 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 12:20 pm  Andy, for petes sake, stop reducing the price of goods when they are going deeper and deeper in shortage. The price of goods (excepting maybe LTA and LAS) no longer reflects the demand at all. You've already removed trade strategies so we cant ask over produced quality. Please return the market force driven price range.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 01:08 pm +1
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 02:18 pm It seems like we have a socialist trade mechanism; the nomenklatura determines the price, regardless the demand and supply of the product.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 06:46 pm The total profits of all countries: July 1: 111 T August 1: 119 T The profit is stable while the general trend of numbers is down. Both revenue and cost are declining for the last year. Recently it is hardly noticeable. within that trend, there are larger shortages and prices went up. We are also measuring the profitability of 10 different size countries we play and some accounts we use as reference points, and all are doing good. The down trend in numbers continues at a much lower pace. Most of it is behind us.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 06:48 pm I also looked at the numbers in the past two weeks. they went up first, (no complaints heard) then started going down.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 06:59 pm Andy, why don't you people pick some of the player countries and monitor what happens there versus gamemaster countries?
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 09:13 pm Andy, you always seem to think I am complaining. I see your thinking and reasoning and agree. But you could achieve the same end by just giving away $$$. What the current system is doing is taking away all playability. Its impossible to judge what corps to build, normally you would build corps with product in the red, but I cant rely on that as the price is reducing when the demand is increasing!!! I cant compensate for green markets by selling under Q and for red markets increasing selling price, although it looks as though some ammo corps have been spared the demand/price freeze in line with your previous statements about military. At this time, while I'm trying to recover my account after ages of not bothering, the options and things to look for are mostly taken away. Years of paying to play here and I have no benefit of my experience, things just aren't making sense. Ah well, you say its mostly behind us... Roll on that day.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 10:21 pm Its funny Crafty asked for help like he thinks they care about us
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 10:23 pm .
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 04:13 am i'm with crafty, not in specifics, but in the fact that it gets harder and harder to actually do anything, like we are being pressed into playing the game, one specific way. i mean i get that it needs to be set it up better for new players, but the older players are really feeling pressed.
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 07:23 am how is it better for new players to play a cookie cutter game it makes them feel good what non sense when I first joined I was looking for war and share market takeovers I'm disappointed the only reason why I keep playing is because I'm in a cool Federation with some roleplaying that's really the only point of joining a fed now since there's no war ive been playing for like 100 game years and the only combat ive seen is against a c3 but ive realised even if there was more war it still.wouldn't be very good since the war game is rotten to the core
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 08:00 am Most all the veteran war players are gone with the exception of the ones here in forum, its not a war game anymore more like a economic business sim now its a shame really
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 08:24 am Looks like we're forced to bring in the greens corporation and build all corps to find out if they're profitable even if the market fluctuate up or down on best prices strategy.
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 09:15 am 50 wars were started in the past 24 hours. There are days with many more. All corporations are profitable if managed well and there is no large oversupply. We know the numbers. I do understand that the concept of reducing all numbers by a certain percentage, both income and cost is very very hard to understand. Even some players who know this for the past year seem to have difficulties with that concept.
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 11:29 am 50 wars in the last 24 hours how many pvp? How many in the last month Id love to see how many PVP wars happened per year in the last 4years. BET YOU IT DROPPED MASSIVELY since the war levels and dont say it was vets beating up new players, i just would like the numbers. C3 wars dont count i could start and finish 10+ if i felt like it.
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 11:30 am Plus you said 50 where started how many finished
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 01:33 pm I fully understand you want this and that. The issue is, there is fighting and war against a c3 country at level 6 - 11 is difficult fighting. also, 200+ more countries on FB in the past weeks and today, the highest awards ever, will be given to players on FB. the claims made here about the death of the war game are much older than war levels. It started with the game and never stopped while wars are going on all the time. In fact, war levels came about during a big discussion we had about the failing war game and how it was dying. it reminds me of all the times someone left the game after years of playing and announced that the game will disappear within weeks. all of you together do not have enough fingers to count such messages. Then many came back after a couple of months and play again. This is part of each and every forum and because of this, it is very hard for us to learn anything from these discussions. repeating the same 100 times is not convincing us at all. In depth thinking of what works, seen from both sides, and very constructive messages from some players, do help.
