| Andy | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 12:27 am 
The computation of the quality of the product a corporation produces will change a bit in one or two weeks.
Until now, we have computed the average quality of raw materials by taking the average, weighing the number of products used.
This means that if the corporation uses 50.000 units of one product, and 5000 of another, the one that is used more, will influence the quality more than the one used in a smaller number.
This features remains of course in the new computation but, we also take into account the cost of the raw material.
one unit of a product that costs 10.000 will count ten time more than a product that costs 1.000 per unit.
It means for example, that the quality of maintenance units that are used in the production will have more influence on the quality of the product that is produced by the corporation than it used to until now.
It becomes important to purchase all raw materials at a high quality. |
| Christos | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 12:34 am
OK as I understand it this is the end of the ASQ principle as we know it. Contracts will become irrelevant, common markets will become irrelevant, any kind of economic skill will become irrelevant in magaing corporations. Any ignorant noob can set his supplies at 205Q and get the same economic result as someone who has dedicated hours and hours to setting up contracts and common markets while setting the rest of his supplies at 120Q. I just wish I knew this before I renewed my subscription. This makes me furious. And it is also very sad for the game itself. |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 12:47 am
will there be limit to this concept of quality?
if the formula to calculate the output quality is the sum of the input quntity times input quality, then as the input quality approach infinity, will the output quality also approach infinity?
is it still:
output quality = (p1q1+p2q2+p3q3+ ... + pnqn)/(p1+p2+p3+...+pn)
the issue is who will be willing to pay for the quality?
if quality for every product has to be in this game, then i should be able to use half of the quantity of a product if i choose Q200 over Q100?
the local and common market will then have no place in this game, unless there is a new sale strategy added as i posted in "automation" |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 12:57 am
for andy's example
the input ingredients are:
p1 = 50,000 kg
p2 = 5,000 kg
say if
q1 = 100
q2 = 300
then the output quality (oq) would be
oq = (50,000kg x 100 + 5,000kgx 300)/ (50,000kg + 5,000kg)= 6,500,000/55,000 = 118
i'm think, "how will the units of measurement work out if one is in kwh, one is in kg, liter, and so on....?" |
| Aries | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 12:58 am
This is considered by many to be a game feature. Some of us spend quite some time tweaking corps with contracts or using manual purchase orders to get the most out of supply costs to maximize the profitability of corps. Removal of the way this works removes an entire style of game play that gave those players a chance to distinguish their corps with this additional work.
Can we have additional information of why this change is being made. Are there any benefits to players who spend extra time on their economy in this? |
| thewhy | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 12:59 am
i say how disappointing i finished setting up my contracts yesterday |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 01:06 am
oh, i forgot about the cost too?
input a cost variable that is a result of other variables would seem to be going in circles. the existing cost variable is not base on the actual cost, but rather on the quality of the product. this is getting sci-fi now 
to make this work per human logic would be to treat cost as the actual cost, and not an arbitrary personal judgement concept of quality?
well, just imagine in my computations above, that p1 = $1 and p2 = $1 ...then the oq still 118? |
| Jack | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 01:18 am
Aries, Chris and XON are right. This change negates Average Supply Quality which allowed those who were willing to do the work required for ASQ to make their corps more profitable than the player who decided to simply buy all high Q raw materials. Now we will all buy all higher quality raw materials and we will all get the same high quality products at a much higher production cost and they will all be sold at the same price resulting in lower profits. In fact those of us and there are alot who used ASQ will have to cancel all of our contracts and start over when this becomes effective. Common markets can be dissolved as they will serve no purpose other than to get a few points for your score. No need for contracts.
Please respond in depth to Aries excellent question - "Can we have additional information of why this change is being made. Are there any benefits to players who spend extra time on their economy in this? " |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 02:23 am
this quality concept is killing the game?
i buy for my population at Q120, and i buy for my corps close to Q200. therefore, my population cannot afford to consume the products manufacture by my own corps?
i thought the base of a great country is to be able to feed your own country first, then the world.
this quality concept encourage me to let my population be hungry or eat the lowest quality products and sell the highest quality products to other countries/populations?
i'm thinking what if the other presidents are only buying the Q120 for his people too, then how do we keep this cycle going?
sometime down the road, i believe this this bubble will burst due to the concept of quality (an inflated value) on products.
as i stated above, if the formula for quality is the sum (p1q1c1+....+pnqncn)/(p1q1c1+...+pnqncn), then there is no end to quality?
it does not make sense to limit quality either, because you should not arbitrary change anything in the chain, unless you also change the foundation of that chain. else everything will be coming down thru the floor?
i would be very happy to manufacture high quality products, so long as you continue to force others to buy at price = p x q
but i don't want to pay that price because paying that price drain my cash from my corps/country. the value of my total assets may be great, but i would have no cash to operate my corps/countries, if no one buys my products at p x q. |
| Aries | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 02:35 am
Xon, the goal of the game is not to make sense to you. All your posts follow this trend. If you spend any time in chat with me, I can show you item after item that will make your head spin.
This issue is about a game feature that has existed for quite some time. It forms the basis of the usefulness of contracts and common markets and is about the only gem there is for an economic-centered player to spend time and see real results.
