Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: An Exciting Collaboration Proposition Between Players, Content Creators & Devs

  1. #21
    Junior Member Stunner9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoio View Post
    I really dislike this idea, the whole Content Creator thing ugh... I don't like it, and a good majority of the playerbase probably don't like either. Also making it p2w doesn't help at all. That said, the concept of consecutive battles is kinda fun, maybe it could be salvaged.

    I can see an event where you need to 3 star a base to progress to the next one and so forth. However, I feel like this is just the campaign mode with a limited time tag.
    I respect your different opinion on Content Creator, but I humbly disagree.

    Regarding it being Pay2Win, well this point is TOTALLY OPPOSITE in this case, this mode tests your skill, you CANNOT GEM your progress here, you need to get it right the first time only. If anything, this mode is Anti-Pay2Win.

    Admission cost is for balancing game economy & casual participation, I still feel that’s the case, ultimately if ever Supercell decides to give it a try, they are completely free to tweak it the way they wish, merely my perception and Idea.

  2. #22
    Centennial Club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    116
    I like this idea, brings to the game a new way to play it. However, i don't like the "elitist" way to play it you propose.

    Imo, it would be better a lower admission cost. Maybe, 300 gems. So, people without so many skills would participate and try, because they do not lose so much and they can win a prize. This way you make the gamemode open for any player.

    Also, I think it would be more interesting to select some preset troops instead of creating your own army. I mean, if I have only one army for the entire challenge, I would do a spam army to always do at least 60%. However, if you have to choose three types of armies for every base, would be more interesting and challenging.

    Maybe would be great, instead of asking content creators to design layouts, coping some layouts of players in the game, to not depend of content creators.

    Obviously these are my ideas. I like your idea so much, would bring a fresh way to play the game. Just a few changes, and would be perfect.

  3. #23
    Forum Superstar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    3,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Stunner9 View Post
    Your point about several people enrolling is already addressed in Original post, the “List system” is precisely for that, you never know which list you are going to get.
    As to rewards being gemfest & open to all point, this concept is designed as a High Risk , High Reward System, you effectively get nothing till you beat lvl 3, you are in a loss below that, reason as stated earlier to Balance economies of scale for Supercell. One of reasons for opposing open entry is for that purpose only, keeping in mind game economy.

    As per videos surfacing point, NDA was there for that only, still in today’s digital age, even me or you cannot rule out the possibility of collusion/leak.

    Lastly, this is a One time per month opportunity, you can only enter once per month by paying 500 gems , regardless of the amount of gems you have.
    It isnt about the amount of gems you have, it is about the number of accounts. Many have 20 or more accounts.
    OP Defense: Any defense the poster doesn’t like or know how to work around, nullifies their attack or denies them their rightful three star.

  4. #24
    Junior Member Stunner9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by DaniexxProx View Post
    I like this idea, brings to the game a new way to play it. However, i don't like the "elitist" way to play it you propose.

    Imo, it would be better a lower admission cost. Maybe, 300 gems. So, people without so many skills would participate and try, because they do not lose so much and they can win a prize. This way you make the gamemode open for any player.

    Also, I think it would be more interesting to select some preset troops instead of creating your own army. I mean, if I have only one army for the entire challenge, I would do a spam army to always do at least 60%. However, if you have to choose three types of armies for every base, would be more interesting and challenging.

    Maybe would be great, instead of asking content creators to design layouts, coping some layouts of players in the game, to not depend of content creators.

    Obviously these are my ideas. I like your idea so much, would bring a fresh way to play the game. Just a few changes, and would be perfect.
    Firstly a big thanks for liking the concept & your valuable comment.

    It felt good that someone touched the technical aspect of the challenge in army area. Allow me to address your issue.

    If you re-read the original post, you will understand that spamming attacks won't work here, you may get upto 60% say if you are really good at it, but beyond that for requirements of 70 and above % in later levels of the challenge, it will take pure skill.

    The idea was to have one army throughout the challenge but give the player the Option to Change troops worth a certain housing space Twice in the whole challenge, so you have flexibility.

    But what this challenge tests is your ability to time those 2 changes perfectly, it gives you the ammunition but let's you decide when to use it. Hope you get my point.

    Regarding Preset Troops , if allowed, it would restrict people with that army for that level & would be very much similar to Special TH challenges we have sometimes.

    The aim here was to allow players to play to their strengths, let them choose their army but also give them limited flexibility to make necessary changes.

    As for content creators I have already said so many times in past that they can be mere launchers, after that the Community can take up from there. Guess I need to edit my original post now

    Now for Elitist view, NO , as per me , it is like a gamble for players( used to explain idea, doesn’t mean I support or endorse it ) whether you want that book of heroes worth 500 gems or Can you survive a challenge & win almost 5* times the value.

    The target audience was carefully chosen as TH12/13 & 14 because :

    By that time people are very much familiar with the game, have troops of good level, are in a better position to decide whether to take the risk and attempt it or not. Moreover the much reduced price of 500 gems suits both game economy and players.

    Even if you are totally Free2Play , and play sensibly, as per my estimate , an average TH12/13/14 would have 500 gems as saving at the very least.

    If I were to consider lower Th or newbies, that would increase the load of designing that many bases for those TH, preparing many more LISTS with those levels, also there is a concern, lower people might spend thrift in the charm of new mode, they should be conservative as per my view & use those gems to progress to higher TH faster. Again this is completely my view.

    Hope that answers your queries, if anything is still left, feel free to discuss.
    Last edited by Stunner9; 3 Weeks Ago at 05:48 AM. Reason: added my view for use of a particular word

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Stunner9 View Post
    Now for Elitist view, NO , as per me , it is a gamble for players, whether you want that book of heroes worth 500 gems or Can you survive a challenge & win almost 5* times the value.
    Big red flag right here. When you start throwing around gambling, its no longer a game mode thats allowed everywhere. Think everyone reading is has noticed you're proposing gambling and I haven't kept up to know if anyone raised this concern. Some countries won't allow any forms of gambling.

    You are essentially paying to enter a lottery to see if you can win. There is no guarantee you win anything and you can lose it all. In addition the currency to enter is the only currency you can buy directly with money.

    Think its time to evaluate if you're looking for a test of skill or a gambling ring.

    If you want a test of skill, drop the pay-to-enter. Make it free. Limit the number of losses allowed just as it is now. 1 strike or 3 strikes or however many you want. Once they reach the threshold, they are done.

    You go on and on through pages about how you want it to be skill based but you dont seem to be willing to make it accessible to the most people possible. What if the best player doesn't have the gems to enter? Do they pay for it or are they not skilled because they can't pay? Right now this idea is 100% Elitist as much as you deny it. You classify skill as those who can afford it.

  6. #26
    Junior Member Stunner9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by chased123456 View Post
    Big red flag right here. When you start throwing around gambling, its no longer a game mode thats allowed everywhere. Think everyone reading is has noticed you're proposing gambling and I haven't kept up to know if anyone raised this concern. Some countries won't allow any forms of gambling.

    You are essentially paying to enter a lottery to see if you can win. There is no guarantee you win anything and you can lose it all. In addition the currency to enter is the only currency you can buy directly with money.

    Think its time to evaluate if you're looking for a test of skill or a gambling ring.

    If you want a test of skill, drop the pay-to-enter. Make it free. Limit the number of losses allowed just as it is now. 1 strike or 3 strikes or however many you want. Once they reach the threshold, they are done.

    You go on and on through pages about how you want it to be skill based but you dont seem to be willing to make it accessible to the most people possible. What if the best player doesn't have the gems to enter? Do they pay for it or are they not skilled because they can't pay? Right now this idea is 100% Elitist as much as you deny it. You classify skill as those who can afford it.
    Cherry Picking certain words my dear friend used purely to explain an idea , don’t necessarily mean I suggest or endorse it.

    I do hope you have played certain trading card mobile games from very popular developers , since we are not allowed to name them here, you might get an idea that they have similar concept and yes wether you like it or not, they do have a premium currency which is used to play them. This is a game mode, it is NOT the Core Game concept, that will always be upgrading & clan wars.

