Raphael Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 It's way past time we recognize that philosophy of game design mismatches with these projects. New nation catch-up mechanics should not also be resource sink mechanics. New nations don't have resources to sink, and it places undue burdens on alliances to supply these new nations on the front-end. This has naturally resulted in [most] alliances refusing to cover the upfront cost and new players suffer the most from it. UP is almost costing $400m at this point, a pricetag that is insurmountable to new nations. Let the new players prosper and catch up, slap resource sinks (like the telecomm satellite) at the end-game for whales to sink and ROI across years or even better push military projects out that let big nations launch multiple nukes or something destructive that can further "sink" resources for the bigger players who have near-infinite. Cut the pricetag of the catchup mechanics, or even make them free and find resource sinks elsewhere. 5 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalachthefirst Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 400M is 2 weeks of raiding, didn't even make a dent on my savings when I bought it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 There will be a thread going out soon on a re-costing for projects. Quote [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 More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Personally I'd suggest crafting resource sinks actually worth acknowledging the existence of. If you resource sink provides so small a benefit I have to take down exact numbers of the before and after to notice a difference, there's not really any point in it. The extra military value gained from another city may take longer to achieve but is a lot more visible and worthwhile. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pubstomper Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 On 1/5/2024 at 1:03 PM, Kalachthefirst said: 400M is 2 weeks of raiding, didn't even make a dent on my savings when I bought it That's valid, I have a handful of friends from the wild that I've tried and mostly failed at getting into the game. Not all of them are interested in playing a raid-style of gameplay though, and if you don't play that way then you will get dusted in terms of growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkblade Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pubstomper said: That's valid, I have a handful of friends from the wild that I've tried and mostly failed at getting into the game. Not all of them are interested in playing a raid-style of gameplay though, and if you don't play that way then you will get dusted in terms of growth. This basically. Not everyone wants to raid everyday for 3-4 months straight to get over the c11 hurdle. Especially since Alex deleted a bunch of nations not that long ago thus killing the raiding scene. Your other 2 options are getting boosted by an alliance (Which most alliance's aren't gonna spend that much on a new player without them proving themselves). Or buying credits. If you don't do any of these 3 options, then you're screwed when it comes to early game growth. If you want the player base to have a healthy growth rate, then a project cost rebalance is needed so it's easier for players to grow themselves in the early game without having to raid for 500m. Edited January 9 by darkblade 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.