Positive brainstorming

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Petrovich4' timestamp='1285399337' post='2464112']
I thought you've been here since Autumn 2006??
[/quote]

Ejayrazz has been, but not the user.

To others: It isn't nation development, it's the people that ruin this game. If you're an alliance with over 8 allies, yes, point the finger at yourselves.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Raider]

I think the way to reduce the time between wars and to bring new nations up quicker is to increase the amount of aid a nation can send. If a nation can send 20 million in aid image how much faster new nations would grow or how much quicker reps could be paid, or nations be rebuilt after war.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1285449920' post='2464566']
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.
[/quote]

Or I could simply have talked to people in TOP government.

[OsRavan]

Jinn hit the problem right on the head... the problem with our numbers is how insanely long it takes to become a relevant nation. It (not tech raiding) is why people don't stick around. I mean, how many games require two years of steady work to be "decent" sized?

The problem with lack of wars is also that it takes too long to rebuild damage so people are less prone to take risks.

I don't think you need radical *new* concepts to the game though. You just need to change either how NS is counted, or the cost of tech/infra works. Making Tech and Infra easier to get (or worth more NS) below certain benchmarks and harder (or worth less NS) above certain other benchmarks.

If people had to spend months instead of years rebuilding from wars or building their nations from scratch you would see a real change in the game imo.

Edited September 26, 2010 by OsRavan

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285467633' post='2464797']
Or I could simply have talked to people in TOP government.
[/quote]
NPO hasn't offered or tried to get a treaty with us.

Try again.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Double post.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282963563' post='2433408']
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.[/quote]

In case you haven't tried any of the Facebook games out there, let me reassure you that for what you are getting, particularly out of games like Farmville or Mafia Wars, it's mostly a lot of click, click, click, interrupted occasionally by aggressive suggestions that you share stuff, and watch as the Flash-based games slowly but surely cause your PC's processor to kick into overdrive as your browser cache maxs out. Sure there are some very cool strategy games out there with far superior graphics and levels of complexity, but I like this game in many ways better [i]specifically[/i] because I can play it, listen to some music, take care of email and such and I don't need a top-of-the-line graphics card along with a maxed out PC to enjoy it.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Yet you have tweaked the mechanics now and again both to make the player experience better and to place certain limits on players to prevent them from exploiting others quite so much. Community sure, but you and the Mods have also played a role.

[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. [/quote]

I have yet to see a game system that didn't at least attempt to address areas where there were perceived holes or room for further development either in mechanics or the storyline. While players make the storyline, there are certain things that are seen as universal where additional development could take place, whether it be new ground units or better detailed aircraft, or something else. True enough, many game manufacturers put out supplements and new editions in an effort to dig into players' pockets as much as anything else (as my collection of GDW role-playing game materials will testify), but I can't help but believe that your donations to the game will increase from the existing player base as they perceive that the game is improving mechanically over time. Stagnation of the mechanics gives the impression that the game is nearing the end of its shelf life, even if it is still very viable.

[quote]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]

Yet the number of active nations declines with each passing global war...at least that has been the case since September 2007. The lead up to wars and the start of wars creates activity. The aftermath of wars in which alliances are forced to disband or are dramatically handicapped decreases activity and player retention. So to does the random raiding of nations controlled by players who find themselves still trying to figure out the game only to be set upon by 2-3 other larger nations and pounded into dust. All too frequently the attacked player quits and doesn't bother re-rolling. Note that I'm not against players deciding to declare wars because the declare war button is a nice shade of blue, but all too frequently players act as if (or genuinely don't care) if a fellow player stays with the game or not.

[quote]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. [/quote]

As someone who played a part in orchestrating the single largest game changing moment in the history of the game, I'm not sure what else could have been done, yet the decline in active nations continued. That's why I say that stagnation isn't the problem or at least it isn't the primary problem.

