What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby CCP » Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:40 pm

Tawa wrote:I would love to know the names of any of those players who left because of Cultural Protocols. If a player can't accept the fact that he can't come to Barmenia for example and delete the established culture there and install say a Swedish based culture with no reasonable RP whatsoever, then forgive me if I won't mourn such a player when he chooses not to play the game anymore. It's not as if cultural protocols don't allow gradual and reasonable changes.


Me for instance. I started the game back in 2004 or 2005, played for a few months in Rildanor. Everytime I reactivated over the years, I played in Rildanor. Over the last 5 or 6 years, the few times I reactivated in Rildanor, it was for the purpose of culturally converting Rildanor to an ethnically African state within the rules of the cultural protocols. Even when I had the country all to myself, it was unsuccessful because 1 or 2 players who had parked in Rildanor for a few real-time years reactivated the minute anyone proposed significant changes. This 'veteran swarm' is what I referred to as mob rule. It is one of two ways the cultural protocols are enforced.

After trying 2 or 3 times over the years, I deactivated my Rildanor party for good when Aquinas created then left Ibutho. While I was in Ibutho this past spring, a new player registered there. We PMed a couple times, I introduced myself, and addressed his/her questions about having difficulty understanding the game. I explained that s/he could propose laws, and that party and character names had to be within the nation's culture. S/he went quiet and the party expired a few days later.

I spent the spring this year fleshing out Ibutho then deactivated. Just as I was leaving, 3 veteran Ikradon (Ibutho predecessor state) players showed up, 2 with the goal of reverting Ibutho to Ikradon, which they had spent several real-time years creating. Because they never cultural protocolled Ikradon, Aquinas (then Eel and I) were able to create Ibutho in its place as if Ikradon never existed. 2 of those players deactivated/expired. Not sure if they're playing elsewhere, but I haven't heard from them since. The 3rd player remained in Ibutho, changed his/her party and character names to Ibutho-culture names, and has been quiet since. When I reactivated a week or two ago, that player told me that s/he just logged in out of habit, but had lost interest in the game since cultural protocols were introduced in former Ikradon. I don't know if or how long that player will stick around.

The bottom line is that the game code allows players to change the most visible parts of a country's culture -- it's name, head of state and head of government titles, and it's motto, anthem, national animal, and national sport. When a veteran player tells a new player, 'no you can't change that, it's against the rules -- I even wrote it down in that bill on the nation page you're not allowed to delete,' it comes across to new players as someone trying to control the game and limit what other players can do. And it is.

It is not unreasonable that players who spend months (years even) constructing florid and deep stories about their main countries should have a minimum level of assurance that their creations can be preserved. But it is also not unreasonable that new players should be able to click whatever they want to. And since they'll get bored doing that soon enough anyway, and since it'll help keep them around in the interim, there's no harm.

RE: forgiving you for not mourning, I hope you don't talk to new players with that dismissive tone. That snide internet comments section bullshit is one of the quickest ways to run people off, and it's no small part of why this game's player base has been on life support for years now.

The way to grow the player base is to reduce barriers to entry. Anything that does that should be welcomed.

Tawa wrote:Of course not. Here I was addressing the general idea of adding to the Moderation' responsibilities without adding manpower. We only have one Mod after all.


Barring cultural protocols for 2 to 5 countries doesn't add to moderators' workload at all, as I mentioned above.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Tawa » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:40 pm

CCP wrote:RE: forgiving you for not mourning, I hope you don't talk to new players with that dismissive tone. That snide internet comments section bullshit is one of the quickest ways to run people off, and it's no small part of why this game's player base has been on life support for years now.