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 08:09 pm fighting a c3 is not fun nor is fighting a player since most are just visa warriors and one of the only products in oversupply on WG is wine it currently has an.oversupply of 30 percent and my corporation was making massive massive losses shouldn't it be possible to make a small profit or atleast not billions a month just thrown away and andy I have a suggestion get rid of federations since they are pointless and just give players a false sense of the war game
| |
Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 10:05 pm
Well I've never really belonged to a Federation other than the one my own countries are in, which means I'm the only member. I have been known however to ally myself with other federations in a fight. In that case I've had one country in that fed so know when war was declared by or against whom. If I never ally with anyone a federation at least allows all my countries to provide defense when one country is attacked, and get whatever others in the fight I desire due to auto declarations. So I don't think they are pointless, but if you are relying on another player to save your butt they will get you killed.
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 11:12 pm why are there war treatys when only level 3s can play (which there are very few) its a pain in itself to get to level 3
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 11:55 pm Oooooooooh I loved the whole federation thinggy. That is what made this game so much fun. Sighs....... Long Live FBC/Nueva Vida/Zero Hour! Those were the days!!!! May Bobo always stay alive and remembered in SimCountry and BlueSerpent when he awakes from his sleep. Oh dun forget me either!!!! I was the deadliest of em all! :-P
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 11:56 pm Hey I gots an idea!!! Let's all dec Andy!! :-P ha ha ha ha
| |
| Friday, August 3, 2012 - 03:20 am mmmm things have dropped off again
| |
| Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 03:16 am There's a difference between the number of countries started and the number of countries which actually go on to become active for more than 3 days. Spinning numbers won't fool me. If this game is having a resurgence, it will have it without me. I've been logging on once every 2 days for a month for 5 minutes... Nothing here interests me any more. T
| |
| Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 02:51 pm Yeah, well you are one of the ones Andy speaks of T. How many times have I heard you say that?
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 05:54 am Meh. Couldn't care less Crafty. Until some big changes are made I'm sticking to the same frequency. That's, at least, until December, when the "other thing" launches and I move on from here. --- A quote from Andy: "This is part of each and every forum and because of this, it is very hard for us to learn anything from these discussions." And I've never seen such a dissatisfied forum on any online gaming forum. Ever. What can you learn from that? And Andy, remember that post I made a few months ago? It was highly constructive criticism. You could have easily learnt, or ignored. But then you swung the axe...
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 06:32 am Andy... You wrote: All corporations are profitable if managed well and there is no large oversupply. We know the numbers. Well check on the Silver mining corporation on the country and tell me if you do know the NUMBERS?! The Silver company is tested corporation to find out if you know the numbers or not. Now, that tells me we can't even put in the other corporations that are not making any profit, so i am forced to close this company sometime later on after yous looked at it and replace with another corporation that is profitable. This Silver corporation is not making any income since it's been there and it's hurting the country's income. Thanks, Anthony.
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 10:01 am Whoa whoa wait.... Andy I've had a problem with this game for a little while now, and I was happy it got brought back up here but it seems like you saw a war comment and dodged the question. It really isn't about what the thread is about but definately a more important issue. Some corps SHOULD fail, profitability CAN be lowered. All that is fine, what their needs to be is a distinction in playability. At the moment you can build any product in shortage let it upgrade it will sell for a static value, and that's the game. There is very little to no strategy at all. From your comment you feel we want to make a Trillion dollars a month, but I don't we care if everyone else also makes a Trillion a month. There are good variables in this gamer to use, there is no reason the importance of supply and demand should be this unimportant. You say you know the numbers that you can make the numbers work with a stronger importance to supply and demand. Also with no control over the selling price it seems we lose control there also. This is the concern, not how much profits we make. What is the point of a strategy game? If it isn't to use your brain and beat the others I don't know where the fun would possibly come from. Everyone agrees with this. The game is simply too easy, If your scared of making it too hard those you are trying to keep will lose interest anyways, as this game should be to sophisiticated for them. Maybe you should make a hard world then that is demand driven, and vulnerable to price flucuation. Just please answer this concern and please don't answer with profitibility is up.
