Versus battle – what does 100% truly mean?

[Corinthian]

I am jeopardising to sound like a sore loser, but… I just lost a versus battle where I scored 100%.

What happened is my opponent also scored 100%, but seven seconds sooner.
I felt a let down by the game in this case. This was not totally fair.

While I understand the time factor, in versus battles, to limit the amount of draws and pronounce a clear winner. It’s fair and for scores from 1% to 99%.

100% (three stars) means exactly that. It is absolute. There is nowhere to go above. To me such battle should have been a draw (With trophies or without trophies). Why is the time factor affecting absolute scoring?

[Tollboothwillie]

Now that there is no training time it's not really necessary.

[rowman]

There was a lot of discussions before the time tie breaker was added. Some wanted it. Others, like myself, were absolutely against it. Honestly, if I cannot rationalize time as a tiebreaker for any outcome, I myself cannot then rationalize "why at 100%"?

That said, if time is a valid tiebreaker at 90%, why then do you feel it is not for 100%? Either fastest time is awarded the win, or it is not. I don't see where different rules should apply for one, but not the other.

[Kaptain Kat]

Personally I don’t see a difference between a 100% or any other % attack on time being a tie breaker. I certainly understand the controversy of the concept as a whole and why people don’t like the tie breaker. And while I understand the sentiment I am a fan of the tie breaker.

Now that there is no training time it's not really necessary.

I don’t quite agree. There are certain cup ranges where 100% ties are very common. The problem with the old tie is that not only does no player get the win but there’s also no cup transaction. So no one climbs or drops. This could cause a player to get quite a few ties in succession with no movement whatsoever. If a player just wants to get the 3 wins quickly for that day and be done it’s a huge waste of time. Even if you lose with the tie breaker we have now you lose some cups and if you get a few at least you’d drop a little and get an easier match improving the odds for a win.

[George1971]

Do you watch your own defences and try to improve the defensibility of your base. I do.i think my base is pretty good at defending against being stormed. I win nearly all of my three star ties. You could try the same.

[Cookiemonster123123]

You lost because technically, your opponent was better than you. He 3 starred faster than you, and either he's a better attacker or he's a better basebuilder. Either way, you lost, and therefore, your opponent should gain the trophies/loot.

[joemann8478]

A tie is a tie is a tie: no winner, no loser; even.

The reason using time as a factor in determining a winner in the bb in CoC is an extremely horrible thing is due to two reasons: first, the fact of army variety.
Some army comps are naturally very fast, meaning you drop all/most of the troops fairly quickly.
Whereas other comps require more time due to percision based attacks; sneaky archers for example.
By using time as a factor, it essentially favors the faster army comps and strats over and above the more percision based attacks.
Is it really healthy for the bb to be limited to 2-3 viable army comps?
Answer: no, it isn't healthy at all, especially for the longevity of the game.

Second: in bh there are a lot of battles in which a higher bh and lower bh attack each other.
A near max bh7 can 3 star a rushed bh9, but it generally takes longer due to them having less troops and having to destroy more structures, some with higher hp.
Whereas, the rushed bh9 has more troops and higher level troops that can smash their way through a base.
Why should the lower level bh lose on time when they had to do more with less for the same result?
Answer: they shouldn't lose based on time. It should simply be a tie.

The #1 complaint in bb was players complaining that their clock tower boost was being wasted for ties/draws b/c they were trying to get their 3 daily wins in that 10 minute boost.
When SC decided to remove troop training times and the bm regen time, there was no need for a tie breaker, as the clock tower boost was no longer wasted (attempting to get 3 wins in 10 minutes).
Yet, SC unnecessarily added one in.
I would have preferred it if SC just removed the training/regen times first, to see how that played out. I suspect the complaints would have dropped dramatically.

[George1971]

Games that frequently result in a tie need to be modified. A golden shot. Extended time. Something. CoC is a quick and fast game, so time is a natural time breaker. It’s addition to BB was a wonderful fix to a massive irritation.

