Should the match cost be scrapped?

[saruman]

I support scrapping the cost as even if the match cost is gone, if you want to waste your time looking for the perfect base to raid, well, it just wastes your time(and your battery)

[rjdofu]

"On average one clicks "Next" 4-5 times. Now if you are at town hall 10, that means you are paying (4 x 1,000) 4,000 gold per raid on average. Say if you raid 5 times a day, then you are paying 20,000 gold per day. After a week, you will actually lose 140,000 gold."

140.000 gold? Try 5m.
I don't mind the match cost really, the matchmaking is the real problem here. It seriously needs to be improved, matchmaking basing on trophy level alone is not enough.

[RVP]

Of course it should be scrapped I lose loot on attacks now I hardly ever make up what I've spent on gold. Boy do I feel bad for those TH 10's.

[ChiefFirestar]

Yes it adds up, but it will always be there. Every player, including me, wants it gone, but it will never happen, so I figured it's not worth even a shot.

[Lakersarebeast]

You kidding me 4-5 times? I average around 30 clicks of the next button before finding good loot and often send 100k just searching, and yes I'm at a good range for my th. The point of the game is to raid and I don't think we should be penalized for it.

[Pieguys]

I think they should reduce the cost, not remove it all together. Or they could make it only charge you if you attacked.

[Engl1shmage]

Gold is currently used for defenses, and Elixir for troops (attacking). There always seems to be plenty of Elixir in peoples' storages so why not make Elixir the price for searching? If that's not enough a price reduction for searching would help. Whether or not we should scrap it altogether I'm not sure I should agree with... there will be a lot of players who search endlessly for the perfect bases only. It certainly will inspire me to search more often, which will probably lower the available loot out there. I'm really unsure how significant it would be though.

[TrueshotBarrage]

I understand why everyone wants the the cost off. So do I. However, think of it like the troops you train. For example, let's say you train 10 archers. Well, since each lvl 6 archer costs 300, let's say you only use 30 archers per raid, going on 5 raids a day. That's 9000 elixir per raid, which is 45000 elixir per day, which is 315000 elixir a week!

See what I did there? I used the same exact analogy you used (@OP) and showed why your logic is flawed. Everyone knows you have to spend the elixir on troops to gain more loot. Think of gold as the same thing. It's a necessity.

[TrueshotBarrage]

"On average one clicks "Next" 4-5 times. Now if you are at town hall 10, that means you are paying (4 x 1,000) 4,000 gold per raid on average. Say if you raid 5 times a day, then you are paying 20,000 gold per day. After a week, you will actually lose 140,000 gold."

140.000 gold? Try 5m.
I don't mind the match cost really, the matchmaking is the real problem here. It seriously needs to be improved, matchmaking basing on trophy level alone is not enough.

And do you have any better ideas, sir? There is a fine, distinct line between complaint and proposal.

[TurtleBandits]

Please vote. For more throughout discussion, please visit: http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...tch-cost%21%21

Many thanks

EDIT: One little example:

On average one clicks "Next" 4-5 times. Now if you are at town hall 10, that means you are paying (4 x 1,000) 4,000 gold per raid on average. Say if you raid 5 times a day, then you are paying 20,000 gold per day. After a week, you will actually lose 140,000 gold.

---

Taken from my previous post:


On the surface, the match cost is indeed small and insignificant. But think about the total cumulative cost.



The problem is not about the cost being too large. In fact, many people said the cost is insignificant. What I want to shed light on is the total cumulative cost. Besides, there is not much room for reduction. (Small reduction won't be effective and the total cumulative cost will still be burdensome.)



Currently, people are pretty much "abusing" the system already. Think about on average how many times you click the next button before attacking a village. If the match cost is designed to prevent people from abusing the system, then it is ineffective and hence totally pointless.

If the match cost is to keep people from searching endlessly for the "optimal" base, then why is it imposed on us right at the beginning, i.e. the first match?



Even with the match cost, some people can find a "perfect" base with just one click, while some have to search for ages and sometimes still cannot find one. Therefore, match cost cannot promote fairness.



The "optimal" loot bases will ever run out, since people's shields end at a different time, besides, different town hall levels mean the different amount of loot available for different players. The demand and supply will be different for everyone and thus there will never be any shortages.

---

Final point, all the villages are randomly generated by the system. It is unfair to have to pay a cost in order to skip a village which is too difficult to attack or too little loot available - the player did not choose to visit it at the first place! Why should we be penalised for not wanting something which is determined by the system?

But remember, when you are raiding, you get to around like 200k-300k of each resource (on a successful raid). I think 140k is worth the profit.