Unfair Surrendering Before 30% Damage on Attacks

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

January 5th, 2016
Nick300

Unfair Surrendering Before 30% Damage on Attacks
Good day,

Trust you are well and thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion.

I know there have been many concerns regarding shield matters, but I know I have provided a much more simpler breakdown of it. I used to love this game so much that I used to tell everyone I met to download it and even went as far as making it my wallpaper on every device I had, but with this new update, it's horrific.

I find that every day, I am being attacked "unfairly." I say "unfairly" because attackers are using so many troops to access my storages, loot it, then surrender before 30% and therefore I get no shield. This keeps happening until some player does get at least 30% so numerous attacks leaves pretty much no resources to use to do anything in the game. So for example, if I have to use Dark Elixir as a constant to explain it hypothetically:
- Attack 1-Total Dark Elixir: 19 700. After attack: 18 600. Amount lost: 1 100. Percentage damage: 27%.
- Attack 2-Total Dark Elixir: 18 600. After attack: 17 800. Amount lost: 800. Percentage damage: 24%.
- Attack 3-Total Dark Elixir: 17 800. After attack: 17 100. Amount lost: 700. Percentage damage: 25%.
- Attack 4-Total Dark Elixir: 17 100. After attack: 16 500. Amount lost: 600. Percentage damage: 29%.
With this successive rate of attack, you will eventually be left with NO resources. This leads to the following negative impact on the game:
- Due to you having low resources, you can't upgrade anything because even if you get a shield, you are not able to farm the resources that were lost.
- If you choose to attack, you spending what is left of your resources on troops to try and recover what was lost, so you still on a decline.
- If you try and constantly change your layout, it still does not matter because when you are being attacked, people are still taking your resources and surrendering before 30% damage.
- When people are surrendering before 30% damage, you are winning more trophies, forcing you into a higher league, therefore being attacked by much stronger players who take your resources even more easily, then they quit before 30% so they lose trophies to enter a lower league and the vicious cycle continues.
Clash of clans is truly such an amazing game, but something has to be done in terms of amending these shield rules because players aren't concerned when they lose trophies because they are preying of the lower guys who are still trying to grow in the game. As a solution:
- I agree with some previously posted topics where people have suggested a cumulative damage count to a shield. For example, Attack 1-12% + Attack 2-13% + Attack 3-5% = 30% and therefore should give you a shield. However, if you are attacked once and it exceeds 30% it is NOT cumulative, so whatever percentage damage you receive, will be the shield relative you get, example 90% is 16hrs but 31% is 12 hours.
- The other option was troop dependant regardless of damage percentage. If you are attacked by an army of 100-149 troops, that is a 12 hour shield, 150-199 troops is a 14 hour shield and 200+ troops is a 16 hour shield. This method would even make sense because when you assess the attacks, majority of players who get 100% damage use all their troops which is often more than 200 troops, which leads to a 16 hour shield. In other words, the damage percentage of the attack is proportional to the amount of troops they use.
Please guys, I know I am and many other huge fans are pleading for these shield rules to be reassessed. Please do something to help Clash of Clans stay awesome in 2016.

Kind regards
Nick
January 5th, 2016
Azzip

Agreed. Players shouldn't be punished for successful defences - players should be punished for unsuccessful attacks (0 star attacks with just 29% damage are unsuccessful in terms of game rules). One way to address this issue is to award loot to the attacker only if the base gets a shield from that attack. That would render 29% attacks unprofitable.

Please see my other thread regarding this problem:

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...eld-no-loot%21
January 5th, 2016
awesomness2016
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick300

I find that every day, I am being attacked "unfairly." I say "unfairly" because attackers are using so many troops to access my storages, loot it, then surrender before 30% and therefore I get no shield.

Before the new system, I and I'm sure others would occasionally get frustrated by players who got a good amount of resources from our base, but finished the attack with 39% and 0 stars, leaving us vulnerable to another attack.
Sometimes they did this on purpose, sometimes they were really trying and had bad attacks, or simply had troops that were too weak to take on the base. And before the new system we didn't have a village guard between attacks to help us rearm our traps and defenses and refill our clan castle.

