Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Clan War Tiebreakers

  1.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #11
    Quote Originally Posted by George1971 View Post
    As the tiebreaking is rare, that diminishes reasons to not do it, it does not diminish the reason to do it.
    Sorry, but that is the exact opposite of the true situation.

    If they are rare, then it means there is little justification for the development effort required to create tiebreaks. And that is regardless of any merits or otherwise there may be to further breaking the ties. Those merits (or otherwise) are not really affected by the rarity.

    A perfect 100% 50v50 war is a glorious thing, and a non-result of a tie is a terrible result.
    Well you know that you and I have diametrically opposed views on adding tiebreakers generally .

    For me, that tie is the absolute correct result, and not terrible at all. I would much rather have that tie than get a perfect war and lose.

  2. #12
    That happened to us few weeks ago where i also started a thread out of frustration.
    But that hardly happens frequently, we got a tie in 10 vs 10 with 28-28 stars and same destruction percentage.
    At that time I proposed an idea that we were deserving winners as there was a mismatch and our average time and everything was better. But now i realised that let it be draw because it rarely happens in this game so there is no need of tie breaker
    Last edited by ExploringGalaxy; 1 Week Ago at 08:14 AM.

  3. #13
    Forum All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    4,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajax View Post
    Sorry, but that is the exact opposite of the true situation.

    If they are rare, then it means there is little justification for the development effort required to create tiebreaks. And that is regardless of any merits or otherwise there may be to further breaking the ties. Those merits (or otherwise) are not really affected by the rarity.



    Well you know that you and I have diametrically opposed views on adding tiebreakers generally .

    For me, that tie is the absolute correct result, and not terrible at all. I would much rather have that tie than get a perfect war and lose.
    At least with a Home Village war result, a draw gives loot and war stars. It’s not the complete null result that happened so often in BH battles.

  4. #14
    Millennial Club Rizzob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Over there ---->
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by George1971 View Post
    At least with a Home Village war result, a draw gives loot and war stars. It’s not the complete null result that happened so often in BH battles.
    As much as I hate that spam-rewarding BH tiebreaker, at least there is some advantage to a loss over a tie - with the loss you drop some trophies and get a theoretically easier matchup for the next battle. There would be no such advantage to a loss over a tie in wars.

    Clash of Stats: #L8CCQ8UJ | #PP0R9VGJR
    Thanks to TerMinus Prime for the awesome sig/avatar!
    Forum Titles | About Reputation | Reputation Dots | Images

  5. #15
    Forum All-Star joshsgrandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    NE England, UK.
    Posts
    4,251
    I know why I was getting perfect draws.. It is because I was putting out a roster capable of perfecting the opposition..
    If the opposition knew their business, a draw was inevitable.
    I started out at 10v, then 15v, then 20v.. So it aint the war size thats the problem, its the difficulty of the war.

    They are by far the most common draws, so the obvious thing to do if you dont like em, is get heavier..
    if you cant perfect the opposition, then a draw becomes far less likely

  6. #16
    Forum Elder MajorJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    2,421
    I suppose if you were to introduce a tiebreaker in a perfect war, you would use the average attack duration as the decider.
    Engineered for success---Engineered to win---Winning is life---Tiger Blood

    Supercell enforcing fair play? Let's stop Self-Match Clans https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...left-unchecked

  7. #17
    Forum Elder Thegreatpuma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Druidia
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by MajorJohnson View Post
    I suppose if you were to introduce a tiebreaker in a perfect war, you would use the average attack duration as the decider.
    This could be gamed though. Anyone with attacks left would be encouraged to attack and lose as quickly as possible to bring down avg attack duration. I just don't think there's a good option for classic war tie breakers.
    TMBG War Clan always recruiting - Wars with TH8-12
    TMBG Discord server:
    https://discord.gg/aXdgW6w
    TH11 - Doctor Worm 48/50/18 heroes
    TH12 - doug 51/58/28 heroes

  8. #18
    Forum Elder
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    2,635
    Quote Originally Posted by joshsgrandad View Post
    I know why I was getting perfect draws.. It is because I was putting out a roster capable of perfecting the opposition..
    If the opposition knew their business, a draw was inevitable.
    I started out at 10v, then 15v, then 20v.. So it aint the war size thats the problem, its the difficulty of the war.

    They are by far the most common draws, so the obvious thing to do if you dont like em, is get heavier..
    if you cant perfect the opposition, then a draw becomes far less likely
    Agreed JGD and I suspect others use the same methodology and then think ties in reg war are a big issue. Sounds to me like self inflicted wounds that are easily fixed without engaging SC for the solution.
    OP Defense: Any defense the poster doest’t like or know how to work around, nullifies their attack or denies them their rightful three star.

  9. #19
    Forum All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    4,000
    Quote Originally Posted by MajorJohnson View Post
    I suppose if you were to introduce a tiebreaker in a perfect war, you would use the average attack duration as the decider.
    This would put pressure on the lower members to not attack at all, and for the top players to do very fast 3* on all the lower bases. This would be bad gaming, having detrimental effects on the newer players.

    This is why, for a third tiebreaker, I would suggest only the best time used to defeat the opposing #1 base should be used. It need not be #1 vs #1.

    A great thin about classic war is that higher players can shepherd lower players. In classic war you can let the lower players do their best, and if they fail, higher players can cover them. This is, in particular, a great feature of the classic war bottom up strategy.

  10. #20
    Centennial Club
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    102
    If there were going to be a tiebreaker for 100% vs 100% clan wars I'd go with "first clan to reach 100%". So say Clan A gets 100% at 9pm (in whatever time zone) and Clan B gets there at 11pm, then Clan A wins.

    On the other hand I don't see any real need for a tiebreaker in clan wars. Builder base needs a tiebreaker since losing is literally preferable to tying (same zero reward but better chance of winning the next matchup). In Clan Wars the rewards are best for winning, then for tying, and worst for losing - so tying is preferable to losing, and you don't particularly need a tiebreaker.

Posting Permissions

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