Jump to content

.The declining participation


Recommended Posts

I wonder if Admin tracks the number of TE players from Round to Round. If so, it would be interesting to see if in fact TE has been declining over time or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' date='10 June 2010 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1276124788' post='2330750']
Yeah, it has. It's down to around 1700 members, down from at least 2500 from 4 rounds ago or so. I understand when it first started up it had over 3000, but that was before my time.
[/quote]Yes, Clash is right. It keeps declining. The first 3 round was the best round ever for TE. Maybe its all about motivation. Most of us at Fark are withdraw from TE couple rounds ago because we lost the interest in TE, we don't need the flag plus TE suppose to be a war game and not politic. :nuke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Prozenz' date='09 June 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1276138883' post='2331118']
Yes, Clash is right. It keeps declining. The first 3 round was the best round ever for TE. Maybe its all about motivation. Most of us at Fark are withdraw from TE couple rounds ago because we lost the interest in TE, we don't need the flag plus TE suppose to be a war game and not politic. :nuke:
[/quote]

I saw a large drop when TE changed to 2 month rounds, was this a coincidence for Fark as well as TE as a whole, or a cause-effect of the change to 2 month rounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='10 June 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1276141278' post='2331178']
I saw a large drop when TE changed to 2 month rounds, was this a coincidence for Fark as well as TE as a whole, or a cause-effect of the change to 2 month rounds?
[/quote]Nope, most of our fellow farker already left the TE before it was changed into 2 months round. Our last biggest member is around 50-100 when we try to make MHA down from 1st place alliance in round 2, 3 or 4 and keep declining after that. This round is the worst participation of Fark, we only have 20 something with only 70% active nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the governements in SE would [b]oblige [/b] new applicants to go thru one round of TE and be active as a condition of membership in SE, this would give a permanent inflow of recruits. Some of them might actually like it and stay for a few more rounds or even permanently.
The question is, would the gov. be interested to do that as a part of training for their applicants?
Can admin encourage them somehow? ;)

Edited by kong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='23 May 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1274645995' post='2309386']
To be honest, I'd rather enable a variable update so that each nation's update is hidden without spy ops and if you update strike someone then they could very well update strike you when you aren't paying attention.

The advantage gets reversed.
[/quote]

Awesome idea, although I'm not sure how you could implement something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kong' date='10 June 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1276165334' post='2331492']
If the governements in SE would [b]oblige [/b] new applicants to go thru one round of TE and be active as a condition of membership in SE, this would give a permanent inflow of recruits. Some of them might actually like it and stay for a few more rounds or even permanently.
The question is, would the gov. be interested to do that as a part of training for their applicants?
Can admin encourage them somehow? ;)
[/quote]We do this couple rounds ago. But now, suddenly it was stop. :(
All nation can buy a nuke without buying MP or reach 5% of all nations. This will be great! :nuke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kong' date='10 June 2010 - 05:22 AM' timestamp='1276165334' post='2331492']
If the governements in SE would [b]oblige [/b] new applicants to go thru one round of TE and be active as a condition of membership in SE, this would give a permanent inflow of recruits. Some of them might actually like it and stay for a few more rounds or even permanently.
The question is, would the gov. be interested to do that as a part of training for their applicants?
Can admin encourage them somehow? ;)
[/quote]

I agree. It can be used as a way to teach new members the art/skill of war, so they are prepared for SE wars. And some may stay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how much the change in the way TE is played has affected the numbers. It used to be TE was straight-up for wars. The first round winner finished at a mere [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/tournament_winners.asp?Round=1 "]7,109 ns[/url], and I think TE was three months back then. Granted that nation-building is much more of a science these days, but still, These sessions the winners are getting sneakier and sneakier at avoiding war completely, hiding and rabbiting all round long - then having friends go rouge at the end for them. Big nations only fight when forced by rouges. These days even long-established alliances don't war, they are spending almost the entire round in peace mode. If they can get away with it anyways.

For flag chasers this is the exact way TE is to be played.
I think maybe it's boring for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Participation is based on seasonal things as well, and that it takes up more time to effectively play TE then SE, where you can check your nation once a week and collect every 20 days and still be very effective in building. I'd rather keep the flag runners, then recruit a bunch of people who play for a week then quit because they were raided once. But this is just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the main problem with retaining players in tournament edition is that many of the large and medium sized alliances have grown accustomed to doing the same thing each round. A few changes to the gameplay mechanics would only spice things up if Admin were prepared to keep making these changes at each reset, after all it is easy for a player to develop a sense of ennui after doing exactly the same thing for several consecutive rounds.

While getting some hands on experience with the combat system is valuble at first, it should be remembered that inter-alliance wars are fought in a different manner in TE and SE, partly because of gameplay mechanics (no foreign aid, peace mode or billion dollar warchests in TE) but partly because of the players. Here, inter-alliance wars are commonly fought for a few days between two relatively closely matched sides that remain on amicable terms with each other for the most part. While this gentlemanly conduct is refreshingly different to SE and something that we should take care not to lose, I have observed that it is unusual for SE wars to be closely matched affairs. Instead of trying to pressure Admin into making some gameplay changes that half of us would only grumble about anyway, I think that alliances should do more to shake things up and give their members new scenarios to deal with.

After spending a number of previous rounds in one of the major TE alliances, I decided to do things differently this round. Several other members of my SE alliance and I decided to set up a politically neutral alliance open only to members of our SE alliance. With only five members and no military treaties, we were bound to be subject to tech raids and troop dump attacks. In fact, I had actually promised the other particiapting members that we would get to fight wars against heavy odds by the simple method of fighting back against raiders. We were not setting out to win the flag or impose our moral standards on anybody but to simply have some fun, although I did notice that many of our opponents simply did not understand why we were fighting back when we obviously could not acheive a military victory. I have to say that I have participated in EVERY round of TE, and it has been a long time since I enjoyed a round as much as this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a highly visible player in the "politics" side of things, but I have played every round of TE thus far and thoroughly enjoy the game play. One of the things I enjoy about it best is how darned livid I am when I wake up to see that I was just annihilated, because I get over it after I've had my coffee and I usually arrive at some dastardly plan. Heck, just last round I was murdered by 6 opponents, dropped from top 5% to past 90% and still came out to re-declare and anarchy one of my opponents with only 65 infra in the tank. I felt so vindicated! :P

Now, having said that, I would have to say that if I could change one thing about TE, it would be the update time. I love the concept of "variable" update times, selected by each player and fixed for the round, but can appreciate the potential difficulty in coding something like that. Nevertheless, I'd really be blown away if something like that were to be implemented. It's the type of change that really adds a new, mysterious dimension to the game. Of course, once you quad someone everyone will know your update time and could prepare adequately.

Either way, TE rocks and I would go so far as saying that as much as I enjoy my SE nation, TE is much more fun for a player like me. It really deserves more players. :)

Also, I love the prize addition - great idea!

Edited by MrFiasco
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...