Heroes In War - A Compromise

There was another good thread about allowing a pause in the upgrade but I'd like to pose another alternative that also preserves the ability of SC to make money as I'm sure they make quite a bit from gemming hero upgrades.

Since we now have the pre-attack checklist that shows all of your troops they can implement a button that allows usage of the hero during that attack for 10 gems. At this point my heroes are down for 7 days at a time and after each upgrade is done I usually have the DE to start the next. This means I'm fighting nearly every war without both heroes. I understand not having access during regular attacks but SC made this game about war when they started them a year ago. If it's really about putting your best attacks/defenses forward to see which clan is better then something needs to be done to allow upgrading heroes to be used in attacks.

Like I said I know this is a money maker and it would remove the incentive to gem the time if they allowed heroes to be used freely. I hope with a gem option to use the hero during that attack we can find some middle ground that let's us use our best army but also lets SC continue to make money.

Your right, spells and heroes are only things in war affected by upgrades.

Your option gives player option to use which is good, but could also favour some players/clans. Depends on cost i guess

First, 10 is far too low. The compromise must benefit both, am i right? I think weve done the math before and it should no more then 150 per use or less then 120 per use. Otherwise, who would be crazy enough to just gem their heroe if it only costs them 40 gems per war? Maybe 3 times per upgrade? 120 gems versus 2000 gems? Yea, what a great compromise there!

the key to the compromise is a little savings from your part for the convenience of picking and choosing when you have your heroes. So you may still skip one war during an upgrade cycle but can afford to gem 2 wars. Or 1 war. Or still not spend any gems. Or to avoid the nonsense, just gem the hero to completion right away.

Now thats a compromise.

I'm not sure why you argue over an arbitrary amount I used and ignore the premise of the idea.

One thing you fail to consider is the amount of people who opt not to spend the 1000 gems (not sure where you got 2000) it would take to finish a 7-day upgrade. A compromise, since you seem to be caught up on the accuracy of that word, means that both parties give something up. Right now you have to spend gems to finish the upgrade or you war without your heroes. There is middle ground to be had. Only SC can figure out an appropriate amount. Maybe 10 gems is too low. I can assure you it wouldn't need to be 150 gems per attack. Simply allowing the option will have more people using gems which will be more than those who are currently gemming the entire upgrade. Furthermore, if it's 150 gems per attack I might as well gem the entire upgrade so I can use them during regular raids as well.

SC can come out of this making the same amount the same way retailers can make MORE money by strategically lowering prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james14

One thing you fail to consider is the amount of people who opt not to spend the 1000 gems (not sure where you got 2000) it would take to finish a 7-day upgrade. SC can come out of this making the same amount the same way retailers can make MORE money by strategically lowering prices.

---

+1. Very well said. I, for example, do not spend gems because I think that 10 bucks to gem a 7d builder is incredibly expensive when you have to do 80 hero levels. Nevertheless, I would spend probably spend a few bucks to "pause" my hero upgrade time to attack in clan wars. I described the same solution in a previous thread.

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...rading-dilemna

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxionXD

First, 10 is far too low. The compromise must benefit both, am i right? I think weve done the math before and it should no more then 150 per use or less then 120 per use. Otherwise, who would be crazy enough to just gem their heroe if it only costs them 40 gems per war? Maybe 3 times per upgrade? 120 gems versus 2000 gems? Yea, what a great compromise there!

the key to the compromise is a little savings from your part for the convenience of picking and choosing when you have your heroes. So you may still skip one war during an upgrade cycle but can afford to gem 2 wars. Or 1 war. Or still not spend any gems. Or to avoid the nonsense, just gem the hero to completion right away.

Now thats a compromise.

---

You do know that if it was 10 gems then more people would do it right? I mean A LOT more would do it and that's A LOT of gems SC is getting from everyone of there players in a war upgrading their heros, no body is going to spend over a 100 gems just to attack only once in war? are you high because that is just stupid... People would rather attack without their heros then spend that much on one single attack...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james14

I'm not sure why you argue over an arbitrary amount I used and ignore the premise of the idea.

One thing you fail to consider is the amount of people who opt not to spend the 1000 gems (not sure where you got 2000) it would take to finish a 7-day upgrade. A compromise, since you seem to be caught up on the accuracy of that word, means that both parties give something up. Right now you have to spend gems to finish the upgrade or you war without your heroes. There is middle ground to be had. Only SC can figure out an appropriate amount. Maybe 10 gems is too low. I can assure you it wouldn't need to be 150 gems per attack. Simply allowing the option will have more people using gems which will be more than those who are currently gemming the entire upgrade. Furthermore, if it's 150 gems per attack I might as well gem the entire upgrade so I can use them during regular raids as well.

SC can come out of this making the same amount the same way retailers can make MORE money by strategically lowering prices.

---

the premise fails completely as yours leans heavily in the favor if non paying players. 2000 is for two heroes. King. Queen. Two.

They are giving something up. They are allowing you to spend 150 gems to use one hero for one attack in war versus 1000 to finish the 7 day upgrade which would force you to miss upwards of 4 wars. Maybe. 600 gems versus the 1000 they would have made prior.

seems fair of a compromise to me.

To to lose the revenue generated by gemming heroes for war by offering it at your ridiculous 10 gems which can be gained from trees not credit cards is not a compromise whatsoever. Doesn't matter if everyone starts doing it if they basically pay little to nothing at all to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxionXD

the premise fails completely as yours leans heavily in the favor if non paying players. 2000 is for two heroes. King. Queen. Two.

They are giving something up. They are allowing you to spend 150 gems to use one hero for one attack in war versus 1000 to finish the 7 day upgrade which would force you to miss upwards of 4 wars. Maybe. 600 gems versus the 1000 they would have made prior.

seems fair of a compromise to me.

To to lose the revenue generated by gemming heroes for war by offering it at your ridiculous 10 gems which can be gained from trees not credit cards is not a compromise whatsoever. Doesn't matter if everyone starts doing it if they basically pay little to nothing at all to do it.

---

Please Axion, stop making COC a pay2win server.. From what I see you're a gem-freak.. This was a good idea.. You're the only one against it.. Go make your own game.. You're not the developer anyway so giving your destructive criticisms won't stop us from formulating good ideas.. Go make your own suggestion and stop criticizing others' ideas. You're not a critique..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prosenjiel

Please Axion, stop making COC a pay2win server.. From what I see you're a gem-freak.. This was a good idea.. You're the only one against it.. Go make your own game.. You're not the developer anyway so giving your destructive criticisms won't stop us from formulating good ideas.. Go make your own suggestion and stop criticizing others' ideas. You're not a critique..

---

Axion is merely expressing his point of view on the matter. He believes that SC would lose revenue if this idea were to be implemented, and he is probably right (if the cost is 10 gems). Nevertheless, as the OP stated, 10 gems is an arbitrary number and it is up to SC to decide how many gems it would take to maintain revenue more or less equal. In my opinion, 150 gems is a ridiculous amount, simply because it only pauses your upgrade. Between the 3-4 wars you do per week, you end up spending more or less the same as just gemming to completion. Axion makes a good point, but the numbers are for SC to decide, not him.
Like I said, this system incentivizes casual players to spend a few gems. Who knows how many non-gemmers would buy a few bucks to have their upgrading heroes in war?

This is a nice compromise idea. The amount of gems can be debated, but between this and a couple other suggestions there are some workable solutions to this problem.

However, until people stop using gems to finish hero upgrades Supercell has no motivation to fix this. I recommend not warring while your hero is upgrading. More than that, take a break from coc while your hero is upgrading and play a different game. That will get their attention.