Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

[Seeker]

19 hours ago, The God Emperor of Mankind said:

As a new player, the real issue is the 10 day city timer, and not the cost.

171 days old isn't really what I would define as a "new player" considering that's almost half a year of game play under your belt.

[Buorhann]

8 hours ago, Seeker said:

171 days old isn't really what I would define as a "new player" considering that's almost half a year of game play under your belt.

If he was fed his cities, that’s roughly 50-60 real life days to get to 10 cities at minimal.

I’d consider anyone from 6mos and younger as a “new player”.

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 5/10/2018 at 6:36 PM, The God Emperor of Mankind said:

As a new player, the real issue is the 10 day city timer, and not the cost.

 

8 hours ago, Seeker said:

171 days old isn't really what I would define as a "new player" considering that's almost half a year of game play under your belt.

 

37 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

If he was fed his cities, that’s roughly 50-60 real life days to get to 10 cities at minimal.

I’d consider anyone from 6mos and younger as a “new player”.

On 5/6/2018 at 1:13 PM, 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.

 

A lot of this thread seems to be disagreement on what exactly 'new player' means and how much they should be coddled.

I'm all for giving actual new players a chance to grow and compete in spite of established players presenting a daunting level of progress and refinement. That said, the very idea of saying that everyone sub 20 cities, or someone that's an officer in the #1 ranked alliance in the game, qualifies for the status of 'new player' is laughable. That is ridiculous. And that's why I reported the OP. Trolling, low-effort, useless "suggestions" without substance or serious thought are against the forum rules, and dishonest to boot. What the actual hell, people. This is just sad. Worse, Sheepy doesn't pay attention enough to realize just how much he's being taken for a ride by your antics. Stop it, for the love of everything holy, just stop.

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

On 5/10/2018 at 6:36 PM, The God Emperor of Mankind said:

As a new player, the real issue is the 10 day city timer, and not the cost.

 

12 hours ago, Seeker said:

171 days old isn't really what I would define as a "new player" considering that's almost half a year of game play under your belt.

I wouldn't define a reroll as a new player either.

[Buorhann]

If he’s a reroll, you’re right Shifty.  Still, he has a somewhat valid opinion considering the topic at hand.  It does take awhile for a nation to “catch up”, which the 10 city timer idea could help mitigate.

[J Kell]

On 5/7/2018 at 4:22 PM, durmij said:

Real solution, make it so players get to city 5 through the tutorial alone, while adding bot nations that attack them so they have to beat an opponent on their own. Also, make forming an alliance more expensive. Still too many sink holes of suck.

3

I fully support this idea!  Make it harder for alliances to form and give newer nations a challenge at the beginning.

[Who Me]

11 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

And that's why I reported the OP. Trolling, low-effort, useless "suggestions" without substance or serious thought are against the forum rules, and dishonest to boot. What the actual hell, people. This is just sad. Worse, Sheepy doesn't pay attention enough to realize just how much he's being taken for a ride by your antics.

What you might want to know is that Leo discussed this with sheepy and was told to post the idea here, so really the one being a troll is you. Not a new thing really.

[Seeker]

15 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

someone that's an officer in the #1 ranked alliance in the game, qualifies for the status of 'new player' is laughable. That is ridiculous. 

Good point and honestly it didn't take me 6 months to figure out how to play this game on the individual level.  That's a bit absurd imo.

[Buorhann]

The point isn’t knowing how to play, it’s to get new nations caught up.

[Sir Scarfalot]

12 hours ago, Who Me said:

What you might want to know is that Leo discussed this with sheepy and was told to post the idea here, so really the one being a troll is you. Not a new thing really.

Well, the entire concept of Leo's suggestion is predicated on the absolutely insane notion that everyone with less than 20 cities is 'new' and therefore should have an easy time getting more cities lest they quit in a huff. That's either moronic or a joke, either way it isn't constructive and therefore is against the rules as written. Just because Sheepy hasn't paid enough attention to see it doesn't make it any less the case.

Unless, that is, you're seriously trying to argue that the entirety of NPO, and the vast majority of most other alliances and nations in the game including multiple officers of top 25 alliances are "new players" that deserve or require a boost to be relevant, engaged, or competitive. In which case, I'm keen to hear what possible logic can even begin to support that.
 

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

The point isn’t knowing how to play, it’s to get new nations caught up.

I would have to agree with this, but there's still got to be a reasonable limit to where we draw the line of 'caught up' really is. Besides, a strong foundation in understanding the game and a solid commitment to active play goes a very, very long way towards speeding up progress to a competitive level, and that should be encouraged, not bypassed. Removing the timer for cities up to 10 should work and like @Sketchy said, actually help genuinely new players.

[DragonK]

On 5/7/2018 at 1:01 AM, Curufinwe said:

Well I mean you're always have your war stats if you need to derive a sense of achievement from PW...

True, but they themselfs would become meaningless when a no life scrub beats me within a few months due to him only needed that much to get where it took me years. Look at money stolen for examle, a stat that was introduced post all war changes that were detrimental to me and my playstyle, and now you have young nations (or rather, youn pirates) like @Bluebear and @Ripper on top of if over me, just becasue it's counting stuff after I was already well past my prime. And, to add to same point, those same active nations surpassed me in city count quite easily, just becaseue there is more money now than there was in past. If they can do it, I don't see why your nations couldn't do the same. Getting to 20 citys is easy if you put your mind to it, I see no reason to change costs.