The NEW one and only loot is good or bad thread

loot is freakin crazy at the moment, barching + boosted barracks 1m gold 726k elixr in 45mins

Loot became worst

First let me define what is the "Good Loot". 5 to 10 searching could find 100k gold and 100k elixir, 20 to 30 searching could find 200k gold and 200k elixir are good loot to me.

After the recent update, I am hardly to find 200k/200k loot by pressing 40 to 50 next. Sometime even I search for over 50 times, I couldn't find any bases with loot above 100k/100k. It really drive me crazy and I have no clue what's happening.

I am town hall 10 sit in Crystal 3 league. (Trophy +-2100)

The loot after this maintenance is awesome! It doesnt even take 2 clicks of next nice!

In my opinion one major issue is the following...

Each time anyone is clicking NEXT, gold will be thrown out of the loot circulation due to the costs of pushing the button.
The result -> even less loot available !!!

What do you think of the following idea ...

Every time the base of a player will be skipped by another one, the player will get 50% of the costs.

i.e.
A player has to pay 1000 gold for skipping. This means, that everyone who was skipped by this player will receive 500 Gold ;)

Would be nice to start the game and get a message like "Meanwhile your base was skipped 5 times. 2500 payout" :-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by benderblender

how is that a highr level TH attack an inferior base?
im a level 7 TH and I constantly get attacked by much higher level THs, these people can obviously chose who to attack, but they chose much lower level bases. How can anyone defend against that? This should be corrected. Peopleshould be Battling similar forces and THs .

This is out of topic, but i gotta say i do this with my 2 weeks old TH9. That's because a TH7 with capped loot and 50% penalty is still a lucrative find from BAM perspective. especially with no spell. as long as i have the option to use BAM, a capped TH7 would always be an easy prey.

The 1-Gem boost definitely helped in the past couple days. I was able to raid enough for finishing all the AT lv13 and it didn't really feel like a terribly boring job. My only problem is that I am sitting on full storages and have no builder available to do that last AT :-)

Loot is terrible in Gold 2, bone dry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloopy14

And again. Nothing can be taken from the point that SC has not 'acknowledged' anything. A company wouldn't acknowledge that the game is "broken" to use another phrase repeatedly used on the forum and in this thread. Can you imagine the problems if they did? Nightmare!

The second comment is interesting.

and I would disagree. Various reasons why but the main one is that there isn't a definition of what good or bad loot is. None that is agreed across all the threads on the forum. Nor is there an agreement of what causes it. Which is part of the reason I'm not convinced that providing statistics is helpful. Interpretation is an important part of data.

But I have to leave it here for tonight! I'll read the response tomorrow

The confusion, on my part, arises from two separate arguments which I have placed myself into. I have confused the reasoning for acknowledgment (by action) supporting current 'problems' with the acknowledgment (by action) relating to long standing 'problems'.

Lack of acknowledgment (by action) only supports the loot "is not a game breaking issue" argument since the most recent update, in that no action has been taken thus far. Meaning things are running within the parameters accepted by SC. "The game ain't broke. If it was they would fix it." This of course assumes SC understood the ramifications of elixir walls and all the new upgrades being released, I think it is fair to assume SC knows what they are doing.

The lack of acknowledgment (by action), based on past behavior, does support that loot has been fine (SC's definition of fine) prior to the update and since the change in distribution of December 2013. "If there was a problem dating back to 2013 they would have fixed it by now." This of course assumes SC has an idea of what they want progression and time invested to be, again I think it is far to assume SC knows what they are doing.

Thanks for challenging my thought process. If the numbers are bad for many players I would expect a tweak to be coming in the next update to address those issues. God help us if is a large change to the loot system. :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by badfish1979

You quoted a sarcastic reply to the OP. It was not intended to be taken so literally. But you you'd like me to make it a bit more literal for you, here you go:

"Some of the people I talk to tell me they are finding loot, but most of the people I talk to tell me they are not."

I'm happy to see that a conclusion was reached, your experiences represent yours and those you talk with and not the majority of clashers. Is there a problem? SC will let us know in an update.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coathanger

And no it does not mean the problem does not exist, the lack of action or comment supports nothing abnormal is happening outside of update woes. (Which SC have commented on.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by badfish1979

Lack of action up to this point proves nothing, just like their lack of action up to the point that they nerfed hogs did not prove there was no problem with them being OP in Clan Wars. Using your logic, a few months ago, someone could have argued that there is no problem with hogs because SC has not taken any action while at the same time, SC was working on a solution to that very problem behind the scenes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coathanger

OP hogs are not a good analogy for showing something is currently broken and needs immediate remedy. Hogs did not prevent people from enjoying the game, en masse, like loot is purportedly doing.

A more recent circumstance requiring definitive action was the "out of sync" ♥♥♥♥♥ from July(?). That took less than a day(?) to patch and less than a week(?) to ban offenders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badfish1979

I disagree.

The "out-of-sync" issue was a cheet being abused to win defenses. If we use your logic here, then SC's inaction on the current fluffy bunny situation would mean that there is no problem. This is not the case, and you know it.

OP hogs are an excellent analogy of something that needed to be fixed, and SC agrees, as evidenced by the action they took. Before they got nerfed, if you had been on the side of people saying hogs were not OP, and you tried to use "SC's inaction" up to that point as proof that there was in fact no problem, you would have been wrong. The same logic applies here. You say that SC's inaction on the loot problem is evidence that there is no problem, as quoted here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BezG

Actually OP hogs are the perfect analogy because the fix required would have long term consequences. This meant SC had to test changes to it in great detail, requiring longer time. During this time anyone could have said "SC aren't making any changes to hogs, therefore they are not OP".....and they would be wrong.

