How to achieve >100% destruction in wars

[Max_imus]

Korean players said the bug is fixed. Could you confirm when your war ends glorfindel?

Its very important to know that, thanks in advance for your answer glorfindel

 

[glorfindel]

12 hours left

 

[UA Bidness]

I can confirm they fixed the 100%+ glitch effecting war outcomes. We just had a stalemate with a 101% vs a 102% and no glory was gained or lost.

 

[S_How]

That is great news!

 

[Nb4powerup]

I'll have more information available soon but it may be that this is now just a display error.

 

[Funks]

Maybe it's your defense? I don't understand this post, my alliance has had 6 perfect 5 star wars, we are not cheating, we are just organized. What we need is replays

Yes replays! I just dont understand why they havent had them from the start? Whats with that!?

 

[Excellion]

Regarding achieving over 100% destruction, my original theory was related to event buildings. When an opponent has an extra building from an event that generates units, and that building gets destroyed, perhaps that is the source of the extra percentage?

Later I ruled the above theory out when a 102% was achieved versus an opponent without any event buildings. Just sharing knowledge here in case it is helpful.

Regarding tie scores and the tie breaker, it is clear the community is especially concerned with breaking the ties of two opponents who earned perfect scores. Clearly the "average destruction" as presented will both be 100%. Below are some ideas to address this scenario, along with some challenges to implementing these ideas.

1. The first team to reach a perfect score wins. The challenge here is players are often scattered across many time zones and have work / school / etc; however, this is war and a clear system to establish a winner is better than a tie where both sides essentially lose (with respect to Glory).

2. The side which used fewer attacks wins. There are a few challenges here. First, it prevents farming...but then again in the current system a tie score means neither side can farm. Second, it prevents players from making practice attacks to challenge themselves, which really can only be performed during war.

3. The weaker side wins. It would be incumbent upon the stronger side to earn a victory. If the weaker side prevented the stronger side from winning, they win.

Others are welcome to share ideas as well, but the current system is broken. Right now if the #1 and #2 allies fight and both achieve perfect scores (which happens a lot) then neither side earns any Glory points which means the #3 ally becomes #1 for doing nothing.

 

[Max_imus]

Very nice post, regarding your 3 suggestions:

1)Maybe the most fair of those 3. But as you said time zones are problem. When a Korean alliance will battle with European alliance for example, it would be about luck( when the match is started) and we dont want that.

2)This is not applicable in current state of things. Stacking unethical alliances would always win against regular alliances.

3)This is very interesting idea, but I can see a problem with "who is stronger". Should this be decided by glory? By levels? Hard to answer imo.

I would like to see a clear tiebreaker of percentages of all battles. All battles would count. I doubt that in 40v40 WW would be all 80 attacks 5 starred, maybe sometimes but not as often.Next tiebreaker wouldbe average time for attack ;-)

 

[Hugh Jazz]

I personally like the idea of all attacks accounted for .. With or without it being the tie breaker .. The new fad to stack your alliance with 20 iron age bases would die out in a hurry if all those attacks (or lack of) counted in the final score

 

[Excellion]

Very nice post, regarding your 3 suggestions:

1)Maybe the most fair of those 3. But as you said time zones are problem. When a Korean alliance will battle with European alliance for example, it would be about luck( when the match is started) and we dont want that.

Actually, war start times are within the control of each ally. Each ally leader has complete control over when to start the War Search. For wars 30 members and below, the matches are typically found very quickly. For larger matches, the ally leader still has control whether to allow the search to continue or stop it and either make a change or wait.

Again, I am not advocating one specific idea over another, and there are surely other valid ideas out there. Just keeping the discussion going...

 

[Max_imus]

Yep, I was thinking about 40+ wars. The search can take hours and yes you can stop it, but then you would waste for example half a day or day without WW. Lot of alliances like to WW constantly because their mmbers expect it and love it
Just my 2 cents

 

[Europeos]

Great that the bug was finally fixed.
The best possible decider for stalemates IMO should be the number of attacks required to get perfect score. That's the best indicator of strength.
Attacks done after reaching perfect score shouldn't be taken into account, so everyone can get their loot and/or practice.

 

[Max_imus]

Thats a great way to guarantee a stacking alliance Win

 

[Mr Suplex]

You should spill the beans so it forces a quick fix.

Exactly. The more widespread the usage, the more it will be exploited and the quicker Nexon will have to get off their asses and do something about it. Sharing exploits so they become widespread may seem like a bad idea, but doing this always forces the developers' hand and prioritizes the issue.

 

[Europeos]

A great way to greatly reduce the amount of stacking alliances, actually.

 

[Excellion]

The bug is definitely NOT fixed. Last war we saw destruction far in excess of 100%. Why did you believe it was fixed?

 

[Hugh Jazz]

The visual is the only part not fixed .. 100.6% destruction is no longer going to be a factor when the opponent gets 100% .. It results in a tie.

 

[Europeos]

Hugh Jazz is right, when both teams get a perfect score the >100% isn't taken into account.

 

[DUSTY1]

No Title

So, IS the problem of having >100% destruction fixed as of 12 Nov 2016?

 

[Mountainking]

I personally like the idea of all attacks accounted for .. With or without it being the tie breaker .. The new fad to stack your alliance with 20 iron age bases would die out in a hurry if all those attacks (or lack of) counted in the final score

Exactly what I thought