Please consider the results of these changes on these players and end the crusade of bending the game to make sense to you. |
| thewhy | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 02:40 am
no Xon continue with your righteous crusade after all this is supposed to be a simulation |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 02:48 am
okay aries,
i'm heading out to work so i shall come to chat to learn things from you tomorrow. can we do this chat three hours before this hour now, so got more times?
thank you
i'm just saying that if i want a boat, then i buy a boat. if i want something better, then i buy a oceanliner or ship, etc... i cannot imagine a Q100 boat, a Q200 boat, a Q300 boat...a boat is a boat that's why it's got that name?
see you tomorrow? |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 02:50 am
thanks thewhy
don't we all want this game to be better, more realistic to earth economics?
no doubt is an awesome game, if only if it somewhat has more logical-ness to it |
| Star Foth | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 02:55 am
Q100 boat=Small, flat chasis cruiser w/ a control deck 2-story in back. Small living quaarters good for 1-2 days.
Small fishing trawler with cages, and nets.
Q200 boat=Bigger, but still small-size freighter with a larger deck, utility crane, and living quarters good for a few weeks.
Large fishing trawler with larger cages and more advanced fishing nets.
Q300 boat=A full out freighter with mutliple decks. Surface and lower decks all hold cargo. Surface decks loaded with cranes while forklifts and industrial vehicles deliver containers to the 1-2 lower decks with a full crew system.
Advanced fishing trawler capable of long-range missions. |
| Jack | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 04:10 am
GameMaster,
Do not let this get lost in this thread.
Please respond in depth to Aries excellent question -
"Can we have additional information of why this change is being made. Are there any benefits to players who spend extra time on their economy in this? " |
| claude balls | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 05:11 am
yes, i too would like this question answered... |
| claude balls | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 05:13 am
particularly the first part of the question, why? |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 05:44 am
I was afraid of this. It's exactly like what was said, any form of diligence, and creativity is taken away. It's very realistic for real corps to pick and choose what products to get at a desired quality to off set costs. How else are we supposed to manage costs?! Based on this new logic, all we have to do is set up corps, and forget them.
No, I'm not going along with this. Anymore changes like this, and I'm going to check out.
|
| Space313 | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 06:14 am
Well boys, look like I don't have to change anything. |
| Tezran | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 07:43 am
I don't understand why this will end common markets. I have always shied away from them because you have had to offer at least 10% of products. Nobody wanted your 305 quality FMU so when accepting contracts your corps need you then had to go through and cancel all the contracts for FMU, power, household products, luxury goods and so on.
I will be more inclined to join a market under these conditions. |
| Star Foth | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 07:45 am
I dun know why this ends common markets, a lot of people (not particularly here) say that. Common markets still give me high qua stuff at good prices, so....
I dun understand what the problem is. Can someone enlighten me? |
| craigwilliamson79 | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 09:39 am
I wonder if it is to do with server resources or if there is some other reason. Otherwise, what's the point of removing a feature? |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 10:06 am
It will result in decreased profits |
| Christos | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 10:19 am
Can you tell us Andy if you remove this feature what is really left for an econ player to do to distinguish his corporations from auto-pilot and c3 corporations? Why should all corps have the same profitability regardless of the players skill and personal involvement? Do you intend to reward lazyness and lack of game understanding? Should we all put our corporations on auto-pilot and forget about the evon side of the game? Shouldnt have we been at least warned not to dedicate hours and hours to setting up contracts only to find them useless? This is totally unexplainable to me... |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 10:32 am
Exactly what was just said here. Hours of time invested, only to reduce our corps to be like C3s, I couldn't say it any better.
Yeah, we do deserve an explanation |
| Jack | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 03:42 pm
Please think this through. This will result in lower profits and income for everyone. I think part of the issue is that not everyone used Average Supply Quality (ASQ) so they don't understand what is being taken away from all of us as players. When this change happens you will set up a corporation, set the supply quality to the highest quality, get it staffed and just sit and wait to see what the GM wants to pay you for your product. You will be nothing but a C3 when it comes to your corporations. If you think that because you don't use ASQ then this won't effect you then you are mistaken. First you will no longer have the option to choose to use it. You will pay more to produce your corps' products because you will have to buy higher quality raw materials than you do now. Much more than the 170 or 180 most who don't use ASQ buy at now. Since the GM has set the sale price so you can't charge more for your more expensive to produce product. All resulting in less profit for you. And those countries with CEOs in them will see less income from them as many CEOs use ASQ so when the CEO makes less profit then your country will receive less income. And even if the CEO didn't use ASQ he is still going to make less profit resulting in less income to your country. Combine that with the GMs constant decreases in C3 warring profitability and think about how you are going to fund your country.
There will be no need for common markets. The biggest use for a common market was for players who used Average Supply Quality to set up the contracts they needed to make ASQ work. Since with the GMs change we all will be buying only the highest quality raw materials for all of our corporations why would I want to set up a contract for every raw material? I will just buy it from the world market - no contracts needed - and if there is a shortage I can just buy what I need immediately. Some misunderstand common markets - for example if your CM required you offer 10 percent of your product if it wasn't bought in the CM it sold on the world market so you lost nothing. It wasn't a reserve that just set on the shelf. And whether you sell it on the world market or the CM it sells for the same price for that quality.
Before you drink the GM koolaid on this you need to think it through. They are hoping you don't. And if it is like every other change we have seen recently I am waiting for when the GM will sell us some booster for this for a few gold coins of course.
