| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:13 am 
We have looked into many countries recently to see how they are doing in terms of income and cost and how recent changes influence them.
Countries without a president
These countries are very stable and make an income each game month. All these countries receive a financial boost each month and are profitable.
Planned changes
The financial boost can be decreased or eliminated. It is given to new players but C3 countries are doing OK without it.
To increase flexibility in the market, we are looking into the possibility of automatic closure of state corporations in C3 countries that produce products that have a surplus. This will free up some of their work force and enable private corporations to be established in these countries or a replacement by state corporations that produce products that have shortages on the market.
If about 200-300 corporations will be replaced each game month, this will increase mobility and flexibility in the markets. It seems that countries with president are not doing this enough to profit from market situation.
Countries with presidents - new players and players with some experience
Many of these countries are doing now much better than before. Their economies make more profit and in case they had losses, these losses are declining. All these countries receive beginner boosts in money and population.
These countries are profiting from slightly lower prices on the top of the market and their cost is reduced. This is true, not withstanding any increase in market pricing because of shortages.
Their income is in many cases higher. This is also because the profitability of corporations that are not fully upgraded is improved. At the same time, lower salaries and the trend for lower cost of materials, not withstanding the market trends, is helping these countries.
The main problem for such countries is that the cost of defense remains too high and although it did come down recently, the high price of ammunition causes unexpected fluctuations and increase in cost that hampers their ability to build a larger army.
Changes that are needed for these countries
A decrease in the price of ammunition and weapons will lower the price of the army. We hope that the trend will continue and we will try to tune down the base price of these items. The end price will depend on the market.
Countries with experienced presidents
These countries have in general seen their profit per month increase or their losses decline. The results are very different from one country to another and depend on their population and the size of the army.
Some countries may not see such a decrease yet but the long term trend is for the cost to decline.
With high ammunition cost, the total cost of defense is unstable. Some of these countries have huge armies, move weapons into and out of the reserves, initiate population transfers that change the availability of soldiers and officers and make more large transactions that can influence the monthly income and cost in unexpected ways.
The trend is for more stability on the country income and cost with an increase in total profit for the whole group although individual countries will continue to fluctuate.
Changes that are needed for these countries
Some cost and income items make big monthly fluctuations. The reason is that the price of products government purchases can differ a lot. That price is used in the computation of the month cost of health, education, transportation, the army etc.
Using some sliding averages might help here, to apply these changes in a period of several game months allowing for some smoothing effects and even cancelling effects because of these fluctuating prices. Such a change will make country finances less volatile and trends will become more visible. |
| Kevin Henry (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:16 am
Quote:Countries with experienced presidents
These countries have in general seen their profit per month increase or their losses decline.
I would like all veteran players who have been doing better financially to post here! Thanks! |
| Stuart Taylor (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:27 am
Nope. Not me. I'm making less than ever. |
| General Dirt (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:27 am
*crickets* |
| Beast (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:28 am
Losing about 20% of my profits over the last few weeks. |
| Dr.Anthrax (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:30 am
My profits have been short 15-20B$ and my CEO acted really strange a few days ago it was making 20b$ a month then jumped to 60B$ without even building more corps then dropped back to 20B$. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:32 am
As have I.
Revenues declined by 20%, costs declined by 2%... |
| Lelouch Vi Britannia (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:40 am
My country has been going nuts...Especially my CEOs. I'm just glad I make a profit at least. |
| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:45 am
Keep watching. I know the trends and I know how it is done.
I have seen MANY countries where it has already happened.
cost is declining, look at the graphs now and in the coming weeks.
most of it will come if the price of ammunition is coming down and we see some selling. |
| Stuart Taylor (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:46 am
OK, so will we be compensated for our current losses that we may have gained because of the so called stealth changes? |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:48 am
Profitability by numbers is WAY down (as was the goal, since numbers in general have declined).
Relative profits from late December to now are fairly stable.
Relative profits from early December to now are WAY WAY down. <----THIS is your problem Tom.
Planned changes
The financial boost can be decreased or eliminated. It is given to new players but C3 countries are doing OK without it.
To increase flexibility in the market, we are looking into the possibility of automatic closure of state corporations in C3 countries that produce products that have a surplus. This will free up some of their work force and enable private corporations to be established in these countries or a replacement by state corporations that produce products that have shortages on the market.
If about 200-300 corporations will be replaced each game month, this will increase mobility and flexibility in the markets. It seems that countries with president are not doing this enough to profit from market situation.
I support this idea.
