Has Standard Price Increased?

[IronicMaster]

So selling half the tech for the same amount is sound buisness in your eyes. and to most buisnessmen it would too, but this is a game people see deals for what they are. where does 6 million plus 18 days inactive jumps get you when your 100 infra ? a pretty good size within 30 days

So jumping from 100-1999 infra in 30 days is not good growth? this has cost you nothing but you gain everything from the full 5 slots.

What do I gain from 5 slots of 50 tech compared to the 5 x 100 slots i use. more growth.

The equilibrium of seller/buyer is balanced at 3/100 both grow, both benefit, where as your seeing lots more benefit by 3/50 than i am by paying for 3/50. i can see how 6 million for 100 tech is apealing to someone who is oppertunistic. deign enough for you?

It is business if buyers wish this deal and I grant them. You might call them stupid or desperated, but do you really think I should ignore my bennefit because you think that I dont deseve the 2,25 Mio?

As I said before, 3m/100 might be ok, 3M 50 is MUCH better... I get 2,25m/20day instead of 1,5/30 per slot. In every not inactive Nation ther will always bee the time when Incom throug Infra gets superior to income through dealing. Thats the time a nation changes to a buyer.

A better price would drive this border forward and so make it profitable to be a seller a longer time. It might be not your 3000 but your5000 jump when you start buying--> More sellers.

Last not least, it feels much better not to beg your alliance friends about Foreign Aid all the time, and instead granting them deals which are good for them too.

[Hiro Nakara]

I do not understand your last point, as far as every alliance that I have been in, they have a tech/trade minister ephor whatever the position title is, that soley does Econ, this usually includes a section of a forum where buyers go and buy tech from sellers who post up there slot avalibility. Even then if you fail there, you speak to your Allies, which are treatied with you, they then usually will want there smaller nations to grow so they let them use thier sellers. So begging? Hardly. I appologise if you dont know the mechanics of how an alliance/allies work. just thought id point it out for your benefit.

ppl dont buy tech after 200 that point was mooted by the other poster

you can easily obtain 3/100 deals through your alliance/allies Which grows you both. at a fair level.

realisitcly how many people sell tech at 5k or 4k ? not many most are already collecting tech at 3999. which you can go from 1999-3999 in 20 days if you have 30 mill and a decent tradeset. pretty decent growth from 3/100 deals.

and go and search the 5k infra range and see how many still sell tech compared to how many collect tech for themselfes, it has been this way and will continue to be this way. there is no benefit to sell tech at 5k other than slowing your own infra/tech ratio.

[IronicMaster]

Let's say a nation is at 100 infra with 3BR trade set (construction) and has 5 factories (A nation with 100 infra usually doesn't get 5 factories but it makes the infra price cheaper).

5x 3 mil for 100 tech benefits him with 1.4x5=7 mil.

For this amount of money, the nation can buy 1149 infra. A total of 1249 infra. The nation will collect about the same amount of money from the end of it's inactivity cycle.

5x 3 mil for 50 tech benefits him with 2.1x5=10.5 mil

For this amount of money, the nation can buy 1390 infra. A total of 1490 infra. The nation will collect about the same amount of money from the end of it's inactivity cycle.

200 infra. It's only 17% more. And the gap decreases drastically after that.

Is it really OK that buyers get 50% less so YOU could get 20% more?

Think of that for a moment.

Your calculation does not mention the slots. 3/100 requires you to use your slot 30 days, 3/50 requires you to use them 20 days.

this makes a average of 2,25m/20 = 110k per slot and Day in case of 3m 50.

this also makes a average of 1,4/30 = 45k per slot and day in case of 3m 100

as it takes 30 days to solve 5 3m 100 deals, the bennefit for the seller

30*5*110k = 16Mio compared to 30*5*45k = 7Mio

[Sande]

I'd like to remind you that there is a war function in this game too. And that's why you should get tech. Getting lots of infra for the sake of nation growth makes you and your alliance so much weaker for it.

