Positive brainstorming

[D34th]

I read many good ideas here but you people forgot to ask one thing: Is admin interested in make changes and add more things to the game? Is it profitable for him? And if the answer is no, is it possible for just us, the players, change the political aspect the game and it will be enough to bring new players to CN?

[Lao Pan]

the administration can copy other games that allow your nation to appoint mayor(s) to your nation, this mayor can have daily quests, you will need an improvement to gain a mayor he can act as a general and his traits can improve environment, population, combat efficiency. This way the nation leader will have a purpose.

[Shakira]

Imo, if there's any CN players that post on gaming forums or any type of forums, they should try to push CN there and see if they could gather people to join.

(I'll write more, but exhausted right now)

[zzzptm]

For people to stay in the game, there has to be a point.

There also has to be as little hassle in running the game as possible.

I'm not going to suggest mechanics changes here. I'll discuss them in another game I was invited to join. It was basically CN with swords. It had more complexity in setting up one's nation and kept all the headaches of aid deals and trade circles. I refuse to get any more headaches with those things. This game has enough hassle in that department. I didn't join actively in the other game partly for that reason.

The other reason I didn't join is because I saw invasions from this game into that one and within days I saw the MDP web begin to duplicate itself over there. What would be the point to duplicate things here?

So why am I bothering to read this thread and then posting to make suggestions? Part of the game for me is figuring out how to get the game to work. Not everyone else has a metagame like that.

The community standards have been laid down since the early days of the game. We have a strictly-enforced set of mostly unwritten rules of conduct that is very difficult to change. One of those rules is that an attack on an alliance member automatically opens the door for a massive global war. A corollary to that is should a hoped-for global war not emerge, those who hoped for a war have to plan a new way to get one. Everyone gets twitchy as a result of that.

From a pixel-only perspective, that is how the game MUST be played for maximized gain. Therefore, changing that state which locks out flexible responses requires we define our own goals irrespective of those built into the mechanics. Simply looking only at the criteria of tech, infra, wonders, and nukes means we do not see anything else or any other possibilities.

Admin could create a totally immersive experience with the best mechanics possible, and we'd still line up on our sides of the treaty web flinging NO U comments about if the only things we thought about were the pixels we managed.

Let us say I choose to raid NPO. I raid aggressively, going after one member of the alliance because of some esoteric IC reason I cook up, perhaps that his nation capital is too close to mine. Rawr. Under the current scheme, NPO will choose to do one of a limited set of options. It can declare war on NV and trigger a global conflict. It can demand that I be expelled from NV to prevent that war from happening, then ZI me until I negotiate a solution or slip from their grasp. (And if anyone comments in this thread about the ability of NPO to do anything with a particular level of accomplishment, you're part of the problem. This forum is OOC.) They could also ignore it, hoping to avoid further conflict. Not much in between.

Therefore, we have a constant pre-WW1 environment, all the time. Big blocs face off and only allow war if it will be to their advantage - and then they hope they counted properly. Small blocs get to be like the non-European states that got curbstomped all the time by Europe, the USA, and Japan.

The only way to change that is for us, as players, to create a means of redefining the rules of conduct and protocol to allow for more flexible responses. In the example above, maybe NPO recognizes that my nation is older than the one I'm attacking and that I have a right to keep the area around my capital clear. They could insist that their member move his capital to another location so that I no longer have a reason to war. Once moved, I have to end my war or face the threat of an increased, but measured response. Something like this would then give the mechanic of the world map some meaning.

Perhaps alliances should also enforce guidelines on gov't type, ethnicity, and religion. Or deliberately not enforce them, to provide a different character. Players not in compliance won't get protected - we have to be very IC about that for this to work. Being an OOC buddy and using that to protect a guy is bad gamesmanship if we want tensions. Say I left NV and wanted to enter NoR, but requested exemptions from their policies on color sphere or other things. I would hope that there would be huge IC resentment on the part of at least a few members to the point where if I found myself attacked, they would orchestrate no support for me from their alliance - maybe even organize the attack themselves, to teach me a lesson. I know that OOC, we all want to build a better tomorrow by embracing diversity. IC, we need more villains, as said above. We need some intolerance so that players wanting a place for Mexican animist republics have to carve out their own territory. Alliances should try to define what they will accept and what they will not accept on their color sphere, forcing people to make an exodus if they choose not to change. Wars need not result from such conflicts: the questions of change alone are drama enough, and then they give meaning to the mechanics of religion, gov't type, ethnicity, and color sphere choice beyond happiness bonuses or penalties.

