War Starring System 50% = 99%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowbug

Quote yourself for me and Ill take a look because I don't know what you are talking about and Im not going to sift through 30+ pages to find it.

---

For th10s three stars are rare. After the update that supposedly solved bunnies even known bunny clans were getting 0 three stars. That's how rare they are. For any competent th10 clan there is a high chance of a war ending in a draw of two stars with no way to distinguish between them. More stars will allow for this to happen, and wars will become more competetive, it will also make wars more 'flexible' and there would be more strategy involved, base make-up won't be so one-dimensional due to deciding what to defend from and how.

Currently they all use anti-threes due to two stars being too easy (making it harder is another possible solution, one that won't be adding an extra star which you are irrationally afraid of). And try to get some threes, mostly fail (as I said, even bunny clans were getting 0 threes at one point). If they are lucky they may pull one or two three stars off which change the tide of battle. Not much of a clan war when only a few, if that, did anything remotely meaningful. More stars mean there would be more individual accomplishments instead of <5/80 in a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowbug

You dont know how to read do you.

I dont want a change that adds nothing significant to the game. I understand why you amd OP want the change but dont agree that it is necessary, the current system is NOT perfect but it works well and its not flawed enough to change it out for another flawed system.

---

At least we can agree that the current system is flawed. That was the original purpose of this thread. The proposals and ideas were a mere bi-product of people throwing ideas out there.

Damn +30 pages of rubbish complaints. This sounds a lot like mismatch complainers.
Try to deal within the system, instead of trying to change the system for your OWN benefit, while disregarding all other users.
The 3-stars system is fine as is. Not perfect, but it is as good as it gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TangoFever

Damn +30 pages of rubbish complaints. This sounds a lot like mismatch complainers.
Try to deal within the system, instead of trying to change the system for your OWN benefit, while disregarding all other users.
The 3-stars system is fine as is. Not perfect, but it is as good as it gets.

---

So I guess they don't teach the kids to read wherever you live huh? But I guess you won't be capable of reading this post either.:(

But in the hopes that you can read, what benefits would I be receiving since you know so much about me? And in what way would that benefit not apply to all other users exactly?

But them again even if you can read guess there won't be anything good coming from you. You're the type who thinks it's OK that mismatches happen due to flawed matchmaking because people can exploit it to their benefit themselves anyway. But what a surprise! That's exactly what you do, you damn hypocrite.:facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squall9010

For th10s three stars are rare. After the update that supposedly solved bunnies even known bunny clans were getting 0 three stars. That's how rare they are. For any competent th10 clan there is a high chance of a war ending in a draw of two stars with no way to distinguish between them. More stars will allow for this to happen, and wars will become more competetive, it will also make wars more 'flexible' and there would be more strategy involved, base make-up won't be so one-dimensional due to deciding what to defend from and how.

Currently they all use anti-threes due to two stars being too easy (making it harder is another possible solution, one that won't be adding an extra star which you are irrationally afraid of). And try to get some threes, mostly fail (as I said, even bunny clans were getting 0 threes at one point). If they are lucky they may pull one or two three stars off which change the tide of battle. Not much of a clan war when only a few, if that, did anything remotely meaningful. More stars mean there would be more individual accomplishments instead of <5/80 in a war.

---

It's an argument, slightly better than, "doesn't 87% deserve more recognition than 50%"? Because no, not necessarily.

I still dont thank thats enough to need to flip the whole system when there are other more pressing issues to address and better upgrades/additions that could be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TangoFever

Damn +30 pages of rubbish complaints. This sounds a lot like mismatch complainers.
Try to deal within the system, instead of trying to change the system for your OWN benefit, while disregarding all other users.
The 3-stars system is fine as is. Not perfect, but it is as good as it gets.

---

He gets it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squall9010

So I guess they don't teach the kids to read wherever you live huh? But I guess you won't be capable of reading this post either.:(

But in the hopes that you can read, what benefits would I be receiving since you know so much about me? And in what way would that benefit not apply to all other users exactly?

But them again even if you can read guess there won't be anything good coming from you. You're the type who thinks it's OK that mismatches happen due to flawed matchmaking because people can exploit it to their benefit themselves anyway. But what a surprise! That's exactly what you do, you damn hypocrite.:facepalm:

---

Squal: I will your ignore personal attacks since they are completely irrelevant for the argument. Beside, I am not even adressing to you.

As for the matchmaking, again, it is not perfect, but definitely not flawed. People who understand it, will use it within the rules of the game to get an advantage in war - while others, being clueless about the game will continue to flock to the forum to complain.

