I don't think it bothers me much about getting 3*.
But the idea seems logical.
I don't think it bothers me much about getting 3*.
But the idea seems logical.
This is good i approve this
I support this....
Sounds dumb
Thank you for supportingOriginally Posted by WhatwouldJesusdo
I agree. The gab between 2 and 3 stars is now too big. A fourth star would make a much better balance and I think It wouldn't change too much in the game. In soccer from 2 to 3 points worked as wel and made winning more interesting and the hole soccer would embraced this change. I think the 4 star system can do the same for coc.
Very interesting to increase the strategy of the war!! Many time I score between 75% and 99%
Certainly takes care of that issue with how easy it is to get 3 stars and how much more difficult it can be (depending on who you are attacking and what lvl they are) to get that final 3rd star. I think it could work👍🏼
/signed
Totally agree with this
4 stars is much better; but still pretty useless... I don't think that 'ties' should ever happen... I think that a 2 star with 65% should loose to a 2 star that got 98% -- of course my concept is not what the game is about...
So I'll bite. YES.. 4 stars is better than 3.
I disagree with the implementation...
KEEP everything the same --
1 star for 40% (you gave them a shield - you should get a star) but this would make wars easier for people to get something harder to defend... so maybe keep it at 50%)
1 star for town hall
ADD one star for reaching a percentage between 50 and 100 -- 75% would be a nice even number... but that may be too easy; perhaps make it 80% for that extra star...
1 star for the 100%
Posting Permissions
