Jump to content

Increased Costs to Build New Cities


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Seb said:

It also doesn't make financial sense to pull out your money and lose whatever deals you currently have in order to buy 1 or 2 cities before this change happens knowing that you would have to pay the resources retroactively anyway. politics 9% economics and 1% war.

fricking finally.

The entire point of banking is long term returns. It makes no sense that people who bank for a profit would pull a 180 for short term gains (buy a bunch of cities while delaying the retroactive expense), while gutting the long term (lost interest rate revenues due to pulled assets, alongside loss of share of the market). Especially since, again, the retroactive cost would have to be paid for anyways if they ever intended to buy another city (which they do), and a higher cost since it'd also include the retroactive cost of those cities they frontloaded. With less money than they would otherwise have since they just blew it on a bunch of cities that won't pay off. It's no rocket science that generating 5b from just your nation's income is a lot harder than generating it with your income plus your investment's returns.

All of this is just some nonsense doomsday calling. And even if such a withdrawal were to happen,  the end result would be a temporary shrinking. Savvier bankers will remain to make extra buck off of higher interest rates, and likely reach out to more potential investors to fill in the demand that the bankers who withdrew left unattended. New banks might also form to try to fill in such demand, not to mention that sooner or later, the bankers who pulled would return, albeit weakened because they have less capital to work with in the face of those who remained.

I do agree that this sink by itself won't do much, and it'd perhaps be better off if it was made to cost refined. As Frawley pointed out, raw's sink is refining, so increasing the demand for refined goods will by proxy increase the demand of raws to be used to manufacture them. Infra would also be good if the goal was just to have sinks, though I prefer the consumer goods proposal for a consistent peacetime sink.

  • Upvote 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

One flaw I see in that is resource prices aren't fixed and infra costs vary greatly, creating a little bit of a balancing act depending on how much of a discount in price versus how much of a cost in resources your looking. If the discount isn't large enough, resource prices could cause the cost to increase overall. If the resource cost isn't high enough its usefulness as a sink won't have that much impact. Also this runs the risk of slowing new player growth, as selling resources is a main source of income for smaller nations. If they have to use their resources on themselves for growth versus selling.

 

What I'm saying it's not a bad idea, but you should put some numbers and such to the suggestion if you want it to gain some traction. 

1) The price of infra goes up exponentially and I'd suggest that resources do the same,.  And you could balance that even more by making infra just cost cash initially and the resources comes in later.  That way if prices do go up, it hits larger nations buying infra more.

2) I think you'd make the conversion of the infra cost from cash to resources based on prices a little above the current market in anticipation of prices going up., roughly where we'd expect to be after the change.  If/when prices go up long term, it'll hit bigger nations more and any increased cost to smaller nations will be more than balanced by more profitable resource sales.

3) I see doing something roughly along the lines of this.  The first $500,000 worth of infra is the same, after the first $500,000 the rest of the cost is split evenly between staying as cash and being converted to resources.  6000 is roughly the PPU of 1 steel + 1 munition + 1 aluminum + 1 gasoline.  I'm not suggesting this as a final formula, just a starting place of what something might look like.

 

