War Starring System 50% = 99%

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

July 29th, 2015
Squall9010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camja11

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.

While an actual draw is actually quite rare, as I said at most only a few do something meaningful I don't understand why you think two starring is particularly hard when most in titans do it all the time, blind. Well to be fair in titans I get one starred a fair amount of the time. But I used the same base in war and got two starred by a guy with lvl25 heroes, and he wasnt particularly good either. I guess that's how much easier it is when you don't go in blind. And what you mean is they use anti-3s while trying to centralise the town hall as much as they can. All competent players up there have their eyes set on protecting against threes. I remember one time a guy wanted to be a hero and had an anti-2 base, what happened to him in war is rather obvious, and so is how people responded when they saw it.

In regards to the rest of your post others disagree apparently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3beddoe3

We were expecting a draw as well to be honest, we know both sides are more than capable of 2 starring any base! To 3 star any max TH 10 is extremely difficult so were quite happy to see us getting close to 3 starring some of their bases this war!

This is about how competitive a th10 war gets for clans who don't ♥♥♥♥♥. This is what I regard as broken.

Now think about how much more dynamic and competitive that war would've been if there was am extra star. Think about how it would make them ponder what sort of layout to have, on who to attack and how. I don't understand why people cannot see the benefits of making the star system better.
July 29th, 2015
Quarks

I absolutely see the benefits a 4star system would have for elite TH10 wars - which is, what?, maybe 10% of all wars? To solve this problem, you are suggesting to change the system for everybody.
What about the concerns that have been raised about the negative impact on mixed th mismatches?
What about the fact that in a system with such a variety of competitor skill levels, equalizing the scoring system keeps the competition tight and interesting for everybody? Having all wars decided half way through already would be terribly boring.
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how a 4/5star scoring system would benefit the whole clash community, apart from giving individual players more recognition for almost 3 starring.

On a side note, I think TH10 is in dire need of a boost to their offence, but thats a different discussion. It would make 3 stars more attainable for TH10s though, and solve the war scoring problem without affecting everybody else.
July 29th, 2015
Squall9010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quarks

I absolutely see the benefits a 4star system would have for elite TH10 wars - which is, what?, maybe 10% of all wars? To solve this problem, you are suggesting to change the system for everybody.
What about the concerns that have been raised about the negative impact on mixed th mismatches?
What about the fact that in a system with such a variety of competitor skill levels, equalizing the scoring system keeps the competition tight and interesting for everybody? Having all wars decided half way through already would be terribly boring.
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how a 4/5star scoring system would benefit the whole clash community, apart from giving individual players more recognition for almost 3 starring.

On a side note, I think TH10 is in dire need of a boost to their offence, but thats a different discussion. It would make 3 stars more attainable for TH10s though, and solve the war scoring problem without affecting everybody else.

That's because you don't know how to read. I don't know what to do about that. But I will try to say it a bit more explicitly.

Not everyone at lower levels is three starring. Many th8 clans also fail to three star. Plus the benefits of not simply protecting against either 3 stars or 2 stars, but also something in between would overall make it more engaging and give more flexibility in base layout and strategy for any clan that isn't three starring everyone. The only people not affected is clans that three star regularly. They are in the minority, but even they derive some benefit. This is about competition and more engaging gameplay, not recognition of stars specifically.

Your nonsense about equalising mismatches has been addressed several times before. I will ignore how you think that is happening and simply respond to the end result. What you are saying is that everyone should just be given a pass basically. That there should be no way to distinguish between people. That's what of comes down to. Why not just remove stars altogether then? That would achieve 'equalising' it wouldn't it? Or will you admit that equalising the score isn't a good thing?
July 29th, 2015
Holps

I see no need to change.. A 99% win is really exciting to watch and is one of the great clan war moments for defenders and an exciting fail for attackers. As for TH10's getting three stars, once you get your heroes to a high enough level it is very possible. I personally hardly ever get 3 as mine are only combined lv 41 but I have clan mates with combined heroes over 60 who do due to their power..leave well alone...IMHO..:unsure:
July 29th, 2015
Quarks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squall9010

That's because you don't know how to read. I don't know what to do about that. But I will try to say it a bit more explicitly.

Not everyone at lower levels is three starring. Many th8 clans also fail to three star. Plus the benefits of not simply protecting against either 3 stars or 2 stars, but also something in between would overall make it more engaging and give more flexibility in base layout and strategy for any clan that isn't three starring everyone. The only people not affected is clans that three star regularly. They are in the minority, but even they derive some benefit. This is about competition and more engaging gameplay, not recognition of stars specifically.

Your nonsense about equalising mismatches has been addressed several times before. I will ignore how you think that is happening and simply respond to the end result. What you are saying is that everyone should just be given a pass basically. That there should be no way to distinguish between people. That's what of comes down to. Why not just remove stars altogether then? That would achieve 'equalising' it wouldn't it? Or will you admit that equalising the score isn't a good thing?

Lol, thanks for spelling it out for me again, so kind. Next time, try doing it without the personal insults, there's a good boy.
Well, yes, I suppose in the context of this game and clanwars I am asking for a way to keep the differences in scoring to a minimum, in the interest of fun. That's why I play this game, to have fun. Close wars are major fun. When I was TH8, I left a clan because of the tedious wars we had - every single one we won by a land slide. I moved on to a clan with more higher lvl players and more challenging wars.
I have been in many clans, the consensus was the same everywhere - the close wars are the best. Some of my best memories are from wars my clan lost by one star, the tension at the end is just great.
There is a reason SC keeps the troop AI slightly wonky - because if it's too predictable, it's boring. Same goes for clanwars, an element of what you call unfairness and I call unpredictability is needed.
July 29th, 2015
TangoFever

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squall9010

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.

The game requires some experience and practice to understand. Everything can not be spelled out to you. Then again, you don't need to be an expert to know that for war purpose, it is useless to upgrade weak troops like goblins, or to upgrade air defense as a priority when one expects dragons attack.

As for SC, I don't pretend to know whether SC agrees with me or not. However, I like the game as is, and like the match making as is, or the 3-star system as is. You, on the other hand, seem to be very frustrated with the game, perhaps SC is not listening to you at all.
July 29th, 2015
Teske22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quarks

Lol, thanks for spelling it out for me again, so kind. Next time, try doing it without the personal insults, there's a good boy.
Well, yes, I suppose in the context of this game and clanwars I am asking for a way to keep the differences in scoring to a minimum, in the interest of fun. That's why I play this game, to have fun. Close wars are major fun. When I was TH8, I left a clan because of the tedious wars we had - every single one we won by a land slide. I moved on to a clan with more higher lvl players and more challenging wars.
I have been in many clans, the consensus was the same everywhere - the close wars are the best. Some of my best memories are from wars my clan lost by one star, the tension at the end is just great.
There is a reason SC keeps the troop AI slightly wonky - because if it's too predictable, it's boring. Same goes for clanwars, an element of what you call unfairness and I call unpredictability is needed.

No one has posted a substantiated reason as to why a 5 star system would make wars less close. It would make it so that the more skilled team won more frequently and not necessarily the more developed team. I have not yet made this point. If you have a clan with some 100% attackers in the squad but not many mid level players, than an opponent can capitalize on picking up some 4/5 star attacks to overcome that 100% 5/5 star attacks, and still have the chance to win.

My 1 war sample size example. I just had a war where one of my TH9s 3 starred one of the other TH9s in a small war 15 vs 15 with only 4 TH9s. Our 9s are all developed and so were the opponents. Nothing was rushed and none of the TH9s were "new" either. There was quite a gap between the lowest TH9 and the first maxed TH8. Once that three star happened with the third attack of the war. I said "we just won". Meaning, the other team wasn't going to three star any of our TH9s so the best the other team could do is lose by 1. I was right. We won 41-40. Had their been more variety with the war stars then the other team could have capitalized on some of our 3/5 star attacks with some 4/5 star attacks and actually won the war.
July 29th, 2015
Teske22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holps

I see no need to change.. A 99% win is really exciting to watch and is one of the great clan war moments for defenders and an exciting fail for attackers. As for TH10's getting three stars, once you get your heroes to a high enough level it is very possible. I personally hardly ever get 3 as mine are only combined lv 41 but I have clan mates with combined heroes over 60 who do due to their power..leave well alone...IMHO..:unsure:

That would not at all change within my new 5 star system proposal. Please read entire forum post before objecting to unchanged aspects. :)
July 29th, 2015
Squall9010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quarks

