|
Post by richard on May 21, 2015 19:26:31 GMT -6
I agree that we need more participation. No matter what strategy we adopt everyone (except those who are in the bottom 5) should be using both attacks. However, when we get 80 out of 90 stars, we don't have a participation problem. Those are good numbers, and 10 more attacks would not have gotten us the 3 more stars we needed to win because those stars where all at the top. They had an almost perfect sweep and there isn't much we can do. However, win or lose, I'd like to grade how everyone as an individual did in the war. So that we can give them advice on how to attack or kick them. And then, along the lines of improving, I'd like to structure our attacks so that we maximize stars and raise our effectiveness. I don't care if we only use 30 attacks as long as we get 90 stars.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 21, 2015 19:28:47 GMT -6
It looks like I'm the doubter on this one. I don't think you're going to get a formula. And even if you did, nobody is going to want to take the time too look at it, so the leaders/coleaders need to be prepared to do all the calculations. (The formula in the 2nd post still requires people to guesstimate performance, so now people will be trying to guess about an abstract effectiveness value, rather than a simpler "attack a base you can 3-star" formula.It's interesting, and betrays a lot of consideration, but I wouldn't take the time to do it, and I love math).
I think an ultimate formula needs to be general rather than specific. I think I'm alone on that one, but i'm envisioning something sweeping like this:
On first attack: Bases 1-5 attack bases a-b Bases 6-10 attack bases c-d etc...
On second attack: Bases 1-5 clean up last Bases 6-10 clean up second last, etc... Last 5 bases:clean up first.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 21, 2015 19:28:57 GMT -6
@squid 95% is as bad as 51% if you don't get the town hall. Stars are all that matter in a clan war. If you can't get the stars, your attack isn't effective. We could say that someone is improving if they go from 75% to 80% but it doesn't help us judge their strategy. If someone goes from 75% to 50% but gets the town hall, I'd rather have that attack on our board.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 21, 2015 19:35:51 GMT -6
And my last post for the night- the top 5 bases will have no choice but to use mirror strategy. We can't afford to skip attacking the top bases because they are too hard- that's why we are having the discussion in the first place. If the top doesn't attack the top, we are handicapping ourselves and forcing us to absorb the loss.
|
|
|
Post by aquaphobicsquid on May 21, 2015 19:41:27 GMT -6
@-grant that sounds a lot like the systematic elimination strategy unless I'm understanding you incorrectly (sounds like an oximoron - understanding incorrectly). The problem with that as richard pointed out is that we're an international clan, the timing needed would have people waiting around if people aren't on the ball and attacking when it's their turn to and ending with us not having enough time for all the attacks. I prefer that strategy as well, but we're not coordinated with our schedules.
@-richard that is true. I think context is needed when using words such as "effective" for someone can argue a 90% attack with no town hall kill is effective but less useful than a 50% attack with a town hall kill. For your context, you are correct and I retract my statement =P
|
|
|
Post by aquaphobicsquid on May 21, 2015 19:45:02 GMT -6
@-grant's second post since I was typing xD yep that's what I suggested too, though I think it should be a weighted mirror... they should decide as a team who should attack what, cause the ranking system doesn't always pick the strongest attacker for the 1st rank (that might cause drama though, oh well). My suggestion restated since it was on the previous page: ... How about we change our strategy to incorporate all the other strategies' strengths? The higher ranks go for 2 starring opponents in a more or less mirror fashion, the middle use our usual strategy of self-adjusting, and the lower third use the systematic low to higher attacks.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 21, 2015 20:15:30 GMT -6
The problem with the systematic strategy is we can't verify if people did it right after the war. It's the best strategy and I like your suggestion of mixing up the strategy for the different levels, but eventually we need a way of enforcing it. And rewarding or punishing those that don't follow through.
|
|
|
Post by aquaphobicsquid on May 21, 2015 20:23:56 GMT -6
simply being online sporadically for the first few hours of war would suffice for monitoring the systematic section... the rest would be either logged on the forum as discussion/claims or just be weighted for effectiveness as usual. There's not going to be a well logged record by the game for any of the best strategies, that's on us =/
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 21, 2015 20:35:42 GMT -6
Yeah. So take aways: We need to encourage everyone to use all attacks. 1st attack as soon as possible in your timezone. Save 2nd attack for last 12 hours. Top 10 Mirror? Bottom 10 start at 30 and work up? Middle 10 go for the recommendation?
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 21, 2015 20:36:11 GMT -6
We need to condense this into something we can post in clan mail, or have multiple co-leaders mail it out in pieces.
|
|
|
Post by aquaphobicsquid on May 21, 2015 20:45:02 GMT -6
Those recommendations the game makes are stupid... change that wording >.< and we should reserve maybe 8 of the bottom bases and the 10 top bases (if we're doing 10 top mirror) for the mirror attacks. The middle group can't attack those unless the mirror groups fail; for the bottom that means the middle group member wanting to do the lower groups targets joins the mirror queue at the top of it, waiting for the rest to go through their motions; for the higher that means waiting until after the first wave of attacks.
|
|