Jtkode Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I will never EVER buy tech for 3 mil/50 tech, its stupid and pointless, I can always find good sellers for a good price of 3 mil/100. People are greedy and if anyone was to ever ask me to do that I would laugh in their face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I will never EVER buy tech for 3 mil/50 tech, its stupid and pointless, I can always find good sellers for a good price of 3 mil/100. People are greedy and if anyone was to ever ask me to do that I would laugh in their face. Same here. Unless if every last tech seller (including ones in my alliance) demand 3 mil/50 tech, I won't waste more of my aid slots into sending cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Rupert Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I will never EVER buy tech for 3 mil/50 tech, its stupid and pointless, I can always find good sellers for a good price of 3 mil/100. People are greedy and if anyone was to ever ask me to do that I would laugh in their face. It's fine to only want to pay $3 mil/100 tech but labelling people as greedy for offering to sell at $3 mil/50 is just wrong. No one forces a buyer to pay more than they want and if they can find buyers willing to pay that, good for them. These same arguments were made by indignant buyers who were never going to pay more than $3 mil/150 tech they were accustomed to paying back when $3 mil/100 tech deals were becoming mainstream. Even at $3 mil/50 tech, the max profit a seller gets is going to be around $2.2 million verses the tens of millions you as the buyer profit by not having to buy the same tech yourself and you want them labelled as the ones being greedy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronicMaster Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 It's fine to only want to pay $3 mil/100 tech but labelling people as greedy for offering to sell at $3 mil/50 is just wrong. No one forces a buyer to pay more than they want and if they can find buyers willing to pay that, good for them. These same arguments were made by indignant buyers who were never going to pay more than $3 mil/150 tech they were accustomed to paying back when $3 mil/100 tech deals were becoming mainstream. Even at $3 mil/50 tech, the max profit a seller gets is going to be around $2.2 million verses the tens of millions you as the buyer profit by not having to buy the same tech yourself and you want them labelled as the ones being greedy? I agree. Greedy is always the other one. Thats not an argument but political pesuasion. Whatever, the market determines the price. If you're not willing to pay, you could try to persuade or you won't get the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 What is the point of having a nation with 5000 infra and 500 tech? It is going to be destroyed in a war. I'd rather not aid a small nation huge amounts of money so that it would just go down faster than a pornstar in a no-plot movie. Small nations should work their way up so that it's alliance friends could gain more tech from him and in return be able to protect him better. It is not the matter of price. It is the matter of military power. An alliance should pump more tech to it's already large nations and try to become stronger than the potential enemy this way. With the nukes being so popular, the infra does not really matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronicMaster Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 What is the point of having a nation with 5000 infra and 500 tech? It is going to be destroyed in a war. I'd rather not aid a small nation huge amounts of money so that it would just go down faster than a pornstar in a no-plot movie. Small nations should work their way up so that it's alliance friends could gain more tech from him and in return be able to protect him better.It is not the matter of price. It is the matter of military power. An alliance should pump more tech to it's already large nations and try to become stronger than the potential enemy this way. With the nukes being so popular, the infra does not really matter. That sounds like, it was your opinion, that the small nations should serve the big nations as Tech-Farms. Whatever you do not AID this nations, you trade with em. It's no aid to pay a price that is normal in market. If your prognosis about the the fate of 5000/500 nations would be fact, no nation would ever have crossed this border. I conclude that your opinion is not based on facts, but on CN conservativism and oportunism. It would be to YOUR benefit if they stay small on long term, not theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalC Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 From my understanding it has something to do with supply and demand. As the number of sellers decrease, while buyers increase (the rate of new nations or nations falling down into the lower NS echelons is less than the rate of nations growing into tech buying range), thus creating a shortage. Shortages mean an increase in the value of goods (tech) and thus drive up the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRossJones Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Personally, I don't see a problem. If people are willing to pay a price, people are going to sell at that price. It's not as if sellers are the only ones offering 3 million/50 technology deals. I see plenty of buyers offering that price, so you'd be an idiot to sell it for any cheaper. Why do buyers seem to think sellers owe them a cheap price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronicMaster Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) Personally, I don't see a problem. If people are willing to pay a price, people are going to sell at that price. It's not as if sellers are the only ones offering 3 million/50 technology deals. I see plenty of buyers offering that price, so you'd be an idiot to sell it for any cheaper. Why do buyers seem to think sellers owe them a cheap price? Perhaps they think, that intelligence is proportional to NStrength Edited