Positive brainstorming

[Blacky]

In the early days of Digiterra things occurred at a more rapid pace and so it was more interesting. Whereas now it's all slowed down and what once took days now takes months.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1282891955' post='2432587']
Seems like it's time for NoR to make another recruitment video.
[/quote]
Fark still hasn't sent a 'thank you' note for the first one.

But y'know....you may be on to something.

[D34th]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1282886195' post='2432510']
Since a few people mentioned colors, I will say I think it is a shame more hasn't been done with those. There are few actual differences between nations; color politics could have added a bit of drama to the game. This aspect has never seemed to gain any traction though, for a variety of reasons. A couple of suggestions in the SB area have been made too.

Maybe we need a big-endians vs. small-endians split that has nothing to do with alliance affiliation. If people could fight for causes without losing their AA by doing so we might get some additional drama.
[/quote]


[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1282886540' post='2432519']
Color wars? for example, Purple and Orange teaming up against say Aqua?
[/quote]

I made a suggestion sometime ago about change alliance sanction procedures to bring more relevance to color spheres/senate seats and with that make things more interesting, check it [b][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70087"]here[/url][/b]

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1282869557' post='2432183']
Gentle Persons

If I may once again be permitted to offer an idea or two.

For newer nations
1. Add a free zone of 10 days not 5 for new nations in peace mode.
2. Confirm and send to each new nation a nation building guide approved by Admin that removes some of the more nebulous aspects of the earl stage building.
3. Eliminate the ability to choose an AA for a nation less than 11 days old.
4. Offer a direct and automatic link to an OWF forum account as part of the initial nation creation package.
5. Offer a direct link to the Player created alliance thread as part of the initial nation start up package.
6. Prevent any nation from attacking a nation less than 60 days old unless they are under that age themselves.
7. Prevent recruitment messages from being sent until a nation is 6 days old.
8. Provide a happiness bonus for every day a nation is active until the nation is 30 days of age.
9. Change activity from collection of taxes to logging in to the nation. This will provide us a far greater understanding of the true activity level of nations and alliances.
10. Reduce the peace mode penalty during the first two months of a nations existence

.For Older nations

1. Allow mentoring assignments. Allow each nation under 60 days to have an assigned mentor chosen randomly from a volunteer list. The mentor would have access to view an assigned nation much as nation sitting but would not have access to actually do any actions.
2. Give access to every nation the ability to purchase nuclear weapons BUT restrict the maximum regardless of to 1 nuclear weapon per 10,000 NS starting with 1 at 0 NS.
3. Reduce incoming and out going war slots. As I had suggested in another thread. 1 incoming war slot and 2 outgoing would make wars, wars not possible curb stomps. Also allows smaller nation to fight larger ones where skill becomes more important.
4. Reduce the effects of anarchy as they stand now the aggressor has all the advantage if they can first strike and knock a nation into anarchy. If we want nations to fight then give them an incentive.
5. Force nation into battle fatigue. No more than 14 straight days of war before they are kicked into an enforced peace mode for 5 days. This would encourage wars to be far more tactical and strategic along with the other recommendations.
6. Increase the maximum aid that may be sent per slot to a nation at war. If a nation is currently fighting they can receive double the normal cash aid only.Make the Federal Aid commission effect one way required. If I have it I can send more.
7. Let there be a rogue designation that prevents a nation from continuing in war. If one senator of each colour agrees then that nation is kicked from war mode to peace mode.
8. Provide bonuses to nations for length of time in game, Infra level, Tech level, land levels but these bonuses may only be sent to another nation not used by the receiving nation.
9.Promote longevity of a nation through OWF and in game awards. Such as a new flag choice, mod for a day , free warn reduction, in game PM signature etc......
10. Allow the voting for one specific upgrade each quarter. 1 vote for every 100 days of nation existence

.For alliances.

1. Approval of any nation using the alliance AA designator or alliance flag.
2. Declaration of an alliance war where more than 5% of nation attack a specific AA. This allows a 5% bonus to all attacks. But a 5% to all counter attacks.
3. Make treaties worth something. +1 happiness for 10 days to an AA that signs a PIAT, +2 for ODP or OAP, + 3 For MDP, MAP or MADP. However no attack possible on that AA until treaty broken. Double the bonus as a loss if the treaty is broken.
4. AA kick for a nation if three designated alliance leaders approve.
5. Happiness bonus for alliances like above for alliance age, number of nation levels, avg nation strength levels, and average alliance nation age for example.

