Proposed Defence Revamp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GanjaSandwich

I'll reply with more detail later; however, in thinking your idea isn't getting a lot of feedback due to the wall off text. You migt want to remember simplicity is sometimes better than being overly conplicated

---

Yeah I'm with Ganja on this. It was a lot of text. If you can maybe concise it down and provide clearer examples of what you are wanting or suggesting. Maybe change the text color too to highlight certain words or sentences so that it attracts the reader to keep reading without having the feeling of being monotonous.

Lastly, get rid of your last sentence. "(Kind of afraid to submit this, given my past luck on this)" You immediately discredit yourself with self doubt, and if you aren't even sure about what you posting, why should the reader be sure about what you are saying. Don't ever discredit yourself in an argument. Not saying never admit when you are wrong, but never discredit yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonesaw13

Yeah I'm with Ganja on this. It was a lot of text. If you can maybe concise it down and provide clearer examples of what you are wanting or suggesting. Maybe change the text color too to highlight certain words or sentences so that it attracts the reader to keep reading without having the feeling of being monotonous.

Lastly, get rid of your last sentence. "(Kind of afraid to submit this, given my past luck on this)" You immediately discredit yourself with self doubt, and if you aren't even sure about what you posting, why should the reader be sure about what you are saying. Don't ever discredit yourself in an argument. Not saying never admit when you are wrong, but never discredit yourself.

---

Yes I also agree with him on this.

You need to show you believe in your ideas or others will not. If I think my candy bar is amazing. Others will too. If I don't; well who's going to want my candy bar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GanjaSandwich

Yes I also agree with him on this.

You need to show you believe in your ideas or others will not. If I think my candy bar is amazing. Others will too. If I don't; well who's going to want my candy bar?

---

Hahahaha using my candy bar analogy against me? This is clever! :)

Last few times I posted defence stuff before that 'afraid to post' comment, I got attacked for days because I made one 'bad' stray comment that was apparently too open to personal interpretation, with people putting words and intentions in my mouth. So at the time I wrote that, I was less afraid of ideas being shot down, and more afraid of irrational attacks from people not wanting thier farming base taken away, and hijacking the thread as thier own ranting stage. :facepalm: I stand by the ideas, but I was afraid of so many baseless drama case arguments from people, all giving me a piece of thier mind as if I was some stupid noob that didn't read the sticky thread.

BTW, removed that comment. Haven't been attacked for awhile by crazy farmers... yet... so I guess it's safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

Last few times I posted defence stuff before that 'afraid to post' comment, I got attacked for making a stray comment for days, with people putting words and intentions in my mouth. So at the time I wrote that, I was less afraid of ideas being shot down, and more afraid of irrational attacks from people not wanting thier farming base taken away. :facepalm: I stand by the ideas, but I was afraid of so many baseless drama case arguments from people, all giving me a piece of thier mind as if I was some stupid noob that didn't read the sticky thread.

BTW, removed that comment. Haven't been attacked for awhile by crazy farmers... yet... so I guess it's safe.

---

People are going to say what they want and put words in your mouth regardless if you have a disclaimer or not. That's just how it is with message boards.

But it derails the thread and kill the entire purpose of it with seemingly everyone thinking "Let's beat up the moron OP". There is a difference between a few annoying people, and a group of them acting like a mob, filling your idea thread with useless off topic drama. Who's going to want to read that after so many people crapped all over it with thier drama? No one. They will see the beginning part, then get to the drama, and then either leave, feeling it isn't worth the effort to say what they were going to, or they see an enraging comment and jump in, since that's what everyone else is seemingly talking about, so it must be alright to jump in with thier feelings on the matter.

I don't know if you realize just how much ♥♥♥♥ I went through with just hinting at the magical drama creating words for most CoC players. I think it has gotten better, but it was like the absolute thing for people to love to hate.

I actually read the whole thing :D

Good idea, but I disagree with a few things:

I feel the defensive morale boost would be overpowered - serious pushing players would fill up their storages just to get defense wins. Instead of buffing defensive towers, I think storage/collector HP should be increased instead, as it makes your resources harder to steal and doesn't usually impact the battle significantly (it could stall someone's queen for a few seconds but we won't get swarms of complainers saying it's OP).

I can force some other problems with this idea as well: if people's train speeds are increased after a failed defense, then the high trophy snipers would benefit because their loot would be "high" for their town hall level, yet they would be able to raid even faster and recuperate the loot from the league bonus. Additionally, attackers with high level troops would leave valuable resources after their on your base. Thus sniping would become the best way to farm.

Would the attacker lose too much when attacking a storage base? The base would be buffed up from storing high loot, there is a greater risk of revenge, and mean people might not like giving up their resources to the defender (I am one of those people).

I noticed there is a sudden increase on threads wanting some defence bonus.

