Printable View
Here is something very simple: every star is a trophy. You 3 star a base? You get +3 trophies! You 2 star a base? You get +2 stars! You fail your attack and get no stars? You get 0 trophies (why on earth should I be losing trophies when I get no stars? I never understood this!)
You only lose trophies when one attacks you and defeats you, and again you lose as many trophies as the stars you concede to the opponent.
Wth this system it would now take an eternity to push, trying to push even 1000 trophies would take weeks.
Your lost trophies help out the defender anyway
it's how SC wants it to be
if we don't lose trophies via attack losing, then the only way to lose trophies is by getting attacked and starred
This is like saying that if I was a general and lost a war, I shouldn't suffer for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kdrakakis
3 trophies for 3 stars? Pushing from 0 to 1000 trophies would take forever and 3 weeks.
If you get 1 star, you get 1/3 of the trophies that the base has to offer. If you get 2 stars, you get 2/3 and if you get 3 stars, you get all. It's that simple. Have you been living under a rock?
As the opponent is harder, they wanted to award you more more defeating them.
Howver these group of rebels (evey clash player) decided that trophies were useless and gave them away in exchange for loot and shields.
Now the trophy system is messed up.
Otherwise it would be perfect and make so much logical sense.
Shame on us farmers! Shame on me!
The first few responders seem to have mostly missed the point...yes, it would take much longer to trophy up, but that wouldn't matter because this is an entirely different system, and everyone would be in the same boat.
The problem I see with changing the system is you're no longer taking into account how difficult your opponent is (though it doesn't exactly do that now, since the difficulty of the base is only loosely correlated with the number of trophies), and I don't see why you wouldn't be penalized for losing an attack, especially when the game is biased toward offense (meaning it is much harder to win defenses than to win offenses).
If anything, I'd advocate for a more complex trophy system, where the town hall still counts for a certain number, but the rest of the trophies are given out based on percentage, so, for example, getting 75% and 2 stars would get you more trophies than 50% and 2 stars. I'd also match players based on experience level at least a fraction of the time to discourage higher level players from sitting in low trophy leagues, and make at least a minimal number of trophies available for these attacks.
As far as the farming problem that Emerald brought up, it seems the only way to solve that would be to stop giving shields for destroying the TH, and make it strictly based on the percentage of your based destroyed (which I would reduce from 40% to 35%). There are other things you could do, like make better incentives to trophy push/defend your base, but these too would be complicated, and it's unclear how much impact they'd have.
@trooperc007: I do not consider losing a war if I fail to get a star, I just do not win it. It ends in a tie. I can only lose a war if I get attacked and fail to defend myself.
@awesomness2016: Thank you, yes, I feel too that the previous responders failed to see my point. To answer your concern, now matching opponents on the basis of trophies will be much fairer. Because, currently, I am able to get rid of trophies by dropping one barbarian and surrendering. I am a maxed out TH8 hiding in Silver 1 because of the available loot in that league. However, imagine if I were unable to drop trophies myself, and the only way to lose trophies were to concede stars to an attacker... The trophies would then be a true indicator of my abilities.
The system you suggest is imperfect because in the current system there is provision of getting more trophies for starring a higher trophy base, whereas in yours the number of trophies you win will be the same for starring any base.
SC knows what it is doing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdrakakis
I'm not sure if you're talking about a multiplayer battle or an actual war, but regardless, when it comes to trophies, the game (and pretty much everyone in it) considers it a failed attack if you don't get at least 1 star. There are no "ties" in individual battles. You either defeat a base or you don't. I guess the question is should you be penalized trophies for this? (you're saying no) And should a successful defense be awarded trophies? (I don't think you covered this, but I would say yes)
Of course, if you're trying to get loot or dropping trophies, your objective isn't really to defeat the base, which is a different matter, but perhaps where the problem lies. Upon further examination, the system you're proposing does make it very difficult to drop trophies, and all in all I like that idea.
The main problem I see now is that scrapping the existing system will ♥♥♥♥ off a lot of people who worked really hard (and in many cases spent a lot of money) to get a lot of trophies, but not scrapping it screws everyone who dropped trophies to farm loot and is now finding it exceedingly difficult to get their trophies up again. So implementation would be a huge problem, and needs to be addressed.
Uhh...If you fail an attack, it ends in a tie? :confused: Let's say Country A attacks Country B. If Country A loses the attack, wouldn't that be considered a loss? In Clash of Clans, Country A can probably never attack Country B except on revenge. That means that Country A is forced to surrender from attacking Country B ever again, except on revenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by kdrakakis