Best solution I could think of - To the "NEXT" complainers!

[rwelshjr]

That's not a bad concept at all sir. I think I agree with Gama that reversing it would be better. First 10 at 1000, if you get lucky great. And if you are into the very unlucky not as expensive. I think over 100 should become free since the player is probably becoming purple by that point. Give a poor dog a bone.

[Gama321]

That's not a bad concept at all sir. I think I agree with Gama that reversing it would be better. First 10 at 1000, if you get lucky great. And if you are into the very unlucky not as expensive. I think over 100 should become free since the player is probably becoming purple by that point. Give a poor dog a bone.

But the problem with that is that it achieves the opposite of what this is trying to achieve, it promotes nexting over raiding.

[iceageg]

As I have stated in other identical threads, the problem is not having enough targets that are worth raiding. It doesn't matter how much the cost of next is if the village on your screen is going to net you no gain (or a loss). If it isn't worth attacking it isn't worth attacking.

If we must include the next cost in the equation, rather than it disappearing from the game entirely put it in an invisible pot attached to the village that was skipped. That pot is added to the available loot for whoever eventualyl does attack that village. % of the pool you get could be based on % destroyed or stars or whatever. The key is that it would potentially make bases with empty collectors into viable targets.

[TheCulprit]

That's not a bad concept at all sir. I think I agree with Gama that reversing it would be better. First 10 at 1000, if you get lucky great. And if you are into the very unlucky not as expensive. I think over 100 should become free since the player is probably becoming purple by that point. Give a poor dog a bone.

If somebody needs to next so many time, they are:
a) Sniping - and the cost increase does a damn good job of demoralizing them.
b) Looking for a lot of loot - Which means they are in the wrong league or just having a bad day. Its back home and back to attacking again for them.

The biggest advantage of implementing this is that it discourages certain auto-next third party apps which next until enough loot is found...

[Paytertot]

The biggest advantage of implementing this is that it discourages certain auto-next third party apps which next until enough loot is found...

This wouldn't change anything, I next until I get a certain threshold which is the same as what a third party app would do so either way I would be losing the resources. I'm sure it is the same with a lot of other people.

[iceageg]

. . .
b) Looking for a lot of loot - ...

Which is the point of the game. "Just having a bad day" meant Sep - Dec for all TH10 and most TH9 at any trophy level most days of the week. It doesn't matter how expensive it is to hit next again if the village you are looking at does not have enough loot to justify attacking it. "Oh well, I'll just take the 50,000 elixir loss and waste this army because if I hit next again it will cost 2000g" is not how this would pan out. It would just strip more resources out of the game faster and creating a lower number of villages that are worth attacking.

Scaling up nexting costs as you skip over useless villages is a horrible idea, especially if that gold disappears out of the economy. It would only impact TH8 and higher players by making them pay more, when they need more, and have the least available for each attack . . . I don't see any universe where this qualifies as reasonable. Scaling down the cost maybe but that has its own problems.

Just need to make more bases worth attacking. As the attacker I don't care if it comes from their collectors, their storages, league bonuses, or out of the ♥♥♥♥ of a wombat superhero. It just needs to be enough to justify the army I brought with a profit of some resource. Doesn't have to be the first one but it should be in the first 20-50.