Would you mind a Reset?

[Ch33kY]

There will never be a reset becuase some people have poured money into donations to build their nation.

Having said that, a reset would favour me personally, so I'm all for it.

[hizzy]

I wanna fight a war that costs 13 and a half dongs to finance.

reset plox

[shahenshah]

No. That's what TE is for.

That.

What reset will do is piss of alot of nations that build nations and sit quietly. A Significant portion of player base will be eroded.

[Francesca]

Reset seems silly, especially when the game is pretty young (what 3 years?)

Second server sounds good though.

This is precisely my opinion. What makes this game interesting for me is all the history and hatred generated by various wars and backstabbings and politicking. Thus it seems worse than redundant to have a reset. However, second server sounds like a great idea.

[ChairmanHal]

Delta: my previous post has been corrected for math, ty

"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.

A unipolar world would logically tend toward encouraging a series curbstomps, but no Great Wars. Fall out of favor with the prevailing power and at some point you become the next target of the bored/someone looking for an easy victory/etc. A bipolar world would tend to be the most stable if for no other reason people quickly figure out that being part of one camp or the other is the best way to avoid a curbstomp. However, I would argue it also tends to push us toward Great Wars, since unlike RL, there isn't the fear of nuclear weapons to keep people from escalating things if they perceive they have an advantage. My sense is that the conditions in place now on Planet Bob, a multipolar world, really have never existed before, at least not since the infancy of the game.

It's interesting to watch from the sidelines and the speculation levels are only going to increase over time. It's actually a fairly exciting time to play the game. It's also clear that a vast majority would be disappointed or quit if a reset would take place. That's why I find the whole idea of it puzzling at best.

[SunnyInc]

Delta: my previous post has been corrected for math, ty

A unipolar world would logically tend toward encouraging a series curbstomps, but no Great Wars. Fall out of favor with the prevailing power and at some point you become the next target of the bored/someone looking for an easy victory/etc. A bipolar world would tend to be the most stable if for no other reason people quickly figure out that being part of one camp or the other is the best way to avoid a curbstomp. However, I would argue it also tends to push us toward Great Wars, since unlike RL, there isn't the fear of nuclear weapons to keep people from escalating things if they perceive they have an advantage. My sense is that the conditions in place now on Planet Bob, a multipolar world, really have never existed before, at least not since the infancy of the game.

It's interesting to watch from the sidelines and the speculation levels are only going to increase over time. It's actually a fairly exciting time to play the game. It's also clear that a vast majority would be disappointed or quit if a reset would take place. That's why I find the whole idea of it puzzling at best.

You've hit the nail on the head there, ChairmanHal. The Cybernations roleplaying experience is as rich as its ever been and if you are bored with the game at a time like this, perhaps political simulators are not for you.

Edited October 7, 2009 by SunnyInc

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

I'd probably take the opportunity to quit the game if it was reset. I've been giving it some thought anyway lately and I think it would serve as an impetus to do so, to be honest.

[WolfsPride]

DO.....NOT......WANT!

I have spent a LOT of time and a LOT of real life money in my Nation and this game for something like this to happen.

Not only would people lose interest in the game for having to start all over again from scratch, but I don't think this game would see another single Donation from anyone with just a single brain cell in their head

[Bob Janova]

A unipolar world would logically tend toward encouraging a series curbstomps, but no Great Wars. Fall out of favor with the prevailing power and at some point you become the next target of the bored/someone looking for an easy victory/etc. A bipolar world would tend to be the most stable if for no other reason people quickly figure out that being part of one camp or the other is the best way to avoid a curbstomp. However, I would argue it also tends to push us toward Great Wars, since unlike RL, there isn't the fear of nuclear weapons to keep people from escalating things if they perceive they have an advantage. My sense is that the conditions in place now on Planet Bob, a multipolar world, really have never existed before, at least not since the infancy of the game.

I pretty much agree with that. There was perhaps a multipolar state in the very beginning (way before I started playing) before the main NS invaders sorted themselves into two sides, but certainly since GW1 we've had either a dipolar or monopolar political scene. (GW1-2: Orders/CoaLUEtion; GW2: WUT/League; GW3: WUT/Aegis; GW3-UjW: WUT dominant; UjW: ~/UJH; UjW-Karma: Orders/Continuum+1V dominant.) A large part of the reason that 'nothing's happening' just now is that the main players are not sure how to proceed in a multipolar world, and don't want to be the first casualty.