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 10:02 am Please the GM dont know any numbers look at gasoline for example. If theres times when a ton of gasoline sold at a lower market then oil. And you used 1unit oil per 1 unit gas. And oil was 300 over in market cost. And to make gasoline you need more products i found almost no corps making money. Shows how much they look at the numbers. Base price should be what it is base price. When does a corp in real life ever sell goods for 20% of what it costs to make it.... Ya we made oil is costs us 100 per barrel, ok lets sell it for 20bucks that will make us a ton of money.. good job marketing and sales department raises for all of you
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 02:17 pm Well soldier, some corps real world do make loses. They have to sell low to keep in business, to keep people employed, pay the rent etc. Look at the banks ATM. eventually they (or the shareholders) hope to see profitable days again. But yeah, the issue I have is like repeated by Drew, where's the playability, the skill, art, tactics of the game gone? Even the more complicated aspects of the game that take a while to master, like controlling IFs, the share market, ASQ, etc have changed beyond making any sense. I honestly would find playing slots on my cellie equally challenging.
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 11:09 pm I agree crafty Sometimes corps do sell goods for less just to make some money but the point i was referencing was if you made a table and it costed $100 in just materials would you ever sell it for 20bucks?
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 01:42 am The answer is NO.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 03:03 am then why can you do it in SC? For example look @ gasoline and oil You use 1unit of oil to make 1unit of gasoline. If you look @ Oil's max price its $1000 per ton. If you look @ Gasoline's Base price its under 1000. Andy should be able to look @ the stats theres times when Oil was @ max and gasoline was below base price. Why would i sell gas for less then what the oil costs. Not to mention ALL the other products used to make it?
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 10:42 am That's out of my hands SuperSoldier. It's up to Andy to answer that one. I don't know how the economy works and where people get the stuff from out of the ground and make'em. I can't do maths, im hopeless at it. Sorry. Anthony.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 11:41 am SS, you dont HAVE to sell those products if you dont think the price is good enough. Sometimes corps will have to sell below cost to maintain a turnover. Turnover, the recycling of cash, is very important in any industry or economy even. Just try not selling anything in one of these corps and you'll soon see how quickly the corp dies. Or use it to your advantage. Have your country buy all product, ok the corp is still selling low but your country is buying very cheap. Re sell at a later date or supply your own corps cheap when the price betters.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 11:42 am But yeah, I'm arguing against my original post here. The fact still remains that the market just doesn't make sense atm.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 04:00 pm Any way. I would rather try and keep out of trouble as much as possible and keep to the code. I just hope i don't get banned from the game as i do enjoy playing it and watching the numbers grow up or down base on their market situation. I don't want to get paranoid and start causing trouble to any one. I'd rather keep it to my self and just accept whatever the game has to offer, just as long i keep the rules and not blaming others or the gamemaster since they have more power over others on the account holders. Thank you all. Anthony.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 07:24 pm The base price for Oil is 600 base price for Gasoline is 960. Most times gasoline will cost more. if there is a shortage of oil, it could go up to 900 or so. If there is an oversupply of gasoline, it could go down to 500. Yes. It can happen that gasoline is cheaper than oil only we don't do this. You do. Check the markets. the price always follows the surplus or shortage situation. Most times in the same game month, sometimes in the next. It depends on the time the trading is executed in relation to the shortage or oversupply situation. When prices reach the roof or the bottom, they bounce once and then follow the market situation again. If they hit the limit again, they bounce again. This causes the zigzag pricing when top or bottom are reached. (the zigzag magnitude is about 3%) we need a bottom to prevent prices from going too far down and bankrupt corporations too quickly while the market can recover and in most cases, the corporations are saved. To be fair, if we have a bottom, we need a top.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 08:24 pm But if an entire world has reached the top in 80% of the industries. Then it pretty much seems like nothing matters.
| |
| Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 08:24 am yah maybe extend your cieling atleast and wont the market balance.itself eventually?
