A plea to various alliance leaders

[Skippy]

@ the OP

I, Skippy, actually agree with SCM for once :S

[lonewolfe2015]

The problems I feel stem from tradition not giving way to change.

I've been playing CN actively for I think around 17-18 months now, a leader for 13. And from my point of view it doesn't matter what you can do, who you know or how much you bring to the table, the older entrenched leaders and alliances shut you out and then try and play chess with you later using you as a pawn in their games.

Wars are too much of a good vs evil thing, one side versus another. When in all honesty we've got multiple sides to CN that all hate each other but they come together to work on a war together? Why can't we have smaller more frequent wars without chaining the treaties when it's a fair war? Why can't we accept that there is a future in CN outside of the major alliances before us today or the ones of old days being resurrected?

[Dochartaigh]

The problems I feel stem from tradition not giving way to change.

I've been playing CN actively for I think around 17-18 months now, a leader for 13. And from my point of view it doesn't matter what you can do, who you know or how much you bring to the table, the older entrenched leaders and alliances shut you out and then try and play chess with you later using you as a pawn in their games.

Wars are too much of a good vs evil thing, one side versus another. When in all honesty we've got multiple sides to CN that all hate each other but they come together to work on a war together? Why can't we have smaller more frequent wars without chaining the treaties when it's a fair war? Why can't we accept that there is a future in CN outside of the major alliances before us today or the ones of old days being resurrected?

i think that the older alliances do not shut out newer ones at all. if that were true, Polaris would never have arisen and the world would essentially be stuck with Pacifica, GATO, NPO, NAAC, ODN, Legion, GGA, LUE, GPA, and possibly a couple of others as the major alliances. now NAAC and LUE disbanded forming MK and GR as well as joining other alliances. Many new alliances have come and gone and most of the alliances that are in power now were not in power in 2006 or 2007. MK, TOP, MHA, Sparta, FARK, VE, FOK, TOOL, just for the ones that are sanctioned. TPF, NATO, Athens, TORN, Ragnarok, Umbrella, Argent, UPN, CSN, and many others also would have been shut out as well.

so, in all honesty the older powers do not reject new alliances at all. it is quite evident that the opposite is indeed quite true.

[lonewolfe2015]

i think that the older alliances do not shut out newer ones at all. if that were true, Polaris would never have arisen and the world would essentially be stuck with Pacifica, GATO, NPO, NAAC, ODN, Legion, GGA, LUE, GPA, and possibly a couple of others as the major alliances. now NAAC and LUE disbanded forming MK and GR as well as joining other alliances. Many new alliances have come and gone and most of the alliances that are in power now were not in power in 2006 or 2007. MK, TOP, MHA, Sparta, FARK, VE, FOK, TOOL, just for the ones that are sanctioned. TPF, NATO, Athens, TORN, Ragnarok, Umbrella, Argent, UPN, CSN, and many others also would have been shut out as well.

so, in all honesty the older powers do not reject new alliances at all. it is quite evident that the opposite is indeed quite true.

Perhaps our definition of an alliance's age differ then. Alliances under a year old, around a year old or not much older than a year is what i meant by new.

Is that what happened, or does it change nothing?

[ChairmanHal]

I can tell you as a player what I see wrong, but many of you won't like it.

I'll just say for now that IRC/the various alliance forums is much less restrictive in terms of the types of dialog I can have with people. Beyond that, you need to remember that the Karma War was won before it started in the "back-back" rooms of IRC. It is natural that alliance dialogs now would take place there. That leaves the OWRP a place for polls, announcements and...rather vanilla conversations/exchanges.

Mechanically is the game ok? Yes. Could it be better? Without question. Could Admin do a better job articulating what sorts of things he's working on for the game in terms of improvements? Yes. Are there things out there being proposed by players that make sense to fast track but they instead get buried underneath junk threads rehashing old idea that will never be implemented? Sadly yes. You can continue to chastise those who push for more additions to the game and greater complexity/richness of gaming experience if you must, but my words of some weeks ago still hold true--a game is never finished until it is dead.

