| Will Walker | Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 05:59 pm 
The difference between profitable companies and holes into which one throws money is often the "resources used" payment.
Some public corporations do not pay this penalty. It is my understanding that all corporations, excepting those owned by the State or that have been nationalized, owe this payment.
And yet, two examples:
In Steel, all of the profitable corporations that trade shares do not pay the "Resources Used" payment. All of the unprofitable corporations that trade shares, do.
The same is true of Fruit corporations.
I'm sure I could dig up more if I bothered.
This tells me two things:
1) Public corporations are not being treated as a class, creating perverse incentive structures and success-based-on-a-bug.
And 2) The 'resources used' payment is too high. Unless the intent is to create sectors that only country players will satisfy, these sectors need some kind of cost relief. I would suggest removing the 'resources used' payments entirely except for Natural Resource companies since there, there is an obvious resource being consumed. The costs of those 'resources used' payments will pass through the economy. As it stands, the more steps there are to an end product, the more times it has been taxed by this method.
If you wish to add more cash flow from the Corporation to the State, I suggest raising the default rate of taxation, tying State-owned corporation salaries directly to the gov't employee pay rate, and perhaps making private corporations pay into pension/retirement benefits, and make contributions to the education/health budgets. The result of this would be a different, but tangible, set of benefits to Country Players for allowing private corporations, and a balancing-game between tax rates and CEO players coming in and providing benefits to the population of a country. |
| John Galt | Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - 09:58 pm
Perhaps the majority share holder is also the owner of country so they wont pay. |
| Will Walker | Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 04:19 pm
That only makes sense (albeit not very much, even then) if they own >50% of the shares. Especially if they own 25% or less, and thus it is truly a "public" company, it seems important that those other investors pay what a privately held company would pay. |
| Andy | Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - 10:00 pm
Country controlled corporations do not pay the contribution.
Only corporations that are not controlled by a country pay.
these are private corporations and some public corporations.
The contribution is very profitable for the country where the corporation resides.
it gives the president a very good reason to allow these corporations.
otherwise, president would refuse them in their countries. |
| Will Walker | Thursday, October 31, 2019 - 02:57 pm
"The contribution is very profitable for the country where the corporation resides.
it gives the president a very good reason to allow these corporations.
otherwise, president would refuse them in their countries."
You say this, as if there is only way way to balance/provide incentives to the CEO/Country relationship.
When that payment is making or breaking a corporation's profit, you're essentially refusing CEOs in those businesses anyway. |
| Andy | Saturday, November 2, 2019 - 10:37 pm
It is not "breaking" corporations.
There are many very profitable enterprises around, making high profits for their owners.
also paying the countries, some of these countries are owned by the same player. |
| Will Walker | Monday, November 4, 2019 - 04:06 pm
Enterprise =/= Corporation. You work on the game so I'm surprised I have to point that out.
I am very able to make a profitable enterprise without ever opening a single corporation.
But consider these two example public corporations in GR:
Akot Steel in United Kingdom II vs. Ropan Steel in Gokuland
Akot steel is a 200/200, product quality 216
Ropan Steel is a 225/225, product quality 247
Akot Steel has a fairly stable history of 200-300M profit per month.
Ropan Steel has not made a profit for the entire viewable history - average losses of ~220M per month.
Akot steel does not pay resource costs, UK2 controls it.
Ropan Steel pays 755M per month in resource costs.
Ropan steel would be making 100-200M/month more than Akot Steel, if that resource payment wasn't there (instead of 500-600M less).
Now look at all five public steel corporations in GR: Three profitable, two not profitable.
The profitable companies have in common that they are 200/200, and controlled by their host nations. The unprofitable companies have in common higher quality, higher efficiency, but also pay resource costs that completely consume the profit margin the market will bear.
In other words, these corporations are ONLY unprofitable because of the resource costs. (This is, thus, the 'make or break,' variable.)
As long as your intention is to ensure that CEO players don't own these corporations, then I guess you're getting what you want - but you're not representing that design intention to the playerbase. |
| John Galt | Monday, November 4, 2019 - 05:06 pm
Country resources fee is definitely a huge problem for CEOs, but on the other side, how do we incentivize countries to allow enterprises in if they don't get a chunk of the money? Without country resources used, I would either increase taxes substantially, or just not allow CEO corporations that are not my own. Why would I as a president give up a valuable corporation slot for a mere 30% (default tax) of the revenue, when I can just open my own and get 100%. I would probably jack my taxes up to 70% without country resources used. I would support removing that fee because I can adapt to any change, but I guess either way it doesn't matter to me. I think CEOs need to be choosy about what corporations they build. Anything with high gross income gets hits hard by resources used fees. |
| Will Walker | Monday, November 4, 2019 - 05:46 pm
Enterprise =/= Corporation. I can make a profitable enterprise while owning zero corporations, easily so while building zero.
