Redoing the shield system

Since I'm suggesting something fairly radical, I ask people to view this idea as if they were creating the game in the first place and not be predisposed to shoot down any idea which is different than they've grown accustomed to. The fact that you get a shield at 40% destruction and 90% destruction is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with what's the best way to actually allocate shields.

That said, the primary purpose of a shield is to prevent a player from losing too much loot from one attack to the next. Instead of awarding a shield based on percent of the base destroyed, why not give shields after a certain amount of loot has been stolen? Assuming the victim doesn't attack again, this would be added from attack to attack, and after the threshold has been crossed, a shield is then given for the appropriate time. Allow me to provide an example:

As a Town Hall 8, I can have a maximum of 300k of each resource stolen in one raid. For a 12 hour shield, let's divide that in half, and say I get a 12 hour shield when 150,000 resources total (gold+elixir) are stolen, and if 300,000 resources are stolen, I get a 16 hour shield. We can also choose an independent amount of DE that can be used in conjunction with the basic resources, but I'm not going to give a numerical suggestion on those, but if you get zapped bad I think you should get a shield. Anyway, so let's say the first raid hits you for 140,000 resources. If a second raid hits you for 10,000 before you attack, then you get a 12 hour shield, and a 160,000 raid would offer the 16 hour shield. This also removes people getting shields for being TH sniped.

Why do I propose this? It solves many of the problems associated with DE zapping and the revenge feature. People can never get revenge if bases are town hall sniped the second they go offline, and now to get a shield you will have to suffer an actual attack. This can then give more value to trophies, because you won't be hoping someone takes a couple sniping to give you a free shield after every attacking session, and also might encourage more attacking because it means less instant shields after signing off so people have more incentive to attack. If people want to leave their TH outside to drop trophies, that's up to them, but they'd no longer be immune to attack. Attackers can now find more loot since people won't be able to hide their loot, and all in all this would make the game more fun.

Are there any drawbacks to this idea other than people want free shields and this isn't how the game has always been done?

EDIT: To take into account loot might have on trophy pushing in higher leagues, we could include the win bonus into the formula for gold/elixir.. So if the threshold for a shield is 200k elixir and gold and someone attacked for trophies at a loss for the profit and got 100k as a league bonus that 100k would be added to the amount needed for a shield.

I see your point. I wonder if it can work well. :thumbsup:
Am I right in my interpretation, that the cumulative count reverts back to zero when the player attacks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ianclasher163

I see your point. I wonder if it can work well. :thumbsup:
Am I right in my interpretation, that the cumulative count reverts back to zero when the player attacks?

---

Yes exactly. If we don't do it this way, then you can get hit for just under the threshold over and over and lose all of your resources, which wouldn't be fun for anyone. I just think it's ridiculous that you get a 12 hour shield for being TH sniped, but I can take 400k resources out of collectors and decide to be a jerk and leave them at 39% so they get raided again for 200k right after. Who deserves the shield more? Also, this would give incentives for people trying to push to not throw all their loot away, which means more loot at all levels.

I don't like this.
I put my th out on purpose. I get th sniped all the time.

Awesome. free shield for the next 12 hours.

If you don't give me a shield until I lose 300k resources, you've taken away my tactic for saving loot.

Do you want 300k loot stolen every time you go to bed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuch4

Since I'm suggesting something fairly radical, I ask people to view this idea as if they were creating the game in the first place and not be predisposed to shoot down any idea which is different than they've grown accustomed to. The fact that you get a shield at 40% destruction and 90% destruction is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with what's the best way to actually allocate shields.

That said, the primary purpose of a shield is to prevent a player from losing too much loot from one attack to the next. Instead of awarding a shield based on percent of the base destroyed, why not give shields after a certain amount of loot has been stolen? Assuming the victim doesn't attack again, this would be added from attack to attack, and after the threshold has been crossed, a shield is then given for the appropriate time. Allow me to provide an example:

As a Town Hall 8, I can have a maximum of 300k of each resource stolen in one raid. For a 12 hour shield, let's divide that in half, and say I get a 12 hour shield when 150,000 resources total (gold+elixir) are stolen, and if 300,000 resources are stolen, I get a 16 hour shield. We can also choose an independent amount of DE that can be used in conjunction with the basic resources, but I'm not going to give a numerical suggestion on those, but if you get zapped bad I think you should get a shield. Anyway, so let's say the first raid hits you for 140,000 resources. If a second raid hits you for 10,000 before you attack, then you get a 12 hour shield, and a 160,000 raid would offer the 16 hour shield. This also removes people getting shields for being TH sniped.