In BH matches, it should definitely be natural that the high level wins. Progressing in the game should be an advantage, not a disadvantage. The alternative, rewarding the no progressing “sandbagging” play leads to stagnation.

Tower boost wastage was not the #1 complaint at all. The #1 complaint was wasted gameplay time. CoC is a quick and fast game. You jump on to play. Jumping on to play and then experience sequential ties that are complete non-results, neither positive or negative, is the worst possible outcome, on par with a software bug that aborts the game mid game. Worst, was the the sequential ties were rampant at the lower, beginner, levels of the BH, and were worse if upgrading important defences.

Get yourself to BH9 with mostly max defences, and there are virtually no more ties 3 star ties, it is a lower level issue. Unless, you are deliberately hanging out at low BH levels? Are you?

[Piper139]

Games that frequently result in a tie need to be modified. A golden shot. Extended time. Something. CoC is a quick and fast game, so time is a natural time breaker. It’s addition to BB was a wonderful fix to a massive irritation.

In BH matches, it should definitely be natural that the high level wins. Progressing in the game should be an advantage, not a disadvantage. The alternative, rewarding the no progressing “sandbagging” play leads to stagnation.

Tower boost wastage was not the #1 complaint at all. The #1 complaint was wasted gameplay time. CoC is a quick and fast game. You jump on to play. Jumping on to play and then experience sequential ties that are complete non-results, neither positive or negative, is the worst possible outcome, on par with a software bug that aborts the game mid game. Worst, was the the sequential ties were rampant at the lower, beginner, levels of the BH, and were worse if upgrading important defences.

Get yourself to BH9 with mostly max defences, and there are virtually no more ties 3 star ties, it is a lower level issue. Unless, you are deliberately hanging out at low BH levels? Are you?

Meh. Agree with nothing you say. Nothing new here. I never have. I dont agree time is a good measure. I dont agree it's good to give a higher bh level sandbagging lower a crutch. And for your last, how do you balance that against lower BHs trying to do the best they can when getting matched constantly with higher level players? Bah humbug.

[joemann8478]

Games that frequently result in a tie need to be modified. A golden shot. Extended time. Something. CoC is a quick and fast game, so time is a natural time breaker. It’s addition to BB was a wonderful fix to a massive irritation.

In BH matches, it should definitely be natural that the high level wins. Progressing in the game should be an advantage, not a disadvantage. The alternative, rewarding the no progressing “sandbagging” play leads to stagnation.

Tower boost wastage was not the #1 complaint at all. The #1 complaint was wasted gameplay time. CoC is a quick and fast game. You jump on to play. Jumping on to play and then experience sequential ties that are complete non-results, neither positive or negative, is the worst possible outcome, on par with a software bug that aborts the game mid game. Worst, was the the sequential ties were rampant at the lower, beginner, levels of the BH, and were worse if upgrading important defences.

Get yourself to BH9 with mostly max defences, and there are virtually no more ties 3 star ties, it is a lower level issue. Unless, you are deliberately hanging out at low BH levels? Are you?

The #1 complaint was people complaining about the clock tower boost being wasted on a tie breaker b/c players were trying to get their 3 daily wins in that 10 minute boost; NOT wasted time.
You have 3 minutes to attack as does your opponent. If you think the game should be "quick and fast" then there is no need for a timer ticking down.
Instead, there should be a timer ticking up making time a factor.
As long as the timer is ticking down, there is no need for a tie breaker, especially one based on time.

Not sure what your comment about "get yourself to bh9" means. I simply posted an example.
If anything, if a lower bh ties against a higher bh they should win b/c they had to do more with less.
A tie breaker based on time in the bb is absolutely unecessary considering a tie is a tie is a tie. No winner, no loser; even.
Why are people incapable of understanding such a simple concept? Are these the people who need "participation" trophies?