Defending while online INSTEAD of personal breaks!
Just to clarify, this is NOT my idea. I heard it recently in a youtube analysis video on the new update (not going to say whose idea it is to avoid bias), and it makes sense.
The problem: Players staying online for extended periods of time to avoid being attacked, using questionable methods to keep devices alive and online, causing many villages to not be available for raid matchmaking
The attempted solution: Personal breaks, i.e. forcing players off your game (see how that reads? does that really make sense?)
The personal break system has evolved into something monstrous and complex, when combining concepts such as "online time", village guard, etc. They even had to include an info screen with a timer counting down to when you'll be kicked off! I say let's simplify the whole thing and just allow defending while players are online WITHOUT a shield or VG, and do away with these convoluted breaks!
When I started playing the game, I actually assumed this was the default behavior. I felt unsafe whenever I didn't have a shield, even if I was online - as I should, in my opinion. It took a few days to figure that being online was the best possible defense! Soooo, why should it be?
The only thing I can think of that could be a factor here is being able to edit your active village on the fly. After all, if you don't have a shield AND are online, you can make any changes to walls, defenses, etc at any point, so what version of your village is presented for matchmaking? If you're in the middle of moving some stuff around, your village could be VERY vulnerable.
But, now the game has an amazing feature it didn't use to have at the beginning: the Layout Editor. This is the best way to control what version of your village is "live" at any given point. You should still be able to make changes to your active village outside the editor, but IF you don't have a shield, you should edit at your own risk!
I imagine some folks might counter saying "you shouldn't be playing for so long anyway", but that should come down to a personal decision; it's not up to SuperCell to babysit players, and that's not the reason why they've implemented the breaks anyway - it's because the "can't be attacked while online" system was being abused.
So, in summary: NO personal break timer, and let players be attacked whenever they don't have a shield or village guard (I actually like the village guard concept on its own, since you won't spend it when attacking), regardless whether they are online or not. What do y'all think?
yes this is a good idea, if I were the head of supercell and the developement team brought up the idea of kicking people off their game and it happened people would get fired. this is a much better solution.
Town Hall 9 | Level 29 Combined Heroes | 665 War Stars won | 2688 All time Best Trophies Clan: hearthstone
You'll face a resource spending issue though. the issue works 2 ways.
1: What if someone revenge attacks you instantly after your attack has ended. You won't be able to spend your newly acquired loot and might even lose more than you gained in the first place.
2: What if you're viewing someone's base and decide to attack because of his big stack of loot, but when you start your attack you notice that he suddenly has close to no loot available anymore because it was spend a fraction of a second ago.... you'll feel duped.
This suggestion sounds reasonable when you look at the problem it will solve, but it might cause more issues than it solves.
Signature by Yeshbizzle TH9/LVL:126/HH:5,2M/EE:781M/GG:724M/AQ30/BBK27/250 LAVAS