Mr Gamemaster - Please respond in depth to Aries excellent question -
"Can we have additional information of why this change is being made. Are there any benefits to players who spend extra time on their economy in this? " |
| Josias | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 04:46 pm
ASQ, makes since with some things. like with country supplies, the quality of Cable TV services, and Medical Material, would have a more profound effect, than the Quality of jewerly, or sports.
For Corps, the same concept rings true. how ever, not quiet so perfect. a jewelry corp should get more value, from the quality of Gold, than from the quality of FMUs. regardless, of the actual amount used.
perhaps, rather than getting rid of ASQ all together. asign a primary supply for each corp, and assign that supply, double the value. For instance, Aircraft Fuel, should have twice the Quality effect on Air Transport corps, than the rest of the supplies.
Rather than just hacking/slashing game features. You can put a * or some other icon next to the primary supply.
Additionally, why not fix CM issues. Its hard to use. Why not actually fix the "offer," so that you can actually set a percentage, less than 100%. Because that feature is just broken. It only works if you type in 100%. If you type in something less, it just adds it to whats already there, even if that raises it over 100%. or allow corporations a the ability to buy different Q supplies, like countries. |
| Myon | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 08:02 pm
I am trying to believe there is or will be a reason for this adjustment. Regardless of what the reasons are, tampering with ASQ is crazy in my opinion. The question raised by Airies is quite important and it will be unfair if the GM goes ahead with this plan without responding to that. |
| Edgar | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 08:36 pm
Ending Average Supply Quality as a tool available to players to improve their chance to make a profit is a very bad idea. It is the primary method for anyone to be able to set themselves apart in their corporations. There is a lot of good information in prior posts on this topic that I am not going to repeat. But I will add that countries are going to try to offset the loss of profits and the days of zero and low taxes in countries will end. And CEOs will try to find ways to offset it as well including cutting salaries and once taxes get above 30 percent move to C3s. I fail to see a solid reason to take this away from us. High Q products can and are produced now at a much less production cost through ASQ than what the GM is proposing to do.
GM - how about answer Aries questions. |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 09:16 pm
Nice to see you Myon |
| Mike G | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 09:59 pm
I think the proposed plan by the GM is unfair and will not be fixing anything. The ASQ is the foundation for many player's economic strategy, and changing it is absoultuley absurd. If a change like this goes through, profits will decrease, and would be changing a foundation of simcountry economics. I urge the GMs to drop this plan at once. |
| Tonyw | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 10:49 pm
Ok GM... what's up.. come talk to uncle Tony.. something must have tweaked for you to state something as crazy as you have! Are you mad?? seriously take a long look at the comments above, you guys back at the office are scratching your brains wondering why people are leaving this game! come on guys really.. your going to improve the game by taking a away a great feature in it?? Once again.. like my counter parts, I call for you to answer Aries question. |
| XON Xyooj | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 11:19 pm
the ASQ is already a whacky idea, adding one more variable to it will make it worst
the current price is base on quality
the future price will be base on quality x current price (as an ingredient cost to the next product using this product)
unless all c3 are designed to supply low Q products to presidents' high Q products, else who will feed the system?
take a simple calculus view of the current ASQ equation, as the Q approach infinity then the ASQ also approach infinity?
the reality is what is the ultimate Q for any product in sc?
why can't we just keep this game simple?
the cost of product manufacturing = material quantity x material cost + workers compensation + cost of money (i.e. intersts) + any other item to produce the produce
the price of a product = wanted profit for growth + cost of product manufacturing |
| Josias | Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 11:36 pm
i'd like to point out, that this appears to be a pretty popular feature. although its really more of a bug. but there are allot of people, politely displaying their disapproval of this change.
the reason this isn't more popular, it that it is difficult to learn, and set up. its a breeze once you get it.
so, i would challenge the GMs to reverse there direction on this, and investigate making the process easier, with expanded buying, and contract features. so that every one can use it.
if the market contained less of a quality faerie, that is if the input/output quality of the market was more strict, (not completely.) then advanced buying strategies, would make more sense. |
| Jack | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 12:27 am
Josias,
You are right ASQ is a concept that someone has to take time to learn. It isn't a process with an automatic setting that is so popular with many. At first I disregarded it and I came to regret all the time I did not use it. Those who use ASQ know the impact this simple concept makes on profits.
For those who could care less about ASQ let's forget about ASQ and look at what the GM said and what it means to you.
He said "It becomes important to purchase all raw materials at a high quality."
It is unlikely that high quality will mean the 150 to 180 quality level at which most players who do not use ASQ currently buy their raw materials. If that was high enough the GM would not have had to make that statement. High quality is 300 Q. I think it is safe to say that 300 Q raw materials will continue to cost more than 150 to 180 Q raw materials. Please tell me how you will be more profitable when you have to buy more expensive high quality raw materials at a price you cannot control and sell the product which will cost more to produce at a price you cannot control.
With this change we are losing the opportunity to control any major part of the production process.
And this change will result in less profits which will have a ripple effect throughout everyone's economy throughout every world.
GM - Where is your response to Aries' questions? |
| Khome y Peng | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 12:29 am
Somebody or multiple people please add this topic to the voting forum. I would, but I cannot for a couple of weeks. (i'm the one who put up no limits for number of corps for enterprises).
