Give us a SHIELD when someone uses a full army against us... regardless of %

I understand the reasoning behind taking the shield away for TH snipes, but, what I don't get, is if someone uses a full army against my base and 1- either sucks at attacking or 2- has weak troops, I don't get a shield.

We get a 20-30 minute guard and that's it (now I have to reset traps and get new cc troops)

We are getting punished for having high level defenses and good base designs because 30 minutes later, someone can now attack our base with several traps gone and possibly the cc troops killed.

I propose we get a shield (or even a half shield) when someone uses a certain percentage of their troops against our base (like how the eagle artillery is activated) so we have time to login and reset everything.

I agree, I've never understood the idea of punishing people for being strong defensively.

You get the shield to prevent you being hit for loot over and over again.

If they aren't getting 30% damage with a full army, then they shouldn't be getting much loot either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajax

You get the shield to prevent you being hit for loot over and over again.

If they aren't getting 30% damage with a full army, then they shouldn't be getting much loot either.

---

Except when the first hit gets 200k, takes out all traps then the 2nd hit comes in and takes 500k easily. Punished for having strong defenses while my rushed TH12 only loses like 200-400k per hit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajax

You get the shield to prevent you being hit for loot over and over again.

If they aren't getting 30% damage with a full army, then they shouldn't be getting much loot either.

---

We've already mentioned that you are being punished for being strong defensively. It is very possible that someone comes along takes a quarter to 50% of your loot, destroys your cc, trips up your traps and leaves with less than 29% only to have the next person destroy most if not the entire base. Which means that for having a successful defense you were punished by being hit for more loot than if you had just been crushed initially. Explain how that makes any sense.

Not to mention you make a completely false assumption about loot not being taken. It's actually quite easy for people to take your full de without taking 30% of the base. When I was using goblin knife I would be able to do this regularly. Taking up to 50% of all the loot offered on most bases would easily be achievable with less than 29% destruction. So, sorry your explanation does not hold up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keflex

Except when the first hit gets 200k, takes out all traps then the 2nd hit comes in and takes 500k easily. Punished for having strong defenses while my rushed TH12 only loses like 200-400k per hit

---

Do not try to make a rule based on the worst possible scenario.

Most of the times, a less than 30% hit barely gets any loot and disable not more than 33% of your traps.

UNLESS

You have a base where all the loot is exposed, so that is on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Do not try to make a rule based on the worst possible scenario.

Most of the times, a less than 30% hit barely gets any loot and disable not more than 33% of your traps.

UNLESS

You have a base where all the loot is exposed, so that is on you.

---

I guess you didn't read my post, which happens to be right above yours. :facepalm:

You are clearly missing the point of the thread which is that people are being punished for having a strong defense. You think it's right to lose more loot for being strong defensively than you would if you were weaker??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

I guess you didn't read my post, which happens to be right above yours. :facepalm:

You are clearly missing the point of the thread which is that people are being punished for having a strong defense. You think it's right to lose more loot for being strong defensively than you would if you were weaker??

---

I did read your post, and your point is not valid so I decided to skip it.

No one is being punished for a strong defense, you win lots of trophies and that's the main goal for people who do want to defend attacks.

I have a full base, the strongest defense possible, and every time I defend an attack the attacker barely gets loot and I get 30+ trophies

When you get on 5000+ trophies you will learn that 30+ trophies on a defense is a reason to dance the entire night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

I did read your post, and your point is not valid so I decided to skip it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

No one is being punished for a strong defense, you win lots of trophies and that's the main goal for people who do want to defend attacks.

I have a full base, the strongest defense possible, and every time I defend an attack the attacker barely gets loot and I get 30+ trophies

When you get on 5000+ trophies you will learn that 30+ trophies on a defense is a reason to dance the entire night.

---

Congratulations to you. So you are making a negative comment on a thread which does not affect you in any way. First off I have been well over 5000 trophies, so I understand that to you (the small minority in this game) who only cares trophies this may have no effect. For anyone else this is something that is completely backwards.

You are being punished for being stronger defensively if you take a defensive win with giving up less than 30%. You lose more loot. Period! While that might not matter to you (again the very, very small minority in this game) it does affect others, as the main goal for most people is to hold loot to upgrade their base not to gain trophies from winning a defense. There simply is no reason that it should be this way and you have yet to provide a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be changed. (or any argument for that matter).


Even if it was changed it still wouldn't affect you negatively. As a matter of fact it would likely have a positive effect on you, because if your defense won with less than 29% damage you would still get a shield. Which in turn means more attacks for you before you have to defend again, which then means more potential trophy gains for you. Instead, if someone gets less than 29% against your base you will have to defend again shortly meaning you actually lose out on trophies for having a strong defense. So your logic makes no sense whatsoever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

I did read your post, and your point is not valid so I decided to skip it.

No one is being punished for a strong defense, you win lots of trophies and that's the main goal for people who do want to defend attacks.

I have a full base, the strongest defense possible, and every time I defend an attack the attacker barely gets loot and I get 30+ trophies

When you get on 5000+ trophies you will learn that 30+ trophies on a defense is a reason to dance the entire night.

---

Their point is very valid. The vast majority of players are well under 5000 trophies and they dance all night when they receive a shield for a good defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Congratulations to you. So you are making a negative comment on a thread which does not affect you in any way. First off I have been well over 5000 trophies, so I understand that to you (the small minority in this game) who only cares trophies this may have no effect. For anyone else this is something that is completely backwards.

You are being punished for being stronger defensively if you take a defensive win with giving up less than 30%. You lose more loot. Period! While that might not matter to you (again the very, very small minority in this game) it does affect others, as the main goal for most people is to hold loot to upgrade their base not to gain trophies from winning a defense. There simply is no reason that it should be this way and you have yet to provide a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be changed. (or any argument for that matter).

Even if it was changed it still wouldn't affect you negatively, as a matter of fact it would likely have a positive effect on you, because if your defense won with less than 29% damage you would still get a shield, which in turn means more attacks for you before you have to defend again, which means more trophy gains for you. Instead if someone gets less than 29% against your base you will have to defend again shortly meaning you actually lose out on trophies for having a strong defense. So your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

---

No no no... you are also missing another point I made.

You are trying to make a rule based on the worst scenario.

Please, show me your record history of 30%- hits defenses with a high loot being taken and change my mind.

The only reason I cited trophies is that you are not being punished, at all. If you don't care about trophies, it is your also your call.

Stop trying to shift it the discussion to the fact that it would not affect me because that does not change the outcome at all.

I DO agree that if you get a 29% hit with half your loot stolen, you just got punished for defending.

If you make it easy for the opponent to loot you, your fault.