No need to be rude to me or use vulgar language to me, this is not You Tube. I'm just not going to accept insults because you can't handle the fact that a game has to have rules. The fact stands that cultural protocols can be changed over time so the rule is not as rigid as you portray it. It would be completely confusing to have players change countries' culture whenever they feel like it. Players come and go for all sorts of reasons.
User avatar
Tawa
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:30 pm

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby SelucianCrusader » Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:33 am

CCP wrote:Me for instance. I started the game back in 2004 or 2005, played for a few months in Rildanor. Everytime I reactivated over the years, I played in Rildanor. Over the last 5 or 6 years, the few times I reactivated in Rildanor, it was for the purpose of culturally converting Rildanor to an ethnically African state within the rules of the cultural protocols. Even when I had the country all to myself, it was unsuccessful because 1 or 2 players who had parked in Rildanor for a few real-time years reactivated the minute anyone proposed significant changes. This 'veteran swarm' is what I referred to as mob rule. It is one of two ways the cultural protocols are enforced.
The protocols were implemented in 2011. Back then, the behaviour both you and they indulged in was normal. The protocols are there to prevent this from happening as it destroys realism, RP and creativity. The cultural protocols are enforced by anything else than moderation and the rules against nation raiding etc.

CCP wrote:I spent the spring this year fleshing out Ibutho then deactivated. Just as I was leaving, 3 veteran Ikradon (Ibutho predecessor state) players showed up, 2 with the goal of reverting Ibutho to Ikradon, which they had spent several real-time years creating. Because they never cultural protocolled Ikradon, Aquinas (then Eel and I) were able to create Ibutho in its place as if Ikradon never existed.
Not really. That's not how the protocols work. Nations can be culturally protected without protocolls if they are considered culturally active or dormant. Ikradon was culturally void, it had no culture at all, thus nothing they built was destroyed (the problem was rather that they really didn't build anything back when they were atcive).

CCP wrote:When a veteran player tells a new player, 'no you can't change that, it's against the rules -- I even wrote it down in that bill on the nation page you're not allowed to delete,' it comes across to new players as someone trying to control the game and limit what other players can do. And it is.
It's not about veterans vs. noobs, it's about following the rules of the game. Noobs aren't per definition imbecile. If you start playing in a nation and see that it has a clear cultural character, and that there are rules regarding this, and you still commit vandalism, you should be grateful if someone wants to help you before a mod has to step in. By your logic, people should be allowed to make "Sexy Porn Star Emma Watson" the HoS of their nation, because the game mechanics would allow it.

CCP wrote:and it's no small part of why this game's player base has been on life support for years now.
I disagree. That is the result of no development for years combined with quite stagnant RP in the recent years. PT had a high point after the rules against RL-religions where introduced, which created so much creativity, combined with the IML-ATR war. If most nations were populated by clueless noobs voting for Ronald Reagan as President and leaving after two weeks, the game would die quickly.

CCP wrote:Barring cultural protocols for 2 to 5 countries doesn't add to moderators' workload at all, as I mentioned above.
Actually, I'm not to sure about that. What is an "acultural" nation anyway? Is that an anglophone republic? Well - then there are already several anglophone republics to chose from. What's the problem then? Restrictions on unrealistic RP in general? Should people be allowed to play as characters from Star Wars or elves/orcs?

Tawa wrote:No need to be rude to me or use vulgar language to me, this is not You Tube. I'm just not going to accept insults because you can't handle the fact that a game has to have rules. The fact stands that cultural protocols can be changed over time so the rule is not as rigid as you portray it. It would be completely confusing to have players change countries' culture whenever they feel like it. Players come and go for all sorts of reasons.
QFE.

In fact, I think it's quite denigrating to noobs to talk about them as if they were too illiterate and child-like to be exempt from game rules. When I was a noob, I created the Crimson Crusade, and I still RP with it. I chose Selucia because it was a Roman-inspired nation and the centre of the IG equivalent to the Catholic Church, I was never looking for an US-clone with a "President" and a "Congress", even if I was as young as 17 back then.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Aquinas » Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:25 am

Some points to make, in no particular order.

1. The quality of role-playing in a nation is not determined by whether it is an anglophone, "generic USA clone" or whether it has non-English titles, party names and so on. Nations with a non-anglophone theme sometimes do have more in-depth RP, but not always. Similarly, a "generic anglophone" nation can have great RP.

