Jump to content

Im not stupid, guys


Fox Fire

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...