Game Growth Discussion

[Dalinar]

Ah, so you're asking for another big alliance to show up for a bigger pool of fresh players.  Not necessarily a invasion alliance ( Does Mensa HQ qualify as this? ).

I'd consider you guys more of a transplant in a similar vein to VE/UPN (you guys are an alliance in eRepublik if I recall correctly).

[Bollocks]

 I thought the shades would show I was being sarcastic... but if what Zoot said was vaugely true, then I see the problems in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) being the same problems in PnW. Namely a lack of exciting fights, due to people being too scared of the dogpile to bother taking a risk.

 

I see this complaint come up time and again, but it misses the fundamental fact that humans by nature are risk and loss adverse. 

 

 

In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Most studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains.^[1] 

This leads to risk aversion when people evaluate an outcome comprising similar gains and losses; since people prefer avoiding losses to making gains.

Loss aversion implies that one who loses $100 will lose more satisfaction than another person will gain satisfaction from a $100 windfall. 

 

Thus the distribution of people's risk appetite is something like this: 

 

 

Most people play pretty conservatively in these types of competitive games, especially when given the chance. That's why it's up to the game mechanics to facilitate and properly reward risk-taking. For example, the low risk activity of camping in FPS's are always an issue if the game mechanics reward it, and that issue is only fixed by implementing different mechanics to properly reward non-camping behavior such as having a territory capture style gameplay, killcams or have high mobility (Tribes).

 

One thing I like about PnW is the first-mover advantage, some people complain about it but I think it's one of the greatest assets to this game. It's one of things that properly rewards risk-taking. And we need more things like that to keep the game from reaching a state of stagnant equilibrium. 

[Ayayay]

 I like forums for the easy to navigate layout but the process should be automated, one account for both and make it appear less separate, make people realise its importance straight away. 

 IB.board doesn't allow this as it's been brought up before.

[Sisyphus]

I see this complaint come up time and again, but it misses the fundamental fact that humans by nature are risk and loss adverse.

 

 

 

Thus the distribution of people's risk appetite is something like this:

 

 

Most people play pretty conservatively in these types of competitive games, especially when given the chance. That's why it's up to the game mechanics to facilitate and properly reward risk-taking. For example, the low risk activity of camping in FPS's are always an issue if the game mechanics reward it, and that issue is only fixed by implementing different mechanics to properly reward non-camping behavior such as having a territory capture style gameplay, killcams or have high mobility (Tribes).

 

One thing I like about PnW is the first-mover advantage, some people complain about it but I think it's one of the greatest assets to this game. It's one of things that properly rewards risk-taking. And we need more things like that to keep the game from reaching a state of stagnant equilibrium.

A soft ceiling or limit to the effects of individual nation growth might help.

 

The game already has this with the prohibitive costs of expanding cities but it's only a matter of time before the larger nations just brute force new members through this. The only limiting factor would be the ten day wait (which would only hinder new players from catching up quickly as time progresses).

 

What really killed (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is the two years it takes to develop a nation that even sort of matters on an alliance scale. No new players even want to start that trek. Hell, it was a huge pain back in 07/08, and it's worse if you are unfortunately recruited by a terrible alliance.

 

There needs to be a balance between growing/leading and how easy it is to catch up to the established nations and players so that new players can actually compete. It isn't perfect but that's definitely something I like about PW vs (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and the problem will establish itself here over time without proactive changes to nation building.

 

The established alliances don't take risks because they can afford to sit idle. The new alliances don't take risks because they can't afford getting rolled.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Sisyphus]

IB.board doesn't allow this as it's been brought up before.

How hard would it be to program a forum from scratch into the game?

[Greatnate]

A soft ceiling or limit to the effects of individual nation growth might help.

 

The game already has this with the prohibitive costs of expanding cities but it's only a matter of time before the larger nations just brute force new members through this. The only limiting factor would be the ten day wait (which would only hinder new players from catching up quickly as time progresses).

 

What really killed (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is the two years it takes to develop a nation that even sort of matters on an alliance scale. No new players even want to start that trek. Hell, it was a huge pain back in 07/08, and it's worse if you are unfortunately recruited by a terrible alliance.

