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?