Jump to content

  •     

Photo

Sad Game State - Pleading With Plato


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Jamisgood

Jamisgood

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 28 November 2015 - 05:13 PM

It's really sad to see the state this game is in today. I was a V1 player who has recently started playing again and the differences are massive. I'm not referring to the game itself, the military or political module's, any of that. I am speaking about the mindset of the people who play. There is but one goal for most players, earn money and medals. They don't care where or how they get them. Players watch the military campaign list and fight in battles they have a chance at earning a BH medal from, aswell as freedom fighter medals. Players will literally fight for both sides of the same war trying to earn 2 BH in the same battle.

 

This is all part of a much larger issue. Back in the day, there was clear cut sides. You fought for team A or team B and the battles actually felt like they mattered. Today, every battle feels like a training war(these things ruined the game IMO). Most battles I see today end with less then 5 players fighting for any given side. Being in Div 2 myself, most BH medals are won with 10-20 mil damage. Essentially this means if you are a new player, or you have not spent years on end raising your strength while keeping your XP as low as possible, you are useless. You will never have any meaningful impact on battles. When one player can single handedly beat an entire country, you know the game is broken.

 

I don't see any way to fix the issues with player's mindsets, but we can adjust the game rules to stop this endless training war BH medal hunting meta, and maybe even bring a bit more meaning to the game. I have a couple suggestions on how to fix these problems.

 

1. Divisions based on strength not level. - This is a very simple and effective way to fix the BH hunting meta, no longer will we have players with 80k more strength then 99% of there division opponents. Yes I realize some people will not be happy with this change, but for every unhappy player, there will be many, many happy ones such as myself. This should also help with new player retention because no one wants to play a game in which they will never have any meaningful impact or effect on the game state.

 

2. Citizenship matters. - The title sounds very broad and at first glance could mean many things but let me explain. When a battle is lost because of a BH hunter who is not a citizen of the involved nations, be it directly or through MPP's, something feels off. My suggestion is this, players can only fight in wars for which their citizenship country is involved regardless of where they are located in the world. This will help stop players from roaming the world hunting medals with no regard for what nation they are fighting for, aswell as help stop MU's or players from selling there damage and hopefully help replace training wars with real wars that players can be motivated to fight in. Placing a cap on the number of MPP's a nation can have active at any given time(10 would be my suggestion) will further serve to bring meaning back to wars and help create a more competitive game state.

 

This game is dying. If things continue the way they are, no new players will stick around. It will be nothing but old timers who's numbers will slowly dwindle as they realize the game no longer has meaning. I understand at the end of the day, this is a business, and Plato wants to keep the players who spend money happy. If you are happy with what you have made, and are simply milking the last bits of money you can before the game dies completely then so be it. If on the other hand you want this game to remain active and fun for all who play it for years to come, something needs to change. You need to create a game state that new and old players alike can enjoy.



#2 Rican

Rican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • LocationGeneve

Posted 28 November 2015 - 07:29 PM

.
⚠  All true

⚠  All sad

⚠  All fixable


titan_0.png

 

if you're not the lead dog...

... the scenery never changes.


#3 George Norfolk

George Norfolk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 29 November 2015 - 07:58 PM

You make some good points and I can't disagree with a single one, the only thing I would say is that the changes you suggest would help but not enough to turn the game around. 

 

You make a good point about the change in people's attitudes. Back in V1 it was all about collectively winning, whether its your country winning a battle or your party getting into the top 5, it was all about the collective good. Now the emphasis is a more on personal progress and personal gain than the collective. Nothing will change until the focus of the game is put back on doing well as a group rather than as an individual. 

 

I personally quite like the idea of having a large group of players running huge multinational companies and international media empires, the economic and media versions of running parties or MUs. 



#4 lovely 1992

lovely 1992

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • LocationPakistan

Posted 30 November 2015 - 09:11 AM

This i not just about war.. Each and every country depends on their players for its growth, But because of this decline, people are loosing hope and i have seen 100's of players leaving this game or making multies (for personal growth/one account's growth) and getting banned. Its a shame. 

 

I personally believe on the first point you have written.. But something has been bothering about that.. If you change the criteria on basis of strength and strength only then people will tend to increase their levels.. And maybe a time would come when players with 600 lvls say with 10000 str will be in the same division along with the one with only 25 level with 10000 str... What will you say about it?

 

I am saying it because here Plato will not want a player with such less str go to lvl 600 and have 600 gold for like almost for free.

 

Yes the other problems like multies, war , politics, economy will improve . I agree on it. And if they lift up the 10 gold cut-off that will be good.. The economy will be a lot better.. Also Plato will be getting more money as players will be motivated to buy more gold from Plato as they will be given access to play a major role in economy too.  



#5 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 30 November 2015 - 01:21 PM

Although I understand what you're saying, neither I agree with your proposals nor I think those proposals change the game.

 

The military module can't be restricted. I know for now that module is a despicable monster but any restriction toward players only will send users out of the game. Now, those restrictions can be applied toward damage but the admins have zero motivation to do those. And a strength based division is easily exploitable, thus, it is better don't do it.

 

In the other hand, considering as undeniable the fact the individualism took over the game. It's still possible to play collectively. The problem is: What innovative goal do you expect to reach as a team? The harsh reality is that, after 8 years of eRepublik, the people grew tired of always fighting by the same goals (resources, congress, etc). There is no new challenges to fight and the only one feature that could achieve that purpose (the dictatorship system) was already taken over by VISA players to take over countries, instead of use it for a fun way toward politics (like establishing socialism, communism or anarchism)

 

Believe me: when some people decide to work collectively toward one interesting goal, any game is fun despite the flaws. Now Who would be courageous enough to have the initiative? In my case, I'm committed with democracy in my country, thus, I can't do it. Anybody else? 


Edited by Demonaire, 01 December 2015 - 04:33 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!!!!!!!!!!


#6 Internetus Internetian

Internetus Internetian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • LocationSomalia

Posted 29 December 2015 - 09:58 PM

Its the game, not the players that ruined it.  A lot of people stopped playing due to the new game.  A lot of political and economic abilities were killed when they ended V1.  The game was retarded and broken down into nothing but a game where you work in company, fight battles, and all set up in a way that only way to get ahead is by using credit card.  A lot of the players with the mentality you want were driven away by the game makers.  Beta and V1 was good, there was so much you could do in this game, it seemed the game was going to expand in what you can do.  Contracts, law enforcement via contracts and mods, different organizations, an actual market, different currencies, etc. left a huge amount of economic and political opportunities.  But now that is all dead.  This game has become almost pointless.  The only thing that still has a purpose, is trying to keep your countries/nation on this game alive and well, just for the honour of doing it.  Outside of that, this game has become completely pointless at this point.


  • Dante Ross likes this

DeafulBanner_Flag-65w5fejz16umze7jbqmexw





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users