Printable View
Clan war tie breaker is wrong
If at the end of a war the stars are even the first tiebreaker should be victories and defeats. The second tiebreaker should then be total destruction. If a base is never defeated I believe the destruction % of that base should not be counted.
Yes my clan lost a war to the existing tiebreaker of total destruction and we had 25 victories to the enemies 24. I just believe victories should be weighted more than destruction.
Supercell please fix this.
Thanks
Victories could be just one stars which don't necessarily reflect skill, therefore I don't think this should happen.
I think you missed the point. A defended base in war has not been defeafeated. Should it's destruction % count for anything. Stars are awarded to give each victory a weight to determine a winner which is always the clan with the most stars. If stars are equal and your clan has defeated all bases and the enemy has not, why would that not be the first tiebreaker? Victories and bases defended should count more than destruction%
But the TB we have now allows to scale how well-earned was that victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyview
Not really. Essentially giving weight to a failed attack is not fair. Failure to defeat an enemy base should hold no weight in a decision of who wins a war.
But what you're doing is giving more weight to one stars. That isn't much better...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyview
Surely all stars are earned be them 3 stars or 1, so if its a tie with the same amount of stars at the end of a war then destruction % seems a fair way to award the win.
Calculating in a % of destruction of a failed attack into a tie breaker is not fair. Number of wins should be first tie breaker. If u can't at least 1 star every base and your opponent does, that should count first in a tiebreaker.
No, what I am saying is the games' tiebreaker as is, gives weight to a failed attack. And gives no weight to a successfully defended base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radiating
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyview
What I don't get about your argument is " if u carnt at least 1 star every base and your opponent does".
Let's say its a 10v 10 war team A 2 stars every base= 20 stars, team B not very good 1 stars several, fails on some and 3 stars the rest again ending up with 20.
So how can you say team A is better for getting stars on all bases when team B did better at 3 staring bases???
Team A has more victories and some of their bases defended. Current TB counts % distruction of failed attacks. Shouldn't a base that defends count for more than a failed attack? When it comes to a tie breaker!!! Look at the war layout... bases will still be standing where all of team B's have been defeated. Rewarding a clan for a failed atrack(s) is just plain wrong in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyview
But my point is that team B has had a better attacking rate because they have 3 stared some of team A bases so they were better attackers, so how can you make a decision as to who is the better team??
A which got a more consistent war attack or B who where stronger in some of there attacks.
But team B's failed attacks destruction contribute to a tiebreaker. Failure should not be rewarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rue73
A defeat in battle should never be counted in any type of tie breaker.
A defended base should have some type of bearing in a tie breaker.
If that was the case if everyone used their first attacks on their numbers they could use their second on the lowest enemy and just cheese the war allowing easy wins. I feel that this idea has potential but needs to be better thought through.
This solution is simple and simple is good for programmingQuote:
Originally Posted by JAV2000
1.) Don't count destruction % on a defended base.
2.) 1st Tie Breaker is ņumber of defended bases
3.) 2nd tiebreaker is total destruction of victories