Fleeing The Game

[NoFish]

Alliances not disbanding when they lose wars has led to stagnation and uninteresting politics. Would Ragnarok ever have come to be if \m/ was still around? If NAAC hadn't been disbanded would Polar be anywhere near where it is today? It certainly wouldn't have had Grub as a leader, I'm sure. With the same alliances sticking around we keep the same grudges, the same allies and the same enemies. Anyone saying harsh terms and disbandment are what's wrong with the game is deluding themselves - what we need are [i]harsher[/i] terms and [i]more[/i] alliances forced to disband.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1289699463' post='2512394']
I must say getting back in the top 5% once again is definitely something that keeps me playing. I see it as an achievable goal, and damn near did it before the last war.

Regardless, boredom is the biggest problem with the game at this point. A major shakedown would increase activity and increase members.

Don't ask me how to achieve that other than a possible reset.
[/quote]
I came so close to that goal once... I would like to achive it but it will probably never happen, I am just too far behind.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1289775866' post='2513094']
Alliances not disbanding when they lose wars has led to stagnation and uninteresting politics. Would Ragnarok ever have come to be if \m/ was still around? If NAAC hadn't been disbanded would Polar be anywhere near where it is today? It certainly wouldn't have had Grub as a leader, I'm sure. With the same alliances sticking around we keep the same grudges, the same allies and the same enemies. Anyone saying harsh terms and disbandment are what's wrong with the game is deluding themselves - what we need are [i]harsher[/i] terms and [i]more[/i] alliances forced to disband.
[/quote]

Interesting perspective, even if I don't agree with it.

Ultimately Ragnarok was indeed founded by former members of \m/, but of the 350 or so of us that were there at the end, the majority ultimately leave the game. Some of those who left have subsequently returned, or been allowed to return, but the destruction of such a large alliance means player loss in addition to a change to the game--for better or worse.

No, I have come to the same place Admin is at this point. We force huge reparations of people and then expect them to happily stick around for 6 months to a year doing nothing but paying off their bill until they can perhaps rejoin the world stage or disband their alliance and break up their community in order to move on. Overwhelmingly they do not, and our numbers get a bit smaller each time.

If you are fighting wars the right way around here, you build up, go break things and get broken, and before you pound each other into sawdust, you shake hands and walk away, and build up again. In between, there is plenty of time for politics and shifting alliances between factions. Those that don't want to be part of the loop form neutrals and watch it all eating popcorn usually, at least for a good while. That's how it should work.

Many of us sadly are doing it wrong.

[Narsis]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1289850177' post='2513717']No, I have come to the same place Admin is at this point. We force huge reparations of people and then expect them to happily stick around for 6 months to a year doing nothing but paying off their bill until they can perhaps rejoin the world stage or disband their alliance and break up their community in order to move on. Overwhelmingly they do not, and our numbers get a bit smaller each time.

If you are fighting wars the right way around here, you build up, go break things and get broken, and before you pound each other into sawdust, you shake hands and walk away, and build up again. In between, there is plenty of time for politics and shifting alliances between factions. Those that don't want to be part of the loop form neutrals and watch it all eating popcorn usually, at least for a good while. That's how it should work.

Many of us sadly are doing it wrong.
[/quote]


100% agree.

[sammykhalifa]

I've noticed ITT that people who love the politics say the problem is that the politics have dried up; the warmongers that there aren't enough wars; and the number-crunchers that the mechanics are bad/not changed up often enough. Lots of projecting here.

What does that mean? I don't know, but I do know that there was no less of a treaty web back when the game had 40k people in it. I know people who have left the game that liked building a little more than fighting and that it didn't bother them that there just weren't enough wars. I have friends that frankly don't care whether they can catch up with the old/big nations or not (or that there are like a dozen people that make all of the actual decisions in this game) and just like doing their thing.

Edited November 15, 2010 by sammykhalifa

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1289850177' post='2513717']


If you are fighting wars the right way around here, you build up, go break things and get broken, and before you pound each other into sawdust, you shake hands and walk away, and build up again. In between, there is plenty of time for politics and shifting alliances between factions. Those that don't want to be part of the loop form neutrals and watch it all eating popcorn usually, at least for a good while. That's how it should work.

Many of us sadly are doing it wrong.
[/quote]

True enough that I haven't seen a more mean-spirited game than this one.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1289853018' post='2513738']
I've noticed ITT that people who love the politics say the problem is that the politics have dried up; the warmongers that there aren't enough wars; and the number-crunchers that the mechanics are bad/not changed up often enough. Lots of projecting here.

