[FORUM FEATURE] Ruled Out Ideas With Explanation

[Kowalski711]

Thumbs up kowalski! Ive mentioned this stuff before on other threads because ive read one of these that give reason to why topics are ruled out, hmm that must have been justinhu's. Anyway i read it again and he said anything from that thread can be used without permission from him so i think maybe you could use them and then give acknowledgment to him in the OP.

As a side note about elixirwalls, remember that last update with the sweeper wherein you can upgrade walls with elix again? It lasted about 4 hours after the update according to my clanmates since i wasnt able to login that day. Maybe sc did it on purpose to consume the extra elixir since many people were ranting that time about too much elix. Yeah i think IFR sub was flooded with those rants before the update and i havent seen another rant about too much elix AFTER the update. So maybe sc will do random elix wall upgrades from time to time so no need to adress that i guess.

EDIT: i meant the pictures in justinhu's original thread. Maybe you could use that and just give credit to him.

I will most likely use the photos, but I'm on an iPad at the moment, so I should have them up later in the day

[Kowalski711]

Feedback/reasons anyone?

[TheProFail]

Feedback/reasons anyone?

*Add other clan requirements to apply besides trophies, ex: Specific troop lvl, TH lvl, lab lvl, game lvl

Too many restrictions, imagine all that in the clan discription, Th 10 1000 trophies lv 5 lab, 50%+ base complete

[Kowalski711]

*Add other clan requirements to apply besides trophies, ex: Specific troop lvl, TH lvl, lab lvl, game lvl

Too many restrictions, imagine all that in the clan discription, Th 10 1000 trophies lv 5 lab, 50%+ base complete

Done

10charizards

[Archimage]

Please sticky this and add a link inside main thread

[ShaneHed13]

This is a great idea in theory but in reality it is just adding opinion as to why things are ruled out, as they are opinions, not everyone shares these opinions. One for me personally (not trying to start a flame war) is the "privacy issue" with an online indicator. Most people who bring this up suggest an "appear offline" option and as people have already brought up, with enough investigation, you can figure out if someone is online anyways. Also pretty much every multiplayer game made in the last 15 years has the option yet somehow avoid the severe breach of privacy it causes... The best response I have heard (yet still don't fully think is accurate) is that it would cause stress on the servers to ping on/off line of every person in a clan with everyone else.

Anywho, I think it would be more useful to simply find the ones that SC has responded to and link the idea with SC's response. That way it came from the horses mouth rather than perhaps a vocal minority.

Some other responses after a brief glimpse that are weak at best are:

Large text for clan rules (can it not simply be made visible to people scouting the clan?)
Separate Clan Chat (it implies that leaders talking without the rest of the clan being able to see is bad? What if they are deciding who to opt out of next war and don't want to litter the regular chat with it or have people ♥♥♥♥♥ and complain? And if they are deciding who to kick, it will cause MORE drama in a separate clan tab? How? The person will be booted before they know what hit them)
Add a counter for the next available builder (Yes, there is a work around, but there is for everything, how is this a reason to NOT implement something?)

There's lots more, but I digress, none of this means anything if it isn't Supercell saying it.

[Kowalski711]

Please sticky this and add a link inside main thread

Thanks! It's already in the encyclopedia.

This is a great idea in theory but in reality it is just adding opinion as to why things are ruled out, as they are opinions, not everyone shares these opinions. One for me personally (not trying to start a flame war) is the "privacy issue" with an online indicator. Most people who bring this up suggest an "appear offline" option and as people have already brought up, with enough investigation, you can figure out if someone is online anyways. Also pretty much every multiplayer game made in the last 15 years has the option yet somehow avoid the severe breach of privacy it causes... The best response I have heard (yet still don't fully think is accurate) is that it would cause stress on the servers to ping on/off line of every person in a clan with everyone else.

Anywho, I think it would be more useful to simply find the ones that SC has responded to and link the idea with SC's response. That way it came from the horses mouth rather than perhaps a vocal minority.

Some other responses after a brief glimpse that are weak at best are:

Large text for clan rules (can it not simply be made visible to people scouting the clan?)
Separate Clan Chat (it implies that leaders talking without the rest of the clan being able to see is bad? What if they are deciding who to opt out of next war and don't want to litter the regular chat with it or have people ♥♥♥♥♥ and complain? And if they are deciding who to kick, it will cause MORE drama in a separate clan tab? How? The person will be booted before they know what hit them)
Add a counter for the next available builder (Yes, there is a work around, but there is for everything, how is this a reason to NOT implement something?)

There's lots more, but I digress, none of this means anything if it isn't Supercell saying it.

The issue is that SC has never stated any reasons. So we are all left wondering why are they ruled out. These our best guesses until SC says something (Which I personally HIGHLY doubt will happen after them not saying anything for 3 years). As for the privacy invasion, I know it's odd that they call it a privacy issue while other games do it fine, but once again, SC keeps quite...

[ShaneHed13]

Thanks! It's already in the encyclopedia.


