|
Post by brokers on Sept 17, 2021 12:41:19 GMT
Exactly what Disney said. Some players may play for a year or 2 to get to go’s but most will be bored and leave well before then. This whole idea came about through a debate on what the best method for player retention would be and what updates would make the game more robust and more fun at all levels of play. Once you hit a certain level it’s just months of grinding, small go’s would give a change of pace to the monotonous process of starting buildings and selling goods every day. I may better understand the hesitation if this was something that interfered with the realism of the game or drastically changed the way it’s played but this is simply opening up an aspect of play to a wider section of the player base instead of it being reserved for the top 1% of the player base. It also doesn’t interfere with the idea of striving to climb and do better since these changes are being suggested in a way that locks them to players of a certain cv or ranking and with that a likelihood of making more profit on higher level GOs. As far as protecting players there would be a level requirement like we have now somewhere near levels 15-20 sounds about right and if you’re worried about small companies getting to some more advanced sections of the game too soon you could have the minimum cv be 50M. I’m not saying this has to be open to most players in their first 3-6 months but at some point before being top 500 in the game would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Sept 17, 2021 13:04:10 GMT
Again, my point is "I like that the GOs are for larger companies - it gives younger and mid-size companies a goal to strive for." - there are 19-20,000 players in the game - and growing. If you open it up to everyone then it loses it's specialness. It becomes a participation trophy, not a reward for growing. Not everything needs to cater to players of all levels. That's the incentive to grow - and also a protection for new businesses. As a side note. Level and rank aren't everything, some players just want to enjoy a game for what it is and have a relaxing business sim, instead of an environment that requires a top level of play and lots of time investment to unlock some more enjoyable aspects of the game. I'm not sure what good reason there is to block out those that are happy at mid-size from bidding and competing for contracts. a system like what I suggested not only makes the game more enjoyable while grinding, it also gives players that are happy staying mid-sized a place to live and enjoy the game a bit longer then they otherwise would have
|
|
|
Post by waltdisney on Sept 26, 2021 6:42:02 GMT
As pointed out in game chat, it is better to not have an achievement or a certificate for the completion of government orders. It is better that players try to complete it for profit only.
Accesss to smaller GOs will actually make for more competitive bidding and will require lots of experience and math in order to profit from it. As I stated in the previous posts, there will be multiple tiered GOs that will now cater to a vast majority of the player base but will be as equally difficult and competitive.
This does not lower the standards but increase competition and also increase market disruptions, which will make for a more interesting market and an avenue for intelligent players to flip products in the market for profit as is done when economy goes upward during the shift (normal to boom/ recession to normal)
|
|
|
Post by semperfi on Sept 26, 2021 16:49:59 GMT
As a side note. Level and rank aren't everything, some players just want to enjoy a game for what it is and have a relaxing business sim, instead of an environment that requires a top level of play and lots of time investment to unlock some more enjoyable aspects of the game. I'm not sure what good reason there is to block out those that are happy at mid-size from bidding and competing for contracts. a system like what I suggested not only makes the game more enjoyable while grinding, it also gives players that are happy staying mid-sized a place to live and enjoy the game a bit longer then they otherwise would have I like the idea of small GOs. And, for that matter, any other incentives we can give players to make the game interesting for them and help in player retention - especially for the newer companies.
I am not opposed to having very small GOs open to all at the lowest tiers of size.
Why? Because giving those players a low risk (relatively) way to learn about GOs and build some experience / confidence in managing them would be a good thing. Maybe more will participate later on - and maybe that will help drive interest / retention.
BTW, I am one of those players that is having a "relaxing business sim" experience - I found a niche that fits my time requirements and has opportunity to tweak and grow. For me Rank is a proxy.
Ultimately, it is about answering the question: Is there room to tweak and optimize my business?
How do I really "know" that other than am I increasing my profitability? If I am not aiming for that, then aside from these side goals (GOs, Certificates, Achievements, etc - which can be mostly exhausted over time) there really isn't much but it being a "daily grind" for the sake of grinding itself.
Profitability drives CV, which in turn drives Rank. Hence, the proxy - for knowing if there is "more" to be done to improve the business.
If someone wants to build a company to "mid-tier" and, perhaps, start over in a new industry, just to figure that other one out too - I'm good with that.
(But, I have to believe that at some level even getting to "mid-sized" has been a profit driven enterprise, which then ultimately comes back to Rank as a KPI)
I just don't think GOs alone will be enough for most "mid-level" companies to keep interest / retention up - if that is the argument. (Having multiple pathways - industries - to the top is a stronger motivation, IMHO.)
Ultimately, we shouldn't confuse / conflate "relaxing gameplay" with the goals/KPIs a player chooses, and use that (erroneous assumption) as a rationale for or against some suggested enhancement to the game.
|
|
|
Post by waltdisney on Sept 27, 2021 7:09:30 GMT
I definitely agree that more industries and more ways to the top will be better for the game overall. I hope that food takes care of that and it will be a starting point for other future industries that one industry is not the KING over others.
