1-gem barracks boost should be permanent

[vasubandu]

I don't think they should be permanent.
As I stated in another thread...

The cost before the holiday special was 25 gems for 45 minutes.
The cost during the holiday special was 1 gem for 45 minutes.
The current cost, post holiday special, is 3.75 gems for 45 minutes.
I really don't think it needs any more reduction... they've reduced it by 85% already.

~ Strider

Great point. I hate to admit it, but I really had not noticed that the boost time went to 4 hours after the sale ended. I guess I missed the memo on the 85% reduction you mention. I just saw that the price went to 20 gems and sort of stopped there.

As a practical matter, there really is not a meaningful difference between 1 gem and 3.75 gems for a 45 minute boost. Both are so low that the monetary cost is negligible. From that perspective, I would surmise that SC already determined that lowering the cost of the boost makes economic sense.

That said, there is a big difference between 3.75 gems and 20. And a big difference between 45 minutes and 4 hours. I rarely play the game for 4 hours. 45 minutes seemed about right. I would not use the 4-hour boost that often but would use an hour boost at the same rate often.

Much of what I want could be achieved by changing it from 20 gems for 4 hours to 5 gems for an hour. I do still think that there was a magic to the 1-gem boost because it almost forced me to buy gems for it, and I am not sure that the same would be true of a 5 gem boost. A 5-gem boost is also going to leave fewer leftover gems, which leaved me less tempted to use them to finish an upgrade.

It may be that the 1-gem boost allowed people to just use gems from clearing instead of buying them, and I am sure that SC ran those numbers. But it never did me any good to boost one of my barracks. I boosted them all.

Give me a one-hour boost for 5 or fewer gems, and I will find myself buying gems again. I may play for 4 hours and spend the 20 gems, but it won't fell that way.

[Jazzathegreat]

Its a good idea but maybe Super Cell would think that they would lose money, so maybe it could be one solid week every month. And instead of 1 gem, it should be 3 gems for the Dark Barracks for 1 hour, 5 gems for the Barracks also for 1 hour, and 10 gems for the clan castle at 20 minutes. When when 18 minutes it would only be 9 gems, then 16 it would be 8 gems, ect. The thing that Super Cell might like is that there wouldn't be a gem boost for the spell factory, so if your pushing thophies, the most important thing is probably spells depending on what troop composition you would use.

At the moment its 20 gems for 4 hours which actually does equate to 5gems per 1 hour

[vasubandu]

At the moment its 20 gems for 4 hours which actually does equate to 5gems per 1 hour

I know. My point was that if we could buy gems in one-hour increments, it would mostly make me happy. I don't play for 4 hours at a time. So the actual cost to get a boost for the time I would play is higher than 5 gems per hour. Along the lines that if it were 100 hours for 500 gems, it would not do me much good.

But it looks like SC crunched their numbers and concluded that a lower price per hour made sense. I would prefer a lower price and a shorter period, but it turns out that SC already has done much of what I proposed. I feel a little embarrassed for not noticing before I posted this, but I also still think that there is magic to the 1-gem boost.

[Breadly]

I also had a blast. I planned things carefully and upgraded a lot of key elements. And that is the key. For the first time, I actually spent real money on the game. Over $50 US to be honest. Why? Because I could finish and upgrade and start another very quickly since my troops refreshed so fast.

So SuperCell has money from me because of the 1-gem boost that it never would have seen otherwise. Now that the price has increased 20-fold, I am not spending any money at all. No reason to with the time it will take to amass the gold and elixir for the next upgrade.

Same Thing happened with me, i had too much gold and elixir. I liked that i could raid every 5-7 minutes, and i think it was better with the 1 gem boost. It IS a good idea to keep it permanent, but i think there's a low chance of them keeping it. But, i support this post 100%!

[Whataboss]

It should not be 1 gem that is wayy to easy i get 1-2m per hour when all barrack are boosting it would be to easy 10 gems would be more reasonable

[qtrain]

I spent more money and enjoyed the game much more with the 1 gem boosts. I do not intend on spending any money anytime soon. Takes too long to collect loot, by the time I have enough loot to upgrade I have a free builder and no need to gem. My bank account thanks SC for ending the 1 gem boost but the gamer in me hates it. I vote 1 gem boost permanent.

[vasubandu]

I actually a bit surprised that we have not had even informal input from SC on this. They must have a reason, and it would be wonderful to hear it.

