Andy, my only problem with this is the supply side. About producing goods that sell for GC, you aren't taking into account the inability/difficulty to get GC in the first place. This new change will likely make players hold on to their GC tighter. If gaining GC is going to be difficult, spending for goods and populations to expand is going to slow because no one will have coins to spend in a discretionary fashion.
Not to nag, but this feels like a forced reset, regardless of how long it takes or how it is presented. Once all avenues of rewards are exhausted what will players have to do then? Pay out of pocket, or reset your account in order to be eligible for awards again.
If you want to get rid of GC, then just switch every good or service to a denomination of cash in the gc equivalent, and gold coins go away, no harm no foul.
You can't keep rewarding dedicated players with a swift kick in the nuts and expect veteran players to express how good it feels. Saying that vets complaining about a sore groin is evidence of a great move, is shocking.
Every avenue of income has been cut off; inactive raiding, population selling, country selling, virtual asset exchange and so on.
War is remarkably expensive despite the reductions in costs. I know what your response is to this claim. However, when costs are compared to the drop in incomes as well, there is little change except the many features that will drive players to add additional costs like weapon upgrades and mobile units.
________________________________________
I'm going to make an assumption about this and other moves, and then present an alternative that if you care discuss further, can be done through email.
Assuming revenue is the issue for the game atm, you are going about increasing that revenue the wrong way.
W3C wants to increase revenue, period.
The game has to be more fun, more profits, more war, less restrictions and more avenues of income. It is all 1's and 0's! Reducing numbers so much isn't necessary toward the end profitability and revenue.
It appears the strategy is to increase the amount of revenue per player to the company. You could achieve many more memberships by reversing exactly what you are trying to accomplish.
Would you rather have 20 players paying 75$ or more a year on average to play, or would you want 1000 players paying 50$. This is basic.
You could make this game far more attractive to old and new player alike, and I have proven it in many ways with some degree of success as far as playing the game to produce a real profit through asset exchange. w3c can replicate the same result, by allowing players to do more for less. It would actually keep older players at home and add a real incentive for free accounts to go premium.
I don't want to tickle anyone's mind specific ideas, but I would be happy to place them in an email for you if you want to discuss it. You have 3 problems- revenue from customers, Keeping vets happy and in the game and free player to premium conversion. These can all be solved quite easily by taking another approach.