Printable View
In Clash of Clans, I think level should be the determinant in PvP, rather than trophies. This is because it's not exactly fair when a level 90 something attacks a level 50 and takes massive loot, because they lose battles on purpose to lower their trophy count.
I think players shouldn't be able to purposely lose to towns (using 1 archer/barb) in order to take advantage of the system and prey on lower levelled players.
Opinions?
Not a good idea as this will take away a main mechanic to the game (farming) and loot penalties are in place to help stop it slightly
Loot penalties should be based on player level at the very least not TH.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx909
The concept of 'farming' is bull♥♥♥♥, really strips the game of any competitivity that a PvP game should have.
Experience lvl is determined by to many variabeles. Especially donating skews this number. Also the loot penalty prevents people from praying on lower lvl TH's. Furthermore it's easy to get your gold back. And really if you have a crappy base then suffer the consequences.
also wat is fair about a lvl45 with lvl5 troops (premature TH8) who attacks another lvl45 who is still at TH6 but is working hard to max his base?
Nobody better even think about "praying" on me, or God help them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny101
If the system changed, people would just change how they exploit it.
If the matching system was based strictly on level, then nobody would donate troops [since that would artifically raise their level], everybody would rush town halls [since you gain less experience having a bunch of level one stuff as opposed to having higher leveled defenses], heroes would suddenly become the ultimate i-win button [since leveling your heroes doesn't give you any exp, thus doesn't raise your level], walls would become the primary use for gold [not leveling defenses], and nobody would level collectors/mines [so they don't raise a level due to collectors.]
I'm sure there's some other things people could do as well to be impossible to beat, yet the exact same level. People would just find whatever level they deem most beneficial, and stay there.
How so? You're free to compete for the top spots if you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbie22
Let me tell you what would strip the game of any "competitivity". Level based match making. Why? Because suddenly you could gun for the top of the leader board and be completely immune to attack from the highly developed bases that have earned the right to be there.
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, level really means nothing with regard to offensive capability. If your system were implemented the following things would occur:
1. People would not donate troops.
2. People would upgrade all of their offensive stuff (troops, lab, camps, etc) and then immediately upgrade their TH so that they got access to the next group of offense related upgrades. You could completely ignore defense, and be a relatively low level with very advanced offensive capabilities. Sure you might get steam rolled...but since the penalties would be level based, you'd be rolling in the loot so it wouldn't really matter.
Supercell is committed to matchmaking by trophy levels. You can read about the mechanics here: http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...king-explained!
But since this is not going to change, going to close this up so the sub-forum can focus on new feature requests and ideas to improve those which have not been ruled out.
Some great replies and explanations though - but they've been discussed quite extensively in other threads not in the idea sub-forum in the past.