All Activity

They lower the minimum infrastructure I lower the coolant in the nuclear reactor.

King Cloud rules all!

Why is there being a lot of food in the game a problem? This post starts out by saying that there is a lot of resources in the game and implies that is inherently bad without explaining why.

i almost never log in to the forum but I did just to tell you that you should not post anything like this again, thanks

I don't think we'd be able to do separate profiles for forum roleplaying only, but we can definitely add in additional subforums. Could you write up a general outline of what should (and shouldn't) be included in each subforum? Then I will make them, you can post them, and we'll pin them for everyone to see, so it doesn't get (as) bombarded with junk. Thank you for your thoughtfulness of this though, I would love to foster more forum based roleplay!

Feels like a more active version of military salvage? Not sure a recycling method is necessarily needed when we talk about the increase in resources.

I came up with this idea as I thought about all the resources that disappear in globals. Just wanted to throw it out there to get some thoughts. Scrap is a resource that slowly piles up in your nation as you lose units in war. On its own, scrap is useless but can be sold on the market. Introduced alongside scrap is a new improvement (or project) which converts scrap to another resource such as steel or aluminum. This is determined at random at every turn. If this is too powerful, it could have a 50% of remaining as scrap and the other 50% that it becomes one of several resources. Players have the option to sell their scrap as is or convert it to other resources for their own use or profit. Advantages: - Previously, resources would disappear once units were destroyed. A minor recycling process may affect the trade dynamic - Creation of a new, scrap-based sub-economy for players who want to buy up scrap and sell back as resources - Blockaded nations now have a small chance of producing resources they may desperately need - Nations on 100/100 can still sell scrap or resources on the market for extra cash - Nations in smaller alliances that don’t fund post-war reconstruction could sell or convert their scrap to help recover on their own - Smaller nations that don’t raid may decide scrap is a better investment than farms. It will help them make more progress and enjoy the game more as a result, plus less complaints about radiation

What if you give a daily usage for resources? Materials in an army will break down/need to be replaced. Therefor you spend some aluminum or steel to maintain your standing army. What if you had some bonuses tied to resources being consumed in your nation? Such as lead, oil, bauxite, etc. If you successfully maintain your daily consumption of these resources you get a small bonus to income or w/e. Then once a month you as developers go "these events did xyz to the market, lets change the ratio of what we require to get that bonus" Say hey the oil market is going way down, lighten up on the daily requirement for oil, but whoa the bauxite supply is out of this world. Time to hike up the demands for bauxite to achieve that production bonus. This way 1) you dont have to add too much more stuff to the existing code 2) You can change it monthly, quarterly, etc. To accommodate changes in the free market. 3) Probably a lot more fun to consider "hey i do this i make more money, but lose some resources" instead of wow i need ANOTHER power plant? thanks Obama. Or you know. Linear scaling defensives. Idk.

Aren't we still waiting for the full project changes being implemented many of which affect said money/resources?

Thank you very much, it s working. And I make again my aopologizes for everbody, not fun at all this kind of stuff. Best Regards

I think it would be best to allow the market to correct itself for a change, before tweaking consumption or production again. Some of the people hovering over the prices in the design team trying to pull levers to course correct need to relax a bit. The market right now is already super high, reducing consumption further will only exacerbate that. Even if we were going to course correct, not sure why manus need fixing, nor why we'd do it this way. Increasing costs is always the best way to approach this. --- Also the reason the food supply is so high, is the game has been at peace for a long period of time. Looking at the supply chart, during peace we generate about 50m food per day, and at 100% radiation, we consume about 50m per day. Politics can resolve that.