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 09:10 am I've deleted gold and silver company and trying beans now. See how that goes. We just gotta hope not all corporations are not performing well. That's two gone already and maybe third one later on for beans. I won't be getting them back again since they wern't doing well. Anthony.
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 01:14 pm Andy, I don't really follow your reasoning in placing a bottom and top limit on pricing. If corporations bankrupt, it's because the price has dropped too low. But those corps are ones which, historically, have never been profitable. Because of your limits, they may not go bankrupt, but they will be a steady drain on income. So it's just a long, slow death, rather than a quick one. Anthony epitomised it above - he is no longer going to build silver or gold and there will be plenty of other types of corp which he adds to his list in the long-term. This is part of the learning process for any SimCountry player. But all this actually does is to remove an element of skill and player-control from the game and negate the aspect of supply and demand and market forces. It's the lack of parity between corps that is the real problem. Would it not make the game much better for the players if, instead of setting upper and lower limits to prices, you do a thorough analysis of corps and implement two strategies: 1. Expand the bankruptcy parameters so that corps do not bankrupt so quickly if the market is in a slump. 2. Re-work the pricing so that there are no longer corps which consistently lose money and corps which consistently make money but, instead, all corps have an (roughly) equal capacity to be profitable when the market is good and the opposite when there is an oversupply ... This would bring back an element of skill to the economic market that has been missing recently  Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 08:17 pm From a9fc8yt3kd1: #1: I agree with Crafty completely. The game shouldn't even set a base price for any commodity. All prices of all commodities should be set solely by the market forces of supply and demand. No more socialism! #2: I understand the logic of a national debt limit for each country in Simcountry, beyond which you shouldn't be allowed to purchase anything. It certainly forces a certain amount of responsibility upon players in Simcountry. However, it makes no sense to prohibit purchasing of offensive weapons when a country's net cash is only below 3T, when that same country is allowed to continue purchasing other commodities until its net cash is below 14T. Offensive weapons are even more important for defense than defensive weapons are! The debt limit is a good idea, but the limit should be the same for purchasing everything. #3: Automatic selling of resources from a country's stockpile when that country runs out of cash is, at least in its current form, a terrible idea. The criteria which the game uses to determine when a country is bankrupt and should sell resources from its stockpile, do not accurately reflect the true financial situation of that country. You could have a country which earned 80B in gross monthly profits, with a 40B monthly budget surplus, and with 6T loaned out to other countries, but if that country makes a sudden, emergency purchase of weapons to protect itself and ends up with 2T in negative cash before any of its loan requests have gone through the system, the game assumes that the country is bankrupt and begins automatically selling stuff, even though the country is in very good financial condition. Then when you have to buy that stuff back in an emergency, it actually costs you more money than if the game never forced you to sell it in the first place. In contrast, you could have a country which only earns 40B in monthly profits, with a 10B monthly deficit, with no money loaned out to other countries and with 10T owed to other countries, but if that country has even the slightest bit of cash on hand for any reason, the game doesn't realize how bankrupt that country is, and so doesn't automatically sell anything from that country's stockpile, even if that country has massive numbers of unneeded weapons and there is no war threat. Its just a stupid system! If there is going to be a system which automatically sells commodities from a country’s stockpile, the automatic selling function should be tied to the total sum of a country’s immediate cash minus the amount of debt which that country owes plus the amount of money which that country is currently loaning to other countries and enterprises. This would give a much more accurate picture of a country’s true financial condition. #4: The game should stop automatically loaning players money whenever they need it, especially at such low interest rates. Currently, the interest rates on loans are fixed so low that there’s almost no reason to ever pay one’s loans off. An economically strong country could essentially service its debt indefinitely without suffering any significant burden as a result of it. Currently, the only real reason to pay one’s debts back is to keep your country some distance away from the debt limit so that you have an extra financial cushion in case of unexpected