War Starring System 50% = 99%

[thebuch4]

So you are saying attacking low for a 3 star is not challenging? At the same breath you're asking for credit for ALMOST 3 starring a base?
If you're that good, just 3 star the base....
You say that everyone has 2 starred in your CW. How many have 3 starred?


And it IS a pass/fail system.
Did the attack get 50%? Pass/Fail
Did the attack get the TH? Pass/Fail
Did the attack get 100%? Pass/Fail


As for where they place the first star... whether it's at 1% for first star, or 99% for the first star. It's arbitrary. They decided years ago to place it in the middle (50%).
They came up with the scoring system a long time ago. So they're sticking with it. Work around it.
Do you complain that in the NFL that a touchdown is a LOT harder than a field goal, and there for should be worth more than 6+1 points?
Do you complain that a team that gets to the opponent's 20 yard line should get 2 points because it is "almost" a touchdown?

BTW, you haven't commented on the problem that more granularity would cause in CW.

I'm saying when a 9 attacks an upper 8, it removes most of the challenge from the game. I can't defend against a 9, and a 9 better not blow an attack against an 8.

And no, I said that every attack has been above 50%. I didn't say every attack has two starred. Anyway, with half our attacks used, we've two starred two 9s, three starred an early 9, and have one nine left to attack.. then on their 8s, have 6 two stars, two 3 stars, and two one stars (we save more of our stronger attacks for later in the war, I anticipate all of their 8s will be three starred). But my point is that the 50% threshold is so incredibly low, every single bad attack has gotten there on both the 8s and the 9s. If the threshold was appropriate, bad attacks would not get there for partial credit.

They came up with the scoring system for farming, where barching needs to be considered a win. that does not mean it's the best system for clan wars.

Ahhh, a football analogy. In football, for the sake of simplicity, let's say that drives either end in punts, field goals, or Touchdowns. When the game started (pre clan wars), this was working out quite well for everyone involved. Then, let's say they introduced a mechanic where kickers were now capable of booting field goals 80% of the time from the opposite end of the field. Even if the drive stalled, it didn't matter, the team still got a three point field goal as punts became nearly non-existent. In some games, TDs were rare and others there were a lot, but more importantly, every drive that did not end in a TD gave a field goal. Wouldn't you think they should make it harder to kick field goals, since there were no missed field goals or punts?

And we all know how troops clean up at the end, if my entire army of valks, archers, wizards, and loons sees a target slightly closer than the corner hut, they'll run to that and go around the base, and none of them are smart enough to go 3 tiles out of the way and clear the builder hut. That's the equivalent of driving to the one yard line, which we'd both agree should result in a field goal. Why should a drive that resulted in a stuffed run, sack, then dump off to end up on their own 15 yard line also be able to kick a field goal?

And I don't see a problem with how a continuous system would negatively impact clan wars. The better attacking team who killed more of the bases would win. Smart weaker clans would figure out how to best allocate their attacks to figure it out just like they do now.

[Squall9010]

Your entire army sprints PAST a builder hut? what? Is your entire army made of Golems/Loons/Giants/LH/gobs?
They refused to attack that builder hut, and ran right past it?
You don't deserve the 3rd star. You messed up! Deal with it, instead of complaining about wanting partial credit.
Messing up on such a rookie mistake, yes... your attack was as bad as what you call a "lazy 2-star".

Again, you need to comment on the problem of a Stronger Clan having an even bigger advantage with more granularity in the scoring system.

No reason to listen to someone who doesn't understand that his attack was better but the game sees it as equal. The matter at hand isn't whether it was better or not, because that is common sense (for everyone but you apparently), it is whether the game should see it as the same. How accurate should the ranking be? If for example there was a pass/fail system for degrees, how on earth would employers know who is actually the better person to employ? If 90% of people were getting firsts, then how would employers know who the actual good ones were among them?

Why don't you state your problems with better accuracy of scoring rather than talking nonsense exactly? Or is posting something of substance a bit too much for you?

[meowr]

And I don't see a problem with how a continuous system would negatively impact clan wars. The better attacking team who killed more of the bases would win. Smart weaker clans would figure out how to best allocate their attacks to figure it out just like they do now.

Go back a page or two and read my post on how it would negatively impact CW.
What is now a hard battle for "smart weaker clans", would be an even harder war, since they now have to eek out more % destruction that naturally is easier for the stronger clan to get.

If you don't understand how the stronger CW clan can naturally get a higher % destruction (given relatively equal attack skill/clan strategy), then well...

[thebuch4]

Another example.. One of our guys was just attacked by a pretty good GOWIPE, and because his point defenses are weak, the GOWIPE managed to make it all the way through his base. This was a smart attacker who brought backside goblins for clean up.. Anyway, he deployed from about 1:30, and there was a corner builder hut at 3:00. Two of his pekkas and a bunch of wizards went around the base to that side, but ignored the hut. His clean up goblins went along the bottom right side, getting the hut at 6:00, and doubled back to the 9:00 hut where his GOWIPE troops ended up rather than going for the 3:00 hut, then tried busting through the walls of the base to reach the last hut (with three goblins) and timed out at 99%.. This attack schooled the base and showed my clanmate how he desperately needs to fix his point defenses, but their attacker wasn't rewarded for a GREAT attack at all. It's a horrible grading system that, once again, was designed pre war so that barches could be considered wins while farming.

If people honestly don't think this is a scoring problem when 90% of the less than TH10 attacks meet the % threshold.. there's just no reasoning with them.

[thebuch4]

Go back a page or two and read my post on how it would negatively impact CW.
What is now a hard battle for "smart weaker clans", would be an even harder war, since they now have to eek out more % destruction that naturally is easier for the stronger clan to get.