This idea is more about increased participation on the bidding process and the gathering of items to a larger player base. So making GO accessible to most players and in combination with great new industries that can also take you to the top will be something worth looking at, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Sept 27, 2021 21:14:10 GMT
I like the idea of small GOs. And, for that matter, any other incentives we can give players to make the game interesting for them and help in player retention - especially for the newer companies.
I am not opposed to having very small GOs open to all at the lowest tiers of size.
Why? Because giving those players a low risk (relatively) way to learn about GOs and build some experience / confidence in managing them would be a good thing. Maybe more will participate later on - and maybe that will help drive interest / retention.
BTW, I am one of those players that is having a "relaxing business sim" experience - I found a niche that fits my time requirements and has opportunity to tweak and grow. For me Rank is a proxy.
Ultimately, it is about answering the question: Is there room to tweak and optimize my business?
How do I really "know" that other than am I increasing my profitability? If I am not aiming for that, then aside from these side goals (GOs, Certificates, Achievements, etc - which can be mostly exhausted over time) there really isn't much but it being a "daily grind" for the sake of grinding itself.
Profitability drives CV, which in turn drives Rank. Hence, the proxy - for knowing if there is "more" to be done to improve the business.
If someone wants to build a company to "mid-tier" and, perhaps, start over in a new industry, just to figure that other one out too - I'm good with that.
(But, I have to believe that at some level even getting to "mid-sized" has been a profit driven enterprise, which then ultimately comes back to Rank as a KPI)
I just don't think GOs alone will be enough for most "mid-level" companies to keep interest / retention up - if that is the argument. (Having multiple pathways - industries - to the top is a stronger motivation, IMHO.)
Ultimately, we shouldn't confuse / conflate "relaxing gameplay" with the goals/KPIs a player chooses, and use that (erroneous assumption) as a rationale for or against some suggested enhancement to the game.
It’s not an argument for or against the implementation. it’s an argument against the Argument that go’s should be reserved for the highest level play and small-medium businesses shouldn’t be allowed to participate because they didn’t work for it or it’s somehow “easy money”. In my opinion anything to do with that line of argument is ridiculous and simply shows how some players feel they are superior and deserve more parts of the game simply because they played longer. That may not be the reason but I haven’t heard any argument that doesn’t somehow tie into that. I would like to hear something to do with balance or progression that doesn’t devolve into “but they might progress faster and make easy money”
|
|
|
Post by antforge on Sept 28, 2021 8:09:17 GMT
I found some issue too in GO because all smaller contracts are bidded in loss to get the achievement. The proposal to remove the achievement could be good to avoid under-price offers, but in principle is in the opposite direction of the achievement strategy of the game. Have more contracts and reduce to one bid for each player could focus each one on proper value range. And permit the access to several GO on base of the ranking could also improve the situation.
A nice new feature could be also for players to issue Company Orders of a value of 10-20M$.
|
|
|
Post by Legacy on Sept 29, 2021 22:56:39 GMT
Again, my point is "I like that the GOs are for larger companies - it gives younger and mid-size companies a goal to strive for." - there are 19-20,000 players in the game - and growing. If you open it up to everyone then it loses it's specialness. It becomes a participation trophy, not a reward for growing. Not everything needs to cater to players of all levels. That's the incentive to grow - and also a protection for new businesses. The problem is that GO is unreachable for 99% of the players. Look at the GO every week. It is the same 5 players bidding every week. Barely anyone outside the top 300 can have a chance, or they win the bid and realize it's too much money and fail... So if there is say 10,000 active players, only 10 really even have a chance, how is that fun? It serves only to reward the top 0.1% of players. It would be more fun to also add in some smaller ones like 500k deposit and 10-20M worth of goods. Then hundreds can compete and it would be a real honor to win a contract. I wouldn't separate anything, it's free for all who can qualify. If SantosBrazil can supply the small contract more profitably, then they can bid and win a small margin of profit. But I feel smaller companies could do more profitably and would be more fun for many more people to participate instead of the same 5-10 names all the time.
|
|
|
Post by mightymoo on Sept 30, 2021 17:22:53 GMT
Maybe only a handful do them because others have done the math on the profitability or lack thereof. Even if they were profitable - I don't mind that there are things that only top level players can do. This is a long game about capitalism, not participation awards. There ought to be an incentive to grow your company to unlock more things and have more options.
|
|
|
Post by semperfi on Sept 30, 2021 17:28:12 GMT
It’s not an argument for or against the implementation. it’s an argument against the Argument that go’s should be reserved for the highest level play and small-medium businesses shouldn’t be allowed to participate because they didn’t work for it or it’s somehow “easy money”. In my opinion anything to do with that line of argument is ridiculous and simply shows how some players feel they are superior and deserve more parts of the game simply because they played longer. That may not be the reason but I haven’t heard any argument that doesn’t somehow tie into that. I would like to hear something to do with balance or progression that doesn’t devolve into “but they might progress faster and make easy money” No worries mate. Just that several players have made similar comments from time to time about the pursuit of Rank as an end in itself.