expenses, i.e. war. I think it would be much better if loans could only be given by other players, if those players were allowed to loan money at whatever interest rates they saw fit, and if debtor nations were given the option of defaulting on their loans. The risk of a state defaulting on its debt would force creditors to be very cautious about who they loaned to, and would encourage them to charge much higher interest rates on loans to states which were less likely to repay their debts. This would provide a much stronger incentive for players to repay their loans. In fact, it might even make the aforementioned mandatory debt limit unnecessary, because creditors would be afraid to loan money to any player who already owed too much money to other players, for fear that they would not be able to pay that money back. Thus, borrowing limits would be imposed naturally by market forces, and would not need to be imposed arbitrarily by the game. #5: Eliminate SC$ as the universal currency of the game, and allow countries to issue their own currencies and to collect taxes from corporations in their own currencies or whatever other currencies they wish. Then, allow all countries’ currencies to be traded with exchange rates determined by free-market competition. Then, instead of allowing governments to borrow money directly, allow governments to issue bonds which can be bid upon either by other players using the currency of the nation which issues the bonds, or else by the central banks of those nations using electronically created currency. The existence of multiple competing currencies would further serve to discourage excessive borrowing on the part of Simcountry players, because if a player continued to borrow perpetually more and more currency for their nation and to spend it on things, that currency would continuously lose more and more of its value to price inflation, until eventually there would be no more demand for that currency. Instead, players would be compelled to maintain a very tight, responsible national budget, to avoid running deficits, and to pay back their debts, all in order to avoid destroying the value of their nations’ currencies via inflation, and to thus ensure that there would be a continuous demand for their nations’ currencies on the international market. Note: I’m saving a backup copy of this post. If you delete it, I’ll just re-post it somewhere else.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 12:27 am The business model of this game is to encourage players to buy gold coins. GC are the real currency. When players earn lots of game cash, the suits restrict and reduce the source of that game cash. Yes, they give away some GC. But those freebies aim to get players addicted to GC. If products have no price controls, then players would find ways to earn lots of game cash. The suits don't want that. They don't want game cash to become the principal currency. They don't want players to compete to see who earns the most game cash. They want players to compete for ranks fueled by GC. That's why the game has rigid price controls on anything related to game cash.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 09:51 am Unacceptable, you can't make any money without clients. Can't it be tweaked so that it takes skill to make money with lax price controls? So no one can truly replace gold coins because profitibility could be tweaked and limited. Here's the problem I see, not sure if it's true for other worlds, but of GR: Surplus doesn't exist, nope every industry is in shortage. There is 0 flucuation in price outside of quality difference. So... this has happened now SC has to fix it. I gave a solution that would bring variance and solvency to the market and Andy told me other solutions were going to be done, or something like that. (Increase output or reduce inputs, to force shortages and bring market volitility to the game) <-My solution not the only solution Anywho... The question has been asked and answered with profits, (wrong question answered) the topic moved to viper bringing up the war game, (wrong question answered, people didn't believe the answer but no relevance to me), then supersoldier brought up an inconsistency (while relevant mostly answer was offbase). So Andy can you answer this question PLEEEEAAASSSSEEE? Is there any intent or is there going to be, on valeing things at a vareity of different qualities and/or buying/selling at a variety of different prices, and/or a building a variety of different corporations in different industries? Updrading to a static Q level, buying for a static buy price, selling for a static sales price, and having select corporations more profitable then others is a boring game, fixated on repetition. You have mentioned introducing purposes for higher quality items yet it doesn't matter when Q350 sells anyways, for a price not decided by the seller, even with a purpose for 350Q income levels wouldn't change strategies (I guess this should be singular-strategy) won't change. Why build rice when you can build oil? Why stop upgrading at Q190 <-buying quality, when it is more profitable to buy out the upgrades? Why sell under quality when all your products will sell anyways, and it's going to sell for whatever price it wants to anyways?
