recent posts recent posts - RSS

12 days ago
Topic:
Demand changes and City surplus

jimbobdaz
jimbobdaz
Posts: 83
Some interesting ideas here, i especially like the city surplus proposal and that it could be raidable, add the political perks and mayors will be happily buying up stacks from smaller corps... the storage fee would need to be changed though for this to work
15 days ago
Topic:
Demand changes and City surplus

CptCommanche
CptCommanche
Posts: 57
DrDread wrote:
I could bring something like that back in. It means even if the demand was 200, if everyone is buying and selling the max volume the planet pop will still go up. That might become exploitative again however,


We would DEFINITELY find a way to exploit it smile I would be a fan of the changes you mentioned - would be interested to see how they play out when you push the next update.

Telios wrote:
With the increased volumes, and the fact that players will be working to meet them, any chance the storage fees can be reduced? They are extremely high atm. I am thinking roughly currently storage cost divided by 1,000.



Or even 10. 1000 seems a bit high to me, players could literally stock billions of units without too much trouble.
17 days ago
Topic:
Demand changes and City surplus

Telios
Telios
Posts: 9
With the increased volumes, and the fact that players will be working to meet them, any chance the storage fees can be reduced? They are extremely high atm. I am thinking roughly currently storage cost divided by 1,000.
22 days ago
Topic:
Demand changes and City surplus

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1404
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1404
Topic: Demand changes and City surplus
Serenity wrote:
So, I have these ideas for sometime and I finally decided to share them with you.


Demand changes:
I would increase pop growth threshold to 150% (from the current 100%) and I would also increase minimum demand to 50% (from the current 10%).

As I see the main problem pre Gamma Ray update was the 190% difference between minimum demand (10%) and pop growth threshold (200%) that enabled players to keep demand for Raw Materials and Components very low so they could sell End Products and Civ Services at very high demand (well above 300%) for insane profits.

The Gamma Ray update fixed the difference (now it is only 90%), but it also reduced volumes. Because of the reduced volumes and the pop growth threshold set to 100% it is hardly profitable to keep cities growing.

My 50-150 idea would keep the difference between minimum demand and pop growth threshold low (100%) so It wouldn’t be possible to have insanely high demands in a growing city, but it would make city building profitable. And, with the increased minimum demand, super specialized corporations could earn some profit even at minimum demands. Also, it would make cities not selling any products for a lower price than their base value.


City surplus:
The basic idea is, cities would store products that are oversold at minimum demand as surplus in a visible and interactable surplus storage.

  • The maximum capacity of these storages could be based on product volumes. I was thinking: product volume x 100.
  • Cities would consume 10% product volume from their surplus every turn. It would keep demand at minimum as long as there is enough surplus.
  • Buying from cities at minimum demand would remove the amount of products bought from the surplus storage without increasing demands. If there is no surplus left the demand would increase normally.

With this people in a well-supplied city could buy products for base price without hurting pop growth.

There could be some system in place for leaders and title holders to earn some extra money (or political influence?) based on city surplus. Maybe a small percentage of product sales from surplus.

If leaders would have the power to limit accessibility for products at city, planet and system level it would make everything more interesting. (To be honest this is true without any of my ideas)

I don’t really like this but it could mean the possibility for cities being raidable.



Always appreciate ideas! But that idea sound sounds little tricky to implement. I agree with both things you mention. he volumes are probably too low and the population growth threshold might have to go up.

Since the volume dropped on the higher tiers by a staggering amount, the TOTAL volume has gone down in relation to the population. People are also probably right in saying that the prices, especially at low populations, are not durable and can change too quickly. I am considering upped the total volume I might literally add a zero to the volume amounts you see now. That would make it take a lot more effort to drop the price of a product and you can reap the benefit of a higher demand for much longer. To balance that out a little, I might make the demand increase slower then it does now also but not 10x like the volume increase, maybe 2x The prices will be a lot harder to move around especially once the population increases.

