This game's motive? Serious game discussion on the theory of why we are were we are in this stage of NW life.

[Soviet Russia]

Today, a newbie player told me that he got bored because of the 'lack of motivation' in the game.

I think, many newbies (we dont have 'many' anyway) also feel the same thing. Since we are in communication via the game forums; we know the background of every war and retal and the netting race for top places.

However, for newbies; especially if they're in a netting nation, there becomes no purpose. They can't hit the top 50 and they have no idea on whats going around.

When I first played wow, I also did not take a look to the forums; however there were a very active inside messaging traffic in USSR. Players such as Maggio and MadCat (anyone remembers him?) were telling how to play; Novii and Fanoe were trying to get USSR into the top 10; we were trying to find some allies and if I am not mistaken, we were at war with the LoR's earlier version (IM??).

So, the nation itself had a community and it helped many newbies of that age easily get into the game (Jag, Missionary, Kracked, Interstate, Ero, Mag, RussianSpy and others I do not remember now). All stayed for years and some are still playing.

So, we need to figure out a reason for the newbies, so they'd like to stay. Because they do not know the trouble over Max Logan, Sky-LoR, tnova's multies :D, WLF's unholy strikes etc etc They are just playing a new game for them within a community that they have no idea about.

[BeeNo]

we have that community in ABT, dunno about other nations :P

[Mr President]

Today, a newbie player told me that he got bored because of the 'lack of motivation' in the game.

I think, many newbies (we dont have 'many' anyway) also feel the same thing. Since we are in communication via the game forums; we know the background of every war and retal and the netting race for top places.

However, for newbies; especially if they're in a netting nation, there becomes no purpose. They can't hit the top 50 and they have no idea on whats going around.

When I first played wow, I also did not take a look to the forums; however there were a very active inside messaging traffic in USSR. Players such as Maggio and MadCat (anyone remembers him?) were telling how to play; Novii and Fanoe were trying to get USSR into the top 10; we were trying to find some allies and if I am not mistaken, we were at war with the LoR's earlier version (IM??).

So, the nation itself had a community and it helped many newbies of that age easily get into the game (Jag, Missionary, Kracked, Interstate, Ero, Mag, RussianSpy and others I do not remember now). All stayed for years and some are still playing.

So, we need to figure out a reason for the newbies, so they'd like to stay. Because they do not know the trouble over Max Logan, Sky-LoR, tnova's multies :D, WLF's unholy strikes etc etc They are just playing a new game for them within a community that they have no idea about.

What does he mean by lack of motivation? Nobody talked to him? nobody helped him learn? Wasn't enough action for him like wars and stuff? You didn't really get into explaining what he meant. :)

[Soviet Russia]

Argh, right. Sorry my English..

I mean, he said that the game is aimless/purposeless.

[Mr President]

Well we can't make everyone understand the game. Some people just won't get it. They will log in, think it's too slow paced for them and then blow it off.

Perhaps what we can do is, set up a Mission page where it explains the game and what the whole purpose is, along with some of the challenges they can expect to face along the way.

Also, I was thinking, what if we gave more turns out in the start and then changed the time of when you gain a turn. We would have to balance it out so we receive the same amount of turns as we do now, but just give more to start with. Then instead of getting a turn every 10 min, you get on every 20 instead.. or 15 or whatever it balances out to be compared to the amount handed out at first..

Also, I still think some sort of an advisory page is a good idea. One that will kind of point them in the direction they need to go. Kinda like Earth use to have..

[ooga booga]

Well we can't make everyone understand the game. Some people just won't get it. They will log in, think it's too slow paced for them and then blow it off.

Perhaps what we can do is, set up a Mission page where it explains the game and what the whole purpose is, along with some of the challenges they can expect to face along the way.

Also, I was thinking, what if we gave more turns out in the start and then changed the time of when you gain a turn. We would have to balance it out so we receive the same amount of turns as we do now, but just give more to start with. Then instead of getting a turn every 10 min, you get on every 20 instead.. or 15 or whatever it balances out to be compared to the amount handed out at first..

Also, I still think some sort of an advisory page is a good idea. One that will kind of point them in the direction they need to go. Kinda like Earth use to have..

1 turn every 20 min? :blink: hot **** shoot me now! lol I'm just teasing the idea is fine it's just in the middle of war it'd take a week to regain turns after one strike.

[pron]

Restarts could get back in the action quicker though

[Soviet Russia]

Nah~ we don't need reforms for the veterans (let the restarts stay as losers :D)

But for newbies; they need to have some fun as well. I dunno how but we should be quick to get them into their nation's community and share the purposes of that nation.

[Vortex]

When I see NW now compared to WOW the forums are seperate from the game.

You can play the game without even visiting the forums.

When I started playing there were more players which is a reason itself.

It was almost impossible to do FA etc solely through MSN (unless you had time enough).

When there was a war....everybody had a opinion, and a warthread was at least 20 pages long.

[Mr President]

When I see NW now compared to WOW the forums are seperate from the game.

You can play the game without even visiting the forums.

When I started playing there were more players which is a reason itself.

It was almost impossible to do FA etc solely through MSN (unless you had time enough).

When there was a war....everybody had a opinion, and a warthread was at least 20 pages long.

I agree about the forums. I'm not sure what is the exact reason for this though. I don't know if it's people are meaner to other members on here now or if people have thin skin...

[Piker]

I agree about the forums. I'm not sure what is the exact reason for this though. I don't know if it's people are meaner to other members on here now or if people have thin skin...

I really think it is the latter, Mr. P.. The only people that get in fights are UK and Z. They can handle themselves. Noone has yelled at a nub on the forums in quite some time. Either they have no idea what people are saying or they take it to heart.

[totte]

abit of both i think

[BeeNo]

maybe its because nobody is picking on noobs, they have no reason to prove otherwise?

[Soviet Russia]

gah gah remember what happened to the UltimateRelik guy. Fortunately we did not rape that newbie, did everything else.

[Max Logan]

I don`t think about`s motive, its about appealing. We need a way to make new players join the community.

A way to socialise them into NW, not just the game,. but forums too, so new players join in the everyday talk. That way, they`ll be motivated to stay

[Rassputtin]

My two cents..

This is how I came to this game. I imagine the same is true for many players current, and that have not come yet.

I was playing planetarion. A phenomenally designed tick based game. They went to strict pay to play so i needed to find another game.

I searched one of the game voting/listing sites. Searched on the term World War II. Cause thats the genre I wanted to play. World at war came up. I read the description and thought sure I'll give it a try.

