Londo Mollari Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 No reset is needed. If the game becomes stagnant in this iteration under these rules then it would become stagnant in all iterations. What is needed to keep the game fresh and the world alive is rules changes that keep the game fun for everyone and break deadlocks. If you reset the game with this rules set, nothing will change, and eventually people will be clamoring for another reset. The real charm of CN is that it lasts. I think that there needs to be more of an incentive to war, for one thing. Right now CN favors people who dodge truly damaging wars and import tech with high slot efficiency. Thus, we have arrived at a state where conservative alliances are strongest by far, and anyone who wishes to rise to power must be similarly conservative. It might be ok if that were one path to power, but the warrior's path should be encouraged and strengthened by game rules changes, to promote wars, break deadlock, and ensure that people will not remain on top of the game simply because they have dodged any and all damaging wars, and know enough to keep their aid slots full of tech deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'd also like to mention that although I would support a simple reset with nothing else to go with it, just for the game's sake. I'd much, much prefer a reset that came with a serious update to the game, that wouldn't be possible without one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Beck Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 No reset is needed. If the game becomes stagnant in this iteration under these rules then it would become stagnant in all iterations. What is needed to keep the game fresh and the world alive is rules changes that keep the game fun for everyone and break deadlocks. If you reset the game with this rules set, nothing will change, and eventually people will be clamoring for another reset. The real charm of CN is that it lasts.I think that there needs to be more of an incentive to war, for one thing. Right now CN favors people who dodge truly damaging wars and import tech with high slot efficiency. Thus, we have arrived at a state where conservative alliances are strongest by far, and anyone who wishes to rise to power must be similarly conservative. It might be ok if that were one path to power, but the warrior's path should be encouraged and strengthened by game rules changes, to promote wars, break deadlock, and ensure that people will not remain on top of the game simply because they have dodged any and all damaging wars, and know enough to keep their aid slots full of tech deals. In a way, what you're saying gives me the idea, that wars should be very profitable, especially if you are a small nation attacking a bigger one. If there needs to be a realistic explanation to this, you could base it on how economies always improve as war unites the people of a nation and productivity rises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobarrik Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I wouldn't mind a reset per-say, but I don't see the point. Even after a reset, those involved with alliances now would still stay with their alliances, thus keeping the unbalance that some claim exists. This brings up another reason not to reset. The #1 reason that people seek a reset is "unbalance" but is this unbalance real? Just one year ago, the NPO was never going to fall from the number one spot, but look what happened there. There is absolutely no reason for a reset, but if it did happen, it wouldn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Barring a new version of the game coming out, say CN finally coming out of beta, I cannot fathom why you would want to reset it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I would enjoy a reset, I think it'd be cool though if people did not all restart the same alliances though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 One would need to integrate massive restructuring of the game mechanics to make it worthwhile. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a second server. However, it would need to be implemented carefully so that this server wouldn't die a slow death of inactivity. Perhaps mandate that one needs to have at least 100 days seniority on the original server prior to making a CN2 nation and that they have to upkeep the CN1 nation in order to keep CN2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Barring a new version of the game coming out, say CN finally coming out of beta, I cannot fathom why you would want to reset it. I agree with this man. Kind of amazing that even with so much history to it, this really is only a beta build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghuxalia Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I like my nation as it is, but I really couldn't care either way. Although what if admin created a new server of SE, but took it out of beta? On second thought, that's a bad idea, as the two games would eventually evolve into two completely different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I wouldn't mind a reset. It would make planning the war to bring down Citadel a lot easier, TOP would probably collectively shoot themselves in the face, and I could go rogue on Janova a lot more often. Win-Win-Win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I think that there needs to be more of an incentive to war, for one thing. Right now CN favors people who dodge truly damaging wars and import tech with high slot efficiency. Thus, we have arrived at a state where conservative alliances are strongest by far, and anyone who wishes to rise to power must be similarly conservative. It might be ok if that were one path to power, but the warrior's path should be encouraged and strengthened by game rules changes, to promote wars, break deadlock, and ensure that people will not remain on top of the game simply because they have dodged any and all damaging wars, and know enough to keep their aid slots full of tech deals. I'm not sure I understand what kind of a set up you desire but