Thoughts on the new medal count caps...
First the issue:
For most players, the ultimate goal of the game is to gain medals and rise up the leader board. Upgrading base score (attack or defense) is only a means to get a better army/defense in order to win more attacks/defenses so he can gain more medals. While for most players, the lopsided medals awards of +2/-50 for win/loss seem ridiculous, it is even more unfair to cap accomplishments simply because of the players base score. (which can be manipulated by spending in real dollars). I hope this is not Disney's goal.
If a level 4 player successfully defends against a a level 7 player, this a product of 2 reasons
1. the level 4 player's defensive setup is superior, or
2. the level 7 player's attacking strategy is inferior
In either case, the victor should be awarded and the loser need to be demoted. Capping a player's award as a function of his base score is simply unfair and discourages competition.
Enforcing a cap is similar to government quota and discourages fair competition. Since the the cap is only a function of the number of a successful attacks and disregards the number of failed defenses or attacks, this caps only serve to protect players who has invested a lot into their bases upgrades or time battling, rather the quality of their results.
1. Let medal counts be directly tied to a player's ELO points. The ELO ranking system is widely used across international football, chess, and eSports community. It has proven to be a good indicator of a player's relative strength. Medal counts can decay over time to discourage inactivity.
2. Pairing should be based primarily on medal counts rather than base score. I'm not familiar with Disney's exactly formula, but this should alleviate the lopsided +2/-50 awards ratio observed by most high level players. In most cases, 2 players with similar medals counts should expect to see a even +25/-25 win/loss ratio.