When should we be getting 3 stars?

[kdrakakis]

Consider the following two scenarios: in the first, 99% of the base is destroyed, no air bomb/mine/air skeleton trap etc. remains armed, and one dragon is heading towards the last standing builder's hut. Alas, battle time is up, and the attacker is rewarded with 2 stars. In the second scenario, just replace the builder's hut with an air defense.

Most of us have encountered one of the two scenarios in practice: we may have ended up disappointed (if we were the attackers), or happy (if we were the defenders). In either case, the attacker's strategy was foiled by time. And some of us may feel this is indeed a valid defense tactic. Some of us may believe that, if an attack runs out of time, it was just badly planned. But I don't, and this is why I am writing this post.

There is a fundamental difference between the two scenarios: in the former, there is nothing to stop the dragon from destroying the last builder's hut (except time). In the latter, the air defense may kill the dragon before the dragon gets to destroy it. I feel that in the former scenario the attacker deserves a 3 star victory, but not in the latter.

To be more specific, I think that battles that run out of time should go to "arbitration", where it should be decided whether more stars should be awarded. Some more examples:
a) A large part (>50%) of the base has been destroyed, but several archer towers, cannons and teslas remain standing somewhere far away, and the King is pounding the Town Hall. Nothing is firing on the King, no defending troops are standing either, but time runs out. This is currently a 1 star victory, but I believe it should be a 2 star, because the King would have eventually demolished the Town Hall.
b) 99% of the base is destroyed, a dragon heads towards the last standing builder's hut, but one seeking air mine is still armed somewhere. Time tuns out, and that is currently a 2 star victory. Should it be 3? It is not clear whether the pathing of the dragon will actually trigger the mine, but say the dragon is in full health and the mine would not be enough to kill him, even if it hit him. Then I say that yes, 3 stars should be awarded. If however the dragon is in low health and the mine would suffice to kill the dragon, if it hit him, then the third star should not be awarded. Note that SC can still "play out" the battle, and find out if the mine will hit the dragon or not, before the hut goes down, but that is not what I am proposing here: it is enough to know that the attack could fail to get the third star in order not to award it.
c) 99% of the base is destroyed, a minion heads towards the last standing cannon, no trap remains armed and no enemy troops are alive. This should be a 3 star: the cannon cannot harm the minion.

To sum up, I propose that battles that run out of time go to arbitration. If it is found that it is mathematically impossible for the remaining defenses and traps to prevent the awarding of an extra star, this star should be awarded.

[techcare]

To sum up, I propose that battles that run out of time go to arbitration. If it is found that it is mathematically impossible for the remaining defenses and traps to prevent the awarding of an extra star, this star should be awarded.

To sum up, you didn't manage your troops well enough so no, you don't get three stars.

That's like saying we should award the Superbowl trophy to the team who's stats are better, regardless of the the score at the end of the forth quarter. "But if we had just one more play, we could have scored a touchdown and beat them!" Yeah, but you don't and you didn't.

[webbie]

The system is simple right now and should remain that way.

[DOOM2U]

consider the following two scenarios: In the first, 99% of the base is destroyed, no air bomb/mine/air skeleton trap etc. Remains armed, and one dragon is heading towards the last standing builder's hut. Alas, battle time is up, and the attacker is rewarded with 2 stars. In the second scenario, just replace the builder's hut with an air defense.

Most of us have encountered one of the two scenarios in practice: We may have ended up disappointed (if we were the attackers), or happy (if we were the defenders). In either case, the attacker's strategy was foiled by time. And some of us may feel this is indeed a valid defense tactic. Some of us may believe that, if an attack runs out of time, it was just badly planned. But i don't, and this is why i am writing this post.

There is a fundamental difference between the two scenarios: In the former, there is nothing to stop the dragon from destroying the last builder's hut (except time). In the latter, the air defense may kill the dragon before the dragon gets to destroy it. I feel that in the former scenario the attacker deserves a 3 star victory, but not in the latter.

