| Andy | Monday, December 2, 2013 - 08:53 pm 
Base pricing of all products will continue a slow down trend.
Many products will have a price reduction of around 1%. some will not change at all.
Some types of ammunition may show a price reduction of 2 or 3%.
There are very large shortages in some types of ammunition and corporations will produced increased numbers. This was our aim for a long time but there were large surpluses for an extended period.
The base price is not the price you pay for the product.
depending on shortages or surpluses on the market, product pricing can change in a range of about 50% to 150% of the base price.
This is a factor of 3 between the lowest price of a product and the highest price.
In additoion, quality will have a major effect on the price paid. |
| Central Banker | Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - 11:53 pm
When you look at the pricing graphs for a certain product and see a horizontal trend (Price did not move up or down from the previous month). Is this the base price? Or is this the highest point it can deviate from the base?
I am asking because I am genuinely curious, I have seem prices move down but I have never seen it move over this point. For example, the price of construction in LU has been $331 without upwards or downwards movement for a long time now. Since it is in heavy demand it would make sense if it moved up (I know the deal with pretty much permanent shortages of certain products) If it is the highest point it could deviate from, that would make sense. If it isn't and could go higher, I am curious as to how it could move up. Thanks! |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - 09:34 am
If a product shows a shortage, on the product pricing page, for a longer period, the price may have reached the top level (around base + 50%).
It will not go any higher.
if it has an oversupply for a long time, it will decline to the lowest level (around base - 50%) and it will not go any lower.
if shortages and oversupply alternate, the price will move between these limits.
the base price of some products, and types of ammo, will decline today (see game news later today).
you will see a change in the maximum and minimum pricing that will follow the new base price. |
| Ebenezer Screw | Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - 12:53 pm
Andy,
Casual observation, rather than academic study (so far!), suggests that a decline from the top base level happens on a monthly basis regardless of how much oversupply there is. So, a product in 1% oversupply for 3 months will decline at the same rate and to the same point on the scale as a product that is in 10% or 50% oversupply for the same 3 months. Is that true? Or does a greater surplus have a relatively greater impact (ie quicker decline) on the base price?
Presumably, the opposite (of whatever the answer is above) is true at the other end of the scale when a product moves from surplus to under supply.
Many thanks. |
| James the Fair | Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - 05:17 pm
So let me get this straight. If something has been in oversupply for lots of game months, the product can drop to as much as 50% of the base price? so that's basically like buying something that is 50% off right?
And if something has been in a shortage for lots of game months, the product can raise to as much as 150% of the base price? so that means that particular product has been risen by a third, or 33 percent above it's base price?
However if this is so, I welcome this change, and if you're reading this Josias. You were right what you said about the price controls, because if you could set the price of products any price you like, the whole system would collapse of the more I think about this. I understand why it's there now. |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - 06:49 pm
Ebenezer: this is indeed the case.
it is an oversupply, or a shortage.
James:
This is not a change. This is how it works from day 1.
in the past years, we were asked many times to drop the bottom or the ceiling and we did not.
the reason is that very few players raise to the occation and create corporations to make profit out of the price increase and thereby stabilize the market.
It did not happen and this is why the ceiling and the bottom were always needed.
There are even only a few players who make use of the difference in price between nuclear power and electric power. Only a few earn a lot of money out of it. |
| Josias | Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - 07:50 pm
Thanks James.
I'm really excited about the new markets. They do truly seem to be more dynamic, and possibly allow more risk/reward, for those that look for such things.
The markets vary +/- 50%. And with C3s dropping out of looser markets, they have become red, and have or will triple their traditional price. at least at times. and previous hard core red corps, are sickly green now. and its my guess, that markets will continue to fluxate over time. The GM could predict that better, ofcourse, i'm just looking at whats happening, compared to whats been announced. It is the basic thing that we've wanted, with out nearly the backlash.
Further, by over building of one type of corp, i'm guessing it will push it green faster. as their is over all, more production, and less "play," in the red. So if you tend to rely on a handful of corp types, your gonna find yourself in the old saying, "Working yourself out of a job," so their is increased risk, while encouraging a variety of corps that would be more realistic in countries. |
| Mute | Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - 09:54 pm
I believe that the sea of red ink flooding my basement now will only get deeper. I am mounting an invasion of Antarctica and will pray for a polar shift. |
| Andy | Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 03:03 pm
Products that were deep in the red, remain in the red. there were only slight changes in the past weeks and if shortage was 30% there is no way they will remain green.
we cannot predict the market. there are too many factors and speculating players. We have no idea what they will do.
