Jump to content

Increased Costs to Build New Cities


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Alex this is a great idea, but this ain’t going to happen if you listen to the players, so just do it. Maybe just change the main 3 raws for cities according to what continent the player is on.

@Prefontaine this is awesome, !@#$ up my whole growth plan but it would definitely work, gg fam :)

 

@Frawley ? that way pplz with 30+ Are forced to use the rrs they haven’t used and it’s great. No sneaking around it, I love it! ^^

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
32204241a4480364cfebb04c10bf72cfaeb4dce2x696.gif
Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D
Former Director of Finance, Security in e$
Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server)
luffyt$forum.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MonkeyDLegend said:

@Alex this is a great idea, but this ain’t going to happen if you listen to the players, so just do it. Maybe just change the main 3 raws for cities according to what continent the player is on.

@Prefontaine this is awesome, !@#$ up my whole growth plan but it would definitely work, gg fam :)

 

@Frawley ? that way pplz with 30+ Are forced to use the rrs they haven’t used and it’s great. No sneaking around it, I love it! ^^

 

 

tfw Monkey never saw my post
:feelsbadman:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm good with it. We'll need to slow down growth up the top end to avoid seeing what happened to CN- the tiers grew out so far that you'd never become relevant.

It will also fairly aggressively suck up resources from the market, too.

The main change I'd make is for this change to use the manufactured resources, not the raws- steel, gasoline, aluminium. Not really sure where we can throw munitions into that mix.

  • Upvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, you need to do it. Stop listening to people's self-interested opinions, fixing the economy of the game is more important. We need a constant resource sink in this game that isn't just warfare or a couple of projects.

The only other option is to start making resources cost upkeep.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I will say, however, now that I look at the numbers, is that this is going to do a lot less about changing the speed of nation growth than it'll do to push market prices back up.

  • Like 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. As many put it it's a band-aid fix. Yet it does fix a part of problem, and if you really do have other things planed, sure go do it.

Also I like @ShadyAssassin 's idea to add resource cost to infra (and maybe land?). That will come to effect much sooner, and hit bigger nations harder.

  • Upvote 1

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too the people who say it's not enough of a fix. When you're trying to fix/balance multifaceted like all the resources you need to do it with several fixes, not just one. If you try to cram it all into one you're bound to screw something up elsewhere, overcompensate and cause a new balance problem, undershoot and fail to solve the problem, try to do too much and it all just becomes a mess. So calm yourself Akuryo.

 

This is one step of several  to increase the uses on resources. You increase a bit in multiple places it will have a steady impact.

 

I do like the idea of making the first three required based off of the continent you're on @MonkeyDLegend 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the idea that whales would stop or meaningfully change their banking practices if this change goes through to be rather umm... funny. Let me be super generous with my numbers to illustrate why.

If a 34-city whale makes, say, $1.5m per city (so ~$51m/day, does any whale make that much?), and their 35th city costs, with Manifest Destiny, $1,711,923,750 , that means they'll be getting a daily return of 0.08% if they were to put that money in their 35th city. Nice, right? And what do whales make from banking? 2% a week, so ~ 0.285% a day? A 2%-6% increase in city cost won't change the demand for loans in either direction enough for this to meaningfully affect banking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rossiya said:

I find the idea that whales would stop or meaningfully change their banking practices if this change goes through to be rather umm... funny. Let me be super generous with my numbers to illustrate why.

If a 34-city whale makes, say, $1.5m per city (so ~$51m/day, does any whale make that much?), and their 35th city costs, with Manifest Destiny, $1,711,923,750 , that means they'll be getting a daily return of 0.08% if they were to put that money in their 35th city. Nice, right? And what do whales make from banking? 2% a week, so ~ 0.285% a day? A 2%-6% increase in city cost won't change the demand for loans in either direction enough for this to meaningfully affect banking.

 

What you think is irrelevant because those very whales have told you what they intend to do. Nobody cares what you got to say when you've been proven wrong. 

