Facts and Myths about Engineering

With all the engineering threads on the forum currently, I felt it would be appropriate to add one more :cool:
JK, well sort of. One of the things that is frustrating in the Engineering vs. Non-Engineering debate is the amount of misinformation out there regarding engineered bases, including people complaining about engineered bases without even understanding their purpose or what they are.

Let me start off by saying that I am neither in favour of or against people using engineered bases. My clan currently does use engineered bases and without a doubt it provides us with an advantage in war. That being said we are using engineered bases because as the saying goes, adapt or die off.

So my goal is to (with the help of all of you of course) dispell some of the myths about engineering and summarize some of the valid complaints.

Most of the myths I am attempting to clear up are from various previous posts where people have inaccurately portrayed the problem.

Myth #1

Using Engineered bases in war automatically means you will win.

This is wrong on so many levels,
- just because someone is using an engineered base does not make them good attackers. The advantage comes with being able to have more attempts at 3-starring the more difficult bases. If the attackers aren't good, they will not be able to 3 star top bases regardless of the advantage.

Engineered bases do provide an advantage, however, it is still on the attackers to use the advantage.

Myth #2

When a higher TH appears below a lower TH in the war lineup it means it is engineered.

Although this can be true at times. It is also not necessarily the case... The base could just be rushed (a person who has raised their level on their TH without building up their offense or defense to be at a competitive level with a similar level TH in any aspect of the game)

- an engineered base is one which has been specifically designed to take advantage of an aspect of the game... Most of the time when discussing an engineered base, people refer currently to the advantage given in the war matchups. The current MM situation in war is one that provides an advantage to offense over defense, thus anyone who specifically upgrades offensive troops first without building up their defenses at the same time could be considered to be engineering their base.

The most extreme forms of engineering (and the most effective) are bases which have maxed out their troops at TH11 but carry the war weight of a much lower TH.

Myth #3

Engineered bases have to be TH10s or 11s with Th8 or lower defenses

While these are probably the most influential engineered bases which give the greatest advantage in the war MM, engineered bases can come in many different forms. These are the ones that people tend to really complain about however, as they give the greatest advantage in war, as they can attack any base on the map, yet they carry the weight of a low TH base which would be limited in the number of bases it could successfully attack. An engineered TH11 with the defenses of a TH9 can actually be be just as advatangeous in war MM.

Myth #4

The advantage an Engineered base provides is being able to easily 3-star its opposite number

Not Exactly, this is where I disagree with many of the comments of pro-engineering posters, Many people will call out engineers for being able to easily 3-star their equivalent, let me be the first to tell you that if your base is matched up opposite a strongly engineered base it will be 3-starred regardless so this argument holds no weight... However, often times the people who are in favour of engineering will quickly point out that they hit bases equivalent with their TH and that because they do this it gives no advantage... This is very wrong as that is exactly why it gives a huge advantage. Because wars among good warring clans often come down to who can gain the most stars or percentage at the top, the more cracks you have at attacking the top players in a war the greater your odds of winning. (No guarantees of course - see myth #1, but a huge advantage non-the-less)

Example: our most recent war where we had 2 engineered TH11s and 3 max (or near max) TH10s vs. our opposition who had 2 max TH10s and 2 TH9.5s, all bases below the TH10s were cleared leaving us with 6 attacks on their (2) TH 10s including 4 of them being with max TH11 troops, camps and War CC. Both us and our opposition had to use 2 of the th10 attacks to clear the TH9s and we had (2) of our TH10s attack to clear the 9.5s. The opponents on the other hand had only 4 attacks left to clear our (3) TH10s... Needless to say it was an easy win in the end for us.

The advantage is at the top, not the bottom as some people mistakenly complain.

Myth #5

People who engineer bases do it for the challenge or for the fun of it.

Please stop using this excuse, (although to a certain extent it is true, because it can be fun to bully other clans that do not use engineered bases and it is also challenging to make an engineered base, as holding enough loot to upgrade can be difficult with limited defenses) it makes people who engineer bases look unintelligent. People know why we engineer bases, it is to take advantage of a flaw in the game, which is currently the matchmaking system for war. Ask yourself this if the war MM was changed would you keep the same base structure you have now, if the answer is yes, then you are either lying, or you are not smart enough to adapt to the changing style of gameplay. Admit it for what it is, an attempt to manipulate a system to gain an advantage for the win.

Myth #6

Engineering is cheating

Engineering is not cheating. It is playing within a set of rules with the intention of winning! In which all competitors have the same opportunity to attempt to do... The fact that some people choose not to do it, is their own decision, however they should not chastise or complain that others have. What they should do is direct that attention and focus to supercell to correct the flaw currently in the game.

Myth #7

Engineering or Maxing or any other way to play the game is the only "right" way to play.

Wrong again, there are many different reasons people play the game, and with many different outcomes they are trying to achieve. Some people play to win wars, some people play to max out their base, some people play to make friends, others yet play to donate as many troops as they can... There is no right way to play the game, everyone is entitled to play for their own reasons and for their own end outcome. Calling out others for how they play the game is petty and ignorant. Play the game for your own reasons and enjoy it while you do.

Myth #8 (suggested by Skrags and Electrowizard)

To be considered an Engineered Clan you must include Engineered bases in your war lineup.

This is actually not true... Although putting Engineered bases into the war lineup is certainly one way to manipulate the war MM, it is not the only way engineers work. Engineered clans can carefully select their roster to influence the MM algorithm by including specific bases that balance the war weight in their favour. I will not get into details here, but if you understand the matchmaking algorithm then it is possible to set your roster to gain an advantage, without ever including an engineered base.

Sorry for the long post, hopefully people can add to my list of myths

Good luck guys and Happy clashing!!

nice thread :)

but, will it change the fact?

engineers will raise again and again :D

Fact. Everyday a new account is created to discuss engineering. Same points by the same people will lead to 20 page thread. There should be a sticky to dump these threads into.

That's a great summary! 10 :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sg333

Fact. Everyday a new account is created to discuss engineering. Same points by the same people will lead to 20 page thread. There should be a sticky to dump these threads into.

---

It'll stop when SC figures out how to properly weigh all bases, lol.

The problem is not engineering, or rushing. The problem is SC's war match making algorithms. This is what people are complaining about. If the match making worked in a way that everyone was matched to a close opponent, people would not be complaining. If engineered clans were matched with other engineered clans in war, people would not give a rats ♥♥♥ about engineers. No one would care, because in regular match making, not war, no one cares about you. But if SC was to fix their MM, then engineering would disappear, because no matter how much you like to say you do it for challenge, or fun, or whatever makes you sleep good at night, we all know you do it so you can pick on easy war targets. If that was to disappear, so would engineering.

Re myth 5, it does partly depend when you started your engineered base. When I started my defenceless I'd never seen one. A friend was talking about building a base without walls and I thought ooh, I wonder what else I could do without... It was quite exciting to find I wasn't the only crazy person out there!

You also missed another reason people may have started engineering - to quickly get strong troops to donate to their main account and to their clan. My defenceless has an elixir surplus a lot of the time so it tends to do most of the troops for war ccs, and I've always finished all the research at each th level so it can donate any troops anyone might need.

Even easier wars wasn't always a given - prior to last December I'm sure the defenceless accounts in our clan meant we got tougher matches at the top of the map. We were actually careful not to have too many defenceless accounts otherwise the mismatch at the top would get too much in our enemy's favour. Obviously SC 'fixed' that way too enthusiastically, and nowadays too many defenceless means wars are boring.

Lastly, I keep seeing posts saying it needs fixing, but I have accounts in 4 different clans and the only clan that consistently sees decent engineered bases (ie ones with high enough level troops to affect the outcome of a war) is the one with engineered bases in it. I can't help thinking there's a lot of hypocrisy out there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Myth #5

People who engineer bases do it for the challenge or for the fun of it.

Please stop using this excuse, (although to a certain extent it is true, because it can be fun to bully other clans that do not use engineered bases and it is also challenging to make an engineered base, as holding enough loot to upgrade can be difficult with limited defenses) it makes people who engineer bases look unintelligent. People know why we engineer bases, it is to take advantage of a flaw in the game, which is currently the matchmaking system for war. Ask yourself this if the war MM was changed would you keep the same base structure you have now, if the answer is yes, then you are either lying, or you are not smart enough to adapt to the changing style of gameplay. Admit it for what it is, an attempt to manipulate a system to gain an advantage for the win.

---

I would take this off the myth part.. there is still huge value in engineering for the fun of if and if the war style changed I would likely still build this way to an extent (unless Super cell made engineered bases ineligible for war).. the reason that I (and I would assume many others) enjoy bases like this is because we find more joy in attacking than we do in defending, Having max TH 11 troops means you can enjoy attacking a max th 11, this is the challenge and the fun of it.. the defences below that can either hold steady if you plan to be a true permanent engineered base or slowly increase as you get resources if you engineered as a means to quicker enjoyment of the end game attacks. similar to how some use .5 theory to optimize their war effectiveness while they catch up on route to maxing everything you can use the engineer theory to optimize for war effectiveness while fast tracking your offence to end game, if you focus on offence first then play catchup on defences you would rank like an engineered base and act like one in wars but you are doing it "Just for the fun of it" and would likely do it even if they changed the weighting system in some way.. you have to admit especially now its a lot harder to 3* a th 10/11 than ever before so thats your fun challenge right there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petio1981

The problem is not engineering, or rushing. The problem is SC's war match making algorithms. This is what people are complaining about. If the match making worked in a way that everyone was matched to a close opponent, people would not be complaining. If engineered clans were matched with other engineered clans in war, people would not give a rats ♥♥♥ about engineers. No one would care, because in regular match making, not war, no one cares about you. But if SC was to fix their MM, then engineering would disappear, because no matter how much you like to say you do it for challenge, or fun, or whatever makes you sleep good at night, we all know you do it so you can pick on easy war targets. If that was to disappear, so would engineering.

