| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 03:16 am 
First the economic changes ruined my finances.
Now the navy changes make my navy useless.
Thank you sim for ruining my empire.
Its farewell and good bye from me. |
| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 06:30 pm
I am sorry to see you go and thanks for being with us.
I mean it.
we will stay here and keep adding features and also keep making some essential changes.
This last one was overdue.
The last changes in the amounts in Simcountry was about 2% for some, and less than that for others.
Country cost and income will keep declining, some times harder on the cost and sometimes harder on the income. On average, by design, nothing changes. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 07:23 pm
Tom , how about making a very simple wee change to make the game easier to play, interface easier to use, less hanging about, less clicking, less frustration.
Please allow Country to transfer cash direct to Enterprise.
That shouldn't bother you to much, and would delight those of us who have onerous real time obligations, but love playing this game |
| John R | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 07:25 pm
That is what the Sitemap is for.
Have you clicked it yet? |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 08:58 pm
I'll have a look John |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 09:07 pm
had a look John, I'm sorry, but I miss the salience of your point.
I don't see anything different there |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 09:10 pm
Less than 2%...LOL...crippling trade strategies to cap at 300 reduced income by more like TWENTY percent for countries with CEO based economies...twenty percent income reduction at once with only maybe a 2% reduction in costs.
why should 333 Q product be capped at trading for 300?
Try again Tom...that is the net effect of the recent economy-crippling changes, as has been thoroughly documented by other players that have sent you REAMS of data that you have apparently not looked at. CEOs can somewhat compensate by lowering their supplies quality to lower product quality below 300, but CEO-economy-based-countries do not have that flexibility. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:18 pm
Agree with Keith, why have you guys not explained the cap on how much our products can be sold at? NO PRODUCT is able to be sold over 300% of market price, regardless of market conditions, trade strategy, quality, etc.
I have sent several emails regarding this, the first 2 were answered promptly, the rest were ignored. |
| Darke Katt (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:46 pm
You will find, after a time, they stop answering simply because they do not understand the game any better than you do.
When they have no answer they will either claim to have not revieved your email, or ignore you completely. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 12:25 am
I wonder if they would be interested in selling? |
| Váli (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:27 am
My main has no state corps, the economy was devastated by the changes. My other countries have a few state corps but are predominantly CEO and private. My mains income reduced by 2.5T over the christmas period, whilst costs hardly changed.
I have no game money to rearm to adapt to the naval changes. I certainly am not spending any more real money on this game.
I am sure game changes have good intentions but they have turned my once profitable empire into a debt ridden hole. My once powerful fleets were rendered next to useless with only a few hours notice. 6 months I spent building my empire to see it wiped out in a few weeks. To have lost a war would have been fine, its part of enjoying the game. Having the carpet pulled from under your feet by games changes with little or no warning is not right.
The economy changes were said to reduce income and costs at roughly the same rate, this is clearly not the case for CEO corps. Maybe the changes should have been tested further before being implemnted, but mistakes happen. To change the naval rules with a few hours notice is just plain not right. Yes they may have been to powerful,but a lot of players have just seen their enjoyment of the game disappear in a flash. Advance warning of a couple of weeks at least should have been given to give us a chance to adapt. |
| Aryan | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:52 am
Vali i must concure they have decided to micro manage this game to death. Well on the upside since its almost impossible for one player to take anothers main John Riley has recieved a reprieve he remains alive on fb not that he deserves to be here. A few day's ago he said he was hurt the next day he said he was sick and asked if he could stop fighting. The following day all the rules were changed. Hmm i smell a rat. Immeadeatly after that i recieved a reply to my challange. After the change he now has the intestonal fortitude to take me on. To that i say lets fight old school or not at all. |
| John R | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:11 am
To question my character and honesty is one of those stupid SC question, because they can only be born from ignorant frustration.
By the way, I am gorgeous but I'm not of finnish descent. The R stands for mystery. |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 04:30 am
@coolwind. . . . LOL
It looks like from what I am hearing more players will begin paying to play.
Looks like a good time to be a shareholder  |
| ShcyzMattiCa (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 04:33 am
"A few day's ago he said he was hurt the next day he said he was sick and asked if he could stop fighting. The following day all the rules were changed.
Hmm i smell a rat"
I think alot of players do at this point. |
| Tom Willard (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 11:07 am
Selling price of products.
Last time I looked, I did not find anyone ordering of products at quality >300.
In simcountry, when you sell a product, you need a buyer.
If you want a certain price, you need a buyer for that price.
You can complain to us but we are not buying any products from anyone.
The way around it of course is to produce at a lower level by purchasing products of lower quality. This will reduce the cost for the corporation and will keep revenue at the same level.
One thing is very clear:
you cannot have your "requested" price if there are no buyers.
I think that some of it happened when we have made a change in the trading of C3 countries.
C3s probably bought whatever was offered at any price. Their economy was never balanced and as they made losses, we have kept their economies afloat by adding cash each game month.
C3 countries are now buying like all other countries and this probably resulted in a lower average quality of requested products.
A lower quality was not our aim. We were correctly balancing the C3 economies.
The payment for quality that was in fact never asked for was taken care of by W3C, paying to keep these countries afloat.
Changes in Pricing
Recent changes in the pricing of products were 2% or less down. There will be another round next week.
Salary levels are following and the cost of corporations is also down. Army salaries are down and the contribution percentage of private corporations is also down.
There are many very profitable countries and they remain very profitable.
Same goes for CEOs.
There are also many countries losing money.
They lost even more money before these changes.
Lowering the pricing levels and salary levels will continue. The income and cost of countries will decline. The cost of defense declined and will decline much further and at the end, purchasing power will remain where is was.
As cash levels are also declining and many players with too much cash are buying gold coins, we will also reduce the exchange rates and the value of game money will increase even further.
In the past, to get a gold coin, you needed 2 to 4 T, depending on the world.
It is now 470B and will decline much further. |
| Tom Willard (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 11:19 am
CEO Corporations
These too remain profitable.
Their cost declines steadily and revenue too.
Declines are not the same every day because market conditions change, product pricing goes up and down and it is hard to see day to day.
Over a longer period, they decline by the same percentage because the general parameters are changed by the same percentages.
At the end, if income and cost go down by 50%, profit will also go down by 50%.
if the exchange rate also goes down by 50% than the profit value remains at the same number of gold coins.
We also look at the total "nominal"value number showing on the slide bar of the simcountry home page.
It is now showing about 370.000.
It was much lower in the past but when we started the latest run, it was 350.000.
When we quickly reduced the exchange rate it jumped to 400.000.
This is a good measure for what we do long term. If it declines under 350.000 we have reduced more then the corrections of the exchange rate.
and the other way around of course.
We are checking this number and will make sure it will not decline under 350.000.
We expect it to increase with more assets, more countries with presidents and higher value corporations. |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský (Fearless Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 11:40 am
/me gets popcorn |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:12 pm
Again Tom, CEOs can adjust to the changes.
Countries with CEO-based economies CANNOT because the country resources used declined by 20%, not 2%.
It is now MUCH harder for countries to raise the FI. If you intend to keep the 300 cap, countries will need a much larger reduction in costs to offset this. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:16 pm
Also, buyers for 333 Q/370 Q products were never a problem before. When the 300 cap was introduced, products sold immediately even under aggressive pricing strategies.
We had to lower requested quality of supplies in our enterprises to preserve their profits. Countries lost about 20% of their revenue from country resources used.
There were adequate buyers for 333 Q products before the 300 cap.
I should also note that we cannot even get prices higher than 300 for 333 Q products where supply is less than 20% of demand. So it is a hard cap, not an issue of no buyers. |
| Slare (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 06:01 pm
Q333 items are selling the same month as offered, the corps just aren't getting paid for it properly.
