Has Standard Price Increased?

[IronicMaster]

Hah, I noticed your aid screen, that explains your response. Do you carry a bag with swag stamped on it? Balaclava? Striped shirt? I think sooooooo.

Point 2 went over your head, but hey ho.

Resession inflation happen in real life, yes? we agree on that. Seeing as this is a game it doesn't happen here. Due to no real cicumstances that could cause such economic failure, so in essence your just charging that price because 1.) you can 2.) your a greedy $%&@. 3.) you get muggs paying that price.

Does that explain it better for you? I can't stupidfy it anymore for you.

So it boils down to your not happy with making 1.4 mill of every 3/100 deal you want 2.2 mill profit from every 3/50 deal, so you want how much of a profit margin? GREEDY . justify it all you like its crooked and i wont pay balaclava wearing con men like you.

1 more person who reads this post and realises your greedy $%&@s is 1 less person your being able to con

Have a good day

Oh damned yeah... If arguments are bad it's a good time to get a little irrational.

The fact that you're not capable handeling this thing in a objective maner disqualifies you from any discussion.

I'm not afraid of someone calling me $%&@ and I'm not affraid of someone reading your post.

Since I'm here for fun, I wouldn't like to make a deal with someone reacting to this.

Edited January 11, 2010 by IronicMaster

[Lukcia]

Actually, a con is when you take money from them by faking a service or deed or product which never materializes, after they pay you.

So he's not conning, he's selling.

And I can understand why Buyers may wish for a 3/100 deal, but it's the fact that most buyers on this thread seem to be very arrogant and rather rude, such as Hiro, that makes me want to sell for 3/50.

That and the fact that I need the extra profit as right now it is not enough for me to be comfortable in expansion.

[Hiro Nakara]

Whats arrogant about not being bent over and spanked by some greedy person? Rude, yes maybe, but I'm genrally rude to most, so you don't offend me in the slightest by calling me that. I call a spade a spade some get easily offended by that, most don't.

"That and the fact that I need the extra profit as right now it is not enough for me to be comfortable in expansion. " Greed then.

"The fact that you're not capable handeling this thing in a objective maner disqualifies you from any discussion." Ohhh now so because my opinion differs to yours and I call it as i see it, I'm now disqualified. You can enforce that yes? I mean, I must not type because you recon I'm disqualified from this topic.

"And I can understand why Buyers may wish for a 3/100 deal, but it's the fact that most buyers on this thread seem to be very arrogant and rather rude, such as Hiro, that makes me want to sell for 3/50." that very comment makes you as bad as myself for assumption.

A con can be selling a worthless piece of fake gold for $3000 when its worth $10 that is a con is it not? less time searching urban dictionary and more time actually thinking about what you just typed please!

"I wish to grew my nation to Rank 00001 ASAP because I don't play a game to help the other players having more fun." made me laugh out loud. thanks. in fact that whole post made me laugh out loud.

Keep on selling for 3/50 thats your perogative, it matters not to me, I find no troubles in getting tech for 3/100.

Going by your rates by the time your 6k plus infra, tech will cost you 6 mill per 50. Deal well worth it, aye.

A fair deal is when both parties come out of the deal feeling they both got what they wanted. If some mug is okay with paying 3 mill for 50 then cool, I'm happy for them to waste there money.

Have a nice day, oops I forgot, I can't say that I'm rude.

[Lukcia]

How is it greed if someone offers to buy at 3/50? That isn't my fault. And yes, selling a £10 piece of gold for £10,000 could be called a con. Selling that £10 piece for £20 would no, especially if the buyer knows it usually sells for £20.

I understand fully why buyers much prefer a 3/100, but it feels like you can't see why sellers want a 3/50 deal, and insult anyone who takes part in one. What is to say you're not greedy for having 3/100 deals?

[IronicMaster]

"The fact that you're not capable handeling this thing in a objective maner disqualifies you from any discussion." Ohhh now so because my opinion differs to yours and I call it as i see it, I'm now disqualified. You can enforce that yes? I mean, I must not type because you recon I'm disqualified from this topic.

You comment it without reading it right?

