RobertShatz said:

You still get some points for killing Offense

This is not true in all cases. The second a defensive wall overwhelms an offensive attack by a certain ratio you will get no PvP points at all. However, if an offensive strike overwhelms a defensive strike by the same, or even a hundred times more, the PvP points earned is not effected.

Also, your reasoning as to why this is happening is not correct. Plarium instituted the following changes as it was easier to mitigate defensive losses (in other words, the diamond cost of using defense) instead of offensive ones by using base defense and the free revive from sick bay:

1) Plarium received complaints about players with high base defense. To combat this they introduced the 0 PvP for overwhelming defense, but not for overwhelming offense.

2) Plarium introduced an enhanced loss mechanism for defensive players. The defensive player will lose an additional 3-5%.

In making these corrections, on top of existing balance issues, Plarium swung too far towards big offense. The identifiable symptom is the appearance of several billion offensive power hammers in their games. Although this is also a symptom of how skewed the advantage for coining is.

RobertShatz said:

The points are calculated mainly by the Defense..How many you kill..how many you lose..You still get some points for killing Offense, but not like with killing Defense..

hoooooooooooh ... well !!

So you're saying that an OFF-player gets points when he destroys units to the opponent player (preferably without getting lost in his offensive army!) while a DEF-Player gets points when an opponent player (who attacks him) destroys his defensive units!?!? !

WHAT!?!?

This is totally ridiculous !!

Excuse me Sir, but .... when is that DEF-Player winning? ... I do not understand.

I really do not like to suffer losses in my Army, so my goal always tends to cause as much damage as possible to my opponent (taking as little damage as possible to my Army!) ... both in Defensive and Offensive role.

I noticed that in Offensive role:

• I destroy a lot of units to my opponent (and also more easly than in defensive role).
• I get very few losses (often no victim in my army).
• I get a lot of points (maximum gain with minimum loss!).

on the contrary, in Defensive role, even deploying a large army (20 or 30 million def-force) against a small attack (80 or 100 chopper):

• I suffer a lot of losses.  Regardless of the size of my defensive army, the 100 choppers who crash on my army, they can cause damage almost equivalent to their strength offensive value! ... if not even bigger!**
• I get many fewer points during tournaments (most of which are caused by the losses I suffered, rather than the 100 choppers I've destroyed to my opponent!).

This is ridiculous !!

For what reason should I choose to play defensive role?

I want to get points for the damage I cause to my opponents, not for the losses that my opponents inflict on me!

When I get lost in my army, I do not feel victorious, I feel defeated!

                ** In practice, observing the amount of losses I suffered in my defensive line, I noticed that, against

                the 100 choppers, if instead of sending my whole defensive army I had only sent the units that are died

                because of the impact of 100 choppers with my army, the result would be almost the same!

                That is: the losses I got by deploying my whole defensive army are an amount of units that would

                have been enough to stop (by themself) the attack I stopped by deploying my whole defensive army!

                Do you understand that it is wrong / insane?

               

                So I've deployed my whole army for ... for.... for nothing !! ...

                Doing this I only got the risk of my army being completely destroyed, but no benefit has been obtained to

                stop the 100 offensive choppers of my opponent! (deploying only the victims I got, I would have

                stopped them anyway!)

                Do you understand that there is something wrong in all this ... or not yet?

So, in conclusion, from now on, I will try to avoid as much as possible to dress up the defensive role in this game.

it is disadvantageous and you get points only because of the losses you get in your army! (Off-player is alway the winner!)

Unlike this criterion, my goal is to not suffer losses, but, rather, to cause them to other players!

I aim to get the least amount of losses as possible (possibly zero!) ... so the game mechanics, on which the defensive role is based, are incompatible with my principles.

YOU HAVE TO CHANGE IT !!

Points for Def-Player must come from the dead he causes to his aggressor (as for the Off-player in the offensive role), points must not come from his defensive units who die in the clash!

The success of an attack / defense must be determined by how many units you are able to kill to your opponent, not by killing your units! (the death of your units is a negative factor, not positive!).

bye.

Another disadvantageous condition of a Def-Player compared to a "Off-Player" occurs during the personal event "Destroy Troops" (0 of 500 points in 4 hours).

Def-Player gets no point if he destroys enemy troops in defensive position !!

WHAT !?!?? ... WHY ?!

Did I choose to be a Def-Player and I do not get points when I destroy the units of my aggressors?

This is absurd!

I repeat once again that, in my opinion, game developers have enormously favored those who play in attack, totally mistreating the condition of those who play in defense, who are never in a better position than an offensive player (there is always something that puts them in a disadvantaged position).

• you do not get points for the units you kill to others, but only if others kill your units! ... that's a bit like saying: you get points if you lose.

• Off-Players can spy before hitting someone, which means they have the opportunity to observe enemy defense before their Offensive Armies hits.
  Def-Players can not do this: they can only hope that their aggressor's army is less than their defense! but they do not have the chance to look at the army that is coming before it hits! (in this regard I had suggested a new unit long ago, but my proposal was rejected: https://plarium.com/forum/en/soldiers-inc/tavern/22601_suggestion-for-new-unit/?post=119216 ...The original thread no longer exists, it has been deleted! )

in short: the defensive role seems to be developed only to serve Off-Players to make points.

It was intentionally disadvantageous in every field by the developers in order not to give too much trouble to Off-Players attacking defensive positions.