Would you mind a Reset?

[anenu]

why do people think the wars are interesting? They are generally already decided within a matter of days and after that it only putting pressure on the loser or attempting to hold out for better terms. It the political buildup behind the scenes that is interesting, attempting to anticipate each move who will fall on what side and all that. Right now we are still in the political fallout of Karma with people waiting to see who to side with who and what sides everyone are on. The politics are just starting so settle down and start building your nation and helping your alliance out and wait for some stuff to take off before complaining about stagnation.

Edited October 6, 2009 by anenu

[Doitzel]

TE has got to be one of the worst things to ever happen to this game. All motivation to liven the scene here is drained into that cesspit of instant gratification. People go there to be jerks without consequence when they could be doing it here and making a scandal out of it. It's intolerable.

And goddamn if I'm not sick of hearing "That's what TE is for!"

Edited October 6, 2009 by Elyat

[WalkerNinja]

TE has got to be one of the worst things to ever happen to this game. All motivation to liven the scene here is drained into that cesspit of instant gratification. People go there to be jerks without consequence when they could be doing it here and making a scandal out of it. It's intolerable.

And goddamn if I'm not sick of hearing "That's what TE is for!"

Have you been reading from my sermon book?

[BamaBuc]

Silver I'm ambivalent about. Lead's the future, guys! (OK, for those who wonder if I'm doing this due to having had a steady diet of it as a child..it's just a fun thing I like to do once I found out how much the rest of the world hated lead.)

One issue with megaweapons is that they find their way down the ranks due to attrition, or at least nukes and military improvements and wonders do. It's fun to see two huge nations swinging meganukes at each other ... but when one gets bombed back down to ZI and still retains a few weapons, or when another voluntarily brings itself down in ranks, it's possible for some who are just getting the hang of the game to get blasted to bits and damping their enthusiasms. Remember, curbstomps are bad, right? Of course, whatever's added could add to your nation strength (say, a few thousand for the biggest?), but still not quite sure about how to keep it a big-nation toy.

That's if the weapons can still be used at those levels like nukes can. Personally I don't think they should.

-Bama

[Lennox]

I would love a reset.

[BamaBuc]

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.

Not really. A lot of people would take their ball and go home. I personally agree to an extent... I've ruined my pixels way too many times to care that much at this point, and I'd love to see people take more risks (though I contend that the conservative political atmosphere isn't caused by pixels but by habit). But the harsh reality of it is that the community would take a wallop. And I don't think there would be much of a war increase... It would be one enormous arms race. Rebuilding faster than the other guy would be everyone's top priority.

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 agree. But again, the harsh reality is that a lot of people would see it as money down the drain, and would quit.

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.

I agree. Not everyone does, however.

-Bama

[Doitzel]

Have you been reading from my sermon book?

No, I wrote it.

[Adrian LaCroix]

I wouldn't mind a reset except for the fact that I know a lot of people that I like would leave if one happened.

This, basically. Though I would be a tad bit annoyed at having done the work to build my nation for absolutely nothing, I haven't put enough work into it to be seriously angry.

[The General]

For the love of God please reset already so I can leave. Can't get myself to leave on my own.

[Ghuxalia]

For the love of God please reset already so I can leave. Can't get myself to leave on my own.

lol

that's a good thing that you're addicted

[Bob Janova]

Going nuke rogue on a major alliance is a good way to give yourself a 'reset' and incentive to leave

[BamaBuc]

TE has got to be one of the worst things to ever happen to this game. All motivation to liven the scene here is drained into that cesspit of instant gratification. People go there to be jerks without consequence when they could be doing it here and making a scandal out of it. It's intolerable.

And goddamn if I'm not sick of hearing "That's what TE is for!"

I don't think it has a huge effect on CN drama. The movers-and-shakers there are, almost without exception, not in that position here. It's not a situation where all of CN's leaders are getting their drama fix in TE. It's mostly just bored grunts and people who want to be in a power-broker position but can't do it here. It's mostly a niche at this point... Not since the first couple rounds has "everyone" been doing it. And for that matter, I don't remember there being a dip in drama to coincide with TE's re-launch.

-Bama

[James Wilson]

Yes, I would mind a reset because I haven't been able to launch my nukes yet!

Bob does have a point too, seeign as it seems to be the classy way to do it.

[Edmond Dantes]

I don't really want a Reset... What about those people who have the biggest nations in the game XD. They would be mega pissed I bet

Edited October 7, 2009 by Edmond Dantes

[ChairmanHal]

I don't really want a Reset... What about those people who have the biggest nations in the game XD. They would be mega pissed I bet

Probably. Righteously so.

Thing is there are still plenty of people running nations in this game that don't concern themselves so much with their rank--their concern is for the rank of their alliance. I personally have suffered well over 20 nuke hits in the service of the alliances I have been in. Others have taken even more.

