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

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

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.

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.

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 )

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

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.

---

It's not about making it so your base can be destroyed easily...it's about making it so an attacker can't take most of your resources without also giving you a shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

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.

---

Attacks under 30% isn't really a failure if your not even going for trophies. I do agree it should hurt the attacker if they fail an attack if they don't use their troops though. I made a base that gets destroyed easily for a 30%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

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.

---

I'm not arguing the problem didn't exist before - it did, no question. So why didn't people complain about it? The reason is it happened far less frequently than it does now. SC claimed 80% of all attacks have been TH snipes in some leagues. A player just had to put his base in the right league to get an 80% chance of getting a shield. Being attacked for 39% wasn't a big issue if you know the next defence will give you a shield -> The old shield system was reliable. Just to be clear: I don't want SC to bring back easy shields for TH sniping. It's good that it's gone. What I try to achieve is to bring back a reliable shield system - as it was before and as SC promised with the update. Yet it is still possible for a base to be attacked for 29% several times in a row, lose loot every time and still get no shield. Taking away the ability to gain loot for <30% attacks would take away the incentive to do so. Players would try to carry out better and more skilled attacks. Even with just goblins, archers and barbs it's not that hard to get 30% destruction on a base.

Well, long story short: The game needs a more reliable and better shield system. A base that loses loot from an attack should get a shield - a base not getting a shield from an attack shouldn't lose loot. Such a rule eliminates troll and milking attacks and has only a minimal impact on legit attacks (losing due to bad luck).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PureEnergy66

I made a base that gets destroyed easily for a 30%.

---

I see your point, but making an easy base shouldn't be the spirit of a game which is about skillful attacks and strong defences.

Yes it is a problem. Should be solved by defensive bonuses.

They should replace "surrender" with "flee." The more defensive structures left, the less percentage of loot you receive. The idea is your troops run back to your village with what they have taken, and that Mortar you made them avoid kills 80% of em.

If 90% of defenses are intact (wall loops un-breached, defensive buildings not destroyed, traps not triggered, etc.) then the fleeing attacker would lose 95% of loot. If 80, 77.5, and so on. Until when all defenses are destroyed, you receive all loot you take.

this would discourage people mass goblin-ing bases and leaving all defenses untouched. No more surrendering before 30% destruction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

I'm not arguing the problem didn't exist before - it did, no question. So why didn't people complain about it? The reason is it happened far less frequently than it does now. SC claimed 80% of all attacks have been TH snipes in some leagues. A player just had to put his base in the right league to get an 80% chance of getting a shield. Being attacked for 39% wasn't a big issue if you know the next defence will give you a shield -> The old shield system was reliable. Just to be clear: I don't want SC to bring back easy shields for TH sniping. It's good that it's gone. What I try to achieve is to bring back a reliable shield system - as it was before and as SC promised with the update. Yet it is still possible for a base to be attacked for 29% several times in a row, lose loot every time and still get no shield. Taking away the ability to gain loot for <30% attacks would take away the incentive to do so. Players would try to carry out better and more skilled attacks. Even with just goblins, archers and barbs it's not that hard to get 30% destruction on a base.

Well, long story short: The game needs a more reliable and better shield system. A base that loses loot from an attack should get a shield - a base not getting a shield from an attack shouldn't lose loot. Such a rule eliminates troll and milking attacks and has only a minimal impact on legit attacks (losing due to bad luck).

---

First, I think the odds on getting attacked for less than 30% multiple times in a row are very slim, and that most of the players this is happening to are high level players who dropped trophies to bully smaller bases, in which case I don't feel sorry for them at all or think you can count it as a problem because the multiple defensive wins is just the CoC universe righting itself and pushing them back up into a league where they belong.

As for it happening more, well it might happen more because more people are actually getting attacked rather than just sniped, but that doesn't mean it's happening more relative to the number of full on attacks that are occurring. And for reliable shields, there were plenty of people who didn't put their TH out before, so this only applies to some players.

I have to reiterate that I feel like if you design a base where the mines are out of range of the defense and then don't show up to collect it, I don't it's fair to punish the attacker by making them get 30% because of the way you designed your base or because you didn't collect your resources. I still don't really think it's an issue, but if it is I don't imagine it will get solved this way, but rather with a bonus for defense or a tweak to the shield system that gives you a shield based on cumulative damage since your last shield, as others here have mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braxbro

They should replace "surrender" with "flee." The more defensive structures left, the less percentage of loot you receive. The idea is your troops run back to your village with what they have taken, and that Mortar you made them avoid kills 80% of em.

