Good to know that losing gets you 0 points. And as far as the second idea, that would be the only real way to protect newer players but it does have a lot of problems with it also. I never said that it didnt, but I am at least throwing out ideas. And you are correct in stating that conquers would all be done with and you have given a very good example of how the system could be manipulated.
Indeed.. The question in that case would be how much we want to protect new players. I think we've already had too many changes that nerfed people relying on income from conquers.
In other words, regardless of what changes you put in there will always be ways to manipulate the system. What sucks about this is the fact that there are players spending time trying to find loopholes for easy score and if they would just put that much time into playing the game the way it should be, then they would be high ranked anyway. Anyway, I voted to keep it but with some changes. Maybe have your battle score only last 100 ticks or 200 ticks. Then you have to keep battling in order to keep your battle score up. You cant just attack in the first 300-500 ticks and expect those points to be there at the end of the era. Just another idea. I am not saying these are good ideas, but I am trying. I see a lot of people complaining but not a lot putting any ideas out there.
That's the problem with most changes
There will always be those that abuse systems. It's become less bad now that you only get score if you actually win the battle, but because of the 50% power rule the system is still heavily disbalanced in favor of those with low power.
As for your idea, that would be a way in which the score you have gotten from battles can be lost indeed.. Although I believe the problem with this approach is that people might hold off waging wars until the end of the era so that they can go into the Hall of Fame with as high score as possible.
It is true that perhaps not everyone is putting many ideas forward, but for me personally that is everytime I come up with a way to adapt this system in my head, I also think of ways to abuse it and reasons this adaptation would not work. For example I have thought of making it so that you get score from anyone you kill, but then you have the problem of "newbie bashing". So I thought of adding the rule of at least 50 power, but that means you do not get rid of the disbalance in favor of those with low power. Also, that would not be fair to high power players as often the players that are most annoying and hardest to kill are those that have low power but still quite a few squads of range that could do damage if you didn't deal with them soon enough.
Then another system I thought of was to keep the current system but make it so that you can lose the score when you get conquered. This way you won't see alliances that have lost still with very high score. However in this case the winning alliance would still have reasons to keep low power, as this would be the easiest way to gain score. So I did not suggest that system either.
Niracas idea has some good parts too but again does not deal with the core problem of being rewarded for lower power.
Which is why in the end the best system in my mind was the one I have suggested with seperate score for armor/damage/range and getting score for anyone you kill with over 40/50 power. However as I mentioned earlier I still think this does not fix all the problems which is why I still prefer getting rid of the system entirely over introducing this new system.
I really am trying to think of fixes/changes, but I am becoming more and more convinced that whatever way you put it, this system is flawed at the very basis.