Reduce power of garage supplies

[ThouShallNot 963]

Seems like after 50 pages the devs don't even bother to do anything about this issue.

[fufususumumu1 240]

Sure fufususumumu1

 

Correct graph, but let's analyse the out-of-graph factors that determine it.

 

Let's remember that demand depends directly on quality, efficiency and amount of product sold (that would make think that a X10 DD would be more sold out), but indirectly in the whole pleasure of gaming, i.e. satisfaction and more players base that "demand". That is the key.

In other words, the crossing point of those 2 curves is what has to be analysed, mainly the out-of-graph factors.

 

Satisfaction gives more buyers on a mass basis and more playing mass (for grown interest), hence again more buyers.

 

In this case satisfaction is somehow inversely proportional to the unit amount of the product, i.e. a X10 damage drug would destroy satisfaction, as noone would play anymore. It would be a situation in which the drugger press spacebar and destroy everything on his way and this is NOT satisfying, probably not even for the drugger himself, that face no opponent at all.

 

A more balanced situation allows fun for everyone, let everyone have a chance to participate in a battle, let everyone feel "I am fighting"!

 

I see where you are coming from, and how you base your arguments. It makes sense, but I'll try and point out what I don't agree with...

I think what you want to convey is that when all the consumers are happy, then it allows for more critical mass and more players, thus more revenue for tanki.

Should be correct, but if it hasn't happened yet, why so?

Probably tanki actually foresaw all of these events occurring and, because they are more advantageous in making decisions due to their labour force and existence of testing experiments etc.

They probably would have known of that "perfect solution" where everybody is happy.

Why haven't they implemented it yet? Because they have solved the first problem. Consumer satisfaction, and now they have to solve the second PRODUCER SATISFACTION. This perfect solution must have made all players happy, but would not give them the money to keep their business growing. So All the critical mass, player growth etc. would have been ineffective.

Let me show a simple example: 100 x 100 = 10000, BUT 120 x 80 = 9600

The first set of numbers in the equation represents the average amount of money that they get from each player, And in the second case, you can see that it is greater than the first 120>100, meaning higher average per player. But the second set of numbers, showing the number of players in the game, you can see that it is equally less compared to the first set, yet the total income is less.

They received a gain of 20£ per player... And equally a loss of 20 players, but it is still less than when both factors were equal ie. 100v100

In the same way, even with a larger amount of players, the player base, it would lead to an reduced income. And also you have to remember that increasing player base would take time (meaning they would close down before they reached that sustainable number)

Maybe faster rate of increase, but not fast enough which would explain why tanki hasn't implemented it yet.

That's why we need to come up with a solution that is favourable to both parties... It doesn't really follow that more consumer satisfaction equals more money...

 

 

 

Now, suppose in chess you could use an "upgrade" every 45 seconds on any piece you choose. You could turn a bishop into a queen that not only had the queen's powers and movement but also could fly and go to any spot on the chessboard. Furthermore some players could buy more of these than....

@creepers: what If I told you that you COULD make your game more op.... Not through the bishop, but the pawn.

But even though this pawn can become very powerful, it has to be able to make it through enemy base, reach the opposite side of the board and ONLY THEN become a queen. Quick thought, what if tanki did not allow druggers use them as they pleased, but forced them to actually earn their right to drug?

 

 

 

 

I can think of three reasons why they do it, but, one of those reasons isn't exactly PG.

 

One reason is because of the ridiculous amounts of XP needed to rank. Drugging is the only way to cheat this process. That is what they do earn by spending more than they earn in crystals - a shortcut to ranking.

 

Did you know? It costs the equivalent of $1,700 USD to reach gismo in terms of tanks and supplies to reach 1,400,000 XP. That's what you will spend in "drugs" and "tanks" by the time you reach the top rank and have done MU on a full M3 hull and turret combo. A full blown drugger will actually spend that much money in the course of ranking.

 

Insane, isn't it? Now you understand why we likely won't ever see changes?

 

I wish there was an anti-friends list - you see a drugger, click on the name, add to list. Whenever you see said drugger again in a battle list it shows up in red instead of green. This way you know to avoid playing that battle.

  

I think, instead of upgrading my dictator or ricochet and spending ~400,000 crystals on the next modification, I'll just buy 400,000 crystals worth of drugs and achieve a similar effect. In fact, even better, since drugs make your tank TWO modifications stronger! How could this plan ever go wrong?!

What about block list?

