| Blueserpent (White Giant) | Friday, February 17, 2012 - 03:47 pm 
The Democratic union of metern on WG is bidding on corps, can we return him the the same courtesy  |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Friday, February 17, 2012 - 07:35 pm
You think by now the GM would have added a failsafe for everyone.
I mean they added they fact you have to have the cash on hand to bid but news still dish out 3+ bids per entry into the country. Most dont know its wrong/Hostile bidding.
For those of us who have weapons/space they are the first to get bidding and it gets to be a large annoyance
The GM should add a warning a pown buying a CEO/State
"Nationalizing a CEO owned corporation is considered by most a "Hostile" action and can cause both bad relations with the CEO and there Common Market partners. Make sure you discuss any such wishes to buy a corp before placing the bid." |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Friday, February 17, 2012 - 08:29 pm
Quote:"a pown..."
says simcountry's next greatest warlord :S |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Friday, February 17, 2012 - 09:22 pm
Lets keep on topic love. |
| Maestro2000 (White Giant) | Friday, February 17, 2012 - 10:55 pm
He is bidding on one of my corps there. Value is 864B.
I hope he buys it....hehe |
| Blueserpent | Friday, February 17, 2012 - 11:00 pm
He can buy mine at 780B and 950B..its not the point...but his msg to me that he needs them for his economy, is just plain stupid, cos they WAS paying into his economy.
By the time i have finished, he wont have a F***ing economy left or any other asshole in his fed or CM.
GM's take note....this happens to players on a regular basis, its up to you as game owners, to stop this nonesense from free accounts |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 12:19 am
It was quoted from your post Super so I guess that is 'on topic'.
I think you meant to type "upon" save it to your spell checker or start using one. |
| Peter465092 (White Giant) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 12:21 am
should be boycott him? |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 12:34 am
I agree. I have said from the start of free accounts, that they will be the source of contention. They shouldn't be allowed to bid on players' corps.
Free accounts shouldn't be a drawback for members who are paying to play in general. They should not participate in federation Air defense as well.
A higher degree of function and participation should be a benefit of becoming a free member.
Perhaps we can use "you can bid on someone else' corporation" and "possibly piss them off" when you become a premium member.
Or: Pissing Off veteran players is only available to premium members. Become a premium member today, and enjoy pissing off as many veterans as you like. But, you have to bring your own shovel. Shovel not included with Premium membership. |
| Maestro2000 | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 03:38 pm
I would agree that free accounts players should not be allowed to bid on player owned corporations. |
| Christopher Michael (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 04:24 pm
I believe that most of the hostile bidding from new players comes straight from the wording that the game offers....i.e. "Place A Bid". It seems like an invitation, and as others on here have said, there is no warning for the action. Definitely a GM issue.....and has been an issue for a very long time. |
| Gothamloki (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 04:52 pm
I think CEOs should be able to easily identify and distinguish between freebies and premium members. I for one would prefer to build in a premium. (Chances are better they'll think before they act? Or have taken the time to learn and care since they're invested?) I'd imagine if CEOs were given the mechanisms to favor premium countries, they would.... Not to mention it might offer another incentive for freebies to become premium members, forcing them to understand the game better. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 07:05 pm
Editorial correction. I don't know how this slipped in there.
Quote:A higher degree of function and participation should be a benefit of becoming a premium free member.
|
| Jo Salkilld (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 07:20 pm
I have to agree with most of the posts here, asking that free members aren't allowed to bid on player-controlled corps. At the very least, I wish the GMs would allow bids to be retracted right up to the point of sale so that, when we convince these players not to do it, they can actually do something about it.
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 10:32 pm
It would be nice if we could be able to say NO to any bids period.
The real World does not work like this and it shouldn't work this way even in sim if it isn't based on real world markets.
If you have money, and want to buy something, the owner should still say if they want to sell or not.
This to me has to be the largest oversight to date.
I noticed a convo about it in the past, but Tommi I believe based the conclusion that hostile takeovers are common in the real world. But this is only true of Public corps, never private, and the shareholders still have to decide to sell their shares they control or not.
