| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 09:17 am 
The issue is that, in terms of gold coins, corporations beyond 750 per enterprise are disproportionately advantageous.
For example,
If we assume average post-tax profit per corp at 5B per annum, 750 corporations make 3.75T per annum.
That translates to 812B per real day on, for example, GR.
The effective gain, however is only 312B, as 500B need to invested in one gold coin in order to extend enterprise itself.
Thus, 2 Enterprises of of 750 each would produce 624B on GR.
One Enterprise of 1500 needs to pay only one GC and thus make almost twice as much in real terms, or 1124B.
And it is rather trivial (although time consuming) to extend enterprise beyond 750, especially if one has 2 enterprises (or many countries or both).
In order to level a playing field between established and new players as well as respect economic interests of W3C I suggest to resolve this issue by implementing an additional 0.1% on enterprise for each controlled corporation beyond 750, making corporations beyond 1000 completely loosing proposition.
In order to be fair for players that already accumulated large number of corporations in single enterprise I would suggest to allow three (or four) enterprises per world as well as unrestricted (unlimited) transactions of corporations between one player entities (enterprises and countries) so people can re-balance between those.
I would appreciate feedback and thoughts if SC
as a whole would benefit or loose from such change |
| Beast (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 09:34 am
No. the players with lots of corps have worked hard to get those corps. They all have to be ipo'd. If you want more corps, do ipo's |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 05:40 pm
Fredmark,
I have been given the honor of awarding you a very well recognized title within the SC community.
I, Jack Frost, on behalf of the SimCountry Community award thee, FredMark, the title of Asshat. Wear it with pride.
With Regards,
Dragoon
Officer of the Commission for Declaration of Asshats also known as The CDC. |
| Pathetic Sheep (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 06:53 pm
Frost,
Are you sure it isn't the CDA?
Fredmark,
If you find the task of building a large CEO tedious you can avoid the problem. Don't build a CEO at all. That will save you the gold coin expenses.
If the CEOs quit playing it would ruin all the president's economies. I hope W3C will avoid that. |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 07:38 pm
my opinion is that one should pay monthly fee and get access to all game features. in this case the ability to play country and 2 CEOs. paying separately for each is "lame". all this fuss about Gold coins ~ real cash is "lame" to me. as someone said elsewhere, most people would probably like to play a game, to have fun, not to play cash market.
also i believe it should be possible to move game-cash between CEOs and countries without restrictions, i call it "one account - one net cash" even if thats not accurate description. reason being that this is possible anyways, by using a workaround, and if something has a workaround it should be a feature by default, else its just a bother. |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 08:09 pm
As I explained to Tendo, It is CDC because Asshat is now considered a Disease with no known treatments at this time. Further research is being conducted to see if it is treatable. Current research states that Asshat has the possibility to evolve to be as contagious as Ebola.
With Regards,
Dragoon |
| Lolosaurus (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 08:26 pm
@Fredmark: No.
@zdenek:
yeah personally i'd rather the whole gold coin -> RL cash thing be scrapped. IMO this effects the game in subtle ways even though W3C claims otherwise. There just isn't enough money to be made from playing simcountry to want this feature in. I mean, if I sold all of my gold coins off every month, I'd get, what...? $5 after paying the $4/month fee to play? That's like 2 or 3 cups of coffee for a month of clicking :/
There are times when I think the only way to fix simcountry is for W3C to throw the whole damn thing out and start over. |
| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 08:45 pm
Pathetic Sheep,
First of all, I do have and ent exceeding 750.
Second, at this very moment, I intend to expand 5 enterprises beyond 750. I do not need to do it right away, as far as most of my enterprises below 750.
I don't find it particularly tedious either as I use portfolio targets to slowly move them around.
As how difficult it is, I transferred 44 corps from one ent to another in an hour and a half.
Zdenek,
I agree with every single point you make. I also wonder general business model of W3C as some others do. I see absolutely no logical reason for limitation to in-player cash transfers as they would not negatively impact bottom line and make management much easier.
However, one thing is to question the rules, another to intentionally disregard them.
Jack,
If you don't agree with my statements, why would not you take time and explain why what I suggest be worse for the game as a whole?
