| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 09:07 am 
I'm putting this here, in the hopes that as a player base, we can figure out what is going on with corporation income and submit it to W3C to fix.
I have spent about 2 hours today so far studying over 50 corps in my own countries, as well as Stardust on GR.
Most corps (including every private I have checked), the numbers just don't add up.
Some state corps the numbers are correct, while others they are not.
What I'm talking about is this:
Total: 4,152.54M SC$
This is the product sold for THIS game month, for a missile interceptor corporation. To arrive at this total, you take the product sold and multiply it by the price its sold at.
Production Last Month 75
Latest Market Price: 18.52M SC$ per missile
Sale Strategy Start at 345% of the market price
Because everything was sold THIS month, the lower by X% every month remains unsold does NOT come in play.
So we take 75 * 18.520000 * 3.45 = 4,792.05M SC$
As you can see, the given figure is WAY off from the correct figure (the one I calculated).
Now for an electric power corporation:
Total: 3,862.38M SC$
Latest Market Price: 84,792 SC$ per million kwh
Production Last Month 21,690
Sale Strategy Start at 210% of the market price
84,792 * 21,690 * 2.10 = 3,862.19M SC$
Its off slightly, probably due to rounding.
All product in these corporations is sold every month, so there is no carryover.
I have not yet figured out why some corporations add up, and others don't.
A more illustrative example, two otherwise identical electric power corps:
Latest Market Price: 84,792 SC$ per million kwh
Production Last Month 22,633
Sale Strategy Start at 296% of the market price
Both have these exact parameters.
Total: 5,566.16M SC$
Total: 5,644.64M SC$
But their totals are different?
THIS IS WHY country income and CEO income is way down. This is why CEO's are not making profits anymore. There is some kind of bug with corporation income. I'm asking for help in determining its cause.
Q |
| Alecto | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 09:27 am
All have the same welfare and exact same production? |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 09:34 am
THANK YOU. I knew corporation income was declining way faster than corporation costs, but I did not have time to tinker with the math behind it.
This would explain a lot. I can understand base prices declining in tandem with salaries, but these kinds of basic math errors in calculating revenue should be inexcusable.
Q ran these comparisons within the same country. That would control for welfare index. However revenue should be a straight calculation of amount of product sold times price at which it was sold (price derived from market price times trade strategy modifier).
We need those sales logs that were suggested in the suggestions forum... |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 09:35 am
I have listed the production amount in each example. Welfare influences the production figure, yes, but shouldn't influence the turnover.
You can do the calculations on your own corps if you desire, and you will find that the figure given *usually* is higher than what is actually displayed. The calculated figure is correct, the display is usually not. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 09:39 am
I used my own countries and Stardust on Golden Rainbow when doing my figures.
The 2 identical electric power corps and the other electric power corp are all from Stardust. The missile interceptor corp is from Procifica.
I have calculated over 50 corporations, almost all of which have been off, some as much as 33%! I have found a total of 3 corporations which have been correct (to at least 4 significant digits, meaning off by hundreds of thousands at most).
I'm still doing more, checking more countries, still the same results. Nearly all of the time, the listed product turnover is less than what it should be, and its MUCH different for private corps (state corps are not much off, if at all). I have yet to find a private corp actually which has been accurate.
Q |
| Karff (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 01:03 pm
Is the displayed market price the same as what the market price was when your corporation sold the product? Maybe it sells the product at what the previous month's market price was
EDIT: I checked... one corporation using the previous month's price actually fixed itself, but then a second one was off either way... that one actually had the reverse effect, where the 'product sold' was over 4 billion, but when you ran the numbers it came out to about 3.5 billion, and even less than that using the previous month's market price |
| FarmerBob | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 01:32 pm
To be fair, I have found basic math errors of this sort, consistently, for years. Q's analysis is appreciated and accurate, but this is nothing new.
