Popular Post Prefontaine Posted May 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) This suggestion is in conjunction with making cities slightly more expensive by adding a resource price. This project will exclusively cost resources, and lower city costs dramatically at the time of purchase. The purpose of this project is to make cities easier to buy in the long run, and allow for newer players to catch up to the city counts of older players while creating an increased demand in resources. City Planning Project Reduces city costs by up to $50,000,000 Can be purchased anytime after you have 11 cities Cost: 10,000 Coal 10,000 Oil 20,000 Aluminum 10,000 Munitions 10,000 Gas 700,000 Food These cost totals work to be around 165M for the project with the numbers Sheepy provided me for "desired" market prices. This project will have nearly paid for itself after 3 cities in that environment. In the current market you're looking at about a 120M price tag, so it's fully paid off at 3 cities and netting profit. The reason this is only available after 11 cities is because city 12 is the first city above $50M. with Manifest destiny the city cost would be $0 after this project. Advanced City Planning Project Reduces city costs by up to $100,000,000 Can be purchased anytime after you have 16 cities Requires City Planning Cost: 10,000 Uranium 20,000 Steel 40,000 Aluminum 2,000,000 Food These cost totals work to be around 306M for the project with the numbers Sheepy provided for "desired" market prices. The current market costs put it around 223M, again making this project having had paid for itself after 2-3 city purchases. Like the previous project, city 17 is the first city above $150M (50 mil already taken off for basic city project) thus after both of these projects are purchased city 17 would cost 21M, or 12M with Manifest destiny (assuming sheepy applies MD to the pre-discount %) EDIT: To be clear, these project bonuses stack. With both cities will cost $150,000,000 less Edited May 1, 2019 by Prefontaine 14 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gudea Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Yup. Tech tree action. Always like build games. And wargames too....ah yes, ever since playing with cardboard pieces on maps with hexagons....back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 All we really need is an adjustment to the existing commerce cap; those projects wouldn't even really increase resource prices long term since their whole purpose is to reduce the money cost of cities, which I'm pretty sure would only further the deflation. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 1, 2019 Author Share Posted May 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: All we really need is an adjustment to the existing commerce cap; those projects wouldn't even really increase resource prices long term since their whole purpose is to reduce the money cost of cities, which I'm pretty sure would only further the deflation. >Cities requiring resources above 20 >Project which requires resources, and allows for more cities to be built as you get bigger, thus making the frequency at which cities are purchased that require resources increased, therefore more resources spent. >Looking to create several smaller sinks rather than 1 big dumpster. "All we need is an adjustment to the commerce cap", first it's already on the list; whether Sheepy approves it or not I can't say. Second, commerce cap adjusting won't impact resources, so you're commenting about x when we're discussing y and therefor in the wrong thread on that regard. Sheepy wants to release over a dozen new projects, several of which will have a focus on resource sinks. There's also ideas about upkeep costs, selling resources as consumer goods which will stimulate a nations economy while expending resources, and others. These 2 projects are designed to speed up city building in the mid tier while providing another small outlet to spend resources, stating that they won't have a long term large impact on resource prices.. Well you're saying that the thing isn't going to do the thing it isn't designed to do. There's lots of changes coming which are made to create new resource outlets, thus increasing demand overall. One change isn't going to fix the problem because one change isn't designed to do so. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted May 1, 2019 Administrators Share Posted May 1, 2019 I'm on board with everything here, I'd propose a slight tweak to the prices though: City Planning Advanced City Planning 2 2 2 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...
