Positive brainstorming

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1285361120' post='2463558']
well i would argue that if it was possible for people to rebuild war damage in a semi reasonable time (i.e 3-6 months) they would be more willing to go to war.
[/quote]


Limit the length of war. Limit post war reps. Stupidly long reps like the ones dished out post Karma and post Bi-Polar were specifcally designed to slow rebuilding and remove powerful alliances from the political stage. Especially given the extreme length and damage of those wars. I don't know why wars took such a quantum leap and went from lasting generally 2-3 weeks to 2-3 months, other than the change of sides in the treaty web.

I also think the Manhattan Project was one of the worst ideas Admin came up with in the game. It made for too much destruction being heaped on players in the 10-20k ns range as larger nations with the MP fell to that level. We lost probably 30+ members to that during the Karma war. Someone spent 6-8 months getting to 20-25k ns, then they are held in nuke anarchy for a 20 day cycle. At that point they are at 0 infra, no tax collection and the war is still raging. So they just fold the tent. Now instead of following the previous growth path newer nations have to have aid poured into them to get the MP as soon as they can. It was a point of pride with me to have gotten into the top 5% and to have gotten my nukes that way. But pandoras box was opened and giving everyone the bomb caused a large part of the nation number problem imo.

[Joseph Black]

Just a few quick suggestions before I run


~More distinction between OCC and IC. If they are posting in the created alliance thread, its OCC. Don't rip them a new one, help them out. If its a new player, offer assistance don't tell them to quit crying or join a real alliance. People need to be held more accountable for their IC words, what you say IC should have IG results.

~Less strict server rules, Universities have whole clubs who would love games like this, but they can't play because the only internet they get is via a school. Thats almost 100,000 more people in the US alone that could be playing.

~More damage in war, less rebuild time. If your a nation thats at 10K infra and you get ZI'd it should only take about 3-5 months to rebuild. Less lower growth time, people want nukes, they want size, they want to experience the game quicker. 6 months is a long time to wait before you can start being a reasonable size nation, and thats not even making you middle of the growth, it puts you into actually being able to do something.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1282969164' post='2433526']
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.
[/quote]

If you allow larger amounts to be sent, the alliances that are demanding huge reps now are just going to demand higher reps. Reps aren't really about the profit - it's not that much. They about making sure that the alliance you just beat the crap out of can't rebuild efficiently. You force them to be under reps for the next 2 months, or 6 months, or more, so that they are using their slots to send money and tech, which keeps them from buying tech.

It's essentially saying "Now that we've beat you down, you have to help us rebuild for months, during which time you can do little rebuilding. That way, we are in a position to beat the snot out of you again".

If you raise the amount that can be sent as aid, tech dealing will change, and reps will be much higher than they are now. The winners will still demand that the losers send reps for months before they can use their aid slots for their own rebuilding.

And that doesn't encourage wars. If it were not for harsh reps, we would have more wars.

A rule that says "You can't demand reps for winning a war" would do a lot more to encourage war than raising the aid limits.

[Ejayrazz]

The players need to come together. Reps are completely outrageous. On a sociological level, everyone wants influence, so they're willing to infra hug and build up since everyone else is doing it; if they're unable to keep up, they'll fall behind. Because nation sizes are expanding, so are damages in conflicts. People offer HUGE amounts of rep requirements, but display them as lenient since the calculator said they took more damage than there expecting the opponents to pay. Nonsense. Beat them to a pulp and let them build, because ultimately this game is dying and it's dying steadily.

Those of you with 10+ allies; you're part of the problem as well. On a political front, hardly anyone can attack anyone without someone getting pissed because a treaty was broken. Guess what? When you have too many allies, it's GOING to happen. Political entanglement, fighting for the front runner causing these cold wars, and reparations amount pertaining to the two previous mentioning s are all player-based. WE are ruining this game, not Admin.

[Joseph Black]

How old is Cybernations?

[Prime minister Johns]

I would think that a major cause of the lack of player retention in CN stems from several root causes that I will outline briefly.

1: early failure in a player's experience: This can be brought on by either lack of skill or by a tech raid that wipes out an entire month's worth of work in a few days. (which is in the case of a new player 100% of everything that they have ever made). The remedy I would suggest for this is to include a tutorial section in the actual game engine to guide new players through building their nation and teach them the basics of the war system.

