Would you mind a Reset?

[Azrael Alexander]

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.

MOTU can roll with the best of them, he missed the start of the Karma due to being on holiday. Otherwise he would have considerably higher casualties.

[Timeline]

I know people who donate will not be happy at this, I understand the word donate, I also know this in no way give you any different treatment from those who do not donate, but the only reason people donate is for the in game bonus, most will see a reset as money wasted.

Also by resetting the game, you could in fact kill the game off, as some people will see the last four years of nation growth as a total waste and there for will give up.

[Bob Janova]

MOTU can roll with the best of them, he missed the start of the Karma due to being on holiday. Otherwise he would have considerably higher casualties.

Indeed, and he was quite annoyed about it too.

I used to think a reset would be necessary, but the destruction wrought in the Karma war showed me that actually we can 'reset' by in game actions pretty effectively with the tech damage bonus. (The NS for the 5% level came down by over 20%, for example.) A reset would cause major damage to the political systems, which are what actually make the game, and lose a lot of players. For the people who want a level playing field, there's now TE.

We do need some changes to the way the improvement and wonder system work, though – things do become a bit boring when you max out both. And probably tech, too, as that really is a part of the game that you can never catch up with people who started importing it before you (the 'decaying tech' idea would work well there).

[Timeline]

The only alliance that will be hard to drop in NS would be Grämlins, they have way to many sexy nations.

[Duncan King]

Yeah, I'd mind one. My nation and I have too much history together and I finally have it running well again. If it reset, I'd probably quit. RL issues are starting to creep up on me and I don't think I'd be able to justify putting another three years into growing a nation.

And really, I've had to "reset" my nation three times due to serious military damage, going through two ZIs early on and losing 45000 NS during the last war. I'm still not at where I was before.

The alliances on the losing side of the last war have also had to "reset," as they have to rebuild after being mowed down.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Duncan King

[The AUT]

Indeed, and he was quite annoyed about it too.

I used to think a reset would be necessary, but the destruction wrought in the Karma war showed me that actually we can 'reset' by in game actions pretty effectively with the tech damage bonus. (The NS for the 5% level came down by over 20%, for example.) A reset would cause major damage to the political systems, which are what actually make the game, and lose a lot of players. For the people who want a level playing field, there's now TE.

We do need some changes to the way the improvement and wonder system work, though – things do become a bit boring when you max out both. And probably tech, too, as that really is a part of the game that you can never catch up with people who started importing it before you (the 'decaying tech' idea would work well there).

People are now screaming, "No, admin, don't betray the Beta!"

[Hegemon Rob]

I think the citadel's dominance is unlike that of any other before.

It presents a challenge, and I think it be fun to see it play out.

[thaone]

I think the citadel's dominance is unlike that of any other before.

Yeah Q didn't dominate the game at all, nobody ever thought it would be impossible to bring down.

[zzzptm]

I actually play the game because I have a great trade circle. That's WAY more important than community. No reset.

PLEASE ADMIN DON'T BETRAY GRäMLINS!

[Haflinger]

MOTU can roll with the best of them, he missed the start of the Karma due to being on holiday. Otherwise he would have considerably higher casualties.

And he wouldn't be #1, most certainly.

To note: I wasn't questioning his motivations, but rather his actions. A quick glance at the top 10 will reveal some nations with no real interest in fighting at all. That's not how you get to be on top.

[Willem]

no reset please, I like my nation and would be very annoyed to see the 800 days disapear

[Litha Riddle]

Yes I would mind a reset, I've had my nation too long to want to see it deleted and restarted just because some people are bored.

Not to mention it'll make the reps near impossible to pay in time if it happened. So no reset is good.

[Seerow]

I think admin needs to implement more ways for nations to get tech beyond 6 tech deals every cycle.

He already did that. It's called buying it yourself.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Seerow

[Sequoia Throne]

In terms of my nation, I wouldn't mind a reset if we got to keep our wonders (although I'm biased because I lost all of my tech and most of my infra in the war). But in terms of CN as a whole, one of the reasons I really love CN is the richness of its history and that people have to deal with the consequences of their past actions (and trust me, no other alliance has as much to deal with there as Pacifica).

I think two alternatives are better:

1. Start up another SE game, separate to this one and running at the same time. I'm not familiar with what this would do to bandwidth and that stuff, but it would be cool.

2. Add aid slots, make infra more expensive, and make some structural changes to make sure that smaller nations have an easier time catching up to the largest nations.

[jer]

To note: I wasn't questioning his motivations, but rather his actions. A quick glance at the top 10 will reveal some nations with no real interest in fighting at all. That's not how you get to be on top.

Your definition of on top appears to be 'having the highest NS', which is fine, but I think you'd find it less frustrating if you changed that definition to mean 'having the highest casualties'. I know that going on about how you want zomg more casualties!!!! is a little clichéd and can be seen as a desperate grab at being the best at something for those who have been destroyed in war and don't have any hope of reaching the traditional #1 in NS spot, but I reckon that by valuing casualties more than NS you will have a more fulfilling and most importantly fun experience.