Just some thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to give some possible options.

Update
The above were posted to elicit discussion not as direct suggestions for change.. They will now all be posted to the appropriate suggestion thread.Thanks to the mods for the reminder and Good Sal Paradise for the suggestion.
Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis
[/quote]

Thank you for these excellent suggestions.

I am especially fond of the following:

[quote][b]4. Offer a direct and automatic link to an OWF forum account as part of the initial nation creation package.
5. Offer a direct link to the Player created alliance thread as part of the initial nation start up package.[/b]
6. Prevent any nation from attacking a nation less than 60 days old unless they are under that age themselves.
9. Change activity from collection of taxes to logging in to the nation. This will provide us a far greater understanding of the true activity level of nations and alliances.[/quote]

These aren't all necessarily actions Admin. would have to take to improve the first days of a new nation ... A Planet Bob Welcome Wagon could create a PM packet with tips and links (to the OWF and the Player Created Alliance thread).

Other suggestions are superb and should go into the suggestions area of the forum. Perhaps a request to put your post in the suggestion area would be beneficial?


A Welcome Wagon effort is something we can do without Admin. approval but it would require the assistance of at least a dozen members. These 12 people would monitor the All Nations page round the clock and send welcoming messages as soon as possible. If new sign-ups are still around the 160 range, this would be a simple 13-14 messages each (if registrations are scattered uniformly around the clock and if coverage is the same).


Example PM:

[quote]
Welcome to CyberNations, a little place on the internet the community calls Planet Bob!
We are happy to have you here and would like to help make your first days with us as smooth as possible.
One of the best ways to learn about the community is to visit the Open World Forum.
You may register an account here -- [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?act=idx"]http://forums.cybern...dex.php?act=idx[/url]
As you read the forum you will want to visit the Player Created Alliances page to get an idea of the sub-communities available to offer your nation protection from raiders. (Raiders are like pirates ... they invade your nation and attempt to steal technology, land, and money.) [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=24"]http://forums.cybern...hp?showforum=24[/url]
We have alliances with themes based on familiar movies, color trading spheres, geographic locale (Indonesia, for example), etc.

Please let me know if I may be of assistance to you. I want to help you settle in and enjoy the community and game.
Regards,

[/quote]

Edited August 27, 2010 by Peggy_Sue

[iMatt]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1282917331' post='2432758']
A Welcome Wagon effort is something we can do without Admin. approval but it would require the assistance of at least a dozen members. These 12 people would monitor the All Nations page round the clock and send welcoming messages as soon as possible. If new sign-ups are still around the 160 range, this would be a simple 13-14 messages each (if registrations are scattered uniformly around the clock and if coverage is the same).
[/quote]
This welcome wagon approach is good, but it would be much better with Admin's blessing (ie having admin send out the message which ensures that if they read any of the messages in their inbox, they will read that one). It would be drowned out by all of the recruitment messages, so it is much more useful if they get it *right* when they log in for the first time, along with admin's original message.

[Akama]

A start would be to raise the amount of foreign aid that can be sent. $3mil just feels so small now, it'd help get small nations up a lot faster.

[Acca Dacca]

It is the network. Like Alfred, I hold back EVERYONE I know and love who see me on this laptop for a part of my day and I have to say it is closed so they dont even try signing up. Change the network rules, and I could have 50 people on the first day. Alot more the next.

Alot of us visit from work and school, networks that are shared with hundreds. I'm glad I havent been deleted because another person hasnt stumbled on cybernations.

You change the network rules, you'll get more people. I'm not holding my breathe for that anytime soon.

[Yankees Empire]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1282880406' post='2432396']
snip
[/quote]

I agree with you 100%.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1282837557' post='2431770']I've seen suggestions in several threads over the course of the last year that address the issue of the dwindling planet population. Possibly the largest effort recently went toward inviting people we know through Facebook connections; this endeavor hasn't worked, or if it did work the natural attrition of nations was higher than the new blood could compensate.[/quote]
There's an influx of new members but we don't retain much (enough) of them... Why?