Actually, if a bunch of you all put up a voting poll regarding the matter, that will demonstrate how strongly we all feel about it. |
| Richard | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 12:39 am
GM: You need to answer the questions and concerns that are being raised here, specifically those raised by Aries, Josias and Jack regarding the reasoning that is behind this.
Look, your rating/rewards system is completely bogus, and it certainly takes no intellectual skill to develop a first rate country or empire, wars can be won merely with money and a 5th. grade reading ability, the only true spice that this game possesses is in the arena of Economics and without reason or explanation you feel, apparently in the interest of stupidity i.e. most of us are surely not smart enough , you want to gut the only challenging aspect of this game.
You need to mitigate this superior attitude that you feel allows you to set down edicts, and present your reasonings and answer these very valid concerns, we are not children, we are your boss, we pay your salaries, we demand answers! |
| XON Xyooj | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 01:05 am
allow players to set their own prices to their products
i don't need to make a 3000% profit margin when i sell from my A corp to all my other corps
let's be bit more realistic?
the current ASQ concept requires too much mathematical skills, and does not even make sense if you put a top limit on quality
the top limit quality for any product would be pure energy that most earth players should understand, 'cause that's the purest form or most fluidic of any matter in this universe?
|
| Jack | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 02:37 pm
XON - Can I give you a quick lesson in the "current ASQ Concept" which is about to be the last ASQ concept? And bless your heart, I promise you don't have to have any math skills to do it.
1 - Pick any corporation.
2 - Go to Available Materials (raw materials)
Choose 2 (sometimes it takes 3 and rarely 4) of the least expensive materials used in large quantities. Often it is services and high tech services in many corps. Contract the purchase of those 2 or 3 materials at high quality (270 or higher, the higher the better). This is where being a member of a CM made it easier to do the contracts.
3 - Set the corporation's supply level to 120
4 - You have just done ASQ
It does take some time to do. It did make corporations more profitable. It does work because of mathematics of which you had to do none. I will choose mathematics every time over your "pure energy". |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 07:06 pm
Andy
PLEASE PLEASE just stop
There is so many things that are BROKEN!!!
Can you PLEASE just fix what needs fixing before you add updates like this? |
| Christos | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 07:08 pm
Amen. My thoughts exactly. If it aint broken, why fix it? |
| Jack | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 07:31 pm
GM - This isn't even a change that is needed or wanted. It isn't to fix something that is broken because it isn't broken. You are simply taking something away that has become a game feature that is accessible to all players if they wanted to use it. Even free players that are restricted from doing so many things could do Average Supply Quality and improve their profits and grow their countries.
And you have yet to answer Aries' questions or define what you mean by high quality raw materials. Answer the questions in detail and tell us the number. |
| XON Xyooj | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 10:45 pm
@jack,
thank you
i understand ASQ, it's a whacky idea because there is a limit to Q yet the equation/formula to compute it does not say that. you would only learn that by trial-n-error or your friends will only tell you.
to have a decent common market is to be able to buy and sell everyt product in that market, without choosing to go outside it, if your corps there have sufficient products to supply each other.
we cannot have a normal common market, because the price of any product is automatic base on a set price times its quality.
this set price seems to be arbitrary, because have any of you be able to produce a product even close to it. for me, my production costs for any product is either way lower than this gm set market price or way higher than this gm set market price. i understand that the game has to have playability too, but this isn't the way to do it
why not just tell all players that the quality of any product for any state corp cannot exceed 273? the equation for ASQ has no limit, yet the reality is that 273 is the limit? and if you want a bit higher Q then do a ceo corp?
you can test this concept that price is base on quality on earth too. go to two car dealers, one sells bmw and the other sells ford. tell the bmw dealer that in your personal judgement a bmw has lower quality than a ford, therefore the bmw dealer must sell you a bmw at a price that is lower than the price for a ford. i bet the bmw dealer would kick you out of his lot
quality is a judgement call per a person, it is not something you can meaure such cost or expense? |
| Mike G | Monday, September 30, 2013 - 11:18 pm
I would like to pressure the GMs to these inquires. |
| Michael Wilson | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 01:30 am
Common Markets kills economy, it does not work, straight forward World Trade is the only way to work it. I don't kinda trust Common Market if it was my own. |
| Star Foth | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 05:05 am
Common Markets can be very beneficial. In my case, they helped my enterprise to grow and flourish |
| Michael Wilson | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 06:25 am
@Star Foth
I am just wondering if I missing something, I am gussing the Common Market only works on Any Quality? Not a straight forward 200 ASQ but then, I do realize that the Common Market charges a lot more than the World Trade. Which is my opinion though. Im thinking not to risk it again even if its on Any Quality. Im trying different strategy before I truly make up my damn mind.
