Positive brainstorming

[_GunneR_]

[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]
Allow me to make it clear then. The Mushroom Kingdom will not be joining any convention, or summit or gathering. We like to be honest with the world. We, unlike some that would join in to talk up everyone onto their high horse only to leave when things got difficult, would rather have our word mean something. We make our choices as the issues arise.

[Ardus]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1283239129' post='2436830']
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.
[/quote]
You've pointed out one aspect and completely ignored the facts on which I rely, that $800 million [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/GW3_Legion_Surrender_terms](went back and double-checked)[/url] at the end of GWIII, adjusted for inflation, would be gargantuan nowadays and as a result I feel comfortable identifying it as the start of "peak terms". Legion had been blasted to under 3 million NS (which would be less today given the manual deflation of NS by Admin since GWIII) and had hundreds of members in bill-lock requesting immediate assistance. Also recall that warchests weren't all the rage back then and the few that had been established were well spent by the time the war ended. The end result was a large alliance of annihilated nations with very few remaining assets and an unheard of debt. That compares favorably with NPO & TOP.

Your post does however reinforce the problem of the aid system in CN and the need for a dramatic baseline increase in what can be sent in a single slot. Such would both decrease the time necessary to fulfill reparation terms and greatly increase growth at the beginning of the game. Though it would also accelerate general growth in tech in the upper tiers. Perhaps the most desireable adjustment would be a large increase in how much money one can send and a modest increase in how much tech one can send, accelerating small-nation growth without simply doing the same for the large nations they're trying to catch up with.

[AirMe]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1283232774' post='2436726']
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.
[/quote]

Everything he explained are the common cookie cutter arguments used against anyone who is perceived to be in power at anytime and he is only mad that the powers that be are not his friends.

He was able to comeback to the game without an issue from anyone...2 years ago would that have been the same story? I highly doubt it given his rep.

As for the point that no one can force another to disband, well that is true but they can be held in perpetual war until they submit. The only alliances that have survived the perpetual war is FAN. Every other alliance faced with that prospect has been a shell of it's former self if it even survives.

Many of the things you and others say need to be removed from the game are things that create conflict and political intrigue. It isn't anyone's fault but your own that you guys haven't figured out to maneuver in the current political climate. Nothing comes easy....those of us who worked so long to change things understand that.

Edited August 31, 2010 by AirMe

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1283262789' post='2437002']
Everything he explained are the common cookie cutter arguments used against anyone who is perceived to be in power at anytime and he is only mad that the powers that be are not his friends.

He was able to comeback to the game without an issue from anyone...2 years ago would that have been the same story? I highly doubt it given his rep.

As for the point that no one can force another to disband, well that is true but they can be held in perpetual war until they submit. The only alliances that have survived the perpetual war is FAN. Every other alliance faced with that prospect has been a shell of it's former self if it even survives.

Many of the things you and others say need to be removed from the game are things that create conflict and political intrigue. It isn't anyone's fault but your own that you guys haven't figured out to maneuver in the current political climate. Nothing comes easy....those of us who worked so long to change things understand that.
[/quote]

That's not No-U-itis, that's you deflecting :S

Also, what have [i]I[/i] said needs to be removed from the game?

[AirMe]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1283270664' post='2437114']
That's not No-U-itis, that's you deflecting :S

Also, what have [i]I[/i] said needs to be removed from the game?
[/quote]

Nothing. I wasn't referring to you

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1283256061' post='2436958']
(cut)
Your post does however reinforce the problem of the aid system in CN and the need for a dramatic baseline increase in what can be sent in a single slot. Such would both decrease the time necessary to fulfill reparation terms and greatly increase growth at the beginning of the game. Though it would also accelerate general growth in tech in the upper tiers. Perhaps the most desireable adjustment would be a large increase in how much money one can send and a modest increase in how much tech one can send, accelerating small-nation growth without simply doing the same for the large nations they're trying to catch up with.
[/quote]
There is a way to increase your slot usage by 150%, as long as your enemy's willing to tie up a wonder for it. Hi there, [s]Foreign[/s] Federal Aid Commission..

EDIT: I knew the 'F' stood for something, just forgot what.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Qaianna

[Ardus]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1283274459' post='2437180']
There is a way to increase your slot usage by 150%, as long as your enemy's willing to tie up a wonder for it. Hi there, [s]Foreign[/s] Federal Aid Commission..

EDIT: I knew the 'F' stood for something, just forgot what.
[/quote]
The FAC is only useful for nations large enough to purchase it and doesn't actually help nations large enough to purchase it enough to justify ever buying it. There's always a better wonder.