2. Even if it was feasible, "shutting down" nations in order to ensure more nations had multiple parties would probably not improve overall gaming experience. Some players like one-player states so they can strut the world stage and simulate the nation's affairs all by themselves. Others love the electoral changes and shifting coalitions of multi-party national politics. Personally I've gained great fun out of both, though I like to switch between the two modes from time to time. In general, though, it is best to let people go where they want to go. That is most likely to maximise everybody's overall happiness with the game.

3. On the subject of multi-party nations, these continue to be plagued by the fact that parties are not deactivated until they have failed to log in for 7 days, which is far too long. When a party is inactive, it skews the nation's natural political balance, often making it unfairly difficult or impossible to form Cabinets, pass budgets and ratify treaties. What riles me the most is when old parties reactivate, win seats and then have to be deactivated again 7 days later after failing to log in. Unfortunately, this has been surprisingly common in my experience!

Whilst I know a lot of people will disagree with me here, personally I would prefer it if parties could not reactivate; if players wanted to come again to a nation, they could simply do so by setting up a new account there. After all, it is unrealistic for new parties (and realistically speaking, reactivating parties are effectively new parties when they are reactivating after decades or centuries of inactivity) to have all of that visibility despite not having made a single proposal. Stopping reactivations would also save Moderation a lot of work, as well as prevent nations from being clogged up with too many parties (Dranland had 13 or 14 parties at one time, I recall, whilst if reactivations were not allowed, it could not have gone above 8).


4. I agree with CCP that Particracy can seem an unfriendly environment to the new or casual player. Most only speak English and would instinctively prefer to work with familiar English titles and English character names rather than tinkering about with Google Translate and Behind The Name's Random Name Generator. Being expected to adopt foreign titles and names can jar with them, especially if the game's Main Page and FAQ prompted them to expect a run-of-the-mill, anglophone game.

5. And yet I'm not sure the Cultural Protocols in themselves are the majority of the problem. What really puts off new players is the whole experience they endure whilst they are grappling with them. To begin with, they may not know about the Cultural Protocols; they may not even feature in the "Bill under debate" section, or if they do, they may be buried amongst dozens of other Bills - most of them now irrelevant and decades/centuries old. Even if they do read a Cultural Protocol, they may not immediately recognise it as bearing the mark of official authority. What seems intuitive to experienced players is not always intuitive to newer ones. As CCP rightly said, it can - and often does - come across to them as older (perhaps long-departed) players trying to unfairly manipulate new ones. This is re-enforced when more experienced players, often from outside the nation, start to engage with them in an insensitive or rude way. Regrettably, I've seen this happen all too often.

My own view, which I've expressed before, is that each Cultural Protocol Bill left in "Bills under debate" should include a mandatory, Moderation written/approved text explaining what Cultural Protocols are, affirming they are part of the game rules and linking to an official Moderation post on the forum repeating and affirming the same thing. This, I am sure, would save a lot of aggravation.

6. I agree again with CCP that at least a small number of nations should be set aside as anglophone, Cultural Protocol free zones. Ironically, the issue may now be not that we have too many anglophone nations, but too few! The reality is that a very small group of players has succeeded in moving from nation to nation, Cultural Protocolling them up with non-anglophone cultures, until now there are very few anglophone nations left.

By the way, if I had my way, the Creating a new user page would include a description of each nation as they are scrolled through on the drop-down menu, informing the player of the Cultural Protocols.

7. The case has been made before for a "reset" of Terra in order to organise the nations, regions and continents in a more "realistic" and aesthetically harmonious way. Inevitably, any such scheme would be quite controversial, but if it were ever attempted, it should include anglophone nations.

8. An alternative to a full reset would be for Moderation to "move in" on nations when they fall empty and redesign them, where deemed appropriate, with a different set of Cultural Protocols. That would at least avoid clashes with players who are currently resident in the nations being reset.

9. On a last note, I'm quite touched by CCP's account of old Ikradon players going back there. I have this vision in my mind of them returning there, wondering what on earth has happened, mourning the replacement of English by Zulu, of "Ikradon" by "Ibutho" and reflecting nostalgically on all the times they shared there together. Ikradon may not have had Cultural Protocols, and at one point I recall it being somewhat famous for asserting a socialist ideology which pronounced themselves to be culture-less. Well, even if they didn't have those things, maybe they still had *something* - something that was significant to them. Something that was lost when I waltzed in armed with my Cultural Protocols request and morphed it into Zululand.

I did, of course, have a lot of fun in Ibutho, and I'm proud of what I built there, and also proud (in a reflected glory kind of way) of what others did there after me...but at the same time...a part of me feels a little guilty about those poor Ikradonians and their Ikradon which once was there, but now, in the formal timeline of Terran history, never was nor ever will be again.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby SelucianCrusader » Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:13 pm

Aquinas wrote:3. On the subject of multi-party nations, these continue to be plagued by the fact that parties are not deactivated until they have failed to log in for 7 days, which is far too long. When a party is inactive, it skews the nation's natural political balance, often making it unfairly difficult or impossible to form Cabinets, pass budgets and ratify treaties. What riles me the most is when old parties reactivate, win seats and then have to be deactivated again 7 days later after failing to log in. Unfortunately, this has been surprisingly common in my experience!

Whilst I know a lot of people will disagree with me here, personally I would prefer it if parties could not reactivate; if players wanted to come again to a nation, they could simply do so by setting up a new account there. After all, it is unrealistic for new parties (and realistically speaking, reactivating parties are effectively new parties when they are reactivating after decades or centuries of inactivity) to have all of that visibility despite not having made a single proposal. Stopping reactivations would also save Moderation a lot of work, as well as prevent nations from being clogged up with too many parties (Dranland had 13 or 14 parties at one time, I recall, whilst if reactivations were not allowed, it could not have gone above 8).
+1

(though I did really enjoy the times when Dranland had 12 players, you could never estimate the election results in any plausible way :D )

My own view, which I've expressed before, is that each Cultural Protocol Bill left in "Bills under debate" should include a mandatory, Moderation written/approved text explaining what Cultural Protocols are, affirming they are part of the game rules and linking to an official Moderation post on the forum repeating and affirming the same thing. This, I am sure, would save a lot of aggravation.
While I agree, most protocols already start out like this: "This bill is created in order to protect [Nation] from radical and unrealistic changes, in conformity to game rules (cf. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4374)". So it isn't really that hard to find out that they are part of the game rules. Also, the rules on cultural protection are already explicitly stated if you look at the Game Rules thread here at the forum.

Sadly, I think that sometimes a new player might be just too stubborn to accept that they can't do what they want with the nations they play in. I can understand that - if I had spent the whole evening making up a scenario with Ed Miliband or Ronald Reagan victoriously speaking before the Congress, and suddenly found out that I wasn't allowed to that, I would probably be disappointed as well. Thankfully, these incidents are very rare. The only ones that I can think of in the last two years were in Badara and here in Barmenia - and we have seen a lot more successful new players getting integrated into the community during that time.

6. I agree again with CCP that at least a small number of nations should be set aside as anglophone, Cultural Protocol free zones. Ironically, the issue may now be not that we have too many anglophone nations, but too few! The reality is that a very small group of players has succeeded in moving from nation to nation, Cultural Protocolling them up with non-anglophone cultures, until now there are very few anglophone nations left.
I don't really see how this would change anything. A culturally void country is not necessarily the same thing as an anglophone country. If anything - if you want there to be more anglophone nations, you should culturally protect a few more countries to be like that. But there are already a few. Hutori (Athlorcaea), Rutania, Luthori, Mordusia and Lodamun are the first that comes to mind for me, and these are hardly nearly filled up, so it seems that the demand for more such nations isn't the reason for any shortage of game players.

