Gold Trading Discussion and Feedback Thread

DeletedUser47415

Guest
I understand that the pronounced intended effect of this is to enable players who now cant buy gold to be given a chance to get gold in-game. While this is in and of itself a laudable intent, unfortunately the unintended side-effects will all to possibly change the game in a devastating direction.

There are also reasons to believe that the intended benefactors may not benefit from this in all respect(of course, in long term aspects, when the game is potentially ruined they wont benefit at all)

One such aspect would be in relation to the effect this will have on WW. As presented this feature highly likely turn the WW into a bought and paid for event. An alliance can to an remarkable extent increase their chances of winning by use of gold in a direct way.

As it is now, recruiters don't ask appliers if they use gold(at least I don't). If you can keep up without gold you're good enough, if you cant keep up without gold but uses gold to compensate you're good enough. Don't ask, don't tell. The proof is in the pudding.

When winning chances in such a direct manner has gold as a factor, the pragmatic and goal-oriented recruiter will ask the question of 'do you use much gold'. The answer given will be a factor in how attractive that player is to a serious ambitious alliance. This feature, as presented, may thus potentially weaken the non/minor gold users from being 'a part of the game', since his chances of winning has diminished.
 

DeletedUser46838

Guest
Richard, i know it's technically called pay to win.

ITS PAY TO MORE BENEFITS....NO.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
As rowdy and vocal as you lot are, there's only a few of you. It's unfair to base the consensus of an entire community on a few belligerent souls; it's very rare that someone will take to the externals to voice support, but as soon as someone feels threatened or angered by a new feature, you can be assured that they will make their irritation known. People prefer to complain - it's not proportional. An in-game poll is the only way you'll get any reliable feedback on player opinion. Anything here is, I'm sorry to say, clearly an attempt at a democratic facade.

What I'm saying is that anything anyone says here is most likely entirely irrelevant. I'm sure this is going to happen, now that it has been brought to the developers' attention - opposing it is futile, focus on abuse prevention concepts. Damage mitigation.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
It's not just the people in this thread... It's almost everyone. For example look at this recent newspaper and the big bad and daizan's interviews.

I'm in a skype group with lots of grepolis players aswell and I haven't heard anyone saying they think it's a remotely good idea - and that they will most likely quit after en80.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser20948

Guest
Pushty said:
As rowdy and vocal as you lot are, there's only a few of you. It's unfair to base the consensus of an entire community on a few belligerent souls; it's very rare that someone will take to the externals to voice support, but as soon as someone feels threatened or angered by a new feature, you can be assured that they will make their irritation known. People prefer to complain - it's not proportional. An in-game poll is the only way you'll get any reliable feedback on player opinion. Anything here is, I'm sorry to say, clearly an attempt at a democratic facade.

What I'm saying is that anything anyone says here is most likely entirely irrelevant. I'm sure this is going to happen, now that it has been brought to the developers' attention - opposing it is futile, focus on abuse prevention concepts. Damage mitigation.
Click to expand...

Thats what I said in my earlier post :D
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
Aicy said:
It's not just the people in this thread... It's almost everyone. For example look at this recent newspaper and the big bad and daizan's interviews.

I'm in a skype group with lots of grepolis players aswell and I haven't heard anyone saying they think it's a remotely good idea - and that they will most likely quit after en80.
Click to expand...

To be honest I haven't seen really anyone support it, just a few negative people saying that feedback in the feedback thread won't matter. Along with others saying that the feature should be given a chance. To be honest to implement a feature that would need multiple tweaks to be even slightly tolerable to the majority of the community is not even worth wasting any time over. This has to be close to as bad as when the devs thought that getting rid of HC would make everyone happy, when really it is a big part of the game.

I am one of the people who being a kid, has no real way of getting gold other than trying free gold offers that hardly ever work and spam my email 24/7. I would hate the idea to see gold in the marketplace, and watch people who put money in grow even larger. This would idea would in no way help anyone who uses no gold, sacrificing many resources for a small sum of gold is not going to increase players growth.

I joined this game back two years ago because unlike many others, it was a game where people who paid received benefits but not enough that players like me wouldn't be able to compete. This feature ends up in just about every computer game once the corporation starts getting too anxious for a larger income, even after obtaining enough profits previously without the feature being implemented. I have not seen one game that has done this and has not lost the majority of its community, as sad as it may be.

I remember talking to many friends over a year ago about gold, and the main thing that made gold tolerable for us even with the people who spend a lot of money on it was that you could never physically buy resources. Yes there is the merchant who gives 30% more resources, and a 25% cheaper button for building you want to put in queue. There is even calling the Phoenician Merchant whenever you want so you can get resources at a 1:0.5 ratio, but that was somewhat ok as long as gold users couldn't literally buy resources.

The feature itself is an abuse, and should not be implemented. Rock you can add me to the petition, might help them when they see the list one day is a mile and a half long. The fact that gold users and non gold user alike are opposed to the idea should say a lot about how little sense it makes for this to be implemented into the game we enjoy. I will also not play on a world where gold trading is available.

~Joseph Nieves
 

DeletedUser46838

Guest
If I copied and pasted my idea ( remove gold trade) it would literally pass immediately.