January 10, 2010 by IronicMaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1 Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 And another problem as I stated before is that if we aid these active small nations up too fast we will not have any more tech sellers. Actually, there will be almost no tech deals since so many new nations are added and there are so many oldies that want tech. Face the reality: There are thousands of nations willing to buy more tech in CN. Hundreds of them have problems with filling their slots with deals. We could of course create rules which deny offering more than 3M/100t for tech. The fact just is that the buyers who then won't get their slots full will rather break the rules by offering 3M/50t than just sit and watch while their rivals keep getting more and more ahead of them by getting tech. And the sellers would eventually stop selling for 3M/100t for they would know that they'd be able to get higher price. I will never EVER buy tech for 3 mil/50 tech, its stupid and pointless, I can always find good sellers for a good price of 3 mil/100. People are greedy and if anyone was to ever ask me to do that I would laugh in their face. If you get tech for 3M/100t then good for you. But if the price goes up and you won't find tech anymore with that price would you be ready to pay 3M/50t? I haven't yet done a single 3M/50t deal. Nevertheless it seems to me that we're living a gray perioid and the price is slowly getting up. If I stop finding deals for 3M/100t rate I'm more than happy to start buying for 3M/50t because I need tech and should this be my situation, I would only get it by paying that price or 17,2M/50t at "Purchase Technology"-menu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebollman36 Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 3m for 50 is standard. still a bargain for big nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukcia Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I am a new seller and I cannot see the fuss. 1) As someone stated, tech deals can be almost 20 times cheaper than buying the tech yourself in a 3/50 deal, so if you don't like it feel free to pay more. 2) Many people have mentioned the 3/150 deals. If I did that then my profits every 30 days would be about £500,000. It would hardly be worth my time. 3) At the moment I sell at 3/100. This makes me about £1,750,000 a month. If you calculate the profit I make a month from Tax less Bills times 30, I make £116k a day, so £3.5 million a month. Therefore, 4 tech deals which require a fair amount of work finding buyers and then buying all the tech and being on time only makes me about 50% of the money I get from my taxes, which while it does help me a fair amount getting money in for improving the nation, getting a 3/50 deal would make me About £2.1 million every 20 days, so in 60 days with 4 deals I would make £25 million compared to £7 million from taxes. That is 350% increase on my income, and that would seriously help me out, while only costing huge nations a tiny part of their income, and I'm sure you can collect the extra £1.5 million needed in less than the 20 days it takes to get tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted January 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) I have seen many posts about how the price is rising because of lack of sellers, but if we are to increase the price, the sellers will only reach buying status much faster. Lets face it, how many sellers will actually stay sellers for long after they make more than what they make from 20 days of 3mil/50tech when they can probably collect the same amount in one day using taxes at around 2999.99 infra. Edited January 10, 2010 by Itsuki Koizumi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Inflation is annoying. All of your sellers who still see this as fair will realize when you are larger 3/50 is almost a waste of a slot unless you are doing it intraalliance to help out the seller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukcia Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Inflation is annoying. All of your sellers who still see this as fair will realize when you are larger 3/50 is almost a waste of a slot unless you are doing it intraalliance to help out the seller. If a buyer has a 3/50 tech deal they get 150 tech every 60 days. In a 3/100 deal they would get 200 tech in the same time. Not a huge different, and I worked out that a seller makes 3 times as much profit on a 3/50, so it's better for the sellers and not a huge problem for buyers. And, sellers are running out so supply and demand works here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tillistan Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I have seen many posts about how the price is rising because of lack of sellers, but if we are to increase the price, the sellers will only reach buying status much faster. Lets face it, how many sellers will actually stay sellers for long after they make more than what they make from 20 days of 3mil/50tech when they can probably collect the same amount in one day using taxes at around 2999.99 infra. Exactly. The more money we pay tech sellers, the faster they'll grow, and the less tech supply there will be. Increasing the price of tech to deal with the supply shortage is a paradox. Furthermore, we already pay for them to purchase the tech and give them nearly half of the cost of the tech in pure compensation. Just how much money do they need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted January 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 And, sellers are running out so supply and demand works here. By giving you so much money, sellers will simply run out faster, creating a paradox that will only further hurt buyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) If a buyer has a 3/50 tech deal they get 150 tech every 60 days. In a 3/100 deal they would get 200 tech in the same time. Not a huge different, and I worked out that a seller makes 3 times as much profit on a 3/50, so it's better for the sellers and not a huge problem for buyers.And, sellers are running out so supply and demand works here. For nations that are past the 5k infra level, every, last, drop of tech means a difference between surviving a war and dishing out enough damages to make your opponents think twice or fighting constantly in DEFCON 5 with your nukes being spied away 24/7 and unable to throw back as much damages as your opponents can. If you checked again, within 10 months, the 3/50 deal would land you 750 tech while the 3/100 deal would land you 1000 tech. A nation with 2000 tech (with the same infra, land, military, improvements, trade resource, wonders, etc) would last longer than a nation with 1750 tech in an inter-alliance war. Plus, with the extra cash, the tech sellers would grow into tech buyers at an even faster rate, making everything worse. 