Signed up, read a bit about how to play and just started playing. No forums, no talking with other players, just logging in and playing.

After 2-3 days i logged in to being attacked, and someone had stolen my land. I though what the hell, i didn't instigate this guy. Why is he attacking me. I'm expanding peacefully and this guy wants war. Well I'll give him war. So I attacked him. Couple of AA's, some standard attacks back and told him, You started this war.

Well he attacked me back. I attacked him back. etc etc. The whole set me and this guy pounded on eachother. It was exhilerating.

Thats what you have to consider. A new player doesn't want to read the forums, learn an unsurmountable amount of unwritten rules and tactics, just to play the game. Nor does he want to have a mentor hand feed him those unwritten rules, and from day one fall into the stale tactics of hoarding infantry and utilizing the same mechanics every set over and over again to try to finish high.

A new player wants to have fun. If someone would have messaged me in my first set and said hey man, this game is based on peacefully attacking and stealing land from eachother so stop using AA or we will kill you, and then killed me. I wouldnt' have played past one set.

The unwritten rules and ettiquete to follow are cumbersome. The tiny tight nit group of players playing the game enforcing them is a turn off for new players. A new player must either abide by and play like the game has been played for the last decade or find another game. Most choose the latter and not the former.

And as I've said a million times the mechanics themselves are flawed and only lend to the burden of the etiquette and unwritten rules. You have to have empathy to be able to see from a nub point of view in order to understand the turn offs.

Come to my house to play a game of risk, and once you get here I'll tell you that we only use the soldier pieces that designate the "1 unit". So put the fives and tens back in the box. You can attack a territory i control but not more than 3 times. etc etc you see where Im going. And then I tell you that if you do not abide by the "house rules" that I have set forth me and my two brothers will team up and take you out of the game. What choice do you have....

A. Not come to my house to play risk.
B. Gather your brothers and bring them with to play risk at my house.

No one has 50 brothers to bring here to change the "house rules"......................

[Mr President]

My two cents..

This is how I came to this game. I imagine the same is true for many players current, and that have not come yet.

I was playing planetarion. A phenomenally designed tick based game. They went to strict pay to play so i needed to find another game.

I searched one of the game voting/listing sites. Searched on the term World War II. Cause thats the genre I wanted to play. World at war came up. I read the description and thought sure I'll give it a try.

Signed up, read a bit about how to play and just started playing. No forums, no talking with other players, just logging in and playing.

After 2-3 days i logged in to being attacked, and someone had stolen my land. I though what the hell, i didn't instigate this guy. Why is he attacking me. I'm expanding peacefully and this guy wants war. Well I'll give him war. So I attacked him. Couple of AA's, some standard attacks back and told him, You started this war.

Well he attacked me back. I attacked him back. etc etc. The whole set me and this guy pounded on eachother. It was exhilerating.

Thats what you have to consider. A new player doesn't want to read the forums, learn an unsurmountable amount of unwritten rules and tactics, just to play the game. Nor does he want to have a mentor hand feed him those unwritten rules, and from day one fall into the stale tactics of hoarding infantry and utilizing the same mechanics every set over and over again to try to finish high.

A new player wants to have fun. If someone would have messaged me in my first set and said hey man, this game is based on peacefully attacking and stealing land from eachother so stop using AA or we will kill you, and then killed me. I wouldnt' have played past one set.

The unwritten rules and ettiquete to follow are cumbersome. The tiny tight nit group of players playing the game enforcing them is a turn off for new players. A new player must either abide by and play like the game has been played for the last decade or find another game. Most choose the latter and not the former.

And as I've said a million times the mechanics themselves are flawed and only lend to the burden of the etiquette and unwritten rules. You have to have empathy to be able to see from a nub point of view in order to understand the turn offs.

Come to my house to play a game of risk, and once you get here I'll tell you that we only use the soldier pieces that designate the "1 unit". So put the fives and tens back in the box. You can attack a territory i control but not more than 3 times. etc etc you see where Im going. And then I tell you that if you do not abide by the "house rules" that I have set forth me and my two brothers will team up and take you out of the game. What choice do you have....

A. Not come to my house to play risk.
B. Gather your brothers and bring them with to play risk at my house.

No one has 50 brothers to bring here to change the "house rules"......................

This is a very good post. The way you described it at the end is very true. Perhaps with us working so hard to quickly train a new member the "right" way, it turns them off. Maybe they would like to be left alone and learn things as they go along.

This is info to think about.

Nice post rass!

[Calvin74]

This is a very good post. The way you described it at the end is very true. Perhaps with us working so hard to quickly train a new member the "right" way, it turns them off. Maybe they would like to be left alone and learn things as they go along.

This is info to think about.

Nice post rass!

i will point out that while everyone hates the house rules if you look at them from a logical standpoint they were put in place and exist to help the newer less skilled players. who could benefit the most from the ability to farm people? the much higher up top 3 people. who would they farm? they guys that aren't as good and just learning the game.
so you are more than welcome to try and change the house rules but in the end think about who it will hurt and if you want to go down that road.

[MAGGIO]

I think the biggest challenge to gaining new members is 1. the best feature and at the same time 2. the achillis heel of this game. NATIONS!

if this was not a team based game it would IMO have a wildly higher member base, but at the same time would the game be any good?

i remember my first go at these rpgs. I tried a few and WOW was one of several I was playing/trying out for the first time. None were nation/team based or at least that I know of. Didnt really come to play with others vs others. But that was when i was a noob.

wonder what the new player retension/sign up would be like if CTF was the main server and Redem was the secondary server or at least laid out that way?

[totte]

I think the biggest challenge to gaining new members is 1. the best feature and at the same time 2. the achillis heel of this game. NATIONS!

if this was not a team based game it would IMO have a wildly higher member base, but at the same time would the game be any good?

well we do have 2 servers these days maybe we should have ctf run more often?

[Rassputtin]

i will point out that while everyone hates the house rules if you look at them from a logical standpoint they were put in place and exist to help the newer less skilled players. who could benefit the most from the ability to farm people? the much higher up top 3 people. who would they farm? they guys that aren't as good and just learning the game.
so you are more than welcome to try and change the house rules but in the end think about who it will hurt and if you want to go down that road.

I understand where your going Calvin and it is a very valid point. It occurs in most games in which the game mechanics do not prevent the "farming" in whatever form it would take in whichever game you speak of.

