Skulls in War/Conquest should not cap at level 95

This discussion started in another thread, but I didn’t want to further derail that thread.

It is my contention that there is no good reason for the skull value of a base to stop at lvl 95, and possibly not a reason for it to cap at all.  At the very least, it seems appropriate to re-assess the current cap given how much the game has changed since it was implemented.  Maybe it should continue at 7 skulls/lvl until 105, then steadily decrease to 1 skull/lvl at 130 or something.  A system like that would at least acknowledge that higher level bases are (on average) stronger than lower level bases.

Bases get more difficult as a player levels, and the value of raiding that base correspondingly goes up as you approach lvl 95, but then it just stops.  The bases continue to get harder, but are not worth more skulls.  Consequently any War battle in Alliance War or Conquest just results in everyone putting on their best skull gear and farming the base of any lvl 95-100 players. It makes no sense.  You are rewarded for fighting the hardest base that you can all the way up to lvl 95, and then it suddenly stops and you just fight whoever has the highest trophies (which is easily manipulated).

As Dena4 pointed out in another thread (his/her position seems to be that a cap is good, but it should maybe be set at a higher level), this cap was implemented back when the max level was 120 and the strength of a base could not continue to increase through forging and beasts.  Perhaps back then the average lvl 95 base was similar in difficulty to the average lvl 120 base, but there is no comparison now.  As a lvl 80 I have beaten many bases in the 95-100 range, but I’ve never beaten anyone over 105 (with an actual base).

I’ve reposted below the points made in the other thread, as well as my response to the last post: 

On 2/17/2019 at 11:59 PM, Dena4 said:

The medal has 2 sides. Yes, why raid a high player, when you can get same amount of skulls against a low player? But why you would keep a high level player when teams heavily score against them? I think being punished for being high level, would not be fair. Sure, the cap could be put now some higher, around level 110, but during wars in conquest you also have wars against a few players and then you won’t have the choice, like during war seasons. 

  18 hours ago, Entropy42 said:

The logic for this makes no sense. 
Is a lvl 130 player a stronger attacker than a lvl 95 player?  Yes. 
Is the base of a lvl 130 player stronger than the base of a lvl 95 player? Yes. 
If it makes sense that the skull value of a base goes up as the base gets stronger (which it does), then why does this scaling suddenly stop at 95?  Bases don’t stop getting harder.  I can raid some 95s as an 80, I have never raided a 100 or higher.  Is it unfair that I am worth more skulls as an 80 than I was at lvl 70? 

Thanks for all the background.  I’m very new, so I don’t know the history of these things.  I can see how it might have made more sense 3 years ago, but I don’t think it still makes sense now.  As you noted, back then your base didn’t get stronger as you continued to play and the difference in difficulty between the average lvl 95 base and the average lvl 120 base was much smaller than it is now.  

I really can’t say if the cap still makes sense at 115 vs uncapped, but I can tell you that it doesn’t make sense at 95.  You say that the uncapped system was unfair because now people didn’t want lvl 130 players on their teams.  In the current system, people should also not want lvl 95 players on their teams.  They give max skulls and have comparatively weak bases, meaning that a larger # of players on the opposing team will be able to successfully raid them in full skull gear.  This will result in those players bleeding skulls.  How is this an improvement?  It incentivizes those players to continue leveling, but provides a disincentive for people below lvl 95 to keep leveling. You are just moving a “problem” down from lvl 130 to lvl 95, and I would argue making it worse while doing so.

If a lvl 95 is beating the base of a lvl 130, then they are probably some combination of: a very good player, very strong for their level, a very weak base, and/or part of a strong alliance with very strong boosts.  In any of those cases, yes, it absolutely makes sense to me that more skulls should be awarded.  The only time skulls matter are in team events, so a lower level player in a strong alliance that can acquire good boosts should be able to fight up more levels than a player in an alliance that didn’t get those boosts.  That’s the point of the boosts, to make the alliance stronger.

I just don’t understand how it makes sense to you that I am worth more skulls as a lvl 80 than as a lvl 75, yet a 120 is not worth more than a 95.  Can you explain why it makes sense to you that I am worth more skulls as I go from 75 to 80, and why that same logic does not apply as I go from 95-100?  And 105-110?  And 115-120?

I think it’s fair that the skulls cap at 95, because, most players don’t find good skull gear until at least level 90, so, 95 is a good cap. Once you get skull gear you can slowly move your way up and get more skulls per attack. I didn’t have a good skull hero till I was level 90. I had about 10% then, which was great for the time, but now I’m at 28.5%

In the Santa Festival, I got the same generosity belt as Awesomest, but his is worth more. It’s cause he is at lvl 100 and Im at 80. Like AK said, after 90 or so you can run into good items.