[quote]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.[/quote]

There is a limit to what one can do, I would agree. This isn't Civilization V, nor should it pretend to be. I also agree that even if holes were filled in here and there that it will not necessarily bring in new members. But your attitude seems to be, with all due respect, to see any change that might cause players to think a bit differently about how they do things or have one more thing to add to the knowledge base they should learn, as bad. That is extremely unfortunate.

[quote]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]

I didn't join Valhalla for the college money.

Truthfully when I left my previous alliance over some serious personality conflicts within the leadership, the LAST place I wanted to go was somewhere that wasn't going to be square in the middle of what I knew was about to happen.

My nation has been shot up badly, and rebuilt better than before each time. Each time I've had loads of fun.

I also agree completely with your statement. Truth be told, it is the forced disbandments, the heavy reparations, and insistence on crushing defeats that actually lie behind the departures after major wars, not the wars themselves.

Edited September 26, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[Derwood1]

Ok, I am going to touch on something that might get me warned. I hope not as disrespect is not my intention. Admin basically called us out on our treaty web and reps required after a war as reasons for stagnating the game, fair enuff and noted.

I want to bring up the uber-mod suppression that is the OWF. Someone has a bad night and goes from 0-100% warn and gets banned from the game or someone gets a warn for mentioning the word "troll". This kind of nit picky crap costs us active entertaining members of the community, imo.

I understand that basic civility should be required but the level of mod control has surpassed any forum I have ever seen. Ease up on the bone please. It makes people not even want to post on the OWF and this game has always been more about a community then the game mechanics.

[Axolotlia]

With the current system, rulers grow their nations for very long periods of time to get to the top, so why would they want to lose their precious pixels? Instead game-play should be set up so that growing your nation to a moderate size is easy but the higher you get, the harder it gets to grow. Hopefully this would create a bell-curve effect on nations, so as to have being in the middle of the pack, and especially rebuilding back to it, will not take months if not years to do.

On a side note, what this game needs is a prestige system so when you get to the top, you can start over with a bonus

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1285474422' post='2464885']
NPO hasn't offered or tried to get a treaty with us.

Try again.
[/quote]
Bam. That sound was your argument getting blown out of the water, Kalasin.

[Vhalen]

This certainly doesn't fix everything, but:
[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1282857534' post='2432032']
Ok, I have a question. We have two major problems that most people agree on in terms of the core gameplay.

First, large nations have way too much money and very little to do with it. This leads to such problems as boredom from lack of options, wars that drag on for months because that's how long it takes for war chests to run dry, and then don't flare up again for months afterward because everyone wants to restock their cash before war kicks off again, and probably one or two other things that I'm not thinking about just off the top of my head.

Now, secondly, we have the newer nations who see the huge nations who have been around for years, figure the time investment it would take to get that big is way out of proportion for the reward of succeeding at a game they haven't invested any time in yet, and walk away before they've even gotten started.

It seems to me that the large nations have [i]too much[/i] access to money, and the new nations have [i]too little[/i] access to money.
[/quote]
I'd almost say this means foreign aid needs to be larger...but I think that'd hurt the development of middle nations. Maybe that wouldn't necessarily be all bad, though.

Still, I'd suggest more starting cash and bigger aid cash. The latter because aid limits were made back when there were a lot less zeros on bankrolls. The former? It lets young nations develop a little faster (and I can remember how slowly things went for me until I got some aid from a friend), it makes you feel like you're doing things, and so forth...and without having to join an alliance. A lot of people want to wet their feet without obligation, and CN doesn't let you do that. TE's starting cash lets you spend a little money. It lets you try things. Sure, maybe you'll be wrong, maybe you'll make mistakes, but at least you can spread your wings and try, right?

Other comments? I think a tutorial guide is a great idea, especially if it comes in an Admin message immediately on creation (because, let's be honest, who doesn't get a bunch of recruitment spam?)

Since I started writing this, I've had a few thoughts on the subjects at hand, but I unfortunately don't have the time right now (bedtime, you know) to express them. Hopefully I won't get distracted before I get back to this thread and do so...as unlikely as that sounds.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1285479605' post='2464938']
Bam. That sound was your argument getting blown out of the water, Kalasin.
[/quote]

Either that or he's not being truthful (for what reasons I can't imagine, but I believe what Yevgeni told me.)

