W3C - Simcountry Update December 28

Notifications Extended

Read about these new features in a separated discussions explaining all details.

Corporations

Many corporations will become more profitable.
Some changes to the corporate model will make these corporations more profitable, mainly by reducing their costs.

This change will increase the income of countries and will also increase the market value of corporations.

We are also looking at severe shortages of materials in all the worlds.
We think that some shortages will be reduced,
The price range of products (the difference between the lowest price possible and max price setting for each product) should be extended.

We think that if products show very long term shortages, their price should increase more, making the corporations very profitable and attracting more players to create such corporations.

On the other hand, is there are surpluses, prices should g

Excellent news!!!

he's saying the basement/ceiling price for produced goods will be extended beyond what it is.

last i checked market value ranged +/-50% of the base price, what I'm reading is that will be extended to what? 60%? 75%? but enough to force loser corps to close do to failure. this result in those things that are always green going red, and the elimination of absurd shortages

for things like construction and service, prices will increase even further, making those corps more profitable. things that are traditionally bad, will take a hit until many of those corps fail, the production goes down and the price recovers

this is most likely a positive change. as it will smooth out the economic system, and require less GM intervention of collapse.

if you think about it, this actually offers allot of economic opportunities beyond corp management. if price range is extended beyond the current

buying something at 50% base, then selling it at 150% is triple profit. if that is changed to +/- 75% your talking potential profit of 7 times.

so in anticipation, you could buy a bunch of luxury goods, or silver, or what ever. wait for the those corps to close, then when the price recovers, sell for a profit.

not to mention, a concentrated group effort of flood a market to run competition out of business, in say EP, will possibly be more effective,
*****
although, I am a tad doubtful. most players already don't build things like luxury goods, or silver, because they are losers. players tend to only mostly tech type corps, because they are high profit, and employ allot of high paying techies, (taxes) so i'm uncertain this will rea

I think I have to agree with Sheepman that this (re corporations) is an unnecessary fix at this point in time to the game. I am hoping it does not lead to unwanted micromanaging of one's countries and corporations. Currently all my countries have well rounded economies in that they have corporations that produce food, agriculture, services, construction, industry, mining with a bit of military and recreation. Now with what is being proposed I would have to cancel several of my corporations to then make bricks! What are the people of these worlds going to eat if everyone makes bricks!
I know with some of the most recent game tweaks several members of a federation I belong to on KB their economies were collapsing. So much so that one member who is part of the Security Council had to leave that organization to request financial aid (when your a member of the Security Council you cannot request or receive aid for yourself).
And wha

i think you guys are over thinking this. nothing is really going to change, winning corps will still be winners, and losers, losers. its just that this will be a little exaggerated.

the main reason i even checked the forums, was to find out why my unemployed techies jumped so high. i didn't even really notice a problem with country profit. but i don't build an income tax based econ, i base my econ on corp profit. so a sudden jumped in unemployed professionals had no effect on my bottom line.

but thats my experience with this update

i run corp salaries at 100, gov at 120, and run minimal country indexes, it ends up reducing the cost, more than than it does turn over.

I think it is wrong to sit on the same corporations forever, you need to search and be rewarded of your findings, that is interesting part of the game and I hope this piece will be further improved. It should be easier so go from one type of corporations to others and there are many solutions how to improve that too e.g. today you need to pay GCs to change type of the corporation but it would be a very different situation if you could do that by paying part of corporation value as a change fee.

To my knowledge the economic part of the game was not broken -it was the war game that needed fixing.
My experience with changes in this game -generally means a fix will lead to something else breaking and more frustration.

Well, it is really funny to be named "a new player", when I am one from few players still playing here who knows and remembers how it all started, restrictions, limitations, profit cuts and etc. I can really compare things at much larger scale. I can still remember times when Direct trading has been implemented, or when the first nuclear weapons were used.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/14743.html?

The game is very complex so any little thing can cause a harm if not all moving parts are taken into consideration. That's true, but that doesn't mean you need to stop making changes looking for best game balance.

I returned to this game not because of the things I don't like but because there are so many things I like, nothing is perfect, I suppose.

I do see that C3 countries are not reacting to market shortages as they once did, which means shortages remain for a very long time and market is

as a suggestion, perhaps some one needs to point out this is a country building game, not a game-building game.

a more buggy, less robust version of the same war engine, has successfully nurtured competition, and seen many players and factions vying for dominance.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Like C3's having nuclear defense missiles, yet you cant even nuke them. This is were sense comes in???? -Sheep,<!-/Quote-!>

They added secured mode for you main country, to prevent aggressive vets from running off all the new players. to get around this, vets would nuke neighboring C3s to cause nuclear fall out, the GM turned of fallout for secured countries, then several years and player-gm moves later, you don't know why it is that way.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

there is already (honestly) factors that i dont even know what people are t

in reference to my last post

this entire thread is an example of my disappointment with the current game enviroment.

players use to figure things out, find ways of doing things. rather than complain that the game didn't work right.

yes, we complained, but part of the fun was figuring out how to do things, now-a-days, it seems every one runs their countries via a template, and get upset if that doesn't work.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

On the other hand, is there are surpluses, prices should go down further to the point of bankrupting the corporation.
The country will then be able to replace these corporations with ones that can be more profitable. -W3C<!-/Quote-!>

pretty sure i gave a good guess earlier.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

market value ranged +/-50% of the base price, what I'm reading is that will be extended to what? 60%? 75%? -Josias<!-/Quote-!>

this means that loser corps, will be bigger losers, and winners will be bigger winners. this isn't really complicated, and is just an exaggeration of what we already have.

your over thinking this.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Actually correction; you cant run a country outside of that template, iv tried and fact is you dont build buy certain guidelines pretty much just hurting yourself. -Sheep<!-/Quote-!>

The Commonwealth of Benninio -WG

Given its a small country, but I've run this same non-standard country template with much larger countries.

to further support my point, about the rigid lack of econ flexibility, even among top notch players, go read a thread on the LU forum, "pissing contest,"

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

is how i look at base country profits, the rest is history for the most part, though note workers that are high level such as HTE or HTS and high salaries contributes to unruly government and health/edu increases that are very gross. To note low salaries are likely a much better option, also with more stupid workers. -Sheep<!-/Quote-!>

can you please rewrite that?