---

you started so well. Kudos for focusing on MMA, allthough you tripped slightly towards the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesShadow

I would take this off the myth part.. there is still huge value in engineering for the fun of if and if the war style changed I would likely still build this way to an extent (unless Super cell made engineered bases ineligible for war).. the reason that I (and I would assume many others) enjoy bases like this is because we find more joy in attacking than we do in defending, Having max TH 11 troops means you can enjoy attacking a max th 11, this is the challenge and the fun of it.. the defences below that can either hold steady if you plan to be a true permanent engineered base or slowly increase as you get resources if you engineered as a means to quicker enjoyment of the end game attacks. similar to how some use .5 theory to optimize their war effectiveness while they catch up on route to maxing everything you can use the engineer theory to optimize for war effectiveness while fast tracking your offence to end game, if you focus on offence first then play catchup on defences you would rank like an engineered base and act like one in wars but you are doing it "Just for the fun of it" and would likely do it even if they changed the weighting system in some way.. you have to admit especially now its a lot harder to 3* a th 10/11 than ever before so thats your fun challenge right there!

---

This is very hard to swallow, given how easy gold flows in from raiding, to engineer means you have to deliberatly focus on elixor, even with heavy gemming. Defence naturelly outpaces offence, so if your offence is ahead of defence its probably deliberatly to optimise for the MMA.

I will acknowledge maybe 1% or less do it for fun, or for donations, but 99% do it for higher war win rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

This is very hard to swallow, given how easy gold flows in from raiding, to engineer means you have to deliberatly focus on elixor, even with heavy gemming. Defence naturelly outpaces offence, so if your offence is ahead of defence its probably deliberatly to optimise for the MMA.

I will acknowledge maybe 1% or less do it for fun, or for donations, but 99% do it for higher war win rate.

---

yea, gold does flow faster than anything else, walls are also really really expensive ;)

but to your point a person who needs elixer more (optimizing for offence) will take on bases with 500k elixer and 0 gold mitigating some of the extra gold overflow.. also note that when I say max offence I dont mean every troop combo either, if you are 100% focused on offence and only work on defence when no offence is available that means you are upgrading CC, Town hall lab raxes and spell factories at top priority and heroes with your builders, once you are up to max troops from the lab (minus 2 units lvls to account for TH upgrade time) for your army comp you can go up, so if you want to specialise in air attacks you could get by with upgrades to say only lava hounds and loons and one farming comp (gobs maybe?) this means that actually your offence upgrades are substantially lower than your defence upgrades in time (the most important resource is time after all) it will make you more succeptible to balance changes and meta changes however, once you reach max th 11 troop levels of your main army comp you continue to lvl up alternate comps from there, you wont have EVERY troop max and your heroes certainly wouldnt be "max" since it takes more time for those but you could be very much like an engineered base with max lvl troops for a th 11 and limited defence. one max troop combo at TH 11 will still allow you to 3* many bases if your skilled with it and can be really fun!

Great post OP!

Nice thread.

And the myths have to be just myths.

Because im reading it on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

do you thoughtlessly upgrade defence so that it gets ahead of offence, or do you try raid so is somewhat balanced. If you raid for balanced defence offence then you are also manipulating the war matchmaker and by your logic YOU are being unethical. If you upgrade without any thought to the war matchmaker and then come to the forums the you are once again IMO being unethical, as to question the integrity of others, simply because they chosen not to follow a strategy that means they are more likely to lose unethical.

I think its disgusting to question the ethics of others simply because they actually try to win. There is a continuium of progression from defence heavy Noob organic raiding to heavy defencless base type engineering.

you need to check your attitude, a discussion of the war matchmaker is an interesting and decent one, to call people unethical shows a childish mind.

---

Perfect post Viking

To the OP: Nice post. Sadly, this'll probably turn into another war over engineering.

I like it. Bookmarked it to add to future discussions as a reference. Thank you for doing this.

Would love to see how many I quit threads there are if they fixed matchmaking. No one will ever be happy haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Therockcoc

Would love to see how many I quit threads there are if they fixed matchmaking. No one will ever be happy haha

---

I dont think thats true, i engineer moderately and for the good of clash I would welcome a matchmaker balance.

The various posts back and forth discussing what is ad hominem attack, whether it is OK to call people unethical and or childish brats have all been deleted as being wholly toxic and not advancing the actual discussion about engineering at all.

If anybody wishes to post to this (or any other) thread, please stick to objective discussion of the topic, without bringing ethics or morality into it.

What is "ethical" or "unethical" is always a matter of opinion, but describing somebody as unethical is also always considered an insult.

Every argument u made seems to off the window when a clan use 40k war wieght 40/40/20 all maxed troops defenceless account.in there line up

Quote:

---

they should not chastise or complain that others have. What they should do is direct that attention and focus to supercell to correct the flaw currently in the game.

---

Engineering is an exploit, all exploits should be patched, especially in a multi player game.

So yes, people do have a right to complain, and ask supercell to fix it.



Though I do think that pretty much all your points are valid (with the exception of that one).

I'd recommend adding another, that all engineered bases have only a level 1 cannon, but have maxed offence, as most people tend to assume that's what the base looks like when you say 'engineered'

It seems they have increased the weight of spells. If this is correct, engineers, dont upgrade spells without constraint. I would be sitting out of my clan's wars in order to upgrade my heroes and troops for the same reason.

Certainly one of best threads on engineering. Honest, direct, this is way to get conversations started to find good middle ground. I'm sure somewhere is a path that won't royally upset either side of this issue.

I read the OP very closely, expecting to take issue with various things and expecting it to be another one-eyed take on the engineering question.

I found almost nothing I could disagree with. A refreshingly balanced perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bloodyheart

Certainly one of best threads on engineering. Honest, direct, this is way to get conversations started to find good middle ground. I'm sure somewhere is a path that won't royally upset either side of this issue.

---

Well said.

Myth:
Defenseless base = Engineered base.

False, defenseless base doesn't always means that it's engineered for war.
In fact, defenseless bases exist before Clan Wars existed.

Some of us just like to play the extreme way, my defenseless base has never been in a real war, ever.

A very good thread. Congrats OP.

A couple of points to throw into the mix :-

a) There's a big difference between an 'Engineered Clan' and a clan that has 'Engineered bases'. The former I imagine is still fairly rare, and their goal is 'usually' to win a war, even before it's started. There are numerous clans who have (or hold) extremely high win streaks because of this. Roster engineering can, I believe (though I will accept feedback from others happily) is a strategy that can fall into either of the 2 camps above.

b) Often, you read on these forums about 'adapting' or 'Engineering is the ONLY way to win wars consistently. This is just not true.
Balanced bases is still (to my knowledge) a checkbox within the matchmaking algorithm. By avoiding including within your war roster, engineered bases, you are more likely to get a fair, or even slightly beneficial match up, often based upon the available pool of other clans. My own clan has no engineered bases, and has won 85-90% of wars, since the March update.

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

With all the engineering threads on the forum currently, I felt it would be appropriate to add one more :cool:
JK, well sort of. One of the things that is frustrating in the Engineering vs. Non-Engineering debate is the amount of misinformation out there regarding engineered bases, including people complaining about engineered bases without even understanding their purpose or what they are.

Let me start off by saying that I am neither in favour of or against people using engineered bases. My clan currently does use engineered bases and without a doubt it provides us with an advantage in war. That being said we are using engineered bases because as the saying goes, adapt or die off.

So my goal is to (with the help of all of you of course) dispell some of the myths about engineering and summarize some of the valid complaints.

Most of the myths I am attempting to clear up are from various previous posts where people have inaccurately portrayed the problem.

Myth #1

Using Engineered bases in war automatically means you will win.

This is wrong on so many levels,
- just because someone is using an engineered base does not make them good attackers. The advantage comes with being able to have more attempts at 3-starring the more difficult bases. If the attackers aren't good, they will not be able to 3 star top bases regardless of the advantage.

Engineered bases do provide an advantage, however, it is still on the attackers to use the advantage.

Myth #2

When a higher TH appears below a lower TH in the war lineup it means it is engineered.

Although this can be true at times. It is also not necessarily the case... The base could just be rushed (a person who has raised their level on their TH without building up their offense or defense to be at a competitive level with a similar level TH in any aspect of the game)

- an engineered base is one which has been specifically designed to take advantage of an aspect of the game... Most of the time when discussing an engineered base, people refer currently to the advantage given in the war matchups. The current MM situation in war is one that provides an advantage to offense over defense, thus anyone who specifically upgrades offensive troops first without building up their defenses at the same time could be considered to be engineering their base.

The most extreme forms of engineering (and the most effective) are bases which have maxed out their troops at TH11 but carry the war weight of a much lower TH.

Myth #3

Engineered bases have to be TH10s or 11s with Th8 or lower defenses

While these are probably the most influential engineered bases which give the greatest advantage in the war MM, engineered bases can come in many different forms. These are the ones that people tend to really complain about however, as they give the greatest advantage in war, as they can attack any base on the map, yet they carry the weight of a low TH base which would be limited in the number of bases it could successfully attack. An engineered TH11 with the defenses of a TH9 can actually be be just as advatangeous in war MM.

Myth #4

The advantage an Engineered base provides is being able to easily 3-star its opposite number

Not Exactly, this is where I disagree with many of the comments of pro-engineering posters, Many people will call out engineers for being able to easily 3-star their equivalent, let me be the first to tell you that if your base is matched up opposite a strongly engineered base it will be 3-starred regardless so this argument holds no weight... However, often times the people who are in favour of engineering will quickly point out that they hit bases equivalent with their TH and that because they do this it gives no advantage... This is very wrong as that is exactly why it gives a huge advantage. Because wars among good warring clans often come down to who can gain the most stars or percentage at the top, the more cracks you have at attacking the top players in a war the greater your odds of winning. (No guarantees of course - see myth #1, but a huge advantage non-the-less)

Example: our most recent war where we had 2 engineered TH11s and 3 max (or near max) TH10s vs. our opposition who had 2 max TH10s and 2 TH9.5s, all bases below the TH10s were cleared leaving us with 6 attacks on their (2) TH 10s including 4 of them being with max TH11 troops, camps and War CC. Both us and our opposition had to use 2 of the th10 attacks to clear the TH9s and we had (2) of our TH10s attack to clear the 9.5s. The opponents on the other hand had only 4 attacks left to clear our (3) TH10s... Needless to say it was an easy win in the end for us.

The advantage is at the top, not the bottom as some people mistakenly complain.

Myth #5

People who engineer bases do it for the challenge or for the fun of it.