Also, you forgot to mention the collection you get from inactivity cycles. When you do these, you basically get as much money as you spend on infra before ending the inactivity cycle. Evens it out for you pretty much. Still, you get 20% more for buyers 50% less.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sande

[IronicMaster]

I'd like to remind you that there is a war function in this game too. And that's why you should get tech. Getting lots of infra for the sake of nation growth makes you and your alliance so much weaker for it.

Also, you forgot to mention the collection you get from inactivity cycles. When you do these, you basically get as much money as you spend on infra before ending the inactivity cycle. Evens it out for you pretty much. Still, you get 20% more for buyers 50% less.

You get this cycles if you do the one deal or the other. You must not apply it to your calculation cause it simple is has nothing to to with the benefit of the one circle or the other.

[Lukcia]

Right, this needs to stop.

It is going around in a circle.

One side says the Buyers need good value the other says the Sellers need good value and someone just insults anyone they can find. This is going nowhere and is just becoming pointless now. >_>

[IronicMaster]

You get this cycles if you do the one deal or the other. You must not apply it to your calculation cause it simple is has nothing to to with the benefit of the one circle or the other.

I correct myself... but did you calculat 16+16= 32 vs 7+7 = 14

[Sande]

It doesn't really matter how much money you get. What matters is how much infra you can buy i.e. how much you can grow. You have to use ALL your incomes to calculate this, even what you collect. The point is to show how fast you get from selling tech to buying tech. Generally, you stop selling at 4000 infra.

Yes, you get 1/3 more from every tech deal, but the infra growth of the nation will depend more on your collection not the money you get from the tech deal.

You will definitely grow faster with some extra money, but that doesn't mean large nations shouldn't get tech.

Let me ask you this: Are you going to buy 3 mil for 50 tech when your nation grows big enough to become a buyer? Of course not because you're being so capitalistic about it and demand 3 mil for 150 tech deals because that benefits your nation more at that point. You can't lose 700k per tech deal just because the price is 3 mil for 50 tech. And you also want to gain rank 0001 so you can't afford buying expensive tech.

If you ask me if I'd do 3 mil for 100 tech deals if I was a small nation, I would say Yes. That's because I did them when my nation was small and because the alliance (You don't seem to care about your alliance's military power as you're just an all-economy guy) needs tech. Hell, if my nation got deleted and I am still interested in the game (politics), I would even become a tech farm, pumping 250, eventually 300 free tech for my alliance's active members every 10 days. Even then you can make your nation grow.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sande

[Einer]

Did you nation get its annual 2.5% pay increase this year for its citizens?

My citizens are just numbers on a page. They take no actions, therefore they aren't economic actors. I, on the other hand, got a nice pay increase when I started taking 3m/50 from people who either couldn't find or didn't want to take the time to find 3m/100 deals.

[Bordiga]

Right, this needs to stop.

It is going around in a circle.

One side says the Buyers need good value the other says the Sellers need good value and someone just insults anyone they can find. This is going nowhere and is just becoming pointless now. >_>

I think the sellers argued their point much better than the buyers, personally. The buyers don't seem to be able to grasp the slightest bit of logic.

[IronicMaster]

Let me ask you this: Are you going to buy 3 mil for 50 tech when your nation grows big enough to become a buyer? Of course not because you're being so capitalistic about it and demand 3 mil for 150 tech deals because that benefits your nation more at that point. You can't lose 700k per tech deal just because the price is 3 mil for 50 tech. And you also want to gain rank 0001 so you can't afford buying expensive tech.

I would search for 3/150 but not demand. And I will do whatever matches my needs best. Capitalism is not always about the best price. Since nearly every price that speeds me up would be a relativly good deal, I will also mention the effectivity of the slots. When It takes to long to get 3/150 or 3/100 deals, 3/50 might be the better choice, even for a VERY capitalistic person. As you mentioned before, my alliance is a importand variable too. If there is not a strong ring of developed nations in a specific strange-range, It could be a very hard job to cross this range without beeing teared into pieces.