They've already said they'd pull out, Sphinx, Boyce and Seb. Considering they're basically finance managers for the investments of TCW, Arrgh and CoS respectively, two of which are full of whales the one has a few absurdly successful pirates, and make up a significant portion of the big-money in these banks, them saying they're out 100% is a death knell for banks. Keep in mind, Sphinx and Seb EACH have something like 15bn apiece to their names. Just their names, not even the people they manage for. The numbers for that are far more significant. 

All your dumbass numbers prove is what i already said. Banks will comeback eventually, but not likely within the described timeline. Until that point, this change that does little to actually seriously address the problem with any longevity will have left slaughtered in its wake the financial meta system that is such a huge part of why growth today is faster and more possible than it has ever been in the game.

This is a waste of time and what little effort on Alex's part it would require. Seeing a couple people pass c40 and the death of private banks for a couple months is not worth the little dent this would make.


It is a net loss for everyone, but the whales lose the least from that trade. And yes, actually, whales do make that much, it's not unheard of. Odin, about a year ago when we were in the same alliance, was 29 cities with 2650 infra, ITC, and max age bonus. He made ~35m/day in taxes, since the alliance taxed 100/0. A 35 city whale with 3-3.5k infra absolutely could surpass 51m.

49 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Too the people who say it's not enough of a fix. When you're trying to fix/balance multifaceted like all the resources you need to do it with several fixes, not just one. If you try to cram it all into one you're bound to screw something up elsewhere, overcompensate and cause a new balance problem, undershoot and fail to solve the problem, try to do too much and it all just becomes a mess. So calm yourself Akuryo.

 

This is one step of several  to increase the uses on resources. You increase a bit in multiple places it will have a steady impact.

 

I do like the idea of making the first three required based off of the continent you're on @MonkeyDLegend 

I'd prefer just skipping straight to actual long-term solutions that start gradually to see how it goes and then ramp up or add on to with other long-term solutions.

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

3 hours ago, Akuryo said:

If you want a consistent long-term effect, people (such as yourself) have already recommended repeatedly (even the whales!) to just add using raws as upkeep.

I actually like this. Before I created an alliance I’d buy thousands of food, uranium, and whatever raw I need for manufacturing and I wouldn’t have to go on P&W for days. We need something to stop people like me from always using the nation autopilot.

  • Upvote 1
inb4 new spy operation “Plane Hijack”

This is the 21000th post in this subform and I'm fine with it.

TRI-poloski.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the suggestion of shifting this cost from cities to infra instead. This makes this a reoccurring cost as wars occur, and slows down the growth of whales. Bloated infra is one of the main reasons whales thrive and this keeps it more equitable then city cost for the whales who have already reached the city counts.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Deulos said:

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)."

Haven't we already talked about this? Why would adding another resource increase prices on other resources? In fact, if people were to really need water that bad, they'd be undercutting by more than the 200 we've been seeing. They wanna get rid of that fast, so they can buy what they really need - water. 

We need a real solution, here. I like the idea of water, just because it might be kinda cool, but that just makes no sense.

In conclusion, gib water, just not for that reason.

Edited by LUNCH
gib water

Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
12 hours ago, Deulos said:

And the other thing is: Is there enough people at 19 cities to justify a demand for resources to fix the market? @Alex

 (why not use your graphing knowledge to determine how many people are at 19 cities.)

This histogram groups nations by city count: https://politicsandwar.com/world-graphs/graphID=5

There are 738 nations with 19 or more cities (that are not in Vacation Mode.)

I just put together a quick calculation of the total quantity of resources demanded if everyone at 19 or more cities bought their next city. This does NOT include the retroactive resource costs that would be applied to nations with 21 or more cities.

image.png

11 hours ago, Verin said:

How exactly have the resource values been determined? Is there some formula that is used 

It's in the OP, but the formula would be for cities 20+, the cost of Bauxite, Lead, and Iron is (New City Number - 20) * 1000

And for cities 30+, the cost of Oil, Coal, and Uranium is (New City Number - 30) * 2000

5 hours ago, Akuryo said:

This isn't the constant resource sink you're looking for. There will be one big spike right after the change, like a larger version of alex creating billions to buy resources off the market, and then it'll go back to these people sitting around for 30-40 days, on average to save up for the next city, if not longer, because their city costs 2bn already or because they're not putting their money towards their growth. Unless they use banks and loans of course, but since Sphinx seems to confirm the whale pods intend to pull out if this happens, you'll most of those are struggling not to have their lungs implode, so good luck with that. 

