Jump to content
Alex

Increased Costs to Build New Cities

Recommended Posts

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.)

Edited by Deulos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reaction is that this is the whales closing the door behind them, however there are a few elements I think we could work with.

To start it shouldn't just be a flat 20 cities. I think it should be an increasing average. So maybe the average city size starting at 5 city nations to account for the hordes of inactive. Having a set number doesn't really work if the game is growing, this fixes that.

As for the whales benefiting, I think what is "fair" in this case would be all retroactive fixed costs being added to my next city. This will halt the upper tiers for a hot minute but keeps it even overall.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add some context. City 30 would cost 60M more in resource cost at a 2k PPU market. City 30 costs over 1B in cash. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only gauge for resource market pricing is the upkeep costs of the city improvement. Everything else is simulations based on current or past prices of last year. 

As a funny aside comparison, oil price per ton is basically double of real life market costs right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sphinx said:

 

Also, Pre mate you're normally on par with your posts/ideas, but this one missed the mark I'm afraid. 

 

jp07h30k8ql21.png

Damn Pre got btfo.

Also no on this one.  Literally every big nation can just waltz in like lmao the hell is this stupid pay wall and continue business as usual.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of using projects to increase demand for materials. If the project(s) is (are) relatively inexpensive, but cost a lot of resources, that'd do wonders for market prices. The only catch would be the project or projects would have to be a "gotta have that/these" to a vast majority of players. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant be a whale now
*sad calf noises*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this idea is to go ahead, please consider decreasing city cost by the same amount in $-terms. Here's the effect:

1). On average, city costs wouldn't change from present. (no fairness issues)

2). Still increases peacetime demand for resources.

Ta-da?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

snip 

Pretty much hit the nail on the head Aku,

These changes just dry up our potential customer pool for loan takers. Seb and I as well as the other whale bankers would then have no reason to keep tens of billions in reserve for loans and would just buy a bunch of cities irrespective of the cost (Since Seb and I combined make like $1.4b a week from nation income and Investment income(We're actually competing to see who can grow the most)). I could build to 43/44 cities right now and Seb could do 45/46 or so, but the only reason we don't is we actually like what we do. Not to echo Trump, but its pretty enjoyable as a banker to see loans and Investment deals finalised and to see alliances and players (who you let billions of your own money to), grow and advance their city tiering. You're certainly right Aku, that its pretty much a meta-game since banking is pretty much the only player driven economic system entirely outside the confines of the games mechanics, its players who organise and agree on deals and who provide the funding that so many alliances and players rely upon for growth. These changes just make it so Orion, BV and Horizon won't keep such assets on hand for such deals. I know between Seb and myself we currently have loans to players/alliances from pretty much every single sphere and bloc in the game,  we don't discriminate when it comes to customers we'll do business with all but these changes are bad for business for us and bad for business for the game as whole.

*Obligatory plug*
DM me in Discord or in game for a loan, ;,P

 

 

 

Edited by Sphinx
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resources for infra would make sense. You need to use resources other than your native ones based on where your nation is.

I.e.: I'm in Antarctica so my infra should require bauxite, iron, and lead but not oil, coal, or uranium as to avoid just making your own to grow. It'd promote trade and keep you from just cheesing the system. Also it could possibly make continents more important/make more location change credit sales @Alex ayy lmao

The resource count would also increase such as cash for higher lvls. That way your nation needs to burn way more to grow it's infra. Keep infra just as destructible, but now increase the commerce cap to 125% if you get a project and meet higher than 2500 infra. Make those whales burn cash and try as hard as possible to dodge war. Make nuclear rogues, spy attacks towards infra, hell even missiles better by making the loss of infra much worse than "oh, we rebuilt in a week". 

Edited by 🗲ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™🗲
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 🗲ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™🗲 said:

I.e.: I'm in Antarctica so my infra should require bauxite, iron, and lead but not oil, coal, or uranium as to avoid just making your own to grow. It'd promote trade and keep you from just cheesing the system. Also it could possibly make continents more important/make more location change credit sales @Alex ayy lmao

Didnt think of this one, But yea, good idea.

 

3 minutes ago, 🗲ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™🗲 said:

The resource count would also increase such as cash for higher lvls.

Not sure about this one tbh. The costs to get to 2K infra(which is kind of like the standard) will become too high.

 

5 minutes ago, 🗲ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™🗲 said:

Make nuclear rogues, spy attacks towards infra, hell even missiles better by making the loss of infra much worse

True. Infact, this has a potential to make orbis warfree and peace loving just like Emperor Johnas wanted jk jk

Tbh, this will make wars way more damaging and something it is harder to recover from. Wars will be shorter and more interesting too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 🗲ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™🗲 said:

Resources for infra would make sense. You need to use resources other than your native ones based on where your nation is.

I.e.: I'm in Antarctica so my infra should require bauxite, iron, and lead but not oil, coal, or uranium as to avoid just making your own to grow. It'd promote trade and keep you from just cheesing the system. Also it could possibly make continents more important/make more location change credit sales @Alex ayy lmao

The resource count would also increase such as cash for higher lvls. That way your nation needs to burn way more to grow it's infra. Keep infra just as destructible, but now increase the commerce cap to 125% if you get a project and meet higher than 2500 infra. Make those whales burn cash and try as hard as possible to dodge war. Make nuclear rogues, spy attacks towards infra, hell even missiles better by making the loss of infra much worse than "oh, we rebuilt in a week". 

Sounds absolutely tedious

However, shaving triple digits off cities with 3k infra is bound to yield more exciting results, I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 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.

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:

image.png

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!

You would just make it incredibly hard to build above 20 cities and give a sugar hit to the market. If you really wanted to increase market activity, devalue the PnW currency. 

Edited by Reaganomics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Windseeker said:

Sounds absolutely tedious

However, shaving triple digits off cities with 3k infra is bound to yield more exciting results, I'll give you that.

The more "tedious" the better at this point tbqh

We've had this game for 5 years now, there is no learning curve as I mentioned earlier in the "add water as a resource" thread. There is a guide for literally everything. People can play this game properly by just logging and refreshing the page then logging out. It's all copy-paste now. You don't really need to track/monitor much.

Having to relearn the game/spend more than 5 minutes would be great. Seeing less active AAs struggle to fix their econ and IA departments going bust as "lazy/busy" members go "ehh, I don't want a min/max build" will once again separate the casuals vs the better members. It'd definitely change alliances.

Over abundance of resources is a problem and yes, even information. Make the game challenging even if just by making you have to login for 10 mins now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliance-wide embargoes, tariffs etc are a better solution to this issue imo

Edit: Nvm people can get around embargoes

Edited by Skepta
Me being stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Skepta said:

Alliance-wide embargoes, tariffs etc are a better solution to this issue imo

no
just in-case you are not aware, we can still trade under embargoes.
Trades like that are done by Personal Trades or you can jut use bank to nation or bank to bank transfers to avoid the embargo

Edited by ShadyAssassin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.