Do we really need to lose resources on defence?

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.

---

Actually, there wouldn't be a game if there were losers. Who would play this game if they couldn't progress? You would either need a steady influx of losers, or winners would become losers as as more and more losers exited. Before you knew it, you wouldn't have a game. Clash isn't really competition in the sense that a team or individual sport is. It's more like a marathon, where you're just trying to prove you can do it, or you're trying to improve your time. If everyone ran a marathon to win the race, you wouldn't have very many people competing.

so basic understanding is you want to get no loot loss from being attacked. then the attacker would get no loot gain.. so you would only being collecting from mines etc....how would that fix anything lol, and why would people be inclined to attack?

people should just say what they really want and stop beating around the bush. for sc to give them a max base so everyone could get it. for free and instantly. noone wants to work for their base anymore, and wants just an easy no cost no loss method of doing things....i have played this game with 3.5 years and up until now i have not see so many entitled game players. its ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bog3nator

so basic understanding is you want to get no loot loss from being attacked. then the attacker would get no loot gain.. so you would only being collecting from mines etc....how would that fix anything lol, and why would people be inclined to attack?

people should just say what they really want and stop beating around the bush. for sc to give them a max base so everyone could get it. for free and instantly. noone wants to work for their base anymore, and wants just an easy no cost no loss method of doing things....i have played this game with 3.5 years and up until now i have not see so many entitled game players. its ridiculous.

---

I don't think he's saying the attacker would get nothing if the defender lost nothing. Clash can't be a zero sum game or it would never grow.

I think the only piece missing is that there needs to be a bigger incentive to build defenses than just league levels.

I'd say defenders should lose something. But there is no reason the amount gained has to equal the amount lost (see boom beach for an example).

Absolutely. I play solely to prevent the progress of others. If they took away the loss of loot, there would be no reason to play.

Of course you "should" lose resources on lost defenses...

on the other hand whats wrong with a small bonus for winning a defense.

I personally have no problem with people dropping trophies if that's what they want to do... for me staying down low is just too much work - constantly riding the rails, up and down. But if that's what they want to do... fine with me.

It would be nice to win a small bonus for defending though... why shouldn't I get something out of successfully beating off an attacker... and why shouldn't attackers risk some small amount of their resources for trying and failing.

Would that not also reduce the urge to trophy drop? (again... not that I see trophy dropping as an issue).

Frankly I just don't care to tell others how they choose to have fun - but for some its important.

I get what the OP is saying, but I think the lesson learned from SC's change is that something this fundamental would really cause a lot of frustration among clashers being forced to adapt. It's really a different game at that point.

Honestly, the biggest issue I keep hearing is elixir being the big problem. People drop down in leagues to avoid using large elixir armies (and won't get attacked by as many serious armies). What if, the headstones gave back substantially more elixir than they do now, based on what troop they were? I'm thinking that when a troop dies, the headstone could be worth near the cost of the troop but rapidly decay if not collected, almost like reverse collectors (heck apply as many factors to it as you want, maybe higher leagues allow a higher percentage to be collected or they decay slower...) This would mean that at higher leagues where higher troops are needed, you should get more back on defense to fund the expensive armies required...

Ok, how about when someone attacks, they get the same loot they would get like 20% storages, 95% DE Drills and collectors but on the defender's side there is only a partial loss, say 30% of the loot the attacker gets. That would definitely mitigate the resource drain wouldn't it?

While I like this idea in theory, there would be a lot of side effects...

>Bases with all resources exposed for free defensive wins at under 30% destruction or no TH destroyed, so no shield
>Less incentive to make different bases for war and farming, as with no resource loss every base would be a war base - that also means resources on outside of base
>Because of the above, everyone that attacks would be quickly flooded with loot, and never afraid to lose it so they may have less incentive to log in (potential for increased inactivity)

and many other potential side effects that I'm likely not thinking of. It may be workable, but there would need to be many changes beyond making loot not be lost. Subsidizing losses might be workable because the defender would still feel like - like have the attacker gain 400k but the defender only lose 1/2 of the amount stolen.

We all need loot INJECTION, we need new loot to be pumped in the economy. My theory is that depending on the league level. The player gets a certain multiplier for the loot he stole.

So an example would be say the player completely wiped a base and stole 400k in gold. Now if he was in silver it would be like a 1.05 multiplier giving him 20k more loot. Now if you go higher like in champions, say the loot multiplier was 1.3 and he got 120k extra gold.* The extra loot would act just like the league bonuses and would be generated right into the players pockets.

Obviously SC can work out the best balance for multipliers but you get my point.


*This is based off of the best case scenario and less gold raided would lead to a smaller amount gained from the bonus