Proposal Change Insta-Buy Cost Structure

OutOfCharacters

Phrourach
Idea: Instead of remaining static based on build time, the insta-buy cost grows during a cool-down period for:
1) Successive golded troop queues, and/or
2) Successive buildings

Reason: At 50% time reduction on buildings/troops when the feature was introduced, golders had an advantage, but it wasn't nearly as extreme as it has become today with unlimited insta-buy. Many players grow and thrive with gold and little skill, losing some of the finer features of the game. Not only can people "bully-gold" too easily with repetitive nukes in short periods of time, the head start for those who will gold cities in beginner's protection can be extreme. What used to take time to develop at the start of a world, now has some players with 5-7 cities before the natural building would allow 2 cities. What used to take days for players to build up cities near enemy WW islands (or now also near temples in Olympus worlds) can now be built in a day fairly cheaply. Changing the cost structure could potentially reduce these extreme differences without decreasing Inno revenues. (Obviously the final structure would need to be tweaked based on Inno's projections of actual behavior, but it could continue to be altered by devs to maximize revenue.)

Considerations:
Should cool-down period be tied to world speed?
Should the increased charge gradually drop every 30 mins, or stay high until the period ends, then drop to 0?

Details:

Example, golding out batches of troops-- applied city by city
First click is 175 gold (or time-appropriate fee), then for a length of time it's 25% more, then 50%, etc. This 25% could be a penalty on the initial amount, additively, or geometrically based on the last spend.

Scenario 1-- each successive click costs 44 gold more than the prior (adding 25% of the initial cost each time, successively)
Scenario 2-- each successive click is compounded on the prior, so costs 44 more than prior, 55, 68, etc.-- grows more quickly

Cool off period would need to be determined, but should be related to the time it would actually take to queue a nuke, so not fast.
The increases would be based on % of base amount, so for troops with different queue times/base cost, it builds off of the initial cost.

So 5 batches rebuilding one nuke might look like:
CurrentScenario 1Scenario 2
Batch 1175175175
Batch 2175219219
Batch 3175263273
Batch 4175306342
Batch 5175350427
Total for Nuke 187513131436
% Additional Cost50%64%

Roll that forward to wanting to gold out another before cool-down, the second golded nuke would look like:

CurrentScenario 1Scenario 2
Batch 1175394534
Batch 2175438667
Batch 3175481834
Batch 41755251043
Batch 51755691304
Total for Nuke 287524064383
% Additional Cost275%500%

Total for two golded nukes is either 2406+1313 = 3719 or 1436+4383 = 5819, vs. 1750 currently.

In this example, a snipe might cost 175+219-- not too much of a penalty, just 45 gold.

Things like golded level 25 walls and successive on-isle nukes would cost more. Heavy golders would likely do this at least once or twice before considering whether it's worth continuing, and would certainly do 1 or 2 in a CQ world if they think they have a quick chance to kill a siege, or in revolt to drop a wall and land a CS. But it would likely reduce the over-abuse without reducing revenue.

This would apply city by city, and to any golding. So if I gold slings, then hops, then LS, it doesn't matter. Every insta-click adds to the insta-penalty for that city, until the cool-down period ends, and every click extends the cool-down time period (e.g., 30 more minutes per click). This is intended to reduce short-term abuse, so after the fight/war/etc., it pretty quickly resets. In the above scenario of two golded nukes (10 insta-clicks), cool-down is 5 hours. I can still gold at higher costs in that time frame, or wait until it's cheaper again.


Golding cities/buildings follows the same process, with each click adding a % penalty to the gold cost for the next building under one of those two formulas. The cool-down period is more important here, as early in worlds people may never fully leave cool-down, while generally golding troops is less constant for longer periods of time. This might present an argument for a gradual cool-down period, to entice more golding before it ends. If we assume a click starts a 30 minute insta-buy period of increased fees, it might look like the table below.

Note: This is a speed 3 example, and I'm not a computer programmer, so I am guessing at the costs per build time. Others who can see code can probably refine this, and comment on different world speeds, etc. This example is for illustration.