If your intention is to lock CEO players out of certain industries (like Steel and Fruit) then just say so up front. And, honestly, simply prohibit them from founding such corporations.
But take the example of Golden Rainbow:
Steel Industry: 5 Public Corporations. 3 Controlled by their host countries (Delray, Oakland, and Akot) - all profitable. 2 controlled by non-country shareholder (Justy, Ropan) - all NOT profitable and for their entire visible history have never been.
What's more, Justy and Ropan have HIGHER efficiency and quality upgrade status so they should be earning even higher profits, not lower - or the Quality/Efficiency system needs a serious looking-at.
These are all public corporations, they should not be treated differently, or at the very least there shouldn't be a 1:1 correlation between state control and profitability.
Fruit Industry: Two public corporations. The one controlled by its host nation is profitable, the one that isn't is not.
The resource payments in all of these cases are larger than the negative profits of the unprofitable corporations and also of the profits of the profitable corporations. There's your causation.
These aren't brand new corporations. They're 225/225s, even maximum market price isn't enough for them to show a profit.
So yeah, state ownership is make or break for a fair number of industries. |
| Andy | Sunday, November 10, 2019 - 04:53 pm
Enterprises make large profits.
obviously they do not like paying these fees but the enterprises remain very profitable as they have been from the start. |
| Will Walker | Monday, November 11, 2019 - 04:46 pm
Andy. I don't know how I can be clearer about this:
I'm not talking about Enterprises. I'm talking about Corporations.
If what you meant to say was, "Enterprise players can just go into other industries and not make these kinds of corporations," then okay fine... say /that/ instead of seeming to not understand the difference between the two. It's extremely frustrating.
My point is that certain types of /_*CORPORATION*_/ cannot be profitable under the current scheme of resource payments. I am 100% in support of host countries profiting from a CEO choosing to develop a corporation in their nation. That's a great design choice to encourage cooperation!
But it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and I get the impression that you're just brushing me off because you don't like the data I'm presenting for whatever reason. So what's up? |
| John Galt | Monday, November 11, 2019 - 09:47 pm
Andy certain product groups that are in major shortage and maximum price are not profitable for CEOs because country resources used is calculated based on gross income. So any product with a high gross income, but also high costs, will end up taking losses even in the most ideal market situations. |
| Andy | Friday, November 15, 2019 - 05:42 pm
My experience is different.
I just made a comment on the percentage of tax in and transfers to the owner.
You are a very experienced player.
I take every complaint seriously, but some inexperienced players are sometimes jumping to conclusions.
Please give me the name of a world, enterprise and a corporation and I will look into it. |
| Will Walker | Friday, November 15, 2019 - 06:09 pm
Andy. I've given you several. |
| John Galt | Friday, November 15, 2019 - 06:21 pm
Check out Vandelay Industries on LU.
Some Corp examples in this CEO:
Vandelay Corn (any of them)
Vandelay Robotics 002
Vandelay Coffee (any of them)
Vandelay Batteries 001
Vandelay Batteries 002
Those are some Corp examples. There are many more. All of them are peak price, optimal settings, max upgrades, and still losing money. I keep them open as a public service to the game haha. |
| Lord Mndz | Saturday, November 16, 2019 - 09:49 am
Andy, i think you need to have a report for yourself which shows most profitable corporations of all types. Also add president/ceo split and market price/max price ratio. This way you will be able to see and fix many more corporations which are useless right now. |
| Andy | Sunday, November 17, 2019 - 12:50 pm
I checked one of the corn corporations.
raw material cost is 2.3B
out of that, potassium is >1.5B.
This is for 2 reasons:
1. quality 214
2. the price of potassium is very high. Raw materials that are in short supply, become very expensive.
the cost is 0.5 to 1.0 B higher than it should be.
no wonder there is a loss and its only 200 to 300M.
If no one wants to make a fortune on Potassium, the price will stay as high as it is.
I advise you to find players who want to produce potassium, or reduce the quality you purchase, or to close the corn corporations. |
| John Galt | Sunday, November 17, 2019 - 02:47 pm
Ordering 215 quality is the best for maximizing profits without having to micromanage individual corps. I am not going to go into each of my corn corps and manually order lower quality potassium.
I would love to produce more potassium, but unfortunately I have no more natural resources left. I can't acquire anymore on LU because everyone is below war level 3 and conquering a C3 at my war level costs around 20 trillion in weapons/ammo.
