Poll: New Tier of City Discount Projects

[Prefontaine]

About a year ago is when Metropolitan Planning came about. C21 threshold city discount project. Should this trend continue to C26? Please vote in the poll. Thanks.

 

Poll is open until 4PM EST on Friday this week. 

[Ben Zene]

I think this trend of having city cost projects every 5 cities should stop. Assuming an infra level of 2250, which is normal for C26s, every 5 cities gives them infra for a little over 2 project slots, and 1 of these will be spent on the city project. This will result in less strategy in choosing projects since the new city project will likely be a "must get" for most conventional players.

While potentially a good resource sink to address the over-abundance of resources, the team should look into other ways to increase consumption of resources that add more value to the game.

[Keegoz]

Just now, Ben Zene said:

I think this trend of having city cost projects every 5 cities should stop. Assuming an infra level of 2250, which is normal for C26s, every 5 cities gives them infra for a little over 2 project slots, and 1 of these will be spent on the city project. This will result in less strategy in choosing projects since the new city project will likely be a "must get" for most conventional players.

While potentially a good resource sink to address the over-abundance of resources, the team should look into other ways to increase consumption of resources that add more value to the game.

I'd likely say this is the last one, given we were hesitant to even bring it back again this time.

[Kosta]

I don't understand why projects that reduce city cost are a thing in the first place. Perhaps there should be ONE that is percentage based. But I think it takes away from more creative projects that could potentially be made. These city-cost reducing projects are taking up too many slots already that could otherwise be dedicated elsewhere. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Kosta
Grammer correction

[Artifex]

What's the game design goal here? Do you want there to be diminishing distribution of cities or not? Is there just going to be continuous adding of more of these projects arbitrarily? What's the end goal? Is this just another band-aid for the symptom or is it actually tackling the cause?

[Dwight k Schrute]

Another project that screws over 30+ city nations. How about bring out more projects as a resources sink. 

[RobinHood]

We need a serious continuous resource sink, this project won’t really do much as it’s only a one time purchase. If this strategy worked the metropolitan project would of had and be having more of an impact.

[Cajun_Yankee]

Why not? Make a UP project for every 5 cities.

 

Go big or go home, either get rid of UP and it's related projects or continue it indefinitely

 

If you want to see If something is a good idea, take it to it's natural extreme, like having up 20.0 or something at c51

[Keegoz]

19 minutes ago, RobinHood said:

We need a serious continuous resource sink, this project won’t really do much as it’s only a one time purchase. If this strategy worked the metropolitan project would of had and be having more of an impact.

We have other ideas for a resource sink. This isn't how we intend to fix resources in this game, although it will have an affect.

[Unclaimed]

23 minutes ago, Cajun_Yankee said:

Go big or go home,

you underestimate my willingness to go home.

[Bolby Ballinger]

59 minutes ago, Ben Zene said:

While potentially a good resource sink to address the over-abundance of resources, the team should look into other ways to increase consumption of resources that add more value to the game.

And really, it's not a resource sink at all.

While there is a loss of resources at first the thing will make a profit in the long run. Thus it ADDS resources into the game.

What we really need is a per turn cost upgrade (with an upfront cost as well of course) that upgrades something that can't contribute to the overall economy. Something like our military, which at best redistributes the wealth but usually leads to a net loss for the overall economy since the winner can't gain more than their opponent loses.

For instance Bauxite irl can be used to make glass. So, if we want our units to have Improved Sights to make them more lethal we pay something to get that upgrade, add a bit of bauxite to the unit cost, and have the maintenance fee also involve some bauxite.

[Ramona]

A tad ridiculous but sure, I'll cheer it on I guess.

[Keegoz]

Just now, Bolby Ballinger said:

And really, it's not a resource sink at all.

While there is a loss of resources at first the thing will make a profit in the long run. Thus it ADDS resources into the game.

What we really need is a per turn cost upgrade (with an upfront cost as well of course) that upgrades something that can't contribute to the overall economy. Something like our military, which at best redistributes the wealth but usually leads to a net loss for the overall economy since the winner can't gain more than their opponent loses.

For instance Bauxite irl can be used to make glass. So, if we want our units to have Improved Sights to make them more lethal we pay something to get that upgrade, add a bit of bauxite to the unit cost, and have the maintenance fee also involve some bauxite.

No one is promoting this as a major resources sink.

[whiskerz]

I voted for it. I think there are better options for projects. 

[Changeup]

1 hour ago, Keegoz said:

No one is promoting this as a major resources sink.

Then what does it achieve?