1. Not your opinion is the point but your style. In a discussion you usually try to offend ARGUMENTS not PERSONS.

2. You're not disqualified from Topic but from OBJECTIVE Dicussion. It's not me who enforces that, It was you who did.

3. All what you are talking about are Persons... You You You... Greedy Greedy Greedy ... personal offense personal offense personal offense.

That wer how much? 2,000 Letters wihout a SINGLE objective argument? That is no discussion, not about your opinion. You just rampage.

[Bordiga]

It is a fallacy to state that increasing payments to tech sellers will only further diminish the number of tech sellers, by virtue of more nations passing into the ranks of the tech buyers. As others have pointed out, increasing the compensation for selling tech is actually more likely to draw in more sellers as well as provide an incentive to sell tech for longer. Not to mention, the idea that it is a good idea to limit the spending power of the poorest and newest denizens of Bob simply because you want those nations to remain in a state of perpetual dependency upon you is a disgusting notion. Those who have expressed such an opinion will never receive a scrap of technology from me.

[Lukcia]

It is a fallacy to state that increasing payments to tech sellers will only further diminish the number of tech sellers, by virtue of more nations passing into the ranks of the tech buyers. As others have pointed out, increasing the compensation for selling tech is actually more likely to draw in more sellers as well as provide an incentive to sell tech for longer. Not to mention, the idea that it is a good idea to limit the spending power of the poorest and newest denizens of Bob simply because you want those nations to remain in a state of perpetual dependency upon you is a disgusting notion. Those who have expressed such an opinion will never receive a scrap of technology from me.

Now that is greed, wishing others not to grow so you may. Good points Bordiga. If you do hold back new nations with them not gaining as much money because you want them to stay small, then they'll be more likely to quit anyway due to being bored. People are like that.

[Sande]

The real economics don't quite work in CN. But the general idea of recession is the same. Do bad economical decisions and your economy will collapse.

But the idea is the same. Continuing to let small nations do 3 mil for 50 tech deals makes the buyer-seller balance too big, therefore the tech price starts to go up faster. Tell me this isn't inflation... The amount of buyers increases whereas the amount of sellers decreases. Not many new sellers come to play the game.

To keep the buyer-seller balance more stable, we should use the old price. Obviously we can't decrease the price below 3 mil for 100 tech anymore. People are too used to 100 tech for 3 mil.

Supply and demand don't work in this game. If the price goes up, it means that we will lose sellers faster. And this will actually increase the tech price even more. We must have economical balance. 3 mil for 100 tech is not the balance. It is way off balance. Small nations still grow too fast and the amount of buyers increases faster than the amount of sellers (new nations created). And we can't use 3 mil for 150 tech price anymore. At least not yet.

Face it - the more money we pay for tech, the less sellers we actually have in the future.

About the average NS... Lots of nations are created by bots or people who only create the nation, play max 5 days and then let the nation die ouyt of inactivity. These nations decrease the average NS a lot. They don't ever do tech deals.

[Sande]

Now that is greed, wishing others not to grow so you may. Good points Bordiga. If you do hold back new nations with them not gaining as much money because you want them to stay small, then they'll be more likely to quit anyway due to being bored. People are like that.

So you're implying that we should do 6 mil for 50 tech deals? Because 3 mil for 100 tech is clearly holding back the new nations from growing?

You get to keep half the money from a 3 mil for 100 tech deal. What is the problem with that price?

If you want to grow faster, there's growth programs in most alliances that help you do that.

200 tech for 3 mil is the only price mentioned in this topic that makes the seller LOSE money. All other prices make you gain.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sande

[IronicMaster]

So you're implying that we should do 6 mil for 50 tech deals? Because 3 mil for 100 tech is clearly holding back the new nations from growing?

You get to keep half the money from a 3 mil for 100 tech deal. What is the problem with that price?

If you want to grow faster, there's growth programs in most alliances that help you do that.

The problem is That the Ratio Buyer Advantage/Seller Advantage heavily preferes th BUYER.

This is somehow like plantages in Africa giving the worker as LESS Money as possible to prevent them from getting themselves or theire children educated and so create a everlasting caste of plantage-workers.

I strongly suppose that they would held simmilar discussions if they ever had passed primary school or equivalent.

[Lukcia]

So you're implying that we should do 6 mil for 50 tech deals? Because 3 mil for 100 tech is clearly holding back the new nations from growing?

You get to keep half the money from a 3 mil for 100 tech deal. What is the problem with that price?

If you want to grow faster, there's growth programs in most alliances that help you do that.

200 tech for 3 mil is the only price mentioned in this topic that makes the seller LOSE money. All other prices make you gain.

I think I have been too offensive.

I didn't suggest a 6/50 deal. I'm simply saying that maybe a 3/50 deal would be a good idea for sellers as they can expand quicker. Ad you mentioned frowth programs there, surely that reduces the amount of sellers even quicker, no?

[Bordiga]

The real economics don't quite work in CN. But the general idea of recession is the same. Do bad economical decisions and your economy will collapse.

But the idea is the same. Continuing to let small nations do 3 mil for 50 tech deals makes the buyer-seller balance too big, therefore the tech price starts to go up faster. Tell me this isn't inflation... The amount of buyers increases whereas the amount of sellers decreases. Not many new sellers come to play the game.

To keep the buyer-seller balance more stable, we should use the old price. Obviously we can't decrease the price below 3 mil for 100 tech anymore. People are too used to 100 tech for 3 mil.

Supply and demand don't work in this game. If the price goes up, it means that we will lose sellers faster. And this will actually increase the tech price even more. We must have economical balance. 3 mil for 100 tech is not the balance. It is way off balance. Small nations still grow too fast and the amount of buyers increases faster than the amount of sellers (new nations created). And we can't use 3 mil for 150 tech price anymore. At least not yet.

Face it - the more money we pay for tech, the less sellers we actually have in the future.

About the average NS... Lots of nations are created by bots or people who only create the nation, play max 5 days and then let the nation die ouyt of inactivity. These nations decrease the average NS a lot. They don't ever do tech deals.

This is surely a joke. 3 million for 100 technology is "unbalanced"? It means that nations grow too fast? One person previously expressed the fact that 50 technology would cost him 63 million dollars to purchase himself. The current level is an absolute bargain for tech buyers and we are far, far from experiencing any kind of "crisis of confidence" in the profitability of the tech market.

Most of what you say is complete garbage. Do you not think it slightly contradictory to say that "supply and demand" doesn't work, and then in the next sentence explain that if sellers (supply) decreases, then price (demand) will go up?

As I and others have already explained, increasing compensation for tech dealing will actually increase the desirability of selling tech, not decrease the number of sellers.

[DavidRossJones]

we have constant tech farms that can just aid our nations up

I do not play this game to be a tech farm to anybody.

I won't be posting in this thread anymore, because it's pretty pointless. Buyers here seem to think that as long as sellers make a profit, we should be entirely happy with that and that we shouldn't try to make more profit. Well, this f****** ridiculous. This game doesn't exist just for YOU buyers! You make ridiculous savings when you buy tech, so stop being so greedy.

It's not a problem for sellers, anyway. Plenty of buyers are happy to pay 3mil for 50t, so why would I sell for less?

Edited January 11, 2010 by DavidRossJones

[Bordiga]

The problem is That the Ratio Buyer Advantage/Seller Advantage heavily preferes th BUYER.

This is somehow like plantages in Africa giving the worker as LESS Money as possible to prevent them from getting themselves or theire children educated and so create a everlasting caste of plantage-workers.

I strongly suppose that they would held simmilar discussions if they ever had passed primary school or equivalent.

I think you're right. This is very similar to the way powerful countries keep poorer countries in a state of dependence upon them in order to both benefit themselves through direct exploitation as well as by preventing the subject nation from progressing to being a rival to the powerful nation.

This argument is also similar to that other Reverend Thomas Malthus, who purported to show that an increase in the wages of the working class would only lead to an increase in their population and the impoverishment of the labouring masses through overpopulation. In this case the argument seems reversed, though in both cases, the argument is completely unscientific rubbish that is nothing more than an ideological prop for the material interests of the rich.

[Hiro Nakara]

I am a new seller and I cannot see the fuss.

1) As someone stated, tech deals can be almost 20 times cheaper than buying the tech yourself in a 3/50 deal, so if you don't like it feel free to pay more.

2) Many people have mentioned the 3/150 deals. If I did that then my profits every 30 days would be about £500,000. It would hardly be worth my time.

3) At the moment I sell at 3/100. This makes me about £1,750,000 a month. If you calculate the profit I make a month from Tax less Bills times 30, I make £116k a day, so £3.5 million a month. Therefore, 4 tech deals which require a fair amount of work finding buyers and then buying all the tech and being on time only makes me about 50% of the money I get from my taxes, which while it does help me a fair amount getting money in for improving the nation, getting a 3/50 deal would make me About £2.1 million every 20 days, so in 60 days with 4 deals I would make £25 million compared to £7 million from taxes. That is 350% increase on my income, and that would seriously help me out, while only costing huge nations a tiny part of their income, and I'm sure you can collect the extra £1.5 million needed in less than the 20 days it takes to get tech.

So yet again others should loose out on 50 tech for the 3 mill just simply because they can afford it, althought you seem to forget that people have invested lots of time and some cases real life money to get that large and have done things the proper way to get there, but thats okay you want to grow faster and we are here, so you can? so hence the 3/50.

That's not politics that's business.

If there are buyers giving 3M/50, sellers would be stupid to sell 3M/100.

The equation is as simple as it is easy. Cry for the old times as long as you want to. If you insist on your 3M/100 deals and find your slots to be open all the time, truth is revealed.

I don't have any reasons to slow my economy down, do you?

If a buyer has a 3/50 tech deal they get 150 tech every 60 days. In a 3/100 deal they would get 200 tech in the same time. Not a huge different, and I worked out that a seller makes 3 times as much profit on a 3/50, so it's better for the sellers and not a huge problem for buyers.

And, sellers are running out so supply and demand works here.

Again because we can afford it that makes it okay even though you clearly get the better deal.

Do you really think, Sellers should feel sorry for guy collecting 100 or more times as much money as them?

Do you really think, it should care them if your slots are inefficient?

Do you really think, it should care them how your nations behave in war?

It doesn't.

This is not about you, not about them. Not about the older or the younger nations.

It is just business. No aid, no supply. Just trading.

If there's someone paying 3m/50 he will get the deal. If buyer doesn't want to pay the market prices they will get less deals and eventually kill their own progress.

buy or die

Really is there anymore i need to say about you? your floppy at the best. and greedy and larger nations are purley here for your growth convienence, again back to my comment i never have troubles getting 3/100 deals, it takes a whopping 5 mins to pm my alliance friends and bingo im hooked up with deals. What you rely on is lazy people

Yes... 3m/100 would be a good deal for both of them.

3m/50 is it too.

In fact 6m/50 would be.

There are much buyers out there buying 3m/50 it take me 3 hours to find the last deal as a seller.

Price has allready changed.

Again relating to my floppy comment, one part you so vigerously defend 3/50 deals then in another post you say yes 3/100 would be a good deal for both of them. so what is it? is 3/50 bad or is 3/100 bad ? you seem to argue both points ?

It is not my wish to be a tech-farm. It's not my wish to be a constant seller.

I play a game. I compete with every other person in this game except the person who join me for some matter be as alliance friends, be as Trading-Partners.

I wish to grew my nation to Rank 00001 ASAP because I don't play a game to help the other players having more fun.

That's why I go for good prices when I'm selling and will go for good prices when I'm buying which will be not far away.

When this starts I hope for 3m/150 Sellers as you do, but if I don't get them, it would be no problem for me to pay a normal market price. Not just that it grants me a good efficience for my slots, it also grants me to come in touch with people that are willing to play a game as a game has to be played, which grants me a lot more fun with this guys in the future.

What a challenge would a guy be, dedicating his nation to be a tech farm? None.

Again back to this gem, your greedy, take that as a slant if you wish. Im 8.5k infra at 500 odd days old, i didnt have any problems with my growth to get there either, especially from doing 3/100 deals. so in otherwords you just want more money from a deal that is already fair which is greed.

