solution for matchmaking and defenceless engineered bases in war

It can be annoying when the enemy's #23 wipes out your own #3 and #4 TH10s, especially when he has no defenses but his high level heroes and big cc still present a significant challenge to the TH7 he's paired off with.

My understanding is that the matcher calculates each base's defensive strength and offensive strength, and adds those together to determine an overall score. If you hit like a TH11 and defend like a TH2, you might be considered TH7 or TH8.

My suggestion is to calculate the defensive and offensive strength of each base, and then discard the lower score, using only the higher score to rank the base. If you hit like a TH11 and defend like a TH2, you'd be considered a TH11. There would be no more engineered bases. This would make for better-matched wars and encourage people to upgrade their bases more evenly.

The problem with my suggestion is that it discourages diversity. For example, people might resent being 'forced' to max everything before going up a th and they'd be discouraged from making .5 bases.

For this reason I also suggest an indicator on your profile to show how your offensive score compares to your defensive score. This way, you could go up a th to gain access to, or an upgrade to, a certain unit, and see that doing so doesn't skyrocket your offensive score (so long as you don't upgrade all your army camps and/or build a hero). Players should never know the algorithm used in matchmaking, but it would be great to have a visual indicator that shows how balanced our offensive/defensive strength is or shows us that our .5 bases are not a detriment to the clan in terms of matchmaking.

This is the most insane idea ever! Supercell isnt going to end the concept of mini maxes! Also, a solution to your problem is to get a few mini max/defenseless bases in your clan. Then you'll dominate in war.

There is also nothing wrong with mini maxes or defenseless bases.

Thanks zoelem that was amazingly insightful, lol. Of course there's nothing wrong with them, and I'm sure that all the people in all those threads talking about how those bases ruin the game for them are imaginary, lol.
We already do dominate in wars, and I already did start building a min/max account. I think playing that way is unsportsmanlike, but I will still jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of this exploit to ruin the gaming experience for others if that's what I have to do for our clan to remain competitive.

If supercell decides to continue to cater to those who seek to imbalance the game instead of the ones who play the game as it was intended, that's fine by me. I'm simply offering a suggestion that not only solves the problem, it would also add a new gaming dynamic that would encourage .25, .5, and .75 bases and provide a nice visual to show how they're doing in terms of upgrades.

I agree with OP. The point of any game is to become as strong as you can, which in this game means maxing your base. The point is not to find ways to exploit the algorithm. It makes no sense to punish strength and reward weakness, but that is what the current matchmaking system does. Strong offense and weak defense is rewarded, and strong defense is punished.

Your idea is definitively not insane.

However there is a flaw in your reasoning: Somebody can have a level-11-lavaloony-townhall which is a level-2-everything-else-townhall. (Everything for one attack type maxed, nothing else.) I assume that for exactly this reason the offensive is changed to be weighted less than before.

I have a solution to this problem:

If I got it right, the offensive strength is calculated by giving for each troop level a score and summing them up. However, you'll only use a few of these units for attacking. So I think only the few strongest troops should count at all.

A little more specific: I think the strongest troop should count full, the second maybe half, and the third one quarter, the rest not at all. The numbers aren't fixed, maybe something else works better, but you get the idea.

As a side effect, it will also allow to research goblins etc. unpunished.

Combine this with your idea and it should work, I think.

Maybe I should start a thread for this, since it can also stand at it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holalimole

If I got it right, the offensive strength is calculated by giving for each troop level a score and summing them up. However, you'll only use a few of these units for attacking. So I think only the few strongest troops should count at all.

A little more specific: I think the strongest troop should count full, the second maybe half, and the third one quarter, the rest not at all. The numbers aren't fixed, maybe something else works better, but you get the idea.

---

Offensive strength is calculated by army camp capacity, troop and hero levels, and spell levels. My understanding is it essentially considers the strongest army you could make to determine offensive strength. For example, let's say that you're a th9 that maxed out your balloons but you have lvl 1 everything else. Since you could make an army of all maxed balloons, you would have the highest offensive rating in terms of troops.

Here are the sources, I will use:

1) A calculator for the war strength: http://www.3starclashing.com/war-weight-calculator
2) Numbers for specific Buildings/Troops/Heros/Traps/Spells of the wiki: http://de.clashofclans.wikia.com/wik...ge/Gegnersuche (Sorry, I only found it on the German one. However the numbers stay the same)

They both seem to agree that the Army camp level don't count at all. (1) agrees with my theory of the numbers just being summed up. Also they both seem to agree with how the buildings are weighted. The weights for troops and heros was changed shortly ago, the calculator didn't realise that up to now. Still, it's more about how the calculation works than what the numbers are.

Of course non of them are from supercell itself, so they could be wrong.

If somebody happens to have a good source please post it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockondon

Thanks zoelem that was amazingly insightful, lol. Of course there's nothing wrong with them, and I'm sure that all the people in all those threads talking about how those bases ruin the game for them are imaginary, lol.
We already do dominate in wars, and I already did start building a min/max account. I think playing that way is unsportsmanlike, but I will still jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of this exploit to ruin the gaming experience for others if that's what I have to do for our clan to remain competitive.

If supercell decides to continue to cater to those who seek to imbalance the game instead of the ones who play the game as it was intended, that's fine by me. I'm simply offering a suggestion that not only solves the problem, it would also add a new gaming dynamic that would encourage .25, .5, and .75 bases and provide a nice visual to show how they're doing in terms of upgrades.

---

Whats a .25 or .75 base? Seriously though, just use a mini max, not a .5. Mini maxes are a lot better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holalimole

Here are the sources, I will use:

1) A calculator for the war strength: http://www.3starclashing.com/war-weight-calculator
2) Numbers for specific Buildings/Troops/Heros/Traps/Spells of the wiki: http://de.clashofclans.wikia.com/wik...ge/Gegnersuche (Sorry, I only found it on the German one. However the numbers stay the same)

They both seem to agree that the Army camp level don't count at all. (1) agrees with my theory of the numbers just being summed up. Also they both seem to agree with how the buildings are weighted. The weights for troops and heros was changed shortly ago, the calculator didn't realise that up to now. Still, it's more about how the calculation works than what the numbers are.

Of course non of them are from supercell itself, so they could be wrong.

If somebody happens to have a good source please post it now.

---

I'm going by what supercell says on their FAQ page:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marika[Supercell]

Clan Wars Frequently Asked Questions

How is strength calculated in clan wars?
Strength is based on each member’s attacking power (troops, army camp capacity, spells and heroes) and defensive strength (defense buildings, walls, traps and heroes). Different layouts and base designs do not affect strength. The only way a member’s strength can be changed is if they upgrade their troops, defenses, spells, etc.

---

It would be weird if army camp level didn't matter - if 2 players had identical upgrades except one had an army with 100 troops and the other had an army with 240 troops, obviously those two armies are not of equal strength.

Maybe you're right, though I'm not sure about it. Your source is old and not very specific.

Anyway, I think your idea is good. How it works best depends on how the strength for the war is calculated. But since it is very hard to find out how exactly it works, the details are best left for supercell to consider. (If they agree with me of course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holalimole

Maybe you're right, though I'm not sure about it. Your source is old and not very specific.

Anyway, I think your idea is good. How it works best depends on how the strength for the war is calculated. But since it is very hard to find out how exactly it works, the details are best left for supercell to consider. (If they agree with me of course)

---

thanks. I think it's inevitable that supercell will make an update that will no longer make it worthwhile to make defense less bases. The question is how and I think it'd be great if they considered my suggestion.

any other thoughts about my idea? opinions welcome. even the dumb ones. ;)