Tiberius

You are all basing your discussions on the here and now and not the landscape in the future. What works now won't work in the future, I can guarantee that. In fact I've watched a carbon copy happen in other games. I brought up one change that would assist in keeping the game going in the future, there are many others, but alas people are too resistant to change. I mean I get the point of if it isn't broken don't fix it, but there also learn from the mistakes of the past. There is many things that need looking at with an outlook on the future.

Well thread can be locked since there is a lack of support to discuss matters that could be beneficial to the future of the game. Once those active players fall to inactivity, just like CN we will end up with a core base until donations no longer = server costs + profit.

I'm not complaining. I am thinking of future players here. This has nothing to do with my gameplay experience and everything to do with keeping the game active with a growing playerbase in the future. Sure there's plenty more to the game once you start playing etc. but shouldn't everyone have the opportunity through dedication and skill. Sure it's attainable now, but in 4 years?

Sure different people join and play to achieve different things. At the moment, upper tier is still achievable. The game is running rosy. I have no issues with it in it's current guise, but i'm looking at the future with this change, because at some point even mid-tier is going to be unachievable. In 4 years, what achievements are realistically going to be attainable? What happens when those who have been here for so long get bored, and quit the game. Who is going to replace them, when they can't achieve anything of note? The younger generation are more and more demanding and impatient these days. If we aren't going to cater to these, then we are looking at a bleak future.

We can either look and do something to make reaching upper tier and being able to compete at that level in a reasonable amount of time or sit here in another 4 years with 2k players. I am merely here for my community, and that being Pacifica. If I had chanced upon the game now without being part of an established gaming community, I wouldn't even bother. You either make the game appealing to new players, or you can ride the ship downwards. Yes. Right now, it's impossible. The current upper tier simply aren't going to stagnate so the rest can catch up. Browser games are already limited in the base it can recruit from, so we should do all we can to grab as many of them as possible before they fade away to consoles.

Tiering would solely be a political choice and one that could be brought down by a coalition by political manpuvering. This isn't something I am trying to control/stop. What I don't want to see, Is the decline in player numbers and a situation where eventually a 10k score Nation could declare war on someone 10-15% of their size and this will happen if we don't restrict growth at the top end. In fact those tierings you mentioned would make the game much more interesting. Because as IQ increases cities it puts IQ in range of those 30 city Nations etc

Including natural destruction due to war, I think it should be feasible to have a shot within 2 years. Sure it's making it easier for those joining now than those who have spent the time and effort to get there previously. The one aspect we don't know is why people give up on the game when they join. If we can nullify one of those aspects, being that they will never reach the top realistically, then we stand a good chance of keeping newer players. The success of the game will be in being able to continue getting new players. Without them the game will inevitably die out. So it does throw the position of alienating long standing players in favour of new players, who may not even stay around. There does need to be a balance, and at the moment the advantage is currently held with the players who have played the longest.

I get it that it isn't going to be popular with those upper tier Nations, however at some point PnW is going to have to act or end up like CN. The lifeblood of the game is continuously getting new players joining.

I propose that we implement hard caps in infra, land and cities. These would be tied to the games average of each above 1k score +50%. This would ensure that those who join the game have a realistic chance of catching up and hitting the top of the leaderboard. As with all changes they should be geared towards newer players, as otherwise we will inevitably be left with a handful of people to play the game in a few years time. As an example, say the average cities in game above 1k score is 20. The max amount of cities you could have is 30. I would imagine there would need to be exceptions with infra and land due to war etc and so I propose that if you reached a certain amount of infra that would become your max if the average +50% was lower. It is an idea that would need to be refined, but the goal here is to make the number 1 spot achievable to new players. For those already at the max or above the max amount we would then need to look at introducing extra things to do.

The Commonwealth and Competency is probably the biggest rivalrly here.

Sounds exactly like something a loser would say.

Hello, my name is also Tiberius. Welcome.

Yes, we could quite easily create our own bot which would likely be more efficient, however for various reasons we would prefer that these trade bots are stopped altogether, hence why we have not yet created one.

These trade bots are exactly that. You log in, sit there and do nothing while a bot looks to make you free money. The only difference is you click a link to accept the offer. So cheating is ok as long as you do the absolute last action needed? I would support your argument, but in line with the games rules you can automate everything with your Nation apart from trading. So cheating is okay, as long as it isn't with regards to trading? I know captcha stops that to some degree with declaring wars and playing baseball.

The server performance already negatively impacts gameplay on a daily basis, all you need is 100 people online and it starts getting slow. If the vast majority of alliances now make a trade bot, how will that affect server performance? Is it really that difficult to implement a confirmation box when you select submit on create a trade offer? Why is there a ban on automated trading bots? What is the reasoning behind this ban, compared to semi-automated trading bots?