Join the new world

Players killed the game just as much as the wigs

Perhaps limiting the number of MPP's a country can have is useful, as a thought. My biggest concern about the future of the game is the dominance of it by Serbia and its allies. Basically, the game has been "won" for years now, and countries like Croatia are under permanent wipe - that can't be healthy for the game for sure.

How is Serbia's fault Croatia sucks at making good friends?

What about if Alliances followed the rules and mechanics countries do now? Think country war mechanics applied to the entire alliance as if it was one country. Massive alliance wars.

Stupid proposal, because less campaigns means less battles, means less BH / CH medals.

Try again!

Stupid Phil.

Fewer BH/CH medals means more competition and less CC/Gold infused.

Less is more.

If there are 46 nations then you need to allow at lest 46 campaigns at the same time, right (or do you want to take away the right from a country to have a war/rw?)
More competition is irrelevant to the game community.


Now go get me a drink!

No Phil,

I am saying that it should NOT be equal access to the battle queue for each Nation.

I am endorsing a more stringent policy for launching a campaign.

It shouldn't be impossible for a smaller nation, but there should be a more difficult path to launching a campaign relative to how significant that campaign would be on a global scale.

The only significant question and the biggest challenge: how to make new players battle-relevant in a short time, so they don't loos their interest.

Everything else is less important

Also: the coding needed for for what you propose is way to complicated.

More campaigns -> more BH -> more people can farm them for packs money -> packs bought -> income.

Phil reminds me of your everyday liberal. They can't be wrong and flipflop like crazy. I, for one, think this would benefit the eWorld. The coding wouldn't be too hard. Shows how much you know about the subject, Phil..

perhaps limiting the number of american articles by exactly this one would also be a power in his hands and one that i think should be executed. so you want to help balance in the game by not allowing small countries to have wars. like somehow people have some kind of travel problem. i like many battles there is many low damage battles i can sneak in score a bh and sneak out everything shouldnt be geared towards the mega hitters. its always weird how people think that by limiting stuff you increase the fun in the game. oh look wow there goes gnilraps lets all enjoy ourselves and chip in say 5 million damage woohee.

Well, less wars will mean the few powerful players will be able to get all the medals, and so it would be hard for non-Visa and weaker players to fight for a BH. I saw that during my days as D1 BH hunter: when there are lots of fights many battles were free to anyone who wants to fight, and so damage to get the medal was smaller.

So doing that will kill the interest for many players with relatively low strength in D1 and D2, and even for some players with more strength but who don't want to buy packs.

I think Plato should just add more weekly or even daily missions that new players can achieve, like in one day "kill 10 enemies in 2 different battles", the other day "sell 20 items in the market", then in the next "deploy X damage while fighting for your allies" (X is a function of your strength).

Now, it's hard for newbies to have a feeling of achievement, since there are few things they are able to do

Anyway, voted for the interesting idea, even if I disagree!

You are thinking too short-sightedly.

So what if there are fewer medals.

The idea is that with fewer overall campaigns, there will be an increase in player-derived swag.

In other words, if there were fewer campaigns, each campaign would be more important, there would be more combat cash available in the average battle, and the medal would be less important in the long run.

But (for avg. player) medal gives the feeling of victory and fun, not CO..

So fewer medals equals less adrenaline-happy players..

Besides the problem of less medals, I agree with you, Gnilraps. And since I've given up hope about medals a long time ago, I'd be happy if such change happened. 🙂

Fewer battles = Fewer tankers = Fewer Funds in Plato's College Fund.

Also, why would a player want to live in eUruguay if they will never see battle, other than through MPP's? It would be the death of small countries. (3 > 0)

Fewer Battles would only benefit the super-beast tankers. They have been making moves to level the playing field, not tilt it toward the oldfags and wallet warriors.

Your first point: fewer battles = less cash for Plato.
I disagree.
My point is based on the idea that with fewer battles, each battle is more significant. Significant battles attract Combat Orders. Combat Orders attract tanks. In other words, I really really don't think that the only reason people tank is for medals.

