IronicMaster

Nice future perspectives... Build up your nation in years of work, save money for a big warchest, and be depleted within weeks because of a member of a treatied alliance of a treatied alliance of a treatied alliance doesn't fullfill a tech-deal or so.... The difficulties in destroying tech hold the worth of a elder nation up and prevent War-Victims from leaving the game. You couldn't want to change this for the worse.

Lol another price discussion. This scenario is possible if many used-to-be buyers fall back to seller state, wich will increase the offer and decrease the demand. On the other hand, sellers are much more likely to be hit by wars and so might stay sellers for a longer time or lose their will to play the game. It is possible that price changes back but I strongly doubt it. @Sande First trying to avoid, now trying to deny?

I found another circle. Please take me out the list. Many thanks for the work and sorry.

He had a 2*2 in his Aid-History and didn't send the tech out. That was on the day before you sent your deal in. Why didn't you check this before pumping your money into the guy?

Let's take a point 4. of this agreement on it o/ MFO o/ Ether

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

I don't wish the 3m/50 deal to be the norm. My opinion is that it's ok for BOTH participants, and that this deals should be determined by the persons doing this deals. They ARE determined by the persons doing this deals, whatever the angry or the polite Buyers in this thread might say. I don't wish to persuade the buyers to pay 3/100 or the sellers to take 3/50. But i oppose the position that all deals HAVE TO BE 3/100 and that CN would collapse otherwise. This position is simply pointless. As some people said, CN-Economy is not consistent to real economy so a prediction for CN-Economy can't be made without a sufficient database and so are just speculative. If on the other hand CN-Economy would be consistent to real-world-economy, the increasing price would encourage other sellers and so the price would balance at the actual worth of Tech. And I oppose the position that sellers taking 3/50 are greedy. This position is not objective.

You should mention the fact, that most of the sellers do this deals without ever locking at this thread or your cartel-plans. Being a 3/100 tech farm in such a time especially in outer-world deals would be like donating my enemies theire future-victory.

1. I will keep that inactivity cycles in mind, sounds good. 2. You said you care about economy, but, no offense, the point in economy is, to care about yourself. When I look over my last deals, the hardest deals to get where the Inter-Alliance deal, because of the coordination with specific persons. The out-world-deals through forum did take a few hours to arrange, so the market is VERY open. You don't care about my benefit but I do. I don't see the game as a big cooperation I see it as 25k cooperations all in the same market, some as buyers some as sellers, so it is not the economy one should care about, cause if one does, he/she will feed the sharks. The 2k infra difference will be a very nice advantage if I get into a war with someone, easy to convince that universal goals(of the big nations) should be bigger

You can't do inactivity cycles without saving the money for the bills first. You CAN'T recollect with laborcamps unless your collection is high enough. Perhaps you're just too old to know what it's like to play a young nation. 8 cycles/5 slots = ca. 60 days. You didn't get the calculation did you? its not just the 700k difference buying 100 tech instead of 50. You block an aid slot for a deal that lasts 10 days longer. In the same time you could do 2* 3/100 with a revenue of 2,8M or 3* 3/50 with a revenue of 6,3M with the same slot. (Off-topic: Did you build up your account? or has it been a birthday-present? AND Do you really think that this could be more important than the arguments?)

You can't set the same border for both deals... 3m/100 dealing makes a revenue of 200k per day. That becomes much too low when your Collection-Amount raises.

doing 3m/100 deals makes tech-selling sensefull till I reach a border of about 2k Infra. doing 3m/50 deals makes it sensefull till about 4k Infra. compare how much nations you find under the one or the other border and guess what inbalances the buyer seller ratio. doing 3/100 deals will need about 8 cycles to reach 2k Infra Border. 8* 100 = 800 tech outgoing. reaching 4k with 3m/50 would probably take more then 50 cycles ( 200 days just a guess) 50*50 = 2500 tech sent out( More in the very most cases). I conclude that the 3m/50 deal would grant a better buyer/seller ratio AND more tech.

And Closed.

1 slot open

Logic is, reacting to changed market. That's logical for sellers who react on Buyers willing to pay increased prices. Only a dumbass would proceed selling 3/100 when he could get reliable better deals. Since this is a GAME and the new-born nations don't owe you a thing, it also logical to go out for the best possible deal, not for the one that you decided to be ungreedy enough. I didn't say times are different, pay more. I said that the past can't be argument in business, especially not in negotiating prices.