IC hatreds. This won't dissipate, i've played other games for this long and it may only get worse.

[KeyStroke]

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

As do I.

The Treaty web needs to be simple (again). People need to be afraid (very afraid) of starting their own alliance (to keep the number of alliances down).

[Grumpdogg]

Somewhere between C and D would be good. I would love to see another invasion alliance or five jump in and shake things up.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[Doc Taco]

Anybody thought of trying to do a co-ordinated Digg up?

[Prime minister Johns]

One really big change needs to be made in the community that would improve player retention and recruiting new players into CN.

Eliminate the idea of EZI, this drives players out of the game by its very idea. For most purposes I think that sentencing someone to a certain number of war cycles depending on the severity of their "crime" would be appropriate. For instance a nuke rouge could be sentenced to 20 cycles of war and not buy any new nukes for a certain period under threat of a new cycle of wars.

[Freelancer]

As do I.

The Treaty web needs to be simple (again). People need to be afraid (very afraid) of starting their own alliance (to keep the number of alliances down).

Let me guess, you got this from prayer, or better yet an overwhelming voice in the back of your mind, you know the ones I speak of,

So what God is it you boys over at CCC worship, Jesus or Allah ?

[Deadshot]

I agree that EZI needs to end, but I would also suggest that another thing to keep players onboard is to tone down the hatred whenever new people start alliances. Everyone plays this game the way they want to play it, so naturally a lot want to create their own alliance. As soon as the DoE goes up, in most cases incessant thrashing begins. I know if I started to play a game and saw that many of the older members were being completely !@#$% like to a new member, I would want to leave. Some like to get into it quickly, others like many of us are a little more reserved at first.

Not saying we all need to hold hands and sing songs, but maybe embrace new players, take them under our wing and help them instead of instantly trolling them right out of the game. Now, I haven't been here since the start, but from what I have read, Gramlins was started as a small invite only alliance who obviously grew like mad. Now, all new alliances won't be that way, but maybe, just maybe some will. There is a reason most people don't come here to post and get into politics. It's because of all of us using anonymity to wave epeens at those that are "newbs".

I really feel that when a new guy starts an alliance with friends, if we just congratulate them and possibly *gasp* help them instead of talk down to them constantly, maybe more would stay. If every single thread didn't revolve around who can hurl the most insults, more would get active.

[Matthew Conrad]

Somewhere between C and D would be good. I would love to see another invasion alliance or five jump in and shake things up.

The only problem with that is that they'd start out with numerous small nations and unable to really influence the political climate just because their military capabilities would be so low. The best case scenario in the event of an off site board invasion would be it's dissipation among existing alliances to boost their supply of fresh blood and minds. However, protectorates would go a long way if they still chose to form their own alliances.