2: Lack of community engagement with new players: Without a community this game is just button pushing that will get boring pretty fast. The only remedy I can suggest here is for the recruiting departments of every alliance to work harder to incorporate these new players into the community.

3: Lack of early game content: Sadly enough all the newer exciting stuff is only available to huge established nations, Small nations only have content that has been in the game since it went live. The remedy here might be to make the next addition something that every nation can have access to regardless of their size. This would improve the game experience of the newer players and hopefully engage their interest.

[LJ Scott]

@ Muddog: 4 1/2 years.

Edited September 25, 2010 by LJ Scott

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='LJ Scott' timestamp='1285375970' post='2463748']
@ Muddog: 4 1/2 years.
[/quote]

Thank you.




One thing to consider is that when the "new" wears off a game will ultimately reach a point when it shrinks down. The honeymoon stage is over so to speak, maybe its less the idea of what is causing it, as it is the natural evolution of the game.

[Ejayrazz]

Over 4.5 years. I've been here since Feb of 06, I am 4.7. haha.

[koona]

I have read many ideas and while some are good (IMO) and some are bad (also IMO) most of them have already been suggested in the past, but that is not the problem.

I would like to ask Admin one question with a possibility of 3 answers, they're not meant to upset but I believe the community deserves to know.

The lack of game development (and I mean big things like when aid, destructive wars, improvs, wonders were added) is due to?

1. Kevin doesn't want to do more
2. Kevin doesn't care either way
3. Kevin doesn't know what to do more with the game.

If it's 1 or 2, we the community should know, we'll keep playing with what we got until we have it and then we'll all fade away from where we came from, but at least we're clear with the future of this game.

If it's 3 then there's the possibility of opening it up to contributors, there are players who know how to program, some might even be willing to do this pro-bono. I know the filtering of trustworthy people takes time, but it's something to think about.

Another idea could be to sell the game to somebody to will develop on the idea that is CN.

[thedon125]

[quote name='koona' timestamp='1285392766' post='2464010']
I have read many ideas and while some are good (IMO) and some are bad (also IMO) most of them have already been suggested in the past, but that is not the problem.

I would like to ask Admin one question with a possibility of 3 answers, they're not meant to upset but I believe the community deserves to know.

The lack of game development (and I mean big things like when aid, destructive wars, improvs, wonders were added) is due to?

1. Kevin doesn't want to do more
2. Kevin doesn't care either way
3. Kevin doesn't know what to do more with the game.

If it's 1 or 2, we the community should know, we'll keep playing with what we got until we have it and then we'll all fade away from where we came from, but at least we're clear with the future of this game.

If it's 3 then there's the possibility of opening it up to contributors, there are players who know how to program, some might even be willing to do this pro-bono. I know the filtering of trustworthy people takes time, but it's something to think about.

Another idea could be to sell the game to somebody to will develop on the idea that is CN.
[/quote]

Somebody hasn't read the entire thread:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91309&view=findpost&p=2433408

In which case, the answer is effectively 1, though very crudely. In that posting, it certainly seems as though he'd like to do more, but there is the concern of adding too much to the game. Doing so can quite easily break it; the learning curve for new nations is steep enough as it is, while rocking the boat might shove off more of the established member.

[Petrovich4]

[b]TENSION = INTEREST[/b]

'But why have spy limits? Why not let anyone spy on anyone? Why not let anyone declare on anyone? These NS limits keep half the game's player from having much of any effect on the other half. They need to be removed or greatly relaxed.

Nukes need to be un-nerfed. The 24hr rule is really dumb because it removes one of the biggest potential sources of tension in the game. Instead of being seen as the unstoppable, possibly devestating first-strike weapon that they should be, nukes are now just another tool in the conventional arsenal. Effective, but fairly ho-hum.

No one cares if an alliance bulks up on nukes because they know that they can't be hit with them for the first 24 hours after a declaration, so they'll have plenty of chance to try to nuke first.

And the "you can only be nuked once a day" rule is also stupid. That really destroyed the nuke's place as an interesting game changer.

Nukes and war in general would be a truly harcore prospect to most of the players if it was possible to go from 6000 infra to 2000 infra in a single day with a first-strike sneak attack. It would add a great degree of tension to the game. [b]TENSION = INTEREST.[/b]

Ditto on all of that for Air strikes. Just limit how many aircraft you can buy per day related to your infrastructure and technology.

