How to improve Clan Wars to reward skilled attacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoDangleZ

I support anything to make the game fair.

Playing with clans that sandbox is a huge waste of time and it even takes a toll on your clan.

Our clan typically wars once to twice a week, when you get a sandboxing clan you just feel like whats the point in playing clanwar.

I didnt care about the guys that are using clashauto because it didnt really effect me. Chances are supercell is more concerned about them because it eats into gem profits. Lets face facts though shall we, anyone who wants to ♥♥♥♥ a free to play game is likely not going to invest any money anyways.

If supercell can rid us of both, excellent. If not, please focus on sandbox clans.

---

couldnt agree more :thumbsup: sandboxers are ruining the game, making clan wars a sick joke. And if you report them you are asked to supply 'evidence' in the form of screenshots and video. When you do this supercell promise to deal firmly with clans caught using third party tools. But do nothing. Nada. Zip. The c h e a t s are allowed to win.

my experience is in this thread:

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...s-A-suggestion


oh and discussions of the c h e a t s tactics is not allowed. Supercell thought police will shut you down!

'Like the Murphys, I'm not bitter' :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxsMan

Some good suggestions there, but I feel more should be done to penalise clans that use banned tools to increase their war performance.

I have suggested a way to combat this by penalising the 'scouting' attacks that such tools require. If stars were DEDUCTED for attacks that got less than 40%, or 30%, etc, it wouldn't pay clans to use low bases to scout high ones.

Anyone who feels the same (or disagrees), please feel free to comment on my thread here:
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...s-A-suggestion

Clash On!

---

While I agree with your statement about penalising clans that use banned tools, I don't like the idea of docking stars for % destroyed under a certain limit.
We had it in our wars where one of our clan loose connection, one poor guy had only dropped his spells.
Well that could cost us a win if 3* were docked through poor internet which is no fault of our own!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rue73

While I agree with your statement about penalising clans that use banned tools, I don't like the idea of docking stars for % destroyed under a certain limit.
We had it in our wars where one of our clan loose connection, one poor guy had only dropped his spells.
Well that could cost us a win if 3* were docked through poor internet which is no fault of our own!!

---

i understand your concern about lost connections, and accidental 0 stars, but really which is the bigger problem? An occasional lost connection, or the increasingly common c h e a t i n g that costs honest clans war after war?

We have matched against blatant c h e a t s 3 times in the last few weeks and each time they scout our top bases with their bottom ones then get 3 star wins with their top ones with attacks that obviously had been rehearsed.

c h e a t s are ruining the game for honest players. They need to be stopped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxsMan

i understand your concern about lost connections, and accidental 0 stars, but really which is the bigger problem? An occasional lost connection, or the increasingly common c h e a t i n g that costs honest clans war after war?

We have matched against blatant c h e a t s 3 times in the last few weeks and each time they scout our top bases with their bottom ones then get 3 star wins with their top ones with attacks that obviously had been rehearsed.

c h e a t s are ruining the game for honest players. They need to be stopped.

---

I totally hear what your saying mate but its a bit of a double edged sword yes Wayne sleating needs to be stamped out but at what cost to the fair players? I still don't think minus stars would do anything to help the game along.
Just off the top of my head how about if the was some kind of system where certain lvl th were not permitted to attack other certain lvl th? Maybe 2 lvls up.
Ie a th of lvl 4 could not attack a th of lvl higher than 6
So a th 10 could only be attacked by th lvls that are near it ability.
I carnt see how apart from banning teams who use such methods that things will ever be stopped, players will always find a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rue73

I totally hear what your saying mate but its a bit of a double edged sword yes Wayne sleating needs to be stamped out but at what cost to the fair players? I still don't think minus stars would do anything to help the game along.
Just off the top of my head how about if the was some kind of system where certain lvl th were not permitted to attack other certain lvl th? Maybe 2 lvls up.
Ie a th of lvl 4 could not attack a th of lvl higher than 6
So a th 10 could only be attacked by th lvls that are near it ability.
I carnt see how apart from banning teams who use such methods that things will ever be stopped, players will always find a way.

---

Simply adding the 5 star system and ensuring a bonus occurs on only 1st attacks would be huge! I'm for anything that promotes fair play and a level playing ground.

The he reason Supercell does not want to ban or suspend clans and players is that it is a HUGE undertaking to support and manage that. MILLIONS of players....how many 'cops' do they really want to employ.

boxing out exploits with math and game mechanics is going to be the most economical way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergs

...how many 'cops' do they really want to employ...

---

clearly none! Since they do absolutely nothing to police the rule that says thou shalt not use third party tools!

with all the millions they earn from us honest players, you'd think they could afford a couple of college kids armed with a 'suspend account' button! They could probably pay them with gems! :D:D:D

Well, I'm in with the general idea, 3-starring from the first try is worth to be rewarded. If this thwarts bunnies, that's a great addition.

But IMO less radical than your 5-star system might be 3.5-star system, where first 3 stars are applied as now, and additional 0.5 star is awarded if 3-star is on the first attack on this village.

Last months almost 1/2 of all clans use trained attacks on us, this should be stopped!

Edit: reporting suspicious clans to supercell did nothing: the answer is "there is no prove that they use bunnies, and if they do they are already punished by bad karma".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hrissan

Well, I'm in with the general idea, 3-starring from the first try is worth to be rewarded. If this thwarts bunnies, that's a great addition.

But IMO less radical than your 5-star system might be 3.5-star system, where first 3 stars are applied as now, and additional 0.5 star is awarded if 3-star is on the first attack on this village.

Last months almost 1/2 of all clans use trained attacks on us, this should be stopped!

Edit: reporting suspicious clans to supercell did nothing: the answer is "there is no prove that they use bunnies, and if they do they are already punished by bad karma".

---

I agree...anything will help....sending back a note on karma is a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rue73

While I agree with your statement about penalising clans that use banned tools, I don't like the idea of docking stars for % destroyed under a certain limit.
We had it in our wars where one of our clan loose connection, one poor guy had only dropped his spells.
Well that could cost us a win if 3* were docked through poor internet which is no fault of our own!!

---

Any my help is appreciated.