I also might try to bring back the mechanic that caused pop growth when products were bought or sold. Right now population growth is based purely on the current demand. I used to have a tricky math mechanic that would increase the population when activity (buy and sell) was happening in the city also. I could bring something like that back in. It means even if the demand was 200, if everyone is buying and selling the max volume the planet pop will still go up. That might become exploitative again however,

The population threshold being dead even at 100% is a nice round number but perhaps 100% demand should be where a steady population growth happens. I don't want to bring it to 150 like you said, but perhaps 100% demand causes a 10% pop growth and 110% makes it break even. Since the minimum demand is 10% this kind of makes sense.

I might try to make these changes once I push this next update and we can try it out.
edited by DrDread on 3/1/2019
24 days ago
Topic:
Demand changes and City surplus

Serenity
Serenity
Posts: 11
So, I have these ideas for sometime and I finally decided to share them with you.


Demand changes:
I would increase pop growth threshold to 150% (from the current 100%) and I would also increase minimum demand to 50% (from the current 10%).

As I see the main problem pre Gamma Ray update was the 190% difference between minimum demand (10%) and pop growth threshold (200%) that enabled players to keep demand for Raw Materials and Components very low so they could sell End Products and Civ Services at very high demand (well above 300%) for insane profits.

The Gamma Ray update fixed the difference (now it is only 90%), but it also reduced volumes. Because of the reduced volumes and the pop growth threshold set to 100% it is hardly profitable to keep cities growing.

My 50-150 idea would keep the difference between minimum demand and pop growth threshold low (100%) so It wouldn’t be possible to have insanely high demands in a growing city, but it would make city building profitable. And, with the increased minimum demand, super specialized corporations could earn some profit even at minimum demands. Also, it would make cities not selling any products for a lower price than their base value.


City surplus:
The basic idea is, cities would store products that are oversold at minimum demand as surplus in a visible and interactable surplus storage.

  • The maximum capacity of these storages could be based on product volumes. I was thinking: product volume x 100.
  • Cities would consume 10% product volume from their surplus every turn. It would keep demand at minimum as long as there is enough surplus.
  • Buying from cities at minimum demand would remove the amount of products bought from the surplus storage without increasing demands. If there is no surplus left the demand would increase normally.

With this people in a well-supplied city could buy products for base price without hurting pop growth.

There could be some system in place for leaders and title holders to earn some extra money (or political influence?) based on city surplus. Maybe a small percentage of product sales from surplus.

If leaders would have the power to limit accessibility for products at city, planet and system level it would make everything more interesting. (To be honest this is true without any of my ideas)

I don’t really like this but it could mean the possibility for cities being raidable.
26 days ago
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

CptCommanche
CptCommanche
Posts: 57
I like the political influence idea.
26 days ago
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 165
Oh grandor how are you! You have missed much in the time since you were gone... cogs I believe put your request for my logistics to shame but going over 800 logistic points at one time.
26 days ago
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1404
Serenity wrote:
Can we have unlimited logistics as an 'experiment' until the reset?



Unlimited logistics will make the game burn out to a single dominate corp within 3 months. I'm open to changes on how logistics might work but no limit is not an option.

The current ideas for increasing your logistics besides leveling is
1) Make it so you can spend your research points on logistics
2) Implanting a Political influence Stat that you gain through having titles, including ruler ship, and even the new "strategic locations" idea.

The political influence stat will boost logistics in several ways. So once you max out your normal logistics you will have to move on to becoming a ruler, Top the ranking of production for your chosen goods (titles) and / or controlling special locations that can potentially boost your logistics also. Things like certain Megastructures should also give you a higher political stat which in turn increases logistics.

A paid account will give you a small political Influence stat. Part of the "not pay to win but maybe pay for 10% bonus" doctrine.

There was another CRAZY idea that sounds like it came straight from EA which would create different tiers of monthly subscription, $5, $10, $15 a month which would give you bigger Political Influence Stat depending on how much you pay.
Yet another crazy idea was to drop the subscription model altogether and offer a one time buy in starting at $5 and going to $90 and do the political prestige bonus, and paid account status benefits, for life of the account. This would probably be the best change if we wanted to keep players.