The difference right now from when the game had around 200 players, during the reign of Urien/Reiko (whenever some people like them or not) is the stagnation of RP activity that has taken place since then. Back then, there was big drama on the international scene almost every day. The IML-ATR conflict, the house of Thor in Davostag, Jalal, the destruction of Greater Hulstria, Deltaria's endless wars - these things didn't emerge from the generic anglophone countries, but rather the opposite. Both Aquinas and I were in Dranland, a nation whose cultural heterogeneity created one of the most vibrant and creative atmospheres the game has ever seen for a while. Dranland's golden age wouldn't have been possible without it's lore.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Aquinas » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:13 am

SelucianCrusader wrote:
Aquinas wrote:My own view, which I've expressed before, is that each Cultural Protocol Bill left in "Bills under debate" should include a mandatory, Moderation written/approved text explaining what Cultural Protocols are, affirming they are part of the game rules and linking to an official Moderation post on the forum repeating and affirming the same thing. This, I am sure, would save a lot of aggravation.
While I agree, most protocols already start out like this: "This bill is created in order to protect [Nation] from radical and unrealistic changes, in conformity to game rules (cf. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4374)". So it isn't really that hard to find out that they are part of the game rules. Also, the rules on cultural protection are already explicitly stated if you look at the Game Rules thread here at the forum.

Sadly, I think that sometimes a new player might be just too stubborn to accept that they can't do what they want with the nations they play in. I can understand that - if I had spent the whole evening making up a scenario with Ed Miliband or Ronald Reagan victoriously speaking before the Congress, and suddenly found out that I wasn't allowed to that, I would probably be disappointed as well. Thankfully, these incidents are very rare. The only ones that I can think of in the last two years were in Badara and here in Barmenia - and we have seen a lot more successful new players getting integrated into the community during that time.


Yes, you are right that some of the Cultural Protocol references in Bills under debate sections do include a reference to the game rules and where to find them. Not all of them do, though. Actually, a lot of players do not appreciate the role of the forum in Particracy until it is pointed out to them. Even when they do come to look at the forum, they are sometimes put off, which is sad. This happens, I think, for a mixture of reasons, ranging from difficulties getting to grips with the game's rules and conventions, coming across negative attitudes, the "politics inside the game about playing the game" (which seems arcane and unfathomable to many) and also the "politics outside the game" - meaning the issues to do with the Off-topic forum, which seriously turn a lot of people off.

SelucianCrusader wrote:
Aquinas wrote:]6. I agree again with CCP that at least a small number of nations should be set aside as anglophone, Cultural Protocol free zones. Ironically, the issue may now be not that we have too many anglophone nations, but too few! The reality is that a very small group of players has succeeded in moving from nation to nation, Cultural Protocolling them up with non-anglophone cultures, until now there are very few anglophone nations left.
I don't really see how this would change anything. A culturally void country is not necessarily the same thing as an anglophone country. If anything - if you want there to be more anglophone nations, you should culturally protect a few more countries to be like that. But there are already a few. Hutori (Athlorcaea), Rutania, Luthori, Mordusia and Lodamun are the first that comes to mind for me, and these are hardly nearly filled up, so it seems that the demand for more such nations isn't the reason for any shortage of game players.


If you spoke to the Lodamese players about them being an "anglophone country" I'm not sure you'd find them all in agreement. But you're broadly right, of course - yes, there are anglophone nations and they do have places available. Given the trend towards diminishing or reducing anglophone cultures, though, I would not be surprised if the anglophone space in Terra continues to be squeezed smaller. I think it should also be borne in mind that players who want an anglophone nation deserve a bit of choice over which nation to go to, so we need a decent number of anglophone nations available.