The truth is that people will eventually get bored of playing a game like this after some years of doing so, and Karma would be a big 'going out with a bang' for some of those people. Many of the historical figures of CN were in school or university and their lives will have moved on. I don't think the problem is with CN though, and a reset would do a lot more harm than good.

I have to agree as well with 2007 being an aberration in the long run. 2008 was a bad year, with only the BLEU war to liven up the constant march of Continuum stompings, but looking back to 2007 and saying 'Why can't we have this all the time' is unrepresentative in the other direction.

How long will it be to the next drama, and what will it be? I don't think that anyone knows that at this point, and that (to me at least) makes CN a lot more interesting than it's been for a long time.

[BamaBuc]

Delta: my previous post has been corrected for math, ty

A unipolar world would logically tend toward encouraging a series curbstomps, but no Great Wars. Fall out of favor with the prevailing power and at some point you become the next target of the bored/someone looking for an easy victory/etc. A bipolar world would tend to be the most stable if for no other reason people quickly figure out that being part of one camp or the other is the best way to avoid a curbstomp. However, I would argue it also tends to push us toward Great Wars, since unlike RL, there isn't the fear of nuclear weapons to keep people from escalating things if they perceive they have an advantage. My sense is that the conditions in place now on Planet Bob, a multipolar world, really have never existed before, at least not since the infancy of the game.

It's interesting to watch from the sidelines and the speculation levels are only going to increase over time. It's actually a fairly exciting time to play the game. It's also clear that a vast majority would be disappointed or quit if a reset would take place. That's why I find the whole idea of it puzzling at best.

And I'd contend that a multipolar world still hasn't existed. Today's world is nonpolar. Traditionally, the term "pole" has been applied to factions who are actively seeking global power and have the strength to rival any other such groups. For a long time, Q was the only faction to fit that description, hence the world was unipolar. Before that, UJP/allies and BLEU/allies fit that description, hence the world was bipolar. Before that it was unipolar under WUT, bipolar under WUT and League/AEGIS, etc. Now... There really isn't a struggle for world power, not even a one-sided one. There are five primary factions, but no poles. Obviously people are seeking to improve their positions as always, and there's always backroom maneuvering, but nobody's really launched a struggle for global power. Everyone just wants to keep their head down and stay out of the spotlight. That'll change, but for now, Bob is nonpolar.

-Bama

[SoxNation]

We have CN-TE. I would like to see a second server for plain CN opened. That way people don't lose what they have here but you can have the level playing field you mentioned.

This for sure... I would love to see things break out in a second server... Though you'd run into the problems of same teams forming, etc...

[SoxNation]

I am opposed. CN would lose lots of people and it wouldn't really make it more fun, alliances like TOP and Gramlins would just spend all day crying in a corner.

Funny since its a TOP member who suggested this, and another high ranking member has supported it.

TOP and GRE would be back on top quick, they got up there because they know the economics of the game better than anyone.

[willirica]

Funny since its a TOP member who suggested this, and another high ranking member has supported it.

TOP and GRE would be back on top quick, they got up there because they know the economics of the game better than anyone.

I cant say I agree. There are many alliances who 'know the economics of the game' just as good if not better. However their hands are alot bloodier.

[Doitzel]

You know, I've seen the "waaah my nation" mentality kill a few other games. I find the threats to leave because of "lost donations" to be an incredibly juvenile way to influence how the game is run; consider that there's a lot more at play than just how much money you've put into "building your nation". Perhaps you should read the TOS (specifically sections 9-13) you agree to when donating.

God. I !@#$@#$ hate people who throw money at games to give themselves an edge and then !@#$%* about lost investment. Put a padlock on your chequebook if you can't handle it.

[willirica]

You know, I've seen the "waaah my nation" mentality kill a few other games. I find the threats to leave because of "lost donations" to be an incredibly juvenile way to influence how the game is run; consider that there's a lot more at play than just how much money you've put into "building your nation". Perhaps you should read the TOS (specifically sections 9-13) you agree to when donating.

God. I !@#$@#$ hate people who throw money at games to give themselves an edge and then !@#$%* about lost investment. Put a padlock on your chequebook if you can't handle it.

Amen brother.

[Gn0xious Jr]

You know, I've seen the "waaah my nation" mentality kill a few other games. I find the threats to leave because of "lost donations" to be an incredibly juvenile way to influence how the game is run; consider that there's a lot more at play than just how much money you've put into "building your nation". Perhaps you should read the TOS (specifically sections 9-13) you agree to when donating.

God. I !@#$@#$ hate people who throw money at games to give themselves an edge and then !@#$%* about lost investment. Put a padlock on your chequebook if you can't handle it.

