How should average destruction be computed in the case of a tie?

[Theserver]

Should average destruction be based on the number of bases in a war or the number of bases attacked? Our training alliance, Tactical Raw, was just in a war where the opposing team did not attack our number 1 and they got 45% on our 2. They got 100% on all the rest of our bases.




On our side we attacked every base, but had more than two that did not have 100% destruction.









At the end of the war the score was 67 to 67. And we lost 573 glory because the game says they win on average destruction.




Their calculation was made by taking the total for the other team and dividing by 14 because they did not attack our number 1. Shouldn't the calculation be based on the number of actual bases in the war? I mean if you take this to a higher extreme, then say in a 10 war one team attacks every base, but doesn't get 100% on all of them would be beaten by a team that attacks the bottom half and gets 100% on all of them. It would calculate the second team as having 100% destruction in spite of the fact that they did not touch five bases. As long as the score was a tie at the end.

I messaged customer service, but so far they have given me several replies that don't seem to show they have listened/understood my question.

 

[Quovatis]

Can't argue with your logic. It should be based on all bases. As is, it's better not to attack the base if you think there is a high possibility of getting zero stars, since getting 49% and zero stars is far worse than not attacking it at all. That obviously shouldn't be the case.

But if you can get even a single star, it's going to be better than not attacking at all.

 

[Tsamu]

Very good point! I agree with your logic completely.

Also, total stars from all attacks could be used as a second tie breaker, which would penalize sandbagging alliances whose bottom 4 or 5 bases don't attack.

 

[LordJestix]

I say get rid of ties altogether. Why do we need them?

If 2 alliances fight hard and end up tied leave it that way. But now give them full loot rewards and a glory gain of 50% what they would have gained in a win.

 

[Vixen]

TinSoldier Nb4powerup are you aware of this - this is terrible!!!!!

 

[TinSoldier]

It's been a point of discussion all week in the studio. (We've even used the provided photo as an illustration!) So far, there hasn't been a finial decision about wars with this instance.

 

[Quovatis]

What possible arguments could be made to keep the current system? I can't think of any, as it makes no sense. Not attempting an attack should NEVER be preferable to attacking. That's crazy.

 

[Quali]

I had this happen with the alt when I was visiting Bombardier UK 2. The enemy never attacked the top base, and won on destruction. It was pathetic. If you don't attack it you have scored zero on that base, not nulled it out. Dividing the sum of the % damage by total bases in war would have dealt with this.

 

[Vixen]

TinSoldier ... a final decision??... it is simple maths... it is wrong.. please tell me the decision is about how quick you will fix this error and not whether it is calculating correctly or not

 

[Bobortvogel]

I think everyone would definitely agree the calculation should be changed.

 

[Mountainking]

Agree it should be changed? You guys are discussing what? How fast to implement the change TinSoldier