New Project Discussion

[Franz Steiger]

Just now, Zoot said:

Clarification. Is this a multiplication or a subtraction. I.e would an attacker with 10% odds on a defender without the project have a 9% or a 0% chance if the defender had the project?

I would assume it wouldn´t eliminate the chance in this case, cause it would make more sense (as in reduce the already present chance, instead of 100%)

[Mega]

Military Expansion should be updated slightly so C30 nations can benefit as well. If you happen to be C30 its kind of awkward with the current mechanics for that project.

 

[Anri]

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

New Project: Military Expansion
Requirement: At least 3,500,000 Soldier kills, 100,000 Tanks destroyed, 10,000 Aircraft destroyed, 1,000 ships destroyed
Cost: $0
Effect: The next city purchased after this project is bought for the first time is reduced to $0. This project can only be purchased buy a player with less than 30 cities. This project cannot be deleted until a player is at 30 cities or higher. 

I think the requirements are too low. Realistically 99% of people will buy this project at c29 for most worth. Meanwhile if you pull the statistics (featured below) you can see that all but 15% of c29's would already be able to buy this project.

 

If you want to make it less min-maxy and generalize it to c25-29 you can see that again, all but about 15% of people would be able to buy this.

 

While I believe the primary idea of this project is to be a catchup mechanic available to most people, I think it is too easily accessible immediately. The project should be something players want to work towards and serve as a motor for increasing game activity and engagement rather than being available to 80% of the people right off the bat.

 

For this I think a more appropriate set of values for units killed would be:

7 million soldiers killed

250k tanks killed

20k planes killed

2k ships killed

 

This would make the project accessible to around 40% of c25-29s right now, with another 40% at or above the halfway mark towards these requirements. This means it is still very accessible for the entire playerbase and it will provide an actual goal for 60% of players below c30 to reach.

[Avatar Patrick]

1 hour ago, Rageproject said:

I guess the only part I don’t like on Advanced pirate economy is the severe disadvantage the defending nation has in limiting the loot. They are pretty much defenseless in many of raids to begin with — active pirating included. And this comes from an objective standpoint as someone who raids and supports doing so. I just think +10% on the defeat modifier is steep when you’re already adding +10% on ground attacks (stacking Pirate Econ and Advanced PE). No?

The rest of this I have to wrap my head around still. 

In all fairness, it's very difficult for pirates to maintain a blockade if they're raiding a sizeable alliance. If you don't deposit when you can, that's on you imo. And if you're in a micro, you can ask your protector, hire mercs of your own, or buy land if all else fails. 100/100 tax is a very good deterrent too.

[His Holy Decagon]

1 hour ago, Zoot said:

15% consumption increase? Like a 15% increase to the food usage? Isn't that like...nothing? I have full soldiers at 48 cities and my food usage is 22k per day. 15% of 22k is 3300. Food currently sells at 123 ppu. 3300*123 = 405900. That is less than 1/100 of my nations daily gross income. 

Did I totally misunderstand something or mess up the math or something or is the "downside" of this completely pointless?

You could be very spot on- the main mechanic I would say that people should focus on here, regarding Bountiful Harvest, is that there’s an actual secondary mechanic behind it/“built into it”.

Without clarifying the amounts exactly, I can say that the goal of this specific project is a trade off where you are pretty sure it’ll be worth the upkeep at some infra level, but being hit by a pirate and going into war time might boost you into a spiral- perhaps food prices during war reach some critical level as you, a bystander, are forced into an economic panic (maybe, I’m genuinely not entirely sure- the intent is good, I can tell you that)

Knowing a little more about the thought that went into it, does the underlying idea show any interest?