$%&@, nukes should have a chance of damaging or destroying improvements or wonders, for that matter. That would REALLY spice up the game.'


[quote name='Ejayrazz' timestamp='1285380549' post='2463813']
Over 4.5 years. I've been here since Feb of 06, I am 4.7. haha.
[/quote]

I thought you've been here since Autumn 2006??

[Trikoupis]

I've gone as far as to create alliances in other games in the interest of recruting for CN. I made a theme based alliance, with the same theme as mine in one of these games, which reached quickly 400 members. Only 3 of them joined CN. None of them is still playing the game.

There's nothing [i]we[/i] can do to save the game. Only admin can save game, if he stops being afraid of making [i]radical[/i] changes. There are times when you have nothing to lose and [i]radical[/i] changes are the only thing left to do admin.

Things to allow faster growth of new nations in particular, as they are very discouraged not seeing how to reach the top in a game that has matured so much. Raising the cap for foreign aid, making war profitable by allowing more spoils, limit the beatings by limiting the number of nations that may attack a nation perhaps. These are things that would help i bellieve.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Trikoupis

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Petrovich4' timestamp='1285399337' post='2464112']
[b]TENSION = INTEREST[/b]

'But why have spy limits? Why not let anyone spy on anyone? Why not let anyone declare on anyone? These NS limits keep half the game's player from having much of any effect on the other half. They need to be removed or greatly relaxed.

Nukes need to be un-nerfed. The 24hr rule is really dumb because it removes one of the biggest potential sources of tension in the game. Instead of being seen as the unstoppable, possibly devestating first-strike weapon that they should be, nukes are now just another tool in the conventional arsenal. Effective, but fairly ho-hum.

No one cares if an alliance bulks up on nukes because they know that they can't be hit with them for the first 24 hours after a declaration, so they'll have plenty of chance to try to nuke first.

And the "you can only be nuked once a day" rule is also stupid. That really destroyed the nuke's place as an interesting game changer.

Nukes and war in general would be a truly harcore prospect to most of the players if it was possible to go from 6000 infra to 2000 infra in a single day with a first-strike sneak attack. It would add a great degree of tension to the game. [b]TENSION = INTEREST.[/b]

Ditto on all of that for Air strikes. Just limit how many aircraft you can buy per day related to your infrastructure and technology.

$%&@, nukes should have a chance of damaging or destroying improvements or wonders, for that matter. That would REALLY spice up the game.'




I thought you've been here since Autumn 2006??
[/quote]
While leting anyone declare war on anybody might be fun in the short term it would not be long for a group of established tech raiders to begin griefing smaller nations out of their tech and land or just nuking them for the "lulz".

The limits on who can declare war on who are there for the reason of game balance and if it was removed it would scare off all the new players who coincidentally happen to have small nations. And what this game needs to do is to retain more new players and incorporate them into the community rather than scare them off, so we can have fresh faces and fresh ideas to combat the stagnation that has afflicted this game.

[Trikoupis]

I'll aggree with the man above. Allowing nations to be destroyed over night is only good to make peoople lose interest.

And again in the same logic as Johns, i repeat that admin has to give young nations the sentiment that they can still reach the top despite the game having matured. Raising the foreign aid cap, allowing more spoils of war and allowing less beatings by allowing less nations to take on a nation are all good ways to do it in my opinion

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Trikoupis' timestamp='1285404325' post='2464152']
I'll aggree with the man above. Allowing nations to be destroyed over night is only good to make peoople lose interest.

And again in the same logic as Johns, i repeat that admin has to give young nations the sentiment that they can still reach the top despite the game having matured. Raising the foreign aid cap, allowing more spoils of war and allowing less beatings by allowing less nations to take on a nation are all good ways to do it in my opinion
[/quote]
I agree, raising the foreign aid cap would be a good idea, as it would allow nations to rebuild faster and also allow new nations to be able to "play with the big boys" sooner. And this would make for a faster and more exciting game.

[Kalasin]

I play this game for a number of reasons. I want to build my nation, I want to get into government, I want to make a mark on this game, I love my alliance and I want to improve it both in economic and political terms, and I want revenge on people who have wronged me. I also have a number of friends who are, in some cases, as close or closer than real life friends, who I keep in touch with solely because of this game.