For some real headscratching, total your workers and professionals from your corporations, military, and infrastructure manually. Then compare the results with employment page figures. |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 05:31 pm
the "total profit' on the bottom of the ceo financial page, like farmer bob said, has never been accurate. for one thing, it adds in the total production and profit of public corps, but you don't earn the "full," profit of those corp. additionally, is seems that ceo's with high loans out, are taxed much higher...
but as far as the recent problems... i noticed that for the first 2 days of it, my running cost doubled. once a day, in each of my enterprises, i raise and lower my cash levels to 75b, this gives me the most accurate measurement of "profit," as it give me spendable cash. well when the problem started, the "raise," part was literally double what it usually was, for 2 days. then the "raise," part eventually went back down to what it was, but the "lower" part dropped 25%ish. now the raise part is lowering again, and i'm begining to see my profits improve... |
| Treasurer (White Giant) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 05:48 pm
Well there is definitely a difference between Private CEO corps profitability and I'm leaning towards thinking we are not getting our price adjustments for the quality upgrades we have installed on our corps. Just my theory. is it possible we are only getting 100 quality price for our goods even though we are producing at the 333 quality level? |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 05:56 pm
other thoughts, they've started apply ff to corps with high cash levels, or they are forcing us to lower the salary levels, but both of those are just thoughts, and should be investigated before railed against |
| Danneh Turner (Fearless Blue) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:07 pm
Q, is there any correlation between the sale strategy and the apparent loss in revenue?
i.e. anything with a sale strategy over 300% gets nobbled and anything under 300% works out as expected? |
| Sir Michael (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:10 pm
Orbiter,
Here is a comment from Jozi that just might back up your idea...
[15:58] [Jozi] the problem is very limited. we know how much cash there is and it is not so high.
[15:58] [Jozi] some is hidden in corporations for now but the idea is that it will continue to go down, exchange rates and amounts will have
[15:59] [Jozi] a soft landing and the process will stop.
Also I have been slowly lowering the salary level of my enterprises and getting better results. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:14 pm
Farmerbob, when I first started Simcountry, these numbers worked EVERY time like they should have. Now, they only do randomly, and not at all for private corporations. There DEFINITELY is some kind of bug.
T, its definitely not 100 price quality. One of the first things I could immediately rule out, as the price we're getting is nowhere near that low.
Orbiter, I tested this on state corps, private corps, public corps, it didn't matter. All were incorrect except for 3 state corps.
Danneh, there seems to be more of a difference with higher sales strategies (especially in private corps). I also have noticed a corelation between how much the product price is above/below market price, but not been able to solidly confirm that yet.
Orbiter, doesn't have to do with salary, as I checked all sorts of salary levels as well.
Karff, the fact that some corporations are off up to 33% of the true amount rules out the previous month's market price completely (since it can only be 5% up or down).
My point is, these numbers are SUPPOSED to add up properly, and they used to. They don't now.
Q |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:18 pm
sir michael, thats excactly what made me think that, personally i don't care, its one of those, please tell me first, things, but again, its still just a guess
i've lowered cash levels in 2 of my 750+ enterprises, as 75b 6months ago, and now are 2 different things. and i've left the cash levels high my my other 2 750+ enterprises, it seemed to make a difference, as the profits seemed to improve in both the lower ones, but both of the ones i left higher, also improved, although not as much.
the next thing i'm going to try is salaries, i'm lowering the salaries of one of my ceo's, and leaving the rest high, after 2 ticks on LU, it seems to have made a huge impact, but it is just 2 ticks
sorry, my management method is "play by ear," |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:32 pm
[15:58] [Jozi] the problem is very limited. we know how much cash there is and it is not so high.
[15:58] [Jozi] some is hidden in corporations for now but the idea is that it will continue to go down, exchange rates and amounts will have
[15:59] [Jozi] a soft landing and the process will stop
This is meant as corporation cash levels I believe. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:34 pm
Its not FI on corporation cash levels, as I've checked all levels of cash as well. Just tested a corp which was really low, its still lower than it should be. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 08:19 pm
Q this has been going on for a wee while.
As Farmer Bob says....I highlighted some similar stuff in November and got fed up trying to make decisions based on the info provided, having converted a load of info from the site into spread sheets.
Couldn't be bothered after that |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 08:31 pm
This is the explanation I got from Simcountry, however I did forget to note in my email that I only checked corporations which sell product consistently the same month its offered, to eliminate the market price swing from processing and the monthly % reduction. I have replied to them back in much greater detail though. So here it is:
Hi,
If you are talking about the monthly product sales by corporations you cannot just look at the price they ask for and multiply by the amount of product and market price.
There is no guarantee that anybody wants to purchase these products for the price they are Offered.
This has never been the case but we have witnessed lower requesting price average in the past months.
I think that the effect is across all price levels but of course, mainly on the highest.
We did not look into it specifically but we have seen average profits coming down a bit and this is why we noticed.
It might change even further or start moving back.
It happened many times before.
The gamemaster |
| Treasurer (White Giant) | Monday, January 19, 2009 - 08:39 pm
Not like this it hasn't |
| Slare (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 01:34 am
Yeah, that reply doesn't make sense. If people didn't want to buy the items at the price\quality offered, the products wouldn't have been sold that month.
I hope you get a better response to your more specific query. |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 09:44 am
Very strange indeed, I hate to be cynical but I think the GM don't want people being able play this game for free. Average corporate profits have declined since the game changes yet corporate productivity has increased in the majority of corporations, stayed the same in the rest, and only several have had production decreased. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 07:17 pm
I have found one of the problems:
Procifica TP Aircraft Fuel II
Latest Market Price: 643 SC$ per ton
Quality of the Product 370.0
Production Last Month 3,506,422
Total: 6,622.25M SC$
Sale Strategy Start at 399% of the market price
Procifica PC AF 20
Latest Market Price: 643 SC$ per ton
Quality of the Product 333.0
Production Last Month 3,530,432
Total: 6,590.82M SC$
Sale Strategy Start at 357% of the market price
First one, selling for $1,888
Second one, selling for $1,867
Procifica PC Gasoline 127
Latest Market Price: 632 SC$ per ton
Quality of the Product 312.4
Production Last Month 2,849,054
Total: 5,351.61M SC$
Sale Strategy Start at 336% of the market price
Procifica PC Gasoline 124
Latest Market Price: 632 SC$ per ton
Quality of the Product 331.0
Production Last Month 2,921,418
Total: 5,488.66M SC$
Sale Strategy Start at 355% of the market price
First one selling at $1878
Second one selling at $1878
Looking at these 4 examples, the trend here (and I can easily post many more), is that income is NOT being adjusted for quality after a certain point (about 300 or so). We see a 370 quality selling for a similar price as a 333! The 312 and the 331 are identical! This should NOT be possible. All of these products are selling in a 290-297% of market price range, regardless of quality.
All products sold fully in the same month as offered. This is why CEO income is down so much. This is why public corporations now are tanking hard. This is the major problem with everyone's finances and income.
This is a major bug. I have been in contact with W3C, and have sent them 2 more emails illustrating the problem.
If more people would like to try to figure out what could be causing this, it would be helpful. If you decide to write to W3C, be polite and specific in your examples. This problem is affecting everyone's profitability.
Q |
| Danneh Turner (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 07:42 pm
what, you mean like I said 2 days ago? |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 08:07 pm
Over 300 or so is basically as you said, yes. Its being "nobbled", as you put it.
Under 300 or so I've not found a pattern to yet. Still working on that. So far it seems very random.
Q |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 08:16 pm
it's good that issues like these are being discussed. but i think Angus88 assesment is probably correct. the GM does not want us playing for fee. whether it's changing the rules on cash, the changes in income and expenses of corps and countries, the effect is to make it impossible to continue playing without anteing up gc's or cash. in the past players could harvest c3's or inactives and amass vast amount of swag. now c'3 only generate about 300b in cash and some weapons. and if you're new, those new countries cost you money and will more than likely either go into losses or require that you infuse them with capital. by lowering the amount that you can earn in your countries and ceo's you cannot transfer cash into advantageous amounts of gc's. ultimately, you will have to pay to play, both on your monthly gc contributions but also your real cash outlay to renew your membership. there may be more players out there that will be willing to contribute to the game, but my guess is that we will see more and more short term players and more long term players leaving the game. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 08:36 pm
Parsifal, I encourage you to read my latest discussion of the problem. This appears to be a major bug.
I looked at two more corporations. Quality of 281 (ordering 160 supplies) and Quality of 250 (TP ordering 100 supplies).
Sales Strategies were 311% and 274%.
Actual sale price was 297% and 245%. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 08:50 pm
Finally found a private corporation paying MORE than it should:
Medical Materials corporation
Latest Market Price: 6,795 SC$ per unit
Quality of the Product 239.1
Production Last Month 188,779
Total: 3,647.73M SC$
Sale Strategy Start at 269% of the market price
It should be 3.45 Billion. |
| Maxwell (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 09:04 pm
The overview of the game changes in the recent future would seem to be unmistakeable.
Refer to Parsifals post |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 09:11 pm
Maxwell, read all of my posts in this thread. Corporation income is NOT being calculated correctly. Products are NOT able to be sold above about 297% of the market price. This is making quality over about 270 or so completely USELESS. |
| Slare | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 12:58 am
I think there is a communications disconnect here.
Parsifal is essentially claiming the calculation errors are intentional, while Q thinks they are unintentional.
I for one give the GMs the benefit of the doubt...while I am sure they want to make more $$, intentionally breaking the game rather than just changing it to be systematically less profitable seems unlikely to me. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 02:23 am
no, i don't think that gm is intentionally screwing with the corp numbers. Q is probably right that there may be a glitch in the way the numbers are calculated. but as a matter of course gm is intentionally decreasing cost, profits, cash, etc of corps and ceo's. if there is a glitch my guess is that they will not/cannot economically fix the problem. what i'm saying is that the game itself is being tooled for short term players. on KB, there are probably no more than about 20 viable active empires. there are probably another 12-15 inactives that are heavily debt laden, that are waiting for memberships to run out and about 30 small active empires. as time goes by my sense is that there will be fewer and fewer large empires since the rules are now centered on quick results for new players, but the game does not give them much room for expanding unless they invest hard cash in gc's. i don't think the intent is sinister, just that there is change in philosophy of the game by the gm. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 05:51 am
Well, I realize they are decreasing all the numbers and such, but this error I believe is unintended. It started right around when they started decreasing the numbers back in early december or so. Is there a way to check far back in time for corporation sales? I know some stuff you can.
If they want people to make less money on the corporations (and they've stated they want more profitability, not less), then this glitch needs to be fixed. I'm hoping my latest email to them will make them aware of the problem.
If not, then my next email will have about 20 examples clearly illustrating a problem. I NEED this thing fixed.
Q |
| Maxwell (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 07:42 am
You may very well have found a bug but the profitability of the corps or lack there of in the game is not the only indication that suggests our hosts are making drastic modifications.
Which appear on the surface atleast designed to increase real life profit.
Again after reading Parsifals second post I agree wholehearted with his assessment of the situation. These unsolicited changes with the program despite some opposition creates the impression that this is the overall intent of our hosts.
The price of Poker is going up boys.
Maxwell |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 02:59 pm
Q, i hope you're righ, that there's a major glitch and if there's anything i can do, let me know. as to past data, unless you've downloaded it from the past, it's probably not available.
P |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 07:02 pm
Well Maxwell, I think there is better ways to take cash out of the game than ruining fully upgraded corps due to a "ceiling" on selling price. Not to mention, the price you get for lower sales strategy is now totally random.
It clearly has to be a bug/glitch from when they first started lowering prices.
They have clearly stated profitability should be rising. Due to this problem, they are not.
The best thing anyone can do, is run the calculations as I have (takes less than a minute per corporation) as follows:
Make SURE its a corporation which sells consistently every month.