If you try to defend your loot and this is still happening, well, bad luck, you just fell into the rare, worst case scenario.

If this happens often, well, bad news for you, you do not have a strong defensive base after all. If the opponents can steal your loot with no effort and your game goal is to protect your loot, you need to review your base.

Having a strong base does not consists only of having maxed defenses, you need a good layout for your needs.

I wouldn't necessarily mind this change, but I doubt it will ever come. Clash if Clans has always rewarded attacking over defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

We've already mentioned that you are being punished for being strong defensively. It is very possible that someone comes along takes a quarter to 50% of your loot, destroys your cc, trips up your traps and leaves with less than 29% only to have the next person destroy most if not the entire base. Which means that for having a successful defense you were punished by being hit for more loot than if you had just been crushed initially. Explain how that makes any sense.

Not to mention you make a completely false assumption about loot not being taken. It's actually quite easy for people to take your full de without taking 30% of the base. When I was using goblin knife I would be able to do this regularly. Taking up to 50% of all the loot offered on most bases would easily be achievable with less than 29% destruction. So, sorry your explanation does not hold up.

---

I disagree strongly.

You claim you are being "punished for being string defensively", and then claim that people can take that much of your loot without doing 30% damage.

If they can do that, then you are most definitely not strong defensively.

In that case, you are "being punished" for leaving your loot too accessible.

It really shouldn't be possible to take that much while doing so little damage.

Just looking through my defence logs. Ignoring attacks which were clearly trophy dropping.

TH10 (Crystal 3) Just ONE attack which did less than 30% - that took 140K out of 655K available (225 DE out of 6183). 28% damage, less than 25% of the loot.

TH11 (Champions 1). Not a single attack which didn't give a shield.

TH12 (Titans 2). Not a single attack that didn't give a shield.

TH9 (Crystal 3). Not a single attack that didn't give a shield, even though I'm not playing tat account much, so collectors often full.

TH7 (Silver 2). Three attacks under 30%, but none of those got more than 20K loot.

So that is 5 defence logs, 200 attacks between them, only 4 genuine attacks less than 30%, not a single one where damage was less than 30% but loot taken was more than 25%.

I do not for one moment believe that taking 50% of the loot available can easily be done with 29% destruction on most bases.

Maybe on most attacks you make, but that isn't the same because you next past any that don't look good for that type of attack.

But regardless of whether it feels fair to those being hit, this was set that way to prevent people getting around the removal of TH sniping, and is almost certainly still necessary to prevent people getting cheap shields.

and not only all you traps and clan castle troops are down but also at least half of your defenses so if someone attacks you again your moe than likely to lose

yeah but someone can come at you with a few a wallbreakers and huge hoarde of goblins and your done while the defenses are mor focoused on the troops that soak up hits. so it is possible to lose a bunch of loot and only gey some damage even with your resources being heavilly defended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajax

I disagree strongly.

You claim you are being "punished for being string defensively", and then claim that people can take that much of your loot without doing 30% damage.

If they can do that, then you are most definitely not strong defensively.

In that case, you are "being punished" for leaving your loot too accessible.

....

But regardless of whether it feels fair to those being hit, this was set that way to prevent people getting around the removal of TH sniping, and is almost certainly still necessary to prevent people getting cheap shields.

---

If someone wins a defense with less than 30% damage while the attacker uses their entire army, I would consider that a good defense. So regardless of whether you lose 25, 15, 30, 80 or even just 5% of your loot, the fact that you don’t get a shield with that means you are losing more resources than someone who gets hit for 31% which makes absolutely no sense in any way.

The idea that because of the removal of th sniping made this a requirement is disingenuous. It was put in as a requirement that someone needed to use a certain amount of troops to avoid engineers getting a free shield with every attack. It was also put out there that 30% of your base needed to be hit because the previous requirement was just that a star was needed. Which meant if you left your th outside someone could just kill the th and you’d be shielded, obviously there is a flaw with that. However, there is no reason that either 30% destruction or more than some arbitrary number of troops could be used to trigger a shield.

If someone uses their WHOLE army on you and you defend with less than 30% you are being penalized. What you and others seem to be either conveniently ignoring or completely missing is the idea that you are worse off defending against someone’s whole army hitting you for 29% than someone who uses less than half their army to get them 31%. That’s unnecessary and backwards. Denying that is sticking your head in the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

No no no... you are also missing another point I made.

You are trying to make a rule based on the worst scenario.

Please, show me your record history of 30%- hits defenses with a high loot being taken and change my mind.

The only reason I cited trophies is that you are not being punished, at all. If you don't care about trophies, it is your also your call.

Stop trying to shift it the discussion to the fact that it would not affect me because that does not change the outcome at all.

I DO agree that if you get a 29% hit with half your loot stolen, you just got punished for defending.

...

---

You have yet to make an actual point.

All you you have to do is look at the part of your quote that I bolded and you don’t need to say anymore because you agreed you with me.

You are clearly missing the point of this whole thread. If you win a defense with 29% damage even though the opponent used their entire army, you are worse off than if someone got 31% damage on your base. That makes no sense in any way shape or form and you have yet to say anything relevant to the contrary of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajax

I disagree strongly.

You claim you are being "punished for being string defensively", and then claim that people can take that much of your loot without doing 30% damage.

If they can do that, then you are most definitely not strong defensively.

In that case, you are "being punished" for leaving your loot too accessible.

It really shouldn't be possible to take that much while doing so little damage.

Just looking through my defence logs. Ignoring attacks which were clearly trophy dropping.

TH10 (Crystal 3) Just ONE attack which did less than 30% - that took 140K out of 655K available (225 DE out of 6183). 28% damage, less than 25% of the loot.

TH11 (Champions 1). Not a single attack which didn't give a shield.

TH12 (Titans 2). Not a single attack that didn't give a shield.

TH9 (Crystal 3). Not a single attack that didn't give a shield, even though I'm not playing tat account much, so collectors often full.

TH7 (Silver 2). Three attacks under 30%, but none of those got more than 20K loot.

So that is 5 defence logs, 200 attacks between them, only 4 genuine attacks less than 30%, not a single one where damage was less than 30% but loot taken was more than 25%.

I do not for one moment believe that taking 50% of the loot available can easily be done with 29% destruction on most bases.

Maybe on most attacks you make, but that isn't the same because you next past any that don't look good for that type of attack.

But regardless of whether it feels fair to those being hit, this was set that way to prevent people getting around the removal of TH sniping, and is almost certainly still necessary to prevent people getting cheap shields.