But I'll take a crack at it.

as far as enterprise participation, yes, i have zero CEO corps.

I run 75% corp tax, this is an semi-intentional hostile CEO environment.

Their are several reasons.

1. CEOs aren't always good at running corps

2. CEOs aren't as intimate with my work force as I am. I'm very good at manipulating my work force to not need intervention. I.E. I never have to demote workers to HLW. This has a long term effect that is difficult to measure.

But this worker effect. I had to look around for a few minutes to find a country near my size.

The Kingdom Of Garcilazo WG

Sorry Garcilazo, you where randomly picked.

him 39.9M
me 37.6M

close enough for a comparison.

compare my 60-65 age HLW to his.
him 218,346
me 76,549

this means his HLW are retiring, and need to be replaced at a rate of

yes, i rule my country like a total despot

Sheepman, you can look at every single change from a negative side and this is your choice of course. Every player has a bit different his own version of simcountry which is the best versions of all. Having so many different expectations will always cause anger or resistance to any changes, but GMs also are making decisions based on what they think is needed for a game, as they have very limited resources, they have to prioritize a lot and some bugs may not be worth time fixing because that time could be spend to some feature that will have the better outcome. All this is a bit wild kind of development, but SC players have always been finding the best ways to live in such situations and use that for their favor.

I do like players who are angry, because I believe they care of the game most. Those who don't care just ignore. The other truth is that players cannot see the numbers of profit and other KPIs this project achieves, and it is very hard

Funny.
Lots of complaining about something that was not broken in the first place.
It is easy to sit behind your screen and shout for ever.
True, this change may not do anything for you personally so why not shout about it.
We also like people to give us the bad news. It makes us work harder and resolve problems.
But in the heat of the shouting there is some real nonsense that came on line here. We will remove it on Tuesday.

We had recently some mail discussions with several players and increased profitability is among the main issues that were easy to improve.

We have increased the profitability of many corporations.
They also pay more taxes and countries are becoming more profitable.
The market value is increasing and went already a long way.

Most of you may not need it but many others do and will be able to do more.

Shortages were very large. This too is no problem for most people here but

What was done to make the corporations more profitable?

To offer more discussion on the subject. To illuminate the possibilities of this upcoming change, and to put in another request for a game feature the GM have always said no to.

Books and Newspaper(BN), has always been a heavy red market.

The main supply of BN is, paper

Paper 325,000tons -298,515,271 (shortage on WG)
# of Corporations producing this product: 608

And for paper, the main supply is Wood

Wood 475,000tons -2,166,128,945
# of Corporations producing this product: 892

So, a group of players, say 5, could each build 20-30 wood corps, and 15-20 paper. These corps could be placed in C3s, run with minimal salaries, and minimal supply quality. But the point would be to over produce supplies, lowering the market price. When the market price lowers, the players manually buy the surplus, at what ever quality.

---> Extra trick, you can keep differ

Balla Bing....Happy new year Josias
Paper cartel lol Thats some hard core NWO s#it going on there lol

The idea of manipulating the market is OK.
A group of players could do this but it but you need to stay on top of it and keep maintaining it.
This never happened.
The market can be manipulated but it is not trivial.

Gamemaster interventions.

The subject comes up now and then and we explain now and then.

Any possible interventions never change the market situation in terms of shortages or price levels.
The mechanism makes sure the market does not fall over.

Example: services are used in nearly all products. A huge shortage will collapse the entire market. When the shortage numbers become far too high, the process adds 10% of the shortage quantity.
The shortage remains, and the price also remains at the top of the range.

Most products never get to this level of shortages and there are never any interventions.

If more players would react to severe shortages and start new corporations,

Andy, thank you.

I wasn't making an accusation about GM intervention. I'm aware that it is necessary.

And your right, it would take a constant effort. Perhaps more than a team would want.

But I'd also suggest that this kind of aggressive econ, is something that players have always been disappointed hasn't existed.

Although, I'm sure that every one has their own idea what "aggressive econ," means. I think we'd all probably agree that building corps to fill world shortages, is rather tame.

Happy New Year Nix, thanks

It is tame but profitable.
I did not see any accusation and even if so, we can handle it.

I said many times: we like criticism because it triggers improvements.
Just imagine everyone here will start giving us good news.
I will be out of here.
On the other hand, turning any change, even if obviously helpful, into an ugly discussion is mean and hateful.

We were engaged very recently in an exchange, (on going as we speak), about many things that can be improved.
We like it a lot because the arguments are good, we do not agree with all, and the way they are brought is constructive.
This person loves the game and wants to make it better.
The current improved profitability is a first easy result. We were for it even before but it triggered the immediate response.

we are pro more aggressive approach to the markets and it is not true that it does not happen.
We are some times accused of "interve