    I have never been hell bent on anything, I have purely tried to explain my view as to why I have put a certain restriction, and from day one or my Original post, I have always maintained if ever devs try to implement it, they are free to tweak it the way they want.

    What I have laid is the foundation, ultimately it is the great developers at Supercell who may design a building on it.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Stunner9 View Post
    Cherry Picking certain words my dear friend used purely to explain an idea , don’t necessarily mean I suggest or endorse it.

    I do hope you have played certain trading card mobile games from very popular developers , since we are not allowed to name them here, you might get an idea that they have similar concept and yes wether you like it or not, they do have a premium currency which is used to play them. This is a game mode, it is NOT the Core Game concept, that will always be upgrading & clan wars.

    I have never been hell bent on anything, I have purely tried to explain my view as to why I have put a certain restriction, and from day one or my Original post, I have always maintained if ever devs try to implement it, they are free to tweak it the way they want.

    What I have laid is the foundation, ultimately it is the great developers at Supercell who may design a building on it.
    You didn't just compare it, you said it is gambling. Thats not cherry picking.you even said it is gambling to you. If you dont endorse your own views then theres a larger problem here: the creator doesn't believe in their idea.

    Part of what the forums are for is discussion. An idea is more likely to gain support or be seen if the idea has merit. Being able to change the idea and acknowledge weaknesses and discuss how to fix them is how it goes from an idea where people are skeptical to an idea thats supported.

    If you take the time to read through the thread, one of the biggest losses of support of your idea is the pay to enter feature. While popularity doesn't always make an idea good, perhaps if everyone feels the concept is a P2W feature its worth listening.

    Of course the developers have final say. No one here claims they don't so bringing it up seems redundant. The real purpose of the discussion isn't a debate on final say, its a discussion about what shortcomings and merits the idea has. However, if youre no longer willing to address these, perhaps the thread has run its course and no longer has anywhere to go.

  8. #28
    Junior Member Stunner9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by chased123456 View Post
    You didn't just compare it, you said it is gambling. Thats not cherry picking.you even said it is gambling to you. If you dont endorse your own views then theres a larger problem here: the creator doesn't believe in their idea.

    Part of what the forums are for is discussion. An idea is more likely to gain support or be seen if the idea has merit. Being able to change the idea and acknowledge weaknesses and discuss how to fix them is how it goes from an idea where people are skeptical to an idea thats supported.

    If you take the time to read through the thread, one of the biggest losses of support of your idea is the pay to enter feature. While popularity doesn't always make an idea good, perhaps if everyone feels the concept is a P2W feature its worth listening.

    Of course the developers have final say. No one here claims they don't so bringing it up seems redundant. The real purpose of the discussion isn't a debate on final say, its a discussion about what shortcomings and merits the idea has. However, if youre no longer willing to address these, perhaps the thread has run its course and no longer has anywhere to go.
    One is free to perceive whatever they wish, I have already given my explanation & don't intend to elaborate it on usage of a particular word to compare. Nothing fruitful will come out of it.

    As to thread running it's course, I would let the community or mods rather decide it.One can't please all always.

    I am however both amused & sad seeing the approach "When you have nothing constructive to add, just burn the whole thing down" (Pun intended )

    For the last time on cost issue, I have neither in past supported nor in future support the view that Developers go broke in trying to appease a mass crowd . From a game development perspective it takes awful amount of time, energy in designing & developing something, to do it entirely for free, distorts game economy, hampers game development.

    Even Clash of Clans currently has a cost attached to almost everything, if one searches to attack, you pay a small amount of gold, to participate in Cwl, you need 15,30 preset players, rest have to be left out, no matter how competent they may be, hard choices have to be made.

    Not everything's free in life & it shouldn't be either as per me. And yes, I personally come from an average financial status family & have encountered numerous hardships , but still feel things should be earned.


    That being said, I rest my case, because any further discussion would drift off the game mode topic and I certainly don't want that.

Posting Permissions

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