Positive brainstorming

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282971076' post='2433573']
Disagree. Wars, made impossible to win in any formal sense, would become pointless and not worth pursuing.

We don't need restrictions on the community. We need action from within the community and a few structural adjustments here and there to provide more things to chase after.
[/quote]

Good luck with that action. Seriously. Give it a try. I dare you. And if you qualify your comments to back away from that sort of commitment, you're part of the very problem you cited.

No alliance wants a war unless it knows in advance it'll be on the giving end of a curbstomp. The only surprises are when the Excel spreadsheets don't add up as expected.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282971268' post='2433577']
In my opinion, the reason the game is stagnating is because the people in charge have literally built a culture of fear to maintain their power. They've built a culture of fear that the "evil NPO" is going to rise again, and that they must save their nations and resources for that fateful day to vanquish that 'evil.' That is the simple and honest truth, whether they explicitly realize it or not. And sure, it's a brilliant strategy for maintaining power, but then everyone comes here to whine about it. There are a scarce handful of movers, like STA who very recently almost started the fabled "SF/CnG Split" but \m/ backed down as fast as they possibly could to prevent that from happening (And I believe their allies also explicitly told them they wouldn't be defended).

Since they've decided to make NPO and the extremely loose group of alliances on this 'side,' if you can call it that, into their mortal enemies rather than any group who could pose a real threat, I would recommend that anyone who is so bored of the game, rather than complain on the boards, hop over to this side, or if you're a leader, drag your alliance over. Then we can have a nice even war again. And really, it's not boring over here. Being the underdog is insanely fun.

Either that, or drop the mentality you currently have, and declare on each other. Cancel the treaties tying the sides together, and have MK just declare on RoK for no reason whatsoever. And everyone drop the silly fake morality, just follow where the treaties go.

None of these suggestions are going to happen, of course. Nothing exciting is going to happen until this 'side' gets rolled a couple dozen more times and people eventually shake their obsession with NPO. Or NPO has to firmly anchor itself to one side, that might work, but good luck with that happening.

Another option is to roll all these neutral alliances at the same time and for no good reason. You want your fun, there you go. It's sure to create drama, come up with some weak reason, hell, send an undercover rogue in to cause an issue if you need to.
[/quote]

HoT, you could be the Schattenmann of the ex-Hegemony. All you need to do is have 64bits declare war on SG and then fire off propaganda blasts on a regular basis. As you lose your pixels, you'll gain in stature. 64bits can be the Vox of the ex-Heg. side.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282971631' post='2433586']
No alliance wants a war unless it knows in advance it'll be on the giving end of a curbstomp. The only surprises are when the Excel spreadsheets don't add up as expected.
[/quote]
Hm. Think we should have some way for losing to be 'fun' somehow? Some way of having someone lose a war and have things be along the lines of 'Terribly sorry, do try again' instead of 'HAHAHAHA! KNEEL BEFORE ME INFERIOR WORM! NEVER WILL YOU REAP A BENEFIT OF THIS WORLD AGAIN!'? Remember, I'm not sure how well a good scrap feels to the established, but the newbies might feel differently.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282971839' post='2433592']
HoT, you could be the Schattenmann of the ex-Hegemony. All you need to do is have 64bits declare war on SG and then fire off propaganda blasts on a regular basis. As you lose your pixels, you'll gain in stature. 64bits can be the Vox of the ex-Heg. side.
[/quote]Setting aside that I don't know if I deserve to be compared to Schattenmann, this is not a thought that hasn't crossed my mind. Except I just brought 10 new players into CN and it would be a great disservice to screw them over, and a great disservice to the community to lose those players. And 64Digits won't survive without me at the head. I wish desperately that I didn't have these shackles placed on me, because I would do that in a heartbeat. Also it doesn't help that my nation isn't combat worthy. Had I my old nation, it would almost be a certain thing. I still need to experience the joy of being PZI'd.

And if everyone here managed to recruit 5 fresh faces, we would be golden. I've done my part. But I don't intend on using that as an excuse to stop doing what I can.

Edit: Keep doing != Stop doing >_>

Edited August 28, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Ardus]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282971631' post='2433586']
Good luck with that action. Seriously. Give it a try. I dare you. And if you qualify your comments to back away from that sort of commitment, you're part of the very problem you cited.

