Combine builder on upgrade and buildings

[Mysteries1337]

Hi! I have an idea for the builders: when we are doing an upgrade or building something new, make possible to put more than one builder on it.

Let me explain.
An upgrade that needs three days to complete could be done with two, three, four or even five builders at the time and it would takes less time then usually.

Example: everytime you add a builder, the time could be reduce of 25%. So, if it takes three days, then with a second one: it would takes 54hours. With a third one: 41h30min. With a fourth one: 30h45min.

So everytime we use another builder, it takes 25% less time, or another pourcentage like 15% or 10%, but 25% was a good example.

Thanks

[Julezwatts]

Hi and welcome to the forums!
Your 'multiple builders' idea is great, but it can be abused. and it's been ruled out by Supercell, probably for one of the following reasons:
1. Players would stack builders instead of buying gems
2. Supercell would lose profits due to decreased gem sales.
For a list of more ruled out ideas, and advice on how to post, please read the sticky by clicking HERE.

Please be sure to read the stickies before posting in or creating a new thread, in order to avoid posting ruled- out ideas or posting against the forum rules. Clash On!

[Mysteries1337]

Hi and welcome to the forums!
Your 'multiple builders' idea is great, but it can be abused. and it's been ruled out by Supercell, probably for one of the following reasons:
1. Players would stack builders instead of buying gems
2. Supercell would lose profits due to decreased gem sales.
For a list of more ruled out ideas, and advice on how to post, please read the sticky by clicking HERE.

Please be sure to read the stickies before posting in or creating a new thread, in order to avoid posting ruled- out ideas or posting against the forum rules. Clash On!

Well for those reasons, we could pay gem to combine builder: a second one for 20 gems; a third one for 35; a fourth one for 45 and a fifth one for 55. Or something like that.


And about not repeating what it been already wrote, i tried to see about if my idea was or wasn't already mentioned in other topics, but I stop searching after 10 pages of threads with the word "builder" in it.

[Diakonos]

Read the sticky linked earlier. You'll find it outruled there.

[justinhu]

And about not repeating what it been already wrote, i tried to see about if my idea was or wasn't already mentioned in other topics, but I stop searching after 10 pages of threads with the word "builder" in it.

Cough, COUGH. This idea has been suggested hundreds of times with each being shot down.Ruled out =NEVER GONNA HAPPEN

[Superfire]

This has been ruled out

[rahly]

I know this has been shot down, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents at it.

I think this could be a great feature, if balanced correctly.

#1 Instead of halving time for every builder, do something like 70%. i.e. ((.70 ^ (# builders -1)) * CurrentBuildTime)

1 Builder = 7 days.
2 Builders = 4 Days 21 Hours 36 mins
3 Builders = 3 Days 10 Hours 19 mins 12 seconds
4 Builders = 2 Days 9 Hours 37 mins 26 seconds
5 Builders = 1 Day 16 Hours 20 mins 16 seconds

This would allow for the "fast" building of certain buildings, but be an overall drawback to using multiple builders. i.e. using 5 builders to build 5 structures at 7 days each would comes to 8 days 9 hours and 2 seconds, which would be actually LONGER than if you built each structure with only 1 builder each. This allows you to sacrifice overall base building for making some structures sooner than later.

They could also institute a resource cost of say 20%, so for every builder, it costs you 20% of the total resources to add the builder to it (4 would make a max of 80%). If it costs 1,000,000, its costs 1,200,000 for 2 builders and 1,800,000 for 5 builders.

Its also possible to say maybe some buildings cannot have multiple builders, like the Town Hall.

#2 Recovery cost penalty, decrease amount recovered based on number of builders assigned to task, 50% for 1, 40% for 2, 30% for 3, 20% for 4, 10% for 5. This would also make it harder to assign builders to tasks knowing if you need to cancel you lose that much more.

If they had a resource cost for adding builders, they could leave this at 50%, because say if an upgrade was 1 million gold, at 20%, it would be 200,000 to add a builder, to add 4 would be 800,000. So if you spent 1.8 million gold and canceled, you'd only get 50% of the initial cost, 500,000. So you lost 1.3 million in resources for canceling with 5 builders, but only 500,000 for canceling with 1.

#3 Gem cost for finishing the upgrade, should be whatever the time left cost is multiplied by number of builders. This makes it more costly the more builders you add to the task.

As Above
1 Builder = 7 days = 1000 * 1 = 1000 Gems
2 Builders = 4 Days 21 Hours 36 mins = 741 Gems * 2 = 1482 Gems
3 Builders = 3 Days 10 Hours 19 mins 12 seconds = 559 * 3 = 1677 Gems
4 Builders = 2 Days 9 Hours 37 mins 26 seconds = 432 * 4 = 1728 Gems
5 Builders = 1 Day 16 Hours 20 mins 16 seconds = 343 * 5 = 1715 Gems

(1 hour left at 5 Builders would be 20 Gem * 5, or 100 Gems to finish) Also, at 5 builders, they would have to wait 22 hours to pay the 1000 cost (18 Hours, 20 mins, 44 seconds) they would have paid initially)

This makes it cheaper for people to not use multiple builders and they still rake in the same amount of money, with the possibility that someone is going to pay more because they used multiple builders.

A little discount if they go to 5(still costs more than with 1 builder), but this could be offset if there was resource costs

They could just also assume gem prices as if only 1 builder is assigned, so no matter how many builders you throw at it, it would still cost 1000. With the benefit that gem "cost" will go down faster.

Sorry, I know they probably won't do it, but just wanted to voice my ideas. I thought that this would make building strategies far more complex.

I think this would A) allow gem users to play the game as they normally do, multiple builders would actually be a hindrance B) allow players to sacrifice if needed/wanted overall build time for a more immediate return. I.e. upgrade camps faster knowing it'll take longer to say build barracks later.

[bnb525]

If it's ruled out they're aware of it. They don't need more ideas on how to include it in the game, if they do want to do it in first place