Thank you for supporting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Antdroid
Printable View
Thank you for supporting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Antdroid
Thank you for supporting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatwouldJesusdo
I likey:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by blombardo
Instead of this, why not put the Tie Breaker System suggest by Lach? It's less complicated imo.
Yeah, I like this idea.
I've noticed the problem of only 2 stars my clan with our th10s, for them there is no point in even trying for a 3 because it's pretty much impossible, while getting a 2 star is way easier and can be achieved with gowipe, gowiwi.. Etc.
Why not both? Pretty sure they would still work together :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BarneyyStinsonn
This will complicate things when guilds have TH 9 (hard to 3 star) and TH8 (or lower) (easy to 3 star) players in the same guild and war. So unless the match making system provides a check where there is always the same amount of TH8s (or lower) in the war, then it should be a good idea.
2 starring a th9 is easy as pie and 3starring is hard if not nearly impossible if it is fully upgraded with 2 windblowers and all (I have not found any youtube 3 star on a th9 in a clan war video yet AFTER the windblower update, if someone knows one please do tell).
My remarks on the side: I like the idea:D Should make things more interesting
I approve this
this will change the game too much. i dont think this possiable
Yes I like this idea. I registered today just to support this excellent idea.
The reasons why a 4 star system is supirior over a 3 star system have been posted already. And I fully agree there should be a difference of let's say 55% or 90%
:thumbsup:
So would be great to having this implemented soon!
Dunno if this is the OP trying to bump his thread or what....not putting any accusations though.......Quote:
Originally Posted by jsjsjs
Anyways, I think that this idea is interesting, but will only work if a player was a TH 10.
For other players lower than a TH 10, a four start might be too easy, and could seriously unbalance the game. High level players could just attack lower level players for four stars instead of three, which could discourage proper cooperation within clan wars.
I like the system where it is now. If it really gets boring at TH10, you could probably suggest a "instant death" type of event in clan wars for higher level players (it's just a wild idea). But I don't think this 4 star system is going to work.
Good ideal. But I don't think is applicable. Unless it applies across the board. My last war clan where we have match up with 4 th10 (rush), none on our side.How would the star system work?
This idea is awesome, combine this with the clan war tournament = PERFECT!!!
hope coc can beat dota popularity
Good Idea!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
I agree with the 4 star, mathematically it balances better in 1/4's. And it will reflect true damage done for the poor buggers who get the 99% 1 star.. Which in my opinion should result in a 50% or 2 stars equiv.. Keep up the good ideas guys! CHEERS!
Apologies as I did not read 42 pages of comments, but why not considering Win/Loss and overall damage as a war approach? To me - that would be the simplest solution.
The way I see it:
- Destroy TH or 50% of the base for an automatic WIN.
- Total destruction % adds up to a Clan Total destruction points and clan with most Wins+Damage % wins the war
As there is already an algorithm in place for tie breakers, adding such would not be too complicated as opposed to creating completely new 4 star war setup.
Great Idea and I agree that SC needs to step up in replacing outdated logic. I just like simple stuff :)
Support this idea pretty much..
Like people said getting 2 stars is pretty much easy... 3rd star ( that includes overall base ) is the tuffest and the time matters too (including killing the CC troops which few people forgot ) So a 4th star that includes (75%destruction) is a very good idea and a challenging one too ! Hope the staff and developers keep an eye on this 4 STAR SYSTEM.
Does it really matter how many stars there is it all comes out the same rather it 3 star or 10 star the 4 star you talk about every one will just get 3 out of 4 instead of 2 out of 3
I agree with you on this. My clan wars constantly and we get so tired of scrub clans who just th snipe with a gowipe and 2 star with hardly no effort. It just gets boring nobody takes chances to go for 3 star anymore.
Cburt
you have a point how ever it will be to OP. just imagine other max th10's can do 3 star th10's it depends on how you play it , how you execute it and how you destroy it.
Well, now that they've introduced the tiebreaker, I doubt we'll be seeing this. And I think the tiebreaker was the better way to go honestly; it addresses the same issue without having to change the system.
There are 2 issues I see with the 4 star system...1) for max TH10s 75% is a rather high bar. 65% might be a more reasonable compromise. 2) You'd have to adjust the War Hero achievement.
But why stop at 4? Why not go 5, 6, or even 7?
50% - 1 star
65% - 2 stars
80% - 3 stars
100% - 4 stars + 1 for the TH
50% - 1 star
60% - 2 stars
75% - 3 stars
90% - 4 stars
100% - 5 stars + 2 additional stars for the TH, for a total of 7.
