| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 04:00 pm |
for whatever reason it is not updating to changes in quality
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 05:52 pm |
Matt, you need to post its name or you wont get much help.
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 06:32 pm |
I thought it wasn't working as well too. I actually updated my trade strategies to reflect market conditions and surprisingly my enterprise is making less and my corp market value is dropping. I use very near what the #1 CEO 'Space Fox' was using and with only 600 corps that enterprise is making some good cash. However when I adjusted my sales strategies from a conservative number to an aggressive matching number the opposite of what should be happening is happening. As always when an enterprise is doing fine, it frustrates me to see a simple setting change can throw things into whack! Or maybe it is an across the board issue. Gah! Who knows?
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 06:36 pm |
Well as far as profit dropping my salary graph is all over the place, seems to have jumped 35B in the last 6 months. I added some corps in the last few days but I don't think that explains that jump in just the last 6 months.
My corp salary graph,
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 06:49 pm |
Also, since we've decided to go with a free market and remove the supply fairy or limit it, why are market conditions still not dictating price. The damn price graph for high tech services is still in a range going up 2 or 3 notches then down 2 or 3 notches while demand has steadily risen to almost 8Billion units, *UP* from just over 3.2 units.
Now I've heard John Fire try to explain this away when I raised this issue with FMUs but if demand were IN FACT dictating price, then price should at least remain at the top of the ARTIFICIAL range while demand is Consistently RISING
Same time frame...
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 08:02 pm |
Its hit a cap, the fluctuation is actually quite small if you check the numbers, its just an illusion brought on by the scale of the graph.
Beware how you read graphs!
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 08:32 pm |
Production Process Quality 250 Quality Index
Quality of the Product 367.7 Output Product Quality
Production Process Effectivity 250
Sale Strategy Start at 395% of the market price and lower by 5% every month that the product remains unsold.
The offered price is updated when the produced quality changes.
Buying Strategy Start at 100% of the market price and increase by 5% every month that the product is not delivered.
You may also change the trade strategies.
I set it to 20% above for full red
how did you post a graph?
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 10:13 pm |
@Matt, IDK but I think producing anything above 300 Quality is a waste of money unless you are intentionally contracting that product to yourself. Posting the graph is easy, click on one, copy and paste the link onto the box.
<----- over to the right open in a new tab Documentation / Formatting
Familiarize yourself with those commands. There are all types of neat things you can do.
@CC. I know it is capped. If we are embracing the 'free market' concept, there shouldn't be a CAP per se. Demand, or better still RISING demand should blow price through the cap. I do agree temporarily with the cap, I understand why it is there.
What I am saying is that it is clear the price is in a 30 dollar range between 698 and 716. My problem is that this defies logic when if you pull up both graphs you can see when demand skyrockets, price is moving down and in some instances vice-avers.
So my problem again is if demand is steadily and consistently rising why would price during that sustained increase in demand, ever reach the bottom of the range? This defies logic and doesn't make sense.
I can read the graphs well, you know more than others, that is what I do lols.
I don't care to argue the point. I get what is going on. It has been discussed before. What I am asking is WHY? I just thought since we are removing the supply fairy it would be a good time to raise the issue again. Hopefully W3c will put some thought into how this will or should work, or not at all lol.
This is just another one of those things that make what should be elementary to players coming into the game seem confusing, like many things in the game. Education Priorities, Sales Strategies, War, the list goes on and on.
What things are and how they work should be clearly explained in detail somewheres in the (hopefully new) documentation or in the help/hint boxes on relevant screens.
A lot of people really enjoy this game because of the complexity. But there is a clear distinction between complex/challenging/difficulty and just plain confusing/misleading/deliberately incomplete information.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere.
| Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 10:59 pm |
I did not know there was a limit
| Monday, July 25, 2011 - 12:33 am |
The 'major problem' with all of these things, is that 'Gamemaster' won't give a record of what you have been paid when selling, and it won't list at what quality it was sold at...so, you can discuss all you want, but until you have proof of those things, frankly, 'Gamemaster' can just steal your 'SC$ Cash' from you...and, sadly, most likely they do.
