Change to a project: Resource Production Center

[Prefontaine]

 

EDIT: These are average resources on hand per nation, btw. 

 

Since around the time of the RPC production of raws have hugely jumped and prices have adjust accordingly by largely reducing. The idea behind the project was to boost the income of new players passively. Even with producing more raws the price has subsequently fell off more than the increased volume makes up for. Thus, the following change is proposed:

 

The resource bonus only operates while a player is above a certain level of activity. That threshold being in the poll. Effectively, whenever a player is above that threshold length of inactivity the project stops producing extra raws until the player next logs in. For example if it's 3 days, while a player's log in is under 72 hours then the project functions as normal. Once they go above 72 it stops working until the next log in. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Prefontaine

[Mega]

I agree with this, but not sure when the exact "inactivity cutoff" should be. It's hard to determine from a "trade market perspective". 

[Darsh]

I agree with this. The time period should be one week

 

[BelgiumFury]

I believe a daily login is optimal (as mentioned in private before), we want to encourage (new) players to log in daily. It will also have the least disruptive effect on the economy.

I'm glad this nerf is comming and hope this might bring some relief to the raw resource prices.

[Autumn Annayah]

Should be a week. 

[Majima Goro]

34 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Even with producing more raws the price has subsequently fell off more than the increased volume makes up for.

@Isjakiplease explain economics to our friend pls

[Magier]

I'll argue the middle ground and say put it on 3 days. A trade offer expires in 3 days and this problem is also innately linked to the market, so using the same timeframe allows a <C16 to log in once every 3 days and put up a new trade offer without losing revenue long term. It would still encourage activity, but not the strict 1-day timeframe some might find restrictive.

[Canbec]

I'm a fan of requiring daily activity, but I think the more reasonable option would be a 3-day cutoff. One week feels like too long to consider anyone active.

[Jacob Knox]

I find the arguments in favor of a 3-day cutoff persuasive, so I agree. 1-day seems far too strict, and I would be hypocritical to agree with that when sometimes I'm so busy that I neglect to login for a day or two. However, 5+ days seems a bit too lax to consider "active." I think 3-5 days is around the sweet spot.

[penpiko]

In my opinion, anything above 3 days is unacceptable, you’re actively rewarding new players for not logging in which should be totally avoided and goes against one of the few clearly defined principles of this game, logging in is good. This is a great opportunity to create mechanics which will encourage player activity and hopefully increase new player retention. 

I heard earlier the argument that nerfing this project will benefit older, higher tier players, who don’t necessarily have as many negative consequences if they allow themselves to go inactive. While this is true, I believe the way to remedy the issue and level the playing field isn’t to buff inactivity in the lower tiers, but to nerf inactivity in the higher tiers. Perhaps include modifiers with activity which reduce income, or something like that, I’m not sure. I think if the game wants to move in a direction where there is more activity it should be encouraged mechanically, not the opposite where we compensate for inactivity through new players bonuses. 
 

I know that pushing for more activity will not be a fan-favorite within mass-member alliances and tax farmers alike. But I hope that even those people can see the clear, objective, nature of the matter. If we want an active involved community, to continue this game, rewarding not logging is a clear step in the wrong direction. Therefore I implore all you misguided souls who vote for killing the game (5+ days) to rethink your choices, and the precedent you want to set with regards to the nature of new player accommodations. 

[BelgiumFury]

45 minutes ago, penpiko said:

In my opinion, anything above 3 days is unacceptable, you’re actively rewarding new players for not logging in which should be totally avoided and goes against one of the few clearly defined principles of this game, logging in is good. This is a great opportunity to create mechanics which will encourage player activity and hopefully increase new player retention. 

I heard earlier the argument that nerfing this project will benefit older, higher tier players, who don’t necessarily have as many negative consequences if they allow themselves to go inactive. While this is true, I believe the way to remedy the issue and level the playing field isn’t to buff inactivity in the lower tiers, but to nerf inactivity in the higher tiers. Perhaps include modifiers with activity which reduce income, or something like that, I’m not sure. I think if the game wants to move in a direction where there is more activity it should be encouraged mechanically, not the opposite where we compensate for inactivity through new players bonuses. 

[...]

If we want an active involved community, to continue this game, rewarding not logging is a clear step in the wrong direction. Therefore I implore all you misguided souls who vote for killing the game (5+ days) to rethink your choices, and the precedent you want to set with regards to the nature of new player accommodations. 

On a personal level i want to say I agree with everything Pen said above.
I want to note though that:

45 minutes ago, penpiko said:

pushing for more activity will not be a fan-favorite within mass-member alliances and tax farmers alike. But I hope that even those people can see the clear, objective, nature of the matter.

Isn't as simple as it sounds. A lot of push back isn't just mass member alliances, also whale alliances or bigger nations who know how to play the game very wel. They just dont feel like they should be forced to log in every single day (or every three days) because that's a luxury they have right now and don't feel like losing. They feel like there is no reason to ask that of them because "pnw is a pretty uninvolved game anyway". 

I agree 100% with the solutions said here, and I do agree on a personal level that we should nerf innactivity across the board. Doing a log in a day isn't some huge time sink at all, and I think it is 100% fair to ask. I just don't think that it's fair to just blame mass member alliances.

Edited December 28, 2022 by BelgiumFury

[Prefontaine]

13 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

Isn't as simple as it sounds. A lot of push back isn't just mass member alliances, also whale alliances or bigger nations who know how to play the game very wel. They just dont feel like they should be forced to log in every single day (or every three days) because that's a luxury they have right now and don't feel like losing. They feel like there is no reason to ask that of them because "pnw is a pretty uninvolved game anyway". 

I agree 100% with the solutions said here, and I do agree on a personal level that we should nerf innactivity across the board. Doing a log in a day isn't some huge time sink at all, and I think it is 100% fair to ask. I just don't think that it's fair to just blame mass member alliances.

RPC turns off after C15 so it won't impact whales/larger nations regardless. 

[BelgiumFury]

18 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

RPC turns off after C15 so it won't impact whales/larger nations regardless. 

What i said was refering specifically to this paragraph:

1 hour ago, penpiko said:

I heard earlier the argument that nerfing this project will benefit older, higher tier players, who don’t necessarily have as many negative consequences if they allow themselves to go inactive. While this is true, I believe the way to remedy the issue and level the playing field isn’t to buff inactivity in the lower tiers, but to nerf inactivity in the higher tiers.

 

[zigbigadorlou]

5 hours ago, Mega said:

I agree with this, but not sure when the exact "inactivity cutoff" should be. It's hard to determine from a "trade market perspective". 

I'd like to explain some of the discussion we already had. Basically we came to a consensus that the best nerf would be to cut out inactive nations. Originally, I had mentioned an easy metric: purple diamonds. Basically the idea is it wouldn't change for anyone who didn't basically quit. So it only cut off a little income to inactive raiders. It's hard to accurately gauge, but I had calculated that of the 3168 RPCs, 1705 (54%) of those nations were grey (data dump doesn't show activity). So at minimum the inactives can get cut off and the problem is cut in half.

Beyond that, I don't care much, personally so long as the purple diamonds, are cut off. Eith way, I suspect we'll end up revisiting it if the nerf is insufficient.

[BelgiumFury]

8 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

 Eith way, I suspect we'll end up revisiting it if the nerf is insufficient.

I certainly hope so.

[Nyx]

I definitely think a week would be best.

[Prefontaine]

Since this has gone live. Closing the thread.