What if i told you SuperCell DID listened to you and you are the one to blame?

[vekool]

The answer to the gemming question - as per Supercell's point of view is simple (kind of)

1) Imagine 1000 big spenders - that have spent 5000+ dollars = 5000000+ dollars
2) Now Imagine 1000000 casual spenders, that have spent 5+ dollars = 5000000+ dollars

Catering to group 1 = better chance that they will spend even more.
Catering to group 2 = less chance that they will spend any more - they are causal after all. But catering these players will result in a healthy and larger community, which indirectly caters to group 1 as well.

Group 2 wins out in the long run. Any company has to balance between these two groups. I am simplifying this too much - but the basics remain the same.

[Kirky]

I agree... i have the same problem but for me it isnt really a big problem as i am almost finished with the elixir upgrades as TH9... but i noticed this and agree your point

However, I think the ppl who complain about loot, atleast most of them say that they arent able to find the abandoned bases anymore... or am i wrong?

I think you're right most loot complaints are linked to inactives. I wasn't really intending to comment on inactives. My issue is getting past infernos to DE storages whilst also getting enough lix to support the raid. I don't need loads of lix for updates now though as I only have gobs, zap and jump to max and I'm kinda meh! about whether to do them.

But on inactives, in my view SC are simply never going to "release" loads of inactives into the game. Some players want to go on boost barch 300k plus of each 15 or more times an hour to net around 5m per hour. This is never going to happen.

[Kirky]

All those numbers and assumptions you made are useless. You obviously don't know how 'free' to play works.

Care to explain the flaw instead of just asserting that it is wrong?

[Perseverance]

Let me do some math here to settle the question of whether casual gemmers or gem-max-base-and-gem-troops-to-champs are more profitable in the eyes of SC. DISCLAIMER: This math is only expected to produce a ballpark estimation here.

Let's say that 0.1% of all players are Champs and that there are about two million active players right now. That would mean that there are 2000 Champs total. If half of those are farmers and half of those are hardcore gemmers, then there are 1000 hardcore gemmers in Champs. If each of them spends $1000 a week on gems, then Supercell makes two million dollars a week off of hardcore gemmers in Champs.

I seem to recall that Supercell's profits are in the range of FIVE million dollars a DAY. Unless there are a BUCKETLOAD of hardcore gemmers outside of Champs it really can't be profitable to cater to them more than the average player.

All of the bold print is assumptions and made up figures backed with zero data.

[Lloopy14]

You see that's exactly where you're wrong. They do make a killing off of the top players who dish out thousands. There goes your whole argument.

You need proof of this? Do the math and see how many gems it takes to max out a base. Then, ask some champions level no-lifers how many gems a month it takes to stay relevant. Now, multiply that by the number of no-lifers there are, and voila, you've got a huge profit off of these people. Like I said, they make a killing. You don't need actual numbers to define, a killing. One can infer based on prior knowledge and common sense.

I never stated that their profits are mainly from top players. I said they make a killing off of them. Do you really need exact numbers or percentages to know that they make a good profit off of high level players? You can't put two and two together with some common sense?

And what is it with you and your weird random arguing subjects? You're like that guy who asks SC for your countries flags while the game is falling apart. What is your motive here? You really just like to argue, don't you?

All those numbers and assumptions you made are useless. You obviously don't know how 'free' to play works.

All of the bold print is assumptions and made up figures backed with zero data.

I think that your last point summarises all of your posts in this thread.

[zzzander]

I agree.

I still love this game and loot isn't really a problem for me...

TH8 Speaking here. Average 400k of each - nexting about 20 bases

Where are you at?! Loot league I or what?

[Bresn]

Counter argument.

1) The arguments with offense and defensive stuff is minor compared with loot issues on this forum
2) Supercell has failed to add all major suggestion requested by the community.
3) Instead, they add really minor stuff nobody cares about because A) Useless or B) Too minor to be useful.

[Perseverance]

Where are you at?! Loot league I or what?

Average 400k lol. He's trolling. Probably Coathanger's 21st account.

[NioTheDreamer]

not trying to contradict you, but according to me the reasons of what you said were different from SC point of view... but this is just my opinion...

I don't consider those contradictions, just your take on it.

I wasn't posing my opinions on it, so much as pointing out some of the history.

I personal can't deny some merit to those that point out the subtle, non conspiracy, theories behind updates.


I just think the argument that SC doesn't use there customers ideas is impossible to support. As one of the posters pointed out with such a large customer base its almost a given that some of this stuff would be related to consumer feedback.

[Smalls]

The fact is SuperCell chooses what they fix based on how it will do one of two things:
1. Increase short term profit.
2. Increase the life of the game.

There have been thousands (literally) of posts on ideas to improve the economy since they ruined it with the December update and the pushing back of inactive in the queue (even though they know that the entire game's economy runs on inactives). But has anything been done until this very last update where they raised the league bonus? Nope. Nothing. Because it didn't help their bottom line.

They implemented the cheaper boosts because back before December, no one boosted their barracks to farm. They were literally seeing zero gem sales for boosting. So they implemented a system where it was much tougher to get ahead unless you gem your barracks. Everyone was happy, ppl could raid more cuz they can afford to gem their barracks and SuperCell made more money.

Then we have clan wars. Where we were told by Steve that our heroes would be available for attack while upgrading. Of course that was not true. Heroes aren't available on offense. Only on defense. Which pretty much ruins clan wars for th10s that want to upgrade heroes (I see almost zero successful offenses against th10s without both heroes unless it's a bad base design). The only logical conclusion anyone can come to is that they were afraid people would stop gemming heroes if they were available on offense. The motives are as plain as day.

Now let's talk about the hog nerf. Hogs were nerfed not because of people complaining (my th9 base never got 3 starred by hogs, the fact is that if you built a good base, you could beat hogs). There were tons of ppl also saying hogs are fine, just build a better base. They got nerfed because they only take 2 minutes to train. No gems needed to use them.

I've seen tons of people call for a nerf of dragons, but it will never happen. And it won't because they take forever to cook. Which means people gem them!!!!! If it takes gems, it won't get nerfed. If it doesn't take gems....it will get nerfed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything SuperCell does is wrong. The boost cost difference was one of the best things they ever did. But let's not be naive here and think they make these changes out of the goodness of their heart.