You r telling me if both ally’s made 18 OS they will win but that’s just rounding numbers?

I’d guess rounding is more likely if teams are hit several times.

Were there 18 one shots?

No we made 6 one shots and they made 3 so we should have twice their score … That’s not hapenning

in recent wars we have noticed in several alliances that the starting score of all members of an alliance (team defense score + defeat bonus) is no longer 1500, but more. For example, the last war in which 28 participated was 1526, while for our opponents it was (always 28) the sum was 1524. What is the reason for this score higher than 1500? … Have they made any changes?

thank you

It was always a little bit higher because of rounding errors.

And I think Sg rounds up nearly always so it’s most of the time a little bit more than 1500 points

ok I know this rounding if the target is killed in 2 times you will have used 2 attacks but you will also have 1 point more … what I am referring to is that by making an account at the beginning of the war the sum of all the components does not it’s more 1500 but something more…1520…1530…etc …

why? … I remember that the total score was 1500 no more … has a change been made?

Although happening that’s not what I meant.

The points available per team are relative easy calculated.

We have 1000 points for the teams and 500 additional points for the kill bonus or 1500 total for the whole field.

Now if you want to know how much is 1 team the math behind it is:

1000(points) * [ (total health of 1 team) / (total health on the field)] = points for the team

500(points) * [ (total health of 1 team) / (total health on the field)] = bonus points for the kill

Now those will nearly never produce whole numbers, so it will get rounded. And with rounding you change the points available from 1500 to somewhat more or less.

And it seems Sg nearly always rounds up (and no I have no idea why) because of that most of the time there are a little bit more than 1500 points available. It was like that at least for some time now (probably ever)

I have done some experimenting a year or so back when I was in a smaller alliance with only 3 war participants, and back than there was definitely already some difference between what is really available on the field and the theoretical 1500 points.

I don’t think this is a bug, but definitely an issue. I don’t see the reasoning behind adding 1 extra point to an opponent’s worth in war when you fail to one shot them. I was in a 1 vs 1 war where each of us were worth 1500 points. Here is how the war went:

I one shot the opponent 3 times, failed one clean and then cleaned on the final flag.

The opponent one shot me 2 times and the rest of the flags were failed one shot attempts but successful cleans.

At the end of the war, I had 6001 points but the opponent ended up with 6002.

Here is how I see it, we both killed each other the exact same amount of times, 4x each. The only reason the opponent won was because they cleaned one more time than I did. However on the flip side, I actually one shot them one more time, which is obviously a traditionally more difficult flag to pull off than a clean.

Why is it that the opponent was able to win when theoretically we both had virtually the same performance as each other in terms of the kills? Why is it that a clean can earn an extra point that a one shot cannot? This seems entirely unfair and imbalanced.

My point: if we killed each other the exact same amount of times, the only war result should be a tie. It’s as simple as that. There also should not be any rounding factors present after a failed one shot because it’s a 1 vs 1 war.

Don’t know who to flag, but should merge this with the Rounding Master topic.

I’ve read up on that post before. According to the explanation, it’s a rounding error that happens after each incomplete hit. Let’s not even step into that minefield of it being a “perfectly valid explanation”, because it’s quite simply lazy coding and that’s all I’ll say there.

Now, even if there is a rounding up that occurs because of one failed hit, there is usually an extra 2 points awarded when failing a cleanup back to back. In my case, I actually used 3 flags to kill them once and still didn’t not get the same benefit on the rounding as the 2 flags per kill. The logic is not consistent, therefore there is a bug. It’s as simple as that.

Well, you do notice a difference in the fact that you used 3 hits on one target and your total was 1,501 for that one target. In contrast your opponent used 2 hits on 2 targets and because of rounding he got 2 extra points per target.

You’d have to look at the exact damage vs points for all your hits because even if you don’t get a one shot, there’s no guarantee that you will get points rounded up. I could probably look at my recent war and point to a number of times where a defence took multiple hits and didn’t get the benefit of the 1 point round up.

That’s precisely my point. Not only is there RNG in almost every aspect of the game but now there’s and imaginative RNG tied to the scoring from wars. How can someone call it “by design” when the points earned from a cleanup are inconsistent to the point where they can yield 0, 1, or 2 extra points. And all of it is dependent on the EXACT HP dealt to the opponent. If someone wants to truly see if they can win the war or not, it should be as simple as, "How many more times can you flip your opponent for the win? " The points are there to help settle disputes with partial kills but they also should account for rounding errors in a way that they even themselves out. The person should be worth 1500 points max, that’s it. Figure out the math from there. It’s not hard.

You realize that fractions exist and that not everything divides evenly right?

Here, nobody on this forum can help you unfortunately.

This is complete ■■■■■■■■. Lost my second war today by 1 points because the opponent keeps getting 1 more points despite equal clears. I killed him 4x, he killed me 4x, but still I lose. SG fix your ■■■■!!!