Lol first of all, winning 25 mith for losing is great cause that gives u a motivator to wanna war. Winners I will say should get 50 and a 50% chance of getting 100 mith. And one more thing, I'm on the ss which looks cool! Except for that inactive guy.
Yeah everything is working as intended here. Open to suggestions if you think it needs improvement. In this instance, spank had 9 successful attacks and 10 successful defends, so just short of the bonus 15 Mith. We could base Mith earnings based on plunder contribution, but there's an argument to be made that a system like that would leave out war roles that focus less on plunder contribution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What if there was a minimum actions requirement or top 3 plunder? Or top 3 plunder get more bonus mith?
Well there is a minimum actions requirement, but we include successful defensive actions as well now. Technically a successful defense is contributing to a win as it eats a portion of the opposing team's finite attack power. We used to reward top 3 plunderers, but even if we continued to do so, you could make this exact same post with the exact same screenshots, because the top player would still be earning less mith than the second player, who was a top contributor and performed more than 20 actions.
So did he have any outgoing actions devs? Even if they failed? If so shouldn't he not have gotten The sword? And the mith does make sense cause I focused on legend but didn't touch spank until the end.
He did not have any outgoing actions, failed or otherwise, so the Shattered Sword was justified. He also had a buttload of successful defends, which is why he received the 25 Mith. It's a little strange that an inactive player can earn more Mith than an active player, but I don't think it's a problem because 1) inactives aren't really an issue in LL Wars (just boot them if you don't want them on your side) and 2) while not a very good strat for winning, his build did soak up some hits for his side and technically provided value to the clan. Agree or disagree?
Yes agree. He definitely provided value until he was ko. The problem occurs after he gets KO'ed.. He then gives up a certain amount of AKO's which is very bad. Although honestly we didn't catch him being inactive. That's what's nice about not being able to mith btw.. Really hard to catch an inactive. But if an inactive is caught, they can leak a ton because of AKO's. So while I don't mind them getting mith, it may be good to have them not be eligible for mith if they get a broken sword. If that's annoying to implement then don't worry about it, not a big problem. Worry about those weekend tourneys And thanks for the communication, really fun
Disagree, inactives are used to SKO on. They are used to purposely take failed actions. That way when we have control we can not KO the enemy because our inactive can allow all those that are coming out of pin to SKO easilly. This limits our potential plunder as these wars are primarly based on control, unless there is an inactive involved of course. If he was active and not used to be skod on, we could dump our troops, causing the enemy to have no one to attack when coming out of pin and forcing them to be kod by our spies.
So if an inactive is used by ps1 to dump troops on which most will fail not helping there clan in anyway at all gets better rewards than top plunder who has used xstal and put time and effort to win war THATS CRAZY
But it still does not make sense that an inactive gets rewarded more than people who are trying harder. If found inactive like fonyzi said, they can leak a lot and these types of leaks can change the outcome of a war. Although it's preventable inactives still happen
Also people can use them as a very easy sko targ which can explain the "buttload of defenses". I understand the defenses lead to more mith but an inactive shouldn't get any