Defending against Lightning spells on DE storage

Not to be argumentative, but I think you're wrong in both counts.

I saw a quote (which I thought was from a supercell rep) stating that they did not anticipate spells changing anytime soon, or "if at all", or something along those lines. The quote made it sound like a decision had already been made.

The other novel you wrote was already addressed in my convo with Zach.

Normal raiding requires you deploying troops, troops fighting, troops penetrating a base, troops avoiding traps, troops getting to loot, etc. it's clearly an "investment" which can go either way. You do the wrong thing, you have a net loss. You do the right thing, you have a net gain. The risk/reward is the key here.

Lightning doesn't fall under that category at all. You cook it up, you find ANY lucrative base, and you deploy it on whatever resource you'd like to gain. No risk, no "investment", etc. Just a one hour wait and two presses of a button. Essentially, it functions EXACTLY like a resource exchange building, assuming the resource exchange could only be done once an hour and charged you 20k gold. This allows me to loot dark elixir from a base that my normal troops could NEVER get to, and in much larger quantities than at my normal trophy range if I'm using revenge on a higher opponent. This also allows me to "farm" low trophies and still have a regular supply of dark elixir available, which normally would not be the case. (I stay around 1200 trophies and haven't sen a single base with over 150 dark elixir available, yet I revenge bases regularly that I could never penetrate and steal 500+ dark elixir with no risk)

Can you see the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sneakymaori

In response ,


There's a great chance spells aren't going to be touched.

warm regards, sneaky

---

Here is the exact quote from Sneakymaori that you reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachUVA

Here is the exact quote from SneakyMaori that you reference.

---

That would be the one, thank you.

Steve, this would be a great time for you to address the issue that you intended to address a few minutes ago since you now have all of the information. You seem like a good guy, so I am hoping you didn't reply to the thread to try and "put me in my place", only to disappear once the facts came out. I'm not trying to be rude, I just really would like your take on this issue now that you're up to speed.

There we go. Supercell think that using troops to get dark elixir is the same as dumping a spell, that can be placed anywhere, on the storage.

I'm starting to think bsmittyau has a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Growler

There we go. Supercell think that using troops to get dark elixir is the same as dumping a spell, that can be placed anywhere, on the storage.

I'm starting to think bsmittyau has a point.

---

While I do think he shouldve been more "up to speed" on this issue since he's a developer and it's been complained about for weeks, let's hear what he has to say before we jump on the guy.

It's one thing if they've heard the issue and decided to leave it the way it is because they feel it somehow benefits the game, but it's an entirely different issue if the developers are completely "out of touch" when it comes to issues like that or what has been told to players about their stance on a topic. This is why I think acknowledgment on Supercell's behalf on what they plan to do about certain glaring issues would go a long way... We would at least know that the complaints don't fall on deaf ears (as it seems like may have been the case regarding this issue)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsmittyau

That would be the one, thank you.

Steve, this would be a great time for you to address the issue that you intended to address a few minutes ago since you now have all of the information. You seem like a good guy, so I am hoping you didn't reply to the thread to try and "put me in my place", only to disappear once the facts came out. I'm not trying to be rude, I just really would like your take on this issue now that you're up to speed.

---

Here are a list of ideas that have been ruled out:

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...eas-guidelines

These ideas have been ruled out by the developers - please do not start new threads asking for them, they will be closed:
* Donating resources or gems to other players
* An exchange building to convert elixir to gold and vice-versa
* Assigning multiple builders to one build/upgrade
* Player search function
* Ability to change village name

If you don't read it there, then it hasn't been ruled out. Sneakymaori has earned the right to state his opinions on Supercell's stance as a moderator if he so chooses. However, "there's a great chance spells aren't going to be touched," is a lot different from "we're not making any changes to spells." The latter is what you are attempting to claim as Supercell's stance.

In addition, please feel free to reread my post. I think you missed the part where it says "So, by your logic, any raiding or stealing of resources whatsoever constitutes resource exchange..." No where in my post does it say that I think that raiding with troops and using a spell are the same thing. I'm simply extrapolating your argument since you are doing the same with our decision on the exchange of resources.

So thanks, yes. I now have all the facts, and still stick to my two originals reasons for writing the post, which you seem to have missed:

1) The logic of your argument for making changes to the spell was flawed.
2) You were attempting to represent/claim you spoke for the views of Supercell to the rest of the community, which we'd prefer you didn't do.