... and imagine the repeated amount of drama we could have in finding IC ways to break the barriers we create in OOC ways.

To do this, we need to use OOC discussions to hammer out what the new rules of engagement will be. Parties that cling to the old ways need to realize that their pixel-shepherding is ruinous to the overall environment.

That can take time to set up, I admit. Not everyone will buy into it. We could figure out what to do about them later.

A short-term solution would be simple: make an OOC challenge to do something IC. For example, we could all agree to label MK and RoK as the co-WAEs if they can't figure out a way to get SF to fight with C&G by 1 Jan 2011. The powers in charge need to realize that they owe it to everyone to keep the party going. Yes, I know they're great friends and all. That means they should be able to whip up the Best. War. Ever. Whoever emerges from that as top dog will then have 4-6 months to get another Great War going, or they'll be a WAE.

Karma itself was hugely entertaining, as was the lead-up to it. The guys at the top need to keep that party going, if we should so demand. Perhaps we should even have an election here to determine which AA should be next to be at the top of the food chain, then engineer events to make that happen. The guys at the top get to strut like gods for a while, and then agree they'll also take a fall down when it's someone else's turn. OOC, we set up a revolving door. IC, we are ignorant of that set-up and gain valuable grudges, axes to grind, and real drama.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Swanfield' timestamp='1282871594' post='2432223']
I don't think that people like you should have a right to discuss this topic considering you are leading an alliance that currently has 31 treaties and yes I did check.
So, how about dropping some of those treaties and to be honest there is really no need for that many treaties to be frank.
[/quote]
You counted NAPs, PIATs and redundundant treaties. We have 14 military allies, 2 protectorates and 9 NAP-ODP level treaty partners.


I should also point out that the large problem with the treaty web is derived from people allying all over the map. This causes the widespread escalation, conflicting treaties and inability to move that chokes the life out of people. RIA's military treaties breakdown as follows:

6 are from being in SF. I'd say those qualify as being fairly "tight" politically.
1 is CRAP, who used to be our protectorate, has always been extremely tight with us politically and only has one military treaty besides us and Chestnut, bringing us to...
2 more from the Chestnut Accords, the other signatories of which are either in SF or are CRAP. Again, fairly tight politically with the rest of the bloc.
1 is VE who is treatied to about half of SF including an MADP with one of them.
1 is Corp (or whatever their new abbreviation is, I still haven't gotten used to that) who has military treaties with three other members of SF and has been tight with us for longer than they have existed.
1 is Silence, who we've been friends with since they were two separate alliances and who is also allied to two other members of SF
1 is INT who is in a bloc with another member of SF.
1 is Sparta who is also allied to two other members of SF.


The number of treaties might not be low, but they are picked very specifically. If people spent more time focusing on compatibility when signing treaties, and carving out a proper niche, the number of treaties they signed wouldn't matter. You could have two completely separate groups of 101 alliances, each of which had 100 treaties, but if they are all treaties within their own groups, it would still be less of a messy tangle than what we have now. The fact that people sign treaties with alliances that might very well end up on the opposite side of a war from them is what causes political gridlock.

When you have highly interconnected spheres, there is a tendency for alliances to try to quash drama between spheres so that they don't end up on the opposite side of their cross-border allies. When there is so much interconnection that every sphere can be connected to every other sphere, then [i]any[/i] drama becomes threatening to someone, somewhere, and it gets quashed as soon as it arises. The tension this can cause actually played a fairly large role in bringing about the collapse of the Continuum power structure as it was even more rigidly homogenized post-WotC than we are even today.

Anyway, signing treaties responsibly is less about the number of alliances you sign treaties with and more about the number of political groups that you sign treaties within.

[Ashoka the Great]

When I read this, my first thought was, "Forget getting new people in. What keeps [b]me[/b] coming back?"

I've re-rolled five or six times now. I've taken breaks lasting anywhere from a few weeks to four months. And yet I've kept coming back.

I'm not here for the game. (This is not the place to list its limitations. It is what it is.) I'm certainly not here for this forum. I'm here to keep in touch with people I have known for anywhere from a few weeks to four years. That's what keeps me coming back and, for the moment, what keeps me from going away again.

I don't know how to get more people in the game, but I suspect that if more people took a good look in the mirror they'd realize why so many people have no qualms about leaving.