BuildingNatural Build TimeApproximate Current CostScenario 1Scenario 2Stacked Cool-Down TimeNatural Total Build Time Eliminated
Senate 100:57:211101101100:30:000:57:21
Senate 111:29:411351691691:00:002:27:02
Senate 121:53:241352032111:30:004:20:26
Senate 132:15:341502632932:00:006:36:00
Senate 142:27:531503003662:30:009:03:53
Acad 60:33:28952142903:00:009:37:21
Acad 70:47:21952383623:30:0010:24:42
Acad 81:03:561353716444:00:0011:28:38
Acad 91:23:201354058054:30:0012:51:58
Acad 101:45:381354391,0065:00:0014:37:36
Acad 112:12:131505251,3975:30:0016:49:49
Acad 122:27:241505631,7466:00:0019:17:13
Acad 132:42:551506002,1836:30:0022:00:08
Warehouse 100:26:36954041,7287:00:0022:26:45
Warehouse 111:02:051356083,0707:30:0023:28:50
Warehouse 121:38:331356413,8378:00:0025:07:22
Warehouse 132:08:061507505,3298:30:0027:15:29
Warehouse 142:37:401507886,6619:00:0032:50:31
Warehouse 152:57:231608808,8829:30:0032:50:31
Warehouse 163:17:0517097811,79610:00:0036:07:36
Total Cost2,7209,44550,884

In this scenario it gets pretty cost-prohibitive under Scenario 2 (the compounded cost increases), which might be undesirable. But under scenario 1, for players who have said "I'll spend $X to start this world (or found this city)", I don't think this structure would alter the spend. It just alters what is available for $X and how quickly they may choose to use it.

Note that in Scenario 1, golding eliminates 36 hours of build time, with a cool-down period on that city of 10 hours. So I can choose to either keep golding at higher cost, or let the cost diminish before continuing and build naturally (or gold other cities). It slows me down unless I want to spend incredibly high amounts.


___________________________
 

OutOfCharacters

Phrourach
I’m really interested in feedback on this idea. For background, I’ve been vocal at disliking how gold has changed the game in the last few years, but I recognize Inno needs revenue. I am also not “crying”, as I’ve been a gold user myself through the years, and I take advantage of it too when I want to, so I wince at "losing" the ability to less expensively gold when desired. But I think it would be good for the game.

I’d like to see less emphasis on things like immediate golded walls in revolt worlds, 7-city starts out of beginner’s protection, gold-bullying with successive nukes to break a siege in CQ or break defense in revolt, etc. These reduce game skill, and I believe actually also add to player burnout. If players get too much too fast or easily, they lose interest, the challenge is gone.

Having a little more focus on skills and resource/troop allocation, vs an endless supply, would be good for the game imo.
 

Hydna

Grepolis Team
Thanks OOC this is a very interesting idea. What do you think the downsides would be?

Unless the cooldown is short, which you are not suggesting, the costs here are very high so my concern would be it prices the insta build nukes out of the game. It is already quite costly to even build one nuke unless theres a great arming/neried/ari etc involved.
 

OutOfCharacters

Phrourach
I tried adding this above, but surprise, surprise, it thinks I'm too wordy and has too many characters. Here's a start at downsides, though I know I come at it from my own perspective, so I'm interested in others' views.

Potential Downsides: Golders spending less or leaving the game
Spending Less -- While this is always a fear, game design can't overly cater to it either. Historically, 50% build time for gold made "enough" money, and since then the amount of packages offered and event spend has increased significantly. While we can't see the breakdown of revenue from each source, I suspect that most revenue comes from these types of offers (and perhaps would even more if people need building time reductions, etc.-- maybe offer more build packs midway through the world, with 50% build time reduction tokens). If done properly I think this design would result in similar, if not increased, revenues, with significant benefit to gameplay. When I think about my own gold use, it would not decrease, and would actually cost a little more for what I insta-buy most = snipes.

Leaving the Game -- Recently I spent money for a starter package and used those tokens to shrink my cities for LMD, then inno eliminated that role a week later. I was really angry at my wasted dollars. I wanted to leave and never spend again, but this is not a game that people spend money on lightly. It's a game we love to play. There are many stories like mine of people even swearing they won't play again, and returning. As with other changes, I think players would adapt. In this scenario, players aren't spending their money and wasting it like I did, they are simply required to spend it in a different way going forward, like when inno introduced the new gold trading method. We aren't eliminating the ability, just charging a higher premium for it. I guess there may be a few players who, if unable to play in this fashion, would choose not to play, but I'd argue that those might be the most toxic members of the community-- and their absence might retain other players they might otherwise bully away. It's hard for me to imagine someone arguing hard for this ability, when the design of the game was originally intended for a higher level of gameplay. But, I'd like to hear from people if they think it will drive more dollars out of the game than the dollars it retains.
 

DeletedUser54858

Guest
Many other games have a similar approach to spending. The quicker you spend gold the more it actually costs you. Im all for this because used correctly gold can improve your game. It just seems for some they abuse this, or its the only skill in their repertoire.

I support this idea.
 

Thooury

Hekatontarch
I like this idea.

