ihearthawthats
Banned
currently playing both clash of clans and castle clash. in coc, if you spent gems during the tutorial, i'd advise starting over (unless you plan to just buy gems). castle clash is more relaxing with gems in both how you spend and how you acquire. they give them out like candy and (imo) you never feel forced to spend them. in coc, i'm about 10 gems away from the third builder, which i'm absolutely dying for (i have about 2 weeks worth of build time that needs to be done). castle clash, i got the 3rd builder without even trying and i don't even need it like i need one in coc. (btw, i started castle about a week after coc).
that being said, i do feel that coc is the better game, at least for me. it's slower, yes, but more balanced and strategic. castle has a lot of action, but i find it much too easy. i've won 100% of raids without even trying. due to the mechanics, i'm also raiding at least 10x more than i do in coc (troops are persistent, whereas coc you lose them every battle win or lose).
the significant difference between games for me is not heroes, but matchmaking. coc separates level and ranking, whereas castle they are the same. coc, you really can't make a mistake with planning/development because you are ranked based on battle performance, not development. castle, if you develop your base/army the wrong way, you'll see the consequences in battle. you can't restart either unlike coc, i've tried.
coc, yes, there are many high level "farmers" who lower their rank on purpose to pick on low levels. imo, this is offset by the reward/level ratio. however, to me this is more interesting because already you get to learn about mid/high level strats and are already part of the "real" game. castle, i feel like i'm just steamrolling through an endless sea of low levels until maybe in a few weeks i'll get to play with the big boys. i suppose, i could purposely level up prematurely, but i don't see why i'd want to gimp myself. (as i said, no undoing mistakes because it's hard to lower your level/might compared to coc's ranking system).
all that being said, it almost sounds like i dislike castle clash, which is untrue. still playing and enjoying both. i think castle is more casual/loose and action-oriented; coc is more refined and strategic.
that being said, i do feel that coc is the better game, at least for me. it's slower, yes, but more balanced and strategic. castle has a lot of action, but i find it much too easy. i've won 100% of raids without even trying. due to the mechanics, i'm also raiding at least 10x more than i do in coc (troops are persistent, whereas coc you lose them every battle win or lose).
the significant difference between games for me is not heroes, but matchmaking. coc separates level and ranking, whereas castle they are the same. coc, you really can't make a mistake with planning/development because you are ranked based on battle performance, not development. castle, if you develop your base/army the wrong way, you'll see the consequences in battle. you can't restart either unlike coc, i've tried.
coc, yes, there are many high level "farmers" who lower their rank on purpose to pick on low levels. imo, this is offset by the reward/level ratio. however, to me this is more interesting because already you get to learn about mid/high level strats and are already part of the "real" game. castle, i feel like i'm just steamrolling through an endless sea of low levels until maybe in a few weeks i'll get to play with the big boys. i suppose, i could purposely level up prematurely, but i don't see why i'd want to gimp myself. (as i said, no undoing mistakes because it's hard to lower your level/might compared to coc's ranking system).
all that being said, it almost sounds like i dislike castle clash, which is untrue. still playing and enjoying both. i think castle is more casual/loose and action-oriented; coc is more refined and strategic.
