Jump to content

Reducing the Cost of Rebuilding Infrastructure


Alex
 Share

Reducing the Cost of Rebuilding Infrastructure Poll  

95 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like an update where rebuying previously built infrastructure in a city would have the cost discounted by 50%? (Example: You had 2000 infrastructure in your city, but war brought it down to 1000. Now you want to rebuy: instead of it costing you the full price [$15,246,116] it would cost you 50% of that [$7,623,058] but beyond 2000 infrastructure buying more would cost the full price)

    • Yes, I would like that change
    • No, I would not like that change


Recommended Posts

No, takes away the fun of the game. When you reduce a Nation to rubble the last thing you want to see when you wake up is their nation back to normal with no visible effect.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, Curufinwe said:

I think Joel's point (which you still haven't really addressed) is that halving the cost of replacing infra disproportionately benefits older nations (which tend to be larger and have higher infra levels) over newer ones (which tend to be smaller and have lower infra counts).  The cost for someone to bring a city from 10 to 1500 infra is roughly $7.4m, which means that your proposed update would save them roughly $3.7m in rebuilding costs.  The cost to bring a city from 10 to 3500 infra is a little less than $93m, meaning that your proposed update would save them $46m and change.  This means that the players with, as you put it, the biggest resource stockpiles (which can of course be sold to raise money for rebuilding) are gaining an exponentially greater benefit than newer, smaller nations.  I mean that may not be a huge concern, since your last update effectively nerfed low infra builds and created a situation where lower infra nations are likely to be greatly out produced by their high infra peers, but Joel's point that this change would disproportionately benefit older, higher infra nations is valid nonetheless.

How often do nations with 3500 infra actually go to war and have their infrastructure destroyed? I was under the impression that big enough nations didn't have anyone to fight generally, and aren't going to be taking advantage of this. As well as the fact that $46m to rebuild a single city is still insanely expensive.

  • Upvote 3

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
4 minutes ago, Alex said:

How often do nations with 3500 infra actually go to war and have their infrastructure destroyed? I was under the impression that big enough nations didn't have anyone to fight generally, and aren't going to be taking advantage of this. As well as the fact that $46m to rebuild a single city is still insanely expensive.

Well during AA wars it happens (most recently back in April), so it not like it's unheard of - high infra players were targeted by many AAs (including BK) precisely because that infra was expensive to replace.   Also, my (and by extension Joel's) argument isn't that $46m isn't a lot of money, it's that the proposed change would disproportionately benefit one subset of players. To use my previous examples, the amount the 3.5k infra person saves is 12.5 times higher than the amount the 1.5k infra person saves.  This in turn means that it negates 46.5m of damage that 1.5k player may have inflicted on his high infra counterpart (for example through suicide nuking) and gives the 3.5k infra player a 42.8m advantage over rebuilding to 3.5k infra if that 1.5k infra later decides to go to 3.5k infra themselves.  I mean if you really want to lower rebuilding costs across the board, you could just reduce the cost of infra between, say, 10 and 1500 by half, since that would benefit everyone equally.  This doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50% discount would be preposterous.  If you were suggesting something on the order of an extra 5% (on top of the already available discounts), I would have no issue.  

When you choose to go to war, or place your nation in a position to be victimized (by trading military for economic improvements for example), replacing damaged pixels is part of the opportunity cost.

I appreciate the opportunity to have discussions like this regarding game mechanics.

Edited by OldYak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joel James said:

So I raise a valid point, you respond with sarcasm to dodge the question, and then distance yourself from it by saying "don't take it seriously"? Are you here to actually get a community response or just to absolve yourself of responsibility when you implement this by saying you took community input?