I would actually love to see a system similar to these for multiplayer. I don't think players should be getting the same or less trophies for destroying 80% of a base as they do for 50% and 2 stars. The other thing it does is make a single star less valuable, and force people to come at you with better armies if they want trophies...especially now that matchmaking is giving players bases worth 40+ trophies. As a max d TH9 in champion I can routinely lose 11-14 trophies from a snipe or a 50% attack by an army that isn't really capable of getting much more than that.
The star system would necessarily have to be changed either, just the way trophies are distributed.
guys, if we make the clan castle also as the 4th or 5th star :cool:
(dont know if this was suggested):p
Its a good concept because getting 3 stars is sometimes difficult but, you add this 4 stars for 100% in but how long until someone says that 4 stars is too difficult to get? Its a never ending thing. Plus the people who usually annihalate bases are still going to get full stars for their attacks so its doesnt change anything there.
Good job mate, this is genius. I recon ditch the stars in raids, & only put them in wars
Atleast then you would get 3 stars on destroying a base 99%
I'm all for the 4th star!! At TH9, it just seems like there is too big of a gap between 2 starring a base and 3 starring it. I would bet it's the same at TH10. We have competed in many wars in which our middle players have outperformed the other clan but we still lost because they had a few good top end attacks. We've been in bunch of wars where our 2 star attacks were 80% plus, and the other clan's 2 star attacks were in the 50-60%. We really smoked them but lost. I think it would definitely make wars a lot more interesting.
I wouldn't call clan wars with all maxed bases boring. If anything, it's the most fun you could have!
Watching your clan mates fight against people the same level, with no unfair matches. The suspense and adrenaline you get waiting for that raid to finish up. Wondering, how well did they do?
Not to be rude or anything but if your clan finds 50v50 all th10 wars boring I don't think it's the war that's boring.
High level player???
if you can't fully destroy your opponent, then don't say you are a high level player. Just a player with better luck sometimes.
regards.
I don't think this is necessary, just my opinion though.
I don't understand how this is complicated, I see it as a great change. I personally love seeing people hit me with 99% damage and only get one star, but I'm still in agreement with the four stars because it IS too large of a gap, I rarely see the top 2-3 in a war get 3 stared 👍👍👍Quote:
Originally Posted by Skenderbeu
So currently there's a star system that grants stars and thus victory. For some clans, they do more % destruction but get less stars. For other clans, they have more stars but less destruction.
Since Supercell is re-working the loot and bonus system, I think something like this would solve the problem:
Rather than basing clan wars on stars, they could go by percentage points alone that total up. So for example: 100% is 10pt. 95% is 9.5pt. Based on the total destruction or wtv, they add up to the clan's total score. As for the stars: those can contribute to Bonus loot.
Benefits of the destruction point system:
1. We still get to keep the stars (for loot bonus)
2. This system could only affect clan wars.
3. Points can be directly linked to clan experience points.
4. A different, more accurate number of points for each attack.
5. New strategies that don't revolve around the town hall.
6. Portions of the village can be given a % of destruction (specific buildings).
Clan wars are meant to show the total amount of destruction one clan can do to another. So I think it would make more sense to go by destruction alone rather than stars.
I have often thought that a 4 star would be nice in the manner of 1 star for 50% or town hall, 2 star for 50% and town hall, 3 star for 100% with no time limit, and 4 star, for 100% within time limit.
Clan War should ONLY count on average destruction of all the bases. (TH is worth 20% in average destruction, other buildings worth 80%)
I love this idea, can make clan wars a bit more interesting and more competitive, but since getting xp requires 40%, 60%, and starring villages/bases, I think this would require an increase to the amount of stars a clan has to achieve in order to win xp.
Great idea which would make wars even more interesting:thumbsup:
Another different way to make a 4 star war system would be to have everything the same for the first 3 stars, but grant an extra 4th star if it was the first time the village was attacked. This does hamper scouting attacks, but it does it for everyone and for both sides. This would add a different strategy to the game.
The 4 Star System would help with a lot of things like trophy hunting and war stars, but it make it easier to win trophies. With that will have to come a new league with 6000+ trophies. So unless there's a solution to that then I don't know if this will work. There has already been two new leagues due to players who have broke the leagues. Unless you can come up with a name for another league that sounds more powerful than Legend I don't know where I fall.
Agree with OP 4 stars would be better it's way to easy to get 2 stars by getting the th and 50% that's why a lot of clans use gowipe/gowiwi style attacks it virtually guarantees 2 stars on th9 and below, getting all 3 stars takes a lot more skill but my issue is that at present you can get 99% destruction on a base but only get 1 star if you miss the th, this means that your team mates 2 star attack at 50% is rated best attack and your clan misses out on the higher destruction level awarded for total destruction which takes more skill.
