CHEAP SHIELDING: How does it work? Sign Up to STOP IT!

[lim81]

Yeah, this is a cooperative game between you and your clan, and only your clan... Why top players are staying alone in their closed clan? Come on, be honest and don't play with my words!

They are hoping that one of their friends find them so they get a cheap shield?

Just like how a farmer throws out his town hall and hoping someone snipe their town hall and go.

Both are hoping for something that benefits them but why are you only condemning one but justifying the other?



P.S. I believed farmers get TH sniped at a higher % as compared to those champs getting their bases found by their friends... At least thats what I believed as I never have being at champ level

[greggsaber1]

Well not really, people from different clans often come to my clan to offer trophy racing. Most recently, there's a race between HaiphongBro and Vietop, and they ended up 2nd and 3rd ranked top clan. Their clans consisted of people from all over the place, that alone means that the cooperative level of this game can be taken well beyond a single clan push or race between clanmates.

Btw, should I be honest about what exactly? I have no benefit from this.

People join the top clans just to get the gems at the last few hours of the season..

[rjdofu]

People join the top clans just to get the gems at the last few hours of the season..

Your point being?

[Beerking]

Allow me to rebutt your points.

First of all, definition of CHEAP SHIELD:
1) cheap: a price that a payee is wiling to pay, and finds it a good deal for something that he is getting in return.
2) shield: an item that prevents you from being attacked in this game.

So, cheap shield essentially means the defender using means to obtain a shield by offering something that would make the trade off beneficial for him.

It doesn't matter the circumstances, or the type of players involved. A player offering 1 trophy to be attacked up to 50% to gain a shield, cheap shield. A player offering his TH and its equivalent trophies to obtain a shield, cheap shield. A player offering 40% of his buildings unprotected to ensure he gets a shield, cheap shield.

Whether the deal needs to be made before hand is not important. Top clans have an understanding to shield their clan mates (who are in a solitary clan), just like how farmers have an understanding that TH snipers will take their TH and run.

Chances of success also doesn't matter (agree with you here). Because once you are in matchmaking, you have the chance of getting attacked by anyone, be it 20 clanmates out of 50 trophy hunters, or 300 clan mates and 1000 TH snipers out of 5000 attackers.

The one thing that allows cheap shielding to be scrutinized in terms of legitimacy is none other than this: MOTIVE. The motive, you want a shield. The reason, to protect your trophies or resources. The means, you utilize player behavior to work to your advantage. Player behaviors such as the common occurance of a TH sniper taking your TH and run, or the common occurance that a clan mate doesn't go all out on you in his attacks.

♥♥♥♥♥ing or not, you decide.

However, i disagree that there is only a specific type of cheap shielding that occurs at a specific level which deserve scrutinity.

If you read the OP:s posts he's obviously reffering to the same as me (which funny enough you didn't bother to mention). Attacking a higher clan mate and stop at 40%, this has been the definition of Cheap shielding since the Jorge Yao glory Days, you can try to hide that as much as you like with terminology but that is the fact and it will remain the same. I don't care what it's called it's what the OP meant, avoiding the question with ♥♥ won't help your cause.

Whether the deal has to be made Before is the whole issue here, let's use OP:s football (soccer) analogy.

I would claim that offence is stronger therefor is the attacker the stronger team high up and the defender the weaker. Cheap shielding in this case: The stronger team deliberately loses to help the weaker team, fair?
Alliances: The stronger team decides to only win by 1 goal to help the weaker teams goal difference, fair?
You can't possible say that losing on purpose is fair?

Biggest difference with farming is that it's a win/win, I want my Resources protected and the sniper want the trophies.

Someone who deliberately loses or quit the raid to help the defender isn't the same, people still claiming it to be is just funny.

The game is made so that you can't be attacked by your clan for a reason, leaving it to get attacked is exploiting the system, if you were suppose to do that, you would be able to without leaving the clan.

Use whatever argument you want to convince yourself that it's not chéáting because you won't convince anyone else.

[StanDadVille]

While I can't speak for everyone, a couple of weeks ago I was at Champ and in Kings Gate, which is the gateway to Kings Landing, and people move between the two regularly. KL is currently the number 2 clan and contains the number 2 player. The guys from KL made it quite clear to us that nobody expects or even wants to be cheap shielded. Those people who move out of their home clan into a clone are clearly trying to get found and I suspect there is a degree of coordination, getting people to search at the right times, but please don't tar everyone with the same brush or assume that all top players must be doing this. Because they certainly are not.

[Beerking]

They are hoping that one of their friends find them so they get a cheap shield?

Just like how a farmer throws out his town hall and hoping someone snipe their town hall and go.

Both are hoping for something that benefits them but why are you only condemning one but justifying the other?



P.S. I believed farmers get TH sniped at a higher % as compared to those champs getting their bases found by their friends... At least thats what I believed as I never have being at champ level

The only fair way to compare cheap shielding and farming would be if your clan mates left their Resources out in the open for you to attack in an attempt to get around the "no resource sharing rules", this is of course impossible but it would be just as much chéáting as cheap shielding.
Creating multiple accounts or get clan members to boost your resources is the same as create mutiple accounts or getting your clan mates to boost your trophies. I'm pretty sure people would scream chéáters in that case, or do you think that it would be fair to get all the Resources gathered from 3 accounts into 1?

