Donation Hut

Problem: my clan usually needs specific troops that I don't use so I have to wait to build them and by the time they build someone else might have donated so I have to destroy them.

Solution: Create a donation hut that allows you to build troops strictly for donating so they can be ready for requests and don't accidentally end up in your own army. Limit of two total armies of storage.

This is pretty frequently requested, and has been shot down for some good reasons. Firstly, two total armies of storage is way too much. Secondly, this would pretty much defeat the point of one-gem donations. I'm sure there are other reasons though.

Can you imagine the resources you can hide in 2 extra armys or at the end of events with 3 full camps of that troop you can sell for a nice profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookiemonster123123

This is pretty frequently requested, and has been shot down for some good reasons. Firstly, two total armies of storage is way too much. Secondly, this would pretty much defeat the point of one-gem donations. I'm sure there are other reasons though.

---

Ohh yeah, the gem economy and the profit, hmmm,.. the idea can be modified to have a limit, the only way to expand it is by gem, or maybe enable the donation bank/hut for gold passers only, and I will definitely purchase it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollboothwillie

Can you imagine the resources you can hide in 2 extra armys or at the end of events with 3 full camps of that troop you can sell for a nice profit.

---

They can modify it so once a troop is stored in the bank(lets not use this)/hut there's no way you can refund the resources you have used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollboothwillie

Can you imagine the resources you can hide in 2 extra armys or at the end of events with 3 full camps of that troop you can sell for a nice profit.

---

I don’t really have the issue brought up by the OP.

But if the developers were considering it, it would probably not have a queue and must be deleted without refund like normal camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookiemonster123123

This is pretty frequently requested, and has been shot down for some good reasons. Firstly, two total armies of storage is way too much. Secondly, this would pretty much defeat the point of one-gem donations. I'm sure there are other reasons though.

---

Removing a gem cost at all for donating seems like a good way to give back to the COC community to make it easier and faster when others have already paid with elixir/gold/dark. Less than two armies storage would still work. I also think it would be cool since we have the ability to request specific troops now to add a feature to this that allows the player to opt in to auto-donations so they don't have to be logged in for the donation to happen if another player requests spwcific troops and they are already built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLARBLES

Removing a gem cost at all for donating seems like a good way to give back to the COC community to make it easier and faster when others have already paid with elixir/gold/dark. Less than two armies storage would still work. I also think it would be cool since we have the ability to request specific troops now to add a feature to this that allows the player to opt in to auto-donations so they don't have to be logged in for the donation to happen if another player requests spwcific troops and they are already built.

---

I'd bet a large portion of the monthly season pass sales are because people want the 1-gem donation perk. Your idea would directly impact SC's revenue.

Anything automatic happening in the background without you needing to log in is typically a big NO. Supercell wants you to log in and play their game as opposed to setting-it-and-forgetting-it for a few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLARBLES

Removing a gem cost at all for donating seems like a good way ...

---

No, its the bad way, you'll break a lot of stuffs down the road if gem donations are removed, it was put there on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyPC

Anything automatic happening in the background without you needing to log in is typically a big NO. Supercell wants you to log in and play their game as opposed to setting-it-and-forgetting-it for a few days.

---

We're not talking about automating just "anything or everything" about the game, OP's idea is only a small fraction of a change of the game that may solve a lot of problems going on around about donations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyPC

Supercell wants you to log in and play their game as opposed to setting-it-and-forgetting-it for a few days.

---

This has been happening since the very beginning and one of the game's core idea. How about you set a building to be upgraded and you'll forget it for few days then come back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maximooze007

We're not talking about automating the entirety of the game, OP's idea is only a small fraction of a change of the game that may solve a lot of problems going on around about donations.

This has been happening since the very beginning and its part of the game's core idea, you set a building to be upgraded, and you'll forget it for few days then come back.

---

I wasn't referring to the foundation of the game, I was referring to other ruled out ideas such as:

- queuing builder upgrades (all your builders are busy, so you set up a builder to automatically start a new upgrade while you're offline, i.e. you set-it-and-forget-it)

- automatically collecting loot from pumps

- automatically resetting traps/xbows/infernos if you don't get a shield

- automatically requesting CC troops if you lose them on defense

I think OP's follow-up idea allowing requesters to effectively take from your donation hut, i.e. you automatically donate while you're offline, follows the concept behind the above ruled out ideas. Each of those ruled out ideas by itself isn't automating the entirety of the game either, only a small fraction.

Quote:

---

I wasn't referring to the foundation of the game

---

Thank you for clearing it up, and apologies.

Quote:

---

I was referring to other ruled out ideas such as

---

This has been troubling me since the first time I came here and as I keep on staying in this sub-forum I've been noticing or having a thought of it (my perspective) that any idea that hasn't been consolidated to some extent is to be considered "ruled-out" due to the volume of similarities from the incoming posts(new posts), posts with no break down, no use-cases, just straight off the bat

If only 1 idea can be broken down to more pieces in 1 go, people can stretch it and maybe end up on something valuable. Maybe I'll keep an eye on this idea and anything that may relate to it as I really like the suggestion, from there I can maybe test my assumptions.


Anyway, YES for the idea.