Jump to content

  •     

Photo

Weekly Challenge Feedback

challenge weekly challenge tournament rewards milestones feedback

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

Poll: Weekly Challenge Feedback

Do you like the weekly challenge?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

What do you think about the rewards?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

What do you think about the milestones?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Gucio

Gucio

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 741 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:11 AM

Hey everyone!


As everyone has noticed the “bad” Plato has introduced the new Weekly Challenges, which I think has a lot of advantages and as always some disadvantages.


I have to say I like the 20 Energy per minute as it makes the game more interesting because I’m required to fight more frequently and eventually level up faster.


I guess the free Strenght is also a reasonably nice reward, though I have seen and heard myself that some people are struggling to get to certain milestones or simply dislike the rewards.


Hence, I thought to make a thread to hear other’s feedback in general, as I’m quite curious what others actually think about the whole challenge (maybe Plato will read some of the feedback if he has a good day :P ).

Anyways, you’re more than welcome to vote in the poll and of course any feedback or suggestions are welcome below (milestones, rewards etc.) :))



#2 Ahsan

Ahsan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationBattlefield

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:24 AM

Recover 20 energy in 6 mins is not sufficent to attact people more into fight. At least recovering 100/150 energy at certain level of points would be more interesting.


Edited by TheCaliph, 24 October 2013 - 10:24 AM.

  • Pr3d4thor likes this
It is hard to have a one-sided conversation...

#3 JMSPC

JMSPC

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

It would be nice not to have an actual loss when trying to get the more advanced rewards:

XHMxftQ.png


  • CatBea and Bananeitor like this

#4 DariusReg

DariusReg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:50 PM

It would be nice not to have an actual loss when trying to get the more advanced rewards:

 

 

 

JMSPC for 5k rewards etc you get lvl up wile doing it so if you time it you can save 7-8 eb's:))

 

Any way the point of this is to make us fight more/spend more (rl money if possible) not to make us profit. But is not a forced thing, you can chose to not participate or have 500 or 2k prestige as your target.

 

Thou i would like better prizes, or extra ones, maybe 15 eb's for 2k prestige and 60 or 70 for higher margins. More str prizes, put like 10-20 str rewards at every 1500/2500/3500 till like 10k prestige or similar. Or put a 5-th TG as a wining option or something.



#5 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:51 PM

 

As everyone has noticed the “bad” Plato has introduced the new Weekly Challenges, which I think has a lot of advantages and as always some disadvantages.

 

Sorry, but the "bad" Plato is bad because he doesn't apply structural changes in the game (e.g. to fight against the overproduction that killed the economical module -today those events develop the same function now the market BOT made before- or to make a military module that, without go back to the V1 or V2, have a balance between power and strategy). The last measure respecting the topic I really applauded was the Work Tax and well... as you can see, the idea wasn't well sold, so until the moment that implementation is a failure.

 

And after to see the changes all of you propose for the end of 2013, putting aside the good measure of not giving gold to users under level 10 (and I think it should be at level 20), they are more like visual changes than structural ones.

 

The tournament achieve the purpose of to reactivate the game (that's always good, of course), but it should be an event properly said, not an admins necessity to buoy a sinking ship...


  • bonjik likes this

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#6 Stolch

Stolch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:28 PM

The missions are a feeble attempt at generating more interest and activity from a dying community of players. They're biased, badly though of and in general counter productive even to the aims of Pinocchio and his minions.

 

1. The increased recovery of energy is only useful for accounts in D4, because of the "ingenious" divisions mechanics which were introduced to the game and which are probably the single biggest factor to stop new players from staying and playing the game. No game can rely to attract new players with mechanics which make it not only more opportune but the only way to progress in the game by not playing the game. In essence with the current mechanics that base divisions on the XP points, this is the result. Divisions should be based on strength and not on XP if you want to have players actually playing this monstrosity you've created.

 

The 20 strength and 1K storage does not compensate lower division players for this.