You disagree? And, you think 'Gamemaster' never 'steals'? Well, was just 'charged' 2.6T SC$ for 6,700 Interceptors at 103 quality, which at 200M or so each, should have only been like 1.3T SC$...you do the 'math'. Sold 1B tons of Sulfur recently, at fixed price, 0% decrease, at 2x times market price, and it only --paid-- 130%; it 'should have paid', at a market price of about 200 SC$, like 400B SC$, but it only paid about 260B SC$. The same things happened many times, with many products, including Oil, Weapon Grade Uranium, Corn, High Tech Services and others.
The 'rule' is that it always charges you or over-charges you, --including quality-- when you BUY, but under-pays you, --not including quality-- when you SELL. In effect, you get doubly, doubly 'ripped off.
1) You buy Oil at 200 quality, to stockpile for whatever you want. OK. So, you buy say 1B tons, at a market price of say 600 SC$ per ton. You 'should' pay: (1B tons x 600 SC$ x 2.0 [200 quality]) = 1.2T SC$. Well, the 'system' decided to charge you 2.4T SC$ instead. Too bad for you.
2) So, now you have 1B tons of Oil sitting there, but you decide to 'dump it' because a repetitive, annoying and 'not needed' error message, says "One of your countries or enterprises is in debt, and you must pay that debt before you can get  Gold Coin" to send as a 'donation' to a new leader who is struggling to start. So, you sell back to the world market, at exactly the same market price, and once again you "should" get paid 1.2T SC$. But, here's what happens:
1B tons of Oil at 600 SC$ at 200 quality, quality is "lost", so now you only sell at 100 quality.
So, (1B tons of Oil x 600 SC$ x 1.0 [100 quality]) = 600B SC$. (Assuming you get "lucky" and get paid at market price.)
You PAID 2.4T SC$
You RECEIVED 600B SC$
Net LOSS: 1.8T SC$
And, that's a 4 times loss, or the 'doubly, doubled loss'.
If the 'system' decides to 'auto-change' the order to "immediate" when buying, and 'auto-change' the order to "rock-bottom price" when selling, that could also "account" for these losses, or simply add to them, then you lose even more.
"Thank you for visiting Simcountry.com, your "recent contributions" were appreciated, and sorry you have massive debts now...and, of course, HAVE A NICE DAY."
So, basically, "whoever" the "arm-chair programmer" is who controls buying and selling of products, has a "serious problem", and at the next 'Jozi chat', this is going to be addressed.
Editors note: Yes, some of the things listed here may not be 100% or even 110% or even 1.10% accurate, because until the 'system' gives a 'record' of transactions, or unless there is another means of clearly tracking prices paid, it makes it un-reasonably difficult to track changes, generally speaking. In the case of these examples listed, the countries were --sitting there doing nothing else-- so it *was* obvious to note changes or values within whatever convoluted, inaccurate, and blurred 'financial statements' that were given.
If you want to make SC$ cash doing trading or selling, then what you should really do is "manipulate the market price" and use 100-only quality products to trade. If you look at Little Upsilon, in the Food/Ag sectors, it's obvious to see that this has been done for a long time by many leaders/accounts. If you want "proof", just ask around ;).
| Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 10:59 pm |
Yeah, agreed Wendy. More transparency is to be desired as in many walks of life.
I wouldn't think this particular problem would confuse many newbies tho', basically it boils down to more profit for things in the red, its only when you become more advanced and try to manipulate things and max profits that it becomes an issue.
I seem to find that price will follow demand until it hits the ceiling where it bounces around a bit. This bouncing effect happens in all simulations to some scale, though they can be limited by dampening systems, which this program doesnt seem to employ. The price rise also trails the demand rise by some time too (for the benefit of newbs reading, as I'm sure you realise this Wendy).
@CP, read some more old posts on this subject, it has been discussed many times and many answers/reasons put forward by 'vet' econ players and the GM, not sure I understand it all either but someone commited to getting to grips with it like yourself will find some illuminating information, if you dig enough. Good luck.
| Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 12:07 am |
Agreed CC. A detailed log of sales and purchase transactions was polled, won by a landslide, and w3c reaction promised the implementation immediately. That was proly at least 2 years ago. Priorities gentleman, priorities.
If you aren't going to add the logs then at least remove the tab from the trade menu and screens and stop teasing us lol.