Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
6 
Report this post
Well probably to get rid of all the legacy quirks from changes made over time and get a game that makes a little more sense at times and not just based on a hand full of arbitrary numbers.
That said, it's so CPU heavy that it will probably never be suitable for a portable device.
Improvements all over the place: menus, user interface, new features, better implementation for existing features, etc.
How do you see that? You want people to purchase it again?
No, but to 'fix' the current game would probably require a complete rewrite.
Unless someone got a 1/100 score on their economics class that ain't happening unless it's a new game because money.
Small dev team and some course changes just make for messy code with legacy quirks most likely. Like the projects that don't kinda work, sequels that are half a decade behind the product it's a sequel to because you can't update tech levels before releasing, ditto frameworks and their weird link to the original product, DLC's selling more than what they're a DLC of, weird scaling with number of people working on something, having to employ as many cleaners as regular workers to prevent a pandemic, the cook army, obvious ''software company' features like offering existing users upgrades to a new version so you can drop support for the old one, the whole publisher thing, severe lack of pawn logic when it comes to finding anything from free appliances, desk, food+seating, toilets, shared rooms, free rooms.
This game started as a simple fun little game and just exploded into what it is today because everyone liked the concept.
Devs rewrite engines for a reason and a big one is to get rid of hacks and patches that were done to make new ideas work and have actual proper code that can do more while also being more efficient, and less likely to create buggy behavior.
I already got more playing hours out of this game than some AAA games so I wouldn't have any right to get mad if they made a better 2.0.
And it leads to losing trust.
I see zero critical issues in game to spend tons of hours on rewriting it to new engine.
Diablo 2, WarCraft III, Minecraft - examples of great games on old engines. Project Zomboid, probably, too, and it much closer to Software Inc.
As a developer, on position of author I'd rather complete current game than dropping all years of development to write something new coz it will 9999% become the same EA game for years, just on new engine, coz people never change.
(Writing engine is kinda boring part; creating features is the most interesting; polishing to release is the MOST boring part)
If now he can't release game, nothing will change on V2, only we, customers, will lose spent money, trust and perspectives of new updates.
"will lose money" because buying EA game is always paying in advance for release, like preorder with paying for beta-testing, it is fact, I hope you won't argue with that.
I absolutely agree, I had actually forgotten this game is still EA because we're beyond v1.0 (which should be the RELEASE version) and it's been in EA since 2015, so that's 9 years now.
But I still think they won't be able to fix this game without a lot of rewriting.
Time will tell I guess.
Well the question is what "fix" means. A lot of things are by design or cannot be changed due to the way the systems are designed and a lot of other complaints I've seen are more related to skill level of the players. Someone being good at the game would say it's too easy and a newbie in this genre would say it's way too hard. Some players that are totally into simulation want a full blown economy simulation while others say there are already too many options.
The campaign update will help especially the new players to find an easier way into the game and mechanics. For hardcore players I can't really tell if there is anything planned by Kenneth. But I doubt it, since the game is in the end not meant to be a full simulation.
Also I do not believe there will be a SWINC 2.0. As far as I am aware the next project will be something different. The question is just when SWINC will get it's 1.0 and be feature complete. Likely around Q3 next year I guess, considering that the campaign is supposed to be the last big thing. Though you never know with Kenneth. Sometimes he comes around the corner with another big thing from one to the other day.
I feel like I need a three monitor setup to play this right.
Some ability to move things around, like the schedules for teams, in the calendar view. (Seeing vacations, employees AND service people, all at once.)
Some "daily work logic"... Having three shifts per day, just ONE group, which ALL use the same offices and computers. (As opposed to each group needing individual rooms and computers, for a single day's work. That is 3x when we should only need 1x, for all three shifts.)
Machine operators, for printing and manufacturing. (Who also double as "maintenance". Same with IT personnel, for the server operations.)
