Wish I could get mine into it. She loves time management games but doesn't like the war/raiding aspect of CoC.
Haha so did I! She loves it!
Because its hard to make a sophisticated game with a touch screen application. They are more like arcade gaming, simple rules, simple game. Sometimes you need to simplify the game to make it more attractive to all audiences.
As mentioned above, the game is FAR easier though if you just spend $10-20 at the very start to buy the extra builders. This allows you to consume your loot much faster and progress through the game at a completely different pace.
Also, there's a strategy to building TH8 late stage (applies to TH9/10 also somewhat). You tend to get hit most often by higher level players when your DE is high. Therefore, time your gold/elixir upgrades to be done while your DE is low (right after spending a big chunk) as you are far less likely to be hit by a skilled player when there is no DE available to steal. IE - stagger your upgrade cycles so you only have one resource high in storage at a time.
While I think that video is spot on, I do find it amusing that people actually spend money on microtransations. Whatever they are.
Seriously? If you're paying 0.99 for something, it's probably crap. And if it's crap, why the hell are you spending money on it in the first place?! Seriously!
But then again, people are so dumb it's not even funny. So what do I know? What I do is never EVER buy software for less than 5 bucks when I can get a free alternative that does the same, and never EVER buy microtransations bullcrap because it's totally pointless and a waste of TIME, let alone money.
I'm very grateful for the idiots who do it though, if that means I can enjoy a couple of freemium games here and there. But to be honest, there aren't really that many. And Clash of Clans is dumb as bricks and not worth any sort of dedication, in my opinion. I play it because I don't play it that much anyway, and it's basically the only mobile game I play.
:EDIT:
Actually, scratch that. I never EVER buy software for less than 5 bucks, even if I can't get a free alternative. 5 bucks or less is a ridiculously low amount of money, and if your company feels their software is so bad that it's not worth more, and if your company is so crappy and cheap that it can't give it away for free, then I want nothing to do with it.
Ever.
Guitar Pro? Awesome software, proper price tag. Stupid Contacts Bling for Android for 3 bucks? Fruck that noise! 10 bucks a month for Spotify Premium? Sure, proper pricetag, proper product. 2 bucks for your cheap ass mobile music player that's worse than 11 years old Winamp on PC? No way.
That's mah rant done. Thanks for reading.
:EDIT:
:EDIT:
Also, Nicks an idiot.
While I think that video is spot on, I do find it amusing that people actually spend money on microtransations. Whatever they are.
Seriously? If you're paying 0.99 for something, it's probably crap. And if it's crap, why the hell are you spending money on it in the first place?! Seriously!
But then again, people are so dumb it's not even funny. So what do I know? What I do is never EVER buy software for less than 5 bucks when I can get a free alternative that does the same, and never EVER buy microtransations bullcrap because it's totally pointless and a waste of TIME, let alone money.
I'm very grateful for the idiots who do it though, if that means I can enjoy a couple of freemium games here and there. But to be honest, there aren't really that many. And Clash of Clans is dumb as bricks and not worth any sort of dedication, in my opinion. I play it because I don't play it that much anyway, and it's basically the only mobile game I play.
:EDIT:
Actually, scratch that. I never EVER buy software for less than 5 bucks, even if I can't get a free alternative. 5 bucks or less is a ridiculously low amount of money, and if your company feels their software is so bad that it's not worth more, and if your company is so crappy and cheap that it can't give it away for free, then I want nothing to do with it.
Ever.
Guitar Pro? Awesome software, proper price tag. Stupid Contacts Bling for Android for 3 bucks? Fruck that noise! 10 bucks a month for Spotify Premium? Sure, proper pricetag, proper product. 2 bucks for your cheap ass mobile music player that's worse than 11 years old Winamp on PC? No way.
That's mah rant done. Thanks for reading.
:EDIT:
:EDIT:
Also, Nicks an idiot.
Why is clash dumb as bricks? Obviously I like it, just curious as to how you came to your conclusion.
First off, I play it as well, so it's not like I'm talking without first hand experience, or am just biased because I don't like the game. I do like the game, but it's a dumb game nonetheless, in my opinion.Why is clash dumb as bricks? Obviously I like it, just curious as to how you came to your conclusion.
- combat is immensely simplistic with very little control over your army, apart from timing and spells
- defense is terribly unbalanced, and you literally have to NOT think at all, or else you'll build a well defensible base. It might not be brilliant, but it'll be good enough as long as you put in the slightest bit of effort
- if you want to sink time into the game other than grind, you can't. The game revolves around finding weak and/or rich bases in multiplayer and attacking with your cookie cutter army. Absolutely simple and not fun at all.
What I think would improve the game?
- for starters, let me direct my troops at the buildings I want. Keep limitations for different kinds of troops, sure, but that alone would make invading a base way more strategic. Also, nerf goblins. Seriously.
- as for the defense, it needs a total redesign. I think the game would be massively improved if walls wore stronger but the game would require weak points here and there (like gates, for example). Because right now the defense is majorly dependent on army strength, and very little on strategy. Also, let me post my army to defend the walls, why the hell not?