Please stop using this excuse, (although to a certain extent it is true, because it can be fun to bully other clans that do not use engineered bases and it is also challenging to make an engineered base, as holding enough loot to upgrade can be difficult with limited defenses) it makes people who engineer bases look unintelligent. People know why we engineer bases, it is to take advantage of a flaw in the game, which is currently the matchmaking system for war. Ask yourself this if the war MM was changed would you keep the same base structure you have now, if the answer is yes, then you are either lying, or you are not smart enough to adapt to the changing style of gameplay. Admit it for what it is, an attempt to manipulate a system to gain an advantage for the win.

Myth #6

Engineering is cheating

Engineering is not cheating. It is playing within a set of rules with the intention of winning! In which all competitors have the same opportunity to attempt to do... The fact that some people choose not to do it, is their own decision, however they should not chastise or complain that others have. What they should do is direct that attention and focus to supercell to correct the flaw currently in the game.

Myth #7

Engineering or Maxing or any other way to play the game is the only "right" way to play.

Wrong again, there are many different reasons people play the game, and with many different outcomes they are trying to achieve. Some people play to win wars, some people play to max out their base, some people play to make friends, others yet play to donate as many troops as they can... There is no right way to play the game, everyone is entitled to play for their own reasons and for their own end outcome. Calling out others for how they play the game is petty and ignorant. Play the game for your own reasons and enjoy it while you do.

Sorry for the long post, hopefully people can add to my list of myths

Good luck guys and Happy clashing!!

---

nice and informative thread op, well done:thumbsup::thumbsup:.
but u didnt mention most important fact whatever stand between theses myths and facts, war matching needed to be fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astradyne

You also missed another reason people may have started engineering - to quickly get strong troops to donate to their main account and to their clan. My defenceless has an elixir surplus a lot of the time so it tends to do most of the troops for war ccs, and I've always finished all the research at each th level so it can donate any troops anyone might need.

---

Totally valid point, I have seen people do this. However, I would imagine those are not the people worried about the war MM disparity, which ultimately is the concern of most anti-engineer threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N1NJ4W4RR10R

Engineering is an exploit, all exploits should be patched, especially in a multi player game.

So yes, people do have a right to complain, and ask supercell to fix it.


I'd recommend adding another, that all engineered bases have only a level 1 cannon, but have maxed offence, as most people tend to assume that's what the base looks like when you say 'engineered'

---

I absolutely agree with the first point you make, read myth 6. The problem comes when people attack the engineers and not the developers for the problem. The problem exists, even if certain people haven't experienced it themselves... It does exist. However, it is on supercell to change the MM algorithm and until they do, Engineers are well within their rights to take adantage of the system.

To your second point, read myths 2 & 3... It dispells exactly what you are saying, and comments like that are the reason I added this thread in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

A very good thread. Congrats OP.

A couple of points to throw into the mix :-

a) There's a big difference between an 'Engineered Clan' and a clan that has 'Engineered bases'. The former I imagine is still fairly rare, and their goal is 'usually' to win a war, even before it's started. There are numerous clans who have (or hold) extremely high win streaks because of this. Roster engineering can, I believe (though I will accept feedback from others happily) is a strategy that can fall into either of the 2 camps above.

b) Often, you read on these forums about 'adapting' or 'Engineering is the ONLY way to win wars consistently. This is just not true.
Balanced bases is still (to my knowledge) a checkbox within the matchmaking algorithm. By avoiding including within your war roster, engineered bases, you are more likely to get a fair, or even slightly beneficial match up, often based upon the available pool of other clans. My own clan has no engineered bases, and has won 85-90% of wars, since the March update.

:thumbsup:

---

Totally agree with part A, engineering a base is not the only form of engineering happening, it is perhaps in some ways even easier to manipulate the war MM setup with engineering your roster as opposed to specific bases, or even some combination of the two.

For Part B, again I agree completely, but please read myth #1 it is directly related to your point :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WAR1971

nice and informative thread op, well done:thumbsup::thumbsup:.
but u didnt mention most important fact whatever stand between theses myths and facts, war matching needed to be fixed

---

First of all thank you and thanks to all of the people who appreciated the post. I actually do mention exactly that in myth #6 where I state that people should focus their attention on supercell to change the flaw in the MM algorithm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

A very good thread. Congrats OP.

A couple of points to throw into the mix :-

a) There's a big difference between an 'Engineered Clan' and a clan that has 'Engineered bases'. The former I imagine is still fairly rare, and their goal is 'usually' to win a war, even before it's started. There are numerous clans who have (or hold) extremely high win streaks because of this. Roster engineering can, I believe (though I will accept feedback from others happily) is a strategy that can fall into either of the 2 camps above.

b) Often, you read on these forums about 'adapting' or 'Engineering is the ONLY way to win wars consistently. This is just not true.
Balanced bases is still (to my knowledge) a checkbox within the matchmaking algorithm. By avoiding including within your war roster, engineered bases, you are more likely to get a fair, or even slightly beneficial match up, often based upon the available pool of other clans. My own clan has no engineered bases, and has won 85-90% of wars, since the March update.

:thumbsup:

---

Skrags, many don't consider X.5's to be Engineered, but many do. So perhaps your clan doesn't contain any "heavily" engineered accounts.

Either way, I agree with your points.


@OP, I believe this is the first post, I've read claiming to inform readers about what engineering is and isn't that actually does that. :thumbsup:

Perhaps another myth that you could add is the following.

It requires engineered accounts to engineer a clan. Which is not the case at all, in fact roster engineering can be done with all maxed TH's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectroWizzard

Perhaps another myth that you could add is the following.

It requires engineered accounts to engineer a clan. Which is not the case at all, in fact roster engineering can be done with all maxed TH's.

---

Excellent point that Skrags alluded to earlier... I will edit and add it to the list of myths!

One thing...you're still talking in mirrors when you talk about an engineering game being matched to someone. The defensive rankings in a clan war are unique to the clan that is being ranked; although clans will often tell their members to attack the person with the same defensive ranking as their own, that does not mean that these players are ranked equally or that they've been matched up by the game. If both sides were truly equal, then it would be the same within the defensive rankings; that's simply not the case. Individuals just aren't matched up during the matchmaking process; it's the total clan war weight that is used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctaire

One thing...you're still talking in mirrors when you talk about an engineering game being matched to someone. The defensive rankings in a clan war are unique to the clan that is being ranked; although clans will often tell their members to attack the person with the same defensive ranking as their own, that does not mean that these players are ranked equally or that they've been matched up by the game. If both sides were truly equal, then it would be the same within the defensive rankings; that's simply not the case. Individuals just aren't matched up during the matchmaking process; it's the total clan war weight that is used.

---

its tricky though because over time your mirror is likely to be similar to you if your structures your clan the same way most clans do, so it can be valuable info. For exemple or you have a 9.5 at the top of your order, that drama a max 9 40%, a strong 10 with infernoes 10%, a moderate 10 30% and a fellow 9,5 20% of time thats still good info to have, better of course is the full clan marchup, allthough i suspect supercell does do some in lane checks and therefor matching at the top?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Myth #7

Engineering or Maxing or any other way to play the game is the only "right" way to play.

Wrong again, there are many different reasons people play the game, and with many different outcomes they are trying to achieve. Some people play to win wars, some people play to max out their base, some people play to make friends, others yet play to donate as many troops as they can... There is no right way to play the game, everyone is entitled to play for their own reasons and for their own end outcome. Calling out others for how they play the game is petty and ignorant. Play the game for your own reasons and enjoy it while you do.

Sorry for the long post, hopefully people can add to my list of myths

Good luck guys and Happy clashing!!

---

Great post...except for this part.

If you deliberately do something in a multi-player game that negatively impacts others and their enjoyment of the game, then fielding criticism is perfectly within reason.

Calling people petty and ignorant for complaining about something like that is pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

To make matters worse.. you yourself have been pushed into playing the game the same way as the engineers, because "adapt or die off" and somehow see nothing wrong with that.

So tell me.. exactly which part of "dying off" should people enjoy while playing the game "for their own reasons"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nullandvoid

Great post...except for this part.

If you deliberately do something in a multi-player game that negatively impacts others and their enjoyment of the game, then fielding criticism is perfectly within reason.

Calling people petty and ignorant for complaining about something like that is pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

To make matters worse.. you yourself have been pushed into playing the game the same way as the engineers, because "adapt or die off" and somehow see nothing wrong with that.

So tell me.. exactly which part of "dying off" should people enjoy while playing the game "for their own reasons"?

---

Maxers deliberatly max their base in multiplayer farming, so engineers can criticise maxers on that. But we dont, because we understand supercell created the game metrics, and its our job to understand them and follow them. If you dont like the war matchmaker metrics, ask supercell to change it and provide a sugesstion for a fix, so members can give their input.

checks nnerfs suggestion

i think in addition they should weigh key offence more, weigh it defence less, weigh overall offence and defence 50/50, and should do a in lane check for the top th in a war to see the key offence and defence structures do not have too much variation.

There is one more reason people start "engineering" their base: to gain troops needed for cc donations. our clan lost a few TH10's after many of our TH9's started doing HGHB and GoBoHo. a couple of us decided to "rush" our TH8's to get bowlers and so we have TH7/8 defenses and a rough mix of TH9/10 troops.

Nice post OP. Would be nice if you could add a definition as to what you consider to be engineering.

IMO, and I know people disagree, but I would add:

Myth #9

Engineering and .5 are the same thing

To me, the difference being: A true .5 maxes out defenses of the previous TH level, an engineer does not.

I find it irritating when people accuse .5's of doing it for an advantage in war, when the truth is, the main reason for .5 (unless taken to the extreme) is to not be at a disadvantage in war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nullandvoid

Great post...except for this part.

If you deliberately do something in a multi-player game that negatively impacts others and their enjoyment of the game, then fielding criticism is perfectly within reason.

Calling people petty and ignorant for complaining about something like that is pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

To make matters worse.. you yourself have been pushed into playing the game the same way as the engineers, because "adapt or die off" and somehow see nothing wrong with that.

So tell me.. exactly which part of "dying off" should people enjoy while playing the game "for their own reasons"?

---

Thank you for your response.... However, I disagree completely. If people are doing things within the parameters of the game which allow them to succeed and other gamers do not like it, then it is up to the gamers to do one of three things.

1) Quit the game as you are clearly not enjoying it.

2) Adapt to this way of playing and enjoy the alternative way of thinking.

3) Attempt to persuade the developers to change the metrics of the game.