What does that mean? I don't know, but I do know that there was no less of a treaty web back when the game had 40k people in it. I know people who have left the game that liked building a little more than fighting and that it didn't bother them that there just weren't enough wars. I have friends that frankly don't care whether they can catch up with the old/big nations or not (or that there are like a dozen people that make all of the actual decisions in this game) and just like doing their thing.
[/quote]
It is not that politics has dried up, the problem is that it happens almost exclusively in private channels.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Skjuludde]

I would like to stress that it's incredibly boring being a new player. I was so excited about this game, you have no idea, when i read about the wars, the alliances, the intrigues and overall politics. Then i join the game and go "That's it?"
After that i walk over here just to see that 9months-2years REAL LIFE TIME was standard to cross the line of being a small nation to being a tiny bit larger.

As far as i can read in those threads i've taken my time to read it all has an effect on eachother. Thanks to the political environment letting players reach the end of the game mechanics (massive, old nations taking years to build up) that effects back on the political environment where people now want to keep what they have gotten. Sure it is the community that makes the game, but the game itself effects the community. If the game changes the table for the political environment gets affected, since the two are linked together.
Right now the rift between the rich and poor is increasing rapidly. The poor can't do anything, the rich can do anything but are to scared to actually do something. Now let's for example go for some game mechanic communism and capping the relative strength and economy into a window where the rift between rich and poor, big and small is not as big. Would that be able to cause an effect on the political environment? As said if more and more people find themselves of more equal strenght, and the recovery time being significantly lower, wouldn't the risk of losing years of growth disappear?
That would also call for some more thinking in the game itself, in the sense that you can't really replace your troops forever anymore. Your neverending supply of soldiers and tanks disappear and you have to think about before you use them and who you are using them on.
Sure the infrastructure maintenance cost increase is a way to cap it in a way. But people seemed to have found a way to, with time, grow past those barriers.

Not saying that i want great wars to happen weekly. More that the shifts of power would have to be more frequent, diplomacy more valuable then ever and complete dominance harder to maintain. For me atleast that would be a bit interesting. I kind of want to be a part of this game, not a by-stander for the next two years.

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1289867828' post='2513921']
It is not that politics has dried up, the problem is that it happens almost exclusively in private channels.
[/quote]

True enough, but it's always been that way. It hasn't "gotten" like that, at least from where I stand.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1289920097' post='2514609']
True enough, but it's always been that way. It hasn't "gotten" like that, at least from where I stand.
[/quote]

If the politics was a little more out in the open people might actually have something to get interested in.
The politics might or might not be that interesting, but if there is no visible politics then the game may as well have no politics at all for people to be interested in or bored with, or to form any kind of opinion of.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[WcaesarD]

It seems to me that most browser based games have a basic life cycle, maybe cn is moving towards its "later years"... I still think the best thing to do is pick a date, at LEAST a year ahead, and announce that on that day, final stats will be taken, and then the game will start over with everyone at zero. How many of you doubt that it would make for an insanely exciting year?

I'm willing to bet numbers of players returning would skyrocket, and that there would be very little restraint in the last 3 or so months as people tried to jockey for the top alliance/bloc spots. Sure, it might make people a little upset, but that's bound to happen. As for the former donation money argument, I don't see it. I've donated in the past, and I wouldn't care about it. You risk losing all that investment in a war the day after you get it, it happens.

I'm fairly certain that eventually the game will find the floor in terms of total players, but I don't have any idea what that floor is. I still think word of mouth is the best way for these games to grow, but that's just/my opinion.

[caleb ryals]

I feel one of the reasons, and it may be a small one, but i still feel it is a reason, is that there is basically nothing left to discover or find out for yourself, no trial and error anymore. From tech deals, to every kind of guide you can imagine. We are telling our smaller nations how to play the game. And its boring because after a week or so in the academies, theres no surprises to learning about growth and development. I'm not putting down any of the above that I have mentioned, but its true that with no trial and error in a game like this, there's also no excitement because you've basically been told everything and theres nothing for you to do but run on auto-mode for the rest of your nation's lifespan.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='WCaesarD' timestamp='1289952342' post='2515320']
It seems to me that most browser based games have a basic life cycle, maybe cn is moving towards its "later years"... I still think the best thing to do is pick a date, at LEAST a year ahead, and announce that on that day, final stats will be taken, and then the game will start over with everyone at zero. How many of you doubt that it would make for an insanely exciting year?