And your above example shows why they don't change the system... Follows the quote 'producers will satisfy he needs of the consumer as long as it is in their best interests to do so'

We need to find some way to keep them earning their 1000£ plus without keeping the players mad at them for doing so.

[Kabaul 0]

LOL, I didn't know where to post this but the chat moderator "deadtoyou" is my favourite moderator. No offense to the others but he is the bomb

 

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Getting a pawn to the other side of the board to make it a queen is extremely difficult. In all the years I have played chess it happens rarely - and usually if a player allows this to happen then it is likely they are going to lose anyways.

 

It is a rule of chess and one that is fair because queening a pawn is quite difficult.

 

In fact one does not have to choose a queen - I checkmated a player once before by promoting a pawn to a knight upon reaching the other side. It was a clever move and quite impressive the other player missed that.

 

Drugging in Tanki is more akin to bypassing the rule and allowing you to queen a pawn at any time and for a limited duration. Since pawns can only attack on a diagonal turning one into a queen suddenly would add severe imbalance to a chess board.

 

Obviously Tanki has the right to make money and I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

 

But, how many people such as myself who do  have plenty of real money DON'T spend that money on Tanki because of the irritation of drugging?

 

I actually had planned on buying some crystals when I ranked to Brig but about the same time they nerfed the hulls and turrets.  It is my opinion that when you "buy" a hull or turret then the parameters of such should never change - this is called "grandfathering." If at some point they subsequently modify turrets or hulls the modifications should apply to anyone buying as of that time. If a player who has a pre-existing turret or hull could benefit from an improvement due to the changes then Tanki could allow the player to spend some crystals for the "improved" turret or hull. As it is practically everything in my garage became weaker due to the last update. So, now, competing against druggers is even more difficult than it was prior to a few weeks ago when they rebalanced everything.

 

Because of this move when I ranked I did not buy anything. So, their actions do have consequences. Unhappy players (customers) don't spend money.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I will also add that there is one situation in which I think it is OK for a player to drug full out: when in possession of the enemy flag and hunkering down in defense to capture it. When both teams are holding the enemy's flag the flag carrier does need the extra protection because of the onslaught of the enemy coming to return the flag.

 

However, what usually happens is the flag carrier gets pounded by 3 or 4 of the other team also fully drugged so usually it has bad results.

 

If two teams have similar skills it turns out to be a major drugfest getting the flag back. This I think is OK. It it similar to what happens in Polygon CP.

 

What is NOT OK is when a team has a substantial lead already and is just camping in the opposite base blowing people up the second they spawn or still drugging heavily to capture more flags.

 

Or, one team has 10 players and the other 4 and still drugs to pound the team with fewer people.

 

At that point it really is just bad sportsmanship.

 

If I'm on a team with a substantial number of people compared to the other team I only use supplies, and, often times I will just drive around the map or pause until some other people join the other team. When there is a substantial imbalance in the number of players on both teams there is no legitimate reason for anyone on the team with the most players to drug at all.

[fufususumumu1 240]

Getting a pawn to the other side of the board to make it a queen is extremely difficult. In all the years I have played chess it happens rarely - and usually if a player allows this to happen then it is likely they are going to lose anyways.

 

It is a rule of chess and one that is fair because queening a pawn is quite difficult.

 

In fact one does not have to choose a queen - I checkmated a player once before by promoting a pawn to a knight upon reaching the other side. It was a clever move and quite impressive the other player missed that.

 

Drugging in Tanki is more akin to bypassing the rule and allowing you to queen a pawn at any time and for a limited duration. Since pawns can only attack on a diagonal turning one into a queen suddenly would add severe imbalance to a chess board.

 

Obviously Tanki has the right to make money and I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

 

But, how many people such as myself who do  have plenty of real money DON'T spend that money on Tanki because of the irritation of drugging?

 

I actually had planned on buying some crystals when I ranked to Brig but about the same time they nerfed the hulls and turrets.  It is my opinion that when you "buy" a hull or turret then the parameters of such should never change - this is called "grandfathering." If at some point they subsequently modify turrets or hulls the modifications should apply to anyone buying as of that time. If a player who has a pre-existing turret or hull could benefit from an improvement due to the changes then Tanki could allow the player to spend some crystals for the "improved" turret or hull. As it is practically everything in my garage became weaker due to the last update. So, now, competing against druggers is even more difficult than it was prior to a few weeks ago when they rebalanced everything.

 

Because of this move when I ranked I did not buy anything. So, their actions do have consequences. Unhappy players (customers) don't spend money.