 

I agree with you that it's certainly not a constant resource sink, but it would increase demand for resources in equilibrium. There's not a constant money sink per-say, there's just more stuff to spend your money on than resources on as-is. Increasing the number of things you can spend resources on is effectively a resource sink.

If you want, I could probably run a regression on the average market prices vs. the total quantity of resources in the game, we could come up with some sort of correlation between the two, then calculate the cumulative total of resource costs of, say, everyone buying another city that has 19 or more cities, and then subtract that value from the total resource quantity and use the regression results from past data to predict how it would impact resource prices. The reason I haven't done that already is because it would be very time consuming, and IMO I'd be very skeptical of it's accuracy as a future predictor. But the point is, I'm sure it would suggest that average market prices would increase as a result of the change (even if we didn't factor in the retroactive costs for nations with 21+ cities, so as to ignore the temporary effects of the change.)

  • Like 1

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

  • Administrators

Here's the same figure I just posted above, but with the retroactive (short-run) totals figured in.

image.png

The temporary increased demand would be ~4-5x as much as the long-run increase would be my takeaway from this.

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

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Here's the same figure I just posted above, but with the retroactive (short-run) totals figured in.

image.png

The temporary increased demand would be ~4-5x as much as the long-run increase would be my takeaway from this.

You are solely basing your ideas on what whales think (especially one over 4000 score). I know you are trying to slow the growth of whales and the massive piles of resources they sell for cheap. Instead you could focus on including a resource cost to repair infra. That way there is a constant demand for resources.

And you are taking a big risk. What if a lot of people think it's cost effective to not purchase city 21? Will we be back to square one? @Alex

Edited by Deulos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
50 minutes ago, Deulos said:

You are solely basing your ideas on what whales think (especially one over 4000 score). I know you are trying to slow the growth of whales and the massive piles of resources they sell for cheap. Instead you could focus on including a resource cost to repair infra. That way there is a constant demand for resources.

And you are taking a big risk. What if a lot of people think it's cost effective to not purchase city 21? Will we be back to square one? @Alex

I think most "whales" do not like or want this change, as evidenced by the responses to this thread thus far.

Smaller nations have a competitive advantage in producing resources over commerce. By creating demand at the upper tiers, it will increase prices that resources are sold for on the market, redistributing some wealth from large nations to small nations. Yes, large nations may have/produce a lot of resources, but they are also the ones who need to consume a lot more of these resources under this change, whereas anyone under 20 cities is unaffected negatively, and if they're producing any resources they are benefited by the increased prices.

If people decide to buy less cities at higher levels, I think that's a good thing. It's hard to catch up to people with super high city counts; increasing the cost of later cities will reduce growth rates at the highest tiers, again benefiting smaller nations trying to grow and catch up.

In my opinion, it's a pretty intuitive change with a lot of benefits for where I want to see the game go. People who are invested in the status quo and stand to lose from this change are arguing vehemently against it, and they're probably over-represented on the forum compared to the rest of the people in the game.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

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

So you are telling me I gotta buy 375k in resources on top of the 1.6 billion city 34 costs?  Well that sucks...

Just out of curiosity, how long does it take a nation to go from 10 to 11, or 18 to 19 (i dont know how little nations work anymore)  I know it takes me a little over 2 months of pure savings to go from 33 to 34.  Isn't that where the catch up is? you guys can buy 2-4 cities in the time it takes me to buy 1?

Honestly once you get past the first retroactive costs, its not really a big deal,  Those retroactive costs are going to sting a bit tho,

Why not add food to that too? Food is stupid easy to make a ton of.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree; it's a band-aid fix and honestly quite stupid in my opinion, stifling growth into the high-tier (it should at least be more for everyone) and ultimately stopping much of the game at 20 cities for a much longer team than it is. I proposed making the production of resources cost more, which would still be a band-aid fix, but better than raising already expensive city costs.

