Published in Portugal - Warfare analysis - 17 Jan 2020 13:41 - 6
It is clear that most players do not want the 40 member limit for the MUs, specially without a proper warning and the threat of players being automatically kicked out (without a clear criteria for choosing who will be kicked).
However, some players from the minority which supported the change presented a counter-argument: that without limits the MU tournaments will be unbalanced.
Well, taking into account that unbalance will continue (MUs with 40 strong players will have an advantage) and that the tournament criteria is simply total damage (which is a HUGE unbalance toward stronger - and VISA - players), this is not IMHO a strong argument.
So, maybe, just maybe, what if the tournament was based on AVERAGE values, not TOTAL damage, and we can still have more than 40 people in the MU? And instead of damage (privileging the strong players and, as usual, making naval battles suck) the tournament is based on the average number of hits each player deploy (still a privilege, but the difference is not so different as the one in strength, and it would privilege specially visa players, even if not so strong, so admin will get the incentive for buying things with RL money, that I suppose is something they want), or maybe some goal, such as a daily amount of hits, daily missions etc.
To avoid the ``One-Man Army Corps`` problem (a MU with a single player, a minimum number of players in each MU that will participate could be set (such as 10 players, for example). And/or rewards could be for each MU member, so a MU with few active people will got a smaller total reward (a MU with lots with people will need these people to hit, since we want average and not total hits! So filling a MU with multis to reap the rewards will not work, except if the no-life guy behind all these multis work hard to hit with all of them)
Also, by making it dependent on an average instead of total damage it would make a bit harder for multis, since the same person would need to hit lots and lots of time will all accounts to improve its average, which would be something hard for the starter pack multis, with high strength but maybe not so high means of energy recovering.
However, I have an even better suggestion: do not do MU tournament and allow us to have more than 40 people in each MU! And give more missions and that daily quests which are something everyone can do! Or, if you want a tournament, the country tournament is better (or less bad), since middle and smaller countries with a good organization are the winners by getting more RW scores, instead of the big superpowers of the game.
So, what do you think? Do you support my proposal? Or do you think it would not work, or have some problem? Please comment here! And subscribe (S4S), vote, endorse etc. etc. etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since I got too verbose in my comments, I will add their text here in the article: how to make the game a bit more balanced toward smaller nations?
So, we should first ask why erev1 is so unbalanced toward a small number of big countries? Of course there are some nations where more people like this kind of game, which is a factor way more important than RL lation (after all, India with its largest lation is an empty nation here). Then there are some cultural factors. For example, I noted that many Brazilians, specially in the other game, seems to like more the political module (which is a problem for eBrazil, by creating internal rivalries and many weak accounts that does not focus on military training). Multis are another factor, unhappily, and there are other things to consider.
Let`s state some ideas that, good or bad, could reduce the gap between empires and weak nations:
* The other game has a thing called determination, which makes the damage of the resistance side larger with time. So after 1 or 2 months the resistance could have x2 or x3 damage, for example, making very hard for the occupier to sustain an invasion.
* Another thing, and by this I admit the admins proposal has a point, would be to merge the weapon resources into one type (do not need to remove naval warfare, but to make ships and weapons depend of the same resources). With this, more countries will get 100% bonus with less territories, so reducing the need for larger empires - smaller countries could retain some territories, since the competition for land would be smaller (or the competition could increase since middle countries would want more bonus, but anyway the gap between huge empires and other countries would be lesser).
* Another thing I though is a cost of occupation, so occupied territories would cost some gold and/or CC from the occupier treasure`s. This way, which would make the game a bit more realistic (occupations are not cheap), big empires will not be always economically advantageous. Maybe this cost could increase with the number of active players (they are trying to sabotage the occupier), but this would be another multi-problem...
* Lastly, there is a huge gap between region number of each country (such USA getting all 50 RL territories but Brazil only 6 instead of 27, and Russia a small amount too - I listed some of these regions in this article from the quiz time). Getting ride of RL countries by usage of fantasy or spatial nations would solve this, but since e-something games profit from RL rivalries, which make players spend RL money to avoid the victory of THE OTHERS, and creating nations involve creativity, they usually do not do that (but I saw at least one game which tried this approach).
However, some players from the minority which supported the change presented a counter-argument: that without limits the MU tournaments will be unbalanced.
Well, taking into account that unbalance will continue (MUs with 40 strong players will have an advantage) and that the tournament criteria is simply total damage (which is a HUGE unbalance toward stronger - and VISA - players), this is not IMHO a strong argument.
So, maybe, just maybe, what if the tournament was based on AVERAGE values, not TOTAL damage, and we can still have more than 40 people in the MU? And instead of damage (privileging the strong players and, as usual, making naval battles suck) the tournament is based on the average number of hits each player deploy (still a privilege, but the difference is not so different as the one in strength, and it would privilege specially visa players, even if not so strong, so admin will get the incentive for buying things with RL money, that I suppose is something they want), or maybe some goal, such as a daily amount of hits, daily missions etc.
To avoid the ``One-Man Army Corps`` problem (a MU with a single player, a minimum number of players in each MU that will participate could be set (such as 10 players, for example). And/or rewards could be for each MU member, so a MU with few active people will got a smaller total reward (a MU with lots with people will need these people to hit, since we want average and not total hits! So filling a MU with multis to reap the rewards will not work, except if the no-life guy behind all these multis work hard to hit with all of them)
Also, by making it dependent on an average instead of total damage it would make a bit harder for multis, since the same person would need to hit lots and lots of time will all accounts to improve its average, which would be something hard for the starter pack multis, with high strength but maybe not so high means of energy recovering.