[Il Principe]

Yeah Q didn't dominate the game at all, nobody ever thought it would be impossible to bring down.

But Q had a lot more members and could not be brought down without dissent from inside.

I think Hegemon Bob means Citadel is a real challenge because it is beatable where Q was not.

[D34th]

As I said before what CN needs is a limited resource to fight for. In RL wars and political tension occur because resources are limited(Land, Oil, Water, etc.) in CN everything is unlimitied what is one of thing that create this boredom state.

[Haflinger]

Your definition of on top appears to be 'having the highest NS', which is fine, but I think you'd find it less frustrating if you changed that definition to mean 'having the highest casualties'. I know that going on about how you want zomg more casualties!!!! is a little clichéd and can be seen as a desperate grab at being the best at something for those who have been destroyed in war and don't have any hope of reaching the traditional #1 in NS spot, but I reckon that by valuing casualties more than NS you will have a more fulfilling and most importantly fun experience.

Well, I was discussing nations who have the highest NS in my previous comment.

If you want to discuss my ingame goals, I refer you to my blog on the subject.

[willirica]

I can understand that you want to look all cool and stuff because you don't care about your pixels (btw I think you should re-roll right now to prove to everyone just how carefree you are. No? Okay then) but it's pretty natural for the casual player to be annoyed when any time (and in some cases money) that they've invested into something is lost completely because a few people on OWF - which itself is a very small and unrepresentative sample of players - are bored with the state of politics. The simple idea that a nation is just a bunch of pixels on a screen (or more correctly, 1s and 0s) doesn't change the fact that people have invested into it and could conceivably become disillusioned when it completely vanishes for the sake your 'obvious benefits'... whatever they are.

Why on earth would i do that? It would provide no increase in fun for me or anyone else unless everyone was reset. This is a political simulator no? A reset would detach people's silly love for their infra, and give a large increase in risk taking and war. Just look a how many wars their were in '06 compared with '07, '08, and '09. The larger people's nations get the less willing they are to risk them.

Donation deals aren't investments into your nations, they are donations to the admin. Its rediculous to put up a hissy fit over that.

Remember what is the point of this game; to have fun no? I think we can all agree that a good war is far more interesting that collecting taxes; paying bills; and buying infra.

[Penkala]

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

Pretty sure it's called 'beta' to give Admin more wiggle room in any liability cases. Read the ToS he mentions that basically it's only a beta so stuff can go wrong.

[jer]

Why on earth would i do that? It would provide no increase in fun for me or anyone else unless everyone was reset. This is a political simulator no? A reset would detach people's silly love for their infra, and give a large increase in risk taking and war. Just look a how many wars their were in '06 compared with '07, '08, and '09. The larger people's nations get the less willing they are to risk them.

Well you seem pretty desperate for war, so I can see an obvious increase in fun for you in that you get an increase of targets for tech raids and an increase in rogues to deal with in your range (since most rogue attacks on alliances are in the low ranges).

As for the rest of the paragraph, it is rather contradictory and your logic can easily be used against you. You say it is a political simulator and then go on to disregard the politics of alliances not risking their biggest nations (and therefore their power-base) unnecessarily, in favour of your own simplistic idea that we should be fighting all the time regardless of the circumstances. You can't say that this is a political simulator and then immediately go on to proclaim that we should actually just do away with politics and instead should be acting in a way befitting of a war game, because that doesn't make sense.

Donation deals aren't investments into your nations, they are donations to the admin. Its rediculous to put up a hissy fit over that.

I'd wager that most people who put in donations do it to advance their own nations, the fact that the money goes to admin who can then improve the game is really just a pleasant side-effect. If we saw the bonuses removed do you think people would continue to donate at the rate they do, just to help admin? I doubt it.

Remember what is the point of this game; to have fun no? I think we can all agree that a good war is far more interesting that collecting taxes; paying bills; and buying infra.

Short-term thrills are what TE is for. As you say yourself, SE is a political simulator. Politics doesn't mean wars every month (or regular resets) just to satisfy impatient people like you, it means growth, strategy and planning.

[willirica]

You have to remember this is a game; people arent looking for a realistic slow moving community, they want to be entertained.

People may donate because of the benefits to their nation but that doesnt change the fact that it is still a DONATION.

Im not looking for short term thrills or the lameness that TE has become. Im saying the periods before, after and during wars are far and away he most entertaining part of CN, this cannot be denied. Constant war is completely different than constant posturing and maneuvering. Right now things move at a molasses pace because people are afraid to take risks.

[Viluin]

Pretty sure it's called 'beta' to give Admin more wiggle room in any liability cases. Read the ToS he mentions that basically it's only a beta so stuff can go wrong.

