Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 11 votes

Increasing Foreign Aid Limits


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#221 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:03 PM

So you want to ruin the game in favor of negotiating?
You're not realizing how these things effect the growth and stability of the game as a whole. If you want to sell/buy tech at your own custom rate, nothing in the current mechanics prevents this. Im selling tech at a 9/300 rate.
Its like an economy. You have the rich employers, and poor workers. You want to keep a certain ratio between the two to make the system work.
Thus, growth rate is fine. I never hear new players complain about this.
The current potential growth rate is actually pretty fast.

 

That's hardly a custom rate when it's the maximum you can receive or send in 3 aid cycles...if you were say selling 7/250 that would be a custom rate as it is, you're just leveraging an aid program that got you a FAC early in your development and maximizing your aid slots, just like everyone else, no real decision was made on your part regarding the transaction.  As for the growth rate being pretty fast, tell that to the 10's of thousands of folks who started playing and quit because they didn't want to wait a year to barely become a higher member of the low tier, and that's with plenty of alliance support.

 

There will always be rich and poor in this game, the idea is to allow some of the money pent up in nations that are at this point just saving because they can't possibly spend it (other than truly wasting it on in game purchases of land, infra and tech) due to aid slot restrictions.

 

Adding anything to the game that will require more than looking at your alliance's guides to figure what the correct order to click the buttons in is a good thing.  If we're going to have tech seller scarcity (which by the way, we have without touching the aid limits) let's make it more profitable for people to sell tech longer.



#222 Fox Fire

Fox Fire

    Fox in a Box

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,341 posts
  • Nation Name:Foxburo
  • Alliance Name:Independent Republic of Orange Nations

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:25 PM

Of course I made decisions. I was presented an offer and I accepted it.
Let me ask you, what's the point of adding custom rates? It doesn't matter what the cap is, it will always be used to maximum efficiency. Remove the cap and you may as well leave because the tech market dies and the mechanics stop working.
I've already explained why increasing or removing the aid cap is a terrible idea. I've offered many reasons for it, but I feel like you aren't paying attention considering Im repeating myself.
You aren't understanding how tampering with this effects the system. Tech dealing is a core part of CN. The game literally runs on the tech market.
And again, if we aid bomb everyone into tech buyer status, there's nobody to buy from anymore. The game breaks.
Removing tech dealing removes the core of the game and the only real influence and control new nations may have.
The large amount of this game isn't played in-game anyway. The real game is played on forums and IRC. Your nation is just the marker telling you your current statistics.
Yeah, it would be great if CN were more complex, but its not. And you can't really change that without creating a completely different game.

#223 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:27 PM

The only thing you've been saying over and over again is that if the cap is removed tech dealing dies.  You've yet to give an actual reason for this other than new nations will all be immediately sent enough money to make them into tech buyers.  Yes, nations who join alliances will be able to grow at a much faster rate given the removal of the aid cap but that does not mean that tech dealing will end.  There will always be nations who can buy tech from the game at a cheaper rate than others and can therefore sell their tech for a profit.  That is categorically true until and or unless everyone reaches a point of tech parity where we all have the same amount.  I don't think you understand how the economics of the game work if you think that is ever going to be possible.

 

As for the tech market being a core part of the game, that's exactly what I'm trying to improve!  Right now the tech "market" is just a function of finding 5 or 6 sellers and milking them for as long as they stay interested in the game, or at some point finally, after months and months of slow growth reach the point of being a tech buyer.  Without aid caps, those sellers have the incentive to actually put some effort into finding buyers that will pay them a premium and buyers will have to work at finding what tech rate works for them.