Removal of solar-panels ALL having a conduit protruding through the roof, and having it block everything on the ground from being used. That's not how solar works! They should all have a single connection and an optional "battery backup" or "grid-tie inverter" or both. Cells just stay on the roof, connecting to one-another.
Let shipping bays connect directly to roads OR parking spaces, for pickups. That baffled me for many futile builds of failure. Helicopters for the win, because I couldn't figure out the odd logic of what was actually needed to get items shipped out the garage!
Put "companies" in the stock market page and get rid of, whatever that garbage is, on that page with five useless wavy, fake stocks. It's not intuitive or logical to figure out how to just BUY and SELL stock in any company, or your own. (We should have a "going public" button, where we release an IPO of less than 50% of our stocks. THEN we would just see our stocks listed, like every other company, in a normal "stock exchange" program. A simple option to BUY and SELL. A basic historic chart of value per share. Realistic share values. (Shares "split", if they get above $400-$600, so the number of shares is 2x or 3x or 4x more, but each is 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 as valuable. Same in reverse. If a stock falls below a $2 value, it is often "merged", reducing the number of shares, which increases the shares adjusted value to 4x, 10x, 20x... having 1/4 as many shares, 1/10th or 1/20th as many available to trade.)
The "market" function is nested in your "software" ownership page, which includes hardware and other stuff. That should be a "quick action" available for any IP you own, if it is currently being worked-on, supported, printed, etc... Why is that ONE thing buried away in another screen, almost hidden away?
Vacations and bonuses and stuff, ALL NEED to have some way to be applied to groups or skills or floors or occupations or individuals, if needed. It looks like it is just applied to everyone, once set. I don't want EVERYONE getting a company car and full medical! I also don't want to be adjusting it per-individual. Simple check-boxes for quick setup, after setting the "everyone gets this level"... Then the ability to, optionally, apply or create a special group or groups or individuals, who get "customized settings". (Like letting all leads get a company car, and BOB.)
A simple TOGGLE button, in almost EVERY page, which allows us to SHOW or HIDE all the garbage we are not interested in seeing. (Such as hiding all print-jobs and manufacturing jobs, because we have zero interest in setting-up hardware.)
The ability to setup each JOB/Contract, with the "best" or "minimal" foundation of employees. Selected from a list of currently "unassigned" or "not completely busy" and even suggesting a reassignment of employees, if needed. (Depending on priority and demand of a selected job. Kindly warning or letting us filter jobs that are not actually able to be completed in time, without us having to do CPU math in our heads and micro-manage everyone, all the time.)
Show us "estimated bugs", while things are being developed. It's totally blind in the end. You could have 20 or 2000, killing any chance of hitting a release date or deadline.
Sorry, but if a job is completed to Iteration 4 development, 100% programming completion, has had ALL bugs removed, and it was finished on time... We should NOT be getting "Inadequate quality", or poor, or satisfactory. (Even having gone so far as to have it gone through two iterations to perfect 10's, and getting these bad results.)
Why is everyone I have to pick from, a "slow eater" and "modest" and "walker"? These traits are cute to have, on a FEW individuals, but EVERYONE should not be getting traits. You need a couple "totally normal people" who just have one or two traits. (Or you need better, more realistic, less horrible traits to pick from and force on every individual.)
More screens need more adjustable partitions. I can't recall them all, but there are a few that have partitions you can't resize, because they auto-size at some odd fixed value. It forces us to have a HUGE window, or be damned to scroll to see basic info.
Grouping, and sorting options... GROUP all print jobs, and then sort by price. GROUP all manufacturing jobs, and then sort by price. Everything is just mixed together. Same with employee groups. Let us pick groups by rooms, groups by primary skills, etc... THEN, in each group, apply the constrained sorting method of AGE or SKILL or whatever. (Keeping LEADS at the tops of all groups that they are a lead for.)
There are a lot of odd design choices in this game. Totally ignoring any expected or common standards for interface and interactions of play and editing. (Not as bad as the horrible setup that "Z-Brush" uses, but it's along that edge.)
