3 min is not enough

It's not enough. Period. I'm a th9. I have 3 starred many bases at 3min but with only 1 or 2 different strategies. This makes the game boring; making the same war attacks over and over again takes creativity out of troop compositions which gets old fast. I want to see more diversity in troop compositions. For the people that think th8 and th7 don't need more than 3min, I don't think your reasoning is sound. Most of the replies that I've seen, have been about th7s attacking other th7s and th8s attacking other th8s. If this was always the case in war, 3min would be perfect. However, that's not always how it works. I also have a th8 account and I've attacked many rushed th9s in war. Without the timer being set to 3:30, I can easily run out of time trying to take down extra defenses, archer queen etc. Also, if a th7 has to attack a th8 in war, then it's very hard to get the three star in under 3 min. And no, I don't believe anyone on this forum that says that they three star maxed th9s all the time, and it would be too easy to three star if there was more than 3 min. If you are three starring maxed th9s with ease every war, then your opponents consistently have the worst base layouts in clash of clans. It is hard to three star maxed th9s in 3 min. Anyone who says different is full of ♥♥♥♥. No one 3 stars every time no matter how much time they have to do it in.

Paragraphs.

Im sorry but we know,

There are thousands of post like these, all duplicates, just comment on one instead of making another thread

Also 3 mins ib ebough for TH9 and below 3.30 would be good for TH10, the game shouldnt be easy and if you mis time you should have attacked otherwise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trapperman

3 min is not enough

---

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you and I apologize but I do not see a valid argument since TH9s and below were 3*ing before the December update. You have to realize that your enemy has the same 3 minutes as you and they have to deal with the clock as well. If you are failing and your enemy is successfully 3*ing, that is proof enough that 3 minutes is good enough and the problem is with the attacker.

If they make the game too easy for everyone else, the game will lose the challenge and become boring. This will cause more people to lose interest in the game and stop playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TriStarCarnage

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you and I apologize but I do not see a valid argument since TH9s and below were 3*ing before the December update. You have to realize that your enemy has the same 3 minutes as you and they have to deal with the clock as well. If you are failing and your enemy is successfully 3*ing, that is proof enough that 3 minutes is good enough and the problem is with the attacker.

If they make the game too easy for everyone else, the game will lose the challenge and become boring. This will cause more people to lose interest in the game and stop playing.

---

I guaranty you people have more fun getting three stars than 1-2.

It's a blast rolling a base for three. I loved the pre witch nerd era bc it gave causal players (like most of my current clan) an off chance of three starring 10s and 11s....the average person Can't (and I don't really know why bc it's tough but not that tough) three star with the more advanced tactics i.e. AQ walk, loons, hogs, mass pekka jump...that is still one that I have no clue how itd guys do it...bunnies or not....it's impressive...etc and I think there has been a dip in causal play since the update. I know my current clan, who are all either rl friends or relatives, has become much less active. We took a hit with the PBT but witches and warden really started energizing people once they saw what they had a chance to do.

I know the more serious players can and will adapt (I'm exploiting the hell out of valk/hog and valk/loon right now....I rip 11s apart faster and easier than with witches....but again, most people don't know how to work hogs high up) but the causal player base is what keeps a game going.

No one says they're 3 starring maxed TH9s "with ease". Plenty of people are capable of 3 starring maxed TH9s in under 3 minutes however.

Your argument for lower THs doesn't ring true either. It takes no longer for a TH7 with lvl 2 drags to 3 star a TH8 than it does for a TH8 with level 2 drags to 3 star the same base.

At TH10/11 there could be a case for reverting the time limit, but it is not needed for TH9 and below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

No one says they're 3 starring maxed TH9s "with ease". Plenty of people are capable of 3 starring maxed TH9s in under 3 minutes however.

Your argument for lower THs doesn't ring true either. It takes no longer for a TH7 with lvl 2 drags to 3 star a TH8 than it does for a TH8 with level 2 drags to 3 star the same base.

At TH10/11 there could be a case for reverting the time limit, but it is not needed for TH9 and below.

---

It DOES take longer. More structures to destroy, more hitpoints on those structures. A th7 hitting up DOES take longer. Lower spells, lower level dragons, lower-level king...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

No one says they're 3 starring maxed TH9s "with ease". Plenty of people are capable of 3 starring maxed TH9s in under 3 minutes however.

.

---

I agree totally. Capable is the key word here. I would ask anyone who comments on the 3 mins to post their Hero levels too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garmonbozia

It DOES take longer. More structures to destroy, more hitpoints on those structures. A th7 hitting up DOES take longer. Lower spells, lower level dragons, lower-level king...

---

Please explain how a base gains more structures and hit points when being attacked by a lower level TH.