You can compute how many corporations are needed to close the gap.
divide the "average" monthly shortage you see on the utilization page, by the monthly production of such a corporation. |
| Mute | Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 08:05 pm
This market tweak has fundamentally altered the basis of my little empires economy. I'm just going to have to see how it works over some time and restructure my countries and enterprise. Nothing serious.  |
| Josias | Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 08:47 pm
Services, HTS, and Oil, some of traditional hard core red corps, are floating around the market price, at least on LU. it looks like corps that need to close, but right before the price lowers enough to effect that, some one keeps grabbing up the stock. well, not one person, i'm sure. but they aren't being left alone long enough to correct themselves. like you said, 2 many factors, and 2 many speculating players. much more "play"
soybeans where min price, i bought like 7B, or something. Then the price maxed for while. each day, i was selling enough to keep up with demand, but never turning it green. While i built something like 20-25 soybean corps. I've noticed the under-supply of soybeans has about halved, maybe a third. While i tripled my investment money, and gained a toe hold in the soybean market. Because most of the new soy corps where mine, as C3s seemed to be building and adjusting in more volatile markets. kinda like i was able to use my stock of soybeans to discourage C3s from building many, giving me the opportunity to soak up all the extra demand.
lots of new possibilities, right on! |
| Christos | Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 11:21 pm
Well, our GM took ASQ away from us, but he replaced it with ASP (P as price) - only problem is that the old system just demanded good, stable, contracts and CMs, while the new one requires a micromanagement that's only possible within a single country or a 100-corp enterprise. Apart from that it's quite fascinating and indeed offers new possibilities. |
| Josias | Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 11:51 pm
whats wrong with that?
their general attitude has been, that if you want a large, multi-planet empire, then your gonna pay for it. they introduce a new feature, (or update an old one,) that, as you said, difficult to manipulate at a large scale...
seems like its right along the same path, of smaller empires. and giving smaller empires as much of an advantage as larger ones. seems like a good move to me.
although, don't get me wrong, i'm still irritated at the loss of ASQ, and the GC market, i'm just saying, this change, works well with other recent changes, and adds a demention that many have been asking years for. while making it difficult for overwhelming backlash. |
| Ebenezer Screw | Friday, December 6, 2013 - 07:55 am
Andy,
While your words (You can compute how many corporations are needed to close the gap. divide the "average" monthly shortage you see on the utilization page, by the monthly production of such a corporation.') are a good rule of thumb, it is not the whole story. In times of surplus, some corporations lower their hiring/production levels for direct impact on output and may lower their salary levels for a less direct impact by reducing the welfare index and hence productivity. Therefore, I believe there is a small built in surplus if you solely consider the number of corporations for production parity. But it is marginal, I suspect, and not worth worrying too much about! |
| Ebenezer Screw | Friday, December 6, 2013 - 08:00 am
By the way, I'm quite content with the way things are developing. I'm playing the game solely as a CEO and not running a country. I enjoy the challenge of finding 'the next success story', either as an individual corporation or as a sector. So far, doing OK at it, but sure to come off the rails at some point! |
| Christos | Friday, December 6, 2013 - 11:48 am
I don't disagree with you Josias, it's just such a temptation to see hard red supplies like Air Transport, Oil, Software, Computers even Services (!) etc fall to ridiculous prices and not be able to take advantage, unless you're there to manually purchase them when they go down (which is hard and time consuming). There's no automatic way to do it.
Even if I buy them in large quantities for my country or CEO when I will need to sell them to my own corps the price may be different, so no corporate profit there (there will be a profit for the country and the CEO of course - but what difference will 40B or 50B make?) |
| Andy | Friday, December 6, 2013 - 04:02 pm
Ebenezer,
computing the number of corporations that are needed to wipe out the shortage is not exact science.
but when there are shortages, corporations try to produce at 100%+ welfare bonus.
you can also see the percentage of production compared to capacity on that same utilization page.
we have a procedure computing this to decide on priorities for C3 countries.
I did the math as I described here and got a similar number.
100 or 120 "needed" corporations is not important.
50 or 400 is significant and that kind of shortage will probably not disappear very quickly.
Allowing more flexibility in the market happened by slightly increasing the output of some corporations. It was not even 10% in total over the entire period and shortages will not disappear.
It can mean that on average, the price of the product is less likely to remain at the top level.
this is why we have at the same time, increased the "Base profitability".
It means that corporate profits are higher and even with some product prices declining a bit, or fluctuating, the total profit of all corporations will remain unchanged or most likely, increase.
I am sure that as a CEO, you see profitability increasing in recent weeks.
