Why I don't play Treasure hunt

[Digital_Dave]

@Elendil52

@Jainus and @Digital_Dave has a point about getting extra moves from ALL 5 matches. The problem is that it’s still annoying when you try to set up a 5-match which then clears when additional stuff falls and that extra turn you could have gotten goes down the tubes. I can’t count how many times I’ve matched 5 in a way that would have set up an addition 5-match for the next move only to have it swept away in a cascade. It makes planning extremely frustrating.

But, isn’t that part of the game really? Like when building a deck of cards too high, or playing something like the game Jenga? - Trying to build your setups, without having it all crash down on ya?

Personally I take all 4/5’s I can first, with 5’s being preferred of course. (this just creates more space and other possibilities) I will even do this with standard chest and Greens as well, (depends on board for Greens) but I try not to do this with Reds though. But yes, I’ve had a drop take out 5 Reds for one vault a few times! It sucks when it happens, but I still see it as part of the game.

[Razlath]

I don’t know, I don’t really see the extra turns you earn actually being granted being that big of a deal. It isn’t like people are getting 7 5 of a kinds in a row or something. Most often it is one or two extra “extra turns” you lose. Plus giving you those turns would automatically give you better rewards because every turn you play increases your rewards (for the most part).

I like the idea of the 7 match giving you something. Maybe after you trigger one the gems that drop in are shifted from copper / silver / gold / bag to silver / gold / bag / box. I also like the idea of a key being rewarded, though they are often enough I think it would have to be an extra glory key not a gem key.

Trying to avoid multiple extra turns shouldn’t be part of the strategy of playing the game. That is like saying your strategy in PvP battles should be to poorly and leave a few skull matches on the board. Currently the game forces us to play counter to pretty much every match-3 concept. Don’t set up big chains, don’t go for the awesome board clearing moves. Basically play really badly for the best rewards. The match in place and gem creation already makes the mini game different from standard play, it doesn’t need a punishment for playing well included.

-Razlath

[Machiknight]

I’ve completely stepped out of this confession upon understanding that the target audience for TH is the over 90% of active players which are mostly sub 100.

Scalable rewards based on player level would make it better, but it’s not intended for us people who are in the higher tiers of gameplay, I accept that and don’t play.

[Shimrra]

@Machiknight

I accept that and don’t play.

I understand it - but I want them to be good for me!

[Razlath]

@Shimrra

Machiknight:
I accept that and don’t play.

I understand it - but I want them to be good for me!

No reason it can’t be good for both! Actually @Machiknight your suggestion of scalable rewards (which I forgot to applaud in my reply) is a very good one. Nothing crazy, and maybe just scale the gold, but I think it would actually help quite a bit. TH shouldn’t compete with invades on gold because you get a bunch of other resources as well. Invades are the precision shot targeting gold (and now glory). TH is more like the shotgun trying to pick off a variety of resources at the same time. As a result it shouldn’t yield as much of any individual resource as the targeted options, but it could definitely stand to yield more than it does.

I also think there is a possible hidden meaning in the numbers the devs see. I get that you see a lot of activity below lvl 100 and then it drops off. Is that possibly because below lvl 100 people don’t fully understand the game mechanics and everything is new? Maybe they are only playing TH because they haven’t done so a lot yet and are still in the oooo cool new shiny phase? It is always dangerous to back into motives based on usage statistics, but my gut says there is an alternative explanation to the idea that TH is so awesome for low lvl players they just play it non-stop.

-Razlath

[Dorgath]

It’s free stuff. I don’t know if < 100 players think it’s “awesome” just by itself, but getting free stuff is always good.

[Pasa]

@Dorgath

It’s free stuff. I don’t know if < 100 players think it’s “awesome” just by itself, but getting free stuff is always good.

TANSTAAFL. Also getting good stuff for real free is only benefit if the stuff represents value.

At the minimum it takes player’s time. Now I guess many players of mobile games play in time that is a waste anyway, that is often not so on PC. And anywhere the time could put to some better activity.

Upstream I suggested a thought experiment where you could turn in maps to immediately get the average output of TH. If it would be more popular than actual playing out, that would confirm that the play value is wanting. And figures on popularity draw the false conclusions.

[Machiknight]

I would totally cash in my maps for the average. Our even 75% of average.

[Shimrra]

I’d never cash mine in. That would be like hitting the stupid @^%$#@#%^@!& mass disenchant button way back when, and then months later being told that those spare epic/legendary troops would be good for something. Replace troops with maps → better maps. I know I’d feel like an idiot for making a mistake like that twice.

[Pasa]

@Shimrra

I’d never cash mine in. That would be like hitting the stupid @^%$#@#%^@!& mass disenchant button way back when, and then months later being told that those spare epic/legendary troops would be good for something. Replace troops with maps → better maps. I know I’d feel like an idiot for making a mistake like that twice.

The question stood when you spend them anyway and chose between play out or shortcut. I probably would not cash in either, as not lack the reward so let them sit there. But do not go in playing.

