Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Don’t want clans to get jacked but ...

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by chased123456 View Post
    I think whats hurting this conversation is you refuse to acknowledge there are many players who have not played for years and did not sign in quarterly or semiannually during that time. There are clans who haven't done that either. However some of these players are coming back and we see them on the forums asking for help catching up. You need to consider the experience of a returning player and what your idea does to these players.

    The irony here is you complained about people not reading before rushing their answers and this is the 3rd or 4th time I've addressed returning players and you still have yet to discuss returning players in any of your responses. Instead you seem to only talk about players that are on breaks.

    Wasn’t your whole example we discussed about returning players? Players on breaks become returning players?

    I did not say “just don’t go inactive”. Active or inactive mean very different things to different people. I precisely said that only the absolute minimum activity once every 455 days is all it would take to reset the clock on the clan.

    If you mean not even such minimum activity, then a returning clasher will have problems with their clan under the current rules if they were inactive for 450 days, unless they kicked everyone before going inactive. That is the current situation. I thought we discussed this in your example.
    Last edited by Deafkate; 1 Week Ago at 06:17 PM.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajax View Post
    If Supercell want people to be able to accelerate advancement of clans, then I am sure they will introduce ways to do so.

    I am also 100% certain it would not involve your idea.

    Your idea is clearly advantageous jainly to black marketeers/scammers, which is bad for the game. Sobwhat advantage does it bring to the game which will offset that?

    Nobody here has yet given any real advantages to the game from this idea, just to a few lazy players.
    Through this thread, I have learned that there is a significant problem with scammers selling clans or tricking uninformed, gullible clashers into thinking they can buy a clan. The fact is that this is a two-sided problem. On one side scammers are going to scam. You are focusing on this side. But on the other side are a lot of “lazy, greedy, impatient” clashers looking for a way to upgrade their clan faster, which they cannot find in the game so they turn to scammer for a back door. It cannot be that there is a big problem with scammers if there are only a “few lazy players” because that would not make it worth the scammers’ effort. The observed scamming problem demonstrates that many clashers are looking for a benefit they cannot currently find in the game.

    It is not true that my proposal would be “clearly advantageous to scammers.” Basic economics says that if there is demand some one, legitimate business or scammers, will fill it. And if supply goes up, demand will decrease. In my proposal, scammers would have to compete with reasonably active clashers to scoop up inactive clans. Then they would have to hope to sell it on the black markets for more than what they paid Supercell. On a black market that would now have fewer customers since clashers would have a legitimate, in-game option. This is factually correct in contrast to your unsupported statement.

    Why are you so certain Supercell would not monetize a cost free asset sitting on their servers? If they don’t, I think that they would have missed an opportunity to enhance the community by letting active clashers build upon what came before.

    The benefits of my proposal to clashers, the Clash community and Supercell are the following:
    1. Not eradicate, but reduce black market that takes advantage of clashers.
    2. Provide reasonably active clashers an in-game option to upgrade clans faster.
    3. Give clashers more time before their clan becomes dead from the current leader rotation process.
    4. Give clashers a way to resurrect their clan if it ends up stuck with an inactive leader account.
    5. Increase the chances that a long absent clasher will return to an active clan.
    6. Enhance clan community by allowing current active clashers to build upon what came before.
    7. Supercell can monetize an asset that is sitting on their servers costing little.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Deafkate View Post
    The benefits of my proposal to clashers, the Clash community and Supercell are the following:
    1. Not eradicate, but reduce black market that takes advantage of clashers.
    2. Provide reasonably active clashers an in-game option to upgrade clans faster.
    3. Give clashers more time before their clan becomes dead from the current leader rotation process.
    4. Give clashers a way to resurrect their clan if it ends up stuck with an inactive leader account.
    5. Increase the chances that a long absent clasher will return to an active clan.
    6. Enhance clan community by allowing current active clashers to build upon what came before.
    7. Supercell can monetize an asset that is sitting on their servers costing little.
    1) it likely would boost the black market. Most players aren't interested in clan hunting. The people who would do this have the most incentive: real money.
    2) would be leveled up but would be dead and have to build from scratch which is not easy regardless of level
    3) doubt this. If all leaders and cos are inactive, I doubt many people actually stick around anyway since war and cwl would have to be skipped. If you dont want to do either of these, the current system is probably sufficient especially if there's an active elder who can accept stray requests.
    4) theres already a system in place to do just this. So this isn't a new benefit we are needing.
    5) as I discussed and you ignored, its more likely they return clanless and kicked out of the clan they built up even if they closed it.
    6) not sure this is going to be noticed let alone enhancing. Odds are its a feature few use and fewer get benefits from.
    7) they have ways to handle this. They can ban accounts that are inactive. By doing so, they can clear a clan which would delete the clan. If they monetize it like you suggest, it gives the clans a market value which is helpful if youre attempting to sell on the black market as now there is a price you can reference to prove a good deal.

  4.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Deafkate View Post
    Briefly responding to each of Ajax’s statements. I am a trainee and not as adept at the formatting as our moderator, Ajax. I have numbered the paragraphs from Ajax prior post to respond to each comment below.