 

2. Though some of the most problematic aspects of this "new fight button, promotion tactic" have been addressed (so it seems there is someone reading at least from time to time), the introduction of a bonus from the start of the erep day continues to disbalance the game to a great extent, all european based players get their bonus earlier so they have an unfair advantage due to the mechanics from it. The reason is that these bonuses are pyramid like and though the stacking up of the pyramid is not present n the tournaments the way it is designed is that every week, european based players will be getting the ability to deal 50% more damage on tuesday in respect to players from American time zone. The main reason being that the bonus ends at the same time for everyone but it does not start at the same time as it should not be expected by any sane mind that thousands of players will be waking up at 3-4 am, every week on a workday/school day to make sure they are not disadvantaged on the battlefield of an increasingly lame game. The way to solve this somewhat is to introduce a timer for the bonus which lasts 144 hours since the moment it is activated, this would only work however if there is no 24/7 regularity to this "ingenious" tournament.

 

3. Though it seems Pinocchio is bent on solving the dwindling interest of players and their lower and lower participation in the lame war module by inflation tactics, the increased energy recovery will contribute to something the players are already unhappy about and in stark contrast to the actual expectations for it. The consumption of food will increase, however the production will increase even more as "farm" accounts, used only for production will now have a greater capacity to produce resources and goods daily, in fact 2 times greater capacity, thus in the long term the production of resources and goods will outpace the increased consumption of food and tanks. The end result will be an even more broken economy module.

 

4. There are a list of things Pinocchio should focus on fixing if he wants his game to endure, because this time unlike previous occasions, the threat for the game to fall under the critical minimum for sustaining a playing community is real. If the game falls below 10K active and unique players it will die and it is not very far from that right now. While there are roughly 30-40K accounts that fight or engage in the game under one form or another daily, only 12-15K unique players actually manage those accounts. Fixing the inherent bias set into the game by Pinocchio is the first step only:

 

A). Equal amounts of orgs for all countries, having Serbia and Romania together have more government orgs then the lower 2/3rds of the countries is a travesty to the actual player community.

 

B) Remodel from the base up the actual "divisions" idiocy. Set divisions based on strength and not XP points. Add a preliminary division for accounts with less then 2K strength which does not participate in the actual battles but in a "training" environment to create incentives for new players to actually stick around in the otherwise low quality browser game.

 

C) Remodel the media module, this is your most important module, the only one that actually "creates" a community, which is essential to get people involved and interested to stay, the war part of the game is lame and cannot compete even with shoot them up games for 5 year-olds. Bring back the ability of authors to publish their newspapers to a larger audience by introducing "licences" to publish in foreign countries. Give the ability to each parliament to set the "price" of a licence, but the proceeds from those licences should go to a "pool" of money used by the admins to give away prizes in future events.

 

Eliminate the current "vote" - "sub" system which is only abused and has proven worthless as a means to reward people for quality and for their efforts, hence why the media module is absolutely dead right now. Publishing of an article should cost a set amount based on the CS population of the given country, with every vote costing the person who votes a set amount. Thus good writers can write for free or even get rewarded for their efforts and poor writers will have to pay up for the garbage they put up in the media module. This will also eliminate the "voters clubs" which are one of the main reasons the media module is dead. Subscriptions should cost a set amount, and give a big discount, 50-75% on the price of articles to the given newspaper and should be limited to 50 per account. It is virtually impossible to follow more then 50 regular and good newspapers and will eliminate the ability for players to earn "media mogul medals" by doing nothing at all.

 

D) The 24/7 battle system is not generating interest and is creating an incentive for "robotization" of the game play rather then encouraging players to get involved. It needs to be reworked from the ground up along with the change to the divisions. Rounds should have a set time frame, no matter how long it takes for them to be won, this will give the players the ability to plan battles and involve more players in the actual planing and execution and thus military campaigns as it sits right now, there is virtually no plaining and just "fight button" bashing on the spot when someone is online, the days when players planed when to be online to fight in critical rounds are long gone along with their interest in what is happening on the battlefields. Just as now some divisions end sooner and players have to wait for the conclusion of the other divisions so that a new round can start, so can be made that the rounds be a set amount of time and even if they end early to wait the time to pass until the next round starts.