Just like in chess, conditions must be set so that this ability to drug can be acquired instead of being able to be accessed all the time by the push of a button. Or maybe the opposite... So like you won't be able to stop after a certain score in points?

Also tanki doesn't get money from people like you, mainly they get it from those rich simpletons who will do anything to win (not implying that all people who buy are simpletons). This has to change... Through many methods like counter play by ExtraCredits etc.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I got $35 as a Christmas gift and I used it to purchase crystals during the extra multiplier time (which actually worked out to 5x crystals when the bonus crystals were added - it worked out to something like 400,000 crystals for $35). I used it to upgrade most of my turrets to M2.

[fufususumumu1 240]

I got $35 as a Christmas gift and I used it to purchase crystals during the extra multiplier time (which actually worked out to 5x crystals when the bonus crystals were added - it worked out to something like 400,000 crystals for $35). I used it to upgrade most of my turrets to M2.

lols people wondering why guy would his expensive christmas present of 35$ on virtual currency :D

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Considering the cost of a typical game ($50~$60) spending $35 seemed reasonable to me. They do have to earn money to keep the game going - the developers don't work for free and the servers and bandwidth cost money. :P

[creeperskelly 1,281]

[Double post]

[fufususumumu1 240]

[Double post]

eh? how'd you double post 4 hours after the original post?

 

LOL, I didn't know where to post this but the chat moderator "deadtoyou" is my favourite moderator. No offense to the others but he is the bomb

i think you can send him a pm if you want. or maybe create your own topic in off-topic discussion.

[Brubook 1,161]

 

I see where you are coming from, and how you base your arguments. It makes sense, but I'll try and point out what I don't agree with...

I think what you want to convey is that when all the consumers are happy, then it allows for more critical mass and more players, thus more revenue for tanki.

Should be correct, but if it hasn't happened yet, why so?

Probably tanki actually foresaw all of these events occurring and, because they are more advantageous in making decisions due to their labour force and existence of testing experiments etc.

They probably would have known of that "perfect solution" where everybody is happy.

Why haven't they implemented it yet? Because they have solved the first problem. Consumer satisfaction, and now they have to solve the second PRODUCER SATISFACTION. This perfect solution must have made all players happy, but would not give them the money to keep their business growing. So All the critical mass, player growth etc. would have been ineffective.

Let me show a simple example: 100 x 100 = 10000, BUT 120 x 80 = 9600

The first set of numbers in the equation represents the average amount of money that they get from each player, And in the second case, you can see that it is greater than the first 120>100, meaning higher average per player. But the second set of numbers, showing the number of players in the game, you can see that it is equally less compared to the first set, yet the total income is less.

They received a gain of 20£ per player... And equally a loss of 20 players, but it is still less than when both factors were equal ie. 100v100

In the same way, even with a larger amount of players, the player base, it would lead to an reduced income. And also you have to remember that increasing player base would take time (meaning they would close down before they reached that sustainable number)

Maybe faster rate of increase, but not fast enough which would explain why tanki hasn't implemented it yet.

That's why we need to come up with a solution that is favourable to both parties... It doesn't really follow that more consumer satisfaction equals more money...

 

 

 

Now, suppose in chess you could use an "upgrade" every 45 seconds on any piece you choose. You could turn a bishop into a queen that not only had the queen's powers and movement but also could fly and go to any spot on the chessboard. Furthermore some players could buy more of these than....

@creepers: what If I told you that you COULD make your game more op.... Not through the bishop, but the pawn.

But even though this pawn can become very powerful, it has to be able to make it through enemy base, reach the opposite side of the board and ONLY THEN become a queen. Quick thought, what if tanki did not allow druggers use them as they pleased, but forced them to actually earn their right to drug?

 

 

 

    What about block list?

And your above example shows why they don't change the system... Follows the quote 'producers will satisfy he needs of the consumer as long as it is in their best interests to do so'

We need to find some way to keep them earning their 1000£ plus without keeping the players mad at them for doing so.

Dear fufususumumu1

 

I think that the "perfect solution" never exist, but an optimal one yes!

 

 

What I am trying to say is the Producer satisfaction comes from the Customer satisfaction!

It is the customers satisfaction that make the business grow! Be sure that consumer satisfaction means more money!

 

Reasons of Tanki behaviour? No idea! Maybe they are only focused on Unity, maybe greed, maybe shortsight, maybe slow growth. On growth I am not sure, as I see presence graph on Tanki homepage. They were showing a scale of 150.000 with an average of 120.000-140.000 players on peak hours 6-12 months ago. Now they cannot even reach 90.000. This seems more a problem than a "growth" to me.

