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:
Roll that forward to wanting to gold out another before cool-down, the second golded nuke would look like:
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.
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.
___________________________
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:
Current | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | |
Batch 1 | 175 | 175 | 175 |
Batch 2 | 175 | 219 | 219 |
Batch 3 | 175 | 263 | 273 |
Batch 4 | 175 | 306 | 342 |
Batch 5 | 175 | 350 | 427 |
Total for Nuke 1 | 875 | 1313 | 1436 |
% Additional Cost | 50% | 64% |
Roll that forward to wanting to gold out another before cool-down, the second golded nuke would look like:
Current | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | |
Batch 1 | 175 | 394 | 534 |
Batch 2 | 175 | 438 | 667 |
Batch 3 | 175 | 481 | 834 |
Batch 4 | 175 | 525 | 1043 |
Batch 5 | 175 | 569 | 1304 |
Total for Nuke 2 | 875 | 2406 | 4383 |
% Additional Cost | 275% | 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.
Building | Natural Build Time | Approximate Current Cost | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Stacked Cool-Down Time | Natural Total Build Time Eliminated |
Senate 10 | 0:57:21 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 0:30:00 | 0:57:21 |
Senate 11 | 1:29:41 | 135 | 169 | 169 | 1:00:00 | 2:27:02 |
Senate 12 | 1:53:24 | 135 | 203 | 211 | 1:30:00 | 4:20:26 |
Senate 13 | 2:15:34 | 150 | 263 | 293 | 2:00:00 | 6:36:00 |
Senate 14 | 2:27:53 | 150 | 300 | 366 | 2:30:00 | 9:03:53 |
Acad 6 | 0:33:28 | 95 | 214 | 290 | 3:00:00 | 9:37:21 |
Acad 7 | 0:47:21 | 95 | 238 | 362 | 3:30:00 | 10:24:42 |
Acad 8 | 1:03:56 | 135 | 371 | 644 | 4:00:00 | 11:28:38 |
Acad 9 | 1:23:20 | 135 | 405 | 805 | 4:30:00 | 12:51:58 |
Acad 10 | 1:45:38 | 135 | 439 | 1,006 | 5:00:00 | 14:37:36 |
Acad 11 | 2:12:13 | 150 | 525 | 1,397 | 5:30:00 | 16:49:49 |
Acad 12 | 2:27:24 | 150 | 563 | 1,746 | 6:00:00 | 19:17:13 |
Acad 13 | 2:42:55 | 150 | 600 | 2,183 | 6:30:00 | 22:00:08 |
Warehouse 10 | 0:26:36 | 95 | 404 | 1,728 | 7:00:00 | 22:26:45 |
Warehouse 11 | 1:02:05 | 135 | 608 | 3,070 | 7:30:00 | 23:28:50 |
Warehouse 12 | 1:38:33 | 135 | 641 | 3,837 | 8:00:00 | 25:07:22 |
Warehouse 13 | 2:08:06 | 150 | 750 | 5,329 | 8:30:00 | 27:15:29 |
Warehouse 14 | 2:37:40 | 150 | 788 | 6,661 | 9:00:00 | 32:50:31 |
Warehouse 15 | 2:57:23 | 160 | 880 | 8,882 | 9:30:00 | 32:50:31 |
Warehouse 16 | 3:17:05 | 170 | 978 | 11,796 | 10:00:00 | 36:07:36 |
Total Cost | 2,720 | 9,445 | 50,884 |
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.
___________________________