- item hunts, upgrade hunts, buffer hunts... How about letting me play the game instead of having to wait for my army to build while I play something else on my computer (cause that's what I do)? Something interesting that will reward oh so very little and won't rely on having the game tell me WHEN I must play.
That's rude and conceited. I'm sorry for calling you out on that.
I have a personal friend on the higher leagues in late game, I'm personally finishing TH8, and I know all about how nuanced the game is. You can sink loads of time into it and do all the math and strategy and whatnot. My point still stands: it could be so much deeper, more fun and more rewarding by having a few changes and improvements.
Or are you saying the game wouldn't have more depth if you had more control over your army?
Or are you saying the game wouldn't have more depth if the base defenses weren't a big mushy bunch of HP and had stronger and weaker points?
Or are you saying the game wouldn't have more depth if it had a bit more depth?
Most people who complain about Clash haven't tried it. They just do it because its the cool thing to hate on freemium.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of freemium games suck out there, but that's why they're not in the top 10 or 20.
That's rude and conceited. I'm sorry for calling you out on that.
I have a personal friend on the higher leagues in late game, I'm personally finishing TH8, and I know all about how nuanced the game is. You can sink loads of time into it and do all the math and strategy and whatnot. My point still stands: it could be so much deeper, more fun and more rewarding by having a few changes and improvements.
Or are you saying the game wouldn't have more depth if you had more control over your army?
Or are you saying the game wouldn't have more depth if the base defenses weren't a big mushy bunch of HP and had stronger and weaker points?
Or are you saying the game wouldn't have more depth if it had a bit more depth?
Yes, because, like, every single strategy game out there is way too easy. Clash of Clans is teh ahrdz.Letting you direct your units to specific buildings would make the game way too easy.
That's sig worthy, really.The game has depth because you can't direct your army, meaning building position actually matters.
Yes, because, like, every single strategy game out there is way too easy. Clash of Clans is teh ahrdz.
Yes, because, like, every single strategy game out there is way too easy. Clash of Clans is teh ahrdz.
That's sig worthy, really.
I don't have an argument against that flawless logic. Brilliant mate. Just brilliant.
[/sarcasm]
Wot? Dud uo rid mah poost?The game already heavily favors offense, and your suggestion is to make a change that makes it 10x easier to attack?
Wot? Dud uo rid mah poost?
You get really offensive about your conceited stances.
Also, dude, do you really have time to check my post history or follow me across the different boards? I guess that tells more about you than about me.
And I'm not being defensive about my opinion. I really don't see how much LESS defensive I can get really. I do, however, get really trolly and sarcastic when the other party is arguing for the sake of arguing, misquoting me putting words in my mouth.
If you care - which you probably don't -, no my suggestion is nothing. I don't have no suggestion. I have suggestions, plural, more than one. More than three, actually, and three is the number of points in my list, but if you bothered to read you found that at least one of my points contains more than one suggestion.
Also, if you care, "crappy opinions" is an oxymoron. If you think your opinions are any less crappy than anybody else, you're in the wrong. What I believe you're thinking of is "crappy excuses", or "crappy arguments", which is, you know (or don't?), what supports an opinion, or where you build the basis of your stance. Which is to say that if you don't have arguments (crappy or not, doesn't matter), you don't have an opinion.
I do have an opinion, and boomhower very politely asked for my arguments. Which I provided in a very fair (I do believe) and unbiased way. Whether they're good or bad that's another thing. I'm perfectly fine accepting they're bad, but since you're arguments are "crappy opinion" (which, as I said, is not really an argument, it's an insult and a way to show you have no idea what an opinion is), "barely at level 8" (which is false), and the whole "it's deeper because you don't have much control" business, I don't have much to go on.
So, yeah, as I said, I get a beat trolly, mean and harsh. I could say it's the way of the internet, but it's really my personality. But it doesn't make your arguments any more valid, or mine any less.
Cheers.
:EDIT:
Actually, let me develop the whole your control-argument thingy.
Which game has more depth: checkers or chess? Darts or motor racing? Clash of Clans or Company of Heroes?
Do you get my point? They are relatively similar games, in all three of my examples, but while the latter are obviously deeper and more nuanced, should they have the same control limitations as the former, they'd be pretty even with them, I believe. Actually, Company of Heroes would be way shallower than Clash of Clans, so it only serves to reinforce my point, really: more control, more depth.
What you seem to be referring to is consequences to one's strategic decisions. Yes, strategic decisions in Clash of Clans are more important and game changing than strategic decisions in Company of Heroes. But CoC has fewer of those than CoH does, which means it's nowhere near as complex, challenging or deep. And CoH is a pretty simple game as strategy games go.
Letting you direct your units to specific buildings would make the game way too easy. As it is, offense already overpowers defense. They've done some things to try to make the defense stronger (nerfed heroes, unlurable heroes, skeleton traps), but a well-executed attack by a mid-level TH10 can still 2 star a maxed defense TH10 without too much trouble.