I think getting extra stars for destroying more of the base would lead to more diverse attacks and encourage attackers to go for 100% destruction rather than settle for an easy 2 star attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkw
Yeah, clan wars only would be awesome
Not a bad idea but i think the win by war percentage fixed this for the most part.
% destruction comes into play in very few wars unless 2 extremely strong clans are facing each other and often because gamplay at th10 is so silly. it's ridiculous that someone spamming dragons or gowiping for 51% gets the same # of stars as someone who carefully plans an attack and gets a bad troops split (ie all troops go to one building burning time) for 95-99% destruction, especially now that time has been reduced despite larger map and stronger defensive structures.
extended attack times effectively solved this problem and although it was perhaps too much time, moving back to 3 minutes while adding the defensive advantages mentioned above makes the problem worse than ever. add four stars or split the difference and give an extra 10-15 seconds.
1 star for 50%
1 star for TH snipe
1 star for taking out all defenses
4 stars for 100%
I like the idea. A 2 star 50% being no different than a 2 star 99% is just stupid. Sometimes when I have to hit higher THs, I go for the 2 star using GoGobs lol... it doesn't seem right that a lower TH can preform as well as a higher TH (I'm talking about when attacking TH10s and TH11s here). A TH9 can get a cheap 50% 2 star, yet it would be weighted the same as a TH10 attacking and getting a 80% 2 star. That's not right.
100% annihilation nearly impossible to get, that made me chuckle haha, this system is mostly prospected towards bad players who cant 3 star regularly (regarding th9 and under), it might work for th10 exclusive clans but seems unneccesary
I think this is a great idea and believe it will improve the war experience at TH10/11.
At the moment getting three stars on a decent, well protected TH10 by a TH10 is very difficult, even with using the ferocious redheads. I'm not talking new or rushed TH10s, which always offer opportunities.
Getting two stars on TH10s on the other hand, although sometimes challenging is generally expected and usually delivered during war. A failure here often means defeat.
Offering a three star hit for 75%, will make TH10’s think more about their defence. You will undoubtedly see the rise of the anti three star base popping up.
In attack it will encourage creative combos, gone will be the days of aiming for the solid two, where a three star attack is obviously out of reach.
This feature seems great! I'm totally for it.
- 1 Star: 50% - 74% damage / (+1 star bonus if TH destroyed)
- 2 Star: 75% - 99% damage / (+1 star bonus if TH destroyed)
- 3 Star: 75% - 99% damage including TH
- 4 Star: 100%
Support a Four Star system for TH10+. The difference between 2 and 3 stars is too great.
Support the probable consequence that TH10+ clans earn more XP in war.
Support also for TH9, if TH9 defence is buffed by giving BK & AQ auto-rage. (Auto-rage: At 50% damage, they rage. No change to Warden)
A bit OP with the hero abilities activating by themselves at 50%, queen specifically don't you think?😅, remember she goes invisible and deals high volleys of damage, she is very dangerous at higher levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by George1971
Agreed, this would be a good change. I would say probably TH10+. 8's and below don't need it, and 9's can still be 100% by TH10's fairly easily.
Its not a bad idea. But 4 stars is not very logical. If you wish to increase i believe a 5 star system would work better. Just add at 25% you get one star then 2 at 50. Get another from the th. Then get 75% and the 5th star at 100%. But with any system with more stars then they woukd have to add to the amount needed for the loot bonus. Because one 100% attack at 5 stars would give you the bonus instantly. Whhile that being said more stars would make it a bit easier. While i can easily 2 star a th9. (I am th9). I usally get like 80-90% on bases equal to mine. (Max defense with mostly lv9 walls). I could actually help my clan out more instead of having to step down to get 100% on an easier base.
Should be applied to lower level TH s as well. TH9: TH and 100%=4 stars. TH and 90%=3 stars. TH and 50% =2 stars. etc.
I think the idea of adding a star is drastic to the effect that it shouldn't happen. I think the number needs to be odd anyway for clan wars so draws don't happen more often (I could be wrong). The defenses should be boosted to get rid of the easy 2 stars, but that makes 3 stars virtually impossible.
A member in my clan shared a raid where half his army was giants and the other half was archers. He got a 97% on the town hall 9 he attacked, but it had no clan castle troops.
Perhaps they need to increase clan castle troops sizes to reduce easy two stars.