Idea on how to add cooldown:
Extend the travel time each time a player buys resources using gold exchange. This is more of a nerf to heavy golding at start of worlds. considering nobody has resources to send to their mates. If golders want to not be limited by their resources, they will have to upgrade resource production and/or farm regularly.

This sadly also nerfs gold trading at start of worlds, because trafic on buying resources will be lower.
 

Belatucadnos

Peltast
Anything that restricts the use of gold is a positive from my point of view. I'm quite hard line anti gold although I use what I've traded for the advisors to keep my troops at a level with other mainstream players but otherwise don't use it. In my limited knowledge of players that use gold, I would say those that use/abuse it most seem to be the worst players and are typically found out after the early stages of the game and get nobbled by the better more patient players in the middle stages of the game when the better alliances have become established. I'm sadly one of those players thinking of leaving the world of Grepolis after the world I'm in ends due to the way the game has changed recently, the abuse of gold playing a part in that but bots and bad game play weighs more heavily.
 

Reimu Hakurei

Chiliarch
Thanks OOC this is a very interesting idea. What do you think the downsides would be?

Unless the cooldown is short, which you are not suggesting, the costs here are very high so my concern would be it prices the insta build nukes out of the game. It is already quite costly to even build one nuke unless theres a great arming/neried/ari etc involved.
It depends on the stage of the game. If its right out of bp, and you are golding full nuke its very big value and stakes are high, if its when you have 30 cities, one nuke doesn't mean as much.
It costs same whether you have 1 or 30 cities
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Some data for reference in current worlds
under XX:XX:XX timegold
building
00:05:000
00:10:0050
00:15:0055
00:30:0065
01:00:0080
02:00:0095
04:00:00110
08:00:00135
12:00:00150
18:00:00170
24:00:00185
36:00:00205
48:00:00225
72:00:00250
96:00:00275
hero
00:05:0050
00:10:0050
00:15:0055
00:30:0065
01:00:0080
02:00:0095
04:00:00110
08:00:00135
12:00:00150
18:00:00170
24:00:00185
36:00:00205
48:00:00225
72:00:00250
96:00:00275
research
00:05:000
00:10:0050
00:15:0055
00:30:0065
01:00:0080
02:00:0095
04:00:00110
08:00:00135
12:00:00150
18:00:00170
24:00:00185
36:00:00205
48:00:00225
72:00:00250
96:00:00275
unit
00:05:0050
00:10:0050
00:15:0055
00:30:0065
01:00:0080
02:00:0095
04:00:00110
08:00:00135
12:00:00150
18:00:00170
24:00:00185
36:00:00205
48:00:00225
72:00:00250
96:00:00275
under XX:XX:XX timegold
building
00:05:000
00:07:3055
00:15:0065
00:30:0080
01:00:0095
02:00:00110
04:00:00135
06:00:00150
09:00:00170
12:00:00185
18:00:00205
24:00:00225
36:00:00250
48:00:00275
hero
00:05:0055
00:07:3055
00:15:0065
00:30:0080
01:00:0095
02:00:00110
04:00:00135
06:00:00150
09:00:00170
12:00:00185
18:00:00205
24:00:00225
36:00:00250
48:00:00275
research
00:05:000
00:07:3055
00:15:0065
00:30:0080
01:00:0095
02:00:00110
04:00:00135
06:00:00150
09:00:00170
12:00:00185
18:00:00205
24:00:00225
36:00:00250
48:00:00275
unit
00:05:0055
00:07:3055
00:15:0065
00:30:0080
01:00:0095
02:00:00110
04:00:00135
06:00:00150
09:00:00170
12:00:00185
18:00:00205
24:00:00225
36:00:00250
48:00:00275
under XX:XX:XX timegold
building
00:05:000
00:10:0065
00:20:0080
00:40:0095
01:20:00110
02:40:00135
04:00:00150
06:00:00170
08:00:00185
12:00:00205
16:00:00225
24:00:00250
32:00:00275
hero
00:05:0065
00:10:0065
00:20:0080
00:40:0095
01:20:00110
02:40:00135
04:00:00150
06:00:00170
08:00:00185
12:00:00205
16:00:00225
24:00:00250
32:00:00275
research
00:05:000
00:10:0065
00:20:0080
00:40:0095
01:20:00110
02:40:00135
04:00:00150
06:00:00170
08:00:00185
12:00:00205
16:00:00225
24:00:00250
32:00:00275
unit
00:05:0065
00:10:0065
00:20:0080
00:40:0095
01:20:00110
02:40:00135
04:00:00150
06:00:00170
08:00:00185
12:00:00205
16:00:00225
24:00:00250
32:00:00275
under XX:XX:XX timegold
building
00:05:000
00:07:3065
00:15:0080
00:30:0095
01:00:00110
02:00:00135
03:00:00150
04:30:00170
06:00:00185
09:00:00205
12:00:00225
18:00:00250
24:00:00275
hero
00:05:0065
00:07:3065
00:15:0080
00:30:0095
01:00:00110
02:00:00135
03:00:00150
04:30:00170
06:00:00185
09:00:00205
12:00:00225
18:00:00250
24:00:00275
research
00:05:000
00:07:3065
00:15:0080
00:30:0095
01:00:00110
02:00:00135
03:00:00150
04:30:00170
06:00:00185
09:00:00205
12:00:00225
18:00:00250
24:00:00275
unit
00:05:0065
00:07:3065
00:15:0080
00:30:0095
01:00:00110
02:00:00135
03:00:00150
04:30:00170
06:00:00185
09:00:00205
12:00:00225
18:00:00250
24:00:00275
 
