Project cost multiplier

[Azaghul]

The intention of this idea is to additional levels of strategy and trade offs to buying projects, and discourage projects from being something that people aim to max out.

Project cost multiplier = 1+.05*current # of projects.

To balance this out and keep the average costs of projects about the same, I'd cut the "base cost" projects by 1/4th or 1/3rd.  Here's what the numbers would look like cutting the base cost by 1/3rd.

Project	Multiplier	Compared to current cost
1	1	66.67%
2	1.05	70.00%
3	1.1	73.33%
4	1.15	76.67%
5	1.2	80.00%
6	1.25	83.33%
7	1.3	86.67%
8	1.35	90.00%
9	1.4	93.33%
10	1.45	96.67%
11	1.5	100.00%
12	1.55	103.33%
13	1.6	106.67%
14	1.65	110.00%
15	1.7	113.33%
16	1.75	116.67%
17	1.8	120.00%
18	1.85	123.33%
19	1.9	126.67%
20	1.95	130.00%
21	2	133.33%
22	2.05	136.67%
23	2.1	140.00%
24	2.15	143.33%
25	2.2	146.67%

 

How I see this playing out in the real world: Nations generally aiming for a smaller number of more expensive projects, or a larger number of cheaper projects.  Maybe even some dumping of cheaper projects before buying a series of expensive ones.  The additional level of strategy to project ordering would be interesting.

[Ketya]

Seems like there are two camps on this. Camp-A is themed around specialization by requiring players to put more thought into which projects to build, and could yield into each nation being unique. Camp-B is themed around joy of building more by making projects and slots more accessible for more players, resulting in many nations looking the same.

The idea above adds a little more depth into the game, which makes the game more fun.

[lightside]

Now that I think about it I feel like as you get more projects the cost is already riseing as you are aiming for more expensive projects and so we don't really need this. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by lightside

[AwesomeNova]

We already have projects that cost upwards of $500 million. We don’t need a multiplier added to project costs. It’ll make certain projects not worth the cost to get.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

I feel like if you do this, the new meta would be urban planning center at 11 cities, and advanced urban planning at 16, with people deleting any other projects just to get the most out of those extremely expensive projects.

[Zim]

Suggested by a guy who already have 21 projects, this just seem like a way for whales to stay ontop with an unfair advantage.

[Azaghul]

On 9/26/2020 at 1:57 PM, AwesomeNova said:

We already have projects that cost upwards of $500 million. We don’t need a multiplier added to project costs. It’ll make certain projects not worth the cost to get.

The first ten projects would be cheaper.

6 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I feel like if you do this, the new meta would be urban planning center at 11 cities, and advanced urban planning at 16, with people deleting any other projects just to get the most out of those extremely expensive projects.

This is probably true.  I don't think it's a bad thing to adopt game mechanics that encourage this type of planning.

2 hours ago, Zim said:

Suggested by a guy who already have 21 projects, this just seem like a way for whales to stay ontop with an unfair advantage.

Unless/until admin adds more projects.  Yes it's better for top tier whales than upper middle tier whales, but that's a relatively small number of players.  It would generally be beneficial for most middle tier players who are a larger portion of the player base.

[Rin]

I don't think it will be fun. New players already have the thrill of adding cities quickly. Older players still need to buy something.

I like loading my project slots with cheap econ ones then scrapping them for the expensive ones. That's going to be a hell of a punishment if I have all these rss projects I don't use and then want to buy ACP.

The strategy angle isn't worth the loss of fun. It's just more calculators, more buttons to press in a specific order. It's hard enough to remember the project timer and clicking it in traffic, getting snored at 8.00 am, setting a reminder to press it 5 min later. I don't want an ideal project destruction order planned in advance for that.