I am thinking trying that again but with Any Quality. |
| XON Xyooj | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 07:54 am
common market will work if you vote yes on my proposal at public voting
if my proposal is implimented, then you can set your own prices for your products that you want to use as ingredients to your other corps.
cm does not now work because the price is auto set by gm already, so you pay lot higher for your own products because your product is lot higher quality than on those on the world market
the current design of the cm now seems to be that gm do not want you to exclusively focus on your own cm members, and you still have to interact with the world community as well. the pre-set price is a deter for you to get too focus on your cm.
for asq to work well, just work out the max output quality from the ingredients you have available....it works only well when there are lots of cheap ingredients on the world market. but if when everyone is producing high quality products, then cm will be dead. but there is max to asq too. you have to play within the borders set by gm.
i am suspecting that's why thousands of c3 must exist to produce these low quality ingredients for players to survive via the eco route, otherwise being warlords will require that you must constantly raid to survive cashflow problems. thus c3 serve these two very critical roles for the game, else everything will crash?
when you run out of sc$, then you must buy gc with usd in order to keep your assets in the game.
introducing one more variables into the equation will accelerate expenses of operations, thus accelerate the rate that players may buy more gc.
interesting design for the game
let's help make this an awesome game, so we can have more fun |
| Michael Wilson | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 08:15 am
Ive decided to skip the CM, its too risky for now from what I learned, you are too right XON, the CM is broken with high cost issues. Now, I have to replace all the old ones and start from scratch and go from there, since the CM and the strategy has ruined it. |
| XON Xyooj | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 09:33 am
i'm trying to use ASQ, but how do the units of measurements work out?
the ingredients are measure in units, kilograms, kwh, systems, tons, and so on....
are we suppose to ignore the unit of measurements when you do ASQ?
if not, then what are the converstions for all the units of measurements in this game?
this new idea of adding sc$ to it will need a conversion factor too?
please help? |
| Michael Wilson | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 11:30 am
I have no idea, lol, cant help there. |
| Khome y Peng | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 11:57 am
Weapons are now scarce... |
| Jack | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 03:30 pm
XON - the unit of measurement does not matter in ASQ. You are over thinking it. Use the simple plan I outlined and it will work.
ALL - Please don't forget that the GM used this thread to announce that soon we will have to buy all high quality raw materials. This additional cost will decrease your profits. Do you really need to make less profits? The GM is continuing to reduce the profits of C3 wars. Unless your plan is to fund your countries through your credit card I would suggest you take notice of this. Along with decreasing our profits this takes away Average Supply Quality as a tool everyone including free players could use to increase corporate profits. Whether you used or not doesn't matter why should the GM take it away from us.
It has been 2 days since the GM announced this. Not another word since then. Why has he not answered Aries' questions from 2 days ago and given us the magic high quality number he intends for us to use? Why hasn't he explained how making less profit is supposed to be good for us? |
| William V | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 06:45 pm
I am a creature of habit,so i don't really like random & disturbing changes.
Hopes for the best for simcountry,but i am preparing for the worst. |
| XON Xyooj | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 10:44 pm
@jack,
it's not overthinking, it's common sense that's what some of us earth humans do.
trying to pretend is difficult because if you're in america, you cannot use your english pounds, jap yen, and so on. you have to use usd?
it is even worst here, because computer systems do not mix well with tons of stone?
thank you though
yes, this new idea will increase cost by increasing quality. if there is no limit to quality, then it would be okay too so long as these high quality products are being forced to buyers to take them. if no players buy high q, then we all will have lots of unsold products. |
| claude balls | Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 01:04 am
Xon,
the SC markets are not 'free markets' so to say,
The quality of a product gets absorbed by the market.
what this means is that when you sell 1000 ton of stone @ Q100, 1000 ton becomes available on the market. I could buy that 1000 ton @ Q330 and pay 3.3 x the market price.
likewise when i sell that 1000 ton which is Q330, the market only registers that 1000 ton has come on the market, not the quality of the stone. anyone can buy that 1000 ton of stone at any Q level they so desire.
At least that is how i understand it. |
| Neville Chamberlain President Kildare Empire | Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 01:25 am
Claude, I believe you are correct. That has been my observation. |
| Borg Queen | Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 04:16 pm
Sorry if I'm joining late in this discussion, but had to do some things for Uni.
So here are my thoughts, didnt read all the thread so my bad if someone mentioned this allready:
Is it just me or does the economy of this game is step by step more limited?
I mean if you cant do free pricing, all products have an effect compared to their Price, why even bother with different products. When this new Quality concept will be implemented you as well could join all products of one type into one single product.
For example: If you need Chemicals and Building Materials and Quality per price is the same why not just do a 'industry' product? But hey, why should anyone then buy the Corp-Conversions for GC?
Sometimes I think I'm getting a 'bitter vet' but I start getting an 'earlier times everything was better' attitude. At least it was far more economically interesting, luckily I care for my Little Drones and hope everything will Change again to the better, but as it seems anything that would Change to the better will cost GCs (like corpchanging)
But as it seems Andy doesnt read anyway, at least doesnt bother to answer anything |
| Aries | Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 10:13 pm
This change appears to have taken effect. I guess I will have to cancel several thousand contracts, set supply quality to a fixed number, and re-evaluate the usefulness of hundreds of corps. |
| Josias | Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 10:59 pm
i noticed it also. this is one of those things, i really wish the GM would talk about, rather than just say what they are basically going to do, and leave it at that.
it doesn't really seem, so far that it is the total destruction of ASQ, actually. i'll adjust some settings, and expect to be near my old profits.
crosses fingers |
| XON Xyooj | Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 11:16 pm
this new invention will actually get you to high Q faster, but the trap is that there is max Q you cannot exceed.
if there is no max Q, it maybe okay too so long as everyone (presidents, ceo, c3) are all producing high Q products with this new invention, and that we continue to be able to sell high Q products by force-sales.
