Do you like the new tech change?

[byron]

Yes. People need to stop wasting their money on tech when it is utterly pointless in battle (after 300) and focus on infrastructure. I'm sure there's a lot of people pissed because they no longer have a superficially inflated NS, but it was something needed.

Who are you to say what people need to stop doing? That is just a matter of opinion and yours is no better or worse than anyone elses. How a person chooses to play CN is their business, not yours! And now that nukes and CM's destroy tech, it certainly does have value beyond 300; would you rather go into war with 300 or 3000 tech? Once your tech starts going down the tubes in battle, I'm sure you would rather have more than less!

As far as I'm concerned, this is a lousy change to the game and it was implemented in a lousy way- no forknowledge or notice. I personally feel that Admin should have given ample notice and time to allow people to adjust their stratagy should they choose or need to. And no, I'm not one who had my NS artifically inflated with mass tech. I run a rather good balance of infra, tech and military might and as far as I'm concerned, this change stinks to high heaven!

I agree with the crowd that feels the price of tech should be lowered now that its value has deminished! And for all of those who like the new lower NS, hey, if it's that great then why don't you dump some of your holdings and get it even lower!

[byron]

Infra is being made too important. Now basically land and technology are worthless. I liked it before when nations could be powerful in different ways. Almost like different nations had different attributes. Now there's only one important thing you should buy. Infra. Admin is making the game more accurate, yes, but more boring. Not to mention the fact that it's unfair to nations whose strategy was to buy tech over infra to become powerful, and now their completely legitimate strategy is void because admin decided to change the rules NOW, after the game has been going for a long time. Oh, and tech is worth 75% less but still 100% expensive. Nukes are more unattainable. And the game is less attractive to people who are trying to find something new in the game to look forward to because it takes literally YEARS to get to the top 5%.

100% agreed!

[Brotherington]

Yes. People need to stop wasting their money on tech when it is utterly pointless in battle (after 300) and focus on infrastructure. I'm sure there's a lot of people pissed because they no longer have a superficially inflated NS, but it was something needed.

I could just have easily said to you before this update that people need to stop wasting money on unbelievably expensive infra which confers no significant advantage and can be nuked away, and that instead these people should invest in indestructible technology.

[byron]

Like I said in the poll topic, the whining about the tech change is coming from people who lost so much NS, and feel like they're violated because of that.

Wake up, and realize that EVERYBODY LOST NS. GET OVER IT.

This is a much needed change because after 300 tech, tech is useless. People were buying tech after that for NS solely. Younger nations were also buying tech to boost themselves closer to nukes without having much substance (infra). This was much needed.

And your opinion is correct because... I lost a lot of NS, but I have built my NS on a balance of Infra, tech and military might. So I don't care what your opinion is, I don't like the change! Now Infra is the new tech, so where will this lead and when will it be corrected and who'se sholder will you cry on then?

Edited November 2, 2007 by Tyrone The Tyrant

[Nymraud]

Why does it matter that everybody lost NS? That doesn't justify the sudden change in rules. What about the 3% drop in rank I experienced. 3% not that much right? Well when you get down below 10% nation rank, it's very difficult to gain higher rank. I went from 6% to 9%. Now that tech is basically not worth buying over infra, I will NEVER get nukes. Now I will just get to watch my NS creep slowly up, and my nation rank go nowhere because we're all buying the same thing because that's all that's worth buying.

Oh, and the ability to destroy tech doesn't really make sense. Tech is basically a reflection of the intellectual advancement of people in your nation. You can't destroy intelligence. You shouldn't be able to destroy tech.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Nymraud

[Starcraftmazter]

Like I said in the poll topic, the whining about the tech change is coming from people who lost so much NS, and feel like they're violated because of that.

Wake up, and realize that EVERYBODY LOST NS. GET OVER IT.

It's not that.

WAKE UP, IT'S NOW A LOT HARDER TO GET NUKES!!!!

[Lyonheart]

Who cares about what the NS value/drop is? It's just a unit. What is more important is at what percentile range you land in. That, and only that.

I'm still in the top 3% as I was before, but still...

I don't like the idea of working my way towards getting back to where I was a long time ago.

[3Davideo]

Oh, and the ability to destroy tech doesn't really make sense. Tech is basically a reflection of the intellectual advancement of people in your nation. You can't destroy intelligence. You shouldn't be able to destroy tech.