If 90% of defenses are intact (wall loops un-breached, defensive buildings not destroyed, traps not triggered, etc.) then the fleeing attacker would lose 95% of loot. If 80, 77.5, and so on. Until when all defenses are destroyed, you receive all loot you take.

this would discourage people mass goblin-ing bases and leaving all defenses untouched. No more surrendering before 30% destruction!

---

This is somewhat better than the last proposal but first, the numbers are off, and second, what if you don't flee? what if all your troops get destroyed and you still haven't reached 30%? You really want to screw the TH7 with a giant set of cojones that goes after a dead max base with 500k of each but only gets 22% with his giant wizard healer army, don't you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

First, I think the odds on getting attacked for less than 30% multiple times in a row are very slim, and that most of the players this is happening to are high level players who dropped trophies to bully smaller bases, in which case I don't feel sorry for them at all or think you can count it as a problem because the multiple defensive wins is just the CoC universe righting itself and pushing them back up into a league where they belong.

As for it happening more, well it might happen more because more people are actually getting attacked rather than just sniped, but that doesn't mean it's happening more relative to the number of full on attacks that are occurring. And for reliable shields, there were plenty of people who didn't put their TH out before, so this only applies to some players.

I have to reiterate that I feel like if you design a base where the mines are out of range of the defense and then don't show up to collect it, I don't it's fair to punish the attacker by making them get 30% because of the way you designed your base or because you didn't collect your resources. I still don't really think it's an issue, but if it is I don't imagine it will get solved this way, but rather with a bonus for defense or a tweak to the shield system that gives you a shield based on cumulative damage since your last shield, as others here have mentioned.

---

First, I agree multiple 29% attacks in row are rare if you are in the right league. So this means a rule "no shield - no loot" wouldn't have much impact on general game-play. In fact, successful defences would be rewarding by seeing the attacker ending up without loot. From the attackers point of view it's just bad luck. Now have a look at lower leagues. There are said droppers sitting bullying smaller bases with <30% attacks over and over just to squeeze the last bit from empty collectors - leaving the base unshielded. I think this needs to stop. Especially smaller bases in lower leagues need a more reliable shield system that prevents 29% attack happening all the time.

As I said already, I don't want to see TH sniping coming back. It always felt a bit dodgy but it worked. TH sniping provided a reliable shield system. It was up to you to use it or not. Now we have nothing comparable.

Why is it unfair to punish an attacker that fails to get 30%? You are talking about collecting resources and easy farming. Exactly this easy farming shouldn't be possible. It harms lower lvl bases getting milked over and over again. Getting easy shields from TH sniping is bad - but getting easy loot from milking isn't? CoC is build around attacking and defending with an aspect of farming (the full flavour farming game being Hay Day). Don't get me wrong - farming is still possible but you have to do something for it (get 30% and provide a shield). In terms of the spirit of the game (attacking & defending) punishing an attacker for failing his attack is legit - there shouldn't be a question about that. Especially with the current situation, where failed attacks are rewarding and successful defences are punishing.

There are a lot of posts regarding this issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

First, I agree multiple 29% attacks in row are rare if you are in the right league. So this means a rule "no shield - no loot" wouldn't have much impact on general game-play. In fact, successful defences would be rewarding by seeing the attacker ending up without loot. From the attackers point of view it's just bad luck. Now have a look at lower leagues. There are said droppers sitting bullying smaller bases with <30% attacks over and over just to squeeze the last bit from empty collectors - leaving the base unshielded. I think this needs to stop. Especially smaller bases in lower leagues need a more reliable shield system that prevents 29% attack happening all the time.

As I said already, I don't want to see TH sniping coming back. It always felt a bit dodgy but it worked. TH sniping provided a reliable shield system. It was up to you to use it or not. Now we have nothing comparable.

Why is it unfair to punish an attacker that fails to get 30%? You are talking about collecting resources and easy farming. Exactly this easy farming shouldn't be possible. It harms lower lvl bases getting milked over and over again. Getting easy shields from TH sniping is bad - but getting easy loot from milking isn't? CoC is build around attacking and defending with an aspect of farming (the full flavour farming game being Hay Day). Don't get me wrong - farming is still possible but you have to do something for it (get 30% and provide a shield). In terms of the spirit of the game (attacking & defending) punishing an attacker for failing his attack is legit - there shouldn't be a question about that. Especially with the current situation, where failed attacks are rewarding and successful defences are punishing.

