I have to agree the offense vs defense ratio is not enough to earn points just like when you send a unit to a bg to test it to see whats there you won't gains any points

http://prntscr.com/dogoj9  <==>

Jezebel said:

I have to agree the offense vs defense ratio is not enough to earn points just like when you send a unit to a bg to test it to see whats there you won't gains any points

http://prntscr.com/dogoj9  <==>

Warrior said:

Jezebel said:

I have to agree the offense vs defense ratio is not enough to earn points just like when you send a unit to a bg to test it to see whats there you won't gains any points

http://prntscr.com/dogoj9  <==>

Not False actually since it says you kill. We all know no one gets even 1 XP when killing an archer(single unit) most of the time i have got the points on is more than 5 archers.

yes but the information posted for the tournament says you will gain points for ANY unit killed - yes archers are not worth points typically but the information posted in the tournament is misleading

Lords and Ladies, please remember that you should incur losses from your side in order to get PvP points. If losses on your side are too small, you won’t get any points.

hui said:

    fantastic game

final warning (check PM )

What surprises me is that all have not figured out by now that the game often misleads us as to the Great and awesome prizes we can get. Anyone notice exactly how meager the prizes have been getting truely disgraceful 

Eugenia Misura said:

Lords and Ladies, please remember that you should incur losses from your side in order to get PvP points. If losses on your side are too small, you won’t get any points.

Exactly how many losses?

toggit lost 33 units and killed 10 Cavalry worth 90 Power Points but got NOTHING? - http://image.prntscr.com/image/262aa15c0a3a4c0cba5f46dac7a00dd6.png

How many points did the attacker get?

This new algorithm nerf needs to be explained

We can have NO CONFIDENCE in this game until the new combat algorithm is dissected - I am sick of seeing mysterious EXTRA losses and reduced rewards for everything

toggit said:

same problem here - no pvp points and no hamlet harvest points either .... not even 1xp

and how was he able to attack my hamlet in less than 4 minutes when his castle is over 100 miles away?
Nobody would waste expensive boosts to send 10 great lords

Something is very fishy

Dear Lord

you are defending and your looses supposes arround the 1% of battle, i think this percentage is not enough to get xp points so there are no xp for this circunstance

now im not so sure how much is the min percentage to loose to get xp points. maybe another more expert lord could answer better than me but i as i said the battle is not fair enough to get xp.

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.

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 

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:

<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.