Gems to use heroes in war

[webbie]

Just keep them in war. And also keep them the same level. That ends them having to change anything. It's simple. It would make everything a lot easier on ebpveryone and a lot of people have very good points, unlike what you're saying which is irrelivant

Not sure what you are saying here but I think it is that we should all be able to use heroes in wars.

My point is this has one big negative and that is people paying gems so they can use their heroes and they would lose that gem revenue if they allowed it. What I'm suggesting gives an alternative revenue stream that would rely on a higher percentage of the players paying a smaller amount of gems to use their heroes.

[Rahle]

Not sure what you are saying here but I think it is that we should all be able to use heroes in wars.

My point is this has one big negative and that is people paying gems so they can use their heroes and they would lose that gem revenue if they allowed it. What I'm suggesting gives an alternative revenue stream that would rely on a higher percentage of the players paying a smaller amount of gems to use their heroes.

I don't think it would be a loss at all. The gems will still be being used, the amount of people that spend the amount it takes to get the hero back at once is likely A LOT less then those that will spend the 10 gems to get in. Almost every time I have seen a hero down , either the person went with it and got flamed or demoted to lesser bases. Or just dropped out of war altogether since the new opt out options. I haven't seen anyone say hey I will gem this hero so I can do this, wasting hundreds of gems to do it. I have gemmed for 50 or 60 gems to get use of hero, and in a lot of wars I would pay 10 or 15 just to have the right to use it.

I applaud the idea same as I have in the past when this idea was out in, I have in fact sat out a war recently because my bk was fitting new armour.

[webbie]

I don't think it would be a loss at all. The gems will still be being used, the amount of people that spend the amount it takes to get the hero back at once is likely A LOT less then those that will spend the 10 gems to get in. Almost every time I have seen a hero down , either the person went with it and got flamed or demoted to lesser bases. Or just dropped out of war altogether since the new opt out options. I haven't seen anyone say hey I will gem this hero so I can do this, wasting hundreds of gems to do it. I have gemmed for 50 or 60 gems to get use of hero, and in a lot of wars I would pay 10 or 15 just to have the right to use it.

I applaud the idea same as I have in the past when this idea was out in, I have in fact sat out a war recently because my bk was fitting new armour.

I agree.

The losing out on the revenue stream was in response to another poster who said we should just be allowed to use heroes in war (no cost) which means no replacement stream for supercell.

What I propose gives them a revenue stream which should equal if not exceed their current one (no data to back this up though) since so many people would be willing to do it.

[Sman808]

Spend the gems to finish the upgrade, this is just a different version of your idea.

[AxionXD]

Long discussion on this exact topic exist somewhere.

We determined 10 gems is far to minuscule to be effective.

My final calculations became this formulation 70% of the Costs to Complete Hero Upgrade divided by how many wars attacks your hero would normally be out of.

So for a hero that has a 7 day (maximum) upgrade duration, the numbers were:

(70% of 1000 gems) 700 gems / (6 attacks in 7 days of war) 6 = 116 gems (rounded down)

116 Gems for 7 Day upgrading hero

Any less is not worth the effort for Supercell to implement your idea. This was the best compromise I've seen in all the conversations about Heroes upgrade during war.

I agree.

The losing out on the revenue stream was in response to another poster who said we should just be allowed to use heroes in war (no cost) which means no replacement stream for supercell.

What I propose gives them a revenue stream which should equal if not exceed their current one (no data to back this up though) since so many people would be willing to do it.

Lol. No data to back that up?

Here's the only REAL data that you need. To finish a hero with 7 day upgrade costs 1000 gems. Your suggestion would only cost someone 60 gems for the same usability. How you could ever believe that would somehow equal (IF NOT EXCEED? Come on...) their current revenue stream is not thinking logically but thinking like a typical consumer. How you could possibly come up with that conclusion would boggle the mind of anyone who didn't fall asleep during their Business 101 Risk Management course...

[webbie]

Long discussion on this exact topic exist somewhere.

We determined 10 gems is far to minuscule to be effective.

My final calculations became this formulation 70% of the Costs to Complete Hero Upgrade divided by how many wars attacks your hero would normally be out of.

So for a hero that has a 7 day (maximum) upgrade duration, the numbers were:

(70% of 1000 gems) 700 gems / (6 attacks in 7 days of war) 6 = 116 gems (rounded down)

116 Gems for 7 Day upgrading hero

Any less is not worth the effort for Supercell to implement your idea. This was the best compromise I've seen in all the conversations about Heroes upgrade during war.



Lol. No data to back that up?

Here's the REAL data that you need. To finish a hero with 7 day upgrade costs 1000 gems. Your suggestion would only cost someone 60 gems for the same usability. How you could ever believe that would somehow equal (IF NOT EXCEED? Come on...) their current revenue stream is not thinking logically but thinking like a typical consumer.

