Some thoughts on potential consequences of the update from a war player perspective..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolarIce

Why should there be a problem with being a hardcore player? Those players EARNED their "haves" through massive amounts of time and dedication to the game. They EARNED those high level Heroes and shiny walls. Just because you are unable or unwilling to do the same does not mean that should apply to everyone else. Hating them for having it?

---

Yep, the new American way. Hate on the next guy who has what you don't have, it just not FAIR!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolarIce

Wholeheartedly agree with most of your post, OP. The only thing I think I will disagree with is that the changes have little to nothing to do with bot farmers. If anything, those bot farmers spend gems to constantly boost, they arent a threat to Supercell's profits. We can only take a look at the modded war scene to realise that little to no priority is given to attempting to eradicate all forms of bunnying. The reason for these changes is, like you said, a big pay day while taking a huge gamble on the long term future of this game.

There are different types of players, from rushers, to casuals, to war-centric, to farmers, to pushers, hardcore players, the list goes on. All were attracted to the game for some reason or another and all keep playing. They are, imo, punishing groups upon groups of different types of players to try to force them to become the "trophy-pusher". Gems are an obvious reason for the way they are absolutely trying to dictate to the player-base on how to play. Effective pushing at the highest leagues takes money. Massively reduce the influx of free loot from snipes while not replacing it, and hope people will buy more resources outright? Force players to boost more? Keep playing in sessions for fear of losing loot? 3 hour sessions max, if you want more, buy more.

Like I said in another thread, one thing I really really liked about clash is that they never forced anyone to spend to progress or to enjoy the game, they made you WANT to spend money, cause you found playing enjoyable and would like to enhance that enjoyment, no matter your style of play. I hate how this game is changing with this update, especially in the playstyle variety aspect.



Highly disagree with the bolded part. In Fairplay war - and really the only type of war that should be considered - a three star on a well developed Th10 by a similarly developed Th10 is a very remote possibility and also requires in a lot of cases 30/30+ heroes and quite a bit of luck. Out of all those your list, I would much rather see a solid, well planned and well executed three on a TH9 by a Th9 over the rest.

Town hall 9 is also imho, the current cream of the crop in terms of war. A three star is very possible with enough skill, planning, strategy, a bit of luck and good hero levels. A bad/unlucky attack using a three star strat can get you one or even zero stars quite easily. A safe two is always an option. While at ten, its mostly zero, one and two wit the once in a blue moon three. So far in this update, I've not seen anything to encourage me to upgrade to TH10 in terms of war.

---

Ok, but 30/30 heroes are TH9 level heroes. I don't see that as being a reason to say something is unbalanced. I think overall your thinking is correct, it isn't terribly balanced (at least offensively in terms of stratification of stars)...but I see a lot of the arguments on these forums around the idea that you need high level heroes to begin to think about 3 starring TH10s, that's exactly how it should be.

The flip side to the balance discussion though isn't just around attacking. TH10 is quite balanced defensively from a war perspective. Layout and strategy is crucial. Having an anti-2 layout opens you up to 3 stars, but can prevent some 2 star attacks. Anti 3 is an easy 2 but harder to 3 star. This is in opposition to TH9 and lower where any layout can pretty effectively be 3 starred. I think TH10 involves quite a bit more strategy in war overall when the offense and defense are both weighed. TH9 is fairly easy...go for 3*, try to defend against 3*. TH10 requires a decision...am I going to try to prevent 2 and open myself up to 3, or prevent 3 and give an easy 2. Then the same decision persists on the offensive side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoesisBiffBangPow

Problem is, as you have articulated many times in your videos, the war community's opinions mean very little to SC, who have long since done their sums and concluded that we don't bring in the $$$ and are therefore expendable.

---

Where do you get this from ??

The rumours are that we don't have upgrading heroes in war yet, is because it generates lots and lots of $.

So about that us being expendable, well, I'd reconsider the choice of words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

true, it costs the two individuals involved nothing, but at the cost of denying loot opportunities to every other player in the game.....

---

I see this argument again and again and I still don't understand it.

If said sniper taken the loot instead ( or as well as the th) then the base would be under at least 12hr shield anyway. What's the difference he only sniped and settled for the ( much less I suppose) free loot instead?

That free loot then adds to the players kitty when he goes offline, for someone else to peruse the fat offerings and chose to either go for it or snipe that the in the corner.