I'd continue but we're headed into Suggestion Box territory here.

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283234310' post='2436774']


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.
[/quote]
Alterego, give concrete example(s) of what you claim my actions to have been (to cause a heavily lopsided war).
Give example(s) -- if you can find one -- of me doing this while in a leadership position of UPN.
When in TPF I had no more say in who or what the alliance did in terms of war than any other peon.

[Un4Gvn1]

[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]

You have hit that nail on the head, Batallion. The average age of players is YOUNG and it amazes me that young people have such a stranglehold on tradition in this game. It is a game and change is good.


[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1283236189' post='2436809']
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. [/quote]

Breaking from the herd is indeed hard. Benefits in self-actualization that can come from said breaking are potentially high, though.
Following the herd is the easiest path in some aspects of life but this virtual life is the place to change it up and be a bit different.

Role-playing is fun and would be great if more rulers here would play a role. Sure, a person's RL personality is there -- just can't hide it all -- but attempting to role play is one of the fun things here.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283294041' post='2437497']
Alterego, give concrete example(s) of what you claim my actions to have been (to cause a heavily lopsided war).
Give example(s) -- if you can find one -- of me doing this while in a leadership position of UPN.
When in TPF I had no more say in who or what the alliance did in terms of war than any other peon.
[/quote]
Your alliances use of the treaty web to stay out of the last war and your attempt to cosy up to the C&G side of the world since that last war. Really who are these alliances who signed with UPN. At best they will throw a dozen nations into a war for a week but its more likely UPN will run a mile if it looks like they will be nuked. Your alliance is a big part of what is wrong in CN. Desperately trying to hang on to stats when half your alliance would surrender in under 10 days to save their skin. I would be filled with shame to lead UPN. [b]WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOUR EXISTANCE?[/b]

Long story short I despise your alliance and it will take a battle of monumental proportions against overwhelming odds for a hell of a long time to change my mind. [i]If you want to save the game boot your ghosts & useless members, grow a back bone, pick 1 side only and when the next war comes be the 1st in and last out. If the UPNs of tyhe world do this CN will be a much better place.[/i] When your allies go to war they have to worry if you will run away or make a lame attempt at their defense. Its painless, yet alliances like yours are quaking in their boots of war.

[Ghuxalia]

Could we get back on topic please? This thread should not be a place for politics. You can resume your usual bickering after you reaffirm that you do have a game to bicker about.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283297378' post='2437550']
Your alliances use of the treaty web to stay out of the last war and your attempt to cosy up to the C&G side of the world since that last war. Really who are these alliances who signed with UPN. At best they will throw a dozen nations into a war for a week but its more likely UPN will run a mile if it looks like they will be nuked. Your alliance is a big part of what is wrong in CN. Desperately trying to hang on to stats when half your alliance would surrender in under 10 days to save their skin. I would be filled with shame to lead UPN. [b]WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOUR EXISTANCE?[/b]

Long story short I despise your alliance and it will take a battle of monumental proportions against overwhelming odds for a hell of a long time to change my mind. [i]If you want to save the game boot your ghosts & useless members, grow a back bone, pick 1 side only and when the next war comes be the 1st in and last out. If the UPNs of tyhe world do this CN will be a much better place.[/i] When your allies go to war they have to worry if you will run away or make a lame attempt at their defense. Its painless, yet alliances like yours are quaking in their boots of war.
[/quote]

I never thought it possible but you damage BAPS FA more than Tumin ever did. I agree with the poster above me, lets get back on track.

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283297378' post='2437550']
Your alliances use of the treaty web to stay out of the last war and your attempt to cosy up to the C&G side of the world since that last war. Really who are these alliances who signed with UPN. At best they will throw a dozen nations into a war for a week but its more likely UPN will run a mile if it looks like they will be nuked. Your alliance is a big part of what is wrong in CN. Desperately trying to hang on to stats when half your alliance would surrender in under 10 days to save their skin. I would be filled with shame to lead UPN. [b]WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOUR EXISTANCE?[/b]

Long story short I despise your alliance and it will take a battle of monumental proportions against overwhelming odds for a hell of a long time to change my mind. [i]If you want to save the game boot your ghosts & useless members, grow a back bone, pick 1 side only and when the next war comes be the 1st in and last out. If the UPNs of tyhe world do this CN will be a much better place.[/i] When your allies go to war they have to worry if you will run away or make a lame attempt at their defense. Its painless, yet alliances like yours are quaking in their boots of war.
[/quote]

You are not informed about current events within UPN. I asked you to give example(s) of what I, personally, have done as leader of UPN; you did not provide an example.
Stop by IRC and have a chat with me sometime and I'll enjoy talking with you and filling you in if you are interested in accurate current event information.