Infra level Infra cost now Proposed Cash Proposed Resource Cash Value How much of each manufactured resource (resource cash value cash / 6000)
500 $100,645.38 $100,645.38 0 0.00
600 $146,727.46 $146,727.46 0 0.00
700 $205,637.03 $205,637.03 0 0.00
800 $277,861.83 $277,861.83 0 0.00
900 $363,826.84 $363,826.84 0 0.00
1000 $463,910.01 $463,910.01 0 0.00
1100 $578,452.57 $539,226.29 $39,226.29 6.54
1200 $707,766.26 $603,883.13 $103,883.13 17.31
1300 $852,138.46 $676,069.23 $176,069.23 29.34
1400 $1,011,836.14 $755,918.07 $255,918.07 42.65
1500 $1,187,108.84 $843,554.42 $343,554.42 57.26
1600 $1,378,191.06 $939,095.53 $439,095.53 73.18
1700 $1,585,304.13 $1,042,652.06 $542,652.06 90.44
1800 $1,808,657.80 $1,154,328.90 $654,328.90 109.05
1900 $2,048,451.50 $1,274,225.75 $774,225.75 129.04
2000 $2,304,875.43 $1,402,437.72 $902,437.72 150.41
2100 $2,578,111.45 $1,539,055.73 $1,039,055.73 173.18
2200 $2,868,333.88 $1,684,166.94 $1,184,166.94 197.36
2300 $3,175,710.15 $1,837,855.08 $1,337,855.08 222.98
2400 $3,500,401.42 $2,000,200.71 $1,500,200.71 250.03
2500 $3,842,563.04 $2,171,281.52 $1,671,281.52 278.55
2600 $4,202,345.03 $2,351,172.51 $1,851,172.51 308.53
2700 $4,579,892.46 $2,539,946.23 $2,039,946.23 339.99
2800 $4,975,345.83 $2,737,672.91 $2,237,672.91 372.95
2900 $5,388,841.33 $2,944,420.67 $2,444,420.67 407.40
3000 $5,820,511.19 $3,160,255.60 $2,660,255.60 443.38
  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
2 hours ago, Seb said:

I take personal offense that a game administrator chosed this specific set of words to refer to a community based program.

I would like you to explain how can development be held hostage over some financial system and how have we rigged the system?

I also would like to point out I approached you ages ago about implementing a coded banking system into the game but despite you feeling it was a good idea, you didn't go through with it. If it's rigged, then why don't you code a bank that is better? You have an unlimited cash machine, offer loans to nations and finish us off. But please, refrain from using this specific set of words again.

My intent was not to attack the player-run financial system that has flourished, or criticize it. I think it's super cool and I'm really happy that it exists.

My point and reaction was based on the very passionate and, in my opinion, disrespectful comments that have been made, particularly by Akuryo both on the forum and on Discord. Some of the arguments against this proposal, I do not believe have been made in good faith and are really more about lobbying for a system that works for them than what is best for the game.

This is meant to be a place for constructive ideas and debate. Far too often it's a place for people to push their own interests and attack others to push their agenda. My intent in the post you're referring was not that I don't care about the player-run financial systems or that I don't think they're important or respectable, but that I won't let them be used as some sort of trump-card in debates over game mechanics that something can't be changed because it'll hurt the banks. The banks will adapt, everything will be fine, and I have no intention of entertaining bad-faith doomsday arguments, no matter how loudly they're proclaimed.

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

1) The price of infra goes up exponentially and I'd suggest that resources do the same,.  And you could balance that even more by making infra just cost cash initially and the resources comes in later.  That way if prices do go up, it hits larger nations buying infra more.

2) I think you'd make the conversion of the infra cost from cash to resources based on prices a little above the current market in anticipation of prices going up., roughly where we'd expect to be after the change.  If/when prices go up long term, it'll hit bigger nations more and any increased cost to smaller nations will be more than balanced by more profitable resource sales.

3) I see doing something roughly along the lines of this.  The first $500,000 worth of infra is the same, after the first $500,000 the rest of the cost is split evenly between staying as cash and being converted to resources.  6000 is roughly the PPU of 1 steel + 1 munition + 1 aluminum + 1 gasoline.  I'm not suggesting this as a final formula, just a starting place of what something might look like.

