Supercell PLEASE find a solution to roster engineering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJPB

Clash - meet and come into violent conflict ... a violent confrontation

Sure seems to me like the game's intent is for Clans to war against each other. Those who do not want to war (for one reason or another) simply excuse themselves and opt out. Clan wars is not a side game of CoC.

As for playing dirty, have you not heard that all is fair in love and war. As long as a player abides by the TOS, that person is playing fair.



Does SC need to work on clan war matchmaking, YES and I'm already on the record saying that in many of my posts.

Getting better war matches should not come at the cost of exclusion of a subset of Clashers.

---

We can agree the matchmaking needs work, I can't agree that clan wars is anything other than an optional side event. Thousands of clans do not war at all.
They are still playing clash of clans.
If clan wars was the sole purpose of the game it wouldn't be optional.
each to their own, of course people should be able to play however they like but an ill prepared clan definitely shouldn't have an advantage over one that is.

The term all is fair in love and war is nothing more than a cop out to justify UNfair play.
Throwing a baby or 2 into the team to gain an unfair advantage is a dirty tactic plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxbaseee

thats modding, get your facts right

---

Modding is just as bad and falls under the same umbrella.
Doing something sly and sneaky to gain an unfair advantage over your opponents is wrong, wether that be modding, Engineering, roster engineering or any other dirty tactic to gain unfair advantage.
I am pro FairPlay, simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavePorky

Modding is just as bad and falls under the same umbrella.
Doing something sly and sneaky to gain an unfair advantage over your opponents is wrong, wether that be modding, Engineering, roster engineering or any other dirty tactic to gain unfair advantage.
I am pro FairPlay, simple as that.

---

One is against the ToS, one isn't.

I'm curious what everyone thinks of .5 bases? Does anyone that thinks putting a TH5 in a war is cheating have a 0.5 base? Why do people typically max their heroes before building the new defenses at a new TH level?

Oh it works?? then why don't you use it?
Also I'm pretty sure that there are even more players below TH 7 than there are above TH7.
I mean I got about 100 war stars when I warred at TH 6 and you're telling that there should be no wars for TH 7 below?
Respectfully disagree.

Maybe we should claim that anyone that has a 0.5 base is a cheater too.

Since "ALL" who put low lv town halls in their wars are "clearly" cheaters even if they don't intend to get better match-ups, why don't we say "ALL" who max their heroes before they build new defenses are "clearly" cheaters even if it isn't for the purpose of getting better match-ups. (sarcasm)

i dont understand why people put fat bases in the bottom.

bottom bases are always 3 starred. bottom bases are always free 3stars and doesnt need add unnecessary weight. it's like asking for a disadvantage. it is a bad move. something as bad as using barch on wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevs926

i dont understand why people put fat bases in the bottom.

bottom bases are always 3 starred. it's like asking for a disadvantage. it is a bad move. something as bad as using barch on wars.

---

It's not a disadvantage when done properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavePorky

Modding is just as bad and falls under the same umbrella.
Doing something sly and sneaky to gain an unfair advantage over your opponents is wrong, wether that be modding, Engineering, roster engineering or any other dirty tactic to gain unfair advantage.
I am pro FairPlay, simple as that.

---

Do you farm in lower leagues one could argue it to be a dirty tactic since you are trying to gain an unfair advantage over less developed bases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevs926

i dont understand why people put fat bases in the bottom.

bottom bases are always 3 starred. bottom bases are always free 3stars and doesnt need add unnecessary weight. it's like asking for a disadvantage. it is a bad move. something as bad as using barch on wars.

---

Yes, those fat bases get 3* with ease (even though our TH8 get zero loot for them, soooo fun for them!) but they get a massive advantage of having more attacks on your top bases offensively. That is where it matters.

In our last 5 wars, 4 of them have had engineered TH11 at the bottom of their roster. Some had 42/42/20 with fully maxed troops and other less like 25/25/10 with just a few key maxed troops for war. This advantage is massive in mixed wars, especially when the top of the roster is a dead heat to begin with. Having any extra number of TH11 hits with solid troops is an incredible advantage in war.

THAT is the problem with those ''fat bases''.

... and no, we are not a lopsided clan. Our lowest accounts are near maxed to maxed TH8, and we run all the way up to my max TH11. 4-6 TH11 total depending on opt ins. The only base we have that would be considered engineered is a TH10.5 as I've yet to convince him it is not working anymore lol

Or max your heroes before your defenses to get a better war match-up. The logic doesn't hold up when extended. Everyone likes to have their hands clean but we are all guilty of searching for unfair advantages in some way.

(In response to smokenbooze1 )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokenbooze1

Do you farm in lower leagues one could argue it to be a dirty tactic since you are trying to gain an unfair advantage over less developed bases?

---

I don't. It would feel wrong for me personally.

Porky, do you max your heroes before you build new defenses when you go to a new town hall level?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

One is against the ToS, one isn't.

---

True though hardly relevant. Both are underhanded. Legal highs are legal, so was slavery once. Legal doesn't mean ethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osuchemnerd

Or max your heroes before your defenses to get a better war match-up. The logic doesn't hold up when extended. Everyone likes to have their hands clean but we are all guilty of searching for unfair advantages in some way.

