Jump to content

why isnt 9mil/100 tech deal the standard


scolar visari
 Share

Recommended Posts

especially when warchests are so huge these days, a decent sized nations makes well over 9 mil a day. sending 9 mil every 10 days isn't going to break the bank, considering what it would cost to buy that tech yourself it's a jackpot.

 

i will no longer do 6/100 deals. i hope more tech sellers do the same so we can put pressure on the tech market to increase the price to a more reasonable lvl. we sellers are a scare resource. what happens when a commodity is scarce, it becomes more valuable. we need to use our power to help ourselves!

Edited by scolar visari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9/100 is the standard in Polaris, which values tech producing nations. But the entire atmosphere in Polaris is geared towards production, rather than exploitation, on all levels. I think perhaps it is not a coincidence that Polaris is so heavily targeted as a result of this... were the producer-oriented values of Polaris to spread, tech dealers elsewhere would also demand increased compensation for their tech.

 

In the case of some other alliances, production is not the most valued unit of measurement among the membership, nation strength is. Therefore, high NS nations psychologically become seen as more important (and are thus politically powerful); combined with the relative ignorance of many newer, tech producing nations, it is easier to exploit them at much poorer rates of compensation.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the  FAC wonder will become a beginner wonder just like the harbor and SSS ,stock market (ext)

 

A valued new producer nation would be assisted in developing an FAC early. Assuming 9/100 tech deals can be maintained consistently thereafter, it pays for itself very quickly. Not to mention the military utility the wonder offers via secret aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..  3m/100t when I started to 9m/100t?  If it's in my alliance and I want them to grow sure but otherwise why?  I have done that for allies at war but at 9m for 100t people grow out of tech seller to buyer way too fast.  I think 9m/200t is fair and 6m/100t if I want to give a sweet deal.  The main thing you want to teach new nations for long term survival is using all of your aid slots and if they do that their growth will be quite quick anyway.  9m/100t is just greedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NpO tech deal policy will see them sky rocket in ns after this war is over and help with quickly rebuilding, and since war is fought primarily in the mid and lower tier they now have experienced fighters that will have decent warchests when they have to fight again.

 

not switching to the 9/100 deal will put your alliance at a disadvantage to those that do.

Edited by scolar visari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..  3m/100t when I started to 9m/100t?  If it's in my alliance and I want them to grow sure but otherwise why?  I have done that for allies at war but at 9m for 100t people grow out of tech seller to buyer way too fast.  I think 9m/200t is fair and 6m/100t if I want to give a sweet deal.  The main thing you want to teach new nations for long term survival is using all of your aid slots and if they do that their growth will be quite quick anyway.  9m/100t is just greedy.

 

i am content to stay a seller forever, tech deals use to be FAR less profitable for a seller 3mil/150 tech.... with 9mil/100tech (3x as much $$$) im sure many nations will also stay sellers keeping the tech flowing. they also wont have months of tech blown away in war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NpO tech deal policy will see them sky rocket in ns after this war is over and help with quickly rebuilding, and since war is fought primarily in the mid and lower tier they now have experienced fighters that will have decent warchests when they have to fight again.
 
not switching to the 9/100 deal will put your alliance at a disadvantage to those that do.

A general increase in 9/100 deals would definitely be a good thing for the world, but I don't think we will see it happen much outside of a few alliances. For it to really happen a number of conditions have to be met, and they are almost exclusively alliance driven goals:

*An alliance philosophy based on collectivism or "common good"
*A completely autonomous and self-reliant tech market
*A healthy balance of cash producing and tech producing nations
*Centralized economy or government imposed market regulations
*Competent new-nation training and integration

These are not easy things to do... You have to have upper and middle tier nations willing to spend more on buying tech from their own membership rather than possibly cheaper tech abroad, an active govt and tech staff capable of disciplining the membership, tech producers have to be seen as equally important to cash producers, raw nation strength has to be seen as unrelated to social status. It's not something that can be approached peacemeal... It requires a comprehensive philosophical approach that begins with structure of government (ideally Order-style democratic autocracy).

But with a strong reformist leader it is certainly possible, and seeing Polar's commitment and valor this war I would argue its worth the effort. Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..  3m/100t when I started to 9m/100t?  If it's in my alliance and I want them to grow sure but otherwise why?  I have done that for allies at war but at 9m for 100t people grow out of tech seller to buyer way too fast.  I think 9m/200t is fair and 6m/100t if I want to give a sweet deal.  The main thing you want to teach new nations for long term survival is using all of your aid slots and if they do that their growth will be quite quick anyway.  9m/100t is just greedy.

