Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Clan War League idea. Current system unfair...

  1. #1

    Clan War League idea. Current system unfair...

    This last month my clan and I won every single match in the War League but ended up taking second place to a team that we DID BEAT, but they tied us in Stars and had more Destruction. Destruction or not, it is unfair to be beat by a team that SHOULD NOT have been able to claim FIRST PLACE. I have screen shots to prove this. There should be a win/loss counter to decide this kind of situation. If TeamOne > Stars AND > Wins THEN FirstPlace = True kind of idea. Or just go to a total win/loss equation even. Perhaps brackets if you will. No undefeated team should be able to get second place regardless. I am considering making a video for YouTube as well.

  2.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #2
    You talk of screenshots and videos as if you think some evidence is needed or will help. But that is totally uneccessary as we all know that is going to happen on occasion. It almost happened to us as well last season.

    There is nothing "unfair" about it, so your title is wrong. It is the same for everybody, so is perfectly fair.

    And you SHOUT about it being something that should not happen as if it is fact. No, it is your opinion, not fact. A perfectly reasonable opinion, but still just your opinion.

    There are a number of different ways the ranking could have been determined, and that is the one SC chose. The priority is stars. Wins are given significance by the extra 10 stars bonus for a win, but they are not the overriding element.

    They are unlikely to change this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grill View Post
    But when something like an update is to be expected all stupid breaks loose and it just becomes an idiot storm of catastrophic proportion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Maverick View Post
    Any more balance to th10 will make th10 broken...
    My stats (main account)

  3. #3
    As Ajax said, it is totally fair. There are also other thread discussing why the total stars matter and why it is good to have them matter. However, your particular situation that came down to being tied in stars I actually think it would be better to go next to head-to-head result before going to destruction percentage for the tie-breaker. I doubt this happens all that often, but I agree head-to-head would be a better tie-breaker in your situation.

    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. Click here for answer on how cc troops deploy (hint, it depends) and more info here. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  4. #4
    Ajax and 2222, it is actually unfair. In any other tournament such as baseball and basketball it is possible for teams to score more points but not get first because they were beat by another team. Yes you say that it is determined by Stars and this is true, burr the Destruction shouldn't be the secondary go to. I'd a team even had one loss they should not be able to claim first in the event of a tie in Stars. Even your own logic can determine this I am sure. The Germans won many battles in WWII, but they still lost the war.

  5. #5
    Think of it like this. In Builder Base if someone gets 70% against me but doesn't get TH and I get 50% against them and get TH I win. I got less damage, but still won.

  6. #6
    There should be no need for a tie breaker if the other team does have a loss and we do not. Simple logic can clearly dictate that though. He, you won all battles while the other team did not. You get second place. *sarcastically* "Makes sense to me."

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by mhosey4182 View Post
    Ajax and 2222, it is actually unfair. In any other tournament such as baseball and basketball it is possible for teams to score more points but not get first because they were beat by another team. Yes you say that it is determined by Stars and this is true, burr the Destruction shouldn't be the secondary go to. I'd a team even had one loss they should not be able to claim first in the event of a tie in Stars. Even your own logic can determine this I am sure. The Germans won many battles in WWII, but they still lost the war.
    I didn't say there aren't other ways it could be done and didn't even say there aren't better ways it could be done. I said it isn't unfair. It isn't unfair. Both clans played by the same rules. You are playing a game where the total stars over 7 wars is the goal. That is what the game is. Think of it as 7 battles for one total war. You may lose a battle yet still win the war by winning 6 other battles.

    I also stated I agree with you that in your uncommon situation I think the head-to-head result between the two tied teams should be the first tie-breaker, rather than percentage. I don't think it is "unfair" to do it the way it is done, but I agree that change would be an improvement for the rare time this happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by mhosey4182 View Post
    Think of it like this. In Builder Base if someone gets 70% against me but doesn't get TH and I get 50% against them and get TH I win. I got less damage, but still won.
    Yep, those are the rules of builder base. Some players don't like that. Some players think the player who destroyed the most is the one that should win. It could be either way and either way would be fair.