The top players will farm the smaller players as much as they can unless it is prevented. However the proper and non intimidating and cumbersome way to do this is internally through the mechanics and not by house rules. One example that we have taken is the not attacking or being attacked by states twice your net. And the people protesting against attacking truly tiny states. OTher games utilize a similiar method.

The problem is drastically enhanced when you incorporate teams, alliances or nations into the mix as maggio has stated. The most active and dominant players band up and farm on the new players and less active players thus making the game unenjoyable for those.

It is a slippery slope, but the house rules as I stated are only a portion of the problem imho. Simple things like standard attacking being the norm just don't make sense, and the house rules just lend to it, and the mechanics such as The attacking formulas and unit interactions are fundamentally flawed and further enable to dillema.

Imagine if the community decided that expansion was the norm. And that standard attacking was an act of war. It would put a whole new light on the terms "warring nation" and "netting nation". Warring nations would be warring/attacking for thier land to get big, netting nations would not be, and the simple act that is considered normal now would be cause for a netting nation to retaliate. And instead of attacking and stealing land being the norm and warring nations sole purpose being to obliterate and ruin the set of netting nations by killing them. The act of warring or stealing land through attacks would be a tactical move to try to run away with the set. So a warring nation would be aggressive to try to win, not aggressive simply to kill.

That would eliminate house rules, and new players would only need to follow common sense. Exist peacefully and grow and you should be fine, unless and aggressive nation starts forcibly stealing your land, or you decide to try your hand at forcibly stealing thiers, then decision need to be made.

Now if the core member base, and there are both sides of us, the wicked and the righteouss. Would embrace this, there would be a natural balance. For example there are enough traditional Mr P USA minded players and nations that would intervene if a LOR (no offense intended) type nation tried to go on a standard attack spree and farm people. It would actually be beneficial for netting nations to band together to eliminate an aggressive nation because it would allow them an opportunity to grow via standard attack and gaining land through war. It wouldn't be boring because you know there would be nations who tried to get ahead by attacking so it wouldn't be a game of expanders.

is that the perfect NW scenario... IDK. But there are many ways around the problem we are discussing, especially when the member base is small. But my above example is just one example of how one fundamental change could alter the dynamic, possibly in a positive way.

My other major issue is the generic unit interaction..... that just compounds the issue and is a major turn off, atleast for me. I've discussed this at length before and won't go into it here.

My above scenario also appeals to what a new player would expect drastically more than what currently takes place which would make sense to them.

Not intended to offend you calvin but to the general community. It reminds me of an episode of kitchen nightmares. These peoples restaurants are failing ready to go under, so they call ramsey to come and save the day. (not that I am NW's version of chef ramsey just in general) Then when ramsey gets there and tells them this is ****e and this is ****e they argue with him. Like no, the frozen never fresh food is deliciious we don't want to change that drastically, cant you change the color on the sign out front that will magically make people come into the restaurant and like the food......

The answer is no. Sometimes, the sign needs to be taken down, replaced with a better one, the tables chairs and decor the whole inside needs to be gutted and overhauled, the ingrediants need to be changed to fresher ones and the menu needs to be shorterend or altered.

As I said I'm not Nation Wars chef ramsey, but generally speaking its been my experience that whenever i suggest a change beyond changing the color of the light bulb in the sign, or just adding another gimmick to the menu it is trounced on with disdain and denounced.

Not yet the case here as calvin just pointed out a valid point, but my general experience in the past.

The fact that I logged in, played less than 350 turns and finished 77th last set should be evident in and of itself that something drastic needs to be done.

IDK, im done for now. But when you consider my posts, consider it from a point of view that is not beneficial to you dominating the game, or what you are accustomed to, do not defend or attack the post based on how it would change your ability to be a big fish in a tiny little pond.

Instead think of it objectively as Calvin has done, What would it mean to new players and the game.

[MAGGIO]

that was the post of the year, and I truly see the light now.

being a fan of kitchen nightmares he is absolutely with out a dout correct in many ways.

not to be too vauge, but another point would be that the game has flopped back and forth and gone from huge numbers to small number to good numbers to small numbers, growing but not as fast as expected/needed. All this time and those "unspoken rules" are still pretty much the same. Unfortunately its not a "one size fits all" situation imo.

back to chef ramsey...he always preaches about a few things. Simple menu: ALmost everytime he comes in he reduces the menu in order to keep up with quality and costs. Menus with large amounts of items make orders slower, and the quality of the food lesser, while food costs go up and tyupcially lead to frozen foods instead of Fresh Foods. Speaking of....Fresh Food: He always talks about simple food tasting the best, simple fresh seasoned well ingredients.

there are many ways and things that can be compared.


Not to stomp on some of ras past suggestions but it kinda leads me down that previous statement of mine about CTF. Real simple game play. No nations or cooperation needed. You kill as many as you can and you have just as good as any a chance to win. Gives a guy like me a chance to compete with some of the people that I know I cant beat in NW.

Dumb as it sounds we may need to Dumb it down to see growth. i am not talking about lessening the quality, just the quantity of time, cooperation, etc... Sure even in CTF there are cooperating states, but they dont rely on getting a dozen people online at once to make an effect.

Any solution that requires getting 8-12 people online at one time to make a large impact is a BAD solution. Fact is that your asking for 10% of the ENTIRE GAME to show for a FS, and then another 10+% of the ENTIRE GAME to show for a CS... Guess what... The chances of that happening are becoming fewer and further apart.

Mr. P there is a market for this type of game, and I believe in taht too. Simply because there is a market for anything out there that can kill a few moments of ones hectic life. I just think that a lot of times when we are searching for the answer to this magic question of why we dont have members we may be over thinking things.

[MAGGIO]

I moved this out of suggestions and more into general. Im of the thinking that more people may see this and provide their input under general. If I am wrong please take the appropriate action.

[Soviet Russia]

I liked Maggio's suggestion of bringing CTF to the new players, since it is easier to play and does not require being social. However, there's a problem, which is that the new players would have no chance without a proper strategy (indy, casher etc) and as I could see, most of them don't read the game manual, ending with building all type of buildings -heh-. But CTF is a good idea if it does not kick the 'normal' game to the background.

Also, I think the term 'Standard Attack' irritates the new players; since they think they are getting war attacked. Can't we find a more 'considerable' term for SAs; which does not include 'attack'? Maybe just 'landgrabbing'..:huh:

[MAGGIO]

CTF ish would be more like what I was talking about. Not exactly a blood bath, but not exactly a nation based server either.