I feel like this is one of those excel-calculator games, but it has some 3D stuff added in, for eye-candy and to create additional hurdles, which don't need to be there, since it isn't actually "played" in 3D. I'm just a mouse-clicker, trying to catch jobs that pop-up on the screen, reach timed-limits that have no real control, and then just letting time drag, until the next clickey thing has to be clicked. (Why is that so addictive? Gotta catch them all, I guess?)
This is very good and detailed. I will also keep this in mind when I start working on my own tycoon game.
1: Start with a true "Team" or "Solo" setup. (Custom options for that type of designation selected, which should NOT be the same "game", unless playing "sandbox". The harder mode you select, the more starting skills you get, and the later you are forced to start, in time.)
2: Starting year at the "edge of tech time"... 1970, limited to "text only programming" and getting that initial "foothold in time", right beside the big guys, not starting behind all of them. (This includes simple production too, which predates most software development, which all came AFTER the hardware and printing was in-place and well established.) That gives us more time to learn, on easy. It also gives us time to get that initial "slower learning", to get into some "specialization" desired, AFTER having developed a team with "core learning".
3: In relation to #2, hiring, in time, should naturally have greater base-skills and foundations, for entry level employees. Many people began learning at home in in other jobs, gaining that initial foundation of core skills to operate a computer. Starting as early as 1975-1980, computers were exiting "hobby status" and quickly becoming a "consumer product". If not within a home, then at work, in almost every office not run by an 80-yr old, stuck doing everything on "paper", because it was trusted more.
4: Expanded production services. Besides manufacturing and printing of "digital media" and whole complex components, there would also be "paper media" and "basic components". (The components used within the assemblers, for instance, would be our natural starting item to produce. Later outsourced, to save money, and setup assembly for more complex items.) Package printing, manuals, advertisements, floppies, tapes, game cartridges that needed both physical production and "programming" and "flashing", in many instances.)
5: Of each selected option when picking software design, there should be another set of depth options. The basic trio of "Value, Speed, Simplicity" or "Speed, Function, Security", etc. In time, various things become "standard", and those become unselectable and also unable to NOT be included. (It reduces our wasted time selecting things that simply just NEED to exist, and setting values that totally would not make sense to alter. Commonly known as "core elements" of a program. In time, those build-up and add to the starting base complexity. However, those core elements can be "perfected" for operation and made to include more "systems", expanding our potential reach of sales and making OUR product standards greater than another's standards.)
6: A full 5 day work period, representing the "weeks of a month", within a month. The only other time option being to use a "four week representation", which should NOT impact the game in any way, other than making OUR play time a bit longer for time to pass, to the next year. (Essentially, every individual action would be 1/4 as impactful, per day, with a full 4-week month, vs a 1-week month, which is 4x more impactful than a 4-week representation. Bills still come at the end of the month. Taxes should be, as they are in a business, done every 3-months, or "quarterly".)
7: The greater ability to schedule various things. Setting a shifts "lunch time", or a groups "lunch time". Setting-up "Full" and "Emergency" IT and maintenance shifts. Such that they simply "keep things running" while people are working, but in down-time (like at lunch), or at the end of a shift, they jump in and do "full repairs". Taking note of the prior suggestion.
8: Shift-schedules. A full "schedule" of time, showing three absolute shifts. All the same group, but three full shifts of labor-hours. Each shift summarized as the "skill levels", we determine are worthy of seeing. (For quick skill-balance and time-shifting and education and hiring.) All using the same computers, each person still being "assigned" to a shift-station. So one computer has three assigned people who are unable to cross paths.
9: Auto station bonus setups. With all tools available, each person, depending on the task they are doing, uses the "best bonus tool" for the task at hand. (As opposed to damning us to only use ONE specific item per computer, which is only a good bonus for ONE specific thing, of the MANY things being done at a computer. Things that EVERY computer, in a big business, would have, at every computer, for everyone.)
