Has Standard Price Increased?

[IronicMaster]

Buyers will come to you.. sellers don't. I'd say buying tech is harder.

That's the reason why the price raises... If it gets harder for sellers to find customers it will fall

[Aggressive Ignoramus]

I know I'm relatively new to this game and all, however from what I have learnt so far, two things remain true about CN:
1) NS doesn't reflect intellect, as demonstrated by pretentious commentaries from elitist senior players.
2) Business in CN is somewhat reflective of a free market; supply and demand, with some limitations from game mechanics.

Considering the latter point, I find it irrelevant that large nations should spout arguments such as "Oh noes this new pricing will cost me moar aidz slot! You shouldn't do dat! Plus, plus, you're all greedy and stuff, cos back in my day..."
I don't care. It's just business to me. If it sells at 3m/50t then great. If it sells at 3m/100t fine. I'll take what I can get, just as I suspect you will do the same. And in this understanding a standard pricing will become apparent, this is the way a free market works.

As for the argument that increasing the price of tech will faster resign sellers, and further increase tech demand, therefore tech dealers should dismiss the natural law of free market and not increase their prices - I laugh at this proposition. Seriously, why is it that tech sellers should be the sole party responsible for averting a possible future trade dilemma? If anything, I could argue it's the buyers responsibility, considering their generations have amassed such demand that resultantly tech prices are increasing. How pretentious that they should play politician with rhetoric and attempt to handball the issue to new players.
If you actually want to get serious about a solution, how about making a suggestion that requires some sacrifice from [b]both[/b] parties instead of spouting nonsense which merely amounts to "Oh itz all upta tha sellers, if they don't do tha right thing, then we all gonna be messed up laterz - I just hope they don't screw us all up!"

I signed up for tech dealing to earn some money for my nation, not to help macro manage an economy. Stop pretending sellers are solely obligated to make exceptions in their business practices to save [b]all of us[/b] from a theoretical future dilemma.

Can you get anymore pretentious than this?

[Baldr]

[quote name='Aggressive Ignoramus' date='01 February 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1265004916' post='2149952']
I know I'm relatively new to this game and all, however from what I have learnt so far, two things remain true about CN:
1) NS doesn't reflect intellect, as demonstrated by pretentious commentaries from elitist senior players.
2) Business in CN is somewhat reflective of a free market; supply and demand, with some limitations from game mechanics.
[/quote]

I agree with almost everything you said. Heck, I won't be surprised if we don't at some point see people pay $6M for 50 instead of $3M. If there are enough buyers wanting tech, and few enough tech sellers, it will happen.

We won't ever have 0 tech sellers, as there will always be some new nations, and there will always be large nations who have more money than they need willing to pay more to get some tech. Higher prices may let nations grow faster, but they also add incentive to grow larger before switching to buying tech.

The one thing I do disagree with I quoted, about "limitations from game mechanics". Those aren't exactly an "in game" thing only. If you're selling real-world widgets made in china, you have to take shipping into effect. You can only ship so many widgets, and there is a cost involved. You have warehouse issues, shipping issues, etc. Aid slot limitations are an in-game thing, but there are limitations in the real world, too.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I love the entitlement attitude that sellers should screw themselves over to fund the tech collection of whiny buyers. There is no benefit for sellers to voluntarily take a hit and do 3/100 deals - that slows their grows when they could be making way more. Unless they want to remain as sellers forever, they probably want to become a big nation, both because that's allegedly what this game is about at its core, and because being a big nation is a bigger contribution to your alliance than being a small one. As many people have pointed out, the 3/50 deal is still very good comparatively (though when switching from seller to buyer a nation should probably buy tech from the game for just a bit before immediately buying from dealers) - so it's not like sellers are screwing themselves over because they can get the same deal they gave others before.

I buy 3/50 simply because it's easier to find sellers at that price and slightly easier to coordinate after the fact. I have and make enough money where even if the seller is a flake and runs away with my 3M it doesn't really matter (though I'll be upset and consider asking reps from their alliance). My alliance doesn't have anyone who is small enough to be selling tech to me so I can't get the coveted 3/100 price some people get.

This all is a wonderful little study of human action though.

Sande - your terrible little attempt at an analogy has a missing part to it - those workers who left their jobs for better paying ones are now producing something else, and if they're being paid more it is likely that what they are producing is [i]more[/i] valuable than cheap toys. In real life, they might be developing software that increases production efficiency. In CN, they are now a bigger nation and on the path towards nukes and wonders so they can help your alliance defend itself, which they couldn't do as tech sellers.

Though there are labor camps, as you implied - if you are [i]forcing[/i] your alliance's sellers to sell to you at 3/100 prices.

