A discussion of level...

[Aurelius...]

Okay, so many of us have completed the upgrade. Building times are much slower. This means medals will be harder to earn, yet the medal system is unchanged at +1/-39 and medal awards are not linked in any way to level.

Some players have posted that level doesn't matter in attacks. John Hawkins said: "At best, level is an approximation of a player’s age." Okay, John, please tell that to my halberdiers who are getting rolled over by multiple heavy tanks while watching a Zeppelin mk 3 obliterate my tc.

People who are at the lower levels of the Industrial Age likely have troops and defensive buildings that date back to gunpowder or further. People who are level 163 have upgraded every detail of their base to ia. Now there are new upgrades, and I assume higher levels.

Base sniping with raiders will be far less common going forward. This was the best way for lower level players to compete with high level players (don't worry, there are others). But with slower builds, maintaining medal counts will be tougher. The leader boards will be shaken up.

Isn't it time to rethink the medal system? And should medal awards (not matching) be linked to level? I'd say yes. Attacking above one's level should be incentivized. A level 80 attacker who 5 stars a lvl 163 should get more medals than a lvl 163 who 1 stars a lvl 80.

 

[blackberryman]

I'm level 23 and I just got matched (and I beat) with a Level 58. That's a bit high. The matchmaking system needs work. I shouldn't be fighting someone in a higher age than me with double the base defenses.

 

[Aurelius...]

Nice work. I'd argue that it's nice to attack above age and level, but the reward should be higher.

 

[Aurelius...]

I just had a thought. Right now, the medal award system awards a large number of medals for defeating someone with a greater number of medals, but the risk of losing that battle is low. And conversely, when people with high medals attack, their only option is +1/-39.

Maybe the risks and rewards should be aligned. So if someone has a chance at 39 medals, they would also risk 39 medals. And if the reward for a battle is 1 medal, the risk would be 1 medal for a loss. I'd be curious to hear opinions on this. I'll reserve mine for the moment.

 

[dbukalski]

The medal system is 1/39 so that players dont run away in medal count. And so that active new players can rank up in medals quickly. And so that older players can go 12k medals and then stay there for years after they go inactive. They want the leaderboard to reflect who the top active players are. The only way to be top ranked is to be top active

 

[Aurelius...]

While I agree that this is the reason for their system, I think they've made the wrong choice. This makes the game a painful grind for anyone who is in the category that is offered only +1/-39.

There are alternatives. And ideally, they'd be based on skill rather than time available to do repetitive tc snipes.

I've suggested incentivizing attacking above one's level. This would accelerate the rise to the leader board for aggressive new players. (Big spenders will always have access to the leader boards, if they choose to go there, because spending crowns to quickly rebuild troops, tactics, mercs, etc. will give them a huge advantage.)

I've suggested duels, which could be used in multiple ways.

I've suggested enhancing awards for people who gain a victory vs. people on the leader boards. (This would dramatically increase the difficulty of holding a spot on the leader boards. Though, this was met with some significant resistance.)

The devs seem to have set an arbitrary top number of medals, and will now do everything they can to ensure that no one passes that number. Since development is slow and there are no in game diversions during troop building or peace treaties, pushing medals is really the only fun thing to do. If there is a brick wall at 4,000 medals, then what's the plan for the leaders?

 

[Cannibals]

The rewards system is feathered so that the next medal is always harder to get than the last. This keeps the leaderboard relevant like dbukalski accurately describes. Ultimately this means that at some point for the leader the next medal is just too hard to get and then that's the maximum medals. Today the issues of broken treaties and No Opponents and Force Quit make the next medal actually easier to get than to retain the last. This perverse inversion of the rewards system makes the top leadership ranking too much about chance and not enough about time and skill to make it worthwhile. If you think that's not true then tell me how many medals are you up from defending?

 

[Aurelius...]

Hey Cannibals,

I'd suggest that the next medal is not hard to get. What's hard to do is devote enough time to snipe tcs at 1 medal a pop to stay afloat in the face of 20-40 medal losses at each log-off.