10: "Skill" plus "Refinement", as the primary form of knowledge vs application. A specialist having 1 to 2 primary potentials that exceed normal values, earned in time OR being a natural talent. Skills for a natural specialist are learned faster and refinement is learned slower, but both skill and refinement are 1.5x to 2.0x more than normal, depending if they have 1 or 2 specialist skills. A normal person learns skills slower but they refine skills faster. Since they are not going deep down the rabbit-hole of knowledge. (Jack of all trades) Then there are managers/leaders, who learn skills the fastest and they refine skills the slowest, with a cap of only 1/4 refinement, but they have 2.0x the skill max potential. (They know how to do a lot, they just can't do it, or can't do it fast. They know ENOUGH, to assign and guide those with actual skill, to do things.) The end result is that a skill determines IF you can do something and refinement determines how well it is done. Well = less bugs, faster completion, better quality, bonus function, easier to update and patch. As opposed to just being a skill without refinement that is buggy, slower to do, lower quality, zero bonus functions and would be harder to update and patch.
11: Advanced loading dock. No "hand loading". Trucks or cargo trains come and take away whole pallets of goods to be delivered. Get rid of the stupid helicopter, which makes zero sense. You would need a military helicopter that would cost $4,000,000 per shipment. What world do you live in where a company has EVER used a helicopter to deliver more than a CEO to a building?
12: Converged, "quick management" screens. Get away from the multi-window annoyance, filled with 90% useless info and put that 10% from each relevant operation window into ONE single screen. For instance, a management screen showing the following things. Employees, grouped by teams and the skill-summary. Highlighted and blinking when they are "due for education", duplicated at the top of the list, so we don't have to scroll to see them. Jobs AND contracts, always visible. A quick "rejection", as well as filters, and highlighting and flashing when a NEW JOB becomes available, right on top, before it drops down into the list of others, which are all grouped by type and sorted by pay. Pay listed as MONTHLY INCOME POTENTIAL, not a final pay and months to complete, which is where we have to do senseless math to determine a jobs actual value. The last page merged into this page would be manufacturing, so BOTH print jobs and assembly lines jobs can be seen at once. Jobs listed by due-dates as the sort-order, with the potential ability to "outsource", for faster completion, at a hit to profit. (In production, some parts should be outsourced, to remove creation of complex setups and for better recycling of less complex setups, in the beginning. As we build better setups, with more expensive hardware, we can do things "in-house", for a greater potential yield in profit. Or, continue to outsource, as that ALSO becomes a greater potential profit, but at a reduced quality item. Mixing in-house and outsourced, to "tweak item quality desires", vs "profit gain potential", if we wish, or done automatically without micromanaging each machine. An assembly line can either DO it, or it can't, and has to be reconfigured. Shown as "ready to do", being 100% or less, for any job. That goes for printing too, if you get to various print media. Paper and digital media, floppy, tape, chip-flashing, etc.) Including things like taxes processing, hiring statuses, etc... If we are commonly going to a page to see that specific info, it NEEDS to ALL be on ONE page, in ONE location, to see all at ONCE... Or be just one single click to display, without removing or covering that page which we ALSO need to see at the same time.
13: This will sound ODD, but a 2D representation, in 3D, of the whole game. As if we are looking at schematics, or a programs overview of operations. I've worked in a large factory where they use a form of this. You can see something like an overview of every machine's status and operations, as well as general overviews of distributed employees locations, at any given time. The program uses either sprite-based icon-like art, and a mix of 3D/2D vector-like artwork, to represent various things. (We could even "enter" a specific machine, to see the operational status and settings being used, which was cool. We could literally check the oil, parts-per-min, hours of operation, speed of employee interactions, operation temperatures inside and outside, as well as getting alerts when it fails or falls out of "desired operational expectation". (slow employee) For those of us with slower computers, where 3D is just wasted, since we don't even really "see it", 90% of the time. Having a page-like display of operations, (floors), would be great to see as the primary display with the above mentioned 4-up page of "important operations data", summary.
