Bringing 2 star attacks back to wars!

Heya!

So, I had the privilege to be at the Nordic Clash Tourney last Sunday. And I was absolutely astounded by the system they had put in place to run the wars. One feature in particular really stood out to me, and that was the no "tie" system.

This is how it works:

So we have two clans.
Invictus Kings VS Lunar Rising.
Both clans have two starred all enemy bases. And there are no attacks left on either side. Normally the end of the war would come and the result would be a tie. Well how the Nordic Clash worked, was it would then go to a second party to determine the winner. Total clan destruction %.

http://i.imgur.com/4FWlJX6.png?1

And whoever has the best % would then win the war.
Now personally, I would love to see this added to the game, because it would give purpose to two star attacks. Looking at my war log is depressing to see the amount of ties. This wont affect lower level gameplay much, but for the clans where everyone is maxed, and most wars result in a tie, this could bring that spark back to wars.

I made this thread to gauge the community, and see what you guys think. So... Is it just me? Or is this something you guys would want added to the game?

I have to agree. I LOVE the idea of this. I was actually having a conversation about this exact topic the other day. Would love for it to come down to a percentage rather than it ending in a tie, it would bring a whole new side to clan wars in a positive way (can be a negative thing to some people/clans though). I vote yes, this should definitely be a thing. Great thread, I am looking forward to viewing other people's opinions also.

It's a logical idea and easily within SC's power to add in.

I'd like to see this in game soon.

Lach, this is great and you sir should have talked to supercell about that.

This is needed for sure & as you said especially when wars are between 2 maxed out clans. This will encourage attackers to try and get best % out of each base.

Interesting idea indeed, I liked how the clans performed in the clan tournaments few days ago.

I have to ask this.. what would happen in the very rare occasion when even the Total Clan Destruction would be equal as well? Would it then go to the Total Best Attack Duration? What if that one would be equal too? Would it then be a tie?

I know these would be really really rare occasions for this to occur, but they can happen and I feel we should clarify them too if we are to talk about changing the tie system.

And no one has mentioned number of attacks won/lost? Wouldn't that be the easiest, unless that was the same, too, then go to %? Just a thought. I'm not in the higher levels of gameplay, so just throwing it out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MommySnooks

And no one has mentioned number of attacks won/lost? Wouldn't that be the easiest, unless that was the same, too, then go to %? Just a thought. I'm not in the higher levels of gameplay, so just throwing it out there.

---

If this was the case, players couldn't go for loot raids if they know it's not possible to get any extra stars etc without possibly sacrificing the war. That being said, the same goes for the percentage. There would have to be some way around this. Possibly only counting the % of the winning attacks on each base could do the job.

Thanks for the positive feedback guys :)
The better the feedback, the easier it is to present it to SuperCell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil9394

I have to ask this.. what would happen in the very rare occasion when even the Total Clan Destruction would be equal as well? Would it then go to the Total Best Attack Duration? What if that one would be equal too? Would it then be a tie?

I know these would be really really rare occasions for this to occur, but they can happen and I feel we should clarify them too if we are to talk about changing the tie system.

---

So incredibly rare, like the odds are 1 in millions. But lets say this happens, after going through both tiebreaker options, it would be safe to say its a tie. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MommySnooks

And no one has mentioned number of attacks won/lost? Wouldn't that be the easiest, unless that was the same, too, then go to %? Just a thought. I'm not in the higher levels of gameplay, so just throwing it out there.

---

The issue with that, is anyone can 1 star a base using just barch. The number of wins would skyrocket and it wouldn't be a true test of skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatLach

Thanks for the positive feedback guys :)
The better the feedback, the easier it is to present it to SuperCell.


So incredibly rare, like the odds are 1 in millions. But lets say this happens, after going through both tiebreaker options, it would be safe to say its a tie. :p

The issue with that, is anyone can 1 star a base using just barch. The number of wins would skyrocket and it wouldn't be a true test of skill.

---

So smart. Such wow. Many :thumbsup:

Good job,Lach! Great ideas and easy to read. And also...I lovvvve pics! You have my support(not a very big support lol ikr).

Great idea.

