Jump to content

Reduce Sub 20 City Costs


The Mad Titan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm fairly sure there's more to player retention than just slow city growth (at least to the extent that is being suggested). If you can keep someone playing for ~1-2 months, chances are they'll continue playing for a while longer. Once you're reaching 9-19 cities chances are you're not really going to be in the instance where you're disheartened about nation size disparity. There's also a number of low NS alliances with a large number of these small players. If it was truly the case that people don't hang around just because growth is too slow, why do these alliances exist? The game doesn't (and shouldn't) just revolve around the largest 15-20 alliances and their playing styles, rather should be open to having some extent of difference in the hope of making things more diverse. The game isn't just about growing (or else the name wouldn't be politics and war).

Alternatively, it'd be better to extend the limit on how many cities can bypass the 10 wait timer (it's currently 5?), to perhaps 6 or 7

Edited by James XVI

THE Definitive James:

KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about...

infernalsig.png.492fbaaf465234c6d9cf76f12f038d04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheNG said:

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. More people playing PnW is a good thing. 

Yeah we are the bad guys. Why was this suggestion taken in right now? After a larger IQ debt? Totes our fault for protesting on them getting off easier. Also Leo,  if you had that large ammount of players in your hands and your lied hands then how come many VM, Delete,  Make Mutinies and yada yada which leads to less positive war results. If you coordinated and worked well with your money you could have made the Members be in a good self-sustaining position so to say with decent ammounts of cities,  income and all of the above but the result js with many abandonments happening,  with less players in the game aka deleteing yada yada. I really don't need to talk much about this and exoand it

 

 

+we get it iq,  your only ways of making yourself seem superior to us is downvoting us. Great accomplishment

Edited by Rimski
  • 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

Just now, TheNG said:

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. 

Now look: Yes, pointing out that the suggestion is coming from a BK leader is indeed ad hominem fallacy. However, this doesn't make his suggestion any less ungodly awful. What really shows it as nothing more than a cry for 'pleease let IQ be competitive despite ourselves' is that it's trying to argue that "new players" are anyone under city 20. Guess what: You're not new players, you're just slow growing players.

What you're really missing is that the larger and wealthier players are, or can be engines of growth to the actual new players. It's not like Torn where their battle stats are simply cancerous lumps that keep everyone down; this is wealth that can be (and is) spread around to new players that show real interest and promise in the game.

Yes, new players will never be able to exceed players that have been playing for 5 years longer than they have... And neither this suggestion nor any other short of clamping cities to a maximum of 35 will accomplish that, nor should that ever be the case.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ⓕurpk said:

The problem I see in shrinking the city cost sub-30 cities is the implications it could have on wars. This proposition is basically just a call to make everyone in IQ into whales to accommodate for the lack of skill within their players, citing it would help everyone else to give themselves the moral high ground. Making this an altruistic argument, or one of keeping players in, is overall a false dogma laid down by the IQ hegemon. 

So you admit you dislike this for this relates to the political side and a future war that may not happen rather than concern for idea at hand, got it.

 

2 minutes ago, Rimski said:

Yeah we are the bad guys. Why was this suggestion taken in right now? After a larger IQ debt? Totes our fault for protesting on them getting off easier. Also Leo,  if you had that large ammount of players in your hands and your lied hands then how come many VM, Delete,  Make Mutinies and yada yada which leads to less positive war results. If you coordinated and worked well with your money you could have made the Members be in a good self-sustaining position so to say with decent ammounts of cities,  income and all of the above but the result js with many abandonments happening,  with less players in the game aka deleteing yada yada. I really don't need to talk much about this and exoand it

Literally has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just attacking me personally. Lmao come back when you have something related to the topic.

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

13 minutes ago, TheNG said:

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.

To be fair if it was done once and didn't really address the issue to the point where it needs to be done again, what's going to make it work a second time?

 

5 minutes ago, Kastor said:

Everyone arguing community vs game fails to realize most people don’t ever even apply to an alliance.

For people without an alliance, reducing city cost won't do anything RE: keeping them in game. I would imagine the main issue there is lack of protection from raiding.

Edited by James XVI
  • Upvote 1

THE Definitive James:

KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about...

infernalsig.png.492fbaaf465234c6d9cf76f12f038d04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>claiming it is hitting on you personally because you are on the losing front

 

We've stated our opinion. The game has been like this for a long time,  why change it out of the blue? Because the last war brought a burdon on your comrades. Try making different plans for your economies and different war planes in future conflicts instead of trying to "improve the game" to your benefit

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, James XVI said:

To be fair if it was done once and didn't really address the issue to the point where it needs to be done again, what's going to make it work a second time?

Because Alex himself has said that he never intended for people to get as large as they have in the first place. This doesn't take away anything from larger players, just makes it so younger players do not have years of waiting to become "upper-tier".

Just now, Rimski said:

>claiming it is hitting on you personally because you are on the losing front

 

We've stated our opinion. The game has been like this for a long time,  why change it out of the blue? Because the last war brought a burdon on your comrades. Try making different plans for your economies and different war planes in future conflicts instead of trying to "improve the game" to your benefit

Still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Can't you shit post somewhere else?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

it's trying to argue that "new players" are anyone under city 20. Guess what: You're not new players, you're just slow growing players.

Hello, fellow new player. I am a new player with a city count of 19. 

Y4JmcK7.png?1

  • Upvote 4

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
30 minutes 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 LOW 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 and beg alex
Step 4: MASS UPVOTE!!!
Step 5: Call anyone who comments a Loser

Thought provoking I know.
29rkf4.jpg

As has been observed, the proposal isn't alliance-specific; reducing city costs and allowing newer players to more easily engage in a meaningful way would positively impact all AAs.  In fact, the largest AA that actively engages in recruiting and training new players is TKR, so trying to frame it as an IQ versus non IQ issue rather misses the point.  This is an issue that impacts PW as a whole, rather than individual AAs.

29 minutes 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.

 

18 minutes 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.

As stated above, this is a bigger issue than people 'getting gud,' nor is it confined to any particular AA.  Sketchy's stats helpfully outline this here:

- 57 percent of players do not belong to any AA, meaning that they either haven't joined one or have been ejected for inactivity.

- Another 40 percent are on gray, which also tends to indicate inactivity

- 74 percent of players stall out before they reach 5 cities, which is a level you can already immediately reach under the current changes introduced by Alex to help new players reach a slightly higher city count more quickly.

As Leo has observed, this isn't an issue specific to any particular AA and lowering city costs has the benefit of making it more economical for established AAs to invest in new players without as much concern about monetary losses if they do delete.  Given PW's dismal retention rate (which impacts all of us, including both BK and KT), this is something that you guys should probably be in favour of, since it creates a richer environment for all of us and prolongs the life of a game we all play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

Because Alex himself has said that he never intended for people to get as large as they have in the first place. This doesn't take away anything from larger players, just makes it so younger players do not have years of waiting to become "upper-tier".

 

11 minutes ago, James XVI said:

The game isn't just about growing (or else the name wouldn't be politics and war).

Plus, if it was never that intention to let people grow to such an extent, it really should have been dealt with sooner... <<not a complaint towards this suggestion, more critique of the game's development in that regard.

THE Definitive James:

KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about...

infernalsig.png.492fbaaf465234c6d9cf76f12f038d04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes 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.

The issue isn't about game boredom.  I'm not sure why that's even being brought up especially whenever we had a war that just ended that utilized a large portion of the game player base.

Nothing you said actually has anything to do with the suggestion that was brought up.  

26 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

Nothing to do with the suggestion either, why are you even posting in here if you're not going to debate the idea itself?
 

19 minutes ago, Rimski said:

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? 

I don't see the correlation between something being around for a while and it being the right thing to continue utilizing.  That's some backwards thinking whenever it comes to game mechanics and that goes across the spectrum of various games.  Things change and the courses need to be altered for the sake of the meta and it doesn't always benefit everyone but that's how updates are generally speaking.  There's always going to be a balancing act whenever introducing an update.  The notion to prioritize a small group over the larger group of new players that may add to the game.  That's pretty silly in my opinion especially whenever those newer nations could help add more dynamics to the game whether through newer AAs that can compete or just newer nations that can be introduced into the action faster.  People complain about the game being stagnant but whenever an idea is proposed that can allow NEW people to add more to the game they withdraw at the thought of it.  
 

16 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.

 


There is a correlation between new people staying whenever they realize that there's a current allocated time limit incurred to get to a certain city size that's absurd.  I don't see anyone being able to validate staying around for 2 years+ just to finally get to a decent level that would be able to challenge more experienced members.  It's a pretty common occurrence whether you want to admit it or not.
 

  • Upvote 1

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

Because Alex himself has said that he never intended for people to get as large as they have in the first place. This doesn't take away anything from larger players, just makes it so younger players do not have years of waiting to become "upper-tier".

I can demolish your entire argument in two questions. You're not going to answer these without falling back on the victim card, I promise.

First question:
If Alex didn't intend for people to get as large as they are, why didn't he clamp growth to a maximum?

Second question:
You claim to want more player retention. This is fine. What about older player retention? If any little noob can expect to reach the level that older players can with ease, then what's to keep anyone around once they've reached that level? At that point, why should anyone play at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Curufinwe said:

-wall of text-

Again,

i. This is normal for these games (see below)

ii. We've already reduced city prices in the past and it did almost nothing for retention rates. What makes you think it'll happen this time? 

9 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Low retention rates are part of the genre. Even well established games by dev studios with 3-D graphics tend to have relatively low retention rates. Look at Clash of Clans or Boom Beach. They have lots more in terms of content and even have graphics, yet their one week retention rate isn't even 40%. A game analyst who analyzed games like Temple Run said 5% after 30 days is great. Again, that is with games that an entire dev studio makes, not just Sheepy. One thing those games have that PaW doesn't is a steady stream of content. It was months between the last few wars. If you truly want increased retention, go for options to increase the frequency of wars. 

 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Now look: Yes, pointing out that the suggestion is coming from a BK leader is indeed ad hominem fallacy. However, this doesn't make his suggestion any less ungodly awful. What really shows it as nothing more than a cry for 'pleease let IQ be competitive despite ourselves' is that it's trying to argue that "new players" are anyone under city 20. Guess what: You're not new players, you're just slow growing players.

What you're really missing is that the larger and wealthier players are, or can be engines of growth to the actual new players. It's not like Torn where their battle stats are simply cancerous lumps that keep everyone down; this is wealth that can be (and is) spread around to new players that show real interest and promise in the game.

Yes, new players will never be able to exceed players that have been playing for 5 years longer than they have... And neither this suggestion nor any other short of clamping cities to a maximum of 35 will accomplish that, nor should that ever be the case.

Uh, are you sure you weren't trying to quote Leo? Cause it seems like you're assuming I have some stake or hand in the suggestion, when I truthfully had no idea it was going to be proposed beforehand. So, I have no idea why Leo chose 20 cities, you can ask him and complain that IQ isn't growing fast enough at the same time! Alex's formula affecting everyone below 30-ish cities might be more equitable in that case to help basically everyone in the game grow a bit faster and catch up to the 33 city folks, who could then fund all the newbies.

But whatever, as I said, not opposed to the idea of reducing city costs in principle, but if there's something better then w/ever, let's go for it.

 

2 minutes ago, James XVI said:

To be fair if it was done once and didn't really address the issue to the point where it needs to be done again, what's going to make it work a second time?

Well, the game is rather different now (number of nations, the whole econ system, ect.) than it was a few years back. So changing conditions could warrant multiple adjustments over time. But you're right that what Leo or Alex proposed might not be the best way. *shrugs* I guess we'll see.

"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

Just now, Sir Scarfalot said:

I can demolish your entire argument in two questions. You're not going to answer these without falling back on the victim card, I promise.

First question:
If Alex didn't intend for people to get as large as they are, why didn't he clamp growth to a maximum?

Second question:
You claim to want more player retention. This is fine. What about older player retention? If any little noob can expect to reach the level that older players can with ease, then what's to keep anyone around once they've reached that level? At that point, why should anyone play at all?

 

1: I can't answer the first one, you would have to ask @Alex himself I don't speak for him.

2: Little noobs cant reach that level with ease. It would still cost them almost 12 billion dollars to reach where the largest nations are, that would still take time, but not to the extent it does now.

So demolished, much wow.

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

2 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

 

1: I can't answer the first one, you would have to ask @Alex himself I don't speak for him.

2: Little noobs cant reach that level with ease. It would still cost them almost 12 billion dollars to reach where the largest nations are, that would still take time, but not to the extent it does now.

So demolished, much wow.

I mean the funny thing is the "cap" of where you want to be able to get to is the funniest part of your proposal.

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seeker said:

The issue isn't about game boredom.  I'm not sure why that's even being brought up especially whenever we had a war that just ended that utilized a large portion of the game player base.

Yes, and how long was it between the past few wars? A bit more than half a year? That's like citing the number of terrorists deaths in 2001 to make a claim terrorism will kill everyone in NYC within your lifetime. 

14 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

It was months between the last few wars. If you truly want increased retention, go for options to increase the frequency of wars. 

 

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My nation is not even a year old and I have 17 cities. It's taking years to get to 20+ cities? Maybe if you don't actively pursure more cities, yes. Dramatically reducing the cost of cities to benefit those alliances that simply haven't put as much resources and work into growing their member's nations over the time and therefore punishing those who did? No, thanks.

Edited by Mitsuru
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

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. 

It doesn't increase the cost of investment at all, there is no rule that says alliances have to immediately build new players to 5 cities, let alone 10. Its fairly easy to create a structured time-based econ program. You also didn't address the cheap infrastructure component, nor did you address why 20 cities is somehow a reasonable cutoff point considering that is a long term goal.

People have had minimum city counts prior to the update that moved the city timer up, and new players have always been a risky investment. Not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning.

21 minutes ago, Seeker said:

There is a correlation between new people staying whenever they realize that there's a current allocated time limit incurred to get to a certain city size that's absurd.  I don't see anyone being able to validate staying around for 2 years+ just to finally get to a decent level that would be able to challenge more experienced members.  It's a pretty common occurrence whether you want to admit it or not.
 

This is then an argument about war ranges and war mechanics and not an argument about growth. Because you didn't even address the obvious improvements to growth in my suggestion for new players (which the whole point of this thread was to increase retention by increasing growth).  The difference is my solution doesn't unfairly advantage people in a key range (14-17), whilst disadvantaging a different one (20+). It instead puts the focus on the actual noobs (less than 10 cities). 

As for the first sentence, It sounds like you are making that claim and not inferring I made it, if that is the case, then my solution addresses that. By reducing infrastructure and land costs in sub 10 cities, whilst removing the city timer, it will accelerate the growth process for all nations under 10 cities, whilst not unfairly disadvantaging larger players who can also make use of said bonus to rebuild those cities faster etc.

If this suggestion was targetted at player retention, then its worth noting that I disagree with the premise that this is the primary reason for low retention rates. Some people don't like nation simulators, just not their speed, and the only way you stand a chance of capturing that audience is by creating engaging ways to keep those players interested on a day to day basis whilst still not majorly disadvantaging the more casual playerbase.

 

Edited by Sketchy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeotheGreat said:

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.

This will greatly devalue a lot of old player's sense of achivment, since it took them 3 years to get to 20 citys and then some nobody noob makes it there in 3 months thanks to boost he gets from alliance and cheaper prices.

  • Upvote 3

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
7 minutes ago, Rimski said:

>claiming it is hitting on you personally because you are on the losing front

 

We've stated our opinion. The game has been like this for a long time,  why change it out of the blue? Because the last war brought a burdon on your comrades. Try making different plans for your economies and different war planes in future conflicts instead of trying to "improve the game" to your benefit

Well as was observed above, the game hasn't been 'like this for a long time' - Alex is constantly changing features in order to tweak gameplay, encourage more players to join (and stay).  If the three years or so I've been playing, the war system has been changed several times, the way score ranges have been calculated have been altered once, econ has been changed several times, infra costs have been reduced, city timers have been reset for sub-5 city nations, among others.  So saying that everything should be the same as it has always been kinda misses the point, since the game is constantly changing to better meet the needs of the players.

And, as was observed above, this isn't a proposal that exclusively (or even specifically) benefits IQ.  All AAs benefit from increased retention (including KT), so framing it as self-interested misses the point that Leo is trying to make.

6 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Again,

i. This is normal for these games (see below)

ii. We've already reduced city prices in the past and it did almost nothing for retention rates. What makes you think it'll happen this time? 

 

ii) Previous updates focused more on infra costs and cooldowns for sub-5 city nations.  Although city costs were cut, the OP is suggesting a more significant decrease than was the case in the past, which may indeed have a positive impact.  Plus, even if it doesn't, it still has the positive impact of allowing more of the existing players (from all AAs) to particular in a meaningful way more quickly, which is good for everyone involved.

 

10 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Second question:
You claim to want more player retention. This is fine. What about older player retention? If any little noob can expect to reach the level that older players can with ease, then what's to keep anyone around once they've reached that level? At that point, why should anyone play at all?

A) First, according to Sketchy's helpful stats, players with 20 or more cities make up less than 4 percent of the overall playerbase, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to privilege their concerns over those of the 96 percent of players that are currently below 20 cities if doing so has a negative impact on retention and participation.  Second, your argument presupposes that larger players will quit because smaller ones grow, which seems like an odd assumption to make in any case since it assumes they only play because they're larger than someone else, not because they enjoy the game.  

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.