 

Remove the 24 hour "auto-attack" botmaster wet dream mechanic from the game, bring back the initiative rule where if one side does not attack within 24 hours it looses the initiative and both sides can initiate an attack. Add the ability for presidents to set the time at which an attack should begin, so they do not have to be online 24/7 as has been in the past, or give the ability to start attacks additionally to the Ministers of Defence, so they actually have some role other then decoration.

 

Rework entirely the resistance wars mechanics. Eliminate the payment option, as it is encouraging bot creation for the purpose of making RWs as the only means to carry on as the cost and frequency make them very low % for success to begin with. Introduce a system where an RW needs 10% of the CS population of the country under occupation to support it so it begins. No limits on the amount of RWs that can be started. A person can support only 1 RW at a time and has a cool down period of 24 hours for an RW that is successful and 96 hours for an RW that is unsuccessful. The cost should be shared between all participants and the medal value should be shared between all participants. 

 

This will increase the need for players to get involved and cooperate as a means to gain a tactical advantage when planing RW campaigns.

 

Rework the MPP system, make the cost of MPPs not set but variable based on 2 factors: 1 CS population of a country and 2 the amount of MPPs a country holds. For example:

 

1. The population of a country should influence the cost of the MPP for both sides as follows:

 

standard cost of MPP = 10K cost = average number of citizens per country for the whole game

 

 

Cost for each country = standard cost 10K * (actual # of CS / average # of CS per country) * ( number of current MPPs / average # of MPPs per country)

 

 

So if the average number of citizens per country in the game is 2K and the average number of MPPs per country in the game is 15, an MPP for Serbia (with example population of 4K CS and 20 other MPPs) and Thailand (with example population of 500 and 10 other MPPs) would look like this:

 

For Serbia:

 

MPP cost = 10000 * ( 4000 / 2000 ) * ( 20 / 10 ) = 40000

 

For Thailand = 10000 * ( 500 / 2000 ) * ( 10 / 10 ) = 2500

 

This will once again bring strategy to the game in terms of who to sign and who not to sign MPPs with as well as limit the ability of countries to stack up huge numbers of MPPs at no cost at all. It will not increase the cost of MPPs for smaller countries but will increase the cost for bigger countries. The proceeds from MPPs should go into a "pool" fro which future prizes in events should be distributed.

 

 

The "prize pool". Should  be created and visible to all, all proceeds in terms of CC that go out of the game should be allocated to this pool, from it all prizes and money for new accounts should be subtracted. Each country would have a "battle meter" which will be based on the average battle participation of it's citizens compared to the game average. Once the meter is full, the president of the given country can choose at any time within the next 96 hours any battle, that he marks as "epic" and if the country wins that battle it gets 5% of the money from the pool as a prize.

 

Depending on the game play, this may be a smaller or bigger amount, it will also create a competitive environment for the prize, where denying the price to others may be as important as winning it yourself. The "filling" of the battle meter, should not be easy and should not be achievable too often.

 

 

There are many other aspects of the game that need reworking and/or fixing and/or improvement, however I believe that even this is too much to absorb for Pinocchio so I'll stop here. This is my last attempt at giving something to this game, consider it your last chance to save your player community, no because of me, but because many are on the brink of giving up despite having invested so much time effort and resources into this game over the years like me.


  • kojoti2 and bonjik like this

#7 drru

drru

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:38 AM

as for me, i think, that additional strenght points will be the best reward for fighting.


  • MaZzA likes this

#8 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:41 AM

The missions are a feeble attempt at generating more interest and activity from a dying community of players. They're biased, badly though of and in general counter productive even to the aims of Pinocchio and his minions.

 

1. The increased recovery of energy is only useful for accounts in D4, because of the "ingenious" divisions mechanics which were introduced to the game and which are probably the single biggest factor to stop new players from staying and playing the game. No game can rely to attract new players with mechanics which make it not only more opportune but the only way to progress in the game by not playing the game. In essence with the current mechanics that base divisions on the XP points, this is the result. Divisions should be based on strength and not on XP if you want to have players actually playing this monstrosity you've created.

