Popular Post The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 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. 61 68 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 No thanks, A true civilized population needs a hierarchy. The ability to distinguish patricians and plebs clearly is vital and unfortunately for IQ, they are at the bottom of the pecking order. Keep IQ down. 7 16 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted May 6, 2018 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 I generally agree with this sentiment, and if we can find a formula that gets mostly agreement, I'll go for it. Right now, the nations with the most cities have 33, so I think any change in city cost formula should be about neutral at that point, so as not to make it so that nations that already have a lot of cities will never be able to be caught up to. At the same time, I think it would make sense to not just lower the cost of cities across the board, and so in keeping with the current exponential cost scheme city prices will have to increase after some point (here I'm picking 33 cities for fairness.) The current formula is: 50000(x-1)^3 + 150000x + 75000 A simple formula for the proposed change the loosely fits what I was looking for in requirements is: 1500(x-1)^4 + 75000 The cost formulas intersect between 34 and 35 cities; that is, before the 35th city, all city costs are cheaper than the status quo. Starting at 35 and beyond, cities would be more expensive than currently. Under the current formula, the total cost for cities 2-34 would be $14,912,800,000 and under the proposed formula change here, it would be $11,743,017,600. The difference you can see then is ~$4,000,000,000 most of which is front loaded into the earlier cities. Obviously, this would be a huge shift to gameplay and building strategies, and would bring many many younger and newer nations into the fold as viable players. Thus, older established players would certainly lose some relative power by this. So, it's not something I am interesting in going through with without vast support by the playerbase. I'm also open to other formula adjustment suggestions. 29 24 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RomulusTheFirst Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 Just throwing this out there, what if the timer to be able to build a new city was fluid? Aka you have a longer wait time per city. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etgfrog Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 (edited) Left is city count, middle is new formula, right is old formula. 30 cities is the cutoff point where the old formula would cost more. Edited May 6, 2018 by Etgfrog 6 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Theodosius Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 Or here's another revolutionary idea: not brigade upvotes and virtue signal to Alex about retention when this has little to no effect on it, and instead learn how not to suck at Econ. 1 37 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Theodosius said: Or here's another revolutionary idea: not brigade upvotes and virtue signal to Alex about retention when this has little to no effect on it, and instead learn how not to suck at Econ. So are you saying there is no relationship between retention and growth? Every alliance would benefit here you are the one making this political. 6 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Theodosius said: Or here's another revolutionary idea: not brigade upvotes and virtue signal to Alex about retention when this has little to no effect on it, and instead learn how not to suck at Econ. I have another revolutionary idea: Provide an argument against it if you don't like the idea. Thought provoking, I know. 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 I'm basically against this as it removes our excuse for not growing into the same tier as everyone else. We'll just get choked out at 20 cities. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 1 minute ago, evilpiggyfoofoo said: A Dummy's Guide to Being the Leader of an IQ Alliance: Step 1: Gets roasted in a war and starts yelling WE WON LOWER TIER SUCK IT Step 2: Take forever to rebuild but still claims you have a lot of money left Step 3: Realize you are gonna lose the next war, so you go on the forum to complain Step 4: MASS UPVOTE!!! Step 5: Call anyone who comments a Loser Thought provoking I know. Do you have a non-political argument against this or no? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilpiggyfoofoo Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 1 minute ago, LeotheGreat said: Do you have a non-political argument against this or no? Step 5: Call anyone who comments a Loser? 1 Quote Order fresh quality ads, flags, and graphics at Makin'Bacon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Theodosius Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said: So are you saying there is no relationship between retention and growth? Every alliance would benefit here you are the one making this political. How am I making this political? If I were politically biased towards my own alliance, I'd say yes to this proposal. There's about 70% people below the sub-20 range in KT right now and many more in ET. Why make game easier? It's already easy as it is. You're spinning my words, growth and retention are connected, people simply need to get better at managing their growth besides hitting the "Sheepy, cities are too expensive" button. 1 11 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 Just now, evilpiggyfoofoo said: Step 5: Call anyone who comments a Loser? 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. 1 minute ago, Theodosius said: How am I making this political? If I were politically biased towards my own alliance, I'd say yes to this proposal. There's about 70% people below the sub-20 range in KT right now and many more in ET. Why make game easier? It's already easy as it is. You're spinning my words, growth and retention are connected, people simply need to get better at managing their growth besides hitting the "Sheepy, cities are too expensive" button. Well then I am waiting for an argument against this that transcends "Git Gud". 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Henry Eden Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 I have a better Idea what if we remove all nations that aren't fallout based from the game? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimski Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 It is a gut gud scenario. We have taken a lot of dammage in the conflict compared to size and we are not complaining about x being expensive. How come a smaller (compared to IQ member numbers) AA like KT take a huge brunt compared to size and walk away greatly but you a larger organization have issues on things being too expensive? 1 Quote Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vladamir Putin Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 If people in your alliance are quitting the game due to boredom, that's a direct result of an incompetent government. If your alliance does not create an economic system which creates an incentive to be active, your best and biggest members will leave, your taxes will rise, and you'll turn into a low-tier cess-pool pandering to the admin to benefit yourself rather than spending time adapting like prominent alliances are and should be. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rimski said: It is a gut gud scenario. We have taken a lot of dammage in the conflict compared to size and we are not complaining about x being expensive. How come a smaller (compared to IQ member numbers) AA like KT take a huge brunt compared to size and walk away greatly but you a larger organization have issues on things being too expensive? You are making this about individual alliances, and please make a suggestion on the topic at hand! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimski Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 It is not about individual alliances, I mentioned IQ and used KT as an example. There is a reason for all your failures in war and post war. And now you are trying to cover up those losses by reducing the price if something so you can grow easier. But we can just ignore the billions over billions worth if debt you have :x Quote Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kastor Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Vladamir Putin said: If people in your alliance are quitting the game due to boredom, that's a direct result of an incompetent government. If your alliance does not create an economic system which creates an incentive to be active, your best and biggest members will leave, your taxes will rise, and you'll turn into a low-tier cess-pool pandering to the admin to benefit yourself rather than spending time adapting like prominent alliances are and should be. 1. I don’t think that is exactly fair. Almost every alliance has poor player retention. 2. I don’t think this is fair either. For once I agree with Leo, none of the arguments against this have anything to do with the idea, just politics of the game. Of course this will help IQ, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t do it. @Alex would it be possible to give people who are in the gain now, a bonus for having cities. Maybe the difference between the city costs of then and now. You did something similar when you nerfed spies. 2 minutes ago, Rimski said: It is not about individual alliances, I mentioned IQ and used KT as an example. There is a reason for all your failures in war and post war. And now you are trying to cover up those losses by reducing the price if something so you can grow easier. But we can just ignore the billions over billions worth if debt you have :x Mentioning IQ and using KT as an example is literally making this about individual alliances. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 Just now, Kastor said: 1. I don’t think that is exactly fair. Almost every alliance has poor player retention. 2. I don’t think this is fair either. For once I agree with Leo, none of the arguments against this have anything to do with the idea, just politics of the game. Of course this will help IQ, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t do it. @Alex would it be possible to give people who are in the gain now, a bonus for having cities. Maybe the difference between the city costs of then and now. You did something similar when you nerfed spies. 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. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimski Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 What did you want me to use as examples then? Some ww2/post ww2 rl nations that could result in me getting warnings and have not much corelation to the game? Or use a perfect example of small coordinated vs large uncoordinated from a recent conflict? How about we keep it as it is. It has been like this for a long while why suddenly change in the opinion? Many players spent more money on cities and it is unfair that other players can get to the same point with less money. No way up is easy and you have to pay to get results back, now if this us accepted everything will be handed on a silver platter, why even play then? 1 2 4 Quote Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 There are better ways to give new players a starting chance without inherently devaluing older players previously built cities, especially when many were built under an economy with a considerably lower level of cash floating around in the economy. Cutting the city timer up to 5 cities was one previous option that was employed. Increasing the starting daily bonus was another. Choosing an arbitrary limit of 20 cities (which is fairly high might I add, the majority of the playerbase is still well under that) to reduce costs is obviously going to unfairly advantage a specific portion of the playerbase. Considering this update is supposed to be targeted at retention, aka keeping new people around, there is no logical reason the price reduction would go up to 20 cities. Other proposals, like reducing the cost of infrastructure and land in the first X (lets say 5 or maybe 10) cities in any nation, by a flat amount like 20%, and further moving the city timer limit up to say 10 cities, would both have a more balanced effect on the game and target the actual new players. 1 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheNG Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 (edited) Just because someone from BK suggests something doesn't make it automatically a bad idea to benefit them done entirely by sucking up to admin lmao. Grow up and lose the persecution complex KT. Anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to this on principle. As I recall, there was an adjustment to the cost of cities once before, a couple years back. (someone can go back and find a link I'm sure) It was done to address a similar issue, the increasing gap between the biggest nations and newer nations who weren't sticking around. So, there is precedent, which is probably why Alex isn't entirely opposed lol. Making cities marginally cheaper (as the formula Alex proposed would) is hardly gamebreaking and if it helps player retention, as the previous adjustment was aimed at, then why not. There are other options as well, but at the end of the day more people playing PnW is a good thing. Edited May 6, 2018 by TheNG 8 3 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vladamir Putin Posted May 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2018 Well yeah, the game's at face is just not interesting. It's slow, the graphics are rather boring. The game is only as fun as you make it. Assuming the player has never played a game like this, unless they magically stumble into an alliance discord with people willing to teach them how the game's mechanics works in a non-tedious manner, they will likely quit. If you want to boost player retention, make a better tutorial, have an admin pay people some credits in exchange for solid tutorial videos. You really think new players who quit the game will respond "man, if cities were cheaper, i'd have had sooooo much more fun in the game"? No. It's about the community that they surround themselves with, or lack thereof. 1 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sketchy said: There are better ways to give new players a starting chance without inherently devaluing older players previously built cities, especially when many were built under an economy with a considerably lower level of cash floating around in the economy. Cutting the city timer up to 5 cities was one previous option that was employed. Increasing the starting daily bonus was another. Choosing an arbitrary limit of 20 cities (which is fairly high might I add, the majority of the playerbase is still well under that) to reduce costs is obviously going to unfairly advantage a specific portion of the playerbase. Considering this update is supposed to be targeted at retention, aka keeping new people around, there is no logical reason the price reduction would go up to 20 cities. Other proposals, like reducing the cost of infrastructure and land in the first X (lets say 5 or maybe 10) cities in any nation, by a flat amount like 20%, and further moving the city timer limit up to say 10 cities, would both have a more balanced effect on the game and target the actual new players. 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. 1 10 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.