I've seen alot of people just give up half way through the attack because they know they won't get all of the stars, but with this idea, it will encourage everyone to not give up and try to get as much destruction as possible before ending the attack.

Again, i like this idea.

Couldn't this be abused though in regular matching?

Sure when all ur bases are maxed and everyone is two starred it works. But remove yourselves from that bubble and look what would happen in wars with lower ranked ths included.

In obvious tie situations top members would cross attack these poor players for the easy 100% skewing the numbers it would come down to who had the most attacks left who could pump up that number.

I say no with extreme prejudice. I hate ties. But this isn't a solution infact it would create many more problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newupdateblowsdoublyhard

Couldn't this be abused though in regular matching?

Sure when all ur bases are maxed and everyone is two starred it works. But remove yourselves from that bubble and look what would happen in wars with lower ranked ths included.

In obvious tie situations top members would cross attack these poor players for the easy 100% skewing the numbers it would come down to who had the most attacks left who could pump up that number.

I say no with extreme prejudice. I hate ties. But this isn't a solution infact it would create many more problems.

---

I don't really see it. If they are going to 100% the base, it would give them an extra war star, in which case the % wouldn't matter anyway. In lower wars like you mentioned, the top guys are always gonna clean up the bottom guys anyway in order to get their stars up.

Still, appreciate the feedback :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatLach

I don't really see it. If they are going to 100% the base, it would give them an extra war star, in which case the % wouldn't matter anyway. In lower wars like you mentioned, the top guys are always gonna clean up the bottom guys anyway in order to get their stars up.

Still, appreciate the feedback :)

---

I'm talking about cross attacking a base that's already been three starred. I'm in a war right now where three players haven't attacked at all because they have no target (only the top guys are left) in a tie situation with your proposed rules where would I send them?

I'd have them hit 14 and 15 (15 vs 15 war) repeatedly over and over again to pump up the destruction number.

Also in a tie war you'd have the top members deciding whether to go for the star or the destruction number assuming both are close. Often likely choosing to attack a lower TH for the easy destruction rather then risk lowering the destruction number and not getting the extra star. Do we really want ties decided this way?

Like I said earlier I vote no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newupdateblowsdoublyhard

I'm talking about cross attacking a base that's already been three starred. I'm in a war right now where three players haven't attacked at all because they have no target (only the top guys are left) in a tie situation with your proposed rules where would I send them?

I'd have them hit 14 and 15 (15 vs 15 war) repeatedly over and over again to pump up the destruction number.

---

Aha! I see what you're getting at now.
To avoid this, the system actually has a filter. It doesnt count every attack on a base and add the % on to the total clan destruction. It takes the last attack on the base, and adds it.
So if someone got 98%, then someone else got 55%, it would only take the 55% as it was the most recent score.
Does that make sense?
It also only counts if its two stars or more.

Ill drop the link to the video, and you can watch them explain it in more depth.
Sorry, should have been more clear in the OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc0mmXvtLR8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatLach

Heya!

So, I had the privilege to be at the Nordic Clash Tourney last Sunday. And I was absolutely astounded by the system they had put in place to run the wars. One feature in particular really stood out to me, and that was the no "tie" system.

This is how it works:

So we have two clans.
Invictus Kings VS Lunar Rising.
Both clans have two starred all enemy bases. And there are no attacks left on either side. Normally the end of the war would come and the result would be a tie. Well how the Nordic Clash worked, was it would then go to a second party to determine the winner. Total clan destruction %.

http://i.imgur.com/4FWlJX6.png?1

And whoever has the best % would then win the war.
Now personally, I would love to see this added to the game, because it would give purpose to two star attacks. Looking at my war log is depressing to see the amount of ties. This wont affect lower level gameplay much, but for the clans where everyone is maxed, and most wars result in a tie, this could bring that spark back to wars.

I made this thread to gauge the community, and see what you guys think. So... Is it just me? Or is this something you guys would want added to the game?

---

It's kinda said when you have a tie in a low lvl clan and you have 90% average destruction and theirs is 60.