The "out of sync" thing was a more urgent issue. Fixing it would not have had any negative problems for the game, only positive...hence it was fixed a lot quicker.

You are wrong about SC's inaction relating to the recent fluffy bunny problem. They have acknowledged it but the will not discuss actions they have taken against it. And you know it. If one was to argue their inaction as proof it would be disproved by their acknowledgement and actions.

Mea Cupla, I was arguing under the assumption of a dire(abnormal) situation relating to loot that would demand immediate resolution.

The argument was, in arguendo, that loot is abnormal meaning it demands immediate attention and resolution. We have an example of how SC handles an abnormal situation that demands immediate resolution, the "out of sync" ♥♥♥♥♥ which they acknowledged and corrected. Based on their past actions and given we have not seen SC comment nor take action there is no abnormal situation demanding immediate resolution.

Hogs were a problem based on SC's action of continually tweaking them up until two updates ago. If you wish to equate hog fixes to loot fixes here is the time line of changes and a comparison. Keep in mind this is talking about before the September update. If SC does not take action in the next update or sooner, it could be inferred due to past history that there was no problem (as defined by SC, people can have all the personal problems they want.);)

Hogs were introduced 3.12.2013 and received 1 minor change before 8.27.2013 when they were changed to target defenses and became OP/a problem. After that the were adjusted every update minus the loot update and clan wars updates. Those balances were put out over the course of 10 months ending 7.3.2014 with the big bomb damage increase, possibly ending their problem(?).

Now prior to the loot update of 12.5.2013 there were regular tweaks to the loot system, changing percentages, adding penalties and bonuses. There were additions to loot like level 11 mines 10.27.2012, leagues 4.17.2013, TH10 got a mine 6.24.2013, and league bonuses were increased 8.27.2013. This evidences, by actions, that SC was working/balancing loot regularly. They have done nothing to add loot since 8.27.2013. And simply adjusted it's distribution amongst players 12.5.2013.

SC continually balanced Hog problems 4 times over 7 updates and 10 months ending(?) 2 updates,3 months ago. Loot has not been added in over 9 updates, 13 months nor changed since it became a "problem" 6 updates/10 months ago.

In conclusion. If SC is working on a problem they continually tweak it until a they have achieved their goals. Hogs are not a good analogy for evidencing SC's actions relating to problems unless you are trying to evidence the absence of a longstanding problem demanding attention.

P.S. This area of the debate is farcical, it does IMO help show that SC has been comfortable with loot production for a very long time while they were not with hogs.

Quote:

However, SC is currently monitoring the situation. If they do decide to take action, that would be proof that there is a problem. We don't have a decision from them yet. There is no absolute proof based on SC's action one way or the other. They have not stated yet if they are going to take action, nor have they stated that they will not take action. Your claim that their inaction is proof in and of itself is an appeal to ignorance, the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.

Read the above post about past actions they have taken regarding loot. Prior behavior is indicative of future behavior but yes not proof, only supportive evidence. In arguendo loot has been a problem for 10 months now and there has been no substantial additions since 8.27.2013. SC would likely not have made the recent change without investigation into the long term ramifications. This leads to the conclusion this is a short term or small issue based on past history. However, if there is a problem (as defined by SC) you can rest assured that SC will fix it.

Quote:

They are currently doing server maintenance, which is priority #1. After all, if the servers go down, there will be no loot for anyone. Who's to say what they will do next?

Are the dev team the ones updating the servers?:confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BezG

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'cause'?

Server maintenance isn't a 'cause' of 1 gem boosts. We've had countless server maintenances without 1 gem boosts.

The current 1 gem boosts are probably because of one of the following:

1. SC trying to raise available loot short-term while they find a more permanent fix for loot.

2. SC trying to raise available loot short-term to appease players, hoping normalcy returns on it's own soon

3. SC trying to make up for any perceivable loss of loot due to server downtime.

Maintenance is definitely not a 'cause' of 1-gem boosts. It was simply the reasoning offerred by SC for it this time.

Nope, sorry, I do understand the meaning of cause. Here is the dictionary definition to clear up any confusion.
noun
1. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

Did you overlook SC's message that said the 1-gem boost was specifically implemented for the inconvenience of the repeated downtime of their servers? "Our servers are being updated... To make the deal sweet for you, the first one will start a 1 Gem Resource Boost Special! This will last until the last maintenance break on Tuesday."

coathanger, it is time to stop posting.

Next...;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coathanger

Now prior to the loot update of 12.5.2013 there were regular tweaks to the loot system, changing percentages, adding penalties and bonuses. There were additions to loot like level 11 mines 10.27.2012, leagues 4.17.2013, TH10 got a mine 6.24.2013, and league bonuses were increased 8.27.2013. This evidences, by actions, that SC was working/balancing loot regularly. They have done nothing to add loot since 8.27.2013. And simply adjusted it's distribution amongst players 12.5.2013.

Thanks for the summary Coat. Although arguably one of the biggest changes to the loot system was the removal/deprioritsation of the inactive bases. Do you know what date that occurred?

NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT, NEXT... wait!!! a base I can raid... no its just the numbers playing you a trick, the loot were 20K not 200K... NEXT NEXT NEXT NEXT.... COC is such a fun game at the moment.... :mad: