Soften the City Cost Curve

[Raphael]

A catch-up mechanic but also something that benefits people already in the game. Here's my proposed change, not a huge impact but it saves everyone money.

 

Current Forumla: 50000*(x-1)^{3}+150000*x+75000

Proposed Formula: 40000*(x-1)^{3}+150000*x+75000

C10 is $8m cheaper this way, c20 is about $40m cheaper, c30 is about $200m cheaper, c45 is almost $1B cheaper. Basically just helps accelerate everyone's growth a little bit but eases some significant cost off the higher city counts and makes it a little more feasible to have a "big" nation.

 

Graph:

[Arawra]

It's already feasible to have a big nation because there's little variety of things to buy for your nation. It's also not really a catch up mechanic if it disproportionately benefits the bigger players, and I think would decrease the price of the resources that smaller nations sell for income.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hime-sama

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

28 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

It's already feasible to have a big nation because there's little variety of things to buy for your nation. It's also not really a catch up mechanic if it disproportionately benefits the bigger players, and I think would decrease the price of the resources that smaller nations sell for income.

How would cities being cheaper make resources cheaper? Aside from there now being more cities around, which at best would cause a minor decrease from supply increase (considering the deflation economics prices now that's not a bad thing either) and more likely what'll it'll do is nothing as the need for raws is based on need for Manus whose need is based on the number of cities you have to supply, meaning more cities doesn't magically decrease cost of resources, as it creates exactly as much supply as demand.

 

If anything it would boost the prices of raws as more people grow out of being city 10 and want to do manufacturing. Your concern has no logical basis and I can't even tell where exactly it's supposed to connect to the OP.

 

As for it affecting whales more, that's not how math works. 8m to a city 10 with a good build is, about 3-4 days income. 200m to your average c30+ is... About 3-4 days income. 

40m to your average c19 is... You guessed it! About 3-4 days of income! 

 

It's literally a straight 3-4 day slash on time needed to save up across the board. A better argument is "newer players mostly use grants to grow so this doesn't really affect them at all until they're into mid tier and therefore, does it really work as a catch-up?" 

As for the OP, meh. Not opposed or in favor in any particular way. The timer renders it kinda irrelevant, it'll still take more time to save up than the timer forces for wait.

 

[Grave]

I think Cities are the issue not the solution to be honest, although this gives me an idea. 

I would support a similar / slightly greater decrease to infrastructure costs. Increase the average infra in the game. 

 

This would also inadvertently increase city count speeds slightly but the supply / demand balance will be less scarce 

[Rin]

I'm not entirely against this, because it would be nice for people to get more cities. But did rather it be through more urban planning projects lol

[Prefontaine]

2 hours ago, Rin said:

I'm not entirely against this, because it would be nice for people to get more cities. But did rather it be through more urban planning projects lol

So a third level of planning projects? Ooo, that'll be pricey XD

[Changeup]

3 hours ago, Rin said:

I'm not entirely against this, because it would be nice for people to get more cities. But did rather it be through more urban planning projects lol

17 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

So a third level of planning projects? Ooo, that'll be pricey XD

Edited October 1, 2020 by Changeup

[Rin]

12 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

So a third level of planning projects? Ooo, that'll be pricey XD

In the spirit of the OP, why not make it cheap instead?

[Alex]

I'm opposed to making cities cheaper for the largest nations in the game.

I know that's not your intention, but by modifying the ^3 term, the biggest savings go to the most expensive cities, which just helps the largest nations get farther ahead.

[Malakai]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

I'm opposed to making cities cheaper for the largest nations in the game.

I know that's not your intention, but by modifying the ^3 term, the biggest savings go to the most expensive cities, which just helps the largest nations get farther ahead.

@Alex is it possible to code a project in such a way that its effects were limited to cities in a certain range? 

For example, Project X removes Y number of dollars from purchase of cities 8-15, but not 16 and above?

[Alex]

12 hours ago, Optima said:

@Alex is it possible to code a project in such a way that its effects were limited to cities in a certain range? 

For example, Project X removes Y number of dollars from purchase of cities 8-15, but not 16 and above?

It is possible, yes

[Kevanovia]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

It is possible, yes

Maybe add ‘infinity stones’ that nations can gather. With the ‘infinity stones’ they can either be granted a free city, snap away 1 city in another nation, or preferably they could snap away Polaris.

It is time. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 10/5/2020 at 11:19 AM, Once-ler said:

Maybe add ‘infinity stones’ that nations can gather. With the ‘infinity stones’ they can either be granted a free city, snap away 1 city in another nation, or preferably they could snap away Polaris.

It is time. 

I actually saw a game do something similar to this once. There were 4 macguffin objects, and if someone brought them all together they could either double their nation or cut someone else's nation in half.

It took years and a dozen global wars for anyone to even get two of them.

If it requires 6 for one free city or one snapped away city, then it'd be a cool as heck once-off drama. I unironically support the idea.