HOWEVER, maybe you should explain to your players how C3's have been selling 185 quality product, with 100 Quality corporations and 100 Quality supplies? THIS IS THE REASON WHY THEY ARE PROFITABLE. Because C3's CHEAT by design. If you change this to the way REAL players would do it, their profitability would be non-existant.
Q |
| John R | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:55 am
If profitability were to remain proportional, profit would tend towards 0. Profit did tend towards 0, but it went kept on going and now most of us is in the red. Profitability isn't proportional. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 01:02 am
John, I was trying to point out that the main change to cause less profitability (and losses) occurred sometime in mid December. That profitability and losses have been relatively stable since then, but MUCH lower than before (or higher losses than before, or a swing from profits to losses). |
| Danny Miller (White Giant) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 01:05 am
My main was making 250b per month last October / November w/ pop in low 40's. Now its making around 150b per month w/ pop in the low 60's. I have had a CEO heavy economy w/ 90-95% private corps. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 01:07 am
No longer have I been able to rely on private CEO investment for a high FI, Tom. I have had to grow my economy almost exclusively by building state corps and IPOing them just to keep my FI above 120 for attempting level 6.
My FI was in the 150 range and consistently so before the stealth changes were implemented in mid-December.
IPOs are a LOT more work than CEO advertising and I have been required to go through that pain in the ass just to maintain enough profitability to meet the level 6 requirement, which would've been completely unthinkable before the Quality Nerfing.
That should tell you something... |
| Elaieva (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 01:27 am
My profitability is far far down. Hell, my CEOs and countries made a nice profit with me not here for months. I come back, these changes go in, and suddenly I have nothing anywhere close to the profits I had under a policy of benign neglect. I've deactivated huge chunks of military, I've sold off the less profitable countries ... I'm still not making money. Maybe I just need to leave again. |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 01:27 am
The FI in my main used to be consistently around 250 and now its average of 183. I was making 250B no its about 220B. I cut my military in half and added corps and pop, my main should be making more money not less.
With Regards,
Dragoon |
| FarmerBob | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 03:18 am
Quote:The main problem for such countries is that the cost of defense remains too high and although it did come down recently, the high price of ammunition causes unexpected fluctuations and increase in cost that hampers their ability to build a larger army.
Changes that are needed for these countries
A decrease in the price of ammunition and weapons will lower the price of the army. We hope that the trend will continue and we will try to tune down the base price of these items. The end price will depend on the market.
Please, Tom. stop overstating the role of market forces on prices. You have already explained base pricing ranges and are confusing many players who "think" free markets and cannot reconcile their expectations of events with the realities of the SimCountry Command economy.
Many presidents are unaware that in severe shortages for some products, standard are orders are converted to "Immediate" without player knowledge. This is the prime source of expenditure spikes, not mythical fluctuations in command commodities markets whoses prices are controlled to within a few % points by the GM.
Please stop confusing the issues with misleading responses. |
| ebby247 (Kebir Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 03:49 am
my countries profit has been coming down for months. |
| Alexiel iki-ryo (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 03:53 am
i'm more concerned that w3c comes across as though theyare saying that all these problems only happen in c3's.
hopefully they meant to imply that the problem is world wide, not just "these (c3) countries"
I should not have to make money appear out of thin air from game master just to be attempt to be competitive in this game. i should be able to be competitive despite what amount of RL money people put into the game, otherwise there is no point to BE skillful in this game - as long as one is able to afford to "appear" skillful.
my economy is stable, makes a profit, but it's insufficient 65b a month profit can buy me what? a bag of chips and a couple bombs? will take RL months to get anywhere decent enough to come out of WP without being jumped on (meanwhile paying gc ever couple days for wp)
its like new players are forced to put in own money into the game, or be forced out of the game. ive been visiting simc chat lately and often people come in and ask me "do i have to pay??? to prevent my country from reseting?" or "my country just reset, i have to pay? or "oh, i didnt know that i had to pay" and when i tell them, bluntly. "yes you have to pay, this is how much it costs" (i could downplay cost and sweet talk them for you, to get them to play, but i'm not PR person for you; i have no obligations) and what do they say" screw this, bye"
i dont care if you dont listen to me; it is irrelevant. but, please listen to the players who actually know what they are talking about.
please pardon my bluntness.
sincerely,
iki-ryo (alexiel) |
| Lelouch Vi Britannia (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 03:58 am
It seems like people will remain unsatisfied with their income until the price for items drastically decrease. But in order for that to happen people must take the excess money off the market so they can't take advantage of the new price tag on the items. |
| Kevin Henry (Kebir Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 04:14 am
Quote:I have seen MANY countries where it has already happened.
How many?
Let's find out. I encourage ALL players to vote in my new exclusive poll titled, "Country Income." Thanks! |
| Alexiel iki-ryo (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 04:35 am
lol. hey, why not? :3 |
| Grayson301 (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 05:48 am
BUMP over hezzy with something important |
| Danneh Turner (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 08:55 am
I have seen my income and most costs come down recently.
However, the "General Cost of Government" doesn't seem to have been tweaked at the same time as the rest of the things, so because I have 20+ countries in my empire, my finances have gone through the floor.
Summary:
smaller income
smaller normal costs
SAME cost of government
==> finances destroyed
(I'm not complaining btw, I can raid inactive newbs until the cows come home and loot their beginners bonuses; I'm merely reporting whats happened.)
Tom tells us they run a closed system .. anyone know where the hell "General Cost of Government" goes to when it leaves my treasury? |
| Kevin Henry (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 03:13 pm
Poll atm: 0 players have seen their profit increase and losses decline. 12 have seen their profits decreasing.
I would like the names, Tom, of all any country that is doing better finacially now, than it was a month ago. |
| Petra Arkanian (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 04:22 pm
September 17, 2008:
Total Income and Cost 969,549.96M SC$ Click to see history 166,671.27M SC$ Click to see history
Profit / Shortage 802,878.69M SC$ Click to see history
February 16, 2009:
Total Income and Cost 694,084.99M SC$ Click to see history 149,186.25M SC$ Click to see history
Profit / Shortage 544,898.74M SC$ Click to see history
To top it off, I presently have MORE corporations in the country now than then, still NO military - actually a little less since I finally destroyed my lingering forts. MORE of my corporations are now either private or truly public CEO-controlled corps, fully upgraded, AND I've started ordering supplies for my corps manually in a fashion that ensure I get the lowest costs for the optimum quality.
So.... -300B in income, -20B in costs is your idea of proportions, Tom? I know where that -20B came from too, it's because a month ago I cut my government salaries to as low as possible to try and keep my margin alive.
Back in September I my income was in the range or around 6x my costs. Now it's around 4.5x. You said who cares about zeros? Well, that's fine, but you're obviously not making the costs proportional to the profits, considering I've had profits fall 150% against costs, even after taking all the measures I could to ensure they stayed up.
Of course my country is still doing well, but it's my secured leader, my war countries have seen the same fall in profits, and many many people aren't taking the extreme measures I have in my country. However, the point is what the changes have done to profit versus cost, namely nerfed the former and left the latter mostly untouched.
I would post numbers for all my countries, but I see that the downloads section for LU only goes back 30 days now. That's convenient. Thanks a lot. /sarcasm
I don't care if you make it so my country only pulls in 100B income a month, but my costs should fall to around 19-20B as well. Overall numbers are meaningless, as you say, but the proportions and the margins are being cut into. |
| Sir Michael (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 04:44 pm
Not any of my countries Kevin!
Some are even running in the red now when they never have in the past. |
| Parsifal | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 04:57 pm
it's interesting that W3C is now trying to tweek c3's to fix some of the problems we're all concerned. for some time on KB which is the world i operate, i've thought that the number of active countries was in decline. not only are active countries in decline but, i can show you several large empires where the owners have been long gone and in spite of large debts,continually get periodic infusions of cash from somewhere. also, without constant tweeking, those inactives' corps can only deteriorate, which creates lower production and massive low wage overhangs. i understand that if they've paid 9 months in advance they'll be with us a long time, but it would stand to reason that if the bankruptcy feature is in tact some of these countries should cease to exist. i further submit that the scroll numbers showing countries with presidents/without presidents is grossly inaccurate. wheather this is a new phenomenon or not i don't know but it seems that as more and more seasoned players leave the game there are fewer newer players to pick up the slack. when you lose a seasoned player with an empire of 5 countries with an average of 120 corps, what does it take to replace the cash, weaponry, consumption and production of that players empire.
also, it would seem that instead of trying to tweek the ever increasing number of c3's that gm would want to address the concerns of the actives. otherwise the system/game will continue to deteriorate. |
| Kevin Henry (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 05:17 pm
I not actually trying to prove a point anymore...anyone who is competent gets that vets, in general, are losing money.
I actually would just like ONE example of a vet who is defying the odds, and whose countries are MORE profitable now than they were a month ago. If you are that player, PLEASE post here or message me! Don't be afraid, I don't bite (don't say it, LG)!
Thanks! |
| Vengent (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 05:27 pm
100+ million country here on LU, was making 400-500b a month, which still only got around 130 FI. Since the "changes" I make 65b a month on the good ones, lose on the bad ones. FI in the 90's now. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 06:43 pm
"I would like all veteran players who have been doing better financially to post here! Thanks!
Well, it's hard to tell, I'm "making money" however the graphs bounce up and down. I do know if they ever hit 5T for financial services I'll be royally screwed since I can spend 5T in a game month.
This is one of my largest problems, when game changes and market instability send everything into the toilet, historically I "needed" large amounts of cash to keep from waking up with 1-3T in loans. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 07:00 pm
Kevin, I aint no Vet but I've seen my FI go from 154 to 174 in the last month but still making the same profit at around 250B,
And that is after reducing weapons |
| John R | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 07:31 pm
Ceteris paribus.
I have some nations that got better as well, but that was more due to my action than of W3C's. I had severe hiring issues that I have now fixed.
Nations that have remained all things the same are suffering losses or diminute profit. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 07:49 pm
Point being proven here, is that the artificial price % cap in place (every veteran or seasoned player I have talked to agrees there is definitely one in place), has hurt profits!
Tom, I see exactly what you refer to with regard to profit/cost in EVERY other way. In the last month, my "relative" profit has not changed much, its actually improved some due to my own actions. But, its still nowhere near what it was in mid-December. Your price cap has crippled corporations and profits. And don't give me that "average" crap, I will email you with a hundred examples of how AVERAGING is NOT occuring one bit.
You know the BEST indicator of this? Finance Index.
How many people's finance indexes went down between November/December, and now? Everyone right? (without tweaking things in your favor)
Q |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 08:14 pm
Yep, mine went from the mid 150s (empire average) to 119 before I started squeezing out low-salary CEO corps by inducing workers shortages and replacing them with state corps and IPOing them into true publics.
In November it would've been unthinkable that I would've had to go through such a pain in the ass to get to level 6, but here I am, knowing I have to do another round of IPOs so that now-122 FI can support another 10 or 15 points of defense index. |
| Lelouch Vi Britannia (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 08:25 pm
But the whole point of decreasing income is to decrease the amount of money in game right? Before all the pricing of items are slashed we have to have less money, or else if they did items first with our trillions of dollars we would be able to by endless supplies of whatever we want.
It looks like there wont be much change for good until everything is fixed. The one step at a time deal hurts the economy. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 08:48 pm
I've been through this before, it's one thing to get nailed by a flakey market or adjustments to the game when you have several hundred billion in a country to absorb the shock.
It's quite another when you've been forced down to 10-20B and they are wanting 5B. |
| Zentrino | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 09:24 pm
I have 3 new slaves I recently took. They were all losing about 100B/month or more. They had about 25T in debt combined. They now eek out small profits and this continues to increase. If one were to look at these countries 3 weeks ago and compare them to today, it would appear that they have increased their incomes by over 100B/month. Could these represent some of the countries where income has "increased" over the past month?
I can say several of my slaves appear to have stabilized in their incomes and do quite well. It is hard to compare them to Dec or earlier since they were so new then. My main's profits have plummeted though and it is now one my least profitable countries. Some of this is due to gov't costs form having more than 10 countries but it cannot all be explained by this. |
| Keith Allaire (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 16, 2009 - 09:34 pm
For countries that were large with rich economies back in November, profits have roughly followed an L-shape.
There was a steep decline of about 20% in country revenues shortly after GM's "Deflation" announcement, with only a 2% or so decline in costs. Of course players immediately noticed the large decline in revenue and started investigating why, until they discovered the price cap (or "averaging," as Tom wishes to call it).
Profits have in fact stabilized at the LOWER level and may have increased slightly in countries that took corrective action to offset GM's changes. However profit margins still have not stabilized at levels before the deflation announcement.
Moreover, the fact that the price caps ("averaging" by Tom's definition) were withheld from the announcement concerning deflation, and the players had to throw empirical evidence at GM until the cows came home for SIX WEEKS before GM finally admitted any changes to profitability was in fact EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL to the customer base.
A change of such magnitude as to nerf high quality and the entire concept of trade strategies should have been announced WELL BEFORE implementation. The Deflation announcement that the GM no doubt considered notice of such change until his recent pillory on the forum only announced a very gradual decline in both revenue and costs.
CEOs have been able to recover some of their profits by adjusting supplies quality downward to adjust for the cap. However, this has left countries holding the bag--and countries are the entities that need to maintain certain financial index requirements to gain levels, a task that has become increasingly more difficult since the change. |
| Martock (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 03:14 am
WOOT!! My main, The Union of Lucarnia made a WHOOPING $1B in profit last month!!
