Inactive Topic Idea ~ Gold Traders

DeletedUser

Guest
Proposal: Make Gold a tradeable resource, which can be given to players from another player. (excludes marketplace at current time)

Gold still needs to be purchased/earnt in the conventional fashion.

Reason: To allow Gold to be purchased by one player, and transferred to another. This would make Gold in my opinion a more valuable resource as players would be more exposed to Gold, and therefore be more likely to want to buy it.

Details: Gold can be gifted to another player along with the conventional resources

Balance: No swing in balance

Abuse:
As hp1234 pointed out implemented this idea, may give bullies a motive to bully other players, and extort gold from them.

Which is not an abuse, as it can be reported to the mods

Solutions
Changes that would negate the above:

1. Cannot transfer gold until 48 hours have passed without attacks on or by the two players on the two players (Player A attacks B= 48 hours...)

This would make the bully's job significantly more difficult as the resource he wants is getting pushed back by his own threats while the other player reports it.

2. No gold transfer between the same IP's. I know, I hate it too...but its the only thing to stop multi's from doing the above.

**********************

If those changes are implemented in the idea...its a major +1 from me. I tried to + rep you...I really did...the forum said I have to "spread the wealth".

Summary: Allow players to be able to gift the Gold that they have purchased.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Agreed... gold should be something you can gift to other players if you decide to quit, for example. Seems a waste otherwise.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But this can increase the cases of bullying other players for gold.So a No
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But this can increase the cases of bullying other players for gold.So a No

Yeah you're right, and while we're at it; lets remove attacking from the game in case a strong player bullies resources and BP out of a smaller one. We can't have that, think of the children HP.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But this can increase the cases of bullying other players for gold.So a No

Oh we should also take away the internet because social media sites like facebook give bullies access to kids
Oh we should also take away schools because schools give bullies access to other kids
Oh we should also take away money in real life because it may increase the cases of bullying other kids for money

Your argument is forfeit.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol but still implementing this feature has many potential abuses

§4) Account Sales
It is forbidden for accounts to be involved in any commercial activity. An account cannot be offered for sale. Offering gold coins to other players in exchange for in-game activities such as attacking other players is prohibited.

Examples:

It is forbidden to buy or sell resources( for example on E-bay)
It is forbidden to sell your account, or to sell playing rights to your account.
It is forbidden to advertise gold or resources for sale on your profile.
It is forbidden to complete or accept game services for gold.
It is forbidden to ask a third party to conquer your enemies in exchange for gold.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
That is an abuse yes, although currently resources can be freely traded so therefore making Gold a tradeable resource would not change anything....

I think we should remove the trading function of resources don't you -Horus-, because it may possibly result in abuse?


Also victims of bullying can report this to in-game mods who will take action

Therefore your issue is forfeit
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
None of that essentially prohibits this idea, it more relates to people trying to pawn off their accounts for money on other websites. Technically the first 'forbidden' rule listed is already being contradicted by the fact there is an idea in the development section where players in future will have the ability to purchase resources with gold... what's your point, other than blindly adhering to a piece of text?

I think we should remove the trading function of resources don't you -Horus-, because it may possibly result in abuse?

Also victims of bullying can report this to in-game mods who will take action

Therefore your issue is forfeit

Agreed with the above point about reporting of harassment and bullying for gold in game, and for trading gold as a resource; it should be kept seperately.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Grepolis currently forbid gold transfers between accounts, even if it is between accounts owned by the same person. With that in mind, I would be skeptical about how likely it is that this would be implemented.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Grepolis currently forbid gold transfers between accounts, even if it is between accounts owned by the same person. With that in mind, I would be skeptical about how likely it is that this would be implemented.

If that is true, then the idea you defend in another thread for players to purchase resources with gold should also not be implemented on the same grounds.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Why does Grepolis forbid gold transfers?

To me it makes no business sense. By allowing the free gifting of Gold, players are able to use Gold more freely, and would be more exposed to Gold.

Increased exposure of Gold would inevitably lead to more Gold being purchased, and therefore higher revenue for IG. I don't understand their business strategy...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If that is true, then the idea you defend in another thread for players to purchase resources with gold should also not be implemented on the same grounds.

How so? Purchasing resources with gold is entirely different to gifting gold to another player..


Why does Grepolis forbid gold transfers?

To me it makes no business sense. By allowing the free gifting of Gold, players are able to use Gold more freely, and would be more exposed to Gold.

Increased exposure of Gold would inevitably lead to more Gold being purchased, and therefore higher revenue for IG. I don't understand their business strategy...

I do not know for sure, but I would assume it is to prevent the exchange of in-game services for gold. Large players exploiting smaller players for gold, 'selling' cities for gold, mercenary services for gold, etc. These things are already prohibited in the rules, because players do it by buying the gold for another player. If players could buy gold and then gift it to another player, it makes it significantly easier to purchase another player's services for gold.

As for 'business sense', it makes perfect sense. You imply this would 'expose' more players to gold, as if it would then encourage them to buy. However, there are already ways for players to get free gold.. and they are then encouraged to buy because the free gold they get is in small amounts. If a player can receive free gold from another player then they will not be inclined to pay for it because they can just offer their services to get it for free, or threaten another player to get it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
How so? Purchasing resources with gold is entirely different to gifting gold to another player...

You should check the previous page where hp posted a list of what is forbidden, and exchanging resources for money (or gold in this case) would qualify as that. So if we are to take that for what it is, there shouldn't be a reason why using gold to purchase resources should be in development right now, according to that line of logic.

