War Starring System 50% = 99%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuch4

Overall, all the game specialists have proven unable to support any change in the game and defend everything SC throws out, probably in return for their rank.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissJayAlexander

Yes probably all the game specialists won't support any change in the game and defend everything SC throws out in return for their rank.

---

You must not be reading many of my posts, there are many things I believe should be changed which I post about often.

Leagues need an overhall
Heroes in war
No default troop before battle
Change EarthQuake so lv 1 isn't the same as max
Improving TH7 balance so Dragons aren't so unbelievably dominant.

The list goes on, there are many; many things I battle for.

This just isn't of them. We all have different opinions, but please do not paint us GASPs are parrots. I can't speak for others but that certainly isn't the case here.

Quote:

---

So how are you going to tell me that my proposal devalues the town hall? My proposal says the town hall is equal to killing 50% of the base! As it is now.

---

Sure

3 star system. Hall is therefore worth 33.3% of the potential star total.
4 star system. Hall is therefore worth 25% of the potential star total.

Clan Wars is the one part of the game where the hall is truly significant. I want it to stay that way.

Because as we all know the Hall is worthless for farming. And for trophy pushing it's just a bonus, as long as you get a least 1 star by 50% you're moving forward.

A system where you can get 2 stars by not touching the hall is frankly, ridiculous.

Right on cue, one of our 9's makes several fundamental mistakes hitting their top 9s.. and ends up with a 52% two star. That attack should not be counted the same as a near perfect 96% that ran out of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz258

You must not be reading many of my posts, there are many things I believe should be changed which I post about often.

Leagues need an overhall
Heroes in war
No default troop before battle
Change EarthQuake so lv 1 isn't the same as max
Improving TH7 balance so Dragons aren't so unbelievably dominant.

The list goes on, there are many; many things I battle for.

This just isn't of them. We all have different opinions, but please do not paint us GASPs are parrots. I can't speak for others but that certainly isn't the case here.



Sure

3 star system. Hall is therefore worth 33.3% of the potential star total.
4 star system. Hall is therefore worth 25% of the potential star total.

Clan Wars is the one part of the game where the hall is truly significant. I want it to stay that way.

Because as we all know the Hall is worthless for farming. And for trophy pushing it's just a bonus, as long as you get a least 1 star by 50% you're moving forward.

A system where you can get 2 stars by not touching the hall is frankly, ridiculous.

---

Speaking of not reading posts, in this thread I've said my solution at least 8 times and it isn't a 4 star system.. but yes, my solution puts the TH and 100% bonus at 1/4 of the total each; however, it isn't devaluing the town hall relative to a 50% two star at all, what it's doing is adding value on an appropriate scale for each building destroyed past 50%, so it's doubling the value of destroying 99% of the base relative to 50% of the base. For TH10s, this would nearly perfectly preserve the relative value of the TH while awarding better attacking for each percent past 50%, and would create a much better system for judging the strength of attacks at other TH levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuch4

Right on cue, one of our 9's makes several fundamental mistakes hitting their top 9s.. and ends up with a 52% two star. That attack should not be counted the same as a near perfect 96% that ran out of time.

---

near is not perfect. there are no extra points for nearly doing something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeei

near is not perfect. there are no extra points for nearly doing something...

---

Then explain the presence of an extra point for destruction that isn't anywhere close to destroying the entire base?

He didn't come close to perfect. Miles away. It was a pretty bad attack. Why does he get points for losing badly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuch4

Speaking of not reading posts, in this thread I've said my solution at least 8 times and it isn't a 4 star system.. but yes, my solution puts the TH and 100% bonus at 1/4 of the total each; however, it isn't devaluing the town hall relative to a 50% two star at all, what it's doing is adding value on an appropriate scale for each building destroyed past 50%, so it's doubling the value of destroying 99% of the base relative to 50% of the base. For TH10s, this would nearly perfectly preserve the relative value of the TH while awarding better attacking for each percent past 50%, and would create a much better system for judging the strength of attacks at other TH levels.

---

I quoted yourself and MissJay. MissJay proposed the 4 star system. My final point been, I am firmly against 2 stars been awarded for failing to destroy a hall; which is relative to many of the proposals in this topic.

Many believe otherwise which is fine. Feel free to continue to debate the point with others, but do not attack me just because I am a GASP. I'm a clash player with an opinion just like everyone else in this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz258

I quoted yourself and MissJay. MissJay proposed the 4 star system. My final point been, I am firmly against 2 stars been awarded for failing to destroy a hall; which is relative to both your and MissJays suggestions.