I'd be happy to pay 2 mill for 50 thats fair and 3 for 100 thats also fair, 3/150 is not fair on the seller 3/100 is fair for the seller. 3/50 is blatant greed on the behalf of the seller.

I generaly, if i have a long term standing tech trader, I will give them bonus payments for on time tech bonus payments for 3x deals completed on time bonus payments for selling to me consitently, so to blacken me as I'm out for my own growth is silly, check my aid slots 2 tech deals and 3 given as aid to help others/ trades/growth. I don't mind helping others, I have buddy boosted lots of people. But I disslike greedy people who try to justify there greed. like you do.

Actually, a con is when you take money from them by faking a service or deed or product which never materializes, after they pay you.

So he's not conning, he's selling.

And I can understand why Buyers may wish for a 3/100 deal, but it's the fact that most buyers on this thread seem to be very arrogant and rather rude, such as Hiro, that makes me want to sell for 3/50.

That and the fact that I need the extra profit as right now it is not enough for me to be comfortable in expansion.

Revert back to a previous post about others starting off where you are now. and getting large fast very quickly via the 3/100, if your finding your growth a problem then you may want to audit your nation. infra jump and back collect labour camp swap and ask advice or seek a growth programme within your alliance. But thats us terrible tech buyers keeping you down the shame of us.

Now that is greed, wishing others not to grow so you may. Good points Bordiga. If you do hold back new nations with them not gaining as much money because you want them to stay small, then they'll be more likely to quit anyway due to being bored. People are like that.

I dont think anyone has even hinted at making anyone a perpetual tech farm. ? where your getting this idea from is well lost on me? I have no problem in anyone growing or selling tech or not, i just dislike greedy people trying to wrap it up in something other than what it is GREED.

Have a nice day

I Await your next bout of floppyness.

[Einer]

Little tip tech sellers.

Resession, inflation happen in real life Not in cybernations.

Heh...and one more little tip that's useful for everybody: Market forces operate anywhere that you have people exchanging goods and services, and while you might not be interested in the market, it is most certainly interested in you...

[Hiro Nakara]

Did you nation get its annual 2.5% pay increase this year for its citizens?

[Bordiga]

Hiro Nakara, since apparently you do not deign to address me, let me point out something quite bluntly. A nation with 2000 tech, a rather common amount to possess, would easily be able to afford, and easily be profitable, for them to purchase 50 tech for 3 million. A nation that purchases 100 tech for around 1.2 million, and sells it for 3 million, makes a profit of 1.8 million, or 150% their investment. A nation with only 500 tech, whose tech purchase costs would usually cost 5 million for 50 tech, purchase 100 tech for 3 million. The buyer purchases 10 million worth of tech for only 3 million, a profit of 7 million, or 233% on their investment. If they are forced to purchase 5 million worth of tech for 3 million, their profit margin is reduced to a measly 66%! If someone with such a small amount of technology can still profitably purchase technology for 3 million/50, then it is a completely false argument to accuse tech sellers of being greedy for desiring it to be the case.

[IronicMaster]

So yet again others should loose out on 50 tech for the 3 mill just simply because they can afford it, althought you seem to forget that people have invested lots of time and some cases real life money to get that large and have done things the proper way to get there, but thats okay you want to grow faster and we are here, so you can? so hence the 3/50.

Again because we can afford it that makes it okay even though you clearly get the better deal.

Really is there anymore i need to say about you? your floppy at the best. and greedy and larger nations are purley here for your growth convienence, again back to my comment i never have troubles getting 3/100 deals, it takes a whopping 5 mins to pm my alliance friends and bingo im hooked up with deals. What you rely on is lazy people

Again relating to my floppy comment, one part you so vigerously defend 3/50 deals then in another post you say yes 3/100 would be a good deal for both of them. so what is it? is 3/50 bad or is 3/100 bad ? you seem to argue both points ?

Again back to this gem, your greedy, take that as a slant if you wish. Im 8.5k infra at 500 odd days old, i didnt have any problems with my growth to get there either, especially from doing 3/100 deals. so in otherwords you just want more money from a deal that is already fair which is greed.