Great idea Lach, would be much more satisfying not to see as many ties in clans' war logs :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatLach

Aha! I see what you're getting at now.
To avoid this, the system actually has a filter. It doesnt count every attack on a base and add the % on to the total clan destruction. It takes the last attack on the base, and adds it.
So if someone got 98%, then someone else got 55%, it would only take the 55% as it was the most recent score.
Does that make sense?
It also only counts if its two stars or more.

Ill drop the link to the video, and you can watch them explain it in more depth.
Sorry, should have been more clear in the OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc0mmXvtLR8

---

that would be an awesome addition to the game. ps. thanks for sharing that vid. was awesome :smirk::thumbsup:

Yes! I was about to suggest this idea myself hahaha

I like this idea, and hope it gets inmplemented ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoCRules2478

It's kinda said when you have a tie in a low lvl clan and you have 90% average destruction and theirs is 60.

---

Hi, just checking, did you mean *sad*?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnthonyVince

Great idea Lach, would be much more satisfying not to see as many ties in clans' war logs :p

---

Thanks Anthony :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JollyRogdawg

that would be an awesome addition to the game. ps. thanks for sharing that vid. was awesome :smirk::thumbsup:

---

Thanks, great to hear :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyAutumn

Yes! I was about to suggest this idea myself hahaha

---

Haha. Beat ya :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theking8133

I like this idea, and hope it gets inmplemented ASAP.

---

Thanks King. Who knows, with enough support, I may be able to swing it to the devs. :p

This is a good idea, and supercell can obviously program it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatLach

Aha! I see what you're getting at now.
To avoid this, the system actually has a filter. It doesnt count every attack on a base and add the % on to the total clan destruction. It takes the last attack on the base, and adds it.
So if someone got 98%, then someone else got 55%, it would only take the 55% as it was the most recent score.
Does that make sense?
It also only counts if its two stars or more.

Ill drop the link to the video, and you can watch them explain it in more depth.
Sorry, should have been more clear in the OP.

---

Last attack to be counted? Wouldn't it too easy to abuse, by sabotaging a clan's victory by purposely attack the same base for less percent?

Or do you mean the highest percentage on each base should be counted? This is my understanding about total destruction though.

This is a fantastic idea. It solves the issue that the people who want a 4 star system have without changing the star system.

Love it, great idea. Anything to reduce those frustrating ties would be brilliant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhybrid

This is a good idea, and supercell can obviously program it.

---

Thanks :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meonhoc

Last attack to be counted? Wouldn't it too easy to abuse, by sabotaging a clan's victory by purposely attack the same base for less percent?

Or do you mean the highest percentage on each base should be counted? This is my understanding about total destruction though.

---

So if 5 people attacked you in war, in this order.

1. 65%
2. 44%
3. 81%%
4. 48%
5. 71%

It wouldn't take all those attacks and add the % to the clan total. It would take only the most recent two star attack, so 71%. So attacks 4 & 5 should never have been made. Its a gamble to attack the same base again, because you never know if you will get a higher %.
So 71% gets taken and added to the clans AVG TOTAL DESTRUCTION.
Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charizzle

This is a fantastic idea. It solves the issue that the people who want a 4 star system have without changing the star system.

---

Thanks :)
Appreciate the feedback.

This is not a question about if. When, rather!

I support this idea 100%.. (see what i did there :smirk:)

Great idea! When I first started warring I thought this was how it worked but then I found out...

This is a great thing to implement for the future. Hate a tie when one clan was more superior

I thought they were already implementing this in the next update and it was just a teaser that they were using it in the Nordic Clash? Supercell know three-starring a TH10 is highly impossible and I definitely think this feature will be added in the next update, regardless. This will make high-end warring a lot better and I think lots of clans will see the benefit of 2-starring as we saw in Nordic Clash.

:thumbsup: Love the idea, but I think you mods already know what's happening in the next update :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echo006

I thought they were already implementing this in the next update and it was just a teaser that they were using it in the Nordic Clash?

---

Not to my knowlege,

I think this is an awesome idea - theres no point in a tie

That's a great idea. Ties are rubbish, other than messing up the other clans loot grab ...there is no value in it. THIS would fix it instantly and make ppl go for maximum destruction on each base.... I like it a lot!!:thumbsup:

Lach,

When you spoke about seeing this at NordicClash, I thought it was a great idea. And now that you've proposed it here, I would agree that a system of breaking ties based on percentages would help maxed clans. It would implement an extra bit of strategy for two-starring and getting a higher percentage. That would make maxed clan wars much more exciting rather than just across-the-board two stars. Great idea, Lach!

