You’re welcome! It’s a great idea, I hope it gets implemented at some point.
I’m thinking it probably would tax the servers, but I’m not a techie person. 
could be stored in db in what ever format, client (me) would just download event (battle) and surely would need client (my phone app) to understand what it downloads. Single fight should be able to be stored into less than 200kb so can’t think it’s performance issue…
Answering to myself, actually, client (my phone) could do some of translation, so, not everything would even needed to be in server database. E.g. server has information of heroes and their attributes used in battle, also of should have information of tiles used and shot - damage translation could be done in phone with variables downloaded from heroes… Sick and twisted idea, hybrid kinda thing.
tagging @Petri
I would love to see it. My guys have been talking about it for forever; when we get an opponent who has Line, we hook up and share videos of hits now.
Keep answering to myself.
server db will have heroes and tiles used
hero1 with troop1 = #1234#1234
hero1 with troop2 = #1234#1235
hero2 with troop1 = #1235#1234
hero2 with troop2 = #1235#1235
Tiles used is lot more difficult part to which i dont present example now but with some brainstorming i think should be nut that could be cracked in 2 days workshop.
Board should be ofcourse coded and historytracked as cascades happens - so - not enough to store single moves in board. Anyways, should be easylish doable with more or less similar coding.
All that, stored in server. After downloading attributes from server, client already does damage calculations per tiles / heroes in normal battles - hence, same pieces of client script could be reused with information downloaded from server, yes? @Petri
I think “ghost” replays for games typically work roughly in that fashion, @Strooper12, with the history stored as each state changes, and the replay is reconstructed using the client. I suspect, as you do, that the technical implementation of the replay itself wouldn’t be insanely difficult.
Tracking board state over time would likely be the biggest piece to resolve.
Even with small file sizes they’d have to consider bandwidth, server load, and storage for such a large player population, though. That would add up, certainly enough so to measurably change the infrastructure cost per user.
There might need to be a revenue offset for those costs, particularly if SG feels that a replay feature wouldn’t itself substantially increase retention or spending on other game elements.
I suspect all that can be addressed, though — it’s just a question of whether it becomes a development priority amongst other content and features being added.
@Rook @Kerridoc I think there’s useful additons to this topic in this thread, can you merge us into the master so they’re consolidated with the existing ideas?
“Even with small file sizes they’d have to consider bandwidth, server load, and storage for such a large player population, though. That would add up, certainly enough so to measurably change the infrastructure cost per user.”
Available only to users who has VIP? Hahah, would certainly make user base happy 
(please do consider that as sarcasm)
The thought of it being a feature only for VIP members occured to me, but an awful lot of people already subscribe to VIP without such a feature, so I’m not sure the marginal revenue would be sufficient — I think many people willing to pay directly or indirectly for replay would be likely to have VIP already anyway.
But it would at least reduce somewhat the marginal cost to limit it to paying users.
If they went that route, there would be a healthy debate on the forum about whether it was an unfair advantage or not, I think.
Side note: if you select text in a previous post, a Quote button will pop up, which allows quoting and responding without having to copy/paste/style the text yourself, and provides linking context and notifications through the forum.
1 Like
Cheers, i’m sorta old school
1 Like
I must excuse possible typos (rallienglanti) in my posts as having this terrible flu to where i have had to take some meds (vain terveydeksi). Working as IT integration arcitecht so cant really see this as obstacle when it comes to techniques.
Merged.
20 cats replaying raids
1 Like
This is another thread with a request similar to this one. Instead of watch the defence-raid battles, play raids against our own defence team.
The two requests are complementary each others.
Sorry, this one. I forgot to paste the link.
They are different:
- “Replay enemy raids”
- “Battle your own defense team”
As stated before, these two threads are about complementary requests, AFAIK:
- replay the raid battle AGAINST our defence team to learn how to improve it because at this time we know that our base has been attacked and which result but we do not anything about the battle itself
- battle against our own defence team to learn how to improve it because at this time we do not have a precise idea how is to be on the other side for the reason explained in the previous point.
Do you agree? That they are two complementary requests toward a broader request that could be described as
- Development of a training and performance review system of our own defence team against others players raids
Under such point of view these kind of threads could be merged into a broader one.
This is the opening line of this thread.
Fighting your own defense team is different, and therefore can go in a different thread.
1 Like
@rook, I see your point. What about the request of battling for exercising against others allies’ defence teams? Look at the broad picture, from the POV of the developers.
These three are not separates requests but the single one which could be described as:
- allowing players raid-battling with (a cloned copy of) their own and other allies’ defence teams for improving their own defence team
PLUS
- replay the last theee raids received when off-line for better understanding how to improve their own defence team.
After all, you are right. Replaying last 2/3 raids do not fit into the same developments POV but into the same player POV. Under the POV of those manage the forum they are three different requests.
Now, organise them (merging, linking, whatever, etc.) in order to make Editor (another point of view) capable of deciding which set of features are valuable to be implemented add value to the effort of managing the forum.
It is a matter of aggregation (not necessarily merging the thread) under different POVs which probably the tags is a way to do that but another more explicit could be used.
The FIRST request for developers is nothing else that a
- cloning a copy of a team and propose it into the raid engine
while the second request is:
- record raid battle events
AND
- allows raid auto-play engine to follow some instruction
AND
- forces raid engine to choose the next shields by a predetermined order (replying).
So far, IMHO it would easier to develop the first request that the second one. I have not idea about development effort which depends on the tools and platform, etc. but as concept the first one is simpler (less changes, less debugs, etc).
Because the first one is just CLONING information and proposing them WITHOUT making any other kind of modification about the game engine (rewards could be different, etc. but are details of the specific raids, no engine change).
I hope this helps.
1 Like
You might want to refer to the last three defeats suffered in raids received when off-line. Replay of won raids would do you not much good, except for your ego, maybe…
1 Like
@Ian487, thank you for the correction and precisation. Obviously, the last 2/3 raids which were negative as outcome.
1 Like