Post by semperfi on Oct 22, 2021 17:21:58 GMT
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
A. The greater the barriers to the industry (for new players to join), the greater the profits - Based on competition - Because the competition is smaller.
Therefore in AS and GOs there are very large profit margins. So for example, if it would be easier to scrape a good quarry building the profit margin on iron would be lower.
New industries with a high entry threshold makes the game more challenging but also exacerbates class differences.
Thanks for your replys BTW.
On this, part of the question is about what kind of game is this. Is it a long-term build game (something I personally like)? Or, is it a quick how can one figure out how to make the most money?
To play in those small competition pools, you also need a company with a threshold level of resources to invest. This kind of leans towards the idea that this is a long-term build type of game.
See my previous comment above about how fast some are making money and think about what that means for long term build players.
Also, see my other comment above about "low" barrier to entry. There are non-game barriers too. The irony is that those top two earners in Food are NOT small companies. So, theory assumed behind point A) does not meet reality in some major respects.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
B. In industry it can be upgraded by research (higher entry threshold - lower competition). In retail there is no such thing and therefore there is a limit to the profit that can be earned in retail.
I love that aspect and have used it to very good effect. You are right, nothing like that for Retail. And, very high Admin OH creates a rapid diminishing returns effect that doesn't exist in other industries (except Refinery, IIRC - maybe more? I haven't researched every industry).
There is the concept of Economies of Scale that is not implemented in this game that could counteract this for Retail. I think it could be something that gives multiple industries an equal footing to, say, AS. In real life, we don't see just one industry dominate in valuation.
That all said, your point about Research investment is a long-term build concept - see my response to A) above.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
C. Another problem in the game is that there is no real possibility of losing money. In the real world there are additional costs besides the raw materials, in the game, even workers are this type of raw materials and apart from the construction costs (one-time) there are no costs when the factories go on strike.
The problem is that the profit is accrued. Anyone who has a high resume also earns a high score and also has more money to invest to earn more.
Two points here:
1) About your point on not losing money - true. A commenter on another post some time ago about AS and the extraordinary profit it was driving made a keen observation. There is (was?) no demand limitation on AS. There effectively was no limit to Rockets, Jets, etc.. In real world, the population could only support so many of those kinds of items. He suggested tying demand to the Simcompanies world population (total number of employees).
Retail stores have some demand limit built into the algorithm (of which there were several SimTimes articles on).
I think the Restaurants concept has some form of "population limit" - as occupancy rate will depend on how many other Restaurants exist (implying there must be a fixed demand that gets spread across all Restaurants - I hope that demand is a function of world population/economy size/# of players, otherwise if the game grows occupancy rates will slowly diminish for everyone).
2) About profit accruing - indeed. It creates incumbency advantage. Again, no accident the two top Food earners are sizable companies already (though if one has a threshold level of resources to invest and has the time to invest in the game, smaller players can make a killing - but if too small, they just cannot make anywhere near $100M+ in 7 days, or even 30 days - maybe 90 days?). I am also seeing several at the very top dipping their toe into Restaurants (I've got to believe it is because they see the massive profit being made).
I don't know that this can be changed, without some other undesirable effect. This is where I like new Game Worlds - we all start at the same point. No incumbency advantage.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
Therefore, in my opinion, the solution should be focused on:
A. Related costs as in the real world - electricity costs, tax and maintenance on a building - used or not, storage costs, (At the same time, in order to maintain a sense of reality, inflated administrative costs and money maintenance costs must be reduced - even if it is possible to collect income-taxed tax, it must be kept more realistic).
Depends on how this is implemented - I wouldn't want it to create more complexity or administrative work than there already is.
Also, I think there needs to be some basis to "measure" what is "realistic" - there are so many aspects to that, Patrik and team could go down a very long rabbit hole to find solutions vs a simpler nerf/buff (as they say) to individual industries.
Overall, this is another item that seems oriented to the long-term build aspect of the game.
Not sure this deals with the intro of new industries and the absurd profitability in them, which then pulls the game into the opposite direction of game play.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
Therefore, in my opinion, the solution should be focused on:
B. Change the scoring method. Instead of the money being used both for a resume score and as a basis for additional profit, the money that will be used for a score has been deducted from the company's coffers. (As in the real world the owner's salary goes down from the company's money). I tried to explain this in the link above.
Not sure that is possible, unless the amount deducted is 100% or nearly so.
There will always be an accumulation into CV, as that is the nature of the accounting process.
The game design could just simply NOT report rank by CV, but I don't think that is really addressing the core issue.