[-Z-]

I know what Ras is talking about with the Noobs, and how they often are confused, or they dont feel things make sense.

Like a noob will get SA'ed, then be like "this other guy attacked me... Why did he do that? I'm going to attack him back"

people see SA's as an act of agression.

the idea of expanding being the norm is a good one.

It would require the whole community to get involved.

I would be willing to agree to that if someone was to attempt to make it happen in coming sets.


Z

[Xavior]

Playing 'uncoventionally' causes a lot of problems. Anything that changes the game so drastically will take a long time to work out.

Remember when ELV AAed anyone who SAed us while we were online that one set? Guess what happened? A nation 3x our size (RO) basically killed us off in 1 FS. Its not something like, 'oh, lets start expanding starting from next set!'

[Mr President]

I understand where your going Calvin and it is a very valid point. It occurs in most games in which the game mechanics do not prevent the "farming" in whatever form it would take in whichever game you speak of.

The top players will farm the smaller players as much as they can unless it is prevented. However the proper and non intimidating and cumbersome way to do this is internally through the mechanics and not by house rules. One example that we have taken is the not attacking or being attacked by states twice your net. And the people protesting against attacking truly tiny states. OTher games utilize a similiar method.

The problem is drastically enhanced when you incorporate teams, alliances or nations into the mix as maggio has stated. The most active and dominant players band up and farm on the new players and less active players thus making the game unenjoyable for those.

It is a slippery slope, but the house rules as I stated are only a portion of the problem imho. Simple things like standard attacking being the norm just don't make sense, and the house rules just lend to it, and the mechanics such as The attacking formulas and unit interactions are fundamentally flawed and further enable to dillema.

Imagine if the community decided that expansion was the norm. And that standard attacking was an act of war. It would put a whole new light on the terms "warring nation" and "netting nation". Warring nations would be warring/attacking for thier land to get big, netting nations would not be, and the simple act that is considered normal now would be cause for a netting nation to retaliate. And instead of attacking and stealing land being the norm and warring nations sole purpose being to obliterate and ruin the set of netting nations by killing them. The act of warring or stealing land through attacks would be a tactical move to try to run away with the set. So a warring nation would be aggressive to try to win, not aggressive simply to kill.

That would eliminate house rules, and new players would only need to follow common sense. Exist peacefully and grow and you should be fine, unless and aggressive nation starts forcibly stealing your land, or you decide to try your hand at forcibly stealing thiers, then decision need to be made.

Now if the core member base, and there are both sides of us, the wicked and the righteouss. Would embrace this, there would be a natural balance. For example there are enough traditional Mr P USA minded players and nations that would intervene if a LOR (no offense intended) type nation tried to go on a standard attack spree and farm people. It would actually be beneficial for netting nations to band together to eliminate an aggressive nation because it would allow them an opportunity to grow via standard attack and gaining land through war. It wouldn't be boring because you know there would be nations who tried to get ahead by attacking so it wouldn't be a game of expanders.

is that the perfect NW scenario... IDK. But there are many ways around the problem we are discussing, especially when the member base is small. But my above example is just one example of how one fundamental change could alter the dynamic, possibly in a positive way.

My other major issue is the generic unit interaction..... that just compounds the issue and is a major turn off, atleast for me. I've discussed this at length before and won't go into it here.

My above scenario also appeals to what a new player would expect drastically more than what currently takes place which would make sense to them.

Not intended to offend you calvin but to the general community. It reminds me of an episode of kitchen nightmares. These peoples restaurants are failing ready to go under, so they call ramsey to come and save the day. (not that I am NW's version of chef ramsey just in general) Then when ramsey gets there and tells them this is ****e and this is ****e they argue with him. Like no, the frozen never fresh food is deliciious we don't want to change that drastically, cant you change the color on the sign out front that will magically make people come into the restaurant and like the food......

The answer is no. Sometimes, the sign needs to be taken down, replaced with a better one, the tables chairs and decor the whole inside needs to be gutted and overhauled, the ingrediants need to be changed to fresher ones and the menu needs to be shorterend or altered.

As I said I'm not Nation Wars chef ramsey, but generally speaking its been my experience that whenever i suggest a change beyond changing the color of the light bulb in the sign, or just adding another gimmick to the menu it is trounced on with disdain and denounced.

Not yet the case here as calvin just pointed out a valid point, but my general experience in the past.

The fact that I logged in, played less than 350 turns and finished 77th last set should be evident in and of itself that something drastic needs to be done.

IDK, im done for now. But when you consider my posts, consider it from a point of view that is not beneficial to you dominating the game, or what you are accustomed to, do not defend or attack the post based on how it would change your ability to be a big fish in a tiny little pond.

Instead think of it objectively as Calvin has done, What would it mean to new players and the game.

Rass, you think like a lot of other people think on your ideas. I have tried to make sure everyone knows this but I seem to fail often lol.. I do read and think about your ideas. You would be shocked how much time i spend thinking about this game and working on new things to keep it fresh and alive. All I strive for is so that this game stays alive. Now to the point, just cause I don't implement things as you write them does not mean I don't listen or like the ideas. Generally what I do is let an idea start, wait for more feedback of the pros and cons and then add it all up and try to come up with something that works. With several of your ideas from the past, there wasn't much I could do with them. You were suggesting changing a few areas of the game's mechanics that I had no idea on how to do. So I put them on my list for the time that I was able to do them. Remember, I just started learning a lot of this not so long ago. As I learn more, I change more. Formula's are still my weakest area. I spend a lot of time working with them and asking questions to people who do know so i can figure it all out and then work on ways to make it happen in the game. So please remember that just cause you posted an idea and it isn't implemented yet, doesn't mean i didn't like it.. (of course there ideas that i don't like) :)

I know that the inf hording drives you crazy. I know that being able to expand and finish in 77th place drives you crazy, and i know that cause some of the major ideas you have suggested makes you feel like your opinion doesn't matter.. All of these tied together has driven you (and several others i'm sure) from the game cause you think nothing is going to change.

That can't be further from the truth. I have made tons of changes from the way the game looks to several new fun features to enhance the game play and i 100% agree with you that the "mechanics" of the game has to change in some shape or form.

Currently on the test server there are several new features that will change a lot of the games mechanics. I have been testing them and working on them for a long time now. I'm trying to work out the best possible way so when it's released, it all makes sense and doesn't hurt the game. I have stated MANY MANY times that if this game does not make the changes needed, we would never make it. The only reason you can finish 77th place by expanding is due to the low member count. The low member count is due to several other issues.. it's a never ending cycle, and once we change one thing then all the others are effected as well.. And it's really hard to tell if that will be a good change or a bad one.

