Constructive post about DE zapping

[Bulldog241]

OK, so we all know that DE zappers are out there, and the community seems to be split on if this is a good or bad thing. I personally am of the opinion that it is unfair and needs to be stopped, and have commented in many threads about this.

After all this discussion I think I've hit on why this bothers me so much: I can't do anything to stop it. You see if you attack me with Barch, or giants, or loonian, ect I have defenses that can stop them. Maybe they won't, but at least I am given a chance. What can I do to stop getting zapped?

This would be like them adding in dragons but no air D. People would be complaining a LOT about dragons. But the solution wouldn't be to get rid of dragons, it would be to add in a defense against them!

So after reading all this discussion on them, I'm making this post to put forward the 2 best solutions I've found to address the issue. One is defensive in nature, the other is offensive. Keep in mind I don't think both should go in, but one of them definitely should.

DEFENSIVE:

This idea is aimed at stopping zapping without nerfing the usefulness of the lit spell in other situations. It goes like this: Lit spells don't steal any resources unless it's been hit by a troop first. This would mean that the attacker would have to at least get to the storage first before they could steal resources with lit. And if someone is able to do that on my base, I honestly have no problem with them taking my DE because they earned it. It would also give us a way to defend against this tactic by having our DE storage well defended.

OFFENSIVE:

This one is a simple change that would do wonders. It's also not my idea, but I forgot what thread I read it in. Anyway, the idea is to get rid of the loot penalty on a revenge attack (NOT for a normal attack though, only revenge).

After all, one of the main arguements for zapping is "if you get zapped, you can always revenge them". Well, not when it's a TH7 zapping a TH 10. The TH10 can't get any loot at all from a revenge, so the TH7 is perfectly safe.

Now I get why that penalty is there, we don't want bigger guys picking fights with lower lvls all the time. This is there for their protection and it's a good thing. But should it really protect them when the smaller guy decides to pick the fight FIRST? I mean if you poke a sleeping bear with a stick, you probably should get eaten.

So lower TH's would still be protected unless they pick a fight with a bigger TH. This would give players a sense of worry about who they attack. Sure I could hit this TH10, but do I really want to? I feel like it would add some excitement to the game too!

So those are the 2 ideas I feel should be considered. Personally I like the offensive one better, but I'd be happy with either. What do you guys think? Please only post intelligent/constructive comments.

Thanks!

[Kuris]

OK, so we all know that DE zappers are out there, and the community seems to be split on if this is a good or bad thing. I personally am of the opinion that it is unfair and needs to be stopped, and have commented in many threads about this.

After all this discussion I think I've hit on why this bothers me so much: I can't do anything to stop it. You see if you attack me with Barch, or giants, or loonian, ect I have defenses that can stop them. Maybe they won't, but at least I am given a chance. What can I do to stop getting zapped?

This would be like them adding in dragons but no air D. People would be complaining a LOT about dragons. But the solution wouldn't be to get rid of dragons, it would be to add in a defense against them!

So after reading all this discussion on them, I'm making this post to put forward the 2 best solutions I've found to address the issue. One is defensive in nature, the other is offensive. Keep in mind I don't think both should go in, but one of them definitely should.

DEFENSIVE:

This idea is aimed at stopping zapping without nerfing the usefulness of the lit spell in other situations. It goes like this: Lit spells don't steal any resources unless it's been hit by a troop first. This would mean that the attacker would have to at least get to the storage first before they could steal resources with lit. And if someone is able to do that on my base, I honestly have no problem with them taking my DE because they earned it. It would also give us a way to defend against this tactic by having our DE storage well defended.

OFFENSIVE:

This one is a simple change that would do wonders. It's also not my idea, but I forgot what thread I read it in. Anyway, the idea is to get rid of the loot penalty on a revenge attack (NOT for a normal attack though, only revenge).

After all, one of the main arguements for zapping is "if you get zapped, you can always revenge them". Well, not when it's a TH7 zapping a TH 10. The TH10 can't get any loot at all from a revenge, so the TH7 is perfectly safe.

