Win streak

This could be a good idea if you remove the win streak reset if a war lead to a draw, at least when there is perfect war from both side. Thank you so much.
Btw i'm not English sorry for mistakes

Convince me that a draw is a win, then I'll agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaledonian

Convince me that a draw is a win, then I'll agree with you.

---

If he manages to convince you or not, maybe we should just turn off win streak as a metric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tosti111

If he manages to convince you or not, maybe we should just turn off win streak as a metric.

---

Whether the metric is turned off or not, a draw still ain't a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleYasuo

This could be a good idea if you remove the win streak reset if a war lead to a draw, at least when there is perfect war from both side. Thank you so much.
Btw i'm not English sorry for mistakes

---

I disagree. It is a win streak, not a streak of no losses. Also, I definitely don't think someone should be able to keep a streak going after getting 100% destroyed. A "perfect" war means your defense gave up 3 stars on every base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

A "perfect" war means your defense gave up 3 stars on every base.

---

That’s true, but I still think the faster 3 star on the #1 should tie break a 100% war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

That’s true, but I still think the faster 3 star on the #1 should tie break a 100% war.

---

Why faster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaledonian

Why faster?

---

Why faster? Because in a fight, if you can knock out your opponent faster, who cares if the opponent could have lasted longer except that he got knocked out early?

Many real life competitions reward the faster win. Boxing, first to knock out wins. Tennis, first to six games wins the set. Pursuit cycling, first the lap the other wins. Arm wrestle, first to push the other down wins. First to win wins is a pretty natural thing.

Does it favour some strategies over others, sure. Would that be game breaking? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George1971

Why faster? Because in a fight, if you can knock out your opponent faster, who cares if the opponent could have lasted longer except that he got knocked out early?

Many real life competitions reward the faster win. Boxing, first to knock out wins. Tennis, first to six games wins the set. Pursuit cycling, first the lap the other wins. Arm wrestle, first to push the other down wins. First to win wins is a pretty natural thing.

Does it favour some strategies over others, sure. Would that be game breaking? I think not.

---

All you've done is offer up terrible examples that do not explain why faster is good. All your examples, except the tennis one, are wins in their own right; first to 6 doesn't guarantee a set in tennis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaledonian

All you've done is offer up terrible examples that do not explain why faster is good. All your examples, except the tennis one, are wins in their own right; first to 6 doesn't guarantee a set in tennis.

---

I demonstrated that first to win is a common concept. As a second level tiebreaker ( stars, then % destruction, then time of attack for win against #1), it shouldn’t be expected to be awesomely good.

First to six doesn’t guarantee a win? You are referring to a game score of 6-5? Overly pendantic I think.