| FredMark (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 09:18 am 
I was wondering when Supply exploit is going to be fixed?
I believe it is most disturbing exploit and it should be either:
1. Clearly stated in documentation as a game feature
2. Fixed ASAP.
Explanation of exploit.
If you look at Quaxocal's Procifica 'PC Gasoline 100' corporation (as of midnight eastern of Feb 17), you will see that he buys higher total SC$ at lower quality and lower total at higher:
Product____________Monthly Use______Avg. QL___Unit Price (SC$)__Q's Cost (MIL $SC)_Cost at QL 169
Chemicals__________75,000_______________102_______________1010_________________77_____________128
Electric Power______2,000_______________100______________78131________________156_____________264
FMU____________________66_______________102____________2590000________________174_____________288
HTech Services_____75,000_______________273________________282_________________57______________35
Oil_____________2,450,000_______________103________________587_______________1481____________2430
HHold Products_____10,000_______________210_______________2241_________________47______________37
Services___________50,000_______________291________________333_________________48______________28
Total Cost___________________________________________________________________2042____________3213
Average Quality (unit)__________________111.69
Average Quality (line)__________________168.71
Q's savings ______________________________________________________1170.78498 Mil$SC
As a result, he is saving 1.17B per game month on cost of materials (numbers above assume quality impact on price of 100%, but my extrapolation analysis tells me it is more like 85% nowadays).
In other words, if you have 6 line items(components) and 3 of them QL 200 and 3 other QL100, it seems resulting QL is 200.
As far as you can purchase (via personal common market, for example) most expensive components at lower quality, you save ton of money.
This exploit saves you a bunch on all products, but if you are especially greedy as some, you select high-volumetric products.
You see, not all products are equal. Median volumetric production volume at QL/EL 100 is 614Mil in base prices, and most products stay close to that number. However, there are some that much higher in sales volume and compensate by cost of materials. First 20 of that list (as of 12 days ago):
Product_________________Units per Corp__Mil SC$ Per Corp
Nuclear Missiles________0.154___________2028
Strategic Bombs_________0.125___________1958
Nuclear Sub Missiles____0.125___________1619
Gasoline______________2350000___________1528
Aircraft Fuel_________2075000___________1432
Tactical Nuclear Weapons__0.2___________1340
Strategic Bombers___0.1666667___________1097
Nuclear Submarines__0.1428571____________957
Chemical Missiles________0.25____________945
Electric Power__________20000____________918
Oil___________________2600000____________910
FMU_______________________600____________858
Airports__________0.055555556____________833 (Base Price Estimated)
Tactical Weap Launchers__0.25____________813
Plutonium___________________8____________800
Jewelry___________________155____________777
Strat Military Bases_0.166667____________772
Special Forces Units________1____________765
For that matter, Quaxocal is selecting gasoline and flood the world with it with ABSOLUTELY NO ECONOMIC RISK.
The reason he does not have a risk, it is that he is guaranteed with over a billion of savings at base prices. As far as prices realistically fluctuate between +85% and -25%, he is destined to make money NO MATER WHAT. As far as game masters provide shortfall and purchase surplus, he will always sell gasoline on GR at -25% making his $1B per month.
It does not make any sense to me and it is definitely an exploit, as far as:
If I manufacture microprocessor, I can not put least expensive dye and place it in most fancy packaging assuming it creates same level of product as reverse. It simply nonsense.
But, if we look at this issue from purely fantasy (game) standpoint, such exploit is bad for overall economy as far as it breaks economic incentives and creates unfair advantage. I absolutely can't see how W3C could make such exploit by design but let's wait and see what they can say about it.
It is my understanding that exploit was around for some time (about 13 months) and Q learned it from some veteran player at some point and brought it to absolutely extreme level.
So, lets fix it once and for all:
1. Easy fix (bottleneck theory): QL will be determined by line-item with LOWEST QL. In such instance above example would produce QL 100.
2. Proper fix (Weighted average). QL will be determined by formula:
SUM i=0..n( Base_Price(n)*Quantity(n)*Quality(n))/SUMi=0..n(Base_Price(n)*Quantity(n)).
In such case Q's QL at above example would be approximately 107%(based on market weighting, not base).
Both scenarios do not require massive amount of processing power, as far as in second example 'weight' can be calculated upfront and used on quality adjustment for line item of BOM (bill of materials). I don't suggest using market price for that reason, besides using base will still give some marginal leverage to micro-managers who would like to play on market price to base for components (and I believe for 2-5% of extra profit such paramount work is justifed).
On a side note: Gamemasters may consider adjusting salaries for high-volumetric products upwards as well, as far as gasoline about 18% price advantageous for that matter to missiles (with no exploits and by current by design).
Finally.
I communicated to Q on GREF message board urging him to stop this abuse and gave him 2 weeks starting Feb 2. After that I was contacted by some veteran players asking me not to go public with this before the whole economy turmoil is settled. And, with all honesty, most of folks were very nice to me (and noone abused it to extreme Q did). As far as Q decided to continue with his (not his actually, it was known before) exploit, I was left with no other choice. So for all of you guys who's war effort could impacted by a possible fix I apologize upfront if it is to happen.
FredMark
|
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 10:04 am
So if I understand you correctly your complaining because he does something that almost every economic player does? |
| Kiteless (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 12:13 pm
Is this a specific dig at Q after he arranged boycotts against you, following your decision to threaten a fellow fed member?
And while you're here, why did you message me and demand that I don't bid on C3 corps that you have placed a bid on?
Do you have sole rights to place bids on C3 corps? |
| Nute Gunray (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 02:13 pm
Greetings Mr. FredMark of Golden Rainbow.
I ask that you read several other post on these forums so that you can be enlightened to the fact that the Gamemaster is working hard to fix real problems that He has seen. Now with that being said let me ask you a question, "What should you do if somebody falls down?"
I will not go on to list out all the real problems the Gamemaster is working on, but I will tell you this much one of the biggest priotities is on solving the shortages. Like for example in almost every country there are no trains available to haul the products to market. Yet ther are miles upon miles of traintracks. Of course even the shortage of trains has a lower priority than the shortage of certain weapons and ammo. So if you are really worried about this problem you might want to answer the call that Mr. Willard has issued to all sim players-- Build 5 ammo corporations in each of your countries, and CEOs. -- I also recomand that you begin to build some train corporations as well.
Finally, if you see another player using an agressive business practice try to see how that player is doing it and maybe repeat it. You never know you may just reap higher profits.
Good work Mr. Q. I am glad to see that you did not give in to this player's demands. I would say you should run your countries and CEO s the way that you see fit.
Live Long and Prosper
High Profits to all
Nute Gunray |
| Petra Arkanian (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 04:12 pm
It's not an exploit, you incredible fucktard, Fredmark.
Jesus Christ, grow some fucking balls and learn how to counter his economic warfare, or build corps in another sector and ignore it. You are a worthless waste of bandwidth for trying to get people to do your dirty work for you.
Perhaps you'd like to post threads about this and myself in the LU section?
1.) Deal with the fact that certain players actually vie for market share in market
2.) if you don't like it, then compete with those players, or GTFO
3.) ??????
4.) PROFIT!!!
But your whining and bitching it counter-productive. It's like you WANT the gamemasters to destroy yet another aspect of the game so everyone can hold hands and care-bear along.
This is an official notice that you'd better keep within a secured main or war protection on LU for your asshattery. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 04:23 pm
he hath neither wit nor word yet insists on saying nothing at great length badly |
| Leen Dierts | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 04:41 pm
Good post FredMark. Continue to use your freedom of speech on this forum. You have my support.
I am surprised to learn that some veteran players asked you not to publish your explanation of the "supply-exploit".
I would not call it an exploit. It is just an undocumented, unlogical feature of the game. The question remains if it is unfair to use this "property" of the games-economy. We can't blame Q for bringing it to extreme levels.
I do fully agree with your first statement:
This "feature" should clearly be stated in documentation as a game feature (or fixed).
I did not bother to look into Q's enterprise, but i assume he/she is specializing in Gasoline. That can give huge profits, but specializing is risky too. When lots of others copy the strategy, or when the game-rules are tweaked, you end up with lots of debts.
BTW, somewhere in the game-documentation you can read the advise to new players, to look into the bussines of succesfull players, to learn how they do it. |
| Kiteless (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 04:55 pm
Quote:Good post FredMark. Continue to use your freedom of speech on this forum. You have my support.
Sounds like envy and sour grapes to me. |
| Zentrino (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 07:12 pm
I am just wondering if he has such a clear grasp of this unlimited profit potential, why isn't he just doing it in his own corps? Especially in this economic climate. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 07:21 pm
It's maybe undocumented but it certainly isn't illogical, and it is no more a game feature than telling you how to IPO or balance your workers etc or many other facets.
You play, take your chances and live and learn! |
| quaxocal | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 07:25 pm
I'm just going to respond with a few simple things.
1) I figured it out on my own, no veteran player told me of it. I was not aware it was more common knowledge among vets until about a month later.
2) There are many players who use this, not just me.
3) It has been around for years.
4) It takes a considerable amount of time to set up, and takes considerable time and effort to maintain.
5) With the market price cap of 290-297% in place, the savings from this is LESS than what fredmark describes.
6) If Gasoline or Aircraft fuel prices fall below about 120% of market price, I lose money per corp just like everyone else. Currently, none of my gasoline or aircraft fuel corps are profitable on Golden Rainbow. Gasoline and Aircraft Fuel are VERY high risk, if the price falls too much, you're losing a ton of money each month. Right now, I'm losing a ton of money on each of those corps.
7) If this was endless money or profit potential as Fredmark describes it, I would be building nothing but these corps. A look at my slave countries shows, that this is not the case. I have plenty of Oil, Medical Materials, Electric Power, FMU, etc. elsewhere. I would say there's a good reason for that.
8) Fredmark, how does ANY of this personally affect you?
9) Your chart is outdated. FMU, Aircraft Fuel, and Gasoline production, are all lower than what your chart has.
10) I picked gasoline/aircraft fuel to specialize in BEFORE I figured anything like this out.
11) Why do I have to follow YOUR rules as to what I can or can't do in this game? Why is it up to YOU, a relatively new player? Nute is right, I should not have to give into your demands.
and 12) Raw material cost/savings is not the only factor in what corporations to build. Demand, salaries, etc. play an important role.
I hope this clears up some confusion.
Q |
| jason (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 07:36 pm
"It's like you WANT the gamemasters to destroy yet another aspect of the game so everyone can hold hands and care-bear along. " well said wild!
 |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 07:56 pm
any one feel like preemptively holding hands?
With Regards,
Dragoon |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 08:06 pm
There is no confusion Q, just an ego trip on his part.
if he looks at my stuff he will find somethin else he doesn't know! |
| FredMark (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 08:49 pm
You know guys, it is rather interesting.
First of all, why would you not be discussing exploit by itself. Whatever you think about my motivations, I believe it besides the point.
Why would we discuss instead if such 'feature' is ultimately helping the game or hurting it. It is my believe it is hurting it and it makes no sense. If yours is that is helping it, please explain why.
As far as whining concern, I am not the one who is whining.
I actually do not see why Tom Willard changes all that bad at all, nor I see the flaw in his logic (most part, anyway).
Lets check reality:
As it stands right now, I simulated that broad spectrum corp enterprise equally invested (225/225) on C3 (41% resource used, 30% tax) is destined to make much over 10% profit on turnover, with maybe exception of White Giant, but even there it still be profitable.
I also like to mention you are given 30%!!! (can I close my 401K and invest for half that?) with guaranteed repayment on loans.
As I stated before, it appears gamemasters provide components shortfall and buying off surplus.
On top of that, that are buying and selling cash off the market and created effective 2.75T per 1 mil pop cap that is important for new players.
I do understand that changes are painful, but is a game after all. Think about new tweaking as a new set of challenges you need to overcome, that I assume you are playing game for.
And if you guys do not see it is an exploit, why do you worry at all? It is either one way or another.
Finally:
I never understood such animosity towards me, I am just a messenger. And as I mentioned before most people were reasonable, WildEyes was not the one who was.
And I heard that message loud and clear first time two weeks ago, thats why I am not expanding.
So, there are couple of things I would say for the matter:
1. Threats typically do not provide long-term benefit, as it calling names.
2. It is not the only game (as much I enjoy it). If it is come to it I would not be miserable as WildEyes (Petra Arkanian) suggested to me two weeks ago, I would rather pursue other interests. As any sane person would do.
So I suggest let us come to the subject and concentrate on substance.
PS. There is an obvios type in my first post, it should be read 3 components QL300 and 3 components QL100 to give you average of QL200 |
| Petra Arkanian (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 09:59 pm
I explained to you in detail why I do not like you.
You do not fight your own battles. There are correct ways to do things and incorrect ones. Because you don't like how Q runs his economy you want the GMs to close off his ability to run it in the manner he does. This would be the same as someone not liking the ability to use long range missile attacks asking the GM to remove conventional missiles. Same principle. Fight your own fucking wars.
You are too dense to understand where the animosity is coming from.
Would you like the GMs to remove the ability for someone to tax their own CEO corps 75% as well?
What exactly would you like to discuss about this feature? The fact that you can do it with any and all corps? How is it hurting game play? All it does is save players cost - that is helping gameplay, not hurting it. It's the same as switching over to fixed quality instead of buying 'any quality,' albeit more refined and advanced.
You're just butthurt because 1. Q was mean to you, and 2. you can't cope with his aggressive economic tactics, such as spiking and dumping the market to remove competition. Guess what? That's part of the game. You can do it with any market sector, it's called economic warfare. DGoE did it for months and months on LU and all the experienced players knew not to invest too heavily in those markets because their corps would get burned.
So, in short:
Get over your butthurt, then, either do something about Quax and his economic tactics on YOUR OWN, or promptly GTFO. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 10:17 pm
you're wasting your time Petra |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 10:35 pm
Fredmark, I ask again, how is any of what you posted HARMING YOU?
Why single ME out when there are many others doing the exact same thing? I can think of at least 2 dozen off the top of my head.
If I recall correctly, you threatened me with war if I didn't stop doing something YOU did not like.
Why is MY doing of so much interest to YOU?
You're doing a good job of making others upset. Petra is NOT someone you want to upset. Trust me on this.
Your sole purpose on these forums, from what I have seen, is to try to accuse "me" of abusing what YOU consider an "exploit". Why don't you find something more useful to do with your time, rather than try to sabotage me?
If the GM changes how that works, then fine, I will adapt. It saves me the time of having to maintain and set it up. If they leave it as is, then I will continue to run my corporations the way I see fit. I don't need YOU to tell me what is right or wrong.
If you don't like me, that's fine, you don't have to. Doesn't mean you have to single me out, for something which others do too, and which is not an exploit.
And for the record, I had NO problems with fredmark until he posted threatening me, here and in our federation forum.
By the way, that 30% interest on loans is a REAL LIFE YEAR worth of interest. The actual interest in-game is paltry.
And fredmark, in a way, you're getting your wish. They have increased twice now, the workers used for gasoline/aircraft fuel corps, and I suspect this will continue. Soon, gasoline/aircraft fuel will not be profitable at all, due to too high of expenses. When/if this occurs, I will adapt by switching to some other corporation(s). A large pain, but I will have to deal with it when/if the time comes. It should not concern YOU though, what happens to ME.
Try minding your own business, fredmark, might help you.
Q |
| Petra Arkanian (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 10:53 pm
"I also like to mention you are given 30%!!! (can I close my 401K and invest for half that?) with guaranteed repayment on loans. "
LMAO! I can't believe I missed that.
Fredmark, you are a dunce. The actual in game interest, on a loan carried to term, is something like 1/16% (in game). Not even enough to make it worth giving loans, because odds are you'll start reaping financial fees which will negate the meager interest you collected.
A while ago, it used to be 180%, or, as it was previously displayed, 1% per game year.... loans in SC have always been much lower than RL equivalents. But, W3, in their wisdom, decided to display interest in RL years rather than game years. That is why there is this ridiculous rate. |
| FredMark | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 11:36 pm
About loans
I am not sure why it is at all important to calculate loans in terms of game years.
And it is clearly understandable why W3C would do financial services:
As far as they are paying USD for coins, game cash is convertible to real life money, so would it's interest. For that matter, I can buy some coins convert it into cash and lend out (and convert profits back).
1% per game year would be 6% per day on LU. They tied interest to real life year for the reason, and side benefit that you can't profit much from time scale difference between LU and WG.
I know it seems to you that any real (effort-substantiated) gain can not be achieved in meaningful terms that way. But you are wrong as world of micro-financing teaches us. Similarly to 3rd world countries' "gold farmers" who collect and sell MMORPG's cash on e-bay, it may create an attractive option even at 30% (probably half realistically) generating extra $10 per month of income (for example).
And if allowed at greater scale, I would not know anyone right now who would not be happy with 2-4% return on their bonds (risk adjusted).
All those guys effort to de-inflate cash is to make this game not attractive to "players" that participate for a reason of converting coins into USD. And, as such, is not only understandable, but should be supported by people who play game for the reason of playing. |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:09 am
Fredmark, you can only convert $25/month into USD, and that's only if you can amass 500 coins/month.
Even Laguna or Treasurer (now Jason) do not have enough cash out in loans to make anywhere near that kind of money (and they have the most by far).
And that would be 0.5% per day on LU, not 6%. |
| Nute Gunray | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:19 am
Greetings Petra Arkanian of Kebir Blue, I think i would like to get in on the action against Mr. FredMark of Golden Rainbow. I think it would be real fun to watch his factories melt when the cloud of fallout transverses his countries. Then he might think twice as he sees his profit dip and he has to go into debt. It would be real cool to see my neighbor Mr. Q fire like 20 or 30 nuclear missiles at this Mr. FredMark of Golden Rainbow. How about it Mr. Q shall we nuke Mr. FredMark of Golden Rainbow to teach him to mind his own business???
Mr. FredMark of Golden Rainbow why do not you address the more important issues of the shortage of products?? Come on build 5 ammo corps like Mr. Willard has requested. By the way remember to build several factories that make trains. We need more trains to keep all these products going to market.
High Profits to All even Mr. FredMark of Golden Rainbow
Nute Gunray |
| FredMark (Kebir Blue) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 01:12 am
Q you are right, it would be 0.5%, but I stated $10 in my example and was aware of $25 limit.
Nute, as I mentioned earlier you can't really nuke me directly. You can nuke my neighbors and damage me by fallout if you wish. And I produce enough missiles (who would not at +80% price premium and 400% shortfall?). I suggest you look at missiles and follow excellent advise building more missile corps. |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:43 am
don't see any premium prices |
| FredMark (White Giant) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 03:31 pm
Coolwind,
By Price premium I mean difference between market and base price.
W3C implemented pricing and price stability rather brilliantly.
In any rate, without going to exhaustive detail, price variates between approx -25% and +85% to base.
So, when you invested into missile interceptors with no exploit on GR today, you will be actually making more money then with gasoline and exploit.
Needless to say, if you invested in missiles and using exploit, you will be making even more.
In addition, when I say gasoline is 18% price advantageous, I mean you making the same amount of money off gasoline price level 0 as you would with missiles at price level 18% (with no exploit used on both sides).
However Q is right, looks like W3C finally recognized that salary levels of high-volumetric products are the same as low volumetric and adjusting it (or doing something with salaries for that matter - I did only spot-check).
Hope it helps |
| coolwind (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 05:20 pm
wasn't asking for any help |
| quaxocal (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 07:10 pm
Fred, that should read -70%, not -25%.
You know, for all of your dislike toward me, you fail to realize that alot of the things I post or point out, are meant to help all players. Exchange of information is good. Some things which I know, I choose not to share mainly because I haven't 100% tested them, or designed a good way of doing it that doesn't require tedious work. There are a few nice things I have in the works, but haven't posted yet because I'm not 100% sure I am correct. I don't have Excel and other programs to assist me with my work. Its just me and my brain and windows calculator.
For the record, missile interceptors doesn't benefit much from the method you describe in the thread. I wouldn't consider it worth it to set up and maintain.
Q |
| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 10:48 pm
First of all Q I do not have any strong negative feelings towards you. In fact, I find you most insightful and intelligent individual in this game. Under different circumstances, I can see as both benefiting from each other.
I have not found -70%. As of late I found several products broke level 0f -30% and those on GR are:
Attack Torpedoes -31%
Uranium -32%
Radar Planes -32%
Attack Boats -32%
Cotton -32%
Seals Units -33%
Cocoa -33%
Beans -33%
Airplanes -35%
Cargo Airplanes -35%
However, moving weighted averages still within range of 25. And you know as well as do how volatility plays the role in the pricing model they implemented.
In any case, worst for the 5 game years weighted average (by units) ending yesterday was
Offensive Military Airports -28% 90%
Where 90% was average 5 years surplus factor.
However, for all intends and purposes,it is absolutely unusual case.
On a side note, It is also can be unusual on up side nowadays, such as:
Elementary schools 78% -130% 107%
Where 78% is 2 years weighted average price premium,
-130% 2 years average demand factor
and 107% is price factor as of game month 7-2622 (last).
And I have never seen even spiked price factor ever reaching -40%. I also have not seen prices topping 100% price premium till 3 days ago.
As for MI
Base cost of materials for missile interceptors is
Missle Interseptors 248372500 (in base prices of components)
and it was Missle Interseptors 412560540 in market prices on the same months listed above.
