Monkey Theory: Is the step between troops to big?

[Siv75]

Couldn't agree more with your OP.

In fact, I can say the only appeal for TH9 is the defence. The offense bit really makes no difference, except if you're farming ... then its actually a worser experience ... LOL

The part I like most is the fact you highlighted about the missing middle ground. There's good beginner units, and quite nice premium units. However, the mid level units are quite useless due to severe impracticality or effectiveness.

Maybe Supercell can also explore updates of units differently. For example, give new abilities to that unit instead of just providing higher DPS and Hit points. For example, lvl 6 wizards who can conjust other types of spells. Wizards are cool in starcraft, they can conjur more than one type of spell. They can even combine in pairs and become a super wizard. That depth kinda depth is just missing in CoC troops.

[ActionMonkey]

Thanks for all support and praise. I'm almost a bit surprised over not being shot down by some, but maybe it's coming?

Lots of interesting feedback as well. Like Djemerson's comparison between building times and troop spaces. It's a very nice example of the imbalance of tier 2 troops, why should wizards take longer to train than pekkas per troop space?

The reason I wrote this post was that we have 14 kinds of troops in this game, yet I only use 5 of them. And the same is true for the vast majority of the playerbase. (And it's pretty much the same with spells. Lightning or rage is what people use).

And as I said. I am fine with certain troops being for high-end use only. Dragons, Pekkas and Golems should be expensive and take lots of time to train. I understand that SC want the profits from the players gemming of these troops. But even if you discount those three tropps there's 11 left (yes I know many high-end players use wizards, but they doesn't have to be for high-end use only just because they do - they could be used by both high-end and the levels slightly lower imo).

So out of 11 "normal" troops I use 5. And so does "everyone" else. That's a lot of game-designing going down the drain really. I mean, what's the point with troops that almost no one use?

[Aizen]

Weird how I was thinking exactly this, then come on to the forums and see this instantly. Agree 100%

[CheekyMonk3y]

As someone else mentioned, I really like the idea of middle tier troops using elixir cost to balance out power level while lowering training times to be realistic for training an army every 20ish mins. This would give farmers additional variety, but always eventually force them back to other options when they need to look for elixir. It would also keep SCs pockets lined because high level players still need to gem the elixir, so SC can make a little more on gemmed elixir and a little less on gemmed time.

Let's say a level 5 wizard was 8k elixir, but instead only took 2min to train. I will assume that people are only gemming 8M storages from empty to get the best deal.

8,000,000 elixir = 2467 gems
1,000 elixir = .308375 gems

wizard @ 8k e = 2.47 gems
wizard @ 3.5ke = 1.07 gems

Increase of 1.4 gems per wizard for training cost


For time I will assume that you are filling an army capacity of 200 spaces and then calculate the per wizard cost to gem them at both 10 min and 2 min.

200 housing/4 housing per wiz= 50 wizards
50 wizards *10min per wiz = 500 min
500 min = 96 gems
96/50 = 1.92 gems/wizard

50 wizards * 2min per wizard = 100 min
100 min = 26 gems
26/50 = .52

Decrease of 1.4 gems per wizard for training time

Thus, SC could take this approach toward balancing out the middle tier troops. They will still earn just as much from the high level players who are gemming both resources and time, while at the same time making them a viable option for the vast majority of players to use on a semi-regular basis. Now, at 2 mins someone may not be willing to gem time at all anymore, but I think that may be somewhat balanced by the intangible benefits of adding longevity to the player base through variety and increased enjoyment.

[QueenCandy]

Still waiting for Steve to notice this thread and for his input.

Also waiting for the answer to my question, have any Finland developers been kind enough to stop by the forum to let us know what's going on or to answer questions?

[Sanjakimo]

There's something that have been nagging me for a while now. But in order to let as many as possible in on my perspective I need to introduce myself. Skip that part if you don't care haha.

INTRODUCTION

I have a TH 9 that are fairly close to max in terms of buildings now. I have a few defenses left before they are max, but in terms of defensive power I am not going to see a drastic improvement on my replays, maybe excepting my level 2 crossbows going to 3 now. I almost never lose more than two out of 9 storages. And often not even that. I expect to see a few more 4-storage losses when I start the second crossbow upgrade though, but I want to get it done.