That's okay though. FB is the place to be now. |
| Daniel Iceling | Friday, November 29, 2019 - 11:54 am
Andy, John Galt, Lord Mndz,
Speaking as someone that has a Corporation producing Potassium "DN Potassium" in my country of "DanNation" on LU. While also having 2 untapped Potassium deposits. I think I can shed some light on why people aren't building Potassium Corps to reduce the prices.
Firstly, all of my Corps operate using the same settings. 500 Wages, 220 Quality Supplies, Automatic Upgrades, 0% tax rate, Best Price for both buying and selling, Production rate at 130% due to 131 Welfare Index. So it makes it easy for me to compare different Corporations and their relative profits, under controlled conditions.
Using the setting stated above. With Prices at maximum "DN Potassium" makes a profit of roughly $1.2B per month. "DN Services I" makes a profit of $0.99B per month. So, Potassium is more profitable right? No, not in practice...
A services Corporation can operate forever. While a Potassium Mining Corporation has a limited Lifespan of ~100 Real Life Days, (Deposit of 528,000,000 ton divided by monthly production of 893,750ton per month, at 130% Productivity.) Assuming the first 20 days of the Corporations lifespan are used to upgrade the Corp. This gives me 80 Days of profit. Since there are 6 months in a day, and a Potassium Corp produces $200mil more profit per month, than a Services Corp, when fully upgraded, that's 480 months x$200mil = $96B total profit more than the Services Corp. However, since fully upgrading, stocking, and setting up, a Corp can cost over $100B. I'd actually be behind by billions, when the setup costs are taken into account.
That's without even counting the fact that a Potassium Corp requires 257,320 workers, vs a Service Corp 226,100. Tying up 31,220 more workers, to produce less profit after counting construction costs, and requiring me to rebuild it after the resources run out.
TL;DR, Potassium doesn't produce enough profit, to make it worth the trouble of rebuilding the Corporation. I'm better off producing Services, and leaving the Potassium in the ground.
On the second point, of some Corps being structurally unprofitably, while Andy is correct that all Corps can make "some" profit, when selling their goods at max price. Some barely break even, while others make plenty. Case in point...
"DN Services I" makes $0.99B Profit at max price.
"DN Mobile Devices" makes $0.29B Profit at max price.
"DN Chemicals I" makes $0.22B at max price.
"DN Houshold Products" makes $0.75B at max price.
All using exactly the same settings, in the same country, all selling products in shortage, with prices stable at the price ceiling, all producing stable profits each month. But with WILDLY different levels of profitability depending on the Product produced. If I was trying to maximize profit, I'd have to stop producing products like Chemicials, and Mobile Devices, even though they are in shortage, and have reached their price ceiling.
Some products are structurally barely profitable, even under optimal conditions. Meanwhile, others are profit machines. Again, even while using the exactly the same settings, with both products in shortage, consistently at their price ceilings.
TL;DR, The current base price/consumption/production/output levels, make some products hardly worth producing, even when they are in severe long term shortage. While other products, can produce profit easily. Base profitability isn't equally balanced.
Signed President of DanNation on LU |
| Andy | Friday, November 29, 2019 - 03:17 pm
John,
20 trillions is equivalent to 750+ gold coins.
A country can be purchased for 30. |
| Andy | Friday, November 29, 2019 - 03:22 pm
The settings in your corporations are quite extreme.
you could make more profits.
Services corporations can make losses in the future.
Everyone can start them and services did go green recently. you will then make losses.
Natural materials seem to have a brighter future with shortages likely to continue and prices, as we said before, will be allowed to increase higher. |
| John Galt | Friday, November 29, 2019 - 04:38 pm
Andy you are completely missing the point. C3 wars becoming impossible over time is unimmersive and game breaking. Having your solution being to buy countries with gold coins is silly. A better solution would be to fix the war game rather than have players use magic coins to magically purchase countries. This is supposed to be a realistic simulation game. How is buying countries with gold coins even remotely realistic. |
| Daniel Iceling | Friday, November 29, 2019 - 08:03 pm
Andy,
I'm not sure I made it clear why I posted that math. I'm not saying I need more profit, I'm fine and my country is rich. I was giving figures on corporations using the same settings, so that it was easy to compare the profit of Corp types, relative to each other. I don't need more profit overall.
Some products, such as Services, and Household Goods, are structurally more profitable, than others, such as Mobile Devices, and Chemicals. Even when you take price fluctuations out of the picture.
It's ok if this is intended. I just wanted to make sure you understood, because it will distort player choices. Making players less likely to build the Corp types that produce low profits, even when the goods they make, have large shortages.
Thank you for taking the time to communicate and respond, we all really appreciate it 
Signed President of DanNation on LU |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 12:04 pm
We have a procedure that computes the potential profitability of corporations in various scenarios.
Our experience is that the procedure can be trusted but there are fluctuations and not all products have the same potential.
Hightech products can be more profitable, products that do not need highly educated workers in large numbers can be a bit less profitable.
all corporations however can be profitable under most conditions.
none are profitable if the product price goes very low.
This happens after a long period of oversupply.
some price ranges differ from one type to another.
natural resources corporations have a wider price range.
Most show a shortage and the price is at the top of the range. |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 12:14 pm
John,
I know your opinion.
You want to be able to attack any country, on any world at any war level.
This will allow you to wipe out whoever you want with little they can do to prevent it.
As to C3s, The reasons to conquer them was strategic, to have a bridge head somewhere to be able to wage war far from your home country.
This possibility is there for nearly everyone.
You are in a very high war level. We have not decided yet, what to do about C3 wars initiated by very high level players.
Any solution will require quite some development work and there are many priorities.
The number of C3 countries you need for strategic reasons is very small. You have won thousands of gold coins as war level awards hence the possibility to purchase a country if you really need it.
The possibility to attack 50 C3 countries, all at war level 3 does not sound like the right thing to do. We will try to find a different solution.
For now, for nearly all players, there is the possibility to conquer 7 or 8 C3 countries, fighting wars that are not very complex. We made the first 7 or 8 wars much easier. |
| John Galt | Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 07:25 pm
Andy I don't know why you think players will be wiped out without war levels. It is impossible to completely wipe a player out because their main country is in secure mode, and their CEOs cannot be touched. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there is almost zero player interaction in this game right now. I remember before war levels this game was alive and booming. Do you not think there may be a correlation? |
| Andy | Thursday, December 5, 2019 - 04:40 pm
Having a very experienced player in war level 15+ wiping out your empire is a risk, even if one country survives.
FB is the right place for this.
User interaction is up and down all the time.
Conditions have changed in gaming in general.
we don't know and you don't know why things happen.
You can link things together but you can also link other things together.
I wish I knew.
PvP wars are now quite easy and can take place with even large war level differences.
this is on all worlds and especially on FB.
So the whole discussion is about attacking c3 countries? |
| Cycrillix | Thursday, December 19, 2019 - 06:24 am
Or you could just do the smart thing and let players be able to set their own resource tax percentage |
| Andy | Tuesday, December 24, 2019 - 11:08 am
Is that related?
do you mean the payment by enterprise corporations to the countries?
If it was in your hands, what percentage will you pay? |
| dubletar | Friday, December 27, 2019 - 04:34 pm
Andy, I have agree with John Galt.
Playing the war game in any other world than FB is almost pointless it seems.
Playing the war game in FB is almost pointless, because most people stay under war level 3, and there's so few potential targets that attacking any one group is paramount to reducing the activity in the world.
I do enjoy the game engine, however, the more I play the game, returning for such a short duration so far (a few months) and aggressively building, I'm running into numerous problems...
---Corps are just not as profitable as they used to be. Many corps, like Chemicals, were built and I began bleeding money. CEOs are making so little money from these unprofitable corps, even with the prices high, that I built just 20-30(?) corps and looked at that CEO after few weeks, it had amassed 7T in debt!!! How??? So far every CEO account I started did that!! The ONLY WAY I'm able start a CEO and build corps now is either IPOing corps from my states to my CEO or building up several trillion by buying and selling products on the market to create a buffer.
Andy, you know I love my gcs. But the way the game is set up, some boosters have become pointless. Like "build 3 corps a day". Hahahahaha, yeah and acquire 7T in debt and -6T in cash on hand, being locked out of the account unless you transfer cash.
Ok, cash money booster? Pffft! Spend $72 REAL DOLLARS to get 18T in game cash??? Thats 3T above the debt, that I'm paying simply because I decided to play the game and build corporations!
---On top of gridlocking war levels, across worlds, corps being less profitable means there's less cash to go around. Countries need cash for weapons. High quality weapons are incredibly expensive. 'Well don't buy high quality weapons'. Ok, so then I shouldn't play the war game. Everybody is going to go for high quality weapons if they want to survive! But there's no money, except you wait years to build a large empire (I'm an extreme exception) or spend a ton of money for in-game cash. Did you know that I considered dropping $500 several times (though I know I've gotten up over $350 in trying to buy population) for money, but it's WORTHLESS.
WHAT'S THE POINT?
The game has gotten worse, Andy.