[teamcoltra]

Tech Deals with a middle man rock You never have to worry about not getting your tech, because you get it at once... You were going to burn 2 aid slots anyway.. might as well do it at once.

[Tillistan]

I think the sellers argued their point much better than the buyers, personally. The buyers don't seem to be able to grasp the slightest bit of logic.

Please explain to me the logic in paying for the purchase costs, and then paying more than half of that in pure compensation. Yeah, the sellers and their LOGICAL explanation of: "YOU MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ME, SO I'LL CHARGE YOU TWICE THE COSTS OF THE PRODUCT YOU ALREADY PAY FOR JUST BECAUSE I'M WORTH IT" sure makes alot of sense.

Good business? lol. All you're doing is showing how greedy and arrogant modern sellers are. I surely won't ever consider buying from any of you when I can get 3 mil/100 from humble, content people elsewhere. We all reached where we are doing the traditional 3 mil/100 tech. I don't see why you modern sellers deserve anything different, other than the fact that you think you're significantly more important to the game than you really are.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Tillistan

[Joe Izuzu]

For me, the issue is one of slot reciprocity. A seller who does 3/100 deals only receives benefit 1/3 of the time, while the buyer benefits 2/3 of the time. That is clearly not equitable. In a 3/50 deal, each side receives a benefit 1/2 the time, so it is equitable to both sides.

That being said, when I was doing 3/50 tech deals outside my alliance, I always delivered the tech up front and trusted the buyer to pay me later. That way the buyer had no risk and enjoyed immediate gratification.

[TrilobyteMan]

ITT: People who care more about their pixels than their communities.

Personally I thought I was pushing it when I started buying tech 3mil/75 (3/50/3/50/50) pre-Karma war. 3/50 is ridiculous.

[IronicMaster]

Please explain to me the logic in paying for the purchase costs, and then paying more than half of that in pure compensation. Yeah, the sellers and their LOGICAL explanation of: "YOU MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ME, SO I'LL CHARGE YOU TWICE THE COSTS OF THE PRODUCT YOU ALREADY PAY FOR JUST BECAUSE I'M WORTH IT" sure makes alot of sense.

Good business? lol. All you're doing is showing how greedy and arrogant modern sellers are. I surely won't ever consider buying from any of you when I can get 3 mil/100 from humble, content people elsewhere. We all reached where we are doing the traditional 3 mil/100 tech. I don't see why you modern sellers deserve anything different, other than the fact that you think you're significantly more important to the game than you really are.

Please explain the logic in expecting us to do the same deals you did. I'm not expecting a Modell-T for 350$. I'cant stand this oh the old times talking anymore. In fact I never could. What was before, may be arguments for someone who lives in the past. TIMES CHANGE

Are you doing the job your father does/did and is/was he doing the job your grandfather does/did ???

Why expecting us, doing the job you did? Just because you're old in this game?

btw. Our argument is, if you want the service and are willing to pay for it, we sell. We sell to the guy that pays better. Noone forces you to buy 3/50. And we will surely let noone force us to sell 3/100.

Edited January 13, 2010 by IronicMaster

[Hiro Nakara]

Please explain the logic in expecting us to do the same deals you did. I'm not expecting a Modell-T for 350$. I'cant stand this oh the old times talking anymore. In fact I never could. What was before, may be arguments for someone who lives in the past. TIMES CHANGE

Are you doing the job your father does/did and is/was he doing the job your grandfather does/did ???

Why expecting us, doing the job you did? Just because you're old in this game?

btw. Our argument is, if you want the service and are willing to pay for it, we sell. We sell to the guy that pays better. Noone forces you to buy 3/50. And we will surely let noone force us to sell 3/100.

1.) in old times I would not reward someone for good tech selling services, so I suppose thats change

2.) Well actually since you mention it, I do the job my father did and he done the job my grandfather worked at.

3.) I'm sure you feel quite comfortable in being greedy, you have reminded us of this frequently. Nobody is forceing you to sell at 3/100, just like you certainly wouldnt get me paying 3/50, but thats not the point were argueing greed here and you show ample traits of such types of behavior.