 

 

Infra level Infra cost now Proposed Cash Proposed Resource Cash Value How much of each manufactured resource (resource cash value cash / 6000)
500 $100,645.38 $100,645.38 0 0.00
600 $146,727.46 $146,727.46 0 0.00
700 $205,637.03 $205,637.03 0 0.00
800 $277,861.83 $277,861.83 0 0.00
900 $363,826.84 $363,826.84 0 0.00
1000 $463,910.01 $463,910.01 0 0.00
1100 $578,452.57 $539,226.29 $39,226.29 6.54
1200 $707,766.26 $603,883.13 $103,883.13 17.31
1300 $852,138.46 $676,069.23 $176,069.23 29.34
1400 $1,011,836.14 $755,918.07 $255,918.07 42.65
1500 $1,187,108.84 $843,554.42 $343,554.42 57.26
1600 $1,378,191.06 $939,095.53 $439,095.53 73.18
1700 $1,585,304.13 $1,042,652.06 $542,652.06 90.44
1800 $1,808,657.80 $1,154,328.90 $654,328.90 109.05
1900 $2,048,451.50 $1,274,225.75 $774,225.75 129.04
2000 $2,304,875.43 $1,402,437.72 $902,437.72 150.41
2100 $2,578,111.45 $1,539,055.73 $1,039,055.73 173.18
2200 $2,868,333.88 $1,684,166.94 $1,184,166.94 197.36
2300 $3,175,710.15 $1,837,855.08 $1,337,855.08 222.98
2400 $3,500,401.42 $2,000,200.71 $1,500,200.71 250.03
2500 $3,842,563.04 $2,171,281.52 $1,671,281.52 278.55
2600 $4,202,345.03 $2,351,172.51 $1,851,172.51 308.53
2700 $4,579,892.46 $2,539,946.23 $2,039,946.23 339.99
2800 $4,975,345.83 $2,737,672.91 $2,237,672.91 372.95
2900 $5,388,841.33 $2,944,420.67 $2,444,420.67 407.40
3000 $5,820,511.19 $3,160,255.60 $2,660,255.60 443.38

I'm just going to be frank, for you and everyone else that has proposed that infrastructure should cost resources, unless something hugely drastic changes, that's not going to happen.

I understand why it would be a reasonable resource sink and that infrastructure gets re-bought and destroyed frequently. However, from a user experience perspective, I am vetoing this idea because I think it seriously complicates the process of buying infrastructure. Infrastructure is a hugely vital component of the game, and it would be really complicated if it required 5 inputs to produce vs. just cash. In terms of a learning curve, the interface necessary, etc. I think it's a really bad idea.

Resources required to upkeep infrastructure I'm on board with; it accomplishes basically the same thing and is a much nicer user experience. But that's a topic for another thread. I just want to make a statement about this and nip it in the bud early.

  • Upvote 3

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

We've given you plenty of constructive ideas. The idea is a worthless band aid. Pick any number of the alternatives that as many people who dislike your proposal here seem to like.

Problem solved.

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

  • Administrators
2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

We've given you plenty of constructive ideas. The idea is a worthless band aid. Pick any number of the alternatives that as many people who dislike your proposal here seem to like.

Problem solved.

I understand that you and everyone else have thrown out your own ideas, and you're obviously frustrated that I'm not taking a more long-term approach at the moment.

The factor that you and everyone else seem to be missing from the equation that game development is not always a function solely of what offers the greatest benefit, but also of the costs involved of developing a change, the time constraints, and the opportunity costs and prioritization necessary. Obviously only I am able to observe and take into account my schedule, what is feasible in what time-frame, etc., but I feel that hardly anyone is giving that aspect of development any consideration here except me, which seems to put me at odds with everyone else unnecessarily.

  • Upvote 3

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

31 minutes ago, Alex said:

My intent was not to attack the player-run financial system that has flourished, or criticize it. I think it's super cool and I'm really happy that it exists.

My point and reaction was based on the very passionate and, in my opinion, disrespectful comments that have been made, particularly by Akuryo both on the forum and on Discord. Some of the arguments against this proposal, I do not believe have been made in good faith and are really more about lobbying for a system that works for them than what is best for the game.

 

Thank you for clarifying that bit.