Now I get why that penalty is there, we don't want bigger guys picking fights with lower lvls all the time. This is there for their protection and it's a good thing. But should it really protect them when the smaller guy decides to pick the fight FIRST? I mean if you poke a sleeping bear with a stick, you probably should get eaten.

So lower TH's would still be protected unless they pick a fight with a bigger TH. This would give players a sense of worry about who they attack. Sure I could hit this TH10, but do I really want to? I feel like it would add some excitement to the game too!

So those are the 2 ideas I feel should be considered. Personally I like the offensive one better, but I'd be happy with either. What do you guys think? Please only post intelligent/constructive comments.

Thanks!

So, your proposing a loot penalty for attacking a higher town hall, or just abolishing the whole loot penalty altogether? Both sound terrible. The loot penalty was put their on purpose, and the loot bonus was put there to encourage lower town halls to attack the bigger guys.

Zapping is part of the game, it's been around ever since lightning spells were introduced, if they wanted to stop it, they would have shown a sign of it by now. And they haven't, removing zapping would leave TH7s with no way to max out. It's a strategy.

The defensive idea is also terrible, spells were added just for that purpose, adding this limitation to recourse, would mean you have to do the same too defence, just to balance it out, bye to Loonian, Mass Drag. You cannot simply do that without killing atleast 2 strategies. Not only that, but it's going to make it harder for farmers, they have to get inside the base now to attack with spells, farming is a legitimate strategy.

Feel free to reply constructively

[Quienten]

I have done this to get a barb king and believe me its not easy at all you only get 200 and if your lucky maybe 100 but know you have to break all drills and storage with 3 or 4 lightning spells impossible

[sw4gdaddy]

I agree with EpicChris entirely. Spells were created for a reason, and adding any defensive properties to them could nerf lightning alltogether. In high level raiding, people will lightning builders huts to get 50%, etc. At TH7, DE is extremely hard to come by, and I was able to get it by zapping. Did I like it? No. I imagined how I would feel if that happened to me (outraged), but do you have any idea how hard it would be to get dark elixir by sniping a drill here and there? Raiding is part of the game, and you have to live with it. If I zap you with 3 lv4 lightning, that's enough to take around half of the DE available. Keep in mind, only 5% of the DE can be taken from your storages. So that's 2.5%, a very small number indeed. If you are a TH8, 9, or 10 (the likely culprits for a DE zap from a TH7), and you had, say, 30,000 DE in storages, that's 750 DE they take. That's not very much in the grand scheme of things. You could easily get double that back in one raid. Hope you understand the point I am trying to make, as I do understand how aggravating it is to have your DE zapped. Just because I'm only TH7 doesn't mean I haven't fallen victim to this, as well. At the end of the day, It's just a game and I moved on rather quickly.

Happy Clashing!
-sw4gdaddy

[Brick2025]

You can barely get any loot from higher town halls. Abolishing the loot penalty is a BAD idea.

[hobbitgenuis]

You are so bias. If you think that that is unfair you might as well say that higher th shouldnt attack smaller th! your idea is completely bias i mean for a th lvl7 it is practically impossible to get de anyway else! just saying this will never get put in bec it is completely unfair!

THE HOBBITGENIUS

[gallantblade]

I agree with EpicChris entirely. Spells were created for a reason, and adding any defensive properties to them could nerf lightning alltogether. In high level raiding, people will lightning builders huts to get 50%, etc

He said have the spell not steal resources; meaning the spell still have it's same ability to damage buildings. So the legit 50% strategy is still perfectly viable

You can barely get any loot from higher town halls. Abolishing the loot penalty is a BAD idea.

He is speaking of revenge attacks only. If you don't poke the bear, the bear can't bite you.

I like the ideas.

[FrosttN]

OK, so we all know that DE zappers are out there, and the community seems to be split on if this is a good or bad thing. I personally am of the opinion that it is unfair and needs to be stopped, and have commented in many threads about this.

After all this discussion I think I've hit on why this bothers me so much: I can't do anything to stop it. You see if you attack me with Barch, or giants, or loonian, ect I have defenses that can stop them. Maybe they won't, but at least I am given a chance. What can I do to stop getting zapped?

