Tie Breaker for Builder Base Battle

[Mercfovia87]

I'm fine with ties working as they currently do. Today I had a fairly poor attack and we tied at 54%. Meh, I was expecting a loss. I would be fine though, with both sides gaining trophies (but no loot) for 100%-100% ties. If they are getting that, they probably aren't in the right trophy range anyway and it seems like perfection should lead to something positive.

Seems like a loophole to me. What happen is people will create dummy base design that can be easier to triple in order to get 100% for both sides and both parties gain trophies. I know it's hard to predict who you will get matched with, but it's pretty easy if you have multiple accounts to get the timing right, top spot in Builder Base will no longer be skill based, but whoever got the most accounts and 100% draw.

Good points rowman. You hit the nail on the head when you referred to the competitive environment.

To my mind, ties should only be broken either by some sort of continuation, or a rematch. Anything else just doesn't seem fair.

Good point Kaledonian, agreed fully.

If there really need to be a tie breaker, then a 2nd match seems to be the best option. Not sure if that's what people would have wanted (since they want to get out of battle as fast as possible, not another battle).

But the rematch idea seems fun and I would love it to get implemented.
Say you get a draw from Versus Battle, both parties then decide to get a rematch within 10 seconds, both must agree to it (there is possibility of player log off after an attack without waiting for result, then rematch is cancelled).

In the rematch few rules to make it fun:
1. both must use different base layouts saved and pre-selected
2. scout time of 1 minute removed, but you can still change your army before you deploy any troops
3. attack time remained at 3 minutes so that strategy for any slower troops still usable
4. there is no tiebreaker if it's another draw

I don't see any harm to it, if you really want to get out of Builder Base fast and you get a draw against players that use Sneaky Archer, just don't accept the rematch option so that you won't have to wait another 3 minutes.

[Affront]

We already have a simple tie breaker that doesn't introduce complexity, preference of certain armies or loop holes into the game.

The cost, however is, that SOMETIMES, both sides of a battle need to wait a few minutes to fight again.

On the plus side, those two waiting parties are more likely to spend gems, to fight again faster, because impatient people are more likely to spend gems.

So ... there is no negative side (for SuperCell) in the current system and THAT is why there is no reason to change it.

Sorry.

/Affront

[TheBelgium]

Hey everyone,

I do sincerely hope that a moderator or a game designer will finally give an answer to this thread. Because a lot of players, do have a problem with draws when a lower base meets a higher base. This is just a new one out of many. Sadly, not one player has a real solution. I have one.

The current system is not fair in my opinion because of the way it is meassured. I really hope the developers change the system. Instead of using percentages, count the buildings that are destroyed. A lower base destroys more buildings in a battle with a higher base. Sometimes the difference is 7 or 8 buildings. Between builderbase level 7 and 8 it is I believe six buildings more in favor of builderbase 8.

If buildings are counted you have an actual better system. For example: In the current system, builderbase with level 7 against builderbase level 8, both parties destroy 25 buildings and the player with base 8 wins because of a higher percentage. That is easy to explain, less buildings to destroy. 25 out of 44 gives a higher percetage then 25 out of 48. Besides builderbase 7 has one armycamp less and less troops to get the same result.
In the same system when both parties have 100%, the player with builderbase 7 destroyed more buildings. Change the rules in destroyed buildings and you get a winner. If there is tie, the tie will be set by destroyed buildings. No one can complain about it. There is an equal score. (There are clangames with challenges for destroyed buildings)

So, how to count stars? That is something for the background and developers. I think they are clever enough to take a serious look at this and examine the options. It will make the game better and more exciting.
If 24 buildings in builderbase 7 is 50% what counts for a star. Destroy the builder home is an extra star and destroy all buildings is a 3 star. Only in this case, a builderbase level 7 has destroyed more buildings against a builderbase 8 or 9.

To point at a few comments in here with a tie. A tie or draw is a real tie or draw when both parties destroy exactly the same amount of buildings. I really believe this makes the game more exciting and fun.