From my perspective, this changes will affect growth a little bit causing nations in the 20/30 range to grow up in a slower manner (like 20% slower) nations with 30+ nations won't find it very hard to compensate for that retroactive fee in raws and since income at that stage is pretty sustantial. The 30/40 city range is about as high as anyone will grow in the next couple years, so we might even see them freeze there and delay that payment for quite a long while.

As for disrupting the banking business, this can be an opportunity rather than an impediment. Banking was born because of the high priced cities and the huge excess of cash with nowhere viable to put it in. An increase in resource demand can lead to more players wanting to get into this black market that has developed lately where you can buy and sell big bulks of resources. Maybe a new generation of players can come forth and make their own raw trading depot and turn an otherwise ordinary change (no offense intended Alex) into another tool for money making and community building ;) .

 

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

50 minutes ago, Alex said:

Resources required to upkeep infrastructure I'm on board with; it accomplishes basically the same thing and is a much nicer user experience. But that's a topic for another thread. I just want to make a statement about this and nip it in the bud early.

Adding an extra cost to infraestructure could make it so costy than the peace periods would increase. Take into account peace periods are often calculated by the ROI from building infra vs income return. 2500 infra has an estimated ROI of 70 or 80 days so people tend to want to be at peace for a little longer than that in order to make a profit of it. If you make it more costy or if you add an upkeep you would systematically make the peace periods longer.

What you have to ask yourself is if you want wars to happen more often or not. If so, you need to reward wars instead penalizing growth. May I suggest a medal system? different sets of medals for war performance. Maybe a set of projects that only nations with a certain amount of war proficiency can acquire? If war had a reward that could potentially help you get an edge over the rest of the players, I am certain more would want to go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Seb said:

Adding an extra cost to infraestructure could make it so costy than the peace periods would increase. Take into account peace periods are often calculated by the ROI from building infra vs income return. 2500 infra has an estimated ROI of 70 or 80 days so people tend to want to be at peace for a little longer than that in order to make a profit of it. If you make it more costy or if you add an upkeep you would systematically make the peace periods longer.

What you have to ask yourself is if you want wars to happen more often or not. If so, you need to reward wars instead penalizing growth. May I suggest a medal system? different sets of medals for war performance. Maybe a set of projects that only nations with a certain amount of war proficiency can acquire? If war had a reward that could potentially help you get an edge over the rest of the players, I am certain more would want to go for it.

More nation awards? :3

We've already got leaderboards, but I do like where the idea is coming from. However, let's not forget how simple it is to grind warring stats without engaging in genuine PvP; if unlocking the projects is simply a matter of winning 100 wars then we'd see more than a few civil wars fought with single battleships and squadrons of 3 aircraft. Perhaps it can be tied more to unit kills and losses and/or the value of destroyed infrastructure, since those are far more genuine indicators of real PvP happening as opposed to cheekiness. Another way to do it would be something like "military tradition" that represents the experience and competence of your nations' military leaders, which goes up when engaged heavily in wars that involve large-scale engagements and losses and down when at peace for extended periods of time. As for what it does, well there's plenty of variables that it can adjust so we'd have to test it out.

3 hours ago, Alex said:

I understand why it would be a reasonable resource sink and that infrastructure gets re-bought and destroyed frequently. However, from a user experience perspective, I am vetoing this idea because I think it seriously complicates the process of buying infrastructure. Infrastructure is a hugely vital component of the game, and it would be really complicated if it required 5 inputs to produce vs. just cash. In terms of a learning curve, the interface necessary, etc. I think it's a really bad idea.

Resources required to upkeep infrastructure I'm on board with; it accomplishes basically the same thing and is a much nicer user experience. But that's a topic for another thread. I just want to make a statement about this and nip it in the bud early.

User experience, complicating the process of buying? Why would that be? We input the infrastructure we intend to build up to, and the game calculates the cost for us. Adding resources to the cost doesn't increase the amount of buttons we have to push or the number of input boxes we have to fill out, so I don't get that.

