Administrators Alex Posted December 29, 2013 Administrators Share Posted December 29, 2013 I figured this was big enough to warrant its own post. Basically, economy types now have an effect. They modify your maximum average income and your tax rate. Depending on how interested you are on building commerce improvements, you'll want to plan your economy accordingly. Capitalism has the most potential, but the lowest possible average income. Socialism is moderate, and communism offers the narrowest range. Basically, the higher your commerce rating, the more effective Socialism and Communism will be to your income. If you're brand new or for some reason don't have any commerce improvements (commerce rating is near 0) communism will offer more income. Capitalist $2.50 - $7.50 - 28% Socialist $2.75 - $6.25 - 33% Communist $3.00 - $4.50 - 38% Take a look at the numbers for yourself and decide what's best for you. And remember, your economy is applied nation-wide, so you'll want to try and keep your commerce levels consistent between cities. Enjoy! Note: Because the tax rate for capitalism is now 28% instead of 36%, you are going to lose about 8% 22% of your income. However, everyone will lose about 8% of their income, so this isn't anything to be worried about. Thanks. Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataraxis Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 this is something everyone should be worried about! #6 in P&W Beta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Ahab Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Just to be clear on the math. A drop from a 36% tax rate to 28% does not equal a 8% point drop in income. It's way more. if you had started at 100% tax rate and gone to 92%, that would be a decrease of 8% as it would be 8 divided by 100 which becomes .08 or 8%. When you start at 36% and drop to 28% you divide 8 by 36. This comes out to .22 or 22%. That's quite a bit of a change. It's not a small hit at all, especially when you consider that you haven't lowered any of the costs of managing a city. I don't see the wisdom of applying this change this early during testing. Isn't the idea to bring as much cash as possible into the game so we can test the systems? You can always limit the revenue later. Captain Ahab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hao Huiyu Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 But I wanted to stay Socialist... First nation to 1,000 NS First nation to 2,000 NS First nation to 3,000 NS First nation to 4,000 NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 ugh...numbers. head hurts.... so, what's the upside to each? for one to have a disadvantage, it must supply an advantage the others do not. i'm confused in figuring out where this is for each option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataraxis Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 0-30%: communist 30-90%: socialist 90-100%: capitalist You actually gain more than before if you have like <20% commerce but otherwise this change hurts your income by up to a relative ~22%. #6 in P&W Beta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dongs (old) Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Its an income decline of 22.22222222222222%. "I did not get my SpaghettiOs, I got spaghetti. I want the press to know this." -Last words of Thomas J. Grasso, death row inmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted December 29, 2013 Author Administrators Share Posted December 29, 2013 That's quite a bit of a change. It's not a small hit at all, especially when you consider that you haven't lowered any of the costs of managing a city. I don't see the wisdom of applying this change this early during testing. Isn't the idea to bring as much cash as possible into the game so we can test the systems? You can always limit the revenue later. Captain Ahab I figure there's also always time for a high-speed simulation later as well. When things are looking all good and ready I'll do a week long test run where you can collect every half an hour, that'll simulate about a year's worth of playing in a week and we'll be able to address any major issues. Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Dongs atrix ane ahab are right. My income dropped from 770k to 570k, more than 8%. Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Koenige Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 And that day the great National Socialist machine was brought to its knees and forced to play capitalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 I think it's great to have the economy types have some functional meaning in the game, but the differences here are so striking that basically nobody is going to use anything but capitalist. The more-controlled markets need to have some kind of benefit to make up for the decreased impact of commerce improvements. Bonuses to resource production, perhaps? "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 ... the differences here are so striking that basically nobody is going to use anything but capitalist. The more-controlled markets need to have some kind of benefit to make up for the decreased impact of commerce improvements. Bonuses to resource production, perhaps? This is the point I was getting at earlier. There should be an even trade off between the choices with each reaping equal benefit, but in different areas. Player must choose a path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambdadelta Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 ... the differences here are so striking that basically nobody is going to use anything but capitalist. The more-controlled markets need to have some kind of benefit to make up for the decreased impact of commerce improvements. Bonuses to resource production, perhaps? This is the point I was getting at earlier. There should be an even trade off between the choices with each reaping equal benefit, but in different areas. Player must choose a path. Hear hear. There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 I would rather economics have no effect whatsoever than everybody being forced to play capitalist. Either that or just take economics out of the game entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaki Stirner Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Communism is underpowered, please buff. “There was no boss-class, no menial-class, no beggars, no prostitutes, no lawyers, no priests, no boot-licking, no cap-touching ... Human beings were behaving as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.†― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry LeRow Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Communism is underpowered, please buff. Why do you think it's underpowered? I'd like to hear your arguments behind your line; in my eyes communism means extremely high taxes, low income range, low possibilities to earn more money and the gov redistributes the tax money and you have lots of social services (sort of indirect income). I'm and INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality). What are you (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Joe Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Hereno, on 29 Dec 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:I would rather economics have no effect whatsoever than everybody being forced to play capitalist. Either that or just take economics out of the game entirely. Pwned. So hard. I like where this can lead, but at this point everyone's going to start out as a Communist, then switch to Socialist, then Capitalist. Instead of being viable options they have now become just a series of progressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry LeRow Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Hereno, on 29 Dec 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:I would rather economics have no effect whatsoever than everybody being forced to play capitalist. Either that or just take economics out of the game entirely. Pwned. So hard. I like where this can lead, but at this point everyone's going to start out as a Communist, then switch to Socialist, then Capitalist. Instead of being viable options they have now become just a series of progressions. well, if we take the average income of each type, then socialist ist the most profitable one, followed by communists and the capitalists if we take the top rate, capitalist is the most profitable one, but only by 0.0375 $... i think the top amount of income should be increased at capitalism there might be an error: Capitalist $2.50 - $7.50 - 28% Socialist $2.75 - $6.25 - 33% Communist $3.00 - $4.50 - 38% 3.00-0.25=2.75-0.25=2.5 4.50+1.75=6.25+1.25=7.50 --> if we change it to 1.75 too, then the top rate would be 8.00 $, and the top profit would be 2.24$, better than the old system to the switching: why not limit the time of switches to once per month? with this, most would join capitalism... I'm and INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality). What are you (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 And they're not going to remain at either communist or socialist for long, because with the aid system it's easy to get a nation up to 100 commerce. As a wild suggestion, maybe change the three to:Capitalism: Max tax 28% Max income $15 Reduces resource production by 50% SocialismMax tax 33% Max income $5.25 Has no effect on resource production CommunismMax tax 38% Max income $2.5 Increases resource production by 50% Capitalism makes significantly more cash than communism but significantly less resources, while socialism is balanced in the middle (a self sustaining capitalist city would give ~$105,000 per day in income, a socialist ~$86,625 and a communist ~$71,250) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 to the switching: why not limit the time of switches to once per month? with this, most would join capitalism... Why would we want most to join capitalism? I would have thought that we would like to see people actually making a decision based on what they wish to do with their nation (also, if Capitalist is already the best, why would we want to make it even better?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Smith Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 :facepalm: Didn't realise there is a cap on Economy Types. Gotta spend 6 days with a lower income... TT_TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry LeRow Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 to the switching: why not limit the time of switches to once per month? with this, most would join capitalism... Why would we want most to join capitalism? I would have thought that we would like to see people actually making a decision based on what they wish to do with their nation (also, if Capitalist is already the best, why would we want to make it even better?) because capitalism is, based on the numbers, the best, and rational players will join the one where the income is as large as possible also capitalism should be improved because i think there's a logic behind the minimum personal income, and there should be one behin the maximum personal income too (i mean it's not really fair if the step between socialist and capitalist max pers income is smaller than the one between socialist and communist max pers income) take a look at these figures: (calculated with the top income) i think the upper one is better $-$ I'm and INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality). What are you (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Yes, that is the case, but I would have thought we would want to change that, not make it even better than it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry LeRow Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Yes, that is the case, but I would have thought we would want to change that, not make it even better than it already is. It should be better... capitalism is always better How do you wanna change it? I'm and INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality). What are you (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hao Huiyu Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 How do you wanna change it?Balance it in such a way that no single Economy type is the best. First nation to 1,000 NS First nation to 2,000 NS First nation to 3,000 NS First nation to 4,000 NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.