---

AJAX, You're missing the entire point of this thread. I didn't say anything about how much loot the first attack gets with a full army, it's how much loot the second or third person gets 20 or 60 minutes later and wipes your base because half the traps are tripped and there are no cc troops left to defend. So, because someone attacks my base, the second guy gets 90% and all my loot when, if I had all my traps set and cc troops intact, would have gotten much less. I check my bases often, but requiring us to check it every 30 minutes to simply keep the traps set seems a little ridiculous. I'm not against being rooted for all of my loot with great attacks, I'm saying my base is now crippled because of some sub-par attacker that used 95-100% of his/her army on my base and fell short of the 30%. So it has nothing to do with people wanting cheap shields. All it has to do with is if someone attacks our bases with a full army, we should get some type of shield so we can come back in an hour or 2 and reset our traps and get new cc troops. Like I stated at the beginning, even a 50% shield, or even a 2 hour shield, something so I have time to reset my village when someone comes at it like they want it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

If someone wins a defense with less than 30% damage while the attacker uses their entire army, I would consider that a good defense. So regardless of whether you lose 25, 15, 30, 80 or even just 5% of your loot, the fact that you don’t get a shield with that means you are losing more resources than someone who gets hit for 31% which makes absolutely no sense in any way.

The idea that because of the removal of th sniping made this a requirement is disingenuous. It was put in as a requirement that someone needed to use a certain amount of troops to avoid engineers getting a free shield with every attack. It was also put out there that 30% of your base needed to be hit because the previous requirement was just that a star was needed. Which meant if you left your th outside someone could just kill the th and you’d be shielded, obviously there is a flaw with that. However, there is no reason that either 30% destruction or more than some arbitrary number of troops could be used to trigger a shield.

If someone uses their WHOLE army on you and you defend with less than 30% you are being penalized. What you and others seem to be either conveniently ignoring or completely missing is the idea that you are worse off defending against someone’s whole army hitting you for 29% than someone who uses less than half their army to get them 31%. That’s unnecessary and backwards. Denying that is sticking your head in the sand.

---

I'm going to agree with this whole statement.

My farm base is built in an old fashion troll base style where without deploying the whole army, it's next to impossible to get TH which is indeed exposed, but also well protected. Therefore it is not unusual for me to come back to the game after couple of hours and see 3 consecutive defenses granting me no shield since the attacker had nothing left to get that magical 30%.

I wouldn't say a word if my TH was easily destroyable by simply deploying WW (or BB) but that's not the case, queen walk won't do the trick either.

That all being said, I do have two elixir storages exposed as well, so even on fail, attacker can leave with quite a bit of loot.

So all in all, I agree with Sumo Sloth here - if my opponent uses all of his(her) army, I should get shield regardless of how much they score - if an attacker is (sorry for the word) dumb enough to try and get an "easy" one star, in other words falling for the trap, it's not my fault but his/hers.

You all are just ignoring the main point and I will only repeat it and not boter discussing side hypothesis until you prove otherwise.

You are trying to make a rule out of an exception. Please enlighten me, show me consecutive attacks where you were raided a lot of loot (In %) with less than 30% destruction.

All this sounds like is that it happened one or two times and you got mad so you want a bad solution for something that is not even a problem.

I repeat, to all cases above me (especially to the troll base person, in which this might happen quite often) your base design is bad, no matter how strong your defense is, you are not protecting your loot.

If you are defending attacks and having half your loot stolen, your base design was made to protect trophies not loot.

The fact that you got less than 30% destruction do not mean that you have a good defensive base, at all.

There are raids where I hit for 60% and steal less than 25% of the available loot, this is a base that defends loot.

If your base is hit for 25% and you get 50% of your loot taken, that is a base that defends trophies.

Change your base design before asking supercell to solve your frustration.

For the goblin knife person, there are ways of solving that, it is easily defensable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterEdy

I'm going to agree with this whole statement.

My farm base is built in an old fashion troll base style where without deploying the whole army, it's next to impossible to get TH which is indeed exposed, but also well protected. Therefore it is not unusual for me to come back to the game after couple of hours and see 3 consecutive defenses granting me no shield since the attacker had nothing left to get that magical 30%.

I wouldn't say a word if my TH was easily destroyable by simply deploying WW (or BB) but that's not the case, queen walk won't do the trick either.

That all being said, I do have two elixir storages exposed as well, so even on fail, attacker can leave with quite a bit of loot.

So all in all, I agree with Sumo Sloth here - if my opponent uses all of his(her) army, I should get shield regardless of how much they score - if an attacker is (sorry for the word) dumb enough to try and get an "easy" one star, in other words falling for the trap, it's not my fault but his/hers.

---

Troll bases are meant to defend and win trophies, not protect loot. You usually tempt the attacker to steal your loot or destroy your th and protect the side where he will attack from, granting a defence and trophies.

If you want shields, do not use troll bases like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Troll bases are meant to defend and win trophies, not protect loot. You usually tempt the attacker to steal your loot or destroy your th and protect the side where he will attack from, granting a defence and trophies.

If you want shields, do not use troll bases like that.

---

I didn't know you saw my base so you can claim all you claim. FYI my base is defending loot pretty well against most of the attacks, especially dark elixir which is at the other corner of the map as TH is and attackers rarely ever get to it.

And my point was leaning more on granting shield no matter how much they take as long as they use the whole army because if attacker has to use WHOLE army to get 27% out of the attack, then the base defends well in my book (this last part is to the previous comment, not yours)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterEdy

I didn't know you saw my base so you can claim all you claim. FYI my base is defending loot pretty well against most of the attacks, especially dark elixir which is at the other corner of the map as TH is and attackers rarely ever get to it.

And my point was leaning more on granting shield no matter how much they take as long as they use the whole army because if attacker has to use WHOLE army to get 27% out of the attack, then the base defends well in my book (this last part is to the previous comment, not yours)

---

So, you are going the opposite way of your conrades in the argument.

One says that it does not matter that they take less loot, if someone attacks after the Failed attempt it still counts as too much loot.

Now you are presenting a completely mew argument.

But the fact is still the same, if I saw your base or not. A base that has loot taken with 29% destruction is not a good base to protect resources, it is mostly a trophy base.


The thing is, people who want to win an argument they use one simple example of a completely specific and rare situation to prove their point. So the argument which is being presented is, if someone uses their entire army on me, steal loot, activate all traps and somehow manage to get only 29%, I am being penalized so all attacks that uses the entire army should give a shield to the defender.

So let me counter it with an equally ridiculous situation. If someone attacks me with only one barbarian on their army. Lets say the heroes are down and that person is dropping trophies, and it drops the barbarian, which in this case is the entire army, should I get a shield?

Another one.. I place my giga tesla, my de storage, all my teslas and traps on the corner of the base. Someone who wants the de will steal it with any army, lets say 240 barbarians, although the de is guaranteed, he will have to use all army since it is very well protected and will result in less than 10% destruction. Should I receive a shield?

