Limiting Size

[Scott Zodiac]

I have been curious as to what the mechanics are around fixing the cap on size for a start-up company. I have found that despite capping at insignificant, my company and worker popularity still increases, bringing in more ticket revenue as a result.

 

My question is why shouldn’t you do this every time? When you increase a level, your costs increase per show etc. I’m thinking you could skip tiny size altogether by capping at insignificant and removing when you have enough pop for small. Am I missing something here?

[Matt_Black]

I have been curious as to what the mechanics are around fixing the cap on size for a start-up company. I have found that despite capping at insignificant, my company and worker popularity still increases, bringing in more ticket revenue as a result.

 

My question is why shouldn’t you do this every time? When you increase a level, your costs increase per show etc. I’m thinking you could skip tiny size altogether by capping at insignificant and removing when you have enough pop for small. Am I missing something here?

 

Because when you go up in Size, various costs and expenses increase as well. Two companies of differing Size levels can have the exact same popularity, yet often the smaller one will see a larger profit.

 

The trade-off, of course, is that larger companies has more options for long term gains- TV deals, written contracts, etc.

[Scott Zodiac]

Because when you go up in Size, various costs and expenses increase as well. Two companies of differing Size levels can have the exact same popularity, yet often the smaller one will see a larger profit.

 

The trade-off, of course, is that larger companies has more options for long term gains- TV deals, written contracts, etc.

 

So in terms of keeping costs low, you should limit your size but still bring in the same amount of money as your pop still increases?

 

At low levels, there is very little difference between insignificant, tiny, and small. I still can’t get onto a broadcaster, nor sign exclusive deals at either size. So should I limit to insignificant until

I’m ready to go up to small, or even medium? What would be the drawbacks to this strategy?

[TheChef]

So in terms of keeping costs low, you should limit your size but still bring in the same amount of money as your pop still increases?

 

At low levels, there is very little difference between insignificant, tiny, and small. I still can’t get onto a broadcaster, nor sign exclusive deals at either size. So should I limit to insignificant until

I’m ready to go up to small, or even medium? What would be the drawbacks to this strategy?

 

The drawback is that you'd be gaming the system. You've pointed out a flaw in the game design. The thing is though, if your company has 50 pop across the US, it's not really insignificant or tiny, no matter what the game says. It's then your decision if you want to cheat the system to gain an advantage or to play as intended.

[Adam Ryland]

At low levels, there is very little difference between insignificant, tiny, and small. I still can’t get onto a broadcaster, nor sign exclusive deals at either size. So should I limit to insignificant until

I’m ready to go up to small, or even medium? What would be the drawbacks to this strategy?

 

The major drawback is that your company's importance would be considered to be much lower than it really is (as it's calculated with reference to size), so anytime you get compared to other companies - such as when a worker with two contracts on the same night has to decide who is his priority, or during negotiations when two companies are after the same person - you're going to come off worse.

 

Workers also take size and importance into account for various parts of negotiation, so you'd potentially be locking yourself out of signing certain people who you should be able to.

[Scott Zodiac]

Thanks Adam.

 

I think it’s not affected me too much due to my play through. I’m playing in the UK and not having much competition at the minute. I can see it becoming not worth it at higher sizes in a crowded market. I’m not competing in any battles at the moment and the SNP (CVerse) are still tiny size.

[seminoledozer]

One example in the real world that limiting their size(via the game) is pwg. They are very well known but have a specific business plan that works on them not becoming too big. Ie they don't tour or stream. You have to either buy a ticket or a DVD to see them which allows them to use a lot of talent who otherwise would be contractually barred from working for them.

[SirMichaelJordan]

One example in the real world that limiting their size(via the game) is pwg. They are very well known but have a specific business plan that works on them not becoming too big. Ie they don't tour or stream. You have to either buy a ticket or a DVD to see them which allows them to use a lot of talent who otherwise would be contractually barred from working for them.

 

Except in TEW, you can limit them to tiny and they would still gain massive popularity and gain massive amount of income. When in reality, they aren’t expanding because they barely make a profit after expenses and they are fine with that.

 

I said that to say if you limit a company to a specific size then they should be capped at a certain popularity otherwise it’s a easy way to gain massive income while avoiding expenses in an already unbalanced game financially (and popularity)

[TheChef]

Except in TEW, you can limit them to tiny and they would still gain massive popularity and gain massive amount of income. When in reality, they aren’t expanding because they barely make a profit after expenses and they are fine with that.

 

I said that to say if you limit a company to a specific size then they should be capped at a certain popularity otherwise it’s a easy way to gain massive income while avoiding expenses in an already unbalanced game financially (and popularity)

 

 

Exactly. We have discussed how the game is unbalanced in other threads and to use size limits to game the system even further is yet another problem. Like you say, either limiting size should limit growth or maybe the company size isn't chosen by the player, rather works like the perception system. Ie, your company is perceived to be of medium size because of x pop in x areas. Or just scrap it altogether, it's kind of pointless and unrealistic anyway.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Exactly. We have discussed how the game is unbalanced in other threads and to use size limits to game the system even further is yet another problem. Like you say, either limiting size should limit growth or maybe the company size isn't chosen by the player, rather works like the perception system. Ie, your company is perceived to be of medium size because of x pop in x areas. Or just scrap it altogether, it's kind of pointless and unrealistic anyway.

 

Yes, hopefully more tweaks are in the works. It’s really unfortunate. I can’t get into a long term save because of these problems. Some of these problems are old but they stick out more than before because other areas of the game have been improved for the better.

[MikeSc]

I get not wanting this exploit in the game. It seems like it actually goes against most logic, so yeah.

 

I would point out that you can just edit yourself in as much money as you want, so it is definitely not the worst thing you will ever see.

 

And if I'm honest unless you are playing a super small company on very hard mode it doesn't come into play that often on either front. It's not really difficult to make money or grow your company in 2020.

[Scott Zodiac]

Initially I expected the pop to be capped at the threshold. It would then allow you to build up some reserve money before increasing costs, with the drawback of having your workers increase in popularity whilst you stay still potentially having other companies steal them away, or them requesting more money.

 

I started a new company on 10 pop and run very cheap tickets to boost gains and have limited size to insignificant. My costs remain constant, but my ticket prices and sponsors keep going up. My economy is current at 1 and falling, so I can only go up from here. The only way I can control growth is to change my ticket prices, but my workers are well above my company so will continue to grow too.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Initially I expected the pop to be capped at the threshold. It would then allow you to build up some reserve money before increasing costs, with the drawback of having your workers increase in popularity whilst you stay still potentially having other companies steal them away, or them requesting more money.

 

I started a new company on 10 pop and run very cheap tickets to boost gains and have limited size to insignificant. My costs remain constant, but my ticket prices and sponsors keep going up. My economy is current at 1 and falling, so I can only go up from here. The only way I can control growth is to change my ticket prices, but my workers are well above my company so will continue to grow too.

 

Yea, and it gets worse the further in years you get in a save. I assume most players don’t play long term saves so It may not bother them or at least it will take a long time for people to start to noticing which they are and that is encouraging.

[Scott Zodiac]

I’m going to push up ticket prices shortly on my save. I’m playing in the UK, so 21CW won’t be interested in my guys just yet. SNP are snapping up every 21CW release and are losing money, but because they start with so much, they will be fine for a long time. CWW are going to go bankrupt soon, so that eliminates them. There is another unopened company that may screw me over.