The ring from the Sanzu pro set has 3.8% skull boost and Im lvl80, so thats another way to get more for now.

I still wear my old items in war with +130 and more. Upgrade skull bonus is always a slooooow process, so maybe it is good to let players enter this process as soon as possible (which it seems to be lv95).

Everyone could still wear skull gear while raiding higher level bases, but removing the cap would give an element of strategy where you have to decide if you wear your strongest gear and push for a higher level base, or wear skull gear and clear a lower level base.

Regardless of skull find gear, why does it make sense that the best way for high level players to score skulls is to raid a lvl 95 base?

Remember cof depends on king’s rank.  So if I an a 4.1k player.  I attack around my range and rank among enemy ranks.    If I attack a lvl 95 3kplayer who is ranked 35 in a team, the chests of fortune gives me a low skull amount.  But I attack top 5 bases, I get around 95 to 100 skulls in cof. 

So today that is the only incentive not to go after a 95 lvl king.  Atleast for me.  I am at 120.

The best way for high players to score skulls is to attack the highest trophy unshielded player, level doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t make sense to change the L95 cap, unless you have players cheating with low levels and attacking high level bases, a player should never feel like they can’t level up (which is also why they introduced the food cap).

You mean the highest trophy unshielded 95+ player that they can beat.  So level (or strength of base) actually does matter.  If I’m a lvl 100, I’m likely not attacking the 130s on the opposing team, even if they are the highest trophies.  I’m attacking people that I can get 100% with my skull gear.  Similarly, you are not attacking their lvl 90s if all the people over 90 have dropped their trophies down below the lvl 90s.  The value of the skull bonus from the CoF is very minor compared to the level of the base.  Removing the cap would actually encourage people to fight the strongest bases they can clear, which I would think should be the point of alliance wars.

If a player should never feel like they can’t level up, what about all the levels between 1 and 95, where you are increasingly worth more skulls?  I’m 81 and can fight lvl 95s, so for wars it is no longer beneficial for me to level.  I will not be able to fight up any higher as I level, and my base will become worth 100 more skulls.

At the top, everyone is over 95, if the value of skulls per player kept going up, we’d get a bunch of low level accounts, give them a decent defence, and push them to our 9-15th position and cost the enemy a bunch of skulls per battle.

I suggested to rebalance base skull in August 2017 (click here) and now there are vikings, pal flute spell, basilisk towers, pro boosts, conquest boosts, conquest buildings, guardians, tokens, subscriptions, new pals, new levels for units, towers, obstacles, gate and alliance tower.

I don’t understand.  Why don’t you just do this now then?  Get some level 80 accounts and push them into your 9-15th position?

Cuz this time was gone.

now they cant and none can. All are too lazzy for this

Getting a level 80 account into that state is a lot of work, however, we have lots of players in the 95-120 zone that could be used that way, 95 is about the level that attack starts to max out, improves are very gradual from then on, if the cap was raised to 120 (for example), we’d have lots of 95-115 players to push up into the 9-15 zone.

And again, we’d be in the ludicrous position of people trying not to level their king up, which should be discouraged at all costs, a player should never be punished for playing the game and getting better.

Ok, well we have lots of players in the 80-95 zone where we could do this right now, and those players are in the ludicrous position of trying not to level up.  So I guess by this logic the current system is flawed and the skull cap should be at lvl 80.

You just keep saying that somehow the game would be worse if lvl 95-105 behaved exactly the same as level 1-95 do.  Maybe back in the day 95 was effectively the end of how strong your base and king would get, but there is absolutely no way that is the case now.  The ability to clear bases as a 120 is far beyond what a lvl 95 can do, and the difficulty in beating an average lvl 120 base is far beyond the difficulty in beating an average lvl 95 base.  Heros and bases continue to scale up in power, and skulls just stop. 

I accept your claim that the power increase slows down per level, because I have no idea, but you agree that players and bases continue to get stronger.  Maybe the cap should be a different level, maybe bases should go up in value by less than 7 skulls per level after 95 or after 105, maybe there should be no cap?  This system doesn’t make sense in the current state of the game.  It’s a Tower Defense game where the strength of your defense ends up not really mattering after halfway through the game.

