Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Prefontaine

  1. 14 hours ago, KindaEpicMoah said:

    A couple more questions about the bonus: 

    - Would the max bonus be carried over from subscription to subscription, or would it be reset every 30 days?

    - Would missing one day reset the bonus? Or would you merely not get the bonus for that day? 

    Missing one day would reset the bonus counter. The ideal method would be to get your bonus to the 4 day streak, buy the new player boost, then log in every day for 30 days to get 30 days of 6M bonus above the 2M standard. 

    • Thanks 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

    Damn so if i am reading that correctly for 60 days as a brand new nation, if all you did was log in every day you would make 468 million dollars?  you can get to c15 and have 40 million left over just from sign in bonus.

    That is fine by me, the toughest thing to get over in this game is how slow it is, so if you can get people to keep logging in over longer periods of time the better it is for the health of the game.

    just out of curiosity did you guys do the math on what a C12-C15 nation makes? because after that 60 days is over that income drop is probably going to hurt, or is that why you have the credit thing so you can get em hooked on that sweet sweet income, and then make em pay to feel that high again?  Diabolical boys.

    We could do a 1-time injection to players the closer they are to the 60 day mark. Someone at 100 days like 100M. Someone at 500 days gets 50M. And say 3,236 days gets $3.50?

    • Haha 3
  3. 1 hour ago, KindaEpicMoah said:

    Clearly we should be rewarding players for the bare minimum of logging in once a day since that's literally all most players do once you get past low tier raiding (and some people can't even do that). /s


    Though I will question to what extent the low tier purge has affected low tier raiding, because while I do think it's made it harder to an extent, I don't think it's absolutely gutted it like some are suggesting.


    Additionally, even if low tier raiding has been gutted, why are we replacing a high effort, moderate skill, high reward catch-up mechanic with a low effort, no skill, medium effort catch up mechanic? The two are fundamentally different, and I'd prefer to see a catch-up mechanic that actually encourages playing the game.


    Lastly, why lock the credit subscription bonus behind nations that are over 60 days old? I honestly like the idea, but it seems odd to call it a "new player bonus" when players at their newest point can't utilize it.  

    Giving players more money to do more things when they log in creates a better chance they retain interest and keep logging in. It's it minimal effort? Sure. Is it better than losing players? Absolutely. 

    I said reduce, there will be a reduction and the concern from that change was largely resources - not money. Money has great sinks that work well. 

    See point one. You have to start somewhere, that starting point is logging in. If they keep logging in they can develop skills and grow as players. 

    It's behind a credit purchase because they get it for free for the first 60 days. 

    1 hour ago, Jordan said:

    Also @Prefontaine You should really put the word Proposed or Proposal in your post titles.

    Looking for trigger words in the middle of the topic that notify someone that its not an immediate change shouldn't happen. It should be clear from the get go that this isn't implemented, but is a proposal.

    Especially after Alex just randomly turns on things like 10k nation deletions.

    Have a cookie. 

    • Thanks 1
  4. Just now, RobinHood said:

    2 credits for 30 days of $8m a day.

    so basically 8 days of log in to generate the 64m which covers current credit prices. So 22 days of free $8m a day. 

    Not really sure why this is needed other than a way to inflate credit prices as everyone who can will do this.

    Just make it $6m a day for the first year and think of a better use for credits 

    The default rate is 2M a day, so they only gain an additional 6M a day, if they do that for a full 30 days that's 180M for the cost of ~60M in credits. That's also assuming they log in every day. 

    As activity is a core goal of these changes, I'd be happy to see a newer player get 120M for logging in a whole month. 

    Just now, leonissenbaum said:

    These kinds of bonuses being dependent on nation age is going to incentivize people to just delete and re-create their nations when they get past 60 days (or 365 days?) if they're still raiding. To avoid this, having these kinds of bonuses be dependent on city count instead of nation age seems like it'd work much better.

    I might be missing it, but is what the new player boost actually does explained?

    I don't want to encourage a nation to not grow because they want to keep getting the bonus, which is why I prefer time-locking it. I'd be okay with a combo option. Is a player is above X cities or over 1 year old then they no longer apply. 

  5. 7 hours ago, KindaEpicMoah said:

    My apologies to you and to everyone who supported my original post; I did make a mistake in my original formula by multiplying the amount of resources needed by the city count of the buyer without first subtracting the lowest value for the city count range first (so like doing 100 * price of steel * x instead of 100* price of steel * (x - 19) for cities 20 through 29).

    Here's the (hopefully) correct (peer reviewed this time) graph. 


    The data does clearly show that city prices are decreased across the board. However, I will maintain that this change is slightly skewed towards whales due to the nature of multiplicative discounts on non-linear costs (though not as much as I originally made it out to be, which I apologize for), and especially skewed towards whales if the 2.5% price decrease is changed to 5% for cities 41+. The green line shows the formula you proposed with the additional 2.5% discount for cities 41 and over, and the orange formula shows the same formula but with that additional discount removed, so I think removing the additional discount would be more consistent with the lower cities. 