 

The 20 strength and 1K storage does not compensate lower division players for this.

 

2. Though some of the most problematic aspects of this "new fight button, promotion tactic" have been addressed (so it seems there is someone reading at least from time to time), the introduction of a bonus from the start of the erep day continues to disbalance the game to a great extent, all european based players get their bonus earlier so they have an unfair advantage due to the mechanics from it. The reason is that these bonuses are pyramid like and though the stacking up of the pyramid is not present n the tournaments the way it is designed is that every week, european based players will be getting the ability to deal 50% more damage on tuesday in respect to players from American time zone. The main reason being that the bonus ends at the same time for everyone but it does not start at the same time as it should not be expected by any sane mind that thousands of players will be waking up at 3-4 am, every week on a workday/school day to make sure they are not disadvantaged on the battlefield of an increasingly lame game. The way to solve this somewhat is to introduce a timer for the bonus which lasts 144 hours since the moment it is activated, this would only work however if there is no 24/7 regularity to this "ingenious" tournament.

 

3. Though it seems Pinocchio is bent on solving the dwindling interest of players and their lower and lower participation in the lame war module by inflation tactics, the increased energy recovery will contribute to something the players are already unhappy about and in stark contrast to the actual expectations for it. The consumption of food will increase, however the production will increase even more as "farm" accounts, used only for production will now have a greater capacity to produce resources and goods daily, in fact 2 times greater capacity, thus in the long term the production of resources and goods will outpace the increased consumption of food and tanks. The end result will be an even more broken economy module.

 

4. There are a list of things Pinocchio should focus on fixing if he wants his game to endure, because this time unlike previous occasions, the threat for the game to fall under the critical minimum for sustaining a playing community is real. If the game falls below 10K active and unique players it will die and it is not very far from that right now. While there are roughly 30-40K accounts that fight or engage in the game under one form or another daily, only 12-15K unique players actually manage those accounts. Fixing the inherent bias set into the game by Pinocchio is the first step only:

 

A). Equal amounts of orgs for all countries, having Serbia and Romania together have more government orgs then the lower 2/3rds of the countries is a travesty to the actual player community.

 

B) Remodel from the base up the actual "divisions" idiocy. Set divisions based on strength and not XP points. Add a preliminary division for accounts with less then 2K strength which does not participate in the actual battles but in a "training" environment to create incentives for new players to actually stick around in the otherwise low quality browser game.

 

C) Remodel the media module, this is your most important module, the only one that actually "creates" a community, which is essential to get people involved and interested to stay, the war part of the game is lame and cannot compete even with shoot them up games for 5 year-olds. Bring back the ability of authors to publish their newspapers to a larger audience by introducing "licences" to publish in foreign countries. Give the ability to each parliament to set the "price" of a licence, but the proceeds from those licences should go to a "pool" of money used by the admins to give away prizes in future events.

 

Eliminate the current "vote" - "sub" system which is only abused and has proven worthless as a means to reward people for quality and for their efforts, hence why the media module is absolutely dead right now. Publishing of an article should cost a set amount based on the CS population of the given country, with every vote costing the person who votes a set amount. Thus good writers can write for free or even get rewarded for their efforts and poor writers will have to pay up for the garbage they put up in the media module. This will also eliminate the "voters clubs" which are one of the main reasons the media module is dead. Subscriptions should cost a set amount, and give a big discount, 50-75% on the price of articles to the given newspaper and should be limited to 50 per account. It is virtually impossible to follow more then 50 regular and good newspapers and will eliminate the ability for players to earn "media mogul medals" by doing nothing at all.

 

D) The 24/7 battle system is not generating interest and is creating an incentive for "robotization" of the game play rather then encouraging players to get involved. It needs to be reworked from the ground up along with the change to the divisions. Rounds should have a set time frame, no matter how long it takes for them to be won, this will give the players the ability to plan battles and involve more players in the actual planing and execution and thus military campaigns as it sits right now, there is virtually no plaining and just "fight button" bashing on the spot when someone is online, the days when players planed when to be online to fight in critical rounds are long gone along with their interest in what is happening on the battlefields. Just as now some divisions end sooner and players have to wait for the conclusion of the other divisions so that a new round can start, so can be made that the rounds be a set amount of time and even if they end early to wait the time to pass until the next round starts.