It is the same as in this discussion. There is a huge difference between 50% and 99% yet both are generating 2 stars. That is why smart clans will sometimes assign a Th9 to attack a Th10 for 2 stars, while saving some TH10 to attack Th9 for 3 stars. This is a much smarter way to work within the system than trying the change the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squall9010

For th10s three stars are rare. After the update that supposedly solved bunnies even known bunny clans were getting 0 three stars. That's how rare they are. For any competent th10 clan there is a high chance of a war ending in a draw of two stars with no way to distinguish between them. More stars will allow for this to happen, and wars will become more competetive, it will also make wars more 'flexible' and there would be more strategy involved, base make-up won't be so one-dimensional due to deciding what to defend from and how.

Currently they all use anti-threes due to two stars being too easy (making it harder is another possible solution, one that won't be adding an extra star which you are irrationally afraid of). And try to get some threes, mostly fail (as I said, even bunny clans were getting 0 threes at one point). If they are lucky they may pull one or two three stars off which change the tide of battle. Not much of a clan war when only a few, if that, did anything remotely meaningful. More stars mean there would be more individual accomplishments instead of <5/80 in a war.

---

Based on my experience, I would have to disagree with your comments on th10 wars. In all my wars, I have not seen the scenarios above. Here's why:

wars ending in a draw are extremely rare.
While the goal is to 2 star every th10, that also doesn't always happen. Both teams would have to have 2 starred every th10. And even if that does happen, normally you have a few 3 stars to declare the winner.

anti 3 star bases are not that common. While they protect against 3 stars, they tend to give 1 star easily, and 2 stars without too much trouble. I use an anti 3 star and typically get 2 starred with somewhere between 50-59%. The odd time I get 1 starred, but I always get attacked again for 2.

Most players use a design that is hard to 3 star, but soaks up attacks. We had a player soak up 7 attacks before losing. Because of this I find maybe 5-10% of players use an anti 3 star base.

2 star raids on a maxed base with level 40 heros is a tough go. Many fail completely, some fail and only get 1 star. It's never a "lazy effort" to 2 star a maxed defense th10....ever....unless it's an anti 3 star, then it's actually a bit easier...not lazy, but easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TangoFever

Squal: I will your ignore personal attacks since they are completely irrelevant for the argument. Beside, I am not even adressing to you.

As for the matchmaking, again, it is not perfect, but definitely not flawed. People who understand it, will use it within the rules of the game to get an advantage in war - while others, being clueless about the game will continue to flock to the forum to complain.

It is the same as in this discussion. There is a huge difference between 50% and 99% yet both are generating 2 stars. That is why smart clans will sometimes assign a Th9 to attack a Th10 for 2 stars, while saving some TH10 to attack Th9 for 3 stars. This is a much smarter way to work within the system than trying the change the system.

---

I responded the way I did because there was no substance or attempt to deal with what was said. You just came here and gave a straw man argument that others have already given.

Its absurd to say that matchmaking should be exploitable. Its obvious it should do what it is intended to. Its clearly against the ethos of the game to limit flexibility. You also do not seem to understand that clan wars aren't everything. You also seem to have some sort of superiority complex, there is no reason you should need to be an expert or else face frequent mismatches. SC obviously don't agree with you either, hence why matchmaking is tweaked from time to time. So just stop making a fool of yourself already. You are being so hypocritical by saying that yet claiming what you did about this thread.

Your second point is something that is actually somewhat valid but not really. What you have conceded is wars are broken for those who do not have variance. Other people like to claim that too much variance results in mismatches. Put those two together and you are suaijg you can only work within a certain threshold of variance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teske22

Hi,

Not sure how much this has been talked about. Seems just about everything you can think of has already been posted on this forum through the years. But anyway, I figure I'd start a new thread to see what some of your reactions are.

To me, as clan leader, one of the most frustrating things I see is the vast range of a 2 star attack. Some two star attacks are completely over their head and barely have enough skill/strategy to dive core and pull off a skin of their teeth two star attacks when nothing really went well for them. Perhaps they did one thing correctly, the attack was in shambles. It seems attacks between 50%-65% (about) are usually poor attacks (at least at maxed TH9).

On the contrary, you have a player perform an attack that drives through the core, comes out the back side and tops off at 93%. Same two stars. Now that player could have done only one thing wrong, instead of the 50% doing one thing right. However, both players earned the same amount of stars for their squad.

This doesn't seem just. There are tons of solutions that could work. Move to a 4 or 5 star system, increase the percentage for a star from 50% to 70 or 75%, or insert your idea here. I don't care what the change is specifically. It seems stars should act as a performance metric and reward the player accordingly. A 49% gap acquiring the same amount of stars doesn't tell a fair story.

Updated: (after 30 pages of posts)
50% - 1 star
80% - 1 star
100% - 1 star
TH - 2 stars

Total Stars = 5

Your thoughts?

Teske22
Heart N Hustle

---

Great Idea:D. I would suggest starting a poll.