If we could click a button to accept a bid or sale after the initial bid is placed we could put this nonsense to rest. |
| NiAi | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 11:01 pm
Many valid points posted here and i concur. This flaw has been in the game for what, a decade now? maybe time to rework this game-function a bit... |
| Jo Salkilld (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 11:56 pm
The GMs have said in the past that they believe 'hostile takeover' to be a reflection of the real world. I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm not an economist, but as I understand it, a hostile takeover is only possible if the corporation has issued shares, which is covered ingame by the share market function.
If I'm right, then so is Wendy - private corps should not be subject to hostile bids, full stop ('period' for those of you in the US)
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Tom Morgan (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 01:01 am
Had a player (probably new) bid on one of my corps the other day. Fired off a message to him saying that me owning the CEO would do more good than bad. He still bought it and I ended up with a nice $1.5T cash injection (which was nice).
But it is still frustrating for there to be NO option whatsoever that CEOs posess to stop this. Shouldn't I, the owner of the corp, be allowed to prevent random nincompoops from taking possession of my assets?
T |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 03:23 am
LOL Tom. I've found that if you explain it to them, 7 times out of 10 they get it and want to retract the bid. Only by then you have to explain to them that they can't ...
There are options available. Injecting cash to raise the value (sometimes they don't check the button), counter-bidding with your second CEO (if you have one and you get it in time) or moving it out of their country sometimes work. But it's a ridiculous amount of work to keep hold of something which is, essentially, yours.
Andy, if you're reading this thread, please can you do something. It's a silly situation when the free players, for the most part, dereg the country after a few weeks ...
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Rick (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 09:05 am
Tom. Every post here is completely valid. No one walks in the front door of a private business and says "Here is a check for the market value of your company, so you folks can get out the back door while we come in the front." And the button thing, "Why don't you post a bid". So the new player thinks "this looks like something I should be doing, gotta try it at least once." Next thing ya know, two Feds are at war. Might be stretching it a bit, however I think I remember it happening.
A cautionary line or two in the documentation would help. Make everyone happy.....Change the button to "Make an Offer on this Corporation". The owner can then either Accept, Reject, or Negotiate the offer. No offense intended, none taken. This has been a major pain for new and veteran players alike for as long as I can remember. The majority of the time it is unintended. Please give us a fix. Thanks |
| Tom Morgan (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 12:25 pm
Ermm, Rick? Sorry if you were confused. I was the CEO in that situation. A President bid for my corp. I was supporting the comments above.
T- Celebrating 1 Year on SC. |
| Tom Morgan (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 12:31 pm
And Jo,
I did explain it to him. The President who bid on my corp never replied. Probably went inactive, and I don't own a second CEO which sucks for me. Thanks for reminding my about the Inject Cash feature though- I had forgotten about that. Will note it for future bids.
Cheers,
T- Celebrating 1 Year on SC. |
| NiAi | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 02:58 pm
"Hostile takeover", im all for that. However, a private (own 100% of the shares) doesn't have many weak links does it? A true public corp have many shareholder, which some can be bought off without the consent of the board of directors, e.g. hostile takeover.
If a player comes to my private corp and say sell him my shares id say no. As it is now im treated as Joe Doe the minor shareholder even in my 100% owned corps... and not able to refuse.
Hostile takeovers should be part of the game, however:
1)it should not be allowed for free accounts
2) some way to refuse offers for private corps is needed, or just only allow hostile takeover where is possible in RL, e.g. in (True) public corps. |
| Rick (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, February 19, 2012 - 11:43 pm
Tom, Sorry about that. The message was entirely meant for the GMs.
I think a completely reasonable solution would be; give the corporation owner the tools to " Accept, Reject, or Negotiate" the bid.
That would seem to safisfy everyone involved. |
| Keonicus (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 20, 2012 - 08:15 am
This is a pretty good idea. Limit the freedoms of the Free Players. That's an excellent way to add new people to the game.
Really though, if this game is supposed to be a simulation of real life, and countries have been known to nationalize corporations in real life, why limit that option here?
Now I play as a CEO. I would be very upset if my corporations were nationalized. But the idea of taking away that option from Free Players just to protect the bottom line of the already massively rich Premium Players is absurd. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 20, 2012 - 08:31 pm
You're absurd Keonicus. The game in general should not be affected on a mass level by free players when players actually pay to play and build corporations in a country with no president registered.