Many believe otherwise which is fine. Feel free to continue to debate the point with others, but do not attack me just because I am a GASP. I'm a clash player with an opinion just like everyone else in this topic.

---

Well my solution doesn't have stars to begin with, so it doesn't award two stars for failing to hit the TH. It would; however, give nearly as many points for a 99% that misses the TH as a 50% that gets the TH, which I think is perfectly reasonable.. In most cases, it's harder to get 99% missing the TH than it is to get 50% and the TH, but that's another story.

Or, another example. Last war, my near max TH8 99%ed a strong TH8 using a GOVALO attack with a very sizeable percent of my army left for clean up... The entire army ran right past the corner builder hut, and by the time it doubled back to it, I barely ran out of time for a 99% two star. This war, against a similarly tough base, I noticed exposed AD's and so I wanted to test the hoggability with my baby TH7 account, but then I screwed up my hog deployment and most were killed by a giant bomb hitting the second air defense.. Leaving me with like a 50% two star. Sure, you can tell me I should have dropped an archer on that builder hut or something, but can you really tell me those two attacks really deserve getting rewarded equally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebuch4

My solution for about the 8th time this thread:
Scrap stars, each base is worth two points. You get half a point for the TH, and half a point for the TH. The rest is just a straight % destroyed. So a 99% 2 star is worth 1.49, a 90% 1 star is worth .9, a 50% two star is worth 1.00.. And I think any percent destruction below 40-50% shouldn't be counted to make things more interesting. We could define a "victory" as a score greater than 1 (or .7 or something, idk, that's up for debate), and most importantly, we could award the full half point if you destroy a TH on level, .4 points if the attacker is a TH above, .3 points if two TH's above, and so on and so forth (no penalty below TH7 or something though because you wouldn't want a clan to gain an advantage by bringing TH3s)

---

As much as I would like clan wars to be based on % rather than stars, that would be too complicated for the masses of players out there. For them to figure out how they can plan their remaining attacks for the victory they would suddenly have to pull out spreadsheets and calculators to calculate what % was required for X, Y, Z bases to determine whether the team has a shot at winning then that would alienate the vast majority of players that are casual.

Even if you don't need those said spreadsheets, it's far easier to say to a clan mate "reckon you can get an extra star of X base?" rather than "reckon you can get an extra 10% off X base?". Solutions have to be based around the majority of the player base and I would say we do not fit in that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKL2207

As much as I would like clan wars to be based on % rather than stars, that would be too complicated for the masses of players out there. For them to figure out how they can plan their remaining attacks for the victory they would suddenly have to pull out spreadsheets and calculators to calculate what % was required for X, Y, Z bases to determine whether the team has a shot at winning then that would alienate the vast majority of players that are casual.

Even if you don't need those said spreadsheets, it's far easier to say to a clan mate "reckon you can get an extra star of X base?" rather than "reckon you can get an extra 10% off X base?". Solutions have to be based around the majority of the player base and I would say we do not fit in that category.

---

I think it's fair to say "think you can get this score off this base", but then again, we have a far more complex way to allocate attacks than most clans we face (I'm sure ours is more like how TH9-TH10 war clans do it rather than mirror clans and whatnot)

I'm going to reiterate my statements from before, to those that want a pat on the back for "almost" getting a 3 star.

I understand you want recognition for your "marginally/questionably/significantly" better attack.
But your want of recognition is only good for selfish individual achievement.


Adding granularity to the star system (more stars, or using % destruction), in my opinion, is bad for CW.
CW match-ups are inherently flawed. Rarely are the clans matched up in strength. The Stronger Can already has a significant advantage. ("Stronger Clan" is defined as the clan with better overall walls/heroes/troops/defenses)

Just think about it. The "Stronger Clan" has better defenses and better walls, and therefore inherently will give up less % destruction on defenses versus their opponent. The "Stronger Clan" has better troops and better Heroes, and therefore will gain more % destruction on attacks. Depending on the level of mismatch, the difference between the the stronger and weaker clans' inherent % average destruction can be significant (10%+).

So depending on what "new" system you want (4th star, or % average destruction), having those extra cut off stars, WILL inherently give the stronger clan more stars. Which means the underdog/weaker clan needs to have even better skills, clan coordination, and clan strategy to pull off a upset (compared to the better skills/coordination/strategy needed in the current system)

I'd rather have attack skills, clan coordination, and clan strategy NOT lose any impact on CW.
I'd rather not have clan war results have predetermined winners because the Stronger Clan has more advantages.
It's hard enough if you are the underdog clan.