The fact is that increased aid caps expands exponentially the number of possible tech sellers by making economically viable for literally 90% of the game.  It wouldn't be smart for most of those folks, but it's totally do-able.  Consider the nation that just finished an infra jump and while they maintained a decent warchest they get surprised by an unexpected declaration of war.  They start off the war with 3000 tech and through the course of it they lose 900-1000 along with all their infra, land and a large portion of their warchest.  Maybe they need to get some fast cash together to start their rebuild but they don't want to burden their alliance's aid slots with sending them aid when there are lots of smaller nations that need the money more.  So they go to the open market and start selling tech for a modest profit.  They can only do that if there's no limit on the amount of cash they can receive at once because otherwise they'd be sending tech that was much more expensive than the max $9mil they could possibly receive!

 

I know, as a nation who's stayed small for most of my career as a ghost buster, I like to sell tech, but when there's war I buy up as much as I reasonably can to fight better.  I'd love the opportunity to sell that tech at a profit as opposed to the loss I'm guaranteed now.



#224 Fox Fire

Fox Fire

    Fox in a Box

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,341 posts
  • Nation Name:Foxburo
  • Alliance Name:Independent Republic of Orange Nations

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:42 PM

You still don't seem to understand.... Your assuming people are going to intentionally keep their nation down just to sell tech, which is stupid. Or that there will be enough new people joining the game, being active, and somehow not growing fast, that there will ne a sufficient supply of sellers.
Both of these ideas are beyond stupid.
No nation is going to keep playing this game to never grow. And when they start selling tech under this idea, they won't be selling for long.
I shared this discussion with some of my alliance mates and asked what they thought:

i like the trades system. makes people get active in alliance activities. and let's face it, the game isn't really played on cybernations.net


I would say increase the aid limit ... that said I'm not decided on how to limit it. The only thing I am sure about is that there should be some limits.


There comes a time when tech is the only power in the game. Tech trading and gaining more tech is a mandatory strategy. To gain more power you have to be active and deal with people. If tech was made cheap enough to buy then no one would deal and everyone would have a 100k tech. Goodbye CN. I would halt the unfair practice of buying tech with donation cash. That's just wrong.


"Some people just want to see the world burn."


Tech dealing is half the CN experience. It's not just the act of sending/receiving the tech, but the entire meta-game that's built around the mechanic (tech circles, programs like EIEIO, aid slot usage, etc).
 
You kill that, the game goes down, it's that simple.


Dunno this FoxFire guy, but I tend to follow his train of thought ;)


Also, you say you'd rather sell your 413.11 tech for profit? Then why don't you? Because its not worth enough? Thats how it should be. If anyone could sell it for 20mil/100, we'd all be your size in 2-3 cycles and would soon find it impossible to find buyers, because all the other buyers don't need your money precisely because there's a thousand other people out there, larger than you, who can and will pay more. Thus, rocketing new nations even higher and further shrinking the seller status. As this continues, tech becomes more and more scarce, and the mid tier nations never grow because the top nations consistently out buy them.
Its simple economics.

But this isn't even a discussion anymore. Its an argument, and a stupid one.

#225 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:59 PM

I don't mean for this to be an argument, and I'm certainly not trying to fight with you, but you keep making assertions that the tech market is going to disappear when I've shown that the number of tech sellers will increase without an aid limit.  Even the quotes you posted, fully half of them indicate that it's the conversation between tech seller and tech buyer that's the interesting part of the exchange, and that would only increase if there was something to talk about other than when an aid slot expires.

 

The point you just tried to make about buyers out bidding one another just further confirms that the market would indeed still exist and although initially there'd be a huge rush of people "teching up" eventually the funds of even the biggest nations would start to level off and the excess cash would be pulled out of the system (which incidentally is the main reason to uncap aid to release all the money tied up on monster warchests which basically make large nation's indestructible and uncatchable).  Once that excess capacity is burned off, then there will be a more regular market that settles in, but there will be an opportunity for people to raise or lower prices based on demand.  If there were a shortage of tech sellers then yes, I could sell my 411 tech for a profit whereas now, that's impossible.  If we don't get and retain players then people will more and more tech will be incentivized into selling as the value of each unit of tech goes up...