Notice there is no option listed there which includes criticizing players for playing within the boundaries of the game. This is because it turns into a "he said, she said" type of argument which is neither constructive nor enjoyable for anyone involved or anyone having to witness it.

As for the quote where I say it is "petty and ignorant", you are clearly missing the context of what I am saying... This is in direct response to those people who feel that their way is the "only right way to play" of which there are a number of people... My statement is purely to bring attention to the ingnorance of that argument. As I clearly outline in that myth.

Why do you feel us .5s are cheating. In no way did we alter the game code except play in a different manner to youse. If everyone played the same way then the game would go stale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deaf

Why do you feel us .5s are cheating. In no way did we alter the game code except play in a different manner to youse. If everyone played the same way then the game would go stale.

---

This post is irrelevant to the topic as no where has anyone said that in this thread, please stick to the focus of the thread in future posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Thank you for your response.... However, I disagree completely. If people are doing things within the parameters of the game which allow them to succeed and other gamers do not like it, then it is up to the gamers to do one of three things.

1) Quit the game as you are clearly not enjoying it.

2) Adapt to this way of playing and enjoy the alternative way of thinking.

3) Attempt to persuade the developers to change the metrics of the game.

Notice there is no option listed there which includes criticizing players for playing within the boundaries of the game. This is because it turns into a "he said, she said" type of argument which is neither constructive nor enjoyable for anyone involved or anyone having to witness it.

As for the quote where I say it is "petty and ignorant", you are clearly missing the context of what I am saying... This is in direct response to those people who feel that their way is the "only right way to play" of which there are a number of people... My statement is purely to bring attention to the ingnorance of that argument. As I clearly outline in that myth.

---

well written post, neutral, fair and without toxicity. Example for us all, including me.

10 docates do having a good attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

This post is irrelevant to the topic as no where has anyone said that in this thread, please stick to the focus of the thread in future posts.

---

Your thread comes across as very anti engineering to me, picking out the facts & myths of what not along everyone was calling a rusher.

Tbh I don't really get your point your trying to debate. It's quite simple, ever since modders were caught and banned people need to focus on the next thing to enable them to win easier. Which is ironic, as you said there is no right or wrong way but they seems to be enough people telling us how we should be playing.

I have gone from a near maxed TH9 (king was lvl27) straight to TH11 just to get GW. Built all my offence up, lab is woefully behind and left my defence at TH9. Considering the amount of time I spent trying to max TH9. I am now enjoying myself a lot more than when I was at TH9. Btw I'm the only person in my clan with a .5 base as I kept a promise to my leader to jump to TH11 with him as he was getting bored of TH10. Do I regret it, hell no and I won't likely change anything any time soon.

Will i complain if things change for .5s, no but i will if people start another crusade to nerf the next thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deaf

Your thread comes across as very anti engineering to me, picking out the facts & myths of what not along everyone was calling a rusher.

Tbh I don't really get your point your trying to debate. It's quite simple, ever since modders were caught and banned people need to focus on the next thing to enable them to win easier. Which is ironic, as you said there is no right or wrong way but they seems to be enough people telling us how we should be playing.

I have gone from a near maxed TH9 (king was lvl27) straight to TH11 just to get GW. Built all my offence up, lab is woefully behind and left my defence at TH9. Considering the amount of time I spent trying to max TH9. I am now enjoying myself a lot more than when I was at TH9. Btw I'm the only person in my clan with a .5 base as I kept a promise to my leader to jump to TH11 with him as he was getting bored of TH10. Do I regret it, hell no and I won't likely change anything any time soon.

Will i complain if things change not for .5s but only if people start another crusade to nerf the next thing.

---

In my view, you are not a 0.5, you are an engineered base (TH9 defense, some TH11 offense).

Also, from my perspective, SumoSloth's post is fairly neutral. I don't see it leaning one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deaf

Your thread comes across as very anti engineering to me, picking out the facts & myths of what not along everyone was calling a rusher.

Tbh I don't really get your point your trying to debate. It's quite simple, ever since modders were caught and banned people need to focus on the next thing to enable them to win easier. Which is ironic, as you said there is no right or wrong way but they seems to be enough people telling us how we should be playing.

I have gone from a near maxed TH9 (king was lvl27) straight to TH11 just to get GW. Built all my offence up, lab is woefully behind and left my defence at TH9. Considering the amount of time I spent trying to max TH9. I am now enjoying myself a lot more than when I was at TH9. Btw I'm the only person in my clan with a .5 base as I kept a promise to my leader to jump to TH11 with him as he was getting bored of TH10. Do I regret it, hell no and I won't likely change anything any time soon.

Will i complain if things change for .5s, no but i will if people start another crusade to nerf the next thing.

---

i think his thread is very neutral.

One of the biggest myths about engineering is that .5's are not engineering ... Well, they obviously are since it matches the definition perfectly. Whether the level of the defence is only 1 TH behind that of the offence or 5, in the end it makes little difference as it's still an advantage. Obviously, the larger the difference between offence and defence, the bigger the amount of the extra offence that you can hide from the matchmaking to deliver an extra punch in the war but even 1 TH level is just fine to give you a major advantage in wars (especially when you got several .5's in your roster).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

Thank you for your response.... However, I disagree completely. If people are doing things within the parameters of the game which allow them to succeed and other gamers do not like it, then it is up to the gamers to do one of three things.

1) Quit the game as you are clearly not enjoying it.

2) Adapt to this way of playing and enjoy the alternative way of thinking.

3) Attempt to persuade the developers to change the metrics of the game.

Notice there is no option listed there which includes criticizing players for playing within the boundaries of the game. This is because it turns into a "he said, she said" type of argument which is neither constructive nor enjoyable for anyone involved or anyone having to witness it.

As for the quote where I say it is "petty and ignorant", you are clearly missing the context of what I am saying... This is in direct response to those people who feel that their way is the "only right way to play" of which there are a number of people... My statement is purely to bring attention to the ingnorance of that argument. As I clearly outline in that myth.

---

Your exclusion of criticism from that list is arbitrary at best. I would add it at 4, and see nothing wrong with people doing 2,3 and 4 simultaneously.

This forum exists for discussion amongst players. It is not a direct line to SC. There is no reason why everyone has to agree on everything just because it is "within boundaries".

Once again, I find it alarming that you see no issue with something backs people into a corner, forcing them to either change their play style or quit.

I didn't miss the context. I only glossed over the fact that the basis of that point is where the disingenuity lies.

It is not an issue of any single "right way to play". It is an issue of whether engineering is a "wrong way to play" or not and I see nothing wrong with people having opinions on the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CanadianLegend

One of the biggest myths about engineering is that .5's are not engineering ... Well, they obviously are since it matches the definition perfectly. Whether the level of the defence is only 1 TH behind that of the offence or 5, in the end it makes little difference as it's still an advantage. Obviously, the larger the difference between offence and defence, the bigger the amount of the extra offence that you can hide from the matchmaking to deliver an extra punch in the war but even 1 TH level is just fine to give you a major advantage in wars (especially when you got several .5's in your roster).

---

Is this a counter to my post? I disagree with you on this one, matter of opinion of course. A .5 is a maxer that prioritizes offense over defense at each townhall level. An Engineer does not max previous TH level defenses. This is how I differentiate them.

As for .5 giving you an advantage, not going .5 gives you a disadvantage. Which path will you choose?

Op. Nice thread
You forgot to add the most important reason of remaining forever an engineered max offense th11.
Reason: to avoid modders
I will not drop more defenses until sc solve burner cheaters

Also in my idea a good engineered base should not get 3* by a Th below
So no th10 should be able to 3* my max offense th11 but 74k weight!
It's still true. Only one modder th10 3* me in more than 100 wars. Only th11 could 3* me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nullandvoid

It is an issue of whether engineering is a "wrong way to play" or not and I see nothing wrong with people having opinions on the latter.

---

An opinion of engineering is the "wrong way to play" implies that there is a "right way to play" not that there is "no right way to play".

The opinions should not be pointed at any way to play that is within the limits of the ToS and game programming. But rather at the limits which allow for such exploits to occur.

Im an avid player for 23 months with 3 accounts.

The first account is a th10, 40/40 heroes, max defence and just 208 magmas and 67 lavas to go.
When I started playing I followed the max theology as that's all I seemed to read about. Upon hitting th8, my elixir was overflowing and legos were almost complete when I came across SHARONSYM's story and rushed to th9. My defence upgraded quickly but I was always struggling in wars to do well against the enemy around my mirror due to the fact that my lab was hopelessly behind. In fact I still have 150 days of upgrades to go still

Reading up on things I discovered where I was going wrong and around late th9 when my defence was almost maxed, I started my second account. I wasn't raiding much due to max heroes and almost max lavas, wanted something else to do and I had just started my own clan and needed members and wanted to donate to myself for raiding.

I maxed th7 with this account and decided to do something different this time. We had started to face a fair few clans with engineered bases, .5s etc, so why not have a go myself? See what it was all about

It was my second account, so big deal if it went wrong.

It is currently 8.5,no bows, 200+ legos and 15/17 heroes in a year of playing. It doesn't war much due to having at least 1 hero upgrading normally.

To those who advocate dropping xbows early, that's just daft to have th8 troops, baby heroes and drawing in proper th9s who you cant attack properly. Not cowardice at all, just common sense.

To those engineers who try and say its a fair trade as you lose more loot in multiplayer, that's nonsense too.
Yes, you lose a little more than if you had bows, but farming is not about how much loot you lose, its all about how much loot you raid, that's all

No one is ever going progress as quickly as their 5 builders can build without raiding a lot.

I decided to leave the clan I started with most of my members and join a lv11 war clan. Rather that give the clan away, I decided to create a third account and leave him in charge. I wasn't going to leave a lv8 clan to someone I didn't trust, and wanted a bolt hole if life at the new clan didn't pan out.

By this time I had read about defenceless accounts.

This account is a few months old, going th7 with almost max collectors. I rarely logged onto it as life was so much fun in my new clan.
I relied on collectors exclusively until th6, it was a piece of cake.

I've read some who say its really difficult to build a defenceless, proving ok so far. I just wanted to try something different.

So I've tried 3 different ways, through ignorance and curiosity. All of them a different journey and two of them fun (defenceless is as boring as hell)

So when I look around and see people complaining of .5s and engineers, as a max th10 myself, would it be prudent to drop new xbow and EA early at th11?