Furthermore, I never said that you should punish whales, and I have no idea where you drew that conclusion from. Not giving whales an advantage over newer nations is not the same as punishing whales, and I would much appreciate if you refrained from equating it as such. I simply suggested to reduce to infra price across the board or leave it alone, something that would impact every player equally

Now I await your response in which you further prove that you have chosen a side before the poll even started. 

hey joel, you want to catch up and pass the large nations you should have more than 9 cities after 233 days of game play.  You want to know what the great equalizer in growth is?  It costs me over 750 million for my next city.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alex said:

How often do nations with 3500 infra actually go to war and have their infrastructure destroyed? I was under the impression that big enough nations didn't have anyone to fight generally, and aren't going to be taking advantage of this. As well as the fact that $46m to rebuild a single city is still insanely expensive.

Oh theyre gonna lose their infra sooner or later.  I can assure you with over 1400% accuracy that they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

hey joel, you want to catch up and pass the large nations you should have more than 9 cities after 233 days of game play.  You want to know what the great equalizer in growth is?  It costs me over 750 million for my next city.

And your income is how much?  

It's not at all unlikely that you will save up for it faster than Joel will save up for his assuming no grants or other sources of financing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

hey joel, you want to catch up and pass the large nations you should have more than 9 cities after 233 days of game play.  You want to know what the great equalizer in growth is?  It costs me over 750 million for my next city.

 
Are you automatically assuming that I am making my points for my benefit? You assume that I came here for some underhanded reason of promoting "easy growth" for myself or some such nonsense. This is entirely false. My concern goes out to players who play the game and truly wish to surpass those whales. Where have I mentioned anywhere that I wished to give smaller nations an easy route to growth? No where. I simply said that giving whales an easy route to rebuilding is not the way to go.
 
But you do you, and I'll do I. We will not convince each other of anything, and I would much prefer that this not devolve into slinging mud around
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Psweet said:

And your income is how much?  

It's not at all unlikely that you will save up for it faster than Joel will save up for his assuming no grants or other sources of financing.

It will take me over 50 days to save up for my next city, if a little nation like his takes that long to go from city 9 to city 10 during peace time,  he is either set up completely wrong, or is in a terrible alliance that cant get him a loan and buy city 10 in under a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two potential thoughts, both meant to be separate ideas.

One, throw it in as a Project, that requires 'Center for Civil Engineering'. Have it cost be like $50 million + 5000 Oil/Iron/Bauxite and only give a 5/10% discount on rebuilding infrastructure. Have another Project that requires the first and have it cost triple for another 5/10% discount.

This option would be a large resource and money sink for those 'whales'. After the latest update, as resources will be likely getting scarce quickly, people will have to think about whether it's worth it to buy the projects.

Second, have the discount on rebuilding scale, depending on how much you are rebuying. Your first 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 20% less. Your next 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 10% less.  Your next 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 5% less. Anything after that has no extra discount.

This option would help out smaller nations and mean that any 'whales' would still have a potentially hefty rebuild, if they get nuked or otherwise lose alot of infrastructure.

  • Upvote 2

sig_cybernations.PNG.8d49a01423f488a0f1b846927f5acc7e.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shakyr said:

Two potential thoughts, both meant to be separate ideas.

One, throw it in as a Project, that requires 'Center for Civil Engineering'. Have it cost be like $50 million + 5000 Oil/Iron/Bauxite and only give a 5/10% discount on rebuilding infrastructure. Have another Project that requires the first and have it cost triple for another 5/10% discount.

This option would be a large resource and money sink for those 'whales'. After the latest update, as resources will be likely getting scarce quickly, people will have to think about whether it's worth it to buy the projects.

Second, have the discount on rebuilding scale, depending on how much you are rebuying. Your first 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 20% less. Your next 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 10% less.  Your next 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 5% less. Anything after that has no extra discount.

This option would help out smaller nations and mean that any 'whales' would still have a potentially hefty rebuild, if they get nuked or otherwise lose alot of infrastructure.