I'd be happy to pay 2 mill for 50 thats fair and 3 for 100 thats also fair, 3/150 is not fair on the seller 3/100 is fair for the seller. 3/50 is blatant greed on the behalf of the seller.

I generaly, if i have a long term standing tech trader, I will give them bonus payments for on time tech bonus payments for 3x deals completed on time bonus payments for selling to me consitently, so to blacken me as I'm out for my own growth is silly, check my aid slots 2 tech deals and 3 given as aid to help others/ trades/growth. I don't mind helping others, I have buddy boosted lots of people. But I disslike greedy people who try to justify there greed. like you do.

Revert back to a previous post about others starting off where you are now. and getting large fast very quickly via the 3/100, if your finding your growth a problem then you may want to audit your nation. infra jump and back collect labour camp swap and ask advice or seek a growth programme within your alliance. But thats us terrible tech buyers keeping you down the shame of us.

I dont think anyone has even hinted at making anyone a perpetual tech farm. ? where your getting this idea from is well lost on me? I have no problem in anyone growing or selling tech or not, i just dislike greedy people trying to wrap it up in something other than what it is GREED.

Have a nice day

I Await your next bout of floppyness.

1. I'm not getting the better deal. If you had to pay 17m for example to get the 50 tech from the game and pay 3, your revenue is 14M mine is 2,25M. Your deal is 5 times better than mine.

2. If I would restrict myself to your ratio of growth because of the time you spent and because it looks fair in you eyes, I would NEVER reach you. If everyone followed this Argument, Ranking would stay still from the very beginnig till the end. What kind of game would that be, did you want to play it?

3. Depending on the possition one could consider me greedy or you. That's not an argument.

4. I don't have a problem with beeing greedy, cause it's not the real world but a game we're in. I play a nation and act to the bennefit of my nation and or my alliance. What should be false with that?

5. I don't blame anyone for doing his/her techdeals as he/she likes. I offend the political position that the normal form of this deals should be written into stone and to be created as universal rule. You should let it to the specific trading-partners to create theire deals as they wish. It simply is not up to you.

6. Good that you calmed down... this last post was almost objective.

[Lukcia]

And I'm sure that buyers never act out of greed, which is why people pay £3 million rather than £63 million. Because they aren't greedy.

To be honest, it's only natural for sellers to want the best price. Do you walk into every shop and complain that the prices are only that high because they are greedy? No, you accept that they want to maximise profit, unless you are an absolute idiot and presume they are greedy and want to rule the world or some crap.

It's just normal to want the most profit and therefore some bartering and price changes will happen. I am open to this but you seem to just insult anyone who suggests it and not make any legit arguments.

[Hiro Nakara]

So selling half the tech for the same amount is sound buisness in your eyes. and to most buisnessmen it would too, but this is a game people see deals for what they are. where does 6 million plus 18 days inactive jumps get you when your 100 infra ? a pretty good size within 30 days

So jumping from 100-1999 infra in 30 days is not good growth? this has cost you nothing but you gain everything from the full 5 slots.

What do I gain from 5 slots of 50 tech compared to the 5 x 100 slots i use. more growth.

The equilibrium of seller/buyer is balanced at 3/100 both grow, both benefit, where as your seeing lots more benefit by 3/50 than i am by paying for 3/50. i can see how 6 million for 100 tech is apealing to someone who is oppertunistic. deign enough for you?

[Sande]

The argument about large nations not buying their own tech is just stupid. No-one buys tech above 200 tech. That's almost a rule now. The fact that you have the option doesn't mean anything, really.

So, from 3/100 you get roughly 50% profit. From 3/50 you get 70%. I'd say that's a really big number. And it's outrageous that small nations ask 3/4 of the money for themselves.

Also, no-one seems to care about their alliance's average tech levels. If they are lower than the other alliance's average tech, you most probably will die in the war against that alliance.

Your nation's growth isn't worth anything if the alliance doesn't get it's tech.

Large nations are NOT trying to hold you back from growing. If we wanted you to stay poor we would ask for 200 tech for 3 mil tech deals.

