Petition: Remove Price Cap (Golden Rainbow)

Very simple, very to the point.

Let us sell products for higher than 296% of the current market price again.

Tom Willard: if you try and tell me there is no cap, then I will email you pages upon pages of evidence that such a cap is in place. I will show you documentation from hundreds of corporations if I have to.

I am also sending an email to W3C asking for this to be removed.

Q

We have checked several times and found no problem at all.

There are no buyers for a price higher than that.
Nobody wants to purchase products at a higher price.

If there are no buyers, there is no sales.
We have explained this many times on the forum.

In fact, 296 or whatever is achieved now, is far too high and it is achieved by C3 countries paying too much.
When C3s will start offering what they really need to keep their own quality, max price will probably fluctuate between 200 and 240.

And therefore upgrades and quality will mean.....what, exactly?

At that level, there will be next to no demand for supplies Q above 100 and few players find any cause to buy country supplies above 100.

Why not just scrap quality altogether and go back to the old system, since you are removing what little purpose there was to this system to begin with?

Tom,

If you continue down this path, this game will experience a lack of buyers. If there are no buyers, there are no sales.

Tom, I made a direct sale of some Q332 product from one of my countries to another. The price paid was only for Q289 product. Likewise, the price received by the selling country was only for Q289 product. I think that is the point quaxocal has been making ... even if a buyer does desire high quality, the transaction price is not reflecting the quality above a certain "cap", in the neighborhood of 290. The fact that C3s happen to be no longer buying high quality product, though important, is a distinctly different issue.

Example:
Sale of 1000 factory maintenance units Q332 from Upper East Side to Upper West Side on Fearless Blue, Mar. 17 2626

Upper East Side
cash avail. before sale: 397,258.82M SC$
cash avail. after sale: 404,572.79M SC$
amount received: 7,313.97M SC$
amount per unit (7313.97M/1000): 7.314M SC$
base price per unit: 2.53M SC$
quality factor received (7.314/2.53): 289

Upper West Side
cash avail. before purchase: -3,936.50M SC$
cash avail. after purchase: -11,250.47M SC$
amount paid: 7,313.97M SC$
amount per unit (7313.97M/1000): 7.314M SC$
base price per unit: 2.53M SC$
quality factor paid for (7.314/2.53): 289

The product after being received was still Q332.

If my interpretation of the numbers is wrong, clearly showing why may help resolve some confusion.

Again, the fact that C3s are no longer buying high quality product is a distinct issue from this one.

oh yeah,
Signed

Jo Jo Hun

SIGNED

CHRIS

SIGNED


With Regards,
Dragoon

Remove cash out then who cares how much money or GC flows in the game.

Game, not investment.

If I want to invest I'll buy some credit default swaps or other toxic assets.

Dropping quality

Good idea for many products. You can drop quality for these products. Nobody ever claimed that quality is good for all products.

For raw materials, it is good up to a level.
For weapons it is not needed now but it will become very important in the future.
In fact, it will become extremely important and training units will go far beyond the production quality.

For products people eat and countries use, it is not helping much for now.

We will not drop quality but you can of course.

C3s are now paying far too much. This will have to go. They will pay much less.

This will remove the current top prices for some products but weapons purchasing may drive the top much higher.

Once quality has more effect in the country, in the army etc. we will let C3s drop the high offers and the market will be on its own.

For now, many already are dropping their quality. we can see this taking place.

quality is bought by corporations as the quality of raw materials influences the quality of the output products.

You can drop quality by limiting the purchasing quality and you can reduce by allowing the quality of corporations to drop.

it will cut your cost of materials and it will reduce the cost of maintenance for corporations.

The otimal profit for corporations is not always achieved by the highest quality.

I will have direct sales and contract sales checked again to make sure they are traded correctly. As you describe it here, it sounds like an error. If so, we will fix it.

Development is trying to complete a feature we want to install. this may take a week or 10 days to fix (if it is an error).

Cash in the worlds

Instead of having C3s pay too much and in this way pump thousands of trillions into the market, what about giving every player 5T in cash every game month?

I think that such a move will solve all financial problems for everyone in one go.

I have seen many propsals on the voting for something similar.

They were all voted down. I wonder.

