Surviving Maxed Dragons From Battle Would Be OP

As many of you know, keeping troops that survive battle is an idea under consideration, not a ruled out idea. This would be way overpowered if implemented. For example: I fill my maxed out army camps with maxed dragons, drop to silver, and never lose a dragon all day = free raiding all day. This would lead to many problems, so should not be considered.

What is the point of this thread? I highly doubt SC would implement this idea, and I believe that they are already aware of the problem of a higher-level player dropping down to attack lower levels.

LOL! It already has been ruled out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

As many of you know, keeping troops that survive battle is an idea under consideration, not a ruled out idea. This would be way overpowered if implemented. For example: I fill my maxed out army camps with maxed dragons, drop to silver, and never lose a dragon all day = free raiding all day. This would lead to many problems, so should not be considered.

---

I don't think its under consideration. its just that it is too silly a notion to be worth ruling out.

For example, having every season start with a giant eagle that lays a golden egg that hatches into free gems is not ruled out either. But I don't think we should be holding our breath.

It is under consideration,read the stickies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

I don't think its under consideration. its just that it is too silly a notion to be worth ruling out.

For example, having every season start with a giant eagle that lays a golden egg that hatches into free gems is not ruled out either. But I don't think we should be holding our breath.

---

It is under consideration read carefully

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Defiant

LOL! It already has been ruled out

---

It is not ruled out it is being considered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X7386

What is the point of this thread? I highly doubt SC would implement this idea, and I believe that they are already aware of the problem of a higher-level player dropping down to attack lower levels.

---

It is not ruled out it is being considered

Please stop continuously bumping your own thread, as it is a violation of forum rules.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmf01

Please stop continuously bumping your own thread, as it is a violation of forum rules.

Thank you.

---

Sorry , the rules say a max of one bump per day, i wasnt thinking when i was responding to everyone

What's the point of this thread? This reminds me of that idea that everytime you win a battle the troops that survive live another day and get upgraded by 1 level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kowalski711

What's the point of this thread? This reminds me of that idea that everytime you win a battle the troops that survive live another day and get upgraded by 1 level

---

The point is that if you read the stickies, you will notice that keeping troops that survive a battle is a considered, not ruled out idea

I thought this was one of the easiest explained things in an faq I read ages ago.

If anything, you should be further penalised for surviving troops.

Maybe be the defeated enemy should get them.

Knowing how many troops to commit for the most economical win is a main challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

I thought this was one of the easiest explained things in an faq I read ages ago.

If anything, you should be further penalised for surviving troops.

Maybe be the defeated enemy should get them.

Knowing how many troops to commit for the most economical win is a main challenge.

---

Finally, someone who gets the point of the thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X7386

What is the point of this thread? I highly doubt SC would implement this idea, and I believe that they are already aware of the problem of a higher-level player dropping down to attack lower levels.

---

To me that sounds like a broken match-making system that is based not on skill or level. Implementing a system that is so easily manipulated was a horrid idea to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneX

To me that sounds like a broken match-making system that is based not on skill or level. Implementing a system that is so easily manipulated was a horrid idea to begin with.

---

What does that have to do with the thread, im saying that keeping troops that survive battle would be OP and that is an idea under consideration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Sorry , the rules say a max of one bump per day, i wasnt thinking when i was responding to everyone

---

1. The one bump per day is only for the clan talk sub-forum.
2. There wasn't a need to bump this thread.
3. this thread is pointless, more pointless than a ruled out idea thread (at least they gave ideas).
4. The Top section of the sticky is requested ideas to be considered, so it hasn't actually been considered.
5. There's even a lighting rod in that section.
6. Read the sticky, and don't post unless it's an actual idea.

How many times do i have to clarify this. The English language is not that difficult.

To consider, as what is used in the thread you are referring to is a much different statement then considering.

One is merely a statement for potential future action, the other an action being actively done.

