War Starring System 50% = 99%

[meowr]

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?

I DO want the smarter/weaker clan to have a good chance of winning.
Did you even read my post on granularity? (post #250)

The underdog already has a hard enough time making up stars.
Adding more stars (or using %) that a naturally Stronger Clan* can more easily obtain, would make the underdog's task even harder. THIS I do NOT want.

*Stronger Clan - as defined before, the clan that has on average, better walls/troops/heroes/defenses versus their opponent.

If you cannot understand how the "Stronger Clan" can naturally gain more % attacking, and naturally give up less % on defenses (not taking into account attack skill, and attack coordination) then there's no hope in you ever understanding the problem.
If you cannot understand how this naturally "Stronger Clan" and added granularity would make the "Weaker Clan" work even harder than before, to eek out a win, then, again, you have no hope in understanding the situation.

Unless of course, you would prefer it if the clan with better walls/troops/heroes/defenses nearly always wins.

[thebuch4]

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%.



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)



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.

What does your college analogy have to do with anything? I never shot for D's in college, I shot for A's. When I came up close, my A- looked a lot better than the D+ of the kid who never did anything. The problem is clan wars are like two college class rooms of equal amounts of students, and we give 3 points to students who got A's and two points to everyone else.. whether they got a D+ or an A-. That's a terrible way of keeping score to see who the better team is.

Back to the football analogy, if every single failed TD drive was resulting in a field goal, they would reduce the width of the goal posts until it was sufficiently difficult to kick a field goal, something you guys steadfastly refuse to allow because you want to be able to kick field goals when your drive stalls at your own 20. I wouldn't have as big of an issue if people failed to reach the 50% threshold more often below TH10.

And it's not about being beneficial to me. It's about being beneficial towards good attacks. I've cited numerous examples of opponents who I think should have gotten more credit for GREAT attacks against us, and it's a shame they got the same as a mediocre 50%. The smarter/stronger clan SHOULD win, I fail to see how this changes anything because now the stronger clan will just three star more people down lower.. Except now, skill matters more because your ability to get more percents matter and people won't just have their strongest attack low and weaker go for two stars closer to the top. The most efficient star optimization strategy now takes a lot of fun out of the game for me.

[shagge68]

It is highly likely that I am going to be in the minority willing to speak up so if you're offended easily when people disagree with you then don't read on. It has been asked for by others in the past and I wish they would add it to the "ruled out list".

I don't mean this poorly as it's going to sound but there are plenty of people out there that care enough to learn to attack within the guidelines of the system and be successful. That is a huge portion of the challenge just like the new leagues for the pushers. We as a group appreciate the current star strategy. What you are suggesting would dilute the system and be a slap in the face to those who put in work to be successful. Now, understand that a 2-star or lower raid is a complete fail to us but it is ludicrous to consider changing the "heart as the village" to something worth no more than a builder's hut.

If you have an issue with the type of players you encounter then I recommend one of two things, 1) find new people to surround yourself with or 2) start directing them to help. There are plenty of good channels out there for those people to learn from. Your suggestion would ruin the challenge of clan wars for those that take it seriously.

Here are two great places to have those struggling start learning.

Castles' 3-Star Academy on SC forums, on YouTube - Cold September

OneHive Raids by Jake on YouTube - OneHive

[thebuch4]

I DO want the smarter/weaker clan to have a good chance of winning.
Did you even read my post on granularity? (post #250)

I did, I just disagree with your conclusion. I think that being the smarter clan gives a better advantage than raw power if we take into account the percentages destroyed because they'll allocate their attacks better and attack smarter for higher percents.

[thebuch4]

It is highly likely that I am going to be in the minority willing to speak up so if you're offended easily when people disagree with you then don't read on. It has been asked for by others in the past and I wish they would add it to the "ruled out list".

I don't mean this poorly as it's going to sound but there are plenty of people out there that care enough to learn to attack within the guidelines of the system and be successful. That is a huge portion of the challenge just like the new leagues for the pushers. We as a group appreciate the current star strategy. What you are suggesting would dilute the system and be a slap in the face to those who put in work to be successful. Now, understand that a 2-star or lower raid is a complete fail to us but it is ludicrous to consider changing the "heart as the village" to something worth no more than a builder's hut.

If you have an issue with the type of players you encounter then I recommend one of two things, 1) find new people to surround yourself with or 2) start directing them to help. There are plenty of good channels out there for those people to learn from. Your suggestion would ruin the challenge of clan wars for those that take it seriously.

Here are two great places to have those struggling start learning.

Castles' 3-Star Academy on SC forums, on YouTube - Cold September

OneHive Raids by Jake on YouTube - OneHive

I'm not offended when people disagree with me, but I am offended when people tell me that our opinions should be ruled out because they think their opinions are so much more important, without bothering to read any of the debate here (no one is saying the TH should be worth as much as a builder hut. no one. nice straw man). Why do you guys consider two stars to be complete fails? Because they're so easy to get and watered down that anyone can get them. If two stars actually meant something, it could change your feeling.. But instead you maintain that two stars should be worth nothing and super easy to get because people should #learn2threestarnoob. What a terrible attitude to have.

Ironically, by admitting that two stars are worthless, you're agreeing with our point: that two stars are too easy to get (except at TH10) and are too watered down and the threshold for getting them in wars needs to be raised.

