Lovely New MPP Rules - What's Not To Like?

Day 718, 04:37 • Published in Finland Finland • by avec


Let's have a look at the latest eRepublik Insiders. On the 707th Day of the New World, in ”Some eRepublik updates”, it was told that the cost of signing a MPP rises from 30 G to 100 G. Then, a few days later, another update to MPP rules was announced, telling us that activated MPPs stay triggered only as long as the MPP is renewed. All in all, these updates were introduced to fix the current faulty MPP rules, but these changes are not the solution to MPP rule issues. Let's have a more detailed look at the updates.


”Cost of signing a MPP rises from 30 G to 100 G”

There are three options a small country, bordered by a big hostile country can do to remain independent:

1. It has to rely on the goodwill of the bigger country
2. Ally itself with the bigger country and still rely on its goodwill
3. Sign MPPs with other big countries so the hostile neighbour cannot successfully invade it.

For instance, the battles between Finland and Russia have been in the spotlight recently. In order to keep Russia in check, Finland has to sign 3-4 MPPs each month to keep itself safe. When MPP cost 30 G, the total cost was about 90-120 G per month, which is not cheap, but is still somewhat sustainable for small countries. When the cost of MPP was lifted to 100 G, the total cost of three defensive MPPs rose to 300 G, which is not a sustainable cost to most small countries. Yet, there was hope for them.


”Active MPPs stay active only as long as the MPPs are renewed”

Activated MPPs that stay active even after the MPP has expired, created a chance for small countries to remain safe. In this instance, Russia activated Finland's MPPs when it attacked Finnish soil, easing Finland's economic burden so it wouldn't have had to renew MPPs anymore once they expired. This, of course was too much to hope for, as we read from a new eRepublik Insider. Another update kicked in, telling us that MPPs stay active only as long as they keep being renewed, which cancels any hope of small countries staying safe under new MPP rules.

Note: Am I crying? Well, no, as even the admin agrees with me. Look here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/forum/topic/87351/changing-the-mpp-system/1 🙂

This change is bad. Several countries varying in size, ethnicity, culture and ideals create diversity to the game, making it more enjoyable and fun. Biasing the game towards big countries alienates people from the game, kills several tactical, economical, sociological and political options this game might otherwise have.

Also, let's have a look at world events just before the updates were announced.


712th Day of the New Worl😛 Hungary attacks Croatia, Russia attacks USA and Finland


When the first update was released, telling there's going to be changes in the MPP system, Hungary attacked Croatia, activating all Croatian MPPs, and as a diversion, Russia attacked USA and Finland. All these attacks failed, but one can not help to look at the timing of these attacks. PEACE attacks three countries in a hopeless attempt to win them, activating several MPPs against them, and two days later, an update comes out telling the MPPs now active will expire as soon as they're not renewed. If the MPPs cost the usual 30 G they used to, this wouldn't be so bad, but together with the cost rising to 100 G, this update biased game events straight for the benefit of PEACE. This isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't likely be the last. It kills fun if the game is biased towards one side, towards big countries versus small ones, and rules keep changing in the midst of conflicts to benefit one side of the two major alliances in the game.

This is of course just sour grapes, but yet so true. These updates at this point bias the game towards big countries and big alliances, and further complicates the life of small countries, and in effect kills fun which is why we play this game.

I don't like to criticise or rant without alternative solution or something constructive to say, so I'll just present another view on what would be a much more sensible option for MPPs.

First, instead of fixing the MPP cost being the same for all countries, change it like you changed the attack cost on different regions. Initially, if I remember correctly, attacking regions cost the same no matter how much people lived there, but now, the cost is dependent on region population. You could easily change the MPP cost to be the same, for example instead of changing the MPP to cost 30 G or 100 G, the cost could be calculated with following formula:

MPP cost = 30 G + 0.01 * citizens living in the country you want to sign MPP with,

but not more than 100 G. For example, signing MPP with a country with 1,000 living there costs 30 G + 10 G = 40 G, while signing a MPP with country of 6,000 inhabitants costs 90 G. The factor 0.01 can be changed if needed, but as an example I'm sure most players would agree more to this sort of change rather than just lifting the cost from 30 G to 100 G.

(The same actually applies to strength increase and productivity, which should be logarithmic instead of gradual.)

Admins have also announced there's going to be changes in the economic module. In the least I hope admins think how the changes coincide with this MPP ruleset update. In order to stay competitive, small countries need an economical edge that gives them enough income to keep signing those MPPs.

Maybe my next article is less of a rant.


Yours,

Avec, former President of eFinland