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.

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..

---

Ive only spent $45 on this game in the beginning, i havent bought gems in over a year. I am, however, a realist when i discuss ideas. You may think im overly critical but i am trying to help. Do you think SC will consider you idea, with notions that they'll still make or even make more money, by doing this? You aren't looking at it in a few that would truly feel like a compromise that they'd listen. My idea is well balanced for both.

How ow is my idea making it pay to win when im actually giving a compromise that saves people money? Your idea basically makes it free, my idea makes it so you have the option and its a little less the gemming them from the beginning. Its a true compromise.

How is saying making it free, essentially, a compromise exactly??

how is this a destructive criticism? Because you dont agree with it? Because with my idea youd actually have to buy gems not just use free gems to use your heroes? That won't fly with supercell, as they clearly won't do it because of the revenue generated. My modification of your idea will at least make them think "ok, we can still make money and we may still be able to keep the regular spenders"

150 gems per attack out of 3-4 wars during a 7-day upgrade comes out to 900-1200 gems. The 7-day gem cost is 1000. They don't have to charge the same as the 7-day cost to meet or exceed the amount of gems that are currently spent on gemming hero upgrades. But, like I said and like what was pointed out again, the specific price is up to SC and the 10 gems I mentioned was more or less arbitrary.

Beyond the issue of cost can I assume that, since you suggest SOME kind of fee for using an upgrading hero in war, you support the premise? If not, why? Whether this idea works or not I am positive there is some way for SC to rearrange the price structure to allow war attacks with heroes that will actually make them more money than our current option of gemming the entire upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james14

150 gems per attack out of 3-4 wars during a 7-day upgrade comes out to 900-1200 gems. The 7-day gem cost is 1000. They don't have to charge the same as the 7-day cost to meet or exceed the amount of gems that are currently spent on gemming hero upgrades. But, like I said and like what was pointed out again, the specific price is up to SC and the 10 gems I mentioned was more or less arbitrary.

Beyond the issue of cost can I assume that, since you suggest SOME kind of fee for using an upgrading hero in war, you support the premise? If not, why? Whether this idea works or not I am positive there is some way for SC to rearrange the price structure to allow war attacks with heroes that will actually make them more money than our current option of gemming the entire upgrade.

---

It definitely shouldn't be a set number, I think 70% of the costs to finish instantly, then divided by 6 would be fair. So you can save 30% by doing it one attack at a time, but the people with the money who do it now without complaint will still be willing to just gem the entire 1000 right away and not have to deal with it, but people like you can still get their heroes on a per use basis while still not having to pay the full amount.

And you can still opt to not pay for it every time.

Of course I support the premise, the option would be a good one. I never disagreed with the premise, I disagreed with such a low, arbitrary number.

I think a 70%/6 formula for a per attack costs would be a good compromise that both won't reduce current hero gemming revenue and may increase more revenue from micro-hero gemming from users like you.

That would come up to be 116 gems to have heroes during war. That sounds good to me.

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.

---

I am highly unlikely to spend 150 or more just to get the hero back, but if was 20 or 30 per use then I can see the idea of doing it. But if during the entire ungrade time I had to spend 1000 gems? I am trying to save to get the 5th builder. am I going to spend half of what I need for that upgrade just to try and get a hero for a war ? highly unlikely.
Need to keep the cost plauseable..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahle

I am highly unlikely to spend 150 or more just to get the hero back, but if was 20 or 30 per use then I can see the idea of doing it. But if during the entire ungrade time I had to spend 1000 gems? I am trying to save to get the 5th builder. am I going to spend half of what I need for that upgrade just to try and get a hero for a war ? highly unlikely.
Need to keep the cost plauseable..

---

Of course you woundn't, because you never spent money on gemming heroes and you wouldn't start now. 20 is merely 120 gems to have heroes during the entire upgrade. Versus 1000 to have it now. That's 88% decrease. No business executive at Supercell would authorize that...

30% savings, with my 70%/6 formula would make sense as a compromise for both ides. For people with lower level heroes, say still at 4 day upgrade time, would be paying 70 gems per use. It would progressively get higher as the build time increases, maxing out at 7 days or 1000 gems, 116 gems per use.

it's the only compromise that would make sense to Supercell and allow the ability to use it per war for those that need it.