[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 easy for you to make grand statements like these now that you're not in power and have failed to get treaties with any large alliances.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282971268' post='2433577']
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.'
[/quote]

Herooftime, while I don't have a high opinion of you generally, I'm coming to believe that you genuinely believe what you're saying, which is absurd. Honestly, you have *no* idea what it was like for those of us who were not pro-NPO back in the day. The IOs openly threatened people on the CNF. Go back and read it! People were [i]scared[/i]. I know this was the case! I lived through it! I can even link you to specific examples of people being threatened by the IOs if you like. What C&G and SF are doing now is *nothing* like that.

Furthermore, nobody is afraid of NPO. Sure, many of us would love a chance to roll them (in fact, it's one of the reasons I still play) but we're not afraid. I know this is part of a deliberate policy of theirs to encourage people not to be afraid of them, and I still have an eye on them, but they are in a very weak position politically. We aren't encouraging people to be afraid of them either. Hatred is very different to fear.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282971268' post='2433577']
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.
[/quote]

Given the Pacific's history with its friends and allies, it's hardly surprising that nobody wants to get close to them. Except like, Invicta.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282971268' post='2433577']
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.
[/quote]

Perhaps we wouldn't hate NPO so much if they hadn't done so much to deserve it.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282977151' post='2433671']
Big reps are just a continuation of the destruction from war. That's their only purpose, to further keep a guy down. The profit is a side benefit. They are a terrible thing, but for propaganda value people IC just keep declaring they are 'justice' or 'repayment for damages' as if the loser wasn't also damaged. They've justified the utter destruction of any competition and have bred an era of fear. Nobody wants to lose a war knowing it may be the last war they might ever have a chance of fighting. It destroys the game, instead of the game being a cycle, there is a clear end, and nobody wants to lose in that end.
[/quote]

Perhaps you'd have more credibility when it comes to criticism of tough surrender terms were it not for the abhorrent way in which you treated Polar and STA in the War of the Coalition. It was just the other day when I was reading the thread where STA made an announcement to declare that they would not accept Valhalla's demands that Tygaland and Uhtred step down, and Rakari and Pezstar be permanently banned from government. Throughout that entire thread, you showed absolutely no sympathy for them, and even sneered at them in their moment of weakness.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1282989819' post='2433755']
2)Something needs to be done to make building infrastructure cheaper so new players can, more quickly, join the rest in the 25-30k+ NS. If you don't see players coming back often - expect the political drama llamas - it's because they know that the longer they've been out of the game, the more steep the hill is. Virtually all games online have adjusted themselves, after a few years, to permit new members to climb the wall more quickly. Take a look at most MMORPGs, take a look at WoW.
[/quote]

I don't know, one of the main reasons I play at the moment is to build my nation. It's frustrating having to wait every ten days for my aid slots to open, but if it was too easy to build my nation, I'd get bored. I'm looking forward to nukes specifically because they're hard to get. I've planned out my wonders and I can't wait for my WRC, but
imagine if that was easy to get? I'd have nothing to aim for. Recently I bought my first wonder (a Stock Market! ) and I was thrilled.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1283123390' post='2435090']
I think it would be way more interesting if nukes were much harder to get, but easier through collective work, and then would be much more destructive. This could definitely give the whole game completely new and different dynamics.
[/quote]

Nah. I want nukes to be difficult to get, but achievable. I plan to have them within three or four months, and I started my nation what, 150 days ago?

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1283152020' post='2435593']
3. Outlaw all war. It's clear that it results in the destruction of nations and of alliances, often for petty/no reason. Alliances that engage in any offensive behaviour should be reprimanded.

4. Outlaw IRC. Communication and subsequent disagreements between alliances has been a constant means for pointless destructive war. Communication is therefore counter-intuitive for the enjoyment of new and old nations alike
[/quote]

Get rid of either of these, and I'll delete my nation tomorrow.

[Kalasin]

Oh yeah, and a suggestion to Admin- run a review of banned players. I have a number of close friends who are banned (not that they are evaders, but we still keep in touch via IRC.) My closest friend was banned for a number of small things. Signature violations and the like. He then made a thread to clarify what he'd been banned for. This thread was mistaken for an appeal thread (it was far too early for an appeal) and he's now banned - appeal denied. Perhaps if you removed the appeal denied bit from people's masks, particularly if they were banned over a year ago like he was, then we could see an influx of returning players.