(In response to smokenbooze1 )

---

already maxed my def and royals was just responding to a comment about moddig being eqaul to engineering since they are both "gaining an advantage"

But if you max your heroes before you build new defenses at a new TH lv this also leads to an unfair advantage in war. Would you agree?

And therefore maxing your royals before building any new defenses as a new town hall level would be the same as modding right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokenbooze1

Do you farm in lower leagues one could argue it to be a dirty tactic since you are trying to gain an unfair advantage over less developed bases?

---

Sound logic if we were playing Clash Royale, however we're not. We get "penalized" for being in lower leagues due to the low loot bonus, loot penalty for hitting TH lower than us, and there are inactive dead bases in lower leagues to make for easier farming. I've been matched up with many th10 and th11 in Silver league that are just as maxed as I am at th10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osuchemnerd

But if you max your heroes before you build new defenses at a new TH lv this also leads to an unfair advantage in war. Would you agree?

---

Yea isnt that what a X.5 is? To me gaining an advantage through a method available to all players is fair game, I like maxing my base personally and farming similar bases but if people wanna go through the work of engineering a roster or their base I got no issue with it. War searches can go either way, sometimes you're the bug and sometimes you're the winshield either way you gotta play it out since at the end of the day this is just something we do to have some fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osuchemnerd

Porky, do you max your heroes before you build new defenses when you go to a new town hall level?

---

Man you are really scraping the barrel now. Next you will be asking me if I've ever raided someone with unloaded defences.
The subject is in the title please try to stick to it rather than deviate with petty point scoring. Manipulating the system to give an advantage in war is dirty and low. Try and justify it to yourself if you like (if you do it) but you won't convince me that unfair play is justifiable with silly questions like that. I see your angle and its weak at best.

If I have misunderstood I apologise, if you you're not trying to convince me dirty play is ok or justifiable than my reply is a little toxic and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellimist325

Sound logic if we were playing Clash Royale, however we're not. We get "penalized" for being in lower leagues due to the low loot bonus, loot penalty for hitting TH lower than us, and there are inactive dead bases in lower leagues to make for easier farming. I've been matched up with many th10 and th11 in Silver league that are just as maxed as I am at th10.

---

I agree there are a lot of th10s and th11s in lower leagues I was simply using that as a point of reference in gaining an advantage in the game was not saying its not a fair method ect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavePorky

True though hardly relevant. Both are underhanded. Legal highs are legal, so was slavery once. Legal doesn't mean ethical.

---

First time I've seen something in this game compared to slavery. This is interesting.

That is my point. If one is saying that anything you do to gain a better match-up in war is cheating then a lot more of us are "cheaters" than just people who do roster engineering. What some seem to be implying is that if I put two TH5s at the bottom of my roster so that my clan can go to war either 1. I am a cheater or 2. I should not take my clan to war.

I understand that people than make a TH11 with one defense then have max heroes and max troops creates lopsided matchups. My clan doesn't do that and I can understand the frustration. We actually beat the last two clans we faced that did that because they were bad attackers. My problem is all of the righteousness on this thread and I just want to point out that we all seek unfair adavantages in one war or another.

I think we were trying to say the same thing smokenbooze1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

First time I've seen something in this game compared to slavery. This is interesting.

---

Not the best example I could have made, I apologise if I ruffled any feathers. My point was simply that because something is legal or a loophole can be found it doesn't mean it is ethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Recruit, some are good some are bad. Look, you can try to justify your actions but it falls on deaf ears here. I've seen your clan, if you can not have at least 10 of your decent members war, that's your problem. This is a shady tactic, plain and simple.

---

I agree with you. Most of these trolls know exactly what you are saying and know it is wrong, but since they do it themselves, they will try to defend it, or at least pretend its not an issue or does not exist. The "filler" argument is just a convenient excuse to throw around. Most clans that put low th bases in war do it to skew the overall war weight. Now granted, there will be times when you are trying to do a war and you need 1 more player in, so you toss in a filler, but many of these clans conveniently have maxed out Townhall 10s or 11s up top, and 3-10 "fillers" on the bottom. Its done to skew war weight and draw an easier opponent and it works period. Any argument otherwise is just a troll, or a cheater trying to justify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavePorky

Not the best example I could have made, I apologise if I ruffled any feathers. My point was simply that because something is legal or a loophole can be found it doesn't mean it is ethical.

---

Thanks for the response. Analogies can be tricky at times, especially when using them in Clash. I understand your point and I agree with the sentiment, but I stop short of saying it's on the same level as using a third party application, or a clear violation of the Terms of Service. I think it's important to separate the two, because words and semantics matter. IMO, roster engineering or having lopsided bases for the purposes of getting a better matchup is sandbagging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

For the record, I am against engineering (lopsided bases) in war, and I'm against roster engineering. I also do both of these things, because we are a casual adult clan who take wars seriously, and we were tired of going up against engineers. So we started doing it ourselves.