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 12:40 pm You know what would be an AWESOME UPDATE!!! THE GM STOP PLAYING THE SUPPLY FAIRY!!! https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=tldhist&miKey=21&miColumn=vTradeSupplyVolume Theres only 7 corps on LU making forts with that kind of jumping. If the GM LEFT THEM ALONE!!!!! They would max in price making them an item players would consider creating
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 03:33 pm In the real world, if a corporations has difficulties finding the raw materials it needs, or the workers it needs, it will manage anyway. there are always alternative ways to find raw materials and you can always get workers through temporary hiring etc. Large corporations never drop production because of such difficulties. In Simcountry, this is much harder. Shortages without a price limit will not only make one type of corporations very profitable, it will bankrupt many other corporations overspending on raw materials and can quite quickly, destroy the entire market. we have run many experiments in the past on test worlds and saw it taking place. We have plans to soften this problem by the introduction of "temporary work" service corporations and the introduction of multiple product qualities and types per corporation, along with super corporations that can grow 2 fold or 4 fold and in the process, get a priority in trading which will make them less dependent on temporary conditions. There are also plans to add self designed products, once we add the features that will also create the markets for these products. when all done, corporations will have more alternatives and become less dependent on work and materials than they are today and will not bankrupt if the price of a product is shooting up. Price min and max could then be relaxed. As to our interventions on the market: we should make an automatic message appearing once in two weeks on the forum: we intervene to prevent disasters. There are very few interventions and they are small. such interventions never turn a surplus into a shortage or the other way around and thus, they never change the direction of the market price. We have tried to stop all interventions several times in the past and the shouting on the forum was very loud. some products showed huge shortages and corporations were unable to continue production. It has never lead to a quick, massive action by players (we hoped for) to produce more of these products to reduce the shortages. We sopped such experiments to prevent a market collapse.
| |
Friday, August 10, 2012 - 08:50 pm
I don't suppose you where around when the Tsunami hit Japan and American auto manufacturers had to stop production on certain colors or certain models due to no pigment or parts?
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 09:56 pm You are right Yankee. we all know this and it is very exceptional. not so exceptional in the game. It would be much worse if corporations did not have a large stock of raw materials helping to bridge over periods when the materials are on order and not being delivered.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 11:01 pm Andy I can understand the intervention on materials like selenium, construction, or services. I can understand that with no services it would kill everyone. But some products i think the GM needs to back off entirely from and see no prob. In my post above why is it unnecessary for you to be adding 400 even 500forts. If you let it go 500 in the red players would be forced to make there own or wait for them to show up on the market. This applys for all weapons. If anything the Defensive, Offensive markets should be entirely player based and should see 0 GM interference
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 11:43 pm Dealing with the disparity in corps ... that some always make money and some always lose ... has got to be the root of many of the problems. Solve that, and a lot of 'interventions' can be also be dismantled ... Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 12:59 am it would kill everyone except the people with the services corps for every action their is an equal and oppiosite reaction hmmmm I'm sure it would balance out eventually idk going through some sort of economic catastrophie would be FUN which is the point of a GAME eventually things would balance out or you can be a stingy bastard and back off slowly and everything will be ok or you can not do anything and forevermore endure our pointless progression halting complaints 
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 02:53 am THANKS ANDY!!!!!!
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 07:00 am i always kinda looked at it like quality could be halved, for double the production, or something like that. like 1 ton of 300Q could instead be 2 ton at 150Q, it kinda balances out that every one buys mid-range q and sells high. perhaps allowing a setting, so that when players notice a shortage of supplies, we can convert quality into extra quantity? just a thought
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 10:02 am I agree. The GM keeps telling use no ones buys high Q why not let me make double or triple production instead of high q
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 04:41 pm that's a really good idea
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 08:22 pm Now i'm afraid of putting the greens in and just follow the corps with reds which are in shortage of supplies. Because while they are in greens, they will end up too high on the best price strategy so i will be skipping all the greens for now. If i do how ever, see any reds do become green and they stay on too high for long period of time, it will too be deleted, just like the gold company did. Not all should end up like the gold did. Just as long as i see or should we say (we see) each month as some left and none sales on best price strategy on their market situation. Thank you, Anthony.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 09:23 pm This is another thing that totally confuses me and takes away the playability. You can pull up a corp type pop-up and see, when the over supply has been too big for too long, you can see the closure of hundreds of a corp type in one month. Obviously a GM intervention, no one player can close 100 corps of the same type in one month on a regular basis. The strange thing is, you look at the supply graph for several months or a year later and there is very little, if any, reduction in supply. What on earth am I to make of that? So I am presuming these are C3 corps closing and along with the GMs policy of not interfering too severely with market trends this doesnt effect the supply much. But the maths of that just doesn't add up which ever way you compute it (except in base SC number system maybe). We need transparency people! I call for a non governmental quango to be set up for an independant enquiry. And I expect the results by 2015. Who's up for the chair? Romeo Vicardi maybe...