[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1282846458' post='2431878']Lots of things that the community may find interesting are kept wholly under the table and in back channels, not because of some cool old boys club trying to keep the pleb out of the loop, but because no one wants to deal with the mind numbing crap that will be flung in post after post both supporting and decrying whatever the issue at hand may have been.[/quote]
I actually believe that we obsessively keep any information in back channels just because we've become paranoid, and the drama-hungry low ranked members of the Peanut Gallery(tm) [i]and[/i] of our respective forums are left talking "mind numbing crap" because [i]they don't have anything else to talk about[/i].
If I had the time I'd be setting up a spy ring just with the objective to throw some [i]real[/i] information on these forums...


[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1282880406' post='2432396']Now that I've pontificated, I'm curious to see whether anyone has come to the same conclusions I have and if they would support a measure to stop enforcing material reparations for IC actions.[/quote]
I'm too self-centered to miss this opportunity to point out that [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90724&view=findpost&p=2427694"]I was saying more or less the same[/url] a few days ago.


[b]My .02:[/b]
With all due respect to these forums and to you all, only a few hundreds of us players post here. The most of the players are not interested in alliance politics, they don't post here, they probably don't have an account here and they don't read anything of what we post here. We have 44k forum profiles and we have or had well over 400k game accounts... The quality of the OWF is probably little relevant for the average player that deletes.
About the forums, anyway, I believe that the level of activity here is significantly higher than three years ago, when I joined. I can't provide data, but I think we have [i]more[/i] politically active players on the global scene.
During [i]Pax Pacifica[/i] players deserted this place because you could only tow the party line, otherwise you were threatened of in-game destruction and of political isolation. I lived it first hand, as I hope some of you still remember.

I think that the reason for the decline has to be searched in what happens in the game. It was pointed out that the game mechanics didn't change that much in the last 2-3 years, thus it musts be one of two things: the cumulative effects of the game mechanics or the way the game is played. Or both, actually.

The cumulative in-game effects we have are that some nations ammassed a lot of stats: infra of course, but above all tech, cash and wonders. What happened in these four years is that... Time passed by, and who was able to use it could ammass high levels of the time-dependent assets. [i](Incidentally, it's strange that some suggest to get rid of tech deals to level the field: how would newcomers close the gap then?)[/i]
There's the theory that new players would look at the high-end nations, realize that it takes a lot of time and effort to get there, realize how much they're lagging behind and leave.
I don't believe in this theory, anyway.
It's a "know fact" that the average new player knows very little of the game. I don't think that many think much of the nations out of their range. Until they talk with some established member, most of the newcomers won't know anything about their disadvantage, and after having learnt they would also have learnt that the "real" game is alliance politics. I think that the top nations being really big isn't the problem: it may worsen it a bit, but I don't see it as a decisive factor.

All of this brings me back to us: the politically active elite of CN, those that decide of CN's destiny, those that take decisions that influence how [i]the game[/i] is played.
Let's face it, we're doing something wrong: it's not the game mechanics itself, and not the forums' quality; most likely, it's not the huge nations looking our of reach either. It's something caused in-game by alliance politics.


My opinion is that we, the political elite of CN, are causing the departure of "too many" politically non-active players. If they leave it's because they're not entertained anymore by playing. They started, they created a nation and then played for some time - probably not much. Then something that happened in the game's politics caused or allowed "something" to happen in the game, and they decided it was not worth it. They thus went inactive and they were deleted.

What would be this player-killer, I yet don't know. I have a couple of ideas but they're still in a rudimentary stage... I'll post more when/if I'll have something more definite about them.

Edited August 27, 2010 by jerdge

[memoryproblems]

For those of you who want a reset: join TE, resetting CN will kill the game, not revive it.

I've heard a few people talking about allowing a second nation, I think this is a move that wouldn't necessarily hurt the game, it'd be an interesting added metric, but I'm really not sure if it would help the game any. At best, I think it would prolong the games life, because with a second nation, those who donate and who are willing to donate would have two nations to donate to, which would make the game more profittable to admin, which means it would prevent the games getting real tight for that much longer.