    (1) Exactly. Totally agree. That is what I meant. Thank you for confirming.

    (2) You just described all of humanity and the reason Supercell, like most profitable businesses, makes money. This is a reason Supercell should offer a resurrection option to the clan life cycle. There is a need to be filled.
    It is not "all of humanity", and in a game like this, it is a relatively small proportion, and not a welcome element.

    (3) You don’t think either finding the clan active or finding a button to resurrect it is better than finding it dead?
    Finding the clan active but no longer under your control is definitely and clearly not "better" IMO. Finding it active but able to take it over again by that button is probably better for you, but then the people who have been running it for possibly many months would rightly be aggrieved.

    If the choice is between chocolate or vanilla you would rather have none. If the choice is between going to Paris or Hawaii, you would rather stay home. If the choice is between losing your eyesight or hearing, you would rather die. Under the current rules, there is a significant chance of losing a clan to an inactive leader after a long absence. The proposal adds a couple of steps to the existing leader rotation process.
    None of those are similar in any way.

    Yes, under the current rules, if a leader just becomes inactive, while leaving co-leaders/elders in place, then after three months, they will lose leadership to one of those. If they want to be sure of retaining the clan, they should either promote somebody they trust to return it to leader before they leave, or demote everybody in those positions.

    (4) You just said in paragraph (3) that “the times it would happen is minuscule” but here you say it happens so much that it increases the scammer problem. Which is it?
    It is both. Those are two different things.

    The "times it would happen are miniscule" are the times an inactive leader would return after a couple of years.

    But clans being left leaderless is rather a common issue, so this proposal would increase the scammer/black market problem

    Scammers scam because clashers are looking for an upgrade they cannot find in the game. If there is a legitimate, in-game option, reasonably active clashers will scoop up available clans as fast as scammers and not turn to black market websites.
    No, the scammers would be on the lookout far more than the players wanting those. Almost by definition, the players who want to get a clan this way are too lazy to develop their own, and not very many of them would put in the work to search for such clans themselves.

    (5) I know. That is what I am saying is part of the problem. There is a need which scammers fill. The scammers are the back door method. My proposal makes it a legitimate part of the game.
    It does, and that is the only benefit of your proposal.

    But it certainly wouldn't stop, or even slow down the scammers.

    (6) This has nothing to do with what my proposal addresses. Of course leaders can abdicate the role to others. The proposal is addressing the problem when a leader of the clan is inactive and another leader cannot be appointed. If there is an active, responsible leader then this issue doesn’t arise.
    It wasn't meant to be anything to do with your proposal. It was just a response to your statement that Supercell are restricting transfer of clans.

    (7) If the scammers are a problem Supercell wants to address then they need to provide a legitimate, in-game option to close the back door that clashers are turning to scammers for.
    Well first, this wouldn't close anything, and second, no they don't if what scammers are exploiting is something Supercell don't want to allow.

    (8) There is no certainty of this whatsoever. It is totally false that black market clans would increase. When Prohibition ended in the US there was not an increase in illegal alcohol sales. With my proposal, scammers would be competing for supply with reasonably active clashers. Then they would be hoping to sell it in a black market for more than what they just paid Supercell. Which will be risky because the black market would have fewer customers since clashers would have a legitimate, in-game option.
    There is 100% certainty that it would significantly increase the black market. It is not comparable to the end of prohibition, because at the end of prohibition, alcohol sales became legal, and it became freely and easily available to all on the regular market.

    Your proposal does not allow this. It allows people who want to put in a bit of effort to search out inactive clans to be able to join them and after a significant wait (unless they were lucky enough to find one just coming up to the claim point), claim them.

    The people wanting an already levelled up clan aren't going to be willing to wait, while the black marketeerss will have automated the process of injecting accounts into inactive clans, then checking for the claim button regularly.

    People looking for such clans want them instantly, and the black marketeers will provide that - the scammers will apparently do so, but won't actually.

    (9) Benefits to my proposal are discussed through out the thread. I will try to clearly summarize here: 1. Not eradicate, but reduce black market; 2. Provide reasonably active clashers an option to upgrade clans faster; 3. Give clashers more time before their clan becomes dead from the current leader rotation process; 4. Give clashers a way to resurrect there clan if it ends up stuck with an inactive leader account; 5. Increase the chances that a long absent clasher will return to an active clan
    1. No, it would do the opposite, as I explain above.
    2. Not really, if they have to wait quite a long time before being able to claim it.
    3. The current leadership rotation process will never cause a clan to become dead unless there are NO active co-leaders or elders left. And in that case, it will usually have all active members leave long before your proposal would kick in, since there would be nobody able to change anything or put the clan into wars.
    4. Yes, but after such a long period with no active leader, very few would have stuck it out.
    5. Yes, but as I said before, the numbers returning after such a long period will be tiny.

    1 to 3 are not valid benefits in my view. 4 & 5 are, but will benefit such a tiny number that it is not worth development, and are vastly outweighed by the inevitable increase in scamming and black marketeering.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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