 

You made a classical example used in the 70s and 80s business models, i.e. try to drain out as much as you can to every customer! Also, is there so much difference between 10.000 and 9.600? What about that the 9.600 (in the higher customer number factor) may also increase if customers are satisfied?

[Brubook 1,161]

 

Because of this move when I ranked I did not buy anything. So, their actions do have consequences. Unhappy players (customers) don't spend money.

Fully agree!

[Brubook 1,161]

Sometimes I read:

 

"they would close down before they reached that sustainable number" (fufususumumu1)

 

"They do have to earn money to keep the game going - the developers don't work for free and the servers and bandwidth cost money."(creeperskelly)

 

Well .... you said an interesting thing (which seems to be a common thought). I will soon release an estimated calculation of Tanki revenues, so you will see that they are not really "begging for a soup".

 

Starting from this, they would be clever to do their best for customers satisfaction as first task!

[fufususumumu1 240]

 

Dear fufususumumu1

 

I think that the "perfect solution" never exist, but an optimal one yes!

 

 

What I am trying to say is the Producer satisfaction comes from the Customer satisfaction!

It is the customers satisfaction that make the business grow! Be sure that consumer satisfaction means more money!

 

Reasons of Tanki behaviour? No idea! Maybe they are only focused on Unity, maybe greed, maybe shortsight, maybe slow growth. On growth I am not sure, as I see presence graph on Tanki homepage. They were showing a scale of 150.000 with an average of 120.000-140.000 players on peak hours 6-12 months ago. Now they cannot even reach 90.000. This seems more a problem than a "growth" to me.

 

You made a classical example used in the 70s and 80s business models, i.e. try to drain out as much as you can to every customer! Also, is there so much difference between 10.000 and 9.600? What about that the 9.600 (in the higher customer number factor) may also increase if customers are satisfied?

 

let me try and rephrase my first example...

first number                                 * second number     = third number

average revenue from each player * number of players = total income for tanki

so lets say, in the theoretical world, i have a perfectly balanced game with 100 players, gaining 100$ from each player per month, amounting to 10000$/month as income for tanki

but as a greedy businessman, i increase the price, resulting in 120$ (100 + 20) from each player per month to survive and keep up in the game.

So in this theoretical world, this results in a loss of 20 players or 80 (100-20) players in the game, amounting to 9600$/month as income for tanki

so even with equivalent addition of money required 20$, and equivalent loss of 20 players, it did not get as much as the perfectly balanced situation

but now, take the opposite case, where they focus mainly on the players interests, resulting in 80$ (100-20) from each player per month.

and you know what this does? this results in the equivalent increase of 20 players or 120 (100+20) players in the game, amounting to 9600$/month as income for tanki.

 

see how, even by focusing on players satisfaction, they had to sacrifice on their income? so we should try to make a system suitable for everybody.

now, i am only saying to get the point across, i haven't done any experiments (none of us have) to show and prove this in the real world, as i mentioned this is in the theoretical world. so your question about 9600v10000, in the real game, things may be much more drastic, as this was just an example. in the real world, only the optimal solution is available, and that was actually what i meant to say (you cant have 100 players vs 100 dollars in the real world)

 

 

you know what, to make both of us understand what each other is talking about, i suggest clearly stating the contention of each other, so that we do not misunderstand each other.

what you are trying to say is that producer satisfaction results out of consumer satisfaction.

what i am trying to say is that this statement is not true, and that producer satisfaction DOES not result out of consumer satisfaction, but works like an equilibrium point. you increase one side, you decrease the other side.

expounding on the above point, if there is higher consumer satisfaction, then people do not have to pay as much to just survive, and even though there are higher numbers, it is still not enough to keep a sustainable amount.

more players giving money * less amount of money given = less total revenue (what you propose)

less players giving money  * more amount of money given = less total revenue (current situation)

equal players giving money *     equal amount of money    = MORE TOTAL REVENUE (OPTIMAL SOLUTION)

How we go about it is the problem

[fufususumumu1 240]

 

Sometimes I read:

 

"they would close down before they reached that sustainable number" (fufususumumu1)

 

"They do have to earn money to keep the game going - the developers don't work for free and the servers and bandwidth cost money."(creeperskelly)

 

Well .... you said an interesting thing (which seems to be a common thought). I will soon release an estimated calculation of Tanki revenues, so you will see that they are not really "begging for a soup".