#226 Fox Fire

Fox Fire

    Fox in a Box

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,341 posts
  • Nation Name:Foxburo
  • Alliance Name:Independent Republic of Orange Nations

Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:10 PM

eventually the funds of even the biggest nations would start to level off


I doubt it. There are some massive warchests out there. But lets assume this is true, it still would destroy the seller status because the demand for tech never goes down. This would probably work if it were a RL economy, but its not. Remove the aid cap, and you consistently raise demand by creating more buyers from sellers, at the same time you're shrinking the supply because you don't buy and sell at the same time. You can't increase demand, shorten supply, and then expect the price to somehow magicaly level off or go down. No. The price can only go up, because supply is shrinking and the competition is growing. Thus, sellers will take the highest offers there are. Other buyers realise nobody will sell at their prices and mist raise their offers. This won't end, and can only grow worse simply because you're drastically increasing demand by shortening supply. The only way supply can go up is if we somehow got a mass influx of sellers, and even then, we end up in the smell position very quickly.
Also, we have to think about what's fair to the buyers. Even if this were somehow stable, only the largest nations could ever find tech deals because the mid tier nations who just started buying tech can't possibly compete. And the more money a nation spends on tech, the less they have for their alliance.
IE: Alliances have banker nations who's WC don't entirely belong to them. A great deal of that cash is for rebuilding and aiding allies. I don't see these stockpiles of cash as an issue. Even if we halfed everyone's money, people would still !@#$%* about nations having too much money. I don't find any problem with it at all. They earned it fair and square and there's nothing preventing anyone else from doing the same.

#227 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:58 PM

The assumptions you're making don't take into account aid slots.  Large nations can only buy as much tech as they can import.  The largest buyers cannot monopolize sellers they can't possibly use up all of the aid slots.  As I keep saying that there are natural limits within the game that would mitigate "tech-magedon" after a very short period of time.

 

In fact, bringing down warchests, reducing the amount of tech in the game and giving newer nations a faster path to relevance are all rock solid reasons to uncap aid.  Smaller warchests mean that wars will be more well considered and meaningful.  Inflationary pressure on tech costs potentially leading to a tech shortage would mean slow the expansion between the haves and the have nots.  And ultimately, despite your earlier assertion, there are many, many new nations who have deleted because the game doesn't develop fast enough for them.  That being said, even with accelerated growth new nations would still need to build wonders which limit them from being nation-zillas in a short period of time.



#228 Fistandantilus

Fistandantilus

    Solving the mysteries of the universe one at a time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Nation Name:Black Archadia
  • Alliance Name:Protection and Liberation of United States(PLUS)

Posted 14 February 2014 - 04:13 AM

If they uncap the aid, I'd pay 10 BN for 100k tech.



#229 Mogar

Mogar

    Do you remember what fearless felt like?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,132 posts
  • Nation Name:Mogatopia
  • Alliance Name:/Random/
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Mogatopia

Posted 14 February 2014 - 10:13 AM

If we do uncap aid, I want to see additional wonders added specifically for low tier nations, there are plenty like myself who don't mind being low tier and it would give them incentive to remain tech dealers.



#230 Auctor

Auctor

    Gone Crabbin.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,745 posts
  • Nation Name:Wyrdgar
  • Alliance Name:sudoku
  • CN:TE Nation Name:By popular demand
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Auctormobiles

Posted 14 February 2014 - 10:59 AM

Game should encourage growth tbh. there's already plenty of wonders lower tier nations can have, and having old lower tier nations with even more advantages over young lower tier nations isn't a good thing.



#231 Fox Fire

Fox Fire

    Fox in a Box

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,341 posts
  • Nation Name:Foxburo
  • Alliance Name:Independent Republic of Orange Nations

Posted 14 February 2014 - 12:13 PM

The assumptions you're making don't take into account aid slots.  Large nations can only buy as much tech as they can import.  The largest buyers cannot monopolize sellers they can't possibly use up all of the aid slots.  As I keep saying that there are natural limits within the game that would mitigate "tech-magedon" after a very short period of time.
 
