Add "First city" field in player's profile and corresponding achievement's.

  • There are many complaints about 1-sided finals with "predefined" winner. And, in my opinion game punishes cooperative players and rewards solo players, which is unfair situation, imho.

    And I want to introduce the idea, that should motivate players to stay in their first city and play finals in it, and some benefits to "city players"

    Currently we have a city field in player's profile - some achivements and prestige for win in finals are based on it, and that's ok.

    I think we need to add "first city" field that is unvisible for other players, and can be changed only 1 time in 1-2 era's (maybe only in 1 era).

    First city should provide to the players following bonuses:

    + 10-20% profit for every goods delivered into that city. (numbers are approximate and should be changed by game designer, but they should be significant)

    + 10-20% prestige for goods in this city.

    + 20-40% prestige for goods during the finals.

    Achiements for participating in finals, winning the finals or scoring specific place in finals, winning cities competitions X times, maybe something else.

    What do you think about bonuses and the idea?

    -------------------

    Advantages (in my opinion):

    Such bonuses should motivate players to stay and develop their first city, such achivements are not farmable, they rewards real city players.

    What else?

    -------------------

    Answers to some questions:

    - Why we need to be able to change first city once?

    - Some times it's hard for alliance of associations to start in 1 town, but everyone of them should be rewarded. So they can start close to each other and during first or second era choose their "main" city.

    - Why we should hide the first city field?

    We should hide it to prevent some spoil actions from other players. We can reveal first city field after the start of the finals.

    -------------------

    But this idea needs following change in finals:

    Final should be easier and flashier, to give players opportunity to compete with each other. Because there are no reason to stay in first city if u can't compete at all.

    Something like this:

    Almost every good in final should be able to fully delivered in city by 1 asso in 1 hour or less (with 25 active coordinated players, with 0 or almost 0 waiting time on factories)

    So the 4 asso in 1 city should deliver 3 or 4 goods in hour (with the same conditions).

    P.S. Sorry for my english. If something isn't clear I'll try to rephrase.

    Карьерник большой - это хорошо! :- )
    Лучшее место в карьерном рейтинге: 27
    Лучшее место в рейтинге престижа: 80
    Рекорд по прессу за раунд: 1 034 797 (чешский экспресс 21.12.2018)

  • Very interesting idea about extra-rewarding the players who are loyal for the chosen First City. Below are four suggestions of mine (framed in boxes because I made copy/paste from google translate).

    Code
    1. This @AdriRock proposal could lead to more mega-cities actively competing in the final game, not just two or three out of ten cities as is usually the case so far.
    2. Also to stimulate competition between mega-cities, I would suggest that the cities that finishes the end game on the 2nd and 3rd places also offer rewards to the players who opted for them as the first city (maybe something like splitting the 100% bonus for winners like 50/30/20 % for the first 3 cities).

    I also want to suggest a alternative to discourage factory prestige hunters, those opportunistic investors ... who are so annoying and causes so many conflicts.

    Code
    1. My suggestion is to set 10% lower values of investments made by players who have that city as their first city and 10% higher values of investments made by players who have another first city.

    My third suggestion for stimulating the players loyalty to their first city and stimulating real competition between more than two or three mega-cities in the final game.

    Code
    1. In the final game, each player who has a mega-city as the first city to benefit from waiting times halved in the factories of that first city. This algorithm can be used also for the associations based in those first cities in order to benefit from halved waiting times like those associations have majority in all factories assigned to their first city.

    And finally my fourth suggestion.

    Code
    1. All mega-cities should open the end game at the same time. I can't even imagine the impact of such rule. And all impact it will only POSITIVE.

    I intended to keep my suggestions as simple as possible, but the more I think about them, the more details come to mind.


    Anyway, a great game we are playing here and for that I thank you all, developers and players as well.

    Have fun ... :))

  • The city changing options I'm not totaly agreeing to it. With the pre-registration the stronger cities are overcrowded. New players have to choose a different city.

    During the game newbie players are lured to a city with 100 gold as bonus, dead cities a new player isn't aware of.

    These players are than punished with the system. Same if you join an association and later on it's no match between you as player and the asso and you change asso in a different city or your city doesn't make it in the top 10 and doesn't become a mega city. There are more reasons to change your homecity as clustering for the endgame.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • The city changing options I'm not totaly agreeing to it. With the pre-registration the stronger cities are overcrowded. New players have to choose a different city.

    Sorry, I didnt get your point: do you want to have this options or not?

    Карьерник большой - это хорошо! :- )
    Лучшее место в карьерном рейтинге: 27
    Лучшее место в рейтинге престижа: 80
    Рекорд по прессу за раунд: 1 034 797 (чешский экспресс 21.12.2018)

  • Sorry, I didnt get your point: do you want to have this options or not?

    If you read my first sentence you can see I don't agree to the suggested options for changing the homecity. Because not everybody can't stay at their start city if they want to play the endgame or othher reasons.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • If you read my first sentence you can see I don't agree to the suggested options for changing the homecity. Because not everybody can't stay at their start city if they want to play the endgame or othher reasons.

    Yes, and that's why I didnt get: your first sentence says: "Im against it" but the rest of the message says: "That's a good option!".

    Карьерник большой - это хорошо! :- )
    Лучшее место в карьерном рейтинге: 27
    Лучшее место в рейтинге престижа: 80
    Рекорд по прессу за раунд: 1 034 797 (чешский экспресс 21.12.2018)

  • Yes, and that's why I didnt get: your first sentence says: "Im against it" but the rest of the message says: "That's a good option!".

    No the rest of my message explains why it isn't a good option

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • @Naike ... I can understand from your comment that your declare your arguments as to be against the suggestions above and those arguments are based on the fact that players who are starting the game in a "dead" city must have options to change that.

    But the proposals are exactly in the same way, first to avoid to let players to leave so easy the cities so that the cities not to became "dead". And the second thing is that if a player are keen to join another city it has possibility, the only thing is that he has to base his decision on a very good analysis of the situation ... not just to jump from one city to another.

    In conclusion both your arguments are actually sustaining the proposals above and those proposals are helping to avoid situations that you are describing as unfavorable for all players.

  • @Naike ... Probably AdriRock sees your arguments in the same way compared to the proposals and that is why he felt that your argumentation is actually in favor of the proposals above, the only thing was just that you was saying that you are not fully agree them. Maybe you have read those proposals in a hurry or maybe we couldn't explain them very clear and that is why you disagree but your arguments are pro/in favor of the proposals.