Positive brainstorming

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1283217998' post='2436409']
Stopped reading right here. This claim is so dramatically over-the-top that it undermines anything else you could possibly have to say. [/quote] Alright, let's go down the list. Lets start by remembering that we are dealing with terms which have, regardless of the wording or the specific terms, kept alliances out of the game for [i]years[/i] at a time. Now lets compare the effect of the examples you've given.

[quote]Alliances have been forcibly disbanded,[/quote]You cannot force an alliance to disband, and this is not 'giving out terms,' also, a number of these have been done in the first Unjust War by Polaris, to whom MK is now conveniently allied (Though most of these events are, invariably, blindly blamed on NPO). Karma also saw the disbandment of many small protectorates on this side, several of whom we were closely associated with.

Moving on.

[quote]forcibly seized via viceroys,[/quote]Besides this having been long since rendered useless by the ToS, Legion prospered under their viceroy, and most would tell you it was a good thing.

[quote]been forced to demolish wonders,[/quote]Thus putting them 30 days behind per wonder demolished, which I believe was all of two wonders. 60 days is not equal to a year.

[quote]forced to declare eternal allegiance,[/quote]Dose nothing to impair the rebuilding and growth of an alliance

[quote]forced from the colors they call home,[/quote]Disrupts trades for a short while, no serious impact on growth or rebuilding, more an emotional toll

[quote]and been attacked for trumped up "term violations" for no offense other than simple existence over the course of history.[/quote]As the first, this is not an example of final surrender terms signed into effect.

[quote]NPO & TOP/IRON got particularly pointed terms, but they [i]pale[/i] in comparison to the terms they dished out.[/quote]I just demonstrated this an outright lie.

The terms of this new age are [i]far[/i] more debilitating than anything ever dished out in history, and they are that way by design. That is, again, part of the reason we are in this current state of stagnation. The sooner that you can accept that trying to keep any competition permanently out of the game is not conductive to fun, competitive game play, the sooner we can move out of this slump.

...I've made my point, I'm dropping out of this discussion. I'll still respond to separate points, or posts that have a purpose more than just mocking me and actually address my points.

Edited August 31, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Lazarus Long]

[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]


That's a darned good idea, IMHO

[Crymson]

Nobody thinks that the outrageously-destructive war system is a problem?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1283220238' post='2436454']
Nobody thinks that the outrageously-destructive war system is a problem?
[/quote]If it were made less destructive, wars would be drawn out, under the argument that it is necessary to 'punish' whoever is the target of the latest curbie. The effect would essentially be the same.

I'm fine with the war system as it is. It's all about relative positioning, having stats that are relatively better than someone else's stats. Absolute value of stats is unimportant.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283221032' post='2436467']
If it were made less destructive, wars would be drawn out, under the argument that it is necessary to 'punish' whoever is the target of the latest curbie. The effect would essentially be the same.[/quote]

War being drawn out isn't the problem. It's drawn out peace that's the problem. Less destructive war means faster recovery between them, and fewer stretched out periods of boredom.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1283223198' post='2436506']
War being drawn out isn't the problem. It's drawn out peace that's the problem. Less destructive war means faster recovery between them, and fewer stretched out periods of boredom.
[/quote]
I think his concern there was more that the war would eventually be as destructive, just taking longer to get there, without affecting rebuilding time. That if war damages scaled down WITHOUT adjusting rebuilding, the net effect for some would be to make wars last for that set amount of damages, thus making them longer (say, more than double if we arbitrarily halved the damages war causes).

Here's a question: how would 'less alliances' make things better? I keep seeing people grumbling about that, typically from big-name ones.

EDIT: And Tyga, I think I see a little of what you mean. Even in Karma, once I got over my general dislike of fighting (yeah, I hug pixels, deal with it), I tried talking the rest of GGA into using 'Highway to Hell' across the board for the war declarations. BiPolar, I wasn't quite as enthusiastic despite having nukes, and ... well, history played itself out.

Still, it helps if we can get nations to feel they belong. Folks keep talking about how the New Pacific Order's member numbers are still up there. They've got a little esprit de corps going for them, no?

Edited August 31, 2010 by Qaianna

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1283214256' post='2436308']
Just a word to the wise, Archon, Rafael or lebubu would probably be the person to talk to in MK about that.
[/quote]

Yes. I was trying to be crafty without actually saying 'You're not the one to announce xyz."

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1283217524' post='2436395']
You are too far gone to even reply to. I have attempted to reply a couple of times but you have NO-U-itis and I will leave it at that.
[/quote]

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with HoT, but you're reply to him in the last few pages of this thread has simply been asking him to explain himself. He then goes into great length to explain his position. That is not a No-U response.

[Ashoka the Great]

Dear Admin:

I can't address your motives for creating/continuing to run this game. I'm glad you made it, and I'm even more glad that our antics haven't yet convinced you to pull the plug on the damn thing.