    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. Click here for answer on how cc troops deploy (hint, it depends) and more info here. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  8. #8
    rowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On a lenghty sabbatical
    Posts
    10,331
    Quote Originally Posted by mhosey4182 View Post
    Ajax and 2222, it is actually unfair. ... .
    I myself have been outspoken against the current system since day one, am still against it. That said, I also admit that it is indeed fair. Fair means the same rules are applied to all teams equally.

    My own issue with the system in place is that it neither places teams by total wins, nor by total stars. If wins are the factor, then count wins. If stars are the factor, then count stars. But the current sytem does neither. It is possible for a team to have more total stars if they did not add "10 per win". So in my mind it rewards via measuring some entity I will call "wonstars+bonus". It is not total wins, nor is it total stars gained in war. So I am not sure what it measures, but whatever it is, I do admit it is "fair" since same applied to all.

    My own theory (just a theory). When they added CWL they decided not to track wins, but use what they already had in place with existing wars, keep a running total of stars gained. But that then presented a problem, what of ties when stars gained are equal? The war system already had a mechanism in place for that, Total Destruction %. That may allow for a war winner, but does not then carry over when tallying across 7 wars, if both teams got the same number of stars alloted, and we are only counting stars, then it would still be a tie (both sides acquired same star count). So they simply decided to add x stars to the winner.
    Last edited by rowman; September 15th, 2019 at 01:06 AM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by rowman View Post
    I myself have been outspoken against the current system since day one, am still against it. That said, I also admit that it is indeed fair. Fair means the same rules are applied to all teams equally.

    My own issue with the system in place is that it neither places teams by total wins, nor by total stars. If wins are the factor, then count wins. If stars are the factor, then count stars. But the current sytem does neither. It is possible for a team to have more total stars if they did not add "10 per win". So in my mind it rewards via measuring some entity I will call "winstarbonus". It is not total wins, nor is it total stars gained in war. So I am not sure what it measures, but whatever it is, I do admit it is "fair" since same applied to all.
    Let's say it changed to be more like almost every tournament I have played in so that it would be win/loss record as the first factor. If one team has more wins than all the rest, they take first place. Next if there are two teams tied for the most wins the tie-breaker is their head-to-head match-up. Whichever team won that game takes first place. Next, if there are more than 2 teams tied for the most wins, you go to the 3rd tie-breaker, which in clash could be total stars, then percentage next. Imagine it changed to that. What would be the negative? Easier to collude?

    Edit: I take that back, I shouldn't say "every tournament" because I've played in match-play golf tournaments where it goes by total holes won, not the win/loss record of the matches (with head-to-head then being the tie breaker if two teams tie with the most holes/points).
    Last edited by 2222; September 15th, 2019 at 12:53 AM.

    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. Click here for answer on how cc troops deploy (hint, it depends) and more info here. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  10. #10
    rowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On a lenghty sabbatical
    Posts
    10,331
    Quote Originally Posted by 2222 View Post
    ... Easier to collude?
    Collusion is possible under all systems, correct? The current system allows for that, we know that, since they have had to take steps to identify win traders, and take action against them.

    But honestly, see no negatives myself if they changed it. Would not stop the collusion, but no system would (cheaters will always find a means to cheat). Do you see negatives that I may have not considered?

    I do believe though it would remove the incentive for win-win collusion taking place today between 2 teams. Currently if we both tie with a high star total, we both gained in the final standings (turned a tie into a virtual win for both sides), even if nobody won. In traditional models, such win-wins are not possible. One team must win, one must take a loss. If both tie after all tiebreakers used, they have a tie, not a win, recorded for the final standings.
    Last edited by rowman; September 15th, 2019 at 01:23 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •