Jump to content

City Timers


Keegoz
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

City timers have bugged me for a long time. I honestly not really sure of what the mechanic really exists for any more. It was created when we all had only a handful of cities and in theory new players could instantly catch older ones. This however is no longer the case, a new player is probably never going to catch Fenris at c50 now (which is a problem in itself but not one for this thread).

It's quite simply outdated and I highly doubt too many people are buying cities every 10 days after c20 anyway.

I also don't like the idea of punishing raiders for spending time actively trying to catch up to then be punished for months waiting for cooldowns. The game already has enough barriers for players to catch up, don't really need this one any more.

The problem I find with this would be the practical implications of the deletion of city timers inside established alliances.

 

Newbies are very often simply granted their cities. 

 

If we delete the city timer, the safest economic decision for alliances may be to just make every new member that wants grants to raid at low city counts until they reach a semi-arbitrary amount of money and rss. At which point, instead of getting them to city 12 or mid 10s cities, the alliance would jump them to city 20 directly within a day and avoid the city 10-20 tier altogether since it is the least profitable tier (at city 20+ it is more profitable because it is safer to have more infra and you can build more projects).

 

The effect of this situation may be a complete deletion of the city 10-20 tier within the alliances with grants, which would have many indirect consequences. In addition, we could see more players leave due to being forced to raid for longer.

 

In essence, I feel like this change should be looked into more deeply, there could be a lot of long-term effects if this change were to come. It is not just some minor change to the game, it can deeply change how econ departments work

Edited by Johnson Boris
Dyslexia
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Johnson Boris said:

The problem I find with this would be the practical implications of the deletion of city timers inside established alliances.

 

Newbies are very often simply granted their cities. 

 

If we delete the city timer, the safest economic decision for alliances may be to just make every new member that wants grants to raid at low city counts until they reach a semi-arbitrary amount of money and rss. At which point, instead of getting them to city 12 or mid 10s cities, the alliance would jump them to city 20 directly within a day and avoid the city 10-20 tier altogether since it is the least profitable tier (at city 20+ it is more profitable because it is safer to have more infra and you can build more projects).

 

The effect of this situation may be a complete deletion of the city 10-20 tier within the alliances with grants, which would have many indirect consequences. In addition, we could see more players leave due to being forced to raid for longer.

 

In essence, I feel like this change should be looked into more deeply, there could be a lot of long-term effects if this change were to come. It is not just some minor change to the game, it can deeply change how econ departments work

I think you're being a bit generic in saying all alliances will do 'x'. If alliances force people to raid for long periods but none of them really acheive the goal they give them, then that's a failed policy. They'll likely adjust or they're going to slowly lose members over time to attrition and other alliances will grow at their expense.

Yes some people would jump to c20. A lot won't.

The game and alliances should have more freedom on how to wield their econ.

  • Upvote 2

[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

A few cases I am not so certain about:

-The ability for noobs who pay to win or obtain a lot of money through pixelhugger means to grow too quickly

-Potentially makes it too easy to bankroll players

-Potentially makes it too easy for people who steal banks or suddenly obtain large sums of money to burn all the cash at once (I think EM is an appropriate example here?)

-Might throw some established econ systems out of balance, although I'm not an econ guy so idk for sure here

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What alliance is going to dump all that cash into a noob they just met? If they want to throw that much cash away on players that won't stick around than by all means be stupid. 

  • Upvote 3

FORMER LEADER OF COTL. PLEASE GROW INTERNALLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

A few cases I am not so certain about:

-The ability for noobs who pay to win or obtain a lot of money through pixelhugger means to grow too quickly

-Potentially makes it too easy to bankroll players

-Potentially makes it too easy for people who steal banks or suddenly obtain large sums of money to burn all the cash at once (I think EM is an appropriate example here?)

-Might throw some established econ systems out of balance, although I'm not an econ guy so idk for sure here

-Roll them. If people can pay to win in this game and the only thing holding them back is timers... then we have bigger issues than timers.

-If you want to waste cash one a single person, go ahead. It comes with significant risks though.

-I don't see that as a down side. More politics in this game is needed. Banks as always will have to be careful with who they trust with access.

-Econ, just like milcom, will have to adjust to changing metas. I'm sure they'll be able to establish a new meta pretty fast.

 

I actually think the biggest issue is people suddenly stacking cities during war. That can easily be fixed however by removing the ability to build a city whilst in an active war.

  • Upvote 2

[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

My main issue with removing city timers would be the fact it could cause way more problems that solutions.

I don't particularly see it as a big problem. This is simply because having an extremely diverse city range that progressively gets smaller towards the high tiers isn't a bad concept. If people end up building themselves out of war range like certain past examples it doesn't really affect the game. This is made more prominent due to updeclare mechanics and diminishing percentile increases in military forces when you get more cities. (A c40 vs c45 is easier to fight than a c20 vs c25)


While flawed in a sense, I feel like the current system is far better than any alternative I can think of or have seen. Maybe I'm just uncreative so feel free to prove me wrong but I just don't see the benefit of removing city except for players who reset or for specific alliances that want to accelerate growths of certain people. (aka tax farms)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree on all fronts. Wait like everyone else. Then you start adding stipulations like you can’t buy cities while in an active war makes it even less appealing. 
 

pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

did we ever end up separating the project and city timers?

I am 99.9% sure yes

Why our you reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2022 at 9:57 AM, hidude45454 said:

The ability for noobs who pay to win or obtain a lot of money through pixelhugger means to grow too quickly

Credit limits going up to 20 a month would mean 400m a month from P2W. Not only this, you could in theory cash 400 credits on 20 people, have them send you 8bn(totally legal infact encouraged)and get to c30+ in a single month.

400 credits = 1600$ btw

The timers are there for a reason as well - to stop old alliances with multiple billions from tiering people to high city counts too fast while smaller or newer ones struggle to grant past 10 cities. 

Timers should never be lifted. This is a game of patience and should be treated as such.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2022 at 9:54 PM, Zevari said:

My main issue with removing city timers would be the fact it could cause way more problems that solutions.

I don't particularly see it as a big problem. This is simply because having an extremely diverse city range that progressively gets smaller towards the high tiers isn't a bad concept. If people end up building themselves out of war range like certain past examples it doesn't really affect the game. This is made more prominent due to updeclare mechanics and diminishing percentile increases in military forces when you get more cities. (A c40 vs c45 is easier to fight than a c20 vs c25)


While flawed in a sense, I feel like the current system is far better than any alternative I can think of or have seen. Maybe I'm just uncreative so feel free to prove me wrong but I just don't see the benefit of removing city except for players who reset or for specific alliances that want to accelerate growths of certain people. (aka tax farms)

People won't catch the top nations because city timers are removed. I can tell you now, people will still sit between cities 1-20 quite easily and that spread will remain.

The city timers is a flawed mechanic because it is just there. It doesn't do what it set out to do any more. No one will be catching the top players unless they quit.

21 hours ago, Vice said:

Disagree on all fronts. Wait like everyone else. Then you start adding stipulations like you can’t buy cities while in an active war makes it even less appealing. 
 

pass.

Great argument. I can do this too! I disagree with your disagreement on all fronts.

 

5 hours ago, Majima Goro said:

Credit limits going up to 20 a month would mean 400m a month from P2W. Not only this, you could in theory cash 400 credits on 20 people, have them send you 8bn(totally legal infact encouraged)and get to c30+ in a single month.

400 credits = 1600$ btw

The timers are there for a reason as well - to stop old alliances with multiple billions from tiering people to high city counts too fast while smaller or newer ones struggle to grant past 10 cities. 

Timers should never be lifted. This is a game of patience and should be treated as such.

I'd like to see the alliances that dump billions into members who will likely never repay that cash. Most old alliances don't even push people on city timers, so this isn't what's holding them back. It is the revenue and the risk factors.

  • Upvote 1

[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

30 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I'd like to see the alliances that dump billions into members who will likely never repay that cash. Most old alliances don't even push people on city timers, so this isn't what's holding them back. It is the revenue and the risk factors.

I like to call them suckers!  But really I just see crooked gov members using this to enrich themselves, or people stealing banks and picking up 10-20 cities really quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I like to call them suckers!  But really I just see crooked gov members using this to enrich themselves, or people stealing banks and picking up 10-20 cities really quick.

Again, more politics isn't a bad thing here.

 

9 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Strongly disagree. Making early/mid tier growth too easy also reduces the sense of accomplishment of building through those levels. 

I think you're overstating the "sense of accomplishment". Most alliances have members raid at c3-5 for months and then get stuck waiting for 10 days to buy cities. Most I know find it tedious and boring.

Edited by Keegoz

[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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.