Popular Post Keegoz Posted March 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted March 20, 2020 Instead of arbitrarily waiting for the community to suggest that city cap on city timers be increased (It was 5 then later moved to 10). We should just have it increase by 1 or so every 6 months. I'd also put it to 12 now tbh. It allows new players who want to attempt to catch up, feel like they have the option to do so. I posted this in another thread but I kinda think this is an overdue decision. The last decision to up the timer was made sometime ago now and 12 is probably on the low side but probably about as high as most the community is willing to swallow. 3 4 Quote [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 More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 would be based off nation age? rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 That is not what he is suggesting. what he is saying is currently people can buy cities 2-10 with no timer, and is suggesting that every 6 months Alex adds an additional city to that list without restriction. So in 6 months, you can now buy cities 2-11 with no timer, then in another 6 months, 2-12 with no timer, and so on... 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Keegoz said: Instead of arbitrarily waiting for the community to suggest that city cap on city timers be increased (It was 5 then later moved to 10). We should just have it increase by 1 or so every 6 months. I'd also put it to 12 now tbh. It allows new players who want to attempt to catch up, feel like they have the option to do so. I posted this in another thread but I kinda think this is an overdue decision. The last decision to up the timer was made sometime ago now and 12 is probably on the low side but probably about as high as most the community is willing to swallow. So you're saying Alex owes me four free cities. I'm not all for free handouts. I worked and had patience to buy my cities so new players should have that same privilege. And the fact is many alliances already buy players first 10 or so cities, so this suggestion is irrelevant. Edited March 21, 2020 by Deulos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 10 hours ago, Deulos said: So you're saying Alex owes me four free cities. I'm not all for free handouts. I worked and had patience to buy my cities so new players should have that same privilege. And the fact is many alliances already buy players first 10 or so cities, so this suggestion is irrelevant. No one's talking about free cities... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 11 hours ago, Deulos said: So you're saying Alex owes me four free cities. I'm not all for free handouts. I worked and had patience to buy my cities so new players should have that same privilege. And the fact is many alliances already buy players first 10 or so cities, so this suggestion is irrelevant. Whilst older players like ourselves had to wait 10 days for every new city right from city 2, we also benefited by being first in the door at a time when there wasn't a massive gap between the older tiers and the newer tiers. What Keeg proposed is just want way of helping to level the playing field and allow newer players to reach the higher tiers in a time frame that won't take years. It helps them and it helps the game in general since it will increase player retention. Probably Tweak the numbers a bit but its a very good proposal and I hope changes like this proposal are implemented into the game. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 There is no "catching up". Alliances already pay for new cities. (And think about banking as well) The gap between low tier and high tier is a problem already solved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 i vote for 13 :3 rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted March 22, 2020 Author Share Posted March 22, 2020 18 hours ago, Deulos said: There is no "catching up". Alliances already pay for new cities. (And think about banking as well) The gap between low tier and high tier is a problem already solved... I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. It certainly isn't solved either way. Quote [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 More sharing options...
Wendell Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 6 hours ago, Keegoz said: I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. It certainly isn't solved either way. I'm saying it is solved. Your suggestion doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) What's the point of this ? 10 days between each city is not that long, and I don't think the main problem of new players who can't catch up is not because of the timer, but rather because they can't afford new cities (you have persons stuck with the same city count for years ...). I'm not against this suggestion, I just don't understand how this would help reduce the gap between low & high tier. Also, I find it logical that people who have been playing this game for 5-6 years now have a city advantage. This would be ridiculous if older players played 5 years straight to get catched up quickly by a new player. Edited March 22, 2020 by Pascal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) Alternative suggestion: reduce city timer or cost, for people below the median city count of the game? Allows new players to integrate faster into the game, so long as they (or their alliance) can afford it. Edited March 22, 2020 by