I believe engineering is bad for the game and will negatively impact the war community in the long term. I don't think it's the way the game was intended to be played. I am in favor of a war MM system which will reduce the effectiveness of roster engineering and lopsided bases.

I still think the below suggestions are best for updating the MM system (which is actually pretty good right now) and to help with defining what is engineering, and why it is potentially bad for the game.

====

Nerf’s suggestions for engineered bases / clans
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...17#post7861017

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...01#post7979801

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...82#post8067582

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...58#post8371458

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...24#post8371624

Billius discussion on the impact of Engineered clans and bases to the game
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...-and-Farm-Wars

Sumosloth on Engineering
https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...ut-Engineering

Noctaire's blog on Engineering
http://nocsclashjournal.blogspot.com...-how-best.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImmortalPekka

I agree with you. Most of these trolls know exactly what you are saying and know it is wrong, but since they do it themselves, they will try to defend it, or at least pretend its not an issue or does not exist. The "filler" argument is just a convenient excuse to throw around. Most clans that put low th bases in war do it to skew the overall war weight. Now granted, there will be times when you are trying to do a war and you need 1 more player in, so you toss in a filler, but many of these clans conveniently have maxed out Townhall 10s or 11s up top, and 3-10 "fillers" on the bottom. Its done to skew war weight and draw an easier opponent and it works period. Any argument otherwise is just a troll, or a cheater trying to justify it.

---

ImmortalPekka do you or anyone in your clan max your heroes before you build or upgrade defenses at a new town hall level? Do you do this to skew the war weight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vRoyales

Yes, those fat bases get 3* with ease (even though our TH8 get zero loot for them, soooo fun for them!) but they get a massive advantage of having more attacks on your top bases offensively. That is where it matters.

In our last 5 wars, 4 of them have had engineered TH11 at the bottom of their roster. Some had 42/42/20 with fully maxed troops and other less like 25/25/10 with just a few key maxed troops for war. This advantage is massive in mixed wars, especially when the top of the roster is a dead heat to begin with. Having any extra number of TH11 hits with solid troops is an incredible advantage in war.

THAT is the problem with those ''fat bases''.

... and no, we are not a lopsided clan. Our lowest accounts are near maxed to maxed TH8, and we run all the way up to my max TH11. 4-6 TH11 total depending on opt ins. The only base we have that would be considered engineered is a TH10.5 as I've yet to convince him it is not working anymore lol

---

you misunderstand me. when i say fat bases, i mean anything that is above 40k defense weight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osuchemnerd

That is my point. If one is saying that anything you do to gain a better match-up in war is cheating then a lot more of us are "cheaters" than just people who do roster engineering. What some seem to be implying is that if I put two TH5s at the bottom of my roster so that my clan can go to war either 1. I am a cheater or 2. I should not take my clan to war.

I understand that people than make a TH11 with one defense then have max heroes and max troops creates lopsided matchups. My clan doesn't do that and I can understand the frustration. We actually beat the last two clans we faced that did that because they were bad attackers. My problem is all of the righteousness on this thread and I just want to point out that we all seek unfair adavantages in one war or another.

I think we were trying to say the same thing smokenbooze1

---

I on the most part understand and agree with what you are saying. My beef isn't that a clan decides to pop a couple of low town halls in to not disappoint the 8 members that are itching to war, my beef is simply that is shouldn't create a significant advantage for that clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osuchemnerd

ImmortalPekka do you or anyone in your clan max your heroes before you build or upgrade defenses at a new town hall level? Do you do this to skew the war weight?

---

You've completely derailed this thread within the last hour. Stick to the topic, lower town halls (1-4) do not belong in a war with higher town halls (9-11). There is no excuse as immortalpekka had stated. Quit trying to compare apples to oranges and stay on topic, roster engineering, specifically at the bottom of war lineups containing higher town hall levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImmortalPekka

I agree with you. Most of these trolls know exactly what you are saying and know it is wrong, but since they do it themselves, they will try to defend it, or at least pretend its not an issue or does not exist. The "filler" argument is just a convenient excuse to throw around. Most clans that put low th bases in war do it to skew the overall war weight. Now granted, there will be times when you are trying to do a war and you need 1 more player in, so you toss in a filler, but many of these clans conveniently have maxed out Townhall 10s or 11s up top, and 3-10 "fillers" on the bottom. Its done to skew war weight and draw an easier opponent and it works period. Any argument otherwise is just a troll, or a cheater trying to justify it.

---

Spot on. ^^^^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osuchemnerd

ImmortalPekka do you or anyone in your clan max your heroes before you build or upgrade defenses at a new town hall level? Do you do this to skew the war weight?

---

Those answers are totally irrelevant. We all know that the OP, myself, and many others are talking specifically about clans that create junk TH3 accounts and put them in war just to lower their overall war weight. I am seeing moderators on this very thread defend the practice with the totally bogus claim that it may be a new player, or family member or some other ♥♥♥♥ like that. Obviously, it does not take much effort to level a TH3 to the next TH level at all, and someone that doesn't know how to play the game should not be in clan wars until they at least learn the basics. All these folks that put up arguments allowing these folks in war are probably doing it themselves. We all know why they are there, so lets not pretend they are in war for any other purpose. To sit on these threads and claim they are there for legitimate purposes is a total insult to our intelligence and absolutely removes all credibility they may have had.