One example:

In the last couple of days I saw an entire alliance engage in flamebait against one player. They got called on it fairly quickly, but the fact that they [i]still[/i] think it was funny says something about the people behind these illustrious 'nation rulers'.

Some people aren't happy unless they can break something.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282874418' post='2432286']
A short-term solution would be simple: make an OOC challenge to do something IC. For example, we could all agree to label MK and RoK as the co-WAEs if they can't figure out a way to get SF to fight with C&G by 1 Jan 2011. The powers in charge need to realize that they owe it to everyone to keep the party going. Yes, I know they're great friends and all. That means they should be able to whip up the Best. War. Ever. Whoever emerges from that as top dog will then have 4-6 months to get another Great War going, or they'll be a WAE.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You're right that those on top owe something to the rest of the players. I am glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that. But yes, aside from the things Delta said, one of the larger issues is the lack of ambition by those on top. Once an enemy is defeated they don't go looking for a new one (even if it is a former friend). There are just no sources of conflict. Mainly because, as you say, they are friendly and most cannot seem to separate IC from OOC.

You sunk my battleship.[/color]

Edited August 27, 2010 by Rebel Virginia

[Branimir]

Heh, well. Games are like living organisms. You are fighting the wind, here.

If we are discussing how to make the game more entertaining for those still around. I can only say that from the IC aspect, politics lack savant leaders. There are only a handful of strong characters in this game. We are on an all time shortage. Politics are stagnant, and take a long time to reshuffle, as IC leaders are.

From in game aspect, yes some new addition would be appreciated. Don't forget all, this is a free game. But with that being said, some new addition here and there (however not "ground breaking") would go some way.

[Artigo]

Whatever the answer is, it will come from us, the players. As we have seen, admin isn't adding new content so we need to figure out a way as a community to spur more activity and more interest.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1282874491' post='2432290']
You counted NAPs, PIATs and redundundant treaties. We have 14 military allies, 2 protectorates and 9 NAP-ODP level treaty partners.


I should also point out that the large problem with the treaty web is derived from people allying all over the map. This causes the widespread escalation, conflicting treaties and inability to move that chokes the life out of people. RIA's military treaties breakdown as follows:

6 are from being in SF. I'd say those qualify as being fairly "tight" politically.
1 is CRAP, who used to be our protectorate, has always been extremely tight with us politically and only has one military treaty besides us and Chestnut, bringing us to...
2 more from the Chestnut Accords, the other signatories of which are either in SF or are CRAP. Again, fairly tight politically with the rest of the bloc.
1 is VE who is treatied to about half of SF including an MADP with one of them.
1 is Corp (or whatever their new abbreviation is, I still haven't gotten used to that) who has military treaties with three other members of SF and has been tight with us for longer than they have existed.
1 is Silence, who we've been friends with since they were two separate alliances and who is also allied to two other members of SF
1 is INT who is in a bloc with another member of SF.
1 is Sparta who is also allied to two other members of SF.


The number of treaties might not be low, but they are picked very specifically. If people spent more time focusing on compatibility when signing treaties, and carving out a proper niche, the number of treaties they signed wouldn't matter. You could have two completely separate groups of 101 alliances, each of which had 100 treaties, but if they are all treaties within their own groups, it would still be less of a messy tangle than what we have now. The fact that people sign treaties with alliances that might very well end up on the opposite side of a war from them is what causes political gridlock.

When you have highly interconnected spheres, there is a tendency for alliances to try to quash drama between spheres so that they don't end up on the opposite side of their cross-border allies. When there is so much interconnection that every sphere can be connected to every other sphere, then [i]any[/i] drama becomes threatening to someone, somewhere, and it gets quashed as soon as it arises. The tension this can cause actually played a fairly large role in bringing about the collapse of the Continuum power structure as it was even more rigidly homogenized post-WotC than we are even today.

Anyway, signing treaties responsibly is less about the number of alliances you sign treaties with and more about the number of political groups that you sign treaties within.
[/quote]

Even if you are being careful in this fashion, your allies are not; if you intend to hold onto these allies, your care in choosing treaties is rendered moot.

[Earogema]

Just reset or add stuff for newer nations.

We don't need like 5 new wonders that newer nations can't ever get big enough for. The game is focusing on the wrong people.

I would rather a reset though. The gap in nations is too large I think. Granted, I am a small nation myself.

[Lord Fingolfin]

It certainly is heartwarming to see people here gathered to constructively discuss the topic. And with that being said, I'll throw my hat into the ring of discourse.