[Batallion]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283295451' post='2437517']
You have hit that nail on the head, Batallion. The average age of players is YOUNG and it amazes me that young people have such a stranglehold on tradition in this game. It is a game and change is good.
[/quote]

Oddly enough one would expect young people to adapt to change and in fact demand it more so than the older people, but that is clearly not the case. I think when we refer to young we should really be thinking "10-14 years old", since clearly very few people on CN actually even have the capability of using logic and reasoning.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1283304722' post='2437685']
Oddly enough one would expect young people to adapt to change and in fact demand it more so than the older people, but that is clearly not the case. I think when we refer to young we should really be thinking "10-14 years old", since clearly very few people on CN actually even have the capability of using logic and reasoning.
[/quote]

Most leaders that I talk to are older in age actually. I am not going to divulge the age of others but I am in my 30's. And other leaders are my age or in the latter years of their college careers. And honestly, I have seen the older players act more irrationally and irresponsibly than the younger ones. I know I have had my moments.

[Batallion]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1283305281' post='2437699']
Most leaders that I talk to are older in age actually. I am not going to divulge the age of others but I am in my 30's. And other leaders are my age or in the latter years of their college careers. And honestly, I have seen the older players act more irrationally and irresponsibly than the younger ones. I know I have had my moments.
[/quote]

Well you're not in my list of irrational/stupid leaders. One can never generalize things like this, there are always special cases involved.

[Un4Gvn1]

Heh! So we with a bit more seasoning and miles on our shoes are more up for and interested in change here on Digiterra. Fascinating things we're learning here!

I will begin to send friendly 'Hello' PMs to newly registered nations, time permitting. This is one small way that I as an individual ruler can help new folks.

I will ask my members to VOLUNTARILY stay away from raiding the very new nations; this is one small way that I as an alliance leader can help new folks.

[Batallion]

I actually much prefer this game collapse to the point where there's only one alliance left standing. It becomes more of a survival game than a long-term game, since there's people on here that are several years ahead of newcomers, so there's really no point anymore.

[Keve69]

200 nations have been lost since this thread began...

that is all.

[oinkoink12]

[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]

Thinks war would happen way more often than.

[Gofastleft]

If you look back into CN history,
GW1 July 2006
GW2 Jan 2007
GW3 Mar 2007
Unjust Sep 2007
War of Coalition Aug 2008
karma April 2009
Bipolar Jan 2010

Notice the time between the big wars
GW1-GW2 6 months
GW2-GW3 2 months
GW3-Unjust 6 months
Unjust-Coalition 11 months
Coalition-Karma 8 months
Karma-Bipolar 9 months


Notice the jump in time between wars once the Unjust war ended? I do not think it is a coincidence that this jump coincides with The Manhattan Project being introduced into the game. The unjust war was the first major war where Nukes were used in large numbers. At this point you had to be in the top 5% of the game in order to purchase nukes. shortly after this war ended, sometime in late 2007 early 2008 The Manhattan project was introduced. This allowed anyone with this wonder along with 3,000 infrastructure, 300 technology and uranium to purchase nukes. This change made wars much more damaging. The increased damage increases the time it takes to repair damage to your nation and increases the amount of reps paid. It also causes alliance leaders to overlook some things that might have led to war in the past because of not being ready for a nuclear war or the issue not being worth the damage.
If you agree with Admin that wars increase activity and numbers, then I think you can trace the issues with the number of nations to this one wonder. It had a snowball effect that nobody saw coming. I think if there was a system setup to help in the rebuilding after wars it could reverse this trend.

[Un4Gvn1]

GoFast, that is an interesting correlation you've presented.



Many thanks to AirMe for the commentary in his talk show. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91563"]Airme's talkshow thread.[/url]

[OsRavan]

I know I am late to the party here, but a couple of people pointed me to this thread (specifically the admin post) and it encouraged me to post my thoughts on the topic as I think I take a slightly different view as to the "reasons" for decline.

::considers:: I agree with admin that a game reset isnt realistic or fair, and also that minor tweaks to wonders and such are rather pointless. Adding new wonders like the moon wonder etc can be fun for established players, but its not going to reverse a general trend.

I also don't think that lack of wars are the reason for a decline... as others have pointed out in the past I know, membership actually tends to take significant plunges after global wars. I probably would agree more small wars would be a better environment overall... but I also think its unfair to put the need for more wars back on the community. I would argue that current game mechanics actually *discourages* war and that there is a different root problem to everything.