Could you send me the link to why you would need to generate 70% of the gems (per hero upgrade) for supercell to break even? I saw some of your other comments where you throw out the same number but never an explanation of why you need 70%.

You say you get the same usability as finishing the upgrade but you still don't get to farm with them, or defend in multiplayer.

My argument is that for every person now gemming their hero time we may get 10,15,20 people gemming heroes for war attacks. Like I said I don't have data to back this up and I don't know how many people currently gem their heroes but I bet it is a very small percentage that do it on a regular basis. Instead of creating inequality in wars by making heroes the toys of the elite (for the 400+ days of upgrade time) make them accessible to all by keeping the cost low.

Maybe 10 gems is too low but I think you would want it low enough that people aren't thinking about it, they just do it. I certainly don't think it should be any higher then 25 gems per attack.

[deven8703]

Could you send me the link to why you would need to generate 70% of the gems (per hero upgrade) for supercell to break even? I saw some of your other comments where you throw out the same number but never an explanation of why you need 70%.

You say you get the same usability as finishing the upgrade but you still don't get to farm with them, or defend in multiplayer.

My argument is that for every person now gemming their hero time we may get 10,15,20 people gemming heroes for war attacks. Like I said I don't have data to back this up and I don't know how many people currently gem their heroes but I bet it is a very small percentage that do it on a regular basis. Instead of creating inequality in wars by making heroes the toys of the elite (for the 400+ days of upgrade time) make them accessible to all by keeping the cost low.

Maybe 10 gems is too low but I think you would want it low enough that people aren't thinking about it, they just do it. I certainly don't think it should be any higher then 25 gems per attack.

The guy doesn't take into account that tons of people who wouldn't gem their heroes before WILL gem them for a small amount to be able to use them in war.

[Fanboy59]

The guy doesn't take into account that tons of people who wouldn't gem their heroes before WILL gem them for a small amount to be able to use them in war.

Yeah and the biggest problem with the nonsense he posted is the "break even" part, the com's on a hero are absolutely zero there is no "break even". Thats the great thing about freemium gaming, plenty of fools to buy gems and very little proportionate running costs. Personally i hate the idea of having content that is gem exclusive.

[AxionXD]

The guy doesn't take into account that tons of people who wouldn't gem their heroes before WILL gem them for a small amount to be able to use them in war.

There's a concept in the business world that goes something along like this. It's much easier to keep existing customers then it is to create new customers.

Oh I absolutely took into account how many small fries would start gemming heroes in war. This is what resulted from that line of thinking...

If we accepted 10 gems as the OP suggested, anyone who spends 1000 gems verus 60 is crazy. So Supercell just lost all those people willing to spend $10.00 for their heroes and now are spending 60 gems as the OP suggests.

What will Supercell need to generate in order to break even, to earn as much revenue before under this new plan? 16 new gem spenders. For every major buyer who is no longer spending that $10 on heroes, Supercell needs 16 new people to start buying gems and using them on heroes to BREAK EVEN.

So, would it be logical for them to do this? Risk their revenue in the hopes that for every one buyer of Gero upgrades lost, 16+ will start spending?

Then you take into account how affordable it it, how people can use saved up Gems for these minuscule hero usage.

Look, I'd love my heroes during war too but if you don't think practically about ideas why would Supercell listen and implement your ideas? To suggest they discount their heroes basically by 94% and expect them to take you seriously?

My revised compromise allows for people to continue gemming as usual because they still get the benefit of their hero without the problem of having to buy it every attack. Then it gives those who don't want to spend 1000 gems for their heroes can now pick and choose wars they absolutely must have their heroes.... for 116 gems. That is a reasonable compromise that I think Supercell could and would take into consideration.

Yeah and the biggest problem with the nonsense he posted is the "break even" part, the com's on a hero are absolutely zero there is no "break even". Thats the great thing about freemium gaming, plenty of fools to buy gems and very little proportionate running costs. Personally i hate the idea of having content that is gem exclusive.

By break even, I meant based on previous revenue level.

The point is they have a revenue level that they've reached. Remember, Supercell has many investors, one that just spent $1.3 billion for 51% ownership of the company. They'd more than likely, for a change of this financial magnitude, would require a board decision. I'm not sure what % of their revenue is from hero upgrades but with millions of users world wide and heroes being one of the last things people have to spend after spending all they wanted on their base, it's probably significant enough.

70% is the number we came to, as players, in a previous post. You can try to search for it, I won't.

it's the right number between savings versus retention of older buyers.

It's also a good number for your inability to have those heroes in normal raid.

A 30% is reasonable and acceptable compromise. A 94% discount?