Jump to content
Cooper_

A Problem For Discussion

Solutions  

72 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Some people just don't care enough about the game to put up with the activity required during wars.

I know two people irl who left during this war and both cited that they just couldn't be bothered with the constant pings in discord ect and having to visit the game every few hours; as they played it as something they checked at most twice a day.

So whilst a drop in the number of active players may at face value appear to be bad for the community it could just be barely active members using the war as an excuse to stop once and for all, which wouldn't actually damage the community all that much infact it could actually benefit the community significantly.

Edited by Machiavelli
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wars purge the weak. 

I do think Alex should advertise more though in general. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Wars purge the weak. 

I do think Alex should advertise more though in general. 

he'd need money in order to do that, which the playerbase would have to provide him with in one way or another.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to your concerns @Machiavelli and @Aragorn, son of Arathorn, the reason I'm posting right now isn't because of simple war attrition.  The sheer increase in war attrition during this war as compared to another comparable war is the scary part.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cooper_ said:

Replying to your concerns @Machiavelli and @Aragorn, son of Arathorn, the reason I'm posting right now isn't because of simple war attrition.  The sheer increase in war attrition during this war as compared to another comparable war is the scary part.  

the problem seems to be that wars are getting much longer but I fail to see a solution, you can't tell alliances to dump their resources away and rebalancing war in general so it costs more would be wildly unpopular especially with newer players who wouldn't be able to war as much.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Machiavelli said:

the problem seems to be that wars are getting much longer but I fail to see a solution, you can't tell alliances to dump their resources away and rebalancing war in general so it costs more would be wildly unpopular especially with newer players who wouldn't be able to war as much.

I mean those are still potential avenues.  Many have spoken about fixing war mechanics, and perhaps resources costs could be rebalanced in a way that is fair for newer players (i.e. mainly affects higher city nations).  I'll add these ideas even if you weren't fully supporting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the war meta is to make wars not fun. That’s the point and a deterrent to messing with certain alliances. “Fun wars” have a political connotation and benefit one side disproportionately. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I mean the war meta is to make wars not fun. That’s the point and a deterrent to messing with certain alliances. “Fun wars” have a political connotation and benefit one side disproportionately. 

I mean, this. At least you are honest about your intent to make the game less fun and cause people to quit, which is more than I can say for some.

 

Personally though nothing takes the wind out of my sails more than uneven moderation.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I mean the war meta is to make wars not fun. That’s the point and a deterrent to messing with certain alliances. “Fun wars” have a political connotation and benefit one side disproportionately. 

This is a rabbit hole I'd rather avoid in this thread.  If you believe that "fun" is part of the problem, then we can discuss that.  I'd like to leave out political considerations for the most part to just discuss what is best for the future of the game.  Not all solutions necessarily are dependent on "fun," whatever one's definition is.  I'm happy to hear whatever opinions you have with no judgements besides some logical debate.

2 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I mean, this. At least you are honest about your intent to make the game less fun and cause people to quit, which is more than I can say for some.

I feel like this was almost a compliment, but in the spirit of the thread, I'd rather avoid the off-topic banter and focus on solutions :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cooper_ said:

If you believe that "fun" is part of the problem, then we can discuss that.

You're slightly missing the point here.

 

Wars are used as a "punishment" for your opponent, if they have an account in game it's safe to assume they enjoy the game so ingame wars alone won't cut it. So people use new tactics like beige cycling or zeroing their opponents and letting the war expire to better inflict damage.

 

Wars are not meant for both sides to have fun, you intend to win going into the war and as such these strategies arise. Unless you change human psychology you're unlikely to change this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution seems to be some form of limit on war duration and/or a pre-determined metric for winning the war.  An official DoW should cover both these points (as well as a CB I hesitate to add) or be otherwise deemed invalid.  Both would be ideal.  Claiming the war is won despite ongoing war, and/or retrospective claims are not what I mean. 

'Purging the weak' is basically a fast road to creating an oppositional community, bereft of new ideas (and new players) that will decline into a morass of bitterness that'll eventually migrate over to the next nation sim.  (Just a view from a newbie with little nation sim experience of course)

There is apparently more to a nation sim than just war, not that anyone new would know (I'm 110 days old and haven't yet known peace).  I'm certain we can war later on over ongoing/unresolved issues (most of which I couldn't care less about)......indeed, an apparently wise person did say to me something along the lines that you can't lose if you don't delete your nation, so if true and from a certain perspective, does this render all war pointless??  As distasteful as the term 'agree to disagree' (temporarily of course) might be to some, it may be the only way we stimulate this game into a more desirable state.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:

The solution seems to be some form of limit on war duration and/or a pre-determined metric for winning the war.  An official DoW should cover both these points (as well as a CB I hesitate to add) or be otherwise deemed invalid.  Both would be ideal.  Claiming the war is won despite ongoing war, and/or retrospective claims are not what I mean. 

'Purging the weak' is basically a fast road to creating an oppositional community, bereft of new ideas (and new players) that will decline into a morass of bitterness that'll eventually migrate over to the next nation sim.  (Just a view from a newbie with little nation sim experience of course)

There is apparently more to a nation sim than just war, not that anyone new would know (I'm 110 days old and haven't yet known peace).  I'm certain we can war later on over ongoing/unresolved issues (most of which I couldn't care less about)......indeed, an apparently wise person did say to me something along the lines that you can't lose if you don't delete your nation, so if true and from a certain perspective, does this render all war pointless??  As distasteful as the term 'agree to disagree' (temporarily of course) might be to some, it may be the only way we stimulate this game into a more desirable state.

 

If there were a forced limit on war durations or forced endings to large-scale player interactions, then that alone would end the game as we know it.

The way this works in my experience is that as time goes on, people act with less and less trust, and once trust is really fully betrayed (as it has been), peace becomes a logical impossibility. There can't be peace without trust.

As for re-establishing trust... It can't happen outside of extreme behavioral shifts and insanely implausible things happening. Neither side feels it can afford to back down, because neither side can possibly afford to trust the other anymore. I just don't see that changing.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This likely has very little to do with the war. Activity always peaks in May and drops off over the summer. If you look at population graphs in NationStates you'll see the exact same thing. I would be very surprised if more than 10% of the inactive players went inactive primarily because of the war and not the season.

2dxO6Ar.png

 

The population of The Pacific in NationStates decreased from 7,300 on May 1st to a low of 5,286 in Late July.

On May 1st our "active in the last month" population on Alex's graphs was 7,150, and it reached a bottom value of 5,552 before the GPWC boom.

 

This is a cyclical demographic issue that can be observed in another nationsim that doesn't even have war. Summer gets hot IRL, and in game it makes people go inactive. If you want to solve this issue then bug Alex to increase his ad budget during May-August. But I would hesitate to blame something that you can't even prove is causing it.

Edited by Dad
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If there were a forced limit on war durations or forced endings to large-scale player interactions, then that alone would end the game as we know it.

The way this works in my experience is that as time goes on, people act with less and less trust, and once trust is really fully betrayed (as it has been), peace becomes a logical impossibility. There can't be peace without trust.

Perhaps.  As I said I've very little experience in this.  Ultimately though I would've thought that all the distrust and interpersonal issues that arise and result in these wars occur at the top of the pyramid.  For my part, I've had some great convo's with members of many alliances and have little reason to distrust them as people.  Of course we're all towing our AA's POV but that doesn't amount to distrust, respect if anything else.  Loyalty is a good thing.  If the head was chopped off all alliances, I think the game would move on, probably have a nice period of peace too.........not suggesting that as a solution of course.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Machiavelli said:

Wars are used as a "punishment" for your opponent, if they have an account in game it's safe to assume they enjoy the game so ingame wars alone won't cut it. So people use new tactics like beige cycling or zeroing their opponents and letting the war expire to better inflict damage.

 

Wars are not meant for both sides to have fun, you intend to win going into the war and as such these strategies arise. Unless you change human psychology you're unlikely to change this.

I mean it's possible to "punish" an opponent without forcing all of their members to flee.  And I'm not advocating for "fun" rather just stipulating that this thread is open to that discussion.  Interesting point though on the war tactics.

12 minutes ago, Dad said:

This likely has very little to do with the war. Activity always peaks in May and drops off over the summer. If you look at population graphs in NationStates you'll see the exact same thing. I would be very surprised if more than 10% of the inactive players went inactive primarily because of the war and not the season.

2dxO6Ar.png

 

The population of The Pacific in NationStates decreased from 7,300 on May 1st to a low of 5,286 in Late July.

On May 1st our "active in the last month" population on Alex's graphs was 7150, and it reached a bottom value of 5552 before the GPWC boom.