I should have specified an early TH8 as the attacker to compare to, but thought that was a given as I did say they had lvl 2 drags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

I agree totally. Capable is the key word here. I would ask anyone who comments on the 3 mins to post their Hero levels too.

---

On my 9, 29/27...last war I 3 starred 2 defensively maxed TH9s. A clanmate with 21/21 did likewise, one being in under 1'30".

My TH8 mini has plenty of 3 star attacks in matchmaking against low to mid 9s with a lvl 10 BK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garmonbozia

It DOES take longer. More structures to destroy, more hitpoints on those structures. A th7 hitting up DOES take longer. Lower spells, lower level dragons, lower-level king...

---

Are you arguing that we need longer than 3 minutes so TH7s can hit up and 3* 8s!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

I agree totally. Capable is the key word here. I would ask anyone who comments on the 3 mins to post their Hero levels too.

---

I have no trouble as a th9 3 starring within 3 minutes, but as you suspected, my heroes are 30/30 :cool:

In my opinion I don't think it's a problem that fresh th9s with teenage heroes (or lower) can't 3* inside 3 minutes and are clamoring for the added time back. I'm not necessarily convinced they're SUPPOSED to be able to do so (at least against good/maxed bases). If fresh th9s with 10/10 heroes could 3* regularly with long drawn out attacks, I think it would make wars quite boring, again in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

. If fresh th9s with 10/10 heroes could 3* regularly with long drawn out attacks, I think it would make wars quite boring, again in my opinion.

---

Exactly my point. Where would be the incentive to upgrade your heroes? For the record, I failed to get a 3 star in my last war on max defence fresh hits. One was 95% etc. The reason was poor execution. ..not time! I have 28/28 Heroes. #We want FairPlay! 😊

As a maxed def th9, I would love the extra 30 seconds - specially on my last war attack which was a 90% 1 star before time got me - BUT... while I might really really like to have that extra 30 seconds, I am quite content to only have 3 minutes.

But my attack would have been a 3 with the extra time.... yes yes it would have. It also would have if it was a clean up attack and I knew where the DGB were, or if I'd started phase 2 a tad sooner, or if I'd used my heals different, or if I'd read the base differently, or dropped the queen two tiles over or... whatever other reason I can think of.

We 3ed before the extra 30 seconds... even with the extra mortar (yes, extra mortars were first at th9) and extra air sweepers and extra archer tower buffs and other building hp buffs - which came about because 3 ing was getting too automatic. Still, we were 3 ing.

Now we have extra xbow dps and extra wiz hp... and we are still 3 ing. No, of course not all the time. But as a sig here so aptly puts it...

If my troops suck and yours work then it is me who sucks.

But if you (generic you) find 3 ing is harder now... and I agree with you it is... I don't think we can blame just the 3 minutes and defense buffs (remember, our enemy face the same problems - time and defenses). I think we also need to consider the base and its layout.

Back before the first hog nerf, mass hogs in a group just obliterated everything. This gave rise to the hog ring style base and the white flag designs too. DGBs got the hog buff. And out of this was born HoLoWiWi - loon the outside weapons, hogs into the core (HoLoWiWi was a result of base design layout change to try to combat mass hogs see, but left itself open to a different style of attack). So bases had to change to combat HoLo...

Then lavahounds arrived and we all thought... 6 loons sacrificed for a hound?, I think not. Then we figured them out, And bases began to fall... so bases changed to become anti laloon... and so on and so forth... Surgical hogs came from bases getting more spread to avoid mass hog death to dgb, something more easily dealt with in the earlier compact bases.

Troop combo leads to base changes which lead to troop combo changes which lead to base changes which lead to troop combo changes - around and around it goes. Each time the bases change, 3 ing gets hard. Then once the meta of the new bases is worked out the attacking meta changes and 3 ing is easier - not easy, just easier.

A lot of people cannot handle the new base hp with their old troops. And instead of adapting or trying new things, have opted for 4eq gowipe - we are seeing a marked increase in this in our wars now - to get the two stars. And they hope we get one star attacks while going for 3 stars.

In short... 3 minutes is long enough for th9 and below. It makes it harder for sure. But all the better feeling when you do it.

3.30 for th10 and above? On the surface I'd say yes... but knowing how the clash community does things, I'd say we would have a sudden spate of th9.5 just so they could technically be a th10 to get the extra 30 seconds to attack. And I see no way to prevent abuse of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

I agree totally. Capable is the key word here. I would ask anyone who comments on the 3 mins to post their Hero levels too.

---

A couple months ago my main went up to 10 with 30/27 heroes. My 2nd account is 15/10 heroes...and for war sometimes I use my friends mini which has 7/10 heroes.

You can 3 star th9s in under 3 minutes. You can use multiple attacks to 3 star in under 3 minutes. Yes sometimes we all run out of time...but for th9 and lower 3 minutes is a great timer.