Lol, thanks for spelling it out for me again, so kind. Next time, try doing it without the personal insults, there's a good boy.
Well, yes, I suppose in the context of this game and clanwars I am asking for a way to keep the differences in scoring to a minimum, in the interest of fun. That's why I play this game, to have fun. Close wars are major fun. When I was TH8, I left a clan because of the tedious wars we had - every single one we won by a land slide. I moved on to a clan with more higher lvl players and more challenging wars.
I have been in many clans, the consensus was the same everywhere - the close wars are the best. Some of my best memories are from wars my clan lost by one star, the tension at the end is just great.
There is a reason SC keeps the troop AI slightly wonky - because if it's too predictable, it's boring. Same goes for clanwars, an element of what you call unfairness and I call unpredictability is needed.

if one side was capable of three starring they would open up a gap that cannot be closed. But in the case of a 'close war' where no one is getting threes (or an equal number on both sides), where this new star would have an affect, the current scenario on such a case is a draw.

In the end the result is either polarisation, a draw, or a war with only a few contributing with the rest just performing easy two stars.

These close wars you speak of is in the case of both sides being able to cross the barrier into three stars and both sides having similar skill levels. You will not be affected by it and these wars will still exist. But you imply these close wars are elusive. You are the one who is ignoring those clans you win landslides against. They will benefit from the change and also be able to have more competitive wars. Did you not read my post again? And still ask me not to insult you?
July 29th, 2015
Teske22
Quote:

Originally Posted by meowr

I DO want the smarter/weaker clan to have a good chance of winning.
Did you even read my post on granularity? (post #250)

The underdog already has a hard enough time making up stars.
Adding more stars (or using %) that a naturally Stronger Clan* can more easily obtain, would make the underdog's task even harder. THIS I do NOT want.

*Stronger Clan - as defined before, the clan that has on average, better walls/troops/heroes/defenses versus their opponent.

If you cannot understand how the "Stronger Clan" can naturally gain more % attacking, and naturally give up less % on defenses (not taking into account attack skill, and attack coordination) then there's no hope in you ever understanding the problem.
If you cannot understand how this naturally "Stronger Clan" and added granularity would make the "Weaker Clan" work even harder than before, to eek out a win, then, again, you have no hope in understanding the situation.

Unless of course, you would prefer it if the clan with better walls/troops/heroes/defenses nearly always wins.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!! But we completely disagree.

Okay... so I'm the underdog. My inventories are lesser than the other clan's troops and defenses. Since we have a lot to overcome, how do I win? Let's assume I have the superior skilled team.
1. Optimize war path to assure we 100% all of the bases that we should 100%
2. Attack from our lowest member twice and move on up so that the lowest bases are taking shots at the lowest base that are not 100% completed. This doesn't waste attacks, and provides intel to a superior ranking team members of traps. (making sure you have enough attacks to cover all bases)
3. Execute execute execute!
Is that enough? I don't know. My more skilled team will certainly demonstrate greater attacks even against greater bases.

So what can we do to allow the greater skilled team with lesser inventory a decent chance to actually win the war?

Well, you could implement a 5 star system that would reward players capable of reaching another threshold of a star level to differentiate from a team with higher troops that can only dive core to 2 star? Wait I think I have such a system!

My 5 star discrete system:
50% - 1 Star
80% - 1 star
100% - 1 star
TH - 2 stars
Total Stars = 100%

The way in which to create more underdog victories is to create more variability. The way to do that is to have additional stars. This will allow for more skilled teams with lesser inventory levels to pull out more victories. I think that's exactly what you mean by "underdog", only I think you are looking at it from the wrong direction.

The more skilled team on the day of the war should win the war, even if their inventory is lower than the opponent. This five star system supports that, not discredit it. The idea is to NOT automatically award the team with higher inventories as often times they don't deserve to win.

We are in 100% agreement on what we are trying to attain with the star system. The point of contention is that I firmly believe a 5 star system with more variance to reward attacks 75% or greater will help the smarter/weaker clan win more wars!! Do not fear my friend, I am CERTAINLY not advocating that the "stronger clan" wins. I hope you can respect my belief is that a 5 star system would accomplish what both you and I want.

Not much left to say on this stance, but if you accept that more variance creates more unpredictable results that will benefit the skillful/smarter then you should be able to see a 5 star system actually benefits the weaker/smarter clan. Interested in your response.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page