Lack of buyers would imply corps running an inventory of unsold products, this is not the case. Everything is selling immediately, but for less than the asking price if the asking price is above 300.
Judging by your explanations above, this is not how it is supposed to work, it is clearly a bug that needs to be addressed. |
| quaxocal | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 07:22 pm
Tom, agree with Slare. The change you describe DOES make sense, if only it worked in practice. It actually explains a good chunk of the problem experienced.
Though I have 3 questions for you:
1) What is the purpose of producing product over 300 quality if no one purchases it? (anything over 250 CANNOT be manually purchased, I might add)
2) Why does product even of 370 quality get sold the first month its offered, if the price strategy is good? (IE close to market price adjusted for quality)
3) Even quality which is CONTRACTED or COMMON MARKET is not able to be sold at the higher price. If I contract or use a common market for quality over 300, I still DO NOT get the market adjusted for quality price. Its still FORCED under 300%. Why does this occur? Common Market and Contracts should not be price adjusted, since by definition, they are supposed to be at market price (adjusted for quality). But they also fall under this artificial cap.
I'm starting to fully understand (probably better than most) how the trade system REALLY works on Simcountry, but am still testing it to be certain before I publish the results publicly. Maybe once I do that, you guys at W3C can find the bug (or bugs) which is causing the above problems I listed.
Tom, as Keith and Slare alluded to, the 300% is a PRICE CAP. Even for product which has insane demand, it is just not getting sold above that price. Period. No matter the sales method, no matter the buyer's price, no matter the supply/demand, its just not happening. |
| quaxocal | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 07:27 pm
Tom, if you like, on Monday, I can email you a very detailed explanation of the pricing problem we players are experiencing, as well as several concrete examples of what is going on. The C3's not buying "any quality" does explain what happened, but I think unforseen consequences occurred with that change (and it is about the time when I first thought something might be going wrong).
Your explanation of how the pricing model should work was sound, and I can accept it (as I'm sure many others would too) if it worked in practice. Though the problem again, is what I outlined above. What's the point of having Quality above X amount (currently 300 or less, depending on trade strategy), if its worthless?
Wanted to end with a quote from you Tom:
The way around it of course is to produce at a lower level by purchasing products of lower quality. This will reduce the cost for the corporation and will keep revenue at the same level.
This is certainly not true in practice, or most veterans would have been doing this long ago. Now due to an artificial price cap, we are being forced to. Revenue goes down MUCH more than cost. As we both know, raw material + maintenance is only a fraction of the overall cost of a corporation. So how can revenue be at the same level in this situation?
Q |
| quaxocal | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 07:43 pm
This last post is for the changes in pricing/CEO corporations.
Factory Maintenance Units and Weapon/Ammo corps, instead of lowering prices, you are INCREASING prices while REDUCING supply of already extremely scarce products. This is further reducing corporation profitability (in the case of FMU), and increasing defense cost (in the case of weapons/ammo).
Also, you are increasing the amount of workers needed in Schools and now Hospitals. This is hurting the ability to maintain a good workforce, especially those with high indexes in one or both.
The main problem people have with CEO income, isn't the price declines you guys have been doing for months. Its the artificial price cap which has ruined high quality products and high trade strategies. The price declines in salary and product prices, on the whole, seem balanced as you described. I personally have no issues to report here.
My suggestion is, make a use for the high end quality products. Have them do something, make them desireable in some way. And eliminate the price cap while you're at it.
Corporation Values, by the way, are GREATLY declining on the whole, due to reduced profitability due to problems listed above.
I hope you will take the time to read my detailed answers, and be able to respond to some of my questions. I am speaking for a good portion of your veteran population with these economy based questions and problems. I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to us here, and I know many others who have not been posting here do as well.
