USMC123 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1326759888' post='2901187'] 50/3vmil internally, 3mil/100 externally. [/quote] This is generally how Tetris does it. The more generous, larger nations will do 3/50 tech deals if they want to (it's completely optional). Being said, throw #tetris on the list because if you aren't in Tetris, you're not getting a 3/50 tech deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokula Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) 6/50 Is a fair and honest ratio. Only the top 1% could be against such a means of wealth distribution and social justice. In the end if the 99% does not get 6mil for every 50 of tech we will eat the rich! Edited January 17, 2012 by Rokula Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhaan Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Too bad the tech issue wasn't corrected years ago when the loop hole was first discovered. In reality, the largest percent of all nations should be paying how many millions for just one unit of tech? Now we have this issue where the big guys want to get more tech in less time in order to keep with the Jones's who are also doing 3/100 deals. Ok, that's just how it is and I get it. But, don't fault a player or cast blame on him/her like they're some kind of back alley vagrant ripping off the rich by trying to turn as much profit as they can for their tech, and hopefully gaining a respectable boost to their own economy. I'd sell 50 tech for $12 million if there was a buyer in the market, same as you would gladly pay $3 million for 150 tech if there were a seller at that rate. This scenario lends itself to the only sort of market conditions this game has, although it was never intended to. So deal with it and don't cry about it. There are plenty out there buying and selling at both rates right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddyyo Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I only do 3/50 because I'm too much of a damn idiot to remember whether it's the 50 or 100 part of the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Selling tech is inefficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1326764540' post='2901241'] Selling tech is inefficient. [/quote] You're absolutely right. Demanding it through reparations is very efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326751851' post='2901093'] Personally I think $4.5m/100t is a good price for all parties as long as both have FAC, so tech sellers and buyers alike should all get FAC. I only charge $3m/50t if someone without FAC wants to buy tech from me, but those aren't really my target tech buyers when I'm selling as receiving $4.5m is more slot efficient. For those buying the tech its mostly about the slots anyways, so most don't mind paying an extra $1.5m for a reliable seller if its not costing them any extra slots. [/quote] Any seller that can afford a FAC isn't one I'm going to buy from. I'm going to tell them not to buy the FAC, stop selling and start buying. Assuming they are part of my alliance or a friend of my alliance, that is. Otherwise, I'm not spending 25m just to give them an extra 1.5m a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1326766005' post='2901256'] Any seller that can afford a FAC isn't one I'm going to buy from. I'm going to tell them not to buy the FAC, stop selling and start buying. Assuming they are part of my alliance or a friend of my alliance, that is. Otherwise, I'm not spending 25m just to give them an extra 1.5m a month. [/quote] Unless someone avoids war, it can beneficial to sell tech to rebuild until you reach 5k infra again. I've been ZI/ZT a few times and always found my FAC very handy in rebuilding a lot faster. Edited January 17, 2012 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceknave Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1326766005' post='2901256'] Any seller that can afford a FAC isn't one I'm going to buy from. I'm going to tell them not to buy the FAC, stop selling and start buying. Assuming they are part of my alliance or a friend of my alliance, that is. Otherwise, I'm not spending 25m just to give them an extra 1.5m a month. [/quote] Unfortunately, some of us end up fighting wars that often that they've sold tech for far, far, too long, so long, picking up wonders along the way that the FAC is actually a viable wonder to get since they've picked up all the other wonders in their range.... So you don't necessarily have to spend any money for them to get a FAC, . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1326751661' post='2901084'] We'll see how all of that extra cash serves you when a 3/100 alliance like Umbrella or TOP cuts through you like a hot knife through butter. If this war proves anything, its that over infra'd underteched alliances just can't hold up to alliances that import tech at a high rate. [/quote] You're out of range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326771152' post='2901313'] You're out of range. [/quote] they've got a handful of nations we could slap around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Iceknave' timestamp='1326767930' post='2901279'] Unfortunately, some of us end up fighting wars that often that they've sold tech for far, far, too long, so long, picking up wonders along the way that the FAC is actually a viable