Lemme know when you've put up the thread for resource upkeep though so I can properly tear into that bad idea, though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alex said:

I understand that you and everyone else have thrown out your own ideas, and you're obviously frustrated that I'm not taking a more long-term approach at the moment.

The factor that you and everyone else seem to be missing from the equation that game development is not always a function solely of what offers the greatest benefit, but also of the costs involved of developing a change, the time constraints, and the opportunity costs and prioritization necessary. Obviously only I am able to observe and take into account my schedule, what is feasible in what time-frame, etc., but I feel that hardly anyone is giving that aspect of development any consideration here except me, which seems to put me at odds with everyone else unnecessarily.

This is a very fair point to make.

6 hours ago, Alex said:

I'm just going to be frank, for you and everyone else that has proposed that infrastructure should cost resources, unless something hugely drastic changes, that's not going to happen.

I understand why it would be a reasonable resource sink and that infrastructure gets re-bought and destroyed frequently. However, from a user experience perspective, I am vetoing this idea because I think it seriously complicates the process of buying infrastructure. Infrastructure is a hugely vital component of the game, and it would be really complicated if it required 5 inputs to produce vs. just cash. In terms of a learning curve, the interface necessary, etc. I think it's a really bad idea.

Resources required to upkeep infrastructure I'm on board with; it accomplishes basically the same thing and is a much nicer user experience. But that's a topic for another thread. I just want to make a statement about this and nip it in the bud early.

1) Is it really much different to do it for cities vs infra in terms of user experience / interfacing / etc.?  And infra could more fairly be done without having to complicate things by making costs retroactive.  I know the programming element could be different but just curious.

2) If the problem is making things too complicated for newer players, it could be a higher threshold like you have it for cities.  Something like only costing resources starting at 2000 infra.

3) Just talking about things you do to seem like, I think adding upkeep for infra would be much better than adding it for cities.  My only qualm is that high level infra is already super expensive and has a low rate of return so I think it would be good to balance it by lowering infra costs that it applies to.  Infra would more realistically work as both a sustained and substantial resource sink.  And lower initial cost would make it easier to rebuild, less of a disincentive to fight, and less of a drag on people rebuilding.

4) If you do the cities thing, the numbers you give are too small to really have a significant dent.  The resource cost for city 40 is only around 150 million or so, that's not big when the cash is 3 billion.  IMO it would make more sense to, above city 20, make the cash amount stop increasing and make all of the growth in cost per city resource based.  For example city 30 might cost only around 300 mill in cash but around 800 mill worth of resources (more long term as resource prices go up), City 40 has 300 mil in cash but about 2.45 bill in resources, etc.

5) Another possible way to talk this issue this which I suspect would be easy to code since you already do it for manufacturing resources would be to change commerce improvements to require resources rather than cash to upkeep.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alex said:

I understand that you and everyone else have thrown out your own ideas, and you're obviously frustrated that I'm not taking a more long-term approach at the moment.

The factor that you and everyone else seem to be missing from the equation that game development is not always a function solely of what offers the greatest benefit, but also of the costs involved of developing a change, the time constraints, and the opportunity costs and prioritization necessary. Obviously only I am able to observe and take into account my schedule, what is feasible in what time-frame, etc., but I feel that hardly anyone is giving that aspect of development any consideration here except me, which seems to put me at odds with everyone else unnecessarily.

I think the part alot of people are focusing, or certainly i am is the many times now you've said "I'll be graduating soon, (x months) and then fulltime guys!" what i hear from that, aside from congratulations on graduating, is "That means no more half baked band-aids, easy-way-outs because the proper way is stretchering it a bit for a single guy doing school full time." I suspect that's what alot of people hear. 