I think admin himself said the game would never leave beta status.. or maybe it was just a random poster, I'm not sure. A 3 year beta is suggestive, though.

[Bob Janova]

I still think it's funny that mere months after the greatest war in CN, and a complete overturning of the whole system, people are claiming it's boring and there aren't enough wars. Wars get boring too; I've played too many CN-like games that degenerate into continual raiding and a total lack of politics (as TE tends to towards the end of a round), and while there's a place for that type of game, CN:SE isn't it.

in CN everything is unlimitied what is one of thing that create this boredom state.

The most important thing, power, is limited. An alliance's power is a relative measure against the others, and absolute NS loses power over time. The fact that there aren't external resources to compete for perhaps make wars less likely, but it could just as easily end up with the dominant faction dominating the resources as well, making them even harder to beat.

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

I am mildly confused by some of the arguments put forward in this discussion. I have had the experience of other nation building games. I was with Galava and donated to its building from near the outset to its end of Beta testing. What funds I provided in donation could carry forward but I did not continue as the game was simply not enjoyable. It became a war game and yet I was able to progress in Peace mode after my small Guild fell apart and we became prey for the large guilds. Why do I raise this? One of the arguments here seems to be that this is a WAR game. Well dandy I have decades of experience with WAR games. They normally are finite in length and specific in victory conditions. I have lots of options as to where I place my time and energies. On Sunday afternoons I take the time to enjoy a war game with friends at our club and then they are done. I have even devoted months to Games such as Empires and Arms but even that war game uses war to accomplish political goals. I enjoy Rome Total War where you can fight to your hearts content but for a purpose. War for wars sake is useless and will destroy your chance to win.

I was drawn to Digiterra for many reasons.

A. It had a history and would continue to have one. No predetermined end point.

B. Role Play reading the OWF and the various alliance forums provides an opportunity to enjoy the rich assortment of constructs of some unique and in some cases scary minds. One need not be the prime mover in the universe to appreciate and enjoy the interplay of the characters and alliances that populate Digiterra

C. Build, break or aloof. It has been said by some that the game encourages cowardice. How? If some one chooses to stay out of wars and becomes a large alliance so what? If they are not going to war who cares how big they are? If my first home GPA or TDO or WTF or any other alliance wishes to be neutral and aloof so what? They do not wish to play the game you wish so what? If on the other hand my pixels mean nothing and I wish just to attack people I am free to do so. That is what tech raiders do. Why do we feel everyone must play the same game style. It is this variety that makes Digiterra a far, far more enjoyable place than 99% of other options.

D. Small or large there is a limit to who can attack you. Unlike other realms Digiterra has given an integrity to the war system that allows small nations the same opportunity for fun as large nations. Many seem to forget with size of nation or alliance comes, responsibility. As a small starting nation I have absolute liberty to be a monstrous pain in the OWF with minimal repercussions. ZI me I rebuild rapidly and cheaply. As large nations and alliances greater responsibility leads to a curbing of natural tendencies.

E. The oddest argument of all seems to focus on the illogical conclusion that one alliance or nation can WIN. I like the fact the Digiterra allows for each nation or alliance to set its own goals and its own belief in what is a win or loss for them. For GOONS and \M/ the simple act or requiring all the alliances that were needed to pound them down was probably a LOLZ WIN for them. The PAX NPO and the organization they put together was probably a WIN for them. GPA sticking to its principles of peaceful stature despite a terrible beating and coming back to sanction was probably a WIN for them. Each alliance enjoying the company of the people and friends within that alliance is probably a WIN for them. I have found the company of those who share my interest in RP and a set of principles I endorse to be a WIN for me.

Lastly I have donated regularly. I have chosen to do so because I can afford to do so. Many of my donations did not benefit my nation or even alliance in any way shape or form. Why did I do so? Because if no one did Digiterra would not exist. The admin and mods sacred be their works need to have some compensation for the amazing hours they put in and the costs they incur. I do not drink and I do not smoke so I can afford one good addiction. I am fortunate I can afford to support the continuation of Digiterra many of my friends who have nations cannot afford this so I am happy to help ensure we all can continue to enjoy our game involvement. I am no martyr and certainly have used donations to better my own nation and alliance and will continue to do so. If we were to reset, I would, if I felt we reset for a good reason continue to do so. However not all have been as lucky as I and so a reset would have a detrimental effect on those who have worked hard to earn the money they have committed, a reset would not enhance their enjoyment nor improve the efforts of their hard work. The history would cease and that would in my opinion be the true loss. Once Digiterra fades into the night I shall be sorry to see her go , I shall revel in what has been and move on. To push for that is not however in my list of most desired choices.

Digiterra is what one makes of it. A good friend of mine who happens to have a nation on Digiterra has a piece of wisdom that he passes on to us each Sunday when we play, that I offer to all of you.

" We are all here to have a good time whether you like it or not. "

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Edited October 6, 2009 by Hime Themis