"art packs" seem a bit too expensive all things considered?

[crazyabe111]

the cheapest one is Sylvian at 40'000- and that sounds wildly excessive considering actual functional bits like PVP Duels, Flight paths, Inn Capacity or Game logs are half it's cost.

I understand you'll eventually have the cash for 'em, but they don't seem worth it.

[VectorStorm]

I kind of agree! I've been rolling prices over and over in my head as we slowly move toward a rework of the overall game economy, but haven't actually started on that re-balancing yet. (it's not anywhere on the roadmap yet since I don't know precisely when I'll know enough to do it, but it's definitely coming!)

At the moment we've got some things which probably cost too much (such as art packs), some which might cost too little (certain other technologies), some things which definitely cost far too little (such as region upkeep costs), and some which maybe shouldn't have a cost at all (why does it charge me $10 to place a decorative tree in my fictional game?), etc. It all needs a top-to-bottom rethinking, IMHO.

Now that I finally have some reasonable progression systems in place and know what pieces I'm working with overall, I can finally start thinking about trying to balance the costs for them in a meaningful way!

[augaug]

please half the price of decorative houses

[Wildust]

Originally posted by VectorStorm:

I kind of agree! I've been rolling prices over and over in my head as we slowly move toward a rework of the overall game economy, but haven't actually started on that re-balancing yet. (it's not anywhere on the roadmap yet since I don't know precisely when I'll know enough to do it, but it's definitely coming!)

At the moment we've got some things which probably cost too much (such as art packs), some which might cost too little (certain other technologies), some things which definitely cost far too little (such as region upkeep costs), and some which maybe shouldn't have a cost at all (why does it charge me $10 to place a decorative tree in my fictional game?), etc. It all needs a top-to-bottom rethinking, IMHO.

Now that I finally have some reasonable progression systems in place and know what pieces I'm working with overall, I can finally start thinking about trying to balance the costs for them in a meaningful way!

This is indeed a very good news. The economy as it stands right now is a big hinder in the early game. Everything costs an arm, and the timeflow seems very slow for a low income.
I'm very new to the game and probably things will settle in a way or another later as i push forward, but i do believe it's a major concern for anyone who starts the game.

But so far, i must admit i'm discovering a very interesting game in its mechanics and it itches strongly my inner dev fantasies.

[Wildust]

Also, as a creative player, i do believe that it's important to let the player "build" the regions with buildings, props and graphical assets even if they're short on money. Being unable to put down flowers on the floor because of low money is not very fun.

I think the techs should be the money cost things, but building an inn or a shop shouldn't be costful. These assets with "functional purpose" could require a hotfix to appear in the world instead.

I think it would be a real interesting balance to split the cost of implementation between money and time. For exemple, an Inn you put on the map could not go to green before the next hotfix and would stay at a wire state till the update.

Updates being too frequent (forcing server down) could also cross the subs making them prompt to angry state or unsub.

That way, every important or meaningful additions between 2 hotfix or updates would be thought as a "package" for optimization ?
If so, there could be a minimum down server required to inject a hotfix and a longer one for an update.
While on a down server, bugs could appear from new and old assets interacting with each other as it's being put together, and devs put at work to fix those "technical hinders" as fast as possible to re-up the servers.

Idk, it's a suggestion to itch, i believe.

[VectorStorm]

Originally posted by Wildust:

Also, as a creative player, i do believe that it's important to let the player "build" the regions with buildings, props and graphical assets even if they're short on money.

This is a really strong argument, IMHO. I had already been thinking in this direction, but this is a fantastic rationale supporting *why*.

Originally posted by Wildust:

I think it would be a real interesting balance to split the cost of implementation between money and time. For exemple, an Inn you put on the map could not go to green before the next hotfix and would stay at a wire state till the update.

I need to think about this more, but I think I like it? Letting players build stuff immediately but leaving it in some sort of 'not active until after an update' state is a very interesting thought that addresses a lot of my concerns around "you can only build new stuff after an update" designs.

I do still worry about whether it loses too much of the immediacy of being able to fix issues on the fly? I guess it doesn't require a *lot* of extra clicks to issue a hotfix when you need that sort of urgent update, quickly, though, so maybe it's fine? I'm definitely going to experiment with a change like this and see how it feels! Thanks! :)

[Wildust]

i'm glad if i can make your process going forward !
Probably it has to be thought through, and some stuff might need to be built with immediacy, but it also be something to consider to go forward and put the player in a mindset that instead of reacting of how subs complain or need, the player would be more of an planning schedule trying to think ahead. Instead of a "what do i need right now", that would lead probably more in a "if i put this that way, what am i going to face about it" ?