nah

konstantin try not to suggest n3 every time he gets couped challenge

I think zaify would shutdown ccnet before creating n3 just due to the absurd amount of players that would quit the new features he would have to add to keep people playing. realistically speaking it was never the money or materials that changed sides it was the loyalty and friends so if n3 happened natiosn wsould be the same and coalition and alliance would still exist justo n a bigger map

zaify the issue is the map is quite full in some zones
as the point new nations cant exist
with more nations we can have more diplo stuff

I dont think so aliitsme

We are too late into the game for another reset, server would die n3 happens. No one wants to grind all from the start again.

Nah its not being pushed by the banned people but theyre one of the many reasons the playerbase doesnt like playing at this rate. Its been the same war for 3 years with the same features that no one genuinely likes. Like sieges didnt happen because no one liked sieges.

I dont necessarily think old alliances would stick together. I would say by the time n3 is developed people would have grown a bit more apart and a lot of them would like new begginings. Of course if you stick to the very same people you would be boring but eh its not something that wont ever happen. The nords brought the n1 players together in n2 and they quit when they realized all wars and grind are useless in n2 early on which is very fair from their side.

And specifically we are so late into n2 that a reset should happen. Newer people dont get any chances and get converted into money farms. Old plugind cant change without shattering entire nations. Old geopol wont change because nobody wants to be the bad guy and this leads to non balance in sides which is not healthy for all geopol servers (thats how they all died where i played). There is no room for any radical changes and for the older playerbase it has become stale for over a year. There are people like me that have been wanting n3 since 2022 and its 2024 now lmao. Server with this rate will most likely die and currently is inflated by clan members or new players ngl.

N3 if it happens like Zaify said wont happen overnight but would require sooo much testing and coding but I think thats feasible to do in a span of months and if they want help Id be down to help with it

tbh sieging a deepslate cube isn't funny, the fun is where u try to use irl physics or somehting called mind and players can develop new types of forts like something more realistic.

If yall thinks I always get in bad situation wants to reset yall are worng, I like the history on a server so I dont like wipes but theres a issue is the map is full.

Every server has its lifespan, and with the ban of half the alliance I think that lifespan has been reached. Without victory conditions, and without a known end to a server the only way to win is to wait for your opposition to quit or to get banned. It's not healthy, and it leads to a toxic playerbase, where ban warring is the meta. The end of the lifespan of n2 has been reached. The only way forward is to move to a better system. That system must have a fixed lifespan.

I agree that

Let me reiterate this: N3 is not happening any time soon.

I believe a lot of players are mistaken about many of the limitations they claim exist that causes them to push for a reset.

1. The issue of “only two alliances”. This is a player-imposed limitation. Staff did not set these alliances when N2 launched. The existing alliances were entirely player-created, and as such, can still be changed by the players. You aren’t legally obligated to say in a so-called “dying alliance”. You can leave. You can literally make your own nation and alliances. Nothing is stopping you from doing this. Sure, your supply chain may take a hit and the logistics will be disrupted, but this is not a problem staff have caused.

2. The issue of map size. Distance limitations on nation capitol were originally implemented to try and restrict mega-nations from existing, which would reduce nation size and promote alliance creation. Players found ways around this by just creating proxy nations to carry out the same actions as the main nation. This is also a player-set limitation. Nothing is stopping players from deciding to break into smaller nations.

3. The issue of deepslate forts/siege base metas. This is also a player-set limitation. Staff never decided on a siegebase meta. Due to players deciding this meta, we simply adapted in terms of rules and conditions. If you’d like to suggest alternatives so these forts are not necessary, such as a mobile movecraft base or similar options, then please do so.

4. The issue of “just make a new server brah”. We are humans. It’s hard to imagine staff as individuals, but we are not robots that can magically create a server within a week. We have families. We have lives. We have plans outside of this server. I understand it is frustrating to be confronted with these facts, but it’s completely unreasonable to expect staff to drop everything and create a brand new nations iteration regardless of timeframe. Many of us are also going into our professional careers or are beginning new semesters in University. As many of you are painfully aware of, we are busy individuals and we have to prioritize IRL life over CCNet.


If we ever plan on creating a new iteration of Nations it would have to undergo a LOT of closed testing. We would need to consider mechanics that would allow old players to feel comfortable returning while also making sure new players have an equal chance of thriving. We’d have to make sure we iron out as many bugs as possible so we do not fall behind once player-caught bugs appear. We’d likely need to balance staff-player interactions and reliance, meaning we’d have to ensure there would be no major mechanics that require frequent staff intervention (this is why the micromanagement rule was implemented!).