Sales price (do this after processing) X production * sales strategy = correct income
Profit/Loss Income / Production / Sales price = true sales strategy being used
If ANYONE can find a corporation which is over 300% (true sales strategy), please let me know. I have yet to find one.
I can use all the data I can get, to prove to W3C that there is a MAJOR problem with high quality corporations and sales strategies. It seems to be as simple as truncating any sales down to under 300% of market price, regardless of quality or sales strategy or actual price sold for.
Q |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 07:02 pm
I don't have Microsoft Excel, so a spreadsheet would be very helpful. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 09:39 pm
looked at 3 state corps 246-296 Q.......achieving 99-101% of expected sales, this looks pretty constant at around 100%
3 private corps 333-324 Q .......achieving 85-90% of expected sales
An electric power state corp has a better result than a private one, and the lower the quality of the private corp the better the result...so far |
| AFChairman David Walker (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 10:27 pm
If as W3 promised:
"Corporations are maintaining their profitability and in general, corporate profitability will increase somewhat in the coming months."
... the corporations maintain profitability then tax collecting countries should not drop in surpluses.
As mentioned up above, I can only presume that because of corps having stocks of supplies then they lag behind and produce lower profits.
Howeverer, if this is to be true, then my country should return to a £300 billion monthly surplus based on lower costs but income from profits should be no less.
The GM promised the same profitability but I fear they mean proportionately and not financially.
I don't have a problem with the devaluation but I do think it should be more explicitly explained.
If I have a country only collecting from profits and wages, the profits taxes should remain the same and wage taxes only go down if wages go down...... but I've lost £250 billion a month in 1 country. Wages have crept a little lower and profit taxes are vastly down.
I await the bounce in my country surpluses from corp profit income to resume to the guaranteed levels. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 10:38 pm
David, the bounce isn't going to happen until this problem is fixed.
I realize they mean proportionally same or more, but this is not the case until this problem is fixed. |
| AFChairman David Walker (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 11:25 pm
As discussed (and reviewed) the other day, I do agree the corp income is wrong or at least the information provided to us to calculate corp income is incorrect. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 11:27 pm
From further testing, the main problem seems to be that selling price is capped at about 300% of market price. |
| Sir Michael (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 11:37 pm
Q,
Thanks for your time spent on the current issue.
My question is, "if" the selling price is capped at 300 and it's not a game bug, what adjustments should be made to adapt to the new settings? Would it be to lower the quality of supplies? |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 12:09 am
I don't see the purpose or point of such a cap, if they truly implmented one. It makes high quality beyond useless. It completely goes against "maintaining or increasing relative corporate profitability". However, so far, they have refused to acknowledge any problems exist.
I still haven't figured out exactly what's going on for under 300, as those numbers don't all match up either. Lowering of supplies might be a good short-term fix, haven't tested that yet.
I would like to encourage those who have a good understanding of the issue at hand, to also write W3C, asking them what is going on. Maybe if I'm not the only one pointing it out to them, they will realize something is up. Maybe someone else could explain it to them in a way which would get them to better understand.
Q |
| Pathetic Sheep (Little Upsilon) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 12:35 am
I don't see evidence that anyone has clarified what is happening. There are several pieces that you can not know for certain.
The best price is determined by market conditions. The price this month and the price last month do not tell you the price in between. If that is the explanation you should be able to buy at roughly the same lower price much of the time.
If the game is discounting or capping quality the lower prices would not show up in companies making quality 100 products.
If W3C is discounting high quality items when market demand is for low quality the it should not effect common market or direct contract sales. The price paid by the receiving company should match the profits of the selling company. You can get a good measurement if you stop selling on the open market so that the only product sold is the contract.
Adding a fee like shipping and handling or a brokers fee would make sense if W3C is trying to make the markets realistic. If that is the case they should be willing to confirm it. But, we also should be able to calculate the formula. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 12:55 am
Common market/local market is doing the same thing, its not selling at market price. Its selling well under (same range as I described before), if the quality is above 300. I have checked this as well. Same problem.