Ignoring every other thing i've said in here, i'd still be a "No" because i, personally, would rather wait. I'd rather deal with inflation (that admittedly makes it easy for my noobs to buy warchests, slight bias :P) to get something that, really reading the OP, it doesn't really sound like a band aid. Especially given, it's what, half of all refined resources to fulfill the retro-taxes? That doesn't sound like a band-aid, that sounds like a slash-and-burn napalm drop on a field being attacked by invasive plant species. You're gonna hit something that's not the pest, whatever that may be. 

It's not even really going to help small nations. Not directly anyway. The closest it will really get, is by helping their alliance. If they are a member of a large, old, rich alliance that likely is sitting on a shitload of raws, that will need to be dumped to be used for retro-payments, and would be as prices go up. 

Perhaps more ironically is that a change meant to help small nations catchup, will actually just create more whales. Bulk traders like Verduras and Nova Riata in general would be only too happy to make endless billions from not only their current stockpile, but from buying for heavily discounted prices from the very same small nations who are supposed to benefit the most. I'm sure Pooball would be only too grateful to overlord Alex for allowing him to tier even more already not-small nations into the upper tier, and Verduras would without doubt be overjoyed to dive deep beneath the oceans and complain about not enough krill. 


The ultimate irony of why this isn't a great idea, is that it directly does disservice to your own vision and wishes. It creates more large nations, not paying retro-payments, only small, meaninglessly impacting new city fees, when it's long been known the admin would prefer they simply were not so big. The new large nations, aren't even made from small ones. They're made from ones already in the upper mid-tier :P

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

76c435ca3534dc116a6d5c5b662e0673.png

So we have the above and then you come out with this band-aid fix without including the accompanying wonder, then Prefontaine floats the discount wonder and you float Increasing the Daily Login Bonus all in a attempt to push this through.

On 4/30/2019 at 1:26 AM, Alex said:

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

 

11 hours ago, Alex said:

I understand that you and everyone else have thrown out your own ideas, and you're obviously frustrated that I'm not taking a more long-term approach at the moment.

The factor that you and everyone else seem to be missing from the equation that game development is not always a function solely of what offers the greatest benefit, but also of the costs involved of developing a change, the time constraints, and the opportunity costs and prioritization necessary. Obviously only I am able to observe and take into account my schedule, what is feasible in what time-frame, etc., but I feel that hardly anyone is giving that aspect of development any consideration here except me, which seems to put me at odds with everyone else unnecessarily.

No didn't miss the part about it being easy and quick to implement. It looks though like your trying to put off your 6 projects that "will suck up a ton of resources", to instead give us this slapdash city cost increase to give yourself a easier time and placate peoples woes about the market in the mean time. You yourself say this is a band-aid fix but what people want is a considered real fix. If you must have a band-aid fix then roll back the resource percentage increases we had and then reintroduce them when you have a more long term resource sink developed, that should remove the time pressure from you.

Edited by Galerion
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Maybe have a sudden steep cost/power increase at whatever the highest level guy is?

I was thinking along the same line :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I still don't want to majorly acknowledge Alex's lack of care for his community.  But I did have a relatively brief conversation with Sphinx regarding his concerns on how this will affect the banking community.  My investment in the banking community is much less as all I'm doing there right now is helping finish up the liquidation of Manticore, then I plan to take a break so I can focus on my coding studies and the few projects I've started, but I would like to state I find Alex or prefontaine (whoever stated this) to be, 'semi-correct'.  Sphinx's issue seems to be more an immediate short-term collapse, but if his concerns are correct, it wouldn't end the banking economy as we know it, banks would indeed adapt, but there will be a huge wall to punch through for currently existing banks as people want to divest in the short term to rush cities, but the long term really shows no major impact, and I suspect the smart banks will even try to utilize the situation by gathering up money now, so that when the change goes into affect, they can issue a bunch of loans to people who are looking to race the clock.