Yeah, I'm assuming this is the best option based on the resources the development team has (which I'm glad he is addressing). But it still sucks because it punishes the players for the dev teams inability to properly address it due to Alex's greasy code. Eventually we will reach a tipping point to where a patch won't be able to fix the problem and a major change will need to occur. Yeah, my suggestion would probably be too complex to implement it in a reasonable time if it all. But I think your suggestion of introducing a new category that turns resources into cash would be easy to implement if done correctly. All that really needs to be done is copy and paste most of the code that turns raws into manus. Only problem would be balancing it since it can easily speed up growth too much and we end up back where we started with this problem.

let me start by saying that i think there is to much food in the game. however prices never went below 100 ppu because it was to good of a value buy, which stems from farms being to valuable on a per slot basis. that said you have to invest to make up that value, as it takes buying land and the food production project. im always a proponent for gradual changes, so you dont end up swinging things to far. i think a better idea would be to reduce the max bonus on farms to 25% rather then removing it outright. then check back in 3 months and see if it has had the desired changes. also what is the desired change here? if its just to get food supply under control relative to the other resources then changing all the manufactured resources at the same time as food will mask the effects of the change. the issue with most (all?)of the other resources is due to inflation imo, and i agree with Exalts that raising the improvement cap would hurt smaller nations. at the moment there best options to get the 50% bonus are uranium mines and manufacturing. imo only food and manufactured resources are actually in high supply and since manufactured resources are critical to fighting wars there will always be an organized push by alliances to keep producing them even if its not the most cost effective thing to do. you need to take into consideration the massive amounts of resources that alliances keep for warchests as those are kept off the market. also please stop raising the cash exchange value for credits

In fairness, Keegoz did mention in RON that simple changes are much better because of the dev team having to deal with bloated legacy Alex code. Which does mean that stuff like the stuff you suggested is probably unviable. Otherwise, I'd have brought up an idea I pitched like six years ago of having an extra improvement category (something like consumer goods) which uses up refined resources and gives you cash. It does surprise me a bit that such an improvement category doesn't exist, given that it doesn't add any new resources, and I imagine would be relatively simple to implement (especially given that stuff like generals is being considered/implemented).

What the game is experiencing right now is a combination of project price cuts, less wars being fought, and natural growing pains as more people play this game. I think it would be better to introduce more diversity into the market by adding new raw resources and manufactured resources like luxury resources. Until you introduce more diversity or make more resources diversified into new sectors like making your citizens happy, the game's economy will always be driven by projects and war. Most people stop buying projects after they get to a certain point (city 40) because the late game projects just suck and you have little to no project slots anyways by then. And war is obviously player driven so it makes sense that the economy is inflated since we only had 3 major wars this year (including the one day global).

All of these seem like bad ideas that have no benefit to the player or the game. "Make less resources" to balance a spreadsheet and fit your general idea of where resources should be is a horrific waste of development time. Let me hit you with some bullet points just based on your own: RNG nuclear meltdowns and disasters with an extremely low chance of occurrence and an annual limit on how many times it can occur per nation (like it can't happen twice in 365 days, nations get a disaster-happened flag when it pops off and it expires in a year. Can be used for adding in more events later!) Crime fluctuates based on events, active wars, recently destroyed infra, etc and it actually has an impact beyond being an income reducer. This game desperately needs some kind of events system to give the actual feeling of a nation. Feeding into the events-theme of my post, unions can go on strike and reduce your manufacturing output. Or the nation can rally together during times of war to increase production. Deepen the Season system that is already in-place. Give a chance for a harsh winter or summer, a bad harvest due to blight in the Autumn, and maybe even rework how farms function in totality: You have to have them in the Spring season to plant them, if you build them after or lose them before Autumn then you get a reduced harvest. Winter has no production. I think we're reaching the death-point of this game rapidly and without some serious and creative changes, you will continue to see Band-Aid fixes like these be universally hated by the community you're pitching them to.

Realllyyyyyy easy fix for most of these issues. DEAR COMMUNITY, STOP FARMING SO MUCH AND HAVE MORE WARS, thank you.