As far as a money sink goes, 50 million is nothing, even 150 million isn't that much, you want a money sink you should think closer to 400-500 million. At least that will take 3-4 weeks to save up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the title and was like yeah right who's this noob then realized this is an Alex thread. LOL

 

Make it an alliance project called Insurance Agency and reduce rebuy of infra to 15%. I had created a suggestion thread about making temporary Alliance projects that last 180days with reset date of 50days. This could fit in nicely if done right.

b0jqQbG.png

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Zaxon said:

I read the title and was like yeah right who's this noob then realized this is an Alex thread. LOL

 

Make it an alliance project called Insurance Agency and reduce rebuy of infra to 15%. I had created a suggestion thread about making temporary Alliance projects that last 180days with reset date of 50days. This could fit in nicely if done right.

b0jqQbG.png

 

This is an interesting idea and fits better into the game mechanics.

 

 

Edited by OldYak
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shakyr said:

Second, have the discount on rebuilding scale, depending on how much you are rebuying. Your first 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 20% less. Your next 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 10% less.  Your next 1000 infra rebuilt will cost 5% less. Anything after that has no extra discount.

This option would help out smaller nations and mean that any 'whales' would still have a potentially hefty rebuild, if they get nuked or otherwise lose alot of infrastructure.

I like this 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

It will take me over 50 days to save up for my next city, if a little nation like his takes that long to go from city 9 to city 10 during peace time,  he is either set up completely wrong, or is in a terrible alliance that cant get him a loan and buy city 10 in under a month.

I think I did stipulate no grants or loans, yes?  Yes, I did.  

I'm comparing the raw income:growth ratio.  They're not that out of whack.  I find myself growing FASTER the larger I get, somehow.  My slowest growth was when I was sub-ten cities, though admittedly that's because I was a bit too aggressive in achieving MMR and not aggressive enough in getting bigger.  

POINT IS: stop whining about how much stuff costs you, you make over ten times as much as people like Joel.  You can afford to pay those prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Psweet said:

I think I did stipulate no grants or loans, yes?  Yes, I did.  

I'm comparing the raw income:growth ratio.  They're not that out of whack.  I find myself growing FASTER the larger I get, somehow.  My slowest growth was when I was sub-ten cities, though admittedly that's because I was a bit too aggressive in achieving MMR and not aggressive enough in getting bigger.  

POINT IS: stop whining about how much stuff costs you, you make over ten times as much as people like Joel.  You can afford to pay those prices.

That's great that I make about 10 times as much, but really I would need to make over 30 times as much to keep the same growth ratio.

Lets run some numbers, with the new changes, it takes 12 slots to max econ to 100%, at 9 cities, you should be sitting on what? 1200 infra per city, that gives you 24 slots, so running max econ shouldn't be that hard.  I am also going to assume at that size you should be able to run 0 pollution, and 0 crime, so that means that 1200 infra should give you about 120000 people, of which each of them makes you 7.04 dollars a day times 9, at 30.88 percent tax in-game tax rate works out to about 2.35 million a day pre-expenses.  He is actually running a little higher infra levels than that, and with the 3 percent income bonus should be bringing in 2.9 million a day pre-expenses.  I would ball park he is sitting on around 1.2 million a day in expenses, with his current military level  So that means he is making about 1.7 million a day.  City 10 costs 25 million, which means it should take him about 15 days to go from city 9 to city 10.  In comparison it takes me 50 days to go from city 26 to city 27.

POINT IS: Stop whining about how much these changes make it hard for smaller nations to grow, they can still grow by a factor of over 3 times faster than most whale nations.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

That's great that I make about 10 times as much, but really I would need to make over 30 times as much to keep the same growth ratio.

