Zappers

[GameSketcher]

Not bad... but I lije how it is right now... because the lighting spells are used for: destroying CC troops, mortars, air deffenses, giving 50% by destroying for example builder's hut and stealing DE without spending too much elixir for army. With this idea the lighting spells will go down...

[jonnguy2014]

It is, IMO, a pretty fair trade....three lightning spells=54k elixir...you would need to spend a pretty long time in the clouds....
And before you say it doesn't require any strategy, barching doesn't require much strategy either

[rwelshjr]

Well no, increasing the de at lower levels seems to be the result of zapping complaints, so that it is more profitable to raid for it rather than zap a higher th, thus lowering the profitability of zapping. So no, you cannot say they are doing nothing. However people of all ths do it even now, showing that zapping itself is still profitable due to the fact it can be done together with normal raiding, is troop-free, and risk-free..

Weren't you saying before that they were not adjusting? Listening to you is like watching ping pong the way you keep changing your argument for whoever you are arguing with? (How many guys here are you arguing with anyhow? I lost count)

And as to your second point, all I said is that they didn't say they wouldn't change it, you are the one saying that's what they said so you are the one who should be showing proof no?.

Actually, I did show you a post from an SC staff member (SuperSteve) saying that they would not change it. Your argument to that was to the effect that SuperSteve does not understand the game and was wrong. Now you are back to saying that you need to see that. This is like what I said above that you are like ping pong.

Also as I said, the reason to not change it is so that people have the freedom to do what they want, similar to how they can upgrade whatever they want. That seems far more plausible than your argument of it being intentional is some way. That being said things need to be balanced sometimes, which is what people are asking for. Similar to how people wanted hogs or witches to be nerfed, and are currently asking for hounds to be balanced too.

YES!!!, he does admit this is about balancing. After all that earlier argument and demand that we show proof he finally owns up to it. yay.

And yes, the zapping is a form of balance. To your point that they want everyone to be able to make choices in the game they have structured it so that every choice has both an upside and a downside. (and you can't stand it, you want the freebie so bad) For pushing down the loot penalty plus the zapping are the counterbalances to being able to raid with impunity and be immune to attack from your peers. From there we are all free to pick our poison.

Also when you went with the 'you are a liar' approach it was to dodge a question I put on the table - Are you saying that you prefer having a raid take all your available resources vs a zap to take just a part of them? Raid for all or zap for part, its and easy question.

I add a second one - How many people are you arguing with now? I really did lose count. (You did not argue directly with SuperSteve but count him as one since you said he was incorrect too)

[WarrenJames]

TL-DR. Didn't care from day one... wait it still listed as only a day old!

But it is still too much too fast, and like hell I'm going to read through a thread, rehashing the same stuff, again, all over again, again, for the second time this week again.

Almost wish my idea threads go a fraction of the attention this silly thing got.

Then again, wouldn't want the wrong kind of attention, since I actually want to some kind progress to be done.

Still, a bit surprised at how explosive this thread is.

And... may not come back here to read the responses.

Good bye, and good luck. Don't forget there are other threads in this forum.

[rwelshjr]

TL-DR. Didn't care from day one... wait it still listed as only a day old!

But it is still too much too fast, and like hell I'm going to read through a thread, rehashing the same stuff, again, all over again, again, for the second time this week again.

Almost wish my idea threads go a fraction of the attention this silly thing got.

Then again, wouldn't want the wrong kind of attention, since I actually want to some kind progress to be done.

Still, a bit surprised at how explosive this thread is.

And... may not come back here to read the responses.

Good bye, and good luck. Don't forget there are other threads in this forum.

The formula is you get one angry guy going off really full of it and it turns into entertainment. Because the guy is full of it its easy for everyone to keep throwing arguments on the table so that he starts messing up and also gets mad to where his tone goes out of w♥♥♥♥ making everything he writes come out as a put down. That's easily sustained entertainment.

I have supported some of your ideas not for entertainment but because I thought you had a good point. And I have seen others do the same. That's more powerful actually even if it amounts to less noise. You should be happy.

[WarrenJames]

I'm glad I got feedback, yes

But can't blame a guy for wanting more (OK, maybe you can, but still..)

I do have to admit I have not seen a thread explode like this in quite sometime. And because of so much to read, and so many posts made, and the (assumed) subject matter, I'm just going to stay out of it. Contrary to popular belief, I can only read so much so fast. And occasionally I still run into issues with reading, dispite being mostly over my dyslexic issues.

[Gama321]

Weren't you saying before that they were not adjusting? Listening to you is like watching ping pong the way you keep changing your argument for whoever you are arguing with? (How many guys here are you arguing with anyhow? I lost count)



Actually, I did show you a post from an SC staff member (SuperSteve) saying that they would not change it. Your argument to that was to the effect that SuperSteve does not understand the game and was wrong. Now you are back to saying that you need to see that. This is like what I said above that you are like ping pong.


YES!!!, he does admit this is about balancing. After all that earlier argument and demand that we show proof he finally owns up to it. yay.

And yes, the zapping is a form of balance. To your point that they want everyone to be able to make choices in the game they have structured it so that every choice has both an upside and a downside. (and you can't stand it, you want the freebie so bad) For pushing down the loot penalty plus the zapping are the counterbalances to being able to raid with impunity and be immune to attack from your peers. From there we are all free to pick our poison.

Also when you went with the 'you are a liar' approach it was to dodge a question I put on the table - Are you saying that you prefer having a raid take all your available resources vs a zap to take just a part of them? Raid for all or zap for part, its and easy question.

I add a second one - How many people are you arguing with now? I really did lose count. (You did not argue directly with SuperSteve but count him as one since you said he was incorrect too)

No I didn't say they were not adjusting. Yes of course it is about balancing, but not about leagues and whatever you keep arguing, which is what I asked you to show proof of. The only upside to being able to zap is being free to raid how you want, not some ♥♥♥♥ about being immune that you keep bringing up that I have already proved to be false (Champ is actually the safest due to the 1 cup th snipes). Reducing the profitability of zapping doesn't take away this freedom however, and what needs to be balanced is this profitability.

That question was already answered also, I told you I would prefer to be raided. As everyone seems to prefer, otherwise the people making zapping threads would also make complaint threads whenever anyone takes their resources. The fact that they don't answers your question doesn't it?

Just to add, not once did I say that Steve was wrong.

The only ping pong is in your head due to your inability to comprehend basic English. All that I am saying is that there is no actual plus side to zapping, and even removing it completely wont have any negative repercussions as you seem to imply.

That narrows down the discussion as to whether zapping is OP or not only.
On the one side there are various costs and many people claim it doesn't happen to them that much, making it a moot point to change it.
On the other people claim it does happen enough to warrant change, many people still recommend it, and it doesn't even take troops making it a simple trade you can do on the side of normal raiding that doesn't have any risk at all.