However, I have an even better suggestion: do not do MU tournament and allow us to have more than 40 people in each MU! And give more missions and that daily quests which are something everyone can do! Or, if you want a tournament, the country tournament is better (or less bad), since middle and smaller countries with a good organization are the winners by getting more RW scores, instead of the big superpowers of the game.
So, what do you think? Do you support my proposal? Or do you think it would not work, or have some problem? Please comment here! And subscribe (S4S), vote, endorse etc. etc. etc.
Since I got too verbose in my comments, I will add their text here in the article: how to make the game a bit more balanced toward smaller nations?
So, we should first ask why erev1 is so unbalanced toward a small number of big countries? Of course there are some nations where more people like this kind of game, which is a factor way more important than RL lation (after all, India with its largest lation is an empty nation here). Then there are some cultural factors. For example, I noted that many Brazilians, specially in the other game, seems to like more the political module (which is a problem for eBrazil, by creating internal rivalries and many weak accounts that does not focus on military training). Multis are another factor, unhappily, and there are other things to consider.
Let`s state some ideas that, good or bad, could reduce the gap between empires and weak nations:
* The other game has a thing called determination, which makes the damage of the resistance side larger with time. So after 1 or 2 months the resistance could have x2 or x3 damage, for example, making very hard for the occupier to sustain an invasion.
* Another thing, and by this I admit the admins proposal has a point, would be to merge the weapon resources into one type (do not need to remove naval warfare, but to make ships and weapons depend of the same resources). With this, more countries will get 100% bonus with less territories, so reducing the need for larger empires - smaller countries could retain some territories, since the competition for land would be smaller (or the competition could increase since middle countries would want more bonus, but anyway the gap between huge empires and other countries would be lesser).
* Another thing I though is a cost of occupation, so occupied territories would cost some gold and/or CC from the occupier treasure`s. This way, which would make the game a bit more realistic (occupations are not cheap), big empires will not be always economically advantageous. Maybe this cost could increase with the number of active players (they are trying to sabotage the occupier), but this would be another multi-problem...
* Lastly, there is a huge gap between region number of each country (such USA getting all 50 RL territories but Brazil only 6 instead of 27, and Russia a small amount too - I listed some of these regions in this article from the quiz time). Getting ride of RL countries by usage of fantasy or spatial nations would solve this, but since e-something games profit from RL rivalries, which make players spend RL money to avoid the victory of THE OTHERS, and creating nations involve creativity, they usually do not do that (but I saw at least one game which tried this approach).
Support
BunnyLiuBunnyLiuThe Last Lynx Pardinuscount zeromaonagraComments (6)
V C
My proposal is: Split MU members in regiments of 40 soldiers. Everyone will stay together in one MU, but for tournament every regiment will play for themselves only. If you look at the past tournaments, I think mostly was won by middle ranged units like OKTUBRE and PANZERS.
@the_passenger, that is a very good idea, it would solve both problems: we can have a more balanced MU tournament without wrecking existing MUs
Pony, this is really a marbles idea.
BTW, I don t think that we should always strongly oppose admins idea about upgrading the game. If we are so unsatisfied with their work, we wouldn t play game 4 years.
@Shisui, maybe, but are they really ``upgrading`` the game or ``improving`` it? All they are purposing are the removal of functionalities (see the poll options) and to impose a limit on an existing thing (the MU). ``Coincidentally`` these changes will turn erev1 into something similar to erev2. Well, of someone does not like how things are here, thinks erev is too unbalanced, and prefer the erev2 way, he already has the option to try other thing (simply create an account in erev2 or in the myriad of e-something similar games). In summary, they are not ``adding`` things, only ``subtracting`` things. (PRETEND THIS IS A NEW PARAGRAPH) As I said in another article, there are many things admin could to make the overall game more balanced toward smaller countries without needing to remove functionalities. But of course these will demand intelligence and programming work, while merging erev1 and erev2 into the same thing will ease their costs (if the code is the same, then anything you do in one game you can do in the other easily).
So, we should first ask why erev1 is so unbalanced toward a small number of big countries? The other game (e-r-e-p) has a thing called determination, which makes the damage of the resistance side larger with time. So after 1 or 2 months the resistance could have x2 or x3 damage, for example, making very hard for the occupier to sustain an invasion. (FAKE PARAGRAPH HERE) Another thing, and by this I admit the admins proposal has a point, would be to merge the weapon resources into one type (do not need to remove naval warfare, but to make ships and weapons depend of the same resources). With this, more countries will get 100% with less territories, so reducing the need for larger empires - smaller countries could retain some territories, since the competition for land would be smaller (or the competition could increase since middle countries would want more bonus, but anyway the gap between huge empires and other countries would be lesser). (SECOND FAKE PARAGRAPH) Another thing I though is a cost of occupation, so occupied territories would cost some gold and/or CC from the occupier treasure`s. (LAST FAKE PARAGRAPH) Btw, and this is something you would not like xD I think there is a huge gap between region number of each country (such USA getting all 50 RL territories but Brazil only 6 instead of 27, and Russia a small amount too). Getting ride of RL countries by usage of fantasy or spatial nations would solve this, but since e-something games profit from RL rivalries, which make players spend RL money to avoid the victory of THE OTHERS, and creating nations involve creativity, they would not do that.