I fell in love with Simcountry in 2001, when I was starting highschool. There was no other game like it AND IT WAS GOOD! It was fantastic. The worlds were filling up. Kebir Blue was running out of land, Fearless Blue had dozens of powerful federations with egos on every part of the spectrum, White Giant many times rivaled the war world and was incredibly active (the most earth-like diplomacy and continually evolving allegiances), Golden Rainbow was a planet of giants, and there was a NEED for another world because of it all (Little Upsilon).
Human interaction and in-game assets (game cash is King). That's why we play.
You've severely limited human interaction and the game economy no more makes any sense whatsoever. The barrier to entry and success is extremely high.
Andy, Lord Mndz is what drew me back to the game. Reliving epic episodes in Simcountry and seeing many friends is why I've stayed. But the game is trash.
I'm an engineer and work for a fortune 100 company now, leading in dozens of projects with 10M+ budgets. If it's an engineering problem, I just don't understand it. I am trying. We want the game to succeed and are trying to explain what we see/experience. Levels in the game we're not well thought out. Changes to resources was not well thought out.
Look at the players. It's a wasteland, across all worlds. Most players just stop "actively" playing after a week. It's just not fun or clear how to play. We gladly take care of the how part, if you take care of the fun.
--Andy, much simpler solutions go further. Remember when C3 population was 30-50M per state? Not many people cried about losing assets. I was invaded the first week I started playing from mouthing off, and learned valuable lessons (lolololol). But the abundance of resources/assets meant I had not lost much. A few years later, I was invaded over Christmas. I lost my entire empire. It was weak and my first one. But I was able to get another state and rapidly grow into another empire, eventually regaining my empire from the threat of war.
Now, losing an empire that you spent hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months to build feels like you've lost everything. Now it's a loss, not fun.
... Remember when there were no war levels? What would a new person do in order to survive? Join a federation. Allies with mutual goals, sharing knowledge, resources, etc. Human interaction. That's entirely gone now. There's no need for a federation on 4 worlds, and FB is so dead that your main threat is your own inactivity.
People were pouring money into the game, myself included, because we wanted to! It was fun and worth it! Cold War style. Now, we're spending money just to stay afloat and get started, because in-game assets are so little. The people not spending money are just leaving.
Your data isn't everything. According to your data, hundreds of active players blanket the map of the world. According to your players, it's a ghost town.
Was a fun real-world simulation indeed the goal? We, your players, can't tell.
(Forgive the typos... posted from my phone.) |
| Daniel Iceling | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 01:43 am
I've played war games without protection from PvP before, they tend to follow a familiar pattern.
1). The game opens, everyone is really excited, people join because it's new and everyone is hopeful that it's going to be an awesome game.
2). The fighting starts, people get wiped, rebuild, wiped rebuild.
3). After getting wiped out enough times, the majority of the players, get sick of rebuilding and quit.
4). The big war players, that usually bought their success with a credit card. Start to complain to the Game Managers, that there is no one to fight, everyone is either too strong, because they are also a super war player, or has left the game, because they got sick of being wiped out.
5). Finally, even the war players leave, since with no one weak left to attack, they have nothing left to do.
6). The game closes down.
Yes, everyone wants to recapture the hope and excitement of stage 1 and 2. But it's a flawed model, the brawls and unrestricted fights of the beginning, inevitably drive away the players that keep getting wiped out. Leaving people with no one to fight, until the whole thing turns stale and the war players leave.
The thing Simcountry did differently, is they stopped the war players, from attacking and driving away the rest of the player base, by continuously wiping them out. War players can still fight each other, just like in stage 4 of a war game. But war players don't want to fight each other, they want easy targets, so they complain that to the Game Managers, demanding fresh targets.
If the GMs give in, the war players have a big fun time, driving everyone else into the dirt, till they are the only ones left, then complain that there is no one left to fight, (because they were driven out of the game, because it isn't fun to be someone else's punching bag forever... it gets old... fast). Then the war players, with no one else left to fight leave too, and the game dies.
Then those same war players, move to the next game, starting the process all over again. Fighting, winning, eventually driving away the players they destroy, till they kill that game off too.
Unlimited war is a trap, it creates great success for a game, for a short period of time, then kills it. The key to making a successful game long term, isn't getting your players to fight each other more. It's finding something they can do, that doesn't revolve around destroying each other.
Lets focus our suggestions and efforts on creating that, instead of just trying, over and over again, to get the GMs to give up the game's economic player base, as a piece of quick, easy, short term content to a handful of war players.
Signed President of DanNation on LU |
| dubletar | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 08:56 am
DanNation, I don't know what war games you have played to come up with your response. Every PvP game I've ever played has a thriving community which relies on mutual defense, human interaction, and combining of resources.