 

Starting from this, they would be clever to do their best for customers satisfaction as first task!

 

bad on my part. what about the fact that they want to make PROFIT? (refer to above post)

what we do is devise a system that satisfies that, helps them keep the same profit while keeping us happy at the same time (above post)

[RustyNail 1,538]

Getting a pawn to the other side of the board to make it a queen is extremely difficult. In all the years I have played chess it happens rarely - and usually if a player allows this to happen then it is likely they are going to lose anyways.

 

It is a rule of chess and one that is fair because queening a pawn is quite difficult.

 

In fact one does not have to choose a queen - I checkmated a player once before by promoting a pawn to a knight upon reaching the other side. It was a clever move and quite impressive the other player missed that.

 

Drugging in Tanki is more akin to bypassing the rule and allowing you to queen a pawn at any time and for a limited duration. Since pawns can only attack on a diagonal turning one into a queen suddenly would add severe imbalance to a chess board.

 

Obviously Tanki has the right to make money and I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

 

But, how many people such as myself who do  have plenty of real money DON'T spend that money on Tanki because of the irritation of drugging?

 

I actually had planned on buying some crystals when I ranked to Brig but about the same time they nerfed the hulls and turrets.  It is my opinion that when you "buy" a hull or turret then the parameters of such should never change - this is called "grandfathering." If at some point they subsequently modify turrets or hulls the modifications should apply to anyone buying as of that time. If a player who has a pre-existing turret or hull could benefit from an improvement due to the changes then Tanki could allow the player to spend some crystals for the "improved" turret or hull. As it is practically everything in my garage became weaker due to the last update. So, now, competing against druggers is even more difficult than it was prior to a few weeks ago when they rebalanced everything.

 

Because of this move when I ranked I did not buy anything. So, their actions do have consequences. Unhappy players (customers) don't spend money.

That's what happened with me also!

Before RUSTY BARELLS II Tanki was great and I was planning my affortable spending in turrets and hulls BECAUSE I WAS HAPPY AND I WANTED TO PAY BACK IN MONEY MY HAPPINESS.

After the overflow of supplies and Smart cooldown, I don't want to spend a single cent in Tanki. I did purchased some crystals, but only because I already had a prepaid card otherwise useless, and I surely won't spend anything anymore.

 

So, Tanki may got more money from some people (via the drugsales) but it also lost some money from me.

One should take into consideration not only estimated growth but estimated loss as well.

 

And being an unhappy player I certainly don't advertise Tanki to my friends and people I know... that's extra loss for Tanki.

Bottom line, I think they loose from this tactic, more than what they gain.

[Brubook 1,161]

let me try and rephrase my first example...

first number                                 * second number     = third number

average revenue from each player * number of players = total income for tanki

so lets say, in the theoretical world, i have a perfectly balanced game with 100 players, gaining 100$ from each player per month, amounting to 10000$/month as income for tanki

but as a greedy businessman, i increase the price, resulting in 120$ (100 + 20) from each player per month to survive and keep up in the game.

So in this theoretical world, this results in a loss of 20 players or 80 (100-20) players in the game, amounting to 9600$/month as income for tanki

so even with equivalent addition of money required 20$, and equivalent loss of 20 players, it did not get as much as the perfectly balanced situation

but now, take the opposite case, where they focus mainly on the players interests, resulting in 80$ (100-20) from each player per month.

and you know what this does? this results in the equivalent increase of 20 players or 120 (100+20) players in the game, amounting to 9600$/month as income for tanki.

 

see how, even by focusing on players satisfaction, they had to sacrifice on their income? so we should try to make a system suitable for everybody.

now, i am only saying to get the point across, i haven't done any experiments (none of us have) to show and prove this in the real world, as i mentioned this is in the theoretical world. so your question about 9600v10000, in the real game, things may be much more drastic, as this was just an example. in the real world, only the optimal solution is available, and that was actually what i meant to say (you cant have 100 players vs 100 dollars in the real world)

 

 

you know what, to make both of us understand what each other is talking about, i suggest clearly stating the contention of each other, so that we do not misunderstand each other.

what you are trying to say is that producer satisfaction results out of consumer satisfaction.

what i am trying to say is that this statement is not true, and that producer satisfaction DOES not result out of consumer satisfaction, but works like an equilibrium point. you increase one side, you decrease the other side.

expounding on the above point, if there is higher consumer satisfaction, then people do not have to pay as much to just survive, and even though there are higher numbers, it is still not enough to keep a sustainable amount.

more players giving money * less amount of money given = less total revenue (what you propose)

less players giving money  * more amount of money given = less total revenue (current situation)

equal players giving money *     equal amount of money    = MORE TOTAL REVENUE (OPTIMAL SOLUTION)

How we go about it is the problem

Ok, I see your point.

