I Realise The Gem Box Was Removed From The Game, My Question Is How Many Gems Did It Give?
Also With The Obstacles Now Giving 6 Gems Etc. I Think It Is Too Easy To Get Gems And It Should Be Changed Back To 1,2 or 3 Gems. Anyone Agree?
Printable View
I Realise The Gem Box Was Removed From The Game, My Question Is How Many Gems Did It Give?
Also With The Obstacles Now Giving 6 Gems Etc. I Think It Is Too Easy To Get Gems And It Should Be Changed Back To 1,2 or 3 Gems. Anyone Agree?
Who complains about more free gems? No one will agree lol
Huh? Your actually complaining about FREE GEMS? Lol are you supercell's spy or something disguised as a regular forum member?
Dude......please tell me you are joking.......
It gave 20 gems, I believe.
Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Its a gift, supercell is being nice, accept it and smile. I guess i could sort of see an argument for doubling next costs which i strongly disagree with, but free gems is free gems. My guess is someone just likes playing devils advocate.
umm.... ur kidding right
devils advocate? yeah... no its just my opinion which doesn't seem to be acceptable
close, but not quite. i havent achieved what i want but i dont want it to be so easier for the next generation
nope :)
Why exactly do you not think more gems should be distributed?
complaining about free gems? 1st letter of each word capitalized?
Too bad the average per obstacle is only roughly 2 gems still, thanks to the large amount of big fat zeros given out.
The obstacles can also give 0 gems now also.
Complaining about too many gems in the game? What next....
ive been here since May 2013, and ive seen my fair share of complaint threads, but i prefer to think of this almost as an idea than a complaint. I know you've been playing for a while as I've chatted with you on english global and norsk global before. Do you seriously like the idea that the next generation get easy gems where you earnt your gems the hard(er) way?
as i said its more of a suggestion than a complaint, hopefully you can see where I'm coming from buddy.
Supercell can give everybody 28000 free gems and people would still whine. There's no pleasing these kids.
Sounds like a complaint to me. You're upset there's more gems in the game now than when you started playing. Everyone has more gems though so I don't see the problem. New players can get their builders quicker and we can boost. Everyone is happy.
Dude. I am just praying that this is a troll post. You failed at trolling us, quit trying to extend it farther...
OP, i understand everyone is entitled to an opinion, but yours should be equivilent to that of someone in an insane asylum. Sure, you might be some huge prophet that knows the future and sees things from an all new perspective, but as far as general knowledge, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
"too easy to get gems and should be changed back"
...
the wut?
I disagree, just because people can gain access to more gems now doesn't mean that it's losing value. The value still stay the same. People boost > get used to boost > crave for more. Easier gems > more Boost > faster raid > more dry resources > encouraging gems.
The domino effect is actually more complicated than what you think.
What happened to your main clan?
The person receiving 6 would get it first. But you're still getting the same amount of gems as them. Yes, the time it takes them to get their builders will definitely be shorter than yours, but you still have stuff to spend gems on(boosting) that the other person will probably spend on too. No matter how many gems SC gives, you're not going to fall behind, so why would you want to slow everyone down?
Let me get this straight you don't like free or cheap stuff, well you going to love the real world.
I see where you are coming from but it's from a kind of selfish standpoint. At the end of the day you will also be grabbing more gems and that's the only thing that should really matter to you.
New players won't get any loot bonus when attacking higher TH as it was removed, which means less resources. Maybe you could give these resources back, just to make it fair for everyone. :)
have you got a problem with me or something. NOT EVERYTHINGS A BLOODY TROLL, THIS IS LEGIT FFS DEAL WITH MY OPINION. JUST COZ ITS NOT YOURS AND ITS NOT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS! far outtttttttttt
Wow, because 3-6 gems a day must be really game breaking for you, uh? :x
Well, i really hope this is not serious.
Come on man, I get your point but no one else is really complaining about getting more free gems. I mean I don't see many people complaining about gemmers? So what's the problem with getting more free gems, you should agree with it. Your getting the same amount of gems as everyone else so what's the problem with it? Do you think everyone else will get to the same stage as you in a week from a bush that grows back every 2 hours or so? If your worried about that then it's not going to happen, it's not that easy.
I was able to get 20 gems out of my gem box
As we all know, the maximum amount of gems gained from clearing obstacles are now twice the previous one.
But, that doesn't prove your statement that you'd get more gems for clearing them. Supercell might increase the chance of getting low amount of gems that you got from those obstacles, which would result in lower average of gems received.
(I haven't really researched my hypothesis, and I'd be glad if someone helps me)
you create a thread suggesting that they increase the cost of search by 1000, and another one saying that free gems should be reduced, are you ok?
There has been no info released on dropped gem reward rates, and seems to be little or no indications of it in the long run when clearing. If someone (less restrained and too emotional) has a bad day and gets 0 gems for clearing 3 obstacles, it sadly is not unlikely that they go on to the forums and write a strongly worded conspiracy thread about how SC is scamming everyone by increasing max amount of gems from obstacles, but cutting down on drop rates. There should be some form of infraction for posting crazy threads with no logic behind them :rolleyes:
Some collected sets of obstacle clears were discussed here: http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...tacles!!/page2
with the conclusion that the gem drop amount per obstacle is around 2.1 (based on averages from a few data sets), up from around 1 gem / obstacle pre-patch. This indicates that the drop rate has not decreased, and that we are getting twice as many gems now as we were before the obstacle gem drop change.
Not everything is a conspiracy (eg ⬇️This) and there are documented on other threads the average like said above is up by average 1 gem per obstacle
Gems HAVE to be easier to come by as they add more levels/upgrades to the game, otherwise getting to a competitive level looks far too daunting to new players. It's a similar concept to how WOW made leveling up much faster at the beinning as they expanded the number of levels. What you suggest would actually hurt the game's very survival in the long run, from a marketing standpoint.
I agree, but most things people come up with are without ground or reason, the builder lag is well-documented and proved on multiple occasions in multiple threads. Whether it's intentional ("SC scam") or just difficult to fix is up to question, though - but it is odd that they have not managed to fix it.
Most threads about game problems and SC scams that I see today, however, are nothing but senseless jibberjabber. People (a disturbingly large part) make too many assumptions and are apt to believe things that suit their thinking.
But the tin foil manufacturers need to get their income from somewhere too, right? :rolleyes:
What have supercell done to you lol
It's a FREE gems and you complaint...
Why would you want to lower it? That's ridiculous.
I think you don't understand. It's a ~2 gems/obstacle ON AVERAGE, compared to ~1gem/obstacle ON AVERAGE from before the patch.
You make it sound as if every obstacle you clear that gives gems gives 2 gems on average, but that this is counteracted by a reduced chance of actually getting gems (i.e. not getting 0 gems). At least that's what your comment sounds like - if that's what you're saying, you seem to be quite wrong, at least according to the number from the thread I linked earlier.