I'm willing to bet numbers of players returning would skyrocket, and that there would be very little restraint in the last 3 or so months as people tried to jockey for the top alliance/bloc spots. Sure, it might make people a little upset, but that's bound to happen. As for the former donation money argument, I don't see it. I've donated in the past, and I wouldn't care about it. You risk losing all that investment in a war the day after you get it, it happens.

I'm fairly certain that eventually the game will find the floor in terms of total players, but I don't have any idea what that floor is. I still think word of mouth is the best way for these games to grow, but that's just/my opinion.
[/quote]

I totally agree here, This post got me thinking so I did a bit of a count of how much I have donated and it easily amounts to several hundred bucks, mostly in donation deals to other players or onto myself when I had a much larger nation and it was worth my while to do so. And I would not care if it was all lost, if it meant that the game would be revitalized.

Because as you said CN is near the end of it's life cycle. The big nations and blocs are now so big that nothing can challenge them any more and it is a mathematical impossibility for a small nation to catch up to the large nations (who are also growing at a steady rate due to numerous tech deals) now within a reasonable time frame.

So I agree with you that if Admin were to announce that in one year from now everything would be reset then the level of competition for the top spot at the end of the year would be exciting to watch. And if there was a prize at the end for the top 10 players and the sanctioned alliances at the end of the year like a bonus resource on their nations in the new world as well as a honor board for bragging rights then it would be a very interesting year.

[TigerBaby]

You can count me for one out of your new world. I have spent over 600 days just to reach a mid level and i'm not going to go through it all over again simply to give a boost to newer players who have served no time in the game. If anything the aid system could be tinkered with to make it easier for them to reach wonder buying level through tech deals. The fact is the vast majority who create a nation don't stay long and all this reset jazz wont ever change that. If anything may be of any value to encourage those who do stay it's a revamped aid system where they can turn over tech deals faster.

[NoFish]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1289850177' post='2513717']
Interesting perspective, even if I don't agree with it.

Ultimately Ragnarok was indeed founded by former members of \m/, but of the 350 or so of us that were there at the end, the majority ultimately leave the game. Some of those who left have subsequently returned, or been allowed to return, but the destruction of such a large alliance means player loss in addition to a change to the game--for better or worse.

No, I have come to the same place Admin is at this point. We force huge reparations of people and then expect them to happily stick around for 6 months to a year doing nothing but paying off their bill until they can perhaps rejoin the world stage or disband their alliance and break up their community in order to move on. Overwhelmingly they do not, and our numbers get a bit smaller each time.

If you are fighting wars the right way around here, you build up, go break things and get broken, and before you pound each other into sawdust, you shake hands and walk away, and build up again. In between, there is plenty of time for politics and shifting alliances between factions. Those that don't want to be part of the loop form neutrals and watch it all eating popcorn usually, at least for a good while. That's how it should work.

Many of us sadly are doing it wrong.
[/quote]

Huge reparations are a simple response to the inability for alliances to losers to disband. No one in power wants a situation where they fight a war only to have to fight the same enemies again and again - furthermore, there's no incentive to do so. Why bother winning if you don't actually win? I agree entirely about nations sitting around for six months to a year paying reps being a game-killer. Terms need to be things like viceroys and disbandment and senate restrictions that punish the alliance, not the nations of it, per se.

Some nations might quit over it, sure, but the ones that don't can help contribute to making Planet Bob a more interesting place for all of us and, in the long term, gain more members. I mean, suppose that NPO had been disbanded at the end of Karma. Sure, a bunch of NPOers would have left over it, but the ones that didn't? They'd be in decent shape statwise and very, very angry. Instead of these angry, militarily significant free radicals floating around, we had an alliance that had to sit on its ass for a year not doing anything. And better yet, this would all happen while [i]increasing[/i] the stakes of each war, so that wars become [i]more[/i] exciting. War should be about alliances fighting tooth and nail for the right to live, not about nations logging in once a day, hitting the nuke button, and going to sleep.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1285982261' post='2471743']There's no skill involved, only perseverance.
[/quote]

Perseverance [i]is[/i] a skill, good sir.

Rest of post is quite insightful.

[maxfiles]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1289850177' post='2513717']
We force huge reparations of people and then expect them to happily stick around for 6 months to a year doing nothing but paying off their bill until they can perhaps rejoin the world stage or disband their alliance and break up their community in order to move on. Overwhelmingly they do not, and our numbers get a bit smaller each time.


