2nd Tie-Breaker: Time

I think we should accept that we're gonna get a tie every once in a while... Besides, at this point, getting a tie is a bigger win than a victory :smirk:

I think everyone misunderstood my point. Some people even misunderstood the whole thread. Let me explain it again, Clan A w/ 10 Members matches against Clan B w/ 10 Members. They both score 30 stars so total destruction of both sides is 100%. The clan that hit the first attack (can easily tell from war log) wins the war.

Why is this a good idea? Encourages planning or gemming troops to get the first attack in as fast as possible. More incentive to gem = more income for supercell so they should implement this.

Do we even really need a 2nd tiebreaker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reav3R

It's still possible for low TH wars to end up 100% destruction max stars. In this case (if both clans score perfect), the clan that attacked first should be the winner. What do you guys think? Please don't move this thread, I'm asking for opinions.

---

I couldn't disagree more.

If you really feel that you need a tiebreaker in that circumstance (I don't, but I'm not American), then possibly use total attack time (as in add together the time taken by each best attack).

But doing it on what point during the war the attacks happened penalises clans which are spread across different time zones, which is quite common, and also penalises those who like to wait for clear up attacks until late in the war, which is also very common.

Your suggestion would lead to an absolute frenzy of attacks in the first hour, and clans being reluctant to have anybody in the war who can't attack in that time frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McHalo

Highly unlikely that a tie in percentage would occur but maybe the clan that achieved the perfect star count first

---

It isn't unknown for smal wars to have a perfect score (i.e.) all bases 3 starred.
In that case, by definition, the best attack on each base is 100%, and both sides would have the same 100% tibreaker score.

Personally, I think it that circumstance, it should remain a tie.

But some people (particularly but not entirely Americans) don't like having any ties at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AikenDrum

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.

---

There always was a difference in the loot bonus between a draw and a loss.

A win got 100%, a draw got 40%, a loss got 30%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reav3R

I think everyone misunderstood my point. Some people even misunderstood the whole thread. Let me explain it again, Clan A w/ 10 Members matches against Clan B w/ 10 Members. They both score 30 stars so total destruction of both sides is 100%. The clan that hit the first attack (can easily tell from war log) wins the war.

Why is this a good idea?

---

It certainly is NOT a good idea.

I have no idea why you think anyone misunderstood your point, since that is what they have been responding to.

Quote:

---

Encourages planning or gemming troops to get the first attack in as fast as possible.

---

And you think this is a good thing just why, exactly?

Quote:

---

More incentive to gem = more income for supercell so they should implement this.

---

It might just gain Supercell a little income.

But without really gaining the players anything, which would be a very bad thing.

OP's proposal does not measure skill at all to my mind. If 2nd one is really needed attack duration is much better.

This is terrible :facepalm:

We already have a tie breaker, if it is still a tie a draw is fair

If both sidess get all the stars the win should go to the side thats first to get all the stars