This would be like them adding in dragons but no air D. People would be complaining a LOT about dragons. But the solution wouldn't be to get rid of dragons, it would be to add in a defense against them!

So after reading all this discussion on them, I'm making this post to put forward the 2 best solutions I've found to address the issue. One is defensive in nature, the other is offensive. Keep in mind I don't think both should go in, but one of them definitely should.

DEFENSIVE:

This idea is aimed at stopping zapping without nerfing the usefulness of the lit spell in other situations. It goes like this: Lit spells don't steal any resources unless it's been hit by a troop first. This would mean that the attacker would have to at least get to the storage first before they could steal resources with lit. And if someone is able to do that on my base, I honestly have no problem with them taking my DE because they earned it. It would also give us a way to defend against this tactic by having our DE storage well defended.

OFFENSIVE:

This one is a simple change that would do wonders. It's also not my idea, but I forgot what thread I read it in. Anyway, the idea is to get rid of the loot penalty on a revenge attack (NOT for a normal attack though, only revenge).

After all, one of the main arguements for zapping is "if you get zapped, you can always revenge them". Well, not when it's a TH7 zapping a TH 10. The TH10 can't get any loot at all from a revenge, so the TH7 is perfectly safe.

Now I get why that penalty is there, we don't want bigger guys picking fights with lower lvls all the time. This is there for their protection and it's a good thing. But should it really protect them when the smaller guy decides to pick the fight FIRST? I mean if you poke a sleeping bear with a stick, you probably should get eaten.

So lower TH's would still be protected unless they pick a fight with a bigger TH. This would give players a sense of worry about who they attack. Sure I could hit this TH10, but do I really want to? I feel like it would add some excitement to the game too!

So those are the 2 ideas I feel should be considered. Personally I like the offensive one better, but I'd be happy with either. What do you guys think? Please only post intelligent/constructive comments.

Thanks!

There is.. It's called the seeking air mine

[Bulldog241]

So, your proposing a loot penalty for attacking a higher town hall, or just abolishing the whole loot penalty altogether?

How did you get that from what I wrote? This is not what I am proposing at all. Total comprehension fail.

removing zapping would leave TH7s with no way to max out. It's a strategy.

I got my BK in about a week without zapping once. Or gemming (I've spent $0 on this game). It really isn't that hard. The people claiming this is the only way must really suck at this game.

Feel free to reply constructively

Re-read my post and demonstrate that you understand what I wrote, and I will.

I agree with EpicChris entirely. Spells were created for a reason, and adding any defensive properties to them could nerf lightning alltogether. In high level raiding, people will lightning builders huts to get 50%, etc.

Again, you did not understand what I wrote. Lightning would still dmg buildings. I really don't know how I could have made that more clear.

At TH7, DE is extremely hard to come by, and I was able to get it by zapping. Did I like it? No. I imagined how I would feel if that happened to me (outraged), but do you have any idea how hard it would be to get dark elixir by sniping a drill here and there?

I sure do, because I did this myself at TH7 and got the DE in about a week without even trying that hard. This line of argument is 100% null and void.

Hope you understand the point I am trying to make, as I do understand how aggravating it is to have your DE zapped.

Why is it aggravating? Did you ever wonder that? I mean, is getting hit by a well put together army that overpowers your defenses aggravating? Not really. It sucks, sure, but you aren't frustrated by it in the same way. Why? Because you have a way to defend against it! Your defenses failed, but at least you where given some way to protect yourself. Zapping is so aggravating because you CAN'T defend against this, and this is why it needs to change.

You can barely get any loot from higher town halls. Abolishing the loot penalty is a BAD idea.

Thank you for not reading my post or understanding any of it. To everyone else, this is exactly the type of post I'm hoping to avoid. Please take note of Brick, and don't be like him. Ok?


A lot of the responses have been saying they don't like the defensive idea because it would make DE raiding too hard at TH7 (which is completely wrong), but what about the offensive idea? The only comments thus far have been ones that have totally misunderstood what I wrote. And I also did say that I don't think both should go in, only one of them. So if you don't like the idea of TH10's being able to defend themselves (what? Giving someone the ability to defend themselves? Terrible idea!!), what about the offensive idea?