I've caught up from previous mistakes, and wont be making the same ones about defence over offence again. And if the MM changes, easy fix, just drop new defences.

Crazybod, co-leader Peaky Blinderz #9qugvply

Defenseless and .5's are both forms of engineering. Everyone keeps arguing about it back and forth but it isn't an either or thing. Those are forms of engineering. It is a way to refer to a specific type of engineered account. Defenseless is just as it says, it is having only the original cannon. If you have anything else, you might be engineered but you are not defenseless. .5 means not building any new defenses in your current hall level, but having all of the defenses from the prior levels and working on maxing them out. If you don't have all of the prior defenses or if you have any of the defenses from your current hall level, then you are not .5. You are engineered perhaps, but not a .5 engineered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nullandvoid

Your exclusion of criticism from that list is arbitrary at best. I would add it at 4, and see nothing wrong with people doing 2,3 and 4 simultaneously.

This forum exists for discussion amongst players. It is not a direct line to SC. There is no reason why everyone has to agree on everything just because it is "within boundaries".

Once again, I find it alarming that you see no issue with something backs people into a corner, forcing them to either change their play style or quit.

I didn't miss the context. I only glossed over the fact that the basis of that point is where the disingenuity lies.

It is not an issue of any single "right way to play". It is an issue of whether engineering is a "wrong way to play" or not and I see nothing wrong with people having opinions on the latter.

---

the forums are for discussion, not insulting and flame waring. As soon as you call out engineers and critisise (usually name calling or character assanation) they simply respond in kind, the forums are worse for it, and the mods get involed, which is good for no one.

the second issue is that your critisising players for optimising their upgrade choicechose, given the game metrics which they dont control.

since it is not them who create the game metrics, and since personal attack result in like for like flame wars, the mature thing to do is focus on he matchmaker, and debate what type of matchmaker is best for flash, why its best, and how to achieve it.

you have the exact same discussion, without the toxicity, without the insults and it ends up being productive. All you lose is the chance to insult fellow clashers and forum members, which is against forum rules anyway.

the only poeple who disagree with this, want to inflame, and want to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctaire

One thing...you're still talking in mirrors when you talk about an engineering game being matched to someone. The defensive rankings in a clan war are unique to the clan that is being ranked; although clans will often tell their members to attack the person with the same defensive ranking as their own, that does not mean that these players are ranked equally or that they've been matched up by the game. If both sides were truly equal, then it would be the same within the defensive rankings; that's simply not the case. Individuals just aren't matched up during the matchmaking process; it's the total clan war weight that is used.

---

Actually, SC has said that they do pay attention to matching in lanes (mirror bases). It is not the only factor, clearly, and shouldn't be.

I expect that the matchmaking system scores each potential match on a number of factors (how closely do overall weights match? how closely do individual weights line up? etc.) and if the score for the match is high enough, it makes a war. Such a system can easily accommodate the behavior that the matching parameters loosen as the search goes on (just lower the minimum score required to make a match).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Defenseless and .5's are both forms of engineering. Everyone keeps arguing about it back and forth but it isn't an either or thing. Those are forms of engineering. It is a way to refer to a specific type of engineered account. Defenseless is just as it says, it is having only the original cannon. If you have anything else, you might be engineered but you are not defenseless. .5 means not building any new defenses in your current hall level, but having all of the defenses from the prior levels and working on maxing them out. If you don't have all of the prior defenses or if you have any of the defenses from your current hall level, then you are not .5. You are engineered perhaps, but not a .5 engineered.

---

You speak as though your opinion is fact. There is no clear definition of what is considered "engineering". There are many who would argue that being an 8.5 just means not dropping xbows, and 9.5 not dropping infernos. If prioritizing offense over defense at your current TH level is considered engineering, what is the term for prioritizing defense over offense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

You speak as though your opinion is fact. There is no clear definition of what is considered "engineering". There are many who would argue that being an 8.5 just means not dropping xbows, and 9.5 not dropping infernos. If prioritizing offense over defense at your current TH level is considered engineering, what is the term for prioritizing defense over offense?

---

.5 is engineering. It also happens to be a more acceptable way of engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

what is the term for prioritizing defense over offense?

---

Reverse engineering? LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

.5 is engineering. It also happens to be a more acceptable way of engineering.

---

Again, that is your opinion, and I disagree. Show me an official definition of engineering in clash of clans and I might concede.

Building your base in any way, shape or form could be considered engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

Reverse engineering? LOL.

---

That could work. My point was, many people would define that as maxing, when in fact you can be a .5 and a maxer at the same time, which is why I think a .5 and an engineer should be considered 2 different things for arguments sake.

, i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

I would like to adress something since I don't feel toxicity around this thread, as many claim over the replies of this post, everyone has their own right to play as they like and have fun, but what if any of those playing styles affect the rest?

Not saying everyone must play as a maxer or an engineer, but I would like to ask, isn't engineering lessening the gaming experience and enjoyment of the people who like to war and dont engineer? Not in the same league as modding but in a different way. Why do the people who dont engineer have to adapt? Arent people supposed to play the way they like? With modders seem to be the same thing. Modding or die.

Shouldnt engineer be considered as an attempt to win wars at the expense of other people's fun, and in consequence isnt that making it in some way unethical? If you engineer you are concious of it. The main problem here as said before is not engineering itself but MM in wars. Adapt or die excuse for me is lame. Engineer should be like smoking. As you are allowed to do it whenever you like because is your life , you arent allowed in public spaces you because it harms other people health.

What I claim here is, why do we have to change our play style just to win a war? As I am allowed to play how I like I shouldnt be punished for it by getting a matchup against someone who has a huge advantage. As the analogy before, if someone chose to smoke it is his/her problem, but I'm not going to be forced to smoke just because everyone does and say is good for me.

I'm not judging engineers, but them harming my playing style (in wars) with their own is what I'm against. You should be allowed to play the way you like but without bothering anyone else.

---

I think you have missed the point, to call engineers unethical is not acceptable for 4 reasons.

1 maxers hurt premmie rushed bases or defence strong bases in war in the same way engineers hurt maxed bases, so to call engineers unethical for doing what you are doing is hypocrisy.
2 engineers are building bases according to the game metrics they have no control over, to say they are unethical for not deliberatly building bases worse so they lose more is silly
3 focusing on he matchmaker, and how it should match, and how best to achieve that is a very productive discusion, insulting engineers results in toxic flame war, where engineers simply respond back in kind
4 most inportantly, its against forum rules to insult one another, i cannot call maxers stupid, even if i believe them to be, its no relevant. Everyone thinks they are right, whether you are objectivly correct is irrelevant - DO NO INSULT OTHER FORUM MEMBERS, you have no right to call me unethical, and i have no right to call you stupid. Simple as that.

please see my post ealier which i assume you missed on the issue, and lets have a good discussion as to how supercells matchmaker would match and why. You post started well and could have developed into an interesting discusion around a neutral point, the matchmaker.

this is my ealier post:

the forums are for discussion, not insulting and flame waring. As soon as you call out engineers and critisise (usually name calling or character assanation) they simply respond in kind, the forums are worse for it, and the mods get involed, which is good for no one.

the second issue is that your critisising players for optimising their upgrade choicechose, given the game metrics which they dont control.

since it is not them who create the game metrics, and since personal attack result in like for like flame wars, the mature thing to do is focus on he matchmaker, and debate what type of matchmaker is best for flash, why its best, and how to achieve it.

you have the exact same discussion, without the toxicity, without the insults and it ends up being productive. All you lose is the chance to insult fellow clashers and forum members, which is against forum rules anyway.

the only poeple who disagree with this, want to inflame, and want to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

You speak as though your opinion is fact. There is no clear definition of what is considered "engineering". There are many who would argue that being an 8.5 just means not dropping xbows, and 9.5 not dropping infernos. If prioritizing offense over defense at your current TH level is considered engineering, what is the term for prioritizing defense over offense?

---

Yes, they are terms of art but they have a common meaning among those who use them regularly. I don't know of anyone who "argues" that 8.5 means simply not building bows. They might casually call it that, but if you actually discuss it with them they will say, well more like 8.75. 8.5 means you have all of the th8 defenses and none of the th9 defenses. If you have all of the th9 defenses othe than bows, you are not 8.5. You are engineered, but it isn't 8.5.

What is the term for prioritizing defense over offense? Badly rushed ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

.5 is engineering. It also happens to be a more acceptable way of engineering.

---

Correct, it is a form of engineering. Engineering simply referes to upgrading your base in a way that you believe is beneficial to war. Maxing all of your defense out as fast as possible and building all defensive units is very advantageous to trophy pushing and to protecting your resources. So, going away from that and intentionally NOT building certain defenses in order to gain a war advantage is referred to as engineering.

If not for war, one of the very first things to add at th10 would be inferno towers. They are great on defense. War is the only reason not to have them. By not adding them you are upgrading your base in a way that is a disadvantage to trophy pushing and to protecting loot, but in a way that you think benefits war. That is what the clash community refers to as engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

Again, that is your opinion, and I disagree. Show me an official definition of engineering in clash of clans and I might concede.

Building your base in any way, shape or form could be considered engineering.

---

I agree, if there is an intent behind it. You could be "engineering" it for trophy pushing, but since the clash community doesn't use the term in that way, most wouldn't know what you are talking about. Engineering in the clash community refers to intentionally building, upgrading, etc. in a way that you think benefits war. There is no reason to argue about that. I also don't see an official definition for "clouds" or "larry" but if someone said "after an hour of clouds I was sad to see my witches larrys didnt trigger the bombs like they used to" I would know what they are talking about.

Some have mentioned that engineers lessen experience for others and is thus unethical. Does that mean maxers are unethical for lessening a rusher's experience in multiplayer? Of course not! Neither playstyle is "unethical". As Viking has said, calling someone unethical because they are upgrading their base within the boundaries of the game in a way as to win, is plain silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

Again, that is your opinion, and I disagree. Show me an official definition of engineering in clash of clans and I might concede.

Building your base in any way, shape or form could be considered engineering.

---

It is because engineering means to build. The vitriol is directed at lopsided bases because they provide the most advantage. .5s also provides an advantage but the amount is smaller and more people can accept/overcome them. A maxed th 9 can 3 star a 9.5 for example.