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

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Ryan1 said:

I have to disagree; it's a band-aid fix and honestly quite stupid in my opinion, stifling growth into the high-tier (it should at least be more for everyone) and ultimately stopping much of the game at 20 cities for a much longer team than it is. I proposed making the production of resources cost more, which would still be a band-aid fix, but better than raising already expensive city costs.

You really think an additional cost of 1,000 Bauxite, Iron, and Lead (about $6,000,000 in value at today's prices) on top of the existing $346,025,000 cost to build city 21 is going to stop people from building their 21st city?

I think that a 1.7% increase in the cost of the city is not really going to have a meaningful impact in people's city-building decisions.

 

As for making resource production more costly - all that would do is take away the profits from small nations trying to produce and sell raw resources. Where before they were getting Y for their resources and it costed them X, therefore they were getting Y - X profit, they would instead be getting Y - X' profit, where X' > X. If anything is going to stifle growth, it would be increasing the cost of production for resources.

 

7 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

So you are telling me I gotta buy 375k in resources on top of the 1.6 billion city 34 costs?  Well that sucks...

That's a 0.0235% increase in your total cost to build city 34. Do you really think that that is going to break the bank when you're already making a ton of money and spending $1.6b to begin with?

EDIT: I misunderstood here; it's more like a 33% increase in total cost to build city 34. However, that's only the one time increase, after the retroactive costs were paid, the increase in the cost of city 35 would be significantly less.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

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

1 minute ago, Alex said:

You really think an additional cost of 1,000 Bauxite, Iron, and Lead (about $6,000,000 in value at today's prices) on top of the existing $346,025,000 cost to build city 21 is going to stop people from building their 21st city? 

I think that a 1.7% increase in the cost of the city is not really going to have a meaningful impact in people's city-building decisions.

 

As for making resource production more costly - all that would do is take away the profits from small nations trying to produce and sell raw resources. Where before they were getting Y for their resources and it costed them X, therefore they were getting Y - X profit, they would instead be getting Y - X' profit, where X' > X. If anything is going to stifle growth, it would be increasing the cost of production for resources.

 

You just said it won't having a meaningful impact...

If it apparently won't do anything, why do it? We need a more permanent and long term solution (not the previous half-ass update)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, Ryan1 said:

You just said it won't having a meaningful impact...

If it apparently won't do anything, why do it? We need a more permanent and long term solution (not the previous half-ass update)

The individual cost is low - but market demand is not individual demand, it's the sum of the demand of all of the individuals participating in the market. Cumulatively, it is an increase in demand for resources which increases prices without hurting producer profits. The nations buying the resources are 20+ city nations, so it also serves to redistribute wealth from large nations building cities to smaller nations producing and selling resources, which helps smaller nation growth.

This change is a permanent increase in the demand for raw resources. While I agree this is not enough to fix everything, it's a step in the right direction and an action that is very practical in terms of required development and implementation time while we work on other aspects to the comprehensive solution.

  • Like 1

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

5 hours ago, Alex said:

Smaller nations have a competitive advantage in producing resources over commerce. By creating demand at the upper tiers, it will increase prices that resources are sold for on the market, redistributing some wealth from large nations to small nations. Yes, large nations may have/produce a lot of resources, but they are also the ones who need to consume a lot more of these resources under this change, whereas anyone under 20 cities is unaffected negatively, and if they're producing any resources they are benefited by the increased prices. 

Again, that's putting smaller nations at the mercy of whales. If they decide to not buy any cities to keep their costs down there wouldn't enough demand for resources. It's not "permanent" if no one wants to pay retroactive costs or resources to build city 21.

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

1 hour ago, Alex said:

That's a 0.0235% increase in your total cost to build city 34. Do you really think that that is going to break the bank when you're already making a ton of money and spending $1.6b to begin with?

Sheeps, you misunderstand me, I need to buy 375k resources, not cash.  So say each resource averages out to 1500 ppu, that's an additional 550+ million on top of the 1.6 billion.  does it break the bank? no, but it still an additional 3+ weeks of savings on top of the 2+ months of savings to buy another city.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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.