Q |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 07:48 pm
Ah, I thought I was done, but I have one more independent issue to bring up, regarding a recent change.
The change done to the education system.
Even with reducing education priorities down to 100 total, I'm still experiencing MASSIVE shortages of Medium Level Workers in all countries, every month. Also experiencing lower shortages of High Level Workers. Low Level Workers, I'm finding myself having way more than I can use.
Can you guys give us an idea of what workers are used for what profession (the news update said Low and Medium Level Workers)?
Q |
| The Crafty Cockney (Kebir Blue) | Friday, February 6, 2009 - 09:02 pm
A simple point, that may be well off of the mark...
If corps order supplies at a lower quality to reduce output quality, then surely the average quality demand will reduce so requiring further reduction in production quality and so on, a downward spiral. |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 04:59 am
I will not go into arguing with Tom Willard's statements even if I consider some of them as misleading or right out incorrect. I know it's not fair to say this without counter-arguments, but I believe others can see the flaws I have in mind or pointed them out already.
Let me just say that if there is a "cap" on "sale-able" quality, hard or due the market situation, its logical to me that there would an option to put a cup our quality upgrades.
Sure, we can cap our outputs by supplies quality, but then we might encounter what The Crafty Cockney mentioned. That is assuming some of what Tom Willard said is true.
Why not to have option to set production quality, without supplies at 215 or 232 for example, why we have only 200, 225 and 250 to choose from? Why to pay for the quality upgrades in the first place? |
| The Crafty Cockney (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 08:01 pm
You can upgrade as little as you want. The choice is yours. If you turn off the auto the upgrades will deteriorate too. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 08:15 pm
Not really, unless you want to micromanage every corp.
What Zdenek is proposing, I do believe, is the ability to specify your own cap on the auto-upgrade function. For example, instead of letting the automation to upgrade all the way to 200, I leave it on but direct it to upgrade corps only to 160.
The idea of manually micromanaging an upgrade cap with the current automation settings would be a joke for CEOs with many hundreds of corps, or even countries with 50. |
| Treasurer (White Giant) | Monday, February 9, 2009 - 07:06 pm
The simple answer is to do this:
Decrease the supplies amounts needed per corp and country depending on the quality of the goods being supplied.
For example if CORP A buys 500 FMU's at 300 quality, it would have the same value as 600 purchased at 250 quality. NOW, the needs of the corp should be lowered for higher quality supplies to make the same amount of product as before.
This way the corp owner can choose whether to make their goods with higher quality supplies and get some sort of small bonus for choosing higher quality supplies to make their goods with. That way older more established corps can survive.
As it stands now, the older and more upgraded the corp, the more risk is involved with keeping it afloat. This should never be the case for ESTABLISHED well run corps. The riskier corps should be the lower quality corps. |
| FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 9, 2009 - 08:29 pm
Beat you to this Dan. See my other thread. |
| Treasurer (White Giant) | Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 02:58 pm
The point is that the corporation owner should have the choice to produce at what ever quality level he likes given the current market situation. If there is no demand for higher quality goods, he should be able to set his quality production lower without losing his upgrades that he has installed.
There needs to be another interface installed to allow corp owners to meet demands of the market situation when they would normally have the means to do so if it weren't for the quality wall being in front of them.
It costs more money to make higher quality goods and if the owner temporarily made lower quality goods that were in more demand, the corps may see profits they haven't seen in a great while.
Either fix the payment bug for higher quality goods that are being sold and not properly paid for, or allow corp owners to adjust their quality output instantaneously with the click of a button to allow for the corp to meet the demands of the market.
This is VERY simple to do. There is no reason why they should not allow corporation owners to control their corp's output quality. The chef decides what ingredients to put in to his recipe to make whatever quality quiche he wants to.
If there is more demand for lower quality goods than what my corp is producing, I should be able to instantaneously AND temporarily build at a lower quality setting to meet that demand. |