Annie, Peggy, Lorraine, Phyllis, Billy and Ensemble:
- I got it!
- Well, what is it?
- A penny, a nickel...
- You got hold yo' horses and let me get the dough off!
A dime!
We're in the money,
We're in the money;
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
We're in the money,
The sky is sunny;
Old Man Depression, you are through,
You done us wrong!
We never see a headline
'Bout breadline, today,
And when we see the landlord,
We can look that guy right in the eye .
We're in the money
Come on, my honey
Let's spend it, lend it,
Send it rolling around!
All:
We're in the money,
We're in the money;
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
We're in the money,
The sky is sunny;
Old Man Depression, you are through,
You done us wrong!
We never see a headline
'Bout breadline, today,
And when we see the landlord,
We can look that guy right in the eye.
Look that guy right in the eye-
Look that guy right in the eye-
We're in the money
Come on, my honey
Let's spend it, lend it, send it-
Let's spend it, lend it, send it
Rolling, rolling-
Rolling around!
Additional Verse
Gone are my blues,
And gone are my tears;
I've got good news
To shout in your ears.
The silver dollar has returned to the fold,
With silver you can turn your dreams to gold. |
| shaun (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 12:41 pm
would just like to remind people i didnt start to play this game until after i graduated from college and became unemployed which was the end of december so i am probably among those whose income has risen as my empire has grown. but all the growth was ofcourse due to paying real life cash for gc to start and then getting the gcs for lving up to lv 5 on all worlds as quickly and cheaply as possible and only continuing to play on LU and recently kb. i am however pretty much broke gc wise so i have spent figure 500 gc x 4 worlds equals 2k gc plus i won first on LU another 170 gc and all i have left is less gc than i originaly paid for. you to can make more money now than you did 2 or 3 months ago it will just cost you 2k gcs investment ;) although i must say at one point in my main i had achieved FI over 300 and number 1 finance status but that was only for a week and i dont know how i did it or how i messed myself up  |
| nix001 | Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 08:08 pm
 Feeling your anguish Bro |
| Pathetic Sheep (White Giant) | Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 09:01 am
I haven't crunched the numbers. However, my impression is that countries that have low indexes are doing better. If you look at the countries of some top players you find over half the work force in the government sector. |
| shaun (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 10:02 am
well statisticly speaking your looking at a lopsided parabola with the peak profit potential at around 60m pop. after that you have a need of way to many hospitals and schools and that is wat eats up all those extra potential workers right?
and on top of that by this point your country is kind of older and probably has a lot more retired people. nice thing about a lower pop of 30-60m and its hard to understand this logic is you can do better with a lower health index as younger people have more babies than older people and keeping pop down keeps birth rates up its weird but ya sometimes less is more remember the parabolas of business calculus and statistics!
newer countries just have a higher percent of population that can be actualy working. |
| TuCulo EsMio (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 04:07 pm
disregard. figured it. |
| Noproblem | Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 02:24 am
doing about the same, but have increased defense costs and manpower,so doing a little better.
Have noticed that my electricity companies are not doing better, but need subsidies to not take out loans. |
| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 08:18 am
zero increase in man power in the army.
Any increase in the past two years is due to either increase in the number of weapons in the country or a move of weapons from the reserves.
The cost of the army fluctuates with the market cost of ammunition, military services and military supplies.
Also HT services, gasoline and electric power can cause changes but much smaller ones.
The salaries of man power in the army are a large factor and they declined in the past months.
these are ALL the factors in the cost of the army.
The fluctuations depend on the price your country actually pays for the products.
If you purchase high quality, the cost will be higher. |
| Kevin Henry (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 05:06 pm
To be fair, since I was vocal early in this thread, I want to say that I've seen my FI's rebound, due to no action of my own.
I do maintain there was a period of over a month were the deflation was not balanced. However, recently the army maintenance cost has declined drastically. This seems to have balanced my bottom lines. |
| Tom Willard (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 06:43 pm
Kevin,
the logic was changed in a balanced way from the start and through each and every stage.
The game behaviour depends not only on the game logic but mainly on the current data in the countries and markets.
It can take time, but at the end, data is starting to move and the direction, determined by the logic will always prevail.
We can never give exact figures but we can decide to reduce or increase by a percentage.
how it happens and how long it takes depends on what players do, the situation in their countries and market prices.
after some time, all variations remain but averages will reduce or increase by the percentage we have changed. |