Ultimately though if you are bored with the world you players created with Admin's rules...and yes it is totally cliche to say...do something about it.

edit: fixing a word

Edited January 18, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[AlmightyGrub]

I see lots of these kinds of comments (the OP) regularly. The OP makes the same assumption that everyone makes, ''people want the same thing I do''. It is a fundamentally flawed concept to start with but lets assume it is true at a very basic level.

I enjoy CN, I do not need to be at war to do so, I do not need to be at peace to do so and I do not need anyone else to do anything to do what I want to do. Right now I am ''doing some stuff'', you may or may not know about it, but that is really your problem. It is not my job as an alliance leader to provide entertainment for the masses of people who want to be entertained, it is simply my job to lead my alliance as a whole, in its own best interests and on a larger level, try to protect the things that make this whole game work.

Wars are fun, I have fought in a few wins and a few losses, I have been wiped out several times and rebuilt etc etc, but the mechanics of the game itself are largely irrelevant to what makes the game actually work. Until you work out what this game is actually about, I doubt you can be happy playing it. You want to blow some !@#$ up, get a PS3 and go for it. Want to play politics, maybe you are in the right place.

As for the assertions that a ruling class within the game shut everyone else out, what complete and utter nonsense. Your destiny is yours to control, don't like what I do?, isolate me and then kill me, want to shake things up?, come up with a concept and the guts to implement it, want action?, find someone you fancy attacking and do so. None of these things revolve around what I do, it is all about what you do. If you are bored then either do something or don't, but don't point the finger at me (all alliance leaders) and blame me for spoiling your fun, I am having my fun.

The reasons this game exist still and continue to entertain so many are many and varied, but a large part is the simple community with its varied opinions and interests, combining to form an arbitrary set of ''rules'' and in effect we have created the game itself. To deny a large part of that structure came from the NPO influence would be remiss. Perhaps you do not like what the game is becoming or has become, then things are firmly in your hands individually. If you want to do something, try it, who knows, people might like it, if not, your pixels don't matter do they? Or is that just empty rhetoric?

[Doitzel]

hahahahahahahahaha. are you honestly trying to make it look like NPO never went into a war (except the Karma War) when it was not 10000000000% sure they had a curbstomp going? seriously?

There were those who thought we would lose GWII. Right Musso?

Anyway... wars are too short and people are too cowardly. This isn't new. The fun part is finding ways to kill them anyway.

[Starcraftmazter]

I see lots of these kinds of comments (the OP) regularly. The OP makes the same assumption that everyone makes, ''people want the same thing I do''. It is a fundamentally flawed concept to start with but lets assume it is true at a very basic level.

You make the fundamentally flawed assumption that I made the thread because I want the sort of things I stated as opposed to believing it would be better for the game, when in fact I did so because I see other people do, but beyond that much of my point is not about what people want, but about major alliances taking advantage of others less and using opportunities for excitement more. It is easy to recognize that most people have not even thought about that way, specifically not the average CN player...so I'm certainly not saying it's what people want. But I am presenting it as an idea to consider

In regards to the rest of your assessment - as well as the thoughts of some others I haven't bothered replying to; A lot of people seem to have the notion that it is easy to change things, and that anyone can do it, and make the game fun for them. I disagree entirely, and claim things are only fun universally for everyone (which I think is deal for the game), when everyone is in on something exciting and fun. This implies the involvement of the majority in any specific action done to spice things up.

Simply put, nobody as hard as they tried could simply conjure up a GW by themselves, and only a GW provides the universal level of fun which is also accessible by (nearly) everyone - which it is my opinion is what the game needs. Of course everyone's opinion differs.

[King DrunkWino]

Ultimately though if you are bored with the world you players created with Admin's rules...and yes it is totally cliche to say...do something about it.

No offense Hal, but normally agreeing with you makes me feel oh so dirty. However, this little statement right here is as close to absolute truth as anyone is going to find on the internet. If YOU want to shake up the game, DO it. Give up the attachment to your meaningless pixels and create some fun.

[Dochartaigh]

Perhaps our definition of an alliance's age differ then. Alliances under a year old, around a year old or not much older than a year is what i meant by new.

