why attendance is dropping so fast

[Janitor]

oh c'mon guys.... are you kidding? It's a war game after all.

Why take away the underdog infra and tech destruction? no wonder guys are leaving. When attacked by a big guy they just disappear now. bring back some hope for the little guy.

ANd the update thing. If it stays static, this game is doomed. We all need a chance to be on at update.

[ShinRa]

I have to agree with the above statement.

Edited December 2, 2010 by ShinRa

[Mayzie]

Those are pretty much the reasons I've packed in, no way am I waking up at 5am everyday for this. It's one thing on CN:SE where I've been around for over three years, don't want my stuff wrecked and there's only a war every six months but on a more fast paced game where war happens more frequently, it's just too much.

[Janitor]

It's why we've lost so many players and continue to. This is an enjoyable wargame if not for those two things. Lots of stuff can be tweaked or changed to enhance the game, but the update time and now the lack of defensive strategy for the small guys is just shutting this game down.

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='Janitor' timestamp='1291323950' post='2528200']
It's why we've lost so many players and continue to. This is an enjoyable wargame if not for those two things. Lots of stuff can be tweaked or changed to enhance the game, but the update time and now the lack of defensive strategy for the small guys is just shutting this game down.
[/quote]

If you change the update time, you will appease one subset while losing another subset. I am assuming that the bulk for the players are in the US. That may be a false assumption, but my experience supports the assumption. If you move the update more than a few hours either way, you will likely lose many more than are being loss now due to the update.

[MuskieZZ]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1291769225' post='2533366']
If you change the update time, you will appease one subset while losing another subset. I am assuming that the bulk for the players are in the US. That may be a false assumption, but my experience supports the assumption. If you move the update more than a few hours either way, you will likely lose many more than are being loss now due to the update.
[/quote]

Why not get rid of updates? Make so you can only attack in a 24hr period.
Just a thought.

[crazyemolad]

[quote name='MuskieZZ' timestamp='1294850173' post='2573172']
Why not get rid of updates? Make so you can only attack in a 24hr period.
Just a thought.
[/quote]

This would put a new spin on strategy in the game.

[Robony]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1291769225' post='2533366']
If you change the update time, you will appease one subset while losing another subset. I am assuming that the bulk for the players are in the US. That may be a false assumption, but my experience supports the assumption. If you move the update more than a few hours either way, you will likely lose many more than are being loss now due to the update.
[/quote]


26 hour scheduled update. Moves it across time zones nicely. Also adds a chance for a bit more strategy.

[Stelios]

I live where update is game time... Please dont change it

[Mikeyrox]

I think we should either just get rid of update entirely, and make attacks work like nukes - once every 24 hours (or twice I suppose in the case of ground attacks), or have a variable update, where nations pick their update time from maybe a few presets that work for them. Why you ask?

Lets look at the option of removing update altogether for a second. One can only assume that Admins original intentions were to make it so you could only attack twice in one day. After all, RL armies can only do so much in a 24 hour period. Update just happened to be what divided your daily operations, instead of a 24 hour countdown from when you declare. But does that make sense? If we want realism, having an update quad just doesn't work. My army couldn't attack someone at 11pm, tire out, and then, in one hours time, say "its a new day", magically have their energy back, and go on for another strike. It couldn't happen, so if realism is what we want, then get rid of update.

If, however, after having long gotten used to the update quad loophole, we want to keep the system as a means of strategy, why do we necessarily need to fix a particular hour for update? Why not be able to choose between a few preset update times - lets say 12pm, 12am, 5pm server time, to randomly through some numbers out there. You pick that time as your update, and you are stuck with it for two weeks, and it cannot be changed while you are at war.

In that system, an alliance could gather its members, and poll to see what time is most agreeable for everyone to go on. Lets say everyone (or most people) in an alliance lived in the North East US. 5pm, being 6pm for them, would work great. The alliance decides that all of its members will set their update to 5pm, in preparation for a war that they will launch, and go about it that way. The DoW will be posted at 4:30 server time, and the blitz will begin at 4:45. It would work the same way it does now - still an update, still the alliance going on at the same time to blitz before and after it, etc. The only difference is that in this way, update actually works for people.

Thats my two cents anyway. There are probably flaws in my logic, and the system I outlined of a variable update obviously needs more thinking out that what I put into it above, but these are the two basic options that I think would better fit the game.

