Hi! First of all, I really enjoy the game and appreciate how much depth there is under the hood. While playing (and admittedly digging into the mechanics quite a bit), I had a few questions and suggestions.
One thing I've noticed is that some important mechanics seem to rely on hidden modifiers that aren't visible to the player. Things like package-specific cache cost discounts, multicore penalties, and other internal modifiers can have a significant impact on CPU design decisions, but from the player's perspective it's often difficult to understand why certain results occur. Have you considered adding more detailed tooltips or a cost/performance breakdown in the CPU Creation screen? Even without revealing exact formulas, seeing where costs and penalties come from would make the design process much easier to understand.
I was also curious about Cyrux. They often seem to price CPUs extremely aggressively, sometimes far below the rest of the market, only to end up bankrupting themselves shortly afterward. Is this intentional behavior meant to represent a high-risk strategy, or is it something you're still balancing?
Finally, are there plans to expand the role of sockets in the future? Right now they seem to function mostly as a compatibility feature. It would be interesting if popular sockets created some form of platform loyalty or installed user base, where customers are more likely to buy future CPUs for the same socket. That could make long-lived sockets strategically valuable and add another layer to market competition beyond pure price/performance.
Another feature that could be interesting is more feedback on contract negotiations. At the moment, when a company ignoring a CPU proposal, it's often difficult to understand why. It would be helpful if the game provided some explanation, such as insufficient performance, excessive power consumption, high price, low yields, or simply being outperformed by another offer. Even a simple summary of the main reasons would make contracts feel much less random.
I also think there is potential to expand the contract system further. Instead of customers only requesting specific MIPS and power targets, they could have more complex priorities depending on their market segment. For example, some clients might prioritize low cost, others long-term supply stability, high yields, low power consumption, platform compatibility, or a balance of multiple factors. This could make contract negotiations feel more strategic and give players more ways to differentiate their products beyond simply maximizing performance.
Thanks again for the game. It's been a lot of fun exploring both the gameplay and the systems behind it.