---

You seem to be making up scenarios and overestimating how much they actually happen...although you just admitted they're rare if you're in the right league. In fact any defense under 30% is pretty rare if you're in the right league, and the only time I imagine it happens like I said is if you don't defend your resource collectors well and don't log in for long periods to collect them (in which case I feel like you deserve to get it stolen because if you wait too long it would just go to waste anyway since your collectors stop producing).

It's not exactly easy to steal loot from a TH5 without getting 30% either, and they're not being attacked by TH8s or 9s because they're not worth anything. As far as farming easy loot, again that's a product of players not collecting and not protecting their mines/collectors,which wouldn't change; all it would do is force players to use more troops for no real reason. What it would do though is screw smaller players who attack big bases and can't get more than 30% even with a good army.

You're also not recognizing that the real end game is trophies, not loot, and that anyone who doesn't get a star on their attack is "failing" in that sense. They are not getting a league bonus, losing trophies, and have lost the time and resources it took to make their army, and now you want to punish them further by saying they don't get any of the loot they stole from the base either, but only if they fail according to your shield standard (but for some reason getting 30% and failing your attack still means you can keep the loot you stole?) From this perspective, the loot from a failed raid eases the sting of what would otherwise be a total loss, and you need to take this into account too because right now you're only considering what happens to the defender when someone fails to reach 30%.

I'm really not sure why you're so married to your solution given the obvious down sides. A defense bonus makes a lot more sense, and so does 30% cumulative damage giving you a shield, but I doubt we'll see any of these things. They could lower it to 25% too, but then people would be complaining about 24%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

You seem to be making up scenarios and overestimating how much they actually happen...although you just admitted they're rare if you're in the right league. In fact any defense under 30% is pretty rare if you're in the right league, and the only time I imagine it happens like I said is if you don't defend your resource collectors well and don't log in for long periods to collect them (in which case I feel like you deserve to get it stolen because if you wait too long it would just go to waste anyway since your collectors stop producing).

It's not exactly easy to steal loot from a TH5 without getting 30% either, and they're not being attacked by TH8s or 9s because they're not worth anything. As far as farming easy loot, again that's a product of players not collecting and not protecting their mines/collectors,which wouldn't change; all it would do is force players to use more troops for no real reason. What it would do though is screw smaller players who attack big bases and can't get more than 30% even with a good army.

---

Again, you're arguing you want to have easy access to loot. There shouldn't be easy access to loot in an attack/defence game. There are other games for easy farming - farming games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

You're also not recognizing that the real end game is trophies, not loot, and that anyone who doesn't get a star on their attack is "failing" in that sense. They are not getting a league bonus, losing trophies, and have lost the time and resources it took to make their army, and now you want to punish them further by saying they don't get any of the loot they stole from the base either, but only if they fail according to your shield standard (but for some reason getting 30% and failing your attack still means you can keep the loot you stole?) From this perspective, the loot from a failed raid eases the sting of what would otherwise be a total loss, and you need to take this into account too because right now you're only considering what happens to the defender when someone fails to reach 30%.

---

How would trophy pushers be affected? Pushers will try for a 2star or better anyway. Pushers failing to get 30% all the time are not really pushers, are they? In that context a situation where an attacker gets a star but fails to give a shield might occur and might require special treatment. But same here, these attacks shouldn't be very common in a league where everybody else aims for 2 stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

I'm really not sure why you're so married to your solution given the obvious down sides. A defense bonus makes a lot more sense, and so does 30% cumulative damage giving you a shield, but I doubt we'll see any of these things. They could lower it to 25% too, but then people would be complaining about 24%.

---

A defence bonus needs to be carefully implemented as this gives room for abuse (how about dropping on a base till it's rich?). Do you really want to have another complicated system in the game that nobody understands? My solution would be an easy way to improve the reliability of the shield system. Defence bonuses couldn't provide that.

I hate this update as much as anyone else- I promise.

But 30% shield was an improvement over the 40% shield.

This was one of the only positive things- after the kick in the pants SC gave us and called it an "update"

PS- change your base.

U crying for nothink. Every1 plays like they wanna to.
When u attack me => kill my cc, or gain 1 of my magazines, ill punish u in revange by gain as much us i can when i will have u below 30%, anyway when i havent chance to make more loot / stars its only losing time for kicked out :)

When u dont wanna ppls to make that, u can easily prevent by increasing your trophies (highest trophies players care more about stars and bonus loot) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

Again, you're arguing you want to have easy access to loot. There shouldn't be easy access to loot in an attack/defence game. There are other games for easy farming - farming games.

