Daedalus27

Diskord, myself and maybe some others are offering to allow you to correct your mistake if you feel tech is near worthless. We are offering to buy 50 for 1 million (which is the rate that tech was being sold before this change). We are allowing you to not suffer from the damage you think this update causes. We are making it fair by removing the cost associated with the change and giving you your money back for the tech in question. This isn't because we feel your interpretation is right and ours is wrong but rather that we feel strongly that this change hasn't done anything to CN. We believe in this change and are willing to put our cash on the line. If you want to set up the deal then PM us and we can set something up. If not, then I think that goes to show the point of individuals in this thread who are suggesting that the change to tech amounts to little if any real effect.

I will second that offer, diskord. I'll pay 3 million for 150 tech if you want. Send me a PM and we can work out the timing. This is to help the rebuilding of those tech heavy nations who want to buy infrastructure. Nothing at all has changed in my mind. The rankings moved everyone down a bit but it was for everyone so the overall impact was minimal. Few if anyone lost anything tangible (such as the ability to buy nukes). Those that have been affected may not be so in the future when people log in and their nation strength is adjusted.

Well I am 928 years old, Have a PhD in every subject, and secretly (well not any more) run the world for the Illuminati. Can we get back to the discussion at hand regarding the changes before the thread gets derailed and locked.

Tech was not destroyed. You still possess all the tech you puchased. If you don't like its effects under the new system, then sell it. There is a market mechanism that people have been using to move tech around so become a seller instead of a buyer. Tech still does all the things it did before, the only change is to the nation strength. For the tech heavy woe is me crowd, I will give you a firm example from my own nation that has 4800 infra and has been in the mid to upper 2k nation rank catagory. Tech still gives far more bang for the buck. 100 infrastructure costs me roughly 7.5 million. That same amount of cash could buy me 250-350 tech depending on the rate I give (usually favorable to my alliance members to help their growth). This means that while 7.5 million in tech gives me at minimum 1250 strength, 7.5 million in infrastructure only gives me 300 strength . The only thing that has changed is the margin of benefit tech has over infrastructure. Tech is STILL (by quite a large margin) the best method to inflate your nation strength should that be your goal in CN.

Yes. The GRL formula was updated according to the update log:

Tech still has value. If you have excessive tech, then sell it and invest it where you like. The only thing that changed was the formula. The millions invested in the tech didn't disappear, they are merely in a resource that to you has less value than it did. Personally, I don't view the situation as have changing much at all. This is a market correction. 12 million in tech in the artificially lower market due to tech trading was much more important to nation strength than infrastructure because of the costs. You could get 400 tech for the same cost as 100 infrastructure or less simply because you could buy tech on the open market but not infrastructure. This loophole has been reduced but don't overlook that it will still be far easier to increase strength value via tech (and its cheapness) than it will be via land or infrastructure purchases that have high fixed cost. Those who panic over this change I think need to take a step back and really evaluate their present nation. I think some people are making a rash condemnation of the new formulas without looking at the big picture.

Curse me and my poor reading comprehension. Ok so GRL only benefits lead and the corresponding 7/8 bonus build. Everyone else suffers. As far as GRL per color, thats a different story. It might be a nice trade off for the larger spheres. Large number of nations = more trades = more chance of nukes for GRL.

Donations are still valuable. For larger nations, costly infrastructure and land more than make it worth it. People were not getting donation deals for the 25 tech (or if they were, it was rather foolish to do). If players choose to protest by not donating, so be it. However I doubt it will change or that a large number of people will be willing to forgo donation deals that would cost tens of millions of dollars to replicate ingame. I understand the principle adopted and hopefully you feel better by protesting with your pocketbook, but I wouldn't expect it to attract a large amount of support. Laziness has nothing to do with spamming tech deals or not. There are different strategies or obligations that some nations have that precluded the adoption of the tech heavy growth. No one was particularly rewarded by this change, it merely was a change in formulas. Tech still has value, just not quite as much as it used to. It still increases strength, cheapens upkeep costs, increases military effectiveness, and provides happiness bonuses.

As a Lead producing nation I say HAIL GRL. It really doesn't matter much other than slightly improving the 7/8 bonus resource build and border walls. Everyone suffers so no real loss. It might bring back the Think of the Children treaty.

As far as people complaining about long term planning being undone. You benefited from your strategy for 100, 200, 300, etc., days. A strategy doesn't always work for all time. Things change, the game updates and revalues things. New improvements, techniques and formulas are added in. You benefited for a time from what you were doing by hording tech and the corresponding strength benefit. However, that strategy is less effective and now you must come up with a new method to achieve whatever goal you have. Instead of complaining, think of it as a challenge as we have always had to overcome when items were added or modified in the game. If there was a magic formula that you could always do forever, wouldn't the game get rather boring? Where is the challenge in doing the same thing every day?

Guys, TECH STILL INCREASE STRENGTH. Instead of 20 though, it only increases 5. The values given have been reduced but it still matters to some extent. Tech trading will still exist although the market has taken a dive and perhaps players won't be as eager to engage in the trade. 50 tech still gives 250 strength which is useful. Every nation has been affected by this change. No one was singled out. I don't see why everyone is complaining. If you don't like tech now, sell it, and invest that money in infrastructure. There will still be buyers for tech.