There you go, we are back to the same th snipping, infinite free shield, clouds worsening, issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

You all are just ignoring the main point and I will only repeat it and not boter discussing side hypothesis until you prove otherwise.

You are trying to make a rule out of an exception. Please enlighten me, show me consecutive attacks where you were raided a lot of loot (In %) with less than 30% destruction.

---

I believe you are ignoring the main point. The main point is not that people are getting consecutive attacks with less than 30% destruction, the point is that the first attack is tripping many of the traps and killing the CC but getting under 30%. Then after the guard expires, a subsequent attack is able to take most of the base and most of the loot because some defenses (traps & CC) are down. That second attack would have never happened if the first defense would have been (rightfully) rewarded with a shield.

I've seen it happen on my accounts. Unfortunately the current logs don't have an example of it.

One might say, "well then pay attention to your notifications then re-arm your traps and re-fill your CC." Kinda hard to pay attention to those notifications at night while you're sleeping. Maybe a compromise can be an 8 hour shield to get you though the night then you can re-arm everything in the morning.

Of course, one could argue that this feature would have an adverse effect on the economy, because rich bases that defend well will be taken out of circulation for ~12 hours rather than just 30 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyPC

I believe you are ignoring the main point. The main point is not that people are getting consecutive attacks with less than 30% destruction, the point is that the first attack is tripping many of the traps and killing the CC but getting under 30%. Then after the guard expires, a subsequent attack is able to take most of the base and most of the loot because some defenses (traps & CC) are down. That second attack would have never happened if the first defense would have been (rightfully) rewarded with a shield.

I've seen it happen on my accounts. Unfortunately the current logs don't have an example of it.

One might say, "well then pay attention to your notifications then re-arm your traps and re-fill your CC." Kinda hard to pay attention to those notifications at night while you're sleeping. Maybe a compromise can be an 8 hour shield to get you though the night then you can re-arm everything in the morning.

Of course, one could argue that this feature would have an adverse effect on the economy, because rich bases that defend well will be taken out of circulation for ~12 hours rather than just 30 minutes.

---

I have already agreed, that are a few rare situations where this can be a burden. However, they are rare and dont justify the consequences of more bases with shields more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

So, you are going the opposite way of your conrades in the argument.

One says that it does not matter that they take less loot, if someone attacks after the Failed attempt it still counts as too much loot.

Now you are presenting a completely mew argument.

But the fact is still the same, if I saw your base or not. A base that has loot taken with 29% destruction is not a good base to protect resources, it is mostly a trophy base.


The thing is, people who want to win an argument they use one simple example of a completely specific and rare situation to prove their point. So the argument which is being presented is, if someone uses their entire army on me, steal loot, activate all traps and somehow manage to get only 29%, I am being penalized so all attacks that uses the entire army should give a shield to the defender.

So let me counter it with an equally ridiculous situation. If someone attacks me with only one barbarian on their army. Lets say the heroes are down and that person is dropping trophies, and it drops the barbarian, which in this case is the entire army, should I get a shield?

Another one.. I place my giga tesla, my de storage, all my teslas and traps on the corner of the base. Someone who wants the de will steal it with any army, lets say 240 barbarians, although the de is guaranteed, he will have to use all army since it is very well protected and will result in less than 10% destruction. Should I receive a shield?

There you go, we are back to the same th snipping, infinite free shield, clouds worsening, issue.

---

Actually when people come up with the "whole army" argument, they might mean whole capacity of army camps, not just limited to whatever no.of troops the attcker has. Even if you have only 1 barb in your camps, the total capacity(220,240 etc. ) might be what they really mean.As in-they might not mind facing a one-troop attack intended for trophy dropping, but if they faced the full army camp's worth of troops they need shield.
Perhaps there can be a middle ground? A shield depending on the amount of traps expended or amount of resources lost on defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maestro666

Actually when people come up with the "whole army" argument, they might mean whole capacity of army camps, not just limited to whatever no.of troops the attcker has. Even if you have only 1 barb in your camps, the total capacity(220,240 etc. ) might be what they really mean.As in-they might not mind a one-troop attack for trophy dropping, but if they used the full army camp's worth of troops they need shield.

---

So you are narrowing down the whole spectrum of the possibilities to the ones that only specifically solve your problems?

How about my giga tesla example?

What if someone attacks you with everything EXCEPT one barbarian? People would not flood this forum saying "hey that is dumb people are leaving 1 barb behind and I am not getting a shield, fix it supercell"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

You all are just ignoring the main point and I will only repeat it and not boter discussing side hypothesis until you prove otherwise.

You are trying to make a rule out of an exception. Please enlighten me, show me consecutive attacks where you were raided a lot of loot (In %) with less than 30% destruction.

All this sounds like is that it happened one or two times and you got mad so you want a bad solution for something that is not even a problem.

I repeat, to all cases above me (especially to the troll base person, in which this might happen quite often) your base design is bad, no matter how strong your defense is, you are not protecting your loot.

If you are defending attacks and having half your loot stolen, your base design was made to protect trophies not loot.

The fact that you got less than 30% destruction do not mean that you have a good defensive base, at all.

There are raids where I hit for 60% and steal less than 25% of the available loot, this is a base that defends loot.

If your base is hit for 25% and you get 50% of your loot taken, that is a base that defends trophies.

Change your base design before asking supercell to solve your frustration.

For the goblin knife person, there are ways of solving that, it is easily defensable.

---

Once again dancing around the actual point of the thread, which you either don't understand or are completely ignoring. The point is someone who takes 29% or less damage is punished for doing so when compared to someone who takes 30% - 49%. Quite simply that is wrong, especially in the context of someone using their whole army to fail against you. Rare, is a subjective term. Across my 13 accounts on my defense logs I have 7 cases of someone getting less than 29% with a significant army. To me that is not rare. I have way more of those than I do people dropping a single troop. The Siege Machine getting stuck on a wall is rare, as a matter of fact it's never happened to me, does that mean it shouldn't be fixed? Of course not. Rare has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong that it's happening.

As for your "ridiculous examples" in case one where someone drops a troop, no I don't think it should be a shield as I've already outlined the reason that's wrong.

As for your second scenario, if someone has to drop their full army to get your de than yes I think a shield is valid. Also, for the record I don't believe it needs to be your full army, my personal opinion is that if they drop 50% or more it warrants a shield, however I'm definitely flexible on that number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Once again dancing around the actual point of the thread, which you either don't understand or are completely ignoring. The point is someone who takes 29% or less damage is punished for doing so when compared to someone who takes 30% - 49%. Quite simply that is wrong, especially in the context of someone using their whole army to fail against you. Rare, is a subjective term. Across my 13 accounts on my defense logs I have 7 cases of someone getting less than 29% with a significant army. To me that is not rare. I have way more of those than I do people dropping a single troop. The Siege Machine getting stuck on a wall is rare, as a matter of fact it's never happened to me, does that mean it shouldn't be fixed? Of course not. Rare has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong that it's happening.

