huh? is it right?
huh? is it right?
what? what right?
Only problem is, I still don't understand what the fuzz is about. I don't remember ever having played a game with so few available actions per session. I log on, collect my gold and elixir, build or upgrade two buildings, and that's it most of the time. Once in a while I have an army ready for a short attack, but there I just place my units around the enemy village and the battle then runs on automatic. But that seems to be awfully little gameplay compared to hours of waiting for your next building to be ready.
I can only imagine that the people who like the game are not in it for the gameplay, but for the meta-game: Joining clans, inter-clan politics, clan warfare and the like. A bit like the board game Diplomacy or the MMORPG EVE Online, where the political interaction between real humans is a lot more interesting than the observable gameplay. But even if I had the time to invest in a long, political game, I would want that game to be a little more complicated than Clash of Clans appears to be. And in consequence I would want gameplay sessions to be longer between waiting periods.
So I can't really understand why Clash of Clans has 4.5 million daily players. Supercell's other big hit game, Hay Day, is equally profitable, but as it is a more elaborate and less annoying version of Farmville, I can understand that more easily. But I can't understand the guy spending $7,000 a month of Clash of Clans. The fact that you *can* win the game by using money makes winning the game unattractive to me. I would like to play a strategy game, and not Clash of Bank Statements.
I do, truth ii
i spend less than ten dollars in ingame purcheses
I wouldn't buy gold or diamonds in those games because its too expensive and i would rather buy a ps3 game with my money
its gold and elexir and gems
Oh. I thought you were talking about CoC