 

There needs to be a balance between growing/leading and how easy it is to catch up to the established nations and players so that new players can actually compete. It isn't perfect but that's definitely something I like about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) vs PW, and the problem will establish itself here over time without proactive changes to nation building.

 

The established alliances don't take risks because they can afford to sit idle. The new alliances don't take risks because they can't afford getting rolled.

 

We have a soft ceiling already. Currently I've seen grow until you matter plans from 30-120 days depending on the alliance, a bit steep, but entirely supported by the mechanics and unlikely to improve.

[Sisyphus]

We have a soft ceiling already. Currently I've seen grow until you matter plans from 30-120 days depending on the alliance, a bit steep, but entirely supported by the mechanics and unlikely to improve.

That will become exponentially steeper over time, unless the game begins providing us with more effective ways to destroy each other or sets harder limits on top-tier growth (the top should always be the most competitive position, this game already has a relatively relaxed one).

 

It's a significant improvement from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (which was equally as competitive as PW in its early days) but it isn't perfect at all.

 

It may just be the downside of this genre. A reset or new frontiers may just be an inevitable fate for people like us.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Bilal the Great]

Maybe an exposure from mainstream media? I'm pretty sure (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) got a popularity boost when it was featured on a magazine years ago.

[chrishinton52]

Change (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) for PnW, change the war from every 6-12 months to 3-6 months in Zoots post and you have pretty much described Politics and War.

I think a huge reason wars are so far apart here is because of the web. If the community could work together to get it untangled by maybe forming blocs then cutting all outside ties to those blocs then the politics of going to war would be much less complicated, which would lead to war happening more often, which everyone has already pointed out, leads to the game being more fun.

Edited October 1, 2015 by chrishinton52

[Ole]

I grew into the top 100 in 120ish days,(i started in february.) not hard getting into the lower top tier/higher mid if you just do some math and dont !@#$ around.... Also join a bigger AA and they'll pay you'r way up to 8ish cities in no time.

[Wayne]

I think a huge reason wars are so far apart here is because of the web. If the community could work together to get it untangled by maybe forming blocs then cutting all outside ties to those blocs then the politics of going to war would be much less complicated, which would lead to war happening more often, which everyone has already pointed out, leads to the game being more fun.

 

You'd need to change the game beyond recognition to cure it's ill's in my opinion.  A massive rewrite of the war module needs to be done.  Then we would need a massive change in the culture of the game.  Both would mean a fair chunk of the player base 'ragequitting', not something Sheepy or the community would push for.

 

If we have to work with what we have, then it's up to the leaders of the larger alliances to change.  As we heard from SRD in the radio show, VE, for example, are a 'peaceful' alliance and won't just start a war for the sake of it.  If the larger alliances are breeding this style of play, this is what the game will become.  Alliances, including my own, need to sacrifice some score in order to keep the game fresh and exciting.  Being top of the pile in nothing but score shouldn't be something to aim for.  Surely, being top of the kills board is more impressive?

[Arthur Wellington]

You'd need to change the game beyond recognition to cure it's ill's in my opinion.  A massive rewrite of the war module needs to be done.  Then we would need a massive change in the culture of the game.  Both would mean a fair chunk of the player base 'ragequitting', not something Sheepy or the community would push for.

 

If we have to work with what we have, then it's up to the leaders of the larger alliances to change.  As we heard from SRD in the radio show, VE, for example, are a 'peaceful' alliance and won't just start a war for the sake of it.  If the larger alliances are breeding this style of play, this is what the game will become.  Alliances, including my own, need to sacrifice some score in order to keep the game fresh and exciting.  Being top of the pile in nothing but score shouldn't be something to aim for.  Surely, being top of the kills board is more impressive?

I think you are correct in your first assumption, the safe play of alliances is making the war game a bit boring. I however do not think leadership will change because they want to protect their alliance. 

 

If there could be a less destructive way to fight wars then the War portion of the title could get underway a bit more!

[Wayne]

I think you are correct in your first assumption, the safe play of alliances is making the war game a bit boring. I however do not think leadership will change because they want to protect their alliance. 

 

If there could be a less destructive way to fight wars then the War portion of the title could get underway a bit more!