Your second point: people won't want to play in smaller countries if it is harder to see battles.
Maybe.
Yes, True Patriot damage is a thing. And maybe it should be diminished. But in my concept, the smaller nation becomes MORE important, not less. My idea is that in order to launch a campaign, the smaller nation needs better external support. The current system fosters small nations remaining small. (What does it take to launch a campaign? Nearly nobody!) My model encourages smaller nations to become relevant specifically because each campaign is more valuable.

Your third point: fewer battles benefits super-beasts.
Barely.
Yes, there would be fewer medals. But I am trying to propose a system that de-emphasizes medals overall. 5 Gold is already nearly worthless compared to what can be earned with an average Combat Order. So what if a few people tank for medals. I'd rather tank for cash.

Rather than limiting the number of battles, limit the numbers of alliances. If all nations belong to two or three major alliances, you wouldn't have the 7,000 Zanbibar vs. Burkina Faso battles that noone cares about (except the medal-hunters) like we have now - everything would be focused on the objectives of the alliances. Sort of like the old days where it was PEACE vs the world.

Fewer alliances would mean more focused battles, but would not deny countries of resistance wars and battles as strategic distractions.

At this point, everyone who can tilt a battle has a source of gold, whether it is their MU, their corporations, robbing the treasury, cracking out their Mastercard, or any combination of these.

I agree with you that the "us vs. them" mentality is needed.

Gnrilraps is a rapscallion and a disgraced whale.

Chickensguys is a nut.
He has a rubber butt.
And every time he turns around,
it goes, "putt, putt, putt."

Emerick Remains

The game needs to be reset.

Among a ton of other things.

bring back walls and hospitals and 10 fights a day

the game was at its peak when you could have multiple battles on 1 territory. perhaos i should mention that in most battles you couldnt make any profit from being a battle hero. except some people that were tanking their credit cards to debt, most tanking was done by few people financed by eStates (tanks were doing tanking for alliance and were as famous as genghis khan or jozef stalin in their time) but mere emortals were as much of a resource as those tanks. as mentioned, back in that era tanking was limited, and people that werent tanking knew their presence made the difference. if you want more players in the game, show them they are important. 'limit tanking' movement has died long time ago and with it this game started waning as well. just another proof of how shortsighted gayhead phoolosopher is.

in other words, im all in for the change that would require more people to cooperate in order to win a campaign, but im not that much interested in limiting the number of battles (more battles - more opportunities for newcomers)

***not to mention the issue of maverick pack

Gnilraps for Adminlandia!!!

I have 2 suggestions, personal opinion of course:

- Limit the tanking not the campaigns - The daily EB consumption can easily be limited to some reasonable number that is good for the Admins' bank accounts and good for making the game more interesting. Limiting the small countries won't achieve anything than making even more people perma log out.
If there are less campaigns, therefore less medal distribution -> that will hit at least half the active players, who seem to be Medal hunters, but are not spending money like crazy. There will be only those who spend hundreds of $$$ for the game or the top players that will be able to afford getting any medal.

"But there will be more CO money, having less, but more important campaigns" - well that seem to be the current situation. I mean, most of the campaigns are for the Medal hunters (training wars/TP unsuccessful RWs etc.) and there is only 1 or in some cases 2 campaigns that have actual importance (recent example: Greece - Bulgaria). If a player is going for the CO, not the medal, he/she just have to pick those battles. But the Medals should be affordable for everyone - ofc easier for some big spenders and a bit harder for the others, but AFFORDABLE to every player. Otherwise the players that is not willing to spend like crazy will lose interest in the game.

