Positive brainstorming

[TrotskysRevenge]

So it also follows from what Admin said that getting rid of the treaty web would make sense, as it would allow alliances to not fear being completely destroyed by gang bangs. War was more fun when it was alliance vs alliance, or 2-3 alliances vs 2-3 alliances. But 17 alliances on one side is rather daunting and does hamper the game. As much as I was part of one side of a huge treaty web, I also always believe it also seriously hampered game play.

[admin]

[quote name='Master-Debater' timestamp='1282966375' post='2433466']
More seriously. You yourself admitted that more activity comes when wars happen, so why not make it easyer to rebuild? To me that makes the most sense. If war builds activity, make it so more people can war. Right now people don't war as much as they might because years of work can be gone in days, and lost for a year or more. If people could rebuild in say, 2-5 months, you would see more wars and thus more activity. Makes sense right? If you can rebuild faster, you might risk wars more often.
I dont really expect an answer but maybe others could use this as jump off point.
[/quote]
It seems to me that this suggestion has been discussed before in the suggestion box but I can't find it. If there is not a topic on it then we need to get one started. Depending on the input from the community, I would be in favor of adding a 'Peak Infrastructure' and 'Peak Land' counter in the database and if your infrastructure or land levels are below their peaks (-100 so that it can't be exploited) then the purchase price is reduced for your nation. It makes sense, as it is cheaper to repair a worn out road than to build a new one.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='TrotskysRevenge' timestamp='1282966736' post='2433473']


So it also follows from what Admin said that getting rid of the treaty web would make sense, as it would allow alliances to not fear being completely destroyed by gang bangs. War was more fun when it was alliance vs alliance, or 2-3 alliances vs 2-3 alliances. But 17 alliances on one side is rather daunting and does hamper the game. As much as I was part of one side of a huge treaty web, I also always believe it also seriously hampered game play.
[/quote]

It's CurbstompNations. Vastly unbalanced wars since 2007.

[flakese]

Quick tip, make the community front and center on the game screen not just another option in the left side menu, The community is all this game has going for it at this point no matter how whiny some might think it has become.

[Master-Debater]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282967171' post='2433482']
It seems to me that this suggestion has been discussed before in the suggestion box but I can't find it. If there is not a topic on it then we need to get one started. Depending on the input from the community, I would be in favor of adding a 'Peak Infrastructure' and 'Peak Land' counter in the database and if your infrastructure or land levels are below their peaks (-100 so that it can't be exploited) then the purchase price is reduced for your nation. It makes sense, as it is cheaper to repair a worn out road than to build a new one.
[/quote]
I believe that at one point there was a topic because (as best as I can recall) people argued over the ability to rebuild.

It could be though that we are both thinking of other topics where one of the solutions made it so that people could rebuild better.


Also: Peak Infra and Land sounds like a good idea.

TO THE SUGGESTION BOX!!

[Voytek]

[quote name='TrotskysRevenge' timestamp='1282966736' post='2433473']


So it also follows from what Admin said that getting rid of the treaty web would make sense, as it would allow alliances to not fear being completely destroyed by gang bangs. War was more fun when it was alliance vs alliance, or 2-3 alliances vs 2-3 alliances. But 17 alliances on one side is rather daunting and does hamper the game. As much as I was part of one side of a huge treaty web, I also always believe it also seriously hampered game play.
[/quote]

"Hypocrisy is okay as long as I admit to it!"

[Homura]

Bah, this game only needs one nation: mine.

No seriously, what's wrong with what we have? 20,000 freaking players. That's not the world but it's still a lot.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282963563' post='2433408']
play the game with that kind of mentality, and stop with the insane reparations after wars, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
[/quote]
Preach. Preach Preach.