[HalfEmpty]

Agree with Kalasin, fear of NPO is not running off players. NPO is the new ODN, there is nothing to fear from them. Trust me. They've changed, don't be mislead by stats, actions are what counts, they no longer count in the big picture. All is good. Sleep well.

[Ch33kY]

Considering that the last gameplay enhancement that greatly benefitted nations <35k NS was the introduction of Wonders, it's no wonder new nations aren't staying with the game. CyberNations needs more modifications to help new, small and medium sized nations. All the game enhancements over the past couple of years have been benefitted larger nations and done little for new, small and medium sized nations. Forget the treaty web arguments. If nations can build up quicker then people will be less included to worry about the effects of war on their nations.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='HalfEmpty' timestamp='1285420736' post='2464241']
Agree with Kalasin, fear of NPO is not running off players. NPO is the new ODN, there is nothing to fear from them. Trust me. They've changed, don't be mislead by stats, actions are what counts, they no longer count in the big picture. All is good. Sleep well.
[/quote]

They haven't changed. There's also little to fear from them, as they've failed to get treaties with TOP or IRON, or anyone else of significance. I don't see your point.

[HalfEmpty]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285422093' post='2464253']
They haven't changed. There's also little to fear from them, as they've failed to get treaties with TOP or IRON, or anyone else of significance. I don't see your point.
[/quote]


That is my point, like ODN they are harmless, and not running players from the game, perhaps they haven't changed, but you're completely safe at all times. Buy a house, in the 'burbs have a kid or two. Pacificas boot-in-face days are long gone. The new order has them well under control. There is nothing to concern yourself about. [s]Joseph Thorne isn't going to come thru your window. Well, I can't guarantee that, but it's extremely unlikely.[/s]

Whoopsie. Who knows?

Edited September 25, 2010 by HalfEmpty

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282963563' post='2433408']
I’ve been following this thread and others like it and I am reluctant to post in any of them as there are always people just waiting to challenge what that I say, but be that as it may, I’ll go ahead and post my thoughts on the subject.

I’ve repeated the story of how CN started many times over the years and it is one that I think a lot of you are forgetting or ignoring. When I created Cyber Nations my goal was to create a game that a few people might like to play for a few months. I didn’t spend much time developing it initially and when I released the game it was extremely limited in features (no trades, foreign aid, tanks, navy, aircraft, etc… OMG!) But I was happy with what I had created so I did a little advertising to get the word out about my new game to get some initial players to sign up. I wasn’t expecting much but soon we had a few hundred players and the server started having difficulty keeping up with demand. I stopped advertising but by that point word of mouth had taken over and soon players were joining Cyber Nations in the thousands. What was the draw to such a simple, feature limited, text based browser game? There were other nation simulators available in 2006, but Cyber Nations was one of the few nation builders that actually allowed players to fight wars with one another which allowed players to engage in politics and to actually back up their bark with their bite. Also in 2006, social sites like Facebook hadn’t yet totally owned the Internet and graphics heavy MMO games weren’t as predominate, so it was a little bit of people having nothing else to do, a little bit of people not expecting much out of their web based games, a little bit of dumb luck, but mostly people were attracted to the political environment within the community here. I began adding new features to the game as the community grew but the primary draw to Cyber Nations has never been about in-game features. It’s the political environment within the community, which interestingly enough, has always been beyond my control and with that the success or failure of Cyber Nations has never been up to me, it is in the hands of the community. 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. That political climate has been stagnant for years and in direct correlation there has been a consistent decrease in membership during that same period of time. This has all happened despite my best attempts to advertise the game so it is clear that if there is to ever be a resurgence of activity it must come from within the community itself. No amount of new game features are going to bring back the peak activity of 2007, if anything new game features will only dissuade people from even wanting to sign up for such a complicated and confusing game. Finally, I have never understood all those players that have purchased everything available in the game and leave the community because they say they are bored and let all that time and dedication of developing their precious pixels go to waste because they are obligated under treaties. If you own everything in the game and have more money than you know what to do with then freaking use it. Kick some ass. If more players and alliances would grow a pair and 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]

The fundamental problem with this is the sheer amount of time required to develop nations to the point where it is "worth it" to war people.