You can drop quality by limiting the purchasing quality and you can reduce by allowing the quality of corporations to drop. - Tom Willard


would it be possible to implement "lock" on upgrades then?

purchasing quality is one way yes, allowing to drop is not a feasible option really.

Signed


dirt

Why are you so concerned about C3's and what they pay for? C3's don't bring your company any revenue. Human Players do. Your fixation about high cash levels seem irrational to me. Your concern should be w/ improving the game and retaining customers. Its typically cheaper to keep existing customers than getting new ones. That's marketing 101 material right there.

Miller

signed

Tendo Ryu

I started playing in 2000, since being back from dec 09 i have given you plenty of my hard earned money to re build my old empire. This i did as i really enjoy playing the game.

But there has been FAR too many changes in such a short space of time. Most of these changes have REDUCED OUR enjoyment of the game.

Please Tom, listen to your customers concerns and desires. After all we pay to play this game, and im sure that your intentions are to make the game better for everyone, but the things you are doing are having the opposite effect.

Kind Regards.

Signed

ATG

Tom, listen to the customer. They are the only ones ya got. Your vision for the game is not in line with where your customers would like it to go.

Signed

Martock

For the love of all that is holy and smells of money, invite some vets to set up a country in a test environment and let test your changes BEFORE you unleash them onto your paying customers!

signed again

MoP

Signed

Beast

I don't believe there is a "cap" in place.

I want to clarify:
I do not have an evidence that cap is NOT in place.
However, I did extrapolation analysis and found that all quality levels (particulary those at higher qualities) deviate from formula Quality_price=Market_price*quality/100
I found that, in average, that deviation is resulting (approximately):
Quality_price=Market_price+Market_Price*(quality-100*)*0.85/100.

I also noticed that deviation is not linear as presented in formula above, but rather settled at lower qualities and increasing at higher, reaching about 75% quality impact or so.

So, all I can say that "cap" does not explain quality impact on lower quality levels

But for the subject.
I think quality issues can be resolved once and for all by completely abandoning quality concept.
It can be done rather easily, converting all quality upgrades into effectivity upgrades (or making quality upgrades impact effectivity, just the same) and assuming all qualities are 100.

Quality does not really do anything. It is completely erroneous concept.
I understand it is likely leftover from broader, more meaningful game design concept that was not implemented.

I do not see how anyone could argue that quality has a purpose and, in current design, having quality is better that not having it

signed .......sj

Darke, and others

The primary concern for W3C needs to be people who try the game for a few days/weeks and then decide whether or not to register. Survival of the game depends on adding registrations. When I look around WG or LU I see a multitude of presidents with only one country. Last summer and all fall it was the same. The vast majority of these countries go inactive and eventually deregister and reset. Anger and rage from veteran players means nothing if a change makes more new players stick around.

There are 12917 countries with a president. There are 10950 countries without a president. The number of countries with a president can only go up in three ways. More people join (or fewer quit), presidents decide to expand his/her empire (or don't dereg), or cheaters create more multiple accounts. It would take several months to determine if the changes had any effect on the 12917 figure. At this moment there are 446 users online.

Anyone who takes the time to come into the forums and complain has already placed an interest in the long term development of the game. If the game engine is good enough to get you actively complaining then W3C has already done their job. I quit three MMPORG when I joined Simcountry. I decided that I preferred Simcountry and did not have enough time.

If the membership plummets over the next few months you can tell Tom "I told you so" :P.

I highly doubt that many new players will notice this problem [feature?]. For a long time the problem will not even exist. If someone has taken the time to pump up most of his/her corporations and then also takes the time to recognize the issue then he/she will have already been playing this game for a long time. A person has to be hooked on the game in order to think about whether he/she should be pissed off.

In general a strategy game is better if optimum values lie somewhere between the extremes. Setting the optimum inside of the range makes it possible to get ahead of the competition. If it is done well this, or something similar, could add a lot to the game.

If W3C's primary concern is attracting and keeping new players, there are far better things for them to do with their time other than trying to micromanage the "economy."

Such as improving the game's interface and updating documentation, making SimCountry easier to use and easier to grasp.

Signed

Free Q!!!!


BC

signed,

@ Lolo.......spot on !

Cool