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.

Tie mean tie,lose mean lose and win mean win.
But I agree with your rest of the case.Best performer should be awarded with unique rewards,thats way we will see much less rush base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

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.

---

Yes my suggestion is on war time only as those who reach X stars 1st & as u mentioned about timezone, 1st it's mostly going to affect International clans as country specific clans mostly starting war as par their beneficial time zone. Plus War Draw is very rare & no1 can guess that it's going to happen as even few difference in % can enough to decide winner. 100% results are rare too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

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.

---

If this possible & so normal then why clans are not using it now? to get 100% LoL :D

Anyways I have no problem with current system of war draw. I saw some thread on it & just tried to make lil better suggestion then op.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

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

---

I don't agree with this. A faster attack isn't always a better attack. Why should your attack count for more than mine just because I took more of the available clock than you? The end result is the same, is it not?

The other problem I have with this is that it further limits attacking options. If now we're forced to worry about the fastest army, then out of all armies capable of three starring a base, one will stand out as the fastest and become dominant over the others. I don't think that's helpful for game variety

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D3ATHLORD

Yes my suggestion is on war time only as those who reach X stars 1st & as u mentioned about timezone, 1st it's mostly going to affect International clans as country specific clans mostly starting war as par their beneficial time zone. Plus War Draw is very rare & no1 can guess that it's going to happen as even few difference in % can enough to decide winner. 100% results are rare too.



If this possible & so normal then why clans are not using it now? to get 100% LoL :D

---

100% wars are not rare, if you leave out out TH11s. We have them lots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

I don't agree with this. A faster attack isn't always a better attack. Why should your attack count for more than mine just because I took more of the available clock than you? The end result is the same, is it not?

The other problem I have with this is that it further limits attacking options. If now we're forced to worry about the fastest army, then out of all armies capable of three starring a base, one will stand out as the fastest and become dominant over the others. I don't think that's helpful for game variety

---

Who says anything about “limiting” options??

This is about a second level tie breaker. A fair tiebreaker is one that doesn’t give systematic advantage, like time of attacks connected to time zone.

In the current game, a faster attack is not better, no. Three stars in one minute gives no better score than three stars in 2:59. The point is to find a tiebreaker that is consistent with game objectives.

Do you not experience war ties?
On the builder base, do you not experience draws? Or are you happy with them?

presumably you think that steering the top end player to faster attack strategy will hurt the game? I don’t think so, it requires more skill.

this reminds me of the loading screen tip: building good defense is just as important as aggresive attacking . a tougher base can prevent them from 3 starring you, thus preventing a tie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

I don’t think so, it requires more skill.

---

I do not believe this to be true. Any more than red troops require more skill than deploying blue based troops.

Take chess, for instance. You're going to tell me that the grand chess masters that take their total allocated time to make a move, because they are studying the board, thinking several moves ahead, are less skilled than the novice that only sees what is on the board and moves their piece within a few seconds?

The game is not a sprint. Dropping troops quickly and watching them go is not necessarily a true measurement of skill, compared to one that drops their troops in strategic (read: not in one spot) ways.

Your suggestion seems to favor the clock boost, or rather saving it, which is a different animal than skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azroen

I do not believe this to be true. Any more than red troops require more skill than deploying blue based troops.

Take chess, for instance. You're going to tell me that the grand chess masters that take their total allocated time to make a move, because they are studying the board, thinking several moves ahead, are less skilled than the novice that only sees what is on the board and moves their piece within a few seconds?

The game is not a sprint. Dropping troops quickly and watching them go is not necessarily a true measurement of skill, compared to one that drops their troops in strategic (read: not in one spot) ways.

Your suggestion seems to favor the clock boost, or rather saving it, which is a different animal than skill.

---

Trying to rush a battle risks not getting the three stars. Triggering the eagle too early means you lose. This is not a random thing. Hog rush against TH10 is now a thing? It’s it happening so often it is a problem?

Could chess have a draw (insufficient material remaining) tie breaker based on whose clock has more time? You know, that could work!
The chess novice could not bring the grandmaster to a draw. A novice CoCer could not achieve 3 stars against an advanced base.

The game is is definitely a sprint. Three minutes to do something much. Dropping troops quickly without skill means watching them die in effectively. Not wasting time is one skill. Can you suggest any other tie breaker?