[Aggressive Ignoramus]

[quote name='Baldr' date='01 February 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1265034798' post='2150413']
The one thing I do disagree with I quoted, about "limitations from game mechanics". Those aren't exactly an "in game" thing only. If you're selling real-world widgets made in china, you have to take shipping into effect. You can only ship so many widgets, and there is a cost involved. You have warehouse issues, shipping issues, etc. Aid slot limitations are an in-game thing, but there are limitations in the real world, too.
[/quote]

I appreciate the comparison, however you must concede that CN mechanics are much more restrictive than real world circumstances. In CN I cannot simply employ additional shipping services, there is a limitation to my aid slots, no matter how much money I have to afford the service. CN mechanics do not accurately represent real world trade limitations.
But perhaps that's just it, perhaps nations should instead build trade ships to deliver goods to other nations, instead of using some foreign aid service that seems to come from nowhere and at no cost at all. Perhaps the way we aid other nations needs to be reworked altogether. Buy trade ships which also have an upkeep price to pay off during bills, perhaps relevant to the nation's size. Perhaps a fancy formula would determine the cost of the trade ship depending on the nation's size, so as to incline small nations still to be limited in their trading capacity, while larger nations can go more nuts.
I don't know. But I suppose what I'm suggesting is that if so many people think tech dealing is going to become so radically infeasible in the future, then perhaps it's time to try and create a trading system which more accurately reflects real world mechanics.

Time to brainstorm and lobby admin?

Edited February 1, 2010 by Aggressive Ignoramus

[spankthefrank]

i for one have no problem, even as a buyer, to the so called "price increase". though i still believe that the 3mill for 50tech deals should only be used to help boost your alliance.

but hey, if you want to grow fast then sure the 3mill for 50 tech deals are the way to go. But note, by growing faster you will only reach near my NS at a higher speed, which in terms will only give me lots of nice new raiding targets, that wouldn't know how to protect themselves. So go ahead, really please do. At this rate i wont have to pay for any of my incoming tech.

anyway what im getting at is, the more expensive tech deals get, the more raiders will be born (this is also an effect of this crippled versions of the free market, that sellers seems to support).

[Sande]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='01 February 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1265038846' post='2150529']
Sande - your terrible little attempt at an analogy has a missing part to it - those workers who left their jobs for better paying ones are now producing something else, and if they're being paid more it is likely that what they are producing is [i]more[/i] valuable than cheap toys. In real life, they might be developing software that increases production efficiency. In CN, they are now a bigger nation and on the path towards nukes and wonders so they can help your alliance defend itself, which they couldn't do as tech sellers.

Though there are labor camps, as you implied - if you are [i]forcing[/i] your alliance's sellers to sell to you at 3/100 prices.
[/quote]

You completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

Using your words:
Those workers who left their jobs for better paying ones are now producing something else [b](lots of infra, low tech)[/b], [s]and if they're being paid more it is likely that what they are producing is [i]more[/i] valuable than cheap toys.[/s] [b](They are not being paid. They are either buying tech or they have below 1000 tech and lots of infra which means they will be slaughtered by the stronger-tech nations in the next war.)[/b] In real life, they might be developing software that increases production efficiency. [b](Let me remind you I was talking about China... You can't just leave your old job to get a better one you probably don't qualify for, yet. And as I said, you need a lot of those nations making small toys and "details for nuclear missiles" so you could fight a war. You don't fight a war with your infra. You fight a war with tech. When do you understand that? Probably when you get into a fight with a nation that has 2, 3, maybe even 10 times the tech than you.)[/b] In CN, they are now a bigger nation and on the path towards nukes and wonders so they can help your alliance defend itself, which they couldn't do as tech sellers. [b](Again wrong - a nation who sells tech to his alliance mates helps step-by-step improve the defensive abilities of the alliance in general. Tech is the key not infra, not the amount of wonders you have.)[/b]


I am not forcing anyone to sell me tech at 3 mil for 100 tech. It is their choice. I was trying to show the importance of tech and tech sellers to an alliance. 3 mil for 100 tech is the price that satisfies both sides.

Forcing would be asking for 3 mil for 150 tech deals. We are not doing that. We have people who do sell at that price but only because they are not active in the game and they are willing to do that for us. It is their own choice.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Aggressive Ignoramus' date='01 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1265045555' post='2150684']
But I suppose what I'm suggesting is that if so many people think tech dealing is going to become so radically infeasible in the future, then perhaps it's time to try and create a trading system which more accurately reflects real world mechanics.
[/quote]

I'm not at all convinced that tech dealing will become radically infeasible.

I'm also pretty convinced that large amounts of tech is drastically overrated.

[quote name='Sande']You don't fight a war with your infra. You fight a war with tech. When do you understand that? Probably when you get into a fight with a nation that has 2, 3, maybe even 10 times the tech than you.[/quote]

Tech helps, but infra is more important. If a nation is in attack range of my NS and has 10 times my tech, then that means he's got a *lot* less infra than I have. 1 infra gains 3 points of NS, and 1 tech gains 5. If he has me drastically outclassed in tech, then it means he's got a lot less infra, else he wouldn't be in my range. More infra means more soldiers - more tech doesn't.

