Our favourite Loot improvement suggestion is...

[Bahama]

I do think "something" should happen with the nexting charge. As stated, it's to the benefit of no-one as it just vanishes.

I think donating it to the skipped base is the best use for it.

I would have to wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done to offset the effect of nexting on the available gold in the economy. It's like a slow leak that's been going since the game first launched and we're now experiencing the results.

Taken by itself, the drain on gold in the economy caused by nexting was likely acceptable to the dev team and the gaming community as well. However, when you add in the other complicating factors (and there are many) then the system just can't maintain itself and the whole thing gets thrown out of w♥♥♥♥. It's fairly difficult to predict several of these factors with any degree of certainty - player activity, effects of the "fluffy bunnies" - the dev team can tell us what is happening at any given time (or they should be able to) but predicting what will happen is like trying to forecast the weather. The farther ahead they try to project, the lower the accuracy will probably be. This is why it is so important to control the factors that they are able to. Unbalanced 'sinks' such as the nexting cost will only add more instability in what is already a fairly difficult system to regulate. So, something must be done with 'nexting' ... but what???

One suggestion is to give the nexting fee (or preferably, a portion of it) to the base that is nexted/skipped. Personally, I like this suggestion, if it is combined with the dev team's current approach of moving (much) less active villages farther back in the search queue. I think we could anticipate that some would seek to take advantage of this approach if they could be less active but still have free gold deposited in their storages on a semi-regular basis just beacuse they were skipped. If, however, the active bases were rewarded because of a good defensive layout, then this would be a better justification for giving some of the next fee to the skipped base. It would also have the added benefit of balancing out the TH sniping by providing an incentive to defend (just like a bonus for defensive wins).

[TullSadum]

I would have to wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done to offset the effect of nexting on the available gold in the economy. It's like a slow leak that's been going since the game first launched and we're now experiencing the results.

....well I am not sure about that, when the game started there was nothing above TH8, all the TH9 and 10 upgrades need way more resources, and I think that takes a much larger toll than the nexting. Compare the risen costs for higher upgrades to the risen in-flux from higher collector levels, you'll see how the one outweighs the other.
True there are more bases, and with them, more collectors with mor in-flux, but those players will want resources for their upgrades too; you see, on the whole demand has risen, offer has fallen back. Yes, there are those who have stopped playing, their demand is gone, but their offer is still there - sorry, their bases are pushed back in the matchmaking queue, so their offer left together with their demand.
All in all, yes, many complicating factors, but seen on offer-demand basis, not so complicated after all.
TS

[Bahama]

....well I am not sure about that, when the game started there was nothing above TH8, all the TH9 and 10 upgrades need way more resources, and I think that takes a much larger toll than the nexting. Compare the risen costs for higher upgrades to the risen in-flux from higher collector levels, you'll see how the one outweighs the other.
True there are more bases, and with them, more collectors with mor in-flux, but those players will want resources for their upgrades too; you see, on the whole demand has risen, offer has fallen back. Yes, there are those who have stopped playing, their demand is gone, but their offer is still there - sorry, their bases are pushed back in the matchmaking queue, so their offer left together with their demand.
All in all, yes, many complicating factors, but seen on offer-demand basis, not so complicated after all.
TS

Okay, your analysis of the exponential increase in upgrade costs after TH8 is spot-on. I think things just got too expensive too fast at TH9 and TH10 without the corresponding increase in production in some form or another (I guess collector increase or an additional level would be the most obvious way). So this is easy to see/blame for the drain on gold out of the economy. Gold is essentially no longer in the economy once it's been put in players' buildings and walls.

However, I think you're massively under-valuing the amount of gold that's removed because of nexting. Let's look at an example:

As a TH8, I pay 580 gold every time I hit that next button. I'm a fairly casual player but I check my village daily. Let's make some basic assumptions that shouldn't be too far off actual numbers. Let's say I raid 5 times a day and for each time I find a suitable raiding candidate, I have to hit next 20 times.

That's 100 * 580 = 58,000 gold that I've nexted away that day.

So in one week that's 58,000 * 7 = 406,000 gold nexted away.

And that's nearly an entire day's worth of production (~430,000) from all of my max level gold mines. And that's in my case, as a fairly casual player. I just finished the Gold Grab achievement a few weeks ago so consider those players with two, three or four times the Gold Grab amount. Imagine how many nexts it took to find all those raids. And on top of that, profiles haven't even been around since the launch of Clash! So we literally have collectively nexted away HUGE sums of gold production.