 

Remove the 24 hour "auto-attack" botmaster wet dream mechanic from the game, bring back the initiative rule where if one side does not attack within 24 hours it looses the initiative and both sides can initiate an attack. Add the ability for presidents to set the time at which an attack should begin, so they do not have to be online 24/7 as has been in the past, or give the ability to start attacks additionally to the Ministers of Defence, so they actually have some role other then decoration.

 

Rework entirely the resistance wars mechanics. Eliminate the payment option, as it is encouraging bot creation for the purpose of making RWs as the only means to carry on as the cost and frequency make them very low % for success to begin with. Introduce a system where an RW needs 10% of the CS population of the country under occupation to support it so it begins. No limits on the amount of RWs that can be started. A person can support only 1 RW at a time and has a cool down period of 24 hours for an RW that is successful and 96 hours for an RW that is unsuccessful. The cost should be shared between all participants and the medal value should be shared between all participants. 

 

This will increase the need for players to get involved and cooperate as a means to gain a tactical advantage when planing RW campaigns.

 

Rework the MPP system, make the cost of MPPs not set but variable based on 2 factors: 1 CS population of a country and 2 the amount of MPPs a country holds. For example:

 

1. The population of a country should influence the cost of the MPP for both sides as follows:

 

standard cost of MPP = 10K cost = average number of citizens per country for the whole game

 

 

Cost for each country = standard cost 10K * (actual # of CS / average # of CS per country) * ( number of current MPPs / average # of MPPs per country)

 

 

So if the average number of citizens per country in the game is 2K and the average number of MPPs per country in the game is 15, an MPP for Serbia (with example population of 4K CS and 20 other MPPs) and Thailand (with example population of 500 and 10 other MPPs) would look like this:

 

For Serbia:

 

MPP cost = 10000 * ( 4000 / 2000 ) * ( 20 / 10 ) = 40000

 

For Thailand = 10000 * ( 500 / 2000 ) * ( 10 / 10 ) = 2500

 

This will once again bring strategy to the game in terms of who to sign and who not to sign MPPs with as well as limit the ability of countries to stack up huge numbers of MPPs at no cost at all. It will not increase the cost of MPPs for smaller countries but will increase the cost for bigger countries. The proceeds from MPPs should go into a "pool" fro which future prizes in events should be distributed.

 

 

The "prize pool". Should  be created and visible to all, all proceeds in terms of CC that go out of the game should be allocated to this pool, from it all prizes and money for new accounts should be subtracted. Each country would have a "battle meter" which will be based on the average battle participation of it's citizens compared to the game average. Once the meter is full, the president of the given country can choose at any time within the next 96 hours any battle, that he marks as "epic" and if the country wins that battle it gets 5% of the money from the pool as a prize.

 

Depending on the game play, this may be a smaller or bigger amount, it will also create a competitive environment for the prize, where denying the price to others may be as important as winning it yourself. The "filling" of the battle meter, should not be easy and should not be achievable too often.

 

 

There are many other aspects of the game that need reworking and/or fixing and/or improvement, however I believe that even this is too much to absorb for Pinocchio so I'll stop here. This is my last attempt at giving something to this game, consider it your last chance to save your player community, no because of me, but because many are on the brink of giving up despite having invested so much time effort and resources into this game over the years like me.

 

Great ideas the most of them, but some disagrees:

 

3. Plato gives the governments the power of to control the overproduction via Work Tax and Minimum Wage. So here the admins could make the "Poncio Pilatos" style. The problem, however, is they hadn't taken into account the Flood's Prisoner's Dilemma. That dilemma is the thing that is making the Work Tax implementation totally useless.

 

B ) The strength based-divisions is totally non-viable by the "999" exploit. Forget it.