As for your "ridiculous examples" in case one where someone drops a troop, no I don't think it should be a shield as I've already outlined the reason that's wrong.

As for your second scenario, if someone has to drop their full army to get your de than yes I think a shield is valid. Also, for the record I don't believe it needs to be your full army, my personal opinion is that if they drop 50% or more it warrants a shield, however I'm definitely flexible on that number.

---

Haha I am not dancing, I have already told you many, many times that you are not being punished for having a good defense, you are being punished for having a crappy base design.

If you are getting hit for 29% and they are still getting loots, crappy base design. If you are complaining that the subsequent hit is easier because it will have no traps or cc, crappy base design.

Stop complaining about something that is not a problem and review your base design, it is clearly a trophy pushing design not a farm base.

I have a farm base, the oponent can always get half my loot and destroy 50% of it. So, I trade half my loot for a shield.

Now, on legendary league, I have a push base, a trade 80% of my loot for trophies, and I love it.


Think about the issue you would be introducing in the game just so you can be happy after a 29% hit. Do you know what the worst thing about clash is right now? The clouds. And your so called solution would make it even worst.

And now, you are limiting your proposal only to cover your own "problem"

Do yourself a favor and just review your base design to satisfy your needs

And you are using an example that has absolutelly nothing to do with the subject to prove your point. The siege machine stuck in the wall is a bug, it should not happen, never, so it should be fixed. The shield thing is intentional, and you want it to change because you dont like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Haha I am not dancing, I have already told you many, many times that you are not being punished for having a good defense, you are being punished for having a crappy base design.

If you are getting hit for 29% and they are still getting loots, crappy base design. If you are complaining that the subsequent hit is easier because it will have no traps or cc, crappy base design.

Stop complaining about something that is not a problem and review your base design, it is clearly a trophy pushing design not a farm base.

I have a farm base, the oponent can always get half my loot and destroy 50% of it. So, I trade half my loot for a shield.

Now, on legendary league, I have a push base, a trade 80% of my loot for trophies, and I love it.


Think about the issue you would be introducing in the game just so you can be happy after a 29% hit. Do you know what the worst thing about clash is right now? The clouds. And your so called solution would make it even worst.

And now, you are limiting your proposal only to cover your own "problem"

Do yourself a favor and just review your base design to satisfy your needs

And you are using an example that has absolutelly nothing to do with the subject to prove your point. The siege machine stuck in the wall is a bug, it should not happen, never, so it should be fixed. The shield thing is intentional, and you want it to change because you dont like it.

---

I reiterate, you clearly missed the point of the thread. Whether it's because you don't understand, you can't read or you are willingly ignoring the point, you have proven again that you don't know what you're talking about.

My base and the layout have absolutely nothing to do with someone who gives up 29% being worse off than some one who gives up 31%. You're being ignorant by claiming it's a base problem when it clearly has nothing to do with the base.

You talk about clouds as the biggest issue right now, which I agree, it sucks, however the number of people that affects is likely less than the number of people 29% affects, and the effect of this change on the clouds would be so minimal it likely wouldn't even register. Not to mention Darian has already said "Operation Blue Skies" is coming and is supposed to take care of that problem, so why you keep talking about something irrelevant in the discussion is beyond me.

You can have your misguided opinions, but in this case you are wrong, period. Does that mean it will get changed, no. Does it mean it should get changed probably, but I understand there are other issues out there which warrant more attention currently. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make any logical sense as it sits right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

I reiterate, you clearly missed the point of the thread. Whether it's because you don't understand, you can't read or you are willingly ignoring the point, you have proven again that you don't know what you're talking about.

My base and the layout have absolutely nothing to do with someone who gives up 29% being worse off than some one who gives up 31%. You're being ignorant by claiming it's a base problem when it clearly has nothing to do with the base.

You talk about clouds as the biggest issue right now, which I agree, it sucks, however the number of people that affects is likely less than the number of people 29% affects, and the effect of this change on the clouds would be so minimal it likely wouldn't even register. Not to mention Darian has already said "Operation Blue Skies" is coming and is supposed to take care of that problem, so why you keep talking about something irrelevant in the discussion is beyond me.

You can have your misguided opinions, but in this case you are wrong, period. Does that mean it will get changed, no. Does it mean it should get changed probably, but I understand there are other issues out there which warrant more attention currently. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make any logical sense as it sits right now.

---

Again, false fact to support your opinion. Operation blue skies only affect legend league, titan league wont be changed.

Your base getting 29% and significant loot getting stolen is a base design flaw.

I am not wrong, period, because everything you are saying is only due to your own experience and opinion. You are not the owner of the truth, this is also a flawed discussion winning strategy.

Also, trying to distrust me as a person (such as subtle trying to premise that my opinions are misguided) and not my arguments, as you frequently did, is another low discussion winning strategy, wont work on me.


Give me facts, data, not opinions and biased assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Again, false fact to support your opinion. Operation blue skies only affect legend league, titan league wont be changed.

Your base getting 29% and significant loot getting stolen is a base design flaw.

I am not wrong, period, because everything you are saying is only due to your own experience and opinion. You are not the owner of the truth, this is also a flawed discussion winning strategy.

Also, trying to distrust me as a person (such as subtle trying to premise that my opinions are misguided) and not my arguments, as you frequently did, is another low discussion winning strategy, wont work on me.


Give me facts, data, not opinions and biased assumptions.

---

FACT: 1 of my 4 bases just got attacked 20 minutes ago, 29% destruction. They used 8 level 8 giants, 6 level 6 wall breakers, 7 level 8 wizards, 2 level 7 archers, 18 level 3 bowlers, 5 max healers a level 28 queen with 2 heal, 2 rage, 1 jump (all max) and 1 level 4 poison. They got 65,233 gold 108,693 elixir and 375 DE. If not for my cc troops (4 valks) and several giant bombs they set off, they would have gotten a whole lot more. Luckily I was able to reset my traps because less than 5 minutes after running out of guard, I was attacked again.

This happens no less than a dozen times a week on all 4 accounts combined... multiply that by 4 years and it is very far from a rare instance.