In fact, bringing down warchests, reducing the amount of tech in the game and giving newer nations a faster path to relevance are all rock solid reasons to uncap aid.  Smaller warchests mean that wars will be more well considered and meaningful.  Inflationary pressure on tech costs potentially leading to a tech shortage would mean slow the expansion between the haves and the have nots.  And ultimately, despite your earlier assertion, there are many, many new nations who have deleted because the game doesn't develop fast enough for them.  That being said, even with accelerated growth new nations would still need to build wonders which limit them from being nation-zillas in a short period of time.


You make some good points here. Specifically about the game not developing fast enough for new players. I don't think this is the main reason people quit, but its probably a contributing factor. On the other hand, I've never heard new players complain about this. I won't disagree with most of this, but I cant agree with it either.
A few things Id like to point out:
1. I don't think the aid cap should be removed. I really think there needs to be a limit. Removing the aid cap would allow alliances to rebuild much faster than before. Possibly instantly. I imagine alliances won't be aid bombing all their new members for free, however, It wouldn't be too hard strategically boost certain nations. The cost would be high, but the long term return is higher.
Im not sure if it would work the same way in CN, but in another game which had no cap, the building strategy because of this was as follows:
*All top nations in the AA save their collections for X amount of days.
*They then collect and send all of the collection to a small nation.
*Small nation uses this money to build up, and the high cost is no problem, because that nation can now make tons of cash.
*The process is then repeated with each new nation.
Just a thought.
2. This kind of ability to build/rebuild so fast isn't very fair to the small/mid sized AAs that don't have that spending power. Right now, all alliances are limited to rebuilding at a certain rate. A bit of an equalizer.
3. If we want to let new nations develope faster, Id say increase the aid limits again. But I still think growing new nations too fast will damage the tech market, so I think "how much" needs to be considered carefully.
4. CN is losing players because people have lives and these games aren't too popular these days. This is probably the biggest factor in why the tech market would run dry if nations grow too fast. In fact, this is probably how the game will eventually die, unless its popularity increases and people stick around.

These are just the thoughts I had. I really think there should be a limit. Removing the cap would give a lot more power to money and the big cash producing nations.

If they uncap the aid, I'd pay 10 BN for 100k tech.

Well if tech sellers start realising they can get better offers from larger nations because tech starts getting more difficult to find, theyll likely start bartering, but likely, even before then. Yes, as Bob said, the community as a whole could potentially stabilize it but only if everyone is following the same program.
On the other hand, its possible this may not happen at all. But the possibility of it happening is greatly increased with no aid cap.
Some people are willing to spend more on tech than others. Thats why we have 6/100 and 6/200 deals that people argue about. One is the same price for half the tech, regardless, there's no shortage of people more than willing to pay for it.

#232 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:41 PM

If they uncap the aid, I'd pay 10 BN for 100k tech.

 

I only have 413 tech, but if I tried to buy you 100k tech and send it to you it would cost $7,000,000,000.00 and as we all know the price of tech goes up the more you have.

 

$10billion would not nearly be enough to cover 100k tech and even if it did, getting $10bil out of your warchest would be a good thing.  That being said, there was a suggestion that the cap for tech to remain in place so that folks can't manipulate their nation size and I think that's more than fair, as long as there's no way to differentiate between tech that is purchased for export and tech that's on-hand and affecting NS.