[IronicMaster]

1.) in old times I would not reward someone for good tech selling services, so I suppose thats change

2.) Well actually since you mention it, I do the job my father did and he done the job my grandfather worked at.

3.) I'm sure you feel quite comfortable in being greedy, you have reminded us of this frequently. Nobody is forceing you to sell at 3/100, just like you certainly wouldnt get me paying 3/50, but thats not the point were argueing greed here and you show ample traits of such types of behavior.

1.) The reward is nothing other then paying a higher price. You just give it another word so that you don't have to admit, that even you underlay ther market forces.

2.) Hope you feel good about this tradition, no offense in that. The very most people in modern industrial countrys are not so traditional anymore. It's hard to find ANYONE so i consider it bad luck, having one on the opposite side of this discussion.

3.) Yes I know, you're not arguing the bennefit of the one ore the other side, cause your arguments are proven as to weak. You just rely on this political, personal, inobjective, perspective depending GREED thing with wich you could never get wrong cause it... depends on your oppinion not on FACTS.

[Einer]

Heh. Tillistan, as long as you can get 3m/100, then more power to you. The market obviously supports having some people sell at that rate, so nobody can complain that you're negotiating a good deal for yourself - it's not like we (or at least I) believe we're divinely entitled to 3m/50. At the same time, there are a significant number of people who seem content to accept 3m/50. Maybe they don't want the hassle of chasing down traders at 3m/100, or maybe they think the higher-level nations selling at 3m/50 are more reliable business partners. Hell, maybe using decent spelling, grammar, and punctuation in all my PMs (split infinitives aside) makes my business preferable.

The point I'm trying to make is that in the absence of a unified trade cartel, the price will adjust to whatever people are willing to pay. If there are more sellers than buyers, then the price will drop. If the reverse, then it'll rise. You can try to fight a price increase for tech, but unless you successfully organize that cartel (and it's certainly been known to happen IRL), then you'll eventually find your bids undercut by more desperate people who think 3m/50 is better than 0m/0. I don't know detailed numbers on demographics, but I suspect that there are more high-end nations buying tech each day, whereas the overall flat population suggests that the number of tech sellers is flat or going down. That is not a situation where one would typically expect prices to remain constant.

[Sande]

For me, the issue is one of slot reciprocity. A seller who does 3/100 deals only receives benefit 1/3 of the time, while the buyer benefits 2/3 of the time. That is clearly not equitable. In a 3/50 deal, each side receives a benefit 1/2 the time, so it is equitable to both sides.

That being said, when I was doing 3/50 tech deals outside my alliance, I always delivered the tech up front and trusted the buyer to pay me later. That way the buyer had no risk and enjoyed immediate gratification.

OK, WTF?!

This doesn't make any sense. You could just aswell do 1.5 mil for 50 tech deals so that the buyer and seller woukld "benefit" 1/2 of the time.

3 mil for 100 tech deals were originally made this way so the aid slots would be most efficiently used. Sending 1.5 mil to a seller so he could send you back 50 tech is idiocy if you can also send 3 mil and get 100 tech back. Better aid slot usage.

The sellers don't usually set the price in this game. It is the buyers. And when one buyer starts buying cheaper, others will start doing that too eventually. And eventually it becomes a common law to do cheaper tech deals. 3 mil for 50 tech is the worst idea ever. I'd rather do 1.5 mil for 50 tech.

I don't think the topic is about what's good for small nations. It's about wether we should do 3 mil for 50 tech deals instead of 3 mil for 100 now.

What's good for small nations is bad for large nations. And it is even worse in the long run as I've said. I'll do some calculations and be back soon.

[Sande]

So, after some calculations, stating the obvious:

When 2 nations have the perfect trade circle, do inactivity cycles and tech deals:

A nation that does 3 mil for 50 tech deals, grows big enough to buy tech (4000+ infra) in 71 days. (The date of the end of the last tech deal) It produces a total of 1000 tech in that time to larger nations.