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285488556' post='2465011']
Either that or he's not being truthful (for what reasons I can't imagine, but I believe what Yevgeni told me.)
[/quote]
You don't think Yevgeni would be biased against us, considering he was a Voxian, who then left TOP to go to MK? Seems a natural assumption to make to me. And considering the circles you two run in now, it is not surprising to see the lack of a treaty being characterised as having failed to get one. We have had discussions with TOP, as we have had discussions with many alliances. As both Feanor and myself were involved in that discussion, it would seem likely that we know that of which we speak.

Perhaps in time you can bring yourself to trust the words of Pacifiscum.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1285490729' post='2465022']
You don't think Yevgeni would be biased against us, considering he was a Voxian, who then left TOP to go to MK? Seems a natural assumption to make to me. And considering the circles you two run in now, it is not surprising to see the lack of a treaty being characterised as having failed to get one. We have had discussions with TOP, as we have had discussions with many alliances. As both Feanor and myself were involved in that discussion, it would seem likely that we know that of which we speak.

Perhaps in time you can bring yourself to trust the words of Pacifiscum.
[/quote]

I'm the very last person who's going to be persuaded by attacks on someone's credibility on the basis that 'he was a Voxian', as well you know, WorldConqueror.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285495143' post='2465047']
I'm the very last person who's going to be persuaded by attacks on someone's credibility on the basis that 'he was a Voxian', as well you know, WorldConqueror.
[/quote]
The point of that post was not to say 'He was in Vox, don't listen to him, his lies will make your ears will fall off and your family be tormented by Mormons!', but to shed some light on why he would characterise the lack of a NPO-TOP treaty as a failure to gain one on the part of Pacifica. If we had been rejected on the treaty front by TOP, what reason would Feanor have to support the statement that we didn't attempt to gain one?

[Captain Enema]

Takes too long to be a contender. I just got my nation up to 500 tech and 4000 infra. It took a toot load of aid from my alliance to do so. During this time I was more or less inactive. I nearly quit this game twice out of boredom.

Make it easier to grow up to a point where you can be a relevant force. It shouldn't take months to get to 16,000 NS. It should be a quicker process overall 500 tech and 4000 infra seems to be the sweet spot for me as i can actually collect enough money to buy stuff for a change.

Also, don't do away with infra from wars, have it remain behind as shot up or useless damaged infra. Make it so the repair rate is about half the original cost and it can be even cheaper if you buy the right wonders and improvements. To make it fair though, make sure the damaged infra is still taxed collected and paid for at 1/5th of the value of it.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Tidy Bowl Man

[Bavaricar]

This illusion that keeps being repeated that players can't have fun or "be relevant" until they have x infra & x tech is a major part of the "problem." If you want to "be relevant" in or even not in an alliance, your activity and inspiration levels are far and away more important than your NS. If you just want to enjoy war for the sake of war or even for other reasons, there are plenty of lower and mid-level nations to keep you entertained, also allied or not.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Bavaricar

[eyriq]

Mormons do not torment families as part of a standard protocol.

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1285513964' post='2465171']
Mormons do not torment families as part of a [b]standard[/b] protocol.
[/quote]

You can never be too sure [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

[eyriq]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1285514735' post='2465176']
You can never be too sure [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
[/quote]

lol, in special cases only.

[Jay Z]

Limit every alliance to 5 treaties or 3 or something. That should make the game much more interesting and in-turn get people to stay.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285488556' post='2465011']
Either that or he's not being truthful (for what reasons I can't imagine, but I believe what Yevgeni told me.)
[/quote]
I've been at the head of our Foreign Affairs for the past 6 months(post-war) and the NPO has not approached us with a treaty or even with a discussion about a treaty.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Edit: Crap, I need a new mouse! It keeps double clicking on things causing me to have double post.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin