| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 09:07 am 
Please stop automatic cash tranfers to corporations. Can there be a way to turn this off and on and control the level at which cash leaves countries and enterprises and into corporations. If a business is losing money why put more money into it why not let it close or close it yourself. I hate dumping T's into losing corps. Tell me what you think, should they add more options to automatic cash transfers to corps, i know for sure we all dump money into this area of the game, and it may even be our biggest waste expense. |
| Dave (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 12:59 pm
Agreed or at least tell us which is the 'leakey' corporation I hate seeing a transfer on my expense report and then have to go through each company to see who got it |
| Maestro2000 | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 02:42 pm
agreed |
| Tom Willard | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 05:29 pm
Before the automatic cash transfers, people lost corporations that bankrupted while they were not looking, or they complained about corporate loans they did not ask for.
what you can do:
check the profit & loss page on the corporations page (shows all corporations, their cash and profit or loss.)
Close all the money losing corporations (These are your leaking corporations) and all transfers will stop.
You can also check last year profit & loss on the page of the corporation).
As long as you have corporations that make large losses, long term, you will need cash to support them.
Not transferring the cash does not solve the need for cash, it just drives these corporations into bankruptcy. |
| Solaris (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 08:17 pm
I have an enterprise comprised solely of electric power corps, most of which are fully upgraded and they are all profitable, yet billions are transferred into them which is nullifying its overall profit. I cannot figure out why this is. The same is happening in other enterprises which have a mixture of corps. This is of less concern as some corps post regular losses.
If I closed all leaking corporations, I dread to think how few corps, if any, would be left. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 08:25 pm
I would rather have them go bankrupt and pay of the loans than paying into a losing corps forever and ever, corps are made to go bankrupt, can you at least give us the option of turning this on and off. There should be an option page of truning on or off cash transfer for each corp or all in general this way you can keep money losing corps you want and let money losing corps you dont want tgo bankrupt. By giving us the option it would make enterprises not have to spend T's of their money into unprofitable corps they do not want. I would like to see them close and go bankrupt and yes i would pay of those loans than see cash transfers of 350B each game month. Sooner or later the closed banrupt corps would be gone and only profitable corps ould remain, but please with an option to turn this on and off for each corp or all in general it would make it better for those of us who want it or do not want it. |
| SirSmokesAlot (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 08:35 pm
I agree with Q. |
| Tom Willard | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 08:50 pm
I looked at the spark enterprise on KB.
All electric power companies.
Most of the corporations are making losses, some are profitable. Check for yourself, most are losers.
As a result, the entire enterprise is making a loss, not a profit and of course, some cash is transferred.
many corporations do not sell all their products because of the trade strategy. the offering price is too high. reduce the offering price and they will sell more quickly (there is a shortage on the market) and more corporations will become profitable.
If at some time, electric power will be in oversupply, this enterprise will collapse.
moving cash into the corporation, does not have an influence on the profit. moving cash has an influence on the value of the corporation. It does not represent income or cost for the corporation.
the cash is moved in because the corporations are losing money and might need loans or bankrupt.
|
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 11:05 pm
Tom i understand your point of moving in cash to stop if from getting loans and going bankrupt, but for some of us and i would rather it get loans and than go bankrupt than continuing to give a corporation money for a finite amount of time until not even the cash infusions help. Currently i just gave a record amount of cash trasnfers of not of my own doing of 350B last game month for my enterprise to corporations i have no idea it went to, what if i no longer want those corps to continue to take my cash why not let them take out loans, go bankrupt, or if i see them with loans i my self will pay for it and close it, at least with the option or turning it on and off we can choose which companies to save and which ones we do not want to save. |
| Crafty (Kebir Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 12:07 am
Q, like Tom says, your best bet is to look at the profit/loss page for all corps. From this you can also sort of tell which corps need a little attention (low cash levels), which corps are v.good and generally get the idea of how your trade strats are working as you can judge spikes of good sales and no sales. |
| David Walker (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 12:41 am
I like the automatic cash transfer feature and would not turn it off if I had the choice, but I certainly won't object to anyone asking to have a choice. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 01:07 am
Craft i get your point of that also, than i have the best solution for both points, give me a page where i can IPO my corps if they are able and i can IPO them all at once like in my last poll so that i no longer have to send cash to them and can raise it on the open market. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 01:09 am
Also craft its not just me but others, Maestro, solaris and sirsmokesalot, if i put this to a vote on the poll vote page i bet 39/4 would say yes to an option for this. Look im not saying get rid of the feature but at least give us an option of sending money to certain companies we choose or do not choose. Options are great, no options make it bad. |
| Crafty (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 02:17 am
Yeah fine, like David Walker said no problem in having a choice. I just like to look for ways around things, and was offering the benefit of my experience is all. Good luck. |
| Laguna | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 09:29 am
1. Turn it off;
2. Make it optional;
3. Make it exclusive to national corps. |
| Kolenski (White Giant) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 04:57 pm
Turn it off or make it optional |
| Quetzalcoatl (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 06:16 pm
I like lagunas idea, but see, there is strong support for this idea becuase some of us dump T's into these falling corps when they should just fall and go bankrupt. |
| Tom Willard | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 06:32 pm
Letting corporations bankrupt is not a very good idea.
The outstanding loans are inherited by the owner (the country or enterprise).
You don't want them to bankrupt. You should check their profit/loss and loans on the pages that show all corporations at once.
You should then decide which ones you want to keep and which ones you want to close.
Checking why they make losses is also an idea you might consider.
It could be that salaries are very high while market price for the product is down (temporarily). or they might not have the workers they need or the raw materials.
Once you decide that some corporations can not have a profitable future, close them directly before they go bankrupt and leave you with more loans.
The money they might have (automatic transfers) is also inherited by the owner. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 08:26 pm
Okay Tom i Think i see a way to save some value out of these corps, are you saying that if i close the really losing corps and they still as of yet have no loans and i close them i will keep any remaining cash they have in the corp. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 08:27 pm
Also why not have the option it could be fun supporting national industries and setting the cash we want to be transfered in or out each month. |
| Tom Willard | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 08:53 pm
cash is then moved to the owner.
Loans, if the corporation has some, too.
The automation is made for people who do not want to go into these corporations and fix them manually.
if you do want to intervene, why another feature?
go to the cash management page. it shows all the corporations, and their cash positions and you can move cash in or out of all your corporations at once, with a single click.
also, after cash is moved in automatically, you can go to this page and take all the cash the corporations have back out with the same single click.
You can also pay back all their loans at once, give them some cash and no automatic transfers will be needed for a long time. |
| Laguna | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 08:58 pm
So instead of letting unsuccessful corps fail, you prefer to have unsuccessful corps drag a country and enterprise even faster to bankruptcy?
The only reason this was implemented was due to order issues problems related with shuttle corps and bankrupted nuclear corps. That was only thing that should have been fixed. We do not care if other corps get closed. And if we there's any temporary problem we care about, we transfer money manually instead.
We asked for those issues to be solved and now we are asking for this to stop. At least we want the option to decide which corps get help and those who don't. |
| Tom Willard | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 09:05 pm
This feature had nothing to do with one type of corporation or another.
it was created to reduce the huge numbers of small loans in 400.000 corporations and luckily, it is all gone now. The loans are concentrated in the countries and enterprises and even there, declining.
This whole thing is quite trivial as cash can be moved in and out very easily at all time and such cash movements have no implications what so ever to profits and no consequences to the decisions by presidents and CEOs as to which corporations should be closed. |
| Orbiter (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 09:10 pm
maybe nothing really has to change, and instead, put a special icon next to any corp that has had a loss for over a single year...
looking through 500 corps, to find the ones you want to get rid of, is, well, i don't want to. manually transferring in cash every day, i also don't want to do that. i also don't want to keep hemeraging money into looser corps. but any corp can loose money, any given month. so i can use the "profit, cash, and debt," screen to notice the ones that are loosing money. but i'd have to click on the graph, or open every corp to figure out whether its continually loosing money...
i think that the intention here, can be reached, just by putting a special icon next to any corp that has lost money for over a year, or 5 years... what ever. that way, looser corps can be easily identified, rather than pooring through literally thousands of corps... and avoiding having to manually put cash into my corps, in 7 CEO's, and 30 some countries... thousands of corps... litterally.
with my thousands of corps, i just don't have time to go through them individuality. to manually poor money into them. i like the automatic cash transfer feature. but the fact remains that looser corps take allot of resources. and finding them can be difficult. putting a special icon next to looser corps, would allow us to identify the loosers, fix or cut them. with out forcing me to spend endless hours just keeping my stuff with positive cash
put canceling the cash transfer feature, will end up not only bankrupting allot of corps, but allot of enterprises, and countries. |
| David Walker (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 09:17 pm
This thread to be getting slightly confused. On the whole, I'm on Tom's side and if I set up a corporation, I want to be the one to close it and not the automation settings, whether it requires cash subsidy or not.
I'm perfectly happy with current automatic cash transfers as corporation closing was a problem for a number of years.
The issue is solely to do with the ability to switch a feature on or off (possibly for each corporation) and not the benefits or negatives of a particular strategic decision. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 09:54 pm
Solution Based on all posted points.