That top list are merely ideas submitted to the forum from users for Supercell TO consider in an undetermined future time. It even explicitly says being on that list DOES NOT imply any action is being taken on any of those ideas so no one is actively considerING any of those ideas. Being on that list does not give any if those ideas any priority to becoming a real feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Sorry , the rules say a max of one bump per day, i wasnt thinking when i was responding to everyone

---

Multiple posts is also against forum rules. 5 posts back to back? You know theres a multi quote reply feature right? And an edit button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NF2335

1. The one bump per day is only for the clan talk sub-forum.
2. There wasn't a need to bump this thread.
3. this thread is pointless, more pointless than a ruled out idea thread (at least they gave ideas).
4. The Top section of the sticky is requested ideas to be considered, so it hasn't actually been considered.
5. There's even a lighting rod in that section.
6. Read the sticky, and don't post unless it's an actual idea.

---

1. Ok
2. Whatever
3. It does have a point
4. it is in the top section
5. That has nothing to do with this
6. This is about ideas

They didn't bump the thread repeatedly. They just spammed. So it was wrong, but not for the reasons you guys are quoting (I should know, I'm a Self Appointed Police officer of the forum after all. :smirk: You can be a S.A.P. too! Join the ranks now! :cool:)

Easy fix. Edit the first post so it has a copy of each reply, and delete the other posts. The person making the post is able to delete thier own post. Surprised none of the smart people here suggested that. :facepalm:

---

Between each reply to a different person, I put in a separator line, shown above. In the full (non mobile) editor, it is the button on the bottom line of icons, all the way to the right. Or just typing (hr)(/hr), replacing () with [].

---

As for why it is not ruled out, and why the FAQ (link) says why they don't do let surviving troops to return, I'm a bit puzzled. Many other ideas, lesser ideas at that, have been ruled out. Boom Beach already is experimenting with that kind of feature, and SC should already have enough data as to how that affects gameplay.

I'll possibly chock it up an out of date list. Or to them being unwilling to put it down as ruled out, and block any conversations and discussions on the topic, because they are still unsure.

Unfortunately, with the dogma-like attitude people have about parts of the game, it will be really hard to get any open minded talk about allowing surviving troops back after a battle.

Bases would have to be stronger in some aspect (shameless plug to save spam buried Proposed Defence Revamp thread) or some limited factor like upkeep or for healing wounded troops, just to make such a thing not turn into a free ride army with a mass of high health troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

I don't think its under consideration. its just that it is too silly a notion to be worth ruling out.

For example, having every season start with a giant eagle that lays a golden egg that hatches into free gems is not ruled out either. But I don't think we should be holding our breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

It is under consideration read carefully

---

.

---

He is right. I stand corrected. I was so shocked I started looking to see if the eagle was there too. (It was not)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

They didn't bump the thread repeatedly. They just spammed. So it was wrong, but not for the reasons you guys are quoting (I should know, I'm a Self Appointed Police officer of the forum after all. :smirk: You can be a S.A.P. too! Join the ranks now! :cool:)

Easy fix. Edit the first post so it has a copy of each reply, and delete the other posts. The person making the post is able to delete thier own post. Surprised none of the smart people here suggested that. :facepalm:

---

Between each reply to a different person, I put in a separator line, shown above. In the full (non mobile) editor, it is the button on the bottom line of icons, all the way to the right. Or just typing (hr)(/hr), replacing () with [].

---

As for why it is not ruled out, and why the FAQ (link) says why they don't do let surviving troops to return, I'm a bit puzzled. Many other ideas, lesser ideas at that, have been ruled out. Boom Beach already is experimenting with that kind of feature, and SC should already have enough data as to how that affects gameplay.

I'll possibly chock it up an out of date list. Or to them being unwilling to put it down as ruled out, and block any conversations and discussions on the topic, because they are still unsure.

Unfortunately, with the dogma-like attitude people have about parts of the game, it will be really hard to get any open minded talk about allowing surviving troops back after a battle.

Bases would have to be stronger in some aspect (shameless plug to save spam buried Proposed Defence Revamp thread) or some limited factor like upkeep or for healing wounded troops, just to make such a thing not turn into a free ride army with a mass of high health troops.

---

I know you guys have been on the four,s longer than me, but im glad someone else could have the open-minded discussionXD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

He is right. I stand corrected. I was so shocked I started looking to see if the eagle was there too. (It was not)

---

Thank you:p

Thoughts anyone?

It is almost a foregone conclusion that you never get used troops back, whether they survived or not. New people will want them, and the regular players already used to it will be passionately against the idea, just past the point of being a logical counter argument.

