dejarue

Argument ends here.

It didn't hurt anyone. Except for those precious few that could buy nukes before and can't now.

It ties up two aid slots. That's worth quite a bit. I'd take tech if it were absolutely free, obviously. But I wouldn't tie up an aid slot and drop 1.5 million on it when it doesn't gain me anything whatsoever other than an increase in the number that determines who can declare war on my ass.

Nope. At 300 tech, you're at the pinnacle of achievement technologically. So I have a huge army of all-out technological badasses. You have a smaller army of all-out badasses with cooler wristwatches. I win.

It was wasted starting when you bought it, not starting today. It netted you no benefit. You were nowhere near the nuke line then, and you're not now. What made you think that a 4:1 infra to tech ratio was well-advised? Especially at 2500 infrastructure?

No it doesn't... I have about 300 tech. I won't go any higher because it has never given any benefit. I have over 97% literacy.

You're high speed. FYI Land Purchased * 1.5 + Tanks Deployed * .75 + Tanks Defending * 1 + Cruise Missiles * 1.5 + Nuclear Purchased * 50 + Technology Purchased * 5 + Infrastructure Purchased * 3 + Actual Military * .10 + (aircraft rating totals * 5) http://www.cybernations.net/about_topics.asp#Nation_Strength

My pleasure.

3

Then that sounds like your own deficiency in your comprehension. So I guess I'm relegated to saying "what he said". you'd be at a higher level because you had more infrastructure. You'd be at a higher level either way with more infrastructure, because it legitimately adds substance to your nation. The fact that your arbitrary number of "nation strength" goes up does not mean you're at a "higher level".

It hasn't worked ok. Strength was unrealistically inflated because tech was horribly overrepresented in strength numbers. Now the nations are actually rated in a more accurate formula. No, you haven't lost millions. Your bills are lower. Say thanks. He didn't attack your "right" to disagree. He correctly attacked the accuracy of your disagreement.

I thought about making a very similar post, but figured it didn't matter.

Ah you see, it was imaginary. It was entirely imaginary. It didn't actually do anything. It made your arbitrary result of a formula come out a little higher to no further end. Now you're just pissed because it's recognized officially for being what it always was. I'm almost tempted to ask how old you are, but don't care because those pompous 18 year olds are schooling everyone in the argument.

Actually he has a right to say damn near anything he pleases.

Shouldn't have invested in imaginary numbers. Stop your whining.

I'll be damned. I agree with Doitzel. I feel confused and light-headed. Uh yeah... that's wrong. You'd spend a ridiculously larger amount of money gaining strength from infrastructure than if you did it from tech. A 10k strength boost from infrastructure requires in excess of 3 thousand infrastructure. Vs 500 tech. Getting the same strength from infrastructure (which is real strength as opposed to imaginary irrelevant strength) costs about twice as much.

Why is this happening?