[FIXED]Add marketing budgets to all: suggestion.

[Arakash]

Personally I don't see any practical way NOT to have an easy way on controlling all sliders..
Perhaps removing independent adjustment of sliders is going too far, but there needs to be a way of setting all sliders to a % quickly and easily.

As i said in my original response, i also still agree with Giacomo's original suggestion in the first post, which was quite specific.


On your first sentence, i dont know what your trying to prove with that line.

Edit: I edited the following part 5-10 times, trying to be polite pointing this out. I don't know if i succeeded.

I make a post in a thread:
I said I don't think it is practical do something
I give reasons 1,2 and 3 (point 2 is especially important)

Then, you respond to that post
You say you do think it is practical to do it. ("dont see any practical way to NOT do it" an extremely confusing sentence btw)
You don't provide any reasons or justification, or say any of the reasons i posted are wrong.

After that, you might understand from my perspective why i don't find this at all convincing.
Your post would be (much) more convincing if you tried to give reasons or say why my reasons are wrong.

When people only respond to the last line of my posts, i tend to assume they've skipped over or ignored large sections of it.
I don't have a problem with this, but i expect people to at least throw in a "tl : dr" or something similar.

Also the "Set All" button is broken since it allows you to spend more than maximum on advertising and isn't really practical...

We agree on this.

"("dont see any practical way to NOT do it" an extremely confusing sentence btw)"

Do you really need me to explain how impractical and tedious it is to adjust 5 sliders per city for 50 or more cities?.. I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

Giancomos idea is good, and should be added, but it still has the problem of not being able to vary the % from city to city.

Example: Say if you have 100 branches. You have a few, maybe 5 major selling Cities, then lets say 20 medium sales Cities, then 75 small ones that sell a few. You might want to spend max in the 5 big branches, but less in the others.. Or maybe you want to spend max in the small cities since its cheap anyways, but spend less % in major cities where 25% of sporting could be the entire budget @ 100% in a small city.

Personally I usually run 100% in the medium cities for everything, and in the large cities I hold off on the more expensive sporting and event sliders until my company is very successful.. But I usually end up with a ton of smaller branches I just can't be bothered to setup the marketing sliders..

What I'm suggesting is a slider that works per city, not for all cities. That way you can set 100% to all, then adjust the more expensive ones to more reasonable levels if needed.. Personally I never see a reason not to spend 100% on newspaper, magazines, and billboards.. Atleast as far into the game as I've been able to play, and this would streamline marketing setup.

Also % of total marketing is better than % change.. % change would cause the same problem we currently have where you can spend more on marketing than will benefit you unless it is limited to that maximum effective %. In which case, that defeats the purpose of % change if you don't really know if the whole % you want to change will be added..

Its much more logical(to me anyways) to have your marketing running at a % of maximum depending on the size of the city and your strategy. Since the game doesn't automatically adjust the %, all thats needed is a new button in the menu to.. "Refresh marketing %".. (Maybe Eric can come up with a better term.)

A quick point I would like to make: In a complex management game like this it shouldn't be a bad thing to have more than one way of doing something.. some people might find one way easier to setup, and others another way.. The 'tools' you have to accomplish the task, the easier it will be for everyone.

Offtopic:

I don't know what your problem is Arakash... Every time I make a post you reply with some condescending post, or acting like your forum moderator or something.. Frankly your a bit of an asshole, and it doesn't really encourage me to bother posting here..

Eric needs all the feedback he can get, and acting like your #1 Fanboy and you own the forum doesn't really encourage people to make quick suggestions that aren't up to YOUR standards.

Most of the time the posts are more of a retrospective of how a game played through and the issues that developed and how I felt they could be solved.. I don't always have time to try and find a specific save to take a screenshot of a specific thing that I may, or may not have found relevant when i was playing at that time.. Or to explain a obvious point in great detail.

Just because your disagree with or misunderstand my suggestions, that's no reason to make things personal.. And Yeah, I know I've probably insulted you by now, but I call it like I see it and I'm not here to make friends.

That being said, making debates personal on a forum is a waste of time. I wasted far too long writing this, and even by your own admission you editing your post 5 times for 'Politeness' (well, I guess you tried..).. Its not worth the effort, so tone down the condescending attitude and we won't have any problems...

Even your signature, which I'm sure is well meaning, comes off as arrogant and condescending.

Thank you for providing examples in some good detail, that was exactly what i was looking for from the start.

In any discussion, its very common to be asked to justify yourself with examples and evidence. You shouldn't take it as some kind of insult, we aren't discussing people here, we are discussing ideas.
Your welcome ask me to justify myself at any time, im happy to. If i realise any of my points are shown to be wrong, im also happy to admit i was wrong as well. Again, this requires examples/evidence.

Edit: I only make exceptions in a few cases, one of them is when the poster/responder starts calling people names/using personal attacks as part of their responses, in scientific/formal discussions, this is called an Ad hominem. (or maybe not if it is just abusive language)
As i say at the end of this post, your on my ignore list(forum feature) now due to your personal attacks, so i wont be seeing your posts or responding to them.
/Edit

I said very clearly in my last post why saying what you did without examples is not constructive(especially the way you worded it), i don't think there is any way to make it more clear.


Im not going to respond to the off topic part of your post and personal attacks.(quote: "a***hole", "arrogant") I have no interest in being warned and potentially kicked off this forum.
Edit: Ill also add you to my ignore list(a forums feature), so i wont see or respond to any of your posts again. I have no interest in discussing topics with people who use personal attacks when they disagree with another post's ideas.