I have to say competing for tenders really pisses me off. Several times right up until the last day I have had over 90% market share in a city, but on the day of the tender I am blown away and dropped down to under 1%, usually by the same players. I gave up applying for awhile, but recently tried again with the same sad results. I think it is just another way for the top 6 - 10 players to expand their dominance on the game and continue to discourage new or smaller players from playing the game long term.
Maybe there should be a limit to how many tenders a player can apply for per month or something like that, in order to give other players a chance to win a couple of tenders and more importantly expand the game. Having a few players completely dominate any game is never good for newer players, smaller players or the game itself.
The enterprise auctions are a perfect example of player dominance. When a big player wants an asset he/she just outbids everyone else. I've seen assets sell for 100B and only have an asset value of 50M. Does that make real business sense? The point is because they are so big, it doesn't affect their overall empire and are right back the next day doing the same thing all over again.
I would really like the tender system looked at closely to allow more players to win a few VIRTS and feel encouraged about their part and future with this game. |