A nation that does 3 mil for 100 tech deals, grows big enough to buy tech in 111 days. It produces a total of 2000 tech in that time.

50 tech dealer's growth is 33% faster than the nation that does 100 tech deals and it produces 50% less tech.

Let me remind you that after the small nation state, both nations have the same growth rate if they build their nations the right way. The difference in the first step of your nation's growth is only 40 days. That's nothing compared to the age of the game.

Also, if we do 50 tech deals, we will have 33% less sellers than when we did 100 tech deals. And this will increase tech price again, possibly in the middle of 2011.

Looking at IronicMaster's nation... Get Gold and do inactivity cycles if you want to grow faster. You have wasted lots of money doing whatever you did in the last 15 days.

[Tillistan]

Please explain the logic in expecting us to do the same deals you did. I'm not expecting a Modell-T for 350$. I'cant stand this oh the old times talking anymore. In fact I never could. What was before, may be arguments for someone who lives in the past. TIMES CHANGE

Are you doing the job your father does/did and is/was he doing the job your grandfather does/did ???

Why expecting us, doing the job you did? Just because you're old in this game?

btw. Our argument is, if you want the service and are willing to pay for it, we sell. We sell to the guy that pays better. Noone forces you to buy 3/50. And we will surely let noone force us to sell 3/100.

I love how all you do is address how you don't think you deserve being subjected to the same treatment as anyone else. You don't even address the fact that WE PAY FOR THE TECH, WE ALREADY PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE SLOT. And you still want more? I normally wouldn't have even addressed players of your kind, but the fact that you brought out the "logical" card, with all you saying "TIMES ARE DIFFERENT. PAY ME MORE!!!", disturbs me

Edited January 14, 2010 by Tillistan

[Hiro Nakara]

Ofcoarse it's logical, but your arguement is weak [/sarcasm]

[Joe Izuzu]

ITT: People who care more about their pixels than their communities......

Hey TM. I don't believe that this debate has anything to do with valuing pixels over community, since we are talking about inter-alliance, not intra-alliance, tech deals. A seller from Alliance A has absolutely no responsibility to further the interests of Alliance B. For me personally, I will never again do any tech deals with members of other alliances. When I used to sell to outside nations, it was only with members of our allies. But given that I saw tech I sold to "allies" used against us in the Karma war, I will never make the same mistake again.

1.) in old times I would not reward someone for good tech selling services, so I suppose thats change.....

.....3.) I'm sure you feel quite comfortable in being greedy, you have reminded us of this frequently. Nobody is forceing you to sell at 3/100, just like you certainly wouldnt get me paying 3/50, but thats not the point were argueing greed here and you show ample traits of such types of behavior.

Point 1: It is extremely common in many different scenarios to reward vendors for providing good service. Excellent waiters are rewarded with bigger tips from customers. Stores that provide excellent customer service are rewarded with loyal clientele who are happy to pay a premium for the enhanced service and attention that the store provides them. Employees are rewarded with bonuses over and above their salaries in exchange for exemplary performance. The list goes on and on.

Point 2: This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Buyers that want to pay the minimum possible for their tech are being just as greedy as sellers who want to receive the maximum for their goods. Neither side is inherently better or worse than the other, it is simply a case of basic business practices and market forces at work. Whining about the "greedy sellers" is just as asinine as sellers whining about "stingy buyers". It is simply good business to structure a deal in the most advantageous way possible. Get over it.

OK, WTF?!

This doesn't make any sense. You could just aswell do 1.5 mil for 50 tech deals so that the buyer and seller woukld "benefit" 1/2 of the time.

3 mil for 100 tech deals were originally made this way so the aid slots would be most efficiently used. Sending 1.5 mil to a seller so he could send you back 50 tech is idiocy if you can also send 3 mil and get 100 tech back. Better aid slot usage.

