Personally I think the next button shouldn't cost. I'm not going to ramble about why, most of you already know, crappy loot coupled with extensive searching is a drag. Feel free to explain why if you answered no.
Printable View
Personally I think the next button shouldn't cost. I'm not going to ramble about why, most of you already know, crappy loot coupled with extensive searching is a drag. Feel free to explain why if you answered no.
No because players can press next endlessly looking for a perfect base to raid.
Its their time they are wasting, so what if people do that, they already do that, except they spend 100k+ searching! it's ridiculous and old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakhoumgeorge
The answer is a big fat NO. Why? Because it is an idiotic solution to the problem. People who have all the time in the world will be hitting NEXT (for hours maybe) until they find a nice, juicy abandoned base - without the loss of gold from their storages and all while having a bunch of mines or pumps collecting more resources!
So in essence, there is nothing but profit to be made, zero losses) Don't you think that brings a huge imbalance to the game? In fact, loot might even get worse because you're putting zilch back into the game.
The next button is your middleman, pay him his due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormp00per
Completely disagree with this.
If someone is doing that, then they are only hurting themselves by losing out on several raids in that period.
How would it cause an imbalance? The gold spent searching goes into the void, it goes literally nowhere. It's well known as a pointless dump of gold. If you think thoroughly about it, the worst scenario is, no gold dumped in to the next button, more gold circulating. That is literally the worst scenario.
If the next button was free people could just spend ages looking for the perfect base to raid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathanD
think about this:
the next button is free, so people could search endless for abandoned bases, so everyone attacks those abandoned bases and the multiplayer system would collapse
THIS is the worst scenario
Quote:
Originally Posted by 001rens001
People search endlessly anyway, when one person is waiting for troops, another is searching, and on and on, most people will find their base within minutes, but when things dry up in certain spots, good farmers know about the sweet spots and how much they change, you can spend 150k before getting a raid worth going for. All this alleviates is the cost of doing it. Everyone does what you're saying anyway, but averages are averages and most people find and attack in the first few minutes, it's only a fraction of the base that are searching extensively because they hit a dry spot.
Okay,
So you were searching for 1 hour, and you run outta loot? Then you came up with this idea (WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED A TON) Just to fix your 'problem'?
Nah mate, It's all about LUCK, Didn't find a good base? So what.. Is your account going to be stolen if you don't get max storages by next week?
I mean, evan, it could be good, but unbalances the game and all that. And why it won't be considered as said above and blah, And the Poll says it all doesn't it?
the league bonus is partly to cover the nexting cost
The game needs a gold sink, all games do.
No point in debating my opinions against your stubbornness.
Simple answer: Gigantic NO.
Majority of the players will keep searching. They won't care about losing out on the several mediocre raids in that period in return for a big pay day in the form of an abandoned base. Also, the gold spent on searching may or may not go into the void but at least it makes sure it evens out the playing field and creates a risk for the player to either keep spending on searches or attack the first base he/she sees. On the other hand, the free nexting creates a hoarding mentality in the game. The player will never lose money other than when he's being attacked. Which is what creates the imbalance.Quote:
Originally Posted by NathanD