Suggestions on how to make our virtual business game better and reports about discovered errors.
Voting:
Topic:
Topic created : 5.12.2009, 00:53
Last time edited : 6.01.2010, 15:12
I find technology sales quite confusing. What I read in Help is that "Profit [from technology sales] is distributed among all participants (technology sellers) depending on the declared price." I understand that if there are two sellers and one sells one technology for 98 000 dollars and another player is selling the same technology for 2 000 dollars, then if there is a single buyer he will be charged 50 000 dollars and the first seller will get 49 000 dollars while the second will get only 1 000 dollars from the sale. Is this correct?
If yes, I find this unfair because there is a good chance that the buyer bought the technology because the price was lowered by the second seller. In a real world the buyer would have bought the technology from the second buyer, so he would have been charged 2 000 dollars (instead of 50 000), the first seller would have got 0 dollars (instead of 49 000) and the second seller would have got 2 000 dollars (instead of 1 000). This would have been closer to a market driven pricing. Now, the first seller all parties lose as the buyer is overcharged and both buyers receive less than their price.
Can you tell me if my understanding of technology sales is correct? If yes, is do any of you think that it is unfair and should be changed?
Page:
1
Message list:
5.12.2009, 01:15
i also don't understand the technology sale at all
My understanding of tech sales is that the price is averaged from all sellers. If someone buys this then the profit is averaged and then distributed evenly among the participants.
Eg. If somebody sells a tech for $98 000 and another player sells the same tech for $2 000, then a single buyer will pay $50 000 and the first seller will get $25 000 while the second will also receive $25 000 from the sale.
I understand players who research a tech before others should benefit, but surely that benefit should come from sales before other players research it.
I've never paid too much attention to the amounts I receive when other players have offered the same tech, but any other way would not be in the best interests of the game. As you say it would encourage players to overcharge for research, and reward the players who do not invest the time and energy to keep prices up to date.
5.12.2009, 12:54. Subject: My vote
I voted yes,because sometimes what will happen when theres a good average provided that most people are fairly fair. I love batting averages and everyone gets paid instead one person. Because I hate to put it up for sale and not get any sales. I motives me when I get at least something for putting up.
6.12.2009, 01:31
Hi light76212001, you cannot assume that everybody is fairly fair if they do not compete. For example, you have one store which sells bread at a price of 17 dollars and a volume of 200 000. You have chosen a higher selling price but the quality of your bread is higher than the city average so you reach that volume. As a result you get revenue of 3 400 000 dollars a week. Now, imagine the sales of bread were designed the same way as the sales of technology. Then I will be free to open a store, sell one single bread and immediately claim 1 700 000 dollars of your revenue. That will be good for me, but quite undeserved, and frankly way far from being realistic. Wouldn't you agree?
So, my question is, why don't we have the market rules apply to sales of technology the same way as for sale of bread? Why does the game use an artificial mechanism to spread revenues for technology that has little to do with reality?
That kind of system would reward the players who do not keep prices current.
Look at the situation now. Some techs are available for hundreds of millions even though higher level techs are available for tens of millions. This type of thing would be more common if you take away the reason to keep prices competitive.
People who research techs first have an advantage, if they do not capitalise on this advantage by offering techs at prices that attract sales, they should no longer have that advantage.
People should not be penalised because they put time into the game, or because they did not start playing on the first day the game was launched.
6.12.2009, 15:13
So, Fractal, I understand you support me. Can you, please, vote? I would like to address this to the support team of the game.
Indeed, currently, players who do not capitalize on their advantage of early researches are afterwards rewarded when others put more competitive prices. This is bad.
Indeed, currently, people who put more time to the game - for analyzing the demand and finding better prices - are penalized as their deserved profit is distributed to the free riders.
Indeed, currently, people who start the game later are penalized because they have to share their revenues with the players who have been there before them while they did not enjoy the sharing before that.
23.04.2010, 13:33. Subject: I need more information
Why should you pay someone else who listed their technology for sale and did not sell it? This is wrong but the devs could have some reason for it maybe, we need to know why first on this one. They want to preserve something this kind of setup tells me, but I cant figure out what it is. This is similar to progressive tax rates on income, you are sharing the wealth around, how it applies to this I am not yet sure though. But one thing is for sure, I will DEFINITELY list all my techs for sale in case someone sells one, then I get PAID. Not really fair is it? Nope, this one has just earned a No vote from me.
23.04.2010, 13:37. Subject: Further thought first
Some further thought first before I vote...
I have been thinking...hmm...how can I manipulate this.
I have come up with some nasty unfair ways to do so and this now DEFINITELY gets a no vote from me now.
23.04.2010, 13:55. Subject: Reason
I think since there arent a lot of buyers but would be a lot of sellers they are trying to protect the price. I mean if there was 100 players all with the same tech listing it, each one lower than the other, well very soon you have massive price declines. That is what they are afraid of, especially since why not list it? If you sell it you get to keep it anyway, and it no longer costs you anything. So a price war would ensue. So they balance it and spread it to everyone. It makes a lot of sense really, I just hope they can put in limits for the manipulators. I like their system, but manipulators will ruin it I think and why wouldnt you do it?? I would have to come up with a better system. I do like the sharing though, they spread the sale $ among everyone who has come up with that tech, average price of all of them, and then they all get a piece. It makes sense and I like it. However in this scenario there could be a price war on the high side too, that is all that will happen, which causes the same thing they are trying to avoid, just on the other side. So overall I have to vote no.
Pros of this system:
keeps prices up.
shares sales $ amongst everyone who develops it.
Cons of this system:
prices will skyrocket until the techs are unaffordable.
people who work to get a sale dont benefit.
people who listed but no longer play still benefit.
Overall it is not a bad system and I like it, but I voted no due to the possibility of the skyrocketing prices and manipulation that can happen.
Maybe other ways to go would be impose a minimum and maximum price for the technology. I mean you can just buy techs when you set up a new subdiv anyway. This would eliminate both price wars and price hikes, but ultimately the minimum would be the constant price in that system anyway.....hmm...this is probably why they chose their way...hmm......now I like their way, quite inventive. I wish I voted yes now, how interesting.
About - how tech.sales works one player have post usefull info on russian forum (he have analyzed science tenders to make this pic):
Vitaliy75
There. I have make a picture how is profit divide between sellers of technology. This is a second level tech.
Horisontal line - price (1 - average price). Vertical line - profit (1 - profit for average price).
(my translation of his words) So as far as we can see, player with price = ~90% of average price will get biggest profit
Also, it is known that, if your price for technology is very high or very low (maybe 3 times bigger/smaller than others, maybe not 3), then your offer will not be counted and you will get 0$ profit.
28.04.2010, 11:53
Well if they have that limit in there of 3x the biggest price etc, basically to stop manipulators, well then I see this as a great system. It makes me wonder where world governments could use this same kind of system in various dealings to make things fair in wage discrepancies, currency destructions, and other different economic dillemmas the world faces. This really preserves an asset when there is a run on it and benefits thos who put in the work. I love this system, it is very very good, its not easy to see at first but once you analyze it, it is great man. I so wish I could reverse my vote. Gee, I feel like I just voted for Obama or something haahaha, you just want to go back in time and tear up your voting card!
Looking for low priced goods, steady trading partners, and open to any business opportunity!!
Bankrupted 3 times by game bugs.
1. Office Efficiency Bug - top mgr low eff makes all company employees stop working completely.
2. Warehouse Bug - rent skyrockets to 1.5 Million instead of $10,000 when office efficiency is low.
3. Office employee change bug - sometimes makes your #changed into your actual number at update. + Warehouse bug.