[Shimrra]

I guess it would depend on what that average actually is. I’d like to think after all the ones I’ve played I would be running ‘above average’ map gameplay and therefore earnings…

[Dorgath]

@Pasa

Also getting good stuff for real free is only benefit if the stuff represents value.

I’m pretty sure that for players < 100, the stuff has value. Frankly, I think it has value for all players, but apparently, for high(er) level players, the amount you get is miniscule to what they can get from rewards/tributes/guild tasks. But for <100, 1000 gold/souls/gems/keys are great, especially if they aren’t in a really active guild where they can get that stuff nor if they don’t want to pay for it.

[Shimrra]

Plus its not boosted by armor at all. So it’s definitely better for them than for us veterans.

I mean, I’m prepared to bet that if 90% of the playerbase is below 100, 50%+ of the people on the (PC/Mobile) forums are well above 100 AND have at least one of the top-tier armors. Of course, I say that because nobody has a way of clarifying this. *cackle

[Dorgath]

@Shimrra

That would be like hitting the stupid @^%$#@#%^@!& mass disenchant button way back when

You do have to weigh whether getting those souls were worth it. If you subtracted the soul amount from the mass disenchant, where would you be? Would some troops be at lower levels? Or if you kept the souls, would you have been able to ascend the ones after 1.08?

@Shimrra

Of course, I say that because nobody has a way of clarifying this. *cackle

The devs should if they wanted to

[Machiknight]

I think we are making @sirrian regret telling us that number hehe.

[Shimrra]

@Dorgath

You do have to weigh whether getting those souls were worth it.

100 extra legendaries is 10k souls. That only equates to getting 4~ troops from 1 to 15, or maybe 2.5~ to 20 - depends on the troops’ rarity. I’ve got dozens at lvl20 right now, so I’m gonna say the legendaries are in higher demand. I don’t even remember how many legendaries it was.

Epics probably would have been a pain right now regardless, seeing as most of the ‘problem’ ones are / would have been so because they weren’t in chests the entire time.

[Elendil52]

@Pasa: I could get on board with that gem idea.

@Digital_Dave: Eh, the problem is that GoW is a strategy game, not a dexterity game. The point is to be able to plan, not to go as long as possible without “crashing.” So it just doesn’t fit the theme when you have a huge random cascade that spoils the 5-match you were trying to set up.

@Razlath: True, it’s often not many extra turns you miss out on, but by the same token, it’s therefore not a big deal to just let us have those extra turns, especially since the announcer is going to say we got them anyway.

As to why players under 100 play them more, I think it has to do with the relatively low rewards they get from PvP. I mean, no level 100 player can really stand up to the types of teams run by 500+ players, at least no consistently. Thus, their ability to earn gold from PvP is relatively limited, especially since you have to spend money to make money, and in the early levels gold is harder to come by. Thus, TH represents a risk-free way to earn substantial gold regardless of level, which makes it significantly more valuable early on when your gold is tight and your ability to earn it is limited. Plus, anyone under level 100 is also going to want all the other rewards too.

I confess I initially found it mystifying that higher level players consider TH a waste of time (I still find it very lucrative), but then I consider that the real veterans here can easily earn a large chunk of gold in fairly short order because their teams are so much better, it makes sense. At level 500+ with all the really good legendaries and multiple traits, a relatively easy battle is over quickly, and one that takes longer gives more gold, so if you really just want the gold (as you would at that point in the game), it makes sense. I want gold, but I’m also lacking in gems and keys, so it makes sense to me to play TH and get all the above rather than focus just on gold.

In short, I don’t think the popularity of TH is necessarily a response to the “cool” factor; I think it’s actually an eminently rational economic decision given the options.

[bluebehir]

The proper solution to the cascade is as follows

1. Remove the extra turns voice announcement for anything past the first.
2. For each successive extra turn earned in a cascade increase the value (by one) of what can be spawned.
3. At the end of the cascade reset that value.

So your first extra turn really is an extra turn. Your second extra turn allows brown chests to drop in to your map. The third extra turn allows green chests. Your fourth extra turn allows red chests. Go no higher than that.

A side effect of this is you get greater variety of spawns in your cascade, reducing the matches in the cascade, reducing the length of the cascade, reducing the chance of seven lost extra turns.

In return we get a free green chest etc and feel good for having played well.

[Razlath]

I have to admit. I don’t hate it! I would be happy with actually getting the extra turns even though they would likely yield lesser results than what you noted. Your suggestion would work too!

-Razlath

[killerman3333]

@Shimrra

Plus its not boosted by armor at all. So it’s definitely better for them than for us veterans.

I mean, I’m prepared to bet that if 90% of the playerbase is below 100, 50%+ of the people on the (PC/Mobile) forums are well above 100 AND have at least one of the top-tier armors. Of course, I say that because nobody has a way of clarifying this. *cackle

Actually there is a way to clarify this what everyone’s level is on the forums.