 

 

You make some good points here. Specifically about the game not developing fast enough for new players. I don't think this is the main reason people quit, but its probably a contributing factor. On the other hand, I've never heard new players complain about this. I won't disagree with most of this, but I cant agree with it either.
A few things Id like to point out:
1. I don't think the aid cap should be removed. I really think there needs to be a limit. Removing the aid cap would allow alliances to rebuild much faster than before. Possibly instantly. I imagine alliances won't be aid bombing all their new members for free, however, It wouldn't be too hard strategically boost certain nations. The cost would be high, but the long term return is higher.
Im not sure if it would work the same way in CN, but in another game which had no cap, the building strategy because of this was as follows:
*All top nations in the AA save their collections for X amount of days.
*They then collect and send all of the collection to a small nation.
*Small nation uses this money to build up, and the high cost is no problem, because that nation can now make tons of cash.
*The process is then repeated with each new nation.
Just a thought.
2. This kind of ability to build/rebuild so fast isn't very fair to the small/mid sized AAs that don't have that spending power. Right now, all alliances are limited to rebuilding at a certain rate. A bit of an equalizer.
3. If we want to let new nations develope faster, Id say increase the aid limits again. But I still think growing new nations too fast will damage the tech market, so I think "how much" needs to be considered carefully.
4. CN is losing players because people have lives and these games aren't too popular these days. This is probably the biggest factor in why the tech market would run dry if nations grow too fast. In fact, this is probably how the game will eventually die, unless its popularity increases and people stick around.

These are just the thoughts I had. I really think there should be a limit. Removing the cap would give a lot more power to money and the big cash producing nations.

Well if tech sellers start realising they can get better offers from larger nations because tech starts getting more difficult to find, theyll likely start bartering, but likely, even before then. Yes, as Bob said, the community as a whole could potentially stabilize it but only if everyone is following the same program.
On the other hand, its possible this may not happen at all. But the possibility of it happening is greatly increased with no aid cap.
Some people are willing to spend more on tech than others. Thats why we have 6/100 and 6/200 deals that people argue about. One is the same price for half the tech, regardless, there's no shortage of people more than willing to pay for it.

 

I realized that I've been posting walls of text so I'll keep this short and sweet.  

 

1. Alliances would be risking a lot to do that and the nations would still be under powered because of lack of wonders.  

 

2.  People have been yelling for years that small alliances need to consolidate.  If that did happen it wouldn't be the worst thing, but I think there's plenty of room for small alliances that just don't boost membership numbers as fast due to smaller bank accounts.  They'd be at no worse advantage than my alliance vs yours right now.  

 

3.  I respectfully disagree and think the tech market will work itself out, but concede that you make a valid point, just not one I subscribe to.

 

4.  If CN is dying it's because we're not retaining new players and old players feel there's nothing left to "do".  If there were less money in the world, wars and therefore politics and could actually be meaningful instead of basically unassailable nations fighting for as long as they want because they know they can instantly rebuild.



#233 Indian Bob

Indian Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Nation Name:Indinoplace
  • Alliance Name:Anarchy Inc

Posted 14 March 2014 - 10:57 AM

 

That's hardly a custom rate when it's the maximum you can receive or send in 3 aid cycles...if you were say selling 7/250 that would be a custom rate as it is, you're just leveraging an aid program that got you a FAC early in your development and maximizing your aid slots, just like everyone else, no real decision was made on your part regarding the transaction.  As for the growth rate being pretty fast, tell that to the 10's of thousands of folks who started playing and quit because they didn't want to wait a year to barely become a higher member of the low tier, and that's with plenty of alliance support.

 

There will always be rich and poor in this game, the idea is to allow some of the money pent up in nations that are at this point just saving because they can't possibly spend it (other than truly wasting it on in game purchases of land, infra and tech) due to aid slot restrictions.

 

Adding anything to the game that will require more than looking at your alliance's guides to figure what the correct order to click the buttons in is a good thing.  If we're going to have tech seller scarcity (which by the way, we have without touching the aid limits) let's make it more profitable for people to sell tech longer.

 

I just noticed this and it speaks directly to the mindset that no one want's to truly negotiate tech rates, just slot efficiency.

 

3ijW8nN.png






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users