<snip>


Many of us sadly are doing it wrong.
[/quote]

Then alliances should just war without reparations. Fight the battle, take the losses, and then be cool about it..

If Reparations were gotten rid of, them maybe the mentality might change.. maybe.. before its too late.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='TigerBaby' timestamp='1289995741' post='2515825']
You can count me for one out of your new world. I have spent over 600 days just to reach a mid level and i'm not going to go through it all over again simply to give a boost to newer players who have served no time in the game. If anything the aid system could be tinkered with to make it easier for them to reach wonder buying level through tech deals. The fact is the vast majority who create a nation don't stay long and all this reset jazz wont ever change that. If anything may be of any value to encourage those who do stay it's a revamped aid system where they can turn over tech deals faster.
[/quote]

And I have spent over 1000 days in this game and I am remember CN when it was young and vibrant.

Back in the old days it was possible for a nation that was ZIed to catch up and rejoin the endgame nations in a couple of months, and no real harm was done.
Now such a feat would indeed be nigh on impossible and would take many years to accomplish under ideal circumstances of growth. (barring a massive war that would make all the previous great wars look like Sunday picnics)

What this game needs is some way for new nations and rebuilding older players to catch up to the mid-game in a reasonable period of time (like say between 2 to 4 months, not years) and have some meaningful role in the game, or for the game to reset every so often so that this never becomes a problem again.

[TigerBaby]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1290262811' post='2518178']
And I have spent over 1000 days in this game and I am remember CN when it was young and vibrant.

Back in the old days it was possible for a nation that was ZIed to catch up and rejoin the endgame nations in a couple of months, and no real harm was done.
Now such a feat would indeed be nigh on impossible and would take many years to accomplish under ideal circumstances of growth. (barring a massive war that would make all the previous great wars look like Sunday picnics)

What this game needs is some way for new nations and rebuilding older players to catch up to the mid-game in a reasonable period of time (like say between 2 to 4 months, not years) and have some meaningful role in the game, or for the game to reset every so often so that this never becomes a problem again.
[/quote]

You're just ignoring the issue I was focussing on which is the lack of new players coming in and staying. I don't give a hoot about the whines of larger nations and their fretting about rebuilding after a war or the whines of mid tier nations who can't catch up with the bigger ones. Believe me it's a lot more of a pain for a small nation who doesn't have all the economy boosting improvements far less wonders to get back on track after a war. If larger nations don't like the present system then they can just go away and your problem is solved isn't it. The smaller nations would then be nearer the top.

I don't care about rebuilding after a war as it's a lot easier for me now than it ever was before. If I am down to zero infrastructure i'm still better off than new nations as the citizens I have still have a considerably higher income. The thing that needs to be addressed is to make it easier for new nations to have a larger income which will encourage them to stay. And again all this reset jazz changes nothing, it's STILL a struggle for smaller nations to reach wonder buying status if you do that and in fact it's even harder because there will be NO tech buyers.

And this is supposed to be about increasing the number of players in the game not decreasing them to suit the whims of some who are behind the top tier. A reset will kill it as basically half or more of my alliance would quit and that would be mirrored across the board. The answer is to tinker with the aid system to enable new nations to turn over tech deals faster which would also assist larger nations in recovering lost tech after a war.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='maxfiles' timestamp='1290219953' post='2517887']
Then alliances should just war without reparations. Fight the battle, take the losses, and then be cool about it..

If Reparations were gotten rid of, them maybe the mentality might change.. maybe.. before its too late.
[/quote]

This is the exact conclusion I came to several months ago.

[Caliph]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1289413623' post='2509476']
OP, you want change...
2. Recruit new players...if we all just brought in one more, we'd have things back to early 2007 levels.
[/quote]
That doesn't always work. I've brought in 4 players personally, and out of those 4 only 1 still plays (conveintly before the Refurral thing was implemented )

I agree this game does need changes. I would support a one time fee per extra nation you want, that would give us more nations, but not players. I would support changing the Foreign Aid system, it is outdated with the rise of the > 100k NS nations. I would support adding new features. But the core of the game, making it "one turn per day/update" is something I like.

I've seen some suggestions here I like, and others I do not think will cause a difference.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1290470064' post='2520677']
That doesn't always work. I've brought in 4 players personally, and out of those 4 only 1 still plays (conveintly before the Refurral thing was implemented )

I agree this game does need changes. I would support a one time fee per extra nation you want, that would give us more nations, but not players. I would support changing the Foreign Aid system, it is outdated with the rise of the > 100k NS nations. I would support adding new features. But the core of the game, making it "one turn per day/update" is something I like.

I've seen some suggestions here I like, and others I do not think will cause a difference.
[/quote]

People new to the game are put off by the time necessary to build a decent nation, when they're faced with 200k monster nations and they realize it will literally take years to get that large.

Infrastructure needs to be a lot cheaper up to a point. 5000 infrastructure should cost a 1/10th or less of what it does now without sacrificing how much you earn off it. After 5000 infrastructure, infrastructure should be priced at what it is now.

This way it'll take a month or so to build a nation that is of decent size. People want to feel like they're a part of something, it's not politics to most people, they don't care about alliances or the owf forum, only a good 5% of people are moderately active here, and add another 5% who are moderately active at the alliance level. The other 90% just want a nation that they can use and be proud of, they don't want to feel like it's an impossibility, or ridiculously time consuming to grow a nation that is of halfway decent size.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1290517488' post='2521184']
People new to the game are put off by the time necessary to build a decent nation, when they're faced with 200k monster nations and they realize it will literally take years to get that large.

Infrastructure needs to be a lot cheaper up to a point. 5000 infrastructure should cost a 1/10th or less of what it does now without sacrificing how much you earn off it. After 5000 infrastructure, infrastructure should be priced at what it is now.

This way it'll take a month or so to build a nation that is of decent size. People want to feel like they're a part of something, it's not politics to most people, they don't care about alliances or the owf forum, only a good 5% of people are moderately active here, and add another 5% who are moderately active at the alliance level. The other 90% just want a nation that they can use and be proud of, they don't want to feel like it's an impossibility, or ridiculously time consuming to grow a nation that is of halfway decent size.
[/quote]
Good idea, but I would take it a step further and add a soft cap on infra after 10000 infra, where you can buy it and it will not contribute to your derived stats (except for a new stat that could be called ranking and run off the old NS formula, so they will still get the e-peen value of being big, but nothing else), but it will act like a buffer after that and stop you from losing those stats until your infra falls below 10000 again. and there should be similar caps for tech and land. This would make it possible to join the top tier nations eventually rather than be constantly trailing behind them by halting their growth. (look up the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise"]Zeno arrow paradox[/url] for an idea of what I am talking about)

[TheDeathBringer]

I'm against reps and making alliances disband, I may not like an alliance and/or some of its members but that doesn't mean we can't both play the game. I think forcing massive reps makes the game very boring for the people paying them and to an extent everyone else and forcing someones home to disband is even worse again. I wonder how many nations left CN because there alliances don't exist no more, if an alliances wants to disband of its accord, fine. If a nation could build a lot faster and get nukes etc. quicker it might make people a lot more willing to go to war and make a lot more drama.

PS I didn't read everyones post, this is my take and I don't care if someone else said what I did.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1290521058' post='2521198']
Good idea, but I would take it a step further and add a soft cap on infra after 10000 infra, where you can buy it and it will not contribute to your derived stats (except for a new stat that could be called ranking and run off the old NS formula, so they will still get the e-peen value of being big, but nothing else), but it will act like a buffer after that and stop you from losing those stats until your infra falls below 10000 again. and there should be similar caps for tech and land. This would make it possible to join the top tier nations eventually rather than be constantly trailing behind them by halting their growth. (look up the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise"]Zeno arrow paradox[/url] for an idea of what I am talking about)
[/quote]

I like that idea, but the only thing is, and I'm not a coder so I have no idea, but it seems like that might be a little difficult to implement. But I do like the idea .

I think that, those who are active on the owf need to realize that we are actually in the minority, and that most of the people who share this place with us are very content to never pay attention to the forums, and very content to never pay attention to their alliance forums, and to them, all they truly care about is building their nation. If any changes are made to this world, the changes need to be made with them in mind, the casual nation builder/nation leader, things need to be more accessible for them, not for us. Make it easier for the casual nation leader to grow their nation, make it more accessible for them to be within the grasp of the top tier, and they may stick around.

Those of us here think the world revolves around us, simply because we've taken an active interest in global politics or alliance politics, but it doesn't. Change, if there's any change, should be made with the casual leader in mind. I think what you've suggested definitely fits with the casual leader in mind.