[MBaku]

I would much rather see balance changes and QoL stuff than another set of useless projects. Only projects I want to see are advanced Pirate Econ, some type of military rebuy boost like an advanced Propaganda Bureau, and advanced metro planning.

advanced surveillance is the only decent project on there

Just now, MBaku said:

I would much rather see balance changes and QoL stuff than another set of useless projects. Only projects I want to see are advanced Pirate Econ, some type of military rebuy boost like an advanced Propaganda Bureau, and advanced metro planning.

advanced surveillance is the only decent project on there

The only way I see adding extra projects as a benefit now that we’re getting to a point where it will be difficult to have all the projects in the game, the projects start becoming mutually exclusive and you choose a project development path that will make your nation better at something than other nations. 
 

ex: a  project makes aircraft deal 5% more casualties, if you get it then you can’t get the project that makes aircraft 5% more resistant to casualties 

[Kira]

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

New Project: Military Expansion
Requirement: At least 3,500,000 Soldier kills, 100,000 Tanks destroyed, 10,000 Aircraft destroyed, 1,000 ships destroyed
Cost: $0
Effect: The next city purchased after this project is bought for the first time is reduced to $0. This project can only be purchased buy a player with less than 30 cities. This project cannot be deleted until a player is at 30 cities or higher. 

remove the 30 cities limit on this project.

[Lucianus]

I don't see the reason nor logic behind some of these requirements. Why is Advanced Urban Planning, a city cost reducing project, required for the surveillance network, a project that affects spies. 

[Zoot]

2 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

You could be very spot on- the main mechanic I would say that people should focus on here, regarding Bountiful Harvest, is that there’s an actual secondary mechanic behind it/“built into it”.

Without clarifying the amounts exactly, I can say that the goal of this specific project is a trade off where you are pretty sure it’ll be worth the upkeep at some infra level, but being hit by a pirate and going into war time might boost you into a spiral- perhaps food prices during war reach some critical level as you, a bystander, are forced into an economic panic (maybe, I’m genuinely not entirely sure- the intent is good, I can tell you that)

Knowing a little more about the thought that went into it, does the underlying idea show any interest?

Problem is that that situation would only come into play if food became scare, which, under the current mechanics, it never will. And even if a war caused food prices to rise by a factor 10 it would still only cost me 4 million a day, which is still just a drop in the ocean.

Also in that situation people without the project would be effected almost as much as people with it, so the project wouldn't really make a difference.

I get the intent, but it isn't gonna work. And before you ask me to suggest how to make it work... 🤷‍♂️

[Raphael]

Had this conversation with Village the other day and you (devs) have heard me express it so many times before but I'll reiterate here:

Slapping mildly cool ideas into project slots once a quarter is not adequate content production.

We have big issues in the game right now. The meta is glued to the top 0.01% of players who are in the c35+ (really c40+) range because of how strong bigger nations are. The economy of the game is lacking significant resource sinks. The market itself is run by a handful of "very active" players. We're not retaining hardly any new players beyond the 2 week benchmark. There's also nothing to do beyond c30 other than just keep buying cities. And honestly the spy satellite, espionage, and beige mechanics all still suck.

I hate to sound doom-y because I hated hearing it in latestage CN, but how long can we expect this to last?

 

It's very frustrating to see random new projects thrown out every quarter and no real progress being made for years. I hope this trend is corrected before it's too late.

 

To end this on a positive feedback thought: Endgame content is the key to almost all these issues. Resource sinks, something for old players to do, something to break the current meta, etc.

[Coffee Man Coffee]

Just now, Roberts said:

Had this conversation with Village the other day and you (devs) have heard me express it so many times before but I'll reiterate here:

Slapping mildly cool ideas into project slots once a quarter is not adequate content production.

We have big issues in the game right now. The meta is glued to the top 0.01% of players who are in the c35+ (really c40+) range because of how strong bigger nations are. The economy of the game is lacking significant resource sinks. The market itself is run by a handful of "very active" players. We're not retaining hardly any new players beyond the 2 week benchmark. There's also nothing to do beyond c30 other than just keep buying cities. And honestly the spy satellite, espionage, and beige mechanics all still suck.

I hate to sound doom-y because I hated hearing it in latestage CN, but how long can we expect this to last?

 

It's very frustrating to see random new projects thrown out every quarter and no real progress being made for years. I hope this trend is corrected before it's too late.

 

To end this on a positive feedback thought: Endgame content is the key to almost all these issues. Resource sinks, something for old players to do, something to break the current meta, etc.

What about new players?

[WISD0MTREE]

1 hour ago, Coffee Man Coffee said:

What about new players?