 

I agree, leaders won't change the style they currently play.  It would take a brave leader and alliance to stick their head out of the trenches and play more aggressively.  They would be giving every other alliance in the game a reason to dogpile em and as we have seen, !@#$es love a dogpile.

 

As for less destrucive war, simply making it cheaper to repair, as I have seen stated a few times on this forum, would make a difference.  Bit it wouldn't be huge.  I feel a whole rewrite of how war is fought is needed.  The game needs to encourage conflict, instead of prohibiting it.  Conflict encourages activity.  I've barely logged in since the last war ended...  my only reason to log in now until the next war happens is to do a bit of trading and build a city/project.

[Arthur Wellington]

I think because of the die hard core community being used to the game mechanics as they are now there is not much incentive for sheepy to change anything. People are buying credits for the game such as it is now. So a big change isnt going to happen I recon. Perhaps indeed a change in repair cost or the possibility to attack people without raiding alliance banks or inactive not paying taxes after 5 days or something might help? But I bet Sheepy is thinking about stuff like this all the time. 

[Wayne]

Stopping inactives from paying alliance taxes would be awesome.  Alliances would be more willing to kick them early, allowing me to raid without Pfluff and other alliance leaders crying at me, which would give me a reason to log in multiple times a day, most days!

 

There is zero point spending money trying to get more players into a game when the base game is not rewarding/exciting enough to keep at least the credit buying percentage of those new recruits here.

 

 

 

 

Also wtf do you 'win' in this game?  Give us a reason to !@#$ing destroy each other, Sheepy!

[Dan77]

There is zero point spending money trying to get more players into a game when the base game is not rewarding/exciting enough to keep at least the credit buying percentage of those new recruits here.

 

A bit of customer service might help retain credit buyers too.

 

I'd much rather we had a reasonable response to genuine concerns than a gimicky new background to entice more people into parting with their hard earned money.  I guess I've spent around $300 since joining.  When you invest like that in your account over a period of time (it is a slow game), the last thing you need is war being artificially rewound to the benefit of your opponents.  But hey, we can always spend another 6 months worth of credits getting ready for the next war.  Sorry but that doesn't encourage me to invest any more.  Not to mention the hacking issues.

 

Incentivise more war and give some customer service (calling them donations doesn't stop people being customers) and the game will be better and more people will be happy to keep spending.

[Alex]

A bit of customer service might help retain credit buyers too.

 

I'd much rather we had a reasonable response to genuine concerns than a gimicky new background to entice more people into parting with their hard earned money.  I guess I've spent around $300 since joining.  When you invest like that in your account over a period of time (it is a slow game), the last thing you need is war being artificially rewound to the benefit of your opponents.  But hey, we can always spend another 6 months worth of credits getting ready for the next war.  Sorry but that doesn't encourage me to invest any more.  Not to mention the hacking issues.

 

Incentivise more war and give some customer service (calling them donations doesn't stop people being customers) and the game will be better and more people will be happy to keep spending.

 

I agree with you, and I truly do believe we've solved the security issues with the site. How we were operating before was with my generic VPS on a mainstream hosting site, that offered very little security. We are about 1000x more secure now, with security checks every step of the way (I had to learn lots, it's like a 6 step process just to fix a typo or something now. Pain in the ass, but it is important to make sure no one else has access to the server). Bringing ss23 on board has been instrumental in re-defining the integrity of the game, and I don't expect you to trust everything 100% right away, but I think that over time you'll really see that we're in a different place now.

 

I am dedicated to creating a great game and adding new content, and providing quality customer support.

[Wayne]

 

I am dedicated to creating a great game and adding new content, and providing quality customer support.

 

 

Give the players the right tools and they will create all the content needed, giving you more time to sweet talk the credit whales...

[Sisyphus]

Also wtf do you 'win' in this game? Give us a reason to !@#$ destroy each other, Sheepy!

An economic bonus for the #1 alliance would make a lot of other alliances start taking risks.

 

Edit: Making the top more competitive/rewarding will make this game more interesting. We can't rely solely on pseudo-politics and grudges to keep us going. (They'll carry us pretty far though)

Edited October 1, 2015 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Wayne]

An economic bonus for the #1 alliance would make a lot of other alliances start taking risks.

 

Depends on what '#1 alliance' means.  Alliance Score? Tank Kills? Average NationScore?

