| jak8991 | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 09:15 pm 
I have a corp producing Attack Helicopter Missiles and i contracted full production to my country.
The quality is 340 yet it says i'm only getting the market price of 26 mill per missile.
Is the quality of the product not taken into account if you set up contracts with yourself? |
| Jo Salkilld | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 09:41 pm
I have recently performed an in-depth analysis of corp sales figures which demonstrates that, in most cases, high quality products sell at below-quality prices. Sometimes significantly below 
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Jak | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 09:44 pm
I've cancelled one of the contracts. I'll see if the profits go up next month. |
| Jo Salkilld | Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 11:17 pm
I don't think it makes any difference where you sell the product, but it will be interesting to see if there is any change ...
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Andy | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 03:32 pm
We have explained several times recently that producing very high quality does not make sense.
We have set default quality for raw materials at 150 and advised to not purchase at a quality level that is much higher than 150 or 170.
Most countries and corporations do not purchase products at quality > 200 or 250 and such products are phased out.
Q340 is I think impossible now or extremely exceptional and even Q300+ becomes exceptional.
On the other hand, Q170 does make sense now and we hope that Q200 will make sense in the near future.
At the end, we must have a situation where the quality that can be produced makes sense and that many are interested in these products and will have reasons to purchase them at this quality level.
We keep getting complaints from players who purchase Q150 and keep wondering why they do not sell Q300. |
| Jo Salkilld | Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 09:24 pm
Thank you for joining-in with this discussion Andy.
As you say, there is no benefit at all to countries purchasing most goods above 120 quality. They don't get any additional benefit from higher-quality and the goods cost more.
On the other hand, weapons benefit hugely from higher quality, so it is advantageous to produce and buy weapons at the highest possible quality.
The middle-ground lies with corporations which can benefit from buying supplies in the middle of the quality-range. As you say, between 150 and 200 quality.
So this leaves us with three polarised buying strategies - countries set to buy everything except weapons at 120 and weapons at 350. And corporations set to buy supplies at around 170. Therefore corporations that produce these different things need to be optimised to produce the goods that only a country will buy (like boats, for example) at 120, weapons at as high a quality as possible and everything else at 170.
But this negates what used to be a significant part of the game: upgrading corporations for quality. What is the point in upgrading a boats corporation to produce 200+ quality, and then increasing the quality further by buying 170 quality supplies for the corp, if no one will ever want to buy those boats at the quality they are produced at? And how does a corp like that make a profit, if it can only ever sell the goods it produces at a low price for a low quality?
The fascination of this game has always been the multitude of different settings one could apply, and working out how to optimise them to work with each other to the player's best advantage. But it seems as though quality is no longer one of those aspects, which has only served to limit the game. It would have a much bigger part to play if, like weapons, there were advantages for countries to buying higher-quality goods. Happier or more healthy citizens, for example, or needing fewer goods if they are higher quality.
Are you planning to develop this aspect of the game at all, Andy? I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on those points ...
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| xiong | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 12:23 am
i thought there was a setting that you can set the price you want to sell at?
if left to the system to automatically sell, then the system would push to any buyer that has their setting to buy at any quality?
if a reserve price is already in place, then for seller to use that setting. if not, then perhaps have a reserve price for seller to set the price of the products on the market?
it make sense to improve quality, only if that quality can be sold at the expected price?
allow players to set the price of their products on the world market, would at least stop more complains. if the player set their reserve price too high, then if there are no sale, won't be the gm/owner's fault?
got to twig both sides, supply and demand, in order to balance the game. playing with one side will certain get everyone mis-communicate, thus brings too many issues. |
| Andy | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 09:10 am
Jo,
I just added a contribution to a different discussion here and explained the salary level issue and its influence on the corporate welfare index.
Quality is more complex, different groups of products should indeed be treated differently.
As you have said, the consumption products are currently the weakest link. 120 might be a little low but indeed, there is no reason for 150+
if you look at the history of quality you will see huge changes. These changes had a major effect on the game in general. It could not be introduced at once and it was also a major development effort.
I wrote before in this discussion about the raw materials for corporations.
Weapon quality was introduced later but we are not done because we still need to make corrections to weapon quality when weapons are moved into units and back. This is an old problem and with increasing max quality in the units, we will be able to get rid of it and solve the problem once and for all. (it is already fading away).
The last frontier is consumption products. It should make sense for presidents to purchase products at a high quality and we will introduce the reasons why it will become beneficial for countries.
This is not trivial because higher quality will increase the cost for the country and it can diminish its profitability. The compensation must come from improved welfare that will in turn increase the corporate welfare and productivity in corporations.
These improvements will be introduced in the coming month or two. |
| Jo Salkilld | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 07:49 pm
Thank you Andy. I look forward to the coming adjustments.
However, please be very careful when changing the various elements that affect what a country spends. The increase in cost to a country from having to buy 100 to 120 quality recently affected Finance Index and, as a result, it is now harder to get into the higher FI figures needed for very high levels.
If there is an equal financial benefit in a country buying higher quality goods, then it won't be a problem. But if it penalises a country financially and only gives benefits in other areas, you may want to consider dropping the FI requirements for high levels ...
Thanks again for working with us, listening to our concerns and answering our questions 
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Andy | Monday, July 9, 2012 - 11:45 pm
Jo,
I checked the exact numbers.
currently, a 100 point difference in the quality of consumption materials you purchase for the country will make a difference of about 2.5 points in the welfare index.
It will increase the production in corporations by about 1.1 points.
I am not claiming that this is worthwhile but it will increase. we will document it and publish here from time to time.
The minimum quality increase to 120, increased cost for those who used Q100.
Many more used ANY quality and their cost decreased. |
| Rick | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 12:02 am
Thanks Andy
Specifics like those above eliminate a lot of calculator punching and head scratching.
Not to mention a 90% reduction in frustration.
Thanks again. |
| Jo Salkilld | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 12:14 am
LOL Andy. Those of us who were skilled in the game used 100 quality, rather than 'any' quality. So the change only benefited those who were not capable of reaching really high levels. Surely you appreciate that the benefits of 1.1 increased corporation production does not, in any way, offset the penalty of paying for a 100 point increase in quality of country consumption, and I appreciate that you are looking into this. Unfortunately, the change makes it seem as though you are advocating 'dumbing down' the game. But I am sure that cannot be the case ...
The glorious thing about this game is that, however much you have learned, there is always still more to learn ... still ways to improve. But that particular change actually harmed the people who had learned a lot and were now concentrating on the small details which enable players to get to really high levels. I have been trying to get to level 15 for about a year and a half now. I could have got there a lot sooner, if I was content to rush up the levels, time everything so that it peaked simultaneously, and then drop back down again. But my aim is not to get the Gold Coins, so much as get to level 15 and stay there. For the kudos. The change in minimum quality ... because the Finance Index requirements did not change correspondingly ... seriously set me back
Don't get me wrong. I don't object to the changes just because they are changes. I actually enjoy constantly being challenged. But I have been on the point of achieving level 15 three times now, only to drop back a few 10ths of a point short of making the level. It is frustrating to almost get there and then see FI decreasing again because of a game change. It has meant I have had to readjust my entire strategy and start again, several times
All I ask is that you take into account how changing one little thing, such as minimum quality purchase requests, or maximum quality sales potential, will affect other aspects of the game. And that, when you make one adjustment, you adjust it all. This game is all about how changing one small thing will create ripples throughout a player's entire strategy. As players, those of us who are skilled at the game are very familiar with that principle. We just want you, as GMs, to appreciate that as well
Thank you again for continuing to listen to, and discuss these things with the players.
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Crafty | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 06:19 pm
Jo,
Will you stop being so damned nice!
Luv ya, Crafty. |
| Jo Salkilld | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 07:48 pm
Love you too Crafty ~hug~
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 04:17 am
As i posted in my other thread i bought 350Q power and sold it when it was high and i barely got 6T (which is what it was worth @ 100Q) so i paid more and sold it for less even went the price was double the price when i bought it....ID LOVE MY 21T BACK THAT I SPENT ORIGINALLY PLEASE |