If you don't understand how the stronger CW clan can naturally get a higher % destruction (given relatively equal attack skill/clan strategy), then well...

The problem is the "given relatively equal attack skill/clan strategy". How would a stronger clan given relatively equal attack skill/clan strategy not win as is by eeking out an additional three star towards the bottom? Or would you rather just have a bunch of ties? It should be designed so that the clan with better skill/strategy can figure out how to better allocate their attacks and come out with a victory. If you don't want the smarter clan to win and you don't want the stronger clan to win, who do you want to win?

[Kalk]

And we all know how troops clean up at the end, if my entire army of valks, archers, wizards, and loons sees a target slightly closer than the corner hut, they'll run to that and go around the base, and none of them are smart enough to go 3 tiles out of the way and clear the builder hut. That's the equivalent of driving to the one yard line, which we'd both agree should result in a field goal. Why should a drive that resulted in a stuffed run, sack, then dump off to end up on their own 15 yard line also be able to kick a field goal?

The fact is, you didn't get the touchdown. This "field goal" is enough to hold your own weight, but you need the touchdowns to win. In football, do they give a darn if your fieldgoal was scored from the 4, or if it was scored from the 60? Are they just gonna give the person who scored from the 4 a cookie, and say "hey good job, we'll count that as 5 points since it was close." No. Dominating or not, it's YOUR fault if you don't get the touchdown, or in this case, the 3 star.

[thebuch4]

The fact is, you didn't get the touchdown. This "field goal" is enough to hold your own weight, but you need the touchdowns to win. In football, do they give a darn if your fieldgoal was scored from the 4, or if it was scored from the 60? Are they just gonna give the person who scored from the 4 a cookie, and say "hey good job, we'll count that as 5 points since it was close." No. Dominating or not, it's YOUR fault if you don't get the touchdown, or in this case, the 3 star.

The problem is when every failed drive results in a field goal.. It's one thing to give a field goal if you're close, a TD if you make it all the way, and punt it away if you don't do well.. Let's say 20% of the drives should end in TD's, 30% FGs, and 50% punts. That would be reasonably balanced, right? The problem is that now 20% of the drives are scoring TDs (if we're talking maxed 8 on 8 or most 9s on 9s), but then like 75% are scoring field goals with only about 5% punts (failures to reach 50%, generally only on aggressive three star strategies). That's why the numbers need to be adjusted.

[meowr]

No reason to listen to someone who doesn't understand that his attack was better but the game sees it as equal. The matter at hand isn't whether it was better or not, because that is common sense (for everyone but you apparently), it is whether the game should see it as the same.

Of course the higher percentage attack is "better". That percentage number says so!
Doesn't change the fact that a rookie mistake cost him a star.
BUT the game DOES see the 99% 2 star attack as a better attack than the 50% attack.
It gave the better attack a score of 99%, and the "lesser" attack a score of 50%.

How accurate should the ranking be? If for example there was a pass/fail system for degrees, how on earth would employers know who is actually the better person to employ? If 90% of people were getting firsts, then how would employers know who the actual good ones were among them?

Umm... did you go to college? Pass/fail IS how you get a degree!!!!
Either you passed all your classes, or you didn't!!!
As for employers picking the "best" college student as an employee... if you are EVER in a real work environment, you would know that the new hire's grades rarely ever reflect on how good they are as an employee.
I've also never heard of a company hire people ONLY because of their GPA. (interviews are usually the pass/fail)

Why don't you state your problems with better accuracy of scoring rather than talking nonsense exactly? Or is posting something of substance a bit too much for you?

Read back a few pages, and read my post on how more granularity would negatively impact CW.
Or is back-reading a bit too much for you?

As I've stated before, most of the people wanting more stars only see things beneficial to them. They want more recognition for doing marginally/significantly better than their "lesser" clanmates. To some extent, this is understandable. I routinely get a higher % than my clanmates. And wouldn't mind being "rewarded" my due. BUT I realize how this would askew the CW to favor the Stronger Clan of the CW even more than it does now.

You have to look beyond what's in front of you. And look at the situation from more than one angle.

[IronBrigade]

Yes, I think the solution would be for regular raids as well.

Soooo....sniping a TH in regular raids would be a 3 star? Since there are 4 stars total under this proposal, you would lose 75% of your trophies available from a snipe?

btw, I don't think it is a bad idea but I think the star system should be the same for regular raids as it is for warring and I don't think this proposal will work for regular raids.

[Kalk]

The problem is when every failed drive results in a field goal.. It's one thing to give a field goal if you're close, a TD if you make it all the way, and punt it away if you don't do well.. Let's say 20% of the drives should end in TD's, 30% FGs, and 50% punts. That would be reasonably balanced, right? The problem is that now 20% of the drives are scoring TDs (if we're talking maxed 8 on 8 or most 9s on 9s), but then like 75% are scoring field goals with only about 5% punts (failures to reach 50%, generally only on aggressive three star strategies). That's why the numbers need to be adjusted.

However, in some cases weaker clans (Say, college teams) have to play against the Green Bay Packers. (Sorry to all you Europeans who have no idea what I'm talking about.) This college team might have to fight as hard as they possibly can to get that fieldgoal. (TD 5%, FG 25% 70% punts) Where as the Packers could steamroll the other team, getting TD's 50%, FGs 45%, and punts 5%. When the odds are stacked against them, why make it harder?

Matchmaking just isn't good enough to incorporate more stars. 8.5 and 9.5 are prime examples of people already abusing loopholes to get easier wars.