I know this doesn't apply to the suggested 4 star system, but maybe my comments could help the perspective of the proposed 4 star system?
I guess the idea is good. 3 stars are boring from th10+, could be interesting also for th9. If new star amount is 4 or 5 does not matter, both will be better then 3 stars - it will make CW much more interesting
Why do you keep discuss this suggestion. It lost its actuality since 17/09 update. "Tiebreaker". Every percent of given damage is precious now.
The idea itself is not so bad, but the game already has a nice mechanism to work out all things. i'll explain:
If you implement this, it will solve many "draws" in wars, this basically says 100% is better than 99%.
But no so long ago (cant remember when) SC implemented the percentage in wars, so now if it comes to draws in stars, the percentage is used to decide who wins. In my opinion this makes the 4 star system obsolete.
Perhaps in low star wars this can make some difference between clans that let's say constantly get 50%-75% 2 star attacks, but from my experience at the end of the war there are only 90%+ 2 stars remain and the rest are 3 stars, so this will change nothing in those wars, correct?
This thread is old.
you are right, i didn't notice the date of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkthrans
I Agree to have a 4 star system!!! So many times in WAR's you have 92% of the base destroyed but only have 2 stars cause you didn't destroy the TH yet ...... to me that should be 3 stars at least leaving 1 star for the TH :)
Like this idea. Would help those that come close to 3 stars...I have had many attacks at 90+ percent only to have time or dead troops prevent the 3 star. If this was implemented people would like need or want to change their bases to try to stop the 3 star which would add interest to the game.
I do too...I think it would help bring a better scoring dynamic to clan wars.
4 star wars. We have got percentage to do decide who wins the war. Don't need 4 star wars.
Sorry, I don't like it. That makes the game not simple.
When will this get implemented? If Supercell likes strong defenses, this seems like a compromise that I could get behind.
I like this idea!
Why 4 star and not 5 star? Make the first star easy to get say destroy 35% so everyone can get something atleast. I am only talking about clan war btw.
+1 for the OP's idea of an additional star at 75% destruction, I think this is a great suggestion, just wanted to add my support.
I agree a 4 or 5 star would work well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rarifur
Why not 5 Stars...?
After Destroying all defensive Buildings...
If War has 5 Star system it would make sense bcoz you can see their bases & prepare for attack so why not 5 Star to make it interesting & make more intense, Clan Members will sure get pressured & get more active in War...
If this happens in Clash of Clans then War would be totally intense & Players gonna be totally engaged (especially new players)...
Then we'll need More Clan Levels & perks, BUTT that's another topic so leave it at that...
Loved it. Really good idea. I am still early th7 but i know isn't very good to get 2 stars sometimes in war. It is an interesting feature expecially because it makes the game more detailed, and i like that.
Yes I already played a game called Dominations, very likely to clash of clans but in the real world. In this game you win 5 stars when destroy 100% of the enemy's village, getting stars when:Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostClan
First star: When you destroy 50% of the village or destroy the town hall.
Second star: When you get any star before passed 1 minute of attack.
Third star: When you do what you didn't in the first star. For example: If you destroyed 50% of the buildings, so you need to destroy the town hall, and vice-versia.
Fourth star: When you destroy 75% of the buildings.
Fiveth star: When you get max destruction(100%).
Clash of clans would work well with this system too.
Don't like this idea for the fact it will make unbalanced wars even harder.
For example, current war our team 1 TH11, enemy has 2 (max), they have 3 starred our top TH10 (no. 2) down, and likely for us to get 1-2 on TH11's, so it's hard enough as it is without throwing extra stars in the mix.
Really amazing Idea
It will differentiate between a skilled attack and a 50% 2 star. Especially in higher townhalls.
Its very good idea, war will be more interesting when u will implement 1 more star ;) But only for th11 - lower th's - easier to make to 100% should be less important than top.
Sorry. I don't really care for this idea. Seems to complicate things too much. I like the Total Destruction percentage that SC implented as a tiebreaker. And I believe that is good enough to decide a winner!
I concur with the OP. However keeping the total destruction in tack it's in itself the best thing they've done to improve wars, too. But why not improve them yet one step further? Is it not time? Is the spot light to bright on Royale still to shine some love back to the good ol' clash universes?
I feel, however that the 4 th star should be at 90% destruction. And war itself be reworked and it's own system apart from regular raids. Truth be told.
The TH ,or Heart, grants one star that We'd keep.( of course) But a two star would be 30% and destruction and the TH or 50% destruction. A three star would be 70% destruction and TH destruction or 90% destruction. And the 4 star be total destruction.
