Clan War Balancing - 4 Stars per base system.
Hi, I would like to propose a system (particularly in war, doesn't have to apply in regular raids) of 4 stars per base. The system would be similar to the current, but with the addition of a 4th star. In my mind (or similar as per supercell design) it would be 1 star for 50%, 1 star for town hall, 1 star for 80% destruction (or around there) and 100% for the final star. I will try to explain as much detail as I can about why.
High Level Thoughts:
The basis of this is as follows, there is a huge amount of difference in effort and achievement attained between 2 stars and 3 stars, especially in the high levels (such as TH9 - 10). Destroying the second 50% of a base can be wildly difficult, and most people that are very close, or put a lot of effort, are not being rewarded for it. Very commonly, a lot of players give up on a 3rd star. They simply charge into the center of a normal base, using attacks that are not thought out, intentionally just for something around 53% and two stars. These players are being rewarded the same amount of stars as those who actively try to completely defeat a base with 80%+ destruction. Hence there is conflict in clans because there are those who don't care and want to use the bare minimum with the cheapest army to get 2 stars, and those who try to get 3 stars and fail, and they will both achieve the same result. This is not my idea of good game design. The worst case scenario happens, when there is a war, where both clans have a large amount of 2 stars, the losing clan has a much much higher average base destruction, but lost because of slightly imbalanced matchmaking (top 5 players of winning clan achieves 6 stars more in total by defeating top 5 players on other clan). I strongly believe the deserving clan should win if their attacks were of higher quality and higher achievement (especially if both sides were almost same number of 2*).
Balancing Under-rewarded Strategies
Certain strategies suffer the difficulty of getting more stars, such as mass hog riders, balloons, which will target defenses, and then town hall/any when defenses are defeated. I can't even count the number of times I've seen 1 star 80%+ damage because of timeouts, sudden bombs blowing up a pack of hogs, etc. I think it's unfair versus the amount of players who just simply use mass dragons, 3 rage spells to just charge straight to the center for 2* less than 70% dmg. Or even cheaper methods such as 18 giants, 18 wiz and just charge down the center for 2*. With the proposed 4* system it'll REWARD THOSE who destroy the MASS MAJORITY of the village (increase 1/3 stars to 2/4* when missing the town hall), and DISCOURAGE CHEAP STRATEGIES that have NO INTENTION OF DESTROYING the village (those that simply want to snipe TH and barely 50%, will now get 2/4* instead of 2/3*).
Rewarding Higher Destruction Achievements
Part of the game is the increasing complexity of bases and increasing difficulty especially in the high TH9-10. I see a lot of advanced level attacks such as GoWiWi, GoWiPe, Lavalonian, etc at the upper ranks (I'm personally close to maxed out TH9). There is a huge difference in skill between each player through unit placement, composition, placement timing, etc. You can also tell when one player is aiming to simply 2* versus attempt to make the super difficult 3*. I think those who achieve more should be rewarded, and that should be a huge determining factor in high level wars. This will encourage players to think more, plan more, and try to make more thorough attacks even if they think 100% is impossible. A player who just charged a few rage spells & heroes into the center town hall for 2* should not be rewarded the same as the one who spent a few minutes planning perfect placement and got 85% destruction. At the high level where its ridiculously hard to get 100%, the 4* system is a great way to reward the better performances from those who just "barely made the 2*". This of course, applies to everybody at all stages of the game, not just the high level, but I just use the TH9-10 as an example because the game so much more obviously difficult/complex at that stage.
Decreasing impact of imbalanced matchmaking
Imbalanced matchmaking in clan wars is common, I get it. There are too many wars I've seen where the middle/lower pack of clan ranks (say 8. to 35) are pretty close, but the top 7 of each clan are wildly different strengths. The vast majority of players will get 2 stars (all sorts of variations of 50* destruction to 99%), but the top 7 of one "stronger" clan will be able to cheaply 2* the other with nearly no counterattack or a series of 1* from the weaker clan. With the new 4* system, the skill vast majority of the clan (ranks 8 and below in this example) will now control the greater influence. The clan whos middle-lower ranks which have higher destruction will naturally be rewarded more stars, potentially helping offset the imbalance a little bit (or reducing impact of the few stars at the top players, however you wish to see it). Of course, if both sides all have a vast amount of 3/4* attacks, the scenario doesn't change where the stronger/more successful top level players will attain the war winning stars.
These are my thoughts! The system isn't perfect not meant to fix certain and I'm sure there a bunch of cons I haven't thought of yet. :D Please feel free to comment & rebuttle!