14: World-map and Local-map. Extending operations, reduced to "potentials", all controllable from one location, with the ability to "enter" and "setup", any operation. Unless we choose to design a location ourselves, then it only exists virtually, as a "refined business". It can either do something, or it can't. We can, with some limits, expand them, on paper, but not physically. (Designing a "plan" for printing operations, without actually entering that location to "build it" in reality. Going back to that 2D representation, which is a blind creation that we would only ever edit for function or restructuring.) Such that the purpose would be locations for obvious real reasons of cheaper locations, better locations, outsourcing/in-house control, extended reach for specialists, provided coverage of faster and cheaper distributions, etc... Total global world domination!)
15: More redundant automation. Keeping us in the loop as tweaking the automation, as desired, to gratify various game-like and financial demands. The core of the automation output being a simplified "potential" of operations, so complex micro-formulation doesn't have to be done, unless we "tweak something again". This is just math and can easily be simplified and reduced down to a set of min/max potentials and random mico-variations. Including and extending "wear" and "upgrading", but being reduced to percentages and volumes, as opposed to dealing with specific numbers. The "bigger we get", the less micro-management that should NEED to be done, but it could and should still, optionally, be able to be done, where possible.
16: Removal of the sims-like quirks, that really are just a hindrance or totally neated, by they way they are "forced" into each person of the game. If you force us to have some oddball negative, along with a positive, without any ability to have NONE, then why does it exist at all, except to be a hindrance and annoyance. It really doesn't need to exist in the game at all. If it does exist, it should be more realistic. Each person can have ZERO to 4 attributes, which are less drastic than some of these are. A mix of 4x positive and up to 4x negative, but not an "eye for an eye" setup. (Forced negative for every forced positive, without the ability for NONE.) With the exception that maybe SOME count as "two" quirks, due to being so dramatic. Or those dramatic negatives or positives, force ONE opposing non-dramatic trait to ALSO be added. (I get it, cheap labor comes with bad quirks and good labor often has good quirks. Let that be discovered, after the fact, not a selection before the fact. WIth the ability to "go quirkless", with some form of normal employees, being constrained to 80% potential of the market. Or only have those on "specialists" and "managers", not "normal employees".)
17: Filters that hide jobs that "can't actually be done", with existing setups, in the allotted time periods. That should be automatic. At the least, it should be WARNED or noted, that the chance to complete, in the current state of operations, is IMPOSSIBLE. (Such as a print job or contract work that would require us to sacrifice what we are doing, or demand that we expand, in order to complete the job. If we suddenly stop and expand, those jobs would then become available or be indicated as being possible to complete to 100%.)
18: Like the design jobs, there should also be "debugging" and "art" and "printing" jobs that have no actual demands of completion, but CAN be completed. Such that a print job may offer a demand of 3 months, at 50,000 boxes a month, but you don't have to actually provide all 50,000 boxes a month and it does not continue past 3 months. Just as debugging would be a "debug as much as you can, in 3 months". (If you finish it, then that is just easy money and you can take another job. If you don't, then you just get paid per-bug or per package produced, in the 3 months.) NOTE: Those "design jobs", really need to be made more clear that we are NOT intended to "advance them". That shouldn't even be an option. They should just remain, as "completed", in the list, when done, until handed-over.
19: Some kind of marketing screen, where every marketable aspect can be managed, easily. Setting-up general marketing and target marketing and specialized or boosted marketing. (That is a major component of EVERY business. Unless there is some RARE "natural hit" item that seems to market itself by word of mouth.) The marketing controls seem hidden and distant and disconnected from the reality of the game we are playing.
20: Better stocks setup, reality and access and ease of operation.
21: Realistic parking and arrival prospects. (Also, being on-time, or getting major pay reductions or being fired, unless they still work whole shifts. The longer it takes to get to work, the more tired they should be, and less effective and lower the pay they get. But something, at the payment page, should guide us to those issues. What they demand, VS what they are worth, based on skill, refined skills, punctuality, etc... Every large company has a literal program which they use to aid that process. Rarely do individuals "demand more wages", they either get expected gains, if they are not abusing time, or they don't.)
