Snowgoon said:

As an attacker I can easily get points even when I have ZERO losses - this is all fubar

The entire combat system is geared towards heavily outnumbering our opponents, so why should it be different for defenders?
This is just another example of game imbalance

We need a FULL explanation, not just some vague approximation 

Its well known since the begining of the game that you get more xp and points attacking than defending. you need always more resources and more time to build offensive troops than defensive troops.

When player defends, and his/her losses are very small compared to the total number of Units that took part in Battle, PvP points may not be received. This feature was added a long time ago to prevent certain ways of cheating.

Eugenia Misura said:

When player defends, and his/her losses are very small compared to the total number of Units that took part in Battle, PvP points may not be received. This feature was added a long time ago to prevent certain ways of cheating.

The 3% rule was added in 2014 and was dumped within a few weeks because all players hated it - http://prnt.sc/dstag8

PvP/Exp points need to be given for every unit killed - this is the way it works for attackers, so defenders should not be treated differently

This all adds to game imbalance .... which is already heavily weighted in favour of attackers

Just another job for your devs during 2017 to give defenders a level playing field. The entire combat system needs a spring-clean

I would beg to differ on this..Please see my views

The game has been in favor of Defender, 

1. The defender get 30% revival for free Attacker looses everything he losses

2. The defender is supported by the the castle defense bonus whereas Attacker only carries the normal boosts that can also be with the defender

3. The attack on a castle would only be done by single player league attack not possible where as the defender castle can be defended by the league player and also be benefiting with the castle defense bonus of the castle

If you still think that it favors attacker just because of the power of the troops, then i say it is balanced.

I would beg to differ on this..Please see my views

The game has been in favor of Defender, 

1. The defender get 30% revival for free Attacker looses everything he losses

2. The defender is supported by the the castle defense bonus whereas Attacker only carries the normal boosts that can also be with the defender

3. The attack on a castle would only be done by single player league attack not possible where as the defender castle can be defended by the league player and also be benefiting with the castle defense bonus of the castle

If you still think that it favors attacker just because of the power of the troops, then i say it is balanced.

So i think 3% losses for the defender seems good idea it would actually mean on 2% loss actually since 1% can be revived back.. but that is just my thought..

So the Mods and cm are saying there are the 'Written' rules and there are the 'actual' rules? And the 2 are completely different!!!

Furthermore they will not tell the actual rules unless you make enough noise about it in the forums.

Gadheras said:

Warrior said:

I would beg to differ on this..Please see my views

The game has been in favor of Defender, 

1. The defender get 30% revival for free Attacker looses everything he losses

2. The defender is supported by the the castle defense bonus whereas Attacker only carries the normal boosts that can also be with the defender

3. The attack on a castle would only be done by single player league attack not possible where as the defender castle can be defended by the league player and also be benefiting with the castle defense bonus of the castle

If you still think that it favors attacker just because of the power of the troops, then i say it is balanced.

So i think 3% losses for the defender seems good idea it would actually mean on 2% loss actually since 1% can be revived back.. but that is just my thought..

Well, if you defending a settlement or a hamlet, you don't get this bonus do you. And I believe the thread is about hamlets. As for castles. Not everyone can afford to spend an arm and a leg to upgrade their castles with walls and then level them all the way up either.

i am sure but i am not talking about 30k castle defense .. only talking about 10k which is achievable with being in an active league and participating in league events etc 10k means 100% which is also a good boost..

Warrior said:

I would beg to differ on this..Please see my views

The game has been in favor of Defender, 

1. The defender get 30% revival for free Attacker looses everything he losses

2. The defender is supported by the the castle defense bonus whereas Attacker only carries the normal boosts that can also be with the defender

3. The attack on a castle would only be done by single player league attack not possible where as the defender castle can be defended by the league player and also be benefiting with the castle defense bonus of the castle

If you still think that it favors attacker just because of the power of the troops, then i say it is balanced.

So i think 3% losses for the defender seems good idea it would actually mean on 2% loss actually since 1% can be revived back.. but that is just my thought..

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it. 

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Snowgoon said:

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Added to which is the Victory Tax, which increases losses to the victor by up to 10% but gives no benefit

In the game there is no strategy for player. All strategy is for Plarium.

Good strategy should bring some benefit for smarter side, right? Does anyone could find any benefit in any fight action in the game. For player. ofc. For Plarium, question is similar but a little different. Does exist any losings in any our fight actions?

There is no hammer, there is no wall of defense, there is no any smart strategy in this game. There is only deep wallet, and every attacker/defender could survive only by real money. At the beginning thinks were a little better for players, but that wasn't long enough. Today, there is no place where you can be a real winner.

Snowgoon said:

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Added to which is the Victory Tax, which increases losses to the victor by up to 10% but gives no benefit

In the game there is no strategy for player. All strategy is for Plarium.

Good strategy should bring some benefit for smarter side, right? Does anyone could find any benefit in any fight action in the game. For player. ofc. For Plarium, question is similar but a little different. Does exist any losings in any our fight actions?

There is no hammer, there is no wall of defense, there is no any smart strategy in this game. There is only deep wallet, and every attacker/defender could survive only by real money. At the beginning thinks were a little better for players, but that wasn't long enough. Today, there is no place where you can be a real winner.

BiohazarD said:

Drogar61 said:

Snowgoon said:

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Added to which is the Victory Tax, which increases losses to the victor by up to 10% but gives no benefit

In the game there is no strategy for player. All strategy is for Plarium.

Good strategy should bring some benefit for smarter side, right? Does anyone could find any benefit in any fight action in the game. For player. ofc. For Plarium, question is similar but a little different. Does exist any losings in any our fight actions?