I think you've just made up what you've responded.
When a game has a low barrier of entry and abundance of resources, you don't have to "rebuild" much at all, so the loss isn't as great, like a chess game. Reread my example.
My first empire was only an empire in that I had 10 states. I was not a warlord, nor had I invaded other players. I was attacked, and being attacked opened my eyes to the need for being war-ready. Then I entered the war game, and still had invaded very few people (maybe 2) until the rivalry with another fed ended in world war.
So your statements make no sense.
Also, the reason games do not severely restrict PvP interaction is that it destroys the game and the purpose for the game. Allowing more resources (like population, money) makes it easy for a number of challengers to rise and overthrow the established (if it comes to that). Game makers are in the business of making fun playable games. The true protection of the game from warlords are other warlords!
Reread what I said about Fearless Blue! Dozens of federations were the result of many players playing, good players too! The threat of war forced everyone to be on alert and prepared. For the most violent warlords, what kept them in check? Numerous other violent warlords. And who kept them in check? Numerous federations of people grouping together protecting one another. Boom! Human interaction! Fun!
You demonized "credit card players", but isn't everyone a credit card player? How do you buy your gcs? Do you think the game needs funding in order to be sustainable? Did you know that the more credit card players you have, the more in-game resources exchange hands, and the game benefits from all that extra cash? And guess what, those credit card players CREATE FUN IN THE GAME!
DanNation did you know there's an economic mode of play to the game? So those wanting to opt-out of the war game are able to in 4 out of 5 worlds. Who are the few you refer to? The few the gamemasters have listened to only yell the loudest. Why are there not forum posts about what you say littering the boards?
Name one game where anything you've said has taken place, showing us you didn't just waste your time typing nothing. |
| dubletar | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 09:23 am
I would also like to provide a real life example which recently occurred.
A player, Red, played in LU, with an empire of 5-6 states. He had not played the war game and said a friend helped him acquire the states he had.
Well guess what? He was attacked. It woke him up to the reality of war in the game. The attacker is a very experienced player and was well prepared for the war.
Guess what happened? It spurred human interaction!!
He began reaching out, looking for friends, and though we answered, he still recognized that his cause was a good as lost. So he was ready to give up his states. Instead of leaving the game, THE GAME BECAME FUN FOR HIM TO PLAY! He now has risk. He's interacting with other players! He's discovered a whole new side of gameplay! Does he weep about what he lost? No! He's excited and slowly building an empire now on Fearless Blue! Actually, he now loved the war aspect of the game and wishes he was involved earlier on, but guess what? Prior to the threat of war and the need to be secure, there was very minimal human interaction.
This just happened last month!!!
What about those on the outside? They were brought to the brink of war, though no war occurred, by communication. Human interaction both escalated and de-escalated events. What were the checks and balances? Opposing federations! Based on statements in chat from both sides, those few days were the most fun in a long time for almost everyone involved, even though no war took place!
Now let's take into account your model, DanNation, demonizing paying players. He is a paying player. Who attacked him? A (WELL-KNOWN) FREE PLAYER! What then???
Again, regardless of a paying or free player, human interaction and resources (as acquired by the free player in other wars they'd had) created a FUN ENVIRONMENT, spurred by risk (the threat of war). What provided the balances were not game levels or additional built in limitations to the game, but instead it was OTHER PLAYERS AND OPPOSING FEDERATIONS! |
| dubletar | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 09:38 am
Sorry one more point.
Look at what exists now. War levels and built-in (excessive) limitations.
And now people are not playing because it's deathly boring. No one interacts. |
| Lord Mndz | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 11:25 am
+1 to Adam's post. Players interaction is the main driver of this and most of the games. Risk is what awakens all the players, without the risk there is no excitement.
Economy is so limited, war costs are so high, no active armies, 99% CEO losing money in trilions.
I know it can be better, i hope for it with all my posts and suggestions.
I love this game because i know how great it can be. |
| Daniel Iceling | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 04:00 pm
Having to be on a state of alert isn't fun, it's stressful. I don't play simcountry to 'stay alert' rather to build and grow a country. Being forced to stay alert and always be on the defense, would ruin the game.
For every one player that 'joins a fed', after being destroyed, many more stop playing. That is exactly why they introduced war protection in the first place. The constant wars were destroying new players. Some rejoined like you, most simply left.
Fundamentally, Simcountry is an economics simulation game. With the option of war on the side. The challenge and strategy of building up a country or enterprise overtime, is what makes the game truly rewarding.