Otto Von Bismarck II Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 This is a really cool idea, I think it'll add a lot 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorcock Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 I like the idea, a lot of new players don't grow because of the large gap cost after 20. This could also spark alliances into getting more economically involved to see who can tier most effectively. I like this idea, but if that's the case I believe you should also add in the raws suggestion of each city after 20 costing X amount of raws, just as a counter balance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xea Evangelos Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 (edited) . Screw the talk about "desired market prices" for starters. It's a Lasais Faire market model and should be treated as such. City Cost Reduction Projects combined with raising City prices? Sounds like an idea cooked up people that have been huge for too long that forget how much 100mil means even to a medium size player. This will not fix anything other than hurting small players while the already big players get it 10x easier. A few thousand per raws to build a city at 20+ cities? Is that a joke? I don't even need to buy those raws at 20 cities and 3 full days of devoted mining at a 10 city size, let alone 20. That doesn't fix anything for the market, it's a needless cosmetic that barely dents the actual prices. Next, since I'm in the range to have a City Planning Project lvl 1 affect me, I'd full out ignore it favor of buying City 17 at current prices. These projects literally only benefit established whales, and literally do nothing to stimulate the economy in any meaningful way; too much competition to affect the "desired prices". So I get to City 18 where the proposed starter Project becomes viable for buying and cost worth, BUT I get better return for Ammunition Stockpile regardless of the market prices or even time period bought. Don't hamstring smaller people with raised City prices, and projects to reduce city costs that ONLY become viable at later city numbers of 18+ as the prices currently stand. And that's only for the lvl 1 project. The Level 2 is exclusively for Whales that gets bought at a rate comparable almost with lvl 1 version for city count timing. Smells like Crony Capitalism with good intentions but incredibly inept handling. City Planning National Project:5% off all City Costs (just like manifest destiny) 50million 50k steel, 25k aluminum, 10k gas. Edited May 5, 2019 by Xea Evangelos Added more content 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Von Bismarck II Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 I feel like the food and raw markets are especially flooded, and adding something like this would help to balance it out... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 On 5/1/2019 at 10:49 PM, Alex said: I'm on board with everything here, I'd propose a slight tweak to the prices though: City Planning Advanced City Planning Will this also be retroactive, as you plan on making the resource cost of cities retroactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted May 5, 2019 Administrators Share Posted May 5, 2019 2 hours ago, Xea Evangelos said: . Screw the talk about "desired market prices" for starters. It's a Lasais Faire market model and should be treated as such. City Cost Reduction Projects combined with raising City prices? Sounds like an idea cooked up people that have been huge for too long that forget how much 100mil means even to a medium size player. This will not fix anything other than hurting small players while the already big players get it 10x easier. A few thousand per raws to build a city at 20+ cities? Is that a joke? I don't even need to buy those raws at 20 cities and 3 full days of devoted mining at a 10 city size, let alone 20. That doesn't fix anything for the market, it's a needless cosmetic that barely dents the actual prices. Next, since I'm in the range to have a City Planning Project lvl 1 affect me, I'd full out ignore it favor of buying City 17 at current prices. These projects literally only benefit established whales, and literally do nothing to stimulate the economy in any meaningful way; too much competition to affect the "desired prices". So I get to City 18 where the proposed starter Project becomes viable for buying and cost worth, BUT I get better return for Ammunition Stockpile regardless of the market prices or even time period bought. Don't hamstring smaller people with raised City prices, and projects to reduce city costs that ONLY become viable at later city numbers of 18+ as the prices currently stand. And that's only for the lvl 1 project. The Level 2 is exclusively for Whales that gets bought at a rate comparable almost with lvl 1 version for city count timing. Smells like Crony Capitalism with good intentions but incredibly inept handling. City Planning National Project:5% off all City Costs (just like manifest destiny) 50million 50k steel, 25k aluminum, 10k gas. I don't think you've thought the projects through. The cost reduction is a flat rate, not a % discount, and as such it benefits smaller nations far more than it benefits larger nations. The cost reduction for a player with 11 Cities who has the City Planning National Project is $50,000,000 off of their next city which costs $51,725,000. That's a 96.665% cost reduction for a nation with 11 cities. A player with 15 cities who has the City Planning National Project is $50m off of their next city which costs $112,025,000. That's only a 44.633% discount, which comparatively is less than half the discount a nation with 11 cities gets. To put things into even better perspective, a nation with 30 cities with the City Planning National Project gets $50m off of their next city which costs $1,224,025,000. That's a 4.085% discount. Less than a 5% discount would give them. Hopefully it's obvious how this project is hugely beneficial for nations with low amounts of cities, and not that useful for nations with already high city counts. 38 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said: Will this also be retroactive, as you plan on making the resource cost of cities retroactive. No. I don't see why this would be made retroactive; that would mean building the project would have to give you a cash refund of $50m * # of Cities over 11 for City Planning, and similarly $100m * # of Cities over 16 for the Advanced City Planning project. Why would we have a project give you a straight cash payout? It's a trade-off, you don't have to build the project, and if you choose not to then you don't get the reduced city prices. Large nations may not even bother with purchasing these projects if they don't expect their future city growth to be more than 1 or 2 cities as they won't pay for themselves. 2 3 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...