I will like to also point out that increasing your MAX logistics through Free to Paid or strategizing at a ruler ship level isn't something new players would be interested in. Its something big established corps would be. That makes it great to keep the game free to play, until you're obviously into the game and have become established before encountering pay for advantage.

Changing the payment model is a far off idea that would have to come well after political stat is implemented. But long story short,political stat will open up a lot of ways to increase logistics.
27 days ago
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

Serenity
Serenity
Posts: 11
Can we have unlimited logistics as an 'experiment' until the reset?
27 days ago
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

Grandor
Grandor
Posts: 28
Btw u can write Exact Math behide it. Otherwise people will complain. With no information or from unknow. and if they dont get it that theirs problem if will not want study.
I remember when i was playing thta demand simple grow all the time almost without effect of any players ....yes they can put it lowe in mass sell But overall all demand grown 100x faster than All player together craeted on earth and all universe!!
What about thinking that Volume will be realy on Population ? no flat demand(volume demand etc) increased by flat. (few wanst here so dont know is somethink chaned)
So if u pull down volume demand by hald it will be only 50x faster than all players? Big Grin dont think thats ideal solution VS Actual number of players.

I read about some bonuses....why rather not get bouns on logistical......probable u will remember i was Most iritating man about Logistical in this game.
edited by Grandor on 2/24/2019
27 days ago
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

Grandor
Grandor
Posts: 28
LOL i read this after few Years.....And Hura Developer is already fixing math...(Dont bother people will alwais angra from changes). Dunno if u have years old messages but i Think i wrote a lot stuff about broken math in this game 2-3 year ago.
2/18/2019
Topic:
Major changes coming that will re-balance the game

ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 165
Longer story short... this RIP'd the game in it's current state.
2/4/2019
Topic:
Earth - Imperial Mandate

TCromwell
TCromwell
Posts: 28
I am happy to announce the latest data from my Imperial records service, shows a sharp steady decline in deaths. We are also starting to notice a slow return for demand in more then basic needs.

This would not be have been possible if not for the concentrated efforts of each and every one of you.

For your diligent work I commend you, we will carry on and build a brighter tomorrow.
2/2/2019
Topic:
Earth - Imperial Mandate

TCromwell
TCromwell
Posts: 28
This is an Imperial Mandate!

As many have heard the news in Sol is grim, darkness floods in all around us. Cities are collapsing, industry is failing, and attacks are taking place all over.

I say no more will we allow this, so long as I reign as Emperor WE will turn back the darkness. WE will rebuild our cities, our infrastructure, and our supply lines. Earth will rise from the ashes left us by our forebears and push back the darkness!

I say to you all grow, thrive, and invest in the cities you call home; together we will make Earth a shining beckon of industry, hope, and prosperity.
edited by TCromwell on 2/2/2019
1/9/2019
Topic:
The Boldor Essays

CptCommanche
CptCommanche
Posts: 57
3: Reduced Scale

Finally, after the holidays, I can resume writing some useless essays for an apparently dead game. Kudos to you who read this smile

In the introductory article I stated my belief that Seren fixed the game through this last update. The statement might be a bit of a stretch, because in the short term it has caused some very large problems. Yet I think it is this topic of reduced scale that returns the game to what it was meant to be.

As stated in previous essays, many of the things I share are anticipating future changes being implemented by the developer. If these changes (and likely other changes that I haven’t even thought about) don’t happen, you can throw away most of this as irrelevant.

I am assuming:
- Marketing by the developer in conjunction with a reset
- A change to contracts (allowing products to transfer ownership easily as a supplement to the current contract system)
- Order variables that allow players to automate their industry more
- Rebalance of raiders and other game mechanics as necessary to scale to the new environment
- Changes to how spaceports operate (allows players to bulk-sell product at the port)

All of these assumed changes have been mentioned by the developer at some point in the past. There are great numbers of other changes that have been recommended by the player base (like raising city growth level from 100% back to 200%). These have not been spoken of favorably by the dev, and thus will not be discussed or considered.

