Is increased barrack boosting contributing to less loot available for most players?

After discussing about boosting in another thread:
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...th-1-gem-promo

It has raised some concerns that the increased amount of boosting for barracks (not including boosting for mines, pumps, drills, spells, and heroes) can be the reason why there are so many more people experiencing loot problems lately.

There are a lot more nexting, some players lose money in long searches, and overall it seems that loot is less than before. It could be because SC reduced the price of barracks boosting to 10 gems only (before Christmas it was like 30 gems for 45 minutes or something like that, quite expensive), which tempts a lot more players to boost their barracks now, attack faster and more frequently, thus leaving less loot in the economy for the rest of the players. This phenomenon has emerged while the shield duration has not changed, nor have the mines/pumps/drills gained any levels. As far as I could tell during searching, there are not many people boosting mines/pumps/drills.

To better illustrate what I mean, I made a mock-up table, and put in numbers to illustrate the difference BEFORE the boost price drop and AFTER the price drop. The numbers are made up, please only pay attention to the difference between the 2 scenarios.

http://i.imgur.com/hp3PqzU.jpg

So basically the table illustrates that since the number of bases becoming available to raid remain about the same for any given hour before and after the boost price drop, but due to the drop in boosting price, number of raids per hour nearly doubled. So the demand outstrips the supply by far. Which causes more and more people pressing next more times, and they have to accept raiding bases with lower loot amount. Before the boost price drop, everyone could get loot above 100k, but after the drop about 400 of the raids have to accept loot below 100k (the numbers are made up, just to illustrate the logic).

I just want SC to be aware of this POSSIBLE issue. It could be no issue, but I think very likely it is an issue. And maybe SC has the actual data on the server side and they can do a similar calculation like mine to understand if people are having more loot problems after the boost price drop. Of course there are other ongoing factors as well as game changes, and new players joining the pool, so this is only a theory and it does make sense to me though.

I would like this poll to show the opinion of the general public (on this forum), and if enough consensus is made, then SC can possibly look into this issue and devise a suitable solution for everyone :)

Sc could easily change the inactive cut off date from 7 to 10-14 days from search queue and why are you making the same thread over and over again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bfoz

Sc could easily change the inactive cut off date from 7 to 10-14 days from search queue and why are you making the same thread over and over again

---

Apologies, the previous 2 threads were not made accurately and I have asked mods to delete them. I did not know I couldn't edit the polls after posting them up (I am a noob when it comes to polls posting). Sorry.

Boost brings unfair advantage against those who don't boost and want to play normal , as I mentioned in your other thread...After boost ended for 1 gem , loot is.... Yesterday I boosted my barracks due to the .... loot I was getting at town hall 9 account , and started finding inactives . SC is trying to push people to boost slowly and slowly eating people's minds...I wanted to at least have fun at th9 , but its like th10 , no loot at all...surely I'm gonna receive ''try different cup ranges and start crying'' thats because 1 day they get good loot and talk like that , after next day people shut up cuz it sucks for them too

So you're having a moan because players are active and attacking?

Rather than players searching for 'ages' for that one awesome attack, they should just settle for 2 or 3 good attacks. People want 300-600k every attack, and it's not going to happen. People just need to accept that. Attack more often and accept lower returns.

I work shifts, so sometimes I can only empty my collectors and don't have time to attack, so when I get a day off, I'll boost my barracks and do my couple of hours hard raiding. I don't see a problem in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coyle

So you're having a moan because players are active and attacking?

Rather than players searching for 'ages' for that one awesome attack, they should just settle for 2 or 3 good attacks. People want 300-600k every attack, and it's not going to happen. People just need to accept that. Attack more often and accept lower returns.

I work shifts, so sometimes I can only empty my collectors and don't have time to attack, so when I get a day off, I'll boost my barracks and do my couple of hours hard raiding. I don't see a problem in that.

---

I don't ever want 300-600 all the time ..Gosh , I just want it to be balanced , I wanna get at least 200k per raid , cuz spending at least 50k to find a match , with a .... loot , and keep on going like that...It is not fun

Again another biased poll. Stop trying to confuse the voters. As someone else has mentioned boosting has nothing to do with lack of loot for some people. It's factors such as the farmers TH level influx of players due to advertising campaign and various other factors.

Again I put forth this has more to do with your self serving motivations to inhibit other players from challenging the size of your GG or HH.

At this time I will also postulate the inverse. SC has stated that Inactives aren't removed but rather get pushed towards the back of queues. With boosting that means more raids per hour and a thinning of the queue bring said Inactives further towards the front making them available to be looted.

It's a good theory and probably right but I don't feel you, I, or any average player knows enough about how the game does matchmaking to say for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coathanger

Again another biased poll. Stop trying to confuse the voters. As someone else has mentioned boosting has nothing to do with lack of loot for some people. It's factors such as the farmers TH level influx of players due to advertising campaign and various other factors.

Again I put forth this has more to do with your self serving motivations to inhibit other players from challenging the size of your GG or HH.

At this time I will also postulate the inverse. SC has stated that Inactives aren't removed but rather get pushed towards the back of queues. With boosting that means more raids per hour and a thinning of the queue bring said Inactives further towards the front making them available to be looted.

---

♥♥♥♥, I have never concerned about the size of my GG or HH. There was a lot of farming done before Aug. 27 of 2013, a lot of farming unrecorded for many farmers. To me GG & HH do not mean much, it only records your recent farming progress and that includes boosting as well. So to me, GG & HH are only useful to a very certain extent.

I am trying to reduce the amount of boosting because I think boosting excessive amount of it is "unfair". However, this thread is discussing a separate issue - that excessive boosting can bring down the loot for most of players. I believe it is a valid point, and I have the right to express my opinion and gather others' opinions.

How is this poll biased? It states an opinion in option 1, states a counter opinion in option 2, and a neutral opinion in option 3. If you have a "less biased" poll, then please post it by all means.

No, I think you just need to stop complaining about boosting...
It helps a lot of players and great loot is available regardless of boosting or not.