Make City/Project Timers Shorter

[Valkorion Baratheon]

Preface

While a lot of us might log into P&W multiple times a day, overall player-retention in P&W is not very high. In fact, I would guesstimate that 90% of new players don't make it past the first month. I think a lot of this is due to the nature of browser games in general, not just P&W. You need specific qualities to be able to spend enough time on a text-based game for it to be engaging, in my opinion. Nevertheless, this suggestion is another step (in addition to my tutorial idea in another post and maybe future ideas) that I think could help slightly in raising P&W's player-retention.

 

Main Issue

Currently, city/project timers last 120 turns, or 10 whole days. When I first joined P&W years ago, this seemed like a slightly odd number to me. As a new player, seeing double-digit-day-long timers is a bit discouraging. New players want to start playing as fast as possible. Now, P&W is a long-term game, but I think shortening timers could have somewhat of a psychological effect in helping with player-retention.

 

Proposed Solution

What if we reduce city/project timers to just 84 turns, or 7 days/1 week? Having to wait 10 days (double digits) might seem like a lot to people. Whereas one week simply seems like more of a normal thing and even though it is only 3 days less, might be more acceptable. In real life, people are used to waiting for things on a weekly basis. School/work deadlines, meetings, etc. It's far more natural to use a week-long cycle instead of a 10-day cycle.

In addition, the average city count in P&W keeps going up with time. Thus, being able to build cities a bit faster would probably help new players get better integrated with the majority of the active playerbase, especially when global wars break out. 

 

Testing the Solution

Let's disregard the build-up from 1 to 10 cities as this has no timers. To get from 10 to 15 cities currently takes 50 days in city timers alone. If you have 1500 infra per city at 15 cities, then you also have 5 project slots, which means an additional 50 days. That's a total of 100 days just to get to a decent nation size that allows you to be competitive in a global war.

With week-long timers instead, that would take 7 days x 10 (5 cities and 5 projects) = 70 days. So, you save a whole month in timers alone. 

However, timers are not the only thing that matter here. Of course, even if you reduce city timers, city costs are exponentially more expensive with each additional city. So, it will probably take you more than 7 or 10 days to save up to get your next city. Disregarding any sort of alliance growth aid, smarter players that flip on the market and/or raid actually could earn enough money that they are able to build their cities every 7 or 10 days for the earlier cities.

So, I think it could be good to shorten these timers so that new players can get these earlier cities faster. Because of the exponential cost of cities, it's going to take a lot more time to get the later city counts, so once new players get a bit closer to the average point, they will start to slow down and match the growth rate of older players, so that way, it isn't unfair or anything.

Furthermore, I think this could help new alliances in general. In my previous example, I disregarded alliance funding. However, it's obvious that most players who have 10 cities are in an alliance. Thus, they are probably subject to alliance growth initiatives. By reducing city timers, this could help newer, but well-planned alliances become relevant faster. If these newer alliances are doing their econ properly, they can utilize shorter timers to save a month in the catch-up game. I think it's good for game health that rising alliances are able to get into a proper war range a bit sooner. It could help make global politics and wars more interesting and dynamic.

 

Conclusion

New players are a bit impatient and want to be able to play as fast as possible. While the retention rate will never be high for P&W due to the nature of browser games and nation sims, reducing city/project timers could help, in my opinion. Furthermore, it could help new alliances with potential become relevant faster and shake things up and keep the game more entertaining. 

[Azaghul]

There's a balance here between making growth to slow and making growth too fast.  My gut feeling is that this is on the side of making growth too fast.

We are seeing a cycle of inflation, where cities and projects are easy to build, so they have less perceived value to players, and they get bored of building them faster, so admin makes it even easier to build them to account for people getting bored of them quicker, and the cycle repeats.

And I think this hurts rather than helps new alliances.  New alliances generally don't have as many big nations to fund faster lower-mid tier growth.  With my 33 city income, in one week I can completely fund one new nation getting all the way to city 15.  With city timers, there are limits to how fast alliances with deep pockets can supercharge a new nation's growth.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Azaghul

[lightside]

I think if a nation is under 15 city's then the timer should only by 5 days, also if someone is under 5 projects the timer for that should be 5 days.