The issue is that SC has never stated any reasons. So we are all left wondering why are they ruled out. These our best guesses until SC says something (Which I personally HIGHLY doubt will happen after them not saying anything for 3 years). As for the privacy invasion, I know it's odd that they call it a privacy issue while other games do it fine, but once again, SC keeps quite...

Well I guess what I am saying is that, in reality, there are very few downsides to implementing 75% of the "ruled out" ideas so we my as well just be pulling things out of our asses (which is what it looks like we are starting to do).

So, the idea (if I am understanding) is that this be added to the sticky so the new people, who don't look at it anyways, have a half-assed ♥♥ explanation as to why something isn't implemented.
Hey, I have a great idea, how about if someone attacks me but they are too high, I can let one of our higher level people avenge me.

Welcome to the forum new guy, please read the stickies where it clearly states SC has ruled out the idea and the main problem seems to be that a high level clan member can destroy the attacker and that will create an imbalance.

Yeah, I know a higher level guy can attack the person who attacked me, that is the point, so people think twice about bottom feeding if they can get retaliated against by someone higher. How will this create an imbalance? What if the persons name is taken off the list after they are revenged once? How am I supposed to get revenge on someone for attacking me if they are too high of level? What is the point of revenge and clans if my clan cannot support me and I cannot revenge 70% of the people who attack me and of the 30% I can, 90% are online or have a shield? Should I drop my trophy range so I have to attack 5 times to get the loot I do in 2 attacks at my current range?

[Kowalski711]

Well I guess what I am saying is that, in reality, there are very few downsides to implementing 75% of the "ruled out" ideas so we my as well just be pulling things out of our asses (which is what it looks like we are starting to do).

So, the idea (if I am understanding) is that this be added to the sticky so the new people, who don't look at it anyways, have a half-assed ♥♥ explanation as to why something isn't implemented.
Hey, I have a great idea, how about if someone attacks me but they are too high, I can let one of our higher level people avenge me.

Welcome to the forum new guy, please read the stickies where it clearly states SC has ruled out the idea and the main problem seems to be that a high level clan member can destroy the attacker and that will create an imbalance.

Yeah, I know a higher level guy can attack the person who attacked me, that is the point, so people think twice about bottom feeding if they can get retaliated against by someone higher. How will this create an imbalance? What if the persons name is taken off the list after they are revenged once? How am I supposed to get revenge on someone for attacking me if they are too high of level? What is the point of revenge and clans if my clan cannot support me and I cannot revenge 70% of the people who attack me and of the 30% I can, 90% are online or have a shield? Should I drop my trophy range so I have to attack 5 times to get the loot I do in 2 attacks at my current range?

Level 30 attacks level 29. Level 29 gets level 110 clan mate to completely decimate the level 30. Then nobody will want to attack because they will be destroyed if they do. That's the imbalance it would create.

Lets say they add resource donation.

Level 80 is struggling hard to get DE. They have a mini account which they funnel resources through. Or, they blackmail someone to donate DE.

[ShaneHed13]

Level 30 attacks level 29. Level 29 gets level 110 clan mate to completely decimate the level 30. Then nobody will want to attack because they will be destroyed if they do. That's the imbalance it would create.

Lets say they add resource donation.

Level 80 is struggling hard to get DE. They have a mini account which they funnel resources through. Or, they blackmail someone to donate DE.

Maybe you misunderstood, but I didn't ever support resource donation as the exploit ability and downside for that is pretty obvious.

On your first point though, I don't necessarily think that it would create that much of an imbalance in the game. We are dealing with a lot of "if's" in that.

If the person attacked in a high level clan
If the higher level people WANT to waste perhaps a stronger army for little/no gain
If the attacker isn't online
If the attacker doesn't have a shield
If the high level players don't already have 40 other bounties to chose from from everyone else in their clan.

Personally though, revenge is so useless in terms of anything game play wise, I could revenge every person that attacks me for a month and NOBODY is going to know I do that, nobody is going to be deincentivized to not attack me cause they don't know I do that. I could get MUCH more loot from random attacks and likely spend much less in troops doing that. At the very least, this would maybe make revenge more fun and useful but the imbalance you speak of is that there is a chance higher level people can decimate a lower town hall? How is that not already happening in the game already? Don't people search villages until they find one with a lot of loot and defenses they can take out?

I get impression that people think if this were implemented, high level people in clans will completely stop their normal farming regimen to simply spend their entire day killing low level bases for 25k in loot. I imagine it would be more liken to a mid level person taking LOTS of loot from a lower level person, and then, maybe, perhaps, a high level person will go back and attack them if ALL of the other conditions to even allow for a revenge are in place.

Just saying, this is the problem with SC's ruled out list in general and the community "guesses' as to why they are not implemented. What if every person, only once per day, could put one attack on them per day in the community hit list? I get attacked 4-5 times per day depending on my base layout. Now I pick one, and MAYBE someone will take the time and resources to avenge them.