how to fix the nation gap issue

[Greatnate]

Honestly? I would say get rid of the 10-day cooldown period for cities. That will benefit small nations more than it would large ones, because small nation cities can be easily purchased by their alliance while large nation cities are more costly. Other than that another idea might be to get rid of the 10-day cooldown period, but only for nations below a certain size. Say the first 6 cities or something. The cooldown period was a good idea and made sense early on, but it might be worth considering taking a second look at it now.

 

The 10-day cooldown is the only real limit on aid-bombing in this game. We shouldn't be able to grow new nations (or re-rolled nations) to whatever size we have the money for. The limit means that every nation has to rise up through the ranks at a limited rate. It also gives younger nations a goal, some of the new nations look forward to trying to hit their city timer without relying on offered governmental aid.

 

This game already has a way to level the playing field between old and new players, it's the market. The market has been consistently heating up since the start of delta, as it was supposed to. This means that nations focusing on exports (mainly new nations) obtain more money than older nations did at the same phase. I have seen many nations grow much faster than I was able to, simply because the market is so much more favorable these days. As resource prices keep rising, we will keep seeing younger nations close the gap with older nations. This is compounded by exponential pricing, and means that the longer the simulation runs, the less likely it is that the top nations will have started on 8/5/14.

[Karrde]

Regressive tax is fine for a nation in which there are true poor people. In a game where alliances have social programs to level the playing field quickly and pull newfriends up it's just awful.

 

Won't somebody think of the whales!?

[Guest hawkeye]

Regressive tax is fine for a nation in which there are true poor people. In a game where alliances have social programs to level the playing field quickly and pull newfriends up it's just awful.

 

Won't somebody think of the whales!?

this tax is proggresive tax not regressive tax

[Karrde]

this tax is proggresive tax not regressive tax

Yes, that. Winecorrect strikes again :3.

[Ekejen Luish]

why should i be slave to large alliances just so game can be fair?

 

where is freedom here?

Where is your experience? Oh right. Your only two days old. YOU HAVE NONE. As for freedom, maybe if you ever become big enough to create your own alliance without people constantly rolling you, you can make your own rules.

Or you could annoy people even more by being a hopper and hopping from alliance to alliance collecting money. After all, you're such a fine rebel.

[PigInZen]

The gap has been addressed by the war range function.  Your argument is moot.

[Samwise]

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

Why don't we throw some other terrible ideas around and see who can come up with the most ridiculous one? How about... we just delete the top 100 and make them reroll, all the while hoping they keep making donations to cover server costs and other fancy smancy stuff we all enjoy. It'll be fun. :3

 

Seriously, this is why there's a closed discussion forum. 

[LordRahl2]

Seriously, this is why there's a closed discussion forum. 

 

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

[WISD0MTREE]

We should make the top tier nations give lower tier nations welfare money. Sheepy needs to add this because greedy old white men who are right-winged extremists won't share. 

 

Nope. Bad idea. 

[Samwise]

We should make the top tier nations give lower tier nations welfare money. Sheepy needs to add this because greedy old white men who are right-winged extremists won't share. 

 

Nope. Bad idea.

 

I like you. :3

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Alex]

Is the nation gap really an issue?

 

Large nations require vast amounts of resources. To acquire these resources, they need to pay money to smaller nations. They're already being "taxed" part of their income, which goes directly to the smaller nations. It's called the market, and it's why the game is as successful as it is.

[Pfeiffer]

This thread reminds me that I meant to ask about the whole 'having a nation' rule to keep your forum account.

 

Is creating a nation and then never actually doing anything 'playing' the game? This is clearly a troll account, I vote we ban it.

[LordRahl2]

That would mean banning inst as well no? A sad day.

[Kadin]

Is the nation gap really an issue?

 

Large nations require vast amounts of resources. To acquire these resources, they need to pay money to smaller nations. They're already being "taxed" part of their income, which goes directly to the smaller nations. It's called the market, and it's why the game is as successful as it is.

Money isn't really the issue. The issue is that game mechanics restrict the rate at which a nation can grow. For example, I could send every new nation I recruit enough money to buy their second city and 1,000 infra in each. However, unless I want to have them buy ridiculous amounts of expensive infra in their two cities, I can't really do much more for them. On the other hand, if we removed the 10-day limit for small nations, I could supply them with all the money they need to purchase their first 4 cities or so right off the bat.

 

As I said in my previous post, I understand why the 10-day limitation was originally put into place, but I think it deserves to be looked at again at this point in time. We have some very large nations that will always be much larger than the new nations even with this change. The only difference between the game now and the game with the 10-day limit removed for the first 4 cities is the speed at which those new nations grow.

 

I have one question for those who are opposed to allowing new nations to grow quicker. How does it benefit the game to needlessly restrict the growth rate for new nations? Even if the first four cities could be purchased immediately, it won't be a threat to the overall dominance of the older nations. Not even close. What it would do is give newer nations a chance to close the gap a little bit. I see it as only a positive thing when new nations are able to grow fairly quickly and see their efforts or their decisions pay off as a result. It might even help with player retention.

[Mutwa]

Removing the limit will only disadvantage small alliances further. Less people will want to join if the alliance can't afford to sponsor as many cities.

 

Raiding is already difficult approaching 500-600 score with almost everyone in range being in one of the big alliances. It will be even worse when almost everyone joins a big alliance straight off the bat because they don't want to work at getting their nation off the ground and instead just want it handed to them on a plate.

[Kadin]

Removing the limit will only disadvantage small alliances further. Less people will want to join if the alliance can't afford to sponsor as many cities.

 

Raiding is already difficult approaching 500-600 score with almost everyone in range being in one of the big alliances. It will be even worse when almost everyone joins a big alliance straight off the bat because they don't want to work at getting their nation off the ground and instead just want it handed to them on a plate.

I'm a leader of a 7 man alliance, and we would have no problem whatsoever funding the first four cities for our new nations. I do not feel this change would disadvantage my alliance in any way.

 

If your small alliance cannot offer funding for a new nation's cities then that is a problem with your small alliance, not a problem with the idea or the game. Work on fixing that first.

'

For the record, I'm not saying remove the limit for ALL cities. I am saying remove it for the first FOUR cities.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Kadin

[Mutwa]

 

If your small alliance cannot offer funding for a new nation's cities then that is a problem with your small alliance, not a problem with the idea or the game. Work on fixing that first.

 

Where did I say I was in a small alliance?

 

I like your idea of working to fix an alliance if it isn't able to provide what it member's need though, just like players should work on growing their own nations. It is about putting in the effort.

 

If we are going to remove the restriction we might as well just let people start with 4 cities, and when the larger players grow even more and people complain about it being hard to catch up again when we'll just make it 6 cities. How long before the larger guys just stop playing because they have to work for their gains and every new player just gets it for free?

[Kadin]

Where did I say I was in a small alliance?

 

I like your idea of working to fix an alliance if it isn't able to provide what it member's need though, just like players should work on growing their own nations. It is about putting in the effort.

 

If we are going to remove the restriction we might as well just let people start with 4 cities, and when the larger players grow even more and people complain about it being hard to catch up again when we'll just make it 6 cities. How long before the larger guys just stop playing because they have to work for their gains and every new player just gets it for free?

Not every new player gets anything for free. If you join an alliance that is capable of funding you and willing to do so then there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to reap the benefits of that decision. Your assertion that this would disadvantage small alliances is nonsense, and your argument that alliances shouldn't be able to build their new nations up quickly offers no benefit to the game. In fact, it is the opposite. We should be offering incentives like these for people to build competent alliances, because that is how you keep people in the game. Obviously sending out money isn't an amazing accomplishment, but the idea that people shouldn't be able to help their small nations grow because someone might get their feelings hurt is not a good one for the game.

 

By the way. Nobody has answered my question yet. How does it benefit the game to make small nations wait 10 days before they can buy a new city?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Kadin

[Greatnate]

By the way. Nobody has answered my question yet. How does it benefit the game to make small nations wait 10 days before they can buy a new city?

 

The benefit is that they actually have to play for 30 days to reach the 4 city level. It makes it feel like an accomplishment. It gives weight to the fact that they can look at the leaderboard and say "those people have had to play dedicatedly and proficiently for nearly a year to get so big and strong." It allows them to plan out a rhythm of play that will take months to bring to fruition. It makes the game something other than "line up for alliance aid."

[Mutwa]

Your assertion that this would disadvantage small alliances is nonsense, and your argument that alliances shouldn't be able to build their new nations up quickly offers no benefit to the game.

 

Again, where did I say alliances could never help their members? I am all for alliance aid, playing with friends and helping each other out is a large part of the fun but a small alliance could not aid their members as well as large alliance, it is simple economics. More income allows more expenditures. How you think this is nonsense is beyond me.

 

I guess we will just have to agree to dissagree.

[Kadin]

The benefit is that they actually have to play for 30 days to reach the 4 city level. It makes it feel like an accomplishment. It gives weight to the fact that they can look at the leaderboard and say "those people have had to play dedicatedly and proficiently for nearly a year to get so big and strong." It allows them to plan out a rhythm of play that will take months to bring to fruition. It makes the game something other than "line up for alliance aid."

That's wonderful for people who are interested in that sort of thing, but we're not just talking about those people. We should want to get new players invested in the game early, and we should strive to increase the number of people who sign up and decide to stick around. If that means making changes to game mechanics to allow a broader range of people to enjoy it, then why not ?

 

At the end of the day, alliances are what keep this game going.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Kadin

[Rozalia]

Seriously, this is why there's a closed discussion forum. 

 

Couldn't resist eh? Not impressed.

[Greatnate]

That's wonderful for people who are interested in that sort of thing, but we're not just talking about those people. We should want to get new players invested in the game early, and we should strive to increase the number of people who sign up and decide to stick around. If that means making changes to game mechanics to allow a broader range of people to enjoy it, then why not ?

 

At the end of the day, alliances are what keep this game going.

 

I don't see how enabling people to skip of month of growing encourages them to stick around long term. Bringing newbies up into the "sit on your hands and wait for alliance war" phase of the game will leave them bored and make them quit. P&W is established, people have been playing by a set of rules for nearly a year, changing basic mechanics like the city timer to maybe get more players harms long term retention. Increasing the number of players and alliances is good goal, but this is not the way to do it.

[Kadin]

I don't see how enabling people to skip of month of growing encourages them to stick around long term. Bringing newbies up into the "sit on your hands and wait for alliance war" phase of the game will leave them bored and make them quit. P&W is established, people have been playing by a set of rules for nearly a year, changing basic mechanics like the city timer to maybe get more players harms long term retention. Increasing the number of players and alliances is good goal, but this is not the way to do it.

You guys won't be playing by new rules at all. It won't impact established nations in any way. The only people it will impact are those with less than four cities.

[Greatnate]

You guys won't be playing by new rules at all. It won't impact established nations in any way. The only people it will impact are those with less than four cities.

 

It would impact the market tremendously, small nations produce a lot of resources and wouldn't if they're all being aid-bombed to 4x1,000 infra. It would effect growth programs, which in turn impact tax rates. There is no change you can make to this game that does not effect every player, it is an ecosystem.