W3C - Quality of raw materials

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.

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.

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"

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....?"

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?

i say how disappointing i finished setting up my contracts yesterday

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?

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? "

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.

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.

no Xon continue with your righteous crusade after all this is supposed to be a simulation

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?

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

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.

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? "

yes, i too would like this question answered...

particularly the first part of the question, why?

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.

Well boys, look like I don't have to change anything.

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.

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?

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?

It will result in decreased profits

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...

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