Hope that satisfies you. I'm taking off for the day, so if you have any further questions, dont hesitate to reply. I'll be back in the morning to discuss!

Cheers,

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperSteve[Supercell]

Here are a list of ideas that have been ruled out:

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...eas-guidelines

These ideas have been ruled out by the developers - please do not start new threads asking for them, they will be closed:
* Donating resources or gems to other players
* An exchange building to convert elixir to gold and vice-versa
* Assigning multiple builders to one build/upgrade
* Player search function
* Ability to change village name

If you don't read it there, then it hasn't been ruled out. Sneakymaori has earned the right to state his opinions on Supercell's stance as a moderator if he so chooses. However, "there's a great chance spells aren't going to be touched," is a lot different from "we're not making any changes to spells." The latter is what you are attempting to claim as Supercell's stance.

In addition, please feel free to reread my post. I think you missed the part where it says "So, by your logic, any raiding or stealing of resources whatsoever constitutes resource exchange..." No where in my post does it say that I think that raiding with troops and using a spell are the same thing. I'm simply extrapolating your argument since you are doing the same with our decision on the exchange of resources.

So thanks, yes. I now have all the facts, and still stick to my two originals reasons for writing the post, which you seem to have missed:

1) The logic of your argument for making changes to the spell was flawed.
2) You were attempting to represent/claim you spoke for the views of Supercell to the rest of the community, which we'd prefer you didn't do.

Hope that satisfies you. I'm taking off for the day, so if you have any further questions, dont hesitate to reply. I'll be back in the morning to discuss!

Cheers,

Steve

---

I clearly addressed #1, and you didn't acknowledge any part of it... You basically just repeated what I have already replied to...

As for #2, I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but if you take an unbiased look at his comment, and also consider that he is in a position to KNOW more about Supercell's intentions than any other poster, I'm fairly sure no one would take that post as his "opinion". Most people would take it as him having inside information and trying to tell us not to waste time complaining about something that he "knew" didn't have much chance of changing. If you took this as me speaking for Supercell, that was not my intention.. I simply thought he was speaking for you himself.

With the sneaky post out of the equation, can you please comment on how you feel my "logic is flawed" about why the spell does not need to be changed? The whole case I made concerning "investments" and "risk/reward" etc is what I'm most interested in hearing your response to, because I truthfully see no flaw in the logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsmittyau

I clearly addressed #1, and you didn't acknowledge any part of it... You basically just repeated what I have already replied to...

As for #2, I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but if you take an unbiased look at his comment, and also consider that he is in a position to KNOW more about Supercell's intentions than any other poster, I'm fairly it's no one would take that post as his "opinion". Most people would take it as him having inside information and trying to tell us not to waste time complaining about something that he "knew" didn't have much chance of changing. If you took this as me speaking for Supercell, that was not my intention.. I simply thought he was speaking for you himself.

With the sneaky post out of the equation, can you please comment on how you feel my "logic is flawed" about why the spell does not need to be changed? The whole case I made concerning "investments" and "risk/reward" etc is what I'm most interested in hearing your response to, because I truthfully see no flaw in the logic.

---

1) I'll admit that I crafted my response before the subsequent discussion and hit send before reading it. Today was a busy day. Therefore, I was only going off your argument that compared a lightning spell to a form or resource exchange, during which, you made no points about the risk/reward or investments. I understand the risk involved in using troops to attack v. a one and done lightning spell. Thanks for "enlightening" (couldn't resist) me and have a lovely evening.

2) Apology accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsmittyau

With the sneaky post out of the equation, can you please comment on how you feel my "logic is flawed" about why the spell does not need to be changed? The whole case I made concerning "investments" and "risk/reward" etc is what I'm most interested in hearing your response to, because I truthfully see no flaw in the logic.

---

This part. It was edited.

The spell having a 0% chance of any type of defense or failure is what clearly sets it apart from the raiding troops example you gave. There's no risk/reward, just reward. I also drew a comparison to the sticky you posted where you guys stated you would never put a building into the game that would have the sole purpose of resource exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperSteve[Supercell]

1) I'll admit that I crafted my response before the subsequent discussion and hit send before reading it. Today was a busy day. Therefore, I was only going off your argument that compared a lightning spell to a form or resource exchange, during which, you made no points about the risk/reward or investments. I understand the risk involved in using troops to attack v. a one and done lightning spell. Thanks for "enlightening" (couldn't resist) me and have a lovely evening.

2) Apology accepted.

---

Haha you are quite welcome. I aim to please. Enjoy your evening.