Two Months of Napoleon: A Revisit into Buying Strength For Gold

Day 802, 06:53 • Published in Finland Finland • by avec


Soon it'll be two months since Napoleon was introduced to eRepublik. Initially, introducing the concept 'strength for gold' aroused wide and global objections, having nearly every active player sign a petition to remove the feature, but since then, the critique has calmed down. After a one-week-long test period, the new feature was implemented, apparently permanently into the New World. Now, I think it is time to revisit the matter and see how Lana has affected the New World. I will also aim to demonstrate calculations on the profitability of using Napoleon.


Various calculations seen in the media about the usage of Napoleon


I've read articles which say, that using Napoleon is profitable in the long run, that it is more profitable to use Napoleon every day than to save the gold or use it in weapons as in the future, the extra strength pays itself back because you can then do the same damage you could do without Napoleon, but with lesser weapons. Crudely so at least. But, those calculations are based on the assumption of unlimited gold and income, which is not the case with normal players. It moreover assumes that there is a point at which you stop to compare the damage outputs with and without Napoleon, and at that point you still have enough gold to buy weapons and wellness packs to make the difference count. I'm not going to show numbers or curves about the matter, as if you don't understand what I'm saying in words, pretty pictures or formulas won't make a difference in your understanding either.


Just a random graph of curves crossing each other. Looks nice in an article.

But, in short, the premises behind those calculations about the profitability of Napoleon are wrong. No player in eRepublik has enough gold to justify using Napoleon in terms of output damage, and after doing those calculations about the damage difference made by using a defined number of weapons and gold with and without Napoleon, plus the gold used in Napoleon before that time, the numbers clearly show that Napoleon was not worth it. Not by a long shot. Allow me to demonstrate one case, which shows it in ordinary and understandable terms:


A case against Napoleon: Example number 1

Let's assume that there is a strength 20 Field Marshal, who has just gained his FM rank and now he decides that he shall use all his salary and savings for Napoleon, because he thinks it'll be good for his damage output in the future. Let's see what happens in one month perio😛

The newly promoted Field Marshal has used 54 G (= 1.8 G * 30 days) to train with Napoleon. If he doesn't have any companies or extra income besides salary, he has most likely used all the salary gained into Napoleon, plus his personal savings to get the gold needed.

Because of the extra strength, he now has 3.6 points more strength, which means he is now a strength 23.6 FM. Without Napoleon, his strength would be only 1.2 points higher, i.e. he'd have only 21.2 strength.

Now, let's see what use that extra strength is:

Let's assume the government decides to tank this Field Marshal, and gives him 80 G + 45 Q5 weapons. With them, he does 19082.96 damage. In comparison, without Napoleon, he'd do 17142.32, which initially seems a lower amount of damage. But, let's see the difference: 19082.96 minus 17142.32 is 1940.64. All in all, the strength 20 FM had decided to spend 54 G for less than 2,000 damage. Just by giving a strength 21.2 FM one wellness pack plus five Q5 weapons would compensate for that damage loss, i.e. for a price of 5 G the same amount of damage could have been got as with using Napoleon every day. Can you not see that there is something wrong in your money usage if you use all your money into buying strength, and thus you have to fight with bare fists every day, and you can't even tank because you don't have any spare gold left in your pockets? Where's the profitability of Napoleon if you can't use your extra strength into anything else other than fist fights?


Yay my dream come true! 2.4 points more strength for 54 G!

I'll skip the argument about having enough income to justify using Napoleon and tanking fully regardless of spending extra 1.8 G a day, and move on to effects into economy for new players, companies and countries.


Two Months of Napoleon: What could have been done with the gold used in training

This is almost a classic example already in the New World media: what a new player gains by not spending gold in training. When a new player reaches level 6 and gains his/her first 5 G, and soon after the first Super Soldier Medal, he has 10 G to spare. Should he use that in Napoleon to gain the astounding amount of 0.72 points more strength, or save it for other use? The answer obviously is that the new player should save it, as this early in the game it is better to save that gold and use it to buy a house, to buy weapons to rank up faster with weapons instead of fist fights, to start a company, to set up an organization or a newspaper. Early on, the extra strength isn't worth a dime, it's literally wasteful spending to use Napoleon.

But, let us still assume, that people do use gold to buy services from Napoleon. Dsokre wrote an article about it, I think it demonstrates the matter pretty clearly: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/two-months-of-lana-1175407/1/20

Statistics show it all. With all that gold, several companies could have been set up. Weapons could have been bought, dealing massive amounts of damage in important battles. More battles could have been opened, more currency would be in circulation. Instead, now we have people who are flat broke, who play the game only to gain more strength, companies are shutting down because people use their money on Napoleon and not on buying food, weapons, gifts or houses. The world economy has crashed, prices have gone down because of Lana. It's not enough that the game mechanics are tweaked to create overproduction, but with Lana, the economical system is doomed to fail within months. The amount of gold lost every day to Lana is greater than the gold received via medals and bought gold, which means there is world-wide deflation of currency.


Lana, one of the four horsemen of the New World?

So, as a conclusion, by looking at the fact that using Napoleon affects only two parameters: people's strength, and amount of gold in circulation, we can say that Napoleon is hurting the world economy. With all that gold spent in training, several more battles could have been fought, products bought and sold, more tanking could have occurred, resulting in a more meaningful game. How many more attacks on Heilongjiang? How many more blocks, attacks on original territories, how much more fun for people playing the game? Of course the admin's point of view is that the more gold spent, the better for them economically, but in the long run I dare to argue that they'd profit more by giving us a more meaningful and fun game, resulting in more keen players and better PR.

As a summary, what have we gained from Lana in two months? 4.8 points of additional strength per player. What have we lost? 108 G gold spent on training per player. People being flat broke. Companies that have been forced to shut down because people use their money on training instead of buying products. A suffering world economy. Overproduction that continues to increase. Plus many more effects that only now begin to show. I ask you admins: was it really worth it?


__________
Avec, Finnish Minister of Defence

(if you like, please vote and subscribe so I can finally get my Media Mogul Medal)