Is that what happened, or does it change nothing?

i still disagree as many of these newer alliances are making noise and not being shut out. Silence, LOUD, and many others are gaining treaties and solid allies and making their voice heard.

i think what you are trying to get at is that the new alliances are not the center of attention or some such. or that not nearly as much drama (well unless you are like UED, ADI, or any other alliance with rather incompetent gov/leaders) revolving around them. well unfortunately it is the older alliances that tend to have the grudges/drama llamas/feuds and the like rather than the newer alliances just beginning.

so again, i am not entirely sure you are correct unless of course you have spoken to every single alliance under 1 year of age and asked them if they have, in fact, been shut out of the game by the older alliances.

[KingEd]

Great Wars have become less frequent because the loosing side always gets the burden of "reparations" to pay after they loose the dam thing. No one wants to loose, thus, no one will fight. It's bad enough to get torn to bits for 60+days...but then spend another 120+days paying more than the damage you caused.

Have all wars end in White Peace..and you'll have more wars. Won't happen but...oh well.

[lonewolfe2015]

i still disagree as many of these newer alliances are making noise and not being shut out. Silence, LOUD, and many others are gaining treaties and solid allies and making their voice heard.

i think what you are trying to get at is that the new alliances are not the center of attention or some such. or that not nearly as much drama (well unless you are like UED, ADI, or any other alliance with rather incompetent gov/leaders) revolving around them. well unfortunately it is the older alliances that tend to have the grudges/drama llamas/feuds and the like rather than the newer alliances just beginning.

so again, i am not entirely sure you are correct unless of course you have spoken to every single alliance under 1 year of age and asked them if they have, in fact, been shut out of the game by the older alliances.

In my experience, and from those I've met, the younger alliances tend to have difficulty playing the game without being made pawns by the precious leaders above us. Grub may say it isn't true and to deal with it, but I doubt even his quick wit could solve something this complex in a decent time frame.

It's not a massive issue in the sense small alliances get squandered or can't play the game, it's something looming over the game where if they want to get involved they have to simply be the best. I know a lot of smaller alliance leaders that are 100x more capable than the junk that sits at the top of the game sometimes, but it's tradition that keeps them from having a larger say, I just wish some of them would begin to think for themselves than be pawns. Being a good ally does not mean you have agree with everything someone else does.

That's how I've found things to be in my time here, I've met people from everywhere in the game, leaders, government, members, rogues, multis & rerolls and in the end those that actually care about the game but were never a part of the original historical side of CN have the least luck in getting anywhere unless they were brought up within one of those historic alliances.

What I'm trying to say, is I think that while it's all good and natural for the best to be at the top, I think the new generation of CN is being used more than they are accepted. We see it everywhere, anything "new" is immediately disapproved of and if you have a differing opinion than the masses you're shut out.

Not sure how you can really argue with that opinion more than you can point out what I'm missing, but this is all from experience and I'd like to say I have a very good grasp of CN considering I know both the game mechanics and politics pretty well for how I play. Also bear in mind: Silence was made up of two older alliances. And alliances which treaty with the bigger alliances really doesn't change what I think because you don't know the treaty relationship. Don't kid yourself in thinking that leaders don't make treaties based on their ability to control another alliance as their own asset.

[AlmightyGrub]

In my experience, and from those I've met, the younger alliances tend to have difficulty playing the game without being made pawns by the precious leaders above us. Grub may say it isn't true and to deal with it, but I doubt even his quick wit could solve something this complex in a decent time frame.

It's not a massive issue in the sense small alliances get squandered or can't play the game, it's something looming over the game where if they want to get involved they have to simply be the best. I know a lot of smaller alliance leaders that are 100x more capable than the junk that sits at the top of the game sometimes, but it's tradition that keeps them from having a larger say, I just wish some of them would begin to think for themselves than be pawns. Being a good ally does not mean you have agree with everything someone else does.

That's how I've found things to be in my time here, I've met people from everywhere in the game, leaders, government, members, rogues, multis & rerolls and in the end those that actually care about the game but were never a part of the original historical side of CN have the least luck in getting anywhere unless they were brought up within one of those historic alliances.