As has already been said; you can circumvent some of those abuses by allowing players to report other players trying to extort them for their gold by threats and other shady means. IG already muzzles and censors people for profanity, this would not be a huge difference or step out of the blue.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You should check the previous page where hp posted a list of what is forbidden, and exchanging resources for money (or gold in this case) would qualify as that. So if we are to take that for what it is, there shouldn't be a reason why using gold to purchase resources should be in development right now, according to that line of logic.

As has already been said; you can circumvent some of those abuses by allowing players to report other players trying to extort them for their gold by threats and other shady means. IG already muzzles and censors people for profanity, this would not be a huge difference or step out of the blue.

The rules prohibit a player exchanging their own resources for another player's gold. Purchasing resources with gold is different because it is not taking anything from one player and giving it to another for gold - it simply adds resources to the game, just like the Phoenician Merchant.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Please note this idea is not about the trading of Gold - Resources from one player to another, but the gifting of gold from one player to another.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The rules prohibit a player exchanging their own resources for another player's gold. Purchasing resources with gold is different because it is not taking anything from one player and giving it to another for gold - it simply adds resources to the game, just like the Phoenician Merchant.

Alright I will concede that as it is an important distinction, but it doesn't address the latter point that there are means of which you can counter these forms of abuse through players reporting messages sent to them asking for gold or else they'll get attacked, as one example. The same means of banning players who use profanity and abusive language can be used to cover this issue.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Please note this idea is not about the trading of Gold - Resources from one player to another, but the gifting of gold from one player to another.

That is the idea, but you have to consider the potential uses of this idea rather than only considering what it is intended for. It may be intended for gifting gold, but it could, and inevitably would, be used to break the rules and abuse game mechanics to gain certain players an advantage.

Alright I will concede that as it is an important distinction, but it doesn't address the latter point that there are means of which you can counter these forms of abuse through players reporting messages sent to them asking for gold or else they'll get attacked, as one example. The same means of banning players who use profanity and abusive language can be used to cover this issue.

Sure, there are ways to counter the problems, but they themselves have ways to counter the ways to counter the problems. It's a vicious circle. Sometimes it is better to prevent it being a problem in the first place, than relying on player input to counter it once implemented.

There are also negatives to this idea that cannot be countered as simply as asking one party to report the other. City trading for gold, as an example. Each side is taking part willingly, so neither is going to report the other because both would be punished. That is perhaps one of the worst possible uses of this system, but it could not be efficiently prevented.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Sure, there are ways to counter the problems, but they themselves have ways to counter the ways to counter the problems. It's a vicious circle. Sometimes it is better to prevent it being a problem in the first place, than relying on player input to counter it once implemented.

There are also negatives to this idea that cannot be countered as simply as asking one party to report the other. City trading for gold, as an example. Each side is taking part willingly, so neither is going to report the other because both would be punished. That is perhaps one of the worst possible uses of this system, but it could not be efficiently prevented.

The problem with the first response is that I can take that logic and dismiss any idea, including ones that are already inherent within grepolis, because there is no means to 100% counter all forms of abuse. Even the example I used before of censorship for offensive language is a perfect point, people get away with using certain forms of colorful language but other similar borderline language is 'okay' sometimes, well then again not really... is it? It's hard to tell. It's not so clear-cut.

Your second paragraph is where I can use this, because one player who might have broken rule 'x' will not report another players offensive language in a message because both would try to get each other banned somehow, but in the end resort to the same silence. There are also examples of players agreeing to trade resources, BP, spells, or other things for cities only to have the other player either stuff up the agreement or willfully break it for personal gain... some of those resources/spells could have been derived from using one of the advisors, or the Phoenician Merchant in the former case which also costs gold. If I were to adhere to your argument complicitly, we should remove the aforementioned features on those grounds, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

The same applies here with people trying to trade gold for cities, it would be such a risky move that it would be foolish to engage in it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The problem with the first response is that I can take that logic and dismiss any idea, including ones that are already inherent within grepolis, because there is no means to 100% counter all forms of abuse. Even the example I used before of censorship for offensive language is a perfect point, people get away with using certain forms of colorful language but other similar borderline language is 'okay' sometimes, well then again not really... is it? It's hard to tell. It's not so clear-cut.

Your second paragraph is where I can use this, because one player who might have broken rule 'x' will not report another players offensive language in a message because both would try to get each other banned somehow, but in the end resort to the same silence. There are also examples of players agreeing to trade resources, BP, spells, or other things for cities only to have the other player either stuff up the agreement or willfully break it for personal gain... some of those resources/spells could have been derived from using one of the advisors, or the Phoenician Merchant in the former case which also costs gold. If I were to adhere to your argument complicitly, we should remove the aforementioned features on those grounds, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

The same applies here with people trying to trade gold for cities, it would be such a risky move that it would be foolish to engage in it.

You relate this to other similar trades, which are entirely different because they are not involving gold or real currency, and are thus not against the rules. The problem is when you bring gold into play.

And with your last line you imply that it does not happen, because of how risky it is.. but as with everything else that presents a risk (botting springs to mind), people do it anyway. I have seen players pay for cities - PayPal transfers with an unofficial agreement that the receiving party will allow the conquests to continue. While it is risky, and requires some degree of trust between those involved, it happens anyway. I am not saying that these things do not happen, I am saying that it is a bad idea to add a system that makes it easier. Allowing people to transfer gold to each other with ease will increase the rate at which things like this happen..
 
Top