OP Defense to his post is weak. In what world should a th7 3 star a th8 or a th8 3 star a th9? I mean yes it is quite possible but it should not be that way on a regular base hence 3:30 isn't viable in this case. What you are asking for is extra time to be able to 3 star up a base which you should only do on a rare occurence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TriStarCarnage

... the game will lose the challenge and become boring. This will cause more people to lose interest in the game and stop playing.

---

The game has already become boring. That's evident by the constant complaining by a lot of players on the forum and Facebook page, not to mention the YouTubers who've switched to uploading vids of Royale. There appears to be plenty of denial regarding this, but a game cannot hemorrhage players and be expected to thrive.

People play games for different reasons. Some play for a challenge, I (and probably the OP) play to have fun. Life is challenging enough, I don't need a game to makes it more so.

The worst thing about this, is all this is a waste. This comment...this post...this whole forum. SuperCell doesn't give a ♥♥♥♥. Only the divided players do, which doesn't really matter in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exeljb

The game has already become boring. That's evident by the constant complaining by a lot of players on the forum and Facebook page, not to mention the YouTubers who've switched to uploading vids of Royale.

---

That's why I used the word "more" in my post

[QUOTE=exeljb;7120825
People play games for different reasons. Some play for a challenge, I (and probably the OP) play to have fun. Life is challenging enough, I don't need a game to makes it more so.
.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The game is supposed to be fun. And people have a lot more fun getting 3 stars than 2. Not saying there should be no challenge at all, but don't make the timer one of the most common reasons to 2 star. People will get fed up (and most already have) of 2 starring because they didn't have enough time. Say what you want about adjusting strategies, changing troop compositions, etc, but the fact is a lot of people that play the game have lives, and cannot constantly practice different attacks. And, there are errors made in war attacks that costs someone precious seconds. 30 extra seconds would provide breathing room for a few small errors to occur and still manage to get the 3 star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trapperman

Exactly. The game is supposed to be fun. And people have a lot more fun getting 3 stars than 2. Not saying there should be no challenge at all, but don't make the timer one of the most common reasons to 2 star. People will get fed up (and most already have) of 2 starring because they didn't have enough time. Say what you want about adjusting strategies, changing troop compositions, etc, but the fact is a lot of people that play the game have lives, and cannot constantly practice different attacks. And, there are errors made in war attacks that costs someone precious seconds. 30 extra seconds would provide breathing room for a few small errors to occur and still manage to get the 3 star.

---

People who like getting three stars like the low timer because three stars means something, they can do it and the adversary can't.

180 seconds is my vote.
At 180 sec I feel like I have more control and a better ability to deploy my troops.
3 minuets is just not enough time for my 239 golblins to gobble up all the loot and My wizard to take out those meddlesome heroes....
B-)

I think the timer should be 3:30 because if i am to lose (and I often feel like getting two stars is a loss) then I want to lose because my poor army composition / deployment / tactics got my troops slaughtered.

I HATE destroying a base and still walking away with only two stars.

In regards to "the opposition has the same limit too", if someone gets a 99% ran-out-of-time on me, I definitely don't feel like it was a "victorious" defense.

I don't want success or failure to be due to an arbitrary time limit.

we need more time for war attacks ..
can u please make it 3 min and 30 sec or more!

Would suit me if they did away with the timer altogether. Either your defense is strong enough to stop me or it's not, one or the other. If the opponent is good enough to take down all my defenses, then he should be awarded 3 stars, not run out of time.

It's fine as it is!

during war it takes one minute to kill cc troops . so i agree to the thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucifer11

during war it takes one minute to kill cc troops . so i agree to the thread

---

If it takes you one minute to kill the cc troops you either aren't doing it right or should just go in with a kill squad.

I agree. I mean, I didn't get 3*ed when the limit was 3:30, and I wasn't consistently 3*ing either. Judging by my attack and defense log, as well as the results I see in CW, I would guess that only 1% of all TH 9 vs TH 9 attacks are 3*'s, and with 3:30 that might have gone up to 2%. It's still pretty hard to get 3.

I see no problem with making it easier to 3*, after all, it's a lot of fun. Also, the cool thin about Clash is that it's mostly about strategy. You have to plan your army, how to lure the castle, where to drop troops etc. Decreasing the time limit makes strategy less important and fast reaction time more important. There are enough games like that out already. If I wanted to play a game that needed a quick reaction time, I'd buy a Playstation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fistface

In regards to "the opposition has the same limit too", if someone gets a 99% ran-out-of-time on me, I definitely don't feel like it was a "victorious" defense.

I don't want success or failure to be due to an arbitrary time limit.

---

Exactly. I love it when my base defends but if the enemy is good enough to take out all my defenses and get around all my traps, then he deserves 3 stars