If competitive balance is the goal, a much more fundamental look is needed instead of another bandaid.

[Leopold von Habsburg]

Sure but make it expensive. If you are thinking long term who cares if it has a 7-8 city ROI. The whales won't, the raiders won't, and it might help to gobble up some of the resource glut that has accrued.

[Anarchist Empire]

These Projects to discount cities are expensive, if their price is to high and city number to close together; makes one wonder worth it if it costs a lot. The one at 11 Cities checks out to pay off at current prices by City 20. Not sure on when the City 16 one would pay off. So don't think they should be made to expensive, where people take a long time saving for these every 5 cities to save for these so they get max use out of them..

So not when at how many cities all these projects finally pay off vs just buying cities or skipping some. Something to take into consideration. City Discount doesn't do much if unaffordable. Their high food cost makes whether worth getting depend on food prices I guess, but why not? Add another I guess.

[im317]

3 hours ago, Dwight k Schrute said:

Another project that screws over 30+ city nations. How about bring out more projects as a resources sink. 

oh come on, how does it screw us over. yeah we dont buy many cities but we can spread the infra for a new project out over more cities and better afford the project. yes we dont get the full value but unless its restricted to cities 26-30 we still get some benefit out of it. and were not the people the project is for, i assume its to help people catch up with us.

[Mahakall]

Unacceptable 

[Avatar Patrick]

I think we all need to accept at this point that catch up mechanics are inevitable and we shouldn't fight against them. Despite being a c35 myself, I welcome the competition and look forward to having more adversaries during war. As some have pointed out, this also gives us another way to sink resources.

[Hulu]

7 hours ago, Dwight k Schrute said:

Another project that screws over 30+ city nations. How about bring out more projects as a resources sink. 

It doesn't screw anyone, 30+ cities it wont affect them that much it will make the future costs cheaper if they bought it.
Also they are at a higher city so they will produce more than the others less than c26 so they will aquire that project faster than those that dont have c26 yet.

[Darthh Vader]

7 hours ago, Bolby Ballinger said:

And really, it's not a resource sink at all.

While there is a loss of resources at first the thing will make a profit in the long run. Thus it ADDS resources into the game.

What we really need is a per turn cost upgrade (with an upfront cost as well of course) that upgrades something that can't contribute to the overall economy. Something like our military, which at best redistributes the wealth but usually leads to a net loss for the overall economy since the winner can't gain more than their opponent loses.

For instance Bauxite irl can be used to make glass. So, if we want our units to have Improved Sights to make them more lethal we pay something to get that upgrade, add a bit of bauxite to the unit cost, and have the maintenance fee also involve some bauxite.

It should be similar to munition cost with troops. The three should be munitions, steal, and bauxite to make troops up to three times stronger

[Anarchist Empire]

14 hours ago, im317 said:

oh come on, how does it screw us over. yeah we dont buy many cities but we can spread the infra for a new project out over more cities and better afford the project. yes we dont get the full value but unless its restricted to cities 26-30 we still get some benefit out of it. and were not the people the project is for, i assume its to help people catch up with us.

Yeah, unless you guys stall out on cities. You'll be the ones to afford it more than nation just getting to 21. Opens the game to reaching higher city tiers. I don't have a strong opinion on it. If he makes it costs resources on addition to money to get from City 20-30, maybe he should make this light on the resource cost? Just try balancing things in a way where improves the game for those at the top & also motivates those at the bottom is what I think is should be done. (Make it worth keep climbing higher for those at the top, make it worth trying to climb higher for those not already there.) So more projects good, this is far enough off, wouldn't benefit me for ages anyways. Even if I get the 2 others & City 21, sure this will cost a lot also.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Anarchist Empire

[Marshall Tucker]

On 6/12/2023 at 7:30 AM, Prefontaine said:

About a year ago is when Metropolitan Planning came about. C21 threshold city discount project. Should this trend continue to C26? Please vote in the poll. Thanks.

 

Poll is open until 4PM EST on Friday this week. 

I am c1 but i believe that it should continue for the larger nations

[Anarchist Empire]

57 minutes ago, Marshall Tucker said:

I am c1 but i believe that it should continue for the larger nations

If they don't suddenly delete all the inactives and make resources way more expensive, could raid inactives for some resourcese to sell for cash to try catching up. With what some are pushing, that might not last long & active raids are the way to go.

I feel like these city projects hardly matter in comparison though. Stuff like Advanced Pirate Economy with the loot modifier optimized would be more exciting. Might as well, but don't really care that much about these.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Anarchist Empire