Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc..
  Enter the Game

Making high quality useful

Topics: Help: Making high quality useful


Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 05:15 am Click here to edit this post
So the math seems to dictate that Q350 is the best Q to sell at. Before I figured that I misstepped as who knows how TS's were working? Seems players have figured it out though, each product sells at a predetermined level +- the Quality of the product. I don't know the numbers exactly but I'll use Crafty's ammo as it was recent and he used specific #'s.

So if he made ammo at 250, it would sell at 200. As it's a Q-50 sale price. so it's a 200, 50 is sunk, so 200 go to pay all costs associated. At let's say 350 then you should sell at 300 instead to go for paying all costs and securing a profit. 50/200>50/300. A smaller impact on the contribution of the product in regards to proportion. But it is safe to say that other costs are to go up, possibly in material costs but gaurenteed increase in mainteance costs as they require more FMU's.

But their still doesn't seem to be any justification not to produce 350Q items. And Andy you state that nobody wants them but they sell anyways. If the purpose of the broken TS is to stop people from producing too high of quality items, you are going the wrong way!

But alas I haven't accounted for increased costs. So as corps endlessly produce units and they have no finite lifespan I can't exactly incorporate the costs of the intial upgrades but I can try to analyze the costs of the increased maintenance and an estimate on supply costs.

So I compared a TQ 136.3 and a TQ 298.7 Aluminum corp. The difference in Q is 162.4, the corresponding revenues were 3353.23 and 2108.14. a difference of 62.98% while the difference of Q was only 45.6%. So this does show a sinking translation which does mean there is a point of diminishing returns. Well there is if it under 350 anyways. I'm pretty sure it's not but my math will continue. Considering the difference in FMU's is slightly over 100 I will compare that first. Maintenance products used totals 242.8 and 448.3 respectfully. This is an 84.64% increase. This proportion of the difference of the revenue is only 3353.23-2108.14=(205.5)/1245.09= 16.5% indeed significant. However is we consider that the revenue is 45.6% greater-16.5%= The gain is still 29.1%. So in this example each upgrade point increases maintenace costs by .1 or an operating margin of .9. Not bad ;). But this still doesn't consider an increase in supply costs. But as I only have a 32.4m difference in SQ it is incredibly minor U did that math on that one also though seeing a 2% increase with the higher quality item being 45.55% of the revenues it is a very portion but at 2% it will still be an insignificant cost.

The conclusion I get from the data is each upgrade point you buy will see a 90% increase over the added cost of buying a new one. So 90%*90%=81%*90%=72.9%*.9=65.61*.9=59.049... etc. You will see lowering returns but it is an asymptote and will never go negative. So by this logic if you can continue to upgrade Q upgrades you should in fact do it indefinately well if you ignore the intial cost of the investment that is. So going truly public and getting a 250Q product seems the way to go.

Another conclusion I get is that TS may or may not matter but Q doesn't give a static value, essentially the +-10/20/50% under/over quality is flawed as the revenue was increased 62.87%>45.56<-Difference in Q. Showing an extra incentive in increasing Q as high as possible. This can be flawed as my sample is a single comparison. And none of the numbers fell consistant with the original hypothesis.

Finally as the majority of costs are material costs, you should show no regard to the TQ with this but merely which Supply Chain Optimizes each point of quality and will most likely be valid for every Quality level. This is not tested but alas I didn't have a significant change.

This is what I do for a living a can do it pretty fast but determining how to look at the numbers and how to compare the numbers took a bit longer then I anticipated. So my example isn't very good but at least this example shows ME that my hypothesis is probably correct. I also don't have many assorted quality products so it would be hard for me too build an adequate sample even if I wanted to. So here's the thing, I didn't intend on this being advice, I still don't. Don't take my math as fact! The intent is too gather insight of whether or not I'm completely off base. So be brutal with that. The side intent is too show reasonable cause that Andy is dead wrong when he says that making high quality items is wrong. I didn't get to prove that but I'm pretty sure I'm right. So the current trade strategies settings are flawed. If the ideal product quality is closer to 170 then being able to influence prices is imperative for the market to find incentative too make product 170!

Comment as you see fit


Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 05:28 am Click here to edit this post
typo its not 45.6-16.5=29.1, it is 62.9-16.5=46.4% gain on revenues compared to increased maintenance products used. or 46.4/162.4=.2856 per quality point. My math in this regard was flawed anyways i took the reciprocal of that because I rushed it and got the cost and revenue inverted. Anywho that is still a positive gain.

Also my sedond conclusion can be flawed also because their is no present value, it is entirely possible that certain aspects of Q don't set into affect until 100 and their is no way to do any math before Q100, because it doesn't exist.

Borg Queen

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 10:46 pm Click here to edit this post
Well, dont need that much of an explanation, I can say for myself that I have put products up at a price of Q+50 when TS was still online and I've been selling all my stuff as I got Corps in products that are allmost allways in red-bar. I made about 200B profit per month per CEO.
With the TS deactivated the prices of all products started to drop, even though all the products are still deeply in red-bar and without changing any parameters on my side, the profit gone from +200B to -100B per CEO per month.


Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 06:43 pm Click here to edit this post
There are many enterprises making profits and only a handful making losses.

If you purchase products at Q150 you can produce at Q260. You can sell it at Q260 and the corporations will be profitable.

You can also ask for +50 and see what happens.
I know how it is computed and the suggested scheme will produce a profit.

This will not work if the product is in long term oversupply but then nothing will work.
I also assume fully upgraded corporations.


Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 10:58 pm Click here to edit this post
well if you consider making .11 billion in profit while paying .10 on interest a profit then I suppose you are right it seems that the general consensus is it is very hard to make a decent profit with a CEO and maybe something needs to be fixed.....

also this is just a simpleton talking but if everyone is buying 150 supplies then who's going to buy the 270q products all being produced o.O I'm honestly completely confused as to how this games economy works with no semblence of a free market price cielings no actual neogitiating prices for producta in demand how is a price even set huge huge ammounts of supply deficits though noone really has a problem acquiring supplys on WG there are huge deficits and you would think this would be fixed by people going out of bussiness from being unable to obtain resources therefore producing less fixing the deficit...I'm waiting for a crash to come if this game was realistic as it claims.... also with the impossibility to make a profit even with small small oversupplys I'm terribly confused maybe its just because everything else is so expensive because of huge deficits

when it comes down to it I hope that the vets can work with a reasonable gm to fix this (atleast percieved by me) mess


Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 11:22 pm Click here to edit this post
That's it right there. If it is more profitable to make a product at 296 or whatever it is, but it is most profitable to buy supplies at 170-180 then how are players supposed to get their desired supplies? It must be equally profitable to produce at different levels. Or at least have a saturation and base price differential for multiple Quality Levels. Because if shortages exist the product will sell at any quality anyways, don't know how everyone gets their stuff every month though.

Gunther Shamus

Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 08:49 am Click here to edit this post
yah andy how does everyone get supplys every month ive heard rumors that you simply flood the market with supplys from the gm....but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a simulation rendering your game a fraud......

Add a Message