Now I understand that occasionally, you may need to add some low or inactive base in clan wars to complete a full roster, but we all know that is NOT what the OP is referring to. A defenseless TH3 should not be participating in war with 10s and 11s. They are only there to game the system and we all know it. Stop pretending please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

Thanks for the response. Analogies can be tricky at times, especially when using them in Clash. I understand your point and I agree with the sentiment, but I stop short of saying it's on the same level as using a third party application, or a clear violation of the Terms of Service. I think it's important to separate the two, because words and semantics matter. IMO, roster engineering or having lopsided bases for the purposes of getting a better matchup is sandbagging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

For the record, I am against engineering (lopsided bases) in war, and I'm against roster engineering. I also do both of these things, because we are a casual adult clan who take wars seriously, and we were tired of going up against engineers. So we started doing it ourselves.

I believe engineering is bad for the game and will negatively impact the war community in the long term. I don't think it's the way the game was intended to be played. I am in favor of a war MM system which will reduce the effectiveness of roster engineering and lopsided bases.

I still think the below suggestions are best for updating the MM system (which is actually pretty good right now) and to help with defining what is engineering, and why it is potentially bad for the game.

====

Nerf’s suggestions for engineered bases / clans
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...17#post7861017

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...01#post7979801

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...82#post8067582

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...58#post8371458

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...24#post8371624

Billius discussion on the impact of Engineered clans and bases to the game
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...-and-Farm-Wars

Sumosloth on Engineering
https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...ut-Engineering

Noctaire's blog on Engineering
http://nocsclashjournal.blogspot.com...-how-best.html

---

Great reply, we certainly agree on the most part and I am going to read those threads after finishing this reply.

It's a shame you feel you need to do what you already know is unethical to stand a chance at victory. Personally I haven't chosen that route as I feel I would be adding to the problem and I don't feel 2 wrongs make a right. My warriors may feel otherwise (not that they have said so) but I plan to stick to the high road and just hope SC can find a way around the issue.

The best solution is based some war algorithm on hero built

if you build a bk, your lowest mirror should be a th7
if you build a aq, your lowest mirror should be a th9
if you build a gw, your lowest mirror should be a th11


this is very simple solution to implement in any language and it will solve a huge percentage of defenseless base


but why would SC fix defenseless? They want profit don't they? they want money? Think about the amount of money spent on engineered base? It's not easy building a defenseless base, you barely get any shield from being attacked, you need to be constantly on if you want to loot so you can upgrade stuff, this is money in their pockets!

The only way to win against engineered clan if your clan doesn't have max th11 is to be even more engineered than other engineered clan.

Especially
how a defenseless th9 can easily beat a th8 with dragon bolteq without any planning
how a defenseless th10 can easily beat a th9 with max dragon and lv7 bolt and a rage spell (don't even need an eq), no planning or skills involved, drop the dragon and close the game, easy 3*
how a defenseless th11 can easily 2* th10 with max out dragon skillessly

This argument has been beaten to death in the forums. It's obvious how extreme engineering removes attacking skill from the game. Attack planning and the skill it takes to war at the higher levels, and just in an even match, is one of the most important draws to this game. Farming, camaraderie in the clan system are a few others.

If everyone, including SC, can't see how removing attacking skill and planning from the game won't harm CoC's future then that is their loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharkyFinn

Leveling up? Learning to play the game? Filling a clan slot so that four players aren't forced to sit out?

For all you know, that TH3 could be a family member who just began playing. It could also be a second account of a maxed out player who wants to build up another account. It could be an attempt to "game" the system as you suggested - that doesn't mean it'll work. That village is a normal TH3 with defenses built. There's nothing abnormal about it at all and there are many reasons it could be there.

However, I haven't seen any evidence that adding a TH3 at the bottom of the roster is giving clans an unfair advantage. In fact, it's been my understanding that a matchmaking re-balancing that was implemented a while ago gives less weight to the bottom of the roster when pairing up teams. I'd be willing to bet that team could have put a TH7 at the bottom and still have been seen as a suitable match to your clan.

---

This post made me sick to my stomach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinfiery

This post made me sick to my stomach

---

I didn't reply to it for a reason. Sharky still has my respect as a mod on this forum. To defend the account in question was uncalled for but understandable. Yeah it could be a new player, it could also be a filler account. But there is no question that the accounts(it was more than one) DO NOT belong in higher tier wars. The only reason they were included was for the sole purpose of lowering their OVERALL clan weight. Which is roster engineering and needs to be addressed by Supercell in some way.

