I seriously debated how to best address this post. On the one hand, as the founder of the Empire Building Network, it’s my baby and I want it to reflect my vision. On the hand, I want to encourage a diversity of opinion. Furthermore, I want our volunteer authors to be empowered to express themselves. I don’t want to undermine them or their work. This is easy when you agree with everything someone writes, but it is more challenging if you do not. I am hoping this comment strikes the right balance.

I understand the frustration with the high cost of upgrades and the how the game changes when you are sold out. However, an organized protest is not an approach that I advocate personally. The Empire Avenue development team are trying to find a tricky balance between a number of factors. One of these is the balance between the site being about social networking versus a game. Another is the balance between the site being easy or difficult. At the meetup held in Chile Dups was asked why they take half of the cash from a share purchase. He said that earlier in the beta process people did get all the money, but it made the game boring and people said so. I have actually studied gaming theory and while some want games to be easier, others actually want them to be more difficult. In an ongoing game, this balance is even more difficult. You want your most committed players to feel they can lead while giving new users a sense they can catch the leaders. I don’t know if Empire Avenue has the balance right, but I believe the balance is not as obvious as we would like to believe.

Further complicating the matter, in my opinion, is the fact that the networking aspect of Empire Avenue doesn’t really take off until more people are on the site. As I have said elsewhere, as the networking value of the site rises, the significance of the game elements will change. The EA team has to do their best to make the site compelling not only today, but in the future.

The Empire Avenue folks have a vested interest to make for a compelling experience. They don’t want people leaving. For that reason, it’s useful to them that we provide feedback. Managing the experience of being sold out is important. However, I don’t think sites owe me anything even pay-as-you-go sites. To me a petition is a protest – a mild one to be sure, but a protest nonetheless. I have lots of feedback I continue to give them, but I don’t feel I have anything to protest.

However, many others may indeed feel differently. As such, I encourage the discussion here. We know EA developers read this blog, and even if you don’t get to the petition stage, they are taking notes. Empire Avenue is still in beta and will continue to evolve.

Let me show my support of this post in this way though. Yeah, being sold out sucks.

I think the issue could also be addressed with an alternative method of getting eaves at a decent pace so that one does not have to rely on dumping the portfolio or spending real money.

An idea: Once your are sold out your dividend earnings increase by a factor that depends on the amount of shares you are sold out at AND your daily activity levels. This encourages productive portfolio investments and shuffling (which #EAv should want) and an increased effort to pump out good, reactive content.

Would you agree that this would be a motivating mechanism for earning eaves?

My concern is that like most of the online games/activities that Empire Avenue will end up in its current state somewhat of a trial, requiring real money for serious users to pursue further…

The social networking component (in my opinion the most valuable part of Empire Avenue) will always be free. Users will always be able to post ads for free — as long as they have earned eaves. Posting content and interacting in communities will be free. Engaging with other users — free.

If I have to buy money to swim at the top of the Leaderboard I can live with that.

I've gotten several months of enjoyment out of Empire Avenue so far and haven't paid a cent to use it. That's a heck of a trial.

In this scenario what would the gameplay be though?

Right now the game (for me) is buying shares, getting shares bought in me, checking other people out and deciding whether to buy into them or to interact with them in some other way, or do nothing at all. The moment I run out of shares the game starts for me — which is the current frustration with EA.

Your scenario doesn't fix that. What happens when I'm not able to achieve any more achievements AND I run out of shares? There's a finite set of “certain feats” that can be achieved (in the current achievement system), it would eventually run out.

In addition, would the game, to you, be about share price advancement (influence score) or # of achievements earned?

Using the current new upgrades as an example it appears that EA is trending towards using real life money in ADDITION to Eaves to purchase things. Not using real money (as I had previously thought) to purchases eaves directly. I like this approach — real money + eaves.

When both eaves and real money are required it becomes harder to buy your way to the top because you still have to work (almost) as hard as someone not spending real money. You just get to take the occasional short-cut. I think that if this is their long-term plan in regards to how eaves and real money interact, it really addresses your concern about people buying their way to the top.

Your idea is interesting but it is such a fundamental change that it is hard to imagine how it would work in the current situation without resetting everybody's data.

Stock split! Stock split! Stock Split!