Rewarding players who self-handicap by hanging out at low levels is a force for stagnation.Originally Posted by joemann8478
Supercell wants players to advance when they can. They’ve said so.
If you can breath the BH level above, its time to upgrade your BH.
But the lower level bh tied the higher level bh, thus doing more with less fir the same result.
It's a tie, not a win, so no need to upgrade.
I was merely illustrating that if a lower bh ties against a higher bh, then they should "win" b/c they had to destroy more structures with less & lower level troops just to get the same result.
But, as it is a tie, then neither player should "win" due to the very nature & definition of a tie being that no one wins & no one loses.
Last edited by joemann8478; August 2nd, 2020 at 10:26 PM.
Yes, you were illustrating that.
For example, a max BH4 ties a BH5. You think that the BH4 must have had more skill, and so deserves the win.
However, the max BH4 may have got the three stars because the BH5 is a recent upgrade, and has an important defense upgrading and unavailable. I think this is a very common scenario at these low levels, where the armies are maxed for the BH level, and the defences are not.
If you think the BH4 should win on the basis of the higher BH5 being handicapped for the higher BH level, then you are rewarding the BH4 for not upgrading, penalizing the BH5 for upgrading.
This is a disincentive for upgrading, and causes stagnation of game play. It is detrimental to the game. It is frustrating for the simple player who upgrades when it is the right thing to do.
Time based 3rd tier tiebeaking is a very good solution. The BH4 three starring the BH5 faster is definitely a sign of better skill/choices/knowledge/understanding of the game, and that is fine to be rewarded. If the BH4 now wins the loot to pay for the BH upgrade, this will not penalise the player in later battles.
Last edited by George1971; August 3rd, 2020 at 12:25 AM.
But the point is: there is no reason for there to be a tie breaker in the bb especially one based on time.
No more training times, no more bm regen time, no more clock tower boost being wasted on a tie (#1 complaint), thus absolutely zero need for a tie breaker.
As I asked earlier: Are people incapable of understanding and accepting the concept of a tie? Are these the ones wanting "participation" trophies?
If so, why not just reward every attacker some trophies and screw the whole "trophies get deducted from the loser" thing.
A win gives you 30 trophies regardless of trophy range, a loss 10, and a tie 15.
This way everyone gets rewarded for participating.
That is exactly how I view SC implementing the time based tie breaker in the bb: "participation" trophies.
There was and still is no need for a tie breaker in the bb.
Disagree that lock tower boost being wasted on a tie was the #1 complaint. It was just easily mentioned. The #1 complaint is the frustration of playing, winning, and getting a null result, repeatedly.
> why not just reward every attacker some trophies
Because it is essential for one to move up, and the other to move down, so that the two don't repeatedly tie.
There was a very large spot, mainly BH4-5, but it included at the upper reach rushed BH9s, where every second attack was 100%. It was enough to cause players to give up on the game, and this is the #1 reason SuperCell responded. What their cited youtube videos.
Trophy adjustment is needed to keep the matchmaking list dynamic. Loot rewards are needed to keep the players progressing. Repeated playing, with both players not getting any loot, that was frustrating.
Participation trophies could not have solved the problem.
There may be have other possible solutions, like defenses functioning when upgrading, but they implements the extremely logical time-based tiebreaker, and it solved the problem.
You clearly missed my sarcasm.
And yes, the #1 complaint was people complaining about the clock tower boost being lost/wasted due to a tie.
Again, with the removal of troop training times & bm regen time there was no reason for a tie breaker.
There are only 3 possible results in bb: win, loss, or tie. In a tie there is no winner and no loser.
A time based tie breaker is going to kill, if it hasn't already killed, certain attack strats, thus limiting the variety of attacks in the bb to faster comps.
This is bad for the longetivity of the game.
The biggest gripe regarding this issue was ties chewing up the clock boost. Removing training times should have been sufficient to address that.
The time tiebreaker was an unnecessary addition IMO. Even though it has worked in my favour, you'll never convince me that 100% can still lose & call it fair.. After all, you cannot do better than completely flatten a base.
Yes you can. You can design a better base so that opponent doesn't wreck it open in less time.
I think 100% was too easy. I suggested more defence, such as a defence weapon in the BH. However, the 100% wins are pretty rare in my experience, once all defences are maxed. It’s really just a mid BH level thing.
Yeah, missed the sarcasm completely sorry. I’ll have to re-read.
I can’t believe any attack has been killed, not at the BH9 level, because 100% is rare there.
when it comes to killing attacks, nothing compares to the lava launcher.