[JtiksPies]

I've always left early because I got crappy alliances that screwed me over and never told me about wars. But I like the short war idea, keeps things on the buzz

[Alexander The Second]

would be neat if update moved 2 hours everyday. So day would start at 2am, and end at 12am per normal but it would allow for it to gradually change 2 hours a day allowing everyone to have a chance in the sun.

[Confusion]

I blame OP for killing the game.



Confusion.

[Janitor]

As it appears that for whatever reason Admin is not able to change the update time to a rotating one... I think the only solution to making the game somewhat more balanced to players anywhere on the globe is simply an attack timer based on your attack method.

For instance;

2 GA's and you have to wait 24hrs before another set. Same with Air and CM's. nukes would need the 24 wait plus 24 hours between launches.
quad attacks would disappear so multi nation attack coordination would be more important than it is now. And the defender would be in a much better position to hold his own so the fights would be a LOT tougher.

There would also be some room for a bit more strat in battle as one could use GA's (done for 24 hours) but hold CM's and air until just before he launches a nuke. Variations on that theme...

The update blitz that is convenient to a certain geographic area has to go, perhaps this would level the playing field?

Edited March 14, 2011 by Janitor

[Janitor]

another possibility is to allow GA's, CM's and air 12 hours apart while keeping the nukes 24 hrs apart. Again this *should* allow both defender and attacker a little more flexibility in fighting but still remove the update advantage.

[Kyriakos Raanb Dorou]

I also endorse the suggestion about 24 hour timers. Having an "update" where you can unrealistically launch 2 back-to-back assaults does add something to the strategic element of the game... but really, it's not worth the hassle for too many players. Better to just attack (or be attacked) at your pleasure, then come back the same time tomorrow to attack again. This improves the gaming experience for so many people who, though they love CN itself, just can't afford to stay up late every night (and I think that's a lot of us).

I don't know whether it would be worth it to look into tech upgrades to reduce the timer, or maybe some system of dividing your deployed troops into waves which can each launch a separate attack (that would have the same strategic effect as update attacks). But I would absolutely love not being obliged to stay up late to fight a CN war.


EDIT: Also... yeah, different timers for each type of attack also adds to the strategic element. Something to think about.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Richard VII

[kongland]

I just want to point out, that the TE membership is rising for the first time. Once the game owner stated, that the falling participation numbers all the TE community's fault. The current experiment has shown it's not the reason. Nobody likes the stale products, where the experienced players don't have to think anymore.
The game has to be changed every 3-4 rounds. Otherwise the downtrend will continue after the initial excitement. I guess a lot of interesting players had been lost forever (and their donations).

[unruly]

add to the mix some better resolution on turtles.


core proposal would be to overrun the new colony if 0 troops for more than 24 hours

if that solution would lead to flag runners taking over captive states, then publish an official "wall of shame" listing the turtles.

[Tz30]

[quote name='Richard VII' timestamp='1300102587' post='2664430']
I also endorse the suggestion about 24 hour timers. Having an "update" where you can unrealistically launch 2 back-to-back assaults does add something to the strategic element of the game... but really, it's not worth the hassle for too many players. Better to just attack (or be attacked) at your pleasure, then come back the same time tomorrow to attack again. This improves the gaming experience for so many people who, though they love CN itself, just can't afford to stay up late every night (and I think that's a lot of us).

I don't know whether it would be worth it to look into tech upgrades to reduce the timer, or maybe some system of dividing your deployed troops into waves which can each launch a separate attack (that would have the same strategic effect as update attacks). But I would absolutely love not being obliged to stay up late to fight a CN war.


EDIT: Also... yeah, different timers for each type of attack also adds to the strategic element. Something to think about.
[/quote]

This and other posters above are making some sense. I agree with most of it.

[quote name='unruly' timestamp='1302035482' post='2684906']
add to the mix some better resolution on turtles.


core proposal would be to overrun the new colony if 0 troops for more than 24 hours

if that solution would lead to flag runners taking over captive states, then publish an official "wall of shame" listing the turtles.
[/quote]

Now this is an interesting twist to the game. However with our current system with nations being able to declare on someone who is [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=64037&view=findpost&p=2692269"][color="#0000FF"]50% weaker than them[/color][/url], it's not hard at all to get them into bill lock.

[paul711]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1299721550' post='2658143']
I blame OP for killing the game.



Confusion.
[/quote]
Remember there is a new round coming, son.