While ATA might have justified the GH nerf with growth logic, it's clear EE wars were the main impetus for the change, as, even if minimal at points, plunder from Ebs is/was greater for players with larger builds. That being said, this is all coming from the perspective of EE and the idea that ATA was trying to fix a 'broken' mechanic/strategy where big clans were weighing down their rosters with GH in order to get matched with clans that couldn't touch their top and couldn't plunder off their bottom (the poster child being RH.) I believe the common consensus during season 2 was that the Guild Hansel mechanic was broken across the board and in every situation, a GH would always bring more to the table than could be taken away, and there wasn't really a good counter to any type of GH; so teams started to feel the need to add them. Nerf aside, I think the chaos wars have shown us that a legitimate GH (players that are relatively new to the game, don't have much gear and small amounts of BFA) contribute relatively little to the war situation. They just get assassinated from the get go, can't punch through any of the mids and have limited target options. Even if we look back at season 2, before the nerf, this is a generally consistent situation for these types of players and it isn't until you start to introduce the allies and gear that the GH strategy becomes effective. The true problem extends from these heavily equip 'GH' who have the BFE and BFA to STILL hit way out of the range of what someone with those stats has and punch through defenses WAY higher than should be possible, yet they continue to pay out pennies, like they are a weak little build that can only touch others like them, rather than the effective 10 – 20 mil CS accounts they really are. Further, clans are starting to replace the “Guild Hansel” with a level 1 Stronghold of Shadows build, yielding almost exactly the same results and perpetuating this broken mechanic, illustrating the point that this is not a specific building problem, rather a broken plunder mechanic. Simple solution to this broken plunder mechanic: Change the plunder payout formula so that it a factor of the players TRUE total combined stats, including normal CS, pots, clan/player % bonuses, BFA and BFE. This payout would truly represent how difficult it is to get through a players defenses/how well they can get through yours and reward them accordingly. It would 'punish' those players who abuse the mechanic by making them payout what they are worth and still allow new players the opportunity to war, giving them an 'advantage' not afforded to longer standing players copying their builds, while also getting rid of the handicap now being placed on newer players in the EB grown department. Thoughts?
Seconded. There's also the fact that there isn't really a DTW mechanic for spies assassinating. I have been up against pure spies in war and you can't SKO with troops but they can still hit and SKO on you. Thoughts: Add a DTW for assasssinating around 30% spies left, or make assassinating go up against a portion of troop defense too (they are being assassinated, so they should get to fight back).
The idea of assassinating though is that they are killed quietly from behind, I don't think it'd make sense if they 'fought back' really. Either way, I'm not looking to change how all the fight mechanics work, simply trying to create a level playing field that accurately represents the strength of a player for pay outs. I mean, if some uses defense pots, their pay goes up. If you add towers, your pay goes up. If you add buildings, your pay goes up. All effect how difficult it is to get through you or how well you can get through others, yet the same rules do not apply to some of the biggest bonuses in the game, which is a serious problem that is CLEARLY being abused.
Simple solution would be "if you can be hit by assassinate or steal, you can hit with troops and vice-versa" What caused the GH issue to begin with is the insane idea that a player can be hit, but cannot hit back. That may be a part of what makes KAW what it is, but it is too easy to exploit. I suggest that the fix for that be "if successfully hit ANY player, they may attack you for anywhere from 8 to 24 hours with any type of attack" (no "defender too weak" when they successfully struck first unless they are zeroed/pinned) this way, the sneaky assassinate will have the risk that you are now able to be hit by that player, even if they don't know it. This would mean that the abuse-of-system teams would quickly find their low end stomped to death (as should happen when tiny kingdoms attack larger ones in a "fair fight") It will also preserve the ability for lower kingdoms to join in wars, but their role will be more appropriately to fight against equally small kingdoms. If they dare fight the "big boys" they can...but they do so at their own risk!