Do we really need to lose resources on defence?

[Rampantarmadillo]

You prove my point exactly, and I think we have agreed on this previously.

You, me and most other players believe that battles are only necessary to acquire loot. We don't care about trophies.

SC believe we are playing the game incorrectly.

And your solution is free loot for all? Wouldn't that make the game lame for even the weakest and most casual players?

I guess, given the volume of whine since the removal of the old "I win" button, maybe it wouldn't. Trollolol

[Rampantarmadillo]

You seem to want to argue with me for some strange reason.
If you read my post again you will see that my perception of the game is just the same as yours. I am not a trophy pusher. I have zero need for trophies. I play the game the same way as many others do in a variety of approaches depending on how i want to at any particular time.

But SC's perception is not the same. They want us all to attack for trophies.

I don't know you. I disagree with some of what you say.. I believe that your "so what?" Type questions re my response to OP are disingenuous. It's clear at this stage that you're not interested either way.. You're just looking for some way to transform the discussion into another "most of us hate SC, how dare they change our (lol) game" thread. Glwt.

[pmhausen]

You prove my point exactly, and I think we have agreed on this previously.
You, me and most other players believe that battles are only necessary to acquire loot. We don't care about trophies.
SC believe we are playing the game incorrectly.

Ah ... now I get it. I did not realize you were playing Devil's Advocate taking Supercell's statements to their logical conclusion.

Nicely played, indeed. A bit hard to grasp, though

Patrick

[TsChomp]

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.

I made a similar suggestion in another thread. Keep the loot gained by the attacker the same, but reduce the loot lost by the defender (not eliminate it). For example, 200/200/1000k gain for the attacker, but only a 100/100/500k loss to the defender. I think people would be more likely to leave higher amounts in storage since they will lose less, which would also create higher wins for the attacker. And increase the loot bonus by at least 50%!

[PhilBanana]

Ah ... now I get it. I did not realize you were playing Devil's Advocate taking Supercell's statements to their logical conclusion.

Nicely played, indeed. A bit hard to grasp, though

Patrick

There's so much entrenched anger on these forums these days it can be hard to look through a post or view...

I'm not trying to promote one idea over another, I just look at the pros and cons of all concepts win the context of the whole game. The OPs suggestion is not ridiculous in any way if you accept that trophies > loot.
If you hold a contrary view of loot > trophies then it is a nonsense.

unfortunatly I have seen many businesses make big strategic decisions but then implement changes in such a poorly considered and risk-averse way that it inevitably costs them money and alienates their customer base.
Either change nothing and keep milking the cow or go buy some chickens. SC seem to think they can keep the cow and make it start laying eggs.

[JKL2207]

There's so much entrenched anger on these forums these days it can be hard to look through a post or view...

This is very true.

Perhaps introducing this concept when the forums aren't too up in arms over the recent update may produce a more productive response which doesn't circle around the "easy mode" discussion.

I'm not trying to promote one idea over another, I just look at the pros and cons of all concepts win the context of the whole game. The OPs suggestion is not ridiculous in any way if you accept that trophies > loot.
If you hold a contrary view of loot > trophies then it is a nonsense.

That was the original assertion.

[JKL2207]

"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.

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.

See? This whole outrage mainly started because there is a big part of the player community that thinks that this game is about everything but battling and trophies. Battles are only necessary to acquire loot. Which is what the game is about.

I belong to this group, but if getting loot would get that trivial as suggested, why would I even play?

You still raid for loot, loot is not determined by what is in the defender's storage. You have to WIN to get loot. This is not a free loot for everyone post. You guys must have missed out this part in my original post.

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.

[OldAndConfused]

A real chief would know that SC want the game to be about winning trophies.

and anyone that's played this game for more than a month would realize that the overwhelming majority of players never gave a rats @#$ about trophies

[OldAndConfused]

Maybe I didn't quite articulate myself well enough.

Actually... that's my problem with your post... I don't really know if you are proposing something or just trying to describe what you see as the problem.

Attacking with higher level armies on higher level bases is more fun... PROVIDED I can maintain the pre-update level of net profit on loot and if it took the same amount of time to build those armies.

I don't require the free shield, it was clearly a ♥♥♥♥ that users took advantage of (as they always will).

I simply want the ability to progress through the game at the rate I was pre-update - however that is accomplished.

Even if I could farm higher amounts of resources from higher level bases [arguable] it is still a net loss with the build times and army cost.

And for those who would argue they are making more [net] than before... I suggest that you are either mistaken or one of a very exclusive club.

[chalovskii]

Asking "Do we really need to lose resources on defence" is like asking Do we really need to gain resources on offense, since that is where the loot comes from, people you attack.

If you want to win generated resources, I suggest look into warring 3 times per week.