What I'm trying to say, is I think that while it's all good and natural for the best to be at the top, I think the new generation of CN is being used more than they are accepted. We see it everywhere, anything "new" is immediately disapproved of and if you have a differing opinion than the masses you're shut out.

Not sure how you can really argue with that opinion more than you can point out what I'm missing, but this is all from experience and I'd like to say I have a very good grasp of CN considering I know both the game mechanics and politics pretty well for how I play. Also bear in mind: Silence was made up of two older alliances. And alliances which treaty with the bigger alliances really doesn't change what I think because you don't know the treaty relationship. Don't kid yourself in thinking that leaders don't make treaties based on their ability to control another alliance as their own asset.

I can start a war any day of any week, if I do it will be 90%+ turn into a massive global conflict. Whether I win or lose will depend on how well I prepared for the war in terms of diplomacy and logistics. Everything else stated here is fluff.

Just as I can start a war, SCM can as well. He has a series of treaties, that if aligned correctly would lead to a sufficiently large side forming against and inevitable enemy side just as large. It is a complete fallacy that he has no power to do this if he wants to. SCM could declare war on Polaris right now, roll tanks and see what happens if he wants to feed the llama, but he doesn't because he is scared to invoke the wrath of the wider community, therefore not get the support and therefore get crushed like an insect.... and make a complete fool of himself. However if he was in the right, he would get mass support and global war would ensue. I try my hardest not to give you a CB for this very reason.

Now then, what shall be done? Hal says put up or shut up, I tend to agree. You can control what you can control, but I see lots of passengers and very few actually controlling their own destiny, even a little bit.

The really big issue is treaties that cross all over the web... do something about it if you like, you cancel some treaties. You won't cancel anything because you are programmed to hang on to everything unless it is a liability. The OP has as much control as anyone, ante up SCM.

[thaone]

In my experience, and from those I've met, the younger alliances tend to have difficulty playing the game without being made pawns by the precious leaders above us. Grub may say it isn't true and to deal with it, but I doubt even his quick wit could solve something this complex in a decent time frame.

I disagree with you, all players have the possibility to become relevant on the bigger stage. The things that you feel, were already there when I started playing over 2 years ago. It is indeed not easy to get inside the inner cabal of CN, if I speak for myself if you just try enough it's quite possible to get in such a position.

So maybe there are very capable small alliance leaders out there. However they should let their alliance get bigger so it becomes politically relevant, which also gives them power. If they are so capable this won't be a real problem.

[lonewolfe2015]

Well, I suppose I'm in the minority in this opinion. I know it is slightly possible through hard work... but until I see more than the brand name players making a difference in CN I'm not sure I can feel my opinion isn't credible. No matter what I do, I won't have a grand effect on CN for quite some time. I could very well in 1-2 years, but the majority of potential gets squashed out and used as meat shields, tech farms and merges.

I guess the way I handle things is differently, such as treaties you mention Grub. I wouldn't work to create a large side of a war even if I wanted to change the political landscape, why do it? It's pointless to have a grand war when you can have a smaller war, both get the same job done.

And Thaone, I began leading an alliance about 14 months ago, in that 14 months I guess I could consider myself a borderline tier 2 leader, probably tier 3. What do I mean by that? It means that given enough time I've barely cracked into anything worth mentioning or caring. Some have had more success, but not many if any. CN I feel still caters to quite a few at the very top of CN that try and play Chess with us through the treaty webs Grub mentioned which cause large scale wars.

[Starcraftmazter]

The really big issue is treaties that cross all over the web... do something about it if you like, you cancel some treaties. You won't cancel anything because you are programmed to hang on to everything unless it is a liability. The OP has as much control as anyone, ante up SCM.

I fail to see what canceling my treaties will achieve.

[ChairmanHal]

The really big issue is treaties that cross all over the web... do something about it if you like, you cancel some treaties. You won't cancel anything because you are programmed to hang on to everything unless it is a liability. The OP has as much control as anyone, ante up SCM.

Ahh yes, but you see, there is a name for people who lack treaties or limit themselves to a couple that can be broken with a few backroom deals: target. Ask every alliance that has been rolled since 2007.

