Fleeing The Game

[GDI Crossfire]

hmmmm well then we should have a giant war and post it on youtube and people will be all thats bad ass and then come play

[Joseph Black]

If more war happen more often, alliances and nations wouldn't be so gigantic in the first place and it wouldn't take long to recover.

[Prime minister Johns]

As far as I see it, huge reparations cause people to lose interest in the game long before they pay them off.
Would you willingly sit and pay reps to someone for many months (or years) after being beaten to a pulp so that they have a permanent advantage over you (effectively making it so that you can never win a war against them ever again)or would you leave?

[Sal Paradise]

All of the above (except ChairmanHal's theory; that's ridiculous) and probably whatever else people think of (except ChairmanHal most likely). Everything is ruining this game. The gameplay, the culture, the decline in popularity of these kinds of games, the economy, the lunar cycle, not what ChairmanHal said, garbage day at Admin's house, Obama being a secret Muslim. All plausible explanations.

[Dementual]

The intimidating factor in the size of nations, and attempting to compete with them.

Also, the goddamn elitist attitude of the majority of the nations that actually participate tend to push away a lot of newcomers.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

The only way for a new nation to get anywhere is by being part of an alliance. For a nation in an alliance, the only way for them to grow beyond a particular size is for them to join GPA or another of the neutrals. War which is hankered after as a panacea for boredom, when it finally comes, is far too destructive and the rebuild far too long.

By the time you are anywhere near your prewar stats, the game is once again boring and the world is hankering for war again. Rinse, Repeat. This is not just true for the ones that lost the war, but also for those that won it. The only thing that some nations seem to be adding to their nations between wars, are some wonders. In a game that is about two things, performance in war [militarily and politically, this includes hollering on the owf] and stats as a possible phallic symbol. We are left with just the war aspect. If you are not a geriatric, you dont get to wave the stats around, and if you are a geriatric you can just wave it around without putting it to much use.

It is a cycle that bores everyone on either side of the divide, the symbol haves and the symbol have-nots.

I believe that it is this which is causing the notables to finally throw it away and to go away. They may return but the game has not changed even when they return, so the frustration is still there and hits them anew.

[CEverettKoop]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285981286' post='2471727']
Indeed, people finding that they are unable to play due to IP restrictions because a family member is playing, or someone at their local high school is playing, is keeping the number of players artificially lower. Handheld, Internet-capable devices may actually turn the tide somewhat as they become increasingly capable of navigating the CN web site and the cost of their use continues to plummet.
[/quote]

Except I shouldn't have to be restricted to just using my phone to play a browser-based game. The IP restriction does more harm in preventing word of mouth advertising than anything else. I understand it's in place to prevent a flood of multi-accounts, but surely there's got to be another way to keep multis in check.

In addition, it's how much of the game takes place outside of the game. These forums, alliance websites, IRC, etc. Someone new to the game isn't going to have a clue about any of that stuff unless they're keyed in beforehand.

Also, when was the last time there was anything new to spend money on? Once you have all the improvements/wonders, all that's left is stockpiling land/infra/tech for a race to the top you're already far, far behind in. If we've got Moon/Mars colonies then let's go ahead and be unrealistic. Let's have alien tech. Let's add mechs to soldiers and tanks.

There doesn't have to be broad, sweeping strokes and updates. Little things every now and then give us something to figure out and play around with. Yeah, the hivemind is strong and will have new stuff figured out to the decimal point eventually, but a constant flow of new things and additions will prevent stagnation. Take some risks; if it doesn't work then fix it. Something is always better than nothing.

[bigwoody]

No meaningful wars = interest wanders.

How do we fix it? Probably can't.

[James I]

You need to be very careful about finding the right balance between, on the one hand, bridging the gap between gigantic nations and brand new nations and, on the other hand, not turning this into a Tribal Wars-esque game, where re-building is relatively cheap and wars are so common that the political value of an attack is barely assessed before it is executed. I am yet to see anyone make a suggestion that strikes that balance and, given the reticence of Admin to implement many well-supported changes to the game in the past, I very much doubt that any radical overhaul required to change so much of what is intrinsic will ever get past the discussion phase.

Edited October 2, 2010 by James I

[Acca Dacca]

Cant really get new players when we dont have enough shiny things.

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1285986292' post='2471806']
If there was an update that made the speed/ease of nation growth based on how much smaller you are compared to the largest nation, that could help draw/keep new players. That way, they'd be able to build their nations quickly, and alliances would more readily go to war knowing that they could quickly rebuild what was lost.