You can't just be successful just by spamming corps. Success in this game is rewarding, because it isn't instant, success is hard earned, a long term and meaningful achievement. Countries aren't just bases for the next shoot out, they are something you build over a long period of time, something you grow to care about and value, not something that can just be replaced, with another clone nation with a bunch of pops.
If money just grew on trees, and everything you build could be replaced in a short time, there would be no point to the game. Building up successful nations and enterprises from the ground up, is the purpose of the players actions, it's why we keep coming back, it's the core of the game.
The GM's tried making an exciting PvP focused war world, Crimson One. They spent months of dev time, creating a PvP experience, with unrestricted combat. So few players even joined that the world didn't even get started. Simcountry's overwhelmingly economically focused player base, just wasn't interested. The only people that joined, were the handful of players that kept saying 'remove war levels' over and over on the forums. Which wasn't even enough to get the world off the ground.
The vast majority of Simcountry players never want to fight a war, they have no interest in combat, they have never even fought a C3. Much less having an interest in PvP and fed politics. Simcountry isn't a war game, it's one of the few games available that isn't just about blowing stuff up. If that's what you want, you can play any of the hundreds of other options out there for war games. Simcountry is one of the only games peaceful players can actually thrive in, without being destroyed over and over for others entertainment. Please stop trying to turn one of the only economically focused games in existence, into another instant gratification shoot em up.
Signed President of DanNation on LU |
| dubletar | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 04:40 pm
DanNation, you're completely missing the point.
1. Being alert is just being aware... if I leave my front door open, someone is going to walk through it. At minimum I can close my door. Even better is to add locks. Best is to have a state of the art alarm system.
... and yes, it is fun!
2. Simcountry is a real-world simulation, which incorporated war at the very beginning of the game, even though there was no navy, there was ALWAYS war. Per my examples, the game THRIVED when there were NO war levels. People didn't start leaving in drove UNTIL THE BARRIER TO ENTRY INCREASED (reduced resources, i.e. population declined). Large populations mean more money from the economy, means more weapons for the country, and increases the ability of a nation to not only defend itself, but attack when necessary. Lower populations make it more difficult across the board, and dramatically increases the time it takes to realize success.
3. Every "economy" player that I have known, that got involved in the war game, BECAME ADDICTED TO IT. Again, I have real examples, including Red, as mentioned. What do you have? Nothing. Furthermore, EVERY TRUE WARLORD IS A GLORIFIED ECONOMY PLAYER, who MUST understand how to build a great and sustainable economy, and come up with their own economic strategy to do well/stay at the top! It is IMPOSSIBLE to purchase success in Simcountry!
4. The vast majority of players do not want a Battle Royale! This is why Crimson One failed. What players want is a REAL WORLD GEOPOLITICAL SIMULATION WAR GAME! There should be reasons behind wars. Human interaction, "enemies", tensions, threats, mutual respect, alliances, collaborative prosperity, joint missions, etc. PEOPLE WANT TO BE PRESIDENT and that INCLUDES the military!
DanNation, how often have you gone over every region of your game world? I bet you never have. I do. I obsess. A few times a month, sometimes per week, I go over every region in the world. I want to see... Are new people starting? Can we engage them earlier? Has anyone slipped under the radar and started growing? Has another experienced player returned? What's the global threat level?
In doing this, you know what I've observed (what anyone will see)? Tons and tons of inactive newbies who joined rather recently. Of those inactive newbies, about a 3rd have negative cash levels, having purchased military weapons with it.
What does that mean? AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF NEW PLAYERS IMMEDIATELY TRY TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE WAR GAME, but have NO IDEA what they're doing, and so go into debt. Now, being in debt, they are unable to do ANYTHING in the game, including build corporations (continue the economic game). NOW THERE IS ZERO INCENTIVE TO CONTINUE PLAYING... and darkness covers yet another state. |
| John Galt | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 06:33 pm
I 100% agree with Dub on this. This game still attracts an incredible amount of new players but almost none remain. This is a huge missed opportunity. Most people who play games like this do so because of the possibility of war. It drives every interaction in this game. What is the purpose of accumulating cash if not to buy weapons with it. War levels need to go. At the very least eliminate them on FB as a trial run. I guarantee it becomes the most active world in the game if you do that.
Remember you can never be wiped out in this game (except FB). Design your economy to be centred around 4 CEOs and your secure mode. Store extra weapons in CEO, extra ammo in secure. Then just have fun with your unprotected countries. If you lose them, oh well... You built your economy around your protected assets so no big deal. Get more and fight back. I guarantee you will have a blast.