The sellers don't usually set the price in this game. It is the buyers. And when one buyer starts buying cheaper, others will start doing that too eventually. And eventually it becomes a common law to do cheaper tech deals. 3 mil for 50 tech is the worst idea ever. I'd rather do 1.5 mil for 50 tech.

I don't think the topic is about what's good for small nations. It's about wether we should do 3 mil for 50 tech deals instead of 3 mil for 100 now.

What's good for small nations is bad for large nations. And it is even worse in the long run as I've said. I'll do some calculations and be back soon.

Myopic, much?

Point 1: 3/100 is only better aid slot usage for the seller, not for the buyer. A 1.5/50 deal is also only advantageous to the seller. That is clearly obvious. But business deals are negotiated by each side in order to maximize their respective advantages. If the seller can negotiate a deal that maximizes his benefit, more power to him.

Point 2: Actually, market forces set the price everywhere, not just here. When supply exceeds demand, prices go down. When demand exceeds supply, prices go up. Simple economics. I would hazard to guess that if the ratio of sellers to buyers keeps dropping, 3/50 is gonna look REALLY good. Cause eventually the price will go higher. I understand that you want to do deals as cheaply as possible. You should also be able to understand that sellers want to do deals as profitably as possible.

Point 3: The topic is about whether the standard price has increased. I would have to say that the number of buyers willing to do 3/50 deals has apparently increased as compared to when I was tech selling roughly a year ago. But even then, roughly 1/2 of my deals were at 3/50.

Point 4: Deal with it. Short of recruiting large numbers of new nations into CN, you have no way of preventing eventual inflation. Just do the best for yourself that you can, while you can. And recognize that it is natural and justifiable that the sellers will try to do the same for themselves.

So, after some calculations, stating the obvious:...50 tech dealer's growth is 33% faster than the nation that does 100 tech deals and it produces 50% less tech.

Let me remind you that after the small nation state, both nations have the same growth rate if they build their nations the right way. The difference in the first step of your nation's growth is only 40 days. That's nothing compared to the age of the game.

Also, if we do 50 tech deals, we will have 33% less sellers than when we did 100 tech deals. And this will increase tech price again, possibly in the middle of 2011.

Looking at IronicMaster's nation... Get Gold and do inactivity cycles if you want to grow faster. You have wasted lots of money doing whatever you did in the last 15 days.

Point 1: So it is obvious that 3/50 deals are more advantageous to sellers than 3/100 deals. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. For you to argue that the seller should be content to wait an extra 40 days because that is "nothing compared to the age of the game" is just plain laughable. Let me reiterate: SELLERS DON'T OWE YOU A DAMN THING. The only thing they owe you is prompt delivery of the product that you purchase. Period. They owe themselves the effort to max their nations' growth as much as possible.

Point 2: Yep. As stated before, inflation is inevitable unless there is a large influx of new (or rerolled) nations. That is life. Stop whining about it.

Point 3: IronicMaster's efficiency is at 269.82. I think he is doing just fine. But sure, he should try to set up the best trade set possible and do lc swap cycles. However, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he should sell tech at the highest price he can get. The obvious answer is that he should.

All of this discussion is academic to me, since as I stated above, I will never sell to anyone outside of my alliance ever again. But for purposes of argument, both sides will (and should) continue to try to obtain the most favorable business terms possible. Buyers do not owe sellers anything other than paying on time. Sellers do not owe buyers anything other than delivering product on time. If a buyer can get someone to sell to him cheaply, great. If a seller can get someone to pay more, also great. That is what makes commerce so wonderful. So stop complaining and just do your business the best way that you can and feel comfortable that the other side will try to do exactly the same thing.

[IronicMaster]

I love how all you do is address how you don't think you deserve being subjected to the same treatment as anyone else. You don't even address the fact that WE PAY FOR THE TECH, WE ALREADY PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE SLOT. And you still want more? I normally wouldn't have even addressed players of your kind, but the fact that you brought out the "logical" card, but all you do is say "TIMES ARE DIFFERENT. PAY ME MORE!!!", disturbs me

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.