I think its an inevitability that the game will eventually die, it like us will eventually come to a close as all things that shimmer eventually fade away. I do hope that its not for a long time, I remember reading an article of an interview admin did when the game was at its peak popularity where he stated that he'd like to keep CN alive as long as there were players who wanted to play it.

but the game will need to evolve to the times to provide it with a new factor if it expects to get new players. Back in 06/07, players flooded the game because it was something different, something interesting, and something that really outshined other games. I don't believe that we've exhausted the market as for players who would be interested in playing the game, but I think it needs revisions to get the interest of the movers and shakers in the areas that drive players to the game.

I really don't like ideas as far as maps go or other things that would limit the game's current functionalities, one thing that makes cybernations so useable is that your location really is irrelevant of other functions, and making it relevant would make trading, aiding, and warring harder, which would discourage players and make their stay in the game shorter. I actually played a game not too long ago where trade, wars, and even alliances were all independent to the region you were in, I found such a system to be discouraging and too hard, so I stopped playing after exactly two days.

Edited August 27, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Dubsy]

If you want more war, remove material reps, If you want more drama, cut down on the MDP web. However, like many, many have stated in this topic, neither will happen because the community at large and many alliances have become self-serving. It's unfortunate.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1282856110' post='2432016']What have we learned from past wars?[/quote]
Lately wars seem to result in increased loss of nations, which speaks to there being a much larger problem on hand. As much as there is an entry barrier in decision making for people to get hooked and to continue playing the game long term there is also an exit barrier. There are a heck of a lot of semi-active people who keep playing simply because of momentum and time that they've spent. Those on the losing side of a war are much easier to knock over that barrier.

Until there is some fundamental change to the dynamics to the point there is more than just habit holding large portions of the population together, more war is going to result in an acceleration of population loss rather than an increase. It's not just war. Any change in the status quo, including significant game changes, will simply enforce the underlying mood.

In short it would seem like it would be up to alliances to drum up the excitement levels before any change occurs. Or possibly that if a large change were to be coming it would need to be announced far enough in advance for some excitement to build rather than suddenly implemented.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='Acca Dacca' timestamp='1282919062' post='2432775']
It is the network. Like Alfred, I hold back EVERYONE I know and love who see me on this laptop for a part of my day and I have to say it is closed so they dont even try signing up. Change the network rules, and I could have 50 people on the first day. Alot more the next.

Alot of us visit from work and school, networks that are shared with hundreds. I'm glad I havent been deleted because another person hasnt stumbled on cybernations.

You change the network rules, you'll get more people. I'm not holding my breathe for that anytime soon.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

There is no reason for me to advertise this game (ok, some small in-game cash bonuses).

But, there is PLENTY reason for me to NOT advertise it. Any person I know in RL who I get to play this game can very easily get us BOTH deleted which provides strong incentive to not recommend CN to other people I know in RL.

[Mandolus]

Here's some brutal honesty:

The game is a boring, broken, confusing mess. The mechanics make little sense to a new player - heck, they make little sense to advanced players - and the entire economy is based on exploiting the foreign aid system. Resources are ridiculously unbalanced and poor starting resources can cripple a nation with no way for a new player to know this without checking out external information. The amount of info a new player needs to absorb for a glorified Progress Quest is insane. It's not because the game is deep or compelling either. It's because the only way to catch up, to become relevant, is to exploit the broken mechanics to your advantage. Things like tech deals, backcollects, trade circles.

And what does it all mean? The stats in this game are essentially meaningless outside of war. Your collections get bigger, your bills get higher (exponentially so, REQUIRING you to do things like improvement swaps and backcollects after a certain point) but essentially you're doing the same thing at 1 infra as you are at 10000 infra.

That is, outside of war. Unfortunately, the penalties for war are big and get bigger as your nation grows. The game actively dissuades players who care about the game from warring, due to the sheer amount of time it takes to rebuild. This leads to increasingly large reparation demands and longer spaces between wars. It also leads to the community lashing out against "immoral" alliances who actually want to [i]do something[/i] in the game so they can protect their precious infra. Meanwhile, there is [b]nothing to do[/b] but make your meaningless numbers grow.

