emaise

Although I will say there is something unsatisfying about being able to (easily) play to force a jointly-losing draw.

Prisoner's Dilemma! Actually, it serves as a catch-up mechanism. The leader has to spend some effort to take care of the colony, or he (and everyone else) will lose. The hindmost can safely ignore it, since they're losing anyway.

I think this is a tremendously good idea.

I'd like to see price volatility itself be a variable that can be predicted (or, under time pressure, roughly estimated) by a player who is paying attention to the relevant factors. So that instead of saying "A 2p game will have slowly-varying prices and an 8p game will have wildly-swinging prices", we'd be able to assess the price volatility of individual resources at specific times and circumstances . Consider this as a simple examp

The decision about whether or not to scrap a building and replace it with something more profitable needs to be hard , not easy. Making decisions like that is a big part of the game (IMHO), and it should be a place where players can exercise their skill to gain an advantage. I agree with XbadnameX that the importance of scrapping buildings is not intuitively obvious, and at the current state of the game it's poorly presented and poorly explained. Greater promi

Oh, so that's what that is. Huh. Interesting idea, might need more work on the execution.

[quote who="Neizzle" reply="9" id="3527853"] Does anyone know how long the beta is supposed to last? [/quote] The devs have said that the game will be in Early Access until 2016, and have said that they will have a 2016 release date (without being more specific).

The devs mentioned somewhere that scientist and non-scientist versions of the same buildings are actually considered different types of buildings. This affects adjacency bonuses when one buys out the other. I guess it also applies to mutinies. It wasn't clear whether the devs considered this a bug or working-as-intended.

You don't get cash, debt, resources, or patents when you buy out a company. You get their buildings and HQ.

[quote who="Tigershawk" reply="4" id="3527550"] I don't think the calculation for how goods are prices has been shared with us. [/quote] I'd love to see this. Soren was kind enough to show us exactly how the stock price is calculated; it would be great to see something similar for the resource prices.

Yes, the accent used for the Scavenger Colony is really odd and thick, bordering on the unintelligible.

I'm convinced. :)

It feels wrong that a building could get an adjacency bonus from a building that isn't producing anything.

I'm in complete agreement regarding the zoom, and with xCoffee's suggestion about being able to highlight / single-out a specific player.

Something like upkeep is a bad way to implement an anti-snowballing mechanism. Simply slowing down the leader only slows down the game without making the game more interesting. Instead, you want to implement a variety of strategies, with a variety of required skill and risk, so that a leader can be overtaken if someone chooses a risky strategy and executes it well while the leader executes their own strategy less-well. In truth, you want a degree of snowballing. Early good play should

While I do like that carbon is right above chemicals because carbon is used for chemicals, I don't think it's essential to have them next to each other. The main thing you need to see when looking at chemicals is fuel, because fuel is the primary input. Since fuel is so distant from chemicals, I think it's okay to have carbon slightly distant from chemicals as well.

You're right, it makes sense to show it that way. Under ideal conditions, X fuel per tick and X fuel per produced resource are the same (or rather, proportional), because output production is a constant rate per tick. Fuel consumption is not necessarily constant-rate, because it's bursty, and you might have partial deliveries. But for the tooltip I think it's okay to assume the ideal case and express it as (expected, averaged) fuel units consumed per tick.

The number I want to know is fuel consumption per delivered produced resource, since a blimp holds different amounts of different resources. For factories, The calculation should include fuel consumption for shipping the inputs needed to produce the outputs. The numbers would be off if you manually sent an early shipment, but I think the tooltips should show numbers based on the assumption that you'll only ship full blimps. Actually, the number I really care

NavyFish: regarding net assets value - You can see this in a tooltip if you hover over your company in the company list, although the calculation is probably different from what you've asked for. I haven't checked, but I'm betting the "resource value" in the tooltip is just your current resources times the current price, without taking into account how much you'd actually make from actually selling given that each resource sold reduces the market price for the next sale.

[quote who="NavyFish" reply="3" id="3526103"] Perhaps a recent patch introduced this mechanic? [/quote] Not that recent. The change was made in v0.0.3916 released on December 5, 2014.

I think the share purchase and buyout mechanic is pretty good, but it's counterintuitive because it doesn't work like real stock. New players need it explained to them, and I'm not sure what a good way to do that in-game is.

I also disagree on #2, but for different reasons than Cymsdale and indrkl (although I do also agree with their reasons). A claim is extremely valuable. It allows you to produce a resource at a profit. The more claims you have, the faster you can make money. The right way to value a claim is not by saying "You can buy one for $5k on the black market, so I won't pay more than $5k to get one at the auction." Instead, think of it this way: "You can buy one for $5k on the black

The "race to the buyout button" could be eliminated by making it an auction. But in order to not disrupt the flow of the game, use a different interface than the standard auction and don't pause the game while the auction is going on.

I only have a single 4:3 monitor, so I have the same issues you do, but spreading to multi-monitors wouldn't help me. What would help me is the ability to zoom farther out. The current furthest zoom is still so close-in that I can only see a small portion of the map. It makes it very difficult to get a clear picture of what's going on with my opponents.

Over here , Soren said that " stock price is not a linear relation to your actual cash on hand [..] There is a dampening effect". So perhaps some of the missing value is due to cash on hand being discounted to some (perhaps variable) extent? Over here , there was a problem where right after a buyout your stock price was depressed. Soren said he "t