FACTS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyGraphix

FACT: 1 of my 4 bases just got attacked 20 minutes ago, 29% destruction. They used 8 level 8 giants, 6 level 6 wall breakers, 7 level 8 wizards, 2 level 7 archers, 18 level 3 bowlers, 5 max healers a level 28 queen with 2 heal, 2 rage, 1 jump (all max) and 1 level 4 poison. They got 65,233 gold 108,693 elixir and 375 DE. If not for my cc troops (4 valks) and several giant bombs they set off, they would have gotten a whole lot more. Luckily I was able to reset my traps because less than 5 minutes after running out of guard, I was attacked again.

This happens no less than a dozen times a week on all 4 accounts combined... multiply that by 4 years and it is very far from a rare instance.

FACTS!

---

It looks like a TH12 or TH11 attacked you. And if you defended, you must be a TH12 or a TH11. 65k gold, 100k elixir and 375 DE is nothing. Thats not even cover the cost of the troops of your attacker

He lost more than you, buddy.

Now the argument, "Well, if someone attacked me before I re-armed my traps they could take a lot more". Well, kudos to the attacker, they could also have failed and taken only 100k gold, totalling 165k gold. Thats 2 siege machines.

This system seems to be working pretty well.

Or do you expect to receive a shield after someone barely touched your resources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

It looks like a TH12 or TH11 attacked you. And if you defended, you must be a TH12 or a TH11. 65k gold, 100k elixir and 375 DE is nothing. Thats not even cover the cost of the troops of your attacker

He lost more than you, buddy.

Now the argument, "Well, if someone attacked me before I re-armed my traps they could take a lot more". Well, kudos to the attacker, they could also have failed and taken only 100k gold, totalling 165k gold. Thats 2 siege machines.

This system seems to be working pretty well.

Or do you expect to receive a shield after someone barely touched your resources?

---

Yes, I would like a little more time to reset my village after someone comes after it with everything they've got... that is the entire point of this thread if you haven't figured that out by now. If that means a longer guard of short shield, so be it. Again, facts: this happens over a dozen times a week... explain this rarity you keep bringing up.

For someone wanting only facts for an argument against you, you sure make a lot of assumptions about other people and their bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyGraphix

Yes, I would like a little more time to reset my village after someone comes after it with everything they've got... that is the entire point of this thread if you haven't figured that out by now. If that means a longer guard of short shield, so be it. Again, facts: this happens over a dozen times a week... explain this rarity you keep bringing up.

For someone wanting only facts for an argument against you, you sure make a lot of assumptions about other people and their bases.

---

Don't take this personally, it only makes you sound aggressive and wrong. Now that someone came to the discussion with facts we can analyze it and determine if it is indeed a problem or it is something specific to you.

I tried not to bring this up again, well, it is rare. It never happened to me. There was someone on this thread that went over 400 attacks and did not happen to him as well.

So, if it is happening constantly to you, it IS your base. Your base is designed to lure people to attack from a direction in which they will fail and get a low %. Can you please share a Screenshot of your base?

If it is happening to you over a dozen times a week, something is specifically wrong with your base.

Are you, by any chance, a TH12 on a low league such as gold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Don't take this personally, it only makes you sound aggressive and wrong. Now that someone came to the discussion with facts we can analyze it and determine if it is indeed a problem or it is something specific to you.

I tried not to bring this up again, well, it is rare. It never happened to me. There was someone on this thread that went over 400 attacks and did not happen to him as well.

So, if it is happening constantly to you, it IS your base. Your base is designed to lure people to attack from a direction in which they will fail and get a low %. Can you please share a Screenshot of your base?

If it is happening to you over a dozen times a week, something is specifically wrong with your base.

Are you, by any chance, a TH12 on a low league such as gold?

---

Well, since it has never happened to you it must have never happened to someone else, seeing you are the leading authority on all things COC. So, a dozen times a week over 4 accounts is rare... got it!

The fact that you are stating you are giving facts, doesn't mean you are actually bringing any facts to the conversation. I haven't heard anything other than, "well, it has never happened to me"... is that your entire argument?

Here is 1 of my bases and 2 of the other accounts have the same base design.

Attachment 211608

Let me know how bad of a design it has... or is it just that I have a decent base design and defense, hence the reason people use full armies against me and fail time and again, but still trip traps and kill CC troops to make it easier for the next guy (again... the entire reason for this thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyGraphix

Well, since it has never happened to you it must have never happened to someone else, seeing you are the leading authority on all things COC. So, a dozen times a week over 4 accounts is rare... got it!

The fact that you are stating you are giving facts, doesn't mean you are actually bringing any facts to the conversation. I haven't heard anything other than, "well, it has never happened to me"... is that your entire argument?

Here is 1 of my bases and 2 of the other accounts have the same base design.

Attachment 211608

Let me know how bad of a design it has... or is it just that I have a decent base design and defense, hence the reason people use full armies against me and fail time and again, but still trip traps and kill CC troops to make it easier for the next guy (again... the entire reason for this thread)

---

Do not try to flip the reasoning here. If this was not a rare event, if this was common, there would be many other posts in this forum complaining about this issue, as DO happen with ANY common problem.

You are the one that is assuming that this happens every time just because it happens to you.


Now looking at your base, please, enlighten me, how can someone destroy a quarter of your base and activate all your traps if they are split in all sections? That seems quite impossible.

The reasoning for this thread is that you want to defend an attack and still get a shield for it. 75% of your base and traps are still intact EVEN if you do not open the game and re-arm everything.

So, seeing the screenshot, your so called "arguments" and your so called "solution", you are trying to convince me that somehow, someone attacks you for 29% destruction, activate a couple of giant bombs and 1 or 2 spring traps, maybe a seeking air mine (by seeing your base design, that what would be activated if someone took out a quarter of your base) and now a second attacker will absolutely obliterate your base because it does not have 2 of each of these traps?

So you are trying to convince me that your base is strong defensively and without a couple of giant bombs it can no longer defend an attack, at all?

I am sorry mate but I am not buying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Do not try to flip the reasoning here. If this was not a rare event, if this was common, there would be many other posts in this forum complaining about this issue, as DO happen with ANY common problem.

You are the one that is assuming that this happens every time just because it happens to you.


Now looking at your base, please, enlighten me, how can someone destroy a quarter of your base and activate all your traps if they are split in all sections? That seems quite impossible.

The reasoning for this thread is that you want to defend an attack and still get a shield for it. 75% of your base and traps are still intact EVEN if you do not open the game and re-arm everything.

So, seeing the screenshot, your so called "arguments" and your so called "solution", you are trying to convince me that somehow, someone attacks you for 29% destruction, activate a couple of giant bombs and 1 or 2 spring traps, maybe a seeking air mine (by seeing your base design, that what would be activated if someone took out a quarter of your base) and now a second attacker will absolutely obliterate your base because it does not have 2 of each of these traps?

