katashimon13 Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 5 minutes ago, Solomon Ben-David said: No, because you have 1 open slot before the project, and 2 open slots after the project. It gives you two project slots but takes one, so you net 1 open project slot. ok so net 1 open but net 2 total? rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Holy Decagon Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 (edited) If you have 13/14 Project Slots, and then purchase Research and Development Center, you gain *an additional net slot*, meaning, you now have 14/16 slots. Or, for a more clear example, if you are maxed on project slots, you could destroy a resource project, put this new project in, get your resource project back, as well as another project. Edited January 25, 2022 by His Holy Decagon 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Every Turn the nation gets 1 raw resource for each raw resource they can mine besides food (based on a chart found Here) This bonus increases for every 2 cities they have up to 10. This Project no longer functions above 15 cities. I still do not understand why you keep saying "for each raw resource they can mine". It is 3. It is always 3. So its 3 raws for every 2 cities. 1 Quote Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 3 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 i see we are trying to fix alu and... buff food some more??? remind me why we need more demand for food??? on that topic how do we deal with updates that were kinda influenced by people cheating in resources/cash and ruining the balance that way? 2 hours ago, Prefontaine said: bulleted lists 1 FINALLLY 2 y not more than 1 treasure? 😧 3 i will withold my yay till math 4 does this come with a new subscription model and discounts 5: all of these... lower food costs up alu costs unless ur planning on increasing demand for alu in other militaristic ways soon xP tbh would prefer to see more mechanics that require people to specialize and work together more as a result gsa.... see alu profit per improvement.... mechanics are w/e fix language for RDC to be very very clear nice cut off RPC at 16 to synch up w and encourage AUP ;3 rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Horsecock Posted January 26, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2022 (edited) All of these look good, except for the credit cap. Edited January 26, 2022 by Horsecock 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Knox Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 4 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said: I still do not understand why you keep saying "for each raw resource they can mine". It is 3. It is always 3. So its 3 raws for every 2 cities. I think they did it to specify that it's not just three random raw resources, but specifically the ones that they would have access to mining on their continent. 4 hours ago, Malal said: I'm so glad someone made this a meme lol Quote Federation of Knox Enlightened of Chaos, Event Horizon QA Team and API Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosta Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 7 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Credit redemption caps are being increased from 10 -> 20 per month Why??? Just why??? Is Alex trying to get more greedy despite updating the game once every blue moon? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Does data suggest that people stop making raw at C16? Just wondering why it stops working at 16.. Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asclepius Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 1 hour ago, Redarmy said: Does data suggest that people stop making raw at C16? Just wondering why it stops working at 16.. It's specifically meant to help producers at lower city levels without totally breaking resource markets at whale tiers. It's intended to do nothing for C16+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artifex Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 9 hours ago, Prefontaine said: This Project no longer functions above 15 cities. 9 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Credit redemption caps are being increased from 10 -> 20 per month Quote Love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 (edited) Nvm Edited January 26, 2022 by Majima Goro I'm dumb 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidude45454 Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Two things -- 1. Alliance leadership roles on test server are far from being finished testing, off the top of my head I can still name like four or five bugs that still occur and probably lots more undetected 2. The fact that new players who don't have a clue about the game can now essentially grow from C1 to C20 within the first month from credit cap increase bothers me greatly 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 7 hours ago, Redarmy said: Does data suggest that people stop making raw at C16? Just wondering why it stops working at 16.. aup rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahakall Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 12 hours ago, Salvarity said: So to clarify, if I build this, I get to build two more projects? Say I'm city whatever and I use slot 20 to build this, then slot 21 and 22 become available? Or do I only get slot 21. nvm answered above You will get 2 slots with this project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pythonian23 Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Will the treasure trading affect the csv data dumps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted January 26, 2022 Author Share Posted January 26, 2022 I'm going to address the Credit related concerns in one go. First, lets look at the math. Credits if exclusively used for in game money go from 20M - 25M each, using 20 a month for a whole year nets the player 4.8B - 6B, or ~13M - ~16.5M a day. This is less than the daily cash-only income of a 30+ in many regards. Alliances and players boost up nations all the time, this method just doesn't required an alliance funding the player or knowing someone that's been around. Second, this game is two things, free to play, and is the primary income for its creator. Over the years I've seen many comments that are along the lines of "Alex isn't great, but he's engaged with the community and he tries. He's better than most admins in these games". Alex listens to feedback (these days :P), and tries to give you what you want. He also has hired a coder, independent moderators, increased advertisement (which has increased game activity https://politicsandwar.com/world-graphs/graphID=0), and upgraded the servers which didn't crash in the last couple blitzes. All of these things cost money while little has been done to increase revenue. Obviously the increase in players does increase the likelihood of a donating playing joining the fold, but the amount of players that donate is staggeringly low. Which is fine, but these are the players that make this game possible for people to play it for free. While this increase will benefit those players, the game benefit isn't breaking and still has a ceiling. There's a growing number of C40+ nations who's income is 22B+ a year, or around 60M - 70M a day. If a player was already max donating for a year, this change merely increases the ability to duplicate a C40+'s income from 11% -> 22% The trade off boils down to are you willing to have players able to gain more money, that's still a fraction of what the larger nations make, by spending real money in exchange for better functioning servers, moderators that aren't bias from being players themselves, more frequent and better coded updates, more advertisement that hopefully continues to grow our player base, or not? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Knox Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 2 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Pre's Credit Explanation You make some very good points here and I appreciate it. Personally, I did not realize that this was Alex's primary income source. I appreciate everything Alex does for this community and respect him for what he has created here, so I honestly can't be mad if he needs the extra revenue for boosting the game and just to actually live a decent live. Thank you for the perspective on the issue. Perhaps those who oppose the credit issue can be constructive and provide possible alternatives to generate revenue? 1 Quote Federation of Knox Enlightened of Chaos, Event Horizon QA Team and API Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 19 hours ago, Prefontaine said: I'm going to address the Credit related concerns in one go. why not cheaper credits for less value? also u didnt answer my new subscription question xP rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Raphael Posted January 27, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 27, 2022 On 1/25/2022 at 1:03 PM, Prefontaine said: Credit redemption caps are being increased from 10 -> 20 per month So there are a couple of balance issues in this month's post that I take issue with, but I think this piece will have the largest impact on the game of any changes in the past year and I'd like to address it. 1. I think increasing the value of credits any further right now is a mistake due to scaling of the game. Any further "purchasable" amount of anything will start to impact game balance. I'll use my own nation as an example for the math. Including resources and at peak infra, I will make ~$30m a day. According to the game I'm in the top 3% of nations by score (this is mid-war btw, I'm sure I'm closer to top 1% by city count). 30,000,000 x 30 = 900,000,000. The cheapest credit on the market rn is $23m per credit. If you pay attention, you'll know credits don't often sell in batches of ten but rather you have to buy a few at the lowest price then pay more for a few more but that's not necessarily relevant. 23,000,000 x 20 = 460,000,000 That's over 50% of a top nation's monthly income now going to someone for using their irl wallet. How is that not pay-to-win at that point? I feel like that's so grossly over-compensating "donators" that it would significantly impact game balance/tiering/the economy of the game. The overwhelming majority of people are still below 25 cities and this would more than double, triple, quadruple, etc. a smaller nation's income. 2. I think this is a scummy business practice purely aimed to gain more "donations" aka revenue for Alex. Rather than continuing with the positive-impact business practice of increasing the credit's value to increase the amount of people wanting to purchase them (which I still don't think should happen) - this practice would introduce an immoral and frankly disgusting business practice of watering down your product to essentially force people to pay more or fall behind those willing to pay the price. Just to reiterate, I think credits are in a good place right now where newer nations can really benefit from them and older nations get a nice bump from them and they're useful enough during wars / for cosmetics that older people still want to buy them. I also agree with the sentiments expressed by others here: An obvious money-grab like this would really dampen my passion for PnW as a game. I'm on the dev team, in the QA-team channel, very active in this community overall and Alex is simply not putting in the hours he's promised to this community. Just since I joined the dev team, our own docket is years behind its own schedule. I personally feel like PnW has plenty of potential to grow both internally as a game and externally by netting more players into the community - but effort needs to be put into it for that to materialize not simply throw more pay-to-win mechanics in and completely throw off the balance of the game simply to line someone's pocket. I admire Alex and I like him as a person but if this change goes forward I personally will have a diminished view of both him and his game. 1 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted January 27, 2022 Author Share Posted January 27, 2022 14 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said: -Snip- Bugs get handled in a timely fashion. New content is slow, sure, but we don't want the rushed changes of years gone by either. You state your main problem is that this is a cash grab, even calling it scummy. I've also stated that money which has been made has been increasingly invested back into the game, especially over the last two years. You state that credit value should be increased, but you yourself state you don't think that'd actually do anything to generate more revenue. You mention cosmetics so that older players will buy them, but if I wanted credits I'd simply buy them off the market and have since they were sold on the market. What alternatives do you suggest that would actually work? An alternative that I don't like is removing them from purchase in game, or make it so they're only purchasable at a market mark-up. Players only make 25% of what a credit goes for on the market, this means to get 25M for selling a credit on the market it would go for 100M on the market. If there is to be better coding, better moderation, better servers, better advertisements to draw in players something needs to be changed to increase income into the game. I'm all ears. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkblade Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) On 1/26/2022 at 6:29 AM, Prefontaine said: I'm going to address the Credit related concerns in one go. First, lets look at the math. Credits if exclusively used for in game money go from 20M - 25M each, using 20 a month for a whole year nets the player 4.8B - 6B, or ~13M - ~16.5M a day. This is less than the daily cash-only income of a 30+ in many regards. Alliances and players boost up nations all the time, this method just doesn't required an alliance funding the player or knowing someone that's been around. Second, this game is two things, free to play, and is the primary income for its creator. Over the years I've seen many comments that are along the lines of "Alex isn't great, but he's engaged with the community and he tries. He's better than most admins in these games". Alex listens to feedback (these days :P), and tries to give you what you want. He also has hired a coder, independent moderators, increased advertisement (which has increased game activity https://politicsandwar.com/world-graphs/graphID=0), and upgraded the servers which didn't crash in the last couple blitzes. All of these things cost money while little has been done to increase revenue. Obviously the increase in players does increase the likelihood of a donating playing joining the fold, but the amount of players that donate is staggeringly low. Which is fine, but these are the players that make this game possible for people to play it for free. While this increase will benefit those players, the game benefit isn't breaking and still has a ceiling. There's a growing number of C40+ nations who's income is 22B+ a year, or around 60M - 70M a day. If a player was already max donating for a year, this change merely increases the ability to duplicate a C40+'s income from 11% -> 22% The trade off boils down to are you willing to have players able to gain more money, that's still a fraction of what the larger nations make, by spending real money in exchange for better functioning servers, moderators that aren't bias from being players themselves, more frequent and better coded updates, more advertisement that hopefully continues to grow our player base, or not? I think the issue is not about funding the game to keep the servers alive. I support users being able to spend money to support the game and to get a little boost from it, I used to buy credits myself. But in my opinion, it's the fact that the line between pay to win, and free to play has moved closer to the pay to win side. I'm not saying that the game is at that point now, you can still grow your nation without that feeling that you need credits to catch up with your peers. But will this be the last time that Alex increases the credit cap? Because what if it happens again? What if a year later you can now redeem 30 credits? And that starts pushing into pay to win territory. And that's one of the big reasons why I don't play free to play games, It's because they usually are pay to win. And that's why I believe that most people are worried about this credit cap increase. I still don't think that we are in pay to win territory, but I think a line needs to be drawn on the credit cap. Edited January 27, 2022 by darkblade 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Bugs get handled in a timely fashion. New content is slow, sure, but we don't want the rushed changes of years gone by either. You state your main problem is that this is a cash grab, even calling it scummy. I've also stated that money which has been made has been increasingly invested back into the game, especially over the last two years. You state that credit value should be increased, but you yourself state you don't think that'd actually do anything to generate more revenue. You mention cosmetics so that older players will buy them, but if I wanted credits I'd simply buy them off the market and have since they were sold on the market. What alternatives do you suggest that would actually work? An alternative that I don't like is removing them from purchase in game, or make it so they're only purchasable at a market mark-up. Players only make 25% of what a credit goes for on the market, this means to get 25M for selling a credit on the market it would go for 100M on the market. If there is to be better coding, better moderation, better servers, better advertisements to draw in players something needs to be changed to increase income into the game. I'm all ears. I think alternative means of monetization without affecting game balance could be implemented. I'm not trying to tell you I have a business plan for Alex in my back pocket, but at the same time I am voicing my opinion that this change would be unpopular and, in my opinion, the wrong decision to make for PnW as a community and a company. As stated on discord privately to Alex, I don't mean my post to be a "gotcha" roast or another takedown of a development thread. This is sincere feedback and I am more than happy to help Alex brainstorm alternative means of boosting donations or even non-donation means of monetizing PnW. I really enjoy this game and this community and I don't want to see it ruined. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan0601 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 instead of credit maybe add like you can instantly buy 12 cities before the timer starts, that change from 5 to 10 was good, at some point we will need to up it again since we are close to reaching a good amount of players at c35 and above. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted January 27, 2022 Author Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 hours ago, darkblade said: I think the issue is not about funding the game to keep the servers alive. I support users being able to spend money to support the game and to get a little boost from it, I used to buy credits myself. But in my opinion, it's the fact that the line between pay to win, and free to play has moved closer to the pay to win side. I'm not saying that the game is at that point now, you can still grow your nation without that feeling that you need credits to catch up with your peers. But will this be the last time that Alex increases the credit cap? Because what if it happens again? What if a year later you can now redeem 30 credits? And that starts pushing into pay to win territory. And that's one of the big reasons why I don't play free to play games, It's because they usually are pay to win. And that's why I believe that most people are worried about this credit cap increase. I still don't think that we are in pay to win territory, but I think a line needs to be drawn on the credit cap. I can't speak to the future, but we can look at the past. It's been what, 5-6 years or more since credits came into being? As far as I can remember it's always been 10 credit caps. The $ amount has gone up for in game rewards but has been at 20M base for quite a bit now. I think the city idea Kan just posted isn't bad, but I'd have to check with Alex on the analytics of how frequently new players buy credits, then also a number of cities that makes it worth while versus just cashing in the credits. The biggest problem with credits is the impact on lower tier warfare. Players can very easily declare wars and massive city counts with credits after having their defensive slots fill. Limiters like not being able to cash in credits above 10 while in an active war could be something. What do people think about a trial period? A couple months of allowing higher credit caps and we can monitor closely the use them and if the result is as bad as people fear? 2 1 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.