Penalty for not defending mine

Loving the idea of the alliance wars and I'm liking what I see so far with the mines but can we have a penalty for not defending a mine? Let's make it something like: if an mine is taken from alliance, the alliance loses at at least 100xlevel of alliance and the attacking alliance gets the points. That means that if the defending alliance chooses not to have any troops they still lose some prestige. The alliance should lose at least 100 points when losing a mine just so people won't game the system and just defend with a trivial amount of troops. Additionally make it so you can't abandon mine if you are being attacked so we can see some wars!!!

Otherwise this will develop into a game of merry-go-round with the top alliances conceding mines and rarely fighting.

(You can add an exception for lower ranked alliances - if defending alliance is 3 or more levels lower than attacking alliance it does not lose prestige in order to give lower ranked alliances a break)

how is that fair? don't you think that all people should be treated equal? so those who spend their time playing hard and spending money should have less of an opportunity to gain prestige... Great idea but a little flawed

how is that fair? don't you think that all people should be treated equal? so those who spend their time playing hard and spending money should have less of an opportunity to gain prestige... Great idea but a little flawed

Higher level alliances have bigger warehouses thus easier to maintain bigger armies. Giving a break to lower level alliances is sportsmanship since picking on the little guy ain't cool. The game already takes in account level difference with regular battles anyway so this is in line with Haypi's line of thinking.

i guess but its kinda like the socialist view of taxing the rich in a higher bracket... just cuzz they make more and most times have worked harder to make it to that point doesn't mean they should be taxed greater.... just cuzz its haypis line of thinking doesn't make it correct

how is that fair? don't you think that all people should be treated equal? so those who spend their time playing hard and spending money should have less of an opportunity to gain prestige... Great idea but a little flawed

Higher level alliances have bigger warehouses thus easier to maintain bigger armies. Giving a break to lower level alliances is sportsmanship since picking on the little guy ain't cool. The game already takes in account level difference with regular battles anyway so this is in line with Haypi's line of thinking.

On s102 the winning alliance doesn't have 12k prestige, and you need 45k (or 40k?) to upgrade to level 2! Plus the warehouse goes up maybe 100k, not that much at all

Everyone seems to be at a fair start for the new alliance war thing, nobody is ahead by a ton (but there aren't even 50 alliances with prestige that could be fixed)

There seems to be some army glitches happening. My alliance lost it's army when attempting to defend. Until support decides whether or not to give us our troops back we are pretty much out of commission. Unfortunately, rebuilding takes a tremendous amount of time. I'm sure my alliance isn't alone on this one.

There seems to be some army glitches happening. My alliance lost it's army when attempting to defend. Until support decides whether or not to give us our troops back we are pretty much out of commission. Unfortunately, rebuilding takes a tremendous amount of time. I'm sure my alliance isn't alone on this one.

My alliance lost a ton of troops due to a glitch. We are rebuilding using coins to speed-up, the only thing holding us back is lack of people -.-