Why do I propose this? It solves many of the problems associated with DE zapping and the revenge feature. People can never get revenge if bases are town hall sniped the second they go offline, and now to get a shield you will have to suffer an actual attack. This can then give more value to trophies, because you won't be hoping someone takes a couple sniping to give you a free shield after every attacking session, and also might encourage more attacking because it means less instant shields after signing off so people have more incentive to attack. If people want to leave their TH outside to drop trophies, that's up to them, but they'd no longer be immune to attack. Attackers can now find more loot since people won't be able to hide their loot, and all in all this would make the game more fun.

Are there any drawbacks to this idea other than people want free shields and this isn't how the game has always been done?

EDIT: To take into account loot might have on trophy pushing in higher leagues, we could include the win bonus into the formula for gold/elixir.. So if the threshold for a shield is 200k elixir and gold and someone attacked for trophies at a loss for the profit and got 100k as a league bonus that 100k would be added to the amount needed for a shield.

---

What if instead of a 12 hour shield from 40% you would get a 12 hour shield if a certain amount of resources are taken however if the th was still destroyed it would give the same result. But you have to remember this only 20% of the loot in your storages and collectors can be taken

the loot system works just fine, ive played other games and they are just redic with the losing of resorces

i played samurai seige

i had 5 million in a resource

i lost two million of that resource in one raid

I did not get a shield for that either

i deleted samurai seige

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dennisjm

I don't like this.

Do you want 300k loot stolen every time you go to bed?

---

As a TH8, I put my TH outside and every time I go to bed some TH9 barches me and I lose more than that anyway. Yeah, the occasional free shields are nice, but do they enhance my enjoyment of the game? No, I think it'd be more enjoyable if the TH outside didn't completely kill the concept of trophies for me and ruin the fact that I don't care if an attack wins or loses, and that defensive wins are meaningless.

I just checked. I have 8 consecutive free shields before the last attack that tried.
They got 100k elixer from me not much gold/de.

before that.. 2 free shields and then someone tried and got:
121k gold, 222k elixer and 527de.

before that 14 free shields


During this period of time I've had 6m elixer while I've been waiting to start the pekka 3 upgrade.
So I guess I'm having a different experience than you. I rarely get barched.

My defenses are all maxed though.. maybe that makes a difference IDK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KIngcrool

What if instead of a 12 hour shield from 40% you would get a 12 hour shield if a certain amount of resources are taken however if the th was still destroyed it would give the same result. But you have to remember this only 20% of the loot in your storages and collectors can be taken

---

Well it's less than 20% above TH6, but my idea was just talking about the cap of what can be stolen.. Like you can take up to 300k from an 8, 350k from a 9, and 400k from a 10 of each resource which is a percentage of less than 20 of your total loot.. So you won't be losing more than that, you just have to actually lose loot to get a shield, keeping more loot in the economy for people to steal. Sure, you'll lose more, but you'll also get more loot in fewer nexts, which benefits active/power players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuch4

Well it's less than 20% above TH6, but my idea was just talking about the cap of what can be stolen.. Like you can take up to 300k from an 8, 350k from a 9, and 400k from a 10 of each resource which is a percentage of less than 20 of your total loot.. So you won't be losing more than that, you just have to actually lose loot to get a shield, keeping more loot in the economy for people to steal. Sure, you'll lose more, but you'll also get more loot in fewer nexts, which benefits active/power players.

---

I don't agree that you'd get more loot. It takes time to train up an army regardless of how many times I hit next. The next cost is pretty small compared to the loot I get. The time is of much more concern. Basically in other words, I think I'd get the same amount of loot but lose more.