More tech increases the damage you do when you win, but if the guy I'm fighting has a lot more tech, and I have a lot more infra, then I'm probably going to win all the ground battles. His nukes will hurt more than my nukes, but it's by a small amount. His air victories and CM's will do a little more damage than mine, but again, it's a small amount.

I've been the guy that had a whole lot of tech fighting someone who had a whole lot of infra. I'd rather have the infra.

Tech mostly just raises your NS without making you significantly stronger. It's very important to stay over 500 tech, so you can repurchase the best planes, but beyond 1000 or so, for most nations, all it's doing is moving your NS up into range of larger nations.

When you go to war, you also tend to lose infra a lot faster than tech.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Baldr

[Sande]

You can't be serious!

With nukes you lose your infra pretty fast. Tech stays. In the high ranks where nations have 8k+ infra, tech does matter the most.

Any player whose nation has at least 10k tech can say that it is worth it. A nuke that deals 500 infra damage a hit (my 5k tech does only 300) is far superior to the ground attacks and nukes a nation with low tech can do. Did I say that tech also increases ground attack damage? After a nuke you can basically hit any army that returns home. Or if the opponent overdeployed, you can ground attack before and then nuke the guy and send his troops home after raiding his precious tech and land away.

Game mechanics... You have to play longer to know them.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Sande' date='01 February 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1265052236' post='2150868']
You completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make.[/quote]
No, I think your analogy just sucks. I know full well how powerful a tech advantage is in battle, but quantity has a quality all its own.

[quote]I am not forcing anyone to sell me tech at 3 mil for 100 tech. It is their choice. I was trying to show the importance of tech and tech sellers to an alliance. 3 mil for 100 tech is the price that satisfies both sides.[/quote]
Only within an alliance that has both buyers and an abundance of sellers. There is an advantage to a development program in that regard, but outside of a situation like that there aren't enough sellers to support that price - it doesn't satisfy the sellers. That's how they can charge more for tech - because the market will support it.

[Prince Maverick]

To the buyers of this game, you can complain all you want to about the price going up from 3m/100 to 3m/50. You can call sellers greedy all you want too. The point is we have the technology and you want it. My nation will grow with or without your payment for tech, your nation however will not. As it has been mentioned in this thread a large nation without tech is not going to win a war. So you can complain and refuse to buy tech for a higher price, but really it only hurts you because as stated already, there are nations who have no problems paying a smaller nation 3mil for 50 tech because it beats buying it themselves.

[Aggressive Ignoramus]

[quote name='Baldr' date='02 February 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1265054380' post='2150905']
I'm not at all convinced that tech dealing will become radically infeasible.
[/quote]

Although I addressed the theory asserted by some, I haven't played CN long enough to form an accurate opinion about whether or not I think we are headed for some kind of tech dealing crisis.

My bet is the theory is premature; the market will find a comfortable niche.

[Australian Warlord]

It's quite disrespectful to new players when older players are whinging that they have to pay a extra $1.5mill per 50 tech when they're benefiting by over $50mill. Maybe to shut these self centred people up, CN might consider stopping tech deals for nations above x amount of tech, then they'd have to earn it properly.

Btw, the attitude for certain older players only encourages new players to depart.

[baskan1]

Someone in my alliance is actually offering 5.5million per 50 tech!

[Whitney]

[quote name='King Da Ville' date='05 January 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1262720635' post='2087915']
I agree with Count Rupert, it's supply and demand.

It's still a win/win situation for buyer and seller.

The $3mil/50tech also encourages sellers to stay in 'business' longer.
[/quote]

No. 3mil/50t gets them to tech buying faster and we wind up with WAY more buyers than sellers, which continues to lower the price.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Whitney' date='15 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266212312' post='2182334']
No. 3mil/50t gets them to tech buying faster and we wind up with WAY more buyers than sellers, which continues to lower the price.
[/quote]
I think you mean raise, but the whole game is inflating, not just the price of technology. Once upon a time a well-prepared nation with a huge warchest and a full set of nukes meant something (and only a select few saw that as a goal for their nations).

[Australian Warlord]

[quote name='Whitney' date='15 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1266212312' post='2182334']
No. 3mil/50t gets them to tech buying faster and we wind up with WAY more buyers than sellers, which continues to lower the price.
[/quote]

It's the other way around. 3m/50t encourages more sellers whereas 3m/100t encourages more buyers.

Of course that's very shortsighted thinking. Newer player with any amount of brains are going to realise that with nations over 700 days old, getting raw deals ain't going to be of much value. Players that happily accept 3m/100t deals are less likely to understand game mechanics & probably ain't interested in playing for a extended period of time anyway.