Why don't Harry and those other other Devs resign, go to the french server and so we won't have it

Honestly, they are the only server that is willing to give a try.

Even the Spanish server says no to this.
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
a better idea would be allow players to purchase gold with resources for the first 2 weeks of the server open. it will allow players who have a harder time obtaining gold get gold, but it wont allow rich players just buy a ridiculous amount of gold and trade it for resources. the first 2 weeks takes away the abuse factor of having multiple cities and just loading up on gold.
 

DeletedUser43011

Guest
I have a feeling if this goes ahead it will ruin whats good about this game and make it completely unbalanced.
 

DeletedUser44167

Guest
Soooo
I can sell wood/rock/silver
and someones going give me gold?

and then I can hire the merchant
and get more wood/rock/silver

hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-/

goooooold
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lil Ajax said:
Soooo
I can sell wood/rock/silver
and someones going give me gold?

and then I can hire the merchant
and get more wood/rock/silver

hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-/

goooooold
Click to expand...
but barely anyone will accept a decent offer for their gold, so for the full warehouses of your 27 cities you just earned about 810 gold. Enjoy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser44167

Guest
If this gold is transferable
Ill sell my stuff in world A

And use it in world B
Where Im really playing

bah!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I fail to see the problem... I buy gold once in a while, on average I think I spend 10 to 15 EUR a month, now I will buy less gold, since you can play in 10 worlds, 9 just trading res for gold and spending all on one... I kind a like this idea, but I think that it will backfire for INNO since its gonna be loads of players doing like this... and to reach 4-5k towns in the first day of server opening up will be a normal thing, since now only resources is a biggest brake on expansion in the opening of new world...
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
Indeed, here are some real nice ones that should be seen in this thread as they relate to this idea:

a pebble said:
But the big picture is scary. As HP said, it would increase bullying...even though it would easily be reported (he has to send a message...)

Then we have multi's jumping in. Currently the main account most likely buys gold and the dwarf just runs through. If the main dies out, he still has the dwarf, but no gold. If this were to be implemented, the main could get desecrated and just transfer it over. Making the dwarf just as valuable as the main was.
Click to expand...

IcedDragon said:
I am personally against anything that allows you to literally pay for resources, as it removes the requirement of activity from the game. Resources are the only thing you can not currently buy with gold, and this is keeping the balance between gold users and freemium players in check, as the gold users still need to actively farm to have the resources.
Click to expand...

Harry said:
Anyway, I think this was discussed a while ago and it was decided that it wouldn't be implemented, mainly due to the fact that having the ability to transfer gold to different accounts would entice players to hack others accounts for gold. I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain it was previously declined.
Click to expand...

Then finally a look a the ingame rules, which would probably need to be changed if this was implemented :D

Offering gold coins to other players in exchange for in-game activities such as attacking other players is prohibited.

Examples (As they relate to Gold Trading):
*It is forbidden to buy or sell resources.
*It is forbidden to complete or accept game services for gold.
*It is not allowed to blackmail a player for Premium. (Could be more common if this is implemented)
Click to expand...

To sum this up we have mods, gold users, non gold users, and the ingame rules all seem to disapprove of a gold trading feature. I would imagine that is more than enough for it not to be implemented *fingers crossed* :D
 

DeletedUser46838

Guest
I don't know but who's that guy on the devblog? His picture look scary .....
 

DeletedUser42857

Guest
Trying to make some sort of summary of whats been said here, so we can actually move forward into some sort of meaningful group opinion and discussion. Maybe if we get organised then we can actually put together a united front.

Ive gone through the whole thread to try and pick out the main points.

Pro's of Gold trading
• I think we all agree that one positive is it could enable smaller players who do not use gold either because they are too young to have the appropriate funds etc, to be able to trade to get gold to at least fund the advisors.

Negatives
• Risk of "Sugar Daddies" who own an alliance and are renowned for excessive gold use funding other members of the alliance to an unfair extent
• Risk of players using one world simply to gold trade/mine gold to fund another world
• Risk of WW phase being effected by gold traders who simply sell resources to the highest bidder making WW phase gold reliant.
• Increase the gap between those who can afford gold, and who cant, enabling gold players not only to build faster nukes, build quicker, have the advisors, but also have extra resources.
• Gold will have a bigger impact in success causing smaller players to quit as they are unable to compete
• Concern of bigger players "bullying" smaller players for gold.

Proposed Controls
• Make gold only use-able on the world in which it is traded
• Gold cannot be traded during the first month of the server
• Have a fixed rate for gold/resource trade, or a minimum and maximum ratio that gold can be traded at (ie. you cant give away 500 gold for 20 silver)
• Cap on the amount of gold each person can trade per day, around 200 gold per day maximum seems to be consensus, or alternatively having it linked to the level of your market/silver mine
• "Alliance Only" trade option is greyed out meaning people can only trade gold in a global world market, reducing risk of offering high gold/low resource options to "friends"
• No gold trade allowed once WW phase has started
• Feature to "report" on trade screen if you spot a user who is breaking the rules on gold trading, that is simpler than the ticket system which is so well hidden its unreal.
 

DeletedUser42857

Guest
in view of the proposed controls throughout the thread, i would probably be a yes, if the MAJORITY of those were implemented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top