While the treaty web is a problem, the *biggest* problem of the last year and a half has been the widespread adoption of the "non-chaining clause" (and yes, Grub I knew your reasons over a year ago and supported them in our situation with the Rok-NpO treaty). If people were afraid to strike out on their own before non-chaining clauses were all the rage, they have become even more cautious now. Why? Simple.

Alliance A has five treaties, a MADP with Alliance X, a MDoAP with Alliance Y, a MDoAP with a non-chaining clause with Alliance Q, and a MDP with a similar clause with Alliance Z.

Should Alliance A decide to attack Alliance B, they know they can count on X to go in with them, they may or may not be able to count on Y and Q, but Z stays home. Indeed, even if A decides to go in anyway only with X, then at best he can only count on Y for additional support in the event of a counter attack.

Now, let's say that Alliance B attacks a treaty partner of Alliance A. A can count on X in a counter attack, and may even be able to count on Y and Q for a counter, and even if he can't, he knows that all four of his other treaty partners (besides X) will come to his defense if B or any of B's allies launch further attacks against A.

The treaty web is therefore biased significantly to the defense. The TPF War is actually the exception that proves the rule--the timing of the thing was such, and the lack of preparedness was such on the part of TPF's potential defenders, Athens & Co. were able to quickly offer White Peace (already proposed by TPF) and extricate themselves before the hammer could truly fall.

How to fix it is the question. This is not for Admin to fix. This is for us as players to fix. I honestly however don't see any easy solutions. We as players will have to make hard choices and let the chips fall where they may.

[Ray Matveyev]

Very insightful post, Starcraftmazter.

I joined CN in August 2006 - I remember quite fondly how the conflicts of late-2006 and 2007 were played out. I remember them to actually be fun, as it mixed both stats and politics - both the game and the made-up world we all live in. I, however, was not here for the Karma War, but I have read a lot on it (provided links from the Wiki). The degeneration of this game into OOC comments and manipulation seems to be worse than /b/'s raids at the end of the Third Great War. Not in what was posted, but in the prevalence of it, and how many participate and are undertaking by this crusade alone.

I don't believe there are any morals in a forum about a nation simulation game. If there were, why are we only now giving a damn about them?

[Kzoppistan]

LW, I agree with you on that if one wants to be the director of their own fate and hold potential at their fingertips they have many deeply entrenched hurdles to overcome. There are certainly a whole host of "old school" players that have an interest in controlling events and alliances.

But I also concur with the other posters that say that anything is possible for those with enough vision and grit. Hell, even an individual nation can force events to their favor or have considerable power in their own right.

Some examples: Jack Dorino, or what ever his name is. Seriously, I roll my eyes every time he posts something, but you can't deny that he doesn't have moxie. He could swoop in and take over the reins of any smallish medium sized alliance and he comes and goes where ever he wants in a whole lot of alliances. Rebel Virgina, despite his antics, is a force to be reckoned with. It doesn't matter what alliance RandomInterrupt is in, when he speaks, a lot of people listen. I've seen Schattenmann alter the entire course of the discussion with one well placed post. !@#$, even that guy from bel air/rad/internet superheros made an entire alliance surrender to him.

If those nations can accomplish those feats on their own, what can a group of dedicated visionaries do if sufficiently motivated?

The problem, if there is one, imo, is that there are too many indians and not enough chiefs. Yes, I wrote it that way. Think about it.

It's not that the situation is stifling, it's that many people have been convinced that they can't think outside the box.

And that's my daily drunken ramble.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Godwin]

I believe that the reason for player decline is because of the scarcity of a good war nowadays. As OP said, the TPF war falling out was a huge disappointment for a lot of people (myself included, though I wasn't really in a position where I would be fighting at the time anyways). Stagnation breeds boredom which in turn gets people to quit.

And that's why lulz exists.

