Jump to content
Alex

Reducing the Cost of Rebuilding Infrastructure

Reducing the Cost of Rebuilding Infrastructure Poll  

94 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to gauge community feedback on a proposed change: reducing the cost of rebuying infrastructure. For a long time, the game has tracked the maximum infrastructure level in each city, so it would be very easy to implement.

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.)

I'd just like to see a quick yes/no vote so I can gauge community opinion. Thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alex said:

I just wanted to gauge community feedback on a proposed change: reducing the cost of rebuying infrastructure. For a long time, the game has tracked the maximum infrastructure level in each city, so it would be very easy to implement.

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.)

I'd just like to see a quick yes/no vote so I can gauge community opinion. Thanks.

looks out the window for any flaming meteors of death falling onto the ground

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like if you are going to make a change like that, you cant go half way with it, either have it 50% from 0-infinity or don't have it at all.

I would say tho, that would make for a cool new project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a game developer, so I'm probably not the best theorist to say anything here. However, on the surface, I like the idea because there would be less risk to getting into conflict. It would probably make for more smaller skirmishes. Sounds like a fun change tbh.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a good change - you've already payed for the slots, why pay full price again? I get the thinking, but SRD is right here, if you pixel hug professionally, and get wasted, then the rebuild is already enough of a money sink and the ROI is pretty much jack at those 3k+ levels of infra - especially with these new changes. I'd be supportive of either change but moreso for the infinite infra halved idea, rather than just 2k. As SRD said, new project idea too. Encourages more wars too, as they're less costly, and who doesn't love that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

I'm not a game developer, so I'm probably not the best theorist to say anything here. However, on the surface, I like the idea because there would be less risk to getting into conflict. It would probably make for more smaller skirmishes. Sounds like a fun change tbh.

Yeah, but this makes money less important. Now you have too much money to throw around. Also nukes would become useless. There would be no point to hitting infra anymore really since the munitions and gas would be more expensive than the actual cost. 

Also lmao, punish people for being around longer and doing better. Ok, Kevin, let's go with Cyber Politics and Nation Wars.

Edited by Shifty Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shifty Stranger said:

Yeah, but this makes money less important. Now you have too much money to throw around. Also nukes would become useless. There would be no point to hitting infra anymore really since the munitions and gas would be more expensive than the actual cost. 

easy fix, nuked cities are unaffected by the mechanic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheepy, I understand you are trying to mean well with this update, but you are going about it the wrong way. 

The last update favored whales who were already built to a large size, which mitigated the damage of it. This is only going to swing things further in their favor. The issue is that this once again favors large nations already at a large size. If their infra gets destroyed, it'll only be half as hard to grow back to the previous level. However, if a new nation comes along, they'll have to pay full price to get to the same level. What I'm trying to say is that this update will make it all the more harder for newer nations to catch up or surpass older ones, which was one of the biggest faults with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (tech). 

What drew me to this game was the ability for new nations to surpass their elders, but this update will make it harder for such to happen. If you want to reduce the price of infrastructure, go the entire way rather than just rebuild. If you wanted to implement such a mechanic, it would have been best to do so when the game launched. Now, it is far too late to do that. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shifty Stranger said:

Then nukes are OP af.

I wouldn't think so, considering both sides of a war can use nukes. It would encourage more nuking, more destructive wars - maybe even start wars of attrition because of the lack of food production. As a rule of thumb, you can do more damage still with 1200 planes and 1200 planes can kill all manner of things. Sure, nukes would be better at destroying infra, but conventional military would still be good for destroying more infra, but cheaper. Not to mention you can beige a whole lot faster with conventional military. Really this is a discussion for spy mechanic changes, maybe even the nature of fortify, but off topic. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gabranth said:

I wouldn't think so, considering both sides of a war can use nukes. It would encourage more nuking, more destructive wars - maybe even start wars of attrition because of the lack of food production. As a rule of thumb, you can do more damage still with 1200 planes and 1200 planes can kill all manner of things. Sure, nukes would be better at destroying infra, but conventional military would still be good for destroying more infra, but cheaper. Not to mention you can beige a whole lot faster with conventional military. Really this is a discussion for spy mechanic changes, maybe even the nature of fortify, but off topic. 

Ahh using fire and forgets not as defensive "I can't fight" weapons, but as siege weapons.

I am ok with this change if missiles/nukes can get that boost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I feel like if you are going to make a change like that, you cant go half way with it, either have it 50% from 0-infinity or don't have it at all.

I would say tho, that would make for a cool new project.