So that argument of ' denying someone else the opportunity' just doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fette

I see this argument again and again and I still don't understand it.

If said sniper taken the loot instead ( or as well as the th) then the base would be under at least 12hr shield anyway. What's the difference he only sniped and settled for the ( much less I suppose) free loot instead?

That free loot then adds to the players kitty when he goes offline, for someone else to peruse the fat offerings and chose to either go for it or snipe that the in the corner.

So that argument of ' denying someone else the opportunity' just doesn't make sense to me.

---

cause you can't legitimately hit 10-15 real bases per HOUR like you can with snipes. You chomp through bases an order of magnitude faster sniping than you do with real armies and real attacks, even gibarch and bam.

So sure, the ONE base you hit gets hidden. But the 9 more you can't snipe while your next army cooks are not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

cause you can't legitimately hit 10-15 real bases per HOUR like you can with snipes. You chomp through bases an order of magnitude faster sniping than you do with real armies and real attacks, even gibarch and bam.

So sure, the ONE base you hit gets hidden. But the 9 more you can't snipe while your next army cooks are not...

---

If you gibarch on boost, you are ready to rock and roll the minute you get back to camp. ....just saying:smirk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JtB

As a maxed town hall 10 myself, it is indeed harder to 3 star a maxed 9 than to 2 star a maxed 10. One little mistake on the maxed 9 and it's easy to not get a 3 star.

---

Thank you. I have a lot of respect for the good TH10 attackers. Requires a lot of planning, no you can't just spam troops and pull a 2. But I took exception earlier when some other posters -- who didn't know what they were talking about -- started popping off about ease of three starring th9's vs. pulling 2's on th10's.

Best thread I've ever read on these forums, kudos OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolarIce

Why should there be a problem with being a hardcore player? Those players EARNED their "haves" through massive amounts of time and dedication to the game. They EARNED those high level Heroes and shiny walls. Just because you are unable or unwilling to do the same does not mean that should apply to everyone else. Hating them for having it? Besides, in every game that has set goals and timesinks and grinds, there will be haves and have nots. What would be the point of the game otherwise.

---

Also how is this update supposed to change things and bridge the gap. It makes it worse for casuals. Instead of having a cheap shield they have an expensive one this will widen the gap not shorten it.

A whole lot of misinformation and just flat out lying is happening regarding this update. Also most of us snipers already have high level royals and max or close to max DE troops. Having us do war attacks instead of giving cheap shields? How is that going to be helpful to anyone except us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoopstime98

Ok, but 30/30 heroes are TH9 level heroes. I don't see that as being a reason to say something is unbalanced. I think overall your thinking is correct, it isn't terribly balanced (at least offensively in terms of stratification of stars)...but I see a lot of the arguments on these forums around the idea that you need high level heroes to begin to think about 3 starring TH10s, that's exactly how it should be.

The flip side to the balance discussion though isn't just around attacking. TH10 is quite balanced defensively from a war perspective. Layout and strategy is crucial. Having an anti-2 layout opens you up to 3 stars, but can prevent some 2 star attacks. Anti 3 is an easy 2 but harder to 3 star. This is in opposition to TH9 and lower where any layout can pretty effectively be 3 starred. I think TH10 involves quite a bit more strategy in war overall when the offense and defense are both weighed. TH9 is fairly easy...go for 3*, try to defend against 3*. TH10 requires a decision...am I going to try to prevent 2 and open myself up to 3, or prevent 3 and give an easy 2. Then the same decision persists on the offensive side.

---

I agree, nothing wrong with high heroes being needed for TH10 threes. The problem is that even with 40/40 there are lots of fails, lots of two stars (and below), and that is using solid attacks with the current three star strats like Queen Walk/X. I'm definitely not saying that there is little strategy to Th10 warring, far from it - but its different to Nine. I'm not saying it should be easy, but I think it should at least be consistently possible with good planning and execution and without the use of outside help. The problem imo, is that Ten is skewed towards defense, rather than offense. Would it be accurate to say that a three star attempt on an anti-two layout often results in three not being achieved? Nine has that balance right now (though after the update with the extra 30 seconds, it should be quite a bit easier to three, especially if you have 25/25+). Those extra seconds at ten should help as well though, with well executed hits that run out of time to clean up.