Sorta a cup half full/cup half empty lurker here, to solve this problem of roster engineering and or the unfair matchups being brought about by this and or other attempts would require some drastic changes on the rules of war as they stand. First, in most other aspects of coc a higher hall is punished for attacking a lower hall in cups/loot but not war.....Second, people should be allowed to war with who they want and when they want, lower halls need to war to get experience at it, but when used as a filler th3 in a th9-11 war really.....I am for limiting what th levels can war based on the highest th level in war, i know, for limiting participation but if i am in crystal i cant attack bronze or champs can i....So i think just like matchmaking in multiplayer has leaugues, so shouldnt war with higher leaugues giving better experience and loot and last i am in favor of a decline war match button(next...) but at a cost of clan experience that rises per war per push, clash on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

I didn't reply to it for a reason. Sharky still has my respect as a mod on this forum. To defend the account in question was uncalled for but understandable. Yeah it could be a new player, it could also be a filler account. But there is no question that the accounts(it was more than one) DO NOT belong in higher tier wars. The only reason they were included was for the sole purpose of lowering their OVERALL clan weight. Which is roster engineering and needs to be addressed by Supercell in some way.

---

I agree with you that roster engineering is ♥♥, I see it all the time. But you need to understand something. You claim the sole purpose is to lower the overall weight, this is not necessarily true.

You admit that it could be a filler, and it seems most certainly like this is the case in your scenario. The purpose of the filler is not to lower overall weight, the purpose is simply to fill an empty spot so that you don't have to sit anyone out.

Now, under the current matchmaking system, if you have to bring a filler in, who very well may not be using any attacks, strategically speaking, what would be the wiser choice? A defenseless TH3 that will either bring in another TH3 or possibly give you an advantage up top? Or a TH8 that will either match another TH8 that may be difficult for your bottom guys to clear or may just simply bring in a TH3 which will give you a disadvantage up top?

Spot filling and roster engineering are 2 different things, both of which need to be addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambletamble

Sorta a cup half full/cup half empty lurker here, to solve this problem of roster engineering and or the unfair matchups being brought about by this and or other attempts would require some drastic changes on the rules of war as they stand. First, in most other aspects of coc a higher hall is punished for attacking a lower hall in cups/loot but not war.....Second, people should be allowed to war with who they want and when they want, lower halls need to war to get experience at it, but when used as a filler th3 in a th9-11 war really.....I am for limiting what th levels can war based on the highest th level in war, i know, for limiting participation but if i am in crystal i cant attack bronze or champs can i....So i think just like matchmaking in multiplayer has leaugues, so shouldnt war with higher leaugues giving better experience and loot and last i am in favor of a decline war match button(next...) but at a cost of clan experience that rises per war per push, clash on

---

Some interesting ideas there. Limiting the town hall spread is a viable option IMO for Supercell. There is no reason why lower town halls can't war with others similar to their respective town hall levels.

Limiting roster engineering is in the next update; SpAnser leaked it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

Crazy matchup. How are the defenses for the opposing townhall 11s?

---

The "Goblins" top 3 all have Eagle's and are upgraded - the top guy is nearly maxed. The fourth base is a 10.5 and then max 10s below him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denton

Limiting roster engineering is in the next update; SpAnser leaked it...

---

Point me in the direction of that leak please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinfiery

This post made me sick to my stomach

---

ROFL, it made me sick to my stomach too. Its actually the sole reason I created my forum account. I fully understand that there will be new players that just started the game, and that there are going to be low level players in many of the casual clans. I ALSO understand that sometimes, clan members opt out of war for many reasons, and filler accounts are needed to be added so that you do not have to sit a bunch of players to do a 10v10 versus a 20v20.

That being said though, most of us are fully aware that the reasons I listed above are most certainly NOT the norm, and are most certainly NOT the primary reason why a clan would have maxed or close to max th10/11s up top and non developed TH3s down at the bottom. Especially if there are multiple trash accounts sitting on the bottom of their war map.

Those accounts were created specifically for the purpose of gaming the match making system in order to lower the overall war weight of your clan in order to draw easier opponents that you can beat up on. That is a fact, and any justification otherwise is pure fiction being pushed upon all of us by players that are exploiting this match making vulnerability. So players like us have to either do it ourselves(which is what many of us do as the issue has not been addressed in over a year), or not participate in war.(not a viable option for myself and others in my clan).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micker99

Put some in yourself till they fix it. The whole defenseless base thing is stupid and they need to consider TH level way more than they do. A TH11 with no defenses, but a level 5+ GW, should be matching TH11s. Too bad if they didn't build defenses, that's on them. They should go by certain key things, like AQ built, GW built, level 6+ loons, etc.. Key offensive war troops, that give the person the attackig power of their real TH level.

Also, they need to adjust the system, to really put a weight focus on the top 50% of bases. The lower 50% weight bases don't really make a difference. You get 2 attacks and the top 50% can cover all the bases. Do you know any clan that has a REAL TH3-6 in war along with maxed out TH11s lol??

---

Of course, then it ruins the fun of rushers, who probably make up like 20% of the CoC population... Wait til they all come complaining at the forums XD. But then again, I have a even worse idea. After the first war, it checks what lvl troops you are using for your previous war attacks. It keeps basically a log of your last 10 wars and depending on the level of your troops that you used, you get offensive weight. But then there could be more engineering, as in, half of wars, they use really bad troops, and on the other half, they use the most OP troops that could possibly exist. And by lvl of your troops, I mean fraction of max lvl. So if you have, idk, lvl 3 dragons in war, it is considered 1/2 weight because it is lvl 3/6. And lvl 2 witches would be 2/3 weight, etc. Well, I know that I had an even worse idea, but I definitely liked your second one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImmortalPekka

Those accounts were created specifically for the purpose of gaming the match making system in order to lower the overall war weight of your clan in order to draw easier opponents that you can beat up on. That is a fact, and any justification otherwise is pure fiction being pushed upon all of us by players that are exploiting this match making vulnerability.

