Statue of Healer: We keep troops and SuperCell makes money

Introduction:​ I'm one of those players who has never spent a dime on Clash of Clans. I was so stingy with my gems that I was able to save up for all five builder huts by TH 8. I was so proud of myself. But then I realized that there was really nothing for me to save for anymore. Sure, I could buy resources or boost stuff, but those are temporary. What made the builder huts so special was that after you purchased them you had their benefits forever. I started thinking about something SuperCell could add that would cost gems and give us a permanent benefit (a win-win). After a bit of thinking I think I have come up with the perfect thing.

The Product: The Statue of Healer! Bought in the decorations section for 2,500 gems, the Statue of Healer lets you keep surviving troops from a battle. That's right, for one low purchase of 2,500 gems your surviving troops no longer commit seppuku after a victory.

Why SuperCell should add it: This statue does three important things for SuperCell.

1) It satisfies a common player demand. Quite frankly it is ridiculous that you lose surviving troops after a win. There is a reason that letting people keep troops is in the 'Frequently Requested' thread. Letting you keep surviving troops lets people raid more often, lessens the pain of a high cost army, and provides a greater reward for three staring as well as tactically ending your battle early. Boom Beach lets you keep surviving troops, so why not Clash?

2) It gives players something to work for. When I still had to get the builder huts I was quite active. I worked really hard to complete various achievements to get closer to that magic number. By adding the Statue of Healer SuperCell give players something else to work for which means that they keep more players.

And most importantly

3) It will make SuperCell more money. Most people don't have the patience the save up their gems for the builder huts or think they are too valuable to wait until late TH7 or early TH8 for all five. Even stingy players will often drop $10.00 to get those prized builder huts ASAP. The Statue of Healer will give players a very nice bonus, one that most people would be perfectly content to drop $10-$20 dollars on to get it quickly. Even I would be sorely tempted to spend $10.00 dollars to get the Statue more quickly. Considering how many people play Clash and how many of them would want to keep their troops, that adds up to a lot of money for SuperCell.

This one actually made me laugh. One of the better troll posts out there😂

I don't think this is a troll thread, I think it is well laid out and nicely presented.

this is a good idea, although i seemingly find myself without gems more often then not lol, but if something like this was to become a thing i would save, (i have bought in the past) good idea, well laid out

No. Troops surviving at the end of battle removes a major strategic element from the game. It also allows people to build a powerful army and repeatedly raid weaker bases.

Granted, it's gem cost is... Well, massive, I don't think this is a good idea.

One reason why is it's likely to be abused. If you do all dragon or pekka raids on town halls below level 6, you lose nothing except search costs and can raid them easily without losses.

Another is that it's permanent. This may make buying (dark) elixer less worthwhile in the long run, and majorly nullify those kinds of purchases.

Finally, this may inconvenience players who do not want those troops any more. Sure, they can remove them, but this can prove bothersome.

Sorry, I couldn't see this being implemented.

I always laugh when a player makes the assumption that their idea would make Supercell more money.

Have you taken into consideration the loss in revenue in accrual for the millions of people who buy this statue and spend less on boosting barracks or instantly gemming troop builds?

I'm opposed to the "Troops Surviving" aspect of this idea for the same reason as Dahimi, but if this were to be considered, it should cost 2500 for a temporary use. No way is 2500 worth it to Supercell to make it permanent, versus spending upwards of 60 gems for 2 hours of boosting troops. 2500 is roughly 42 boosting sessions, which is equivalent of 82 hours of boost. Those that spend and boost regularly, that might be a month supply.

So after a month, Supercell breaks even on the deal and starts to lose $20 per person, per month because they aren't boosting barracks anymore. Take account for millions of users world wide and you can see how the person who were to make the decision to implement this may be out of a job sooner than you could say "Hot Fix"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxionXD

I always laugh when a player makes the assumption that their idea would make Supercell more money.

Have you taken into consideration the loss in revenue in accrual for the millions of people who buy this statue and spend less on boosting barracks or instantly gemming troop builds?

I'm opposed to the "Troops Surviving" aspect of this idea for the same reason as Dahimi, but if this were to be considered, it should cost 2500 for a temporary use. No way is 2500 worth it to Supercell to make it permanent, versus spending upwards of 60 gems for 2 hours of boosting troops. 2500 is roughly 42 boosting sessions, which is equivalent of 82 hours of boost. Those that spend and boost regularly, that might be a month supply.

So after a month, Supercell breaks even on the deal and starts to lose $20 per person, per month because they aren't boosting barracks anymore. Take account for millions of users world wide and you can see how the person who were to make the decision to implement this may be out of a job sooner than you could say "Hot Fix"

---

IMHO, most of those people who are regularly boosting their barracks will still be boosting their barracks even if they could keep surviving troops. Furthermore, because a barracks boost is a single flat cost that is not determined by how many troops are being produced, SuperCell will not be losing money.

A single boosting session for two hours costs 40 gems. Let us say that there is a CoC player (we'll call him Bob) who is TH 8 and likes to boost his barracks to raid as often as possible. For simplicity's sake we will say that Bob raids with ten lvl 3 dragons in his raids. Without the boosts ( and assuming that all of Bob's barracks are lvl 9-10) making the dragons would take 90 minutes. Quite a long time. With the boosts, Bob only needs to wait 22.5 minutes to replenish his dragons. Assuming it takes Bob five minutes to find someone and raid them and that he deploys all of his dragons, he will be able to raid about four times during the two hour period that his boosts last. Keep in mind that he has spent 40 gems during this time.

Now, let us assume that Bob is able to keep surviving dragons. If Bob loses all or nine dragons, he still has to wait 90 minutes or 22.5 minutes if boosted to raid again. If he loses 5-8 dragons, he needs only wait 60 minutes or 15 minutes with a boost. If Bob loses 4-1 dragon, he waits 30 minutes or 7.5 with a boost. If he loses none (which is not very likely) he can raid again immediately. Now without a boost waiting 30 or 60 minutes if far preferable to waiting 90, but it is still a very long amount of time. Assuming that Bob boosts his barracks and (again for simplicity's sake) he loses 5-8 dragons in each raid, Bob will be able to raid around six times in the two hour boost period. If Bob is not boosting he will only be able to raid about twice in a two hour period which is even less than he would be raiding if boosting but loosing all of his troops. I would guess that if Bob is the kind of guy who boosts his barracks he is a dedicated clasher who wants to get as much loot and/or trophies as possible. Therefore I find it highly likely that Bob (and most people who boost their barracks right now) are still going to boost their barracks even if they keep surviving troops. Since a barracks boost is a flat cost regardless of how many troops are produced, Bob is still spending 40 gems. The difference is that he is able to raid more often within that time period.

So in conclusion, I don't believe that this will cost SuperCell money. I think that the people who are boosting their barracks right now would continue to boost them if they kept surviving troops after battle. However, more people would be paying gems to purchase the Statue of Healer (including new players or second accounts by existing players). I personally believe that SuperCell would make much more money than they might lose off of this. They let you keep surviving troops in Boom Beach, why not CoC?

TLDR. But if bob doesn't lose 9 dragons or loses none, my theory is valid.

Either way, fat chance

Just like boom beach argument as your closer? When boom beach can carry top grossing app for as long as Clash has, they can consider taking some innovation from Boom to Clash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxionXD

TLDR. But if bob doesn't lose 9 dragons or loses none, my theory is valid.

Either way, fat chance

Just like boom beach argument as your closer? When boom beach can carry top grossing app for as long as Clash has, they can consider taking some innovation from Boom to Clash.

---

Too long? Let me sum it up for you: People who boost their barracks now will keep boosting their barracks if they can keep their troops, so SuperCell will NOT lose money.

The elaboration is in the previous post.

Correlation does not equal causation. I seriously doubt that the reason Boom Beach is currently less successful than Clash of Clans is because you keep your units in the former and not the latter. Furthermore SuperCell also owns Boom Beach which means they see at least some merit in keeping troops. If it will make their players happy and make SuperCell money, I see no reason why they cannot add this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BilltheCynic

Correlation does not equal causation. I seriously doubt that the reason Boom Beach is currently less successful than Clash of Clans is because you keep your units in the former and not the latter. Furthermore SuperCell also owns Boom Beach which means they see at least some merit in keeping troops. If it will make their players happy and make SuperCell money, I see no reason why they cannot add this.

---

Players would generally be happy if 1 gem collector boosts are always around but SC would likely lose money overall since loot is easier to get, less boosting sessions are needed, people can live off of boosts instead of attacking, etc
Happy players do not equal happy SC

Anyways, one key difference between how people attack in the two games is that you're able to easily drop trophies and beat the snot out of beginners in CoC. With BB, VP dropping is immensely harder and slower so there is little reason to bully the weak. It's more likely to cause more sad players than happy.

While Bob might need to retrain dragons, he'll need to do it less often since his dragons won't always die, especially since Bob can have 4 dragons queued and ready to take over a dead dragon's spot

no

if you want a game that grants back troops, play Boom Beach

it's under SuperCells tutelage, and I don't think they would cross-feature things like this


also, its a feature that costs 2.5k gems, it will deprive non payers of the said feature

Why would they boost their barracks if they dont have too cook nearly as much? And if your healer statue doesn't make enough of a difference, why spend 2500 on it?

In boom beach, you are very limited in who you can attack. In clash, you have more freedom. If i could go sub 200 and farm for just 50k of each but with all level 3 dragons that i only have to cook once, i could make 1kk an hour just by spamming dragons and moving on. Back to back and get 1kk each hour without trying or waiting on cook times.

Thats why the idea is generally ruled out, so this discussion we've had is really just an exercise in futility. I had fun discussing it with you though. Could have had a chance to convince me and others if you would have considered my critique and removed the permanent nature of your idea but instead argued for it as it stood.

This will totally destroy all tactics in the game as you could just deploy all troops and get a total overkill every time without risk.

2500 gems is nothing for such a benefit.

It would ruin the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxionXD

Why would they boost their barracks if they dont have too cook nearly as much? And if your healer statue doesn't make enough of a difference, why spend 2500 on it?

R-They would boost their barracks because they want to attack as often as possible to get the most loot/trophies. That's why people boost their barracks now. I never said it would not make a difference. I think it would make a big difference.

In boom beach, you are very limited in who you can attack. In clash, you have more freedom. If i could go sub 200 and farm for just 50k of each but with all level 3 dragons that i only have to cook once, i could make 1kk an hour just by spamming dragons and moving on. Back to back and get 1kk each hour without trying or waiting on cook times.

Thats why the idea is generally ruled out, so this discussion we've had is really just an exercise in futility. I had fun discussing it with you though. Could have had a chance to convince me and others if you would have considered my critique and removed the permanent nature of your idea but instead argued for it as it stood.

R-Hmm, are you saying that you would not be adverse to, say, spending 5 gems to keep surviving troops for a single battle, or spending 25 gems to keep surviving troops from battles for the next two hours? Not quite what I was going for, but I would like some sort of feature that stops my troops from committing suicide after battle. I'll take it over nothing.

---

Posts after quotes.

Having temporary versions of this would be much more acceptable than a permanent feature. Work on the numbers and the balancing act between costs and effectiveness, then it at least has a shot. Otherwise, your final poll option will keep climbing.