Lets run some numbers, with the new changes, it takes 12 slots to max econ to 100%, at 9 cities, you should be sitting on what? 1200 infra per city, that gives you 24 slots, so running max econ shouldn't be that hard.  I am also going to assume at that size you should be able to run 0 pollution, and 0 crime, so that means that 1200 infra should give you about 120000 people, of which each of them makes you 7.04 dollars a day times 9, at 30.88 percent tax in-game tax rate works out to about 2.35 million a day pre-expenses.  He is actually running a little higher infra levels than that, and with the 3 percent income bonus should be bringing in 2.9 million a day pre-expenses.  I would ball park he is sitting on around 1.2 million a day in expenses, with his current military level  So that means he is making about 1.7 million a day.  City 10 costs 25 million, which means it should take him about 15 days to go from city 9 to city 10.  In comparison it takes me 50 days to go from city 26 to city 27.

POINT IS: Stop whining about how much these changes make it hard for smaller nations to grow, they can still grow by a factor of over 3 times faster than most whale nations.

Well said.  Problem is, you're only comparing commerce.  Yes, he can max commerce.  What about industry?  How many slots has he left for that?  How much will that supplement his income?  How many slots do YOU have for it?  Did you not include your resource income in your own calculation of how quickly you could afford another city?  Or do you just not produce resources?

There's also the fact that money breeds money, and if you're smart you can use the fact that you make a ton of cash to broker on the markets, make financial investments, and do other things that will earn you a tidy return.  Many of those avenues are either less effective or closed off entirely to people with less liquidity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I make resources that go into my warchest, with the new change, my resource production is basically down to Steel, and break even on raw materials which includes coal/iron/uranium/food.  What do I do with that steel? I trade it for the other resources I need to continue building my warchest, since it costs me around 50k steel to go from 0 military to max.  A nation his size doesn't need a huge ass warchest like mine, because its much easier for an alliance the size and age of BK to supplement his warchest during wars.

As for the money breeds money thing, he can also raid pretty much consequence free if he wanted to (unlike myself) you have whats his face that got to 20 cities in something like 200 days, because he was a crazy raiding fool.  So there are also avenues for smaller nations to expedite their growth if motivated enough to take them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to do something like this, it should apply to ALL infra not just infra below 2000. Shoehorning people into playstyles you want them to play as is not a good idea.

This is just a bandaid fix to resolve a problem created by another bandaid fix. So no I think this is a terrible idea as presented. Either all infra or no infra reduction.

 

 

 

 

 

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sketchy said:

If you are going to do something like this, it should apply to ALL infra not just infra below 2000. Shoehorning people into playstyles you want them to play as is not a good idea.

Do you even read, bro? 

On 7/10/2017 at 10:15 AM, Alex said:

How this would work in example, is building infrastructure in a new city would be the same. However, if you had, say, 2000 infrastructure in a city, and then went to war and had that knocked down to 1000, the rebuild cost from 1000->2000 infrastructure would be halved. Above 2000 infrastructure, however, you would be paying the full price again (though just the once, because if you dipped below that new, higher level, you would again be paying only 50% to rebuild to that new max.)

Bolded hypotheticals and the part where Sheepy said it did apply to higher than 2000. 

On 7/10/2017 at 10:42 AM, Alex said:

It's not arbitrarily capped at 2000, I was using 2000 as an example.

And then there was this. 

I don't read entire threads that much, tbh, so I shouldn't be the one talking.

:P 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Do you even read, bro? 

Bolded hypotheticals and the part where Sheepy said it did apply to higher than 2000. 

And then there was this. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I don't read entire threads that much, tbh, so I shouldn't be the one talking.

:P 

 

 

My point was there shouldn't be a cap it should apply to all infra or none, so 2k being an example is irrelevant.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

My point was there shouldn't be a cap it should apply to all infra or none, so 2k being an example is irrelevant.

Where did you get the impression that there was a cap? 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Where did you get the impression that there was a cap? 

It says in the poll "Now you want to rebuy: instead of it costing you the full price [$15,246,116] it would cost you 50% of that [$7,623,058] but beyond 2000 infrastructure buying more would cost the full price)"

Unless he means buying 2000 infrastructure total (which seems to be the case). In which case I'd say remove that cap. Either all infra is half price after purchase, or none is. Either way its an enforcement of a specific build.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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