Popular Post Ryleh Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) What I am proposing is changing the infrastructure formula from what it used to be. I'm not sure if i'm allowed to post sheepy's old formula, but my new formula basically works to decrease the initial infrastructure cost up to the breaking point at around 2750. After that the cost would increase a fair bit. This is the costs of the old formula and my new formula. With this the lower infrastructure is a lot cheaper, which will help with player retention due to having more things to DO at the start, allow for smaller alliances to grow quicker, and make rebuild faster and return of interest on infra faster. With this as well I think the soft cap most people go to will increase from 2k-2.25k to around 2.25k-2.5k. However within it there is a large room for varied builds, something building onto what sheepy wanted with the last update, which was variety in build. Along with this, the lower infra patterns (such as being at 1500 for Mensa) would still be viable and allow for more and quicker wars in the game, such as 1 or 2 round fights (which requires less warchest). This would add a lot to the game and make it less boring and politics more interesting. Also the percentage saved in a graph: Sorry if any of my writing seems odd, I had writers block writing this Edit: why do i have to submit this as a question? Edited July 13, 2017 by Ryleh 55 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Is that second pic Desmos? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: Is that second pic Desmos? Desmos is amazing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 The current infrastructure cost formula is pretty much general knowledge. (0.01 * ((Current Infrastructure - 10) ^ 1.95)) + 300 If we're changing the cost though I'd go for a simple method: $500k for the first 500 infrastructure and then the next 500 infrastructure is double the cost. Would come to a total of about $511 mill in order to buy 5000 infrastructure, with it costing $256 mill in order to go from 4500 to 5000 infrastructure. Or some other factor, maybe 3 times the cost. That would be $60 mill to reach 2500 infrastructure, $546 mill to reach 3500 infrastructure and $14.8 billion to reach 5000 infrastructure. The point is, make sure it is something that people can easily understand. Players shouldn't require knowledge of calculus to work out whether or not they can afford to buy the next 500 infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, Shakyr said: The current infrastructure cost formula is pretty much general knowledge. (0.01 * ((Current Infrastructure - 10) ^ 1.95)) + 300 If we're changing the cost though I'd go for a simple method: 500kforthefirst500infrastructureandthenthenext500infrastructureisdoublethecost.Wouldcometoatotalofabout500kforthefirst500infrastructureandthenthenext500infrastructureisdoublethecost.Wouldcometoatotalofabout 511 mill in order to buy 5000 infrastructure, with it costing $256 mill in order to go from 4500 to 5000 infrastructure. Or some other factor, maybe 3 times the cost. That would be 60milltoreach2500infrastructure,60milltoreach2500infrastructure, 546 mill to reach 3500 infrastructure and $14.8 billion to reach 5000 infrastructure. The point is, make sure it is something that people can easily understand. Players shouldn't require knowledge of calculus to work out whether or not they can afford to buy the next 500 infrastructure. You just use the ingame calculator or put the amount into the city thing and it auto calculates? Also it's actually pretty easy for mine, just input target number and current number into equation, then sub the current from the target, and viola! you know how much it is... or you use the ingame calculator. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 Btw the formula i'm thinking of Rn is ((x^{5.247783})/25000000000)+100x Changes may occur. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) I dislike this quite a lot. It's a bad idea to change something like this midgame, and the end result of the change as you propose it here will be pushing everyone more strongly towards the same infra watermarks, so everyone will have similar builds. It also will mute a lot of the effects of Alex's resource update, which, love it or hate it, at least accomplished something. Edited July 13, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax 4 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said: I dislike this quite a lot. It's a bad idea to change something like this midgame, and the end result of the change as you propose it here will be pushing everyone more strongly towards the same infra watermarks, so everyone will have similar builds. It also will mute a lot of the effects of Alex's resource update, which, love it or hate it, at least accomplished something. I disagree with you on this. It won't mute many of Alex's updates because pollution will still be a big thing that forces people to specialize and such. And I actually don't think it'll force people to go to the same infra level. Having 1700 and 2000 infra right now is still pretty profitable, people might stay at it to have a faster ROI on things so then they can fight quicker/etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Terrible idea, but not quite so bad as some of the other recent changes, so I guess we'll see what happens with donations and active players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayor Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 You're a terrible idea ComradeMilton. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 9:40 AM, Spaceman Thrax said: I dislike this quite a lot. It's a bad idea to change something like this midgame, and the end result of the change as you propose it here will be pushing everyone more strongly towards the same infra watermarks, so everyone will have similar builds. It also will mute a lot of the effects of Alex's resource update, which, love it or hate it, at least accomplished something. Not to mention suddenly devaluing/inflating the price of a hard asset (infra). Imagine logging in and, congratulations, your infra is worth half of what it was and most of the game is now going to spend a fraction of what you did to get were you are. The best bet is the repair discount discussed or possibly a scavenger refund when you lose infra. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 So, if this formula is adopted, I'd lose around 120 million in infra value. I've heard that you are seriously considering this Sheepy. Would you compensate those of us that lose in the switch? 1 1 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Changing this formula mid game is a bad move imo, makes it even worse if there is no compensation for those of us that actually put forth the significant investment into our infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForgotPants Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 On 13/07/2017 at 7:10 PM, Spaceman Thrax said: I dislike this quite a lot. It's a bad idea to change something like this midgame, and the end result of the change as you propose it here will be pushing everyone more strongly towards the same infra watermarks, so everyone will have similar builds. It also will mute a lot of the effects of Alex's resource update, which, love it or hate it, at least accomplished something. I agree with this. Making infra cheaper will push players to move to the 1700-2000 bracket which will bring in more taxes and in turn flush the economy. Pollution or not is a moot point if pretty much everyone can manage 100% commerce easily and shoot up their cash revenue. Resource prices would suffer again with a cash influx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted July 20, 2017 Author Share Posted July 20, 2017 I could see some money returned to the people if Alex wants, it seems fair. Also repairing/rebuilding infra being cheaper is a worse idea. Also I think more money and more need but about close to the same production of raws will drive their prices up? No major in economics though, so could be wrong. Also there's now a harder cap for production of resources, since it takes very little to run out of hospitals/stuff that removes pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayor Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Although there is an argument to be made about cheaper infra negating Alex' resource update; the people who want compensation for their "hard earned" infra are just whiners and Arrgh should pay them a nice visit. I think cheaper infra would encourage more raids and wars; and that I always support even if my own infra is worth less. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Or instead of returning lost money, don't make a change to one of the systems in the game that isn't broken. Leave infra formulas alone, they don't need to be changed. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubayoo Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) This game needs more plumbing... ...and power lines... ...and roads... ...and railways... ...and bus depots... ...and desalinization plants, water towers, airports, seaports, parks, museums... ...screw it. Just turn PnW into Sim City. At least we can have alien invasions then too. If you're here for the infrastructure, you're playing the wrong game. Heck, I'll even do you a favor just to point you in the right direction: https://classicreload.com/simcity-2000.html Edited July 20, 2017 by Dubayoo 1 Quote My Avie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senna/ Shortened versions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qZu7h5ys0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVqSpS65VE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 On 7/20/2017 at 2:43 PM, Dubayoo said: Heck, I'll even do you a favor just to point you in the right direction: https://classicreload.com/simcity-2000.html Hey, Origin had that free a few weeks ago. It's a great game. I filled the entire map with trees. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 While I admire the effort you put into this post, th overall idea would have only been fair in the beginning if the game. Now it’s ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.