I disagree with your statement. Nuclear scientists, computer engineers, and research microbiologists wouldn't be able to do anything in regards to their capacity if thrown into the wilderness without tools, fuel, and collected data destroyed by a nuke.

[Torism]

Suffice to say, regardless that everyone else experienced it, I feel kind of ripped off. I've been playing this game well over 400 days now, and to drop by nearly 20,000 NS...it's a real bummer. I mean, I really don't want to complain, it's just a feeling of disappointment and whatnot.

So yeah, I'm not too happy with the change.

Ditto.

Are only war empowered nations left to be strong? If I were interested in inflating my nations strength I could easily attain nukes and purchase a stronger military rather than spend time in aggravating tech deals that often take weeks to pan out, take up trade slots and make me think--uh, why did I do that?

I bought tech and infra at an equal level myself until infra became too much for cost and it made more sense to actually purchase a donation each month and take the 200 infra from there and not purchase the $2 Million Plus for 10 infra like I did as a smaller nation.

Secondly, why doesn't my infra cost go tremendously down based upon my technology level? Shouldn't it be dirt cheap--all that technology must mean intelligent and modern advancements are at my people's fingertips and all the dancing around the fountain of Torism means that the middle class is fully capable of building the latest and greatest bridges, heck, I bet with all the technology I have sitting around in my nation that bridges can magically be poofed into place.

I am not read up on this tech alteration but I believe Admin should have reasonable and interesting solutions to up and cutting a nation's power because of tech. The game is drab unless you want to kill things or spend your time trying to work out the errors of other nations that are killing things and I'm not all that interested in killing things.

Having said all that, it's his game, so if I play I am capable of understanding I am essentially in his hands--he is God for all intense of purposes. At least we know where we go when we die.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Torism

[Master-Debater]

hell no.

Tech has always been a good way to get your NS up in an attempt to get into that top 5% nuke raiting.

Now with tech being basically pointless for your NS and infa being useless to grow growth will become extreamly slow.

Not to mention but now itll be almost impossible to get into the top 5%.

ok now that ive read a little bit more ive become slightly more peeved at this change.

ive been playing for well over 400 days now and ive droped 13k ns because of this change.

between the amount of money and time ive spent putting it into tech i feel this whole update takes a ton of fun and options out of the game.

Tech and Infa costs are still the same despite the fact that tech now has been rendered very useless.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Master-Debater

[3Davideo]

I laugh at your warmongering. Rate of income best measures strength; war only lessens it for all involved.

[Torism]

I laugh at your warmongering. Rate of income best measures strength; war only lessens it for all involved.

But we all know how the war drums begin beating and war is a temptation hard not to hear.

Besides, corny metaphors aside, I am going to show you two images and you tell me which makes you think of strength first.

First image is of a large nuke with it's black and yellow warning glaring at you.

-or-

Two is a sign that says $112.52 which is your average individual income taxes paid per citizen per day.

Then again, a game is never truly about direct realism and is more about the enjoyment in a realism we don't recognize as real.

It's late. Can you tell?

[3Davideo]

But we all know how the war drums begin beating and war is a temptation hard not to hear.

Besides, corny metaphors aside, I am going to show you two images and you tell me which makes you think of strength first.

First image is of a large nuke with it's black and yellow warning glaring at you.

-or-

Two is a sign that says $112.52 which is your average individual income taxes paid per citizen per day.

Then again, a game is never truly about direct realism and is more about the enjoyment in a realism we don't recognize as real.

It's late. Can you tell?

The second. Nukes only destroy; money creates. Money also begets more money.

[Torism]

The second. Nukes only destroy; money creates. Money also begets more money.

The question wasn't which begets money and which only destroys. The question was which better represented strength. I don't have nukes and I agree they only destroy but this does not alter what they represent. I could say that money is only as valued as the market is, just like trades, etc. Nukes are harder to attain than money in the game. Trades are actually more valuable when you consider (in real life anyway) that currency is just paper (in the U.S.A.) and not backed by a viable resource--thank you Nixon!

If money is all you are after; however, what is in essence your goal in playing the game? How do you plan on winning? Wasn't it a silly 80's movie that had the computer blurt after learning that nuclear war has no winners..."Would you like to play a game of chess?"

