+1 Medal= win. -23 Medals= loss😡

[Chris Coley]

Seriously...am I not looking at this thing in the right way. Granted I am at higher level..not my choice though, since after the update I went from level 89 to level 115(???) But does it seem like the medal system is silly. I am still being matched with Much lower age and level players, but I only get ONE medal and a pittance in loot. At this rate I'd be better off scrapping the desire for medals and just hunting and farming (Oregon Trail?) using the animal and gathering blessings. BUT when someone at the same level and age as me attacks, they seem to get between 3-8 medals, since that's what I lose. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[dbukalski]

Whats to explain? we all get 1 medal for win -20ish for loss. If u want to hunt for medalz thats the deal. If u just want resources kingdom leagues 3 gives 40k of each resource. Kingdom league 1 gives 70k of each. Empire gives 100k of each. Or stay at 200 medals and farm abandoned bases for resources those are the options

 

[bigcity]

I'm in medieval and have the exact same experience, only differnce, it doesnt matter if they are lower/higher or equal.... there are rarely battles with more then 3 medailles at all.
But if I am attacked I mostly loose between 5-8 medailles.

But who can check if they attacker is sseing the same amount to gain or loose.

So what I think, is everbody who attacks gain only a couple of medals, but the looser always looses more.

Its impossible to check if the game is fair, and is showing the same amount on either side.... now that is a thought !

But didnt you also notice that beside the fact most of us will have 50% change at trade goods, the times you get any is only 5% !

The game is based on %, but if you count carefully, these % are never reached, same with medailles.

IMO, the game is one big fraud......

 

[Chris Coley]

I'm in medieval and have the exact same experience, only differnce, it doesnt matter if they are lower/higher or equal.... there are rarely battles with more then 3 medailles at all. But if I am attacked I mostly loose between 5-8 medailles. But who can check if they attacker is sseing the same amount to gain or loose. So what I think, is everbody who attacks gain only a couple of medals, but the looser always looses more. Its impossible to check if the game is fair, and is showing the same amount on either side.... now that is a thought ! But didnt you also notice that beside the fact most of us will have 50% change at trade goods, the times you get any is only 5% ! The game is based on %, but if you count carefully, these % are never reached, same with medailles. IMO, the game is one big fraud......

That's my point. I don't think those medals and resources are going to other players, because they don't go to me when I raid. I think they are taken away unfairly by the game. This is an issue I think is getting lost in the countless "hacking threads", but whatever.

 

[Zorya]

The medals awarded or lost appear to be based primarily on the relative number of medals of your opponent. It actually punishes the people who play often. The only real work around is to drop medals. So far as I can tell from trying to revenge attack, the people who actually play frequently are either always online or always under a peace treaty, mostly leaving those who have abandoned the game without gaining medals available to attack. I personally think this is a horrible way to award medals, but with all the other issues the game has, it's relative importance has dropped IMO.

 

[dbukalski]

It actually punishes the people who play often.............So far as I can tell from trying to revenge attack, the people who actually play frequently are either always online or always under a peace treaty, mostly leaving those who have abandoned the game without gaining medals available to attack.

contradictory comments. the game punishes those who play a lot....their protected by being online or in peace treaty. sounds to me like the frequent and casual players are protected. if ur trying to say that getting high medals is hard then yes. thats ok though ur not entitled to high meda count. because if u and ur 3 hrs a day of gameplay was able to get 10 thousand medals by this point in the game. because u instituted a new more lenient medal system. then the obsessive players would have 39 thousand medals. so ur position in the hierarchy would stay the same. so have ur current 1200 medals or whatever u have. and accept that whatever medal system u would want to see used. u would be in the same position relative to other players. making medals easier for u makes medals easier for everyone. so the rewards would have to be lowered per league. and the number of leagues increased. ud still be making 15k of each resource or whatever u make

 

[dbukalski]

also peace treaty is not indicative of frequent playtime. theres 7 million downloads of the game. lets say 2 million or whatever play. each one of those players is only available for attack for a very very short window. every single one of us is either online...or right after logging off we get attacked and peace treatied. so active and inactive players are protected. making revenge basically useless and impossible. besides who cares about revenge? u think the attack on u was personal and needs responded too? u think the player would notice that ur name is same as someone theyve attacked? i dont remember anyones name, perhaps base design if ive attacked before. just hit the next button we dont need the revenge button

 

[Zorya]

Chill, buki, we all have our opinions. Mine? The medals should be based more on the relative ages/levels of the two players, and less on the relative medal counts. You don't agree with that statement, fine, but IMO it's rather silly for someone in the enlightened age to ever be able to win 20+ medals from attacking someone in the medieval age just because the latter fights more often and has more medals. It's boring to hit "next" thirty times trying to find someone, anyone, who will give me more than one medal for a win. I am not in support of a more lenient medal system, I advocate for a medal system based on the actual strengths of the players and not based upon their medal counts.

As for the "revenge" attack, I used the term from the game. I have no idea why "u" would think anyone would consider the use of a game term to indicate a suspected personal vendetta.

As I said, however, the game has far more pressing issues at present than the manner in which medals are awarded or risked.

 

[dbukalski]

i am chilled. revenge is useless and sooner rather than later u wont find any opponents worth more than 1 medal

 

[Whatwhat]

Dbuk is right. Medal awarding has nothing to do with player level and why should it? If you wanna farm medals then why should players who played longer or paid more be handicapped? Get your priorities right and quit moaning. If you want medals then play for medals and accept that most fights will give you 1. If you want resources then stay low (although there are Waaaaaaay more resources up high hahhaa)