Do we really need to lose resources on defence?

To the OP just ignore the trolls. Some people mistake this forum for 4chan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dyknow

I like your idea. While we're at it, we should not lose cups either when an attack goes bad (this would eliminate those pesky trophy droppers).

It's really a win-win situation - everyone gets to save resources, everyone gets to progress up the leagues. Can't see anything wrong with that at all!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoomerRandy

Yep! While we're at it even losing attacks should earn at least 3 cups plus the cost of their troops back!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dyknow

Indeed. Everyone's a winner in CoC.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denton

Please forward this idea to SC immediately; I am certain that they will agree with you...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronny2011

I probably quit if this happens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieMenace

Why bother building defences at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveTheOctopus

Let's also add a win button. Press and you get instant max base and 9,999 trophies

---

Guess those same people are constantly bashing others with 'adapt or quit' and calling every 'I quit' or 'I dislike the update' cry babies or bad attacker.

Yet we have someone who doesn't complain, and tries to make a positive suggestion.
We will be glad to hear WHY you disagree with him, and have a positive discussion with him.

Like my army troops to come back if they are not dead or maybe I get the elixer back. They have it in boom beach so why not and rearming traps this is old why do I need to rearm my traps every 5 mins cause hell we all know if a person doesn't get a 40% and hits some traps they won't reset for next attack who is just scanning bye looking and also clan castle troops should never die if its in there its in there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrandCthulhu

Guess those same people are constantly bashing others with 'adapt or quit' and calling every 'I quit' or 'I dislike the update' cry babies or bad attacker.

Yet we have someone who doesn't complain, and tries to make a positive suggestion.
We will be glad to hear WHY you disagree with him, and have a positive discussion with him.

---

I'm with you, people on here just to tell others why they are wrong or their ideas are dumb are ruining the forums just like the nonstop I quit threads...

I would like to see the OP suggestion beta tested and see how it goes. I think it's interesting and a good way of thinking outside the box. With some tweaks I bet it could work. I do think there would have to be some loss of loot for the defending base. Idk why the loot won by the attacker couldn't be a different total then what it lost by the defender

A game where there's no loser? That's a boring game.. in fact, it wouldn't be a game at all if there weren't any losers.

Competition always intended for there to be winners and losers. The winners would be the champions and stand tall above the rest. If your idea comes to pass, OP, one of the games themes becomes meaningless.

Everyone aims for the top, but not everyone will get to the top unless you are smart/dedicated enough to reach it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrandCthulhu

Guess those same people are constantly bashing others with 'adapt or quit' and calling every 'I quit' or 'I dislike the update' cry babies or bad attacker.

Yet we have someone who doesn't complain, and tries to make a positive suggestion.
We will be glad to hear WHY you disagree with him, and have a positive discussion with him.

---

check my posts and you will see I have never called anyone any of the above. I asked a legitimate question. If the incentive to build defences is taken away ie protecting your loot, then why bother building defences. You completely ignored my second post where I thought it would be a good idea for a loot subsidy where you are attacked by a higher TH.

must be nice to have the high moral ground but in rushing to judgement you have become as much a hater as the haters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElToucan

To the OP, I think your idea is as insane as it is brilliant. Accommodates every rate of play and would stratify the leagues based on level and skill, which is what SC wants.

But it seems people genuinely enjoy barching and generally using cheap armies to session raid for loot. Encourages the social aspects of the game. This would take that away.

---

The thing is this would accommodate barchers that barch in high leagues too. Barching in higher leagues would = higher league multiplier = better loot.

At the same time it rewards people who wants to use a bigger army to get a higher %.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnrealInsanity

I personally like the idea of getting the loot you spent on building your army back, if you win your attacks. This can eliminate some of the players frustration of building an army that cost so much and gain little profit in return.

This could be very realistic, and it encourages people to push up on cups as they like.

---

As much as I would like that,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clashcon

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...289-Ghost-Loot
Since this would ruin the game, here is my idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xtalx

OP, I think you overestimate the skill of most attackers in this game.

If you think there is rage now, imagine how much there would be if the game forced you to win just to get any loot.

---

To be fair that's the direction SC has pushed clash towards, this is just an idea built on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rangermerah

the chance this idea become reality is nearly zero

---

If someone told you 3 months ago that SC was going to remove TH snipe you probably would have said the same thing. I know I thought that before the sneak peeks came along. But if they can do this in clan wars, why not do this in multi-player?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PedsRNCVICU

To the OP just ignore the trolls. Some people mistake this forum for 4chan

---

To be fair I blame my poor articulation earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrandCthulhu

We will be glad to hear WHY you disagree with him, and have a positive discussion with him.

---

I know this idea is a long shot but hopefully people can discuss the merits and downfalls of it. I do blame my poor articulation at the start for the poor responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieMenace

If the incentive to build defences is taken away ie protecting your loot, then why bother building defences.

---

I responded to this exact question earlier in the thread but again:

You would get wrecked on defense every time which would make it hard to stay in high leagues, which is the primary source of income.

People generally just like to see their bases progress.

war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKL2207

The thing is this would accommodate barchers that barch in high leagues too. Barching in higher leagues would = higher league multiplier = better loot.

At the same time it rewards people who wants to use a bigger army to get a higher %.

---

It's just harder to barch strong bases for 50%. I'm not sure if it's easy enough for the average player. But who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThatAsianBradah

A game where there's no loser? That's a boring game.. in fact, it wouldn't be a game at all if there weren't any losers.

Competition always intended for there to be winners and losers. The winners would be the champions and stand tall above the rest. If your idea comes to pass, OP, one of the games themes becomes meaningless.

Everyone aims for the top, but not everyone will get to the top unless you are smart/dedicated enough to reach it.

---

Ok bradah...humor my small brain. Please explain to me how either the current or pre-update created 'losers' that this system wouldn't.

Every way you could 'win' before you could still 'win' at after. Push in the leaderboards, advance your base faster than others, increase your level, max out your profile, win at war!

Conversely one could still be a horrible attacker and fail raids (which would give the attacker zero resources btw), and fail war raids.

And so still the people who now reign at the top of this system are the same people who currently sit there; pushers, warriors, maxxers.

Also your need for 'losers' is a bit sadistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThatAsianBradah

A game where there's no loser? That's a boring game.. in fact, it wouldn't be a game at all if there weren't any losers.

Competition always intended for there to be winners and losers. The winners would be the champions and stand tall above the rest. If your idea comes to pass, OP, one of the games themes becomes meaningless.

Everyone aims for the top, but not everyone will get to the top unless you are smart/dedicated enough to reach it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieMenace

check my posts and you will see I have never called anyone any of the above. I asked a legitimate question. If the incentive to build defences is taken away ie protecting your loot, then why bother building defences. You completely ignored my second post where I thought it would be a good idea for a loot subsidy where you are attacked by a higher TH.

must be nice to have the high moral ground but in rushing to judgement you have become as much a hater as the haters.

---

The thing is, you still lose by losing trophies. Loss of trophies still means less efficient farming. This idea just takes away the loot loss and gets players to focus on raiding for trophies. Your defences are still there to help you defend against trophy loss so I don't get where you guys get the idea where no one can lose.

You have clan wars as system where you have winners and losers with no loot lost.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, since I don't really enjoy plowing through tons of negative posts about the update, but if SC were to reduce the loot loss and increase significantly the win bonus, it might help with this dry season. Less loot loss from players, more loot gained from the system. There cannot be a win all solution for this.