Finally (as I've said before), when larger players gain over $50-70 million per 50 tech, it's rather disrespectful to new players to only offer $1.5m (which seller still has expenses : Bringing net for new player to just $700k).

Edited February 15, 2010 by Australian Warlord

[OldSelf]

This pleases me. If tech supply drops, then there will be fewer nations sporting tech gained over a year of exciting slot management. War rep demands will not be for unfeasible amounts of tech, so on, and so forth. And I laugh along with the previous poster at any seller that thinks selling tech up past 4k infra is anything but begging for a beatdown

My opinion would fall somewhere between all of you most likely, for example, I would much sooner sell to someone not in my alliance 3m/50T, and keep 100T/3mil for my alliance/friends (and this topic has made me consider going free Tech out as i phase into the medium of tech deals making me marginal gains but im not yet buying).

Whenever I am short for a wonder etc, I just ask for an advance payment. As a reliable seller it is always granted, and we are all happy. That said, my deals have always been 100T/3mil, and I consider all my partners fondly, or atleast an alliance mate

People making this out as seller greed are being facetious. Its common knowledge slots are the only limitation, and worth more than 3mil to buyers. If you could send 6mil in one slot, 6mil for 50/100/150 Tech would become standard. Really, this is shallow baaawing that tech intake rates are slowed.

Tech at 3M/100T is an absolute bargain, you can start buying tech from a measly 2-3k infra. Whereas, at 3mil/50T, its likely you will not beable to afford buying tech until 4k. I daresay many selling at 50/3 will not easily find sellers at 100/3 when the time comes.

It comes down to who your friends are and how you want to play, as to what kind of tech deal you will do. Long before you reach your war screen, it has already been a game of alliances.

Edited February 15, 2010 by The Iggy

[Fernando12]

I didn't read all the replies, just the OP.

What I do when I buy tech is get sellers to send me 50 tech first and payment second.

$3mil/100 tech is really not a bargain for sellers and IMO not a fair deal considering how much tech costs. I was lucky when I was a seller and found great people to deal fairly with me and I grew my nation with $3mil/50 tech deals early on.

Also, if $3mil/50tech is the new standard I'm hoping it makes it more likely that new players will stay in the game longer seeing as they will see results that much faster.

Now, we as buyers also have some say in this new price. We can have a sellers alliance get them some startup funds that not only include funds for infra, harbor, and foreign ministry but also funds that now include 50 tech so small nations can start dealing by being able to send 50 tech first and receive the $3mil payment second.

I rather know for sure that I am getting 50 tech first from a seller and pay $3mil second rather than hope that this new player stays in the game is active enough to send tech when the slot expires and or isn't using the money to shop like a girl or rogue out or spend it to beef up their military for no reason.

tl;dr - make the new standard 50 tech first, $3mil second and only buy tech from aligned nations and have them get initial tech cost funds from their own alliance.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Fernando12

[Australian Warlord]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='16 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266279756' post='2183701']
$3mil/100 tech is really not a bargain for sellers and IMO not a fair deal considering how much tech costs. I was lucky when I was a seller and found great people to deal fairly with me and I grew my nation with $3mil/50 tech deals early on.

Also, if $3mil/50tech is the new standard I'm hoping it makes it more likely that new players will stay in the game longer seeing as they will see results that much faster.[/quote]
Just thought I'd quote this.

[quote name='Fernando12' date='16 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266279756' post='2183701']I rather know for sure that I am getting 50 tech first from a seller and pay $3mil second rather than hope that this new player stays in the game is active enough to send tech when the slot expires and or isn't using the money to shop like a girl or rogue out or spend it to beef up their military for no reason.
[/quote]
I'm in a 2x2. I believe it helps with trust issues. Re trust, it's actually easier for buyers to bail if they receive their goods first & it's more devastating to new player sellers. That said, in a 1x1 deal you have to trust that a seller will be playing in 10 days time.

What I'd like to see is a record of expired deals (say 2 months : assuming longer would take up too much server space). That way players can say whether another player is trustworthy.

[Sande]

[quote name='Australian Warlord' date='16 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1266281369' post='2183766']
I'm in a 2x2. I believe it helps with trust issues. Re trust, it's actually easier for buyers to bail if they receive their goods first & it's more devastating to new player sellers. That said, in a 1x1 deal you have to trust that a seller will be playing in 10 days time.
[/quote]

Aligned buyers will never bail out. The alliance will definitely take care of the person who bails out. Also, if you have been oplaying this game for a long time, you have a reputation. No-one would like to ruin it. It is easier for new nations to delete or leave the game or reroll under a new name.

Also, I as a former MoF of GR personally paid with my own money if one of our buyers or sellers failed to do a tech deal right. An alliance who cares about their reputation will always fix the problems their members have created.