They still would not seemingly come anywhere near close to competing, based on this quick sheet I put together. It'd more or less double operating expenses for NPP's (alongside improvements), but it'd still be saving a significant margin compared to non-NPP (especially when you consider improvement slots saved for production and not mitigating disease). Obviously ignoring initial start-up cost of building the plant itself. There's also the questionability on the wisdom of increasing usage of improvement slots for it, given the context of increasing usage of slots for other stuff (crime and refining). It seems like a triple kick on the nuts for leaner builds. Amusingly, increasing the amount of NPP's needed would unintentionally add redundancy and make builds that run on low infra after this infra is destroyed (raider/turret/people losing wars) even less likely to get lucky nuke struck and have a city go unpowered that way, though that's relatively minor all things considered. Total amount of resources as being a point of concern makes little sense. Total amount of resources will tend to, and is going to, increase given time and people building up cities (and consequently stocks). This is a natural process and not a point of concern in on itself. This accumulation would be an issue if it was leading to a situation where prices were plummeting as a result. That's not what's happening. They've more or less been stable and/or increasing over the past year. What this means is that even though the overall resource count has been increasing, their supply has not. This makes sense considering that where refined are concerned, significant portions of the total amount are WC related and therefore not available for sale. And while they do get used up in war, they're invariably going to go back to whatever the WC requirements of each alliance is. In other words, they represent a floor, and this floor is inaccessible for purchase. Even with that put to the side, not all what's produced is available for sale; some people like to hoard (or simply forget), others trade internally. Others bulk trade, and while this bulk trading is done at a lower price relative to the average market price, it isn't directly applying downwards pressure to prices as it isn't being put out there to undercut other offers. This leaves a further reduced amount of refined being put up for sale on the public market (the average by which we go by), and clearly it hasn't been enough to depress prices, or even keep them stable, compared to a year ago. In short, increase on total resource count is a natural phenomena, and by itself isn't much of a point of concern. It is a point of concern if this translates into oversupply which is disproportionately depressing prices. The reality is that supply has been low enough to where prices have been stable if not increasing. As for the rest of the premise; I don't even think that there'd be a mass swap to refined. Raws are pretty high, and occasionally better than refining as is; doubling the amount of improvements needed for refining would essentially collapse the viability of refining on the short term and lead to people swapping to raws instead. This would immediately increased the prices of refined resources while it'd take time for the increased (theoretical) supply of raws to have an impact on the viability of those builds over refining. It might regulate itself on the longer term, but definitely not under current prices. All to... preempt a theoretical issue that is far from manifesting itself as of this moment, and which I don't think would even happen were food production to be heavily nerfed by removing the gearing bonus. Such an unfounded theoretical concern doesn't warrant such a harsh preemptive measure that would disproportionately affect the viability of lower infra builds, especially given the other suggested changes.

what?!

Honestly just increase food consumption some more, or reduce the base output per land. However we shouldn't remove the production bonus for having multiple of the same buildings.

Resource Fix: If resources are deposited into the bank, they begin to have a shelf life. A 'use it or lose it' scenario. This would incentivize nations to keep more resources on-hand, which would also provide a boost for making war more profitable. This would assist pirates/raiders, as well as making inter-alliance war more worthwhile.

It's never a surprise when a change rolls out, and it can never be entirely fair. By that point one might argue never to make any econ change because some people are in the know sooner than others. This thread serves as a heads-up to all players that future changes might happen. Whether or not they act upon that information is their problem.

We previously made changes that have created some of these issues with resources — namely food when the project costs were rebalanced. Consider examining and changing formulas regarding food consumption and uranium once again if the abundance of resources is coming an issue. However, reducing the infra covered by a nuclear power plant is very drastic to the mechanics and strategy players use. (2 uranium per power plant = 1 uranium per 1000 infra = $7K per day cost approx which isn’t bad) Let the trade market handle the resource cost and balance in the long term. The long peace agreements have had an effect on the economic condition of the game so that’s exacerbating the current situation. There is more money circulating with new players making larger daily bonus than ever before but we reduced the cost for city projects and removed timers which surely has influenced the state of the game now.

Terrible, terrible idea. Do something else.

Ban has been removed.