And you're right. If people were a bit less risk-averse then yes, it would be a much more interesting place. You've put it so well that it bears repeating: "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."

Never mind individual players. I wish more [i]alliances[/i] thought that way. There is a timidity among the general CN population that is a little bit embarrassing to see, considering what is [u]really[/u] at risk in the long run. (Namely, nothing.)

I'd like to see a war fought over honor for once, and not because of some lame, fabricated excuse. Consider the amount of mud that gets thrown around because people know they can get away with it. Wouldn't it be nice if actions had consequences? They do in the real world. Why not here?

Sincerely,

- kz

[Kosh Naranek]

One thing we can do to promote the game is take advantage of the new digg. Admin can create an account and we can all be followers and with such a large amount we can easily get content to the frontpage. That's an easy way to promote the game to a large pool of people.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1283232935' post='2436734']
Dear Admin:

I can't address your motives for creating/continuing to run this game. I'm glad you made it, and I'm even more glad that our antics haven't yet convinced you to pull the plug on the damn thing.

And you're right. If people were a bit less risk-averse then yes, it would be a much more interesting place. You've put it so well that it bears repeating: "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."

Never mind individual players. I wish more [i]alliances[/i] thought that way. There is a timidity among the general CN population that is a little bit embarrassing to see, considering what is [u]really[/u] at risk in the long run. (Namely, nothing.)

I'd like to see a war fought over honor for once, and not because of some lame, fabricated excuse. Consider the amount of mud that gets thrown around because people know they can get away with it. Wouldn't it be nice if actions had consequences? They do in the real world. Why not here?

Sincerely,

- kz
[/quote]
We're looking at the reasons for the timidity, Ashoka. And honestly, there's room for caring about the pixels you have. Otherwise, what's the point of having them? This might explain why one of the more influential names in the world is sitting on zero infrastructure. If no-one cares about statistics, then what's the point of having them?

I've seen some games where people truly stopped caring about the game's scores. In one, the guy running it KILLED the game off, since half the group were bored and were just wrecking stuff, while the other half were still working the game itself. It does get tiresome to keep hearing the epithet 'pixel-hugger' thrown about, especially by those who're on the NS-heavy side of things

[Alterego]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283212335' post='2436282']
Because no foreigners have the power to limit our freedom of action, and removing options for ourselves is stupid, basically. I'm sure most alliances would agree with this.
[/quote]
What do you think a treaty is? You have a number of the most intrusive type of treaty, MADP. This means when you want to do something meaningful you have to talk to them first and get approval.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1283232935' post='2436734']
Dear Admin:

I can't address your motives for creating/continuing to run this game. I'm glad you made it, and I'm even more glad that our antics haven't yet convinced you to pull the plug on the damn thing.

And you're right. If people were a bit less risk-averse then yes, it would be a much more interesting place. You've put it so well that it bears repeating: "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."

Never mind individual players. I wish more [i]alliances[/i] thought that way. There is a timidity among the general CN population that is a little bit embarrassing to see, considering what is [u]really[/u] at risk in the long run. (Namely, nothing.)

I'd like to see a war fought over honor for once, and not because of some lame, fabricated excuse. Consider the amount of mud that gets thrown around because people know they can get away with it. Wouldn't it be nice if actions had consequences? They do in the real world. Why not here?

Sincerely,

- kz
[/quote]Everybody, look quick, this is me agreeing with kingzog.

The problem, of course, is you need an alliance that cares about honor to not cower away when their honor is spat upon. I can think of like, six or seven alliances who actually do that.

[heggo]

Well I think the fundamental problem is that more alliances aren't like the NSO.

Edited August 31, 2010 by heggo

[Alterego]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1283232935' post='2436734']
Never mind individual players. I wish more [i]alliances[/i] thought that way. There is a timidity among the general CN population that is a little bit embarrassing to see, considering what is [u]really[/u] at risk in the long run. (Namely, nothing.)

[/quote]
No one wants o spend a year of their life being someones prisoner and doing nothing but sending them tech and money. Thats the result of a month of fun and a guaranteed way of driving people out at this point. If the people who get declared on dont act like such babies after a war demanding everything that they lost back and possibly more to ensure you cant fight another war properly for 2 years then more people will wage war. Everytime I think a fair war has come along one side gets gangbanged and/or hit with reps so severe they are out of the game for 1 or 2 years.

OP Your own actions and the actions of others like you are a big part of the problem when it comes to heavily lopsided wars. Id love to see alliances, everyone knows the ones Im talking about bandwagon or switch sides to the much smaller sides instead of jumping to the bigger side every 18 months.

[Batallion]

If anyone does anything out of the ordinary, you get referred to as an "idiot" and countless other nasty words. This game does not adapt well to change, and the general populace really does not want change, that's for sure. Only a few us.

[Kzoppistan]

[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]

Ah, this is it! Finally, the first and last pin in the lock has fallen into place. Clarity has been bestowed upon me. Like all prophets before, I have heard the word of the divine and know what I must do!

