Beiträge von Blue Star

I think one of the high scores should be on 'company value'. It's a better measuring stick of performance than most of the high score rankings in use already...

I am of Dutch descent, but I don't speak the language. I live in Canada...

Who cares about points though?

When I play games like this, I like to actually pretend its a business, and in business, money talks.

Your English is actually pretty good.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense that bicycles can sell at retail for perhaps 5500 at retail, but I can easily sell steel at over 6000 on the market (6200 right now). This basically means that anyone who makes bicycles is losing at least a thousand on every bicycle compared to not making bicycles and just selling the steel instead...

I guess steel is more valuable in the manufacturing of higher tech products... but still, thousands of bicycles are being made when more money could be made just selling the steel.

I don't really like the way researching quality currently works. It doesn't really make sense compared to the real world. With most products/technologies, quality is relative, and research is continually ongoing to find new improvements.

I think a model along the line of the Capitalism games would work better. In Capitalism you have a "technology point" rating in a certain product. Initially it is 30 (with the global max starting off at 100). If you increase your technology rating to 100, and the global max remains at 100, you have "cutting edge" technology and you get maximum reward for quality coming from manufacturing process. If you stay at 30 but someone else brings the global max to 200, your technological process goes from 30% (30/100) to 15% (30/200) and the quality of your product decreases relatively. This way, having the best technology is a constant competition, and you can never hit 100% and never have to worry about the competition again.

It also seems to me that the quality of products in this game have nothing to do with the quality of the materials from which they are made. It would make sense that wooden furniture, say, would have 50% of its "quality" rating come from the manufacturing technique (which you can research) and 50% from the quality of the wooden boards from which it was made. While other products, such as steel, would be say 90% manufacturing process and 10% source material (iron ore). This model also comes from capitalism, and worked quite well. It makes a lot of sense and rewards research into raw material technology.

I know this is a pretty drastic change, but I think it would help the game.

I agree. I started recently and the only really profitable, easy to make product is cut wood. It's a bit crazy, as cut wood often has the same or higher going rate as things made from it (wooden boards or grain wood). I also find iron ore and steel to be reasonable, but most things made of steel sell for as much on the market as the steel its made of.

The game is a bit wonky and a little too hard for casual players. Increasing "normal" prices by 25% would probably help greatly.