I rely a lot on the community. I am constantly asking for feedback from members. 99% of the time it's the same 4-5 people who reply. The rest never do. I sent out a mass email asking people to reply in private, the ideas they would like to see in the game. Out of the thousands sent out, 3
members replied.. That makes me kind of sad. I know people are busy with life.. I have a life too so i understand. But I have always tried to keep this a community based game where the members had a huge say and impact on changes. I do this cause i know not all of my ideas are the best ones, so i ask others to help out. But we will not make it if the same 4-5 people always decide the fate of new features.

Anyway about your post. again, very interesting and i'm intrigued on the SA idea. I do agree that Standard Attack can confuse people. They don't understand that an SA is a legal attack.. So what if we made all attacks illegal and expanding the only "legal" way to gain land?

These are good ideas to debate. Yes there will be some that do like it and some that don't.. But working out ideas is the best start. it gives me something to start working on in the test server and putting it in action to see what it's really like playing in game. I do like this idea. :)


that was the post of the year, and I truly see the light now.

being a fan of kitchen nightmares he is absolutely with out a dout correct in many ways.

not to be too vauge, but another point would be that the game has flopped back and forth and gone from huge numbers to small number to good numbers to small numbers, growing but not as fast as expected/needed. All this time and those "unspoken rules" are still pretty much the same. Unfortunately its not a "one size fits all" situation imo.

back to chef ramsey...he always preaches about a few things. Simple menu: ALmost everytime he comes in he reduces the menu in order to keep up with quality and costs. Menus with large amounts of items make orders slower, and the quality of the food lesser, while food costs go up and tyupcially lead to frozen foods instead of Fresh Foods. Speaking of....Fresh Food: He always talks about simple food tasting the best, simple fresh seasoned well ingredients.

there are many ways and things that can be compared.


Not to stomp on some of ras past suggestions but it kinda leads me down that previous statement of mine about CTF. Real simple game play. No nations or cooperation needed. You kill as many as you can and you have just as good as any a chance to win. Gives a guy like me a chance to compete with some of the people that I know I cant beat in NW.

Dumb as it sounds we may need to Dumb it down to see growth. i am not talking about lessening the quality, just the quantity of time, cooperation, etc... Sure even in CTF there are cooperating states, but they dont rely on getting a dozen people online at once to make an effect.

Any solution that requires getting 8-12 people online at one time to make a large impact is a BAD solution. Fact is that your asking for 10% of the ENTIRE GAME to show for a FS, and then another 10+% of the ENTIRE GAME to show for a CS... Guess what... The chances of that happening are becoming fewer and further apart.

Mr. P there is a market for this type of game, and I believe in taht too. Simply because there is a market for anything out there that can kill a few moments of ones hectic life. I just think that a lot of times when we are searching for the answer to this magic question of why we dont have members we may be over thinking things.

Here is the thing about CTF.. I figured it would be simple and fun but yet challenging. I thought it would allow people to kill kill kill without having to get post upon post in the forums complaining about it. I thought the short rounds would be good.. fast and simple... But the problem is, nobody is playing it.

I send out messages on the forums, in the game, in the game news and not many people play it. Last set i think 12 people signed up to play it... :(

So i'm not convinced that a server like that is a way to go for a main game. I do plan on seeking some feedback as to why not many people play that server.. But that's another post :)

[Max Logan]

A lot of complaining goes to the 'house rules' part. well, SAing, no war attacks, destrutive spy ops, triples, double in top 10. But it is actually tested in time to work. It`s there for a reason, not just because some people felt it`s cool so we kept on doing it.

I don`t really need to say what would happen if there were no 'rules'. A few friends just decide to AA a guy so that another guy could get his land. At this point it would matter not, how well or balanced his state is, as it needs just ships and most top states are high on infantry. it would really cause a mess in the game, lot of angry feeling and people, especially new or like me, not high on friends, to quit. Even in CTF where there are NO NATIONS, friends still get together to kill others even if it was not the intention.

I understand a lot of people are confused with the attacking system. And it really needs to have a rebuilding. Yes, rebuilding. Attacks need to be made over a new, completely different setting, one that makes every unit count. As I said to Mr P, attacks should mean something and all units should count, hence I support the old suggestion of Multi Phase attacks, using variety of units in a single attack.


Also the division of nations in to warring and netting would fail, really, as there would never be both, as it would come down to survival of the fittest and with this member base, we can easily predict who it would be. I don`t think alliance would change much.

A much more effective way would be to MAKE new players join a nation, even if it means making a huge reminder: Join a nation, be safe!

Cuz new players don`t know A THING about the game, and the safes way to keep them, is make them join a nation


My quitter rambling

[Rassputtin]

A lot of complaining goes to the 'house rules' part. well, SAing, no war attacks, destrutive spy ops, triples, double in top 10. But it is actually tested in time to work. It`s there for a reason, not just because some people felt it`s cool so we kept on doing it.

I don`t really need to say what would happen if there were no 'rules'. A few friends just decide to AA a guy so that another guy could get his land. At this point it would matter not, how well or balanced his state is, as it needs just ships and most top states are high on infantry. it would really cause a mess in the game, lot of angry feeling and people, especially new or like me, not high on friends, to quit. Even in CTF where there are NO NATIONS, friends still get together to kill others even if it was not the intention.

Max thats why i said the house rules are a problem compounded by the attacking system. If unit interaction made sense, top states would not be high on just infantry. If upkeep costs were multiplied by unit hoarding it would cut down on hoarding all units. There are internal things that can be made to happen to eliminate the need for house rules. That is part of the problem now, the member base is small. So everything is magnified. Get 15 like minded guys, and you can dominate. CTF get 3 freinds and you can dominate the other 9 on the server working seperatly. If 3000 people signed up tomorrow, the band of 15 people would mean nothing. There would be to many to brainwash into following the house rules, and they would make thier own decisions. You would still have teams of guys, you can not eliminate that. Friends will team up to dominate. But you can make the groups of dominating teams battle with eachother via how the game works internally.



I understand a lot of people are confused with the attacking system. And it really needs to have a rebuilding. Yes, rebuilding. Attacks need to be made over a new, completely different setting, one that makes every unit count. As I said to Mr P, attacks should mean something and all units should count, hence I support the old suggestion of Multi Phase attacks, using variety of units in a single attack.

:-)



Also the division of nations in to warring and netting would fail, really, as there would never be both, as it would come down to survival of the fittest and with this member base, we can easily predict who it would be. I don`t think alliance would change much.

A much more effective way would be to MAKE new players join a nation, even if it means making a huge reminder: Join a nation, be safe!

Cuz new players don`t know A THING about the game, and the safes way to keep them, is make them join a nation

My quitter rambling

I agree and disagree but its time to go home from work so, i'll have to comment on this last part later.

[Rassputtin]

Rass, you think like a lot of other people think on your ideas. I have tried to make sure everyone knows this but I seem to fail often lol.. I do read and think about your ideas. You would be shocked how much time i spend thinking about this game and working on new things to keep it fresh and alive. All I strive for is so that this game stays alive. Now to the point, just cause I don't implement things as you write them does not mean I don't listen or like the ideas. Generally what I do is let an idea start, wait for more feedback of the pros and cons and then add it all up and try to come up with something that works. With several of your ideas from the past, there wasn't much I could do with them. You were suggesting changing a few areas of the game's mechanics that I had no idea on how to do. So I put them on my list for the time that I was able to do them. Remember, I just started learning a lot of this not so long ago. As I learn more, I change more. Formula's are still my weakest area. I spend a lot of time working with them and asking questions to people who do know so i can figure it all out and then work on ways to make it happen in the game. So please remember that just cause you posted an idea and it isn't implemented yet, doesn't mean i didn't like it.. (of course there ideas that i don't like) :)

I know that the inf hording drives you crazy. I know that being able to expand and finish in 77th place drives you crazy, and i know that cause some of the major ideas you have suggested makes you feel like your opinion doesn't matter.. All of these tied together has driven you (and several others i'm sure) from the game cause you think nothing is going to change.

That can't be further from the truth. I have made tons of changes from the way the game looks to several new fun features to enhance the game play and i 100% agree with you that the "mechanics" of the game has to change in some shape or form.

Currently on the test server there are several new features that will change a lot of the games mechanics. I have been testing them and working on them for a long time now. I'm trying to work out the best possible way so when it's released, it all makes sense and doesn't hurt the game. I have stated MANY MANY times that if this game does not make the changes needed, we would never make it. The only reason you can finish 77th place by expanding is due to the low member count. The low member count is due to several other issues.. it's a never ending cycle, and once we change one thing then all the others are effected as well.. And it's really hard to tell if that will be a good change or a bad one.

I rely a lot on the community. I am constantly asking for feedback from members. 99% of the time it's the same 4-5 people who reply. The rest never do. I sent out a mass email asking people to reply in private, the ideas they would like to see in the game. Out of the thousands sent out, 3
members replied.. That makes me kind of sad. I know people are busy with life.. I have a life too so i understand. But I have always tried to keep this a community based game where the members had a huge say and impact on changes. I do this cause i know not all of my ideas are the best ones, so i ask others to help out. But we will not make it if the same 4-5 people always decide the fate of new features.

Anyway about your post. again, very interesting and i'm intrigued on the SA idea. I do agree that Standard Attack can confuse people. They don't understand that an SA is a legal attack.. So what if we made all attacks illegal and expanding the only "legal" way to gain land?

These are good ideas to debate. Yes there will be some that do like it and some that don't.. But working out ideas is the best start. it gives me something to start working on in the test server and putting it in action to see what it's really like playing in game. I do like this idea. :)



Here is the thing about CTF.. I figured it would be simple and fun but yet challenging. I thought it would allow people to kill kill kill without having to get post upon post in the forums complaining about it. I thought the short rounds would be good.. fast and simple... But the problem is, nobody is playing it.

I send out messages on the forums, in the game, in the game news and not many people play it. Last set i think 12 people signed up to play it... :(

So i'm not convinced that a server like that is a way to go for a main game. I do plan on seeking some feedback as to why not many people play that server.. But that's another post :)

Mr. P I wasn't calling you out, I know you struggle to do what needs to be done as it is a daunting task to do alone. I was more referring to other members of the community. I haven't been around in a while but by others I mean the majority who dont want mechanics changed because they may not be big fish in a small pond anymore, so they immediately dismiss any idea that does more than add something or change something small

[BeeNo]

well i'd like to hear more about phase attacks? whats the idea behind them?

and mr. p, i read your e-mail, and as i was responding to your 1st question i started rambling in it, and didn't like where it went. so i'm currently regrouping my thoughts to respond :thumbup:. those are tough questions. or at least ones i'd like to give a good response to, not just spew the 1st thing i can think of.

[Vortex]

My two cents..

This is how I came to this game. I imagine the same is true for many players current, and that have not come yet.

I was playing planetarion. A phenomenally designed tick based game. They went to strict pay to play so i needed to find another game.

I searched one of the game voting/listing sites. Searched on the term World War II. Cause thats the genre I wanted to play. World at war came up. I read the description and thought sure I'll give it a try.

Signed up, read a bit about how to play and just started playing. No forums, no talking with other players, just logging in and playing.

After 2-3 days i logged in to being attacked, and someone had stolen my land. I though what the hell, i didn't instigate this guy. Why is he attacking me. I'm expanding peacefully and this guy wants war. Well I'll give him war. So I attacked him. Couple of AA's, some standard attacks back and told him, You started this war.

Well he attacked me back. I attacked him back. etc etc. The whole set me and this guy pounded on eachother. It was exhilerating.

Thats what you have to consider. A new player doesn't want to read the forums, learn an unsurmountable amount of unwritten rules and tactics, just to play the game. Nor does he want to have a mentor hand feed him those unwritten rules, and from day one fall into the stale tactics of hoarding infantry and utilizing the same mechanics every set over and over again to try to finish high.

A new player wants to have fun. If someone would have messaged me in my first set and said hey man, this game is based on peacefully attacking and stealing land from eachother so stop using AA or we will kill you, and then killed me. I wouldnt' have played past one set.

The unwritten rules and ettiquete to follow are cumbersome. The tiny tight nit group of players playing the game enforcing them is a turn off for new players. A new player must either abide by and play like the game has been played for the last decade or find another game. Most choose the latter and not the former.

And as I've said a million times the mechanics themselves are flawed and only lend to the burden of the etiquette and unwritten rules. You have to have empathy to be able to see from a nub point of view in order to understand the turn offs.

