#Ability to purchase worker with gems

39 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

modest copper
#

With the recent release of the Gem Fountain, there's been a significant increase in gem circulation. To maintain economic balance and prevent gem value from depreciating, I suggest introducing another high-value outlet for players to spend their gems.

Without meaningful ways to spend, there's a risk of inflation—where gems lose their perceived worth and players begin treating them as disposable. Introducing a new gem sink would help preserve value while adding more depth and long-term goals to gameplay.

Suggested price points could start at 10,000 gems and scale upwards to 20,000 or more, depending on the original $ price.

Looking forward to hearing the community's thoughts!

#

Similar to how blueprints in the Collection Book have a purchase countdown, newly released workers should also feature a limited-time countdown before becoming permanently available.

This approach preserves the incentive to purchase them with real money during the early access window, without interfering with long-term accessibility or player progression.

latent galleon
pale briar
#

No.
Unfair to people who already bought them …

#

Gems already are too rare and not common

#

Whoever bought the fountain can buy the worker

long stream
#

I was going to say the same. You don't need the paid workers to get access to their bps. Just buy from market. The gem value isn't changing because if the fountain either. There's not a super flow of gems. Not anymore then when people buy the $500 packs. And it's not fair to those of us who have spent real money for the workers. They would get a lot of back lash from angry gamers. Even if it was a year after the worker came out. So I'd say no sorry keep paid workers as being paid workers.

marsh escarp
#

Yes. Naturally things should lose value over time. Can keep it costing real $ or change it to gems after time passes, but having some depreciation in value makes it less overwhelming for newer players. Mega packs also see depreciation in value over time, the idea is already there.

People will point to games and say 'This game costs $??? for the full version'. If that number is too high, it does look awkward.

modest copper
#

Some of you may have noticed that the market prices for certain items—not just legendary, but even epic gear—have risen significantly. If this trend continues unchecked, quality equipment will gradually become inaccessible to free-to-play (F2P) players, creating a widening gap in player experience and progression.

Now, in response to concerns that this may devalue purchases made by those who bought workers with real money: it ultimately comes down to price and timing. That’s why I proposed a gem-based cost starting at 10,000 AND countdown system similar to antique blueprint in collection book.

Let's study the case here, consider Kaipo, priced at $15.99, versus the equivalent of 5x 2,000-gem purchases from the Gem Fountain, totaling around $24.95. The direct purchase remains more attractive because:
A. It offers better value
B. It grants immediate access—no need to wait several months

At the same time, F2P players would eventually gain access to content they otherwise couldn’t reach, helping to curb the inflation caused by increased gem circulation and promoting a healthier, more balanced economy in the long run. While also discouraging the more established player from throwing gems around like its water, which will destroy the delicate ecosystem of Shop Titans Market.

marsh escarp
#

Inflation is being caused by t15s dropping from extreme jungle recently. The amount of gold being gained by that is kind of ridiculous 😅

Unknown if its considered a bug or feature... but if not a bug, its just going to keep wrecking economy harder the more people who can run extreme jungle

#

Plus the 80% aura bug that is making extreme jungle extremely accessible. If you've got RM and the heroes, go quest tree and spam

long stream
#

Market always goes up and down. It's based on simple supply and demand. Also gems are always being undercut. You just need to be patient.

modest copper
#

I'm aware that markets fluctuate — that's a natural part of any system based on supply and demand. However, the current state of the market isn't just a standard fluctuation. It might not be felt by everyone yet, because the impact can be subtle and is only truly noticeable on specific items. But the underlying logic still stands — and it's worth unpacking.

For a long time, gem dumping was largely driven by the level 60 and 75 shop expansions, which required around 9,000 gems in total. But since the rework on market tiers (and vending machine since everyone needs to sleep), it's never been easier to level up at that stage. Many active players no longer feel pressured to spend large amounts of gems just to expand. Instead, they hoard them — and with fewer players spending large amounts, the overall circulation of gems has increased. This contributes to upward pressure on gem prices, especially during high-demand periods.

And there's one more point I forgot to mention: workers aren't just about unlocking blueprints. Many provide passive benefits that are arguably more valuable than some exclusives. Being able to upgrade two furniturez at once, or rerolling skills efficiently, can have a greater impact on a player’s progression than a single blueprint. This shifts how players prioritize spending, again reducing the need to offload large amounts of gems to the market.