On the the builder base ordinary versus battle, a tie breaker would definitely suit fast play during the clock boost. Is something wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

Who says anything about “limiting” options??

This is about a second level tie breaker. A fair tiebreaker is one that doesn’t give systematic advantage, like time of attacks connected to time zone.

In the current game, a faster attack is not better, no. Three stars in one minute gives no better score than three stars in 2:59. The point is to find a tiebreaker that is consistent with game objectives.

Do you not experience war ties?
On the builder base, do you not experience draws? Or are you happy with them?

presumably you think that steering the top end player to faster attack strategy will hurt the game? I don’t think so, it requires more skill.

---

All things being equal, yeah time would be fine. But if one person three stars with bowlers and another with balloons, the balloon attack takes longer. That's just the way balloon attacks are. Given that, tiebreaking based on time punishes the player who used balloons, despite an equal outcome. That's why it's limiting attack strategies. Why would I use balloons knowing that, if my opponent three stars me with bowlers, I'm going to lose because I took more time? I'd have to use bowlers to stand a chance at winning. That's not fair.

Why are we worried about a tiebreaker?? If you tied, you tied, deal with it. If you don't want to tie, then improve your bases. Make your defenses stronger. Arbitrary tiebreakers that have nothing to do with which clan actually did better seems foolish to me. Having a minimum th10 in your lineup with actual developed defenses will almost guarantee that you will not end in a tie.

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between the idea that this game is about attacking and defending.

gonna add another thing about the attack time tie breaker. what if its a dip attack? say a th11 hits a th9 in war , 3 starred in a minute. does it count as the better attack?

Perhaps the tie breaker should be a rematch between the #1 bases from each clan. This removes the engineered bases from the equation. If they continue to tie then they either go at it again or given a choice of a draw which results to what we currently have.

Taking war ties as win will promote clans to do war with all engineered account.No thanks

There are three conclusions to a war. Win, loss, tie. Why is this so difficult to understand? A tie is not a win, a loss is not a win. A tie is a perfectly valid result and does not need to be changed. Given some of the posts in this thread that dispute the regularity of ties in the first place, why should we care enough to change it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjalvl999

gonna add another thing about the attack time tie breaker. what if its a dip attack? say a th11 hits a th9 in war , 3 starred in a minute. does it count as the better attack?

---

is that logically possible. In war, a tie break on fastest attack against #1. War rank is by defensive strength, #1 is the toughest base. Are you concerned about the severely lopsided base that attacks #1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tosti111

There are three conclusions to a war. Win, loss, tie. Why is this so difficult to understand? A tie is not a win, a loss is not a win. A tie is a perfectly valid result and does not need to be changed. Given some of the posts in this thread that dispute the regularity of ties in the first place, why should we care enough to change it?

---

A tie is an anticlimax, to both sides. That’s why they introduced %destruction as a tiebreaker. Sometimes that requires a tiebreaker too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorbash098

Perhaps the tie breaker should be a rematch between the #1 bases from each clan. This removes the engineered bases from the equation. If they continue to tie then they either go at it again or given a choice of a draw which results to what we currently have.

---

Perhaps tiebreak by the weaker player who 3 stars the enemy #1? This is sort of an anti-engineered thing. Tie break by rematch would be bad because it means extending the gamebeyond the game time of 24 hours. Someone who has gone off farming has to come back to war mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Having a minimum th10 in your lineup with actual developed defenses will almost guarantee that you will not end in a tie.
.

---

Lock most of the clan out of war to avoid ties? No thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

All things being equal, yeah time would be fine. But if one person three stars with bowlers and another with balloons, the balloon attack takes longer. That's just the way balloon attacks are. Given that, tiebreaking based on time punishes the player who used balloons, despite an equal outcome. That's why it's limiting attack strategies. Why would I use balloons knowing that, if my opponent three stars me with bowlers, I'm going to lose because I took more time? I'd have to use bowlers to stand a chance at winning. That's not fair.

---

You don’t like faster being tied to better, ok. What about the attack closer to 2 minutes 45 seconds breaks the tie? Even with those hasty bowlers, you can go slow with cleanup troop placement to go for the winning time, just in case this tie break is needed.

I’m not sure I agree balloons are slow. Sometimes balloons give very fast wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

A tie is an anticlimax, to both sides. That’s why they introduced %destruction as a tiebreaker. Sometimes that requires a tiebreaker too.