---

Is it gaming the matchmaking system to add filler accounts to make a 10 man war or so as not to sit anybody out? No.

If you had to select filler accounts that will not attack, would you not prefer for them to have the lowest weight possible?

People are playing in their best interest according to the current system, as they do with any game. To claim they are gaming the system to gain an unfair advantage is not necessarily true, they could very well just be trying to minimize the disadvantage they get from having filler accounts.

I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, just that you can't brand everyone using low level fillers as trying to game the system. When you have 5 or more of these low level accounts, that is a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

Is it gaming the matchmaking system to add filler accounts to make a 10 man war or so as not to sit anybody out? No.

If you had to select filler accounts that will not attack, would you not prefer for them to have the lowest weight possible?

People are playing in their best interest according to the current system, as they do with any game. To claim they are gaming the system to gain an unfair advantage is not necessarily true, they could very well just be trying to minimize the disadvantage they get from having filler accounts.

I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, just that you can't brand everyone using low level fillers as trying to game the system. When you have 5 or more of these low level accounts, that is a different story.

---

I'm not talking about just any low level account. It's accounts made with the sole intention of gaming the system. In other words, accounts like I posted, with nothing unlocked other than barbarians. It practically carries no weight, which in turn lowers the overall weight of the entire clan. If you're worried about filling spots with less riskful accounts, why not go out on global and recruit the lowest player you see? To create an account used solely for and kept at such a low town hall with nothing unlocked is gaming the intended system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

I'm not talking about just any low level account. It's accounts made with the sole intention of gaming the system. In other words, accounts like I posted, with nothing unlocked other than barbarians. It practically carries no weight, which in turn lowers the overall weight of the entire clan. If you're worried about filling spots with less riskful accounts, why not go out on global and recruit the lowest player you see? To create an account used solely for and kept at such a low town hall with nothing unlocked is gaming the intended system.

---

excellent observation and point. You hit the nail right on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braddeller

Stacking low bases below doesn't work anymore. Heavy top light bottom is not gonna match you with medium top medium bottom. It will match you with a similar heavy top light bottom.

---

Are you kidding me? Fee free to pop over to my clan and look at the current war we have. It's pretty much the same every third war. In the event you can't, here are the relevant details.

25v war. 8 Th11s to 10 TH11s. 3-9 eagles. 16-28 infernos. Defensive overall weight of top 15- 1,270,000 to 1,424.000. Total GW attacks- 14 to 20.

And yes, the top 10 on both sides pretty much equal on offense troop level, and hero levels.

The only way this nonsense was viewed as an equal matchup, was due to the 7 TH3, 4s at the bottom of the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Braddeller

Thats because you have some low junk at the bottom too that makes u a heavy top light bottom, just that the enemy has more/lower junk. If you keep a low spread ie just th11 to th9 you will be considered a balanced clan and won't meet such enemies.

---

Not correct. The bottom 5 overall defensive weight is 223,000 to 21,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

I'm not talking about just any low level account. It's accounts made with the sole intention of gaming the system. In other words, accounts like I posted, with nothing unlocked other than barbarians. It practically carries no weight, which in turn lowers the overall weight of the entire clan. If you're worried about filling spots with less riskful accounts, why not go out on global and recruit the lowest player you see? To create an account used solely for and kept at such a low town hall with nothing unlocked is gaming the intended system.

---

Yep...this is exactly why.

I've been in this thread for a while now and the arguments against including TH3s really seem to strain credibility at this point. Many questions I have asked have, essentially, received crickets in reply.

Ultimately, I haven't read a single reason why it's bad to lower your clan weight via the inclusion of a "low" TH, like a TH3.

This thread has carried on upwards of 24-25 pages and many of the arguments just assume it's bad and haven't provided much logic/proof explaining why it is. It's a logical fallacy at this point.

Extending many of these arguments to their logical conclusion, it seems that the general sentiment is that if you don't bring your absolute best/highest TH, you're lowering your clan's overall weight and that's "gaming the system" & "unfair."

I don't think that argument holds much weight at all. The arguments against defenseless TH that could bully at/near the top of the war map held a lot more water than this current scorn held by many to those that lower clan weight by including low TH in their roster. What many seem to ignore is the very real drawback of including a, say, TH3s in your war roster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

I'm not talking about just any low level account. It's accounts made with the sole intention of gaming the system. In other words, accounts like I posted, with nothing unlocked other than barbarians. It practically carries no weight, which in turn lowers the overall weight of the entire clan. If you're worried about filling spots with less riskful accounts, why not go out on global and recruit the lowest player you see? To create an account used solely for and kept at such a low town hall with nothing unlocked is gaming the intended system.

---

As explained above, you need to justify why including a TH3 that has only unlocked barbarians (in your example) is unfair and gaming the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

IMO, roster engineering or having lopsided bases for the purposes of getting a better matchup is sandbagging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

---

I think there's a much more solid argument against lopsided bases than including low TH in war. I don't think it's reasonable to lump them together.

Insofar as including a low TH in war, like a TH3, I think this is a much better descriptor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

snip

---

It's not just town hall threes. Town hall 3 just happened to be the town hall I posted. When they are added at the bottom it results in mismatches at the top. In my case, as I've stated before multiple time on this thread, the enemy ended up with two town halls higher than the highest in our clan. Due to having little to no weight at the bottom. In no way should a th10 be matched to an 11 that contains all the things that make th11 so powerful. Maxed infernos, maxed eagle, grand warden lvl 5+, 4 xbows, extra camp spaces... all the goodies that makes it easier for an 11 to bully the 10 but makes it harder for the 10 to return the favor.

The idea of the match maker is to pair two clans that weigh the same. When adding accounts that basically have no weight (1k) you're shaving multiple k's(?) in weight off. That IS'NT balanced. Just because the two clans are comparable in weight doesn't mean it's a balanced match. Definitely not when the unbalanced part is at the very top of your war map and contains higher town halls than your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

I've been in this thread for a while now and the arguments against including TH3s really seem to strain credibility at this point. Many questions I have asked have, essentially, received crickets in reply.

Ultimately, I haven't read a single reason why it's bad to lower your clan weight via the inclusion of a "low" TH, like a TH3.

This thread has carried on upwards of 24-25 pages and many of the arguments just assume it's bad and haven't provided much logic/proof explaining why it is. It's a logical fallacy at this point.

Extending many of these arguments to their logical conclusion, it seems that the general sentiment is that if you don't bring your absolute best/highest TH, you're lowering your clan's overall weight and that's "gaming the system" & "unfair."

I don't think that argument holds much weight at all. The arguments against defenseless TH that could bully at/near the top of the war map held a lot more water than this current scorn held by many to those that lower clan weight by including low TH in their roster. What many seem to ignore is the very real drawback of including a, say, TH3s in your war roster




As explained above, you need to justify why including a TH3 that has only unlocked barbarians (in your example) is unfair and gaming the system.



I think there's a much more solid argument against lopsided bases than including low TH in war. I don't think it's reasonable to lump them together.

Insofar as including a low TH in war, like a TH3, I think this is a much better descriptor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit

---

I don't have a problem with a TH3 or two in a clan war. Some clans just have a wide range of levels. I don't think that was the purpose of the thread--which may be why people are ignoring your point. The issue is engineering an entire roster. Exactly what cnaf described a few posts earlier in his war example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

It's not just town hall threes. Town hall 3 just happened to be the town hall I posted. When they are added at the bottom it results in mismatches at the top.

---

You keep saying this. Please provide something that supports this claim as highly probable/causal relationship, as previously requested.

And note that I literally just started a war last night, 15v15, and included three TH3s at the bottom of our war map. The resulting enemy and our clan are roughly balanced through the top 8. Their 9-15 vs. our 9-15 is where the "balancing" took place, so this would represent one data point against said relationship.

It seems to me that it might happen, in which case it can be frustrating, but it doesn't seem to have the causal relationship you claim it to be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

In my case, as I've stated before multiple time on this thread, the enemy ended up with two town halls higher than the highest in our clan. Due to having little to no weight at the bottom. In no way should a th10 be matched to an 11 that contains all the things that make th11 so powerful. Maxed infernos, maxed eagle, grand warden lvl 5+, 4 xbows, extra camp spaces... all the goodies that makes it easier for an 11 to bully the 10 but makes it harder for the 10 to return the favor.

---

You've provided one data point, as have I.

And what you seem to really be frustrated with is bullying at the top of the war map, which SC has already worked on and I bet will continue to work on, and they probably should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

The idea of the match maker is to pair two clans that weigh the same. When adding accounts that basically have no weight (1k) you're shaving multiple k's(?) in weight off. That IS'NT balanced. Just because the two clans are comparable in weight doesn't mean it's a balanced match. Definitely not when the unbalanced part is at the very top of your war map and contains higher town halls than your own.

---

Actually, that seems to be your entire argument--balance at the top. If things are okay there, you would be fine with including, say, TH3s in a war lineup.

Is that correct?

It seems to me that this entire thread could be summarized as follows:

"SC,

Please work on the MM so that the top of a war map is more reasonable.

Thanks"

And note, I believe that, in larger wars, those lines blur, big time. The top of the war map seems to become less relevant in larger wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adevati

I don't have a problem with a TH3 or two in a clan war. Some clans just have a wide range of levels. I don't think that was the purpose of the thread--which may be why people are ignoring your point. The issue is engineering an entire roster. Exactly what cnaf described a few posts earlier in his war example.

---

So, once again, it's bullying at the top?