If the deduction were so large, it would decidely throw the game towards short term play, as there is no incentive towards long-term build.
How would one optimize their business? There, then is no "yardstick". Then the game designers would have to come up with a series of their own measures / challenges / scores which would seem both artificial and not really conducive to the promise of the game - it is afterall called "Sim" "Companies"!
I don't think that would work sellling it to schools as a learning project either.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
Therefore, in my opinion, the solution should be focused on:
C. Avoid barriers that are too large and especially for beginners (or complete that there will be class differences).
Somewhere above I mentioned that, in the current game, when new industries are introduced, the design then needs to come up with some artficial barriers to mitigate or eliminate the incumbent advantage.
This also takes some of the air / excitement out of new industries too. The game needs to have new industries come in to maintain interest and help in player retention.
I like the desire for players with smaller companies (mostly beginners) to have something they can run with and have early success with. But, at the same time, how far to go with that? Is it a good thing if it were "easy" to make a ton of money off the bat?
It is a very tough balancing act to design artificial barriers that will make sense for long-term build playability for incumbents (such that they cannot make absurd profits) and, at the same time, not make it so that brand spanking new players can jump 3/4 of the way in rank just by jumping in to the newest thing.
New Game Worlds maintains that excitement without having to design some artificial barriers (that are probably out of whack anyway), with everyone starting at the same place.
The only difference then is game knowledge and game player connections.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
Therefore, in my opinion, the solution should be focused on:
D. Another thing that can help: develop industries that are not dependent on building and workers , such as trade and finance. That way the profit will be shared among more people.
Rather than a stratum of industries by profitability, I think it ought to be that any one industry can be very profitable, but to get there takes planning, strategy and building - profit is earned. Of course, that is for a long-term build game.
I do agree that some variety of styles of industries would be interest (very much so!), but on their own merit than as a means to address this issue.
I just don't want to see more industries introduced that become the latest fad with absurd profits to shortcut to the top. Then why bother as a long-term build, when all the effort applied doesn't get rewarded?
This game has to decide what is it going to be.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
In the end it should be remembered that the larger the entry barrier = the smaller the competition = the less people share in the profit = The participants earns more.
Barriers to entry can be of all types. More time spent in the game to get cheap suppliers and expensive customers, invest real money and get a speed bonus, a high level and get a speed bonus, need a lot of cash (like AS and GO), new industry, high risk of losing money and more and more.
All well and good if it were actually so.
As mentioned in prior comment - we are now seeing absurd profits on a brand new industry. So much for the supposed barriers and mitigations.
I think we need to recognize the reality of how this competes with the game's overall gameplay philosophy - is it long-term build, or short quick race?
The overall design is long-term build, but the intros cannot be designed to NOT give an incumbent advantage while being low barrier to beginners.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
I think more worlds can be cool, especially if it will be arranged like cities / countries which can make trading interesting (separate exchanges, different supply and demand, expensive transportation costs between cities and cheap ones within them, etc.) and also solve the leveling problems of the GOs (big for everyone, and small only for city residents).
Actually, having countries / regions where there are some different competitive advantages, coupled with different cost of shipping / transportation (land, sea, air over different distances) would be a very desirable addition to the game.
I don't think it is the same as I am suggesting for Multiple Worlds. I'm suggesting a process to introduce new industries (and major game changes) while avoiding some of the other problems. The Game Worlds don't interact with each other.
I've experienced it on another game and it is very feasible.
Oct 20, 2021 19:00:46 GMT ar said:
But in the end I do not think it will solve the ranking problem (even if the servers are completely separate), but will just start it over and over again (not fun at all - at least not for me).
It is not a "ranking problem" per se.
Rank just reflects CV which comes from Profit, which is a residual of effort to tweak and optimize one's operation (i.e. playing like it is a long-term build game).
When introducing big new changes, like industries, as the game is now constructed, there has to be artificial barriers to mitigate incumbent advantages - though so far it seems elusive - so that new players are not deflated by the big players dominating the next new thing.
Players in the lower ranks will have an insatiable demand for new industries so they can latch onto something that is "competitve" and will allow them to grow rank faster than already established industries.
They are effectively being trained to expect that.
This dynamic destroys the long-term build aspect of the game.
Having Multiple Worlds is VERY FUN. They last as long as the game designer wants. The idea of starting over is to try out the newest thing, or to try out your own new ideas and discoveries - you don't have to stick to what you have (though you can continue in the game world you are in and not join the new one - they all run in parallel).
If you haven't played such a game you may not realize all this.
Thanks for your input.