About 70% reduction in tourism income

[YuriFR]

I think the new change announced to reduce tourism income by 70% is overblown. Perhaps a much smaller percentage reduction is more appropriate. Please give feedback to see if developers rethink this very drastic change. Thanks.

[Konsaki]

I think it's a healthy change, as tourism was WAY too strong a play.

I could literally fund the entire game on hardmode by building a single hotel and expanding the tourism without building any actual resource extraction/production buildings.

Tourism should be a focused way to obtain currency (USD or RUB) that works alongside exporting but not an instant 'I win' button.

[Elessar_warrior]

Maybe about 40% reduction.

[polcorp]

70% reduction also seems to me to be way too drastic.

[KungFury]

I think 70% reduction is a good fix for the broken tourism.
I was able to make several hundred thousands each month by just having 2 hotels and a couple of attractions.

Now if you want to make big money with tourists you have to build a tourist Hotspot.

I bet the devs have lowered the value and have run some tests, so let's at least try it out before whining about something we haven't seen in game. I guess we all agree that tourist was way too good.

[polcorp]

As far as I'm concerned, I only use tourism in two cities. So 2 tourist areas (hotels, attractions, transport).
As I use self-construction, these 2 districts take a long time to be operational. It is an effort, which is achieved thanks to my industrial exports.
Reducing the efficiency of tourism by 70%, as far as I'm concerned (given my game configuration) would really be a drastic measure.

[Hey_Robert_Here]

Originally posted by YuriFR:

I think the new change announced to reduce tourism income by 70% is overblown. Perhaps a much smaller percentage reduction is more appropriate. Please give feedback to see if developers rethink this very drastic change. Thanks.

Only dratist due to the lack of content for it

[Red.Dead.Joe.X]

I don't know guys, I might be doing sth wrong, but my tourism was lightyears away from being OP.
Airport, 4 hotels, a big bunch of attractions, all packed in tight. Walking distance actually. Took like 2 years to build (self-construct). I only got like 100.000$ per month.
A 70% reduction would make it totally worthless.

[Marius]

I agree, 70% is too drastic just because some people exploit to maximum hotels, and don't build airports and aeroplanes industry wich is more expensive and hard.

50-40% sound much more reasonable, these kind of changes night to day (or day to night in this case) don't work usually very good in game, as in the past happened for example with birthrate and so..

[KungFury]

Originally posted by Psycho:

I don't know guys, I might be doing sth wrong, but my tourism was lightyears away from being OP.
Airport, 4 hotels, a big bunch of attractions, all packed in tight. Walking distance actually. Took like 2 years to build (self-construct). I only got like 100.000$ per month.
A 70% reduction would make it totally worthless.

You are doing something wrong. Totally wrong. I just checked my old savegame and here are my results for 3 hotels with a star rating of 2 1/3 in the last year:

star rating: 2.4
https://i.imgur.com/CcS0EDE.png

income by tourists in the last year: 11.3 millions
https://i.imgur.com/6IxCaDt.png

number of hotels: 3
https://i.imgur.com/OeT0IMI.png

I made 11.3 millions in one year with 3 hotels and a star rating of 2 1/3!

Believe it or not, I never put any effort in building an efficient tourism.
So even 70% reduction would mean that I would have earned 3 400 000 rubels for only three hotels. Thats still a lot for so little effort and far from beeing too drastical.

To comparison: just my export in bitumen and fuel together were around 9 million in the same time.

[Ernst Cornell]

it does sound like a big decrease but i haven't tested yet, for me the big question is if it will break even with the import costs to run a resort town or it will be necessary to use local products to make tourism profitable.

[Dave]

I don't think its extreme. Unless they can find a way to add more criteria to how its calculated, for example how far from the border the hotels are, or how wealthy/populous your republic is already, anything less than the 70% will continue to make tourism feel like cheating. If your focus is on money, you just build hotels near the border and right now it makes any/all industry feel pointless. Im not even sure if 70% reduction is enough to bring it in line with anything but the most premium/profitable industries

[MachaQueso]

Tourism definitely needs a nerf. Now i'm relaying on it on my current playthrough:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2575908875

With 70% nerf, my income from tourism would be 180k rubles. Given that most of my expenses for the year in that screenshot are 380k on steel imports means this would only force me to expand slower/smarter.

I think 70% might be about right to balance tourism compared to other sources of income.

Edit: this is tourism income from a City hotel, Museum of the Republic and indoor pool feed from the border by a single 52 seat bus.

Cost to autobuild these is around 80k rubles which means after nerf you will still turn a profit on around 5 months.

Edit 2: I think devs could look at tourist spawn rates as well and make the impact of ratings much more relevant to it.

[polcorp]

From what I understand, the developers decided to cut tourism by 70% because gamers are building hotels near the border rather than expanding their industry.

Personally, as I said above, I only develop tourism after my economy has developed and with self-construction, I am very far from the amazing figures posted by some players.

At this stage, rather than lowering the profitability of tourism by 70%, it would be preferable not to trigger the attractiveness of a Republic until it has developed.
This requires first of all to develop one's country, before seeing the creation of a tourist area.

With a drop of 70%, we might as well simply eliminate tourism. It will be simpler.

[Julien Renard]

Originally posted by polcorp:

At this stage, rather than lowering the profitability of tourism by 70%, it would be preferable not to trigger the attractiveness of a Republic until it has developed.
This requires first of all to develop one's country, before seeing the creation of a tourist area.

With a drop of 70%, we might as well simply eliminate tourism. It will be simpler.

I absolutely agree with you.
An alternative would be development in two stages.
In the first stage, there is only internal tourism, which has an influence on your citizens' happiness, but doesn't bring money, just like your shops. This would be realistic, because in communist times people had the occasion to go to holliday resorts, sometimes run by their own factory. See link below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanatorium_(resort)

In a second stage, when your country is doing well, it gains "attractivness points" (to be determined) and people from abroad want to visit your country. Example the Balaton Lake in Hungary was a very popular destination, for Westerners and Easterners. At that moment you receive money from those tourists (Dollars or Rubles).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Balaton

[bballjo]

Personally I don't think it was broken... initially I thought it made way too much money, but in the end it's just another choice for the player, it's a super easy income to setup...

Now 70% sounds like a lot, but in reality it feels like just a small poke...you can still build 3 hotels instead of 1, with a small amount of extra expenses for food/booze/stuff, so I would think tourism will still be very profitable and easy to setup.

However, I highly doubt this will be the last change...I have no actual information, but I think it's possible to adjust tourism in other ways... possibly denying tourists from the border because of any reasons or other issues, that would dry up all the money in a heartbeat and would mean trusting in only 1 source of income is a bad idea...there is a lot of potential, and I don't think a 70% nerf is too drastic, but I maybe wrong.