So yes, while patience is always part of the equation, ignoring these shifts in player behavior and system design oversimplifies the issue. The gem market isn't just fluctuating — it's evolving.

long stream
#

Yeah but the underlying issue remains. Using gems to buy paid content is not fair to those who spent money. Money should have more value and you get what you pay for. The game is perfectly playable for f2p players. All the extras you get with real money are great, but not needed to play the game. Since the game is mainly based on single player progression and not competitive the advantages that using real money gives doesn't really effect a f2p players style or game play. You're asking to get the same benefits that paying players het basically for free. Those who have spent over $10,000 dollars you think they would have spent that if they could get it for free? I know i would not have spent over $3,000 in my 5yrs if I could get it for free.

brittle crag
#

Ive paid real money for all workers i would not be happy if someone could just come along and get it for gems which can be saved up for free

modest copper
#

It's not about getting it for free instantly—it's about having some path to it over a long period of dedicated play. Nobody’s saying $3,000 worth of content should just be handed out in 5 years. But if someone plays consistently for 5+ years, putting in time and effort, they should be able to earn something meaningful while also curbing the inevitable gem inflation.

And just to clarify: $3,000 worth of content equals about 1.2 million gems (the amount you'd get from 50 years of subscribing to the Gem Fountain). That’s a far better rate than buying gems outright. In five years, there’s no realistic way for a free-to-play player to earn that many gems just through gameplay. So saying this feature gives you "$3,000 for free" is very misleading.

That said, I do understand your side of the story. But have you considered that this could actually benefit everyone? With future updates introducing new workers and a more stable market, it could make it much more feasible to equip all your heroes with legendaries/getting that juicy collection book completion. A healthier in-game economy helps both paying players and free-to-play players alike.

long stream
#

Well to me meaningful is seeing your progress over time. And the KC shop already added the ability to get paid for content with tokens. All those Pack BPs become avaible to f2p players after 6 months. Of course if you want to craft preiumum lines you need to buy the worker, but it's nice that some paid content is already avalible for in game currency. I wouldn't mind a day pass to use a paid worker like how fullmoon works. Maybe a monthly rotation that gives f2p players access for a day 🤔 but not out right buying workers for gems.

pale briar
unreal vessel
#

Have you considered the side effects IF this would be implemented?

Seriously: enchantments are accessible to ANY player. And these are the most reliable gem source if one is F2P - you do not even need the T14s - T9 is sufficient. Sorry folks, if you are in the market and I just ruined it for you.

So lets do some theory: Function gets implemented - the first thing happening is each item line gets supplied heavily across all tiers especially aurasongs & instruments (we all know why, dont we?) Those players which paid real money for that piece of the cake now get more (maybe even A LOT looking at Yohan) competition like they had before.

Shitstorm? Guaranteed.

brittle crag
modest copper
# unreal vessel Have you considered the side effects IF this would be implemented? Seriously: e...

You bring up a fair concern, and I appreciate the directness. It’s true that enchantments are a reliable gem source for F2P players. That said, the core issue I’m raising isn’t about whether gems can be earned—it’s about how the rising gem circulation is influencing market dynamics and long-term access to quality content.

The features I proposed, which semeed very controversial at first, are designed, first and foremost, to help drain excess gems from the economy—addressing inflation directly. At the same time, they still preserve the core benefits for paying players and introduce meaningful long-term goals for F2P players.

In the end, it all comes down to the numbers and how they're balanced.

brittle crag
#

I feel it comes down to our bank accounts in real life and the money that isn't in them anymore cause we had to buy the workers. That's the only place my brain is at. No amount of game based reasoning changes that sorry.

modest copper
# brittle crag I feel it comes down to our bank accounts in real life and the money that isn't ...

Nothing to be sorry about—your feelings are valid. Spending real money always makes things feel more personal.

But just because a decision feels bad doesn’t mean all game-based reasoning becomes irrelevant. The health of the game affects everyone, including paying players. If inflation continues unchecked, even the value of what you paid for starts to erode—not just in competition, but in overall game balance and economy. And that’s completely fair—everyone’s entitled to their point of view. But sharing a perspective doesn't make it immune to response or rebuttal. I'm not dismissing how you feel; I’m addressing the broader implications beyond individual frustration.

brittle crag
#

I understand and it has been interesting to read through the reasoning and all, no harm meant

modest copper
#

<💕

unreal vessel
#

It’s been requested to be able to obtain premium prints for gems - here we go, there are content passes. I am cool with those. I also would be totally cool with free access to a random premium worker on the currently free day after DI.

What I definitely wouldn’t be cool with: permanent access to premium workers for gems.

#

Yes, I know that sounds/reads harsh, but I guess I wouldn’t be the only player packing in if that was implemented - no matter how much real money I spent here.

modest copper
# unreal vessel I grasped that your point isnt HOW gems can be earned yours is: how can they be ...

I want to clarify that I’m not intentionally leaving out how gems are earned. I just don’t believe it’s the core issue here. Compared to the 50+ gems per day consistently earned through the Gem Fountain, income from F2P activities is relatively minor. Crafting enchantments daily doesn’t inject much into the system, and market flipping isn’t productive in terms of gem generation—it’s just players shifting gems among themselves, with some permanently removed through sales tax.