I think it ultimately becomes a question of just what this game is intended to be. If we wish for more then merely a political simulator but one of the real world then there should be little incentive for war, especially when major powers are concerned. At the same time the damages can be seen as rather extreme the way they are now. Losing a sewer system and roads isn’t very likely except in a total or otherwise war. Also infrastructure isn’t the sole factor of how many people are in a nation. It would make sense for conservative alliances to be the strongest from a stand point of realism due to a lack of resources spent fighting. If however the desire is to favor war then that’s an entirely different turn for the game. I’m not sure I’d wish to play a game where the way to advance through the ranks or simply improve my nation requires it lest I be targeted instead. It would allow for a change of the present norm but this on its own would be monotonous as well with little depth. Right now the rules and game structure appear almost to contradict one another. The damages received in war are rather extreme but then wars are encouraged by the NWM wonder and penalties for being in peace mode. I suppose however admin just wants war to be an option rather then either of the two other extremes. I think a more balanced view towards war with a change in the way attacks are conducted would result in less hesitation opening it as a viable option where there may be the possibility of it both being profitable or disastrous in consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Nah, this is what global thermonuclear wars are for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicman657 Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 It'd be interesting if we had a longer version of CN: TE, perhaps like a year long to satisfy these urges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestro Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I wouldn't want one. I've been building up my nation for almost three years and I don't want to see all that work down of course. Why a reset anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Nah, I don't want a reset. I do like the idea of a second server though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 So...not getting destroyed in wars and utilizing your aid slots to maximum effect is how you get ahead? The Department of Obviousness would like a word with you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learz Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I've heard it often said, "The only reason that I play this game anymore is for this community. I love alliance X!"If that's the case, why get upset about a reset? Personally, I'm for it. I can get my 7k tech back, and the chance of having a level playing field again (if only for a little while) is too irresistible to me. Yes and no. My nation has been through more then 99% of all other nations, so it's kinda a, I dunno, heritage thing. Plus I'm a little over a week away from getting nukes. But... no, not really. I wouldn't mind. A slight heads-up would be nice, so I can at least fire a nuke off, but well... Overall, I wouldn't care either way, TBH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Yes I would mind, I've played for nearly three years with this nation and been Zi'd twice with it. I've built it up and over various wars, and I could care less about some joe-schmo new to the game having a chance to keep up with me in a war of wonders and warchests. I've paid my dues...and I like to view the fruits of those labors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Yes I would mind, I've played for nearly three years with this nation and been Zi'd twice with it. I've built it up and over various wars, and I could care less about some joe-schmo new to the game having a chance to keep up with me in a war of wonders and warchests. I've paid my dues...and I like to view the fruits of those labors. What this man said. I too have gone through a a lot with my nation. Three Great Wars, have been ZI'd 4 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 A couple people mentioned the idea of a new second server.... got me thinking... what about a Cybernations 2.0 with a new theme... like being set in the not to distant future... or even in the past like say a Mideval Cybernations, (tanks become cavalry... nukes become seige equipment... etc.... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'd just like to remind everyone that one day Bob will end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 id be down for reset. it would be interesting to see which alliances came back and which ones stayed gone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I'd love to see a reset, but the only way it would genuinely work is if a whole new game was made, and transferring alliances was banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 We need a map to work with, some actual territory; a frontier, old world, new world, undiscovered islands, etc. I'd rather that than a full reset. There's still lots of potential here if alliances could be convinced to fight over a limited amount of territory that expanded once a month.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) The big problem with a second server is that you need to get the people to play it and not kill the old game. Before i played CN their was a space based game i played that created a second game off of it that was spoused to be more advanced and it ended up killing the first game by taking to many players while also never reaching the heights the first game had gotten to because to many old players didn't like the new system. I think instead of all this talk about reseting this game or starting a second server we need to see what changes can be made to adress the problems we are facing now so that even after a reset or new server we won't have these problems in another 3 years. TL:DR I don't want 2 CN's with 10,000 players each so lets fix this one instead. Edited October 6, 2009 by anenu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.