KingBilly1 Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) Just sell us your damn techz! :P Personally I buy at 6mil/100.... It still saves me millions Edited August 17, 2013 by EddyH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandelsand Posted August 19, 2013 Report Share Posted August 19, 2013 Maybe. But is it worth it? If 3mil/50 gives you 1.8 mil, another 50 would leave you with 600K. So based off this Im predicting 6mil/200 gives you 1-1.2 mil. Thus Ive answered my own question. Thanks guys. Ive decided I was right the whole time. 6mil/200 is a waste of a sellers time. DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU Only do 6/100 deals. There are more than enough available. You need to do what is best for your nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letterkenny Posted August 19, 2013 Report Share Posted August 19, 2013 6/200 for inner AA deals only. 6/100 is only 20 days until reset, same as 3/50, and everyone grows faster. Definitely the best deal unless, again, you're feeding your own alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 20, 2013 Report Share Posted August 20, 2013 "6mill/200 is just as profitable as 3mil/50 was." How? No it isn't and someone needs a better calculator. Actually $6 mill/100 is just slightly less profitable than two $3 mill/50 tech, but that fact you are getting the $6 mill upfront usually offsets the difference (assuming you don't blow all the cash on military or some such of course). At any rate, I personally wouldn't do a $6 mill/200 tech deal unless I was feeling *very* generous, but only you can determine how much profit is enough profit for you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icewolf Posted August 20, 2013 Report Share Posted August 20, 2013 Yes 6 million for 200 has a lower profit margin than 3 million for 100. However the profit margin is not halved whilst the turnover is doubled, ergo you make more money per slot for 6/200 than for 3/100. So for the seller it is not a rip off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted August 20, 2013 Report Share Posted August 20, 2013 Assuming 2 universities and best practices: 0-50: 649,780 0-100: 1,750,580 Profit per deal @ prior limits of 3m or 50 tech: 3/50: 2.35m 3/100: 1.7m @ current limits of 6m or 100 tech: 6/100: 4.24m 6/200: 2.49m Average profit (sellers) per month, assuming 5 slots: 6/100 deals: 31.8m 6/200 deals: 12.45m Average import (buyers) per month, assuming 6 slots: 6/100 deals: 900 tech 6/200 deals: 1200 tech I could not, in good conscience, buy from others in my alliance or my protectorates at 6/200 because it's 18.5m less money for them while only 300 more tech for me in a 30 day period. If I could find that outside my alliance/protectorates, I would do it because I have no interest in their well-being, but we all know that it's hard to find those. It's kind of messed up that the people you end up ripping off in tech deals are those closest to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Instr Posted August 20, 2013 Report Share Posted August 20, 2013 Or maybe the entire tech deal structure is close to obsolete and pretty soon there will be no sellers left.::shrugs:: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 20, 2013 Report Share Posted August 20, 2013 No it isn't and someone needs a better calculator. Actually $6 mill/100 is just slightly less profitable than two $3 mill/50 tech, but that fact you are getting the $6 mill upfront usually offsets the difference (assuming you don't blow all the cash on military or some such of course). At any rate, I personally wouldn't do a $6 mill/200 tech deal unless I was feeling *very* generous, but only you can determine how much profit is enough profit for you.. Someone didn't use a calculator and if one did they would have to get accurate prices first. In the end you came to the same conclusion one made in that it was just as profitable for the nation and one didn't even need a calculator or figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted August 20, 2013 Report Share Posted August 20, 2013 I find it interesting that the nation of Foxburo, who started the thread and is claiming that it is not profitable to do $6M/200 deals, only has 2 aid slots in use. Those empty slots are costing him money. Buyers who have paid him are now waisting aid slots while they wait for him to do his job. He would make more money by doing 6/200 and staying active than by letting the slots sit. When my nation was small, I was selling at $3M/150, so I'm amused when people whine about how they aren't making enough profit. It seems to me that since the change, a lot of sellers expect to make a lot more profit than before, while delivering the same amount of tech. They don't seem to realize that the reason they are able to make a lot more profit than before is because the buyers are sending double the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 a little late to the thread but I am pretty sure there was once a time when 3m/150 tech wasn't that uncommon...sellers have become quite greedy these days. And I don't know why since it is more beneficial to keep good sellers in selling range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 A 6/200 deal: 100 tech costs $1,750,000, with two universities (at your size, you should be exchanging those factories for universities and other improvements whenever you collect, meaning you can buy tech with them) So, 200 tech costs $3,500,000, giving you $2,500,000 profit per three cycles. In comparison to the 3/50 you mentioned: 50 tech costs $650,000, again with two universities. As such, you would make $2,350,000 profit per two cycles or $3,525,000 per three cycles; a 41% increase over the 6/200. However, since the previous standard was in flux, between 3/50 and 3/100, with deals split about 50:50 and with the 3/100 ratio increasing, I believe it would be more apt to compare the 3/50 to a 6/100 and the 3/100 to the 6/200: 3/100: Total cost would equal $1,300,000, meaning that profit over the three cycles would be $1,700,000. 6/100: Total cost would equal $1,750,000, meaning that profit over two cycles would be $4,250,000, or $6,375,000 over three cycles. As such, a 6/200 deal gives you a 47% increase in profits over a 3/100, while a 6/100 gives you a remarkable 80% increase over a 3/50 deal (and, as a side note, a 275% increase over a 3/100) As such, I believe that 6/200 should be the order of the day; though, should you truly wish for the same level of profits as the 3/50, a 12/300 would work there; 6/100/100/6/100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.