More people might be experiencing this now, and it's hard to say if more people are doing that on purpose, but the point is this isn't really a new problem. What it really sounds like to me though is that you need to pull your storages in closer to the center of your base so that players are taking out more buildings to get at your resources and you're more likely to get a shield off a single attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick300

I agree with some previously posted topics where people have suggested a cumulative damage count to a shield. For example, Attack 1-12% + Attack 2-13% + Attack 3-5% = 30% and therefore should give you a shield. However, if you are attacked once and it exceeds 30% it is NOT cumulative, so whatever percentage damage you receive, will be the shield relative you get, example 90% is 16hrs but 31% is 12 hours.
The other option was troop dependant regardless of damage percentage. If you are attacked by an army of 100-149 troops, that is a 12 hour shield, 150-199 troops is a 14 hour shield and 200+ troops is a 16 hour shield. This method would even make sense because when you assess the attacks, majority of players who get 100% damage use all their troops which is often more than 200 troops, which leads to a 16 hour shield. In other words, the damage percentage of the attack is proportional to the amount of troops they use.
The first idea may need some refining, but if any changes are made, this would be the way to go. Troop numbers don't make sense because lower THs can 3 star each other with less than 150 troops, but that doesn't mean they should be getting less of a shield. The idea from the second poster of not awarding loot without 30% damage is also a bad idea; sometimes you just need a little more loot or are just going after drills or find a base with full collectors and mines that is spread out, and that's part of what the economy is built on.
January 5th, 2016
George1971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick300

Good day,

Trust you are well and thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion.

I know there have been many concerns regarding shield matters, but I know I have provided a much more simpler breakdown of it. I used to love this game so much that I used to tell everyone I met to download it and even went as far as making it my wallpaper on every device I had, but with this new update, it's horrific.

I find that every day, I am being attacked "unfairly." I say "unfairly" because attackers are using so many troops to access my storages, loot it, then surrender before 30% and therefore I get no shield. This keeps happening until some player does get at least 30% so numerous attacks leaves pretty much no resources to use to do anything in the game. So for example, if I have to use Dark Elixir as a constant to explain it hypothetically:

Attack 1-Total Dark Elixir: 19 700. After attack: 18 600. Amount lost: 1 100. Percentage damage: 27%.
Attack 2-Total Dark Elixir: 18 600. After attack: 17 800. Amount lost: 800. Percentage damage: 24%.
Attack 3-Total Dark Elixir: 17 800. After attack: 17 100. Amount lost: 700. Percentage damage: 25%.
Attack 4-Total Dark Elixir: 17 100. After attack: 16 500. Amount lost: 600. Percentage damage: 29%.

With this successive rate of attack, you will eventually be left with NO resources. This leads to the following negative impact on the game:

Due to you having low resources, you can't upgrade anything because even if you get a shield, you are not able to farm the resources that were lost.
If you choose to attack, you spending what is left of your resources on troops to try and recover what was lost, so you still on a decline.
If you try and constantly change your layout, it still does not matter because when you are being attacked, people are still taking your resources and surrendering before 30% damage.
When people are surrendering before 30% damage, you are winning more trophies, forcing you into a higher league, therefore being attacked by much stronger players who take your resources even more easily, then they quit before 30% so they lose trophies to enter a lower league and the vicious cycle continues.

Clash of clans is truly such an amazing game, but something has to be done in terms of amending these shield rules because players aren't concerned when they lose trophies because they are preying of the lower guys who are still trying to grow in the game. As a solution:

I agree with some previously posted topics where people have suggested a cumulative damage count to a shield. For example, Attack 1-12% + Attack 2-13% + Attack 3-5% = 30% and therefore should give you a shield. However, if you are attacked once and it exceeds 30% it is NOT cumulative, so whatever percentage damage you receive, will be the shield relative you get, example 90% is 16hrs but 31% is 12 hours.
The other option was troop dependant regardless of damage percentage. If you are attacked by an army of 100-149 troops, that is a 12 hour shield, 150-199 troops is a 14 hour shield and 200+ troops is a 16 hour shield. This method would even make sense because when you assess the attacks, majority of players who get 100% damage use all their troops which is often more than 200 troops, which leads to a 16 hour shield. In other words, the damage percentage of the attack is proportional to the amount of troops they use.

Please guys, I know I am and many other huge fans are pleading for these shield rules to be reassessed. Please do something to help Clash of Clans stay awesome in 2016.

Kind regards
Nick
Show us an image of your base. First consideration is that your layout is poor. Why do they obtain so much loot while destroying only 30%?
- Are you rushed? Are they using goblins to run past your defences and then ending when they have what they came for?
- Are your defences excessively centralized?
- Do you have uncollected drills outside? It can be a good idea to defend them better.
January 6th, 2016
Azzip

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

The idea from the second poster of not awarding loot without 30% damage is also a bad idea; sometimes you just need a little more loot or are just going after drills or find a base with full collectors and mines that is spread out, and that's part of what the economy is built on.