When one has used strategy and patience to attain something it is disappointing to have it taken away without regard--simply put. Obviously, if you gained from this change you're cool with it. In time we'll come to terms--that's what people do.

[Master-Debater]

When one has used strategy and patience to attain something it is disappointing to have it taken away without regard--simply put. Obviously, if you gained from this change you're cool with it. In time we'll come to terms--that's what people do.

This sorta hits the nail on the head. Ive put a lot of statagy into building my nation including tech and infa growth. I was in the middle of a month long growth plan when this happened and basically have lost the last 20 or so days of work.

Ive had tech deals on hand now for the last month and a half and there basically useless now.

I dont remember seeing a single thread asking for input on this change. I know admin can make whatever changes he wants but sometimes I think its good to get some sort of input. So far it looks like most people dont like this change.

[Wurzak]

Infra has always been the way to get powerful. Nation have bought tech just to bloat their NS and feel powerful. NS is just a number and doesn't tell anything about your nation.

The change made tech actually good instead of just increasing a meaningless number on a webpage. The less NS tech gives, the better it is. If tech gave 0 NS, I'd immediately invest hundreds of millions in it. All the facts you need:

Technology decreases infrastructure upkeep costs up to a maximum 10% discount based on the following formula: (2 * Technology Level) / Nation Strength = Percent off infrastructure upkeep bill.

I was going to get 2000 more tech anyway, now I'll probably get even more.

[Jebbie]

Yeah, but I just friggin' lost 10000 NS due to this change!

Not a supporter at all...

Our top nation lost 30,000 NS, get over it.

The game has been improved, you have to look at the bigger picture.

[Torism]

For me, it's simply not true that I bought tech to boost my nation strength. I bought both at a fairly equal level up until I became too large and purchasing both became too expensive verse their benefit.

So, although many might have done that, certainly I did not.

[Nymraud]

I disagree with your statement. Nuclear scientists, computer engineers, and research microbiologists wouldn't be able to do anything in regards to their capacity if thrown into the wilderness without tools, fuel, and collected data destroyed by a nuke.

Technology is just a number representing how technologically advanced a nation is. If the US were to get nuked, would we be any less technologically advanced? No, we would just lose buildings, facilities, highways, things like that. The examples you gave would fall under the infrastructure category. We wouldn't go BACKWARDS in technological advancement just because we were attacked.

I'm also sick of people saying tech was false NS. It only was until you bought nukes. Being tech heavy was the only way to get into the top 5% before the change. That is, unless you had been playing the game for a really really long time and had bought an incredible amount of infra. Now the top 5% is going to stay the top 5% and everyone else is screwed because going up in rank is so freaking slow.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Nymraud

[Jebbie]

How has tech been made useless for raising NS? It still gives you more NS than infra and for large nations 50 tech in a tech deal is cheaper than 10 infra. All this change has done is slow down the inflation which was a much needed change.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Jebbie

[PingPongPay]

I lost 32k NS due to the changes, but frankly, I don't care. I'm still at the same rank; it's all relative. I will stop investing in tech soon though (at 3,000). At 3k, I'll buy the Great University and I won't buy tech again. From there I'll just invest in land and infra. I do think that land should be improved a bit. Instead of being 1.5 x land = strength increase, it should be 2 x land = strength increase. That way people will invest in all three quantities: land, infra, and tech.

[Nymraud]

How has tech been made useless for raising NS? It still gives you more NS than infra and for large nations 50 tech in a tech deal is cheaper than 10 infra. All this change has done is slow down the inflation which was a much needed change.

A slow down in inflation that will put rankings at a standstill.

[Nova Bacia]

I think it would have been better if it had been changed to 10 NS per level rather than 5 but i'm not really that bothered to be honest.

[ace072199]

I lost about 30,000 nation strength and I dont care about the tech change. But the 300 tech military cap should be removed. Tech is pretty much pointless after 300.

[Revan IV]

I would really like to see the tech be changed back. this is b/c I have gone from 22k NS to 13K ns. my nation may have been tech heavy, but that was b/c I was trying to ge higher in the ranks quicker. now, instead of being in the 11%, I am in the 16%. the only reason is b/c I have been focusing onn tech and not on infra as much. another thing, is why couldnt they have been more prepared about this. why didnt the admin tell us or ask us wether or not we want the change?