We also look at (example): how many fighters can you purchase for the one month profit of a country and the number is gowing.
It happens because of an increased profitability and falling base price of weapons and ammo.
Not in all countries of course.
It remains quite easy to make your country loose a fortune each month. we cannot prevent it. |
| Josias | Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 07:23 am
I'd let this die, except you mentioned AT twice, thats my favorite corp. oddly enough. Services, and HTS are used in nearly everything. and their main supply is AT. AT only supplies 2 other corps, vacations, and m services. i figure, that allot of the world health can be measured by AT. IF services and HTS are used for everything, and their main supply is AT. the demand for AT is indicative of the rest of the world econ.
but thats what i look at.
couple of odd questions, some not meant to be answered.
If a country is a large exporter of Cable TV services, AT, Books and News Paper, Telephone, and recreation class markets, wouldn't that increase their migration index? As other people have easier access to your high welfare, and dominate culture? Not meant to be answered, just considered.
If a country has a high amount of AT, wouldn't that make them a regional giant? that and if they had truck and navy supply ship corps? as a center to trade? Figuring out how to make that work, could work well with a regional common market? maybe?
and whats meant to be answered? whats the point of AT corps, and airports, and airplanes, and cargo planes? i know cargo planes, but it seems this could be more straight forward. |
| Josias | Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 07:44 am
Quote:we have a procedure computing this to decide on priorities for C3 countries.
I did the math as I described here and got a similar number.
100 or 120 "needed" corporations is not important.
50 or 400 is significant and that kind of shortage will probably not disappear very quickly. -Andy
Quote:Allowing more flexibility in the market happened by slightly increasing the output of some corporations. It was not even 10% in total over the entire period and shortages will not disappear. -Andy
understanding these two comments, are the keys to untold sim riches. |
| Ebenezer Screw | Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 02:14 pm
Andy,
Many thanks for your comments.
Josias,
I agree. I love logic, statistics, calculations and the like and understanding the mechanics of a game like this and then interpreting them into a grand strategy is clearly important for 'success' (however you quantify it). As Andy says, it is impossible to predict, but with knowledge you can go a decent way down that line. More importantly, you can prepare for different eventualities and either reduce your hits or maximise your opportunities. |
| thewhy | Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 06:45 pm
Andy what about in a market that consistently only has 50 or so corps in it? do c3s simply not participate in these small markets |
| Andy | Monday, December 9, 2013 - 01:48 pm
C3 participate in most products.
we try to keep them put of weapons and ammo.
if only 50 corps are needed for a small product, a shortage of 3 or 5 corporations would not get a very high priority but at some point, several corporations may be created in C3 countries.
the priority is based on the severity of the shortage plus some random factor. |
| Andy | Monday, December 9, 2013 - 01:50 pm
An AT corporation comes with an air port. An airport comes with many air planes. This is how it is constructed.
we could do it differently but it works fine this way too. |
| Josias | Monday, December 9, 2013 - 07:15 pm
that doesn't even come close to answering my question Andy.
Product Group: Industry
The latest Market Price: 7.96B SC$ per airport Market Price
Total Demand: 0 airports Demand Volume
Total Supply: 22 airports Supply Volume
Shortage/Oversupply: 22 airports Difference
# of Corporations producing this product: 29 Number Of Corporations
I totally get what you said about AT. But the question is, why are their Airport corps, when nothing buys them, and an AT corp (which makes money) has a secondary function that is an Airport corps primary function?
If theirs a purpose to Airport corps, please explain? if they are just a throw back redundancy, with little current use, that would answer my question as well.
Cargo planes are a bit of a stand alone, but they are used with airplanes, as a supply, so i get airplanes, for airports, but whats the point of a corp that has zero demand?
I'm not trying to change this, i'm just wanting to understand why its like this. and if their is any value to building one? if their was, i probably would. I mean it'd make since to me to have an actual airport for my country, if it did something valuable, or necessary. |
| dboyd3702 | Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 02:21 pm
Well I see on WG that Precision Bombers are now losing money and the price is still declining; even though there is a shortage... |
| Andy | Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 10:31 pm
You ask why there are some types of corporations?
I don't know. I don't make them and I do not destroy them.
If players choose to build them and continue to support them financially for any reason, that is up to them.
C3s don't build such corporations if there is oversupply and if they have them, they will probably close if oversupply continues.
Luckily, the market is doing its own and it is not falling apart. |
| Andy | Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 10:33 pm
We don't even look into it.
If there is a shortage, the price never declines.
I thought this was clear by now.
shortage is the only reason for the price to rise.
you look at the wrong page. |