[Lord Fingolfin]

I'm rather curious as to what your ideas are for solving the problems at hand Hal. I'm wrestled many times with the idea but haven't been able to come up with anything worthwhile. The best idea I've come up with is a CN wide pact in the vein of "For The Love of God Think of The Children Pact" except in this case it would be a pact agreeing for white peace for all parties in any subsequent wars. A war to perhaps encourage more dynamic action without the fear of crippling reparations. Alliances like Gramlins already practice such policies IIRC. But overall it would just be putting tape on a cracking concrete building

[Northern Empire]

The number of players in the game is steadily declining as it has for some time - I don't think this is anything new. I do however think that we should have ongoing efforts to try and figure out why this trend is occurring, as well as attempt to fix it. In the past, I like perhaps many thought that the loss of nations could be attributed to the Hegemony and their evil ways of forcing people out of the game and destroying communities. Indeed a lot of people did leave because of that - however that era is well over, and anyone can now play the game regardless of previous transgressions. So the question then is, why isn't the number of nations steadily increasing?

One thing that we should should all look at is all the hoops that new nations have to jump throu to get to be full members of an Alliance.

think about it.

most of these new guys get pummeled with offers to join alliances then we demand that they know the entire alliance structure,the entire structure of our respective military,the entire structure of trade circles,then we majically expect them to know all the protocols for tech deals.

god forbid they make a mistake ,they,like a particular thread of last week said, They will be destroyed if a bad request is made.

I'm just as guilty as everybody when it come to this kind of thing.we are expecting new nations to know way to much and to understand way to much way to fast.

then if they don't know something they get slammed to no end until they just say forget it and stop playing the game ,

I think every single player needs to stop for minute and look at themselves. look at at how they treat new guys a see if they are helping them.

why don't we try something new ???

try and teach the new guys how to play before we make demands upon them. send them aid,,not be so darn protective of our precious 3mill,big deal,even at my size 3mill in aid means little to nothing to my war chest.

Why don't we try and welcome new nations instead of look down upon them.we are shooting ourselves and our game in the foot.

put a self imposed ban on insultive names for tech dealers, make them an honored place in our respective alliances. this will make people want to sell more tech and sell it for longer periods of time.and in the long run make for a better game.

work with these new guys more,don't just send in game messages when we need them to do something by a deadline OR ELSE , lets do things to get them involved because its fun.

rewards for xxx amount of tech sold. lets keep track of who has sold what and how much. some alliances do ,most don't.

This is just my humble thoughts on the matter,

[Dochartaigh]

One thing that we should should all look at is all the hoops that new nations have to jump throu to get to be full members of an Alliance.

think about it.

most of these new guys get pummeled with offers to join alliances then we demand that they know the entire alliance structure,the entire structure of our respective military,the entire structure of trade circles,then we majically expect them to know all the protocols for tech deals.

god forbid they make a mistake ,they,like a particular thread of last week said, They will be destroyed if a bad request is made.

I'm just as guilty as everybody when it come to this kind of thing.we are expecting new nations to know way to much and to understand way to much way to fast.

then if they don't know something they get slammed to no end until they just say forget it and stop playing the game ,

I think every single player needs to stop for minute and look at themselves. look at at how they treat new guys a see if they are helping them.

why don't we try something new ???

try and teach the new guys how to play before we make demands upon them. send them aid,,not be so darn protective of our precious 3mill,big deal,even at my size 3mill in aid means little to nothing to my war chest.

Why don't we try and welcome new nations instead of look down upon them.we are shooting ourselves and our game in the foot.

put a self imposed ban on insultive names for tech dealers, make them an honored place in our respective alliances. this will make people want to sell more tech and sell it for longer periods of time.and in the long run make for a better game.

work with these new guys more,don't just send in game messages when we need them to do something by a deadline OR ELSE , lets do things to get them involved because its fun.

rewards for xxx amount of tech sold. lets keep track of who has sold what and how much. some alliances do ,most don't.

This is just my humble thoughts on the matter,

i honestly have no clue what alliances you have been in, but every alliance barring Gremlins has taught first before examining the new nations. Every alliance i have ever known has done the same thing. also, most tech sellers are honored as they are becoming hard to come by. especially ones who are trustworthy and not scammers.

Polaris and IAA both have academies set up to teach new members all they need to know before an examination to ensure they know. if the member fails, they go back through the academy. they also receive instructions via PMs in game (possibly in forum as well, don't recall) once they begin selling tech.