YAY! I agree with this entirely in regards to donations. If you donate, think of it as giving to the Admin for coming up with the concept, and allowing them to pay the hosting fees, etc... Don't think of it as an investment in your nation. I've donated to help keep CN alive and kicking (at least that's how I view it) and I've already lost the "rewards" in wars several times over. I also donate to keep my alliance forums up because, well, we like our forums and don't want them to pull the power plug

In regards to a reset,

I'd welcome it with gameplay changes... perhaps a "post apocalyptic" scenario? mad max anyone? With some of these past wars, it seems appropriate

[Ivan Moldavi]

Too many people care only for their ones and zeroes here for this to ever get enough support for Admin to listen.

[King Wally]

In regards to a reset,

I'd welcome it with gameplay changes... perhaps a "post apocalyptic" scenario? mad max anyone? With some of these past wars, it seems appropriate

... King Wally drools at the thought

throw a bit of fall out 3 in there... and we'd be rolling B)

[Thierra]

And I'd contend that a multipolar world still hasn't existed. Today's world is nonpolar. Traditionally, the term "pole" has been applied to factions who are actively seeking global power and have the strength to rival any other such groups. For a long time, Q was the only faction to fit that description, hence the world was unipolar. Before that, UJP/allies and BLEU/allies fit that description, hence the world was bipolar. Before that it was unipolar under WUT, bipolar under WUT and League/AEGIS, etc. Now... There really isn't a struggle for world power, not even a one-sided one. There are five primary factions, but no poles. Obviously people are seeking to improve their positions as always, and there's always backroom maneuvering, but nobody's really launched a struggle for global power. Everyone just wants to keep their head down and stay out of the spotlight. That'll change, but for now, Bob is nonpolar.

-Bama

I wouldn't call BLEU/allies as being part of a bipolar system. They were a good bloc, but give the others that existed concurrently and warred around them, the BLEU treaty seemed to be the one that was more likely to be avoided if a conflict arose. Also, their slow transition from military to a solely economic-focus... and then the transition from that to disappearance... disqualify them from being a "pole."

If anything, BLEU relations only became a real "pole" right before many of those powers were owned in warfare.

[Qaianna]

Too many people care only for their ones and zeroes here for this to ever get enough support for Admin to listen.

Yeah, who cares about what the players want?

As for the sentiment regarding pixels..without 'em, what would we be fighting over, anyway?

[Ivan Moldavi]

Yeah, who cares about what the players want?

As for the sentiment regarding pixels..without 'em, what would we be fighting over, anyway?

Your definition of "player" may be different than mine. Collecting infrastructure has never been one of my past-times here.

[Allan a Dale]

Moved to Gameplay Discussion.

[Haflinger]

Your definition of "player" may be different than mine. Collecting infrastructure has never been one of my past-times here.

I'm jealous of your tech-infra ratio.

Ruler: Ivan Moldavi

Nation Name: Pierconium

Alliance Affiliation: New Sith Order

Alliance Seniority: 3/5/2009 2:11:41 AM (217 Days)

Alliance Rank: Ranked #139 of 152 alliance nations

Nation Created: 3/4/2009 9:25:55 PM (218 days old)

Technology: 125.79

Infrastructure: 92.15

[Dochartaigh]

YAY! I agree with this entirely in regards to donations. If you donate, think of it as giving to the Admin for coming up with the concept, and allowing them to pay the hosting fees, etc... Don't think of it as an investment in your nation. I've donated to help keep CN alive and kicking (at least that's how I view it) and I've already lost the "rewards" in wars several times over. I also donate to keep my alliance forums up because, well, we like our forums and don't want them to pull the power plug

In regards to a reset,

I'd welcome it with gameplay changes... perhaps a "post apocalyptic" scenario? mad max anyone? With some of these past wars, it seems appropriate

I have to agree with this sentiment. shoot, i donated from July 06 to Oct 08 almost non-stop and i have yet to breach 50k NS. i did not donate to invest in my nation (though that was part of the reason), i donated to ensure that CN was kept alive and admin did not have to carry the whole cost himself.

[bandnerd]

for a second server, i have played games that have multiple servers, even with differing combat sytems (that game also did not do a reset, instead just made a new server every month or so it seemed like). after about a month of playing in two of them i just kinda stopped caring about one of them and just focused on the other, and every time i tried to get in a new one again i lost interest faster and faster. same thing would happen here, people would sign on for the new one, play both for a month or two, then let thier nation rot in whichever one they found less entertaining, and population would drop in both.