Jump to content

LeotheGreat

Members
  • Content count

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

LeotheGreat last won the day on October 12 2017

LeotheGreat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

536 Politican

1 Follower

About LeotheGreat

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    Black Knights
  • Leader Name
    Leo the Great
  • Nation Name
    The Knights Radiant
  • Nation ID
    35846
  • Alliance Name
    Black Knights

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    LeotheGreat

Recent Profile Visitors

578 profile views
  1. LeotheGreat

    The Vanguard

    Glad to see this happen!
  2. LeotheGreat

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    It will only slow it down for players who only leech, like you, and will be instantly embargoed. For the rest it will increase baseball played as they are not timing baseball to avoid players like you.
  3. LeotheGreat

    Breaking News from the Shifty News Network

    Who else besides pantheon?
  4. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    Any meaningful grants will in no way be reclaimed in one week of 100/100 before they are moved to gray.
  5. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    1: I can't answer the first one, you would have to ask @Alex himself I don't speak for him. 2: Little noobs cant reach that level with ease. It would still cost them almost 12 billion dollars to reach where the largest nations are, that would still take time, but not to the extent it does now. So demolished, much wow.
  6. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    Because Alex himself has said that he never intended for people to get as large as they have in the first place. This doesn't take away anything from larger players, just makes it so younger players do not have years of waiting to become "upper-tier". Still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Can't you shit post somewhere else?
  7. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    So you admit you dislike this for this relates to the political side and a future war that may not happen rather than concern for idea at hand, got it. Literally has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just attacking me personally. Lmao come back when you have something related to the topic.
  8. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    This doesn't actually make new players any better of an investment for alliances though. In fact I would argue it makes them worse, as you have the potential to lose a lot more money if you buy them to 10 and they quit. More and more alliances have minimum city counts to pre filter new players, and this is because they are too risky of an investment right now.
  9. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    Kastor is right, this is to address poor player retention. P&W has something like a 95% burnout rate. One of the reasons is that it takes literal years to catch up to players. Cheaper cities makes noobs a better investment for all alliances, and lets new player become functional much quicker.
  10. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    You are making this about individual alliances, and please make a suggestion on the topic at hand!
  11. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    How am I calling you a loser? I just want to here an argument against this that relates to how it helps the retention of new players and the games longevity rather than against me personally. Well then I am waiting for an argument against this that transcends "Git Gud".
  12. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    Do you have a non-political argument against this or no?
  13. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    So are you saying there is no relationship between retention and growth? Every alliance would benefit here you are the one making this political.
  14. LeotheGreat

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    At this point we have reached a stage where the difference between nations and alliances city count wise is large enough that it is stifling the game's atmosphere. As leader of an alliance of over 2500 accepted players in our history, the economics of the game have become that alliances are discouraged from investing in new players, hurting P&W's over all retention. When noobs see people with 20+ cities, and realize that it takes literal years to reach that level it hurts retention as many noobs get disheartened. City costs at the sub-20 level are simply too prohibitive in their current state to help newer players reach that level, as shown by the numerous graphs showing how most players quit early on. If there was a radical cut in sub-city 20 prices it would enable ALL alliances to develop newer players, and let them catch up to the normal player base, and increase retention across the board for all alliances in Orbis. This in effect would have no negative impact on older players, who retain their cities they have earned, but will help every alliance when developing newer players. Everyone on Orbis benefits from increased retention of new players, and there isn't a benefit to it requiring literal years to catch up to the established player base.
  15. LeotheGreat

    Meh

    Race you there.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.