Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Why a cooldown on hammer of heroes?

  1.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #31
    Kaptain Kat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Rundum Hause
    Posts
    12,035
    Quote Originally Posted by BloodyIrishman View Post
    This was at the very beginning and is an official answer.

    Why is this still being debated? lol
    Thats a good question...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bhargav97 View Post
    Thank you for reverting Darian.

    I don't think most CoC players would feel like "oh dang I'm maxed there's nothing to do anymore", instead I feel that's when the real strategy game starts. You get to play with and against maxed out offence and defense and become better at strategy with practice.

    If someone has worked hard to earn their medals why stop them from using it the way they want?

    Somebody gave an example of $2500 worth beer at once or $500 worth beer every week which is kind of in line with your argument Darian but at the same time this example also brings out a fallacy in the analogy. I'm not going to throw up and go numb if I max my heroes sooner, instead I'd be more active as I'll be honing my attack skills.

    Sorry to disagree Darian but only the revenue implication argument makes sense here. If it is really not the case, I urge you to reconsider this cooldown.
    You’re making assumptions based on 0 proof just because it’s “what you think”.
    Now here’s my experience and I have been going from a maxed base to a maxed base a long time, whenever I reach that state of being maxed my active play time and engagement with the game considerable drops.
    So I think that huge groups of players do drop off the grid if there’s nothing to do.
    See how that works with “I think”. Now we have 2 contradicting statements.

    This cooldown is really only an issue for players reaching maxed on a regular bases. For other players they can’t earn medals faster then they can spend them. SC never wanted players to hammer through an entire update worth of content with a bag full of medals.

    The reasons why SC implemented this isn’t a matter of “agreeing or not” it’s not a case of opinion. Only they can know the reasons and the rest of us can guess until SC share their motives. Which they have done on this matter. They don’t want players to burn through an entire update with hammers. (And yes a certain group of players gems through an update but that’s usually a quite different group of players).

    Im quite sure SC has the data of player involvement with the game when new updates are released and when players reach maxed base etc and such things had a direct influence on making this decision.

    You can urge them all you want but they won’t reconsider. In fact such urging may play out to be very bad. They could’ve just hugely reduced the number of medals we can store for example. And you sure as heck don’t want that.

    Thank you! ClashOfHolmes for an awesome sig!

    Just call me K, my name is too difficult to spell.
    Hay Day | Level: 120 | # VL8GVUL | Main Hay Day Topics | Forum Rules | HD Wiki
    Clash of Clans | Level: lost count at 200 | #Y0VJUJG

  2.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #32
    Darian[Supercell]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Under a Rock.
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhargav97 View Post
    Thank you for reverting Darian.

    I don't think most CoC players would feel like "oh dang I'm maxed there's nothing to do anymore", instead I feel that's when the real strategy game starts. You get to play with and against maxed out offence and defense and become better at strategy with practice.

    If someone has worked hard to earn their medals why stop them from using it the way they want?

    Somebody gave an example of $2500 worth beer at once or $500 worth beer every week which is kind of in line with your argument Darian but at the same time this example also brings out a fallacy in the analogy. I'm not going to throw up and go numb if I max my heroes sooner, instead I'd be more active as I'll be honing my attack skills.

    Sorry to disagree Darian but only the revenue implication argument makes sense here. If it is really not the case, I urge you to reconsider this cooldown.

    Even though Kat already closed the thread, I will address this reply and hopefully this will be the final word on the matter for now. Players look at games through a very specific lens of what they get out of the game. Game devs have to look at the game through multiple lenses and the overall ecology of the game. Because players tend to look at the game through what they want and how they play, when something feels contrary to that it's understandable why you feel it might be "wrong".

    Case in point, you're looking at it through the lens of a war player. Even though warring does constitute a large percentage of the game, those who completely max out make up a very small percentage of the total user base. For the vast majority of the player base, the primary enjoyment and activity of the game is progression. If our data scientist was in the office I would tap him on the shoulder to confirm the exact percentage but if I remember correctly, after analyzing polls and user activity over 85% of players stated or showed that progression is the most important thing to them in the game.

    When we release new content, it's important to make sure players have content to progress towards. Now before anyone twists my words, this doesn't mean we try to keep everyone on a grinding treadmill; it just means we want players to know there will always be more content available in the future as we will keep adding more and more as long as Clash is around. We put a lot of time into developing new content, and we've also implemented ways for players to progress faster that ever before. However, this doesn't mean we want players to completely skip the content either. Clash is a marathon, not a sprint, and we develop it from that perspective. There is no prize for getting there first...but there are prizes for being the best.

    But going back to what I was originally saying, because we view the game from a different and wider lens, I can understand why you might feel differently. Of those players who view progression as one of the most important parts of the game, when they do run out of content many do churn (stop playing) until more content becomes available. Conversely, those players who do not see progression as the most important and prefer to do warring, friendly wars, etc. do not generally churn when they max out. So we have to look at which one will keep players active and engaged without churning. If we did not cap the number of Hammers, we simply couldn't release content as quickly as players would blast through it, thus leading to many players churning.

    Hope that explains a bit more.
    AKA Tank Puppy
    https://twitter.com/Devourlick

    If you have account-related questions like account bans or Supercell ID issues, please contact Player Support at this link. Please note that Community Managers and Forum Moderators are unable to assist or answer any account-related questions.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •