Jump to content

Would you mind a Reset?


WalkerNinja

Recommended Posts

A reset would harm the community more then benefit it.

The only reason I was first interested enough to play CN, was due to the fact that your nation can grow for an indefinite period of time with no restraints on size. A reset completely takes that away, and I am sure a lot of players were interested for the same reasons as me.

Also, there is no reason for a reset, everything in CN eventually changes. Admin updates the game, war changes the current political powers, its all a big circle of life.

The only thing a reset could do, to benefit the community, is clearing out the sanctioned alliances who don't want to influence the political aspect of the game. They are the main cause for boredom, we have 4 main blocs and only 2 sanctioned alliances belong to any of them. I sometimes feel this game is more of a coward simulator then a political simulator, because the only way to gain power is by being a coward and leaving your allies in the dust.

A reset though, is only a temporary fix to that situation.

Edited by Jack Diorno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.... )

That game is known as Galava, and it's been shut down permanently due to lack of funds. CN wouldn't benefit from multiple servers and it would become retarded with multiple themes. If you'd like to play a resetting form of CN, play TE...it's essentially CN lite with a 2 month reset timer and watered-down politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I don't see the point of a second server. Playing the same game twice doesn't make much sense to me. I prefer the idea of being able to create a puppet state.. kinda like a second nation, but with some options (wonders, nukes, whatever) disabled, as well as a cap on infra/tech/land dependent on your own nation's infra/tech/land. It also can't send or receive foreign aid to anyone except you. It would also help you fight in war.

I agree with this man.

Kind of amazing that even with so much history to it, this really is only a beta build.

I thought it had already been established that CN was never getting out of beta?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a reset would make some things interesting in the game. You'd be destroying a lot of the political history of alliances, and destroying why alliances think and act certain ways. I doubt I would create another nation, but I'd hang around on TOP forums if everyone came back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. On the one hand, I can finally catch up with guys who've been playing longer than I ever knew about this game. On the other, I lose my native lead resource. I'm not gonna give up lead just so we can ZI, ZW, ZN, Z-improvement, Z-everything else everyone; it's just not worth it to me.

Even if you do reset, if you don't change how the game runs you'll end up with much of the same thing, unless you consider some folks growing faster as a result of knowing the tricks a good thing. And who keeps thinking that you can put restrictions on AA? How well CAN that work, seriously? I don't exactly see a scenario where that mandate can stick.

There's also some feeling of accomplishment as you make your way through things. Granted, at the top it gets difficult to get those (not that I'd recognise the top if I saw it at this point), but then you're probably going to be drawn into other intrigues and trades and so on. (Hm, wonder if alliances should actually start doing deals for members. Gotta stop looking at that fantasy draft thread.)

I'd probably stick around if there was a reset, but I can see a lot of folks bailing on it if it wipes out what they see as their work and TIME that was put into everything. There's folks who dislike it when we try to get GRL into sanction range; think of the effect when it gets wiped. And then how do we tell when to do it again? Three years? One year? Just after I lost a war and the winners are dashing off with their clique? I get the feeling option 3 would look impressive a bit more often than it would be for health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Cybernations IS an alliance war simulator. The fact that there are some who do not participate in this activity does not change that. Fighting experience and military wonders matter a great deal in the game now - if it was not for the de facto recognition of neutrality that GPA is accorded by the international community, it would be very easy to butcher you all and profit a great deal from it. The game structure is NOT what saves the GPA from annihilation, but rather the political structure. Because GPA does not participate in wars, you really shouldn't care how they are conducted. Personally I would be ok with a "neutrality mode" which would work like peace mode but be permanent and keep you from interacting with those not in "neutrality mode" in any way, if ya'll want to play the game but don't want to fight wars. But for those of us who fight, cowardice should be punished and bravery should be rewarded, to make for a better game. I think I will make a suggestion to this effect sometime soon as well.

A reset would harm the community more then benefit it.

The only reason I was first interested enough to play CN, was due to the fact that your nation can grow for an indefinite period of time with no restraints on size. A reset completely takes that away, and I am sure a lot of players were interested for the same reasons as me.

Also, there is no reason for a reset, everything in CN eventually changes. Admin updates the game, war changes the current political powers, its all a big circle of life.

The only thing a reset could do, to benefit the community, is clearing out the sanctioned alliances who don't want to influence the political aspect of the game. They are the main cause for boredom, we have 4 main blocs and only 2 sanctioned alliances belong to any of them. I sometimes feel this game is more of a coward simulator then a political simulator, because the only way to gain power is by being a coward and leaving your allies in the dust.

A reset though, is only a temporary fix to that situation.

Well... we've never left our allies in the dust and we're not doing too bad. :awesome: But yes the game structure is set up to encourage cowardice, the only counterbalance to this that exists now is the metagame or political structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, a reset seems like a bad idea.

People are paying money to the game to increase their infra, tech, land and money.

I assume these all get put into a database so maybe all of those donations should re-apply to the nations that spent their money on them.

ahhhh shi-

I don't think anyone has ever thought of that.

Points for logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably rejoin out of habit.

that said, admin really needs to do something with the game. It's getting boring in the upper ranks, and I'm not even in the top bracket.

I'm telling ya, having continents is where its at! Have one for every color right now with a finite amount of territory according to the number of nations on that color, than every few months or so add a new continent with a set number of nation slots.

