Rework the gem system - please consider

[CWGXyn]

I have recently acquired my TH7 and am currently in the process of upgrading one of my barracks to level 8 and finishing my elixir collectors (level 11). It takes 4 days for those to complete unless I spend approximately $8 in gems for that 1 building alone. I understand that the company needs to make money - I'm in this business too. I think that the price of "gemming" a completion should be lowered. For example: if I wanted to spend some of my gems I've earned to complete my level 8 barracks, that could cost 3 gems for every hour. This means 72 gems per day, and 288 gems to rush my barracks from 4d to complete. It would be cool to see partial gemming as well - if I only have 100 gems, I can dump 100 (33 hours subtracted) gems to make it just a bit easier. Of course, players (including myself) would be MORE inclined to purchase gems if they went farther. Lastly, there should be a new building - the Gem Storage. As the value of the gems goes down, some rebalancing will need to be done. If a 3% threshold is put on your current amount of gems, it would make gems a valuable resource rather than simply a thing you buy and waste immediately. On top of this, an attacker must 3 star their opponent to receive this bonus. Example: I raid a Town Hall x with 300 gems (simplicities sake; rounding down would be a good idea) and I 3 star them, I have a chance at winning 9 gems. Is this is an unfair system? I think not. Players would be then encouraged not only to raid more frequently if they wish to keep their precious gems, but also to decide; focus on resources such as dark elixir and gold, or go for the 3 star? This new building could be a 1x1; but not a trap. This makes it very easy to hide and also causes very little changes to the game current base composition meta. These numbers are all examples, but you get the idea. I hope you consider this as an idea.

[Ircher]

I have recently acquired my TH7 and am currently in the process of upgrading one of my barracks to level 8 and finishing my elixir collectors (level 11). It takes 4 days for those to complete unless I spend approximately $8 in gems for that 1 building alone. I understand that the company needs to make money - I'm in this business too. I think that the price of "gemming" a completion should be lowered. For example: if I wanted to spend some of my gems I've earned to complete my level 8 barracks, that could cost 3 gems for every hour. This means 72 gems per day, and 288 gems to rush my barracks from 4d to complete. It would be cool to see partial gemming as well - if I only have 100 gems, I can dump 100 (33 hours subtracted) gems to make it just a bit easier. Of course, players (including myself) would be MORE inclined to purchase gems if they went farther. Lastly, there should be a new building - the Gem Storage. As the value of the gems goes down, some rebalancing will need to be done. If a 3% threshold is put on your current amount of gems, it would make gems a valuable resource rather than simply a thing you buy and waste immediately. On top of this, an attacker must 3 star their opponent to receive this bonus. Example: I raid a Town Hall x with 300 gems (simplicities sake; rounding down would be a good idea) and I 3 star them, I have a chance at winning 9 gems. Is this is an unfair system? I think not. Players would be then encouraged not only to raid more frequently if they wish to keep their precious gems, but also to decide; focus on resources such as dark elixir and gold, or go for the 3 star? This new building could be a 1x1; but not a trap. This makes it very easy to hide and also causes very little changes to the game current base composition meta. These numbers are all examples, but you get the idea. I hope you consider this as an idea.

Prices are a bit high (especially compared to BB, but it is too late to change that. Furthermore, SC is a company that must pay employee wages and maintenance costs. Therefore, they must charge for gems in a way that is profitable for them. You should be glad the game is able to be played without gems albeit tougher.

[CWGXyn]

Prices are a bit high (especially compared to BB, but it is too late to change that. Furthermore, SC is a company that must pay employee wages and maintenance costs. Therefore, they must charge for gems in a way that is profitable for them. You should be glad the game is able to be played without gems albeit tougher.

What? You clearly did NOT read my post. I said absolutely nothing about changing the prices of gems. I suggested a change of IN-GAME prices which would have absolutely zero effect on SC employees, and as Instated in my thread would actually INCREASE the amount of traffic to the IAPs. Here; let me break it down for you.

I am an average consumer. I work a 9-5 job and like to play Clash of Clans sometimes. If this were an implemented feature, my base would get raided for my gems fairly often. Now, I don't mind buying $10-15 worth of gems every month or maybe more often, maybe more gems (it's all an example) BECAUSE they are SO useful and also because other users steal AND ALSO because I know that I can hopefully (keyword hopefully) raid other people for theirs.

There is the break down of why SC GAINS profit.