 

[Leo]

Separate City & Project timers maybe? That's always infuriated me.

[Kastor]

I think shortening the 15 city timer then keeping 16+ 10 days makes a lot of sense. 10 cities with no timer to then need to wait 100+ more days to get to 20? I think shortening would help.

[The Titan]

20 hours ago, Leo said:

Separate City & Project timers maybe? That's always infuriated me.

I actually like that idea

 

But overall, I disagree with the idea of shortening city build times. Because those who are to large to raid and to busy to flip are gonna get left in the dust.

 

22 hours ago, Azaghul said:

There's a balance here between making growth to slow and making growth too fast.  My gut feeling is that this is on the side of making growth too fast.

I agree with this, I think this pushes people to grow too fast, as weird as that sounds.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Lord Vader
Fixed Spelling Errors

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

5 minutes ago, Lord Vader said:

I actually like that idea

 

But overall, I disagree with the idea of shortening city build times. Because those who are to large to raid and to busy to flip are gonna get left in the dust.

 

I agree with this, I think this pushes people to grow too fast, as weird as that sounds.

There's no such thing as too large to raid, you're just too much of a pixel hugger to do it. 😛

The city timer at around 15 or so becomes irrelevant. It'll take you longer than 10 days to save up, or your alliance buys it in which case it doesn't matter. If alliances want to fast build somebody to 20 cities go ahead. This has been discussed before. Any head of econ who isn't shit will tell you just because they could does not mean at all that they would. Player retention even among built up nation's is still a visible issue, and this ignores people who are active but might leave or won't fight or will cause other problems.

The game is 6 years old, the average city count is 10. This has nothing to even do with the timer. People like vein, relatively young at 37 cities, has nothing to do with the timer. He's bigger than Aza who still can't see a bigger picture. 

There is no observable evidence to show that even outright removal of the timer would cause a significant change in anything except the death rate of micros, who are the only people foolish enough to try super boosting like that. In any established alliance, across the entire game, it might be a noteworthy change for a few dozen people in allainces rich enough and brave enough to do it for long time, highly reliable and capable members.

The simple fact is the timer affects no one but noobs trying to balance getting their cheap cities and also all the projects they need to have. I am not bothered in the slightest if some alliance is brave enough to boost someone to c25, that's a hell of a risk, and either it works or it doesn't, and either way I don't care. The timer doesn't slow down growth for anyone but noobs and people several times more successful than you. This has been the case since I started playing nearly 3 years ago. It's nothing new, it hasn't changed.

Just remove it entirely for all it's worth which, as anyone plainly observing capable of doing math, observation over time, or basic risk assessment can inform you, is nothing.

[Guest Zephyr]

On 8/4/2020 at 2:03 AM, Akuryo said:

There's no such thing as too large to raid, you're just too much of a pixel hugger to do it. 😛

The city timer at around 15 or so becomes irrelevant. It'll take you longer than 10 days to save up, or your alliance buys it in which case it doesn't matter. If alliances want to fast build somebody to 20 cities go ahead. This has been discussed before. Any head of econ who isn't shit will tell you just because they could does not mean at all that they would. Player retention even among built up nation's is still a visible issue, and this ignores people who are active but might leave or won't fight or will cause other problems.

The game is 6 years old, the average city count is 10. This has nothing to even do with the timer. People like vein, relatively young at 37 cities, has nothing to do with the timer. He's bigger than Aza who still can't see a bigger picture. 

There is no observable evidence to show that even outright removal of the timer would cause a significant change in anything except the death rate of micros, who are the only people foolish enough to try super boosting like that. In any established alliance, across the entire game, it might be a noteworthy change for a few dozen people in allainces rich enough and brave enough to do it for long time, highly reliable and capable members.

The simple fact is the timer affects no one but noobs trying to balance getting their cheap cities and also all the projects they need to have. I am not bothered in the slightest if some alliance is brave enough to boost someone to c25, that's a hell of a risk, and either it works or it doesn't, and either way I don't care. The timer doesn't slow down growth for anyone but noobs and people several times more successful than you. This has been the case since I started playing nearly 3 years ago. It's nothing new, it hasn't changed.

Just remove it entirely for all it's worth which, as anyone plainly observing capable of doing math, observation over time, or basic risk assessment can inform you, is nothing.

I agree. Is the city/project timer really necessary, @Alex?

[Roger]

This is a nice idea specially for people like me who have a hard time waiting for stuff 

[lightside]

Honestly removing the city timer is a good idea. It only serves too hold new players back and has no effect on older players. As long as someone has the cash to build a city then they should be able too. We probably should keep the project timer though 

[Roger]

But rather than decreasing the days

We could try setting different timers for projects and cities 

Like one project every 10 days

one city every 10 days

buying cities should not affect the project timer and vice versa

The first 10 cities don’t have a timer and these are new guys who don’t need projects so it’s easy for them and for people above 10 cities who need both projects and cities the have to wait 10 days for one project +city

[Wendell Williams]

On 8/3/2020 at 1:47 PM, Lord Vader said:

But overall, I disagree with the idea of shortening city build times. Because those who are to large to raid and to busy to flip are gonna get left in the dust.

What is your definition of too large to raid? We are talking about new players here not veterans at 35 cities.

 

On 8/2/2020 at 2:56 PM, Valkorion Baratheon said:

What if we reduce city/project timers to just 84 turns, or 7 days/1 week? Having to wait 10 days (double digits) might seem like a lot to people. Whereas one week simply seems like more of a normal thing and even though it is only 3 days less, might be more acceptable. In real life, people are used to waiting for things on a weekly basis. School/work deadlines, meetings, etc. It's far more natural to use a week-long cycle instead of a 10-day cycle.

Yeah timelines like this don't matter. People are still too busy and whether the timer is 10 days, 7 days, or ten years, people will always be too busy. And besides there isn't much to do in this game besides beg Alex to act right for once so why is there such a hurry. This is just a game after all not a job.

 

On 8/2/2020 at 2:56 PM, Valkorion Baratheon said:

However, timers are not the only thing that matter here. Of course, even if you reduce city timers, city costs are exponentially more expensive with each additional city. So, it will probably take you more than 7 or 10 days to save up to get your next city

Saving up to get your nex cut is literally a thing of the past. Have you not seen the amount of grants given out for new cities. If you agree to be tax farmed you get all the grants you can dream of.

[Corvidae]

On 8/3/2020 at 2:03 PM, Akuryo said:

The game is 6 years old, the average city count is 10. This has nothing to even do with the timer. People like vein, relatively young at 37 cities, has nothing to do with the timer. He's bigger than Aza who still can't see a bigger picture. 

I feel like this is a better argument for not changing things rather than changing things. It would take 270 days to buy up to 37 cities if you're rushing it and can find the money. That's not even 3/4th's of a year to become the top 1% of the game.

 

I think the thing that helps player retention is content in the game. Accelerating growth, removing hurdles and challenges, cheapening the experience all takes away from said experience. You're just rushing new players to go be bored at a higher city count and realize there's nothing else to do in the game.

 

Ask Vein how they feel about PnW now. He's done nothing but be pissed because Alex screwed him out of raiding with the score changes. There's nothing to do except drop more money that won't return principle investment for years.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

1 hour ago, Roberts said:

I feel like this is a better argument for not changing things rather than changing things. It would take 270 days to buy up to 37 cities if you're rushing it and can find the money. That's not even 3/4th's of a year to become the top 1% of the game.

 

I think the thing that helps player retention is content in the game. Accelerating growth, removing hurdles and challenges, cheapening the experience all takes away from said experience. You're just rushing new players to go be bored at a higher city count and realize there's nothing else to do in the game.

 

Ask Vein how they feel about PnW now. He's done nothing but be pissed because Alex screwed him out of raiding with the score changes. There's nothing to do except drop more money that won't return principle investment for years.

Then you "feel like" restricting people just better at the game than you.

Sorry, that's a hard fact. If somebody has the money to even get to 37 they've done something right and you haven't, and nothing will change that. The only thing the timer achieves then is a temporary stay in the execution of ego, and the continued inconvenience of low tier nations.

There is no content. Decelerated growth is not content. This is the idiotic pitfall some game developers fall I to, mistaking a pointless monotonous grind for "content" or for being "challenging", it's just pointless and monotonous. There's nothing to do at any point in the game unless you're a forever-arrgh or into the politics. 

Furthermore, you seem to have missed my actual point completely. This point being that the removal of the timer would change nothing. The city average isn't 10 because of the timer. It's 10 because new players in their micros don't grow much. Removing it won't magically change that, it won't even magically change a whole out about current alliance grant practices. It isn't going to magically create a bunch of whales.

Now if that had been understood from the parts where it was blatantly said, as everyone else understood it, I wouldn't need to textwall again.

This isn't "remove the timer makes things better!" It's "The timer is at best completely inconsequential or at worst a pointless roadbump."

Go ask how many econ heads out there would insta boost to c20 if this happened. No seriously do it. At best they'll give you very specific criteria they'd need met to even consider it.

It just won't change anything. The problems you attribute it to "fixing" or "helping fix", it doesn't at all, just like the tired old arguments for the electoral college, it's nothing more than a outdated tool to pass public will through a group of political elites. The timer is nothing than an outdated tool to roadbump growth so nobody gets gap too quickly. We have a c45 now, grumpy averages 34/35 cities, the gap already exists, it doesnt do anything.

[Corvidae]

45 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

This point being that the removal of the timer would change nothing. The city average isn't 10 because of the timer. It's 10 because new players in their micros don't grow much. 

This isn't "remove the timer makes things better!" It's "The timer is at best completely inconsequential or at worst a pointless roadbump."

It just won't change anything.

Good stuff. Meaningless updates wouldn't be worth the time.

[Azaghul]

On 8/10/2020 at 11:45 AM, Akuryo said:

Then you "feel like" restricting people just better at the game than you.

Sorry, that's a hard fact. If somebody has the money to even get to 37 they've done something right and you haven't, and nothing will change that. The only thing the timer achieves then is a temporary stay in the execution of ego, and the continued inconvenience of low tier nations.

There is no content. Decelerated growth is not content. This is the idiotic pitfall some game developers fall I to, mistaking a pointless monotonous grind for "content" or for being "challenging", it's just pointless and monotonous. There's nothing to do at any point in the game unless you're a forever-arrgh or into the politics. 

What's the alternative, no content?  If building up your nation is just a "grind", than almost anything about having a nation in this game is going to be a grind.

Quote

Furthermore, you seem to have missed my actual point completely. This point being that the removal of the timer would change nothing. The city average isn't 10 because of the timer. It's 10 because new players in their micros don't grow much. Removing it won't magically change that, it won't even magically change a whole out about current alliance grant practices. It isn't going to magically create a bunch of whales.

Now if that had been understood from the parts where it was blatantly said, as everyone else understood it, I wouldn't need to textwall again.

This isn't "remove the timer makes things better!" It's "The timer is at best completely inconsequential or at worst a pointless roadbump."

Go ask how many econ heads out there would insta boost to c20 if this happened. No seriously do it. At best they'll give you very specific criteria they'd need met to even consider it.

 

Quote

The timer is nothing than an outdated tool to roadbump growth so nobody gets gap too quickly. We have a c45 now, grumpy averages 34/35 cities, the gap already exists, it doesnt do anything.

These statements are contradictory.

This isn't about maintaining a gap.  It's about not hyper charging growth so much that growth stops being rewarding.

[Wendell Williams]

2 hours ago, Azaghul said:

These statements are contradictory.

This isn't about maintaining a gap.  It's about not hyper charging growth so much that growth stops being rewarding.

I think Akuryo missed the point a long time ago. It amazes me why people even respond to him.

 

On 8/10/2020 at 10:44 AM, Roberts said:

I think the thing that helps player retention is content in the game. Accelerating growth, removing hurdles and challenges, cheapening the experience all takes away from said experience. You're just rushing new players to go be bored at a higher city count and realize there's nothing else to do in the game.

I agree with this. This is the type of suggestion that does alot but actually just nothing. The last update already lessened the challenges this game offers. There appears to be no reason why this game should be easier. It is already easy for new players anyway.

Just join someone like the immortals and you literally don't have do anything but click buy new city. And I'll say it till I'm blue in the face: Doing things for people is not activity!!

Some people like this play style. But all it does is attract more empty headed idiots. Seeing how Akuryo turned out I think we need less of that here.

[Roger]

On 8/5/2020 at 9:09 AM, Zephyr said:

I agree. Is the city/project timer really necessary, @Alex?

Even though I hate the timer myself (specially when I have enough money to buy another city)

Completely removing it wont do much good

alliances with start making the new guys start getting money by raiding in-actives at c3-5 and then start making city jumps while buying projects as well 

entirely destroying the fun of the game

[KindaEpicMoah]

30 minutes ago, Roger said:

Even though I hate the timer myself (specially when I have enough money to buy another city)

Completely removing it wont do much good

alliances with start making the new guys start getting money by raiding in-actives at c3-5 and then start making city jumps while buying projects as well 

entirely destroying the fun of the game

 

[Guest Zephyr]

7 hours ago, Roger said:

Even though I hate the timer myself (specially when I have enough money to buy another city)

Completely removing it wont do much good

alliances with start making the new guys start getting money by raiding in-actives at c3-5 and then start making city jumps while buying projects as well 

entirely destroying the fun of the game

Well, that already happens to some degree.

It costs about $72m for cities 2 through 10, and another $74m to get them to 1500 infrastructure. That's $146m without talking about land, improvements, military or a war chest. With so many new players losing interest and falling inactive, alliances will naturally be very selective about who they dump money into helping develop. And this is already viable without obstruction by city timers, but it is the investment risks which are holding alliances back. As such I don't think the timer is really necessary.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Zephyr

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

No

Keep the noobs down.

I for one enjoy being an upper tier god.

Plebs 🅱️egone

 

Though now pointless, projects and cities should have a separate timer.

>tfw you got all you need and all the new projects.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

4 hours ago, 丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ said:

No

Keep the noobs down.

I for one enjoy being an upper tier god.

Plebs 🅱️egone

 

Though now pointless, projects and cities should have a separate timer.

>tfw you got all you need and all the new projects.

oh the little baby thinks he is in the upper tier... that is cute.

Who is a cute little shifty? yes you are! yes you are!

[Ketya]

I wonder whether shortening or removing city timer would result in an immediate increase in activity, then followed with a mass inactivity.

if there is no city timer, many will rapidly build cities, often through alliance grants. Meanwhile, they will enjoy the rapid pace of the game. Once they max their grants, etc, then will enjoy their nation’s large production for few days. Finally, they will start to fade off in few days, since the initial rapid pace will be replaced with the usual pace of the game. 

in comparison, with city timers, all of us wait, but also chat with others within our alliances, discuss which projects to build, chat about what is happening around Orbis. I think the city timer paces the game and this current pace helps to build a community. The community then becomes what many players like about P&W.

 

 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

17 minutes ago, Ketya said:

I wonder whether shortening or removing city timer would result in an immediate increase in activity, then followed with a mass inactivity.

if there is no city timer, many will rapidly build cities, often through alliance grants. Meanwhile, they will enjoy the rapid pace of the game. Once they max their grants, etc, then will enjoy their nation’s large production for few days. Finally, they will start to fade off in few days, since the initial rapid pace will be replaced with the usual pace of the game. 

in comparison, with city timers, all of us wait, but also chat with others within our alliances, discuss which projects to build, chat about what is happening around Orbis. I think the city timer paces the game and this current pace helps to build a community. The community then becomes what many players like about P&W.

 

 

Literally none of that changes without the timer because that's the normal pace of the game. By your logic that's literally what all the supposedly new city 20s would be doing, ignoring that such a thing wouldn't even happen.

Think before you speak

[lightside]

I can see and agree with some of the arguments for leaving the timer in place. However I still think it would be best to separate city’s and projects onto separate timers