 

 

The game should automatically boot inactive players from their alliance because, idk, why not?

I'd be down for this... anything to stop the alliance tax farming of the deceased!

[Dalinar]

An economic bonus for the #1 alliance would make a lot of other alliances start taking risks.

 

Edit: Making the top more competitive/rewarding will make this game more interesting. We can't rely solely on pseudo-politics and grudges to keep us going. (They'll carry us pretty far though)

 

Rather than just the #1, why give an income bonus to the top 10-30 dependent on the alliance's % of total score within the top 10-30 (I initially wrote this post with a set % where the #1 would get a 10% bonus going down to the #10 getting a 1% bonus, but I think that would just promote those at the top to not take risks). 

 

Example with current stats including the top 20:

 

 

 

Alliance Name % of Score within the top 20 United Purple Nations 13.06% Viridian Entente 8.84% The Dutch East India Company 8.60% Rose 8.50% Brotherhood of the Clouds 6.80% The Syndicate 6.78% Arrgh 5.24% Mensa HQ 5.19% Seven Kingdoms 4.67% Alpha 4.36% Black Knights 4.13% Green Protection Agency 3.96% Cornerstone 2.99% Vanguard 2.77% Guardian 2.64% Terminus Est 2.53% Fark 2.51% The Knights Radiant 2.38% Cobalt 2.18% Sigma 1.88%

 

 

 

I think it could encourage those at the top to actually use their stats/score to gain some sort of advantage (if they think they can start a war and do enough damage to other alliances/rebuild more efficiently to gain in the overall % of score in the top 20). Otoh it would probably lead to more blocs sitting out of wars similar to tC in the last war, mergers of smaller alliances looking to get that income bonus, or cause more concentration of members at the top. Just throwing it out there because I was bored and thought the idea was interesting lol

[Prefontaine]

I think it could encourage those at the top to actually use their stats/score to gain some sort of advantage (if they think they can start a war and do enough damage to other alliances/rebuild more efficiently to gain in the overall % of score in the top 20). Otoh it would probably lead to more blocs sitting out of wars similar to tC in the last war, mergers of smaller alliances looking to get that income bonus, or cause more concentration of members at the top. Just throwing it out there because I was bored and thought the idea was interesting lol

 

Let me get this straight. To help the game grow you want to give a larger bonus to the established, large alliances so that can further distance from the smaller alliances. Also consolidate alliances so we have fewer political players and a less dynamic political system? Not to mention what you already mentioned of incentive's sitting out of war even further.

 

Those would be great ideas if you were trying to hurt the game and stagnate growth. Your ideas do the exact opposite of what this thread is about.

[Alex]

Give the players the right tools and they will create all the content needed, giving you more time to sweet talk the credit whales...

 

What tools are you talking about?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Rather than just the #1, why give an income bonus to the top 10-30 dependent on the alliance's % of total score within the top 10-30 (I initially wrote this post with a set % where the #1 would get a 10% bonus going down to the #10 getting a 1% bonus, but I think that would just promote those at the top to not take risks). 

 

I think it could encourage those at the top to actually use their stats/score to gain some sort of advantage (if they think they can start a war and do enough damage to other alliances/rebuild more efficiently to gain in the overall % of score in the top 20). Otoh it would probably lead to more blocs sitting out of wars similar to tC in the last war, mergers of smaller alliances looking to get that income bonus, or cause more concentration of members at the top. Just throwing it out there because I was bored and thought the idea was interesting lol

Whatever you are smoking, I want some too, as this is the most stoned idea yet. Stagnation woud happen, and the game would fade away like Black & White did on the pc.

[Mutwa]

Easier rebuilding would make a big difference.

 

Keep track ingame of each nations max infra level (the highest they have had for each city) and when rebuilding they can re-buy up to that level at a reduced cost, say 30-40% of the norm. The justification could be that they are repairing damaged but existing infrastruction instead of building it from scratch.

 

You might also consider 'Warmonger' monthly rewards for infra destroyed, soldeir kills, tank kills, etc. Have a scoring system relavtive the the nations score so that all can compete. There could also be alliance equivelents of these based on all allaince members contributions and relative to the alliance score, but make the alliance reward a treasure that can't be stolen and moves each month to the new winner of that category.