Plarium don’t make profit with this Solution, I suggest if player don’t buy packages that worth 100$ per week then at the end of the month he lose 10% of his Units.   

What if 

 A player  loses  automatically 5% of their offense and defense at the end of the month,

if this player has not lost  0.5% of their offense or defense , while attacking or defending

pantheons and capitals during the same time?

To put further salt on the wound, decrease one coalition's capital bonus by 3% if half of its members

have not managed to do the above, or better yet increase their capital and pantheon offense limits by 20%.

For obvious reasons city and emporia interactions should be excluded because they more 

than feed this kind of mentality. This would be a solution for fake accounts and many 

other bad things in the game. All the while  not employing any elaborate schemes

but relying on a simple algorithm!

Thanks for paying attention!

The short answer is , that the only team asset that can promote healthy competition is pantheons. We need a measure that will force attention to pantheons and healthy fights. Right now, apart from some opportunistic strikes, the game is centered around city building and stacking capitals, while avoiding war at all costs.That is, it is getting away from being a war game and becoming  a city building one.

The long answer will come if you wish but it will take some time. I have already proposed another elaborate scheme that would serve the above purpose, and would't pass as directly hostile to the playerbase. But it is rather complicated

For a number of reasons that would blow this post out of proportion , I can't refer to why fighting at cities or capitals , or emporia has degenerated since long ago.

PS Why fighting centered on capitals is a bad idea? This is a futher hint , that I intend to detail about , when I have the long answer.

prodromosregalides said:

Thanks for paying attention!

The short answer is , that the only team asset that can promote healthy competition is pantheons. We need a measure that will force attention to pantheons and healthy fights. Right now, apart from some opportunistic strikes, the game is centered around city building and stacking capitals, while avoiding war at all costs.That is, it is getting away from being a war game and becoming  a city building one.

The long answer will come if you wish but it will take some time. I have already proposed another elaborate scheme that would serve the above purpose, and would't pass as directly hostile to the playerbase. But it is rather complicated

For a number of reasons that would blow this post out of proportion , I can't refer to why fighting at cities or capitals , or emporia has degenerated since long ago.

PS Why fighting centered on capitals is a bad idea? This is a futher hint , that I intend to detail about , when I have the long answer.

Thanks for your reply, I sure understand your concern. And we are, actually, considering variants right now of how the whole situation with Patheons could be modified and improved. Only it will take some time to come up with specific points and implement them in the game. For now, we are keeping a close eye on the things in the game in this area to make sure that the game balance is not disturbed.

This idea will mainly suit the big coiners and I can see many players dropping out if it is implemented. Not all coalitions wish to attack or defend capitals and/or pantheons all of the time in addition to playing Persian positions and attacking/defending cities and emporia in addition to development in addition to Chronos quests, coalition missions, coalition tournaments and solo tournaments and various special coalition conflicts and the coalition arena. If more players are forced to spend more time on pantheons and attacking capitals it will be at the expense of other activities they enjoy, many of which are also joint coalition activities. And when players cease to enjoy the game that's when they either drop out straight away or get resentful and destructive (not in game battles so not beneficial to the game-makers. They will probably stop or reduce spending if they stay.)

Calculating the percentage of troops lost would also be complicated as the total amount of troops a player has is continuously changing according to whether you have just won some on Persian positions or claimed some awards including troops, or lost some on other activities such as raids or defence of cities. At what point is a player's total troops counted from in the space of a month? You could lose the suggested amount at one particular pantheon battle but if you win or buy more troops after that in the space of the same month then the amount you lost will fall below the suggested percentage of your month's total existing or acquired troops. And which types of troops would Plarium take as a penalty? An equal proportion of each? if Plarium takes any troops like champions that can't be bought with normal resources there will be outrage, especially as it usually takes losing quite a lot of troops to win them in the first place. You win back less troops than you lose in PVP but your win would be treated as a gain and any loss that occurred somewhere other than a pantheon or capital would not be treated as a loss. If troops are simultaneously lost in different types of battle it would be very complicated maths to work out which proportion was lost on a pantheon/capital and which on cities or emporia. Players simply don't have time for that.

Implementing this suggestion would cost more time and energy and render the game more boring, not more interesting for most players. The non- or low coiners are necessary for the game too for without them there would be nobody for the big coiners to fight or compete with! The coiners trying to force the non-coiners to spend more so that the coiners have more big battles will just result in the low spenders leaving the game then there will be less competition and nobody left to fight and Plarium will lose out too as low spenders are surely better than nothing! Every bit counts as they say and every active player adds some value in some way to their coalition and the game as a whole whether they give a lot of their money or a lot of their time.

Removing troops as a penalty instead of in normal battle would anger players who may quit the game. It's one thing losing troops in fair battle. It's another having them removed unexpectedly as a penalty when most players don't know exactly what percentage they are sacrificing on a regular basis as their incoming and outgoing troops are changing continuously. I strongly disagree with the suggestion.