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 01:26 am If you notice, many c3 corps close just as they are old enough to be purchased by players. Just as soon as they mature to that point they close and another type of corp is built in that c3. This is most notable on FB. This is GM supply manipulation and how it's controlled. So many times I have tried to purchase a c3 corp only to see it vanish before it matures to that point. There is no other way for this to happen unless it's direct GM intervention. Manipulation keeps us in check and keeps players from making any kind of profit. Crafty makes the point I brought up two months ago when you all jumped all over me. Soon... We will have only one way to play and that's the forced direction of the gm's. With little to no maneuverability or freedoms to do anything with your corps.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 03:27 am how does all these corps buy 180ish Q, and sell 270ish Q? i mean, where is the 180 Q comming from? the c3s, which are getting slim on some worlds now. if we where able to adjust our quality into production, it would give us a safety nets of sorts for dramatic events. and might even give some teeth to common markets? it makes since to me anyways.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 04:38 am I agree it would give teeth to cm allowing for local trading and, more selfsuffiency... BtW andy what was the point of removing 100Q and making it 120 can we go back to 100Q again
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 01:58 pm Why did say this shit for?!... Any way. I would rather try and keep out of trouble as much as possible and keep to the code. I just hope i don't get banned from the game as i do enjoy playing it and watching the numbers grow up or down base on their market situation. I don't want to get paranoid and start causing trouble to any one. I'd rather keep it to my self and just accept whatever the game has to offer, just as long i keep the rules and not blaming others or the gamemaster since they have more power over others on the account holders. Thank you all. Anthony.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:02 pm As you know, it's always been that way Orbiter. If things are becoming more dependant on producing quality that is demanded instead of expecting money to appear from nowhere then isn't that a step in the right direction, for a closer to reality simulation at least. I'm not sure what you mean by our being able to adjust our quality into production...you can adjust to make 120 to 330Q at your desire.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 09:09 am This is strange. As soon as i deleted the gold company, the numbers on the chart has been stable if that is the word. This only happened when i deleted it and it gone back to 90m on average and in reds. If i brought it back to the country, it'll start to fluctuate back to green and red, so on. What the hell. Something is up with it, if any one noticed this. Thanks, Anthony.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:29 am A lot of corps fluctuate wildly Anthony. Gold is one for sure. You should judge them from their year to year performance really as monthly is too unstable. I have a few gold corps that I accept sometimes make losses as overall they seem to make more than they lose. I havent got actual numbers on that, just seem that way...so good enough for me!
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 03:50 am Right now the way i find it you lose money selling higher Q goods I've tested both cases. Buy 120Q you get 200Q(when upgraded) Buy 200Q you get 280Q(when upgraded) In both cases you only gain 80Q points giving you 80% the price you paid. So if it costs 100 you can sell it for 180. The problem here is that no one buys high Q so you have to sell it for less as "Andy" stated. So really your buying 200Q and selling it as 260-270Q But with 200Q you can sell it for 10-20% over market because that it what everyone wants ATM. This further proves that the GM can give a rats butt(didn't use the other word because i could get banned for bad language lol). There ENTIRE game is flawed to be honest. They are adding 450Q fighting level to FB but navies still sit at 120Q? When was the last time i saw an update that came with lots of praise and was something that directly in-packed playibilty. Andy knows everything so maybe he can explain this mistake in the econ system or maybe shead some light on why no ones buying high Q goods?