if max Q contiues to be a limit, and everyone wants to buy low quality/price, but this new proposal will create high q/price, then we players will get crash. as players, we get squeeze from the borders that we have to play within, and these borders just get accelerated to be much closer together. eventually, the only way to survive and keep our game assets is to buy gc. this is an awesome strategy for the gm/owner, but very bad for the players |
| Josias | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 12:11 am
if you look closely at the various costs, and what has actually changed. ASQ is still very viable, just the output q has dropped. For quiet some time now, W3C has been lowering the max Q, while raising the requirements to top out. all that is really needed here, is probably 20ish more points to the average supply. unless their is a part 2 to this, this doesn't seem so bad. maybe a blessing in disguise? |
| Aries | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 12:31 am
If it is as the original post said, does ASQ still exist? I mean, right now if you have a mix of low quality high per-unit costs items and high quality low per-unit costs, sure, you can add some more high quality stuff and it will raise the output quality again. However, is it any different than just ordering all supplies at a medium quality, like 200? |
| XON Xyooj | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 12:32 am
with the asq equation that the numerator increases without limit, while the denometer has a limit or keeps going lower is not a blessing for players |
| Jack | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 12:49 am
I agree, it looks like you are right that implementation of the change has already begun. Although the GM stated "The computation of the quality of the product a corporation produces will change a bit in one or two weeks."
Unfortunately since we don't know to what percentage the change has been implemented it is impossible to know how to adjust on our end. That is information we need. And knowing exactly when the change was going to happen would have given us time to make changes. Instead we are told a vague 1 or 2 weeks and then they change it in 4 days. Funny how they can make this change in 4 days but a long list of long promised changes are still just that - a long list of long promised changes. Plus some communications from the GM would have been great and expected as customers of their business. Apparently the GM thinks this is the only game in town or that we are so loyal we would not leave. However the GM would be very wrong on both counts in my humble opinion.
GM, I have not forgotten that you never have answered Aries questions. |
| Star Foth | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 01:06 am
What about doing this but having something different to benefit those who put time in?
Just throwing that out there, it doesn't reflect the opinions of me, FOX, or BLO |
| Khome y Peng | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 03:28 am
Did anybody else notice most overall corp market values plummet? |
| claude balls | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 03:28 am
does the new supply quality equation mean that as the market price of a product goes higher, the proportion that the product in question contributes to the total product quality increases? |
| claude balls | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 04:28 am
that was badly worded,
i'll try again
if the market price of a particular supply product increases, does the proportion that the supply product contributes to the overall quality of the product being produced increase?
any better? |
| Star Foth | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 04:54 am
I saw my 11T corp fall to 1T |
| Jack | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 05:21 am
So far in one game month my enterprise lost 8 Trillion in total assets and billions in profits. Similar losses in total assets and profits in my countries. And we don't know how much further it will fall.
And it obviously doesn't just affect someone using ASQ. A friend with an enterprise that uses almost no ASQ lost billions in profits at the same time.
GM let's hear from you and soon. The unanswered questions for you are piling up. |
| Michael Wilson | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 06:55 am
This is quite unheard off. Looks like economy is crashing, lol. |
| Josias | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 07:23 am
so far, they haven't actually done anything unusual, actually. believe it! or not,
shrug |
| William V | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 09:46 am
Hmm,i log in to find at least $5T just gone out the damn door!
what's even more messed up is it's the second time in a row,
yes i am buying hq stuff oh wait that's right i am still waiting for my stuff to arrive
and what has arrived is not even close to the HQ' i ordered.
some of my orders tend to change or revert back to 120Q yet i still lose trillions
and i've recieved not 1 award when i am premium and have earned one.
I worked hard to get that money only too just watch it vanish without a trace. |
| XON Xyooj | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 10:15 am
i've been told that nothing ever get lost in sc, so i never bother to check in details.
it seems the higher you gone, the faster you're falling now? |
| Dominik | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 10:28 am
Ok, even though I am just a rookie in this game, even I know this is a really stupid and retarded idea. Why on Earth would you like to change the current system? The only effect it will have is that it will put the economies of the players into deep and big trouble. |
| XON Xyooj | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 10:48 am
@dominik,
that's probablythe idea, so that the only way to get out is thru gc
if there is not limit to any variable, then should be okay, but gm seems to be picking and choosing whichever variable is in the direction you said |
| Michael Wilson | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 11:23 am
This is GM's fault and they have explanation and resolving the problems to do. They have been quiet yet monitoring the forums and not responding. So, GM's is not up to par with their terms. |
| Christos | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 01:27 pm
Well you know sometimes when the host wants to imply that the time is late and send you home but he's too polite to say it, he starts to yawn and mention the things he has to do tomorrow. It seems the GM has decided to f&#k up his own game and send us home. For the meantime the new Simcountry Punchline is "LAZYNESS PAYS OFF". Anyone who dedicated countless hours setting up contracts and common markets can go and *you know what* themselves. We just don't care. We don't even care to answer you. You're nothing to us. |
| Michael Wilson | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 03:57 pm
I guess we're f**ked then. Lol, anyway, I never liked the Common Market. So, no problem there with me. |
| claude balls | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 04:14 pm
There was a fairly large drop in market prices from Dec 3442 to Jan 3443.
