Exactly.. and if someone clears my entire base, congrats, you won! have three stars! I'd much rather that than survive on time when the entire army runs past a stupid builder hut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teske22
Printable View
Exactly.. and if someone clears my entire base, congrats, you won! have three stars! I'd much rather that than survive on time when the entire army runs past a stupid builder hut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teske22
Can you add a 5th option? "Anything but "A""Quote:
Originally Posted by thebuch4
I'm fine with the star system as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebuch4
Everyone seems too focused on "getting credit" for a "near perfect" attack, versus an attack that barely gets a 2 star.
You need to look at the bigger picture of how this will affect CW in general.
Adding more granularity to the scoring system (more adding more stars, or using a destruction % system) greatly shifts the odds of winning wars to the stronger clan.
I can understand people that would prefer this kind of change, since this would be akin most professional sports games. Example: A stronger NBA team will most likely win against a weaker NBA team. Upsets are much less likely.
Less granularity to the scoring system (current system) allows Clan strategy/coordination to have a greater affect on the outcome of the game, and therefore allows weaker clans to have a chance against stronger clans.
Using another sports analogy, the current system is more like the Ryder Cup in golf.
Choosing how the players pair up (in CoC, choosing who attacks what base), can greatly affect the total outcome of the competition/war.
The stronger clan (based on troop levels and defenses) already has a distinct advantage in CW. And we all know that matchmaking rarely makes an "even" matchup. I would rather NOT change the scoring system to give stronger clans and even bigger advantage. I would rather have Clan strategy/coordination to not lose its value in CW.
I disagree with this system helps upsets. Let's say we have a war with 4 TH9s at the top with 7s and 8s below vs a clan with 3 TH9s at the top. If both are good clans, they might strive for two starring the 9s and three starring the 8s. The clan with 4 nines gets an additional 5 attacks on 8s, while the clan with 3 9s only gets 2 attacks on 8s.
If we reward people for three starring on their level somehow (by lowering the bonus for dropping down for a TH), then we create a system where the weaker clan has a MUCH better ability to win the war, because the current system is very, very top heavy and which top can muster more 3 stars, whereas the rest of the board is either 3 stars for lower wars or 2 stars for TH10s.
I have a signature!
Yes when you 75% two star it should be the same as anyone else 51% two starring. Both are bad attacks if you're going for 3 stars.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebuch4
Rewarding mediocrity would be making 75% or some other number a goal.
75% > 50%Quote:
Originally Posted by coachmoneyball
90% > 50%
Having more points at which stars are awarded does a better job of recognizing how strong the attack was. Plain and simple.
It also lowers the benefit of a perfect 100%, of course, when compared to the next level down.
.... Yet the system already rewards 50%, which at anything other than max TH10, is the very definition of mediocre. Those D- students.Quote:
Originally Posted by coachmoneyball
Also, a lot of max TH10s are literally impossible to 3 star. Why not reward stronger attacks on them? And why should people stop attacking at 50% if they aren't going for a 3 star? I should hope most of the TH8 on TH8 attacks on my war base aren't legit three star attempts, because they aren't close.
I don't think a change should be made. In an unbalanced war, the weaker team may be forced to go for a 2 star raid. After being thrown into an unbalanced war you should not be penalized because your team just wasn't strong enough to compete. It's just not fair.
Whatever star system that is linked with an objective (TH) anyone comes up with, there will always be people that fall through the cracks and complain about how they should have gotten more or less for the attack because of 1% to 2%s here and there.
It would be far simpler to do away with the TH and go for straight percentages to avoid any confusion, but that would make the game less interesting and perhaps easier.