For one, giving loot after someone robs you of loot sounds like insurance fraud. This is not a tower defence game, it is a raiding game. So bonuses to defence should make it so people don't mind too much getting raided, while being compensated for the loss with stuff to make the game more fun, and promote the main purpose of the game, which is attacking.

Defence needs a revamp, yes, sickeningly so, but I keep seeing people making the same old mistakes that collectively we should not keep making. I've been going at this for weeks, months, waiting for a time for something to break on this issue, because I'm tired of people starting from square one on the issue, and then give up. Well, I'm not @#$%ing giving up! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenJames

I noticed there is a sudden increase on threads wanting some defence bonus.

For one, giving loot after someone robs you of loot sounds like insurance fraud. This is not a tower defence game, it is a raiding game. So bonuses to defence should make it so people don't mind too much getting raided, while being compensated for the loss with stuff to make the game more fun, and promote the main purpose of the game, which is attacking.

Defence needs a revamp, yes, sickeningly so, but I keep seeing people making the same old mistakes that collectively we should not keep making. I've been going at this for weeks, months, waiting for a time for something to break on this issue, because I'm tired of people starting from square one on the issue, and then give up. Well, I'm not @#$%ing giving up! :mad:

---

I came up with an idea (posted multiple times, I'll dig for a link), that I think can help. I tried tying it to leagues, as a sort of "league perk" to encourage players to go UP to farm rather than down. But if tying it to the league is the reason it wasn't warmly welcomed, then don't tie it to league. :rolleyes:


Anyway, the basic idea is this. Let's assume that you are attacking same level opponents or lower. (Or if you DO attack up, it's because it's a collector raid.) I know some players are "good enough" to attack up, but if they're that good, this suggestion isn't really for them anyway.

Okay, so assuming you attack at the same level (or lower), can you save for an expensive upgrade without session raiding? We all know that TH snipes work, to a degree. But starting at TH8, most of the upgrades (especially the research, but some of the defenses too) cost more than the lootable cap. This means that you could hit a TH8 for the lootable cap, and then get raided when you log off for the lootable cap. Zero sum game, except your army wasn't free (if you're farming elixir), and Nexting isn't either (if you're farming gold). League bonus helps, but only to a point.


In other words, you can't stay ahead of the losses you incur on defense.

So why not make it possible to stay ahead? In other words, why not make it so that the maximum amount that can be received in a raid is more than the maximum amount that can be lost in a raid?

Say what??? :saywhat:

I'm talking about generating loot from thin air, kind of like a league bonus for winning. Only this would be a bonus percentage of the loot stolen, and it wouldn't be tied to winning (so you could still raid most of the loot and surrender at 49%, or 39% if you're in the mood). The bonus would give EXTRA loot to the attacker, and it would mean LESS loot is taken from the defender. This is why I tied it to leagues, so you would want to be a in a higher league to get more on attack and lose less on defense. But if people don't like the league idea, we could make it a flat rate for everyone. In which case, we wouldn't need to reduce AND increase the loot (on defense and attack, respectively, if that wasn't obvious). We could just decrease the amount taken, like you only lose 50% or 75% of what the attacker actually got.

This one change would make it possible to save up for any upgrade, without requiring people to session raid. Sure, session raiding is still more effective, because it's better to get in multiple attacks before logging off. But psychologically, I hate logging off, knowing that I'll most likely lose more than I could make up in a single raid. Because the number of times you have to hit Next to find a raid that has more loot than you can lose? Some days it's 10-20 Next's, and some days it's hundreds.

^ What he said. It's also very hard to conceptualize without specifics, and a lot of what you're talking about here would be the start of major changes to the game. I think this needs to be broken down, starting with the smaller and more important items.



Here are a couple of the main issues I think you're getting at:

1. Right now, an attacker could destroy 39% of your base, and would be reasonably expected to get 1/3 to half your available loot, leaving you with no shield, no clan castle protection, at last half your traps sprung, and if you're TH9 or 10, xbows and infernos that could easily burn out mid way through the next attack, making it much easier for the next guy to come and steal all the available loot. Now in my experience this doesn't happen all that often, so maybe it's not worth addressing, but the obvious solutions seem to be a bonus for winning defense (currently ruled out, I think), or a mini shield, say 2-6 hours, that kicks in around 25-30%. Now the latter does have the effect of removing a fair number of bases from the search, which could be a problem.



2. High level players have difficulty getting resources in higher leagues because they need to make strong armies to get to the resources, and even then the amount of e and de they get from the raid + the win bonus is not enough or barely enough to cover the cost of their army, so if they want to upgrade, they're forced to drop into lower leagues out of necessity more than anything. The fix for this might be a further bump to the loot bonuses in higher leagues. Not sure what beyond that might be done.