Gaining 50% profit for a tech deal seems like a fair price. I did that 900 days ago and I grew pretty fast. Not because I did tech deals but because I did the right purchases at the right time. I think I did a total of 5-8 tech deals when I was small. 3 mil for 100 tech. I never got any free aid from other nations except 3 mil in the war against GOONS.

Also, it seems reasonable to keep the price at 3 mil for 100 tech for your own sake too. You do not want to sell at 3 mil for 50 tech and end up buying 6 mil for 50 tech.

[Hiro Nakara]

1. I'm not getting the better deal. If you had to pay 17m for example to get the 50 tech from the game and pay 3, your revenue is 14M mine is 2,25M. Your deal is 5 times better than mine.

2. If I would restrict myself to your ratio of growth because of the time you spent and because it looks fair in you eyes, I would NEVER reach you. If everyone followed this Argument, Ranking would stay still from the very beginnig till the end. What kind of game would that be, did you want to play it?

3. Depending on the possition one could consider me greedy or you. That's not an argument.

4. I don't have a problem with beeing greedy, cause it's not the real world but a game we're in. I play a nation and act to the bennefit of my nation and or my alliance. What should be false with that?

5. I don't blame anyone for doing his/her techdeals as he/she likes. I offend the political position that the normal form of this deals should be written into stone and to be created as universal rule. You should let it to the specific trading-partners to create theire deals as they wish. It simply is not up to you.

6. Good that you calmed down... this last post was almost objective.

1.) i have already stated i wouldn't allow myself to be mugged with a 3/50

2.) Wars never happen in cn and positions never change, did you honestly just state that? i hope not because that sir is factualy incorrect. I'm larger than some people twice my age ? why is this ?

3.) I'm glad we can agree on that one.

4.) I'm also glad you agree you have no problems in being greedy.

5.) I'm not asking for it to be written in stone blood skin whatever floats your boat. nor have I stated such. I just like a fair deal. and i reward people who act fairly with me. Problem with that?

6.) Again im sorry to burst your bubble. but you couldn't get me angry you are just pixels.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Hiro Nakara

[Hiro Nakara]

The argument about large nations not buying their own tech is just stupid. No-one buys tech above 200 tech. That's almost a rule now. The fact that you have the option doesn't mean anything, really.

So, from 3/100 you get roughly 50% profit. From 3/50 you get 70%. I'd say that's a really big number. And it's outrageous that small nations ask 3/4 of the money for themselves.

Also, no-one seems to care about their alliance's average tech levels. If they are lower than the other alliance's average tech, you most probably will die in the war against that alliance.

Your nation's growth isn't worth anything if the alliance doesn't get it's tech.

Large nations are NOT trying to hold you back from growing. If we wanted you to stay poor we would ask for 200 tech for 3 mil tech deals.

Gaining 50% profit for a tech deal seems like a fair price. I did that 900 days ago and I grew pretty fast. Not because I did tech deals but because I did the right purchases at the right time. I think I did a total of 5-8 tech deals when I was small. 3 mil for 100 tech. I never got any free aid from other nations except 3 mil in the war against GOONS.

Also, it seems reasonable to keep the price at 3 mil for 100 tech for your own sake too. You do not want to sell at 3 mil for 50 tech and end up buying 6 mil for 50 tech.

He shoots and he scores pretty much sums it up really doesn't it.

[Sande]

Let's say a nation is at 100 infra with 3BR trade set (construction) and has 5 factories (A nation with 100 infra usually doesn't get 5 factories but it makes the infra price cheaper).

5x 3 mil for 100 tech benefits him with 1.4x5=7 mil.

For this amount of money, the nation can buy 1149 infra. A total of 1249 infra. The nation will collect about the same amount of money from the end of it's inactivity cycle.

5x 3 mil for 50 tech benefits him with 2.1x5=10.5 mil

For this amount of money, the nation can buy 1390 infra. A total of 1490 infra. The nation will collect about the same amount of money from the end of it's inactivity cycle.

200 infra. It's only 17% more. And the gap decreases drastically after that.

Is it really OK that buyers get 50% less so YOU could get 20% more?

Think of that for a moment.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sande