So how has a reduced scale fixed the game?

One thing that has always bothered me was how easy it is to make money. Literally anyone can set up a cash generating machine and get insanely rich. This oversaturation of money completely changes the outlook of the game. With huge sums of cash, you can buy literally whatever you want. LV.10 warpgate? Sure why not. Your only limit to owning the greatest units in the game is how lucky you get during your artifact research. And if you’re impatient, just get 10 labs going simultaneously and sooner or later you’ll get a nice stock of artifact units.

This cheapens the artifact units and no longer makes them special. In addition, Monoliths are the norm and there is no reason NOT to get one. In the end, the main restricting factor is military log pen. Sure it’s fun to own super-death-fleets, but this issue of too much money makes over half the military units in the game basically useless, and in the end it railroads everyone into the same basic military makeups as they seek to optimize what they have.

With these new changes, your primary concern will change; instead of optimizing your military logistics most effectively, the issue now is how to utilize your limited funds in the best way.

Without artifact upgrades, a lv.10 modified Varitek is an incredible 300k upkeep/turn. A Lv.10 infantry is 4,000 upkeep. This means that you could own 75 lv.10 infantry (ignoring the obvious log pen issues) for the cost of a single modified varitek. Pit those 2 against each other? It’s not even close. The Varitek gets smoked. The infantry group would kill it in one shot and still have 98% health remaining.

I learned quickly from the Gladiator Games that Infantry and Mechanized are incredible values for what they provide. Fighters, Bombers and Variteks are very expensive for what they provide. Still obviously more powerful than ground units, but the cost per damage inflicted, is much much higher with the smaller ground units.

With money a limiting factor, it now opens the door to much more varied and interesting possibilities with military units. It also greatly increases the value of static defenses and smaller spacecraft. Carriers become useful again, as many players theoretically cannot afford a monolith. Overall it makes things much more varied and interesting concerning military units in the game.

This is not all. We also can address megastructures. These are now projects that will likely only be attainable as a guild-wide effort, and they are no longer a dime a dozen. Perhaps the richest players will be able to afford them on their own. For the rest of us (including probably me), cooperation will be the way forward. Some probably hate this idea, but it fits much more closely with the original vision and intent of the game. More can be written on this in the next essay.

Reducing the volumes and growth threshold also takes away a game-breaking issue. This is evidenced by the works primarily of the ARK group in Gul, running corporations with over 600% log pen and making incredible profits while doing so. Not to say things like this are not still possible, someone will figure something out I’m sure. It does take away much of the potential though.

Several have stated that they do not want to play “Barons of Earth”, and are convinced that is what the game has become. With the difficulty in starting and growing new cities in this new environment, there is a valid point here that might need to be addressed. If cities can only be grown at significantly loss to a corporation, it severely de-incentivizes any expansion efforts. If this were to be changed and founding new cities a relatively easy process, industrious players will surely go forth to expand and start new settlements. Of course this issue would be helped by the theoretically higher density of player per city, as it could likely become a group effort as opposed to the solo-city-building that we used to see.

The changes in the market introduce at least one other major issue. Margins are far too tight, and the window for profitability in a city is very small. Some emergent strategies might help counter this, such as certain trade agreements between players and not selling at max volume for a city. Yet the fundamental issue remains that markets are much too fragile and much too volatile. Being offline for more than a few hours probably means you are losing big $$$.

There could be a counter argument here, that with higher player density per city, we would see cities growing much larger on average than we see now (This obviously depends on the player base itself and how many players are in the game). With larger cities, the volumes would be much higher, allowing players to sell large volumes, potentially even at long-term sustainable levels.

Perhaps with changes in playing style and how we approach this game, this issue would solve itself. However this seems unlikely and is potentially the greatest issue present in the game. This issue of micromanagement will be discussed in further detail in a later essay.
In all, reducing the overall scale of the game brings many mechanics back into balance while causing other, more game-breaking issues. Should these new issues be resolved, I truly believe we would have a very fun game to experience.
edited by CptCommanche on 1/9/2019
1/1/2019
Topic:
What stimulates a city's growth

Telios
Telios
Posts: 9
I would love if Mega Structures became worth it!

