Why are you punishing your most loyal players?

[Gambrinus]

With the current medals system all it does is frustrate your dedicated players. over the last week since i hit Kingdom league, all i ever see is bases worth 1 medal. But the minute i log off i get attacked by some high level cheater with multiple tactics, full blessings, full mercs, zeppelins, heavy tanks, and 2 big generals. this causes massive medal loses each time (-14, -10, -8, -11, -6, -1, -11, -8, -7, -10, -7, -8, -4, -8, -13 that's my reports over the last week).

since you refuse to deal with cheaters in the game, and reporting them to customers service doesn't do anything, i ask that you fix the medal system. it doesn't make any sense in its current format, because medal count has no bearing on how powerful an army actually is. a much better indicator is the level of the opponent, and medals should be based off of that primarily. more importantly every battle should at least give the attacker the possibility to earn at least 1 medal per star.

if this is not resolved ASAP, then you will lose your long term loyal players, because this is just not sustainable to expect player to spend hours each day collecting medals, just to have them taken away after a single attack.

 

[Endril]

Well said gambrinus I believe that this has been said by multiple people multiple times. Hope someone is listening.

Endril

 

[dbukalski]

I think they want to push the top players back towards the middle? Or their compensating for close app loop hole

 

[USA Elite Will]

I'll play for hours and all my scouting will be +1 / -39. So no matter if I snipe the Town Center or Total Dominate I'm going to end up with just one medal. I'm lucky to get 20 medals in 4 hours. As soon as I get off, bam! -20 to -39 on defense. One step forward, 39 steps back. And really what benifits do these medals have besides the league bonus which I can get easily in battle? Are we better off just farming for resources and forgetting about medals? Tired of that +1 / -39 grind.

 

[USA Elite Will]

[No message]

 

[Eddie F1]

I guess we are all beta testing the current medal system - it will have been tricky to design a perfect working system 12 months ago and this probably is a legacy from AAA Box Game, not 1m/a few* players on mobile trying to fit into a single medal table.

The balance has to be something like (Battles per session x wins) - 1 loss. A system like 1 medal per star, win or lose could have a player winning 20 5* battles for 100 medals then losing 5. The medal table would just grow upwards.

(* delete as applicable)

 

[Aurelius...]

I absolutely agree with Gambrinus, and I've posted on this topic as well. Please see the following post and "like" it:

https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...cussion-aa/473081-match-medal-system-proposal

One note, slightly in contrast to Gambrinus' post, is that the people who benefit from this system are not necessarily cheaters. The people who receive the highest medal rewards for the least work are high level attackers with low medal counts. These could be cheaters, they could be bottom feeders, or they could simply be high level players who play infrequently and don't care about medals.

 

[Redgar]

Why don't you guys add your questions to QnA topic so we pass it to devs and kindly askmfor exact answers? I don't think it received enough exposure to be passed through by now. I'll have to bump it

 

[Guest]

I'm looking at your medal history, Gambrinus, and I'll what I can correlate for you as far as an explanation. As a general rule, PVP is a risk/reward scenario. If you are attacking people who are either lower power or equal medal count, your reward won't be as high as when you attack players that are much higher than you medal wise. The defensive losses you see are players with lower medal counts succeeding against you.

 

[EternalRookie]

That's what I am thinking too but please look at my battle logs (Cleomenes). The math is definitely seems buggy. I check medals of my targets and my attackers and they just don't support the theory using medals alone. What other parameters forms the risks and rewards? Resources looted? Buildings destroyed? Number of stars? Troop lose? Troops killed? Number of tactics used? Number of blessings used? Please educate us on this very frustrating subject.

 

[Cannibals]

See here for the maths behind medal rewards.

 

[Guest]

Hmm. This will take some digging, as the reports I typically have access to show me medal totals, but not opponents, so I'll have to see if I can get some data analysis done.

