@-cloud we invented the build you have now. Or made it widely known. So many of us have had towers at some point. We have since taken them down. Towers are an all or nothing type thing. Half assing them is pointless
This is very good. Simple explanation. I am directing people with tower questions to read it. Good job.
None of these are any more or less overrated than the next... What should be done, is plunder is based on how hard it is to win the battle, not just on stats and pots but also BFE. Some GH have enough attack BFE that they have a greater static attack stat than an attack build who is twice their size. Current this is not taken into account, so the GH wins huge profits of 50m while the attack build hits for 20m. In reality, they both have higher attack than their opponent; so plunder potential should be equivalent. Then, because troop buildings give more ATTACK plunder than guilds, the attack build makes slightly more per hit on the GH. 35m v 30m maybe. Problem solved. Current problems are that, and not that there ARE pots, it's THE LACK of pots. If the defender has full troop pots that adds about 15m to plunder if you win the attack. GH who normally would pay 20m now pay 5m. That's the problem....
I won't take offense if my terminology flies above your head. And @jam ok my bad. 11m still a decent difference though. Difference between attacking being worth it and being a complete waste of troops
Magee, your information may be correct, but if there was no lob sided Sap vs. sdp many gh would not be winning their attacks. The build itself and the stat difference payout has been around forever. Larger enemies pay better. This issue would not exist at the scale it does if the pot values were equal.