Pre-update, wars were really easy as well if you loaded up on .5s. lvl 2 miners could 3 star any th 9 layout. No kill squad needed. Just 5 heals, 2 poisons and a bunch of miners. Post update, unskilled attackers will fail to 3 star th 9s with miners. Also post update, those same 9.5s got matched to early/mid 10s instead of the maxed/near maxed 9s previously.

I have
1 maxed townhall 11
1 mid townhall 10
2 townhall 9.5s
1 townhall 8.5
1 defenseless townhall 10

So i see how much advantage each brings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Correct, it is a form of engineering. Engineering simply referes to upgrading your base in a way that you believe is beneficial to war. Maxing all of your defense out as fast as possible and building all defensive units is very advantageous to trophy pushing and to protecting your resources. So, going away from that and intentionally NOT building certain defenses in order to gain a war advantage is referred to as engineering.

---

you guys are arguing about definitions of words not yet delfined officially, so it comes down to how are the words are currently used, and how should the works be used. On the forum bases with offence 2 th above defence or more are usually considered engineered, allthough a few also think .5, where offence roughly 1 th ahead is engineering.

super .5 and up are in principle the same as .5, and balanced maxing is engineering if you consider in comparison an organic upgrader who upgrader defence ahead of offence.

its an interesting disscusion where to draw the line, which probably has to do with the context in which it is used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

I would like to adress something since I don't feel toxicity around this thread, as many claim over the replies of this post, everyone has their own right to play as they like and have fun, but what if any of those playing styles affect the rest?

Not saying everyone must play as a maxer or an engineer, but I would like to ask, isn't engineering lessening the gaming experience and enjoyment of the people who like to war and dont engineer? Not in the same league as modding but in a different way. Why do the people who dont engineer have to adapt? Arent people supposed to play the way they like? With modders seem to be the same thing. Modding or die.

Shouldnt engineer be considered as an attempt to win wars at the expense of other people's fun, and in consequence isnt that making it in some way unethical? If you engineer you are concious of it. The main problem here as said before is not engineering itself but MM in wars. Adapt or die excuse for me is lame. Engineer should be like smoking. As you are allowed to do it whenever you like because is your life , you arent allowed in public spaces because it harms other people health.

What I claim here is, why do we have to change our play style just to win a war? As I am allowed to play how I like I shouldnt be punished for it by getting a matchup against someone who has a huge advantage. As the analogy before, if someone chose to smoke it is his/her problem, but I'm not going to be forced to smoke just because everyone does and say is good for me.

I'm not judging engineers, but them harming my playing style (in wars) with their own is what I'm against. You should be allowed to play the way you like but without bothering anyone else.

---

I look at. Clan war as a contest of styles and may the best style win. If you go back to ufc in the very early days it wasnt each person learning multiple styles but which style was better at that contest.
The same holds here for war. Im not saying a maxer needs to adapt or die. But maxers need to realize there is more than one way to play. If a person chooses to max they will have certain limitations mostly with clan war. They need to accept those limitations and not demand SC change it.
Engineers have limitations also. For a lot of us we engineers have accepted those limitations.
With the new update i believe SC wants us to max. Just not at each th. I believe defenses can/should be not a prioriy until th9/10. Even then its still off>def.
The long grind at th9 is the perfect time to get caught up on defenses. Even then its not the time to max. That to me is at th11.
Reguardless of how you play people need to realize there are pros and cons to their choice of how they play. Complaining to SC when someone doesnt play the way you do it just childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexheney

The various posts back and forth discussing what is ad hominem attack, whether it is OK to call people unethical and or childish brats have all been deleted as being wholly toxic and not advancing the actual discussion about engineering at all.

If anybody wishes to post to this (or any other) thread, please stick to objective discussion of the topic, without bringing ethics or morality into it.

What is "ethical" or "unethical" is always a matter of opinion, but describing somebody as unethical is also always considered an insult.

---

for those who think its ok to call fellow forum members unthecial, perhaps the above can enligheten you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

I agree, if there is an intent behind it. You could be "engineering" it for trophy pushing, but since the clash community doesn't use the term in that way, most wouldn't know what you are talking about. Engineering in the clash community refers to intentionally building, upgrading, etc. in a way that you think benefits war. There is no reason to argue about that. I also don't see an official definition for "clouds" or "larry" but if someone said "after an hour of clouds I was sad to see my witches larrys didnt trigger the bombs like they used to" I would know what they are talking about.

---

I am part of the clash community, and that is not how I refer to engineering. I have seen this argument debated in previous posts as well, so it seems to me like the clash community might not all necessarily agree with your definition of engineering.

Many people also have different opinions as to which path benefits them in war, including prioritizing defense over offense or finding the middle ground.

I don't really want to debate this anymore, so will politely end with, in my humble opinion, I don't think .5 is nor should be classified as a form of engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

I would like to adress something since I don't feel toxicity around this thread, as many claim over the replies of this post, everyone has their own right to play as they like and have fun, but what if any of those playing styles affect the rest?

Not saying everyone must play as a maxer or an engineer, but I would like to ask, isn't engineering lessening the gaming experience and enjoyment of the people who like to war and dont engineer? Why do the people who dont engineer have to adapt? Arent people supposed to play the way they like?

Shouldnt engineer be considered as an attempt to win wars at the expense of other people's fun, and in consequence isnt that making it in some way unethical? If you engineer you are concious of it. The main problem here as said before is not engineering itself but MM in wars. Adapt or die excuse for me is lame. Engineer should be like smoking. As you are allowed to do it whenever you like because is your life , you arent allowed in public spaces you because it harms other people health.

What I claim here is, why do we have to change our play style just to win a war? As I am allowed to play how I like I shouldnt be punished for it by getting a matchup against someone who has a huge advantage. As the analogy before, if someone chose to smoke it is his/her problem, but I'm not going to be forced to smoke just because everyone does and say is good for me.

I'm not judging engineers, but them harming my playing style (in wars) with their own is what I'm against. You should be allowed to play the way you like but without bothering anyone else.

---

You are absolutely correct, in the sense that people should be allowed to play however they choose to play. The caveat to that unfortunately is to accept the consequences of your playing style under the current allowable system. If others are playing within the rules than they are also entitled to play how they want, if this negatively affects your game style than you must take in to account the choices I made in a previous post.

1) quit

2) adapt

3) get the rules changed

Judging by your post, you are leaning towards #3

Now fortunately for you, your example highlights exactly these choices (although comparing negatively affecting one's health to the amount of fun derived from a game is a bit of a stretch)... You brought smoking up as an example. Many years ago people had 3 choices 1) staying away from people who smoke (ie. quitting) 2) joining them and enjoying smoking (which many people did), or sticking to non-smoking areas (adapting) or 3) have it become illegal or uncomfortable to smoke in public places, by outlining the negative effects and pressing the government to make the changes. (get the rules changed)

The rules on smoking in many areas have been changed to better the safety to the public, which is great, I propose that the matchmaking algorithm should be changed to better help everyone as well.

However, calling smokers "bad people" did nothing to further the conversation along and helped in no way with the problem at hand. That is in part, the point of this thread.

Another side comment, I have seen this argument before "they are, with their tactics ruining my fun" Stop for a second and think about this idea... What if the opposing player derives fun from winning? What if they derive fun from figuring out the best way in the given system for accomplishing a win? At what point does your fun outweigh the fun of the engineer? Answer: it doesn't and so as long as they are playing within the metrics of the game there is nothing wrong with their tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

I don't appreciate you saying that people are "insulting" toward others. It is a label and offends me and you deserve an infraction. See how this works? Grow up and get thicker skin if the term "unethical" is offensive. Your father must be proud.

---

Normally I'd agree with you. Grow a thicker skin. But in this case, there are two reasons why I don't:

1. Family friendly forum. Yes unethical isn't a crazy insult, but kids get offended and this is supposed to be family friendly.

2. This topic gets our of hand quick enough as it is. Removing the ethics discussion from this topic, and any other insult helps keep this on topic and actually encourages a real discussion instead of a flame war.

3. Surprise reason: Don't tell mods how to mod. Or atleast tell them in a more constructive way. Its generally not a good idea to ♥♥♥♥ of the mods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

I am part of the clash community, and that is not how I refer to engineering. I have seen this argument debated in previous posts as well, so it seems to me like the clash community might not all necessarily agree with your definition of engineering.

Many people also have different opinions as to which path benefits them in war, including prioritizing defense over offense or finding the middle ground.

I don't really want to debate this anymore, so will politely end with, in my humble opinion, I don't think .5 is nor should be classified as a form of engineering.

---

I wouldn't refer to a .5 as "engineered" because there is a more specific term to use: ".5." It is a form of engineering because you are upgrading it in a way to benefit war at the disadvantage of multiplayer play. But I agree I wouldn't call it "engineered" when ".5" is more precise.

Sorry In advance did not read your whole message .

But put simply from a 24/7 war clan based on real people with some mini accounts . We now engineer are upgrades because you have to , we meet very few if not any non engineered clans these days . Fact you only do it tonimprove chance off war wins no real other reason and most clans have done it for sometime not a new thing.

while raiding love a engine base low defences and normally good loot.

Stop trying to kid yourself and anyone else there is any other real benefit other than fudging the war match up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumoSloth

You are absolutely correct, in the sense that people should be allowed to play however they choose to play. The caveat to that unfortunately is to accept the consequences of your playing style under the current allowable system. If others are playing within the rules than they are also entitled to play how they want, if this negatively affects your game style than you must take in to account the choices I made in a previous post.

1) quit

2) adapt

3) get the rules changed

Judging by your post, you are leaning towards #3

Now fortunately for you, your example highlights exactly these choices (although comparing negatively affecting one's health to the amount of fun derived from a game is a bit of a stretch)... You brought smoking up as an example. Many years ago people had 3 choices 1) staying away from people who smoke (ie. quitting) 2) joining them and enjoying smoking (which many people did), or sticking to non-smoking areas (adapting) or 3) have it become illegal or uncomfortable to smoke in public places, by outlining the negative effects and pressing the government to make the changes. (get the rules changed)

The rules on smoking in many areas have been changed to better the safety to the public, which is great, I propose that the matchmaking algorithm should be changed to better help everyone as well.

However, calling smokers "bad people" did nothing to further the conversation along and helped in no way with the problem at hand. That is in part, the point of this thread.