I really don't get a lot of the comments saying that more frequent raids are a bad thing. If you get raided, you usually get a shield, which you keep unless you decide to attack. And if you are attacking, how can you complain if others are too?

I totally get the long times for building and troop upgrades. Upgrades are a permanent improvement to your village. I can even see sometimes buying gems to speed up an upgrade because I am getting something permanent for the money.

But raids are another matter altogether. When I raid, I get gold or elixir. Gold and elixir are not permanent. They get spent or lost to raids. Making us wait a long time between raids just encourages us to wait out the upgrade times. Being able to make more frequent raids encourages us to buy gems.

Like a lot of people I cannot resist a 1-gem 45-minute boost. But I can resist a 20-gem 4-hour boost. So while I wait, I play the game less and spend less. The devious magic of the 1-gem boost is that it forces me to buy gems, and once I do they burn a ole in my pocket until I spend them, and then I have to buy more.

Anyone from SC care to explain?

[Motorbike]

I spent a sum of money too because I could keep raiding

[HockeyMan]

I actually a bit surprised that we have not had even informal input from SC on this. They must have a reason, and it would be wonderful to hear it.

I really don't get a lot of the comments saying that more frequent raids are a bad thing. If you get raided, you usually get a shield, which you keep unless you decide to attack. And if you are attacking, how can you complain if others are too?

You don't get what I'm saying. Yes you get a shield but your collectors don't produce enough to cover how much was stolen. Also you don't always get a shield.

Attacking is inefficient as resources are lost every time you attack (search cost, troop cost). Right now it's fine as the inefficiency is being balanced out by abandoned bases. I'm worried about the inefficiency being bigger than that produced by abandoned bases. The only reason it was fine during the holidays was everyone was boosting their collectors. However near the end of the holidays loot seemed to dry up.

[vasubandu]

You don't get what I'm saying. Yes you get a shield but your collectors don't produce enough to cover how much was stolen. Also you don't always get a shield.

Attacking is inefficient as resources are lost every time you attack (search cost, troop cost). Right now it's fine as the inefficiency is being balanced out by abandoned bases. I'm worried about the inefficiency being bigger than that produced by abandoned bases. The only reason it was fine during the holidays was everyone was boosting their collectors. However near the end of the holidays loot seemed to dry up.

I do get your point, but it seems to me more an argument to keep the elixir and gold boosts cheap too rather than a reason to force down time. Maybe my experience was different than yours. I had 527 successful raids during the period of the cheap boosts, and I did a ton of upgrading. I probably did get less lot per raid, but the increase in raids made up for it.

I guess the question in the end is what interest is served by making us wait so long to raid? I totally get the reasons for the delays in upgrades. Who wants to wait 10 days for town hall? Or have mortars down for days. Those delays induce people to buy gems, which SC needs to keep the game going. They are not exactly hanging by a thread with over a million dollars US of income per day, but I don't begrudge them that. The game is perfectly playable for free.

But making me wait for an upgrade and making me wait for troops are very different things. Waiting for upgrades is imposing a cost for improving my village. I can convert the cost from time to money with gems.

Waiting to raid (and what else is there to do really?) is just making me wait to play the game. I can shorten that time with gems too, but it is not the same as speeding up and upgrade. It is just paying to play the game.

I am assuming that few people regularly pay to play the game. I could very well be mistaken about that. SC would certainly know. But I am certain that when people can play (raid) more often, they will spend money for gems at a much faster pace.

My own interest of course is in being able to raid more often. But I am trying to see this from SC's perspective. I don't expect them to accommodate my desires at the expense of the bottom line. But if giving me what I want would increase revenues, then it just seems like a good idea.

I don't know if SC is going to chime in here or not. This forum is on their website, so they must monitor it. In my experience, companies like SC are extremely protective of their franchise. Everything has a reason, and the game only works if a balance is maintained. They may just think that it would be too big a change to the game.

Or it may have been a test to see how cheap barracks boosts affected revenues. Given the drastic reduction in the price of barracks boosts after the promotion, I am inclined to think that we were guinea pigs, and that SC determined that a lower boost price would enhance play and increase revenues. But I think that 20 gems for 4 hours is not going to accomplish what they hope it will. So I am hoping that this makes someone reconsider the pricing of barracks boosts. It is not for me to tell them what to do, but it would be nice if they would look at it.