Editorial: Why Change Is Needed and How It Can Be Achieved

KLONDIKE, CPA Central HQ – For a fairly length time now I have largely been watching on without a major role for the first time in the six and a half years I have been involved, as CP Armies continued to ”develop”. In Silverburg’s post a few days ago, he shows that nothing has changed in that time and that we follow the same rules and methods that were put in place by the pioneers of the community. It is therefore surely time to rejuvenate the community with the stagnation that we have faced, as so we do not start going into an irreversible decline – but what can we change and how can we change it?

With the current format that we have, armies can engage in a war with any other army and set up as many invasions as they want to. There are no regulations on when and how many times you can invade during any given period and there is, really, no way to decide who the true winners are. In so many cases there are armies ignoring one another (I do realize that armies I have been involved in have done this on occasion) and in others the armies just disagree with eachother and claim that they are both the winners. For this reason, it makes it virtually pointless to invade in the first place because both armies will just claim they win and will move onto the next war, where exactly the same thing will happen again. With no winner being officially declared, both armies will therefore claim ownership to the server that was being battled over. This can escalate out of control and lead to situations where in the past as many as eight armies claimed ownership to a single server. This sort of multiple dual-ownership of servers defeats the initial idea of ”nations” and owning your own server – most of the top ten armies claim to own 40 or more servers where in reality more than half of those aren’t really theirs.

The RPF invade the Marines in an AUSIA invasion in their current war.

We also have a situation where in the recent Nachos vs Night Warriors war, the Nachos and Night Warriors set up a treaty only for the Nachos SS to take 30 servers in a single day. While in my opinion this is totally legal and followed the terms of the treaty, I do not believe that a mass invasion should be allowed. There should be a cap on the number of invasions per day (for example, a maximum of 2 battles per day where two different divisions must be used (AUSIA, UK, USA)). This would stop multiple AUSIA invasions where the other army has no AUSIA division, which totally defeat the purpose of a war as the armies can never really face each other and it turns into a war of who can invade the most servers when the other army isn’t online. With a cap on the number of battles per day, battles will become bigger and more important. Wars will see armies actually facing one another, rather than just running onto as many servers as possible to claim victory. Of course, this still holds the problem of both armies claiming they win.

The only way to get past the problem of both armies claiming victory is to introduce judges into decision making. Without a neutral set of judges armies will continue to face these problems and see the boring way in which we take part in the game go on. While judges may be controversial and armies may ”rebel” and ”ignore the judges”, it is surely better than having no winner at all. The servers need to be cleared like before and then CPA Central need to keep track of every war and server exchange with their old battle reports, with the server page to be updated with the singular owner of each server. While you may say it didn’t work last time, this is because the only person who decided the winner was Commando. Each battle needs a set of three judges who pick the winner, to then report the winner back to the battle and server report.

What is the point in not doing this? We need a server draft and we need clear ownership of each server and a definitive winner of each battle. Only with the following changes do I feel we can progress in the way we battle:

  • A maximum of two battles per day (with each battle being a different timezone, eg. AUSIA and USA).
  • Each army alternates in being able to invade – one army invades on one day and then the other on the next day.
  • Judges selected by CPA Central or another independent body for each battle to decide the winners.
  • Servers cleared and redrafted as so each server is owned by only one army.
  • CPA Central reruns the Battle and Server Report so everyone is aware who owns what server (it could be a permanent stickied post that is updated on a daily basis).
  • CPA Central server page updated after the report is updated so everyone knows who owns what servers for invasion purposes.

We need to follow this and agree on this as the way forward if we want to move forward. If you wish to ignore this post and continue to live with what we have, nothing will change and wars will just not work. The method we have now worked five years ago, but has not really worked for a long time now. If in the comments you like this idea and wish for it to be used, I will push for all armies to agree and sign up to this system and commence the process of starting it – but it is down to you now. If you decide to decline the ideas proposed by this post than that is up to you – but I truly think these are the ways in which we need to change the community. Change is needed now.


Former CPA Central CEO


38 Responses

  1. kid ive moved on do u srsly need me that bad lmao get outta here

  2. Knew you’d say something like that 😉

  3. While we’re at it, let’s have some active page maintainers for the Leaders and Legends pages. I recall CPA attempting to work with CPAC to update their server map. Utilize the server map and display it somewhere noticeable so that it gives armies the incentive to play the game and try and conquer the entire map.

    Since we’re heavily formulated around the top ten already, CPAC should go ahead and establish rules and guidelines for wars/invasions. Armies only work towards the top ten so I doubt they’d “rebel” unless they were too stupid to see how beneficial this would be to the community.

    Kudos to you however. I’m pretty sure the community has been waiting for someone to get things done.

  4. sounds dope yo, lets get it rollin.

  5. Interesting post, I agree and also disagree with the points you made. The points you made are definitely fantastic ways to change the way we do TACTICAL warfare, but I think the way to progress would be taking us out of the current warfare system, which would mean no more tactical warfare. Even if tactical warfare has more structure, new recruits aren’t going to stay because the battles are very very boring.

