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
Printable View
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.
If he manages to convince you or not, maybe we should just turn off win streak as a metric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaledonian
Whether the metric is turned off or not, a draw still ain't a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tosti111
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 LittleYasuo
That’s true, but I still think the faster 3 star on the #1 should tie break a 100% war.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2222
Why faster?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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaledonian
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 George1971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaledonian
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.
You have demonstrated nothing. There's a 3 minute timer for attacks, you shouldn't be penalised for using 2m59s.Quote:
Originally Posted by George1971
I didn't refer to 6-5, I said first to 6 doesn't guarantee a set; it's possible to lose the set after reaching 6 first. Your assertion was incorrect, pedantry doesn't come in to it.
I gave a list of competitions where achieving an objective first gives you the win, and that demonstrates that faster is recognised as better in some competitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaledonian
Penalised? In builder battles, 100%-100% both lose, a tie breaker means 1/2 win, 1/2 do no worse.
In war, if I beat him 3 stars, and he beats me 3 stars faster, even by 1 second, then he did better and deserves the win.
In tennis, on winning the sixth game, you have won the set, unless your opponent has 5 games. The need to win by two points would not need to be carried over, without the need to win by two points, first to win six games has the win, guaranteed, done, end of set, “set”.
Does the win streak has no effect on points earned/lost ? or are they reduced to streaks as deducted for a loss.