3/50 deals waste buyers' precious aid slots and just reduces supply even more. Edited January 10, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronicMaster Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Do you really think, Sellers should feel sorry for guy collecting 100 or more times as much money as them? Do you really think, it should care them if your slots are inefficient? Do you really think, it should care them how your nations behave in war? It doesn't. This is not about you, not about them. Not about the older or the younger nations. It is just business. No aid, no supply. Just trading. If there's someone paying 3m/50 he will get the deal. If buyer doesn't want to pay the market prices they will get less deals and eventually kill their own progress. buy or die Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidRossJones Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Again, I'm going to ask. Why do buyers think that sellers owe them a cheap price? Also, Cybernations doesn't exist so that buyers can stay buyers, and sellers stay sellers. Some posts here by, quite frankly, arrogant buyers screams of the attitude "sellers exist merely to benefit me". Sorry, but we're also playing this game and having a higher NS does not give you the supreme right to be the only one's who enjoy the game. Finally, I do not think it's so much that supply is lower, as much as I think demand is higher. Look at how many nations are buying tech, compared to 1, 2 or 3 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukcia Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Do you really think, Sellers should feel sorry for guy collecting 100 or more times as much money as them?Do you really think, it should care them if your slots are inefficient? Do you really think, it should care them how your nations behave in war? It doesn't. This is not about you, not about them. Not about the older or the younger nations. It is just business. No aid, no supply. Just trading. If there's someone paying 3m/50 he will get the deal. If buyer doesn't want to pay the market prices they will get less deals and eventually kill their own progress. buy or die I completely agree. Again, I'm going to ask. Why do buyers think that sellers owe them a cheap price? Also, Cybernations doesn't exist so that buyers can stay buyers, and sellers stay sellers. Some posts here by, quite frankly, arrogant buyers screams of the attitude "sellers exist merely to benefit me". Sorry, but we're also playing this game and having a higher NS does not give you the supreme right to be the only one's who enjoy the game.Finally, I do not think it's so much that supply is lower, as much as I think demand is higher. Look at how many nations are buying tech, compared to 1, 2 or 3 years ago. I do get the feeling that the buyers do want to push us out. Especially with the 3/150 deals which would make no profit. I believe we should try 3/50 deals intra-alliance and do 3/100 out of alliances so that buyers and sellers can both get a good deal. As for those who say sellers will dry up, in my alliance I can get £15 million to expand me out of the zone of selling anyway, so getting £6 million compared to £2 million a month won't make much difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted January 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I believe we should try 3/50 deals intra-alliance and do 3/100 out of alliances so that buyers and sellers can both get a good deal. Quite a few people do believe in this kind of deal. I for one do at least 2 3m/50 tech deals with my alliance mates at any given time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronicMaster Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I believe we should try 3/50 deals intra-alliance and do 3/100 out of alliances so that buyers and sellers can both get a good deal.As for those who say sellers will dry up, in my alliance I can get £15 million to expand me out of the zone of selling anyway, so getting £6 million compared to £2 million a month won't make much difference. I don't get it... why should I give strangers better offers then my alliance friends?? 6mil make the hell of a difference compared to 2. 3m/50 is no inter-alliance aid or something like that... it is actual market-price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I wouldn't consider the prices on this forum to be the standard by any means. Buyers only come here when they are desperate and can't find someone within their own alliance/allies to buy from. All intra-alliance tech deals I've encountered are 3M/100. "Supply and demand" doesn't really mean much in this scenario. There are more seller nations than there are buyer nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronicMaster Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 The desperate define the standart in market. Me as a coldhearted capitalist ( in this game ) would always search for the buyer that most desperately needs my goods. He pays the best prices. Why do you think that that your inter-alliance deals give a better market-standard then the forum? Do you think that pocket-money deals between brothers and sisters define standarts better than Wall Street? 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.