Note I do not say sabotaging is fair as it stands but you are quick to assumptions like it is defenseless sure it can be frustrating and sue I've never received 200 attacks before. But i do know that if I ever was hit I would launch close to 200 villages of sabotages and another 100 nukes at the attacker. all catting taverns so I think that would do a lot to impede them from trying it again sure I lost one or a few villages from the runs but i will also see to it they lose equal or more than I did. And we can trade punches all day long because I will have several people under me also doing the same to them and any would assist them I their attack. If you want to mass sabotage me and be successful then you had better hit all my villages simultaneously and not leave one survivor or it will back fire on you. Now I have proposed this fix numerous times and it gets nearly ignored every time. and it would even allow a 50 village player to survive a mass sabotage from a 250 village player or an entire tribe. As things stand if there is no spy in the defending village the sabotage is successful. Now what happened to the police who are in the village protecting the workers and non combatants. This is before the time of coffee shops and donuts so they are sitting round there. There are too many things that would go wrong with a spy going in to suicide bomb a building as thats about the only way the damage could be done to the village in that day and era while causing the death of the spy too.
So bearing this in mind the sabotage feature should have a default lose regardless of spies defending or not. Say if no spies are in the village 30% are successful and that leaves 70% where they just die. and this goes down for every spy that is defending. Does that prevent mass sabotaging yes does it make sabotaging useless. well that depends you certainly have to use a lot more to get any kind of results than before but if that is too low then just up the percentages but still allow some to die by default.
Second the biggest need for sabotaging is to lower walls in a stacked village that you can't lower with nukes or it is too costly to do so. Since this is the only real legit reason aside from removing a church or fortress to keep this feature around. why don't e take barracks, HQ, farm, warehouse, and others like this off the table? Then only the important but less damaging buildings can be hit.
- problem the church would have a higher rate of falling. solution assign weighted values to buildings so that the building is random but you have a higher chance of getting the wall than the church.
-benefit now the farm and HQ won't be hit so you won't run into population or time building issues.
Another solution that was proposed. Have a technology where if in a certain time frame it is activated it reverts the damage. of course needs limitations. 25-50 uses per day requires x numbers of spies to activate or x level of tavern. something to prevent this from being if you are online then no sabotage works and if you are offline you are SOL. We also don't want this ability to push people to feel like they have to neglect their lives and work or other issues just to be succesfull in this game.
Unfortunately that is not how our update process works.
We plan features ahead of their update, to make sure it all tie up and work as intended.
Rushing features into an update only breaks them and result in more frustration.