 |
Do we give CFC Tech parity for 25% of the cost?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
5 |
31.25% |
| No |
   |
11 |
68.75% |
| Total: |
16 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:32
|
|
Ok, now that the chat is finally over, the log has been posted in the correspondance thread. And given that the FAM was busy actually talking and negotiating all this time, then the person who started the poll should have at least the common courtesy to provide the relevant information or at least wait till the chat is over and THEN poll on what was negotiated.
I have absolutely no objection to polls being made, don't get me wrong, au contraire, thanks to MJW's poll we had a basis on which to negotiate with CFC today even if it was not official it nevertheless did represent the will of the team, looking at the other "official poll" I see that the team's will is still very similar. However, I do object heavily on polls being done in the middle of chats, when we have not had time to provide adecuate information for the people to make a good judgment. Everything that we have negotiated today will be polled, just like CFC will poll themselves. But understand that doing things before we have concluded our work only serves to confuse people on what is going on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
First off, I have voted yes, but I want my vote nulled for 2 reasons:
I just woke us and didn't think
No debate before posting.
Now, with that said....
around 25% sounds reasonable and I would like to modify this for a moment.
I would like them to pay for 1/2 of the beaker cost as if there were 4 cives left AND they were the last civ to get the tech (3 others have it). There is a reason for this: they are getting the tech for 1/2 the cost that it would cost them if they were the last (not counting GCA, 4 total civs) civ to research the tech. This amount is equil to 57.083% of the full beaker amount divided by 2 OR 28.5417% of full beaker cost. This amount is based on having 4 civs remaining AND they are the last civ to get the tech (see AreaX for formula).
Or to simplify things, 6.85 times the editor cost.
So, say that we want them to pay for Invention. The Editor cost for this tech is 44. So, 44 * 6.85 = 301.4 or 301 gold (1 gold plus 15 GPT). Just to give you an idea, the full, first one to the tech, the amount of this tech is 1050 beakers.
NOW, as for if they research something, even with the 40 turn route, I say that we pay them the same amount. At the same time, we will likely have them researching the deadend techs that will cost the least amount to research, so overall, we are making out.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
Here's some background info on what BF is getting all hot about:
CFC wants us to share all techs. We don't really want to do that. However, we also don't want to tell them that we don't want to do that. Instead, we've decided to come up with a nice method whereby we both share in researching the same tech together. It would work like this:
CFC gives us GPT, which allows us to set our science rate higher than normal. Thus, we get our tech sooner than we would if researching alone. After we get it, we gift it to them so, in the end, we both get the tech.
The issue is this: How much should they pay?
Now if we both had the same economy, obviously, they'd pay 50% of the commerce/gold that we're putting into the research. However, we do not have the same economy.
As a part of our agreement they will reveal to us the exact value of their economy, however, we run into issues when we try to figure out just how much GPT can they give us, and how much should they be asked to give us.
It is absurd to think that they can contribute equally. If we drop our research to the level that they can contribute, we won't speed up our research, we'll just go at CFC x 2 speed, which isn't going to be enough to keep up with CGN or GWT.
Therefore, for this thing to work, we should go at the highest rate possible, using as much of CFC's GPT as possible, and hope for the best. It may be that CFC can only contribute 1g for ever 4g we put into research. It is even possible that they will be able to contribute less.
In that likely scenerio are we willing to accept that CFC is getting more of a benefit out of this agreement than us? Because if we're not, we may as well throw aside the alliance we just negotiated -- as the tech cooperation was a key aspect of the agreement.
Why should we agree to give them more of a benfit?
1) We are getting techs much faster than we otherwise could. They are helping us too.
2) We are getting a steady stream of gold from CFC -- in essence we're PRESELLING every tech we research to CFC. Not only do we get techs, we get cash.
3) We are giving CFC a very real benefit from staying in an alliance with us, something that they would be foolish to throw away. This was our aim from the beginning when trying to forge this alliance.
4) The more we cooperate, collaborate, share, and work together, the less likely CFC is to seriously consider attacking us.
In my opinion we are fools to throw this opportunity away. I once thought that selling tech "cheap" was foolish because the guy who bought it paid much less for it than I did, but multiplayer economics have clearly taught us the true lesson of tech trading: Your research cost is worth the tech you get. Any gold you get on top of the tech is a bonus, and multiple tech sales result in even more profits.
If CFC gives us 40gpt for a tech that takes us (combined) 8 turns to research, we have just made 320g, and we got a tech much much faster than we could have alone.
We could then take that tech and sell or trade it to CGN, further increasing our profits.
However, BigFree's bill wants to set a minimum on the amount CFC has to pay and if they can't make that minimum, what then? They're not going to give us any gold if we're not going to share the tech. We're not going to get the tech any faster on our own. We're not going to be able to trade them the tech for something else so we'll ultimately have to sell it to them, but at a discounted price (because they don't have much cash) ... so we'll get SOME of the money we would have gotten if we collaborated, we'll just get the tech slower.
If we tell them, "pay us 50gpt!" and they say "We can only pay you 35" and we say "sorry, our law says you must pay 50gpt" then they'll say "but you promised to share techs with us", and we say "We will if you can afford it" and they say "you tricked us!" then what? What's the result of our techsharing? Our alliance? Our relationship? We just screwed ourselves because of our greed and selfishness. Aren't we brilliant?
The answer is pretty clear. Either vote "yes" or post that you "abstain" and perhaps we can nullify this ridiculous "official" poll.
--Togas
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2003 09:48
|