You're saying you wanna have easy access to a bases loot without any risks or giving something in return. Is it really too much to ask to give a shield for stealing someones loot? I'd like to quote SC regarding the removal of TH sniping: "There are few things as sweet as watching your carefully planned defense crush an attacker!". I agree to that. It's boring to see the defence log full of th snipes. But how is it less boring with a defence log full of people attacking almost empty collectors? The difference is: TH snipes didn't do any harm - getting attacked over and over again does. This is not about people having easy access to loot or switching base designs or moving to other leagues. This is about creating a fairer environment to play in. You still have access to undefended collectors for the matter of getting the last bit for an upgrade. All you need to do is to give a shield. Exchange one thing for another - create a win situation for both sides. That definitely would take a lot of frustration out of the game and it always should have been this way: Loot should only be awarded for attacks giving a shield! In fact, attackers not achieving that goal should be punished by losing some of their own loot (a small percentage or whatever). That would stop excessive trophy dropping at the same time.

(for that quote see http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...-and-Defending )
January 6th, 2016
PureEnergy66

This is clearly YOUR fault for not making more of an open base design to get more damage inflicted onto your base.
January 6th, 2016
awesomness2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azzip

You're saying you wanna have easy access to a bases loot without any risks or giving something in return. Is it really too much to ask to give a shield for stealing someones loot? I'd like to quote SC regarding the removal of TH sniping: "There are few things as sweet as watching your carefully planned defense crush an attacker!". I agree to that. It's boring to see the defence log full of th snipes. But how is it less boring with a defence log full of people attacking almost empty collectors? The difference is: TH snipes didn't do any harm - getting attacked over and over again does. This is not about people having easy access to loot or switching base designs or moving to other leagues. This is about creating a fairer environment to play in. You still have access to undefended collectors for the matter of getting the last bit for an upgrade. All you need to do is to give a shield. Exchange one thing for another - create a win situation for both sides. That definitely would take a lot of frustration out of the game and it always should have been this way: Loot should only be awarded for attacks giving a shield! In fact, attackers not achieving that goal should be punished by losing some of their own loot (a small percentage or whatever). That would stop excessive trophy dropping at the same time.)

No, what I am saying is that if you can't figure out how to protect your loot or get a shield when you do get attacked, that's your problem, not mine, and not Supercell's. Why should I waste troops and give you a shield when I can get what I came for without doing so?

The problem is you're trying to address a personal problem, not necessarily a systemic one, and your solution is basically to punish smart attackers who conserve troops or go after select buildings. The solution here is not to punish others, but to change your strategy when it comes to base design and upgrades.
January 6th, 2016
Azzip

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureEnergy66

This is clearly YOUR fault for not making more of an open base design to get more damage inflicted onto your base.

This doesn't make sense. If this is a game about attacking and defending why would I design my base to be destroyed easily? This would be the opposite from what SC states in the quote I used in my last post. Bases should be designed in a way that makes it as hard as possible to destroy them. Under the current system strong defenders are punished by not getting a shield and having to defend again. At the same time poor attackers are rewarded with easy access to loot without any risks (spamming goblins or barchers doesn't require much skill). It should be the other way around. I think it's legit to say attacks under 30% are a failure. There shouldn't be any benefits for failures in the game - it should hurt the attacker failing an attack.
January 6th, 2016
Azzip

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

No, what I am saying is that if you can't figure out how to protect your loot or get a shield when you do get attacked, that's your problem, not mine, and not Supercell's. Why should I waste troops and give you a shield when I can get what I came for without doing so?

Well, with the same logic I could say: I'd be happy to see you wasting your troops to get your loot if that means I get a shield.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

The problem is you're trying to address a personal problem, not necessarily a systemic one, and your solution is basically to punish smart attackers who conserve troops or go after select buildings. The solution here is not to punish others, but to change your strategy when it comes to base design and upgrades.

Actually it is a systematic problem. Just have a look at the number of posts addressing 29% attacks as well as the number of posts from people being proud of doing so. Not awarding any loot for failed sub 30% attacks would encourage players to carry out more skilled and interesting attacks. Also it would stop annoyances like 29% trolls and people attacking collectors only once and for all.
January 7th, 2016
awesomness2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azzip

Well, with the same logic I could say: I'd be happy to see you wasting your troops to get your loot if that means I get a shield.

Actually it is a systematic problem. Just have a look at the number of posts addressing 29% attacks as well as the number of posts from people being proud of doing so. Not awarding any loot for failed sub 30% attacks would encourage players to carry out more skilled and interesting attacks. Also it would stop annoyances like 29% trolls and people attacking collectors only once and for all.

It's actually not any more of a systemic problem than it was before when someone either ignored your TH or you didn't have it out and they got 39%, and no one was really complaining about it then, so to me that says it's not really an actual problem that needs addressing.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page