Aether 3 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 I think 10 is too high already and actually think it hurts the player experience and new player retention. Getting a new city should feel like an accomplishment and something to strive for. When you buy a whole lot of cities all at once, it psychologically cheapens the value of each city as an accomplishment. A concept that might be more interesting and both allow small nations to grow quickly while not cheapening the psychological value of it: Make the city timer not a flat 10 days but proportional to the city that you get. City timer = 1 day * # city bought -1. City 2 you can get your first day, City 3 you have to wait 1 day after buying city 2, city 11 is 10 days, city 21 is 20 days, etc. Getting to city 10 would be 45 days. Not a long period of time, but by spreading it out, it makes it more interesting and psychologically fulfilling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 13 hours ago, Pascal said: What's the point of this ? 10 days between each city is not that long, and I don't think the main problem of new players who can't catch up is not because of the timer, but rather because they can't afford new cities (you have persons stuck with the same city count for years ...). I'm not against this suggestion, I just don't understand how this would help reduce the gap between low & high tier. Also, I find it logical that people who have been playing this game for 5-6 years now have a city advantage. This would be ridiculous if older players played 5 years straight to get catched up quickly by a new player. Most players are around 20 cities, add in project timers, wars etc. It takes probably around a year to get there. In which time everyone will likely be getting close to 25 cities. Do you really believe allowing them to get to 12 cities is going to let them catch up to those nations who have been playing forever and are at 35 cities? If so then lol. Note I am an older player if not one of the oldest players of this game, I don't personally care about someone catching me up. I personally like being where the majority of people are and helping others to get there. I don't believe my solution is the only one but I wanted to have a discussion about it. Alex seems proactive to improve the game in ways like this and personally I'd like for it to be addressed. This suggestion is to do 2 things. 1 remove the fact that these decisions have been made when enough in the community demand it at random times. That imo is a poor way to do these things going forward. The second is to allow the possibility for nations to catch up to the majority of players who as you pointed out normally are stuck there because alliances don't fund higher etc. (Again much higher than what this suggestion proposes). This definately won't gaurantee that they will ever catch up but if they try hard and are super active, it certainly allows them to. To give an example, I have a guy in my alliance who has dedicated every day in the low tier to raiding and has managed to collect enough cash to get to 20 cities. He put in a lot of effort and has the means to get to where the majority are or aim to be but now has to wait over half a year to get there. Point is most people want to be where most of the game is and most the active people in the game right now are much higher. 13 hours ago, Aether said: Alternative suggestion: reduce city timer or cost, for people below the median city count of the game? Allows new players to integrate faster into the game, so long as they (or their alliance) can afford it. This is another option I could certainly get behind. I guess it really would depend on Alex if he wanted to majorly change the game or build on what he has done previously. I'd rather a new system but I'm not the one who has to code it or cop abuse from those who will disagree with the changes :P 1 hour ago, Azaghul said: I think 10 is too high already and actually think it hurts the player experience and new player retention. Getting a new city should feel like an accomplishment and something to strive for. When you buy a whole lot of cities all at once, it psychologically cheapens the value of each city as an accomplishment. A concept that might be more interesting and both allow small nations to grow quickly while not cheapening the psychological value of it: Make the city timer not a flat 10 days but proportional to the city that you get. City timer = 1 day * # city bought -1. City 2 you can get your first day, City 3 you have to wait 1 day after buying city 2, city 11 is 10 days, city 21 is 20 days, etc. Getting to city 10 would be 45 days. Not a long period of time, but by spreading it out, it makes it more interesting and psychologically fulfilling. This sort of also hurts what I was proposing. It would mean those on 15 cities would suddenly be subjected to a longer time to build a city than those only a week ago who had to wait 10 days. I don't really see how they'd ever really catch up to the main player base either it just sorta shifts the goal posts and doesn't deal with the solution. 