It is about as up hill a battle with my defence ideas. I have to tiptoe around mentioning exposed town hall usage, since some people are just as zealous about it as well. I make a thread telling people to stop making idea threads that suggest things to make a farming base less useful because it will get them nowhere but anger others, and I get everyone and thier dog on my case, because they miss read the attention getting title and assume my intentions, making me have to defend myself for the next 7-8 pages with utter assumed off topic ♥♥♥♥. Why was it all off topic? Because I was telling others about not wasting thier time on an issue, only to be indirectly proven right by the thread being made only about my intentions to 'ruining' thier farming base layout. And these people giving me a hard time were not newbies, they were regular form-goers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

It is almost a foregone conclusion that you never get used troops back, whether they survived or not. New people will want them, and the regular players already used to it will be passionately against the idea, just past the point of being a logical counter argument.

It is about as up hill a battle with my defence ideas. I have to tiptoe around mentioning exposed town hall usage, since some people are just as zealous about it as well. I make a thread telling people to stop making idea threads that suggest things to make a farming base less useful because it will get them nowhere but anger others, and I get everyone and thier dog on my case, because they miss read the attention getting title and assume my intentions, making me have to defend myself for the next 7-8 pages with utter assumed off topic ♥♥♥♥. Why was it all off topic? Because I was telling others about not wasting thier time on an issue, only to be indirectly proven right by the thread being made only about my intentions to 'ruining' thier farming base layout. And these people giving me a hard time were not newbies, they were regular form-goers.

---

I know, i wish people would read carefully and have open mindedmdiscussions. Also, i think people should be able to have a farming base if they want

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

It is almost a foregone conclusion that you never get used troops back, whether they survived or not. New people will want them, and the regular players already used to it will be passionately against the idea, just past the point of being a logical counter argument.

It is about as up hill a battle with my defence ideas. I have to tiptoe around mentioning exposed town hall usage, since some people are just as zealous about it as well. I make a thread telling people to stop making idea threads that suggest things to make a farming base less useful because it will get them nowhere but anger others, and I get everyone and thier dog on my case, because they miss read the attention getting title and assume my intentions, making me have to defend myself for the next 7-8 pages with utter assumed off topic ♥♥♥♥. Why was it all off topic? Because I was telling others about not wasting thier time on an issue, only to be indirectly proven right by the thread being made only about my intentions to 'ruining' thier farming base layout. And these people giving me a hard time were not newbies, they were regular form-goers.

---

I don't know, maybe I just haven't seen a compelling enough version of the suggestion that doesn't turn it into a huge exploit.

I don't mind the current system, as it encourages players to carefully consider how many troops they actually need. I know I hate it when I overestimate the enemy's defenses (or underestimate my attack strength), and the raid finishes with more than half my army still standing. It's just a sign that I still need to work on predicting raid outcomes better.

However, I don't think the game "needs" to encourage players to carefully consider how many troops they actually need. I mean, I would rather that the game encouraged players to protect their TH, or encouraged players to put more effort into defense, or encouraged players to use more expensive army compositions, etc. So just because I appreciate that the game encourages proper planning, I don't think it's a huge factor in the game's success or the fun we have as players.

So if the system could be set up to make it hard to exploit, I suppose I'd at least listen to the argument. For starters, I would much prefer that the attacker get back a percentage of the cost of the troops, so that they still have to spend the time to retrain the troops. I don't think they should get back 100%, but I don't think it'd ruin the game if they did. They'd still have to train the troops again. Dropping all dragons and getting 100% of the elixir back doesn't help you farm very quickly, if you have to wait for the dragons to build again.

If they get back the troops, I think there should be a time cost (and perhaps even an elixir cost) to restore the troops. Don't know what would be fair, but I'd think at least half the time to train the troops from scratch. But how would you balance that with existing barracks? I could be "healing" or "reviving" my troops from a previous battle, plus building new troops in the barracks. What if I go raid before I've restored them all? Not saying it's an impossible problem to solve, but I am saying that it's at least slightly complicated.

I haven't played Boom Beach, so I can't make comparisons there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xitra

I don't know, maybe I just haven't seen a compelling enough version of the suggestion that doesn't turn it into a huge exploit.

I don't mind the current system, as it encourages players to carefully consider how many troops they actually need. I know I hate it when I overestimate the enemy's defenses (or underestimate my attack strength), and the raid finishes with more than half my army still standing. It's just a sign that I still need to work on predicting raid outcomes better.