A couple of spells still need a level, and my DE troops need levelling, minions are level 5 though. Also need to level DE barracks to 4. But normal troops are maxed.

I have bought a few gems here and there. And I gem building or upgrade times now and then. Very rarely buy resources, don't even remember last time it happened.

ARGUMENTATION

I have been playing for quite a while now, my base have undergone drastic improvements over the months. The progress have been huge in terms of defensive power, and satisfaction when I watch my replays. I have gotten new, and more, toys at every level - but I still run with almost the exact same army-setup when I attack.

I use wb's, giants, barbs, archers and goblins. And heroes of course. And I have a second account on TH 7. Guess what I am building in my barracks on that base? He even have a hero to play with as well.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like my set-up. But I like it because it's the best set-up if you have my playstyle. I have tried lots of different compositions over the months. Used healer/giant a while with success. Played around with barbs/archers but couldn't stand the low power that combo have on more developed bases, even if it's nice when you attack noobs with gold walls and such.

But I have nothing to look forward to. There's not gonna be a different combo using wizards or whatever that are equally cost-, time- and power- effective. Not if you like burning bases to the ground.

THE THEORY

I think SC have made a mistake when it comes to balancing build-times, cost, and relative power of many troops. There's always going to be the high-end battles where golems, pekkas, dragons and level 30 heroes comes into play. And that level of troops are moreor less fine balance wise as far as I can see. A few players play around with them, but the vast majority of the players that use this kind of troops are rather heavy gemmers or even whales as far as I can see, and I understand that the revenues from these players are a big chunk of SC's income. And I have no problem with that. Honestly.

But there's no middle ground. That's the problem. It's either troop set-ups like mine, or troop set-ups that include the high-end troops I mentioned above.

Balloons: Not fantastic with 4 air defenses, air-mines, air-bombs, archer towers and the brand new wizard tower. They take way to much time to train, and I suspect that they maybe even should just take 3 or 4 spaces, but I'm not sure on that.

Wizards: Very nice DPS, but they also take way to much time to train. They also need a very solid meat-shield, like pekkas or golems for example, to be truly worth the elixir investment.

Healer: A what? Ah, it's dead.

Minions: Not really worth the investment in DE for a farming army. Unless you only use a few. I use them sometimes, but there's lots of things that need DE nowdays, and I need my DE for other stuff. And they are not *that* powerful with all the traps and defenses in a developed base.

Hog riders and Valkyries: Can't really say. But from the videos I have watched I don't have any hopes of ever using these for real.

So. What's left? Well, you have the exact same troops that I have been using since the dawn of time. And you play around with the compositions. You do something really crazy and outlandish and you build 14 giants in the next army!!! Or 80 goblins, what a laugh!!! Yay... Zzzzz...

I think that CoC would become more fun and therefore more successfull game if the balancing of the troops would be slightly different. Lower he costs of DE-troops 1-3 and the training time of Balloons, Healers and Wizards. And maybe nudge the cost of healers and wizards downwards. Healers also take way to much space.

I am not looking for a power-increase. I just want to see more options! If I chose between a healer or 20 archers their relative power should be close together. You want people to think like this: " Archers or wizards? Hmm, ok, I'll try a few wizzies this time, it's fun!".

I represent the other kind of paying customer. I will never ever gem troops. But I will chip in now and then. And I want to have fun!

I just agree with what you are saying, it would be cool if the meta was a bit more flexible and we could build our armies a bit more individually instead of standard cookie cutter stuff. Great post and really nice to read.

[ActionMonkey]

I just agree with what you are saying, it would be cool if the meta was a bit more flexible and we could build our armies a bit more individually instead of standard cookie cutter stuff. Great post and really nice to read.

Thanks! Yeah, wouldn't that be nice?

[Hangar18]

Still waiting for Steve to notice this thread and for his input.

Also waiting for the answer to my question, have any Finland developers been kind enough to stop by the forum to let us know what's going on or to answer questions?

I doubt it, they're all too busy counting money or panicking over why CoC has fallen in the top grosser apps list.