Come to my house to play a game of risk, and once you get here I'll tell you that we only use the soldier pieces that designate the "1 unit". So put the fives and tens back in the box. You can attack a territory i control but not more than 3 times. etc etc you see where Im going. And then I tell you that if you do not abide by the "house rules" that I have set forth me and my two brothers will team up and take you out of the game. What choice do you have....

A. Not come to my house to play risk.
B. Gather your brothers and bring them with to play risk at my house.

No one has 50 brothers to bring here to change the "house rules"......................

I dont totally agree. When I started playing I agree I didnt want to read any rules at all...just log in and use turns....

Although in some opinion netting isnt the sole purpose of the game.....to have number 1 in front of your state/nation is what the majority of the ppl experience as positive...
Playing mix for example...something every new player has done...wont get you there....without talking to others...or be active on the forums... I would still be playing mixed....or quit along time ago..

What made me hooked was the feeling of being a part of a nation....who helps each other...even training...strats/tactics/FA etc...etc...
Ppl who put effort in your play and make time free for it.....also stimulates loyalty.

Look at ppl whove been playing since WOW....most players stick together.
And im going to use myself as an example...The sets cant be count(not litteraly) that Ive played with.Morph...Xavior....Max Logan..Beeno(started as "my" trainee)PcGluva(started as "my" trainee) Breetai....and also you Rass..

We made ELE cuz we wanted to make a nation and play as we thuoght the game should be played.

And there is the beginning of the problem....not everybody "demands" or wants the same thing from the game....
There are different kind of players....dont bother me with calcs and numbers etc.(i can calc a break for attack/landgrab, but thats it :P)...I left that for Calvin/James/Rass etc...They are great at that...

I put my time in the new players.....talking...not even solely about wow...just to make them feel part of the game and support them ingame.

[Max Logan]

well i'd like to hear more about phase attacks? whats the idea behind them?

and mr. p, i read your e-mail, and as i was responding to your 1st question i started rambling in it, and didn't like where it went. so i'm currently regrouping my thoughts to respond :thumbup:. those are tough questions. or at least ones i'd like to give a good response to, not just spew the 1st thing i can think of.

I`ll get to it, once I`m back home.

There was a suggestion on forums, I tried to find on this one but I couldn`t so probably it was in WoW one

[Soviet Russia]

@I agree with Max on saving the SA system, just, I think it'd be better to seperate SA from other Attacks by moving the term 'attack' from SA.

@I agree with Ras too; the game has tank units that nearly on one uses (I tried to, but this time nations dont support them) and SAMs that only a few players use... :( (I love both units)

@And Mr P, you are our hero:thumbup:

[MAGGIO]

Dear Mr. P ;)

Man you have made quite a few changes and a lot of them were really thought out and seemed that they would be awsome. When I was going on my Gordon Ramsey Rant I think i was just trying to say that you may want to look into simplifying things rather then the latter.

IE. just take out tanks, or take out 80% of those spy ops. reduce the options.

I konw you spent a hell of a lot of time on sactions only for them not to be used. Now it may not seem like a big idea to us to see that as an option, but to a new person its just one more option they have no idea how it works in addition to several other options they just really dont feel like finding out if it works...they just really want to dive in and use some turns or something.

I know one of the most sucessful aspects of a console game is the ability to turn it on, hit start and start mashing buttons.

I didnt reply to your email because i wanted to take my time, and I knew I had stuff to say, but am just overwhelmed lately. I am sure you expected some replys from peeps like me and others that did not reply and I am sorry for that. I could of at least awknowledged your email and otld you I would get back to you. sorry.

[Piker]

I think reducing the number of units is a good idea here.

To be honest, AGMS really make it difficult for anyone who is not in the top 3 to overtake. Halfway through the set the top 3 build them and make themselves unhittable. Noone really uses tanks right now, they had a purpose for indies when we had 1000+ active members but those days are long gone. Bombers are useless.

Making changes on attacks will be MUCH SIMPLER if we stuck to just four units...

[Minimus]

The problem of keeping new people lies not with the game play, but solely due to the fact that Missionary is a ****** bag who likes to touch himself. I think this is generally offensive to new players, who are trying to learn, but get distracted because they look to their left or right, and there's some stupid brit with his hands down his pants. It is our responsibility as a community to train Missionary to not do this so often in front of new players. Is Missionary even still playing? I don't know, but this is not the issue.

Another issue is that, at least when I used to play this game, the reaction to a player without a nation is to shoot away. I don't know if this is still the attitude, but it never helps to come into a game, and find your city or town or whatever they are called here dead in a week. This game restarts so frequently, it's almost impossible to tell who is who with name changes. So who knows if the person not in a nation is Raul, or a new player, or a spy, or Missionary's dirty, sticky hand?

The third issue is that I think these forums are generally hostile. I come on now and then, and all I see is random angry posts, and stuff about Missionary trying to molest Raul. This is not appealing to new players. I mean, sure, Raul has a small schlong, but let's not be racist about the situation, he is Mexican afterall. Anyway, I have written enough. I really hope this settles this argument, and gets Missionary into some sort of rehab. Thank you for your time.

[Max Logan]

@I agree with Max on saving the SA system, just, I think it'd be better to seperate SA from other Attacks by moving the term 'attack' from SA.


Not what I mean. I meant a complete remake of attacking system as a whole. All attacks, scrap them and remake

[MAGGIO]

I have never seen the word schlong typed or written before...Whoa!

I think pretty much the sum of it all is the game is based around what "we" want and how "we" are already used to it, and want it more "complex" in some ways. Its pretty hard to think like a new player because it only happened once, and its been quite a long time since it happened.

You get a guy like Ultimate Relik in here who is PUMPED and all that happens is he is crapped on. I am Sooooooo surprised that he is still here...its not like some noticable campain to help him or support him has taken place.

[ooga booga]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but at first I really liked the expanding idea/ war if you get SA'd/want to SA, etc.

But then I figured if everyone is expanding, who is going to play Indy? Everyone will just stock and have very little units to keep expenses low and the Indy strat would die. But the concept seemed good, and I get what Rass is saying. The thing that gets me is, everyone left, little return, and to be honest it's not like we are getting a lot of new people in here and then they leave. How many people do you see with N next to their name each set, even if they are trying the game out for the first time? 3-5 people? It's not like we are rolling in a lot of new players and they are deciding they don't like the game and leave. We are hardly rolling in any new players at all. :( I don't know the answer to it...

[kenshin44]

TBH my personal opinion is that the growth of this game is unlikely... I feel that gamers these days are more into modern games and games like this can only bring few new players in that will stick.

