[Instr]

The idea is to add another plane of conflict into the Cyber Nations game. CN should allow you to have economic warfare, and to have economic wars be a big factor in Cyber Nations. This is especially important since once the Continuum triumphs over GPA, there will be few remaining reasons for alliances to go to war with each other.

The way this would be handled would be that each nation would have a variety of industries. These industries would have an "Industrial Strength", dependent on your infrastructure, technology, and industrial investment.

All of these industries would give you a bonus, dependent on your share of global industrial strength.

Say, let's look at a hypothetical "Aerospace Industry".

-Returns .005 cents for each dollar spent on infrastructure or infrastructure bills.
-Returns .01 cents for each dollar spent on airplanes or airplane bills.

So, let's say I have a global share of 50% in the Aerospace Industry. Someone from NPO decides to infrastructure jump, spending 100m on infrastructure. .005% of his investment goes to the Aerospace Industry, which then is split in half, and is given to me. So, off his infrastructure purpose, I receive $5000.

So, where does the conflict come into this? Well, you can now invest into individual industries. This gives you a temporary bonus to your industrial strength, decaying at a logarithmic rate over 30 days. So in this case, nations would now have incentive to go to war with each other to protect their market share. A nation with a disproportional influence in a certain market would be sent to war, or would receive constant espionage attacks in an attempt to destroy their industrial strength level.

[LeVentNoir]

@ 0.0001 $ per $ then 1% market share of aerospace then say top 10000 nations have 50 planes each. At $10,000 per day bills then you receive $100. Not cool.

Also offer more industries and is this naiton / alliance /team based?

[Crushtania]

So, in effect your plan would replace the "infrastructure" which is derived from the game itself presently, to a system where it is actually "built" or rather "owned" by other nations? Surely this would severely disadvantage any new players. Would people choose to invest in these industries, or would they be designated randomly like resources?

[Instr]

It needs to be fixed, it's not really a completed idea.

It would not replace infrastructure as it is, but would be an additional way of receiving income. Basically, industry would give you a stream of additional income every day, depending on the total amount of purchases made by all players and your planetary market share.

The way it would be designed would be that if I invest more into a particular industry, I'm also reducing the relative industrial strength of other nations. By my putting money into a particular industry, I increase my daily income and decrease the income of other nations.

So there would be an interesting "player versus community" dynamic, where what's in the interests of a player might not be in the interests of the group.

[Instr]

LeVentNoir:

If it's alliance-based, you can't make it dependent on resources of an alliance. And then how do you deal with alliance ghosts?

[LeVentNoir]

So, given, that it is not alliance based how much money would be needed to gain enough of a share that other players notice?

Quote

So there would be an interesting "player versus community" dynamic, where what's in the interests of a player might not be in the interests of the group.

Then what "group" would be disadvantaged by your increased market share. (apart from the rest of CN in general) ?

[Instr]

So, given, that it is not alliance based how much money would be needed to gain enough of a share that other players notice?...

I mentioned how controlling an industry is based on infrastructure and technology. This would mean that you'd have a collection of the largest countries having a disproportional share of the global market share. The industrial war would be solely between the supernations...

[Count Rupert]

Inst, on Feb 23 2008, 09:41 PM, said:

So, given, that it is not alliance based how much money would be needed to gain enough of a share that other players notice?...

I mentioned how controlling an industry is based on infrastructure and technology. This would mean that you'd have a collection of the largest countries having a disproportional share of the global market share. The industrial war would be solely between the supernations...

But would it really? Honestly, that collection of large nations with the disproportional share will be based on alliance strategy when you come right down to it. Alliances will determine which markets their membership should attempt to control. But given the example that a 50% share in an industry only yielding a $5,000 return from a $100 million purchase, will anyone really see this as being worth fighting for?

[lolek]

the cold war

[Instr]

The idea is to influence alliance versus alliance interactions, but without creating odd effects involving ghosts: I join IRON for Capital Goods, NPO for Munitions, MCXA for Cultural Goods, whoever seems to yield the highest daily yield.

5000 IS a lot, depending on how much infrastructure is being pushed around on the market. There's 40,000 active countries. If 1 percent of them are infrajumping on any given day, 5000 becomes 2mil in additional income.

Besides, we can adjust the numbers. Industries should not be game-breaking, they're just there to add another level of competition.

[LeVentNoir]

BUt, you said this was NOT alliance based.... it was purely national investment.... Are you changing the suggestion?

[Count Rupert]

Inst, on Feb 24 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

The idea is to influence alliance versus alliance interactions, but without creating odd effects involving ghosts: I join IRON for Capital Goods, NPO for Munitions, MCXA for Cultural Goods, whoever seems to yield the highest daily yield.

5000 IS a lot, depending on how much infrastructure is being pushed around on the market. There's 40,000 active countries. If 1 percent of them are infrajumping on any given day, 5000 becomes 2mil in additional income.

Besides, we can adjust the numbers. Industries should not be game-breaking, they're just there to add another level of competition.

Well, now you're changing horses a bit in mid-stream. Now you're saying control is based on the alliance and not individual nations as was the premise of the OP. And that 5000 isn't alot since it involves gaining and holding a 50% share of the marketplace. You haven't mentioned what it would cost to buy into any particular industry yet, but in the face of there being a large pool of players, even if it were possible to gain a 50% market share, it would be expensive or at least it should be. And would that $2 million you're talking about then have to be divided across all the members of the alliance? You're back to it being peanuts. And now the coding is getting a lot more complex. Even based on nations, the size nations that will invest in this sort of thing; $2 million is nice, but nothing I would consider going to war over. $2 million wouldn't even buy 10 infrastructure. There isn't 40,000 active nations, at the moment there are 31,385. If you're basing your premise on nations making infrastructure jumps using $100 million, then it is a faulty premise since virtually all the jumps can be made with far less than that. And how does this system account for donations since a large number of the high-end jumps are made by purchasing a donation instead of spending $100 million? And the price of infrastructure will vary greatly acrosss the spectrum of those buying infrastructure. Right now, I don't know that it's possible to gauge how much is spent daily on infrastructure given how wide the price range is for the top to the bottom to even properly price this.

You really need to flesh out this so it's not just an idea, but a suggestion. As it is now, we're chasing ghosts. We have no idea how many industries you're talking about, what the industrial investment required is going to be or how you'll know what yours is, I mean are we buying shares, infrastructure in an industry, what, how exactly the Industrial Strength of an industry is going to be calculated, we know the compoonents you want to use, that's it. There is too much of this built on quicksand at the moment.