So people turn to the OWF and their offsite alliance communities. I don't know how he did it - probably sheer luck - but somehow Admin managed to build up a big political community around his broken shell of a game. It's almost worthy of a study. That is, it would be if it weren't just a bunch of constant back and forth circular bickering over the tiniest details. Everyone constantly trying to make their enemies look bad over everything that anyone ever does. Page after page after page of the same boring uninspired bland BS "drama". You could pick any page of the 250 some odd pages of collected "Six Million Dollar War" threads and it would look identical to every other. VE and GOONS have an ODP - a freaking ODP - thread right now that has reached 24 pages of bickering about the same tired raiding arguments. It's bland. It's boring. Stop doing it.

And then you had the recent \m/ and STA conflict that really had some great potential but \m/ was browbeaten into backing down because no one in power wants to threaten the power structure and their precious pixels with global war. Pathetic.

The other thing about the OWF is the overly restrictive moderation. GOONS actually recommends that members NOT post on the OWF because of how easy it is to get warned and potentially lose their nations over the tiniest things. Even in this thread, a discussion about how to save this dying game, we have mods stifling discussion on game mechanics for no good reason. Isn't the Suggestion Box forum for approved threads about suggestions, not discussion on how to fix the game?

You want a healthier community? Loosen up the restrictions and don't make people freaking afraid to post here lest they lose their precious nations. Does someone really need to get warned for slipping up and making reference to a real world figure in an in character forum? It breeds a community of petty jerks reporting every little thing to try and get their enemies in trouble. I'll probably get warned or banned for saying this, but what can you do.

But basically, it all comes down to Admin clearly not caring about this game any more, if ever. If you're bored, if you're frustrated, stop donating. The only way he'll start caring is if profits drop, unfortunately.

Admin, if you don't want this game to die, put some effort into fixing your game. Make it friendlier to newbies, make it more engaging, make it easier to become relevant without exploiting the game mechanics like an aspie, make rebuilding after wars faster, loosen up the network restrictions and the restrictive moderation. Just do something.

[Mirreille]

I realise why Admin has the rule, but I agree with Quigon jinn and Acca Dacca; the network rule has killed a whole lot of incentive to advertise by word of mouth. I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem though.

[Master-Debater]

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1282941832' post='2433074']
I agree with this.

There is no reason for me to advertise this game (ok, some small in-game cash bonuses).

But, there is PLENTY reason for me to NOT advertise it. Any person I know in RL who I get to play this game can very easily get us BOTH deleted which provides strong incentive to not recommend CN to other people I know in RL.
[/quote]
Exactly.
I have friends that are interested but I have flat out told them to not play this game on any network. Its not worth the risk of losing a nation because there are multiple people playing from the same university. Its only been luck thats saved me so far, and eventually that runs out.
The risk of having a friend play far outweighs the benifits of them joining.

[Swanfield]

We could also write an open letter/petition to Admin requesting that he makes drastic changes to the game with signatures of the players agreeing attached to the open letter. If there are enough signatures, it might make him realise that he has to make changes to the game for the greater good.

Some of you might not like drastic and major changes and it might be even unpopular but we need to learn to accept changes if we want to see this game maintained and running for another 4 years. Too many people are simply happy to just collect taxes and pay bills every 19/20 days and donate monthly. You might say that if it ain't broke then it doesn't need fixing, well sorry to say this but this game is broken.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Swanfield

[Ghuxalia]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1282917331' post='2432758']
Welcome to CyberNations, a little place on the internet the community calls Planet Bob!
We are happy to have you here and would like to help make your first days with us as smooth as possible.
One of the best ways to learn about the community is to visit the Open World Forum.
You may register an account here -- http://forums.cybern...dex.php?act=idx
As you read the forum you will want to visit the Player Created Alliances page to get an idea of the sub-communities available to offer your nation protection from raiders. (Raiders are like pirates ... they invade your nation and attempt to steal technology, land, and money.) http://forums.cybern...hp?showforum=24
[b]We have alliances with themes based on familiar movies, color trading spheres, geographic locale (Indonesia, for example), etc.[/b]

Please let me know if I may be of assistance to you. I want to help you settle in and enjoy the community and game.
Regards,
[/quote]
Having this automatically sent would be great (except you left out food-themes alliances ). I joined in September 06, and I didn't even know about the OWF for over a year after I joined (<-look over there).
But if we do redirect new players here, the current posters will have to shape up.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Ghuxalia

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1282927403' post='2432872']
Lately wars seem to result in increased loss of nations, which speaks to there being a much larger problem on hand. As much as there is an entry barrier in decision making for people to get hooked and to continue playing the game long term there is also an exit barrier. There are a heck of a lot of semi-active people who keep playing simply because of momentum and time that they've spent. Those on the losing side of a war are much easier to knock over that barrier.

