Pay gems to get revenge on shielded opponents

Exactly what I suggested in the title: for the cost of some gems, you get to take revenge on an opponent that is under shield or guard. The loot would be either a) what they raided from you plus a fixed percentage (maybe 10%), or b) whatever is in their storages (whichever is the lesser of the two). Along with this, you would only be able to gem for revenge within a specific timeframe (maybe a week?) and you would have a limited number of gemmed revenges per day (maybe 1-2).

Otherwise just scrap revenge. The revenge button is a massive tease that doesn't do anything under the current system.

But the shield is supposed to keep you from attackers. It should stay that way.

Which is why I suggested that the loot you get from revenge is a) limited to the amount that was taken from you (plus a small percentage), and b) the number of gemmed revenges available per day are limited. The whole point of revenge is that you get a chance to recover what was taken from you.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it's impossible to get revenge with the current system. Either change the system or remove revenge as an option.

Edit: If you want to make it thematic, you don't even have to call it revenge. You can call it "Sneak attack". You have a scout that can go out once or twice a day to scout a shielded or guarded opponent that attacked you first. The scout's ability allows you to get around the shield. You have to pay gems to use the scout's ability. Regular revenge is still available for free.

No thanks. This idea totally defeats the purpose of shielding. Plus the mechanics of shields would need to be changed to accommodate your suggestion Remember, a shielded village may be online and ecen attacking other villages.

Revenge in general and ways to revenge through a shield are flogged to death on a weekly basis. Try reading some other threads for people's reflection on shielding and revenge.

Then get rid of revenge and don't use Liam Neeson to market it because that's false advertising. Nobody actually ever gets a chance at revenge.

And if it's a persistent complaint, that suggests a lot of users are disgruntled about it. Maybe it shouldn't simply be dismissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadgersCoC

Then get rid of revenge and don't use Liam Neeson to market it because that's false advertising. Nobody actually ever gets a chance at revenge.

---

Read those other threads I mentioned. Revenge does work in some instances.

People report great rewards in cups and loot, indicating that your experience is not everyone's experience and vice-versa.

Edit. dont read the next sentence if you "need" revenge.
The need for revenge is for the shallow-minded. It's still just a game.

Resorting to insults. Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadgersCoC

Resorting to insults. Nice.

---

Not an insult. Read those other threads.

Ask yourself if you "need" or just "want" revenge. Everything revenge offers - in a game - can be gained from a multiplayer attack.

When you imply that someone is "shallow-minded" that is insulting. Whatever.

What if they paid gems for a week shield? Anyway I don't this is a good idea because that means that people who gem now have a huge advantage. Before it was just they could get an occasional shield and upgrade everything faster. But it didn't make them more powerful than players who are the same th level who didn't gem. (Buy or get gems for apps)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadgersCoC

When you imply that someone is "shallow-minded" that is insulting. Whatever.

---

Sorry if you are offended. But you don't "need" revenge do you ? If you do then I guess I must have been talking about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMAEL

But the shield is supposed to keep you from attackers. It should stay that way.

---

This^^
I wouldn't waste gems on revenge
Just battle normally:facepalm:no difference

Of course I don't "need" revenge. I don't need to play Clash either. As it stands, the revenge button is offered but it is seldom available. I want revenge. What's wrong with that? The prospect of revenge is fun. It's pretty simple: my base gets attacked and I get a chance at payback. Not sure why you can't see the basic appeal of this. Obviously Supercell understood the basic appeal, because they hired Liam Neeson to tout this feature in a tv commercial.

I imagine SuperCell understands that their revenge system is flawed. The new versus mode circumvents the whole issue. What I'm suggesting is that there are ways for the original game to incorporate revenge in a satisfying way.

You can resort to insults if you want, but not everyone has the time or inclination to push for trophies as you suggest. Why begrudge someone for wanting a properly implemented revenge system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadgersCoC

Of course I don't "need" revenge. I don't need to play Clash either. As it stands, the revenge button is offered but it is seldom available. I want revenge. What's wrong with that? The prospect of revenge is fun. It's pretty simple: my base gets attacked and I get a chance at payback. Not sure why you can't see the basic appeal of this. Obviously Supercell understood the basic appeal, because they hired Liam Neeson to tout this feature in a tv commercial.

I imagine SuperCell understands that their revenge system is flawed. The new versus mode circumvents the whole issue. What I'm suggesting is that there are ways for the original game to incorporate revenge in a satisfying way.

You can resort to insults if you want, but not everyone has the time or inclination to push for trophies as you suggest. Why begrudge someone for wanting a properly implemented revenge system?

---

Seriously, I meant no insult or I would have been much more direct. Forum threads are read by many people not just the OP. If anything, I suggested the character portrayed by Liam Neeson was shallow-minded. A character played by a paid actor in a fictional scenario for a mobile gaming app.

As to you thread, you don't want a properly implemented system, you have suggested something that devalues the shield system, ignores how and why people have shields and simply isn't needed to achieve the things you think you may have lost, which seems to be loot.

Any psychological victory people may desire could well put them in a far worse dilemma that they anticpate should the revenge fail. And no, I am not singleing YOU out here. A good confident attacker can easily regain losses.

Regardless of what you think, the revenge button does work. It is not meant to work every time for every person.

A) If it did, the number of available revenges would drop to zero in no time as people typically attack far more often than they defend.

B) There are historical reasons for the SC choosing the "timing" of when bases are available for revenge. Read those other threads I keep harping on about. They have wealth of information not touched here.

I have no idea why you interpret my words as pushing for trophies. In fact, most people's experience at higher leagues is revenge is even less likely. Again, those threads I suggested waaay back, discuss this factoid. I didn't recommend them lightly.

And finally before I waste any more time on the dead horse known as revenge .... What's wrong with wanting revenge? Not whatsoever. It does become an issue for some however, when they can't get revenge.

I would never spend gems on nonsense like this. Sounds like the only players who would benefit are modders and win-traders on the leaderboards and YouTubers who have spent thousands of dollars on CoC with thousands to spare.

I took your suggestion and reviewed some threads on revenge. The idea of giving "revengers" first dibs on attacking a base, after it runs out of Shield and VG, seems like it would be progress.

You suggest that people will feel bad when their revenge attack fails, but I don't see that as being the case. The point of the revenge button is to have a chance at payback. Whether the revenge succeeds or fails, it brings closure. Psychologically, this is why the versus mode feels more satisfying than MM: both players get their chance to attack each other's base to determine a victor, and, win or lose, the matter is concluded.

What is the basic idea of MM? Cook up an army and click Next until you find a base that meets your loot threshold and looks like it will be vulnerable to your army. Afterwards, the defender can watch the replay of their base being attacked, they can scout the aggressor's base, and they get a revenge button that never works. I randomly attack others and I am randomly attacked. Not very satisfying.

As far as MM goes, cooking an army and clicking Next is rather mechanical and repetitive. Pushing for trophies is also a boring grind. IMO, the most rewarding part of the game is Clan Wars because it provides opportunities for strategy that are absent from MM. If Revenge actually worked, it would provide some of the same satisfaction because the chance to scout the aggressor's base yields greater opportunities for strategy. IMO, the only way to derive satisfaction from the base game is to belong to an active clan and take part in wars. But for the player that goes it alone, the game is just a boring grind. I think it's clear that SuperCell understood these shortcomings, but rather than try to address them in the base game, they created the new versus mode. I guess that's something.