A simple medal system is possible

[Gambrinus]

okay, we are all sick and tired of +1/-39 medal system and agree that it should be changed. so why not make it an easy one for everyone to understand and is rewarding to play?

1st the medal range will have a min (200) and max (4,000?) and you can't go above or below that.

2nd oppent selection will have 3 criteria 1) you can only attack 1 age above or below your current age. 2) you can only attack someone that is 30 levels above or below your current level. 3) you can only attack someone that is 2 leagues above or below you.

3rd medals are awarded/taken based on how many stars are won in battle and this is my suggestion on how they are awarded.
attacking 1 age below +5/-10
attacking same age +5/-5
attacking 1 age above +10/-5
for the defender it's the inverse of above

4th as you climb leagues, the dove time is decreased upon a successful attack against your base. so for a basic attack that gives an 8hr dove currently, that would be changed to the following. (first value is the base dove time, the second is how much extra time is added each additional star. essentially if you get 5 stared you get a double length dove)
Copper 8hr / 2hr
Silver 6hr / 1.5hr
Gold 4hr / 1hr
Kingdom 2hr / 0.5hr
Empire 1hr / 0.25hr
Dynasty 0.5hr / 0.125hr

and that's it, a working medal/league system.

 

[Aurelius...]

Great post, gambrinus. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

1. I don't know about min/max medals. Low end seems unimportant, but stopping high end at 4000 is a deal breaker. We can't have a 50 person tie for first.

2. I think this is currently implemented, though not perfectly. And it's a good system.

3. This seems like s good starting point, but why not incentivize 5 starring and attacking above your level? Otherwise lvl 163 will just snipe low level tc/fc and withdraw (depending on rebuild time and crowns available). I'd prefer to see lvl 163s who 5 star their peers get more medals.

4. Brutal, but possibly a great idea. Leaders would have to be constantly watching to stay on top. Ugly competition. One problem, though, is cheaters would have a very problematic advantage: they'd get to sleep...

 

[Aurelius...]

Here's a question for you:

How do we deal with cheaters and big spenders who don't compete for medals? These types attack whoever they choose with maxed ia armies, 5 tactics, blessings, Mercs, and have a reasonable chance of getting 3-5 stars, depending on the base. Since they choose not to spend time competing for medals, their counts are low, relative to their lvls and armies. Therefore, these people take 13 medals for 2 stars, 20 for 3, etc., vs. people who fight for hours to get the same medal awards. So the highest medal awards are given to people who aren't competing, for easy victories.

 

[Gambrinus]

fixing the cheaters is a separate issue, and should not effect the medal system. they just need to deal with them like other games do by securing their code.

not sure i follow you about the taking 13 medals for 2 stars or 20 medals for 3. in my system, you can only earn a maximum of 10 medals, if you 5 star some in an age above you.

 

[Gambrinus]

1. currently nobody has 4000, but that could be raised to 5000 if required so a bunch don't all tie for #1. redgar mentioned in another post that he worried about people gaining too many medals if the +1/-39 formal changed. this just caps medal so someone doesn't get 10k and then can never be dethroned. also, you could make it so the top 50 players aren't awarded a dove, so they are always open, and have it so the top 100 players can select and attack any top 50 base directly.

2. the current system is 1 age above or below, and it's tied to the league that you're in. I've updated my original post to make it a little better so that lv163 aren't trouncing lv90 players all the time for easy medals.

3. because level doesn't matter all that much, considering upgrading your roads will boost you 10 levels. also if we use the adjusted matchmaking from above, a 163 would only be able to attack down to a lv133, which is pretty comparable army.

4. yes this is brutal, if you want to be top dog, and get the sweet league bonus, you'll have to work on it. this will cause the top to always stay in flux. plus it'll make more people buy doves at higher levels, if they don't want to be attacked every hour.

also, this isn't about fixing cheaters, this is about fixing the stupid +1/-39 issue. I'm sick and tired of grinding all night for only 1 medal, then as soon as i log off, I'm hit for -13. this will kill the game for most players, so it needs resolved.

 

[Redgar]

If you checked my previous post, strict maximum is a bad idea, because that's the whole point of the rating to collect medals. You'd find top-2000 players having 4000 medals and no interest.

In fact, they made this maximum even at worse implementation not allowing you to have combats at all. They could 'clone' top players bases in such case without those cloned ones loosing medals. But they can't do it, caz all balance is not working and fixing it is not easy, requires some skills as I described in my post

 

[Aurelius...]

Also, if top players get 5 medals per victory vs. those in their same age, 50 players would hit 4000 early next week.

 

[Aurelius...]

Another note is that the top player would likely end up being ea, since 10 medals for each ia defeat would compound quickly.

 

[Aurelius...]

I prefer the idea of broadening the match, but letting people select opponents based on incentives. If someone wants to slaughter sheep, let him, but no medals for tanks rolling through rural villages and flattening the farmers. On the flip side, if someone attacks above their age and way above their level, they should be rewarded.

 

[Aurelius...]

I should note that matching only 1 age above or below is a good limit. It doesn't make sense to let ea time travel back to medieval to loot.

 

[Aurelius...]

Gambrinus, you're right. This is a problem of the current system. Yours would eliminate this problem. Since medal awards would be driven by age and not medal count differences, this problem wouldn't occur. We'd still see high levels attack primarily low levels, but that's different. Maybe I'm stuck on this, but medals seem to be badges of honor, and lvl 163 who consistently boost their medals by preying on the weak don't belong on the leader board.

 

[Aurelius...]

Gambrinus, I would argue that level is what matters most in this game. It reflects exactly how many upgrades you have completed. And results in battle at certain levels should be the clearest reflection of how skilled someone is at choosing the right upgrades.

I can't fix the road upgrade problem, but upgrading roads before offense/defense was not the best choice for someone looking to compete in medals. The devs should retroactive fix the experience earned for roads, and possibly add experience points for upgrading walls.

 

[Aurelius...]

Let's do a few examples:

Lvl 120 ea defeats lvl 100 ia with 1 star:
Your method: 10 medals
My method: 1 medals

Lvl 133 ea defeats lvl 163 ia with 5 stars
Your method: 10 medals
My method: 9 medals

Lvl 100 ia defeats level 70 ea with 5 stars:
Your method: 5 medals
My method: 2 medals

Lvl 90 ia defeats lvl 163 ia with 3 stars:
Your method: can't happen
My method: 18 medals (+ bonus if ranked player)