---

I'm arguing that there's no reason that some loot, and particularly that which will never be missed doesn't necessarily need to be any more difficult to get, and that you shouldn't make it harder/riskier than it already is for players to attack stronger bases, which would be one of the effects of what you're arguing for. I'm also arguing that it's entirely possible to protect your loot, and pretty much ensure you'll get a shield just about every time when you get attacked, which makes this whole thing unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

How would trophy pushers be affected? Pushers will try for a 2star or better anyway. Pushers failing to get 30% all the time are not really pushers, are they? In that context a situation where an attacker gets a star but fails to give a shield might occur and might require special treatment. But same here, these attacks shouldn't be very common in a league where everybody else aims for 2 stars.

---

Special treatment? Sounds like your system is getting more complicated now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azzip

A defence bonus needs to be carefully implemented as this gives room for abuse (how about dropping on a base till it's rich?). Do you really want to have another complicated system in the game that nobody understands? My solution would be an easy way to improve the reliability of the shield system. Defence bonuses couldn't provide that.

---

This actually isn't possible since you can't choose who you attack and can't attack anyone more than once, but if you want to prevent people dropping trophies from handing out defense bonuses, it would be simple enough; just have it work the same way as the shield, where the enemy has to use a certain number of troops for it to count.

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

---

move up a few leagues so you can get hit by higher players, youll still loose loot, but youll get a shield out of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

I'm arguing that there's no reason that some loot, and particularly that which will never be missed doesn't necessarily need to be any more difficult to get, and that you shouldn't make it harder/riskier than it already is for players to attack stronger bases, which would be one of the effects of what you're arguing for. I'm also arguing that it's entirely possible to protect your loot, and pretty much ensure you'll get a shield just about every time when you get attacked, which makes this whole thing unnecessary.

---

It's too easy to get loot at the moment. All you have to do is to attack a few collectors - harvesting what grows somewhere else. You're talking about farming games still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

Special treatment? Sounds like your system is getting more complicated now

---

Not at all. You get the bonus for the star and you get the loot for 30%. Easy, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

This actually isn't possible since you can't choose who you attack and can't attack anyone more than once, but if you want to prevent people dropping trophies from handing out defense bonuses, it would be simple enough; just have it work the same way as the shield, where the enemy has to use a certain number of troops for it to count.

---

Just introduce penalties for droppers - don't only deny them loot from the defender, let them lose some of their own loot. Dropping problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

This is somewhat better than the last proposal but first, the numbers are off, and second, what if you don't flee? what if all your troops get destroyed and you still haven't reached 30%? You really want to screw the TH7 with a giant set of cojones that goes after a dead max base with 500k of each but only gets 22% with his giant wizard healer army, don't you.

---

If your whole force is destroyed, it is assumed that the raid is a failure and scavengers come back later to retrieve the loot. Then, you lose a small portion of the loot. Again, if you flee, it is assumed you are under fire and drop some stuff as you run away.

They need to figure something out, is getin old real quick. Plus it would be nice if the guard was long enough for your heroes to heal...

I have a feeling that the upcoming Penalty System update was made exactly for this and will likely fix the current issue.

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.

---

Open bases have nothing to do with this, if you've ever been a victim of goblin knife you would realize that you can practically wipe out every possible collector and half of the storages without coming close to 29%. Do the math 7 collectors x 2% = 14 % + 4 storages x 2% = 8% which totals to 22%?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stirr

Open bases have nothing to do with this, if you've ever been a victim of goblin knife you would realize that you can practically wipe out every possible collector and half of the storages without coming close to 29%. Do the math 7 collectors x 2% = 14 % + 4 storages x 2% = 8% which totals to 22%?!

---

If people can get to all of your storages without hitting 30% then I would recommend finding a new base.

Maybe you should login more than you do then people like me won't use goblins to raid your collectors and leave. Or like others have said move up in leagues so your base gets destroyed and you can get 16 hr shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

I really hope this never gets implemented, it would be far more devastating than removing TH sniping in terms of how many people it would turn off the game. Sniping drills is a perfectly legitimate tactic, and you do give something in return, you give cups, and you yourself lose cups as the attacker.