Last edited:

ukcolonist

Hipparchus
Actually looks like quite a good way to handle this, people can still use gold to get an advantage easily, but it means people cant go hard off for 8 hours come on then gold 10 ls nukes and clear a siege anyway, or aleast if they do it'll be very expensive which is more money for inno anyway.

On the subject of how expensive it is already, there is almost always a CoTo and ari to gold from and very frequently easy to get nerieds with how many events there are now so its rarely anywhere near as expensive as it could be
 

OutOfCharacters

Phrourach
Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

I like this idea.

Idea on how to add cooldown:
Extend the travel time each time a player buys resources using gold exchange. This is more of a nerf to heavy golding at start of worlds. considering nobody has resources to send to their mates. If golders want to not be limited by their resources, they will have to upgrade resource production and/or farm regularly.

This sadly also nerfs gold trading at start of worlds, because trafic on buying resources will be lower.

Extending TT to buy resources is an interesting idea, though I wonder if it would result in more multis or starter accounts from "friends" to feed people directly, avoiding the exchange. I don't want to limit what those willing to sell res for gold can earn through this process.

I was thinking that this cost structure wouldn't really reduce the golding at world starts, it would just stretch it out. So the speed at the beginning of worlds would be somewhere between the old times and now, as people decide the speed at which they'll gold things up. But people who can afford to spend for the advantage will still do so, at whatever the new equilibrium is. Currently, the golders in most worlds can't keep up with the speed of buying at the start and you'll see exchanges half full for hours on end. That allows what I call the "lazy golder" to achieve more gold logging on once or twice a day-- whereas slowing the rate of gold use might give the active golders the chance to make more money over a longer period of time. Thoughts on this?
 

OutOfCharacters

Phrourach
It depends on the stage of the game. If its right out of bp, and you are golding full nuke its very big value and stakes are high, if its when you have 30 cities, one nuke doesn't mean as much.
It costs same whether you have 1 or 30 cities

Hmmm that's a good point. Could it be argued that you need less, the smaller the world is? So for example, if everyone has just a couple of cities, the odds of me needing to gold out a full LS nuke to take a city or break a siege is much smaller. As the city counts grow, so does the need to gold more (and incur more of the insta-buy cost increases), if you want to have the same effect?
 

DeletedUser54339

Guest
Hmmm that's a good point. Could it be argued that you need less, the smaller the world is? So for example, if everyone has just a couple of cities, the odds of me needing to gold out a full LS nuke to take a city or break a siege is much smaller. As the city counts grow, so does the need to gold more (and incur more of the insta-buy cost increases), if you want to have the same effect?
It's also weird that it costs you the same amount to gold a building in speed 1 that it does in speed 4, given how big the time saving is in the speed 1.

I do think this is a good idea overall and one I have vaguely sketched out before in much less detail. The 'it costs you more each time you use it' penalty exists in events, why not apply it to the rest of the game?
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
cost is unrelated to world speed but to the amount of time saved. See Shuri2060's post above.
it is related. Scaled up or down by speed.

A 30 min cut speed 1 will cost the same as a 15 min cut speed 2

But I think that makes sense. Costs the same to gold up a city or a nuke in all worlds.
 

NutsNBoltz

Strategos
all for this idea. would like to see the "insta complete" for troops removed, even tho I am a user of it, but it would be good to see it removed to level playing fields. Same for instant completion on research and buildings so people can't reset anchors with the 10% over and over again or just have a level 25 wall. I am guilty of this for sure, many of us are, but overalls, what's wrong with something like

150 gold cost for insta complete
vs
50 gold for -50% then that's it. like you can que it all, for less, you can get 50% taken off, or maybe even do like 33% but still. Then you gain an advantage of 50% or 33% more units vs 100% more units during the same time period
 
Top