There are a ridiculous amount of factors that go into gamemode creation and, as we stand currently, we are not ready to pursue that option. This is not up for debate.

I understand, but would be funnier witha rule to nerf deepslate cubes who we call ''forts''

making a rule that completely invalidates current fort construction will do little but inconvenience the playerbase, who will simply move to the next fort meta

I understand Cambionical that a new server is unfeasible because of staff time, however if it the case does come up, where a new server/a new iteration is to be done, you have to consider that 1. Polarization is just a simple fact of warfare, you cannot expect players to have the thought not to polarize themselves to 2 different alliances such as the Alliance and the Coalition in n2, 2. Players will meta-max everything, and the meta is a deepslate fort, why would a player choose to nerf themselves by doing anything less? That's only setting themselves up for failure.
Game Mechanics are the only way to influence players decisions (i guess rules aswell), you have to utilize game mechanics to make sure that the current issues of n2 arent repeated if another iteration/server is attempted.

Point 1 is irrelevant, we don't care if you polarize yourselves but you don't get to complain about it and claim it as a server issue or reason for reset.

It's an entirely abstracted concept separate from anything staff or server related.

Camb those limitations are really false as in not really player imposed. People will of course do whats best and claim land and build cube fort. Its not really a player set limitation but rather how its meant to be played. The 'small' map causes for a singular nation i.e Rome in europe(plenty of other examples) to occupy a continent with few old good looking towns and pretty much starve the activity of a continent for years. Apart from polarization, nothing else is player set limitation. A provinces system and larger map would really on its own push far better than right now.

"just make ur own alliance"
Never thought of that, even the most neutral of nations will get dragged in a side for the most random thing. If it was as simple as a bunch of players saying "im not alliance im new alliance" without severe complications (like ur nation dying and becoming money farm) would be more common. But even if more sides pop up essentialy a 3rd side would be like EPF, 1 time 1 side next time other side nothing much would change unless sides go to 4+ in that regard.

Point 1 is one of the most relevant points Ineusia, if half the server dies and the other half wins and they dont magically self destruct like staff expects, then you have 99% of the playerbase either gone or missing the point of nations, afterall conflict is what keeps geopols alive

Berry, I see your points and raise you a quote directly from my comment:

“This is also a player-set limitation. Staff never decided on a siegebase meta. Due to players deciding this meta, we simply adapted in terms of rules and conditions. If you’d like to suggest alternatives so these forts are not necessary, such as a mobile movecraft base or similar options, then please do so.”

Please reread.

"Point 1 is one of the most relevant points Ineusia, if half the server dies and the other half wins and they dont magically self destruct like staff expects, then you have 99% of the playerbase either gone or missing the point of nations, afterall conflict is what keeps geopols alive" - S3xyBerry

I argue that this point matters, because there will be newcomers. There will always be a conflict even after the equivalent of a black plague has culled off a large amount of players. Sure, it takes time for those sparks to flare up, but they will in due time.

competition is still possible, people just need to be competent in making the competition. I dont mean to toot my own horn here, but eterna maya is an example of just that. Im not a very experienced player and nor are the rest of the leaders that arent banned, but we were still able to make a nation that has endured multiple sieges from a nation that has much more experienced players. We had help from experienced players, and a newbie making a new nation can do the same when the circumstances are right.

"they dont magically self destruct like staff expects"

I don't expect this. Players choose to put themselves into two distinct alliances and refuse to fight their allies. This is not a situation created by staff or game mechanics, and we've implemented mechanics in the past to encourage more conflict and less consolidation.

Players choosing to polarize their alliances/enemies is not something we can regulate, we quite literally cannot force you to fight someone that you do not want to fight. So no, it's not relevant because players create this problem. This is not a problem created by the staff or the game mechanics. This is a problem that players create, and it's asinine to try and call for a reset because "the players dont want to fight"

Okay, then dont fight. That's on you guys. A reset doesn't even guarantee a solution to this problem because there's a large chance that the same alliances just reform on a new map.

Unfortunately Ineusia is incorrect,
Staff chose a lenient style of diplomacy and provided little to no in-game mechanics, making every interaction 100% playerled and providing no uniform style of diplomacy. There is no 'prestige' , 'political-power' or any sort of diplomatic counter. This is a problem caused by LACK-OFF game mechanics. People will always find whats easiest, so staff being too timid to implement diplomatic changes and procedures (which Zaify has at least drafted) is to blame for the style of diplomacy we have.

However you are correct that the alliances would form on a new map, that is fair.... because the same issues would be present... issuest that require game mechanics of which zaify is aware to guide players.

PCjunkey you are a vassal with whole protection if you now go alone theres a 99% of being used like a money farm