Various persons have made several rather clever suggestions regarding game mechanics and the like. While I agreed with several of them, that discussion is rather outside of the purview of the discussion here (better suited towards the Suggestion Box), and frankly I'm of the opinion that the core of any solution to this "big question", is through IC actions, not OOC coding.

Something to the extent of zzzptm's suggestion seems a bit overly rigid and scripted for my tastes. The development of action and political intrigue needs to be natural. Frankly, as Ardus stated, we need more villains. That's not to say we need less heroes, they certainly have their place as well. We just need more villains. Villains and heroes cause conflict, as clearly evidenced by the recent STA-\m/ drama. STA has largely been portraying itself as somewhat of a white knight, and \m/ is...well they're \m/, "blinging" and ruining peoples games. That is drama, that is what we could use more off. If Hoo/RoK gov had been around that night in the STA-\m/ discussion channel backing up \m/ as forcefully as MK and NpO had been for STA, perhaps we would have seen \m/ decide that with the weight of SF behind them they were confident enough to roll tanks. But it didn't happen obviously, as interesting as it would have been. For any IC differences you have with the likes of NSO, \m/, PC, and their ilk, you have to applaud them for setting themselves apart as "the bad guys". They're dynamic and they keep things at least relatively interesting.

Now, it's all well and good to off the cuff throw out "we need more villains", however, villains don't pop up out of the ground, unfortunately. In my opinion, at least one way that would allow for the rise of more villains (I'm speaking more in regards to alliances, not individuals), would be the removal of material reparations. The fact of the matter is that wars are to destructive nowadays, you're never going to recoup your losses, not even close, a 100k NS nation alone loses billions of dollars worth of infrastructure, tech, and land, over the course of several weeks of nuclear warfare. Alliance leaders have failed to acknowledge this and have instead tried increasing reparations, with disastrous effects, as alliances lay under terms for not a month, but rather several months, or in the NPO's case an entire year. This effect has affected an increase in caution. Nobody wants to make the first move. If you make the first move, and lose, you just blew 50% or more of your NS and are now under terms for 6 months+. It's not that the cost of the reparations is extremely excessive, its simply the foreign aid system in the game. If you could send an unlimited amount of aid, then requesting reparations would not be as big an issue, however, it [i]is[/i] an issue, and as such needs to be addressed.

Just look at this last war, TOP & IRON and company burst into the conflict to "bloody C&G". In reality that is what we need more of in CN. Stop being so buddy buddy with everyone, you view someone as a threat and you seek to eliminate it. That's interesting, that's dynamic. Then you saw the original parties peacing out, cries of betrayal and an MK-NpO conspiracy to draw IRON and TOP into a trap. The cyberverse came alive with intrigue and drama and discussion. Some of it was shallow and pedantic to be sure, but overall it was entertaining, it was interesting. Now TOP and IRON are under terms for months. Reparations discourage dynamic action and risktaking. No-one is going to have the cajones to go out and risk destroying their alliance after seeing what IRON and TOP were subjected to. Why do a lot of people leave? Obviously there are a myriad of reasons, but I can guarantee you many many people leave when their alliance is faced with months of reparations. It literally sucks the fun out of the game.

The recent NSO - ROK war is a good example of what I would hope to see in the future. NSO rattles the cage, they step over the line, RoK calls them out and they fight it out for 2 weeks and NSO walks away without terms, and goes and rebuilds. Now take that, and apply it to a larger scale. Keep all the non-material terms you want. Force them off a sphere? Go for it. Make them vote for your senator? Sure. Cancel treaties? Have at it. Go hog wild. But keep material reparations out of it. The losing party in any given battle since GWI has already been reduced enough in strength to not be a viable threat for some time. At the end of the BiPolar War, there wasn't a single TOP/C&G side alliance in the top 20. Why inflict reps upon them? The C&G/SF side had almost every single top 20 alliance on their side, their position was untouchable, cash/tech reparations were purely punitive and did nothing but harm the game. If alliances know that they can be bold, be assertive, rattle some cages, without having to worry about losing the better part of a year to reparations, then perhaps we'll actually see action cropping up more often instead of lots of screaming "NO U!" on the forum but nobody actually stepping up to the plate. We need The Unjust Path version 2.0.