In that time period, very few people had well developed nations (how could have they? the game was relatively new). Now you see all sorts of people with billions upon billions, huge amounts of tech/infra, literally all the wonders, etc. The incentive to do anything risky greatly decreases because there is a HUGE time requirement to do anything. A nation with 14k infra doing something aggressive can literally sacrifice YEARS of growth for that aggression. Plus, after sacrificing that growth they can be forced to not do anything for months and months afterwards. It's simply not worth it at that point to be risky. This is entirely a game mechanic issue and not a player problem.

Blaming people choosing not to waste months upon months upon years of nation growth as something completely independent of the gameplay design is shortsighted in my opinion.

As the game designer things like this are incredibly relevant to maintaining a player base. Changes don't necessarily draw new people, but they CAN keep people from leaving. Little changes like the "buy infra keep 10" change are HUGE in terms of keeping people around. Buying infra was obnoxious prior to that change. I have no idea how long that existed but things like that are incredible negative playing experiences. My degree heavily relates to usability - little things that make things "un-fun" or "annoying" are incredibly influential in determining people's perception and overall evaluation of the product.

Little changes that honestly are trivial to implement are huge to the end user. I wrote myself an excel calculator in about 20 minutes to calculate how much infra costs if I buy more than 10 at a time. What reason is there that someone has to click "buy" 100 times to buy 1000 infra? There is absolutely no reason for something like that to exist [not to mention previously it was more work before it was just autopopulated]. It blows my mind you cannot type in an amount of infra to buy, hit "calculate," receive the total, and then have some sort of confirmation/purchase with one button. It's trivial to code but makes the game incredibly more enjoyable for the user.

There are a huge variety of things like this, just from a usability and overall enjoyability standpoint, which could be improved and increase retention of players. People don't like annoying things. Especially in games. Things like trades are just straight annoying. There is a huge game design need which does not appear to be met with respect to usability/player enjoyment.


Second, an additional gamedesign element which you as the designer have control over is the lack of endgame problem. As a new nation (something like 130 days old now) I have literally no change to provide any sort of value to my alliance for quite some time. Likely a year. This game is determined by the large nations, not smaller ones. The only way I can be valuable [note: this is purely from a gameplay mechanics side, NOT alliance side] is to invest about a year into the game. Then you can have nukes, a warchest, and a NS to actually hit important targets on your opponent's side. What incentive is there to play in an environment like that for someone who is new? None - this is by the design of the game though. If I'm 3999 infra and get beat up to 1200 infra, I can be rebuilt to 3999 infra in like 30 days. There is almost no threat from those nations then as any damage they do [again gameplay mechanics] can be easily repaired/rebuilt.

These issues discussed in the thread are primarily gameplay mechanics/interface problems that are reacted to as would be expected by the users of the product.


The stagnant political environment will probably NEVER change if the time required to recover from major wars is measured in years.

[Hereno]

4:08 CN Time, 25 September, 2010.

All Nations Display
Serving 1 to 10 of 21,056 Nations

^ Since the creation of this thread, about 750 nations have left the game and not been replaced.

-----

Also, as far as the argument provided by Quigon Jinn right above me, while well written, I'd still have to somewhat disagree with.

While you may be completely right about these things contributing negatively, I do think that the players and Admin need to work together if they want to save the game. Yes, the mechanics are outdated and need to be updated a bit. However, it's our own greediness which made them that way in the first place. We need to recognize that this game wasn't really meant for people to be hundreds of thousands of NS. Instead of infra-hugging, why not actually put all that stuff to use? Admin probably designed the game in mind that since there was a war mechanic, we would actually [i]use it[/i]. People are just too attached to their nations, and no matter what Admin does, he can only do so much when people would rather watch the game die than play it the way it was intended to be played - for fun. It's just plain selfish.

Edit: And before anybody "hurr durr you're just saying that because your nation is small", this is actually the third rerolled nation that I've kept.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Hereno

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285422093' post='2464253']
They haven't changed. There's also little to fear from them, as they've failed to get treaties with TOP or IRON, or anyone else of significance. I don't see your point.
[/quote]
Funny that you measure our relevance in terms of whether we have a treaty with TOP or IRON. Also interesting that you profess such knowledge of our FA, to the extent of knowing alliances we apparently failed to get treaties with. Since you are not a member of the Diplomatic Corps of Pacifica, I somehow doubt you have that kind of information.