Another side comment, I have seen this argument before "they are, with their tactics ruining my fun" Stop for a second and think about this idea... What if the opposing player derives fun from winning? What if they derive fun from figuring out the best way in the given system for accomplishing a win? At what point does your fun outweigh the fun of the engineer? Answer: it doesn't and so as long as they are playing within the metrics of the game there is nothing wrong with their tactics.

---

So what happens when someone just upgrades a TH. Should they be penalised and set to your special algorithm, how much time frame is a new TH allowed before they are no longer a part of the problem. What you deem better to help everyone doesn't mean half the forum agree with you nor does it actually help.

Why do you think they implemented friendly wars. So people like you could find like minded clans and war. Your solution is already in game, why don't you start a thread requesting details of maxed clans and war from that?

good thread. sums up a lot of points.

on a side note, i think .5s def got nerfed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

Your comparison is not valid. You compared a statement to a question or request. His statement is the other poster is insulting and thus is a label. Bottom line remains though, grow thicker skin. Seems you need to as well.

---

a requests has an impolite statement, so it is the same thing, when i say, please dont insulting me, i am saying you just insulted me, please dont do that, so the statement is always there, if only implied.

but if you want to insult people be my guest, allthough i strongly rekommend you dont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFallenDragon

good thread. sums up a lot of points.

on a side note, i think .5s def got nerfed.

---

many are reporting this, but some claim its not the case, little to early to tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

I would like to adress something since I don't feel toxicity around this thread, as many claim over the replies of this post, everyone has their own right to play as they like and have fun, but what if any of those playing styles affect the rest?

Not saying everyone must play as a maxer or an engineer, but I would like to ask, isn't engineering lessening the gaming experience and enjoyment of the people who like to war and dont engineer? Not in the same league as modding but in a different way. Why do the people who dont engineer have to adapt? Arent people supposed to play the way they like? With modders seem to be the same thing. Modding or die.

Shouldnt engineer be considered as an attempt to win wars at the expense of other people's fun, and in consequence isnt that making it in some way unethical? If you engineer you are concious of it. The main problem here as said before is not engineering itself but MM in wars. Adapt or die excuse for me is lame. Engineer should be like smoking. As you are allowed to do it whenever you like because is your life , you arent allowed in public spaces because it harms other people health.

What I claim here is, why do we have to change our play style just to win a war? As I am allowed to play how I like I shouldnt be punished for it by getting a matchup against someone who has a huge advantage. As the analogy before, if someone chose to smoke it is his/her problem, but I'm not going to be forced to smoke just because everyone does and say is good for me.

I'm not judging engineers, but them harming my playing style (in wars) with their own is what I'm against. You should be allowed to play the way you like but without bothering anyone else.

---

harming others? at the expense of others fun?

♥♥♥♥♥ what are you? do you complain about people taking your loot too? i mean theyre depriving me of my fun too. SHould we nerf losing loot?

smh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

, i

I think you have missed the point, to call engineers unethical is not acceptable for 4 reasons.

1 maxers hurt premmie rushed bases or defence strong bases in war in the same way engineers hurt maxed bases, so to call engineers unethical for doing what you are doing is hypocrisy.
2 engineers are building bases according to the game metrics they have no control over, to say they are unethical for not deliberatly building bases worse so they lose more is silly
3 focusing on he matchmaker, and how it should match, and how best to achieve that is a very productive discusion, insulting engineers results in toxic flame war, where engineers simply respond back in kind
4 most inportantly, its against forum rules to insult one another, i cannot call maxers stupid, even if i believe them to be, its no relevant. Everyone thinks they are right, whether you are objectivly correct is irrelevant - DO NO INSULT OTHER FORUM MEMBERS, you have no right to call me unethical, and i have no right to call you stupid. Simple as that.

please see my post ealier which i assume you missed on the issue, and lets have a good discussion as to how supercells matchmaker would match and why. You post started well and could have developed into an interesting discusion around a neutral point, the matchmaker.

this is my ealier post:

the forums are for discussion, not insulting and flame waring. As soon as you call out engineers and critisise (usually name calling or character assanation) they simply respond in kind, the forums are worse for it, and the mods get involed, which is good for no one.

the second issue is that your critisising players for optimising their upgrade choicechose, given the game metrics which they dont control.

since it is not them who create the game metrics, and since personal attack result in like for like flame wars, the mature thing to do is focus on he matchmaker, and debate what type of matchmaker is best for flash, why its best, and how to achieve it.

you have the exact same discussion, without the toxicity, without the insults and it ends up being productive. All you lose is the chance to insult fellow clashers and forum members, which is against forum rules anyway.

the only poeple who disagree with this, want to inflame, and want to fight.

---

So, you are just saying if there were no laws that prevent you to cheat, would you mod? Copy in exams? Win a boxing title by filling your gloves with steel in every fight? Does it have a value? Maybe yes, unethical is too much, but I didnt insult them by saying engineers are unethical, maybe it got lost into transition that I wanted to ask if they are or are not and why. Lets leave that behind, what I wanted to express is that why do I have to tolerate such punishment from the way I play, and why do I have to adapt if there is nothing wrong with it, just people exploiting the MM and I dont because it is not challenging to have 4 or 6 more attacks on the other clans top when they dont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

many are reporting this, but some claim its not the case, little to early to tell.

---

Hasn't been the case in my clan, and we have many .5's with very strong offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

So, you are just saying if there were no laws that prevent you to cheat, would you mod? Copy in exams? Win a boxing title by filling your gloves with steel in every fight? Maybe yes, unethical is too much, but I didnt insult them by saying engineers are unethical, maybe it got lost into transition that I wanted to ask if they are or are not and why. Lets leave that behind, what I wanted to express is that why do I have to tolerate such punishment from the way I play, and why do I have to adapt if there is nothing wrong with it, just people exploiting the MM and I dont because it is not challenging to have 4 or 6 more attacks on the other clans top when they dont.

---

1) Yes
2) Yes. Better future and career for me.
3) better then getting beat so yes

and everyone has the equal number of attacks in war.

also why do i have to tolerate the punishment of getting my loot taken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

I wouldn't refer to a .5 as "engineered" because there is a more specific term to use: ".5." It is a form of engineering because you are upgrading it in a way to benefit war at the disadvantage of multiplayer play. But I agree I wouldn't call it "engineered" when ".5" is more precise.

---

But that is the point, there are more precise terms for all types of "engineered' bases.

Max, X.5, Super X.5, Perma X.5, MiniMax, Preemie, Defenseless.

Engineering is a plan of action to achieve a goal.

All bases are engineered for some goal, calling a base engineered is the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotTheRealPaul

Normally I'd agree with you. Grow a thicker skin. But in this case, there are two reasons why I don't:

1. Family friendly forum. Yes unethical isn't a crazy insult, but kids get offended and this is supposed to be family friendly.

2. This topic gets our of hand quick enough as it is. Removing the ethics discussion from this topic, and any other insult helps keep this on topic and actually encourages a real discussion instead of a flame war.

3. Surprise reason: Don't tell mods how to mod. Or atleast tell them in a more constructive way. Its generally not a good idea to ♥♥♥♥ of the mods.

---

I agree this is family friendly. I am not sure which censoring agencies consider the word unethical to be offensive though. As for your second reason, I agree. I also believe that people voicing their opinion as unethical is a valid point. Ethics are why people choose to do or not do many things. For example, I do not go to an elementary school to dunk on some kids. Sure, I could if I wanted to but I feel it would be unethical. As for the third point, they can give as many infractions for disagreeing as they want. It is their forums and they can censor how they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

I agree this is family friendly. I am not sure which censoring agencies consider the word unethical to be offensive though. As for your second reason, I agree. I also believe that people voicing their opinion as unethical is a valid point. Ethics are why people choose to do or not do many things. For example, I do not go to an elementary school to dunk on some kids. Sure, I could if I wanted to but I feel it would be unethical. As for the third point, they can give as many infractions for disagreeing as they want. It is their forums and they can censor how they wish.

---

ethics dont apply in this game unless you are cheating.

if engineered bases are unethical, so is smashing weak bases for loot in regular, using the "hot" troop of the month, taking peoples loot, dipping in general, hitting premmies, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

So, you are just saying if there were no laws that prevent you to cheat, would you mod? Copy in exams? Win a boxing title by filling your gloves with steel in every fight? Maybe yes, unethical is too much, but I didnt insult them by saying engineers are unethical, maybe it got lost into transition that I wanted to ask if they are or are not and why. Lets leave that behind, what I wanted to express is that why do I have to tolerate such punishment from the way I play, and why do I have to adapt if there is nothing wrong with it, just people exploiting the MM and I dont because it is not challenging to have 4 or 6 more attacks on the other clans top when they dont.

---

First: Calling someone unethical on this forum is considered an insult. Alexheney (did I spell that right?) put that to rest.

Second: You don't have to adapt. It's just an option for you. However, you do have to live with your choices.

Third: Why do rushers have to tolerate the punishment you give them in multiplayer? Should that system be changed to take away a maxers' advantage? Why should rushers tolerate the punishment for the way they play?

Fourth: Who purposely upgrades in a way not to win? It's silly to try not to lose. You should be mad at the matchmaker, not the people trying to win.

Fifth: If there were no laws preventing cheating...well that would be interesting. Here is my take on it. When you outlaw something, you deem it as unethical. Example: Abortion was outlawed previously because it was considered unethical. But when you allow something, you deem it ethical. Example: Now that abortions are allowed, it is considered fine. So to answer your question: If copying someone on a test was allowed, then the government, and thus the people who elected that government, have deemed it okay. I, as someone trying to do the best withing the rules, would copy from those smarter than me for things I didn't know to get the best score possible while staying within the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectroWizzard

But that is the point, there are more precise terms for all types of "engineered' bases.

Max, X.5, Super X.5, Perma X.5, MiniMax, Preemie, Defenseless.

Engineering is a plan of action to achieve a goal.

All bases are engineered for some goal, calling a base engineered is the pot calling the kettle black.

---

Well some people are so casual or so clueless they have no goal in mind. But, yes, I agree there are more precise terms. That is why I would call a .5 a .5 not "engineered." It is "engineered" but ".5" is the type of engineering that was done and is more specific so I would use ".5." There are many types of engineered bases.