Even if we assume these sources are comparable, that only reinforces the need for action—because it means gem circulation has effectively doubled. And without new, meaningful gem sinks, the rising surplus will inflate prices and devalue the in-game currency. That assumption also overlooks points I’ve already made, like the reduced need for shop expansion now that leveling has become easier.

At this point, we’re mostly going back and forth based on sentiment rather than outcome-driven reasoning—and that’s okay. Emotions are part of these discussions. But it also highlights something important: for many paying players, exclusivity is a big part of what gives premium purchases their value. And that’s completely valid.

That said, the suggestion I’m making doesn’t take that away. It preserves exclusivity through early access, adds a meaningful gem cost, and sets a long-term goal for others—without cheapening what early buyers paid for.

Just to be clear, I’m not F2P—I’ve bought workers before. But I think it’s worth recognizing that a lot of the pushback isn’t about game balance or long-term sustainability—it’s a gut reaction of “I paid for this, so no one else should have it later.” That’s understandable. And maybe that means the focus should shift to other gem sinks that solve inflation without touching exclusivity.

unreal vessel
#

With permanent access to paid content you set a further incentive for „out of TOS behaviour“ starting off with multi accounts (in case the free gem earnings need to be limited) up to using bots/scripts to secure gem income.

Since I have no access to hard data I can only guess its bad enough as it is, it doesnt need to be inforced.

modest copper
# unreal vessel With permanent access to paid content you set a further incentive for „out of TO...

That’s actually a good point—I wasn’t fully aware of the extent of botting or how lax the detection of multi-account abuse might be. If that’s already a problem, then I agree: adding permanent gem-based access to premium content could unintentionally incentivize that behavior further.

One possible direction could be improving the Content Pass—making it more rewarding and accessible so that even newer players see it as a worthwhile purchase. Which i dont think applies to the latest Dragonboat Festival CP.

Another potential solution is to rework Naya’s offers so they can be purchased with gems, and more importantly, make them actually worth considering. As it stands, most of what's offered doesn't feel impactful or valuable enough to justify the cost.

little rampart
# modest copper That’s actually a good point—I wasn’t fully aware of the extent of botting or ho...

Another potential solution is to rework Naya’s offers so they can be purchased with gems

I'm not sure if you were playing then but this was a thing they experimented with at one point before ultimately deciding to scrap it so I think we can assume it didn't work out - could be from the loss of money from players not buying them but using gems they had earnt via market/events instead or something.

Same reason I don't see this worker idea happening, or at least not in the way you proposed. What I could see happening is people buy a "worker token" as such on the store and then can list that on the market for gems - that way Kabam still get a worker sale.
Or maybe they do implement it as proposed but only on the oldest workers (so scholar and engineer) and have a very long delay on adding new workers. Like maybe a worker has to be out for 5 years before it qualifies for gem pricing or something. If it's possible to get recent-ish workers that's again cutting into revenue and also a big deterrant from buying them as people can go "well I could buy this or just wait X months and get it with these gems I have earnt etc etc"

modest copper
#

The Worker Token (Permanent/Trial) is a significantly better approach.

Paying players get more value for their money, market tax helps maintain economic balance and keep premium currency in check, and a portion of the playerbase could get access to content they might otherwise couldn't experience.

However, given the sentiment in this community, I’d consider exploring other forms of gem sinks instead—since exclusivity seems to be a key part of what the player base values.

Though i personally love the idea, and locking out some blueprints that come with certain workers might just be the perfect way to address the issue.

pale briar
#
  • Naya’s offer for gems as Reiga’s suggestion is a great idea, if there is ever to be a gem sink. 99% of the player base don’t own all the blueprints and will help the majority of people to unlock new content. Especially seeing the amount of new items being added, and the minimal kaprice coins we get every event
#
  • Worker tokens will add nothing to people who have the workers. So, it won’t be a gem sink for them. Most likely, people who have the workers purchased are the ones with the gem fountain running, and should be the target of the gem sink.
#

I understand your interest to have the workers for free, but all the paying players will have a backlash if they ever added ways to get them free. Talking about myself, i would delete the game at then.
I deleted the game 4 times when I was still unemployed before and wasn’t able to purchase the workers and get the content . So i understand what you are feeling, left out from some content

#

Maybe new upcoming can be purchased with money or gems later on as the game develops. But, I think old workers are hard for them now to change now.

placid rock
#

Just gonna chime in here. There is still a gem tax on the market I believe. This is preventing gems devaluing. At most the question should be can we increase the gem tax slightly to sink more gems out of the economy, rather than can we annoy everyone and anyone who bought workers

marsh escarp
#

Would rather annoy everyone who bought workers over annoying all the f2p and p2p that depend on market for gems 😅

Instead... how about give us more content pass. Or more stuff in content pass and increase the gem price. People aren't required to buy it. Gem buying Naya offers is about the same function as content pass, so that's also a good option too.