Until there is some fundamental change to the dynamics to the point there is more than just habit holding large portions of the population together, more war is going to result in an acceleration of population loss rather than an increase. It's not just war. Any change in the status quo, including significant game changes, will simply enforce the underlying mood.

In short it would seem like it would be up to alliances to drum up the excitement levels before any change occurs. Or possibly that if a large change were to be coming it would need to be announced far enough in advance for some excitement to build rather than suddenly implemented.
[/quote]

Or maybe the reason so many nations leave after wars are in the circumstances of ending the war. If you just got beat down, and are going to be under terms for a very long time, then it is quite likely, that you will grow disillusioned with game. To say that the aftermath of wars accelerates the loss of nations, is a shortsighted comment, and quite frankly, untrue. The last war ended over 3 months ago. From August 1 to August 21 ... this game lost ~1300 nations. Certainly, the aftermath of war is not to be blamed for that, more likely, it is the lack of current drama/excitement/war that detaches peoples from the daily trudgery of collect taxes/pay bills.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1282956500' post='2433290']Certainly, the aftermath of war is not to be blamed for that, more likely, it is the lack of current drama/excitement/war that detaches peoples from the daily trudgery of collect taxes/pay bills.[/quote]
The temporal relation of when people actually delete their nations isn't going to be strongly correlated for the same reason they've kept playing long after their peak activity, running purely off anecdote the lack of desire to rebuild nations seems to get mentioned a lot. We're also saying the same thing but drawing conclusions from different perspectives. It's the trudgery that makes people quit. The problem is for a semi-retired player war increases the amount of attention they need to pay in terms of rebuying and collecting.

Wars are great for increasing morale in the diplomatically or militarily active classes and keeping them from retiring but it also knocks some percentage of retired players out of the game. My opinion is we're on the wrong side of the balance there, that there would have to be a concentrated effort to get retired players back and active in their alliances before wars would pay off. You're welcome to disagree.

[Mandolus]

Who cares if retired players or those that are barely paying attention quit due to war? They aren't contributing to the game anyway. And without war... what else is there to do?

[admin]

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.

[zzzptm]

So, basically, Admin just told us all to go rogue?

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282964555' post='2433432']
So, basically, Admin just told us all to go rogue?


[/quote]

Or, you know.. use it for something... anything. That could mean being a rogue or perhaps that could even mean being a more active alliance member who is willing to take political risks without fear of losing something he "worked so hard" to get... That reminds me, I worked really hard watching dust collect around my place this week, I think it's time to dust.

/never been bored with this game and no, not sucking up

[Master-Debater]

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1282963563' post='2433408']
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]
Out of everything you have said the biggest thing I got was you telling the world to stop being !@#$%s and go do something.


Which is awesome because a bunch of us have been saying that for ages, now we have the almighty Admins blessing.



More seriously. You yourself admitted that more activity comes when wars happen, so why not make it easyer to rebuild? To me that makes the most sense. If war builds activity, make it so more people can war. Right now people don't war as much as they might because years of work can be gone in days, and lost for a year or more. If people could rebuild in say, 2-5 months, you would see more wars and thus more activity. Makes sense right? If you can rebuild faster, you might risk wars more often.
I dont really expect an answer but maybe others could use this as jump off point.

Edit: I have proven you correct already! Go me!

Edit: Also: I understand what you are saying about where the game started and what you expected, but thats not really what the game is. And honestly, what the game wont be. The additions over the years have been welcome and amazing, but I think a bunch of people think its time for another one. It has been ages since any major changes came to the game. Even if it is new improvements, wonders, or a change to the resources. Just something would be good.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Master-Debater