We'll never know exactly how much but I think if we were able to do a side-by-side comparison of gold demand with gold nexted away, we might find that the latter amount isn't so significantly outweighed. The scale may be more balanced than any of us realise. The difference is that gold demand is part and parcel of the game, whereas gold nexted away is just an unnecessary and unjustified loss.

[TullSadum]

hmmm...interesting math, I admit, never having done these calculations, but then again, my playing practice will not fit into that math. I do not like nexting and scarcely next more than 10 times. If I find I would need to, I change my trophy range. I will take on a raid within the first 5 nexts, but that is because I use BArch, and will settle for raids with admittedly lower loot - but therefore more often and also at low army cost weighing up for that.
On the first point, yes, that is why I also would vote for new collector levels which I have stated about three times in this thread, but which are sadly missing in the poll.
Donating the next cost to the base skipped would certainly make less interesting bases loot wise become more so much sooner. however, exploit situations need to be avoided, that is why donation must not be from a lower TH to a higher one.
TS

[Bahama]

hmmm...interesting math, I admit, never having done these calculations, but then again, my playing practice will not fit into that math. I do not like nexting and scarcely next more than 10 times. If I find I would need to, I change my trophy range. I will take on a raid within the first 5 nexts, but that is because I use BArch, and will settle for raids with admittedly lower loot - but therefore more often and also at low army cost weighing up for that.
On the first point, yes, that is why I also would vote for new collector levels which I have stated about three times in this thread, but which are sadly missing in the poll.
Donating the next cost to the base skipped would certainly make less interesting bases loot wise become more so much sooner. however, exploit situations need to be avoided, that is why donation must not be from a lower TH to a higher one.
TS

Agreed. Similar to the loot penalty, it would prevent higher TH's from sitting in a trophy range where there are more lower TH's and benefiting from a steady income of 'donated' gold from nexts.

I've found this thread to be pretty useful in getting a sense of what us Clashers feel would be the best way(s) to improve the economy. As well as some good feedback/insight into potential pitfalls for each proposed solution. Rather than just complaining about bad loot or bragging about good loot, but actually analysing the economy as-is and seeking to identify ways to better the system.

Hopefully, it gets some much-deserved attention from the dev team by way of the mods, and also helps out our fellow Clashers in the community.

[palashm]

I voted for "Remove Nexting Cost" since that's the thing I do the most on COC.
Sometimes even 100 times to find a good loot base. My finger hurts...

But I still believe in what Daddy said,

Have fun and remember it's just a game, it will all be ok in the end.

[andrgin]

If there are no nexting costs, everybody will next even more often until he finds the perfect base with 300K each and collectors outside. I think the success of raiding should not depend on how Long you want to spend nexting.

[TheOrkinMan]

Why would someone who only logs in and out want to use barch on collectors, it makes no sense at all. At th7 farming starts to get easier not harder. Most people have voted for increased collector raids because they realise that it is the most viable solution without increased spending on the game not because they are lazy.

after 2 years plus of playing IMO loot is the worst it's ever been. Even when the new loot system was introduced I was ok with it and was one of those guys that said loot is still fine. I've noticed that there's not many of those guys around anymore. Sad to see the game in this state

Because there are ppl who don't care for skilled gameplay, like building storage reaching armies. They wany clash to be As quick and easy as checking facebook. So they don't have to spend any more time on the game. I know plenty of ppl like that. They don't want to think, clash is how they relax. They don't want to take the Game as seriously as us yet they want the benefits!

[dahimi]

If there are no nexting costs, everybody will next even more often until he finds the perfect base with 300K each and collectors outside. I think the success of raiding should not depend on how Long you want to spend nexting.

Exactly. The solution isn't to reduce nexting costs or give a portion of the costs to skipped bases (an idea that has already been ruled out by SC). The solution is to present the player with a larger percentage of profitable raids. For example in Masters or Champion nearly every raid presented to the player is very lucrative, the problem is that it's less profitable to spend a bunch of time getting an army together that can raid those bases than it is to next over and over in lower leagues looking for easy targets.

They need to fix the game so that acquiring trophies and holding on to them is more profitable than dumping them.

The fact that the game for a lot of people has been reduced to hitting next until they find a base with a bunch of loot in collectors is stupid. It's this behavior that SC needs to change.

[ZombieProcess]

I definitely see the allure of an abandoned base from time to time , but it's surprising to me too that this is the option that's getting most votes at this point. I personally would prefer to rely on an increased and stable production rate or higher bonuses (that motivate me to attack) than the chance of finding an inactive base, just a personal preference


@DroogJanus, thanks for creating this thread, pretty insightful

As long as abandoned bases are 10x as fruitful as any other resource generation method in the game, they'll be the most popular way of gaining resources.