Selling products at the lower price (made with supplies paid for at the previous higher price) plus losses in company tax, accounts for the 4B that disappeared from one of my country's monthly profit recently. |
| craigwilliamson79 | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 05:33 pm
I use no ASQ. I've been loosing total value for the last game year and profit has dropped by a third. I'm bleeding cash like crazy also. |
| Michael Wilson | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 06:54 pm
I wish I never touched the CM, the score of it is still computing and I have nothing contracted. This is bulls**t
Im seriously thinking deleting this old Country and make another one on another World. |
| XON Xyooj | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 10:48 pm
if the only the debit and credit system is transparent so we players know where our cash are going, would not be so much questions?
now i have no idea, just have to trust gm that nothing ever gets lost in sc. so hopefully when gm takes (debit) my cash, i got (credit) something else in return. |
| Jack | Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 10:51 pm
When someone discovers something radical that works around this mess created by the GM or develops a new plan like the old ASQ please DO NOT post it in this open forum to tip the GM off so they know to change it. If you are willing to share it we can develop some other means to communicate it. |
| Jack | Friday, October 4, 2013 - 02:50 pm
Remember the game where's Waldo? It looks like the newest version is where's the GM?
The global economy is in turmoil caused by the GM and where is the GM? Certainly hasn't appeared in the forum all week. Hasn't given any explanation about why he did it or answered even the first question about it. GM said he was going to make the change in a week or two but does it in less than 4 days so no one would have time to adjust.
GM do you think if you stay away long enough we will just forget about the trillions in lost profits and total assets? I heard from a player last night who is just giving up his enterprise because he doesn't see how he can make it work and doesn't want to waste gold coins to keep it. Others are closing corporations every day. There are a lot of dissatisfied customers that you created.
Mr GM you may have gone too far this time. And hiding from us is not helping you any. And every day you let go by without taking action to correct what you did it gets worse. You can still correct this. Restore the computation back to where it was last week and make financial reparations to all of the countries and enterprises of all the worlds and we can then discuss where we go from there. |
| Christos | Friday, October 4, 2013 - 04:04 pm
Perhaps the most incredible aspect of this situation is exactly what Jack mentions above: The complete absence of any formal position of W3C. It's like the GM has vanished into thin air, completely dissolved. Sometimes I feel as we are in the middle of some prank, some practical joke from the GM and Andy will soon miraculously return and say "Gotcha!!!". |
| William V | Friday, October 4, 2013 - 10:37 pm
Ah,fellas this sort of thing happens all the time once games been around as long as SC,
a blind man could see the writing on the wall haha one of my RP games i often enjoyed
recently shut down cuz the "GM" just said fu im out?
Yeah just like that he just split leaving thousands of pissed members,
he did for a reason tho he found a wife & well that's it games dead goodnite. |
| XON Xyooj | Friday, October 4, 2013 - 11:34 pm
@william,
let's hope that sc gm will hand over to me rather than shut it down
i'll keep everyone happy |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 01:31 am
I vote yes for XON taking control of SC. I get to be conceptual designer.
And if we need to vote on it...
IN MY FIRST TERM AS GM I PROMISE TO FIX ALL THE ISSUES THE PREVIOUS GAME MASTER DIDNT.
-I promise to drop corp levels to 100K to allow more corps to be made.
-Fix Navy quality issues.
-Allow more options for common markets.
-Increased benefits for war levels.
-I will allow a bigger CM/Federations member limits.
-I will give players better weapons stats so that large amounts of weapons are no longer needed in battles.
-Most of all i promise to be in chat daily to help players with problems, and i will be a constant interactive member of the forums...
VOTE SUPERSOLDIERRCP FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGNER!!!
*plays awesome music* |
| Christos | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 01:57 am
You certainly have my vote for GM Super. Problem is, I think SC is toast. Too bad I found it too late... It must 've been a great game 5-6 years ago. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 02:06 am
I remember starting 4year ago.
There was no war levels and free-players got 30 days to play before they had to pay.
Everyone that was here wanted to be, and with no war levels everyone was fair game. Players within there first day desperately seeked a federation which made it very competitive, and there was plenty of vets to teach...
cant say the same now |
| William V | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 02:54 am
SuperSoldierRCP,definitely has my vote & offer of other support if need be.
But to be fair we can't really be too upset with the GM,sometimes guys just burn out
or like i mentioned get married wit kids and say to hell with us game nerds etc,
So if someone here wants to step up and take control of those duties cool
i am sure people who are new like me or vets like super,love the concept of this game
but also understand it can use a few tweaks here or there, or revert back to what super
claims we're the golden era of the game so somebody needs to step up or it's lights out. |
| claude balls | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 04:18 am
I think it would be a rather time consuming task running this game and dealing with everyone's problems and requests. The GM might be on holiday, who knows. The markets seem to be functioning ok, profits are climbing again after the recent price drop. Maybe more attention should be paid to running an efficient country and enterprise. The rules change, change with them... there is still plenty of ways to make a profit... |
| Jack | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 08:03 am
Claude, you are right running a business like W3C would be time consuming but after all it is their business. And there is more than one GM so surely someone is available to give us some explanation and answers.
And you are right we do have to keep trying till we finally succeed, get fed up and quit or the GM manages to destroy us.
Changes always happen but do they have to make a constant stream of changes that cut our profits? This was not just some random change that happened. It was a designed change by the GM. I don't know about you but I lost a lot of profits and asset values because of this last change and it is going to be difficult if not impossible to just get back to where I was. And if there is a good reason to have made this change I just want the GM to tell me what it was. Since the GM has disappeared can you tell me a good reason for the GM to have made this change? |
| claude balls | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 08:32 am
It makes the supplying of companies a more flexible, dynamic and demanding engagement.
