TFT gold: what spending now really costs you
Your data
Nothing here is tied to one game: any game that pays you for the gold you did not spend works out the same way, and the two rules that matter are fields rather than fixed numbers.
Results
| Interest you collect this turn if you hold | — |
| Interest you collect this turn if you spend | — |
| Gold you end up with if you hold | — |
| Gold you end up with if you spend now | — |
| What spending really costs you | — |
| The part of that which is never quoted | — |
| Turns until the cost stops growing | — |
The first two rows are where the whole thing comes from. Spending drops you onto a lower rung of interest, so from that turn on you collect less every single turn, and the shortfall keeps piling up on top of the price you already paid.
The same purchase at every level of gold
| Gold you were holding | What it really costs | The part never quoted |
|---|
Read that ladder from the bottom up and the useful line jumps out: once you are holding more than interest can ever pay for, the purchase costs its price and nothing else. Gold sitting above that line earns you nothing by sitting there, so spending it is genuinely free in a way that spending the same amount lower down is not.
The ladder also does not fall smoothly, and that is the part no rule of thumb survives. Holding more can make the very same purchase cost more, because what decides the damage is which side of a rung you land on rather than how much you were holding to begin with. Two players with different amounts of gold can face different prices for exactly the same thing.
The last row is the consolation. The gap grows for a few turns and then stops: from there on you are behind by a fixed amount and no longer falling further, so a purchase made early has already done all the harm it is going to do. What the page cannot tell you is whether the thing you bought wins the game before that gap matters, and that is the part of the decision that stays yours.
Why does spending ten gold cost more than ten gold?
Because the gold you hand over was also earning you interest. Spending drops you onto a lower rung, so from that turn on you collect less every turn, and the shortfall piles up on top of the price you already paid.
With thirty gold, five income a turn, one interest per ten held and a cap of five, spending ten leaves you fourteen behind five turns later. Four of that was never quoted as a price.
Is it ever safe to just spend?
Yes, and the boundary is exact rather than a feeling. Once you are holding more than interest can ever pay for, the gold sitting there earns you nothing by sitting there, so spending it costs its price and nothing else.
In the ladder below that is the point where the last column reaches zero. Above that line the purchase is genuinely free; below it, it never is.
| Gold you were holding | What it really costs | The part never quoted |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 15 | 5 |
| 20 | 17 | 7 |
| 30 | 14 | 4 |
| 50 | 12 | 2 |
| 60 | 10 | 0 |
Why is the ladder not smooth?
Because interest is paid in whole steps, not in proportion to what you hold. What decides the damage is which side of a step you land on after paying, so holding more can make the very same purchase cost more.
In the table above, twenty gold is the worst place to spend ten, worse than ten and worse than thirty. No rule of thumb produces that, which is the reason the page computes it with your own numbers.
Does the cost keep growing forever?
No. The gap widens for a few turns and then freezes, because once both paths are earning the same interest again they gain the same amount every turn. From there you are behind by a fixed amount and no longer falling further.
What the page cannot judge is whether what you bought wins before that gap matters. It prices the delay exactly and leaves the decision where it belongs.
Reactions
0
0 Comments
Be the first to comment