  6. Finally someone with a sense of urgency. I’ve been waiting for someone like this to help the community.

  7. These ideas aren’t bad but if you actually expect armies to cooperate with the system you’ve put in place here, you’ll be sadly mistaken. Armies who are not as big as the other will obviously spam invasions during times the bigger army can’t be on. It will always be like that, but I agree change is needed. A server draft is a good idea, but we need someone who will actually be committed to update it on a daily basis because the last time commando updated it about every two weeks. We need to keep this system in place and keep track of the servers in order for this to work, and I doubt that’s possible with the type of leaders we have today. Most will claim whatever server they want and most will claim they won the battle whether a judge tells them they lost or not.

  8. You’re so right. There has to be change, things have to be regulated, rules need to be enforced. The community needs direction. This has to be the first of many changes around here if we’re to continue.

  9. They will simply have to abide or face consequences, which need to be decided along with the proposed reforms. Those who denounce the judges’ rulings will simply have to be ignored.

  10. Or they’ll ignore the judges and we’ll just be as unorganized as we are now

  11. While I agree with most of your points here, I must point out that if the judges make a decision that either army doesn’t agree with, the judges will be ignored. This is the main reason that CPAC refused to govern armies. They have the best chance at creating a central government but they can’t physically punish the army. The only way this would work out would be if there was a physical punishment for the army like their events getting bot raided and such, but that would only bring up more contraversy.

  12. Damn thank you Funks, more positive post! This is what Night Rebels is trying to do by playing fair game, not cheating or going against each other.

  13. Funks, this is something we tried many times; not only in CPAC, but in single armies too. It sounds good and effective but after some weeks, the servers page will not be updated frequently, the battle reports won’t be published often etc. Take me for example, I started medals in Nachos and for 5 months now, I keep getting too bored to update them and I keep resetting them. You guys will get bored lol. It’s worth trying though.

  14. But medals will make us easier for the troops that will get them a promo without us thinking that whos actually getting and whos not? Its worth it, and that was a good ol’ days for the system of the army. I wish that came back.

  15. Yeah, that’s the reason I returned Medals in the Nachos; though none of the leaders saw the Medals page to determine who would get a promotion. I just made a post on nachos, they will return in Summer. On what chat are you btw?

  16. Thats great, if you could check the comments from the leaders and legends oage that would be great. From March to now, if anything that has been missed.

  17. Im always on and im leading the Nignt Rebels right now. If maybe l should create a medals system for NR too, that way l can promo that person and how many medals he can get to earn mod, and then owner. Its called earning and becoming loyal – not about asking or becoming a greedy person for a higher rank of an army. Just because an army is big does not mean that person gets the higher rank. Agree?

  18. Im also US, you can talk to me tomorrow after school or you can kik me if needed. xP > Kyle103x <

  19. Aye. I hate people who want power. I’d rather be private in Nachos than get kicked out. I don’t care, I will still feel the power, I will still help my beloved army. gg

  20. Oh and, why is no one on NR chat?

  21. Poorly sizes for AUSIA divisions and lack of people who cannot be able to attend that event. We barely have a single AUSIA event, so yeah. We only do UK and US events and thats okay, right?

  22. Thats loyal, my boy. 👌

  23. Yeah, so do we.

  24. I still don’t get it tho. I mean, people happens to take it so seriously these days and claim that they are something that will get them any better? No l don’t think so, fighting each other and calling both armies as a winners. For once, most armies do take it too seriously and never surrendered the war if lost to the war.

  25. Agreed.

  26. Clout (CPA CEO) told me that she attempted to coorporate with CPAC and Goblin denied, saying that she isn’t capable of being CEO of CPA.

  27. no ones ever suggested any of these ideas before

  28. Hmm… that changes sounds good.

  29. Since you’re being sarcastic…

    Even if these ideas have been put forward most of them have never actually been put in place. It is surely worth a try to put them in place and see how it works. I think the thing Commando did worked but he just got bored and left, hence why CPAC should do it since CPAC will always be here.

  30. Completely agree with what you are saying here, Funks. I think this can be achieved quite easily. A meeting with all army leaders, maybe this weekend, would be a great idea. If only we could solve the multilogging and hacking issues within the community……

  31. I think it should be open to more than just leaders. It is the people who aren’t always given the spotlight who have a lot to say about this community.

  32. CPAC can try and route a bunch of egotistical kids to work together and organize armies, but it won’t work.

  33. You read my mind there

  34. Here’s an idea forbid cheating, harassment of any sort, racism, most cursing because there are kids playing this, and improve the chat rules

  35. True

  36. Lmfao

  37. What happened to legends inductions?

  38. I agree with your statement, however, if we were to host a meeting with all army members in the whole community, it simply wouldn’t work. That is why we have leaders represent the army; to represent the armies’ voice. It is up to the army to host votes/polls for such matters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s