Why are we clinging to this horrible war level model that makes C3 wars impossible after so many levels, and makes pvp nonexistent. I literally cannot wage another C3 war again on LU because I am war level 20. It would just cost too much to even be worth it. |
| Daniel Iceling | Saturday, December 28, 2019 - 11:35 pm
On one area, we kind of agree. War levels do need an upgrade.
Currently, I don't interact with C3 war mechanics, because doing so, would quickly force me into war level 3, and a PvP game, that I never want to be a part of.
Players shouldn't be forced to be made permanently vulnerable to attack, because they experiment with C3 war mechanics. There might actually be some more people willing to interact with this part of the game. If it didn't force them to be open to attack, from players that they have no way of possibly defending themselves against.
The threat of PvP basically makes C3 wars off limits to most Simcountry Players. Originally, I considered going just upto war level 2. But as soon as people started demanding on the forum, to be allowed to attack war level 2 players. I knew I couldn't risk it, all it would take is a dev listening to those demands, and I'd have to delete everything and start again on another world, just to get away from the PvP requirement.
PvP should be an optional part of the game, kind of like the 'disable war level protection' mechanic. Players that want it, can have it. The rest of us, should be allowed, to play Simcountry and interact with C3 war mechanics without another player coming and nuking us out of existence for the 'lolz'. War level 3 shouldn't be the standard for PvP vulnerability, actually choosing to enable PvP should be the standard.
After that, sure, let the war bros nuke each other, if they want that so bad. War levels are there to protect players from attacks and harassment by experienced war players, that they don't stand a chance against. If PvP is purely opt-in, then a free for all, for those that want it, is ok. Just leave the rest of us out of it! |
| John Galt | Sunday, December 29, 2019 - 11:38 am
Daniel I thought you have only one country. With one country in secure mode, no one can attack you under any circumstances, regardless of your war level. That is how players should ideally opt out of PVP. Either have one country in secure or pay for war protection boosters if you want an empire. Players who want an empire and who do not want to pay for boosters should have to defend their lands. Otherwise there are literally no disadvantages to having a massive empire. War levels should not play any role in this if we want this game to go back to its former glory.
Will current players quit if this happens? Possibly. But a change like this is not meant for current players. It is meant to retain new players who are quitting because the game has no player to player interaction. I think the best of both worlds is to have FB and one other world switch to no war levels, and have the other 3 worlds stay the same. Compare the data after a year and see what works better. I would wager that the worlds without war levels will become much more active. So much so that the nonpvp crowd would move there too. |
| Andy | Friday, January 3, 2020 - 09:45 pm
I looked again into the contribution to the country.
All non state corporations pay it, independent of the product they produce.
Public corporations, where the country is a majority share owner do not pay the this contribution.
There is an exception for corporations that make very large losses. They the payments are then stopped.
All this is in place for a long time.
What changed recently is the cost of natural resources.
The cost is up and increases the cost of raw materials for some corporations.
some use more, some use smaller quantities depending on the product they produce.
I have now reduced the amounts these non state corporations pay as a contribution to the country. The corporations remain attractive for the countries where they reside. |
| Daniel Iceling | Saturday, January 4, 2020 - 01:46 am
Andy,
"I have now reduced the amounts these non state corporations pay as a contribution to the country."
What are you saying you have changed?
Have you reduced 'Countries Resources Used' taxes?
Is that on all product types?
Or all just ones that use large amounts of natural resources?
Or just ones that are losing money?
"Public corporations, where the country is a majority share owner do not pay the this contribution."
I think this may be an oversight.
It makes it very difficult for a country to take a Corporation public, and still make money.
By owning fewer shares, the country doesn't receive much of the profits.
At the same time, it doesn't receive the taxes that non-state Corporations pay.
It makes State controlled Public Corporations, the worst of both worlds for players.
"There is an exception for corporations that make very large losses. They the payments are then stopped."
How does this exemption work?
I've never seen a Corporation stop paying Country Resources used taxes, just because it was losing money.
Signed President of DanNation on LU |
| Lord Mndz | Saturday, January 4, 2020 - 06:16 am
Andy, big thanks on behalf of all CEOs, makes life a bit better than before. |
| John Galt | Sunday, January 5, 2020 - 06:53 am
Agreed! |
| Andy | Sunday, January 5, 2020 - 02:21 pm
Daniel,
This "tax" is not per type of corporation.
It is the same for all corporations where the state is not a share holder, or just a very small one.
There is an exception for corporations that make large losses and this could look like product dependent.
The reason is that some corporations that use a very large amount of natural resources are the ones that suffer from the high price of these natural resources and make losses.
Some agricultural products (use of potassium), gasoline and air craft fuel using a lot of oil etc.
I just reduced the amount paid to the country for all the "non state" corporations. |