I mean the context of NS is a bit different from Pnw.  That notwithstanding, I appreciate your input.  Looking at your graph, though, it seems that the decline was a lot more gradual as opposed to the steep spikes in the PnW graph.  Just a possible reasoning behind this is that refers to specific alliance memberbases fleeing en masse.  It's also possible you're right, but even so I'd still like to focus on solutions of how to further increase member retention then and increase the member base.  Everyone benefits from this and it's possible for us to make a community-wide effort despite whichever reason it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Etatsorp said:

Perhaps.  As I said I've very little experience in this.  Ultimately though I would've thought that all the distrust and interpersonal issues that arise and result in these wars occur at the top of the pyramid.  For my part, I've had some great convo's with members of many alliances and have little reason to distrust them as people.  Of course we're all towing our AA's POV but that doesn't amount to distrust, respect if anything else.  Loyalty is a good thing.  If the head was chopped off all alliances, I think the game would move on, probably have a nice period of peace too.........not suggesting that as a solution of course.

Well, you're not entirely wrong, but loyalty carries with it an implicit acceptance of the actions of the leadership. The fact that current TGH members haven't left despite TGH doing terribad sneaky ebil shit means that TGH's membership is cool with those terribad crimes. Meanwhile IQ's membership hasn't left despite them doing all that dirty rotten stuff, so they're implicitly cool with said dirty rotten stuff. The fish may rot from the head, but that doesn't mean the rest is fresh; quite the contrary really.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cooper_ said:

I mean it's possible to "punish" an opponent without forcing all of their members to flee.  And I'm not advocating for "fun" rather just stipulating that this thread is open to that discussion.  Interesting point though on the war tactics.

I mean the context of NS is a bit different from Pnw.  That notwithstanding, I appreciate your input.  Looking at your graph, though, it seems that the decline was a lot more gradual as opposed to the steep spikes in the PnW graph.  Just a possible reasoning behind this is that refers to specific alliance memberbases fleeing en masse.  It's also possible you're right, but even so I'd still like to focus on solutions of how to further increase member retention then and increase the member base.  Everyone benefits from this and it's possible for us to make a community-wide effort despite whichever reason it actually is.

The numbers are very similar the graphs are just different, Alex's graph is scaled with the top value being the top of the graph and the bottom value being the bottom. The NS graph is on a set scale of 0-10k.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More advertising. Alex has plenty of money. The guy could hire staff to moderate for him part time and he'd still have money. Google advertising is surprisingly inexpensive for its reach.

Update the UI. A simple thing, but this game is a CN clone, in alot of ways. Including looking like a slightly newer CN. CN was made in 2006 and PW, made in 2014, looks like its from 2008. There was a rather distasteful April Fools joke about doing this. Giving the game a much more modern looking interface, is something that would bind well with increasing advertising. People judge books by their covers, make the cover shiny and interesting and people will crack it open to see if the rest fits. The April Fools concept of the upgrade was not a bad idea. By no means perfect but it wouldve been an improvement.

New/changed mechanics. War mechanics should be changed, political drivers aside from players existing should be added. Edward's color suggestion does this, even though i'm still not totally sold on it. I myself had an idea i never posted to create a number of special bonuses that colors could choose and benefit everyone on it. One could even have peace demands requiring they surrender a bonus that another color wants. 
Or the suggested again and again idea of making continents matter, there's been a dozen suggestions on this.

Follow in the footsteps of NPO. If you aren't doing that already, get off your ass and figure something out. My gov and i developed a plan to do just that the same day GWPC invaded, just waiting for the war to end to start putting it into motion. Ask NPO themselves if you're not entirely sure how to start or do it. I did, it's not a state secret, i got some helpful ideas. Google ads might be surprisingly cheap but nothing is cheaper than us doing it for him.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dad said:

The numbers are very similar the graphs are just different, Alex's graph is scaled with the top value being the top of the graph and the bottom value being the bottom. The NS graph is on a set scale of 0-10k.

I know how to read a graph :P.  I was referring to the steepness of the decline as in comparing the smoothness of each graph.  I'm assuming the resolutions of the data point collection are roughly similar, but even if they weren't the drops are smooth with the NS graph while with the PnW graphs they clearly aren't.  This potentially suggests different reasoning behind the drops, but alas this discussion could result with either of us being right.  That doesn't change the fact that we still could do something about member retention/recruitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.