| Melno379462 (White Giant) | Friday, December 18, 2009 - 05:25 pm 
The decision to base ability to build corps based on game levels is arbitrary and wrong. The determining factors in that should be the level of trained wokers, as it is now, PLUS the educational level of the country. To penalize newer players that invest in education at the expense of the military means there will be little upward mobility. The low profit/item corps that they CAN build will flood the market driving down profitability further. Please review your decision so to give players more options and not discourage them from playing and ultimately leaving the game due to frustration at being able to advance. |
| Daelin (Little Upsilon) | Friday, December 18, 2009 - 06:18 pm
If the sole reason you're not leveling up is because of the military requirements, they're not that onerous. Level 3 (the current highest level required for the high tech corps) only requires a Defensive Force Index of 55. If you're not interested in building up a military, then the most effective way to do that will be to purchase about 12.6k MIB's in your country and maybe cost you 4B/month in military costs, which is not prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider the more "profitable" corps you'll be able to build.
Rewarding countries who maintain a higher level on a long-term basis seems like a great idea to me. Most people level up to get the GC rewards, then immediately drop down, seeing no benefit in staying at an elevated level. This provides an incentive. |
| Melno379462 (White Giant) | Friday, December 18, 2009 - 07:43 pm
i am in the process of leveling up, but it takes time...i did some research to back up my point about the level corps products...here's the stats on level 1 corp that don't show surpluses 1.mining-2, 2. agruculture-0, 3.food-2, 4.construction-1 (only one in there), 5.govt.-1, 6.industry-3, 7.defense/offense-0, 8.high tech-0, 9.utilities-0, 10. services-1, 11.recreaction-1....so of all the level 1 corps available , there are only 11 with shortages....if everyone is forced into those, how long do you think that will remain...this game is about having "free markets" and if i have a failing corp(like my solid fuel corp which i finally closed) then thats a risk i accept...but don't "steer" me toward failure because of a misguided requirement...PS i got that info from "Build a New Corp" tab so everyone can check it out...thanks for reading |
| CraftyCockney (Little Upsilon) | Friday, December 18, 2009 - 08:19 pm
I would like to know the justification/reasoning behind the limitations. Perhaps the GM would like to comment?
It seems like it would be a good thing to have the lesser built corps become more viable but that is only going to happen if C3s truly only build corp types that are in shortage as they have been said to. Also the C3s advantage in quality may need to be adjusted.
All in all though, food, mining etc. should be more in the hands of the real players, so hopefully the encouragement, although enforced, to build such corps will turn out to be a positive thing.
I look forward to the proliferation of soybean corps in my countries.
Crafty. |
| Inanna (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, December 18, 2009 - 11:34 pm
I am glad that now I have managed to privatize most of my countries corps. This eliminates the headache of having to level up to get profitable corps.
So Melno I agree with you this was a silly idea. Btu you can close your stae corps, drop your taxes and invite ceos. I have alot of ceos trying to get in my countries right now and they are almost at capacity. I am sure they would move to your country as well. |
