| Friday, November 19, 2004 - 02:41 am |
I agree keith that the gold coin purchase is a useful comrpomise. However it isnt a long term solution and the problem should never have appeared in the first place. The scoring needs to be completely adjusted, at the very least. Id personally rather live in a government which lacked any fiscal surplus but had superb health care, education, and entertainment than I would in a rich ****hole.
Building world wonders or any big project would be a neat way to get rid of some or all of that excess cash. Ill have to think about it.(the problem is it would come back again...even if it took a long long time)
I resurrected Jozis "peaceful country" thread to remind him of his promise to remove the war limits and make separate rankings (or a world) for peaceful players. I think he forgot, and it looks like all the people whod be liable to push him to remember have quit.
Concentrating Sim Population in player countries does many things. 1st, It makes it possible to run the simulation much faster ( a few times faster id expect).
Now, I dont want it to run any faster than 3 months per day. Maybe 4 max
However, with the extra processing speed, many long-desired features could be implemented. If jozi had a lot more spare CPU cycles, a ton of stuff weve wanted forever would be actually feasible. Some real geography, for instance...and everything it would entail.
More importantly concentrating people in c3s makes the market run more realistically.
Everyone in a closed market cant sell at maximum price and buy at minimum at the same time. The player economies get rich by screwing over the c3s. As the c3s lose all their cash, they get magical infusions once assets drop too low.
This cash is then transferred to players as the c3s buy the players' expensive goods, as well as through the loan income.
in fact an excellent solution which might be even better than the rest of the crap im about to write would be: make players actually lose their loan money when and if C3s default. As it stands now there is no risk. C3s cant default, they always get more money. If players loan money out and a c3 passes a certain threshold (the default level) the player(s) should lose their loan cash, and the c3 should default back to 0 debt and 0 cash.
Simple. That would do 80% of it right there.
Anyway, I know you know both of these things. I have marveled that you are screwing the c3s on fearless even more than I am (I think I saw you selling at 400%?).
If most of the SimPopulation were human controlled, doing this would be impossible. Nobody would buy at that price unless they absoutelye had to (say, for weapons purchases as they were losing a war...)
Players might use colonies or common markets to do something similar - buy cheap goods from the conlonies and then sell them expensive finished products. This is exactly what the colonies in the real world were all about (economically speaking). Modeling this in SC would be cool.
Also the problems of massively unrealistic wars would be gone: nobody would have tens and hundreds of trillions to spend on them. More importantly still, new players who played the market well would be able to compete with older players who had crappy countries much more effectively (ie, at all :P). The scoring wouldnt be such a problem because it would be very difficult to hoard massive amounts of cash at all.
This is just an intellectual discussion, obviously nothing like this would happen.
However W3c has already reduced the c3 populations. I estimate that fearless recently lost about 50% of its world population, maybe even 55-60%. The world immediately started to run much faster, and the market is much more interesting (to my eyes). You should already know the same thing. Shortages mean more - the c3s cant build many new big corps, they have no room (hence the issues with CEOs. CEOs can still work though, they jsut are more restricted to the share market, and buying and selling corporations. Its a shift in thinking but I think CEOs who never built a corporation would be fine as well...maybe even truer to form)
Getting supplies is becoming more important. Getting cheap supplies even moreso. Also surplus/shortage are much more important-if a shortage is big enough you can pretty much charge whatever you want and get it, and in surplus conditions you are more directly competing with other players to sell at the lowest price/qual.
I see all of this as good things. Cartels, local markets, strategic supplies-all of these things would be much more important. As things are now, they are very limited.
Now imagine what the market would look like if c3s had an average pop of 1M..or 500k?
There are some problems. First, new players would be at a huge disadvantage (on GR at least), since the old folks have ridiculously gigantic countries. Second, CEOs would not be able to live in C3s.
There are simple solutions for both.
Regarding new players, they could simply be given the average population of the current players upon registration, or some arbitrary number that jozi thinks is competitive. ALternatively population growth could be tweaked in many ways to help them, nearly all of them realistic (poor edu countries would grow faster, economically poor countries would have higher birthrates, low-density populations would grow faster, high density populations (those in huge countries) woudl grow slower, highly educated rich people would have fewer children, a good health system would drastically reduce the death rate in young people, etc)
Regarding CEOs, remove 90% of the c3 pop. keep 5% he way it is (there would still be some c3s to take advantage of , easier for everyone). keep the other 5% free of corporations and available only to CEOs, in 'peaceful' c3s so they cant be taken over. Close corporations run by inactive or deregistered CEO accounts.
This should give plenty of space. if not, add a few more.
Making CEO corporations more benefiical for human players would make the point moot anyway, since if they had an incentive, people would want them in their countries. That is the solution id like to see.
Making CEO corps inherently more profitable than state corporations is a good, and old, idea imho.
Making them resistant, if not immune, to rebellion/civil unrest would be equally good.
They could also be more productive, give common market score bonuses....I could go on but the point is clear, if presidents had an incentive to keep CEOs in teir country (and with reasonable taxes), CEOs would need to bother with C3s.
Again this is a merely academic discussion....just talking
I Dont expect jozi to read this, and in fact id prefer him not to. There are much more immediate, simple things to do instead (auto-log in chatroom! ) ... and i wouldnt want to distract him.
But dont get me wrong-the problems (infinite population growth and infinite population density, unrealistic scoring, non-competitiveness, magic money without inflation, silly economies) are real and fundamental.
Maybe someone else will read this 6 months from now when im gone again and have some good thoughts, you never know.
sorry to bore you