Also, just to clear up a fallacy. If you look at the number of Great Wars that have occurred, you see the following:

GW I - July 15 - August 1, 2006 (17 days)*

GW II - January 9, 2007 - January 14, 2007 (5 days)*

GW III - March 19 - April 14, 2007 (26 days)*

GW IV aka The Unjust War - September 9 - 23, 2007 (14 days)*

GW V aka The War of the Coalition - August 11, 2008 - September 11, 2008 (31 days)*

GW VI aka The Karma War - April 20, 2009 - July 19, 2009 (90 days)*

* - dates are from the CN Wiki and include the effective dates of the war...yes I know some of you fought longer, some shorter

Many of those complaining about the reduction of the number of wars in CN probably started playing in mid-2006. To those players (and those who buy off on their premise), all the wars in 2007 (three GWs and several other larger conflicts) were "normal". In reality as the game has developed, 2007 is increasingly looking like an aberration. Great Wars appear now to be less frequent, are getting longer, and bloodier. You could chalk this up to improvements in weapons in the game, the large average size of nations and such, but I think what we are seeing now is that major wars are becoming annual events and what would normally be a Great War and several significant wars spread out over the year are now being fought simultaneously. This was particularly true of GW V.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see if this pattern continues to hold over the course of the next few years. If so, then the next Great War won't be until 2010 and could well extend on for three months.

EDIT: Delta does math

Edited October 7, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[PhysicsJunky]

Indeed, it will be interesting to see if this pattern continues to hold over the course of the next few years. If so, then the next Great War won't be until 2010 and could well extend on for three months.

I think what you see reflected in the wars there is the rise of the Super-Bloc. With one bloc holding so much of the firepower in the game you could only achieve two sorts of major wars, curbstomps of those outside the bloc, or civil wars. The later trended toward an annual curbstomp of some outlying group within/recently within the bloc and their attachments.

With the current political climate I'm not sure how quickly we'll see another Super-Bloc birthed. So while I'm not holding out for a huge increase in the frequency of wars, as people are carefully picking their steps, I would expect that the next war will be smaller and bloodier than usual (unless a third party intervenes) and certainly sometime before next summer.

[Delta1212]

April 20th to July 19th is 90 days, not 60.

[Felix von Agnu]

I don't think a reset would actually have the effect intended. I don't think most people would feel that they could be more aggressive. The recent trend has been towards having air-tight CB's and morality and such. It seems if an alliance doesn't cross their t's they could just become crucified on the OWF, and have to live with their mistakes near indefinitely. That and private channels. It seems lots of problems get solved before they fester into something much worse.

A reset would just make people want to avoid a war more while they have a chance to rebuild themselves, in my opinion.

[Vijaya]

A reset would be bad for CN. A lot of people would probably end up leaving, especially those who are still hanging on just because they've spent so long building their nations.

And, besides, why should those who have spent time and money building their nations just lose all their hard work in order to "level the playing field"?

No, two thumbs down on a reset. You want resets? Play TE.

[Penkala]

April 20th to July 19th is 90 days, not 60.

"Some fought longer, some fought shorter."

And really, the war was over within about a month. All these trends don't really mean much, though. We're in a multi-power world now, with four large blocs (SF, CnG, Citadel, Frostbite) and several smaller blocs (CDT being a medium-strength bloc, Stickmen, etc.) Multi-polar worlds tend to be less stable than unipolar or bipolar worlds.

[rishnokof]

I do not like the idea of a reset. Thanks.

[Drai]

I would probably quit if there was a reset. Building my nation back up to the level where it is now would take way too long. I enjoy the battles I fight with a nation this size.

[Kroknia]

I'd be upset and probably leave if a reset happened. The building process and the end result is something I enjoy more than I do war. I'll still launch my nukes, but it is somewhat less entertaining to me than building. I like having gotten to where I have and I don't see the point of a reset except to try and fix a problem. If you all have problems with the current game, make alliances that have only the goal of starting a massive war and bringing us to a reset that way. The cult of rebirth can be your name. I'd enjoy a dedicated and large scale effort to do this, but pressing the reset button is what you want to do instead?.

[Qaianna]

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.

So..the certainty that your building is useless is better?

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

Perhaps, but if the incentive (the pixels you get) were reduced or eliminated, I think the donations would suffer to some extent.

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.

Think I'll have to not agree there. Been in on a few curbstomp wars and one serious one, and while they did have their high points it still felt like losing progress. Which, of course, is what a war tends to do. But how would constant war help people who want to grow into big nuke powers? I think it's more fun to get up into the big leagues.

Also, someone did say that the best times were before, during, and after wars. Um..aren't we in one of those times already? In fact, doesn't that cover ALL the times?

[SunnyInc]

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.

What alot of people seem to be forgetting is political intrigue is what define the Cybernations experience. Most active players agree that the most entertaing part of the game is the political maneuvering, military planning and of course the theatrics that takes place in between wars that makes the game exciting. For those of you who want to see change within the game itself, player intervention is the best remedy!

Edited October 7, 2009 by SunnyInc