I like the community and thats why I play.

As of the moment my life is really busy thats why I'm not active, but once I am active again I seek to get some old buddies from this game and play like I used to.

But realistically I don't think our community will get a massive surplus in players.

I think we'd be lucky to get a few brand new players every set and we'd be extremely lucky if even a couple became long term members.

Only way I see this community growing massively is making this game into something completely different that none of us know how to play and is open to an equal playing field for anyone who is new, to do as good if not better than us. Which most of us here would disagree to.

I say we have fun with what we have, I mean we can try to get more people into the game, but I wouldn't expect much.

[Mr President]

TBH my personal opinion is that the growth of this game is unlikely... I feel that gamers these days are more into modern games and games like this can only bring few new players in that will stick.


Only way I see this community growing massively is making this game into something completely different that none of us know how to play and is open to an equal playing field for anyone who is new, to do as good if not better than us. Which most of us here would disagree to.


A member who replied to my email made a HUGE point that even me, the greatest didn't think of (lol ok that was funny so laugh) he said something
about the game Mob Wars on facebook. THOUSANDS of people play that game and it is nothing more then a text based game like we have. The game itself is no better than ours. So people will still play games like ours. We just need to figure out the best way to get them here.

The reason I sent the email out is cause I want to know what YOU, our current member would like to see and what suggestions you have. We can spend the rest of our lives trying to figure out what new people would like to see and we'll never get it all. People are different. They like different things and there is no way we can please everyone. So instead of beating my head on the wall trying to figure that out, I wanted to know what YOU all wanted.

I think a total rework of attacking is a grand idea. I think mixing the game up so people who learned how to play it 8yrs ago has to relearn again. Why would we want to continue the same ol same ol all the time? There has yet to be one magical suggestion yet. That's fine cause I doubt there will be one, but I can take a little from each of the ideas and make something work.

Jets killing land is lame. let's make wars fun again and attractive. Let's make warring serve a real purpose. I'm pretty sure most here would like to see some more excitement in the game. There are some (like me) who don't really have the time or desire to run a full blown war and nation ect ect as we once did, but that's where our younger and newer generations come into play. Some of us old timers are ready to let the new generation lead us for a while and we can sit back and help them learn things along the way.

Let's not destroy a new person just cause he/she plays different from the way we have always played. Just remember how you felt when you first started out and your ideas were against the grain... Change is good.

[Max Logan]

There`s been an e-mail??? :laugh:

SO much for never checking my mail! lol Sorry! Last I was there was, like, 3 months ago

[Max Logan]

Let's not destroy a new person just cause he/she plays different from the way we have always played. Just remember how you felt when you first started out and your ideas were against the grain... Change is good.

I must agree. I actually feel bad the way I treated UR. He just wanted to play his way and our old-timer cockiness got the best of us, making us think we`re so right in our ways. Kinda lame actually! So yeah, minding our business we should be more understanding of new players and the way they want to play this game

[Minimus]

One of the biggest problems is that this game leaves little room for simming. Some people just want to play to get a score, or to build stuff, and maybe this isn't the game for them. Hell, if you attack someone more than twice, 20 ****ing people jump all over you, that's enough to make me quit, and never come back. In this game, you die and have to restart, and cannot succeed unless you attack people, but if you attack people, you die, so this allows no one to play how they want. Also, more naked pics of Dogma's mom.

[ooga booga]

Interesting point about Mob Wars on facebook. :) I use to play that game and I belonged to a "family" and I wanted to get some of them over here but the game's creators started making really bad changes to the game and the family broke up and everyone I knew stopped playing and I haven't talked to them since. :( I was hoping to bring about 20-30 of them over and I wanted to lead the nation and rule all of Nation Wars! So unfortunate that never got to happen...

I'm not trying to say changes are bad, the changes made for Mob Wars by the creator was purely profit driven (you pay the game money so you be better). But millions had an account on there, and hundreds of thousands were visiting it daily/weekly. So people do play these types of games. However Facebook is a worldwide site that everyone knows about. It's easy to get a couple of million to join an application when there is say 100 million users or something like that. I'm sure there are a lot of games like us that face the problem of being small in the sense that we can't get our name out. I feel like games grow exponentially. It's how pages and groups on facebook work. It takes weeks and months to get a group to 100,000. But after that it only takes a matter of days and weeks to bring it up to 500,000, etc. The more people know about it and see others joining, the more they are likely to join.

[Soviet Russia]

hmhm facebook could be a good idea :)

And yep, this game (nv/wow) has too many unwritten rules & strats

[ooga booga]

Total members that have visited the forum in the last 24 hours: 184

But only 75 people are active playing the game. Why are there 110 people browsing the forum but not playing the game? Is the casino/arcade more fun than the game? :P

[Max Logan]

Ask Calvin! :glare:

[pron]

Jeez what a long thread...

Ok, I'm chipping in. I think if the standard was expanding, this would be an extremely boring game. We'd still have the problem of new people not understanding it--as not all new people start the game just expanding and building. And what would a "netting" nation look like? It would be a bunch of guys/girls expanding and building for 30 days...unless they were an "aggressive" netting nation, and then we would still have the same arguments on the forums lol.

I think a game mechanics change would be refreshing. I know Mr. P was working on attack formulas making it so people could do landgrabs using the different units. Maybe that would help--but wouldn't be too good for new people. However, if we change the game mechanics too much--then we're changing the entire game, and that's a lot of work for Mr. P.

Perhaps getting rid of nations would help--instead, have states that could gain a set number of military alliances, where people share a small % of their army in defense of the other, and a small % when another person attacks. It would be tough for new people to get in, but might be worthwhile in the long run once they figure the game out.

Is there a way to get Nation-wars playable on facebook? Perhaps it might be cheaper to run an app on facebook than to run a server here.

I think the one thing to be understood is that Nation-wars, and formerly WoW, is a team based game. You get rid of that aspect, and we're venturing into completely different territory of game. I'd be game for it--but that's just me. Most games nowadays, if they are team based, generally limit the team sizes to 3 or 4. Anything more than that, and you're completely missing most of the younger generation due to FPS games.

/rambling off

[Soviet Russia]

Yep yep and I think we should remove the term "attack" from SA.

[FrogBu]

1 turn every 20 min? :blink: hot **** shoot me now! lol I'm just teasing the idea is fine it's just in the middle of war it'd take a week to regain turns after one strike.

we had that in earth everyday for decades! Stop complaining! haha