The alliances that get hit with heavy reps and taken out of the political arena for an insane amount of time are generally the alliance which causes drama.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Seerow]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282967171' post='2433482']
It seems to me that this suggestion has been discussed before in the suggestion box but I can't find it. If there is not a topic on it then we need to get one started. Depending on the input from the community, I would be in favor of adding a 'Peak Infrastructure' and 'Peak Land' counter in the database and if your infrastructure or land levels are below their peaks (-100 so that it can't be exploited) then the purchase price is reduced for your nation. It makes sense, as it is cheaper to repair a worn out road than to build a new one.
[/quote]


The biggest problem with this is that anything that allows large nations to rebuild much faster makes it that much harder for new nations to catch up. They're already stuck very far behind, and generally catch up only as large wars happen that they manage to stay out of. With this, that catch up zone simply doesn't exist. Unless you're fine with any new player being perpetually years worth of work behind, you'll need to consider this. Either by making war costlier without making rebuilding costlier (ie increasing costs of soldiers and the like), or simply making things easier for nations who have joined the game later. Or both.

[Captain Nathan Brittles]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282967171' post='2433482']
It seems to me that this suggestion has been discussed before in the suggestion box but I can't find it. If there is not a topic on it then we need to get one started. Depending on the input from the community, I would be in favor of adding a 'Peak Infrastructure' and 'Peak Land' counter in the database and if your infrastructure or land levels are below their peaks (-100 so that it can't be exploited) then the purchase price is reduced for your nation. It makes sense, as it is cheaper to repair a worn out road than to build a new one.
[/quote]

[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=50857]This[/url] thread deals with making it easier to rebuild after wars.

[flakese]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1282967707' post='2433495']
Preach. Preach Preach.

The alliances that get hit with heavy reps and taken out of the political arena for an insane amount of time are generally the alliance which causes drama.
[/quote]

It is a valid point, how many players facing up to a year of having their slots filled with money going out do you think have just said screw it and quit?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282967171' post='2433482']
It seems to me that this suggestion has been discussed before in the suggestion box but I can't find it. If there is not a topic on it then we need to get one started. Depending on the input from the community, I would be in favor of adding a 'Peak Infrastructure' and 'Peak Land' counter in the database and if your infrastructure or land levels are below their peaks (-100 so that it can't be exploited) then the purchase price is reduced for your nation. It makes sense, as it is cheaper to repair a worn out road than to build a new one.
[/quote]

Count me among those very much in favor of it in advance.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='FlakeSe' timestamp='1282968265' post='2433505']
It is a valid point, how many players facing up to a year of having their slots filled with money going out do you think have just said screw it and quit?
[/quote]
I can only speak from the experiences I've had in my alliance and I can say we've lost quite a bit.

[Seerow]

On an unrelated note, I just read through Admin's first post:

[quote]Over time the game itself reached a point in development where there was a fear of overdeveloping the game as well as adding new features that would disrupt years of dedicated gameplay so over time the addition of new in-game features has slowed down, not because I don’t care about Cyber Nations, but specifically because I do care because I don’t want to discourage new players and old players alike by adding too many features or throwing a wrench in the existing rules of the game. Besides, I’ve never seen a real measurable influx of new players as a result of any new game feature being added but where I have seen influxes of players, time and time again, was the result of an active political climate especially during global wars. [/quote]

I can understand not wanting to overdevelop Cybernations in fear of scaring people who are comfortable with the game as is, but there are numerous changes that could still be made that wouldn't affect the overall complexity or mechanics, but would be a quality of life change (such as the slotless aid which I had put forth several years ago and had pretty widespread support for up until the topic was locked).


Also, I notice over the years, you've continued developing other games. You had your Trucks, Cyber Citizens (multiple renditions of this one if I recall correctly), and probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting. Yet despite this, to the best of my knowledge CN and CN:TE remain your biggest successes.