However, I don't think the game "needs" to encourage players to carefully consider how many troops they actually need. I mean, I would rather that the game encouraged players to protect their TH, or encouraged players to put more effort into defense, or encouraged players to use more expensive army compositions, etc. So just because I appreciate that the game encourages proper planning, I don't think it's a huge factor in the game's success or the fun we have as players.

So if the system could be set up to make it hard to exploit, I suppose I'd at least listen to the argument. For starters, I would much prefer that the attacker get back a percentage of the cost of the troops, so that they still have to spend the time to retrain the troops. I don't think they should get back 100%, but I don't think it'd ruin the game if they did. They'd still have to train the troops again. Dropping all dragons and getting 100% of the elixir back doesn't help you farm very quickly, if you have to wait for the dragons to build again.

If they get back the troops, I think there should be a time cost (and perhaps even an elixir cost) to restore the troops. Don't know what would be fair, but I'd think at least half the time to train the troops from scratch. But how would you balance that with existing barracks? I could be "healing" or "reviving" my troops from a previous battle, plus building new troops in the barracks. What if I go raid before I've restored them all? Not saying it's an impossible problem to solve, but I am saying that it's at least slightly complicated.

I haven't played Boom Beach, so I can't make comparisons there.

---

This thread argues against this feature, which is under consideration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

This thread argues against this feature, which is under consideration

---

Hmm, maybe I misread what Warren was trying to say? I also read what he said in this other post of his, and between the two posts, I wasn't quite sure if he was saying that we should be more open-minded about allowing troops to return, or if was just explaining why other people keep arguing for it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

As for why it is not ruled out, and why the FAQ (link) says why they don't do let surviving troops to return, I'm a bit puzzled. Many other ideas, lesser ideas at that, have been ruled out. Boom Beach already is experimenting with that kind of feature, and SC should already have enough data as to how that affects gameplay.

I'll possibly chock it up an out of date list. Or to them being unwilling to put it down as ruled out, and block any conversations and discussions on the topic, because they are still unsure.

Unfortunately, with the dogma-like attitude people have about parts of the game, it will be really hard to get any open minded talk about allowing surviving troops back after a battle.

Bases would have to be stronger in some aspect (shameless plug to save spam buried Proposed Defence Revamp thread) or some limited factor like upkeep or for healing wounded troops, just to make such a thing not turn into a free ride army with a mass of high health troops.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xitra

Hmm, maybe I misread what Warren was trying to say? I also read what he said in this other post of his, and between the two posts, I wasn't quite sure if he was saying that we should be more open-minded about allowing troops to return, or if was just explaining why other people keep arguing for it...

---

Weve talked in other threads too, he meant people should be open minded to both sides, but i think he is against adding this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Sorry , the rules say a max of one bump per day, i wasnt thinking when i was responding to everyone

---

The rules actually say no bumping btw

And I still don't get the point of this thread. You have pointed out that the idea is under consideration, and even before it is added, you are starting a rebellion against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xitra

Hmm, maybe I misread what Warren was trying to say? I also read what he said in this other post of his, and between the two posts, I wasn't quite sure if he was saying that we should be more open-minded about allowing troops to return, or if was just explaining why other people keep arguing for it...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Weve talked in other threads too, he meant people should be open minded to both sides, but i think he is against adding this

---

Sorry for the flip-flopply-ness of my one post, but yes I do keep an open mind to things.

Basicly, if you get troops back, as-is, no maintenance costs, troops come back healed, no changes to how defence is handled, and not do whatever Boom Beach does in it's system; then no, that would be totaly overpowered, and unbalance the game horribly. I could raid weak places with dragons or PEKKAs and have little fear of unit loss while bring in loads of loot.

The only way Supercell can even hope to add this in is if they do some drastic changes to the game. So many changes I'd think that some people may say it isn't "Clash of Clash" anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheyCallSmasher

The rules actually say no bumping btw

And I still don't get the point of this thread. You have pointed out that the idea is under consideration, and even before it is added, you are starting a rebellion against it?

---

That bumping thing ik

Im not starting a rebellion in talking about it:smirk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

Sorry for the flip-flopply-ness of my one post, but yes I do keep an open mind to things.

