Gold Trading Discussion and Feedback Thread

[DeletedUser43626]

#1 alliance in a world, the vast majority probably 90% will use gold, even if its only for advisors
#2-#3 alliance in the world, majority of players use gold
#4-#5 alliance in the world, probably half the players have the advisors
#6-#xx aliance in teh world, dont use gold, which is why they are #6 to #xx

Ive no idea where you get your idea that gold players are in the minority.

I would hazard a guess, that for each alliance that wins the world, 95% of that alliance used gold at some point.

But of course, i could be totally wrong, I could just be making figures up off the top of my head, a bit like you are.

Bad choice of words on my part then. what i meant by gold players are those who use it for everything. not only admins and the rest, but for quicker recruiting and building. So what i should have said was.

Non gold players: Majority
Premium Players: Average " only use gold for admins, commander etc" Some can afford it, although in my alliance we have 64 members and only 12 of those members use gold. Myself being one of those 12.
Heavy Gold users: Minority "Those that use it for every aspect of the game."

Have a debate in forums and this is where i came up with 12 members using premium. Most are happy to trade resources for gold as they see the effectiveness it has on the 12 of us that do use it. Then again, we are 1 alliance on one world, so maybe we hold a minor share of the overall feeling towards Gold trading. However, we are all for it.

 

[DeletedUser42486]

Billy has no clue, ignore him please!

-DB

 

[DeletedUser10962]

Here is the thing that really hacks me off about this feature, ignoring the fact that it's an idea I don't think there's a huge demand for, that the devs can't work out how to make it sensible so want all the players to work out how to do it for them these two things are annoying. What really gets me is they brought out a roadmap in March last updated in July where they promised to do a whole bunch of things many of which I think the community wants but instead they're going down a different route because they saw a shiny thing they think might be a good idea. Can we fire the current developers? At least if we saw this feature coming we could have debated it's merits for ages before they got round to trying to introduce it but they're just trying to slip it in under the radar.

 

[DeletedUser45120]

I have no issue with this - it gives players a chance to earn it, and I don't see a huge advantage being gained by players spending gold for resources, if anything it could level the playing field slightly. Until we see how it plays out (i.e. where the world economy sets the market price) then it's too early to comment.

The only problems I can see are: Begging ("I need gold please buy my wood", ok that sounded dodgy enough....), and blackmail (buy my offers for 1k gold (5 lots of 200 gold) or I'll conquer your city - that definitely needs to be stamped out on day one and made a reportable/bannable offense.

As for the rest, am happy to wait and see - on Sandbox now there is 100 silver going for 200 gold (max price) and 15k wood for 3 gold. Market seems to have stabilised at around 2 gold for 5000 resources.

Also - just a minor point, please have a look at the game rules before this comes in otherwise every player is getting banned:

It is allowed to blackmail another player for resources.
It is not allowed to blackmail a player for Premium.

It is forbidden to buy or sell resources
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.

 

[DeletedUser36743]

I just signed up for the beta....and here's a couple of initial observations

1) Peeps have listed trades for quantities larger than the size of the warehouse (eg 1 gold for 100000 resources) ... this is illogical and should not be possible
2) Trades that sit unsorted in a marketplace for a given length of time (say 12 hours) should be automatically cancelled IMO....for two reasons....first so we do not have 130 pages of trades......and second so the process of conversion price discovery becomes clearer...

and agree with Dunc/Sharp....the conversion seems to be at 1-2 gold at 5k resources (in Sandbox2 too as well)....altho I suspect (no basis for this other than my gut)...there isnt any velocity to the transactions

3) So far nothing that gives the impression of unlevelling the playing field as many fear

 

[DeletedUser11165]

I have been reading this thread to try to comment constructively. I am one of those 12 heavy gold users Billy talks about as well, there are some things I won't do with gold but blowing through gold in a day to rebuild a few thousing biremes to support my alliance I will do quite happily so I guess I fit into the heavy user category I have said earlier my great concern with this is the ability for a player of means to rebuild multiple city's fast enough to make the difference between those of us who can and will spend heavily and the rest insurmountable. Yes it still takes a solid well run alliance to win but making it practically impossible for some players to loose a city is a huge concern as game balance can so easily be Fundamentally altered with this feature.

That being said the ability to give gold legally to alliance members who don't have advisors thus conferring what us a great advantage is something I would like to see.

 

[DeletedUser11165]

On a side note: beta server...many of us are involved in highly active world's and making time for the beta is not possible in too of real life.

 

[DeletedUser30490]

Honestly now that i think of it this feature could honestly work.And be be useful in the later part of the game for players who cannot/will not purchase gold.But obviously a gold coin should maximum be around 1,000 of a resource.Mainly cause no one really bothers building the market beyond level 10 and cause it's impossible to send 50K of resources for like 10 gold coins again cause there is not enough merchants.So if the devs can say set a proper ratio,expiry time this could work.
And as for heavy gold users gifting gold to alliance members the best way to stop that would be to make the minimum trade ratio for gold:resource a really high one.

i.e:If the normal ratio is say 1 gold coin:1000 resource the minimum ration for alliance members should be 1 gold coin:8000 resources.