 

Regarding the long term of the banking community when this goes into effect, and again, it's Alex, your attempts at stopping it are literally futile so I'm not going to bother with "if they get implemented", I see a future with banks partnering with resource traders.  Loan's taken will go down, but the amounts in those loans will go up as people will need money for the resources as well, or if the bank is savvy, as I said, they partner with resource traders, buy in bulk based on what they expect their users will need to get a discount, and include full price on the loans.  ROI doesn't go down, just banks have to become business minded people, and figure out how to utilize the new mechanics for their profit.

 

None of this is to diminish his concern regarding a large scale divestment, that is going to be a hit on the banking community no matter what.  But the best banks, will adapt, it's really just getting over that hurdle, in which I suspect a lot of people will lose a bit of faith in the stock purchasing, but good banks will survive, and they will rebuild.

 

That was more ramble-y than I intended, so to tl;dr it.  Sphinx's concerns are justified, but it will not be the end of banking as he claims.

Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional sidenote: I do still hate the idea, and hate even more that I have to even remotely agree with Alex on something in regards to such a retarded idea, so have a distaste for all of you for making me do so.  But at least be sensible, reasonable people, and think long-game, so I don't have to defend stupid ideas from even stupider arguments.

Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rosey Song said:

So I still don't want to majorly acknowledge Alex's lack of care for his community.  But I did have a relatively brief conversation with Sphinx regarding his concerns on how this will affect the banking community.  My investment in the banking community is much less as all I'm doing there right now is helping finish up the liquidation of Manticore, then I plan to take a break so I can focus on my coding studies and the few projects I've started, but I would like to state I find Alex or prefontaine (whoever stated this) to be, 'semi-correct'.  Sphinx's issue seems to be more an immediate short-term collapse, but if his concerns are correct, it wouldn't end the banking economy as we know it, banks would indeed adapt, but there will be a huge wall to punch through for currently existing banks as people want to divest in the short term to rush cities, but the long term really shows no major impact, and I suspect the smart banks will even try to utilize the situation by gathering up money now, so that when the change goes into affect, they can issue a bunch of loans to people who are looking to race the clock.

 

Regarding the long term of the banking community when this goes into effect, and again, it's Alex, your attempts at stopping it are literally futile so I'm not going to bother with "if they get implemented", I see a future with banks partnering with resource traders.  Loan's taken will go down, but the amounts in those loans will go up as people will need money for the resources as well, or if the bank is savvy, as I said, they partner with resource traders, buy in bulk based on what they expect their users will need to get a discount, and include full price on the loans.  ROI doesn't go down, just banks have to become business minded people, and figure out how to utilize the new mechanics for their profit.

 

None of this is to diminish his concern regarding a large scale divestment, that is going to be a hit on the banking community no matter what.  But the best banks, will adapt, it's really just getting over that hurdle, in which I suspect a lot of people will lose a bit of faith in the stock purchasing, but good banks will survive, and they will rebuild.

 

That was more ramble-y than I intended, so to tl;dr it.  Sphinx's concerns are justified, but it will not be the end of banking as he claims.

Long term if the ROI for loans gets too low we'd just transition into full time resource trading instead of doing both loans and resource trading. If these changes take place we'd still make money from the billions we have Invested. Orion/Horizon/BV will be fine but smaller banks might have their customer pools dry up as it necessitates people taking far larger loans something that smaller bank's can't provide as much. I'm not that concerned with the impact it'll have on my bank, what my biggest issue is with its impact on people trying to grow from 20+ cities, something that effects my alliances growth prospects which I hold more dear to me than my own financial profitability. 

Either way this is still a band aid fix and Id much rather wait until Alex has finished his University work for him to actually do a proper update to the game rather than this idea that merely kicks the can down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

Long term if the ROI for loans gets too low we'd just transition into full time resource trading instead of doing both loans and resource trading. If these changes take place we'd still make money from the billions we have Invested. Orion/Horizon/BV will be fine but smaller banks might have their customer pools dry up as it necessitates people taking far larger loans something that smaller bank's can't provide as much. I'm not that concerned with the impact it'll have on my bank, what my biggest issue is with its impact on people trying to grow from 20+ cities, something that effects my alliances growth prospects which I hold more dear to me than my own financial profitability. 