wonder to get since they've picked up all the other wonders in their range.... So you don't necessarily have to spend any money for them to get a FAC, . [/quote] No, but I have to spend money for [i][b]me[/b][/i] to get a FAC. Edited January 17, 2012 by flak attack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1326772179' post='2901320'] they've got a handful of nations we could slap around [/quote] and then what, lol? It would be fun to see that kind of war happen. Edited January 17, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1326772658' post='2901324'] No, but I have to spend money for [i][b]me[/b][/i] to get a FAC. [/quote] It's really not their fault you're poor and haven't bought all the wonders. I'm more than happy to take the 4.5mil/150 tech deal when I can find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Always sold 3/100 unless the buyer wanted to be generous and give a 3/50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1326772658' post='2901324'] No, but I have to spend money for [i][b]me[/b][/i] to get a FAC. [/quote] It's the cheapest wonder in the game, not a big expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326773143' post='2901329'] It's the cheapest wonder in the game, not a big expense. [/quote] The 30 day wonder clock being used for something like that is not measurable in dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1326776231' post='2901349'] The 30 day wonder clock being used for something like that is not measurable in dollars. [/quote] To be fair, I'm pretty sure flak attack is big enough his wonder clock hasn't been an issue for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1326776389' post='2901350'] To be fair, I'm pretty sure flak attack is big enough his wonder clock hasn't been an issue for a long time. [/quote] Right, I figured the discussion was still about sellers having FACs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1326777027' post='2901352'] Right, I figured the discussion was still about sellers having FACs. [/quote] Ah I thought you were commenting on Flak's refusal to get an FAC because it's a waste of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1326776231' post='2901349'] The 30 day wonder clock being used for something like that is not measurable in dollars. [/quote] For new sellers, getting the cheapest wonder as their first one might do so they can start the wonder clock sooner than they otherwise would be able to. As Seerow already pointed out, for older players like flak attack the wonder clock shouldn't really be an issue anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1326743288' post='2901013'] I'd offer you a 3mil/150 tech deal, but it seems your slots are full. [/quote] Well, I am the populariest, after all [img]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-downs.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 This was something I went round and round with for people a few times. And I think setting a rate forcing alliance wide is silly. Basically what we have here is the buyer being a scrooge and wanting to keep someone else down longer so they can continue to buy tech from them. When I lead ISSF & Orion the setup was 3/50. And we didn't have issues with finding buyers. Sure, it's less efficient for the buyer, but you know whats even LESS efficient? When you have empty slots because there aren't enough tech sellers at 3/100. So instead of being generous to someone trying to rebuild, you'd rather hoard your cash and let a slot sit empty until you can find a precious 3/50. Nevermind the fact that if you bought 50 tech on your own, without a tech deal, you would have spent extremely above your rate. So, when it comes down to it, and you have 3 aid slots open, and all you can find is 1 3/100 and 2 3/50's are you gonna sit with empty slots killing your efficiency? Of course not. With all that said, my alliance apparently agrees with you, so meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1326783307' post='2901390'] This was something I went round and round with for people a few times. And I think setting a rate forcing alliance wide is silly. Basically what we have here is the buyer being a scrooge and wanting to keep someone else down longer so they can continue to buy tech from them. When I lead ISSF & Orion the setup was 3/50. And we didn't have issues with finding buyers. Sure, it's less efficient for the buyer, but you know whats even LESS efficient? When you have empty slots because there aren't enough tech sellers at 3/100. So instead of being generous to someone trying to rebuild, you'd rather hoard your cash and let a slot sit empty until you can find a precious 3/50. Nevermind the fact that if you bought 50 tech on your own, without a tech deal, you would have spent extremely above your rate. So, when it comes down to it, and you have 3 aid slots open, and all you can find is 1 3/100 and 2 3/50's are you gonna sit with empty slots killing your efficiency? Of course not. With all that said, my alliance apparently agrees with you, so meh. [/quote] Umbrella has a strict 3/100 policy and has no problem filling 80% of its slots with 3/100 deals on a fairly regular basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I worry some people may be too stupid to see this plan for what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.