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 06:10 am Thanks Crafty for clarifying that. Super, it worked out to be 190 quality to get 277.5 quality with full upgrades. I've been testing this, so far it's quite well on 190. Thanks, Anthony.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 08:06 am Well you definately buy under 200, I've been sticking with 170 it seemed to do better than 165 what I was at. But who intentially buys products at >200? so someone buys this junk? still puzzled, I guess the any quality noobs, and c3's I guess I'm ripping people off =(
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:09 pm There is a need for products of 200+ and even 300+ quality. Some corps save money when they average the quality of their supplies by mixing quality. Ideally, a corp buys high quality for cheap supplies it uses in large numbers, and 120 quality for all other supplies. To get the average product quality to around 296, it's often cost-effective to buy some supplies of 300+ quality. Our Dear Leader once said that corps that sell very high quality products get a subsidy. The buyers pay as if the product has a cheaper quality. The automation pays the subsidy to the seller. It's hard to monitor that voodoo math. But many corps selling 300+ quality are very profitable.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 03:39 pm I might try 300 quality on one corporation and see if it makes any difference. Anthony.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 03:44 pm The maximum quality settings for existing corporations is 250. And 350 quality for automation settings. Anthony.
| |
| Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 02:54 pm Check this out The C3 Army at War Level 11 Units Quality LR Land Division: 2@ 200Q Land Defense Division: 5@ 400Q Small Supply Unit: 8@ 300Q Large Supply Unit: 8@ 200Q Defensive Helicopter Wings: 15@ 400Q Interceptor Wings: 60@ 400Q Air Force Attack Unit: 1@ 200Q Attack and Bombing Wing: 2@ 200Q 2 responses Stealth Bomber Wing: 30@ 450Q Garrisons at all targets: Many 500Q Lol and after destorying all that you get a WHOPPING!!! 11T CASH WOOT OMG OMG THE GM HAS BLESSED US SOOOOO MUCH. We only have to take out 15-60 400Q wings(which you cant buy you have to buy 350Q then upgrade yourself). Then we get to fight 450Q stealth bomber wings and 500Q garrison. All for 11T cash thats awesome. Heres a real idea for warring Instead of cash how about also giving us the opition to take the Gold coins = to the market value of the war level(winning war level 11= 150GC. Maybe they should also look into adding 1M pop per war level so in the end you get 18M pop nation and 150GC. that be alot more of an incentive for warring since the war game costs your countries first born with no promises of making a profit
| |
| Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 05:13 pm Awesome Super dude. You done well.
| |
| Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 12:25 am Really though dont that seem rediclous? Fighting levels that even players cant obtain and the game does more damage then you can? In one attack you lose 150 mid range to stealth bombers/normal heli removal(thats 45B in weapons per atttack @ 300Q) 45B per attack in losses * 45attacks needed for removal of helis/stealth bombers = 2.02T Plus i still have to destroy the targets/garrison 100,000 per shell * 75,000 per attack * 3 for Q effect = 22.5B Now you take 2attacks to remove garrisons/destroy the target(remember capitals and city's sometimes need 3 attacks) 50targets per war * 2attacks = 100 attacks 100 attacks * 22.5B = 2.25T We are @ 4.5T is costs from just using tank/art shells and mid range missile batteries, theres still other ammo types/weapons to account for. The GM need to really rethink the warring situation. The MATH doesn't lie. The need to fix it. 1.5T * war level seems more reasonable with the fixes in the game. War level 11 would be roughly 17T in cash which is more then it is now but also more welcome to players in terms of making money. The GM failed to remember stealth bombers can double attack and attack "anything" this causes great losses and very quickly eats away profit. -------------Side note------------- I just did a C3 war and i blew up all the cities/capital/ around 10 factories and i only got 9 almost 10 WI points out of 40. The GM really needs to double the deaths done per war. I shouldnt have to blow up every city and the capital 3 or 4 times over to get the points needed to win
| |
| Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 08:49 am Well,im not much into side of the war machine type,im more of a economy side type.So, i wouldnt know much about it.Im sorry.
| |
| Friday, August 17, 2012 - 01:31 pm Ive gone back to best price sale strategy, its working the income again.
|