[rowman]

.....
If buildings are counted you have an actual better system. For example: In the current system, builderbase with level 7 against builderbase level 8, both parties destroy 25 buildings and the player with base 8 wins because of a higher percentage. That is easy to explain, less buildings to destroy. 25 out of 44 gives a higher percetage then 25 out of 48. Besides builderbase 7 has one armycamp less and less troops to get the same result.
In the same system when both parties have 100%, the player with builderbase 7 destroyed more buildings. Change the rules in destroyed buildings and you get a winner. If there is tie, the tie will be set by destroyed buildings. No one can complain about it. There is an equal score. (There are clangames with challenges for destroyed buildings)
....

1) Do you actually believe the majority of draws are between two different BH levels? I myself do not. I suspect the vast majority of draws are between equal BH levels having equal number of structures.

2) I predict (if your suggestion was enacted) the birth of the Builder Base Engineered Base! Less structures I have, greater chance of me winning a draw, so why even place them?

[Mercfovia87]

To point at a few comments in here with a tie. A tie or draw is a real tie or draw when both parties destroy exactly the same amount of buildings. I really believe this makes the game more exciting and fun.

This will likely not happen since this game encourage base progression in addition to a fair battle. As long as one of the parties is not a BH9 (the highest BH level), there will always be unfair battle, and that is regardless of whether we have tie breaker like yours suggested. For instance, your tie breaker will favor a skillful BH7 who gets match up with a less skillful BH9 player. That's a discouragement to base progression. The only way to have a fair battle is when you are BH9. The more you progress the more fair the battles will be for you.

[TheBelgium]

This will likely not happen since this game encourage base progression in addition to a fair battle. As long as one of the parties is not a BH9 (the highest BH level), there will always be unfair battle, and that is regardless of whether we have tie breaker like yours suggested. For instance, your tie breaker will favor a skillful BH7 who gets match up with a less skillful BH9 player. That's a discouragement to base progression. The only way to have a fair battle is when you are BH9. The more you progress the more fair the battles will be for you.

This is not a solution. In the builderbase you can't choose your opponent. With counting destroyed buildings it will be a little easier for lower bases to level up quicker. That is exactly what you are saying, level up quick. Best method for that is count buildings instead of percentage. And it is very encouraging for a BH7 to win from a BH9.

[Mercfovia87]

This is not a solution. In the builderbase you can't choose your opponent. With counting destroyed buildings it will be a little easier for lower bases to level up quicker. That is exactly what you are saying, level up quick. Best method for that is count buildings instead of percentage. And it is very encouraging for a BH7 to win from a BH9.

Again, it is not encouraging base progression. If you are not clear, it means people will choose to stay at BH7 rather than moving on to BH8 or BH9, that's very likely create more unfair battles than currently is.
And again, your suggestion will put a less skillful BH8 and BH9 players at a disadvantage, your suggestion may seems fair to yourself, but it is not for your opponents. What's the purpose of upgrading to BH8 or BH9 if they are put at a disadvantage against BH7 players even before the battle started?

[Ajax]

This is not a solution. In the builderbase you can't choose your opponent. With counting destroyed buildings it will be a little easier for lower bases to level up quicker. That is exactly what you are saying, level up quick. Best method for that is count buildings instead of percentage. And it is very encouraging for a BH7 to win from a BH9.

I believe strongly that the number of non 100% ties involving a lower BH against a higher one are so small as to be insignificant.

[ExPekkaTation]

Personally I don't have an issue with the draws. Heck with my battle history I consider a draw to be a win and it always surprises me when 2 different armies attacking 2 different bases can end up at the same star/percentage result (non 100%).
One idea I did consider though that might be a fairer way to decide would be to use 'troop weight remaining'. This would also encourage base/troop progression.

[Mercfovia87]

snip...
One idea I did consider though that might be a fairer way to decide would be to use 'troop weight remaining'. This would also encourage base/troop progression.

This had been suggested as well. The counter argument is that every troops had different weight per camp in Builder Base, unlike Main Village where everyone had same troop weight.

For example, there are 4 Baby Dragons in Camp which translate to 40 troop weight, while for Sneaky Archer there are only 14 troop weight in a Camp. You might argue the system can just divide 40 troop weight by 14 so a Sneaky Archer is weighted around 2.85 troop weight. But it is far more easier to not deploy 1-2 Sneaky Archers during the battle than not deploying a Baby Dragon in a battle. Which means this idea is not a fair tie breaker for certain troops that have more troop weight and give advantage to those with small troop weight.