Assume you agree on quality impact on price of 0.85 you will be saving at base price - that would consititute absolutely worst case scenario on savings (248372500*0.62*0.85)=130892307.5 or 131 mil (much less than a billion, but very respectful.
If if you disagree that there quality impact adjustment, and assume 296% hard cap (so factor remains one), you actual saving would be absolutely best scenario on savings:
412560540*0.65=268164351 or 268mil. And that is 25% premium and it does add up. So, if W3C consider your method not to be an exploit, I would consider expand your method to missiles as well.
BTW, I used 65% savings as it was demonstrated in the first post.
Hope it helps. |
| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:02 pm
Well, I found absolutely worst product is in WG
Soybeans -31% -38% 46%
Where
-31 is last price factor
-38 is 5 years average price factor
46% is surplus ratio |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:49 am
Q about not having Excel hit me up some time I have something you might like and trust me bud you deserve it.
Fredmark, munitions corps are not currently designed to turn much of a profit if any at all check your finances your probably losing money out of those corps.
With Regards,
Dragoon |
| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 06:11 pm
Missiles do make good profit.
They are somewhat disadvantageous because they are low-volumetric and cost of salaries somewhat high, but their price premium practically never fall below 65% due to demand factor over 100% and high volatility:
This is my statement for C3 Republic of Nelra on LU Missle Interseptors (41% resource used, 30% tax). I do not use supply trick.
Products Sold Current Month 0.00M SC$
Cash Available Now 28,299.25M SC$ Click to see history
Products Sold Last Year 44,102.30M SC$
Profit Last Year 8,802.60M SC$
Net Profit Last Year 6,161.82M SC$
Products Sold Last Month 3,484.38M SC$ Click to see history
Profit Last Month 606.61M SC$ Click to see history
Net Profit Last Month 606.61M SC$ Click to see history
Assets 77,024.28M SC$ Click to see history
Market Value 386,832.39M SC$ Click to see history
Outstanding Loans 0.00M SC$ Click to see history
Value of Supplies 5,792.05M SC$ Click to see history
Production Last Month 77 Click to see history
Production Level Last Month 118.30 % Click to see history
Employment Level Last Month 100.00 % Click to see history
Production Process Quality 225 Click to see history
Quality of the Product 333.0 Click to see history
Production Process Effectivity 225 Click to see history
Welfare Index 118.3
I do use a spreadsheet:
C3 profitability of Missle Intereptors calculation based on average cost of materials over 2 years, according to it:
Product Missile Interceptors
Market Profit $405
Base Profit $647
Price Factor A2 70%
Surplus Factor A2 -260%
Capacity Factor 1138
Capacity Change 2Y 67
Price F Last 69%
Surplus F Last -263%
Price F A5 70%
Surplus F A5 -332%
Capacity Change 5Y 53
Where
Market Profit is profit that calculated based on market prices (average 2 years) of missiles and all components (but does not account on savings from trade strategy).
Base Profit assumes the same bu all materials bought at base price
Price factor A2 is percentile difference between market and base price (A2 stands for A-average 2-2 years).
Surplus factor is percentile value of surplus divided by supply (so, in this instance, shortfall was 2.6 times of supply)
Capacity factor. It is a number that calculates how many fully upgraded corps (producing at 160% efficiency) is needed in order to fully absorb shortfall
Capacity change 2Y stands for how much shortfall changed over 2 years, in terms of fully upgraded corps. It does not necessary mean that there was 67 net change in corps, it may mean that demand has fallen or W3C injection of supply.
Data "last" and "5" is the same reflecting very last value and averages over 5 years.
How market and base profit are calculated:
It assumes 225/225 C3 with, in this case, Salary level 301% (the one I use at LU), fixed cost 19M, tax 30% and resources used 41%.
It assumes quality impact on price at 85% and salary impact on productivity at 4% per 100.
Market profit calculates actual cost of all materials, but does not take into consideration trade strategy. As far as materials are trading at premium here, you see 250mil less market profit compare to base profit. In some instances, particularly on WG, you see reverse because a lot of products are selling below base.
As you can see, the worst setting on C3 still gives you 14% on turnover and will make you 4.2T per game year on 700 C3 corps.
It is 4 net coins on WG, GR and FB,
5 net coins on KB and
6 net coins on LU.
When you apply supply exploit, you get about 34% more profit, due to high cost of materials. |