    That looks more accurate, appreciate your deep dive into the numbers. We were discussing some of this in the design channel and I think some perspective may help. We were using C55 as an example and the 5% discount would be something around 300M off the next city. This number seems very large and impactful to a lot of players. Put into proportion however, most top economies would make this amount in 3-4 days. I think at my peak at C44 I was bringing in around 80M a day. 

    I'll also reiterate the point I was getting at in my last reply which I've removed with the updated math. The players already at the high end of city counts have gotten there without a lot of the mechanics that have discounted city prices. The same with this. If anything discounting cities above 40 will help players catch up to those marks as it's now cheaper for up and coming whales to whale. 

    All that said, I'm honestly fine with taking out the additional 2.5% discount at 40. 

    7 hours ago, Krouton said:

    The only thing I can kind of get behind is resource costs for building cities. Please don't reduce the margins of refined production. Refined production should be viable for newer players. Add something to spend resources on, and not another project that most nations don't have the slots for anyways. Players should be spending excess resources on war. It doesn't help that the greatest cost of war is overwhelmingly infra damage.

    What if operating costs were cut in conjunction. Currently they range from $2,500 -> $4,000 per refinery per day. If we cut that by say 25% that reduces the losses sustained by requiring more raw upkeep costs?

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  6. 6 hours ago, Borg said:


    Bureau is for people who don't want to plan ahead and be able to maybe get the land discount as well and then quickly go back to open markets. 

    Harvest is getting it's numbers tweaked currently. Projects are no viewed as resource sinks in terms of costs to purchases. The can have a small impact, but 100 players buying a 2M food project isn't going to dent food counts significantly. It having a residual increase on food consumption is view as the smallest of sinks because it happens over time. Both the faucet and the sink need review for resources currently and they are being reviewed. 

    Mars landing is just an expansion on Moon landing and is cosmetic for anyone who wants it. It was an additional project thrown onto the quota of projects I was requested for. It's not taking away from anything.

    Military expansion is supposed to be strong, something everyone who meets the threshold should want. We're going to bump up the requirements so that it should be accessible by ~60% of current C29s.

    ROI is not really something weighed into improvements that help you in states of war. Improvements that have a small military impact but may contribute to you winning a war where hundreds of millions are being done in damages.

    2 hours ago, abaddon said:


    Projects that benefit raiding should be essential for those who play in a raiding style. I don't see a problem with this? There are very few raid focused projects, it would make sense that the ones that exist are no-brainers for raiders.

    Something has to be the strongest why not one that provides a free city around the time where city production starts becoming a grind? 

    I'll copy and paste from above: ROI is not really something weighed into improvements that help you in states of war. Improvements that have a small military impact but may contribute to you winning a war where hundreds of millions are being done in damages.

    Saying moon landing/mars landing are noob traps is a little odd when it requires the Space Program project as a pre requisite which not may new players have. Somewhere around 70 players got the moon landing. Complaining about a cosmetic seems odd to me. 

    • Downvote 1
  7. Building of Keegoz and looking at some of the feedback both here and discord I'll give some updates:

    • Requirements for Military Expansion will be increased.
    • Food Cost % will be reviewed for Bountiful Harvest.
      • Depending on cost increase the supermarket side of things may be dropped and a flat rate commerce bonus is included with the increased cap.
    • Mars landing is supposed to be entirely cosmetic.
      • There may be expansion on practical bonuses down the road. 
    16 hours ago, Lucianus said:

    I don't see the reason nor logic behind some of these requirements. Why is Advanced Urban Planning, a city cost reducing project, required for the surveillance network, a project that affects spies. 

    Gotta' plan out your city well if you want to have good surveillance. 

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1
  8. Just now, Majima Goro said:

    What about making this for units lost instead? And add another zero.

    I'd rather promote the offensive end. Additionally these numbers are pretty close to the current average kill counts for a C20. Having about half the game be able to access it at that point is the reason for the current numbers.

    • Upvote 2
  9. Just now, Supreme Commander said:

    As well as Mars Landing, make it actually worth-while instead of just an achievement.

    I've been tossing the idea of what to do around potential "space resources" collected from the moon and mars. May be something expanded onto the projects later, but for now its for cosmetics. 

    • Like 1
  10. Just now, Coffee Man Coffee said:

    Can i suggest a new project

    Go for it here. We went through this thread to pull ideas for projects among other sources. Made some tweaks and what not. Whenever new projects are requested we source that thread.

    Just now, Kim said:

    Would be nice to see something similar for c40 plus nations but make it so you need to be in the top 10 nations on kill leader boards 

    Could be something expanded into. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  11. Currently this game's mechanics somewhat represent a nation simulator game. Loosely, anyway. This poll is to determine if Dr. Rush's adaptation of Politics and War should be a dating sim game.


    Please vote, and feel free to comment. 

  12. On 3/1/2023 at 3:06 AM, darkblade said:

    So after studying for a test I have in like in 7 hours, I needed to have some fun. And after about 20 minutes, I made this video, enjoy.


    Did you hack my discord? I swear some of that was verbatim from my DMs. 

    • Haha 2
  • Create New...

Important Information

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