-
Upcoming Hotfixes
Two fixes are going out soon. One addressing the loss of Crowns and the 2nd Drone Command slot, the other addressing players in Asian territories unable to log into the game. Players will receive compensation for each issue that affected them, and crowns lost will be restored. We apologize for the inconvenience.
We need heavy buff on offense side now, defense is overpowered
- Thread starter SiuYin
- Start date
Players go for the easiest targets during MP for garantueed 5 stars for ntg and especially for the least losses of troops as @Radzeer explained very nicely.
Maybe Nexon could fix that by incentivating going for stronger bases in a certain way.
My idea: In a worldwar a base has a loot value based on how strong that player is. Maybe a similar number could be assigned to each players base and the relationship of the attacker vs defender of that number would influence the rewards of that battle.
For example: Attacking a really easy target means a number 1 and attacking a base much stronger means a number 5
- number 1: Opponent is around 60% or less of your strenght: Normal loot as it is now
- number 2: Opponent is between 60% - 80% of your strenght: Extra 5% loot
- number 3: Opponent is between 80% - 100% of your strenght: Extra 10% loot + 2 garantueed diamonds instead of 1 for 5 star victory (and 3 or 4 star)
- number 4: Opponent is between 100% - 120% of your strenght: Extra 15% loot + 2 garantueed diamonds instead of 1 for 5 star victory (and 3 or 4 star) + 1 random free tactic in inventory (choice between tactics used in that battle)
- number 5: Opponent is over 120% of your strenght: Extra 20% loot + 2 garantueed diamonds instead of 1 for 5 star victory (and 3 or 4 star) + 1 random free tactic in inventory (choice between tactics used in that battle) + 1 extra random ntg when getting ntg.
Maybe the numbers aren't right and some tweaking should be done, but you get the idea: Attacking weak players must be less rewarding then attacking stronger players.
Maybe Nexon could fix that by incentivating going for stronger bases in a certain way.
My idea: In a worldwar a base has a loot value based on how strong that player is. Maybe a similar number could be assigned to each players base and the relationship of the attacker vs defender of that number would influence the rewards of that battle.
For example: Attacking a really easy target means a number 1 and attacking a base much stronger means a number 5
- number 1: Opponent is around 60% or less of your strenght: Normal loot as it is now
- number 2: Opponent is between 60% - 80% of your strenght: Extra 5% loot
- number 3: Opponent is between 80% - 100% of your strenght: Extra 10% loot + 2 garantueed diamonds instead of 1 for 5 star victory (and 3 or 4 star)
- number 4: Opponent is between 100% - 120% of your strenght: Extra 15% loot + 2 garantueed diamonds instead of 1 for 5 star victory (and 3 or 4 star) + 1 random free tactic in inventory (choice between tactics used in that battle)
- number 5: Opponent is over 120% of your strenght: Extra 20% loot + 2 garantueed diamonds instead of 1 for 5 star victory (and 3 or 4 star) + 1 random free tactic in inventory (choice between tactics used in that battle) + 1 extra random ntg when getting ntg.
Maybe the numbers aren't right and some tweaking should be done, but you get the idea: Attacking weak players must be less rewarding then attacking stronger players.
Manifesto
Approved user
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,920
Hey Rad, further on this point.
Skipping is not just a question of defenses being too hard, it's a combination. People skip bases because ''that base is higher than me so it's defenses are strong AND my attack is not up to the task''. What is so hard to understand about a high/stronger base having strong defenses? It's common sense logic.
If I have a Ford Fiesta would I want a drag race with a Mustang? Of course not. I'll pick on someone with a Toyota Yaris.
I still argue that defense/skipping/time, etc is not the issue. Give us better rewards and people will risk losing their troops because the effort is worthwhile.
Somewhere along the way people have forgotten the value of actually working hard for something.
Skipping is not just a question of defenses being too hard, it's a combination. People skip bases because ''that base is higher than me so it's defenses are strong AND my attack is not up to the task''. What is so hard to understand about a high/stronger base having strong defenses? It's common sense logic.
If I have a Ford Fiesta would I want a drag race with a Mustang? Of course not. I'll pick on someone with a Toyota Yaris.
I still argue that defense/skipping/time, etc is not the issue. Give us better rewards and people will risk losing their troops because the effort is worthwhile.
Somewhere along the way people have forgotten the value of actually working hard for something.
Last edited:
Manifesto
Approved user
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,920
That's what some of us have been saying. The rewards are pathetic and more/better rewards would make attacking stronger bases a viable option.
To paraphrase what you've said: Attacking stronger players must be more rewarding then attacking weaker players.
To paraphrase what you've said: Attacking stronger players must be more rewarding then attacking weaker players.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