SelucianCrusader wrote:The difference right now from when the game had around 200 players, during the reign of Urien/Reiko (whenever some people like them or not) is the stagnation of RP activity that has taken place since then. Back then, there was big drama on the international scene almost every day. The IML-ATR conflict, the house of Thor in Davostag, Jalal, the destruction of Greater Hulstria, Deltaria's endless wars - these things didn't emerge from the generic anglophone countries, but rather the opposite. Both Aquinas and I were in Dranland, a nation whose cultural heterogeneity created one of the most vibrant and creative atmospheres the game has ever seen for a while. Dranland's golden age wouldn't have been possible without it's lore.


You are looking back at that era through rose-tinted spectacles. The IML-ATR conflict became silly. Actually, the whole idea of republics and monarchies being pitted against each other simply on the basis of whether they are republics or monarchies, regardless of the real political issues like whether they were democratic or totalitarian, liberal or conservative, socialist or capitalist, was somewhat unrealistic. OOCly there was a lot of upset; some people were hurt or annoyed. And whilst the dispute and the energy which went into it may have encouraged a certain amount of good roleplay, to be fair, to an extent it was also destructive of it. Plus, of course, we now know the Mods were behaving in a corrupt and unethical way, raiding the private messages of players in order to titillate their curiosity and give themselves a decisive in-game advantage (for which we have never received any form of apology). That era was hardly a Golden Age. Also, let's not under-estimate all of the good stuff we have had RP-wise since then.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby PaleRider » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:47 am

OOCly there was a lot of upset; some people were hurt or annoyed. And whilst the dispute and the energy which went into it may have encouraged a certain amount of good roleplay, to be fair, to an extent it was also destructive of it. Plus, of course, we now know the Mods were behaving in a corrupt and unethical way, raiding the private messages of players in order to titillate their curiosity and give themselves a decisive in-game advantage (for which we have never received any form of apology). That era was hardly a Golden Age. Also, let's not under-estimate all of the good stuff we have had RP-wise since then.

While i am a relative new comer to the game in terms of who's been here longer, I will say that most "Golden Ages" (whether in PT or real life) are usually marked by a secret and often times dark underside. While we all want pure Golden Age of RP here, it most likely will come with some sort of dark underbelly....
Political Affiliation~ GOP (US)
Pro: Liberal Conservatism, Paleo-liberalism, Chicago Capitalism, social conservatism, neoconservative
Anti: leftist, multiculturalism, Islamic radicalism
Currently the Zardic People's Party
Starring as Wiendonia in NS
PaleRider
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby MichaelReilly » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:46 pm

PaleRider wrote:
OOCly there was a lot of upset; some people were hurt or annoyed. And whilst the dispute and the energy which went into it may have encouraged a certain amount of good roleplay, to be fair, to an extent it was also destructive of it. Plus, of course, we now know the Mods were behaving in a corrupt and unethical way, raiding the private messages of players in order to titillate their curiosity and give themselves a decisive in-game advantage (for which we have never received any form of apology). That era was hardly a Golden Age. Also, let's not under-estimate all of the good stuff we have had RP-wise since then.

While i am a relative new comer to the game in terms of who's been here longer, I will say that most "Golden Ages" (whether in PT or real life) are usually marked by a secret and often times dark underside. While we all want pure Golden Age of RP here, it most likely will come with some sort of dark underbelly....


The 'Golden Age' was remarkably underwhelming.
Down with this sort of thing
User avatar
MichaelReilly
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Location: The boy from the County Hell

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Khaler » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:41 pm

The Golden Age was back when we still were at the old forums, 07-08. It is no coincidence that the online user record of the game was set in 2007, and haven't been broken since.
Be on your OLD GUARD, stand firm in the faith!
-1 Selucians 16:13
Khaler
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: Great Democratic Republic of Khaleristan, a member of the caring and loving Russian Federation!

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Aquinas » Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:41 pm

Khaler wrote:The Golden Age was back when we still were at the old forums, 07-08. It is no coincidence that the online user record of the game was set in 2007, and haven't been broken since.


I remember those days, and I can assure you the online user record would have been achieved, at least in large part, by a small group of players all logging in at once with every player account they have ever played with. It was a regular "thing" people did back then.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests