Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted April 30, 2019 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted April 30, 2019 Brainstorming with @Prefontaine about some changes that ought to be made to the game, he pitched this idea to me. I think it's a good idea, and one that could easily be implemented in a very short amount of time. The idea is increasing the costs of cities over city 20 (starting with city 21), specifically by added resource costs (not affecting cash costs in any way.) How Prefontaine explains it: "Cities over 20 cost raw resources to build 1k for each city above 20, 21 costs 1k Baux, Iron, Lead where as city 26 costs 6k of each. Cities over 30 cost 2k Oil, Coal, Uranium to build for each city above 30, if you want to make it fair to the people who haven't already built these city levels versus those who have you can require the next city to have a retroactive amount to build the next. This will likely cause a massive demand increase on raws for a short period of time (3 months or so) before normalizing if you do the retro." Here's a table illustrating the costs to help understand the idea: The resource costs would be applied retroactively, so that if you already have more than 20 cities, your next city would cost the cumulative total of whatever resources you were not required to pay previously. For example, if you had 24 cities, when you went to build city 25 it would cost 15,000 Bauxite, Lead, and Iron (not 5,000) but after city 25 was built, you would go back to the regular costs (6K of each for city 26.) Hopefully the idea is explained clearly enough. The implications of this suggestion would just be an increased demand for the raw resources in the market. Please use the upvote/downvote reactions to help me gauge public opinion regarding this idea. Thanks! 38 67 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...
Daniel Storm Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impreza Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Why would it start at 20 cities? Why not go from the beginning? That would at least make it consistent. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted April 30, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 1 2 10 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...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted April 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 30, 2019 I also want there to be a project that lowers the money-cost of cities rolled out with this, the project would cost resources to fund. 3 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydraik Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Everyone uses uranium why not make uranium one of the main 3 from the 20 city Mark? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGhost Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanderlion Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightHonorable Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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). 3 Quote Haatyc or'arue jate'shya ori'sol aru'ike nuhaatyc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vito Posted April 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 30, 2019 If this were to happen the money cost needs to be reduced to balance this. Not to mention it already takes a very long time to build cities mid-tier and the whales get to ignore this up to this point. It would just make it so that whales can stay at their level and everyone else is having a hard time getting to their score, making the game even more unfair. 2 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sphinx Posted April 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) The only thing Increasing the cost of cities does is makes it harder for newer players to grow and the whales who made it there long ago can sit comfortably knowing that people won't reach them anytime soon. A retroactive cost to new cities does nothing to the imbalance cause I could just sit on my 35 cities and know that for some alliances it'll be impossible for them to reach me in any short time. If anything what the game needs is more resource sinks or if you really want to admit that changing the resource production formulae broke the market revert back to the old system. EDIT: Maybe adding something like consumer goods (Could be produced from various raws and refined resources) and have the usage amounts scale to the population of a nation. Edited April 30, 2019 by Sphinx typo 2 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOYCE THE GREAT Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sphinx Posted April 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, BOYCE THE GREAT said: 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. I know if this was planned to be introduced. Then Seb and I and all the other whale bankers would cash out all our Investments and build a bunch of new cities and then sit on whatever amount we reached. If anything this is regressive for both newer players hampering their growth and shutting down any future upper tier growth. Also, Pre mate you're normally on par with your posts/ideas, but this one missed the mark I'm afraid. Edited April 30, 2019 by Sphinx 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOYCE THE GREAT Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 I mean I have to agree, I would spam buy cities if this were going to be added and be locked in the mid 30's+ forever. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightHonorable Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 3 Quote Haatyc or'arue jate'shya ori'sol aru'ike nuhaatyc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossiya Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) 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 April 30, 2019 by Deulos 5 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) 62 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) 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 April 30, 2019 by WISD0MTREE 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsi Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOYCE THE GREAT Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOYCE THE GREAT Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 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. 1 1 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.