Should the match cost be scrapped?

[JeremyOdinMcCoy]

I don't think it should be taken away but it does cost a lot to find a decent raid sometimes. Maybe reduce it.

[barcher]

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.

Hehe, nice try. But the elixir in your example actually turns into something useful (i.e. troops). So it's fair. Whereas, the match cost is meaningless and is unfair because villages are generated by the servers. We can either reluctantly accept or force to pay to skip.

Now whose logic is flawed?

[allengorden]

TH7 is easy, try coming to TH9 or TH10, then we'll see how your mouth flaps.

And you realize winning a raid in....
- Crystal 2 = 34k gold
- Crystal 3 = 21k gold
- Gold 1 = 13k gold
- Gold 2 = 8.4k gold
- Gold 3 = You're a TH10 farming in gold 3. 1) There's plenty of good bases there, and 2) go to a higher league of you really care so much for gold.

I click next around 15-20 times, TH7 in gold 3. So it costs me ~6k - 8k to find a suitable match. I think that's fair.

The leagues were designed with the thought that higher level people would go to upper leagues, while lower levels would go to lower leagues. So, yes I think the match cost is fair, and no, I don't think it should be scrapped.

~ Strider

EDIT: What league are you in to be that unlucky? I consistently find 200k gold raids.

[farglschmitz]

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.

Amount of gold need to max a base (minus walls): 640,901,950

Amount of gold need to have all lvl9 walls: 1,020,530,000

Amount of elixir needed to max EVERYTHING: 316,226,350

Using elixir for troops to try and prove OP wrong was a bad idea. Elixir is worth maybe 1/5 of what gold is worth, and most everyone is overflowing with it.

[hawdog]

If the matchmaking cost was scrapped, then people would be a lot pickier in their attacks since there is no consequence to continual nexting. This would mean that people would keep nexting until they find abandoned bases for easy collector loot.

That means less chances to find collector raids for you and me, and more time wasted spent nexting.

So that's why this is a bad idea:

1) you will come across less abandoned bases for easy quick loot
2) you will spend more agonizing time pressing the next button instead of raiding

The matchmaking costs are FAIR. Leave them alone.

[Gulyas1]

Its pretty much only players that feel the need to sit at gold league that want it scrapped! Easy pickings is what they are looking for

[gamul1]

I doubt anyone finds opponent to attack 4 times click in average. Should be like 20 clicks.

I have not gone through this whole thread yet but all I have to say is I probably click next on average 60 - 80 times based on typically spending 30,000 - 40,000 gold to search at a TH 8. I have spent around 100k at times searching.

I don't think I am being picky. At TH8 I am in Gold II, which seems reasonable. At least 85% of the villages I see have probably 50,000 each in gold and elixir. Skipping those I do not think is being picky considering my army cost me more than that. I am looking for about 150k each (and whatever dark) of loot "I can get" to make the attack reasonably profitable. The "I can get" part starts to fit into the other 15%. I also come across TH 9 and 10s where the loot is in storages spread around a well defended base. I could get some of them but not all of them so I skip many of those that I weigh I can't get enough to make it worthwhile. I don't consider that being picky either. I consider that being smart.

Eventually I find a base that meets my needs. My four builders and lab tend to be going 24x7 so I must be doing something right.

As to eliminating the cost or reducing it - I would not support eliminating it. the cost is part of the strategy to factor in. As for reducing it - maybe a little but it should be higher as the TH gets higher. This is from a TH8 paying 580 each search. Cant say how I will feel at TH9 or 10.

[barcher]

This! But I don't want it to be scrapped - it's part of the game. I think we should be compensated if we find low loot bases consecutively (5 times consecutively, maybe?)

[prancingpony]

this! But i don't want it to be scrapped - it's part of the game. I think we should be compensated if we find low loot bases consecutively (5 times consecutively, maybe?)

holy this is a year old leave it alone

[barcher]

holy this is a year old leave it alone

I was trying to create a post about the match cost but I wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating the topic, so I searched and found this.