Curious As To How

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superfinch30

Look. It's about the money.

Why do people feel the need to keep asking for an honest and definitive answer, when you know it really already?

As to ideas being implemented, you have to get your head around a simple concept.

If it improves the game, AND either makes more money, or doesn't make less....then it happens.

Spell queueing and cook time cut. That helped. Everybody loves that.

Let's look at it a bit more closely though. You are high champ pushing, are willing to boost, and want to run full gowipes as quickly as possible.

Old: boost spell factory. Any 5 premium spells are going to be 57 mins.
Everything else will cook in about an hour, heroes can regen in an hour unless really high level, might have to boost 1 dark barrack for mass golems.

So that's 20 gems per 2 hours, for 1 raid p/h.

New: 5 premium spells take 37 mins boosted.
To keep up with that requires:
1 regular barrack boost, 1 dark barrack boost, both heroes.

50 gems per 2 hours. Admittedly with nearly double the attacks.

Everyone wins. Player gets more raids p/h, but might have to stump up more gems in the long run. SC gets more gems spent.

Those are the kind of additions we get.
Pure player benefit doesn't happen for the most part.
On the flip side, rarely get anything that purely makes more money without some kind of player improvement, cos that would be dumb.

It's a business. It makes money.
No business goes to the trouble of changing something that costs them money long term. That is dumb.

---

Well all businesses blatantly lie to consumers saying it isn't about money but if we take their word for it then what would the reason be?

I'm not saying that it isn't about money just that what would it be about if it wasn't money?

That lengthy post is a perfect intro to the real deep down why of no upgrading heroes in war.

Assume everyone knows about sales, and the perfect product? Want, need, fear?

Everyone wants their heroes in war.
Realistically, everyone NEEDS their heroes in war to be successful.
Everyone fears, letting the side down, or being at a disadvantage to the other clan that may have all of their heroes available.

If you held that perfect product, would you let it go? Would you possibly give out half hearted excuses as to why you don't give it up?
Realism people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFirstSteven

Well all businesses blatantly lie to consumers saying it isn't about money but if we take their word for it then what would the reason be?

I'm not saying that it isn't about money just that what would it be about if it wasn't money?

---

I like the first bit, glad you know that.

The second, have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superfinch30

I like the first bit, glad you know that.

The second, have no idea what you're talking about.

---

Lol 'if it isn't money(and we lived in a parallel universe) what would the reasoning be'

I didn't read the entire idea from Master about quests (lazy, I know...), but it does seem like it could get them more cash. And it is something that lots of people have been asking for. Win win scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFirstSteven

While I do agree that all of this cost time and that war wins may not matter at all to you, that kinda makes you biased against the community does it not?

Farming resource takes TIME

Pushing takes immense amounts of time

But if your at high level with wars and you fail then that's final. Imagine your a member in the clan Brutus, your clans ahead of all others but there's another 30xp behind yours. The entire rest of your clan has attacked it's tied up at 125 stars each, your attack is the only attack left in the war you've chosen the only th9 base left in the war because it's the easiest that's left to three star but oh ♥♥♥♥ your queens still down.
You attack anyway and get a 99% two star. If you had of had your queen it was a garunteed 3 star, but now you have let your clan down.

3 hours later that other clan ends up 50xp ahead of Brutus and they get to lvl 9 first all because you didn't have to money to gem queen time... you can't do more attacks to make it up because the result has already been decided....

War results are final... pushing and farming results aren't. War>pushing/farming in terms of difficulty and the need for a fair playing field.

---

You can always start another war you know...

Farming doesn't make sense with this one I must agree but let me translate it to pushing terminology...

You are at 4994 cups and you got a 15 cup offer. You don't have your queen and you only got 1 star. 4999 cups arrg but that other guy got the 2 stars with his queen and became the first legend how sad.... :smirk:

I don't agree on difficulty as well. War attacks are more complex yes I agree. But you also have 24 hours to inspect enemy's base and create specially engineered army to attack.
With pushing you are supposed to attack different bases with an easy to cook army that can bring constant output. So more complex strategies? ? Yes definately! More difficult? ? No Not really!