[Sandalhat]

If you read the OP:s posts he's obviously reffering to the same as me (which funny enough you didn't bother to mention). Attacking a higher clan mate and stop at 40%, this has been the definition of Cheap shielding since the Jorge Yao glory Days, you can try to hide that as much as you like with terminology but that is the fact and it will remain the same. I don't care what it's called it's what the OP meant, avoiding the question with ♥♥ won't help your cause.

Whether the deal has to be made Before is the whole issue here, let's use OP:s football (soccer) analogy.

I would claim that offence is stronger therefor is the attacker the stronger team high up and the defender the weaker. Cheap shielding in this case: The stronger team deliberately loses to help the weaker team, fair?
Alliances: The stronger team decides to only win by 1 goal to help the weaker teams goal difference, fair?
You can't possible say that losing on purpose is fair?

Biggest difference with farming is that it's a win/win, I want my Resources protected and the sniper want the trophies.

Someone who deliberately loses or quit the raid to help the defender isn't the same, people still claiming it to be is just funny.

The game is made so that you can't be attacked by your clan for a reason, leaving it to get attacked is exploiting the system, if you were suppose to do that, you would be able to without leaving the clan.

Use whatever argument you want to convince yourself that it's not chéáting because you won't convince anyone else.

Losing on purpose, this is the basis of your argument, and the only basis.

You can't prove losing on purpose, at least not in this game. Internet connection can be lost easily, have you tried raiding on third world country internet? Ever lightninged a tree, raged a bush? Ever accidentally tapped surrender?

How would you prove that the top players' clan mate lost to him on purpose, while you zapping a tree is an accident?

And if i 39% you and take all your resources, kill your heroes, kill your cc, but give you 50 trophies, are we ♥♥♥♥♥ing? I could say i had a deal with you, just as easily the top players can say they did not make a deal.

How do you establish a method of proving?

[Staf]

Use whatever argument you want to convince yourself that it's not chéáting because you won't convince anyone else.

I like the way you cut right through the ♥♥, man. Well said.

Calling this good deeds, comparing this to helping a blind man across the street... Hilarious.

[lim81]

If you read the OP:s posts he's obviously reffering to the same as me (which funny enough you didn't bother to mention). Attacking a higher clan mate and stop at 40%, this has been the definition of Cheap shielding since the Jorge Yao glory Days, you can try to hide that as much as you like with terminology but that is the fact and it will remain the same. I don't care what it's called it's what the OP meant, avoiding the question with ♥♥ won't help your cause.

Whether the deal has to be made Before is the whole issue here, let's use OP:s football (soccer) analogy.

I would claim that offence is stronger therefor is the attacker the stronger team high up and the defender the weaker. Cheap shielding in this case: The stronger team deliberately loses to help the weaker team, fair?
Alliances: The stronger team decides to only win by 1 goal to help the weaker teams goal difference, fair?
You can't possible say that losing on purpose is fair?

Biggest difference with farming is that it's a win/win, I want my Resources protected and the sniper want the trophies.

Someone who deliberately loses or quit the raid to help the defender isn't the same, people still claiming it to be is just funny.

The game is made so that you can't be attacked by your clan for a reason, leaving it to get attacked is exploiting the system, if you were suppose to do that, you would be able to without leaving the clan.

Use whatever argument you want to convince yourself that it's not chéáting because you won't convince anyone else.

Am I missing something? By leaving the clan, does he guaranteed to be found by his clan mates? What are the chances? 5 or 6 out of 10 defenses? Please pardon me for my ignorance as I never have being in champ so I do not know the actual statistics...

Farmers leaving out their town hall for sniping is also taking their chance. I do know the % for that and can pose logs to prove if needed to. Currently Im farming at 2400. For my last 10 defensive log, 9 of them are TH snipes. Pretty good % rates here

I do not mind if one want to condemn cheap shielding but it irks me that how some farmers condemn one action but aggressively defending his own action by claiming its different and is justified.


P.S. I am a shameless farmer who exploit the game mechanics by leaving out my town hall, sacrificing some useless trophies which I can easily get back with a few raids while protecting my resources for 12 hours

P.S.S I just got another 12 hours shield for a loss of 9 worthless trophies and 1000 gold/1765 elixir. Tough luck to those who hope to get my resources.... I am offering more than 320k gold and elixir....Lol

[CunningLinguists]

This is obviously a massive problem and something needs to be done about it.Yes if you intentionally lose a game at 40% to give a shield then its che$ting.Ok so maybe you cant prove it all the time but this isnt a court of law.I think that if it happens more than say 2-3 times in champion you should be banned for a day or two.if they press end battle then it can be proven because they pressed it.They should make it so that if a pattern emerges of quitting at 40% then you get a short ban and anymore after that a longer ban