Ways to get in Anarchy: 1. Deploy too many troops 2. Lose too many troops in an attack by another 3. Be attacked by a nuclear weapon. Ways to get out of Anarchy: Buy troops sufficient to restore order and wait until you are able to change governments (if it is nuclear anarchy, radiation cleanup can speed up the process by 1 day)

On the whole cost based on attacker or defender, I would suggest it is based on the attacker. The attacker will be equiping and sending the spies so the cost is based on the resources they can provide (so it would be based on their strength). The defender nation is taken into account in the defensive formula with their factors of tech and land taken into account in the formula. If we want to use a OOC example, the cost associated with the US spying, lets say, Nepal are similiar to the cost associated with spying on Venezuela. It is based on the resources the spying nation is providing, and fixed expedatures in terms of advanced structures and training the sending nation can provide, and would not very much depending on the spy victim. If you want to a modifier based on defender so that more advanced countries are more costly to attack, we could try that but it works both ways and makes it less costly for an advanced nation to attack a less advanced nation. Given they already have advantages in terms of resources and success rates, do we want to make it cheaper for them to do so. Just trying something maybe we could use this: (Defender tech x infrastructure) / (Attacker tech x infrastructure) to modify the existing costs (cost of action + modifier x nation strength) So for instance a nation 25k strength with 3999.99 infra 400 tech attacking a 30k nation with 4999.99 infrastructure and 600 tech would result in the following (4999.99 x 600)= 2999994, (3999.99 x 400) = 1599996, 2999994/1599996 = 1.87. This modifier would be added to the existing costs so that for gather intelligence mission using this formula (Gather Intelligence (See money reserves) = $50,000 + (1 x nation strength) x [(Defender Infra x Defender Tech)/(Attacker Infra x Attacker Tech)]) It would be 50,000 + (1 x 25,000 x 1.87) = $96,750 or a 22% increase in cost over the formula using just fixed cost plus nation strength. However if the advanced nation wanted to conduct a similar mission against its attacker, here is how it would work. Flipping the values results in this calculation 1599996/2999994 = .53 Using the gather intelligence mission again we have 50,000 + [(1 x 30,000) x .53] = $65,900. We are now making it cheaper for advanced contries to conduct operations when they already have so much cash to be able to afford it. Does it really make sense to factor it into the costs of the missions when we already take account the disparity of tech and strength between parties on the success rate?

Whoops, didn't conform my cost idea to the Admin's request (although I still think a straight strength modifier provides the clearest cost acceleration). Existing cost chart Modified formula: Change Desired Government (Randomly chosen) = $75,000 + (1 x nation strength) Change Desired Religion (Randomly chosen) = $75,000 + (1 x nation strength) Change DEFCON Level = $150,000 + (5 x nation strength) Destroy Defending Tanks (Max 50)= $200,000 + (1 x nation strength) Destroy Cruise Missiles (Max 5)= $200,000 + (1 x nation strength) Assinate Enemy Spies (Max 20) = $250,000 + (2 x nation strength) Destroy Money Reserves (Max 1 Million) = $300,000 + (5 x nation strength) Destroy Technology (Max 5) = $350,000 + (2 x nation strength) Steal Technology (Max 3) = $500,000 + (1 x nation strength) Destroy Nuclear Weapons = $500,000 + (15 x nation strength) Destroy Infrastructure = $500,000 + (5 x nation strength) Honestly I think the cost associated with stealing technology is a little high (if it is limited at 3). I included modifiers on all actions although I think the costs and limited utility of most of them means they are already a little high. If you only get 1 mission a day, are you really going to waste it changing a government, or blowing up 50 tanks? The only missions of utility right now are destroying nuclear weapons, changing defcon, destroying money reservers, and maybe destroying infrastructure. Everything else appears too expensive and of limited benefit to be worthwhile.

There is that element already. 4 options (success and hidden, success and identified, failure and hidden, failure and identified) anytime you run a mission.

Present costs as listed in the information thread Taking these as the base I would tweak them based on this simple forumla: Change Desired Government = 10 x nation strength Change Desired Religion = 10 x nation strength Change DEFCON Level = 30 x nation strength Destroy Defending Tanks = 5 x nation strength Destroy Cruise Missiles = 5 x nation strength Assinate Enemy Spies = 5 x nation strength Destroy Money Reserves = 25 x nation strength Destroy Technology = 20 x nation strength Steal Technology = 10 x nation strength Destroy Nuclear Weapons = 40 x nation strength Destroy Infrastructure = 25 x nation strength If this formula was implimented, you would have to make it so missions could only be run on nations you could declare war on (within 50% or 150% of your strength) to avoid having smaller nations used as proxies. I used the multiplier based on the percieved usefulness of the activity with nuke destruction being the most useful item. Its a simplistic formula but I think it provides a sufficient sliding scale for smaller nations as well as expressing a more significant cost for larger nations who have larger resources.

People have mentioned tweaking prices which I tend to agree with. Up the prices for larger nations, reduced prices for smaller. Spies should have upkeep maybe based on numbers with escalating costs, (It takes a lot of money to fund the CIA or KGB). Spies should only be able to target someone within their range of fighting to allow for retaliation if discovered. Also I think we should modify one of the existing improvements we have given the addition of spies. Intelligence agencies should be adjusted to instead of upping tax income, effecting this area. I would suggest either eliminating the tax performance bonus altogether, or adding something. Maybe 5% bonus to spy missions success and 5% bonus to counter-intelligence operations.