Instead of devoting effort into new games that are completely different, why not work on a Cybernations 2.0, where you work from a new fundamental base. You could keep most of the core mechanics the same, but also fix the inherent scaling issues without ruining work everyone has put into currently existing nations. You could include the sorts of things people have asked for but wouldn't work due to a late implementation (such as in game alliance affiliations), and things that are a part of the game to encourage war (not just the scaling issues being discussed here, but also in game resources and the like, things that are limited that people will be willing to fight over, because they cannot be shared).

After working on the new game, you simply put it up as an alternative, a la TE, but without the server resets. It would be a risky venture, but no moreso than the other projects you've done in the past, and people would then have the choice between this game that is now 5 years old and ultimately pretty boring, or a new game that encourages a faster paced playstyle and is more polished in general. I'd be willing to bet that there would be a strong following for such a game if done right. Stronger at least than the response we saw to trucks.




edit:

Also in response to Admin's last sentence about not issuing crippling reparations. Let higher up nations send more than paltry sums of aid to other large nations, and we would be able to deal with sums that aren't negligible in a much shorter amount of time. It's not our fault that we can only send the equivalent of 1 days collection every 10 days, so to request reparations in any amount that is actually noticeable we are forced to spend months sending it, despite it being available right away.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Seerow

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1282967707' post='2433495']
Preach. Preach Preach.

The alliances that get hit with heavy reps and taken out of the political arena for an insane amount of time are generally the alliance which causes drama.
[/quote]
You're right Feanor, what we did to the NpO was a crime.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1282969643' post='2433541']
You're right Feanor, what we did to the NpO was a crime.
[/quote]
I'm not denying that it was bad for the game and that we helped continue a bad precedent.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Ironfist]

Make reparations against the ToS. It can be seen as a grey area anyway. We, the players, work on our "nation" in [u]real life[/u], then we have to give part of it away because if we don't we're threatened.

It'd make wars more frequent and impulsive acts of mindless aggression more for the lulz rather than a taboo area.

I agree 100% with the rebuilding rate. New nations (my nation is only 450 days old) don't care about big 250k+ nations. I don't, anyway. Who would? It's their nation, and I know for a fact I'll never get there, but due to constant warfare, I can still make the top 5% and be a player who means something to community, if I so wish, with a little bit of hard work.

It's a game, people don't realise that it seems.

[_GunneR_]

The problem is not that people think wars are taboo, or that they are afraid of reparations but that the winners have nothing to gain. What am I fighting for? Right now if I declare war (alliance sanctioned) I only gain destruction. Even victorious I'm hindered and those that sat the war out are stronger than I am. Give me something worth fighting for and I'll see you out there. Nothing drastic. Make senators able to choose 5 official team alliances (5 per colour) and one of those gets sanctioned. Whoever is sanctioned gets permanent +5 happiness.

Nothing huge but you watch people fight over being an official alliance and a bit of an economy boost.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1282970310' post='2433556']
Make reparations against the ToS. It can be seen as a grey area anyway. We, the players, work on our "nation" in [u]real life[/u], then we have to give part of it away because if we don't we're threatened.

It'd make wars more frequent and impulsive acts of mindless aggression more for the lulz rather than a taboo area.[/quote]

Disagree. Wars, made impossible to win in any formal sense, would become pointless and not worth pursuing.

We don't need restrictions on the community. We need action from within the community and a few structural adjustments here and there to provide more things to chase after.

[Qaianna]

I guess I should toss this out here to see how thinking is going.

Is it more important to hold onto the old nations, or to make sure the new ones hang around?

[Ironfist]

[quote name='_GunneR_' timestamp='1282970631' post='2433564']
The problem is not that people think wars are taboo, or that they are afraid of reparations but that the winners have nothing to gain. What am I fighting for? Right now if I declare war (alliance sanctioned) I only gain destruction. Even victorious I'm hindered and those that sat the war out are stronger than I am. Give me something worth fighting for and I'll see you out there. Nothing drastic. Make senators able to choose 5 official team alliances (5 per colour) and one of those gets sanctioned. Whoever is sanctioned gets permanent +5 happiness.