It appears people are arguing here for no reason other than to argue, so I'm off to other threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianDu

So, you are just saying if there were no laws that prevent you to cheat, would you mod? Copy in exams? Win a boxing title by filling your gloves with steel in every fight? Does it have a value? Maybe yes, unethical is too much, but I didnt insult them by saying engineers are unethical, maybe it got lost into transition that I wanted to ask if they are or are not and why. Lets leave that behind, what I wanted to express is that why do I have to tolerate such punishment from the way I play, and why do I have to adapt if there is nothing wrong with it, just people exploiting the MM and I dont because it is not challenging to have 4 or 6 more attacks on the other clans top when they dont.

---

if modding was legal of course i would mod. If copy were legal in an exam, then that would be part of the rules and i would copy. If the other boxer was going to fill his gloves as per the rules of course i would so i dont get killed, i may however chose not to fight at all if i have that option. I dont make up my own rules and enforce them on others. In life its more complicated of course, in a game where there are rules created by th game manufacturer, its really easy.

you seam to have missed my explanation, that a rushed premmi account or defence strong account could accuse you of being unethcial.

and lets say for a second you right (i think you 100% wrong), but even then the productive way to have his debate is to focus on the matchmaker. A polite and thoughtful discussion would ensue.

most inportant insulting one another is against forum rules, because when you start it comes back, it goes down in flames, and its infractions all round.

i understand your frustrated with the situation, but there is a better way to do this.

Individual engineering a base .

Cons

you have to raid hard as your defences are low so you will always take the hit when raided.

pros

none unless you are in a clan and you can hit higher and your war weight is lower than a legit player.

it really is that simple let's stop pretending it is anymore complex .

How many engineered bases are not in a clan and just do it for fun lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

if modding was legal of course i would mod. If copy were legal in an exam, then that would be part of the rules and i would copy. If the other boxer was going to fill his gloves as per the rules of course i would so i dont get killed, i may however chose not to fight at all if i have that option. I dont make up my own rules and enforce them on others. In life its more complicated of course, in a game where there are rules created by th game manufacturer, its really easy.

you seam to have missed my explanation, that a rushed premmi account or defence strong account could accuse you of being unethcial.

and lets say for a second you right (i think you 100% wrong), but even then the productive way to have his debate is to focus on the matchmaker. A polite and thoughtful discussion would ensue.

most inportant insulting one another is against forum rules, because when you start it comes back, it goes down in flames, and its infractions all round.

i understand your frustrated with the situation, but there is a better way to do this.

---

in short, dont let your angry tears cloud your judgement and make dumb analogies/arguments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

I agree this is family friendly. I am not sure which censoring agencies consider the word unethical to be offensive though. As for your second reason, I agree. I also believe that people voicing their opinion as unethical is a valid point. Ethics are why people choose to do or not do many things. For example, I do not go to an elementary school to dunk on some kids. Sure, I could if I wanted to but I feel it would be unethical. As for the third point, they can give as many infractions for disagreeing as they want. It is their forums and they can censor how they wish.

---

plase read the posts i have previously written it seams you have not. All this arguments are superceded by against th rules to insult others on the forums. Calling people unethical is an insult. Thats the end of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

I look at. Clan war as a contest of styles and may the best style win. If you go back to ufc in the very early days it wasnt each person learning multiple styles but which style was better at that contest.
The same holds here for war. Im not saying a maxer needs to adapt or die. But maxers need to realize there is more than one way to play. If a person chooses to max they will have certain limitations mostly with clan war. They need to accept those limitations and not demand SC change it.
Engineers have limitations also. For a lot of us we engineers have accepted those limitations.
With the new update i believe SC wants us to max. Just not at each th. I believe defenses can/should be not a prioriy until th9/10. Even then its still off>def.
The long grind at th9 is the perfect time to get caught up on defenses. Even then its not the time to max. That to me is at th11.
Reguardless of how you play people need to realize there are pros and cons to their choice of how they play. Complaining to SC when someone doesnt play the way you do it just childish.

---

This is the most logical answer I've seen and I agree with you. Although, the posibility to have a TH11 in a war of TH9s (for example) is what thrills me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotTheRealPaul

First: Calling someone unethical on this forum is considered an insult. Alexheney (did I spell that right?) put that to rest.

Second: You don't have to adapt. It's just an option for you. However, you do have to live with your choices.

Third: Why do rushers have to tolerate the punishment you give them in multiplayer? Should that system be changed to take away a maxers' advantage? Why should rushers tolerate the punishment for the way they play?

Fourth: Who purposely upgrades in a way not to win? It's silly to try not to lose. You should be mad at the matchmaker, not the people trying to win.

Fifth: If there were no laws preventing cheating...well that would be interesting. Here is my take on it. When you outlaw something, you deem it as unethical. Example: Abortion was outlawed previously because it was considered unethical. But when you allow something, you deem it ethical. Example: Now that abortions are allowed, it is considered fine. So to answer your question: If copying someone on a test was allowed, then the government, and thus the people who elected that government, have deemed it okay. I, as someone trying to do the best withing the rules, would copy from those smarter than me for things I didn't know to get the best score possible while staying within the rules.

---

Using the same logic something is only illegal if you get convicted. In that same ethical sense many murderers were just operating within the guidelines of society. Innocent until proven guilty, even if guilty. No some of us choose to remain ethical and hope for a balance where this gimmick is fixed and you are left with plenty of farming to catch up on. Until then, cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

plase read the posts i have previously written it seams you have not. All this arguments are superceded by against th rules to insult others on the forums. Calling people unethical is an insult. Thats the end of it.

---

Thicker skin please

I actually want to see fair matchmaking.

Pre update this match was common....

TEAM A TEAM B
TH10 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH9.5 or TH9
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9 vs TH9
....

It's obvious here that Team A has the advantage. Offense was simply weighed too little.

When the max(offense/defense) system was in place post December update the following was common...

TEAM A TEAM B
TH10 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9 vs TH9
....
Here it's obvious that TEAM B has the advantage. Offense was simply weighed too much.

What I personally believe is fair (and hope SC is working towards is)....

TH10 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH9.5 or TH10
TH9.5 vs TH9 or TH9.5
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9 vs TH9
...

To me this seems fair and it still keeps .5 as a viable TRANSITION step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

Thicker skin please

---

ok ive made an effort to explain the arguments, how you behave is up to you. If you want to go to the matresses for the right to insult people on a forum where their is a rule against insulting people, well again up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azrial

I actually want to see fair matchmaking.

Pre update this match was common....

TEAM A TEAM B
TH10 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH9.5 or TH9
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9 vs TH9
....

It's obvious here that Team A has the advantage. Offense was simply weighed too little.

When the max(offense/defense) system was in place post December update the following was common...

TEAM A TEAM B
TH10 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9 vs TH9
....
Here it's obvious that TEAM B has the advantage. Offense was simply weighed too much.

What I personally believe is fair (and hope SC is working towards is)....

TH10 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH10
TH9.5 vs TH9.5 or TH10
TH9.5 vs TH9 or TH9.5
TH9.5 vs TH9
TH9 vs TH9
...

To me this seems fair and it still keeps .5 as a viable TRANSITION step.

---

I agree. Just a little tweak and it'll be the sweet spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

ok ive made an effort to explain the arguments, how you behave is up to you. If you want to go to the matresses for the right to insult people on a forum where their is a rule against insulting people, well again up to you.

---

Un3+#|cal the new 4 letter word. Wouldn't want viking to say it at school or in church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

Un3+#|cal the new 4 letter word. Wouldn't want viking to say it at school or in church.

---

Why do you keep baiting??? Could just leave it now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CanadianLegend

One of the biggest myths about engineering is that .5's are not engineering ... Well, they obviously are since it matches the definition perfectly. Whether the level of the defence is only 1 TH behind that of the offence or 5, in the end it makes little difference as it's still an advantage. Obviously, the larger the difference between offence and defence, the bigger the amount of the extra offence that you can hide from the matchmaking to deliver an extra punch in the war but even 1 TH level is just fine to give you a major advantage in wars (especially when you got several .5's in your roster).

---

Yes, I agree. clans with as few as 20-30% are likely to create matchups where they can basically 3 star every base except the very top one by hitting down one TH level.

consider a 15 man war where team Max has 1 th11, 4 th10, 8 th9 and 2th8. team Max.5 has 1 th11, 2 th10.5, 2 th10, 3 9.5, 5 th9, 1 th8.5 and a th6.

Team Max.5 has 6 th11 attacks for the top 5 bases, 10 th10 attacks for the 8 th9s (plus as many scouts as they could possibly need from all the th9 bases) and plenty of th9 attacks to clear the 2 th8s.

these matchups allow the .5 clan to three every base except the top th11 and they don't even have to be good. and these clans (we've faced plenty of them) never ARE very good attackers, just good enough to spam-3 a lower TH because that's all they're ever called on to do.

you almost face a better chance against a more heavily engineered clan, because those are often over-engineered to the point of giving up a really easy 95%-ish themselves and you can maybe win a showdown at the top even if they have several tries. against a heavy .5 clan, if you are not sandbagged in the same manner, your whole clan has to be almost perfect to have even a slim chance.

It's all just so stupid. all I want, and all I imagine most people want, is to have a war system where you have fair matchups where both clans, on paper, have a fairly equal shot at winning. I know that is easier said than done, but right now there are massive holes in the matchmaking that allow for widespread manipulation, and SUPERCELL NEEDS TO FIX IT.

OP, are you going to add and Facts to your thread (since the title is Facts and Myths)? I recommend you add as a fact, SC has stated that lopsided bases are not the way the game was meant to be played, and they have plans to address it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

OP, are you going to add and Facts to your thread (since the title is Facts and Myths)? I recommend you add as a fact, SC has stated that lopsided bases are not the way the game was meant to be played, and they have plans to address it.

---

Fact 1) supercell intendents to nerf/balance engineered bases
Fact 2) supercell has nothing positive to say about it
Fact 3) it can be infered, however not for certain, that it is utilising an unintended consequence of matchmaker changes - however this is impied or infered and is not 100 percent certain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

I don't appreciate you saying that people are "insulting" toward others. It is a label and offends me and you deserve an infraction. See how this works? Grow up and get thicker skin if the term "unethical" is offensive. Your father must be proud.

---

^ great example of how to be toxic and what happens when you are.