Either way this is still a band aid fix and Id much rather wait until Alex has finished his University work for him to actually do a proper update to the game rather than this idea that merely kicks the can down the road.

Sure, but I'm not, and have no intent on addressing it's effect on players who simply wanted to grow being punished for wishing to play the game correctly.  I think my wording says enough in that regard.  As for micro banks ?‍♀️ Leviathan started as a micro-bank, we had enough established connections in our first week that we would have been able to take this hit and it would have expedited our growth further.  As the market stands, typically banks seek out resource traders, whereas this update would incentive resource traders to seek out banks, so I imagine they'd still find people willing to help them start up.  I frankly think the filter for starting a bank is far too low, adding that additional barrier would at least make it so only people with enough drive to succeed would be able to get off the ground.

 

Edit: I forgot to address the first line.

 

If it do be like that, then it do be like that.  You leaving the market increases ROI for other banks who stick around who can't get all their money loaned out.  Like I said, the banking community will continue, it'll just become more focused on the people who truly want, and have the skill, to run a bank and filters out those who don't.

Edited by Rosey Song
Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rosey Song said:

Additional sidenote: I do still hate the idea, and hate even more that I have to even remotely agree with Alex on something in regards to such a retarded idea, so have a distaste for all of you for making me do so.  But at least be sensible, reasonable people, and think long-game, so I don't have to defend stupid ideas from even stupider arguments.

Who are you even talking to? I don't recall anybody out crying a long-term collapse. Even my rambly text walls said it'd take as long or a bit longer than Alex's stated time for this change to have full effect for it to comeback if that did occur.

If you're gonna claim to be fighting off stupid arguments, don't hit the LSD first and you won't strawmen throwing gang signs up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Who are you even talking to? I don't recall anybody out crying a long-term collapse. Even my rambly text walls said it'd take as long or a bit longer than Alex's stated time for this change to have full effect for it to comeback if that did occur.

If you're gonna claim to be fighting off stupid arguments, don't hit the LSD first and you won't strawmen throwing gang signs up.

Quite simple.  Not you

Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 12:42 PM, Prefontaine said:

Just because something is popular doesn't make it a good idea, and just because something is unpopular doesn't make it a bad idea. You introduce an idea that is going to increase costs, of course it's going to be unpopular. 

 


Take this thread for example. Free money, all upvotes. 

 

Though the difference in votes could also be based on the merits of the proposed changes. 

I voted yes for the second proposal because I want new players to grow and ideally have a chance of one day being able to be the biggest and baddest nation out there. The extra cash in the second proposal is negligible to me but significant to a new nation.

The first proposal I am not a fan of because of retroactively changing rules in any game and without the retroactive part the proposal is terrible for the new player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rosey Song said:

Quite simple.  Not you

My point is you were talking big to yourself in the mirror. 

2 hours ago, Senatorius said:

Though the difference in votes could also be based on the merits of the proposed changes. 

I voted yes for the second proposal because I want new players to grow and ideally have a chance of one day being able to be the biggest and baddest nation out there. The extra cash in the second proposal is negligible to me but significant to a new nation.

The first proposal I am not a fan of because of retroactively changing rules in any game and without the retroactive part the proposal is terrible for the new player.

 

The fact it's a band aid fix alone, regardless of what it address would get it at least half the downvoted it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 7:19 PM, Azaghul said:

5) Another possible way to talk this issue this which I suspect would be easy to code since you already do it for manufacturing resources would be to change commerce improvements to require resources rather than cash to upkeep.

This is a good idea. Have commerce require resources, just like producing resources requires money. Create a cycle of buying and selling that previously was not required, which could add an interesting economic dynamic.

  • Upvote 5
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.