Fresher Look at the New Cost of MPPs
Lucky_Strike
Since eRepublik’s Insider came out yesterday (here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/some-erepublik-updates-1003824/1/20), there have been numerous opinions voiced on the fact that signing a mutual protection pact (MPP) will now cost a country one hundred gold rather than the previous thirty.
So why am I writing about this again? Simply because I’d like to propose an additional solution that may not have been considered and that I haven’t seen discussed in the various newspapers of the world.
Generally speaking, instead of there being a fixed cost to sign an MPP, there could be a variable one. Similar to how the cost of invasion of a region varies depending on the number of people living in it, the cost of an MPP could similarly be determined. It doesn’t necessarily have to be population-related, but it certainly is an option. Here is a small list I’ve come up with:
1. The population of a country.
2. The number of regions held.
3. The number of MPPs currently in effect.
4. The “average strength” of the citizenry as determined in a country’s information page.
How would this work using an example?
#1 – Population
a) Country A and B want to sign an alliance.
b) A has 15000 population, B has 1000 population.
c) The cost of an MPP is set at 1 gold per 50 population (for example).
d) Each country pays: its population / 50 = cost of an MPP in gold
e) Therefore, A pays 15000 / 50 = 300 gold; and B pays 1000 / 50 = 20 gold
#2 – Regions
a) Country A and B want to sign an alliance.
b) A has 30 regions, B has 3 regions.
c) The cost of an MPP is set at 5 gold per region (for example).
d) Each country pays: the number of regions it holds x 5
e) Therefore, A pays 30 x 5 = 150 gold; and B pays 3 x 15 = 15 gold
#3 – MPPs
a) Country A and B want to sign an alliance.
b) A has 10 MPPs, B has 2 MPPs.
c) The cost of an MPP is set at 20 gold per active MPP (for example).
d) Each country pays: the number of MPP it has x 20
e) Therefore, A pays 10 x 20 = 200 gold; and B pays 2 x 20 = 40 gold
#4 – Average Strength
a) Country A and B want to sign an alliance.
b) A has an average strength of 4.16, B has an average strength of 2.60.
c) The cost of an MPP is set at 30 gold per average strength point (for example).
d) Each country pays: its average strength x 30 = cost of an MPP in gold
e) Therefore, A pays 4.16 x 30 = 125 gold; and B pays 2.60 x 30 = 78 gold
These ideas have the advantage of making the alliances more expensive in general (so as to accomplish eRepublik’s goal to make countries choose more carefully) but not disadvantage the smaller countries since relatively speaking the bigger/more powerful countries will have to shell out more to protect themselves.
So what do you think? There is plenty to discuss and debate: would you change the numbers involved, do you have other ideas to measure a country’s power, do you disagree with the very concept itself?
If you like my ideas, please subscribe to my publication and vote for this article so as to bring it to the attention of the administrators.
Comments
I think there is some potential in what you discuss. Either population based or the # of already existing MPPs seem like 2 of the better options. The latter one makes the first few MPPs cheap, but the cost escalates with each new one signed. This one would not in particular help smaller countries, as each country would be on the same playing field, however, would have the Admin's desire to see the total number of MPPs decline.
But in the end it's up to the admins.
A very sensible suggestion.
100 Gold may not sound like a lot, but to a tiny country it means all the difference in the world.
If citizenship was the Admins' answer to limiting PTOs, this solution would help address the problem of small nations being wiped out in military takeovers.
A population-based formula would still leave a disincentive to ally with small countries, though. When an MPP costs the 15,000-citizen country 300 Gold to gain the military support of a 1,000-citizen country, as in your example, the cost to the large country would tend to encourage only alliances with other large countries.
Perhaps a solution would be a formula based on only the population of the smaller country. This would encourage countries of all sizes to come to the aid of the small ones.
Basing it on the population or size of the smaller country does seem to make the most sense 😃
I agree with you Calvin. Basing the cost on the smaller country means the small country can have more alliances while the bigger country doesn't have to pay through the nose to be allied with small countries that provide little military benefit to them.
This way big countries allying with each other is costly, which should be the aim of the admins, making big countries pay more without penalizing smaller countries.
I'd like to hear more of your opinion 😎ayan. Why wouldn't it make sense? What would be a better option to raise the average cost of MPP's without penalizing small countries?
Great article lucky!
glad to see this idea being re-stated. it encourages large countries to only form 1 or 2 key alliances while small countries can band together for mutual defense.
i also like the idea of the price being swayed or even determined by the smaller country creating protector type alliances.
i think a region # formula unfairly penalizes countries like the USA while unfairly benefiting countries like russia which have the potential to be very wealthy and completely self sufficient while having a low # of regions.
I think overall it may be best to tie 2 of your ideas together. escalate the base cost of the MPP with each one signed, even if its just say powers of 2. (2,4,8,16,32,64,128 so that it escalates fast beyond a certain point etc) and then add a population surcharge ontop of this base cost.
so if the USA and Spain signed an alliance the cost is basically based on their population. while if smaller countries go overboard and sign 8 alliances it still starts to get expensive eventually.