Jump to content

Increased Costs to Build New Cities


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
Just now, Dad said:

It's certainly a bit more of a band-aid fix then I'd like to see for the vast disparity between the amounts of resources and cash available, but anything helps.

It certainly is a band-aid fix to the low resource prices we're currently seeing, but I see it as part of a comprehensive solution. It would be a permanent increase in the demand for raw resources, while not being terribly costly to individual players.

Right now I don't have the ability to plan, develop, test, and implement a more permanent solutions (I should be able to do that in about a month.) This though is a relatively simple change to the code that could be rolled out as soon as this week and would help address the problem in the short-run.

1 minute ago, Impreza said:

Why would it start at 20 cities? Why not go from the beginning? That would at least make it consistent.

I just pitched it the way @Prefontaine pitched it to me; I imagine however that there would be more concern about stifling the growth of new players with increased costs for cities below 20.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 10

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not take away some money cost and put in some resource cost instead for earlier cities? This way it isn't just solely money cost and also makes it so you can put resource requirements earlier on without it costing "More" 

and you have to input a certain amount of resources to fill a requirement and the value of the resources is based on a weekly avg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think city costs should be discounted for nations under the average cities (with some exclusion so that players that join and stop playing within a few days don't count) - so it makes it easier for newer nations to catch up to the average but keeps the whales as whales.

And it should be steel and aluminium instead of iron and bauxite imo, or even some of every resource if you can make a case for munitions being used as dynamite.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alex said:

It certainly is a band-aid fix to the low resource prices we're currently seeing, but I see it as part of a comprehensive solution. It would be a permanent increase in the demand for raw resources, while not being terribly costly to individual players. 

Right now I don't have the ability to plan, develop, test, and implement a more permanent solutions (I should be able to do that in about a month.) This though is a relatively simple change to the code that could be rolled out as soon as this week and would help address the problem in the short-run.

I just pitched it the way @Prefontaine pitched it to me; I imagine however that there would be more concern about stifling the growth of new players with increased costs for cities below 20.

The problem that we have, the way I see it is overly high resource prices. While the marginal benefit of commerce is ultimately capped by the increasing cost of the infra needed to significantly increase income, there is no such limit on resource production, so those who got theirs won't be effected at all. All this will do is create an arbitrary barrier for those who are trying to grow (which will certainly hurt player retention).

  • Upvote 3

Haatyc or'arue jate'shya ori'sol aru'ike nuhaatyc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this just basically stops the game for anyone 30+ and to some extent 25+, for example Seb would have well over a billion $ invested in retroactive payments before even buying a city, that is an extreme example but still, i hate the idea of something like this being retroactive but if it isn't retroactive then it would be unfair to new players, this just simply isn't the solution.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those without the means to spam buy cities before those changes hit are just screwed. All this does is create a permanent aristocracy, and that will not go over well with those who aren't in that class, and will have no means to get there.

  • Upvote 3

Haatyc or'arue jate'shya ori'sol aru'ike nuhaatyc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. These aren't big cost increases. For example, for city 40 the cost would be ~120k resources * say 2000 PPU average = 240m. That may sound like a lot, but a nation at that point should make that in less than 10 days. City 30 would cost less than 60m more, which is <6% of City 30 cost...

2. If the goal is to increase resource prices, then this can play a part in that, but short of reducing steady supply (i.e. cutting production figures) or increasing steady demand (resource consumption per day for cities and/or infra and/or military), this just won't cut it.

3. By the way, it's still not "fair" even if the cost is retroactive, because bigger nations are much-better able to pay the retroactive cost than smaller nations are able to pay the cost going forward, because bigger nations are already producing a lot of resources / mats.

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

What makes me angry is the fact that Alex listens to the least popular idea thinking its genius, but when a simple resource like adding water to increase demand on resources, a permanent fix,he downvotes it. And the reason he provides: "It's the same thing as food.(when nobody can use food like water)."

Edited by Deulos
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley

Rather than rolling all costs up into the next city, would it be possible to 'turn-off' cities (but not delete), and allow the player to pay the fee to turn each city on progressively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm undecided on the issue, so I'll wait for others to post arguments.

Why not make the hard cap on commerce a soft cap? Right now, many nations are at 100%+ commerce and are still making resources. In an economy with a market cap of ~$12k, some people would probably switch more to commerce. Change commerce level from % to a raw number. Make it so each commerce improvement adds a diminishing amount to the commerce level. When resources are cheap, people will switch to commerce, decreasing the products on the market and increasing the number of nations able to buy from the market. Am I missing a reason why this wouldn't work?

11 minutes ago, Deulos said:

but when a simple resource like adding water

It's not that simple adding an entirely new resource.

Edited by WISD0MTREE
  • Like 2

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex said:

It certainly is a band-aid fix to the low resource prices we're currently seeing, but I see it as part of a comprehensive solution. It would be a permanent increase in the demand for raw resources, while not being terribly costly to individual players.

I'm just going to say this, admitting this is a band aid fix sends alot of warning signs to me. Even if somehow it does the rest you somehow foresee it helping solve other problems you claim it will solve. I am not convinced this is what the game needs.

2 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Why not make the hard cap on commerce a soft cap? Right now, many nations are at 100%+ commerce and are still making resources. In an economy with a market cap of ~$12k, some people would probably switch more to commerce. Change commerce level from % to a raw number. Make it so each commerce improvement adds a diminishing amount to the commerce level. When resources are cheap, people will switch to commerce, decreasing the products on the market and increasing the number of nations able to buy from the market. Am I missing a reason why this wouldn't work?

Like the idea proposed but how would you suggest for people with the ITC project?

Just out of curiosity and seems more interesting to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frawley said:

Rather than rolling all costs up into the next city, would it be possible to 'turn-off' cities (but not delete), and allow the player to pay the fee to turn each city on progressively. 

Well, I'm pretty sure people would lose their shit if 25% or more of their cities got randomly turned off for a month until they could turn them all back on. Not to mention this would break wars and war ranges for the next few months.

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

Guest Frawley
Just now, BOYCE THE GREAT said:

Well, I'm pretty sure people would lose their shit if 25% or more of their cities got randomly turned off for a month until they could turn them all back on. Not to mention this would break wars and war ranges for the next few months.

Disable the score increase they get perhaps.

People are going to lose their shit either way, but if you are going to fix an economy you might as well go hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frawley said:

Disable the score increase they get perhaps.

People are going to lose their shit either way, but if you are going to fix an economy you might as well go hard. 

I mean, a better fix would be to simply remove or nerf the production bonus instead of breaking another portion of the game to fix one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kelsi said:

Like the idea proposed but how would you suggest for people with the ITC project?

Just out of curiosity and seems more interesting to work with.

I suppose ITC could offer a flat % bonus to the commerce level, increase the amount the commerce level increases for each building, or slightly reduce the rate at which the commerce boost decreases. Plenty of different ways it could go. I had the soft cap idea for a long time, but never really thought of ITC until now. :P

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

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.