Basicly, if you get troops back, as-is, no maintenance costs, troops come back healed, no changes to how defence is handled, and not do whatever Boom Beach does in it's system; then no, that would be totaly overpowered, and unbalance the game horribly. I could raid weak places with dragons or PEKKAs and have little fear of unit loss while bring in loads of loot.

The only way Supercell can even hope to add this in is if they do some drastic changes to the game. So many changes I'd think that some people may say it isn't "Clash of Clash" anymore.

---

Like you said, boom is built around this. I play boom, so i can say that while this feature works there, it would ruin clash.

i never thought of that idea, i might go up to silver and find out if its good or not if it ever is implemented >:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JerrytheScary

i never thought of that idea, i might go up to silver and find out if its good or not if it ever is implemented >:)

---

Up???? Lol

I still wonder why this idea is not outright ruled out. As we know, even ruled out ideas could be added later, however very unlikely.

Given how biased the regular players are with the dogma of no returning troops, this topic is, as far as I can gather, is defaco ruled out, via public opinion from the momentum of established rules. (Basicly the idea of it has been this way from the start, and will always be this way, and changing will cause too many issues)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

I still wonder why this idea is not outright ruled out. As we know, even ruled out ideas could be added later, however very unlikely.

Given how biased the regular players are with the dogma of no returning troops, this topic is, as far as I can gather, is defaco ruled out, via public opinion from the momentum of established rules. (Basicly the idea of it has been this way from the start, and will always be this way, and changing will cause too many issues)

---

Forget ruled out, why is it being considered:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

That bumping thing ik

Im not starting a rebellion in talking about it:smirk:

---

What I'm saying is that why complain about an idea SC haven't even added to the game yet??

Well Json8r, did you read the beautifully noticeable text above the considered ideas list? It says NOT to post threads about them, and to use the search bar. A bit of irony for a person who is telling fresh spawns to read the stickies don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trooperc007

Well Json8r, did you read the beautifully noticeable text above the considered ideas list? It says NOT to post threads about them, and to use the search bar. A bit of irony for a person who is telling fresh spawns to read the stickies don't you think?

---

This is not a request for it to be added

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

This is not a request for it to added

---

But it's still "about" it.

Either way, this thread is going nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheyCallSmasher

But it's still "about" it.

Either way, this thread is going nowhere.

---

It goes to the point of why is this being considered

Edit: finding a result with the search bar is like winning the lottery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

It goes to the point of why is this being considered

Edit: finding a result with the search bar is like winning the lottery

---

What is the point of going to the point of why is this being considered?:smirk:

It's not like this thread will change anything...

And how does the search bar relate?

Sorry if I'm being a bit negative towards this thread, it's just that I find it utterly pointless.:smirk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheyCallSmasher

What is the point of going to the point of why is this being considered?:smirk:

It's not like this thread will change anything...

And how does the search bar relate?

Sorry if I'm being a bit negative towards this thread, it's just that I find it utterly pointless.:smirk:

---

Ok then, the point is i am wondering why no one gets the problems this feature would cause

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Ok then, the point is i am wondering why no one gets the problems this feature would cause

---

We do get it... thats why we don't want it added...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheyCallSmasher

We do get it... thats why we don't want it added...

---

Exactly, you dont want it added, but it is being considered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Exactly, you dont want it added, but it is being considered

---

It is being considered, not added.

Save this thread for when it is added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheyCallSmasher

It is being considered, not added.

Save this thread for when it is added.

---

Forget it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Json8r

Forget it.

---

Lol good idea:)

Friends again?:smirk: You seem annoyed...:( sowwy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheyCallSmasher

Lol good idea:)

Friends again?:smirk: You seem annoyed...:( sowwy

---

Haha not annoyed, just confused:p

How mature are you, your comment has nothing to do with the thread.

I support this thread 100%. It is relevant to the ideas forum, the idea should definitely be moved to the ruled out section of the sticky, and people should stop nitpicking about forum violations. Obviously the mods don't think there are any violations because this thread has survived for a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyPC

I support this thread 100%. It is relevant to the ideas forum, the idea should definitely be moved to the ruled out section of the sticky, and people should stop nitpicking about forum violations. Obviously the mods don't think there are any violations because this thread has survived for a week.

---

Thank you.

Thoughts guys, sorry for the bump!