He mentioned new player retention being an issue. Raising raw resource costs would help newer players as they could make more money off of cheaper improvements with no power requirement. IIRC that's what the tutorial recommends they build. 

5 hours ago, Anri said:

If you want to make it less min-maxy and generalize it to c25-29 you can see that again, all but about 15% of people would be able to buy this.

For this I think a more appropriate set of values for units killed would be:

7 million soldiers killed

250k tanks killed

20k planes killed

2k ships killed

I'm not even 50th percentile for soldiers killed but I'm over 90th percentile for planes killed (for the C25-29 range as a C22)? What the hell is everyone else doing? On a more serious note, I do agree it should be less min-max-y. I think majority of players will always use it for C30s, so tailoring the percentiles around C29 stats would make sense (assuming this is an activity driver as opposed to a catchup mechanic). 

[George Clooney]

New Project: Bountiful Harvest

I'd need to do the math, but doesn't look to be worth it.  ROI is such you'd be forever recouping the cost. Plus your population becomes pigs and war only makes them bigger pigs.

New Project: Mars Landing

So for your investment you get bragging rights, "cool stickers", and since when does Approval Rating matter?  Now if the plan is for Approval Rating to actually matter in the future (e.g. extremely low approval ratings means military doesn't fight as well, population doesn't produce as much on your farms and in your factories, etc.), now you have something.

New Project: Military Expansion

Rewards middle-of-the-road nations (those with 20-29 cities), that have seen combat, with a free city.  I like it.  I have some concerns that we're already inflating the number of cities nations have artificially too much, but this helps out smaller alliances a bit where $500 mill+ to add a city to the nation of a member is a major expense.

New Project: Advanced Surveillance Network

Yes please and thank you, would love it more however if it also allowed you to build an extra spy each day (max 5 per day) and/or lowered the crime rate (which is something else that needs to be fixed to make it harder to control, but that's another thread).

[Ketya]

4 hours ago, Roberts said:

Had this conversation with Village the other day and you (devs) have heard me express it so many times before but I'll reiterate here:

Slapping mildly cool ideas into project slots once a quarter is not adequate content production.

We have big issues in the game right now. The meta is glued to the top 0.01% of players who are in the c35+ (really c40+) range because of how strong bigger nations are. The economy of the game is lacking significant resource sinks. The market itself is run by a handful of "very active" players. We're not retaining hardly any new players beyond the 2 week benchmark. There's also nothing to do beyond c30 other than just keep buying cities. And honestly the spy satellite, espionage, and beige mechanics all still suck.

I hate to sound doom-y because I hated hearing it in latestage CN, but how long can we expect this to last?

 

It's very frustrating to see random new projects thrown out every quarter and no real progress being made for years. I hope this trend is corrected before it's too late.

 

To end this on a positive feedback thought: Endgame content is the key to almost all these issues. Resource sinks, something for old players to do, something to break the current meta, etc.

You are making me want to look for a new game to play  I should check out lightside’s game

[Coffee Man Coffee]

2 minutes ago, Ketya said:

You are making me want to look for a new game to play  I should check out lightside’s game

what is lightside's game

17 minutes ago, George Clooney said:

New Project: Bountiful Harvest

I'd need to do the math, but doesn't look to be worth it.  ROI is such you'd be forever recouping the cost. Plus your population becomes pigs and war only makes them bigger pigs.

New Project: Mars Landing

So for your investment you get bragging rights, "cool stickers", and since when does Approval Rating matter?  Now if the plan is for Approval Rating to actually matter in the future (e.g. extremely low approval ratings means military doesn't fight as well, population doesn't produce as much on your farms and in your factories, etc.), now you have something.

New Project: Military Expansion

Rewards middle-of-the-road nations (those with 20-29 cities), that have seen combat, with a free city.  I like it.  I have some concerns that we're already inflating the number of cities nations have artificially too much, but this helps out smaller alliances a bit where $500 mill+ to add a city to the nation of a member is a major expense.

New Project: Advanced Surveillance Network

Yes please and thank you, would love it more however if it also allowed you to build an extra spy each day (max 5 per day) and/or lowered the crime rate (which is something else that needs to be fixed to make it harder to control, but that's another thread).

exactly dude

[Gideon]

12 hours ago, KindaEpicMoah said:

Also also Military Expansion should require at least twice as many kills. I've seen the logic behind the current numbers, and at that point you may as well give everyone between city 20 and city 30 a free city because of how little work it takes to get those numbers. 