Vack Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 7 hours ago, Xea Evangelos said: . Screw the talk about "desired market prices" for starters. It's a Lasais Faire market model and should be treated as such. Just wanted to mention something to keep in mind when you so thoughtlessly dismiss this. This is an MMO in which everyone is constantly printing money. Every MMO developer faces a problem, which is that the supply of stuff is constantly increasing at an ever faster rate. If this continues unabated then there will be so much stuff in the game that it will all become next to worthless. Try to consider for a moment that nothing ever gets done to create resource sinks, what is the end result of that? Resources will become so abundant that there is almost no demand. They cease to have value, where $1000 may once have bought you 1 unit of munitions it will now buy 1000 units because the abundance of resources is such that every listing is the lowest PPU possible, $1. The market will no longer be competitive or impoprtant. So far gone will the situation be that even major wars won’t budge the price at all. Everyone will be using the same city template, resources will become irrelevant numbers that require no strategising or forethought. That’s the end result of leaving things be. IRL you can just stop printing money to fix this problem, but you can’t just stop nations from having revenue. The solution to the problem of hyperdeflation in PW is to add resource sinks and commerce changes in such a way that reasonably stable balance is struck between supply and demand of all resources. That is measured in price. Picking a random benchmark price for resources and seeing if new features take you closer to it or further away is a valid strategy for measuring the impact of changes. 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 20 hours ago, Alex said: No. I don't see why this would be made retroactive; that would mean building the project would have to give you a cash refund of $50m * # of Cities over 11 for City Planning, and similarly $100m * # of Cities over 16 for the Advanced City Planning project. Why would we have a project give you a straight cash payout? It's a trade-off, you don't have to build the project, and if you choose not to then you don't get the reduced city prices. Large nations may not even bother with purchasing these projects if they don't expect their future city growth to be more than 1 or 2 cities as they won't pay for themselves. Then WHY would a change to the cost of cities be retroactive, if you look at some of the whale nations you basically telling them you will not buy your next city unless you pay a huge sum in backdated costs that were never in place to start with. I can understand the cost going up however I think its poor taste to make people who already built cities having to pay so much more if it is simply to slow their growth down then as let's face it this will not put a great deal of demand for resources. If you wanted to put a higher demand on resources, that's pretty simple to do, just make all cities have a running upkeep cost of resources instead of a one-off payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dio Brando Posted May 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted May 6, 2019 16 hours ago, Vack said: but you can’t just stop nations from having revenue. 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted May 6, 2019 Administrators Share Posted May 6, 2019 3 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said: Then WHY would a change to the cost of cities be retroactive, if you look at some of the whale nations you basically telling them you will not buy your next city unless you pay a huge sum in backdated costs that were never in place to start with. I can understand the cost going up however I think its poor taste to make people who already built cities having to pay so much more if it is simply to slow their growth down then as let's face it this will not put a great deal of demand for resources. If you wanted to put a higher demand on resources, that's pretty simple to do, just make all cities have a running upkeep cost of resources instead of a one-off payment. First, because I don't care about whale nations' growth, and if anything I would like to slow their growth down. Newer players can't catch up if older players grow at the same rate as them. Second, there is a fairness argument to be made, that it's not fair for younger nations to have to pay more costs than older nations. I understand how you could apply that argument here, but I don't think it's relevant because the projects are optional, while the resource costs are mandatory. Larger nations will still have the option to build/use these projects too and get the same cost reduction going forward as smaller nations. Lastly, the increased resource demand from the retroactive pricing would do a lot to correct the market in the short term. 