Should the match cost be scrapped?
Please vote. For more throughout discussion, please visit: http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...tch-cost%21%21
Many thanks
EDIT: One little example:
On average one clicks "Next" 4-5 times. Now if you are at town hall 10, that means you are paying (4 x 1,000) 4,000 gold per raid on average. Say if you raid 5 times a day, then you are paying 20,000 gold per day. After a week, you will actually lose 140,000 gold.
Taken from my previous post:
Quote:
...It doesn't cost that much to search...
On the surface, the match cost is indeed small and insignificant. But think about the total cumulative cost.
Quote:
How about reducing the cost?
The problem is not about the cost being too large. In fact, many people said the cost is insignificant. What I want to shed light on is the total cumulative cost. Besides, there is not much room for reduction. (Small reduction won't be effective and the total cumulative cost will still be burdensome.)
Quote:
...this will end up with tons of players abusing the system...
Currently, people are pretty much "abusing" the system already. Think about on average how many times you click the next button before attacking a village. If the match cost is designed to prevent people from abusing the system, then it is ineffective and hence totally pointless.
If the match cost is to keep people from searching endlessly for the "optimal" base, then why is it imposed on us right at the beginning, i.e. the first match?
Quote:
...the match cost can keep things fair. People should pay to search for a perfect base...
Even with the match cost, some people can find a "perfect" base with just one click, while some have to search for ages and sometimes still cannot find one. Therefore, match cost cannot promote fairness.
Quote:
...If everyone were free to always search endlessly for optimal loot bases, there would cease to be any left...
The "optimal" loot bases will ever run out, since people's shields end at a different time, besides, different town hall levels mean the different amount of loot available for different players. The demand and supply will be different for everyone and thus there will never be any shortages.
Final point, all the villages are randomly generated by the system. It is unfair to have to pay a cost in order to skip a village which is too difficult to attack or too little loot available - the player did not choose to visit it at the first place! Why should we be penalised for not wanting something which is determined by the system?