22: Mentioned in other posts, but... better benefits controls. Per person, if desired, per group, per department, per skill, per company, globally... etc. SImple check-boxes with settable options and possibly some realistic suggestions, based on the size and income of the company and demands of our play-style. (If we are already generous, or struggling, suggesting a more appropriate set of inclusions, exclusions and levels of generosity. Such as adding extra medical, if we are in a cold location and people keep getting sick and losing time at work. Or, basic "competitive offers", to increase longevity and get a better hiring pool and more people "applying", as opposed to having to "look for them". That should clearly be two individual areas of hiring. A notice pop-up when some prime person "applies" for a job at the company.)
Are there really so many legacy bugs in the game? Then perhaps it would be better to focus on getting those out first, before focusing on new features.
Actually, haven't played the game in a couple of months now, (or longer?) whatever, either way, I had wanted to make a topic with the question if you can create ea games as well, but given from what I know, I don't think that would be possible? You would have to 'release' a game in alpha I think and then update it, but releasing it in alpha would get one star reviews...
Also when offering exclusivity deals with your digital platform .. why can't we see who we already have a deal with.. why can't we select multiple products to offer a deal to at once?? why can't we offer deals to companies and ALL there products at once??
Speaking of which .. why can't we negotiate the prices for anything?? contracts / deals/ ip's we wanna buy etc etc ..
Why can't we also offer discounts on products?? have specials?? christmas deals / black fridays/ ester .. etc etc ..
why can't we host give aways or contests or events .. we take a finical hit / profit hit .. to gain more viewers / attention / customers... almost any game I've played like this or supermarket simulator etc etc . you can never seem to do discounts or sales or events ..
I also agree with the traits are stupid .. especially when EVERYONE has them ... and how do personalities affect employees?? like mean / generous / optomistic . . etc etc .. ?? I'm sorta new and from what I can see the game doesn't tell you anything about these or how they affect your employees or your teams..
also agree we should be able to set shifts for the same team - instead of needing 3 different teams to work 24/ 7
also I would love more information / control / options when looking at things like .. digital distribution network .. we can't see anything like who's selling what products.. what products are selling the most .. who's getting the most users on your platform .. etc etc ..
same with our products from what I can see .. how do we know what products are selling best of what platforms / systems ??
if we just want to focus on the platforms that are best selling our products and not waste time / money / resources on platforms that are doing nothing for us??
Would be cool if say we released a game .. we could see what platforms doing the most sales / has the most active users .. ( consoles vs pc ) for example .. what system ( playstation vs xbox ) ( or windows vs linux ) etc etc .. even be cool if we could see the age of players / country / what times and dates are most popular .. say for example you have a game that does really well around august .. you could plan an expansion pack for around august to get the most of out it ..
It would be cool if you could also outsource support for your games .. i find it weird we can accept support for other companies products .. we can outsource marketing .. even printing .. but we can't outsource support??
would be pretty cool as well if we could have server centres in different countries across the world .. or we could rent servers in different countries around the world .. say if we release an MMO or a multiplayer game .. we have to have servers in different countries / regions in order to allow everyone to play the game and have the best experience.
I'm terrible at these kinds of games and business / economics in general.. I am having a lot of fun with the game though ( 90% due to the trainer mod and workshop pre built / furnished buildings not gonna lie ) but this game is really fun and good. It could be extremely amazing .. I hope it does reach a much better place. I would love to see more explained by the game ( maybe this campaign thing people have mentioned will be great for people like me ) anyways, I'll shut up now
This I like asking why is everyone so obsessed their gaming PC and making sure game work well on it. Those of us who have a Steam Deck or other portable gaming device enjoy playing them and want games to work well on it. So of course we let devs know. It’s a win win for everyone.