War ties should promote winning

A war tie should allow both clan’s to the WIN in Wars; especially when you get all three stars. I also think individuals that get at least one three star attack should be awarded more loot for getting 100% for any three star war attack, even in a loss. That way, all players will be happy and draws will motivate them to keep on improving even more, since the main thing that they will focus on would be to not lose the Clan War. Please share ‘I agree’ to get this in the next update!
Thanks, Spartan6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan6

A war tie should allow both clan’s to the WIN in Wars; especially when you get all three stars. I also think individuals that get at least one three star attack should be awarded more loot for getting 100% for any three star war attack, even in a loss. That way, all players will be happy and draws will motivate them to keep on improving even more, since the main thing that they will focus on would be to not lose the Clan War. Please share ‘I agree’ to get this in the next update!
Thanks, Spartan6

---

First off, welcome to the forums.

In answer to your idea, The problem is that if you tied then you didn’t win, it shouldn’t count as a win, nor be celebrated as a win because simply put, it’s not a win. If either of the ideas happened then it would give an even bigger advantage to engineered bases, because as long as you can 3 star everyone of the opposing teams bases then you win... that makes no sense. Defending in wars is an important aspect, if all of your bases got three starred, then you are missing that piece of the equation.

Sorry but i disagree with your idea.

If ties equal win and 3-stars equal full loot, then I can envision clans planning war strategies around this. No defenses, easy 3stars, everyone wins and profits. It’s like a participation trophy for everyone!

It's not necessary to give win to both side when draw happens but they can choose winner by some stats like...

- who reaches X stars 1st
- how many total attacks used in war (less is good) etc.

this way actually players are going to plan war more carefully to win with draw. I am not saying more than 1 condition has to met but I don't have problem with that too.

100% destruction ties should be broken by the fastest attack.

Builder base battles, 100% each, the winner is the one that finished the attack in the shorter time. We don't need to waste our Clock Tower boost on ties.

In wars, break the 100% destruction tie by giving the win to the side the defeated the opposing #1 in the shortest time. As much as I support longer battles, a faster win is a better win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D3ATHLORD

- who reaches X stars 1st
- how many total attacks used in war (less is good) etc.

---

These are bad tie breakers.

- who reaches X stars 1st
Gives advantage to the clan in a time zone more convenient at the start of war.

- how many total attacks used in war (less is good) etc.
Gives incentive to a clan to discourage new players from participating. E.g. in 20v20, tell the bottom 10 to not attack at all, and the top 10 three star the 20 bases. Not fun for the bottom 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

These are bad tie breakers.

- who reaches X stars 1st
Gives advantage to the clan in a time zone more convenient at the start of war.

---

R u for real dude?
In your 1st post u have suggested "100% destruction ties should be broken by the fastest attack." which is same thing I suggested "who reaches X stars 1st"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

- how many total attacks used in war (less is good) etc.
Gives incentive to a clan to discourage new players from participating. E.g. in 20v20, tell the bottom 10 to not attack at all, and the top 10 three star the 20 bases. Not fun for the bottom 20.

---

wow! so u mean every clan top 10 players are 100% 3* attackers?

Congratulation you have just won most logical comment award this year :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D3ATHLORD

R u for real dude?
In your 1st post u have suggested "100% destruction ties should be broken by the fastest attack." which is same thing I suggested "who reaches X stars 1st"



wow! so u mean every clan top 10 players are 100% 3* attackers?

Congratulation you have just won most logical comment award this year :/

---

Who reaches X stars first sounds like your measuring by war time. I.e a clan who gets 100% in the first 10 hours wins if the other side takes longer. I’m talking about battle time.

In a clan where they can defeat the enemy with 100%, Yes, it is normal that their 1 can three star 1-2, 2 defeat 3-4, and so on down it getting only easier.

Nope, some attacks require more time and should not be penalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

100% destruction ties should be broken by the fastest attack.

Builder base battles, 100% each, the winner is the one that finished the attack in the shorter time. We don't need to waste our Clock Tower boost on ties.

In wars, break the 100% destruction tie by giving the win to the side the defeated the opposing #1 in the shortest time. As much as I support longer battles, a faster win is a better win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

100% destruction ties should be broken by the fastest attack.

Builder base battles, 100% each, the winner is the one that finished the attack in the shorter time. We don't need to waste our Clock Tower boost on ties.

---

If you are going to base the winner on a completely arbitrary and meaningless statistic like time, then I’d put forth that the winner should be the one that uses the most troops with the color blue. Red can be the 2nd tiebreaker.