[QUOTE=TheFirstSteven;5390884]Well apparently supercell think that taking an idea from a thread not even nearly as long and as positive as masterminds quests is noteworthy. So why would they not take an idea from a thread that is long, overwhelmingly positive and noteworthy?
[quote]

Because they don't agree.

It is almost completely irrelevant how long a thread is, or whether you believe it to be "noteworthy" or not.

It is about whether Supercell (not forum members) believe the idea fits with the way they want to progress the game.

Quote:

---

On a side note I'm curious to see what response we will get if we do take supercell by their word when they say it isn't about money.

---

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Quote:

---

There latest excuse has been overturned already so I'm interested to see what the next one will be.

---

I have no idea what excuse you believe to have been "overturned".

I have seen a lots of people who haven't properly read what Supercell have said (including you) claim that what Supercell didn't actually say is rubbish because it can't be that hard.

Even if that were what Supercell had claimed, you still wouldn't have overturned it just by saying it is rubbish. You overturn it by proving otherwise, and without access to the code base (and the knowledge to understand it) you cannoty possibly prove how difficult it may be to code anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFirstSteven

Well all businesses blatantly lie to consumers saying it isn't about money but if we take their word for it then what would the reason be?

---

I read this sort of thing a lot on these forums. Personally, I find the view a bit simplistic.

Marketing isn't lying, PR isn't lying. Some businesses lie (like some people lie). More often they are just trying to make you focus on the benefit of their product rather than the cost or flaws. It doesn't make them lying fiends.

Should they tell you that their product could be better in hundreds of ways but it would be too expensive to make it better in that particular, and perhaps difficult, way?

Should they tell you that, while they have a genuine commitment to the customer experience and to the life of their little Finnish company that grew beyond all expectation, they need to be accountable to shareholders too (their other customers) - and so make tough decisions about what is in and what is out?

Should they say that you are wrong and that it is precisely the notion of sacrifice, denying and prioritising benefits that drives the freemium addiction (and enjoyment)? A subject they know quite a bit about.

I don't know what the true answer is but would any of those answers satisfy?

It is equally naive to imagine that business is driven by an outpouring of altruism as it is to imagine they are all comic book villains.

I suspect Ive gone a fair way off topic with this rant, sorry...

[QUOTE=alexheney;5394356][QUOTE=TheFirstSteven;5390884]Well apparently supercell think that taking an idea from a thread not even nearly as long and as positive as masterminds quests is noteworthy. So why would they not take an idea from a thread that is long, overwhelmingly positive and noteworthy?

Quote:

---

Because they don't agree.

It is almost completely irrelevant how long a thread is, or whether you believe it to be "noteworthy" or not.

It is about whether Supercell (not forum members) believe the idea fits with the way they want to progress the game.




What on earth is that supposed to mean?



I have no idea what excuse you believe to have been "overturned".

I have seen a lots of people who haven't properly read what Supercell have said (including you) claim that what Supercell didn't actually say is rubbish because it can't be that hard.

Even if that were what Supercell had claimed, you still wouldn't have overturned it just by saying it is rubbish. You overturn it by proving otherwise, and without access to the code base (and the knowledge to understand it) you cannoty possibly prove how difficult it may be to code anything.

---

Well supercells previous excuse was the difficulty of coding such a feature. However the community on the other hand has pointed out a plethora of ways to bypass the coding problems and make this a thing.

Other game developers that visit the forums (check the other threads about this, they are there) say that it isn't even that difficult to get heroes in war anyway.

One of the better suggestions if I recall was to set up an if command since the attack button is irreversible you could set it so that if attack button is pressed and attack starts set heroes to awake for the duration of the attack.

This is not an exploitable way to have this done and by many other developers minds not a very difficult 'coding nightmare' anyway. For gods sake they've even offered to code this for supercell.

So if it isn't this (it's been proven to not be a coding problem) and according to supercell ( :smirk: ) then what other excuses do they have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFirstSteven

Well supercells previous excuse was the difficulty of coding such a feature.

---

That isn't actually quite what they said.

Go back and re-read it.