- The other thing - MAKE THE GAME INTERESTING FOR THE NEW PLAYERS. At the current state the game is operating only to the satisfaction of the old, super strong players. A new player does next to nothing on the battlefield and on top of that there are the Maverick and Infantry Kit.
Imagine if those packs were gone - Plato should show some imagination and replace them with something else - new type of nukes or whatever.
The new players will have much better experience and will be involved in the game so much more if say D1 was only for ACTUAL D1 players, not lvl 30 160-170k str Legends with IK or 1000+ lvl tanks with Mavericks. That same implies or D2/D3

And I'm not talking about stealing BHs or something. The satisfaction of winning a round for your country or an ally will be so much more rewarding if you see your actual contribution, and not watching some guys with 1kk+ hit fight for the, say D1 round. Having new players involved in the game in this way will surely mean the game will be much more interesting for them -> they can actually try to invite some of their friends in the game or spend a lot more than they will in the other case (if they don't press the log out instantly).

So as a recap I don't think limiting the number of campaigns is the solution. Might be my lack of experience talking, but still.

Other than that, cool initiative. Maybe someone should start a poll on the forum, asking the players about their preferences.

The problem with current wars isn't any country being able to start a battle, problem is any country being able to start it for free. (probably to prevent products flooding game as battle is almost only way to get rid of them)

And seriously, is there still people caring who fights with who and what's the result? People fight for the sake of fighting, CO money and "glory" . Their sole demand is a screen they can happily click fight button because at the end it's only thing game actually offers.

Limit the amount of energy a citizen has per day to 100. Right now the average citizen has approximately 500/550 energy with tanks having energy in the thousands. IMO that is the average citizen having 5.5 lives. Since this is a real life simulator shouldn't that be 1 life?

Want to limit battles? Limit energy per day.

but then you limit factory owners. do you really think everyone battles every day. there is a lot of us that need 7000 energy right at the start of the day and have it. game should go more more more never less less less. making a game open ended at the top is better.

I have 3830 energy. I don't want to be limited!

To improve the game just make more packs at different prices that only can be bought by the many different levels of strengths.

example:

0 to 10,000 strength or 0 to 50,000 ???

could buy any number of packs that give them different hits and or damage on the battle field like

100,000,000 damage 1 hit (1 prestige) one price

or if you want lots of prestige

1000 prestige per click one price


and/ or

what about buying strength your new to game and to quickly get to 100,000 strength a one time buy that way almost all new players might want to buy into game.

Another thing is everything that game sells those prices should come down 5% or more.
OR/AND
The more you buy the bigger the discount.
OR/AND
The more you buy the more stuff you get.

There is just a lot of things to make the game better for players and still make tons of money for the game.

this is a lost cause...this game should be deleted.Ofcourse they won't do it because it generates a revenue without doing anything.Most of us here know that the company only cares for the other game that they launched and not this one.

The only solution is stop buying gold!but everyone should stop buying for at least a month.when the income drops to O then they will start dealing with this game again.

Back to 2 click mode!!!

Yeah! Let's reign in all of those idiot tanks so that a select few in "power" can better control things, in-game. A small percentage of (eUS) players have already ruined the political component (in the eUS, at least) of this game through consolidation of power through off-line conspiratorial scams and shadow government. But I digress. This is not one of the "Civilization" games, where one gets to control all aspects of one country. eRepublik allows for free will among citizens at the micro-level. Each of us is able to make decisions about how we play this game on an individual level, however stupid they are percieved by others. Personally, I don't give a hoot in Hell about what any of you people think about the way I play.

Now that's f*ckin teamwork

Around and around we go.

And I couldn't see past all those spilling mistooks.

we all know plato wont listen to any advice that isnt instant money increase
so, perhaps he can make ebs more expensive 🙂

One time every battle had aproval to start
But pluto updated 😂

Exchanging Gold for Gold. Good rate. PM me if interested. I cannot give more detais due to game rules

What I find interesting is that which we begged for back a few years (less "total war" campaigns and more regional, smaller conflict that a country could feel good about) is actually the thing that is horrid now. Too many "cold wars" or whatever it is, less full conflict, global scale wars.

butts

I need Fifa17 coins for Play Station 4 , i give a revatrd ho finds me someone......