Arcology - Valuable before but less so now as a 10% of city growth when it costs a million a turn isn't terrible cost effective. With the new system of it not really being profitable to grow a city, I can see this mega structure being completely worthless after the reset. If the growth it provided was greatly increased or provided a population "floor" for the city that would be working towards fixing it.

Hypernet - only valuable at level 1 when it costs 5,000 a turn and only breaks even if you have 500,000 of production costs in the city. Any further levels are meaningless and unprofitable as you will pay more in military upkeep that you will save in production costs. The upkeep should be vastly lower, the bonus should be much higher, it should provide a reduction to military upkeep in the city as well or should act as a spaceport for just that city to generate additional income. Right now its just the worst.

Mobile fortress- It isn't terrible but suffers from the fact that it is more economical to let your things die and then rebuild as a smaller player than maintain a standing defense. This isn't really a problem with the structure itself but the economy of the game...

Warp Gates - income doesn't really offset the per turn cost but we maintain them because space is huge, not sure I would change much. Will be much less important when the reset happens as we all just live in Sol.

Orbital Gun - Won't be seen much after the reset, same reason as the mobile fortress. Just too expensive to maintain in the new economy.

Spaceport - nearly worthless due to the reduced economic climate, the ability to sell to the spaceport at a planetary rate and have it effect all of the cities would be really cool, in addition, having the owner get an additional amount of those sales (in addition to the existing sales percent) would make the structure viable in the new climate. Or the ability to have an action house type market in them. I post to sell 100,000 units, player A buys 20,000, Player B buys 80,000 and we don't have to mess with tons of comms and lots of contracts.

Starbase - Similar to the Orbital Gun and the Mobile fortress, the military bonus is nice but no one is going to have military after the reset because there won't be profits enough to maintain. Military upkeep reduction of units sitting in the starbase would be a compelling reason perhaps to build one (50-70% off).

Also, it would be nice if the military upkeep was reduced when units were stationed at your military base or shipyard. Units in the field costing more, etc. Similar to the repair increase.
edited by Telios on 1/1/2019
12/25/2018
Topic:
What stimulates a city's growth

Telios
Telios
Posts: 9
You are developing in dreamland if you think Earth can support 5-10 million per city with players actually making a profit and enjoying themselves...

My point about 100 million was basically saying that it would still be a near impossibility under an industry based city growth model. You completely ignored the concept that was the focus of this topic; industry focused city size rather than demand levels...

If players aren't meant to "grow" cities then why even have the growth based on actions the players make? Just set the pop to whatever you believe that it should be and be done... or based on number of players (think we are down to under 10 atm...)?

You do a lot of squashing players' ideas to try to fix the game while every "balance" you are making is just driving people away. New features (guild bank, etc) are meaningless when the core of the game (economy) allows for no growth...
edited by Telios on 12/25/2018
12/22/2018
Topic:
Assets Page: Product Tab: Sell Quantity Bug

Methanevalley
Methanevalley
Posts: 4
The quantities listed in the sell quantity column of the product tab seem to be incorrect. For example, during the 100 tick period from 84020 to 84119 inclusive the product tab claims I sold 256,140 basic alloy. My newly built excel spreadsheet, however, gives the figure at 27,945 basic alloy sold over the same period.

Note: My calculations are in agreement with the product tab when it comes to Small Appliances, Manufacturing Tools and Basic Fabric, at least.

Titan Industrial
12/18/2018
Topic:
Improvement suggestion: search city in move orders

CptCommanche
CptCommanche
Posts: 57
This update will save me so much time. This will be a welcome change!
12/18/2018
Topic:
Serious 2 years old bug compromising sells

CptCommanche
CptCommanche
Posts: 57
Yeah that would seem like a fairly useless exploit. I guess someone would figure out how to take advantage of it though.....




Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.3.8.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software