[Northern Empire]

i honestly have no clue what alliances you have been in, but every alliance barring Gremlins has taught first before examining the new nations. Every alliance i have ever known has done the same thing. also, most tech sellers are honored as they are becoming hard to come by. especially ones who are trustworthy and not scammers.

Polaris and IAA both have academies set up to teach new members all they need to know before an examination to ensure they know. if the member fails, they go back through the academy. they also receive instructions via PMs in game (possibly in forum as well, don't recall) once they begin selling tech.

This is the very thing I'm talking about.How long has it been sense the last time some of the veterans actually had to learn anything about the game.

You have to put yourself in the mind of the rookie.

they don't know what tech is let alone know how to be ,,as you put it ,, trustworthy and not scammers, ,, some folks have played the game so long as to not even realize when they are being condecending.you have allready automatically assumes that new players are scammers.

Remember alot of these guys don't even know how to navigate the forum and may not even know the differance between the OWF and their respective AA boards.

all I'm saying is ,That we need to work together (current players) to make new nations feel more welcome and not be so ready to jump on them when mistakes are made.will some take advantage ,yea sure they will ,but I bet a far greater amount will turn into quality players.

This is my humble opinion,

[Drostan]

Let's be clear about what we're discussing here.

1. CN as a mechanical game is, for better or worse, straight foward and very simple. Make money, buy things, use them to blow up someone else's things. Rinse, wash, repeat.

2. CN as a political game on the forums is actually interesting when things happen on the forums because these occurances are accessible. Someone can stop by, read up, get an idea of what the deal is and then jump in with a thought. Unfortunately, people are so gun shy about the forums now because of the merciless heckling which goes on. People want to look good and get their egos stroked and that simply won't happen here. Those who want an intelligent discussion also won't generally find it here so you're left with the mindless drones who come to attempt to score a point or three and run off at the first sign of real opposition.

3. CN as a political game on IRC is horrible. You have maybe a hundred people who are actually involved and then the milling masses around them who flock to the drama when it occurs. It's inaccessible, boring and generally involves being told half-truths or just being told you're not going to get the story at all. The common player isn't allowed access to the fun maneuvering because of the entrenched older class. In effect, if you can't find a way in you either have to invent your own fun or simply idle away. Often inventing your own fun leads to being ejected so that's pretty much out.

What's the solution?

A. Ignore the current structure - I've advocated this before. Go out, do whatever you want to and have fun on your own terms. Want to get nukes? Get them. Want to attack some dude? Attack away. Ignore the hemming and the hawwing and go make your own good time. This, for the record, is my preferred option.

B. Deal with it - Suck it up, stop whining and accept it for what it is.

C. Bring the game back to the forums - Use IRC as an internal alliance comms network and put the actual good stuff on the OWF for once. End the backroom garbage and put it out where people can enjoy it. Lord, the only time people really seem to get interested is when people log dump or generally reveal on a big secret. Take advantage of this.

I agree with a lot of this. I just don't think these changes can be made.

Ultimately, CN is a cult of personality that worships the old. It makes it very hard for newer players to get anything but Sim City out of this game.

Beyond that, I believe that the political goals of a few of the more dominant alliances pretty much stagnate the ability for younger or smaller alliances to shake things up. Those respectable old alliances that still operate on the new-treaty-a-day model make it impossible for much interesting to happen except when they've saved up for a year and designated a new target to nail to the wall. These wars aren't really that fun and once again don't do much for newcomers. Even smaller alliances can't really fight without it turning into some big conflict where they are almost entirely forgotten. But if they don't sign treaties with alliances, bullies like me will tech raid them out of boredom. So there you have it.

I also agree that the updates to the game have not really done much to shake things up or add new dimensions to gameplay. There were all kinds of great wonders proposed for implementation that would have given those leviathan nations at least something worth spending money on. But instead Admin decided to work on his own pet project and we all went into OUTER SPAAAAAACE!

In summary: there is no hope for CN. Get used to this boring way of playing, or quit. heh. Not meaning to be mean, but I just don't see it changing.