No alliance wants a war unless it knows in advance it'll be on the giving end of a curbstomp. The only surprises are when the Excel spreadsheets don't add up as expected.
[/quote]
I don't need to prove a goddamn thing to you, zzzptm. So how about you take your unprovoked "I dare you" tough guy attitude and shove it.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1282971411' post='2433582']
Tell me how getting rid of monetary+tech reparations hinders the community?
[/quote]
By... telling it what it can and can't do IC. I mean "restrictions" in the most literal possible meaning of the word. For all the crap I could (and do) throw at Admin, his argument of caution with regard to intervening in this ant farm is pretty darn valid.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282972567' post='2433606']
Setting aside that I don't know if I deserve to be compared to Schattenmann, this is not a thought that hasn't crossed my mind. Except I just brought 10 new players into CN and it would be a great disservice to screw them over, and a great disservice to the community to lose those players. And 64Digits won't survive without me at the head. I wish desperately that I didn't have these shackles placed on me, because I would do that in a heartbeat. Also it doesn't help that my nation isn't combat worthy. Had I my old nation, it would almost be a certain thing. I still need to experience the joy of being PZI'd.

And if everyone here managed to recruit 5 fresh faces, we would be golden. I've done my part. But I don't intend on using that as an excuse to stop doing what I can.

Edit: Keep doing != Stop doing >_>
[/quote]
Well put and I can respect that. Take care of the new guys. That really is something worth doing. If I get kicked out of my alliance, I might just take up the anti-whoever's at the top crusade... until then, I'll keep challenging others to duels.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282973505' post='2433622']
I don't need to prove a goddamn thing to you, zzzptm. So how about you take your unprovoked "I dare you" tough guy attitude and shove it.
[/quote]

You say all we need is changes in the community and a few changes in the mechanics. I say those changes in the community ain't happening and it's pollyanna for anyone to think they've got a magic wand for the whole of the game. I've got to roll my own hard six. I can't wait for someone else to stroll along and do it for me.

Nice to see you, too.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282973603' post='2433623']
By... telling it what it can and can't do IC. I mean "restrictions" in the most literal possible meaning of the word. For all the crap I could (and do) throw at Admin, his argument of caution with regard to intervening in this ant farm is pretty darn valid.
[/quote]

There are plenty of restrictions already in place IC. Tell me how dismissing reparations would hinder community. Give me a valid answer and I'll back off.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1282974815' post='2433640']
There are plenty of restrictions already in place IC. Tell me how dismissing reparations would hinder community. Give me a valid answer and I'll back off.
[/quote]

It hinders the community members that want wars to be profitable, or at least break even. The casualty junkies will still go to war without reps.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1282974815' post='2433640']
There are plenty of restrictions already in place IC. Tell me how dismissing reparations would hinder community. Give me a valid answer and I'll back off.
[/quote]
Can you name one restriction that is fully IC? I can't.

Donation extortion involves RL money.
Viceroys are not banned, just made mighty inconvenient because of the heavy use of off-site property, who's extortion is rightfully restricted.
RL item extortion also involves... RL item extortion.

And I can't think of anything else.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282975195' post='2433647']
It hinders the community members that want wars to be profitable, or at least break even. The casualty junkies will still go to war without reps.
[/quote]
Wars are not, never will be, and never should be profitable. This new concept is destroying the game. Wars should be fought to gain a political advantage; You got beat up, but the other guy is more beat up, so you're ahead. You are fighting for political capital and political strength. Not to make your numbered stats bigger than they used to be.

Edited August 28, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[zzzptm]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282975509' post='2433652']
Wars are not, never will be, and never should be profitable. This new concept is destroying the game. Wars should be fought to gain a political advantage; You got beat up, but the other guy is more beat up, so you're ahead. You are fighting for political capital and political strength. Not to make your numbered stats bigger than they used to be.
[/quote]
... but add the logical extension of reparations, and the guy that's more beat up stays more beat up. I remember the FAN terms meted out. That was really harsh. FAN found a way to stick it out, but many more alliances don't have the staying power.

I agree, the big reps are a bad thing. There should be a general community expectation that war turns out as you said for there to be a more active military aspect of the game. Absent that, we see raids that insist upon getting in a hit with no damage to themselves in return. That thread, however, has already been posted, so we can dispense with further discussion of the merits of raiding.

To fight for political capital and strength requires more RP.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282971326' post='2433580']
... so then everyone joins one of the five, or all go to the #1.
[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you one of the people saying that there are too many AAs out there now? Anything that would encourage people to amalgamate more would at least hopefully simplify the treaty web a LITTLE bit.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282975195' post='2433647']
It hinders the community members that want wars to be profitable, or at least break even. The casualty junkies will still go to war without reps.
[/quote]
War isn't meant to be profitable.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282975341' post='2433651']
Can you name one restriction that is fully IC? I can't.