Now that I've pontificated, I'm curious to see whether anyone has come to the same conclusions I have and if they would support a measure to stop enforcing material reparations for IC actions. Perhaps OOC attacks and the like would still merit minimal material reparations if a consensus was reached on that. Such a measure could either be as legally binding as say For The Love of God Think Of The Children, or as casual as a gentlemen's agreement. I'm sure our lovely lawyer friends at OBR would have fun with drafting a document, or I suppose anyone could give a crack at it. In order to encourage alliances to sign on, perhaps a clause would be included limiting the "no material reparations exacted for IC actions" to only those who have signed the treaty. For example, if the RIA and MK had both signed the treaty, they would not be able to extract material reparations from each other in the case of war. However, if the RIA and NPO went to war and the NPO was not a signatory, reparations would be fair game (although personally I would probably still push for no material reps). In any case, I leave it up to you, unwashed masses of the OWF, to deride or applaud my comments at your leisure

-LF

Edited August 27, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[zzzptm]

I heartily agree with Fingolfin's request to not have material reparations, replacing them with other in-game requirements. We all know that changing a sphere is no small thing: were IRON and TOP forced to go to Pink, they would have to redo trade circles. That would make them grumble and howl enough to want to come back and do to their enemies what had been done to them.

Another suggestion would be to require nations in the defeated alliance to switch colors to complete trade circles in the winning alliance. Breaking those circles would break the peace agreement and trigger a war. We could see alliances fighting in order to secure resources with that idea.

[iMatt]

I also agree with Fingolfin's remarks about not having material reparations. This slows down the game and increases time between wars, since people are 'under reps' for so long.

But think of it this way, in today's CN, any amount of reps is *never* going to put a dent in the amount of infras/land/tech destroyed. They don't serve what they used to, way back when every war wasn't nuclear, and when every nation wasn't so large. Giving out massive reps along with the Foreign aid limits in-game make the reparation period go forever, and keeps that alliance out of the picture for far too long, imo.

[Darth Andrew]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1282872420' post='2432244']
I read many good ideas here but you people forgot to ask one thing: Is admin interested in make changes and add more things to the game? Is it profitable for him? And if the answer is no, is it possible for just us, the players, change the political aspect the game and it will be enough to bring new players to CN?[/quote]
I don't think we players could collectively change the political aspect, as it would be too difficult to voluntarily enforce whatever was decided upon. What changes were you thinking of, though?

If admin is no longer interested in the game (for whatever reason), he should pass the torch to someone else who would be. Otherwise, any changes we players would like to see will never happen.

Sort of off topic, but has it ever been stated why custom flags can't be uploaded (or hosted on another website) for our nations?

Edited August 27, 2010 by Darth Andrew

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1282869557' post='2432183']
2. Give access to every nation the ability to purchase nuclear weapons BUT restrict the maximum regardless of to 1 nuclear weapon per 10,000 NS starting with 1 at 0 NS.
[/quote]

I think it all sounds quite amazing, except for this. You will just get small nations that go nuclear rogue, when they get bored of the game, devastating other small nations.

EDIT: I think Fingolfin is right. The material reparations only do harm to the game, and create less wars.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Axolotlia

[Lukapaka]

Quite frankly, it's not that interesting. It's exciting once every few months, and then everything dies down again. Fortunately, it's not overly complicated so it doesn't take more than 5 minutes a day to keep your nation alive and well. Relaxing network rules some would at least allow siblings and co-workers the opportunity to expand. Beyond that, advertising and spending the donation $$ on improving the game would make it a bit more interesting for old players, while making it seem less stone-age era to new players.

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1282845181' post='2431860']
Why does every single person in this game think they need to make this topic/blog? Seriously, do you all just really want to be the saviour of CN? Get over yourselves.

The eightieth thread isn't going to have different results than the first.
[/quote]

Thanks for the useful input...
The OP's not claiming to be a savior and I don't think he's full of himself. In fact, he is completely right when he says 40,000 players in this game would make it a hell of a lot more exciting. I don't see why you had to post anything at all, if you were just gonna be a complacent negative nancy whose content with watching his game die. 'Positive' is in the title, yet you come in here with all those negative vibes...

If it gets brought up so friggin often then perhaps this is actually a legit issue.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Lukapaka

[Mirreille]

Since a few people mentioned colors, I will say I think it is a shame more hasn't been done with those. There are few actual differences between nations; color politics could have added a bit of drama to the game. This aspect has never seemed to gain any traction though, for a variety of reasons. A couple of suggestions in the SB area have been made too.

Maybe we need a big-endians vs. small-endians split that has nothing to do with alliance affiliation. If people could fight for causes without losing their AA by doing so we might get some additional drama.

[Axolotlia]

Color wars? for example, Purple and Orange teaming up against say Aqua?