So you are trying to convince me that your base is strong defensively and without a couple of giant bombs it can no longer defend an attack, at all?

I am sorry mate but I am not buying that.

---

There were several people that did post on this thread about this happening to them... or did you just scroll past those because they didn't help strengthen your argument?

I am saying that yes, if someone comes from the same side (you know, easy to do with the tombstones still there) the second attacker has a much easier time getting through the base, especially when the cc troops are killed by the first attacker.

And I am not trying to sell you anything by the way. I really could care less of your opinions moving forward. I'm pointing out an issue I have with the game and if you don't have the same issue, move on, nothing for you to see here. I started this thread for my problems, not your lack there of, since you are a COC savant. I would wish you good luck moving forward in the game, but it seems you need no luck since you are an all knowing and all seeing COC god that could never be wrong... just ask yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinterMech

I take pride in defending someone that only get below 30% with full armies.
I don't have a problem with the loot they are taking, and usually they take very little loot from the failed attack.

Anyway, you get Guard times, which enough for you to get online, re-armed everything, and also get an attack in.

---

Honestly, I don't mind if someone 3 stars me with my storages full because I know they had a great strategy going in. What I'm saying is, the 20 or 30 min guard is not usually enough time to login and reset everything, so the next guy gets an easier target and usually gets more loot than they would have otherwise gotten.

I'm just saying give us like 2 hours to log back in if someone comes at us with a full army and they don't get 30%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinterMech

How about 8 hours? Because I slept for 8 hours when I log off the game at night. If someone attacked me and I didn't get a shield, it should allow me to get back into the game and reset everything.

No, it doesn't work like that. The way the system implemented is not to benefit individual players, but overall players base.
When you implement 2 hours guard time instead of the normal 30 minutes, it directly reduce a lot of loot of out the overall economy. We will soon have more clouds.

Things you could do:
- put more buildings like builder huts, in the path most of your attackers likely to go. It will help ensuring they got at least 30% when they fail
- spread out your resources, to prevent players from getting 29% that could include more than 3-4 Storages. You need to design your base in such a way. When I get 29% by someone, they could only take 2 of my Storages on average.
- change your mindset, accept that the loss is not a lot. The most you could lose, 29% on 1st defense, and 100% on 2nd defense. Then you get 16 hours shield instead of the normal 12 hours shield. Even after you sleep for 8 hours, it still give you 8 hours shield left, enough for your to get 3-4 attacks in. The previous loss is really insignificant as compare to what you could earn through farming.

---

I don't remember saying anything about being mad about being looted when I'm sleeping. People sure do make a lot of assumptions on this thread.

What I'm proposing is supposed to reward you for successfully defending against a full on attack (not someone trying to snipe resources)

If you want to see my base design I've already posted it.

By the way, they make changes to the game all the time (hence my post)
Just because you can't make sense of my suggestions doesn't mean others can't.

I am curious, if this suggested change does get implemented, what is preventing people from putting their storages outside and getting easy shields?

I see a number of posts where people who are maxed out and have nothing else to do with their resources asking for DE to be put into walls. If they have so much resources in reserve that they cannot use then it would not matter to them if they lose some just to get a shield.

I do not push so please take the following as an opinion and not fact, if the cost of getting a shield is 450K G and E and 3500 DE but I will gain trophies in the process then I think that would be a welcome trade to many in the higher leagues. Perhaps there are other nuances that I am not aware of so please feel free to educate me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorbash098

I am curious, if this suggested change does get implemented, what is preventing people from putting their storages outside and getting easy shields?

I see a number of posts where people who are maxed out and have nothing else to do with their resources asking for DE to be put into walls. If they have so much resources in reserve that they cannot use then it would not matter to them if they lose some just to get a shield.

I do not push so please take the following as an opinion and not fact, if the cost of getting a shield is 450K G and E and 3500 DE but I will gain trophies in the process then I think that would be a welcome trade to many in the higher leagues. Perhaps there are other nuances that I am not aware of so please feel free to educate me.

---

People can put their storages outside, but it wouldn't take an entire army to get the loot (the reason for the thread), nor would someone get the 30% that is required now to get a shield by just raiding the storages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyGraphix

People can put their storages outside, but it wouldn't take an entire army to get the loot (the reason for the thread), nor would someone get the 30% that is required now to get a shield by just raiding the storages.

---

Ok I got ya.

So all I have to do to keep anyone from getting a shield in your suggestion is to hold back 1 troop, is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorbash098

Ok I got ya.

So all I have to do to keep anyone from getting a shield in your suggestion is to hold back 1 troop, is that correct?

---

No, if you read my very first post it would be a % of your army... kind of like how the EA is activated, because everyone has a different amount of army camp spaces available. SC could pick the %... 90%, 95%... whatever they would decide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyGraphix

No, if you read my very first post it would be a % of your army... kind of like how the EA is activated, because everyone has a different amount of army camp spaces available. SC could pick the %... 90%, 95%... whatever they would decide

---

Then what do mean by a percentage of your army, is that percentage of total army space or percentage total troops? Regardless, of the case then all I have to do is calculate how many troops I need to hold back and none of the bases I attack will have shields, unless the percentage is very low such that it is not worth deploying only a handful of troops. But that would probably lead to getting cheap shields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinterMech

How about 8 hours? Because I slept for 8 hours when I log off the game at night. If someone attacked me and I didn't get a shield, it should allow me to get back into the game and reset everything.

No, it doesn't work like that. The way the system implemented is not to benefit individual players, but overall players base.
When you implement 2 hours guard time instead of the normal 30 minutes, it directly reduce a lot of loot of out the overall economy. We will soon have more clouds.

Things you could do:
- put more buildings like builder huts, in the path most of your attackers likely to go. It will help ensuring they got at least 30% when they fail
- spread out your resources, to prevent players from getting 29% that could include more than 3-4 Storages. You need to design your base in such a way. When I get 29% by someone, they could only take 2 of my Storages on average.
- change your mindset, accept that the loss is not a lot. The most you could lose, 29% on 1st defense, and 100% on 2nd defense. Then you get 16 hours shield instead of the normal 12 hours shield. Even after you sleep for 8 hours, it still give you 8 hours shield left, enough for your to get 3-4 attacks in. The previous loss is really insignificant as compare to what you could earn through farming.

---

Dont bother, on every post I made on this thread I said they have a base design flaw that is allowing this to happen, they get triggered and start saying they are being punished because they have impecable defensive bases, not the other way around.

They want supercell to change the entire game system because they do no want to fix their own problem.

Lets say you sell tomatoes, and you claim your tomatoes are the reddest tomatoes on the country.

