|
Serenity Posts: 13
2/27/2019
|
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.
--
Sweet Fruit Supply
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
3/1/2019
|
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
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Telios Posts: 9
3/6/2019
|
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.
--
Supernova LLC
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
CptCommanche Posts: 69
3/8/2019
|
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  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.
--
Boldor Galactic Inc, AKA the old StarCorp
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
jimbobdaz Posts: 83
3/11/2019
|
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
|
|
|
0
link
|