Why do you believe that insulting someone is enough to prove the point?
W3C imposes a limit on corps to 750. They do it for a reason. If you and I workaround that limit it does not make it right. Furthermore, it disbalances game towards veteran player even more.
There is absolutely nothing wrong for WC3 willing to make money and earn living. Thus they establish system of rules that should not be casually exploited.
I firmly believe if we find a disbalance or exploit we should bring it up, discuss it and make determination if it positively or negatively impacts the game. And that is not for our selfish interests, but rather for better environment for everyone. |
| Sir Michael (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 11:11 pm
Hey Frosty,
Let me answer FredMark since I have the largest enterprise on LU
1) W3C only has a limit on "PRIVATE" corps of 750 not total corps! They do this because they choose to promote interaction between players.
2) I have been playing this game 2 years and should have an advantage over other players.
Therefore, I don't care FredMark about people who have been playing for less time than me and want to cry about a "level playing field". This is why you get remarks like being called an "Asshat" from long term players.
So what's next? Cap on Ammo for players who have more than 40 mil pop? There shouldn't be a "Level Playing Field" in this game. |
| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 07:33 am
No, actually. Not cap on ammo
I think progressive tax on military spending would be better solution. exponential to be specific |
| Lolosaurus (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 05:14 pm
Exponential military spending tax? So you want to limit the amount of weapons a country can have now too?
This is beyond good game design or bad game design. With all of these restrictions there won't be a game at all. |
| FredMark (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 07:18 pm
It was not a subject of original post.
I am still working on idea and create comprehensive post later |
| Pathetic Sheep | Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 11:19 pm
Militaries are already capped by population.
The limit could be extended to reserves by requiring that countries have employed workers that could operate the reserve weapons.
Lolosaurus,
A military spending tax would not necessarily limit the weapons a country has. It might make it much easier to sack countries because they buy fewer defensive weapons. Sacking more countries makes it easier to pay for military. |
| AlexandeRtheGreaT007 (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, March 13, 2009 - 09:26 pm
Jack,
I formally make request that, I, Mr. Honorable and almighty ATG humbly and most honorably assist in the patrolling of those you call "asshats".
Please accept this as my formal request. I have a voucher here from Tendo a known and respected member of the CDC. Here clearly wants ATG to join in the patrol. Please consider my request. Thank you all mighty master of the asshatery commission.
ATG |
| shaun (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 03:13 pm
how about a merge ceo option for a one time payment of the 30 gcs i get to combine my first ceo with his 944 corps with my 2nd ceo who has only like 30 days old and 700 corps to make a single ceo with the 1650 corps and reduce my gc payments thereafter having to only pay 30 gc a month instead of 60?
or maybe just a way to ipo to yourself faster like instant direct sale of majority stake button
and there used to be option to transfer game cash between your ceo and your countries bring that option back to, or atleast let us see our own cash market listings so we can xfer amongsts our own holdings that way so we can move our own cash/pop/future assets to come/ between worlds. |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 03:55 pm
Shaun within the last year to my knowledge there has been no feature that let us transfer cash between our countries and ceos... It has always been done with a second person helping. Why would W3C make it easier to IPO when they are trying to get rid of that ability?
With Regards,
Dragoon |
| shaun (Kebir Blue) | Friday, March 20, 2009 - 12:47 am
must of been several years ago then need to ask laguna i guess or something. could of sworn when i first tried this game many years ago that was an option
never have i seen them mention getting rid of ipoing in fact i constantly see them write about how more perks and profits will be associated with public corps... |
| FredMark (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 09:24 am
Shaun,
My point is if there was an intend to limit number of corps per enterprise to 750 it should be properly enforced.
If there is no such intend, why make additional (almost sadistic) hoops to work around it?
I timed myself today: on LU in order to transfer 158 performing (<100 PE) corporations via stock I spent total of nine and a half hours (non-performing via portfolio targets is a fraction invested time though). What is the reason for this if limit is not intended in a first place?
I am with you, if they would create a venue to combine enterprises or at least lift growth restriction beyond 750 it makes it "fair and balanced" for everyone. |
