To me, it just seems like it's arbitrarily reducing the amount of your defenses that cost you points. At that point I'd rather just reduce the amount of points you lose in general, but I'm still not sure that's the best solution to begin with, and it wouldn't solve the underlying issue of potential outliers at the top of the leaderboard with many less attacks than others (if anything they'd be attacked even less, potentially compounding the problem).
Possibly, but what good is milling around 1300 and being attacked very infrequently to try and climb to 2300+ in the last 24 hours compared to fighting to stay at 1900 then trying to climb to 2300+ in the last 24 hours? The former player is probably attacked way less throughout the week, but has to spend way more ironite and time to climb up in the last day (the day most relevant to getting end of week rewards), and they're probably getting way less Iron Coins in a given week (and yes a lot of top players don't care about Iron Coins right now, but maximizing income will become very relevant for most people soon).
Well, you as a player have more control over who attacks you based on revenging than who attacks you based on matchmaking, so I would say trying to only fight people you think won't fight back/will lose when retaliating seems like an entirely legitimate strategy, as it focuses on you having a capable attack and defense team and reading the intent/capabilities of your opponent. You risk climbing slower, but it's potentially a positive trade-off.
(I do a fair bit of this myself when my defense list is reasonably populated and I don't think I can do a full 10 sand sweep of my attack list.)





