Sellers Revolution

[Baldr]

[quote name='SeuwP' date='11 June 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1276277251' post='2333393']
As I said, I am patient.
[/quote]

If you were patient, you wouldn't be trying to convince everyone else in the game that they should change just to make it more profitable for you.

[SeuwP]

[quote name='Baldr' date='12 June 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1276381753' post='2335453']
If you were patient, you wouldn't be trying to convince everyone else in the game that they should change just to make it more profitable for you.
[/quote]

How is it more profitable to just me when im telling everyone to make it more profitable for themselves? and I am patient the reason im doing this is I think all sellers should be paid a decent amount of money for their services. and once again dont you think more people will keep playing if THEY can grow faster?

[SeuwP]

[quote name='Baldr' date='12 June 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1276381640' post='2335451']
Assuming nobody quits, then these smaller nations who are sellers should, in time, grow and become buyers. Therefore, it doesn't increase the number of sellers, and potentially makes the ratio higher on the buyer end.



If it were just money, higher prices wouldn't bother me. You don't seem to understand that the change you are suggesting is impacted by the limited number of aid slots. If I pay $3M and get 50 tech, that takes one aid slot 20 days. It averages to 2.5 tech a day I can bring in. If I pay 3M for 100, it takes 1 aid slot 30 days. That averaged 3.333 tech I bring in every day.



I'm arguing that I should pay 3/100, the same amount that I sold tech for. You are arguing that you should get paid more for tech. And you are calling me greedy. This entire thread is based on your "I want more money, I don't want to do what has been done for a long time, *everyone* should change in order to make me happy" argument.
[/quote]

but then there would be new people to sell because they would want to stay because they grow faster


maybe you should be patient

and if I were truly greedy I would demand even more because i know super large nations pay ALOT for tech, to say the least, this is natural inflation and im not the only one benefitting

[SeuwP]

To let everyone know im done debating this and ive posted a response to everything and now all i am getting are repeat questions so if you have any unique questions PM me. I am no longer checking this post as of.... NOW!

[NoLaurelTree000]

[quote name='SeuwP' date='11 June 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1276309585' post='2334275']
I could catch up just as much either way because either way both large an mid-sized nations are paying the same... I dont understand why you do not realize this.
Either way, if you think about it, they will grow the same large nation still only affords idk example: 9 million and smaller nation 3 million (this is only for example so dont take these exact figures like they are real), only difference instead of 100 tech per 3 million they are both making 50 tech.



I would like to see an alliance with 40 percent weak, 40 percent mid-ranged, and 20 percent super-powers(another example) try to face an alliance with 20 percent weak 60 percent mid-ranged and 20 percent superpowers.
[/quote]


so you are claiming to be a wizard then, yes?

large and nations may be paying the same NOW, but they weren't paying the same 4 months ago. you seem to be completely disregarding any past tech purchases a buyer has already made. i currently have 5 3mill/100tech deals and have done deals for the same rate since i have began to buy tech. you will never catch up to me buying tech at 3mill/50tech because i will continue to buy tech and you will never be able to overcome the base of tech ive already purchased at a cheaper price than you are paying. its simple math man.

the alliance selling tech for 3mill/100tech will win. their mid & superpower nations will have more tech than the alliance doing 3mill/50tech deals. weak nations are fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of wars.

[+Zeke+]

What most of these sellers trying to get 3M for 50 don't realize is that it not just the money aspect that makes large nations refuse to pay that rate.

I'd have no problem paying 3M for 50, [i]providing I had unlimited aid slots.[/i]

But I don't and the idea of using [i]four aid slot usages[/i] is too much. The 6 million price is simply irrelevant at my size.


If you want extra money then buy yourself a FAC and I'll give you more money. But don't ask me to spend more than 3 aid slot usages for the 100 tech. Using four slots instead of three puts my nation at a disadvantage to other large nations over the long haul. They will accumulate tech faster than I do.

Asking me to pay you 3M for 50 is implicitly asking me to slow my nation growth for you. I'll go find someone else.

[Banksy]

There simply isn't the tech shortage at the moment to let the price go up to 3/50. Until large nations get desperate again, then it will remain at 3/100.

[agafaba]

To be honest it didnt take me too long to fill my aid slots with 50/3m

Its impossible to catch up with larger nations regardless, the only way anyone could do that is through war.

[James I]

A couple of people in this thread seem to be attaching a greater moral value to sellers trying to push prices down to 50 tech for $3M, while criticising larger nations for keeping the [i]status quo[/i]. Guess what: large nations want to keep things how they are because they want more tech and small nations want to drive the prices down so they make more money. To suggest that the $3m/50t sellers' motivations are derived from any other source is, well, not right. They are driven by greed, just as buyers are.