Defense points in Wars


#1

In Dealing with defense points the idea of giving teams a point simply for showing up seems a lot like participation points.
Defense points should be given only if the defense is successful before 70% destruction is achieved other wise all a team needs to do is stay awake 24 hours. Let’s keep this a WAR BASED game Not a Game that simply rewards participation


#2

I don’t agree with getting defense points just for showing up either. However, I do disagree with you about the defense needing to be successful (keeping the attackers under 70%) in order to get a defense point.

I think if they are going to be changed, as long as there is a defender in the battle, and the attackers get less than 5 flames, you should get a defense point.

There aren’t many bases out there, period, that can’t be taken down with 5 dragons. Under your idea, you would have to keep up to 5 dragons from getting 70%, which honestly, would make defending next to pointless (pun intended).


#3

I would agree with that jonesy


#4

It’s all messed up, wish they’d do away with defense points.


#5

I agree 100^🐉


#6

That logic makes no sense to me. All that will happen is teams will have one giant hitter to back everything for 5 flames and no defence points. Yes that happens currently but at least you can get fair defensive points

And in the same breath, what about when teams have a high level player the other team is attacking with troubles. They decide to throw waves of players that have not hit on that big player trying to slip an undefended attack in. So you are saying that they should have no penalty for all those extra attacks. It’s part of the strategy on whether you are willing to risk those extra defence points.

Same token. Few player on one team, and lots attacking. No way to stay and defend hard to prevent starts. It’s about getting in and out.

The current system is fine.


#7

Having to be on 24/7 to defend isn’t really “fine”, imo, it’s a game…but, I also don’t have a solution for a better war system. So, I’ll stick with, “I hate defense points”.


#8

I don’t think it is necessarily about being on 24/7

This is where the strategy comes in. Officers and teams need to build what works best for them. Ie. build a team with mainly people from same time zone so you can try and do a larger wave attack then your opponent may put together. Risk being that you may have a down time also the other team can take advantage of. Or choose to build a team that is more world wide with more players on at various times through the day.

It’s all about the strategy you think you can make work best for your team and players. There is no right method

Also, unless ALL your team are willing to defend your fighting a loosing war already.

Yes I agree it sucks and I have stayed up much later than I should some nights. But it’s all strategy. Watch lc to see what times other teams are active. Look at thier. rosters and languages to try and see if you can find a weekness you can exploit.

Then war war war and hope for the best.


#9

+1 to what @SuperDooshBag says. It IS about strategy and planning, and there is (well, should be) proper incentive to make an effort to defend. If not, leaving in the middle is a reasonable strategy to boost more towers. There is really nothing wrong with the present structure.


#10

Thinking that offering points for simply showing up is a fair and balanced system is twisted I agree with loosing points for quitting attacks and REDOS as in the case of distraction runs but simply to offer for showing up NOPE !!!


#11

Why is it not fair. Both teams have the exact same advantage so no loss.

In the same respect, say you have a low level defending has no defence boost to apply and hasn’t no chance in hell in stopping an attack on a higher player.

He has still tried and it really is the same thing as joining and leaving.

The only premise I would concede is that if someone jumps in to defend, they should have to activate supershots for a defence to count.

But no team is at a distinct advantage with the current system. I see a wave coming I want to be in as many as possible. Just the way it is.


#12

There is a whole history of wars/ties/tiebreakers that no one who’s posted so far seems familiar with. Wars used to have no tiebreakers. 250-250 was simply a tie. Top teams complained so PG devised a tiebreaker system that awarded defense points for successful defenses. The problem was people would force close the app when it was apparent they were going to fail and it wouldn’t get counted.

PG switched to the current system because it was the least susceptible to bugs and exploits vs the alternatives. So ideally some sort of successful defense system would be nice but ideals conflict with programming constraints.


Pre-War Attack Exploit
#13

You tell em Spooky


#14

That’s why it should be as simple as you don’t get defense points if you don’t stop the raid. WHATS SO DIFFICULT MIGHT AS WELL ADD AUTO DEFENSE.


#15

That solves nothing. Teams will simply run with backup which they should anyway and give away zero defence points. The system is as it is. Just play within the rules instead of arguing about them.


#16

If you 5 flame it the first time it makes no difference. If both teams defeat all 50 bases the first try with a defender in each attack then it’s a tie. It comes down to who was the most efficient attacking team. Which is how it should be in my opinion.


#17

The OTHER TEAM GETS DEFENSE POINTS JUST BY JOINING RAID PROVIDED THEY JOIN THE RAID. ITS NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RULES ITS SEEING RULES THST DO NOT MAKE SENCE


#19

You won’t get a single defensive point if you just award defense points if you stop someone below 70%. As it was stated 20 times in this post already, people will just bring backers with them and will get 70% by using 5 dragons if necessary.

Writing in all caps also doesn’t help :slight_smile:


#20

The rules make sense. It just seems you are not grasping the concept. The system may not be the greatest, but it is better than the alternative.


#21

The war tiebreaker has a long history that you are not aware of and that you refuse to acknowledge. Yes, ideally, only successful defenses would count but we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where PG tried to use a successful defense tiebreaker, but it was open to far more bugs and exploits than the current compromise system. Here is a thread from the old forums where CampusLifer discusses some of the issues around this. Bottom line is the current system is the best choice to solve for “strategic disconnect” problems that plagued prior iterations. Typing in all caps isn’t exactly going to change this reality, sorry to say.