Jump to content

Reduce Sub 20 City Costs


The Mad Titan
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Upvote 1

1878498441_DJKrmko.png.dccff90b8a322ff56cb0b8e3e056be19.png
Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

1878498441_DJKrmko.png.dccff90b8a322ff56cb0b8e3e056be19.png
Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

1878498441_DJKrmko.png.dccff90b8a322ff56cb0b8e3e056be19.png
Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 10
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.