There is no hammer, there is no wall of defense, there is no any smart strategy in this game. There is only deep wallet, and every attacker/defender could survive only by real money. At the beginning thinks were a little better for players, but that wasn't long enough. Today, there is no place where you can be a real winner.

The attacker can still make a profit off pvp if they find good targets that they can outnumber sufficiently (not counting raids on castles, which follow different combat mechanics).  Lets say you find a hamlet with 500k defense on it, then hit it with 100 million offense. You might lose 50k offense, kill all the defense, and get 100k offense back from pvp tournament rewards.  Therefore you gained 50k offense from the interaction.  Of course this requires finding noobs who leave 500k defense alone on a hamlet (or fortress, beacon, etc) and having a fairly large offense available.  

You're serious guy and you will understand that I cant use fire ice to gain victory without lost, and to take all 100K (where you found such award?) offense as clean benefit. OK?

Drogar61 said:

Snowgoon said:

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Added to which is the Victory Tax, which increases losses to the victor by up to 10% but gives no benefit

In the game there is no strategy for player. All strategy is for Plarium.

Good strategy should bring some benefit for smarter side, right? Does anyone could find any benefit in any fight action in the game. For player. ofc. For Plarium, question is similar but a little different. Does exist any losings in any our fight actions?

There is no hammer, there is no wall of defense, there is no any smart strategy in this game. There is only deep wallet, and every attacker/defender could survive only by real money. At the beginning thinks were a little better for players, but that wasn't long enough. Today, there is no place where you can be a real winner.

The attacker can still make a profit off pvp if they find good targets that they can outnumber sufficiently (not counting raids on castles, which follow different combat mechanics).  Lets say you find a hamlet with 500k defense on it, then hit it with 100 million offense. You might lose 50k offense, kill all the defense, and get 100k offense back from pvp tournament rewards.  Therefore you gained 50k offense from the interaction.  Of course this requires finding noobs who leave 500k defense alone on a hamlet (or fortress, beacon, etc) and having a fairly large offense available.  

BiohazarD said:

Drogar61 said:

Snowgoon said:

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Added to which is the Victory Tax, which increases losses to the victor by up to 10% but gives no benefit

In the game there is no strategy for player. All strategy is for Plarium.

Good strategy should bring some benefit for smarter side, right? Does anyone could find any benefit in any fight action in the game. For player. ofc. For Plarium, question is similar but a little different. Does exist any losings in any our fight actions?

There is no hammer, there is no wall of defense, there is no any smart strategy in this game. There is only deep wallet, and every attacker/defender could survive only by real money. At the beginning thinks were a little better for players, but that wasn't long enough. Today, there is no place where you can be a real winner.

The attacker can still make a profit off pvp if they find good targets that they can outnumber sufficiently (not counting raids on castles, which follow different combat mechanics).  Lets say you find a hamlet with 500k defense on it, then hit it with 100 million offense. You might lose 50k offense, kill all the defense, and get 100k offense back from pvp tournament rewards.  Therefore you gained 50k offense from the interaction.  Of course this requires finding noobs who leave 500k defense alone on a hamlet (or fortress, beacon, etc) and having a fairly large offense available.  

You're serious guy and you will understand that I cant use fire ice to gain victory without lost, and to take all 100K (where you found such award?) offense as clean benefit. OK?

BiohazarD said:

Drogar61 said:

Snowgoon said:

BiohazarD said:

The problem with this is that the defender has no control over the size of the attacks sent at them.  What if I have 50 million defense on a hamlet, and it gets attacked by 20 people with 2 million offense each.  I might only lose 500k defense on each attack, but in the end I've lost 10 million defense in total and not gotten any points.  It doesn't matter to me that the attackers lost a total of 40 million offense, because I didn't get any credit for killing it.  

Well said, I agree totally 

Added to which is the Victory Tax, which increases losses to the victor by up to 10% but gives no benefit

In the game there is no strategy for player. All strategy is for Plarium.

Good strategy should bring some benefit for smarter side, right? Does anyone could find any benefit in any fight action in the game. For player. ofc. For Plarium, question is similar but a little different. Does exist any losings in any our fight actions?

There is no hammer, there is no wall of defense, there is no any smart strategy in this game. There is only deep wallet, and every attacker/defender could survive only by real money. At the beginning thinks were a little better for players, but that wasn't long enough. Today, there is no place where you can be a real winner.

The attacker can still make a profit off pvp if they find good targets that they can outnumber sufficiently (not counting raids on castles, which follow different combat mechanics).  Lets say you find a hamlet with 500k defense on it, then hit it with 100 million offense. You might lose 50k offense, kill all the defense, and get 100k offense back from pvp tournament rewards.  Therefore you gained 50k offense from the interaction.  Of course this requires finding noobs who leave 500k defense alone on a hamlet (or fortress, beacon, etc) and having a fairly large offense available.  

in 5 years when i have 100m offense, i will give this a whirl, thanks for showing me how to make a profit on pvp.

BiohazarD said:

<Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say.  Did you plug this into google translate or something?

You made Potemkin Village and I used impossible combination (fire + ice) to show you that.

BiohazarD said:

<Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say.  Did you plug this into google translate or something?

You made Potemkin Village and I used impossible combination (fire + ice) to show you that.

BiohazarD said:

Drogar61 said:

BiohazarD said:

<Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say.  Did you plug this into google translate or something?

You made Potemkin Village and I used impossible combination (fire + ice) to show you that.

Look at the pvp tournament rewards.  If you can get enough pvp points without losing too many troops, and win back more troops from the pvp tournament, it is possible to make a profit. 

Again if. And again Potemkin Village. But OK, your last sentences have nothing with those on which I reacted, so ... doesn't matter.