Scientists finish a study that discover that tomatoes with more than 80% redness are poisonous.

Now, you are out there claiming that you are being punished for having the best tomatoes. That is not true, you have bad tomatoes because they are poisonous. Someone with tomatoes that are 20% worst than yours have the best tomatoes ever, not you.


Same applies to the base on defence. The rule says:

Bases that get hit for less than 30% do not get a shield.

You say yours is getting constantly hit (which I doubt, but lets leave it at that) for less than 30%, so your base is bad!

The best bases are those who are being constantly hit for 40~49% and no loot being taken.

And THERE are ways to ensure this is happening, such the ones which the gentleman who I quoted exemplified.

You can see your replays and see where the attackers are initiating the raid from when this happens, and adjust your base to fix it.

This is a problem happening to a few people with base design flaws, not the entire CoC community, and it is not worth changing the game so deeply in such a way that would affect its mechanics, clouds, economy, etc;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

Dont bother, on every post I made on this thread I said they have a base design flaw that is allowing this to happen, they get triggered and start saying they are being punished because they have impecable defensive bases, not the other way around.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystClash

They want supercell to change the entire game system because they do no want to fix their own problem.

Lets say you sell tomatoes, and you claim your tomatoes are the reddest tomatoes on the country.

Scientists finish a study that discover that tomatoes with more than 80% redness are poisonous.

Now, you are out there claiming that you are being punished for having the best tomatoes. That is not true, you have bad tomatoes because they are poisonous. Someone with tomatoes that are 20% worst than yours have the best tomatoes ever, not you.


Same applies to the base on defence. The rule says:

Bases that get hit for less than 30% do not get a shield.

You say yours is getting constantly hit (which I doubt, but lets leave it at that) for less than 30%, so your base is bad!

The best bases are those who are being constantly hit for 40~49% and no loot being taken.

And THERE are ways to ensure this is happening, such the ones which the gentleman who I quoted exemplified.

You can see your replays and see where the attackers are initiating the raid from when this happens, and adjust your base to fix it.

This is a problem happening to a few people with base design flaws, not the entire CoC community, and it is not worth changing the game so deeply in such a way that would affect its mechanics, clouds, economy, etc;

---

Wow is all I can say to this post. You sure do like to make up a lot of nonsense.

Claim #1 "saying they are being punished because they have impecable defensive bases" Nobody once said that they had impeccable base designs in this thread, with the exception of perhaps you.

Claim #2 "

want supercell to change the entire game system because they do no want to fix their own problem" The entire game system is a little dramatic don't you think? What we have been talking about is a pretty minor change that rights a flaw in the system, which has absolutely nothing to do with fixing their own problem as you put it.

Claim #3 "

You say yours is getting constantly hit (which I doubt, but lets leave it at that) for less than 30%." Nobody has said their base is being hit constantly for less than 30% but if it even happens once in a week, the effects from it are still wrong.

Claim #4 "

This is a problem happening to a few people with base design flaws, not the entire CoC community, and it is not worth changing the game so deeply in such a way that would affect its mechanics, clouds, economy, etc;" Really?? you make a lot of assumptions here. One that it's a base issue, you couldn't know that without looking at the base. Two that it's only happening to a few people, show me some data which supports that. Thirdly, again exaggerate much, (changing the game so deeply).

How about coming up with a real argument at some point which actually addresses the issue, which is that you are worse off if someone attacks you with their full army and you only give up 29% then you are if someone attacks you with less than half of their army and gets 31%. It makes no sense and just because that's the way it is doesn't make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

If someone wins a defense with less than 30% damage while the attacker uses their entire army, I would consider that a good defense. So regardless of whether you lose 25, 15, 30, 80 or even just 5% of your loot, the fact that you don’t get a shield with that means you are losing more resources than someone who gets hit for 31% which makes absolutely no sense in any way.

The idea that because of the removal of th sniping made this a requirement is disingenuous. It was put in as a requirement that someone needed to use a certain amount of troops to avoid engineers getting a free shield with every attack. It was also put out there that 30% of your base needed to be hit because the previous requirement was just that a star was needed. Which meant if you left your th outside someone could just kill the th and you’d be shielded, obviously there is a flaw with that. However, there is no reason that either 30% destruction or more than some arbitrary number of troops could be used to trigger a shield.

If someone uses their WHOLE army on you and you defend with less than 30% you are being penalized. What you and others seem to be either conveniently ignoring or completely missing is the idea that you are worse off defending against someone’s whole army hitting you for 29% than someone who uses less than half their army to get them 31%. That’s unnecessary and backwards. Denying that is sticking your head in the sand.

---

I disagree...if I goblin raid you for your collectors sitting out and I take them...you haven't made a good defense. My offense isn't made to even try to attack you, it's simply made to take your exposed collectors. Whether you have an amazing defense, and average one, or a poor one (relatively speaking given the TH level and all) I'm only taking those collectors and nothing else.

Someone using a full army and getting less than 30% isn't about having a "good defense"...it's about the attacker either being horrific, or more likely not really even trying to beat your defense because you've offered up something they care more about. That's actually why 30% works...anything below that is so unlikely to actually be about your defense that it's largely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Wow is all I can say to this post. You sure do like to make up a lot of nonsense.

Claim #1 "saying they are being punished because they have impecable defensive bases" Nobody once said that they had impeccable base designs in this thread, with the exception of perhaps you.

Claim #2 "

want supercell to change the entire game system because they do no want to fix their own problem" The entire game system is a little dramatic don't you think? What we have been talking about is a pretty minor change that rights a flaw in the system, which has absolutely nothing to do with fixing their own problem as you put it.

Claim #3 "

You say yours is getting constantly hit (which I doubt, but lets leave it at that) for less than 30%." Nobody has said their base is being hit constantly for less than 30% but if it even happens once in a week, the effects from it are still wrong.

Claim #4 "

This is a problem happening to a few people with base design flaws, not the entire CoC community, and it is not worth changing the game so deeply in such a way that would affect its mechanics, clouds, economy, etc;" Really?? you make a lot of assumptions here. One that it's a base issue, you couldn't know that without looking at the base. Two that it's only happening to a few people, show me some data which supports that. Thirdly, again exaggerate much, (changing the game so deeply).

How about coming up with a real argument at some point which actually addresses the issue, which is that you are worse off if someone attacks you with their full army and you only give up 29% then you are if someone attacks you with less than half of their army and gets 31%. It makes no sense and just because that's the way it is doesn't make it right.

---

I wont even bother, you seem to think that this is a minor change, you are not looking at the consequences.

I will risk being repetitive and say it again:

If the rule says that 29% raids give no shield and you design a base that is constantly being hit for 29%, it is a base issue. Adapt.