 

What I think you didn't consider is time. The main issue of customer satisfaction is not strictly from numbers, but it generate numbers.

 

On one side we have numbers: here we could also say that the increase of players for a decrease of prices is probably greater than what you assume (could double players number). This works on many products.

 

... but:

 

you consider increases and decreases of prices, while you consider static a "economically perfect balance". Nothing in economy is "fixed" or "frozen" in time, as thousands of external factors affect it too.

 

I am not saying that prices should decrease overall, they can be as they are. But the product you sell has to be satisfying. In this case satisfaction is a different factor from price.

As you also saw from previous posts, many players would be happy to pay more if what they pay for gives them the satisfaction in playing. Satisfaction means growth and growth means earnings.

 

So, I am not proposing reduction in prices (what I said before was to answer to your example). I am proposing an alteration of the product (reduction of drugs extra power) to give a more balanced gaming, thus to give more satisfaction to all players.

 

I am making up some calculation, to give an idea of the order of numbers we are really talking about (on Tanki revenues and balance).

 

 

Anyway I agree with you that these are only assumptions and ideas, based on our own knowledge and experience. So they maybe right or wrong in this case!

[Brubook 1,161]

bad on my part. what about the fact that they want to make PROFIT? (refer to above post)

what we do is devise a system that satisfies that, helps them keep the same profit while keeping us happy at the same time (above post)

Well, making profit is a RIGHT, especially when you have a great idea like Tanki. I wish Tanki to make millions dollars profits!!

 

Being greedy, i.e. draining as much as you can from something, is a self destructive business strategy, as you can easily understand!

Doubling a price only because you want more (just to make an extreme example) is not a good idea to make profit ... is the best idea to fail!

 

Making profit means also having a growth strategy (at least on the medium period, 2-5 years - depending on business sector). A strategy is based on market knowledge in order to meet customers interests.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

One of the issues Tanki deals with is the exchange rate of the ruble with regards to other currencies. For example in the last 6 months of 2014 the ruble lost half of its value against the USD and the EURO. It's starting to recover a bit, but, it does act as a variable in business decisions.

[Brubook 1,161]

One of the issues Tanki deals with is the exchange rate of the ruble with regards to other currencies. For example in the last 6 months of 2014 the ruble lost half of its value against the USD and the EURO. It's starting to recover a bit, but, it does act as a variable in business decisions.

Well, that for international commerce is an advantage! They earn more rubles per dollar. A lower value of local currency gives increase of export! A good thing for their international market.

 

But in principle I agree with you; currency exchange has to be considered in business decisions.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

You got it backwards.

 

When the dollar or euro increases it takes more rubles away from them to exchange that for that dollar or euro

If the dollar falls then it is an advantage to them.

 

For example if something costs 400 rubles and the exchange rate is 40/dollar then they get 10 dollars in return.

When the exchange rate is 70 per dollar then they are only getting about 5.75 dollars in return.

[Brubook 1,161]

You got it backwards.

 

When the dollar or euro increases it takes more rubles away from them to exchange that for that dollar or euro

If the dollar falls then it is an advantage to them.

 

For example if something costs 400 rubles and the exchange rate is 40/dollar then they get 10 dollars in return.

When the exchange rate is 70 per dollar then they are only getting about 5.75 dollars in return.

Aha, ok! As I saw prices in dollars I thought the other way round (most internet based things are in dollars). Based on rubles you are correct! :)

[RustyNail 1,538]

You got it backwards.

 

When the dollar or euro increases it takes more rubles away from them to exchange that for that dollar or euro

If the dollar falls then it is an advantage to them.

 

For example if something costs 400 rubles and the exchange rate is 40/dollar then they get 10 dollars in return.

When the exchange rate is 70 per dollar then they are only getting about 5.75 dollars in return.

So, what does it mean that all European countries buy crystals in euros or dollars? Doesn't it mean that I pay X euros for Y crystals and these X euros are more rubles than before?

So, I pay the same as before but Tanki collects more than before... Right?

Also, that means that Tanki has to pay more for servers outside Russia. :huh:

[creeperskelly 1,281]

It means supplies and tanks become cheaper for us when our currencies increase in value relative to the ruble (i.e. our purchasing power increases while their profits decrease).