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#9 Stolch

Stolch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:03 AM

Great ideas the most of them, but some disagrees:

 

3. Plato gives the governments the power of to control the overproduction via Work Tax and Minimum Wage. So here the admins could make the "Poncio Pilatos" style. The problem, however, is they hadn't taken into account the Flood's Prisoner's Dilemma. That dilemma is the thing that is making the Work Tax implementation totally useless.

 

B ) The strength based-divisions is totally non-viable by the "999" exploit. Forget it.

 

I'm unaware of the "999" exploit, but will take your word for it. I don't like the divisions to begin with it has not made newer players more important it has marginalized them even more then before. In the way the mechanic is setup now, there is no way to keep players, cause the first thing we have to teach them is not to fight, not to work and basically not to do anything for the first 3 months except train.... Giving them "cheap" strength at the start will not change that at all.

 

As for the work tax it's useless because it doe not change the basic problem with overproduction. If everyone is producing and everyone consuming, sooner or later you'll have overproduction. To address this you need to create a situation where the players need to choose or have the choice between producing or doing something else, only then will you have a workable economy. It used to be like that in V1, because there was a limit on energy and you had to choose what to use it for, work or fight.

 

So battles were planed days and weeks ahead and production was being stocked and used and it worked, all they had to do is lower the cost for battles to have them a little more often and the economy would have been great but I bet initially that is what they thought would be their primary income stream, people willing to splash out cash so they can pay for a battle to start.



#10 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:35 AM

I'm unaware of the "999" exploit, but will take your word for it. I don't like the divisions to begin with it has not made newer players more important it has marginalized them even more then before. In the way the mechanic is setup now, there is no way to keep players, cause the first thing we have to teach them is not to fight, not to work and basically not to do anything for the first 3 months except train.... Giving them "cheap" strength at the start will not change that at all.

 

As for the work tax it's useless because it doe not change the basic problem with overproduction. If everyone is producing and everyone consuming, sooner or later you'll have overproduction. To address this you need to create a situation where the players need to choose or have the choice between producing or doing something else, only then will you have a workable economy. It used to be like that in V1, because there was a limit on energy and you had to choose what to use it for, work or fight.

 

So battles were planed days and weeks ahead and production was being stocked and used and it worked, all they had to do is lower the cost for battles to have them a little more often and the economy would have been great but I bet initially that is what they thought would be their primary income stream, people willing to splash out cash so they can pay for a battle to start.

The "999" exploit is, in a case where, for example, to pass from D3 to D4 you need 40,000 strength points, you'll train until you have 39,999 strength points, then you totally stop training. Making that, you always are in a totally advantageous position to hunter BH, being a totally better option than entering to D4 and facing a highly probable BH famine. I really doubt Plato allows something like that. The XP points, at least, force the players to pass all the 4 divisions. The strength, not.

 

And about the Work Tax + Minimum Wage, they certainly can create the "situation where the players need to choose or have the choice between producing or doing something else, only then will you have a workable economy", because these tools, mixed, can totally stop the overall production in a country. (for example, 15% WT and 40CC MW takes you away 6CC. That tariff is completely unapproachable respecting profits for almost all current factories in the New World, including the WaM ones) And countries like Cyprus and Peru already has proven totally impediment in their national productivity due to multiaccounts paying wages of 120 or 200CC, that raise disproportionately the average wage and put the tax charge in 26 or 30CC per company.

 

The problem, like I said, is the prisoner's dilemma: no country's going to take a decision about that when probably he isn't counting with other countries cooperation.


Edited by Demonaire, 25 October 2013 - 03:01 AM.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#11 Stolch

Stolch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:14 AM

The "999" exploit is, in a case where, for example, to pass from D3 to D4 you need 40,000 strength points, you'll train until you have 39,999 strength points, then you totally stop training. Making that, you always are in a totally advantageous position to hunter BH, being a totally better option than entering to D4 and facing a highly probable BH famine. I really doubt Plato allows something like that. The XP points, at least, force the players to pass all the 4 divisions. The strength, not.

 

And about the Work Tax + Minimum Wage, they certainly can create the "situation where the players need to choose or have the choice between producing or doing something else, only then will you have a workable economy", because these tools, mixed, can totally stop the overall production in a country. (for example, 15% WT and 40CC MW takes you away 6CC. That tariff is completely unapproachable respecting profits for almost all current factories in the New World, including the WaM ones) And countries like Cyprus and Peru already has proven totally impediment in their national productivity due to multiaccounts paying wages of 120 or 200CC, that raise disproportionately the average wage and put the tax charge in 26 or 30CC per company.

 

The problem, like I said, is the prisoner's dilemma: no country's going to take a decision about that when probably he isn't counting with other countries cooperation.

The 999 thing is not really an exploit, but can be worked around not that hard, but ok I get your meaning.

 

As for the market, you're wrong there. While in the transition period you would be right, in the long period the market will just inflate the prices and readjust at new levels, especially now when with COs the money that governments receive as tax income flows right back into circulation quite quickly. The key is that the game allows you to transform energy into goods through working, the cost for that is very low. When everyone can do it, it means you need to create a good enough incentive so some decide not to do it. The rest is simply the monetary base vs the amount of goods in terms of prices. Yes with higher taxes prices will get inflated, the net result will be the same.

 

The reason prices do not get affected is that you can go to the neighbouring country and by from there. This is also the stimulus for negative tax movement for all countries, thus it is unlikely for anyone to even start implementing this. As for the average salary thing, well in smaller countries it can be altered by distribution schemes through salary, for bigger countries though a high average salary is a clear sign of what you say. For example for a long time Lithuania had 120-130 average salary until the person running the farm/bots obviously got caught or stopped as it changed overnight down to levels within reason.

 

By the way with the new permanent tournaments, the amount of energy available for transformation into goods will increase and fighting is not enticing enough to cause players not to do it, so the economy will only get worst after the initial small boost from the higher consumption.



#12 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:56 AM

The 999 thing is not really an exploit, but can be worked around not that hard, but ok I get your meaning.
 
As for the market, you're wrong there. While in the transition period you would be right, in the long period the market will just inflate the prices and readjust at new levels, especially now when with COs the money that governments receive as tax income flows right back into circulation quite quickly. The key is that the game allows you to transform energy into goods through working, the cost for that is very low. When everyone can do it, it means you need to create a good enough incentive so some decide not to do it. The rest is simply the monetary base vs the amount of goods in terms of prices. Yes with higher taxes prices will get inflated, the net result will be the same.


You only are seeing from "inflation" perspective. More than "Inflating prices", the main objective is to destroy companies by non-viability in their productivity. And the measure is to raise the cost of transformation from energy to goods via Work Tax plus Minimum Wage (By the way, to raise that MW means more income to the players -I recognize doubts about purchasing power though-). The idea is to keep the situation over time. Without that, obviously the measure would fail.
 

The reason prices do not get affected is that you can go to the neighbouring country and by from there. This is also the stimulus for negative tax movement for all countries, thus it is unlikely for anyone to even start implementing this. As for the average salary thing, well in smaller countries it can be altered by distribution schemes through salary, for bigger countries though a high average salary is a clear sign of what you say. For example for a long time Lithuania had 120-130 average salary until the person running the farm/bots obviously got caught or stopped as it changed overnight down to levels within reason


That's the Prisoner's Dilemma I'm talking about. The better option for all the countries to fight against the overproduction is to raise the WT + MW, but in that cooperation scheme, the non-cooperative countries (that remains with low WT and MW) will be in advantageous position in the world market (any resemblance to reality -Bangladesh, China- is purely coincidental <_< ). An solution for that? Maybe a war against those countries (as Causus Belli, it has its sex appeal ^_^ )

 

Anyway, the gradualness is needed here to avoid hard problems with the implementation.
 

By the way with the new permanent tournaments, the amount of energy available for transformation into goods will increase and fighting is not enticing enough to cause players not to do it, so the economy will only get worst after the initial small boost from the higher consumption.

I agree. Hence the countries must calculate the national demand of products and promote the domestic consumption.