To be more specific, i think that battles that run out of time should go to "arbitration", where it should be decided whether more stars should be awarded. Some more examples:
A) a large part (>50%) of the base has been destroyed, but several archer towers, cannons and teslas remain standing somewhere far away, and the king is pounding the town hall. Nothing is firing on the king, no defending troops are standing either, but time runs out. This is currently a 1 star victory, but i believe it should be a 2 star, because the king would have eventually demolished the town hall.
B) 99% of the base is destroyed, a dragon heads towards the last standing builder's hut, but one seeking air mine is still armed somewhere. Time tuns out, and that is currently a 2 star victory. Should it be 3? It is not clear whether the pathing of the dragon will actually trigger the mine, but say the dragon is in full health and the mine would not be enough to kill him, even if it hit him. Then i say that yes, 3 stars should be awarded. If however the dragon is in low health and the mine would suffice to kill the dragon, if it hit him, then the third star should not be awarded. Note that sc can still "play out" the battle, and find out if the mine will hit the dragon or not, before the hut goes down, but that is not what i am proposing here: It is enough to know that the attack could fail to get the third star in order not to award it.
C) 99% of the base is destroyed, a minion heads towards the last standing cannon, no trap remains armed and no enemy troops are alive. This should be a 3 star: The cannon cannot harm the minion.

To sum up, i propose that battles that run out of time go to arbitration. If it is found that it is mathematically impossible for the remaining defenses and traps to prevent the awarding of an extra star, this star should be awarded.

it is mathematically impossible to make 99% the same as 100%

[rhound50]

Consider the following two scenarios: in the first, 99% of the base is destroyed, no air bomb/mine/air skeleton trap etc. remains armed, and one dragon is heading towards the last standing builder's hut. Alas, battle time is up, and the attacker is rewarded with 2 stars. In the second scenario, just replace the builder's hut with an air defense.

Most of us have encountered one of the two scenarios in practice: we may have ended up disappointed (if we were the attackers), or happy (if we were the defenders). In either case, the attacker's strategy was foiled by time. And some of us may feel this is indeed a valid defense tactic. Some of us may believe that, if an attack runs out of time, it was just badly planned. But I don't, and this is why I am writing this post.

There is a fundamental difference between the two scenarios: in the former, there is nothing to stop the dragon from destroying the last builder's hut (except time). In the latter, the air defense may kill the dragon before the dragon gets to destroy it. I feel that in the former scenario the attacker deserves a 3 star victory, but not in the latter.

To be more specific, I think that battles that run out of time should go to "arbitration", where it should be decided whether more stars should be awarded. Some more examples:
a) A large part (>50%) of the base has been destroyed, but several archer towers, cannons and teslas remain standing somewhere far away, and the King is pounding the Town Hall. Nothing is firing on the King, no defending troops are standing either, but time runs out. This is currently a 1 star victory, but I believe it should be a 2 star, because the King would have eventually demolished the Town Hall.
b) 99% of the base is destroyed, a dragon heads towards the last standing builder's hut, but one seeking air mine is still armed somewhere. Time tuns out, and that is currently a 2 star victory. Should it be 3? It is not clear whether the pathing of the dragon will actually trigger the mine, but say the dragon is in full health and the mine would not be enough to kill him, even if it hit him. Then I say that yes, 3 stars should be awarded. If however the dragon is in low health and the mine would suffice to kill the dragon, if it hit him, then the third star should not be awarded. Note that SC can still "play out" the battle, and find out if the mine will hit the dragon or not, before the hut goes down, but that is not what I am proposing here: it is enough to know that the attack could fail to get the third star in order not to award it.
c) 99% of the base is destroyed, a minion heads towards the last standing cannon, no trap remains armed and no enemy troops are alive. This should be a 3 star: the cannon cannot harm the minion.

To sum up, I propose that battles that run out of time go to arbitration. If it is found that it is mathematically impossible for the remaining defenses and traps to prevent the awarding of an extra star, this star should be awarded.

Next time plan your attack better so you don't run out of time, what you are asking for is infinite time for an attack to complete, a clock is part of the strategy.

[DatHamster]

Although getting 99% with one star can be annoying, the system should not be changed. The clock was added for a reason, to give more challenge and strategy. With this idea you throw the timer out the window. You have a specific amount of time, and that's it. This idea would be extremely similar if you just said, "Add 15 seconds to the timer".

[kdrakakis]

OK, thank you all for the feedback. Can a SC staff member comment on how the 3 min battle time limit came to be? Why not 4 min, or 2 min, or even 3 min 11 sec?