[Mirreille]

Well maybe. Something with more or less even sides would be preferable though. The large disparity in color sizes does make it a bit difficult.

What I am mainly pointing out is that if the treaty web is the problem, maybe we could all just look the other way and ignore it, or go around it somehow. Watching Vox explode overnight with people from all over the community is what first put the idea in my head. If you could have two of those going at it you might end up with a fun fight, or at least something better then a curbstomp.

[Qaianna]

The treaty web I think will continue as long as there's a reason for people to join in on it. Those reasons, sadly, exist. If you doubt me, fire up a 5-man alliance and let me know how things are in a few weeks.

Hm. How to keep/draw new people, and keep old ones? I don't know. I'll ramble a little here as far as what I've done here in my time, see if that has any effect.

I joined up (with two others) as we shared a roleplay area with another longtime player. All three of us joined the Grand Global Alliance (as that was where the longtimer was). Oddly, I was attacked for turning down an unfavourable off-colour trade pretty early in the going; despite the One Vision vs GATO war, this was just someone taking a potshot for fun.

At that point, more than ANY other time I've been in Cybernations, both through good and bad, the 'Delete Nation' button looked most tempting. I basically stormed onto the IRC channel, and..well, let's be honest, sulked until some other GGA members swung by, noticed, and sent a few bundles of aid over. Trying to see if the other two guys had anything similar ... but I'm curious if this helped get me more 'involved' in things. I know the other two never really made a dent in forum postings on the GGA boards. (The one who got me to play is still around too.)

Don't know if I'm a normal player in this regard. I joined figuring I'd be a cog in the machine, taking orders, lurking, et cetera. There's a reason I consider my (short) term as a Trumvir at GGA my greatest failure at in-game goals, and not related to anything related to the Alliance itself. Still, I ended up clowning around a little, was noticed for having some entertaining writing, and that got me pointed to ... here.

Dear Deity or Force of Nature or Science, how I manage to stay here? I'm only two in-game years old and I'm fully agreeing with the majority of what Il Impero Romano said about OWF culture, and even wondering if Vox Populi screaming its head off over how horrible I was would qualify as 'good old days'. I forgot if it was he or someone else who cited the whole 'PR machine' menace, but it's still there. I still wonder why I come around here. Perhaps it's that whole self-actualisation thing.

I don't think it's 'Argh, it's out of reach' for a young nation, as long as they can see some good progress, so a reset likely would not address that. However, wars do tend to have their effects, and while old-timers here whine about how boring peace is, remember that it's the YOUNG blood that gets spilt in a war too. Add that onto being part of reparation payments, and a newer nation can find itself locked into going nowhere. How many alliance cultures could support that?

The whole point of this mess is that I still consider myself relatively new; the Green Civil War was so far in the past I was confused as to why the Viridian Entente would have a grudge against anyone (or a break in its history), I had no idea who Chris Kaos was, and so on. I did know where I was, sort of; with the 'In crowd' at the time (that changed, of course). I didn't exactly shoot to prominence at GGA (at least, I don't think so; it's hard to compare). What I'm overall saying is it might help to find the ones that do stay, and find out why they do. Find out what's working now, and what drives folks off.

And yes, I think welcoming newbies with bombs counts as 'driving off'. Same with greeting their OWF debuts with unadulterated scorn (not that the second ever did happen to me).

PS: I just talked with another former player. Why he left? 'It's become a repetitive grind and I don't really see any progress there.' Remember, this isn't a guy who qualified for a Manhattan Project.

[Hyperion321]

Seems like it's time for NoR to make another recruitment video.

[Hymenbreach]

May I suggest the Mods waive the 'Game Suggestions in the Suggestion Box' rule here. It's stifling the discussion and we are, after all, trying to help out here.

[Banksy]

Calling for some IC villain wont help increase the net number of players in this game. A villain causes a war, and wars are where we lose nations. A Villain will make the OWF posters and lurkers far happier, but they are a minority in CN. A villain will cause a larger player drop off.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Hymenbreach' timestamp='1282893149' post='2432608']
May I suggest the Mods waive the 'Game Suggestions in the Suggestion Box' rule here. It's stifling the discussion and we are, after all, trying to help out here.
[/quote]
Think what's needed more is some way of keeping the new folks that swing by. Fiddling with game mechanics may not be the best solution; the new folks won't understand them anyway. Might as well keep it to the cultural side. Isn't that where the 'real' game is anyway?