 

 

I think that's kind of the point, another catch up mechanic, think of it as you will.

[Rageproject]

Maybe we could just put some effort into revising the war declaration ranges and/or nation score formula instead of shiny projects? I shouldn’t be able to down-declare as a c27 on c13 nations and wipe them out. But when infrastructure and tanks are worth the same weight in the formula, this is what we get.

sorry…. Off topic…

[Keegoz]

People acting like there are not other things in the pipeline. As I explained elsewhere, the war rewrite took longer than expected.

Once that is done, new player and war changes are on the horizon.

Projects are easy to code and implement and will always come out more often.

Projects are no longer viewed as adequate to be a main tool for a resource sink. Consumption rates will likely need to be reviewed across the board and this war should give us some more data for that.

[Prefontaine]

Building of Keegoz and looking at some of the feedback both here and discord I'll give some updates:
 

• Requirements for Military Expansion will be increased.
• Food Cost % will be reviewed for Bountiful Harvest.
  • Depending on cost increase the supermarket side of things may be dropped and a flat rate commerce bonus is included with the increased cap.
• Mars landing is supposed to be entirely cosmetic.
  • There may be expansion on practical bonuses down the road. 

16 hours ago, Lucianus said:

I don't see the reason nor logic behind some of these requirements. Why is Advanced Urban Planning, a city cost reducing project, required for the surveillance network, a project that affects spies. 

Gotta' plan out your city well if you want to have good surveillance. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Can we make the military kill project that gives a free city good for up to city 48? 4+ bills for my next city is expensive! unless this is going to take another 2-3 months to come out, then I recommend that we make it good up to city 49.

[George Clooney]

13 hours ago, Keegoz said:

People acting like there are not other things in the pipeline. As I explained elsewhere, the war rewrite took longer than expected.

Once that is done, new player and war changes are on the horizon.

Projects are easy to code and implement and will always come out more often.

Projects are no longer viewed as adequate to be a main tool for a resource sink. Consumption rates will likely need to be reviewed across the board and this war should give us some more data for that.

It would help to see how these projects fit into the larger picture post-rules revisions in order to be able to give better feedback.

[Morgan Stanley]

Why are we trying to solve what is clearly a mechanic issue with more projects?

Edited May 13, 2023 by Morgan Stanley

[TETE]

You could add a project called economical boom or economical research and it would boost your economy by 10 or 5%

[Danzek]

Pirate econ and advanced pirate econ buffing war seem nice. 

 

Bureau of Domestic Affairs

Kinda useless. You can plan ahead and switch policy 5 days before you buy a city/project. 
I suppose you cant buy infra, land and cities all at once, but the benefit is so marginal it doesn't justify the cost (econ wise). 

New Project: Bountiful Harvest

the 9% to commerce seems out of place compared to the 2/3% boost of other projects for similar cost??

Is the 2 million food and 15% consumption intended as a food sink? It's not. 2 million food is negligable, and the disparity from production to consumption is like 5x. A 15% increase in consumption for the few people with this project isn't significant. 
The issue of excess food is arguable due to 1. Gamewide land and cities constantly increasing 2. The game median city count moving upward, where existing food sinks are no longer relevant 

New Project: Mars Landing

pointless. might get us another roberts sellout meme.

New Project: Military Expansion

Free cities are nice, but it's an odd way to do it. The costs can be met too easily imo and wont meaningfully affect game meta. 

Advanced Surveillance Network

Seems fine. Don't think it's worth it unless you are rose and go hard on spies. $400m is a big ask for any other alliance for the marginal benefit spies give. 

 

On 5/12/2023 at 6:36 AM, Lucianus said:

I don't see the reason nor logic behind some of these requirements. Why is Advanced Urban Planning, a city cost reducing project, required for the surveillance network, a project that affects spies. 

maybe want to get more ppl buying the projects that eat up food, idk. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Borg

[-Nero-]

So when are we getting the Sun landing project?