Donation extortion involves RL money.
Viceroys are not banned, just made mighty inconvenient because of the heavy use of off-site property, who's extortion is rightfully restricted.
RL item extortion also involves... RL item extortion.

And I can't think of anything else.
[/quote]
Reparations aren't exactly completely IG, if you look at it in the right light. Why should I have to give someone money I earn ingame just because my alliance went to war? I earnt the money ingame, but it's like a RL action of having done so. I dunno, just my opinion anyway.

--

Point is, the angle I'm coming from is this: war is meant for fun in a game. People don't treaty CN like a game anymore, they treat it too seriously. THAT is what I believe to be the problem with the game. People can argue with me all they want but this thread is about ideas and thoughts and opinions. There's mine.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1282844726' post='2431854']
That wouldn't solve the problem. That just boosts nation numbers without changing the player base.
[/quote]

Actually allowing 2 nations on the same IP under certain restraints COULD increase the player base in households were one IP is shared among multiple clients.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282975905' post='2433655']
... but add the logical extension of reparations, and the guy that's more beat up stays more beat up. I remember the FAN terms meted out. That was really harsh. FAN found a way to stick it out, but many more alliances don't have the staying power.

I agree, the big reps are a bad thing. There should be a general community expectation that war turns out as you said for there to be a more active military aspect of the game. Absent that, we see raids that insist upon getting in a hit with no damage to themselves in return. That thread, however, has already been posted, so we can dispense with further discussion of the merits of raiding.

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

And the same people who have enabled and continue to enable this extreme stagnation are the ones who claimed it was there in the NPO era, who argued that they were fighting to rid us of it, and who now come here whining that the game is so miserable. I don't like bringing in what should be IC politics into this, I truthfully do not... But this is the reality of the situation.

I'm not having a terrible time, 'course I just got back in, so I might not have the best perspective, but frankly, being the underdog is fun. We are "afraid" of receiving a curbie at some point, because we know how single minded the other side is in pursuit of that goal... But we're not the ones living in true, rabid fear, and we aren't the ones causing this stagnation.

Again, it's all about this irrational fear of the big bad NPO coming to get you in your sleep that absolutely needs to be done away with. Even the absurdly massive reps we have seen, ultimately stem from this. IC, it solidifies your position... But when you look at the health of the game, it is nothing less than a malignant cancer. It needs to go.

This is where we hold the leaders of these fat alliances at the top [i]personally[/i] accountable for sitting there and doing nothing, for destroying this game. Are you reading this, and are a member of one of these said alliances? Go to your leader right now and tell them to start crap with alliances you're unsure if you can beat, and don't take no for an answer. Otherwise stop whining.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1282976393' post='2433664']
War isn't meant to be profitable.


Reparations aren't exactly completely IG, if you look at it in the right light. Why should [b]I have to give someone money I earn ingame[/b] just because my alliance went to war? I earnt the money ingame, but it's like a RL action of having done so. I dunno, just my opinion anyway.

--

Point is, the angle I'm coming from is this: war is meant for fun in a game. People don't treaty CN like a game anymore, they treat it too seriously. THAT is what I believe to be the problem with the game. People can argue with me all they want but this thread is about ideas and thoughts and opinions. There's mine.
[/quote]Bolded for emphasis. It is 100% contained within the game.

That's like saying war is outside of the game because you have to sit in your chair and click a few buttons. In game is in game. It is not any sort of RL action.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282977362' post='2433674']
Bolded for emphasis. It is 100% contained within the game.

That's like saying war is outside of the game because you have to sit in your chair and click a few buttons. In game is in game. It is not any sort of RL action.
[/quote]

Fair point. Also, your opinion. But regardless, this is what I'm trying to say:

[quote]Point is, the angle I'm coming from is this: war is meant for fun in a game. People don't treaty CN like a game anymore, they treat it too seriously. THAT is what I believe to be the problem with the game. People can argue with me all they want but this thread is about ideas and thoughts and opinions. There's mine.[/quote]

[General Vengeance]

[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]

My new sig, thanks Admin.

[Mandolus]

[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...[/quote]

I didn't expect you to actually post in this thread. Respect. I do think you're a little quick to put the blame on the community however. Yeah, the ridiculous reps and attachment to numbers are problems, but they are a result of nations growing larger and having more to lose. Now, I totally think it's crazy how attached people get to their pixels in this game, but it's to be expected. For whatever reason, it's natural for people to become possessive of something that they feel they "worked" for, even if it's entirely meaningless.