---

In my mind, if you tie on stars, then i can see a tiebreaker on%. If you tie on stars AND %, then that is a tie, period. Yeah, it is anticlimactic, agreed, but sometimes life is full of anticlimactic moments. I can deal with it especially since by folks own admission here it occurs very rarely and after 4 years playing and being fully max I have only seen it once or twice. Not an issue that needs to have any time spent on it in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

Perhaps tiebreak by the weaker player who 3 stars the enemy #1? This is sort of an anti-engineered thing. Tie break by rematch would be bad because it means extending the gamebeyond the game time of 24 hours. Someone who has gone off farming has to come back to war mode.

---

Yes it is an anti-engineered thing. Which is why I suggested it. It is ridiculous to think that the tie breaker should be decided by the defenseless TH11 with max level TH11 troops at the bottom of the roster.

Yes, you extend the game to break a tie just like many other games and\or sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorbash098

Yes it is an anti-engineered thing. Which is why I suggested it. It is ridiculous to think that the tie breaker should be decided by the defenseless TH11 with max level TH11 troops at the bottom of the roster.

Yes, you extend the game to break a tie just like many other games and\or sports.

---

Ok, got it. Most tied wars topped by low TH10s or lower. They could bring a specialist defenceless TH11 for the sole purpose of winning the tie breaker. Good point. I like your idea.

Tie break in extended time? It could work well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

Lock most of the clan out of war to avoid ties? No thanks.

---

You clearly missed the point, although I see you get it in a later post. You don't have to lock anyone out of wars, what I was saying was that if your war lineup has at least one well developed th10 in it, then ties are extremely infrequent almost non existent.

I am currently in 3 clans with different accounts. Looking at the war logs of each one of them, not a single tie in any of them. That's at least 150 wars without a tie, I know that's a small sample size, but honestly I can't remember the last time I tied a war. It comes down to having some defenses that are able to stop the opponents, which is often an overlooked aspect.

So as I said before, run with a lineup of at least one minimum developed th10 and you will find the need for a useless arbitrary tiebreaker non existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

You clearly missed the point, although I see you get it in a later post. You don't have to lock anyone out of wars, what I was saying was that if your war lineup has at least one well developed th10 in it, then ties are extremely infrequent almost non existent.

I am currently in 3 clans with different accounts. Looking at the war logs of each one of them, not a single tie in any of them. That's at least 150 wars without a tie, I know that's a small sample size, but honestly I can't remember the last time I tied a war. It comes down to having some defenses that are able to stop the opponents, which is often an overlooked aspect.

So as I said before, run with a lineup of at least one minimum developed th10 and you will find the need for a useless arbitrary tiebreaker non existent.

---

I see a lot more ties than you, obviously. Three still in the log, but there have been periods of more. Your points are largely right, when the TH10-11s are in war, 100% is rare. Mini wars, 10v10 5v5, usually while the top end are out due to upgrading queens, see usually 100% by one side, and ties are common. In the second clan, when they turn up, usually get 100%, and sometimes the other side does too. The top accounts are TH9 second accounts of TH10-11 players.

so sure, you can do things to not get a tie, and then you don’t need a tiebreaker. So what? If you don’t need the second tiebreaker, why object to others who do have ties from having it?


Also the builder base, where maybe one third of my battles are drawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

I see a lot more ties than you, obviously. Three still in the log, but there have been periods of more. Your points are largely right, when the TH10-11s are in war, 100% is rare. Mini wars, 10v10 5v5, usually while the top end are out due to upgrading queens, see usually 100% by one side, and ties are common. In the second clan, when they turn up, usually get 100%, and sometimes the other side does too. The top accounts are TH9 second accounts of TH10-11 players.

so sure, you can do things to not get a tie, and then you don’t need a tiebreaker. So what? If you don’t need the second tiebreaker, why object to others who do have ties from having it?


Also the builder base, where maybe one third of my battles are drawn.

---

We don’t actually do anything not to get ties, we play 10v10 up to 20v20 based on who wants in, no roster engineering or even attempt ar roster manipulation, we play with what we have opted in.

As far as the BB goes, yes i see plenty of ties as well, but it really shouldn’t be in the same discussion as the MV as they are two completely different games.