Tremble CN! Revolution comes!

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1283234340' post='2436775']
If anyone does anything out of the ordinary, you get referred to as an "idiot" and countless other nasty words. This game does not adapt well to change, and the general populace really does not want change, that's for sure. Only a few us.
[/quote]

As someone who has been called everything from an attention whore to who knows what else, yep. I don't think I am right or wrong in my ingame actions, I do things for entertainment value or to make a point, usually with some subtle attempt at humor that far too often is lost as being too serious or taking the game too seriously by my detractors.

Breaking from the herd is hard, and we only think it's easy when we think in abstract terms like not following someone over a cliff. In this game it's rarely such an obvious situation. It's almost as if it's hardwired into us to think that if we are not doing what everyone else is doing, we must be doing something wrong.

You are right though, as is Alterego and even Heggo above him. And I like this Kzoppistan character's post above me. It is absolutely amazing how hard people work behind the scenes to get their nations, alliances and blocs invested into whatever the prevailing power structures are... with little to no regard for anything else.

And for what? To grow bored since they have ignored all of the fun things like talking directly to those they disagree with or fighting against "insurmountable" odds or doing what they once set out to do for fear of losing whatever power they gained trying to be able to do those things.

Far too many of the larger or more "powerful" nations and alliances started with good intentions and gave them up one by one, all for the sake of in-game "survival." Now they are monuments to nothing. It's only natural that they and those around them are bored.

[Qaianna]

What of those whose main goal IS survival? Not everyone came here figuring they'd be the next Ivan Moldavi.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1283215516' post='2436336']Take this moment to recall that this game was at its height when terms were their most relatively barbaric--the end of Great War III to the Unjust War (WotC was pretty bad, but this was the time of peak disbandment and Legion did pay a staggering-for-the-time $700 million in reps). The argument that reparations are to blame for the game's decline consciously ignores the fact that the decline of sweeping, heavy reparations has coincided directly with the decline in nations. The primary exceptions to the decline in reparations, NPO and TOP at the end of the previous two wars, still maintain memberships fairly similar to those possessed prior to the wars and reps that devastated them.[/quote]
700 millions can be paid with 234 Aid slots, which means that you needed less than fifty "banks" to pay them in one round (ten days). I hope you were not saying that that's even remotely comparable with what happened in the last couple of years.
Now I don't know the real effect of reparations on the number of players, and I don't care what the NPO, C&G, or anybody else have been doing, are doing or will be doing about reparations. But you need a better argument to reply to HoT's point, which may be wrong but isn't invalid for the reason you stated in the above quote.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1283238493' post='2436826']
What of those whose main goal IS survival? Not everyone came here figuring they'd be the next Ivan Moldavi.
[/quote]
No alliance's main goal should be survival, unless they're in a war that they're unlikely to get out of. There has to be some ambition, some drive in the alliance, otherwise they end up sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for somebody else to do something so they can activate a treaty and get involved. People just seem to go 'hey, I'm gunna start an alliance and I'm gunna be leader and it's gunna be really cool!'. Then they DoE, grow a bit, treaty some big alliances, and that's it. Their lack of ambition leads to that alliance contributing nothing to the game, except clogging the treaty web a bit more and providing a chunk of docile usable NS to whoever they're treatied to.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1283238493' post='2436826']
What of those whose main goal IS survival? Not everyone came here figuring they'd be the next Ivan Moldavi.
[/quote]

Good point. I was mostly addressing those who crave war to fix their boredom since they seem to be the most vocal on these forums. In my opinion, those who seek survival are more complex players and probably harder to engage since the discussions that should engage them usually get swarmed with OOC taunts from those who cannot grasp roleplaying outside of blowing things up.

These "survival" players also are the players I hate losing the most since they tend to engage in some of the most entertaining discourse and, contrary to what the endless war crowd thinks, actually will go to war, but only if the cause is right. Their wars also are far more entertaining, imho. They also do some of the more entertaining or unpredictable things, i.e. the survivalist VE treatying with the lulz GOONS, which ingame I find absolutely horrible, but as a player I think it's pretty delightful.

But like I said several pages back, I've never been bored here, whether I was in an alliance like the GPA or even one like \m/, so it's hard for me to get a sense of how many purist survival-type players are left.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='heggo' timestamp='1283233860' post='2436763']
Well I think the fundamental problem is that more alliances aren't like the NSO.
[/quote]

Particularly problematic for the NSO.

And I agree.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[King Wally]

I say we scrap most war reps to be honest.

We take the surrender of those that have lost... beat them till we are satisfied our grevience is made up for and we all move on for the next war.

Also I agree with KingZog above... more AA's need to grow a set - (ooc- its a game ... they are pixals... man up hey).

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283231217' post='2436679']
Yes. I was trying to be crafty without actually saying 'You're not the one to announce xyz."
[/quote]
Don't worry, I'm still right.