|
Post by ar on Oct 10, 2021 5:23:12 GMT
I do not understand why the right to participate in tenders should be restricted. Naturally, the smaller tenders (small entry block) will have more bidders> more competition> smaller profit margins. In larger tenders (need a lot of cash to participate = bigger entry block)> there will be fewer bidders> Smaller competition> Larger profit margins. Naturally the big companies will prefer to bid on big tenders to get bigger profit margins and leave the small tenders to the small companies. A capitalist economy gives equal opportunity to all and chooses the best so that the buyer (government) will get the best price it can get. Maybe big companies will also win small tenders but they will have no advantage over the other companies and for them it is a shame to waste power on low profit margins when they can earn more
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Oct 16, 2021 2:11:37 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.
If I understand what you’re saying it seems like at that point (if it’s even something patrik can do as a solo dev) the go’s would feel too tailored to you and be a bit unrealistic. Seems like what you’re suggesting is semi personalized go’s depending on you exact cv instead of encompassing a large range of cv
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Oct 16, 2021 2:17:35 GMT
I do not understand why the right to participate in tenders should be restricted. Naturally, the smaller tenders (small entry block) will have more bidders> more competition> smaller profit margins. In larger tenders (need a lot of cash to participate = bigger entry block)> there will be fewer bidders> Smaller competition> Larger profit margins. Naturally the big companies will prefer to bid on big tenders to get bigger profit margins and leave the small tenders to the small companies. A capitalist economy gives equal opportunity to all and chooses the best so that the buyer (government) will get the best price it can get. Maybe big companies will also win small tenders but they will have no advantage over the other companies and for them it is a shame to waste power on low profit margins when they can earn more Some may feel the same as you, but this system’s original goal when I pitched it was to avoid the thing I see every week, the same 10-20 companies winning or placing high on all the go’s. I thought about the idea you just brought up before I posted the original, but ultimately decided it was very likely that too many people would just hoard contracts and take the small profits, for a large company used to fulfilling a large go it would be a trivial matter to complete 5-10 small go’s at a time. Maybe what you say can work but with so many people being eligible under the system I suggested I don’t see how you can avoid abuse without putting hard blocks to the behavior. I also agree with what you said about free markets but there’s a key difference, there’s no distance between our companies and the government. In reality no one company can easily take dozens of small go because it’s unlikely that one company will be in close proximity to all of the go’s, in cases like that a smaller local company would fulfill the contract. A good framing device is what WaltDisney suggested a few weeks ago “municipal contracts” the small ones would be varying sizes of city or county government orders
|
|
|
Post by semperfi on Oct 18, 2021 3:22:53 GMT
If I understand what you’re saying it seems like at that point (if it’s even something patrik can do as a solo dev) the go’s would feel too tailored to you and be a bit unrealistic. Seems like what you’re suggesting is semi personalized go’s depending on you exact cv instead of encompassing a large range of cv I think you oversimplified it.
The band that a company qualifies for is still rather wide.
The point is about avoiding the step function issue (unless there are going to be MANY levels) where one enters a new tier only to find that they are too small to be able to compete.
If the GOs in each step is too much of a reach for the lowest of each tier, then it greatly reduces the rationale for smaller Government Orders.
Can / will the tiers be constructed so it is not so?
I don't think the programming for a qualifying band is much of a burden really, relative to the rest of this suggestion for small GOs. And, probably more robust than setting multiple distinct tiers.
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Oct 22, 2021 23:05:48 GMT
If I understand what you’re saying it seems like at that point (if it’s even something patrik can do as a solo dev) the go’s would feel too tailored to you and be a bit unrealistic. Seems like what you’re suggesting is semi personalized go’s depending on you exact cv instead of encompassing a large range of cv I think you oversimplified it.
The band that a company qualifies for is still rather wide.
The point is about avoiding the step function issue (unless there are going to be MANY levels) where one enters a new tier only to find that they are too small to be able to compete.
If the GOs in each step is too much of a reach for the lowest of each tier, then it greatly reduces the rationale for smaller Government Orders.
Can / will the tiers be constructed so it is not so?
I don't think the programming for a qualifying band is much of a burden really, relative to the rest of this suggestion for small GOs. And, probably more robust than setting multiple distinct tiers.
Again that’s by design, I don’t want you to reach a new tier and instantly be able to effectively compete. The systems main purpose is to simply shorten the timeframe for participation in go’s and give thousands a chance instead of only 100. The way I see it working is with 3-5 tiers, you get into one at say 50m and compete with 100-150m cv people, you likely fail but eventually you grow to 75-100m and now stand a chance maybe win a few contracts and eventually graduate to the next tier say 150-500m the process then repeats. Others have complained that the system I suggested will be too easy and give participation trophies, I hope that having it set up like this will appease all people involved by making it difficult but not AS difficult as the current go’s, a happy balance between boringly easy and painfully difficult, as most games should be
|
|
|
Post by semperfi on Oct 23, 2021 2:32:21 GMT
Again that’s by design, I don’t want you to reach a new tier and instantly be able to effectively compete. The systems main purpose is to simply shorten the timeframe for participation in go’s and give thousands a chance instead of only 100. The way I see it working is with 3-5 tiers, you get into one at say 50m and compete with 100-150m cv people, you likely fail but eventually you grow to 75-100m and now stand a chance maybe win a few contracts and eventually graduate to the next tier say 150-500m the process then repeats. Others have complained that the system I suggested will be too easy and give participation trophies, I hope that having it set up like this will appease all people involved by making it difficult but not AS difficult as the current go’s, a happy balance between boringly easy and painfully difficult, as most games should be Well, I was suggesting that it would still be a stretch to be able to compete at the top of your band. I'm not arguing that there should be an easy "layup" for everyone.
The rationale for small GOs should also apply to the tiers. I think tiers are harder to define well to abide by that rationale.
Now, if the tiers were well defined to begin with (i.e. not be so wide such that the top easily dominate and the bottom have a reasonable chance at competing), then bands by company doesn't really add anything.
Otherwise, makes no sense to "graduate" to a tier only to find yourself unable to compete for ANY GO - which is simply a small scale version of what we are finding today, only where the tier is singular and wide.
|
|
|
Post by brokers on Oct 29, 2021 17:51:32 GMT
You’re right, some may decide to stop growing simply to benefit from the go’s but to discourage that the profits will be proportional to the current tier you’re in. You will make more money by advancing and growing up the tiers instead of stagnation, the game is already designed in this way, you can make 20-30% margins on items when you first start but will only have a net sales of 100k. The larger you get the lower your margin, but 10% of 1 million net sales is still more profit then you’re entire net sales when you first started. The same can be done for the go’s, and if people still decide they would like to stagnate then let them, if that’s what gives them satisfaction in the game then I don’t see how tiered gos modeled after the game’s designed progression will make the problem any worse
|
|