A post was split to a new topic: Passing Province 9-7
2 posts were split to a new topic: Hero Color Change?
A post was split to a new topic: Why so many 1-2* Troops?
831 posts were merged into an existing topic: [SOLVED] Continuing Event Battle with Gems (12/July) STATUS: Android & iOS Update Out
Is this a possible thing in the near future?
I’m against that only because can be exploitable and can lead to an unbalanced game!!!
Are there some limited trade options that wont imbalance the game? I’m interested in those…
Besides cash for gems?
Not sure if this has been suggested, I haven’t been following. What about trading 2 for 1. Say I need darts and an alliance member needs tonics. I trade two of my darts and he gets one tonic, and he trades two of his tonics and I get one dart. I’m happy, he’s happy, and SmallGiant is happy because the double up ascension materials are off the board.
I would love to trade players between my alliance. I have multiples of players they want and they have players I want. Is trading heros going to be an option and not just resources?
More thought would be 400 gems to trade a hero of equal value, if you have a player of the month its 800 and 2 five star players you would trade.
Personally, i feel that trading items/heros among Alliance members in no way should break the game, so long as SG put limitations on the parameters of trading. Some examples would be, they must be in the alliance minimum of 2-3 weeks/a month before they can trade, maximum 1 trade a week/biweekly/month, only trade items of equal value(4* ascension item for a 4* ascension item and 3* for 3*, etc.), also, pay 100/200 gems to complete the trade, etc.
I see no reason why this wouldn’t work… so long as we pay a small price and it makes us happy.
Excatly, we all pay to get our players and a big summon costs 30 dollars for one try. So why not let the players pay a slightly higher price knowing they will get what they want. 1 hero one price. The makers will still profit off of this and the gamers will be more than happy. A cap would have to be neccessary though.
My idea of trading would be something like what they did to Pokémon Go. You pay game resources (in this case, it would be gems) for the trade to be possible. And in the case of this game, I’d say you have to trade things of equal value, like a 5* hero for a 5* hero, a 4* ascension mat for another 4* ascension mat and so on.
I agree with the alliance trading, but I think it should be at no cost within the alliance as long as it is a trade of equal value. I would also open up trade amongst any player and those trades I would charge gems to complete.
I’d mentioned elsewhere: Purchased gems should be able to be gifted…
How about being able to swap EQUAL VALUE ascension items, 1:1, with a 50 gem ‘transfer fee’ to discourage farmer accounts… may need to be more like 100 gems actually. A non trivial amount. But enough that if a player is 1 sturdy shield short it’s worth it to swap with a tabbard with a friendly alliance member.
I think, to do this players must be in the same alliance for one month. This will require additional coding, but steps should be taken to reduce an open market imho.
I think players will always dream of being able to trade cards.
Maybe having a longer in the same alliance thing, 90 days, and being able to trade ‘like’ cards for ~500 -1000 gems.
Event 3*, 4*, 5* would all need their own special tags.
HOTM would all need a special tag…
And plain-Jane 5* of course would need to be separate.
So if you had an extra Guinevere laying around you could swap her for a guardian panther, for example. But you couldn’t swap Guin for Gregorian.
My apologies if this has already been suggested
(And, anyway, I don’t think that I’m totally on board for this. But seems like the best way to make it a possibility?)
I know I’m wrong for wanting it both ways and it’s just not possible:
I want to be able to give a higher card to a new player…but doing so would encourage farmer accounts.
I don’t like restrictions and red-tape, but I don’t see how we could do this in such a way that would make it profitable to SG (who might therefore green-light it)…