[size="1"]
Note: If that doesn't make sense, ignore it. I don't usually put forth ideas like that since I can never be sure if my ideas are actually possible/logical. [/size]
[/quote]

Makes sense. I like it.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='kentsfield' timestamp='1285975461' post='2471609']
Its a spreadsheet web game living in a modern world.
[/quote]

Funny you mention this - I actually have an excel spreadsheet which calculates and can plan everything I need for my nation 100% accurately, which can basically be used to grow my nation in exactly the same fashion as the actual game itself.

I've actually given some thought to making a "CN Simulator" and having people pay 3M/50 in-game to use it but realized then the absurdity of making a simulator for a game just to avoid the time factor.

[Emphix]

some I think:
- being persistent has it's pros and cons. The longer the game goes, it also can make new players feel unwelcomed, seeing all those big players, feelings they can never reach those, etc.
- the game itself, in it's purest form, isn't that interesting, the politickings and community are what made the game interesting, however, as I pointed above, new players may not know any of those background and histories, it'll take further time for them to digest things, in which many may not survive. Not to mention the stagnant current condition, it isn't helping.
- raids, it can make people just "@^&#@ this" and stop playing altogether, while if without those, they may still be around.
- the game is old, it may be interesting during the 2006-7 era, but it may not now. The internet moves on.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Emphix

[Freelancer]

[quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1285960567' post='2471298']
Overall decline in popularity of web-browser games.
[/quote]

^^ This ^^

[img]http://www.freewebs.com/kevthegreat/halo3firstlook.jpg[/img]


Need I say anymore

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1285984822' post='2471778']

The moral crusaders and propagandists can harp on about tech raiding or whatever else driving hordes of people out of the game, but any impact tech raiding may have is a drop in the bucket compared to the [i]thousands[/i] of players that quit the game because: i) the gameplay does not hold anyone's attention for that long, ii) it is bordering on impossible for a new player to catch up to the largest nations, and iii) there have been zero meaningful updates in the last 18 months.
[/quote]


You forgot a few old friend.

RP, Gone never to be seen or heard of.

Mystery and Intrigue.

I need not remind you of when Yennisy decided to take a gander into the Dark Side.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Freelancer

[LJ Scott]

The OP.

[Derwood1]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1285986187' post='2471804']
These threads.
[/quote]
This and I would add Fernando's threads to this.

[Eigrim]

Part of the problem is the proliferation of nukes and how this has taken all the fun out of war.

Wars used to involve some skill and be fun. Ground attacks, air attacks, blitzes, coordination. Now, all boils down to nukes and war chests. No skill, no tactics.
Nukes need to go back to being a deterrent. I have seen some people suggesting uncapping GRL as a solution. I don't believe this would work for a number of reasons.
The war system needs to be changed to make conventional warfare, tactics and the players skills more important again.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Eigrim

[Baltus]

I agree with what most have said. The game itself is fairly boring, it's the community that pulls you in. Also, it's simply the fact that it's losing any charm it once held. Now, users don't have to try to plan out their battles. They just hit cruise missile, confirm, cruise missile, confirm. (bigger = replace with nukes) Throw in some soldiers and that's a war. I haven't played for too long, but that's how a war basically is. And from what I can infer from the past: wars were much more common, tech deals were low, and nukes were a deterrent. Now, its' the opposite. Everyone is afraid of a long drawn out war, since it'll take months (years) to build it back up, and it's even worse if you owe reparations. Everyone Tech Deals, the game has taken on a highly economic viewpoint, taking away the wars we were promised when we registered. Finally, nukes are launched regularly, and simply serve as a way to beat down on an enemy. Some people, even do it amongst themselves, for lulz. You add on to this the morality on raiding, war slot filling, etc, and it becomes a very confusing and dragged out game. Also, as a final note, politics is very dramatic. People will use what you said 2 years ago, against you. They'll use everything against you for good PR, and then everyone gangs up on you. So an alliance can never get too powerful, but never too weak, it can never have too many treaties (due to the complicated treaty web) but having too less would be foolish and an alliance can never declare war, unless it's confident it will win, and has double checked it's future enemy, multiple times. You might as well, not create that alliance, in the first place.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1286000861' post='2472028']
As far as I see it, huge reparations cause people to lose interest in the game long before they pay them off.
Would you willingly sit and pay reps to someone for many months (or years) after being beaten to a pulp so that they have a permanent advantage over you (effectively making it so that you can never win a war against them ever again)or would you leave?
[/quote]
This pretty much sums it up

[zzzptm]

Times are tough all over... I remember when a top 10 alliance had 500-1000 members. Now only MHA and NPO can crack 500, NPO barely.