 

[Gambrinus]

No Title

I'm looking at your medal history, Gambrinus, and I'll what I can correlate for you as far as an explanation. As a general rule, PVP is a risk/reward scenario. If you are attacking people who are either lower power or equal medal count, your reward won't be as high as when you attack players that are much higher than you medal wise. The defensive losses you see are players with lower medal counts succeeding against you.

hi iron, i really appreciate you looking into this. the only reason i hit easier base, is because they are all worth the same 1 medal. if harder bases would give me more medals, i would go after them for sure. take a look at these, the first 5 bases i came across tonight, they are all worth 1 medal, but obviously they are by no means equal in difficulty to defeat. which ones would you choose to attack? can you see how frustrating this is?

high level players, with low medal counts are able to take lots of my medals in one attack, but all that i ever come across is bases worth 1 medal. so it takes me several hours to get enough medals just to stay at my current league position.

i also want to point out that those that attack me are normally a much higher level then me, and have fully maxed out IA armies, and often use a bunch of tactics/blessing/mercs/etc. so even though they have less medals than me, that's for no bearing on now difficult it is for them to take my base. for a player at lv160, my base with its GP/EA defenses is a cakewalk for them, so why should they get so many medals from me?

 

[Magenia]

I guess that's clear for everyone, the issue here is there must be a whole bunch of opponents with a higher medal count than ours, That besides the constant " no opponent found" message, we're just not able to find, you must search over a 100 times, or even more, to probably find one single opponent giving 5 or 6 medals at any time of day or night, and as Gambrinus said, the very minute you log off, others are "really lucky" to find us for a loss of over 10 or 20 medals

 

[firedancer]

Please put this inside the game tutorial or pin a detail description of it in the forum. Every now and then, there are players who complain about the medal system.

 

[Guest]

hi iron, i really appreciate you looking into this. the only reason i hit easier base, is because they are all worth the same 1 medal. if harder bases would give me more medals, i would go after them for sure. take a look at these, the first 5 bases i came across tonight, they are all worth 1 medal, but obviously they are by no means equal in difficulty to defeat. which ones would you choose to attack? can you see how frustrating this is?

You're making as assumption that the medals you earn are related to the difficulty of the base - it's actually due to the delta in medals between you and the target. I've got your player ID, and I'll grab some deltas so I can show you.

 

[Gambrinus]

okay, yesterday when i went to bed, this post was front page, and now it's back 3 pages deep because of a bunch of spam posters.

i honestly thought that we might be getting somewhere with this issue, but obviously it appear that Nexon wants any constructive feedback buried and forgotten about.

 

[Magenia]

Let's leave frustration aside for a while, it's better if we continue raising our voices until they really listen to us

 

[Gambrinus]

sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm not assuming medals are based on difficulty, i know they are based solely on a players medal count vs mine. i just think that system is broken and that medals should be more based off of the players level instead of medal alone.

i believe that one's medal count isn't a good way to determine medals won/lost because of the proliferation of cheaters and the force close exploit.

cheaters have max everything and don't often care about medals, or army losses so the stay in the mid level leagues and attack players of much lower level but in higher leagues. this cause those players like myself to have to spend tons of time, and some crowns, just to stay where we are in the league.

with the force close exploit, there is no chance for a defensive win, so it takes away the possibility of winning any medals when you log off.

so what happens is players that have been here for a long time are now at IA, and since there isn't much to do between week long upgrades, we've taken to getting medals, put progress is frustratingly slow, and some days you'll lose more medals than you gain, and nobody likes going backwards.

all that I'm asking is that the medal system is more equitable and give players a reason to try to 5 star there opponents. right now the most rewarding (quickest medal gains) is by armies that are just sniping the TC, then moving onto the next battle. a really eat game should reward those who destroy their enemies, rather than the ones that just hit and run.

 

[Guest]

Not forgotten! In fact I got a new tool to look at combat history, I am sorting through it.