|Previous Thread:||Anyone wanna sign a contract to buy wood of my corp|
|Next Thread:||Workers Salaries|
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 03:12 am |
Look, talk all you want about the need to fix the war game in this game, and you are right that it needs fixing. It is unrealistic, inflexible, way too predictable, almost comical. It's not much closer to an interesting, realistic and "gameable" simulation of war than is chess. At least in chess the rules are known to the players, aren't changed mid-game and are balanced.
But the original and enormous contribution of this game is the global economic simulation. It has its infelicities and inaccuracies, but face it, the economic portion of the game is original in its scope and intricacy. There is nothing like it on the net - nothing. And it too is not working right. More time needs to be spent working on making the economic portion of the game more interesting to play, more flexible and more impactful on player-to-player relations.
It's absolutely true that the wargame needs fixing. But tweaking a little here and tweaking a little there on weapon statistics without making an original breakthrough in the wargame portion, while letting the economic game stagnate, is the path to ruin of this game.
Sorry for the negative words - I appreciate the burst of designer-player interaction that I see, at least in discussions of war-fighting, but I see the game going into a stall for lack of attention to the truly unique and original economic portion of it.
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 03:38 am |
Yeah, how bout fixing it so that we don't need to mannually convert all the oil orders to immediate.
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:25 am |
Another thing , i have a slave country that will not build its companies , it has heaps of construction etc but just wont build any corps and the one corp that it says its building is an air transport company i tried to cancel it but it says that i can't because it is being built? it has been like this for over a week and a half real time
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:58 am |
I think there should be a buying strategy option that allows an order to go to "immediate" after a month or two.
I don't think it's because the administrators are spending too much time on the war aspect of the game that they're neglecting the economic aspect. The way I see it, they're not really paying attention to either one. The "Peace-only" feature was an overly-simplistic solution that was not well thought out (or thought out at all) in its installation. Any suggestions to make the game better seem to be ignored if they're in any way contradictory to what the admins have already decided, leading me to believe that someone's pride is getting in the way of a better game.
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 09:00 am |
Jackie, there is a major shortage of production plants. Your corps won't build until you manage to snag some
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 02:39 pm |
Jackle land: i had same problem with air transport not getting built (but in building mode almost a game year). listening to Erehwons advice, i went bugging W3C through email. they fixed the problem in day or two. you should do the same, as air transport will not get build nomatter how long you wait.
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 02:43 pm |
I have been planning a RP on this subject based on what has happened in the CZCP since I regged it Saturday.
While the war functions could use some work, what is wrong with GR's economy isn't as much the Rules as it is the number of C3s and the ongoing world war.
With most products in shortage:
1. Immediate orders are regularly taking 2-3 months to fill.
2. Given the price to be paid when buying from Quality upgraded corps, unupgraded corps can never cover their cost in materials.
I've had 12 corps autoclose on me in the CZCP in the last 14 game months. Why? It all comes back to the supply situation. It leaves us:
1. Where the C3s (the vast majority of countries) are unreliable suppliers, as their corps are so unstable.
2. Newbies will probably get fustrated and quit on us. We need live, capable Presidents taking the C3s to help straighten this mess out.
That's why I:
1. Proposed a cap on militaries in the RP thread the other night. Getting men out of uniform and onto production lines would be a big boost.
2. Want to go a step further: we should have the option under Game Settings to send all orders to Immediate.
Me? Disturbed by the debt I've inherited from the autoclosers, but the value of my products has nearly doubled. Once I can start IPOing and using the cash to pay down the debt, the CZCP will be doing quite well, thank you. (No need for the RP now.)
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 09:17 pm |
matt: no specific comments now...but if youve got simple ideas (very little developement time) that woudl make a huge differecne, it might have been better to list the best one at the same time you offer criticism. If youve got harder ideas, then I think that making the sim more gamelike, competitive, interactive, and fun takes precedence
wars have almost no effect on the overall GR economy. They woudl need to be much more massive in terms of the total % of productive population involved and damage done. Frankly, not much that humans do, period, influences the economy. (Ive thoguht of a way to change this, and will describe my (simple ) idea in a TNN article soon. Ignoring that thought for now...)
The corporations destroyed were insignificant, numbering perhaps a few hundred out of close to 200000 corporations in the game.
Ill have more to say on this idea (economic reforms) later, but I think the economy works more or less as advertised. Products are offered and bought. When there are more products than demand orders, prices drop. When there are fewer products than demanded, prices rise. This wasnt always the case! The price caps are regularly limited, moving slwoly towards a something more closesly resemlbing a real market, without risking total collapse.
It certainly can be made better in a few simple-ish ways, but most of the technical improvements would need a lot of work to implement. I do not think that work can ever be competed in a realistic timeframe until the playerbase grows.
The playerbase cannot grow until the "sim" is more gamelike, and more fun. I think this entails both 'fixing' conflict to be regular and potentially large (hell, even 'potential' works for me ), and changing the scoring mechanisms at least for peacful countries to place less emphasis on or even ignore assets and pay more attention to the common market (and perhaps other things as well). Just as importantly, the game needs more interaction. Players need to know other players exist, where they are, what they can do to effect one another, and be able to (forced? strongly encouraged? ) talk to each other.
I think this means a link to the IRC chatroom and automatic redirection into it when players join (with the option to turn said redirection off, of course), hosted links to player tools created or in developement (the automapper! the simwebsearch, TNN), etc.
Ill make a much more formal post later (I promise! genie! I prommmisssseee )
CZCP: 2 words - common market.
Check the country 'treboria.' Analyze its corporations and its business page. At the time I write this, none of its corporations are experiencing a single shortage.
Presidents who have been using the common market really shine when the main market starts to fail. Its neat to see it work properly.
Frankly, I think it would be interesting if the global market collapsed (HARD!), and w3c refrained from intervening. C3s would have no economies, and player-clusters would use the comon market almost exclusively to support each other and rebuld the economy. The economy would then be completely human-controlled. Isnt that what a lot of people have been claimign to want for ages?
Maybe, eventually, cooperating humans could export products to c3 countries to revive them.
Food for thought anyway.
| Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 09:49 pm |
OK, I will soon post a few suggestions. You will note that my complaint was not lack of realism in the economic simulation. There are "unreal" aspects to it - but my suggestions will be designed to enhance playability and player impact, as I said earlier.
BTW, the title of my thread "It's the economy, stupid..." was not meant to hurt anybody's feelings - it is lifted from a bit of American political trivia. Rather, I think that the economic portion of this game is incredibly detailed and unique, the product of hard work and insight.