It is effectively the only way that lower level THs can get anything from higher THs who are hanging around in low leagues, it is also often the quickest way to accumulate loot for upgrades. Sorry, but this really is the worst suggestion I have seen today and would completely destroy the player base in my opinion.

i think it's the defender's fault if his base can be attacked this way.
Whenever i find poor bases i intentionally keep the percentage below 30% (even if a few more percents will give me some more resources).
I do it to allow others to raid this base, this only brings good to the game:
1) defender will eventually change his useless layout
2) more players will have easy and cheap loot - i know most like it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Istencsapasa

I really hope this never gets implemented, it would be far more devastating than removing TH sniping in terms of how many people it would turn off the game. Sniping drills is a perfectly legitimate tactic, and you do give something in return, you give cups, and you yourself lose cups as the attacker.

It is effectively the only way that lower level THs can get anything from higher THs who are hanging around in low leagues, it is also often the quickest way to accumulate loot for upgrades. Sorry, but this really is the worst suggestion I have seen today and would completely destroy the player base in my opinion.

---

Not to mention they have added loot cart to return a % of loot taken. OP why do you not post a pic of your base? Maybe you can get some tips on how to better it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danman5000

If people can get to all of your storages without hitting 30% then I would recommend finding a new base.

---

Who said they were making off with all my storages?! Even if they manage to destroy 1 or 2 storages they can still make off with anywhere between 100k to 200k loot if my storages are near full. Another issue that I am having is that the percentage is only counted if the storage is destroyed. Making the issue far more difficult then it seems when all my storages have lost their loot but still remain as a existing structure.

And nothing is wrong with my or most base designs for that matter, I've looked up almost every kind of bases: ring bases, symmetrical bases, square bases, lure bases and all of them ends up with the same result! How else do you want me to make it. To minimize my total loss I now have all my collectors and structures sprinkled evenly around the base. While my storages are spread out along all four corners as evenly as it gets. If someone uses 240 goblins and drives a hole in my wall to get on the storages however there is no way I am going to save a quarter of my loot and I still won't get a shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollboothwillie

Not to mention they have added loot cart to return a % of loot taken. OP why do you not post a pic of your base? Maybe you can get some tips on how to better it.

---

Loot cart is not a solution, its as much use as a bandage is to a person that needs medical attention. You can make your base "better" as much as you like. If someone decides to leave at 29% when they got enough loot there's nothing you can do!

do you want trophies or do you want loot? seems like a no Brainer to me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bartimusmaximus

do you want trophies or do you want loot? seems like a no Brainer to me..

---

That statement was true before town hall snipes were removed from the game, now I don't even know what the sentence means:confused:

I think that we dont need any changes. I screw up an attack- you get some trophies and I get my loot. I find myself sometimes attacking a maxed out th 11 with full collectors (ima th 9 now). I get rekted, but still i get like 1m of loot plus de. And that players get ur loot and you dont get a shield means that you are in a noob league like Gold 3 or mby crystal. Try moving to champ or titan league and I assure you that you wont find any more 29% trolls cause guys in high leagues will just 100% rekt u, take ur trophies and all of your loot, but you will get a shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stirr

That statement was true before town hall snipes were removed from the game, now I don't even know what the sentence means:confused:

---

you made me think to remember what my point was... it's waaay to early for that. my point was either defend your loot and give up trophies or keep your trophies and give up loot. I hardly ever win a defense, but my de stays safe well over half the time.

I would hope that they make none of these changes as I occasionally end an attack before 30% damage. I only do this when an attack goes real bad due to castle troops and I know I will lose the attack so I collect what little loot I can and then surrender before 30%. This opens them up for another attack in 30 minutes so maybe someone else can wipe them out without the aid of castle troops.

I don't think it's unfair, everytime you get attacked, you just have to attack twice and you get your resources back and also make profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terror53

I don't think it's unfair, everytime you get attacked, you just have to attack twice and you get your resources back and also make profit.

---

Take care to read through posts properly. The reason this is a problem for some is because if your base doesn't suffer 30% damage, you don't get a shield. Only a brief village guard. So if this happens over night, you have the potential to lose multiple attacks, costing many more resources than normal.

I have no horse in this race though. I always take full attacks in my league

Is this a genuine problem for a lot of people? It seems to me that having a good cc troop mix and a decent base layout would discourage early surrendering in almost all cases. It seems like early surrendering is mainly an issue for defenseless or engineered bases, and as far as that goes, I am in favour of maintaining the status quo (if not making it even harder to get a shield).