• Make it an optional setting to be able to see gold trade offers 1st!
• Have a proper and fair ratio set,while also have a really high ratio for gold offers made for alliance members.(make it last around 6 months)
• Have mods keep an eye on alliance members leaving the alliance to accept offers for non ally members
• Have an expiry time for gold trade offers.
• Disable gold trading during after the start of the WW era

if the feature is done the above way i wouldn't mind using it specially in the later part where paying around 20K to get 100 gold coins to have an admin would be really great.Even i said that i hate this feature but honestly anyone with a brain wouldn't accept ridiculous gold offers so i think this wont be a bad feature if done in a right and fair way.
Mainly having to do with a ratio.Cause if a gold coin is around only around 1000 resources i wouldn't see the harm in it.And if gold users think that's unfair dont bother trading you gold simple.

 

[DeletedUser44167]

The CHEAPEST anyone could buy a LS Fleet
250 ships

292.500/15k wood per trade at 1 gold = 19.5 gold
67.500/15k stone per trade at 1 gold = 4.5 gold
180.000/15k silver per trade at 1 gold = 12. gold

36 total gold for a 250 LS Fleet

this is if every trade was at 15.000 resources for 1 gold
that the cheapest trade you could find unless someone had Merchant Shop and then it could be 22.500 per 1 gold

If trades where at 5.000 res per 1 gold
108 gold

If trades where at 1.000 res per 1 gold
540 gold

 

[DeletedUser42857]

3) So far nothing that gives the impression of unlevelling the playing field as many fear

I think beta is a very bad gauge of how it works in the real world.

1) Beta you are gifted a shedload of gold when you join
2) there are no big gold spenders in beta world (unless they are really stupid)
3) there is not a problem with gold spenders trying to win the world by gifting gold to their friends in beta
4) there is no way of knowing how it effects the start of a world
5) theres no way to know how it effects world wonders.

basically, Beta world is great for demonstrating how the new gold trading would work, were it to be introduced to a world that has been going for ages, has no world wonders, that nobody takes seriously, has no gold ******, and where everyone gets a bunch of free gold when they join.

Thing is, how many worlds are there like that????

Its basically like introducing traffic calming measures in Tesco car park as a test for putting them in place on the M25

 

[DeletedUser45120]

I think beta is a very bad gauge of how it works in the real world.

Its basically like introducing traffic calming measures in Tesco car park as a test for putting them in place on the M25

Love the Tesco analogy - although a lot of players there do use gold and play it like any other world. You are right dimspace - we won't know how it's going to pan out until it is introduced in 'real' worlds (after the debugging Prateek alluded to).

The beta figures we merely provided for illustration, and from an economics point of view it will be interesting to see how prices in 'real' worlds vary depending on world speed and the stage the world is at (Sandbox zz1 has been won and one alliance has built all 7 WW now). I'll shut up now as am starting to sound like a serious geek, which I, erm, am.....

EDIT: Having now read up on the M25 it is entirely plausible, and indeed appropriate, that any modelling based around a car park was used.... :heh:

 

[DeletedUser]

My two cents.

I think that there is no doubt that Inno has implemented changes, changes clearly meant to boost income, changes that as a casual observer, I would say have been largely successful. It costs more to play than it used to. Every event requires some money to be competitive. Inno unquestionably has the right to charge what they want and by whatever means methods they see fit. The question becomes does Inno have the wisdom not to charge too much.

I am by no means an expert but I believe you have reached the limit of what the market will bare. I know that keeping customers is far cheaper than finding new ones. I also know that all people have their limit of what they are either willing or able to spend. People also have a sense of being dealt with fairly. People who feel they are not treated fairly or respected can and will leave.

Here are a couple of examples of where I felt I was dealt with unfairly.

At the end of my Last grepo calculated year I ran out of VM, a week before my year started over, as circumstances dictated that I had to take time off and as server conditions where active enough requiring VM, so I purchased a few days. I bit the bullet and paid the price, but that wasnt the end of it, inno in their wisdom continued to charge me for my advisors even when I went into VM, paid VM at that. I felt cheated, I left the server and stayed away for about 3 months. My point is people have breaking points and had reached mine. I returned this time, but who knows about next time.

Another area I feel cheated in is Trial Pay. I can get free coins, jade, gold whatever at any game accepting trial pay except here. I dont understand why Inno feels that customers that have been here a certain length of time are no worthy enough to be offered to use trial pay, if it gets me extra gold to spend here, why does Inno care where it comes from as long as it is spent here.

These two Items alone sent me to "other gaming sites", so now my gaming time and budget is shared among more than one company, where Inno once got it all.

If it is true that you have lost players, that revenue and membership/hours played has declined, its clearly a sign of Inno moving in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[DeletedUser10962]

The beta will never be an effective way to trial something like this. If inno want to actually implement this and test this properly the only way to do this is to activate it on a brand new world. Let it run for a few months and don't open new worlds on that server for a while to make sure people play it as a proper server. This should be done before you think about adding it to existing worlds

 

[DeletedUser22708]

Gold Trading is like paying people to farm villages on your behalf, worst idea ever. What's next, will people be able to buy full nukes with gold?

 

[DeletedUser22650]

i agreed with most of it, its unsurprizing we differ though saska, i think your website is if not cheating then very unportsmanlike and against the spirit of the game, anyone who dedicates time and money to help ppl cheat is bound to be wrong about everything else too

 

[DeletedUser45120]

MrOpinion - You could at least aim for a sensible debate instead of spamming the forums with pointless drivel, if you are going to leave that style of post at least get most of the facts correct in it, and ensure it is not insulting... if you could manage that you might be able to get a post that is within the rules...

Yep I agree, MrOpinion went way too far then....

What this needs is testing on live worlds, and a rapid sensible response from the community as to whether it works or not.

We all need to be mindful of the price elasticity of supply and demand, a basic economic concept - if the gold users are all rebuilding 50 LS nukes then resources will run out, and the price for resources, following economic principles, should go up, thereby distributing gold to non-gold users who can use that gold to benefit themselves, thereby redistributing wealth - not creating a bigger divide between gold users and non gold users, as the recipients of the gold then have.... gold to use and become gold users....

There will always be an 'insanity' level of gold use among some players, and if that's what they want to do then fine, so be it - what gets Crowns isn't gold, it's a committed team of players working together to achieve an aim with skill and tactics, and in every team I have played in there is always a mix of premium and non-premium players, gold simmers, non-gold simmers, gold and non-gold manic attackers and defenders.

The day I see an alliance that states on their profile "must use gold and be prepared to rebuild nukes in 3 hours", then ok, the balance is lost.......

I'm looking forward to this feature, but expect a messy start as it really is a "wait and see", so let's keep comments constructive and balanced.

 

[DeletedUser22650]

Yep I agree, MrOpinion went way too far then....

What this needs is testing on live worlds, and a rapid sensible response from the community as to whether it works or not.

We all need to be mindful of the price elasticity of supply and demand, a basic economic concept - if the gold users are all rebuilding 50 LS nukes then resources will run out, and the price for resources, following economic principles, should go up, thereby distributing gold to non-gold users who can use that gold to benefit themselves, thereby redistributing wealth - not creating a bigger divide between gold users and non gold users, as the recipients of the gold then have.... gold to use and become gold users....

There will always be an 'insanity' level of gold use among some players, and if that's what they want to do then fine, so be it - what gets Crowns isn't gold, it's a committed team of players working together to achieve an aim with skill and tactics, and in every team I have played in there is always a mix of premium and non-premium players, gold simmers, non-gold simmers, gold and non-gold manic attackers and defenders.

The day I see an alliance that states on their profile "must use gold and be prepared to rebuild nukes in 3 hours", then ok, the balance is lost.......

I'm looking forward to this feature, but expect a messy start as it really is a "wait and see", so let's keep comments constructive and balanced.

as it stands to survive you need to spend gold or you need players who do to carry you until you can be of some small use to them, it isnt free to compete, it hasnt been since 2.0, i was allready considering adding a minimum recomended gold spend to gain entry into my premade before this feature was ever mentioned, if we hve to buy enough resources to build our first cities without being left behind (like in lord of ultima) then that minimum would need to go up.......or though it wont be happening, ive been "making the best of it" since 2.0 came in, this is too far down the pay to win path

 

[DeletedUser21311]

There are 128 pages of offers of this type ..... need i say more AAnd i do hope the picture allows to show how ridiculous the amounts have become ......

As for the PRO's and CON's well seems like we will have a very new feature added to the game now @ Paid spies and maybe many new things .

In short , hate the Idea and really beleive , that it will give tremendous advantage to gold users , as very few players who do not use premium will stop themselves from falling to these GOLD TRAPS :Angry: Hope That This Is Not Implemented Grepo , please

 

[DeletedUser46838]

Richard, here's the most constructive criticism in this whole thread, and others have been saying it too.

Gold Trading will allow massive gold "abuse" and going toward the "pay to win" type.

Oh and another "constructive critism": scrap it.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

This is going to turn out horribly if not implemented extremely carefully (Note: I didn't read all 38 pages of this thread, so I may be repeating things that have been already said).

1. The ratio of gold to resources and vice versa should be set by Innogames at a specific amount, to prevent abuse (preferably a high ratio).
2. Treat this as a world setting, like Morale and Revolt/Conquest. Some worlds should come out with gold trading, some shouldn't, just to give the complainers a world to play in.
3. Have a couple devs come to the forums, tell people what feedback they got and how they're going to be using it, etc. Just a little PR.