I like the idea of being able to cheaply rebuild back to within 100 infra. That'd make people a lot less afraid to lose their pixels in battles.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Mandolus' timestamp='1282978746' post='2433690']
I didn't expect you to actually post in this thread. Respect. I do think you're a little quick to put the blame on the community however. Yeah, the ridiculous reps and attachment to numbers are problems, but they are a result of nations growing larger and having more to lose. Now, I totally think it's crazy how attached people get to their pixels in this game, but it's to be expected. For whatever reason, it's natural for people to become possessive of something that they feel they "worked" for, even if it's entirely meaningless.

I like the idea of being able to cheaply rebuild back to within 100 infra. That'd make people a lot less afraid to lose their pixels in battles.
[/quote]
War still needs to be somewhat destructive though. If it's not, War loses it's luster. And you also don't get the political positioning that comes with a major victory if they're just going to restore themselves overnight, and the motivation you're trying to build becomes lost. It's the thrill of high-stakes play that sets this game apart from the pack. It needs to be a fine balance, we need to be careful about this.

Edited August 28, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1282976393' post='2433664']
War isn't meant to be profitable.

...

Point is, the angle I'm coming from is this: war is meant for fun in a game. People don't treaty CN like a game anymore, they treat it too seriously. THAT is what I believe to be the problem with the game. People can argue with me all they want but this thread is about ideas and thoughts and opinions. There's mine.
[/quote]
I can't tell if 'treaty CN like a game' is a typo, a Freudian slip, or intentional. Still, there is that. And lopsided wars, or the anticipation of one, can make wars NOT fun. Who wants to fight a war they have no chance of winning?

This of course assumes everyone likes war in general. Mr Fist above, I'm assuming, is one who does not personally consider war fun, given his declared alliance affiliation.

Drat. Now I'm wondering if some nudges in game mechanics might help keep new blood staying around. This is still born from the notion that new nations are welcomed by our more aggressive raiders, of course.

[wenwillthisend]

You want new nations to stay longer?

Stop raiding them, I see it often. New nation joins builds a bit then gets raided. They stop checking their nation cause they know they cannot win, nation gets deleted.
New nations just want a chance to grow and learn the game, if you leave them be then they may stick around.
And before anyone says "well if they don't want to be raided they should join an alliance" remember alliances whilst being part of the game are not something that must be joined.
New nations should be allowed time to grow and learn the game and time to choose an alliance, they should not be forced to join an alliance out of fear of being raided cause they are new.

[Swanfield]

Much respect for Admin for giving us his input in this topic, Yes the community should take part of the blame for this game going stale but they should not take all of the blame. They need a game environment that is not hostile to lengthy wars for larger nations and if the community is not willing to reduce reparations after winning a war then you need to intervene directly, be it a subtle change to the game mechanics or more radical, change the ToS to make it illegal for an alliance to keep paying reparations to another alliance for more than 1-3 months.

Another factor to large nations being reluctant to wage wars is the length of time it takes to rebuild their nations after a war and what you suggested sounds a damn fine idea and we all should share our input in the thread a mod linked a couple pages ago, however both of the changes that are being suggested will not go much way to fixing the issue with the sharp decline in new nation registrations and the poor retention rate of them which was the original reason this topic was created.

Here are a few suggestions that would help address the poor retention rate of new nations.

An optional interactive 3 day tutorial for new nations upon joining the game offering a bonus package of 100 infrastructure, a harbour, 100 land and 10 tech for completing it but it would cost one aid slot for 10 days to counter-balance any abuse.

Another message to all the newly created nations that automatically goes with the Admin welcome message, directing them to the Cybernation forums and the alliance recruitment forum to get them integrated into the politics of this game earlier as you pointed out, politics is what this game is about so anything should be done to get new players participating.

Tweak the short term protection new nations has upon joining the game, extend the peace mode protection for new nations to 10 days and block other nations more than 20 days from waging war on those below 20 days old that is only applicable up to a certain NS level of the nation(500 or 1000NS perhaps).

As for solutions on how to address the low nation registration levels in the game currently, that is something we as a community together needs to address by advertising and word of mouth. As many others have pointed out, they feel that relaxing the network rules would go some way to actively encouraging the community to tell their friends at universty, college, work and home to try this game out. Many of the people playing this game seems to be in their late teens and early twenties and most of them are at college or universities. They are petrified of encouraging their friends to play this game because colleges and universities tends to share a network and it would get them banned under the current network rules.

I think it would be a good idea to relax the network rules within a week or two after discussing it as it isn't too long before some of those players go back to universities and colleges across Europe and America. This could potentially make the new nation registration levels explode if we all pull our feet together.