I can tell that you are upset because the format doesn't live up to your expectations of a battle.
The problem with your suggestion is what would be an acceptable target?
They already expect us to jump through hoops for what sometimes is mere peanuts.
What if the target set is beyond your usual achievements?
For example target 4 is a big jump in points from target 3.
The daily,weekly and monthly tasks still contain tasks which haven't been researched, and often requires the need to use goods beyond those that you get for free, from rewards, or completing event levels,which also applies to all the other events , including CvC.
I agree with you. The categories were not a terrible idea, and stopped the last minute training and sh boosting, but the attempt to fix the initial problem has meant that when a clan wins a category, they basically stop fighting, or farming on tile without DGs.
Clans with lots of smaller players are at a disadvantage especially when running the siege tower. So, my suggestion is to get rid of the total number killed, and add running tasks to a new category (tasks only seem to score in KvKr nowadays).
I don't see how running tasks is going to help, people will just buy them, save them to use as necessary, it will be just like buying troops.
We already know many players have deep pockets and will do anything to win.
I agree there are problems with the current C.v.C.
Though the actual number of game points you accumulated are somewhat irrelevant for an analysis.
I can understand your frustration of having lost a match in which you gained trillions of points, for which you blame the loss of 1 troop, in an attack on the POP.
I think you are saying that you lost the match 4:3,(or some similar score) and that without the POP fiasco,you would have won, but we do not know this as you supplied no figures for comparison.
If it really did come down to loosing a category point because of the POP attack, its just as viable to say, you lost the match because in a close contest ,the lead was fluctuating,and you didn't win the extra category needed,and where you could still have lost a tied match on total points.
I have no idea when the POP attack occurred, but it may have had no bearing on the outcome anyway.
Except,if the POP attack happened early in the match, the opposition might have been able to ease up,because they knew they had a category in hand.
Near the end,it was a mistake or a bad decision, if it was an attempt to steal this category to seal the win.
so basically you just want to bully smaller players what is stopping you from attacking them?
I quite like the current set up - our single oponent had more influence than our entire clan and at lv40 was several palace levels higher than our biggest players, but it was a close contest all the same - until he made the mistake of farming without domain shields at the end because of his much stronger troops. A "failed" attack on one of his tiles was enough to win us that crucial 4th category. (I.e our attacking troops didn't knock his troops off the tile but they did not need to in order to win the attack category).
Attack higher tier troops on a tile with lower tier troops and, as long as your troops are decently well developed, you will score more points than you concede. A good quick guide to how a battle went is to look at influence lost on each side. If you lost less influence you outscored your opponent.
I wonder whether a sinple scoring system for CvC with three categories: yielding; Invader/ghosts; and total kills would be an improvement? As now, total points overall as the tie break.