Here's another detailed description of why you should learn marketing:

When you make a resource become un-fixed, this means when it is purchased more of it is generated. SC gains hundreds of new players every week if not thousands. This flooding of currency would be widespread and would make consumers very happy; happy customers PAY MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY.

I could continue, if you would like. I am very sorry if this comes off as rude but you did not read my thread or you simply don't understand how I kept SC employees in mind along with the consumers. I appreciate your feedback and this is mine.

[Ircher]

I have recently acquired my TH7 and am currently in the process of upgrading one of my barracks to level 8 and finishing my elixir collectors (level 11). It takes 4 days for those to complete unless I spend approximately $8 in gems for that 1 building alone. I understand that the company needs to make money - I'm in this business too. I think that the price of "gemming" a completion should be lowered. This is the point I specifically covered in my post. BB offers better diamond prices for stuff like this. I didn't say anything about lowering the real world currency to gems ration. Sorry if you misunderstood.

For example: if I wanted to spend some of my gems I've earned to complete my level 8 barracks, that could cost 3 gems for every hour. This means 72 gems per day, and 288 gems to rush my barracks from 4d to complete. It would be cool to see partial gemming as well - if I only have 100 gems, I can dump 100 (33 hours subtracted) gems to make it just a bit easier. Of course, players (including myself) would be MORE inclined to purchase gems if they went farther. I'd think someone would find a way to exploit partial gemming, but you have a small point here. Still a 1 star caliber idea.

Lastly, there should be a new building - the Gem Storage. ABSOLUELY NOT!!!

As the value of the gems goes down, some rebalancing will need to be done. If a 3% threshold is put on your current amount of gems, it would make gems a valuable resource rather than simply a thing you buy and waste immediately. On top of this, an attacker must 3 star their opponent to receive this bonus. Example: I raid a Town Hall x with 300 gems (simplicities sake; rounding down would be a good idea) and I 3 star them, I have a chance at winning 9 gems. Is this is an unfair system? I think not. Players would be then encouraged not only to raid more frequently if they wish to keep their precious gems, but also to decide; focus on resources such as dark elixir and gold, or go for the 3 star? This new building could be a 1x1; but not a trap. This makes it very easy to hide and also causes very little changes to the game current base composition meta. These numbers are all examples, but you get the idea. I hope you consider this as an idea.

Comments in bold.

[yanks8981]

What? You clearly did NOT read my post. I said absolutely nothing about changing the prices of gems. I suggested a change of IN-GAME prices which would have absolutely zero effect on SC employees, and as Instated in my thread would actually INCREASE the amount of traffic to the IAPs. Here; let me break it down for you.

I am an average consumer. I work a 9-5 job and like to play Clash of Clans sometimes. If this were an implemented feature, my base would get raided for my gems fairly often. Now, I don't mind buying $10-15 worth of gems every month or maybe more often, maybe more gems (it's all an example) BECAUSE they are SO useful and also because other users steal AND ALSO because I know that I can hopefully (keyword hopefully) raid other people for theirs.

There is the break down of why SC GAINS profit.

Here's another detailed description of why you should learn marketing:

When you make a resource become un-fixed, this means when it is purchased more of it is generated. SC gains hundreds of new players every week if not thousands. This flooding of currency would be widespread and would make consumers very happy; happy customers PAY MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY.

I could continue, if you would like. I am very sorry if this comes off as rude but you did not read my thread or you simply don't understand how I kept SC employees in mind along with the consumers. I appreciate your feedback and this is mine.

You want to have people spend money on gems, and then allow other players to steal gems, which in return is stealing real money? You honestly think this is a good idea, and become rude when someone suggests it isnt? There are threads where people want to be able to steal gem boxes, something the user didnt pay for, which is nuts, but your idea takes that way to a next level. You also stated that making gem times lowered does not make gems cost less. I think you need to evaluate this statement a little closer. Currently, I have a cannon with 5 days 17 hours left that would be 841 gems to finish. Under your idea of 3 gems per hour, that would be approximately cut in half. Therefore, gems would be worth 50% of what they are worth today, because they have twice the purchasing power. You are assuming that the reduction would increase the purchase of gems by enough to offset this difference, but I see no real statistics to support it. Not to mention, no would would actually buy gems if they could just steal them from someone else. Finally, if everyone could gem their stuff cheaply, we'd all have max troops and bases and this game would be boring.

I don't think I missed any flaws with your post. Anyone can feel free to help if I did