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...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Alex said: First, because I don't care about whale nations' growth, and if anything I would like to slow their growth down. Newer players can't catch up if older players grow at the same rate as them. Second, there is a fairness argument to be made, that it's not fair for younger nations to have to pay more costs than older nations. I understand how you could apply that argument here, but I don't think it's relevant because the projects are optional, while the resource costs are mandatory. Larger nations will still have the option to build/use these projects too and get the same cost reduction going forward as smaller nations. Lastly, the increased resource demand from the retroactive pricing would do a lot to correct the market in the short term. As your customer, if you could reword that whole i dont care about whale nations growth to something a little more player friendly like... Whale nation growth is currently not a priority. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted May 6, 2019 Administrators Share Posted May 6, 2019 13 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: As your customer, if you could reword that whole i dont care about whale nations growth to something a little more player friendly like... Whale nation growth is currently not a priority. Well, I suppose you are correct, that is the point I was trying to make. I don't know what your definition (or the going definition) of whale is, but if we consider all nations 25+ cities to be whales, that's 204 nations of 4363 nations (4363 is nations with 5+ cities, both of these figures do not include nations in Vacation Mode) which is less than 5% of the "active" playerbase. It doesn't make a ton of sense to prioritize such a small minority of nations in general, imo. 1 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...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 Just a little professional advice. Never a great idea to alienate or take for granted a section of your player base. Sure most of the people here are shitheads and probably dont deserve very little time or effort, and while this is a game for us, it's your business, and you should consider every interaction you make with your player base as such. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) One thing to consider is that the easier you make it to do something the less fulfilling that achievement becomes. A lot of these boosts to small nations serve to devalue the challenge of reaching various benchmarks in the game. Achievements are a lot more rewarding when you have to work hard to get them. Edited May 8, 2019 by Azaghul 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUNCH Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) On 5/1/2019 at 4:49 PM, Alex said: --snip-- edit: nvm, i'm an idiot Edited May 9, 2019 by LUNCH 2 Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted May 8, 2019 Administrators Share Posted May 8, 2019 17 minutes ago, LUNCH said: Wait - bauxite is more expensive than aluminum, lead is more expensive than munitions... the only purpose to those is to build other, less valuable resources? Like, why? At that point, nobody's gonna want to buy the raw resources, because you can buy the finished product for less, and you won't have to wait. I noticed that before the market started to crash, and I never understood why. It's not a 1 to 1 conversion. 1 Bauxite =/= 1 Aluminum. 1 Bauxite = 3 Aluminum. You may need to sit and think about the math, but that explains why Bauxite can be more expensive than Aluminum, and people still buy Bauxite. 1 2 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...
Mack g Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 This should be an alliance based project. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUNCH Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, Alex said: It's not a 1 to 1 conversion. 1 Bauxite =/= 1 Aluminum. 1 Bauxite = 3 Aluminum. You may need to sit and think about the math, but that explains why Bauxite can be more expensive than Aluminum, and people still buy Bauxite. Oof. Somehow forgot that. Forgive my ignorance and such, lol. 10 hours ago, Mack g said: This should be an alliance based project. No. Anyways, in the meantime, at least we finally have something new! Edited May 9, 2019 by LUNCH gib water Inhabitor of Forum Games & Spam. I live there. It's my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted May 9, 2019 Administrators Share Posted May 9, 2019 This suggestion has been implemented, and so I am locking this thread to keep this subforum tidy. 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...
Recommended Posts