| Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 12:55 pm |
I am pretty new to the game and thus interested in learning more about game mecanisms:
1. Upgrades: quality seems to be the way to go - is effiecy really worth it - and under what conditions?
2 Salarys: some use low some use high - when is it worth to increase salarys - from what I have seen 3 times higher salry only increase productivity = 35% or so thus lower sal would be better if possible.
3 Different branches - are some sorts of corporations more profitable than others (sure marketprices differ - but in the long run..) ?
4 Taxes - It seems like low taxes are prefferable to high ones - is there any way to deal with high taxes other than nice talk & avoiding payer run countries?(have seen something about extra cost when high marketvalue - still in use and how does THAT work?)
5 I have seen 1 corp CEOs high in the ranks - doesnt the amount of companys affect score much at all ?! Seems way more important to run a single GOOD corp than running a couple 75% as good..
6 Building corps/buying corps - anything to think on there else than its time-saving(improves) to buy?
7 Any other tips you can or want to give - send them along =)
Hopefully / Fredrik
| Friday, April 16, 2004 - 02:02 am |
Quality upgrades are good, go for the max. Make sure you raise prices of your product as the overall quality increases (don't use Best price)
Effectivity upgrades shift the employed work force toward having more high tech/level workers and less of the lower types. When the countries edu index is low you will have to pay more to secure the more educated workers types, and if there are many CEOs using these upgrades in the country, there may be chronic shortages. When the edu index is high, the corps should have effectivety upgraded. High being about 130+. I generally just build in inactive/un occupied countries and don't bother with effectivety upgrades. As a president you should build up your edu index and upgrade your corps effectivity to the max to free up MLMs and LLWs for your army. This also increases corporate profits.
Salary directly effects productivety in a positive manner. For corps that produce only a few units per years like airports, production plants and etc. keep the salaries low, and so that production is 100%
Large product unit corps such as oil and gasoline benefit greatly from high salaries. The last reccommendation I saw was to stay below 500. Something happens that permanently cripples the corp if you go to high.
Profit per worker (ppw), is a popular method to measure corporate profitability and is useful to presidents who want to get maximum profits. You can search for these discussions here and TNN. In my experiance the PPW can vary alot depending on market price. It can be guide to get a feel at first.
Oil is profitable when in shortage, so is gasoline. But both can lose a lot of money if there is a prolonged surplus. Production plants and airports can be good when they are in shortage. Basically anything that goes into shortage alot can be profitable.
Cars seem to always be profitable. Just look at corps that people have, profit makes the corp value go up, so high value corps are generally make a lot of money.
I personnally stick to the 30% tax environments as a ceo, I don't know if the materials tax penalty still exists, but I heard a rumor somewher e that the threshold may have been raised. But W3C has said they wouldn't remove it. I also beleive they may have made it more difficult to detect. Some people maintain that because of this penalty that it's better to build in high tax countries. You can find an article on TNN about that. I don't get the logic, it never made any sense to me.
For my countries I keep taxes high, because there isn't any need to allow corps to accumulate cash. It is important to note that taxes directly affect corporate value because corp value is calculated from profits after taxes. So obviously low taxes equal really large market values. This can seriously jack up your asset rank if you have low taxes. In the long run though if you collect that money and loan it out, you'll perform better.
Years ago I talked them into changing the way the CEO score is calculated so as not to reward people who just build a lot of corps and don't really pay any attention to them. In retrpspect I don't know if it's any better this way, but it is possible to get a decent ranking with a few corps. However if you want to get to the top and stay you should get as many corps as possible and make money to loan out so that you build your asset rank. Asset rank has a huge effect.
I've done well with my CEO just building one corp a month (I started in DEC) and using the profit to pay off the loans of the corps. I don't even mind people buying my corps because I just build more, and it's providing a product that people buy and give me money for, I build another. Ultimately you make alot of money building up corps and selling them. Just piss of the sith and they will buy your really valuble corps.
As far as buying goes, the only advantage is in getting corps that are already upgraded. OR for aquiring corps that are upgraded and producing profit, but because the product is in surplus a newly built corp would lose money. Buy a good corp to get started with then only buy corps when you have nothing else to do with your cash.
I'm pooped, maybe later.
| Friday, April 16, 2004 - 09:39 am |
re-questioning =) :
point 1: I have messaged a few of the "active" Country owners that happends to house some corps of mine. - They seem to be pretty uninterested in messaging or adjusting things to the better. I was surprised(!) finding one of them actually both answered and changed education prio to get some more highlvl managers(been 0 for a while).
So, as for country leaders I dont give much - thank god for inactive countrys so far.
Its to bad there are so few common interests between CEO & Presidents - would have been more fun if there was a good thing to have CEO:s and have a mutal benefit if relations where good. As for now the countries are plan-economys.
Suppose its more profitable in oil&gas just due to the large part of production-cost based on supplies. The question is - is it worth it only for getting higher production on the same workers(ppw) =interesting for country but cant see why for CEO!= or does it give some extra benefit also to CEO(else than higher market value IF marketprice is high but lower if market is down).
Found myself a 0 tax country - might be due to that I have extra corporate cost then.. but its not that high so it shouldnt be already in 30% countrys - if I have not overseen the effect
Well there are some 1 corp players jumping around in the charts - inactive ones. Looks pretty silly to me that a player inactive since 2-3 month:s with only 1 highly upgraded company jumps up to rank 30 or so..
Brings in another point - why aint inactives cleansed faster - if not for any other reason than a) less in database b) Dont look as ugly ;)
Sith - saw something about it I belive - some federation/alliance ? Still excisting ? In that case I want to know how to piss them of so I have a source of cash when needed =)
8. Another question - former leader CEO dropped alot - suppose it has to do with accepting the bucks penalty. This penalty - is it a one sum penalty that can be worked down or a constant drawback?
| Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 10:11 pm |
Ceos need corps that produce alot profit per market value. Because the Enterprise expenses are based on market value. But I'm not aware of anybody creating a list of this type, but again it would need to be updated frequently for every world to be useful, just as the PPW does.
Regarding point 4, what corp is it, and I'll look at it.
Inactives are deregged supposedly every 3 months. But I don't know if they do it anymore.
Penalties for awards, arrived in my country at 810B $E chunks, I'd assume it's the same for CEOs.
Ideally you want to have recalled all your cash so that you won't get so many loans