Legal issue in the way of if you pay real money to get something, you should always be able to use it. Doesn’t have to be in its current state, but still have to be able to use it. Similar to how they offer refunds when they nerf troops. If you pay money or materials for something and in return get penalized for using it, that could be a legal issue.
lol. Totally misunderstood what you meant, but I do think that the incentives on console and PC are a bit different right now, though most people are clearly trying their best to win on defence.
1 Like
Does that mean they cant do away with the PvP leaderboard or even remove defence rewards? The troops can still be used for invades
No absolutely not because that doesn’t effect the troops in any way.
Its the same thing though. Why would it matter if you can use a troop on defence all the time or not if they can remove the rewards anyway?
Because you aren’t changing the troop at all. A great troop is still going to be great no matter what you do to the economy. So in whatever way you can use the troop, it’s still guaranteed to be useful.
It is only defence; you dont get to use the troop. What basis would any legal issue have if the outcome of the defence is irrelevant apart from a W or a L on your stats screen
It’s still using the troop Robert, even on defense. Also people take pride in these “W’s and L’s you get on screen.” If people pay for something and that something gets changed or taken away, you run the risk of getting sued. If we were paying for the game and not the troops, it would be different. I see what you are saying about rewards changing though, and yeah to an extent the economy/rewards do go hand n hand with usefulness. Though if you change the rewards you hurt your own sales. You have to feel power in this game in some way otherwise people won’t pay or use materials for cards.
Anyone who sues over that should be hung by the bollox
I disagree. If I pay for something thinking it’s one thing then it gets changed into completely something else, I’d feel bamboozled. It’s called a swindle. Doesn’t sit well with most consumers.
Edit: And yeah you do have an agreement you essentially sign when you enter most games, but that doesn’t mean people haven’t won cases over that.
Defense Lawyer: “Plaintiff, how many video games have you played in your lifetime?”
Plaintiff: “Dozens, maybe hundreds.”
Defense Lawyer: “Since the inception of online access, how many of these games have NEVER added, removed or altered content?”
Plaintiff: “None.”
Defense Lawyer (turns to Judge): “I move for immediate dismissal”
Judge (hammers gavel): "Case dismissed’
I really dont get it, sorry. Im sure you are correct.
There have been lots of changes in gaming, lot of lawsuits as well. I see what you did there 
The next go-to is obviously how many have been won? Some have some haven’t. Either way though that’s money spent from a company. The last thing you want is a class action lawsuit.
Lawsuits have to pass a preliminary stage designed to reject frivolous lawsuits. Obviously they don’t catch everything, but I’d reject any lawsuit along these lines.
Look I agree that something needs to be done, fully. All I said is it can be a legal issue. I just don’t think legally they could get away with creating some king of “penalizing” system for troops weekly. We just need a positive incentive to use different troops.
Getting rewards for using different troops? Isnt that positive?
Yes very positive, but not if you penalize using other troops as some people have said. Like you can’t implement a “ban” on certain troops every weekend. IMO
Ah ok.
How about @eika’s idea? Everyone selecting 3 teams for defence and 1 being randomly selected each time?
How do you build a team for an unknown opponent lineup?
I like that idea if like Talia said, you can figure out what team you’re fighting. I really like the idea because you get to set-up 3 different teams. I don’t think it would fix the problem though, because everyone would just AGAIN pick the same troops.