1 Quote [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 More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 12 hours ago, Azaghul said: I think 10 is too high already and actually think it hurts the player experience and new player retention. Getting a new city should feel like an accomplishment and something to strive for. When you buy a whole lot of cities all at once, it psychologically cheapens the value of each city as an accomplishment. A concept that might be more interesting and both allow small nations to grow quickly while not cheapening the psychological value of it: Make the city timer not a flat 10 days but proportional to the city that you get. City timer = 1 day * # city bought -1. City 2 you can get your first day, City 3 you have to wait 1 day after buying city 2, city 11 is 10 days, city 21 is 20 days, etc. Getting to city 10 would be 45 days. Not a long period of time, but by spreading it out, it makes it more interesting and psychologically fulfilling. yeah i would say this would actually hurt newer players, its been a few years, but i believe you can pick up cities 10-13 or so in 10 days if you planned it out. Once you get past city 14-15 i dont believe its possible to buy a city every 10 days without outside assistance. On 3/21/2020 at 8:23 AM, Sphinx said: Whilst older players like ourselves had to wait 10 days for every new city right from city 2, we also benefited by being first in the door at a time when there wasn't a massive gap between the older tiers and the newer tiers. What Keeg proposed is just want way of helping to level the playing field and allow newer players to reach the higher tiers in a time frame that won't take years. It helps them and it helps the game in general since it will increase player retention. Probably Tweak the numbers a bit but its a very good proposal and I hope changes like this proposal are implemented into the game. Day 1 nations like myself didn't have giant nations or alliances with billions of dollars to help fund our nations. We had to do it the old fashioned way, by working hard and earning it. Damn kids and your entitlements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Keegoz said: This sort of also hurts what I was proposing. It would mean those on 15 cities would suddenly be subjected to a longer time to build a city than those only a week ago who had to wait 10 days. I don't really see how they'd ever really catch up to the main player base either it just sorta shifts the goal posts and doesn't deal with the solution. You could cap it if you really wanted to. Or make the formula something along the lines of City timer = (city bought -1) * 6 turns. Half a day per city, the timer wouldn't be 10 days until city 21. Illustrating the formula: NA 6 turns 12 turns / 1 day 18 turns / 1.5 day 24 turns / 2 days 30 turns / 2.5 day 36 turns / 3 days 42 turns / 3.5 day 48 turns / 4 days 54 turns / 4.5 day 60 turns / 5 days 66 turns / 5.5 day 72 turns / 6 days 78 turns / 6.5 day 84 turns / 7 days 90 turns / 7.5 day 96 turns / 8 days 102 turns / 8.5 day 108 turns / 9 days 114 turns / 9.5 day 120 turns / 10 days 126 turns / 10.5 days 132 turns / 11 days Cumulatively: 18 days to City 10. 85.5 days to City 20. My main point is I don't like anyone having the capability of buying more than 1 city a day, at least without using credits. That doesn't mean it needs to be a *long* wait. A day or two at first is fine. I'll emphasize that I'm not coming at this from a game balance issue (though I think it passes on that count) but from a game design and player retention perspective. 0 Days and 10 Days is too big of a dichotomy, there needs to be something in between. Edited March 23, 2020 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 I also think a gradual increase would be better for recruitment and alliance aid dynamics. Right now alliances compete for members by offering them free cities. To avoid giving away too much that they might lose to a player that isn't very engaged, they end up testing new members. Established players tend to underestimate how easy it is to understand the game because we already understand it, and may set unreasonably high hurdles that make the game seem more difficult than it is. Spacing out new player growth and aid would help on that front because in-game activity would count for more and other hurdles would count for less. I imagine a lot of alliances already do this, but game mechanics forcing the issue would be helpful. I'm not talking about a long enough time to have any significant impact on the meta-game... A couple of weeks to city 10 at most. The point is to increase new player engagement with the game and the psychological reward of growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Just to play devils advocate: - The only concrete goal in the game is buying cities. The less time spent "chasing" that goal, the less time people may maintain interest in the game. - Every time the limit is raised, it skews in favor of large/old alliances with plenty of funds to dump into new nations. This encourages people to join the rich establishment and contributes to political stagnation. Overall though I just blanket-oppose adding any more "catch up" updates until there's actual content in the mid-to-late game. We're otherwise just rushing new players into their own bored stagnation and eventual loss of interest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 (edited) if ramping timers is to be a thing it should at least start at 5 cities not 1 ?maybe even eight i have no idea how u came up with lets wait 12 hours for any actual progress ignoring the glaring player retention issue....we already have enough players building far too much infra for thier city counts ? rawr Edited April 3, 2020 by katashimon13 rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.