RP will be improved, more folks will come to the game, old histories will be preserved and new histories will be written, folks who have donated will be happy and those craving a refresh will be content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cybernations IS an alliance war simulator. The fact that there are some who do not participate in this activity does not change that.

I'm not convinced Cyber Nations is an alliance war simulator. Would you be willing to explain why you feel it to be one?

Fighting experience and military wonders matter a great deal in the game now - if it was not for the de facto recognition of neutrality that GPA is accorded by the international community, it would be very easy to butcher you all and profit a great deal from it. The game structure is NOT what saves the GPA from annihilation, but rather the political structure.

Please point out specifically what the connection with your quoted response and my post is. I believe you've read my posts in a way which I had not intended and wish to make clarifications where ever necessary.

Because GPA does not participate in wars, you really shouldn't care how they are conducted.

The GPA may not fight alliance wars but it does experience wars merely not ones to the scale of others. With the details of how Bob operates as you illustrated so clearly it certainly would be in my and my alliance's best interests to stay on top of discussions and changes regarding the war system regardless of what our perspective on its use is.

Personally I would be ok with a "neutrality mode" which would work like peace mode but be permanent and keep you from interacting with those not in "neutrality mode" in any way, if ya'll want to play the game but don't want to fight wars.

I believe you are misinterpreting a desire for war not to be the only focus or method of advancement for a desire of it never to occur. No where had I suggested war should not be possible or I desire to be impervious to such.

But for those of us who fight, cowardice should be punished and bravery should be rewarded, to make for a better game.

That already is possible and to some degree already occurs in the weight of word and support those which are deemed cowards by the community as a whole possess is significantly reduced. I don't really see why something being introduced as a game mechanic is at all required for a better game. Quite the contrary, I see the intrigue of uncertainty as being a boost to it as concerned parties will make ever more effort to solidify their positions.

I think I will make a suggestion to this effect sometime soon as well.

Have you any suggestions on how to keep it from being equally as monotonous and unengaging as things presently are? I would be interested in reading them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced Cyber Nations is an alliance war simulator. Would you be willing to explain why you feel it to be one?

Cybernations is a war simulator because i can point you in the direction of a dozen more detailed building games on Facebook. The only reason the politics exist is because people want to make friends out of other alliances and have more people to protect them in time of war. The only reason infra exist is to grow population to get more soldier or collect more taxes to buy more infra to get more soldiers. Basically every single thing in this game comes down to war and either building your nation for war or making it get more money for war anyway you look at it the end result of everything here is PvP war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end product of the game is war. Everything you do is to increase your strength.

What do you mean when you say the end product of the game is war and in what way is it? Also, what connection do you place on those two separate sentences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody and their grandma now know the 'optimal' way to grow their nations, so it wouldn't be nearly as fun. Everything is already implemented that has been added over the years, alliances and their communities have been around for years, and old grudges/friendships would remain.

It'd basically just be what we have now but on a much smaller scale strength wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. On the one hand, I can finally catch up with guys who've been playing longer than I ever knew about this game. On the other, I lose my native lead resource.

Let me get this straight. The reason you don't want a reset is so that you don't lose your Silver and Lead? :blink:

I'm telling ya, having continents is where its at! Have one for every color right now with a finite amount of territory according to the number of nations on that color, than every few months or so add a new continent with a set number of nation slots.

RP will be improved, more folks will come to the game, old histories will be preserved and new histories will be written, folks who have donated will be happy and those craving a refresh will be content.

Sounds good, formulate it into a suggestion and see where it goes. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, a reset seems like a bad idea.

People are paying money to the game to increase their infra, tech, land and money.

No, that is not what they are doing.

Anyway, something should be done to combat inflation. Nuclear holocausts take too long to set up and carry out, and now certain alliances that avoided a few are so far ahead that they're prettymuch statistically untouchable precluding a major political shift. I prefer to favour player intervention, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cybernations is a war simulator because i can point you in the direction of a dozen more detailed building games on Facebook.

If we are using comparisons to other games as a basis for saying a game must be something else I would point you to a dozen others which are easily accessible on mpogd with a more detailed war game or with benefits to it at the least. Such comparisons by themselves do not stand however as games within a genre may lack in places.

My question however was in reference to alliance wars specifically, not wars in general. It's an important distinction to make.

The only reason the politics exist is because people want to make friends out of other alliances and have more people to protect them in time of war. The only reason infra exist is to grow population to get more soldier or collect more taxes to buy more infra to get more soldiers. Basically every single thing in this game comes down to war and either building your nation for war or making it get more money for war anyway you look at it the end result of everything here is PvP war.

You're presupposing a purpose to acquiring money and everything else though and if that's the desire of the nation leader then you would be right. They are playing the game as a war simulator -- though ironically not usually using war to acquire said materials. How would you account for those that manage fine without war though if this were indeed a war simulator? Certainly it has potential for more then simply one thing.

Edit to add for I see no replies after this at time of edit and don't wish to double post

This all is missing the point anyway for we are discussing what the game presently is. My post instead was rather speaking of what the game is desired to be as the more important.

Edited by Hyperbad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end product of the game is war. Everything you do is to increase your strength.

Oh come on, I have nearly as many casualties as MOTU. A lot of nations are more active in wars than he is, and yet he's #1 in NS.

There are lots of people who play this game simply to boost their stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would support a 2nd server more so then a reset. If a reset were to happen the same alliances would most likely emerge after a few weeks/months and we would probably also see more new alliances forming then we already see happening right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...