No way. You literally stated you didn't want to pay them more because then they will grow too fast and stop selling quicker. It is greedy of you to offer a lesser rate with explicit intent to keep him smaller longer.

 

Tech is worth what someone will pay for it. Bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..  3m/100t when I started to 9m/100t?  If it's in my alliance and I want them to grow sure but otherwise why?  I have done that for allies at war but at 9m for 100t people grow out of tech seller to buyer way too fast.  I think 9m/200t is fair and 6m/100t if I want to give a sweet deal.  The main thing you want to teach new nations for long term survival is using all of your aid slots and if they do that their growth will be quite quick anyway.  9m/100t is just greedy.


You are looking at tech dealing by a "me" rather than a "we" perspective, and thats why 9/100 won't catch on in most places. Insted of looking at it in terms of buying and selling tech, one should see it as cash and tech production within a centralized market, and the value of each producer is according to how much they produce, not their accumulated NS. Therefore many tech producers would simply remain permanent tech producers and build low tier warfighters. Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are looking at tech dealing by a "me" rather than a "we" perspective, and thats why 9/100 won't catch on in most places. Insted of looking at it in terms of buying and selling tech, one should see it as cash and tech production within a centralized market, and the value of each producer is according to how much they produce, not their accumulated NS. Therefore many tech producers would simply remain permanent tech producers and build low tier warfighters.


If people really looked at things from a "we" instead of "us" perspective, you would focus more on front loading money to get that initial (cheaper) infra, then grab necessary wonders for tech dealing (DRA, FAC), as well as the Pentagon, MP, and SDI for when they eventually have to go to war.

Then the "sellers" would gladly pay back the tech they "owe" and in addition, more tech to help their bigger Comrades, as well as put themselves in the "black" so they're already "earning" the money they'll get during war/after.

And when they're finally to a point (infra, money, and wonder wise), they should convert to a buyer status, and join the next tier of nations, and likewise help the new small nations build up like they were.

No way. You literally stated you didn't want to pay them more because then they will grow too fast and stop selling quicker. It is greedy of you to offer a lesser rate with explicit intent to keep him smaller longer.
 
Tech is worth what someone will pay for it. Bottom line.


That's all of economics. Resources are limited, and we're all competing.

But I have to fundamentally disagree with your "greedy" comment. You're looking at this at a personal level, where trying to get the best deal is "greedy" (but only on the part of the buyer?), and you give the newer (smaller) players the benefit of doubt? No one deals with a specific person and wants them to never grow their nation. At least, in a negative sense. Some people grow their nation, but they grow it by collecting all the wonders, and building up a giant warchest. Then they "nuke turret" or other tactics in the lower ranges. Never converting to tech buyer status. Other people might just offset that conversion until they have "basic" wonders. Whatever that individual decides (by themselves, or in conjunction with their alliance), they are still adding to their nations value and working towards (building towards) a goal.

But that already expands the question. If we're considering single people, everyone wants what's best for their singular nation. Once you start considering others, perhaps your alliance is trying to get funds to your smaller people (so you give those sweet 6m/100 rates), or as I believe, to people who are a good investment (won't run off with the money), you fund their initial infra growth, so they can make money on their own (and build their warchest) while paying off the tech they owe. Or even, giving tech to fighting nations to combat, I don't know, perhaps a threat to see to your bigger nations? That's an interesting thought.

After you build someone up to 6k infra for example, they can afford to get a wonder a month, send off tech, and be building their warchest.

Letting anyone grovel, and waste their nation's life in the sub 5k infra level is evil. And doing so is greedy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your position is too individualistic, bob is more of a communal activity. Large/small nations need not related to one another as better/inferior- they can work together for the advantage of their alliance. A small nation in today's world has a better chance at relative advantage if they choose to stay small, develop wonders, and hone themselves to dominate in their range. They gain a further advantage by supplying existing large nations with free tech generated by their self sufficient infra holdings. The larger nations in their AA that they supply can then hone themselves to fulfill their role in an optimal manner. You misperceive the goal as being one where nations seek to be quantitatively larger than their peers- this isn't necessary or honestly even rational (given how large the largest are). Instead people should just try to be the best at what they are- rather than mediocre at what they aren't.