Why should a free player upset what I pay to play and they get to ruin my gameplay for free? What is to stop them from registering a country, nationalizing corporations. Then quit as most free players do re-register a country and do it all over again repeatedly.
If you are in favor of everyone playing for free where not much matters and there is no consequence for actions good or bad, I suggest you buy the game from the game masters and your wish will be granted.
Pleasing free players who won't contribute to the game as premium players do at the expense of disenfranchising players who actually pay is not a working business model.
Maybe one day simcountry will be totally free to play and there will be no benefit to pay to play. What a thought.... |
| Keonicus (Little Upsilon) | Monday, February 20, 2012 - 10:12 pm
Really? Way to completely go overboard. I don't think I said I was for the idea of everyone playing for free or eliminating the benefits of the players who pay to play. I am against the idea of reducing the options of the Free Players even further to protect the interests of the Premium Players.
An idea I would put forward is to maybe limit the amount of times a player could cancel and re-register a country, or perhaps increase the amount of time it took to cancel and re-register (so instead of instantaneous, maybe it takes like a week). That way the player would be more inclined to take better care of his or her country because they know that they may not get a new one.
But reducing the options of the largest group of players is not a "working business model". Regardless of the fact that they don't contribute yet, they may do so in the future if they like the game enough. But it's hard to tell if you like the game if you aren't allowed to access most of it.
And besides, who's to say Premium Players don't cancel and re-register countries? |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, February 20, 2012 - 11:04 pm
I agree with Wendy
And besides, who's to say Premium Players don't cancel and re-register countries?
You must be new to SC. The reason paying members dont do that is becuase of 1 Simple fact BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY 30GC PER MONTH!!!
Im not closing and opening an empire when i have to pay 30GC per month
Bidding should be a paying member option. PERIOD |
| Rick (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, February 20, 2012 - 11:21 pm
Keonicus, This has nothing to do with limiting the freedoms of free players, adding to or driving away new players from the game, or protecting the bottom line of massively rich premium players.
It has to do with avoiding unintended hard feelings between players.
And, we are talking apples and oranges here.
Your speaking about nationalizing. I'm speaking about bidding on a players state corps when the owner has no interest in selling it. Hostile bidding.
...and the game will never see the new player who is driven away because he or she can't make an unwanted bid on a corps. |
| Sunny (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 12:24 am
Scenario:
I make 5 different accounts.
I bid on about 100 corporations overall.
I take them.
I close them.
You sit there with you're cash twiddling your thumbs because you have to set them all up again.
You may be in a negative cashflow
You may need to use boosters, which means using gc.
You waste your time setting them up, injecting cash, bringing back some income... when...
I repeat.
Wonder who would get cheesed off the most, and who would be trolling. |
| Jo Salkilld (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 01:49 am
Keonicus - I'm assuming you're a free player. Nothing wrong with that. But the problem here is that the majority of free players register, start a country, take some corps from those of us who are in it long-term, and then leave the game.
Who wins? No one. The free player doesn't care, because he doesn't play any more. But the paying player loses ... so does the free player who sticks with the game and loses some of his corps in the same way.
Corps are important. They are important to those of us who are trying to be successful virtual-businesses, they are important to those who are trying to go up levels and need so-many corps to get to the next one, they are important to those who have learned to IPO and are using their CEO corps to improve their empire FIs and they are important to those who are trying to keep their empires supplied with restricted weapons and have built corps to secure the supply chain.
A player who is in it long-term (free or paying) eventually learns this. But a player who just waltzes-in, invests nothing, tries it for a while and gives-up can cause mayhem precisely because they have nothing to lose. Free players are already limited in a whole range of ways. In the grand scheme of things, this suggestion is only a limited restriction and will make very little difference to any free player. Nothing we are suggesting will stop free players building their own corps and growing them to be profitable. But it will make a huge difference to those of us who play long-term. If the GMs take on-board our ideas and you stick with the game, you will eventually benefit from it. If you don't then, respectfully, you are one of those who won't see any results from your actions and your opinion is not really valid ...
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Sonneillon (White Giant) | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 02:53 am
I am new, but would it not be prudent for paid players to play separate from non-paid? why would this not be the case? |
| Christopher Michael (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 04:12 am
Sonneillon, that would never work......everything in this game is connected in some form or another. |