For lower levels in particular, I wouldn't want to see duration as a tiebreaking factor. You run into the possibility that you have 2 clans that achieved 100% total destruction, 3 starring every base. Is one perfect attack really better than another because it was done slightly faster?


I think if there's a tie, even ahead of total destruction, I might look at the number of 3 star attacks, or maybe even the number of successful defenses. And then there's the question of whether you're looking at the best attacks, or all attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awesomness2016

For lower levels in particular, I wouldn't want to see duration as a tiebreaking factor. You run into the possibility that you have 2 clans that achieved 100% total destruction, 3 starring every base. Is one perfect attack really better than another because it was done slightly faster?


I think if there's a tie, even ahead of total destruction, I might look at the number of 3 star attacks, or maybe even the number of successful defenses. And then there's the question of whether you're looking at the best attacks, or all attacks.

---

The problem with this is what are the chances of having BOTH sides having a perfect war? I would assume that it's very, VERY rare and like Lach already said, it would result in a tie. There wouldn't be a tiebreaker.

Also, I would say yes, one perfect attack is better than another because it was done faster. You have to think of the time limit when attacking a base - how many times have you ALMOST 3-starred a base if only there was a few more seconds?

I think this is a great idea and should be implemented. My clan doesn't tie in clan wars, but when we do, it's rather bothersome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungirl

The problem with this is what are the chances of having BOTH sides having a perfect war? I would assume that it's very, VERY rare and like Lach already said, it would result in a tie. There wouldn't be a tiebreaker.

Also, I would say yes, one perfect attack is better than another because it was done faster. You have to think of the time limit when attacking a base - how many times have you ALMOST 3-starred a base if only there was a few more seconds?

I think this is a great idea and should be implemented. My clan doesn't tie in clan wars, but when we do, it's rather bothersome.

---

If you have a clan of all TH8 and below (or better yet 7 and below) and are reasonably skilled at attacking, it's not that hard to 3 star every base on the map, so it might be more common than you think.

To me, a perfect attack is a perfect attack, so I don't think it's right to say well, you were both perfect but team A was slightly more perfect. Rather than time, I think I'd look at the total number of stars gained and then % destruction from all battles.

Great idea 👍🏼 an 80% 2 star should carry more weight than a 50% 2 star during a tie

I like the overall idea Lach, but shouldn't the best attack with the best percentage be counted?
I guess that would be more fair. Like the best attack with the best number of *.

For example -
If A attacks a particular base and manage a 2* with 75% while B also attacks the same base with 2* and an 85%. Shouldn't the second attack be counted?

Also I think I'm a little confused in the percentage calculation.
Normally the average percentage is calculated considering all attacks with your new proposed system it should take into account only the best percentage with the most *s.

It would be unfair to a person scoring 99% with 1* and if the second attack makes it 50% with 2*s then the system should take the 50% incase of a TIE. Well that's my opinion. I have to say I'm a little confused about this part still.

So I just read this part:
_________________
http://supercell-forum-content.s3.am...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by meonhoc http://supercell-forum-content.s3.am...post-right.png
Last attack to be counted? Wouldn't it too easy to abuse, by sabotaging a clan's victory by purposely attack the same base for less percent?

Or do you mean the highest percentage on each base should be counted? This is my understanding about total destruction though.



So if 5 people attacked you in war, in this order.

1. 65%
2. 44%
3. 81%%
4. 48%
5. 71%

It wouldn't take all those attacks and add the % to the clan total. It would take only the most recent two star attack, so 71%. So attacks 4 & 5 should never have been made. Its a gamble to attack the same base again, because you never know if you will get a higher %.
So 71% gets taken and added to the clans AVG TOTAL DESTRUCTION.
Does that make sense?
______________________________
Shouldn't attack 3 be counted? I mean yes it's a gamble, but it's only fair. I mean if both have TIED it means both clans are really skilled and the best of their attacks should be recorded.