I don't dispute what you and dbukalski are saying about the way the system is designed. What I'm pushing for is a change that would make the daily grind more fun. Give me opportunities to attack for more than 1 medal. Again, I'd suggest that attacking above someone's level should be incentivized. I'm not saying 20 medals should be awarded to a level 155 for beating a level 163. I am saying, however that maybe 20 medals should be awarded to the level 90 who five stars the level 150. There are more creative ways to set a ceiling for the leader board, if that's necessary. I've listed a few related ideas above.

Also note that based on a formula that you shared with me, a level 163 with 3200 medals, who 5 starred a level 90 with 3260 medals would get 25 medals, right? Does that work for you?

(I had a recent defensive victory for 37 medals, but that was the first in months.)

 

[Cannibals]

Hey Cannibals,
I'd suggest that the next medal is not hard to get. What's hard to do is devote enough time to snipe tcs at 1 medal a pop to stay afloat in the face of 20-40 medal losses at each log-off.

That's what I said: "... the issues of broken treaties and No Opponents and Force Quit make the next medal actually easier to get than to retain the last."

...note that based on a formula that you shared with me, a level 163 with 3200 medals, who 5 starred a level 90 with 3260 medals would get 25 medals, right? Does that work for you?

They would actually get 23 medals! That would be fine with me if these other issues were fixed because then the level 90 guy wouldn't have 3260 medals because he'd have given them all to me instead on failed attacks.

 

[dbukalski]

They would actually get 23 medals! That would be fine with me if these other issues were fixed because then the level 90 guy wouldn't have 3260 medals because he'd have given them all to me instead on failed attacks.

That lvl90 would also get destroyed on defense. Because with this new system we would be incentivised to destroy his base rather than snipe. So he would be subject to the full wrath of playing at too high medal range for his level.

 

[Aurelius...]

I don't think we differ much on our understanding of the current system. What I'm hearing from you an Dbukalski, though, is that you will be happy with the +1/-39 award system as soon as force quit, no opps, and broken treaties are fixed. Is that right?

And my understanding is that you'd be okay with the scenario described above, where a high level player gets a huge award (20x what you and I get per battle) for squashing a low level base. Right?

 

[Aurelius...]

Which new system?

 

[Aurelius...]

And anyone in dynasty can recover resources lost on defense in two battles, right?

 

[dbukalski]

I don't think we differ much on our understanding of the current system. What I'm hearing from you an Dbukalski, though, is that you will be happy with the +1/-39 award system as soon as force quit, no opps, and broken treaties are fixed. Is that right?

And my understanding is that you'd be okay with the scenario described above, where a high level player gets a huge award (20x what you and I get per battle) for squashing a low level base. Right?

First paragraph yes. Second yes all based on medals

Ur at a disadvantage because u dont know how to abuse a medal system that is based on level of player.

Id be running a base with no roads, farms, caravans etc etc. Literally it would be an empty base except for what i need to grind battle.

That also means no alliance gate, mercenaries. No wonders, factory, airstrip.

Just barracks, temple, library for offense upgrades only and only certain ones(dont want unecessary exp).

No war academy because tactics without crowning arent really grindy.

Since barracks use food so i wouldnt build gold storage. Just crown tc to industrial + bare minimum level to open up age. So i might be forced to build some extra offense stuff like war academy

My base would have no gold for u to farm because i dont need it. And others would follow suite. U would find empty base after empty base at the top ranks

 

[Cannibals]

Lol you/ve been peeking at my base!

 

[Aurelius...]

Good points, db. I had realized that people would avoid leveling up to gain an advantage, but what you're describing is more extreme than I had considered.

 

[Hunter Killer]

This really makes me want to start a new account to take it to the extreme like Cannibals. But it'll take too much time to start from scratch right now. But it would be good content for anyone motivated to start a youtube channel now that Bamboo CoC is out.

 

[dbukalski]

Good points, db. I had realized that people would avoid leveling up to gain an advantage, but what you're describing is more extreme than I had considered.

Bhg is making mistakes but they do know some things about this genre. If they can figure out the bugs and release Alliance wars well be good

 

[Eddie F1]

I admire your optimism.

But if you said you were going to start your own game software company, raise the finance, get a development team together and release a perfect RTS game it would be more believable.

 

[Endril]

Dbukalski a very good point of players gaming the system. I guess then the true question should be should you only gain 1 medal at a time to lose 39 on defence or should be able to gain 5 of you 5 star an opponent.

Endril