ASQ is hardly rocket science, it is well documented on the forums. it is a static system.
This change shakes the game up, it gives us a new challenge.
it tests our abilities to creatively respond.
in short, it makes us think... |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 09:26 am
If the GM would honestly take the time of listen this could be a GREAT game. Its honestly as if they don't care what we have to say anymore. I personally have suggested a lot of ideas in which dozens of players have agreed.
-Giving relief aid to another nation should positively effect a players score.
-All C3 weapons and ammo should come off the world market. This would increase demand and allow us to dramatically increase production to massive levels allowing military's to costs to be cut in the process.
-Fix common markets to allow you to choose to buy good or all corps and set the Q you want to by.
-Add some more new types of corps. There's Nuke power/Electrical power. Why not add land transportation?
Also speaking from ACTUAL military experience. The war game of SC is terrible in terms of weapons and ammo. I don't understand how it takes 5 Anti air batteries and 25 missiles to blow up 1 Helicopter...
If i was running things weapons would be tweaked so you didn't need 500 anti air to MAYBE destroy a wing of helis, and navy's would see an update.
Also id fix feds, Instead of only sharing air def they would share land base defenses and even offensive weapons.
I'm just rambling at this point, either way its a shame becuase ive given many ideas to the GM and been shot down and ive HEARD maybe greater ideas but they dont listen, even though i wish they did...
remember VOTE SUPERSOLDIERRCP FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGNER!!! |
| XON Xyooj | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 10:03 am
great ideas super
there are lots of players' ideas to be implimented to make this game better, but have you see this game getting better since you were here 4 years ago?
lots of things in this game are out of proportions, that's why i have such stressful times trying to understand this game
it's an awesome game, and can be much more AWESOMER |
| XON Xyooj | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 10:06 am
i'm not too sure how much more dynamic this game will be by adding cost to the equation, when quality is already making this game such a whacky concept already.
it's like a snake chewing its own tail. soon it will just kill itself. |
| Khome y Peng | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 03:42 pm
I think in general, there is way too much of a power slant in favor of defensive helicopters. I know they are useful in reality, but they are not the most critical part of a military. |
| Aries | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 04:23 pm
Lets keep this thread focused on the topic. Any other suggestions should be able to stand up to their own scrutiny on their own thread. |
| Jack | Saturday, October 5, 2013 - 04:44 pm
Well it appears some are already just resigning themselves to the new even lower profit/lower value economy courtesy of our GM masters. And the only reason for the change anyone can put forth is "it makes us think."
And others are making up excuses for why a GM has not responded to anyone's questions about this mess he created.
This is exactly why the GM has dodged his responsibility to us. GM knows that given enough time many will just accept it like every other change and just say that it is the way it is and change happens. Even some will make excuses for the GMs' lack of responsibility. Well giving them a free pass every time they make a change that weakens our ability to build a strong economy is what has gotten us to where we are today. It is time we let them know enough is enough. GM - Quit doing things that destroy our economies and this game. And do things that let us grow economies. And if you don't know how to do that just read the forum posts as there are lots of good players telling how you could do it.
But we the sheep don't have the stomach for that confrontation. So GM you can now come out of hiding. We are surrendering yet again. Let's all gather around the camp fire and sing Kumbayah and hugs and Hershey kisses for all. To which the GM announces "by the way we are cutting C3 warring profits by another 50% but I love you guys."
Enjoy. I won't be at the camp fire. |
| claude balls | Sunday, October 6, 2013 - 08:32 am
Jack, are you Carolina Trading Corporation? |
| Jack | Sunday, October 6, 2013 - 03:55 pm
Claude, yes that is me. And if you see something that will help me clean up this mess I now I have please let me know. Send me a message. |
| claude balls | Monday, October 7, 2013 - 02:56 am
looks pretty good to me. |
| Jack | Monday, October 7, 2013 - 03:04 am
Thanks but it used to look a lot better. And maybe it will again. |
| claude balls | Monday, October 7, 2013 - 03:36 am
profits and assets seem to be turning up
there is always going to be a hit to company profits and hence company value when the GM lowers product market prices across the board. |
| Khome y Peng | Monday, October 7, 2013 - 04:37 am
I have the Malizian INTL Syndicate on KB, maybe somebody could offer me feedback? |
| Jack | Friday, October 11, 2013 - 05:16 am
Hey Andy,
Now that you have distracted almost everyone from the economy with your news about the navy how about answer Aries' questions from September 29th.
By the way are you going to make the navy changes within 4 days of your announcement? You wrecked our economies after only 4 days although you said you were going to do make the change in a week or two. What was your rush? You couldn't take time to answer our questions first and then give us time to make adjustments? And don't blame it on your trip to Italy. It could have easily waited till you got back. There was no reason that change had to be made then or any other time. Now its time to answer the questions. |
| Central Banker | Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 06:58 am
I'd like to know this question too. I don't see a point of me doing anything but setting a generic quality level for all my corps. There is virtually no point of me tweaking my supplies. |
| Khome y Peng | Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 07:32 am
i'm still wondering how the market on KB was pumped with over 20 billion units of HTS... |