I feel this version of war would allow the absolute most for every Defensive layout type and attack minded person to mix.
I myself don't plan for "3*" attacks hardly ever actually. I base my strategy on % and two stars. But thats just me.
I do however agree with OPs idea on 4* wars as well. I am on the side of "this change to the dynamics of war can't be worse than it is.... " And if you think so.
Drop more input. Please. If thats what we're talking about here. Right?
bump cuz I really like this
Well they've fixed this.. they done it by percentage
Work to get the most percent you can - don't go for safe 2 stars go all out and get the most percent you can - so stars don't really matter / beside of course the stars being the main focus / but do you get what I mean?
A 2 star with 67% will lose to a 2 star with 78%
So it doesn't matter if that 78%(with TH) gets the 3rd star
But a 50% + TH gets a 2 star but that equals 75% without TH? It's a little unfair on the 50% 2 star I believe
So TH + 90% would be 4 stars? That's stupid because you're receiving the full 4 stars for only 90% damageQuote:
Originally Posted by michaelgentry271
Plus reworking clan wars would be way too much work
I feel the idea put up is fine as is - doesn't need anything too complicated
possible solution on engineered clans - what's your opinion about this?
about the 4star system what if we apply it like this, A player can get a 4star instead of 3s if a player attack and perfectly destroy a townhall higher than his current level.
sample scenario 1:
th9 vs th10/th11 (good/rush/engineered) will get a 4star if he was able to destroy it.
And a 3star for a townhall equal or below his level.
sample scenario 2:
in a 5 vs 5 match game.
A team is 5 th9 and B team is 5 th11 engineered acct.
A team can get a total of 20 war star while B team can only have 15.
I believe this will stop the players from engineering their acct due to war stars.
This will also encourage the lower lvl players to challenge townhall higher than them.
- th7 vs th8, th8 vs th9, th9 vs th10, etc.
War games will become competitive again.
It think this is a nice idea.
i like this idea
Didn't dive through all of the comments, but I would prefer a 5 star one... 25% increments and town hall. Three stars would then be required for victory!
NO TOWN HALL...
0%-24% = 0* loss
25%-49% = 1* loss
50%-74% = 2* LOSS
75%-99% = 3* win
YES TOWN HALL...
1%-24% = 1* LOSS
25%-49% = 2* LOSS
50%-74% = 3* win
75%-99% = 4* win
100% = 5* win
This would really help with the dispersion of trophies in farming. Spam attacks that barely grab 50% won't be a win unless they get the town hall.
Someone brought up war attacks... this system more clearly differentiates the skill required to accomplish certain milestones in a war attack. The weight of securing the town hall is becoming less and less significant as players are only aiming for 3* attacks.
I think this is a much less complicated idea than people want to believe to roll out. Just make the third star (in my system) display big and green so as to make it very obvious when victory was achieved and everyone will have it completely understood within 3 raids.
Final benefit, trophies and shielding system can be based exactly off of the new star system; making it very obvious for players what rewards and penalties are for losing a battle.
soo good idea but what about the value of persent (%) 😐pQuote:
Originally Posted by Skenderbeu
No I won't agree with this
This idea is OP, not good at all
I think it should stay the same. Almost impossible is as it should be. It should be based on skill level of attacks and base building. There is plenty of help to build good bases or attack strategy.
I like the idea. Useful for TH10 and 11.
I'm quite confused about why it would be 'OP'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RageShy111
How does changing the amount of stars you get change how hard it is to attack? It would still be based on skill level of attacks and base building...Quote:
Originally Posted by HuaiestMao
Quite frankly I don't see the point in the two extra stars you've added. They serve no purpose as it is still a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glans14
Make it 5 so the numbers are prettier. 25% should get some love too lol
Yeah, maybe make it 5 staring, and maybe make the extra 2 stars separately based on the all defensive building being destroyed, and the other being all other buildings destroyed (besides the TH, since it has it's own star).
great idea... please read this supercell or darian and consider please
Just throwing this out there. But have your tried different attacks besides those few. I'm my clan our th10s run about 30-40% on 10v10 3 stars. (Yes they are full th10 anti 3 bases) And there are clans out there better then ours.
This should have a petition! Best idea ever! We run clan wars with a mix from th10 to th12. Under the current system (especially now town halls outside base is META! possibly due to wall wrecker) Our TH11 can and do 2* the top enemy bases. Our best TH12 attackers will often drop for 3* on TH11 bases or low TH12. This wins us many wars. It is no way to war though it really makes no sense currently.
(pretending this is a petition)
/signed