Edited by Demonaire, 25 October 2013 - 06:04 AM.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#13 Stolch

Stolch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 06:11 PM

 

You're approaching the problem from the wrong side. I know it might appear that eRep has a free market on the surface, however it does not have a free market in reality, hence you should not be looking into how the players can affect the economy through collusion, but look at the "planned economy" which the admins are modelling through the rules and limits they have placed.

 

Taxes are a generally a mechanism for redistribution of wealth and do not create or destroy it. In RL we can argue about the role of business in the economy - welfare of the citizens debate, however in the game it is different as everyone has the same ability to produce and the same limit to a great extent.

 

Also you have to keep in mind that because the economic module is governed by the rules in place the players will always overtime concentrate in the "most opportunistic" strategy available thus the idea of "free market" disappears because the economy is in centralized state to begin with. With the admins setting the production "quotas" for each account.

 

What the admins can do and they have failed to do and in fact have been going backwards for the last 4 years is to create alternative strategies which while not necessarily equal in "value" but different in execution, are close enough that players may decide to follow one or the other or a third if you wish - the more the better. More precisely, choosing between working and fighting is the main divisions, over time this has practically disappeared so the economic situation has gotten even worst, as everyone does the same thing.

 

In practice players now fight much less then they used to before, they do their DOs, they work and even waste the rest of their energy because it's not worth using it. This is the problem and it cannot be addressed by the players as the mechanics are set so that this is the only valid strategy.



#14 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:07 PM

You're approaching the problem from the wrong side. I know it might appear that eRep has a free market on the surface, however it does not have a free market in reality, hence you should not be looking into how the players can affect the economy through collusion, but look at the "planned economy" which the admins are modelling through the rules and limits they have placed.

 

Taxes are a generally a mechanism for redistribution of wealth and do not create or destroy it. In RL we can argue about the role of business in the economy - welfare of the citizens debate, however in the game it is different as everyone has the same ability to produce and the same limit to a great extent.

 

Also you have to keep in mind that because the economic module is governed by the rules in place the players will always overtime concentrate in the "most opportunistic" strategy available thus the idea of "free market" disappears because the economy is in centralized state to begin with. With the admins setting the production "quotas" for each account.

 

What the admins can do and they have failed to do and in fact have been going backwards for the last 4 years is to create alternative strategies which while not necessarily equal in "value" but different in execution, are close enough that players may decide to follow one or the other or a third if you wish - the more the better. More precisely, choosing between working and fighting is the main divisions, over time this has practically disappeared so the economic situation has gotten even worst, as everyone does the same thing.

 

In practice players now fight much less then they used to before, they do their DOs, they work and even waste the rest of their energy because it's not worth using it. This is the problem and it cannot be addressed by the players as the mechanics are set so that this is the only valid strategy.

You put too much faith in the Pinocchio's solutions than the users' solutions (of course, the first come before the second, but the first already arrived, so it's up to us)

 

The mechanisms exists. The only thing left is to put in practice. That's all.


Edited by Demonaire, 27 October 2013 - 06:30 PM.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#15 Stolch

Stolch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:29 AM

You put too much faith in the Pinocchio's solutions than the users' solutions (of course, the first come before the second, but the first already arrived, so it's up to us)

 

The mechanisms exists. The only thing left is to put in practice. That's all.

 

No I put no faith in their solutions, however one cannot make a waterfall, fall upwards. So the mechanics will be the ones governing the behaviour of the players and not the other way around, it always is. Players will always gravitate towards the best "strategy" with the "current" mechanics unless there are multiple mutually exclusive but close in value strategies that can be had, only then there would be some choice in the matter. Currently in eRep there is no duality of strategy it is simple and unidirectional and I might add increasingly dull for everyone.

 

Anyway there is no point in having this discussion in the first place, no one is taking notice so we're just wasting our keystrokes....



#16 bonjik

bonjik

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • LocationAtlantis

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:42 AM

^

 

Their wont be any duality of strategy as long as theirs only 4 types of products lol :P

 

If they want to change it they need to change both economic model(so it will have more types of products) and the militaristic model(so the new products will be put into use).







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: challenge, weekly challenge, tournament, rewards, milestones, feedback

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users