At the level you are at, those 80-95 players won’t make a difference, on the top wars, these things matter, if you have players avoiding level up below 95, you’re playing the game wrongly.  Some top level 130 players have awful bases, and only become acceptable with all boosts enabled, in close wars, we push these guys up to 9th position.


edit: just to also note, you never want to be in a case where a team of 45 people all level 110 and above (for example) can’t win against a team of people at level 100 due to the 70 skulls lost per attack (about ~10,000 skull difference at the end of the war just due to level).  You could argue that the skull per person should be the same for every king, more than increasing the cap for high level kings, but it feels about right at the moment, if you are a level 90 king that isn’t levelling up due to skull increases, then you’re playing the game backwards.

How do you not see that everything you are saying “should never happen” could happen right now. 

Dystopian future with no skull cap: “You never want to be a in a case where a team of 45 people all lvl 110 can’t win against a team of lvl 100s due to skulls lost per attack”

The game right now: “Totally fine for there to be a case where a team of 45 people all lvl 95 can’t win against a team of lvl 85s due to skulls lost per attack”

I’d argue that in either case, if the higher level team can’t win, it’s because they haven’t done a decent job making a defense and should lose because of it.  They’ve had 10 more levels (and 600M XP!) worth of gold\pearls to improve their bases and find better skull gear.  It takes nearly triple the XP to get to 110 than it does to get to 100, what were they doing in all that time?

Why is it backwards to stop leveling at 90 right now?  Is it because you will continue to get stronger and be able to fight higher level bases as you level up?  If so, isn’t this still true at lvl 100?  If the cap was 105 instead of 95, you’d be saying " if you are a level 90 100 king that isn’t levelling up due to skull increases, then you’re playing the game backwards"

As far as I can see, this problem only applies to mid level and low level alliances.

It is imparative in top level alliances to always go for the top ranked players of the opponents alliances.

losing 100-90 skulls per chest is way more hurtful then picking level 95 opponents. which are at the bottom of an alliance.

For instance getting an additional 100-95 skulls per attack or going for a level 95 level player that only gives 40-50 skulls in a chest . The choice is obvious. No one would ever go for the level 95 player as losing ~50 skulls each fight is detrimental. thats 300 skulls. That’s just bad decision making.

In mid level alliances where there are only a couple of players above level 95, let’s say 5-10. I can see that there is an incentive to choose a level 95 player, as you would only lose 5-10 skulls per fight. But this problem is entirely dependend on the line up of an alliance. If an alliance’s average player level is 95 there is pretty much no other choice then attacking one.

In my alliance we got players from 100-130 and it’s usually always a war between the top 15 of each alliances as everyone has gate towers and it’s usually best to go for the skulls in the COF as it doesn’t matter which base you choose. All have Gate towers and difficulty is quite similar. Differences are usually small in difficulty.

I don’t think a cap increase would change anything. As this problem is entirely depended on alliance line up. Furthermore this problem is gone once you reach 95+ or are in a an Alliance at 100+.

In the end game (above lvl105-110) this is not an issue.

Keep playing and keep progressing. This won’t be an issue for much longer.

Among active players there are only about 20-25k above lvl 95, and 180k total players, so saying “this is only a problem in low/mid level alliances” means it’s only a problem in most alliances.

Yes, I understand, at the top you fight the highest trophy base you can while wearing your skull gear.  In top level alliances you don’t just pile on the lvl 95, because there is someone else you can beat up instead.  But the strategy would clearly change if skulls continued to scale up until lvl 105 or 115.  The quality of your defense would matter, rather than just how much you manipulate your trophy count before a war.  A lvl 95 base is just not as hard to beat as a lvl 115 base, so it’s not logical that they give the same reward.

I think people are so used to how its been that they don’t seem to be able to think about whether that still makes sense.  You say a cap increase wouldn’t change anything, then your very next sentence says the “problem goes away at 95+”, which implies that the cap has an effect, and raising that cap would make it affect fewer players (i.e. would change something).

See, but that’s the thing. The hero’s level is not directly related to the quality of your defense. There are tons of high lvl players with low forges or in boostless alliances.

Sure, you can assume that higher lvl players have better defenses, but that’s not always the case.

I believe the cap is there just as a preventive measure to avoid people focusing attacks on low-mid players. At lvl95+ the cap is gone.

If you extend the cap up to lvl105 or 115 (or even 130), then there is an incentive to not lvl up as fast as you can, which honestly would be harmful to the game.


The real issue tho is that you haven’t yet provided a good enough reason to remove the 1015 skulls cap. What’s the benefit?

And even if there is one, would that benefit outweight the harm of punishing players that lvl up faster?