[Discussion] Attribution of defender points

I'd like to discuss the current acknowledgement and attribution of defense points.

Consider a town of a player "The besieged" under attack by several players. "The besieged" is in an alliance "The Poor Besieged", and actually got several reinforcements from an other alliance "The Brave Defenders"

As of now, all the credits for defending, ie. the "Damage dealt as defender" that shows up in the ranking tabs, will go to the city's owner ; here "The besieged" and his alliance "The Poor Besieged".

The reinforcements who came to his town from other alliances (here "The Braves Defenders") won't get any credit (their individual "damage dealt as defender" won't increase, nor that of the alliance), although they will still get the experience.

I personally don't like this system, because then "The Besieged" could just be an alliance of "Lazy farmers" (No offense intended) without any defending units, and they would still get all the "glory" (understand, ranking points) for defeating a powerful army in their own city. Even sometimes, we have to provide the food ourselves to maintain the reinforcements.

Bers suggested it would maybe be possible to instead attribute the damage respectively to every defender (and I believe this includes the owner of the city and his towers). Now it's not really clear whether the credits are granted based on a last-hit-kill policy or proportionally to the total damage dealt to attackers. But in both cases, it seems a bit more fair to me.

I would like tho have your opinions on the matter. Corner cases I may have missed, other ideas, why the current system works fine/not fine ? Many of you have been through many alphas already and probably have some more indsight to give :)

I have to agree that multiple defenders should get recognition for reinforcing and defending another's town (i.e. defense points), just as multiple attackers get points for coordinated hits.  :-)

General note - to make it more constructive, don't post "me too" comments but rather do an analysis what pros and cons each case has, potentials ways to cheating and so on.

How about it makes no sense to reward people jointly hitting and potentially sacrificing their armies and using their treasure to assist another and then not reward people jointly defending, using their treasure and almost definitely sacrificing their armies? 

Both groups kill other units (presumably) and the defenders are leaving their domains open to attack while selflessly helping out another player as are the attackers.  Both groups should get the same treatment in terms of points being awarded and be weighted just like you do with coordinated attackers.  If you are worried about cheating, obviously defenders and attackers from one account (if that's even still possible) can be eliminated from this equation. 

I'm just addressing this from a fairess standpoint, lol if you want game analysis, I'll come back but would rather leave the tech speak to others, lol.

My only input is that it should matter if defending players actually send their hero to the besieged. If a person is only reinforcing with an army and not their hero they should get no experience just like in attacking with just an army and no hero.

My only input is that it should matter if defending players actually send their hero to the besieged. If a person is only reinforcing with an army and not their hero they should get no experience just like in attacking with just an army and no hero.

I agree with you for the experience. But concerning other ranking stats (other than experience), I believe it shouldn't matter if the hero is present or not. If attacker points and defender points were awarded just when the hero is present, that would be silly. There are many military tactics which involve splitting troops, like sending decoy armies with heroes, while the real one is hiding with masks of the many. The experience is one thing, but eventually many of us will reach lv 50 and it won't mean anything at some points. Attacker/defender damage dealt will.

I guess you haven't noticed that is how it works? you only get experience when your hero is present whether attacking or defending. I do not think it is silly.

My only input is that it should matter if defending players actually send their hero to the besieged. If a person is only reinforcing with an army and not their hero they should get no experience just like in attacking with just an army and no hero.

Agreed. 

I can give another example.  A player is offline for a few days and his or her alliance becomes aware the domain is a target.  So, players send their armies and heroes to defend, but the actual domain army is nowhere in sight, having been destroyed earlier or just not being trained or any of a number of reasons.

Should the domain holder get the points of defense when he/she is not even participating?  Or, should the points go to those that have risked their heroes and armies defending a temporarily inactive domain?

I guess you haven't noticed that is how it works? you only get experience when your hero is present whether attacking or defending. I do not think it is silly.

I'm not really sure we're talking about the same thing. If by Experience you meant hero experience towards leveling up then as I said

I agree with you for the experience.

Which means the hero should NOT be awarded hero experience if he is not with the army (and yes ofc I was aware of this).

But in this thread I am not talking about hero experience but other ranking stats that appear in the ranking tab (Especially "Damage given as Defender"). Although those stats have no concrete in-game value and effects, I believe several players are looking at these stats (especially those at the top of the ladder and who can see their names in the world rankings :) ) and kinda working toward increasing them.

And I believe for these other ranking stats "Damage given as Defender", and "Damage given as Attacker", it shouldn't matter whether the hero is in the army or not. Because those stats reflect the performance of a country, not a hero, and they have no direct in-game effect.

Also, for an alliance (and players in a lesser way), these rankings have actually another meaning. For example if I was a new player joining the game, I'd have a look at the alliance rankings and try to join the best alliance. So it's important that those stats are updated in a correct manner.

And to be honest, I'd actually like to have separate stats "Damage taken as Defender" and "Damage taken as Attacker". This would let us see immediately which alliances are better at war than other (because they would have a high damage given : damage received ratio). Best would be to even make the distinction between destructive damage (siege) and damage dealt to units, but well...