What if you tie the tie of the tiebreaker? What then? Would you have to do a 3RD tie-breaker and a 4TH extra?!?!
Printable View
What if you tie the tie of the tiebreaker? What then? Would you have to do a 3RD tie-breaker and a 4TH extra?!?!
Second tie breaker should be between the leaders and a quiz over knowledge of the game.
Weird response.Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettReef
That was the intent. lol
I dont see why we needed a tie breaker at all. If 2 clans cant be seperated by war stars after 24 hours, why can't they shake hands, walk away and accept a draw.
The only change I would like to see was a loot bonus somewhere between winning and losing and a win draw loss record rather than just wars won.
But then again I'm english and no one appreciates a hard fought draw more than us.
Funny thread ♥♥♥♥
How about if you get a perfect score, it's an automatic win. Seriously, they deserve it for the feat. Rarely, two clans will win, and sure that's a little weird, but how messed up would it be to get a perfect score and lose.
Well, clans have already tied, so a third tiebreaker is necessary. Or they could just end the horrific penalty for ties so that the uncommon situations aren't quite so terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by McHalo
Trophies have nothing to do with war, lets keep it that way. I don't want my people worrying about th sniping, I want them focused on war.Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverPets
A tie after 1st Tie Breaker should remain a tie as its today.
Time should not matter as long as you make it in 3 minutes. Why punish a dragon attacker running out of time with 5+ dragons left chasing the last builder hut, while a hog attacker barely get the last defense down, but has enough cleanup wizards to do a 2 minute time.
The tiebreaker system was meant for clans with only max th10s where every base gets 2 stars but getting 3 stars is a really rare thing if you are not modding and the base layouts are good. In this case a 10 vs. 10 will end in a tie most of the time, so now the clan that got 70-80% all the time wins over the clan that barely gets the 50%.
For elite th8/th9 wars that end up in a perfect war on both sides, I would still consider it a draw.
The duel method is a nice idea, but it should not be based on leadership. In most cases the leader is not the highest player in the clan. Making a tiebreaker duel between a max th10 and a th9 makes no sense. Sometimes the leader opts out of war because of heroes. I would take the top players, but if they are th10s you already have got this. If all th8s and th9s get 3 stared, the percentage of the top players counts, but I see a problem of potential mismatches here. Often you see a max th10 with heroes lvl30+ on one side and a mid th10 with lvl15 heroes on the other side.
The only way I could see this working is if you tweak it in this manner.
For perfect clans or those with the exact same stars and destruction, you do it based on the total time the attacks took.
For example sake...
You have a 10v10 clan war.
Each clan has a perfect 30 star 30 star perfect battle with 100% destruction.
If you can make it come down to how quick each battle was.
So lets say Clan A took a total of 20 minutes (2 min for each attack) while Clan B took a total of 30 minute (3 min for each attack)...
The clan that had the more time efficient attack would get the win...
That would mean clans would not only have to worry about stars but also how efficient their attacks can be... Having the clan attacks come down to how quick they finish the war... Aka within the first 30 min of war or within the 24 hr period is just dumb.
As a mentioned before... Having that sort of timer gives too much of an inherent advantage for clashers and would upset game balance... Changing this from a F2P game with possible money use to P2P game...