All in all after reading the responses from alot of people who posted on this thread i think i have come up with a solution. A combination of Orbitor and david walker and my idea.
putting a special icon next to any corp that has lost money for over 5 years and has had more than 5 Cash transfers or something in that way. So if a corporation has had 5 cash transfers put a small icon for possible review. Or a combination of these ideas, create a page where it will show you possible corps you may want to close, here you can close three at a time per month but the thing is, is that it will show you which corps you may want to close based on profit over a long run and multiple cash transfers. Becuase it is hard to see which corporation has lost money over a really long time we do not know which to close and which to keep open and keep suporting for a while till the market picks up. For really advance users one with an enterprise for more than 180 Days cash automatic transfers can be turned on or off based on the individual CEO or presidents. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 09:56 pm
SOLUTION POSTED ABOVE ^^^^ |
| Laguna | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 11:47 pm
I'm an adept of parsimony, so I like to keep things simple. Turning it off sounds like simple enough.
Did anyone had money problems before this? Do you think having countries in debt helps and causes a better impression on newbs than corp in debt? Things look simple enough. Giving an option to turn it off sounds good too. I want my bad corps to close on their own. I'm not a micromanager. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 16, 2011 - 11:50 pm
True, thats why he solution i came up with i think is best, people who want it can have it on and micro mannage with the sulution above i posted and those who want it off can have it off. |
| Accordion_This (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 01:25 am
Reading through this whole thing, an issue that I don't really care about, I've noticed one thing the whole way through: the GM is arguing with the players. Just a friendly suggestion: as the owners of Simcountry, your job is not to argue with the players, but to try and make the game as appealing as possible so that you can make money. Arguing with your player base and ignoring what they want in favour of crap like shuttles and selenium just means a loss of money for you, really, as your player base drifts away and you fail to get new members.
It's like a corporation with a fixed-price contract during an oversupply, really. If you break the contract, you're not going to sell, so what you need to do is make sure that you keep the other enterprise happy so you can make some money.
You're running a simulation game here which is pretty niche, doesn't have widespread appeal, etc. And it will never have widespread appeal - most of your new members will come from word of mouth, not flashy logos or pages. If you entice new members in with flashy crap and then pull this shit on them, they're going to leave. If you pull this shit on vets continuously, they're going to leave. Solution - stop pulling this shit - stop arguing with your players.
Oh, and if I get a forum ban for this, that will simply prove my point.
EDIT: Oh, God, I sound so negative. Okay, if I can balance this out with positives:
1. The game is actually generally enjoyable, although the fun comes from politics, not from the statistics (and you need players to make politics). I think most players would agree that all they want is a game that allows them to make money, buy weapons, make alliances, and kill each other. And Simcountry used to do that really well.
2. I've never seen Jonni argue with players - he's generally helpful. That's not to say that Tom isn't helpful, it's just that he tends to get bogged down in arguments when he's trying to explain things.
/endrant |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 03:14 am
Yup, make money, buy weapons, make alliances, and kill each other, pretty much sums up what most players want.  |
| Crafty (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 01:42 pm
Nope, to count beans pretty much sums up what most players want. |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 07:34 pm
LOL |
| David Walker (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 08:14 pm
Accordion, I do think you have written too strongly irrespective of the point. If you have to write about being potentially banned, that is not on a winning start.
Diplomacy is the key to everything. As my english teach said, you can say everything in a respectful manner. |
| Matt Patton (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 08:44 pm
possibilities for this
1 space traders
2 pay too much in materials
3 lack of labor
4 surplus
5lousy low demand company like
forts, long range spy plane, nuclear defense missile, and ground weapons you will loose hardcore here |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 12:21 am
Once again matt patton, please type in a way people will understand you, you write your posts in a way non understand, please talk english, like the rest of us. |
| Blueserpent (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 12:37 am
english. like what i is spoken |
| Accordion_This (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 04:18 am
David - I think my post is perfectly fair, and not too strong or undiplomatic. The only reason I mentioned forum bans is that I have seen a lot of unnecessary bans recently, and I wanted to point out that fact.
I also have little reason to be soft or diplomatic. I'm paying for this game in the form of my subscription, so if I want to bitch about it to the GMs, that's my right as a customer. Complaints box, basically. However, I don't think I'm bitching so much as suggesting something that would help the GMs and the game a lot. |
| David Walker (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 05:07 am
I just think we need to turn down the general level of heat in conversations and be more constructive and less critical. |
| Matt Patton (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 06:19 am
it is English
it may not be novel English
or governmental English but it is English |
| Quetzalcoatl (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 09:27 am
on what planet |
| Quetzalcoatl (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 09:28 am
Tom i would just like to know if you saw my solution to this, mabey a way to see which companies have had cash transfers and how many times. |
| Matt Patton (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 02:54 pm
earth and I'll type how much and what I want to |
| Quetzalcoatl (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 07:40 pm
Im all for you typing just make it understandable. |
| Matt Patton (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, September 19, 2011 - 01:07 am
well sorry if I don't have a liberal arts degree |