Nothing huge but you watch people fight over being an official alliance and a bit of an economy boost.
[/quote]

Personally I'd add the treaty web as another problem but the fact is, that can't be stopped. As a member of GPA, I enjoy nation building, and not wars. So what? I'm still in the game. And I still enjoy it. If someone enjoys war, I think they should be allowed to enjoy war without fear of destruction.

As for what you gain from declaring war. I dunno, enjoyment? Admin already stated that's what brings most people into activity and I agree. [u]Most[/u] people enjoy war. Those who don't, are neutral. Those who are, though, seem to hide due to... well, I've already said it, fear of destruction.

[HeroofTime55]

In my opinion, the reason the game is stagnating is because the people in charge have literally built a culture of fear to maintain their power. They've built a culture of fear that the "evil NPO" is going to rise again, and that they must save their nations and resources for that fateful day to vanquish that 'evil.' That is the simple and honest truth, whether they explicitly realize it or not. And sure, it's a brilliant strategy for maintaining power, but then everyone comes here to whine about it. There are a scarce handful of movers, like STA who very recently almost started the fabled "SF/CnG Split" but \m/ backed down as fast as they possibly could to prevent that from happening (And I believe their allies also explicitly told them they wouldn't be defended).

Since they've decided to make NPO and the extremely loose group of alliances on this 'side,' if you can call it that, into their mortal enemies rather than any group who could pose a real threat, I would recommend that anyone who is so bored of the game, rather than complain on the boards, hop over to this side, or if you're a leader, drag your alliance over. Then we can have a nice even war again. And really, it's not boring over here. Being the underdog is insanely fun.

Either that, or drop the mentality you currently have, and declare on each other. Cancel the treaties tying the sides together, and have MK just declare on RoK for no reason whatsoever. And everyone drop the silly fake morality, just follow where the treaties go.

None of these suggestions are going to happen, of course. Nothing exciting is going to happen until this 'side' gets rolled a couple dozen more times and people eventually shake their obsession with NPO. Or NPO has to firmly anchor itself to one side, that might work, but good luck with that happening.

Another option is to roll all these neutral alliances at the same time and for no good reason. You want your fun, there you go. It's sure to create drama, come up with some weak reason, hell, send an undercover rogue in to cause an issue if you need to.

Edited August 28, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Ardus]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1282971193' post='2433575']
I guess I should toss this out here to see how thinking is going.

Is it more important to hold onto the old nations, or to make sure the new ones hang around?
[/quote]
Admin loves all of his children equally. 'Cept for banned member. Hates that guy.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='_GunneR_' timestamp='1282970631' post='2433564']
The problem is not that people think wars are taboo, or that they are afraid of reparations but that the winners have nothing to gain. What am I fighting for? Right now if I declare war (alliance sanctioned) I only gain destruction. Even victorious I'm hindered and those that sat the war out are stronger than I am. Give me something worth fighting for and I'll see you out there. Nothing drastic. Make senators able to choose 5 official team alliances (5 per colour) and one of those gets sanctioned. Whoever is sanctioned gets permanent +5 happiness.

Nothing huge but you watch people fight over being an official alliance and a bit of an economy boost.
[/quote]
... so then everyone joins one of the five, or all go to the #1.

And, yes, without reparations, wars have no benefit other than providing joy at blowing stuff up.

If you're worried about another alliance being stronger than you, just blow it to smithereens. Take the PR hit and blast any AA that is generally resented in your side of the MDP web, regardless of political affiliation. If you're too noble to do that, then be happy for the hippies with massive nation strengths. Because of your sacrifice, they can raise their children in peace.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282971076' post='2433573']
Disagree. Wars, made impossible to win in any formal sense, would become pointless and not worth pursuing.

We don't need restrictions on the community. We need action from within the community and a few structural adjustments here and there to provide more things to chase after.
[/quote]

Tell me how getting rid of monetary+tech reparations hinders the community?