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

11 minutes ago, Joel James said:

Sheepy, I understand you are trying to mean well with this update, but you are going about it the wrong way. 

The last update favored whales who were already built to a large size, which mitigated the damage of it. This is only going to swing things further in their favor. The issue is that this once again favors large nations already at a large size. If their infra gets destroyed, it'll only be half as hard to grow back to the previous level. However, if a new nation comes along, they'll have to pay full price to get to the same level. What I'm trying to say is that this update will make it all the more harder for newer nations to catch up or surpass older ones, which was one of the biggest faults with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (tech). 

What drew me to this game was the ability for new nations to surpass their elders, but this update will make it harder for such to happen. If you want to reduce the price of infrastructure, go the entire way rather than just rebuild. If you wanted to implement such a mechanic, it would have been best to do so when the game launched. Now, it is far too late to do that. 

How about making rebuilt infrastructure 200% the cost (twice as expensive) and leave new infrastructure the normal price then? That ought to "punish" older players more, right?

(Before anyone cries and says I'm some sort of idiot, this is a sarcastic comment. Though theoretically it would accomplish the goal.)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean if you were using 2000 as an example what would the actual number because honestly hardcap at that would be the best option.

I also say reducing infra costs still accomplishes the same thing. If infra's cheaper outside of rebuilding it helps to encourage players to grow and easier on AAs to grow them (which balances out the new change) and wars will be more common because again cheap infra means cheap rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alex said:

How about making rebuilt infrastructure 200% the cost (twice as expensive) and leave new infrastructure the normal price then? That ought to "punish" older players more, right?

(Before anyone cries and says I'm some sort of idiot, this is a sarcastic comment. Though theoretically it would accomplish the goal.)

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. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes 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. 

I'm of the opinion that most changes are going to hurt people who have played the game for a long time the least because they have the biggest resource stockpiles, the most infrastructure, etc. Almost regardless of what the change, they're going to be able to handle it better. So using that as an argument against a change is a little silly, I think, when you could make that argument against almost every single change.

Reducing the cost of infrastructure across the board still benefits whales. In fact, it benefits them far more than new players, because the costs at higher infrastructure levels far exceed the cost of building, say, your first 1000 infrastructure which is a nominal cost. That is why I made the joking comment that we could increase the cost of rebuilding while reducing or maintaining the initial cost of building - that's about the only way that you're going to reduce the cost of infrastructure without disproportionately benefiting large nations.

I'm pretty indifferent about this update, my motivation is to try and address some of the concerns raised about smaller nations and upward mobility in the game. I think that those are important issues. Here was one suggestion I asked for feedback on - if I was dead set for it, I'd just do it, and I wouldn't ask for your feedback. So far we have a clear majority in the poll that does not like this change, which is fine, I can move on to something else.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alex said:

 if I was dead set for it, I'd just do it, and I wouldn't ask for your feedback.

Or would you just ask for feedback, get a negative response, and go through with it anyways? *cough* Update Yesterday *cough*

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already told you what to do. Lower infra costs all-around. Make it easier for bigger nations to rebuild and for smaller nations to build infra and catch up to bigger nations. Increase city prices.

I'm not sure why you're so against that idea, maybe because I said it, but now that the community is telling you this idea sucks too maybe you'll look into mine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alex said:

I'm of the opinion that most changes are going to hurt people who have played the game for a long time the least because they have the biggest resource stockpiles, the most infrastructure, etc. Almost regardless of what the change, they're going to be able to handle it better. So using that as an argument against a change is a little silly, I think, when you could make that argument against almost every single change.

Reducing the cost of infrastructure across the board still benefits whales. In fact, it benefits them far more than new players, because the costs at higher infrastructure levels far exceed the cost of building, say, your first 1000 infrastructure which is a nominal cost. That is why I made the joking comment that we could increase the cost of rebuilding while reducing or maintaining the initial cost of building - that's about the only way that you're going to reduce the cost of infrastructure without disproportionately benefiting large nations.

I'm pretty indifferent about this update, my motivation is to try and address some of the concerns raised about smaller nations and upward mobility in the game. I think that those are important issues. Here was one suggestion I asked for feedback on - if I was dead set for it, I'd just do it, and I wouldn't ask for your feedback. So far we have a clear majority in the poll that does not like this change, which is fine, I can move on to something else.

So this idea is to adress the concerns about small nations and upwards mobility, yet the argument that it will help large nations more, thereby accomplishing the exact opposite, is silly?

Edited by Zoot
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while I'm here, add color stock back to the game to give competition between colors and potentially form cross-sphere ties. Make it bring in a lot of money to get really competitive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.