[KletusfromEvilQueso]

At the end of the day the 3 star 100% system benefits clan war matchups where there is a mismatch in townhall's. If you have five more townhall 10s than the opponent. They can strategically two star all five of the extra townhall 10s. If they can figure out how to keep their townhall 9s and below from giving up those five extra three stars, then they deserve a draw. The problem with adding more stars is that mismatched clan isn't going to get 5 75% attacks versus those extra townhall 10s. But the clan with the five extra townhall 10s will get those five extra stars for 75% versus all of the townhall 9s giving them a free win.

[Cowbug]

I'm not offended when people disagree with me, but I am offended when people tell me that our opinions should be ruled out because they think their opinions are so much more important, without bothering to read any of the debate here (no one is saying the TH should be worth as much as a builder hut. no one. nice straw man). Why do you guys consider two stars to be complete fails? Because they're so easy to get and watered down that anyone can get them. If two stars actually meant something, it could change your feeling.. But instead you maintain that two stars should be worth nothing and super easy to get because people should #learn2threestarnoob. What a terrible attitude to have.

Ironically, by admitting that two stars are worthless, you're agreeing with our point: that two stars are too easy to get (except at TH10) and are too watered down and the threshold for getting them in wars needs to be raised.

A good amount of the time you get around 80-99%, it means you have strong enough troops to get 100% but screwed up somewhere in your attack/didn't execute your attack as well as you could have. You don't deserve the reward of an extra star and it doesn't necessarily mean you are kore skilled than a 50% attacker. You want more than 2 stars, get better and get 100%. You are trying to watter down the value of 3 stars by adding additional stars. By that same token, 50-60% 2 star on a max/near max TH10 still takes some skill, you cant just spam a gowipe and expext 2 stars. I think the current system is perfectly balanced, you admit its not easy against a decent TH10 to get the 50%+ 2 stars, you cant have a different criteria for 2 stars based on TH level and raiskng the % for 2 stars would furthet limit the ability of TH10s to contribute to clan wars and would likely result in TH10s being kicked from clans, not accepted or opted out of wars on a large scale.

[thebuch4]

At the end of the day the 3 star 100% system benefits clan war matchups where there is a mismatch in townhall's. If you have five more townhall 10s than the opponent. They can strategically two star all five of the extra townhall 10s. If they can figure out how to keep their townhall 9s and below from giving up those five extra three stars, then they deserve a draw. The problem with adding more stars is that mismatched clan isn't going to get 5 75% attacks versus those extra townhall 10s. But the clan with the five extra townhall 10s will get those five extra stars for 75% versus all of the townhall 9s giving them a free win.

I completely disagree with this, because a higher town hall should be able to 3 star the lower TH, and the lower TH has no chance at 3 starring the higher TH. For each additional TH, the clan with higher THs gets two more higher level attacks and one fewer defense at the lower TH level, which is absolutely huge.

With a continuous scale with a 100% bonus, you can reduce the bonus when a 10 3 stars a 9 or a 9 three stars an 8.. which makes the 9 on 9 attacks much more valuable and skill based, and not just the excess tens dropping down and massacring the 9s.

[meowr]

What does your college analogy have to do with anything? I never shot for D's in college, I shot for A's. When I came up close, my A- looked a lot better than the D+ of the kid who never did anything. The problem is clan wars are like two college class rooms of equal amounts of students, and we give 3 points to students who got A's and two points to everyone else.. whether they got a D+ or an A-. That's a terrible way of keeping score to see who the better team is.

I didn't start the college analogy. Ask the other guy about it.

Back to the football analogy, if every single failed TD drive was resulting in a field goal, they would reduce the width of the goal posts until it was sufficiently difficult to kick a field goal, something you guys steadfastly refuse to allow because you want to be able to kick field goals when your drive stalls at your own 20. I wouldn't have as big of an issue if people failed to reach the 50% threshold more often below TH10.

hahaha... I can just imagine the amount of ♥♥♥♥♥♥ of threads, if you made getting 50% at Th8/9 difficult.
As I've mentioned before, you are currently playing on easy mode.
Stick with it, if you want a challenge.

And it's not about being beneficial to me. It's about being beneficial towards good attacks. I've cited numerous examples of opponents who I think should have gotten more credit for GREAT attacks against us, and it's a shame they got the same as a mediocre 50%. The smarter/stronger clan SHOULD win, I fail to see how this changes anything because now the stronger clan will just three star more people down lower.. Except now, skill matters more because your ability to get more percents matter and people won't just have their strongest attack low and weaker go for two stars closer to the top.

Again, short-sightedness.
You're falsely assuming that you and your clan is somehow vastly intellectually superior, and can squeeze off a higher %, while you will always be matched with "dumb clans" that can't possibly attack the next lowest % to up their score.

Basic strategy doesn't change.
How can our clan get a few more stars?
How can our clan get a few more %?

The most efficient star optimization strategy now takes a lot of fun out of the game for me.

Finding the best way to eek out more stars bores you?
How is that any different than trying to eek out a few extra %?

[Quarks]

I also think that a 4 star system would further disadvantage the weaker side in cws, but I already posted so further back in this thread.
Another point I'd like to raise is that a more refined scoring system would very likely completely kill close wars. My clan just finished a close one, which ended up a draw. These close wars are by far the most fun: everybody is on at the end, cheering and biting their nails. If I'd employ your scoring system, we would have won, since most of our 2 stars were "better" than the opponents. But we would've missed out on a whole lot of fun, laughter, and frustration. It would make clan wars very boring, I think. I'd rather have close wars and lose or draw sometimes, than have boring wars which are decided already before they begun.