Pathetic sheep, your argument about price, is meaningless when price is only supposed to vary up to 5% either direction. The real and expected price here is off up to 35%.
I still have yet to have anyone prove to me they have seen a corporation selling for over 300% of the market price. ANY product. High Demand, High Supply, whatever.
Also, if the higher price isn't obtainable, then the product shouldn't be selling the SAME month! The product should remain unsold until someone wants it at that price, or until the seller's price meets the price people want to buy it at. Your argument, while thoughtful, is not happening in-game period the way it should be.
I can give you HUNDREDS of corporations of evidence that this problem is indeed VERY real. If I wished, I could present to you TENS OF THOUSANDS of corporations, by taking hours upon hours of my time to skim through every corporation on every world, to point out to you, there is indeed a serious problem.
Every corporation I have checked for this purpose, has been product sold THE SAME MONTH as it is offered. This eliminates the market price flucuations of processing time, and eliminates the monthly reduction in sales strategy as factors.
Pathetic Sheep, I suggest you take a look at some of the numbers yourself. I have spent several hours doing so, and have yet to find evidence against what I'm claiming.
Q |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 12:26 pm
having checked quite a few now it would appear that quality 333 achieves only 85% of expected sales rising to 90% at 300 quailty.
All state corps show 296 achieves 100% on average expected sales, increasing to 110% at 195 quality
I have only checked corps in my country Kimberleigh |
| Slare (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 05:24 pm
Extrapolating with a linear best-fit, it seems clear selling at Quality 1 is the most profitable, netting us 140% expected income. :D
Maybe 160% if we assume an exponential curve.
Need more data points on the low quality side to figure out which best fit fits best. The big % jump between Q300 and Q296 really throws things off. |
| Pathetic Sheep (White Giant) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 06:47 pm
quaxcol,
Coolwind posted the information I was looking for. Most of my corporations do not sell everything every month. However, it doesn't look like my state corps are selling at high quality either.
I checked a military base company on white giant. My quality is 120. I have 25 unsold units but the sale is either 1 base or 0 each month. The products sold last month is higher than the sale strategy.
The demand for military bases on white giant was 100 last month. 70 of them were my orders. I used a fixed price that was slightly higher than the best price.
It is possible that fixed price orders below the market price are getting filled by your products.
I would also point out that my military base company was not supposed to be selling anything. They automatically sell regardless of the setting in the automation section. The executives you assigned to the plant must have decided may have decided to fill the contract.
Try testing the market. Buy $600B in Cocoa and look what happens to the cocoa sales. If you buy at twice the market rate the "best price" rises at 5%. But the sales still happen. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 07:19 pm
so, Q other than trying to get gm to fix the glitch, what is the optimum quality to sell products? under 300 or lower? |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 08:07 pm
Coolwind, I randomly checked a few of your 296 quality state corps. They're off as expected, you must have calculated something wrong. 
They're selling in the same general range that I've already described before (290-297% of market price), while your sales strategies vary from 307 to 327.
Sales strategy seems to be the biggest factor in this problem. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 23, 2009 - 08:14 pm
Pathetic sheep, for corporations which don't sell a product every month (like military bases), the figure WILL be higher when it does sell. For those, you have to do a fraction of the amount (the production each month figure on the graph).
Look at Production plants. When they finally make one, their turnover is HUGE. Then for the next 7 or 8 months, they sell absolutely nothing.
So your example of Military base is flawed unless you can give me the fraction produced each month.
Q |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 09:47 am
This problem is still very real and apparent. Still no reply from W3C regarding my latest email.
On another note though, I just noticed the Executive Pay bug is fixed finally. |
| Sir Michael (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 05:37 pm
Thanks for the update Q |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 07:03 pm
I have put up an exclusive poll regarding this problem. Maybe this will get us some real feedback.
Please vote for the poll. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 09:57 am
This problem still fully exists, as I checked more corporations tonight.
Optimal supply quality, I'm still working on. My guess currently would be somewhere between 145 and 160, with Truly Public Corporations being a bit lower (about 125-140).
Q |
