I think it's time for a Medal system change once and for all.

[Endril]

Hi Aurelius good to see you in the forums, finally getting through the vigorous security checks in order to be able to post.

I've been thinking about your level adjustment idea, I think it is a good idea but need to be given a range. For example for every 20 levels there is for an example a 20% bonus/penalty so if the previous 5 medal minimum medal system is implemented then a player who is 40 levels above you receives a 40% penalty. This will stop high level, low medal bottom feeders from purposefully dropping medals and then gaining medals very easily with out much effort.

Endril

 

[Aurelius...]

Thanks for responding. Yeah, that's what happened to me. I logged off and got attacked. I got back on to check results and confirm the treaty. Then I logged back off for the night. I was attacked 2 hours later while on treaty. This happened twice. I was wondering if you knew of any hacks that make this possible for cheaters. Not that it really matters, if I can't prevent it anyway.

 

[Aurelius...]

Hey Endril. So, here's what I'd suggest. MadFury suggested 1:1 medals per star. That's a good start, but I'd suggest that it should be adjusted pretty aggressively based on comparative medals. So for example, if the attacker and defender are within 10 levels +/- of each other, no adjustment, 20-30 levels would either double or half the medals, 30-40 would either triple or third the medals, 40-50 would either quadruple or quarter, 50-60 would either quintuple or fifth, and so on. I don't know whether the minimum should be 1 or 0, but if we say 1, a lvl 150 5 starring a lvl 90 would produce 1 medal (1/5 of the base amount for a 5 star victory). A lvl 90 5 starring a lvl 150 would produce 25 medals (5 times the base amount for a 5 star victory. Thoughts?

 

[Aurelius...]

I should note that, since high levels might be concerned about lower level raider armies sniping their tc, a lvl 90 2 starring a level 150 would produce 10 medals (5 times the base awarded for a 2 star victory). While that would be a fairly large loss, it falls somewhere in a reasonable range for something that wouldn't happen all that often. If the level 150 prevented the quick victory (so 1 star, instead of 2), the medals awarded would be 5 (5 times the base awarded for a 1 star victory)

 

[Aurelius...]

The goal is to incentivize attempting 5 star victories against challenging opponents. It also incentivizes having a strong base and protecting the tc, which is not currently the case.

 

[Aurelius...]

I agree that the force close glitch creates many additional problems. In this case, though, do you think that people who force close to avoid medal losses are less likely to do so if the negative impact is greater? I'd argue that the people who suffer from the large offensive medal losses are those who _don't_ use the force close glitch.