Alliances that can coordinate in this way, have an advantage- those caught up in older approaches do not. In short 6m/100 is too much, everyone should give freely of what they have where it makes the most sense to do so: large nations have no use for money, small ones have no use for tech. I would think free transfer of both would be possible where collective optimals prevail.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

especially when warchests are so huge these days, a decent sized nations makes well over 9 mil a day. sending 9 mil every 10 days isn't going to break the bank, considering what it would cost to buy that tech yourself it's a jackpot.

 

i will no longer do 6/100 deals. i hope more tech sellers do the same so we can put pressure on the tech market to increase the price to a more reasonable lvl. we sellers are a scare resource. what happens when a commodity is scarce, it becomes more valuable. we need to use our power to help ourselves!

 

There's a reason warchests are so huge: necessity. Alliances fight wars based primarily on how long their warchests can exist for; no money in the bank means no weapons for the troops. Assuming a buyer with a DRA were to buy at a rate of 9/100, sending 54m on a regular basis- every twenty days or so- will eat into the warchest, especially at sub-100k levels. All in return for, what, a paltry 600 tech? Whereas a buyer purchasing tech at 6/200 effectively doubles his/her return, while 9/300 adds on a further 600 tech.

 

To put this in perspective, at an income of 600 tech per month a buyer would expect to accumulate 3600 units over six months, while a buyer on an income of 1800 tech per month would expect to end up accumulating 10,800 units of tech within the same time frame.

 

The fact that it costs so many millions to buy tech manually for oneself doesn't mean it's somehow reasonable to charge ridiculous prices on the market anyway. If sellers are scarce, it's because they grow too quickly and become tech buyers themselves within a few months of starting out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your position is too individualistic, bob is more of a communal activity. Large/small nations need not related to one another as better/inferior- they can work together for the advantage of their alliance. A small nation in today's world has a better chance at relative advantage if they choose to stay small, develop wonders, and hone themselves to dominate in their range. They gain a further advantage by supplying existing large nations with free tech generated by their self sufficient infra holdings. The larger nations in their AA that they supply can then hone themselves to fulfill their role in an optimal manner. You misperceive the goal as being one where nations seek to be quantitatively larger than their peers- this isn't necessary or honestly even rational (given how large the largest are). Instead people should just try to be the best at what they are- rather than mediocre at what they aren't.

Alliances that can coordinate in this way, have an advantage- those caught up in older approaches do not. In short 6m/100 is too much, everyone should give freely of what they have where it makes the most sense to do so: large nations have no use for money, small ones have no use for tech. I would think free transfer of both would be possible where collective optimals prevail.


Ok, this is worst than the proposed idea!! Free transfer of both??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming a buyer with a DRA were to buy at a rate of 9/100, sending 54m on a regular basis- every twenty days or so- will eat into the warchest, especially at sub-100k levels. All in return for, what, a paltry 600 tech



Seasoned buyers... No, older and sub 100k nations who have the wonders up to the WRC and have a decent trade circle.

Can make 200 million every 20 days after bills so even after the 54 million deduction its only a quarter of their income.

Making a billion every 100 days if buying nothing else isn't eating into their warchest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is worst than the proposed idea!! Free transfer of both??


Obviously not at the sametime. A larger nation can dump money on a smaller one during a war, or assist in the initial development phase / rebuild. A smaller nation can send tech during peace. It seems fairly straight forward what I'm getting at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason warchests are so huge: necessity. Alliances fight wars based primarily on how long their warchests can exist for; no money in the bank means no weapons for the troops. Assuming a buyer with a DRA were to buy at a rate of 9/100, sending 54m on a regular basis- every twenty days or so- will eat into the warchest, especially at sub-100k levels. All in return for, what, a paltry 600 tech? Whereas a buyer purchasing tech at 6/200 effectively doubles his/her return, while 9/300 adds on a further 600 tech.
 
To put this in perspective, at an income of 600 tech per month a buyer would expect to accumulate 3600 units over six months, while a buyer on an income of 1800 tech per month would expect to end up accumulating 10,800 units of tech within the same time frame.
 
The fact that it costs so many millions to buy tech manually for oneself doesn't mean it's somehow reasonable to charge ridiculous prices on the market anyway. If sellers are scarce, it's because they grow too quickly and become tech buyers themselves within a few months of starting out.


This is a good example of an upper tier nation thinking from the perspective of exploitation. He is blind to the inportance of having robust low tier nations and only sees their value in terms of providing him cheap tech. It is why in a more balanced conflict than the current war, between an upper tier parasite force and a lower tier producerist force the lower tier would would enjoy tech production dominance (the ability to deny tech production and even poach exploited tech producers).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...