With thousands of players there HAS to be multiple ways for them to enjoy the game. I don't buy the idea that GOs should remain as they are (unobtainable for most players) because it will "give newer players something to strive for". Remaining as is is a good way to kill long term interest.
WRT Rank it is just a high level measure and is a residual result from pursuing other activity.
Having a single industry to dominate is another way to kill long term interest. Every player should be able to see a variety of pathways that can bring them to the "top". The best Farmer (i.e. the most optimized operation) should be able to do as well (or nearly so) as the best Car Dealer, or the best Oil Producer, etc. (just like the largest publicly stock-listed companies represent a variety of industries - and their position dynamically changes). Today, it is largely still about AS with very little movement at the top.
I see this last problem as intractable with the current structure.
The game can keep introducing disruptive new industries, like Food, that itself could be "unbalanced" (massively profitable vs anything else) - I think many are hoping so, because of this last problem.
But, to keep creating new things to disrupt also has its problems, if the goal is player retention. It also dramatically shifts the player attention towards the next big new industry vs working to optimize in a chosen industry.
I'm not sure that the developer(s) can keep up with the demand for new disruptive industries, for another, if this is their thinking, or is what Food turns out to be. And, if Food isn't, what of the players who are hoping so?
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Oct 2, 2021 6:35:04 GMT
I wouldn't separate anything, it's free for all who can qualify. If SantosBrazil can supply the small contract more profitably, then they can bid and win a small margin of profit. But I feel smaller companies could do more profitably and would be more fun for many more people to participate instead of the same 5-10 names all the time. I suggested a separation by cv because it’s very likely that it will become the same as the go’s now. The same giant companies bidding and winning except instead of 1 it’s a dozen being bid and won by the same person. 10m in goods is a lot to someone with only 50m cv but to the people that generally bid on go’s now that’s 1/10 of a go they bid so they can then bid on more of them. the spirit of the idea is to allow more players an opportunity to bid on go’s and experience them in similar ways and difficulty to the ones currently available for the top 500. Without separating them it takes away the ability to experience them the same and is then just an easy “small” go for large companies to pass the time with, instead of it being the event it would be to a smaller company
|
|
|
Post by semperfi on Oct 3, 2021 4:58:13 GMT
[I suggested a separation by cv because it’s very likely that it will become the same as the go’s now. The same giant companies bidding and winning except instead of 1 it’s a dozen being bid and won by the same person. 10m in goods is a lot to someone with only 50m cv but to the people that generally bid on go’s now that’s 1/10 of a go they bid so they can then bid on more of them. the spirit of the idea is to allow more players an opportunity to bid on go’s and experience them in similar ways and difficulty to the ones currently available for the top 500. Without separating them it takes away the ability to experience them the same and is then just an easy “small” go for large companies to pass the time with, instead of it being the event it would be to a smaller company Makes sense - agree.
I only suggest having some overlap in CV tiers as the step function may between tiers may be too steep. That is, as a company graduates to the next tier, they now may find it too much of a struggle until they grow some more.
Then again, having discrete steps may give them a reason to focus back on growth within that tier.
|
|
|
Post by ar on Oct 4, 2021 22:19:03 GMT
Even if they were profitable - I don't mind that there are things that only top level players can do. This is a long game about capitalism, not participation awards. There ought to be an incentive to grow your company to unlock more things and have more options. Capitalism is essentially a free market economy method. In order to create a free market, the first thing to do is to lower barriers. Protecting producers (who have been contributing to society for a long time) is more similar to the socialist economy method.
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Oct 5, 2021 9:18:10 GMT
The hard cv tiers are meant to have that effect, if it’s seamless it’s too easy. It’s good to get into a new tier and struggle a little, not enough to where we get to the current go’s that take 1-2 years to get to but a few weeks or a month between getting to the new tier and bidding sounds like a good compromise for speed and difficulty
|
|
|
Post by semperfi on Oct 10, 2021 4:07:10 GMT
The hard cv tiers are meant to have that effect, if it’s seamless it’s too easy. It’s good to get into a new tier and struggle a little, not enough to where we get to the current go’s that take 1-2 years to get to but a few weeks or a month between getting to the new tier and bidding sounds like a good compromise for speed and difficulty All depends on how wide those tiers are defined, I guess. I wasn't suggesting a very wide overlap.
Here is an idea, what if the "eligible" tiers could be moving with the player?
What if the player company's eligibility is defined by a formula (probably some logarithmic function related to their week-ending CV)?
And, what if the GOs themselves are randomly valued within those "hard" tiers, and the player's eligibility range is matched to THAT value.
The effect is that the player can "reach" for the upper ranges they are eligible for (perhaps in the next tier), but would be shut out of some GOs they previously qualified for within that "hard" tier.
|
|