Do we really need to lose resources on defence?

[ElToucan]

What the point of building defenses then?? This will make game boring!

See post #11...and #28....

[Radiating]

Yes, because part of the game is looting others' bases.

[pmhausen]

Nice idea, but there's one point that will lead to it being instantly dismissed:

If we don't lose resources on defence, farmers will simply put all their storages in one corner for the profit of others and enjoy others to do likewise. Nobody will be angered by 29% defences anymore and players will continuously farm the same storages over and over since it will not hurt anyone.

Presto - loot lota vase.

Patrick

[dyknow]

Your flippant remarks accuse the OP of entitlement no? It would still take years to max your base. What part of dedicating years to a game to max it is entitled?

No, I did not accuse the OP of entitlement. Not sure how you read that in my remarks.

Yes, it would take years (without gemming) to max one's base. Don't think I disagree with that at all.

"Everyone is a winner" seems appropriate for a suggestion that the losing defender not suffer any material loss (i.e. loot), I would have thought. At least that's why my then-young son's soccer matches "don't keep score".

For the cup pushers, loot would probably be less relevant. For the farmers (or milkers), cups would probably be quite irrelevant.

Maybe SC should consider a post-victory choice - "Would you like cups or loot?" - the winner can only take cups or loot, not both. The "lucrative" bonus loot (I'm referring to the lower leagues) will still be "generously" awarded, of course.

[Rampantarmadillo]

For a PvP where the developer is prioritising trophies, is the loss of resources from the a defence really necessary?

If saving loot is the main issue that SC has identified from all the recent complaints, and to be fair that sums up a lot of the complaints:

• Loss of TH shield
• 29% milking
• Can gain loot
• making negative elixir through spending more on raids and losing more on defence
• can't upgrade stuff
• loss of diversity because certain types of players/bases can't progress

Then the logical solution would be restrict the amount of resources that can be looted from a base, this inherently would exacerbate another issue which is profitability of raids. So is the solution actually to remove loss of resources from defences and instead introduce attack win bonuses?

Edited to add in extra stuff after the hate.

Maybe I didn't quite articulate myself well enough.

FYI: I am doing well post-update having farmed up the last 3 levels of my BK, various lab upgrades at TH10, 4 maxed teslas, a few archer tower upgrades and quite a few magmas.

So no this is not a cry for easy mode, rather an observation of how things could be observed differently. I know many are used to the system of defending your loot or defending your trophies. So the concept will seem strange.

But if you picture clan wars loot system in multi-player with league multiplier and destruction multipliers, which encourages people to push and encourages people use big armies whilst removing the barrier of loot loss, that basically achieves what SC said they want to achieve.


At the moment the loss of loot and trophies tends put people in two different camps as far as the game go goes. Farmers prioritising loot accumulation and retention, pushers prioritising trophies at the expense of loot and retention.

Pre-update a player could choose which path to go down simply by placing one building in the corner. Post update the choice is either farm in high leagues get 2 starred and lose lots of resources or farm in scrub leagues get milked and lose lots of resources.

The point I want to make is what is the point of it? By sticking to that system, we effectively stick with a system that is subject to fluctuations in loot cycles.

Should player A have to set their alarm clock to wake up at 3am to boost farm so that they have the same chances of getting good loot as player B across the other side of the world logging in for a lunch break raid?

That's the sort of system we have at the moment. Are you happy with it?

If a developer wants to push people into one direction, then they have to provide some incentives or remove barriers for the other group to go with it.You could argue the increased league bonuses were it.... and others would argue it was reduced by the destruction % so the benefit is negligible at best.

At the moment the biggest outrage is that one group is being catered to at the expense of the others. The biggest indicator of this is the leaderboard with the amount of legend players sitting up top post-update as opposed to pre-update.

The problem is that if resources aren't lost, players that don't care about trophies have no skin in the game.. What would happen is a new style farming base would proliferate, where resources aren't protected by defences.

[dyknow]

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

But I did not disagree with the OP.

Goes to show one can do no right on the forums. Bashers will bash.

[PhilBanana]

The problem is that if resources aren't lost, players that don't care about trophies have no skin in the game.. What would happen is a new style farming base would proliferate, where resources aren't protected by defences.

Why is this a problem?

[Rampantarmadillo]

Why is this a problem?

Ultimately it makes the economy meaningless. The only bar to progress would be upgrade time.

[dyknow]

Ultimately it makes the economy meaningless. The only bar to progress would be upgrade time.

Indeed.

I guess SC needs to find a balance. No progress or no real prospect of progress vs all to easy passage of time progress. Somewhere in the middle is the trick - easier said than done, from the looks of it.

[PhilBanana]

Ultimately it makes the economy meaningless. The only bar to progress would be upgrade time.

Well I would say that it makes the economy less important rather than meaningless.

But once again - if the aim of the game is to battle and win trophies, Why would that be a problem?