Specifically, I would argue that the problem CN faces is the inability of newer members to become competitive in the game in any reasonable amount of time. It can take literally *years* for a new player to build a competitive nation or a nation that is "middle of the pack" in CN. A newbie that joined today who wanted to be at say, 8,500 infra with 5,000 tech and a WRC (i.e a competitive nation but not a giant super one). That's a couple of years worth of commitment to your average newb. And personally I think *that* is what scares off so many new members. The time needed to build that nation.

On the flip side, that is also what discourages wars. If a player at around say.... 120,000 NS knows that a real throw down war that eats up half their tech and most of their Infra.. if they know that is a war they will *never* recover from, that they will spend a year plus rebuilding from that even *without* reps... then they have much greater motivation *not* to go to war. Same goes for medium nations. A nation that had to spend a year plus building to 40,000 doesnt want to be sent back to square one. And yes a good warchest helps alleviate the problem slightly, but not fully. Active players who spend time building their nations have a vested interest in not getting into a throw down war as they would never fully recover.

Now some of us don't care about pixels compared to friends. I like to count myself as one of those. But if we are being honest, the average CNer is one who enjoys war, likes defending his friends, but also cares about the nation he has invested time in. The average CNer wants war, but they don't want a war they can't win or a war that isnt a great cause. Why don't they want this? Not because they are all gutless cowards. But because they *do* have a vested interest in their nation and the wrong war could see them spending years recovering.

As to reps... that also ties into the above problem. Why do reps really occur? One of two reasons... either its because the damage done from major world wars is so great that it would take years to repair without reps. O If an alliance wants to get back to point A they tend to *need* reps. Or...If they want to "hurt" alliance X.... the reps have to be *huge* in order to make a dent in the bloated Nations we have.



So what is the solution to all this? I freely admit there isnt an *easy* solution. Personally, what I would argue is that we *do* need an Admin change. Just not of the sort we have had to date. What I would argue we need is a major tweaking of how NS formulas or how the cost of infra/tech buying works.

Namely, if we say the scale of most active CN nations currently is between 10,000-150,000 NS (with a couple of outliers) what we should *really* be doing is making it so that new players to the game or players who are sent to billlock/ZI can rebuild from 10,000 to about 50/60,000 NS in a few months. Not instantly, but in a reasonable amount of time. Anyone should be able to hit 80-100,000 NS after a year or so of activity and hard work. I dont think its unreasonable for someone new to the game to be able to ride with the big boys after they put a year into the game.

Likewise, on the flip side once you hit around 120,000 it should become very very difficult to grow your NS. And it should become virtually impossible after 150,000 to make any signifigant NS growth.


The logic of the above is as follows. 1) It allows new players to quickly become relevant in the scheme of things. What sort of game doesn't allow its players to be an average power after 3 plus *months* of solid play? let alone after *years*? 2) if we condense the ns "range" so that there is also a reasonable "upper limit" as well as making rebuilding from ZI/ZT a not impossible task... then people have less need to horde their Pixels. If they know they can rebuild, and they also know their nations has pretty much reached "end-game" they will be more inclined to take risks on the national stage.

So to sum... keep the game dynamics as is. But create an "end-game" size and make growing to a decent sized nation not *easy* but not an impossible task taking years and years. Do that and you would have a more dynamic and balanced game and be more likely to *retain* new members instead of scaring them off while still rewarding hard work and activity.


Anyway, sorry for the WoT. The above are just my thoughts on the matter. I fully recognize that to actually implement them would require alot of refining and hard work on the game equations. Also that it would represent a radical shift in how the game works. I doubt my ideas are actually going to be put into place (i'm a realist heh) .... but.... I felt it was important to throw that out there.

I often hear people go on about the lack of wars as the reason for CN stagnation. I seldom hear them bring up the mind boggling amount of time it takes to make a relevant nation. That's what I want to end this on. Think what other successful games have people putting in multiple years worth of effort and have them still not be able to be considered one of the "elite" nations.

Edited September 24, 2010 by OsRavan

[iMatt]

OsRavan - an end-game size would require an end-game money collected too, IMO. Without one, people would just sit there and accumulate money (well, they do that now).

But an end-game size would lead to boredom from the very top. No where to go from there.

In addition to your end-game size limit, you'd need to somehow create more frequent wars, or reasons to go to war. [u]I think we need more in-game reasons to go to war. Make sanction color based, give sanction a real meaning besides the prestige (take away flags for those who were previously sanctioned).[/u] This will correct the larger/smaller color sizes to some extent, and create more conflict. While we're at it, give some *real* bonus to having a senator in your alliance.

[OsRavan]

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.