Why leave? Boredom. I started another game a few months ago that was just like CN, but with swords. I quit because it was just like CN, but with swords. I didn't want another game with trade circles and junk like that.

I quit playing Kingdom of Loathing a long time ago because I was tired of playing a text-based FPS game. Why? It was boring.

What will make the game exciting? BRB, nuking FAN.

[Cairna]

While I once felt I had the interest and time to get involved, create, and affect drama in CN, I no longer find this to be the case. I feel the others in leadership positions in Carpe Diem are with me. We'll stand by the allies we like, but we have no interest in CN drama of our own.

Mayhaps this is the way many leaders feel. At the same time they don't wish to pass on the reigns of leadership to a younger generation that could wreck havoc to all they have made of their alliance.

Sure, there are still big players, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were part of the lack of [i]real[/i] drama.

[Darth Andrew]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1285982261' post='2471743']
Far and away, it's due to the incredibly bad economic system.

The economic system doesn't scale at all. this means that the largest nations get so big simply by living for a really long time. There's no skill involved, only perseverance.

This has profound military effects: alliances are loathe to go to war where the damage incurred in a brief time takes years to rebuild. Thus, wars, when they come are much much larger and involve huge reparations, because that's the only way to keep an alliance down. Three years ago, an alliance could be utterly crushed and be rebuilt within a month because even the victors' nations were not much larger. There's no way to rebuild a large nation other than to hunker down for a year or two and not get crushed. Again, three years ago, the aid system was such that nations could be rebuilt to be equal to their victor-peers within a couple aid cycles.
[/quote]
This (in relating to why we now dread war). A long time ago, I remember these aid chains, where an aid package of $3 million or so was sent down a line of nations. Now, any aid less than $3 million per nation is considered absurd and a waste of an aid slot.

If the aid cap was dramatically raised (if not entirely eliminated), large sums of money could flow freely, which would speed up the reparation process, which would decrease the time between wars. Win-win for everyone.

[Corinan]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1285959422' post='2471287']
BUT REALLY IT'S ALL GOONS FAULT BECAUSE THEY TECH RAID!
[/quote]

I remember when it was NPOs fault because we were big ol meanies.

There's several factors that are contributing to the problem. Game mechanics, and player apathy being chief among them.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Corinan

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1285984822' post='2471778']
Pretty much this.

The moral crusaders and propagandists can harp on about tech raiding or whatever else driving hordes of people out of the game, but any impact tech raiding may have is a drop in the bucket compared to the [i]thousands[/i] of players that quit the game because: i) the gameplay does not hold anyone's attention for that long, ii) it is bordering on impossible for a new player to catch up to the largest nations, and iii) there have been zero meaningful updates in the last 18 months.
[/quote]
Must disagree. It's the players who run this game. I am having mad fun warring, as I did in Karma war and many before those. People are too worried about their political dominance.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Darth Andrew' timestamp='1286166464' post='2473917']
This (in relating to why we now dread war). A long time ago, I remember these aid chains, where an aid package of $3 million or so was sent down a line of nations. Now, any aid less than $3 million per nation is considered absurd and a waste of an aid slot.

If the aid cap was dramatically raised (if not entirely eliminated), large sums of money could flow freely, which would speed up the reparation process, which would decrease the time between wars. Win-win for everyone.
[/quote]
The only effect that raising the aid cap would have on reparations would be to make them much, much larger.
The idea that appears to be prevalent (to the determent of the game) is that reparations are to cripple an alliance so that they will never be a threat ever again. And this has resulted in all the alliances that might of been a source of the interesting politics that make the game environment dynamic and interesting either disbanding or being relegated to the political wilderness until some outside force removes the bloc that defeated them in the last war and the playing field is leveled again.

In short, there is no interesting politics in CN any more because the alliances that were the source of it are now either vanquished or mere shadows of their former selves.

[Darth Andrew]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1286175941' post='2474052']
The only effect that raising the aid cap would have on reparations would be to make them much, much larger.
The idea that appears to be prevalent (to the determent of the game) is that reparations are to cripple an alliance so that they will never be a threat ever again. And this has resulted in all the alliances that might of been a source of the interesting politics that make the game environment dynamic and interesting either disbanding or being relegated to the political wilderness until some outside force removes the bloc that defeated them in the last war and the playing field is leveled again.

In short, there is no interesting politics in CN any more because the alliances that were the source of it are now either vanquished or mere shadows of their former selves.
[/quote]
Reparations are only so large now because alliances that consist of tons of massive, nuke-capable nations are doing the fighting. Wars in the far past had relatively few large, nuke-capable nations involved. Thus, massive amounts of money need to be moved for present reparations, but due to the current limits, take months to complete.