Actually, if I understand correctly, it isn't bullying, it's higher defense for the enemy in cnaf's example. Is that correct? Offense seems ~balanced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

I'm not talking about just any low level account. It's accounts made with the sole intention of gaming the system. In other words, accounts like I posted, with nothing unlocked other than barbarians. It practically carries no weight, which in turn lowers the overall weight of the entire clan. If you're worried about filling spots with less riskful accounts, why not go out on global and recruit the lowest player you see? To create an account used solely for and kept at such a low town hall with nothing unlocked is gaming the intended system.

---

The point I'm trying to make is, not all of these TH3 or low accounts are made with the intent of gaming the system. Quite often they are simply made with the intent of filling an empty spot. I wouldn't touch global with a 10 foot pole, and certainly couldn't be bothered to try and recruit new players every single time I needed a spot or 2 filled, which is almost every war.

More often than not, our low level spot fillers result in us being matched against other spot fillers. Sometimes we gain a slight advantage elsewhere (rarely I must add) and sometimes we are matched against clans with several more low level accounts and so we are at a disadvantage.

If we weren't restricted to doing wars in multiples of 5, then yes, I would agree that intentionally keeping a low account is gaming the system. But since we are, I do not believe that filling up to 4 empty spots with the lowest TH possible is considered gaming the system. I consider it the smartest way to reduce risk of disadvantage due to including 4 inactive accounts in war.

Of course people abuse this, but you can't accuse everyone who uses low level spot fillers as gaming the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

You've provided one data point, as have I.

And what you seem to really be frustrated with is bullying at the top of the war map, which SC has already worked on and I bet will continue to work on, and they probably should.

---

That is the whole propose of this thread. To bring to attention the unbalancing going on at the top, which in my case is due to weight shaving/roster engineering at the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Actually, that seems to be your entire argument--balance at the top. If things are okay there, you would be fine with including, say, TH3s in a war lineup.

Is that correct?

---

That is correct, granted the enemy also has th3 in their line up. Wars are won at the top. I have absolutely nothing against lower townhalls being included in war if both sides have them. But when they're added solely to lower weight off your roster and your enemy has no townhalls around that level, you're gaming the system Supercell has put into place to balance wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

The point I'm trying to make is, not all of these TH3 or low accounts are made with the intent of gaming the system. Quite often they are simply made with the intent of filling an empty spot. I wouldn't touch global with a 10 foot pole, and certainly couldn't be bothered to try and recruit new players every single time I needed a spot or 2 filled, which is almost every war.

More often than not, our low level spot fillers result in us being matched against other spot fillers. Sometimes we gain a slight advantage elsewhere (rarely I must add) and sometimes we are matched against clans with several more low level accounts and so we are at a disadvantage.

If we weren't restricted to doing wars in multiples of 5, then yes, I would agree that intentionally keeping a low account is gaming the system. But since we are, I do not believe that filling up to 4 empty spots with the lowest TH possible is considered gaming the system. I consider it the smartest way to reduce risk of disadvantage due to including 4 inactive accounts in war.

Of course people abuse this, but you can't accuse everyone who uses low level spot fillers as gaming the system.

---

I think the notion of bringing along TH3 as a filler should be fine with everyone, including the OP if he were truly to think about it. For example, a new lvl1 clan starting out only has 8 members but wants to start warring, what are they to do? Take 10 minutes to make 2 TH3 accounts and go on their 10v10 search! No one should have a problem with that tactic.

But those filler accounts are there because the clan can't fill an entire roster, and therefore those accounts should be there to their detriment NOT their advantage. The matchmaker needs to put more emphasis at the top of the roster where wars are truly decided, and if those two TH3 filler accounts end up seeing TH7s or 8s as their mirror because the only other 10 man clan the matchmaker could find that matched the first 8 slots doesn't have TH3s at the bottom SO BE IT! That's what you get for not having enough real mates to fill a 10man roster.

The root problem here, and what really needs to be corrected with regard to the matchmaker, is that being shorthanded and having to fill your bottom with TH3 junk accounts SHOULD NOT result in a mismatch elsewhere on the war map that gives the shorthanded clan any type of advantage, and right now that is exactly what often happens. This of course assumes that those TH3 accounts are, in fact, there just to fill a slot (which as we all know is frequently not the case at all)...

[-QUOTE=Lunaticfringe;9268102]


Yeah, and I got real confused when he states:



I guess I'm missing something[/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is, it's not as if high level offense on our side attributed to the both sides are sporting 40/40/20 and such in the top 10.

I have an offensive metric that I use to help with my data compiling. Just a simple way to track offense in clans. I add up the hero levels and troop levels, camps from each base in war. Top 10 of this war came out as 3888-3813. So very similar. Top 10 total hero levels was 908-880. Again- fairly close.

Do we have an advantage, offensive and hero level wise, overall? Of course. Because 7 of their 25 bases have essentially no troops, and certainly no heroes. Thus, when the MM looks at everything as a whole... it deems it a fair match.

A match that can only be made thanks to roster engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

The point I'm trying to make is, not all of these TH3 or low accounts are made with the intent of gaming the system. Quite often they are simply made with the intent of filling an empty spot.

---

That's a very convenient excuse to be able to hide behind.

Trying to tell me that TH11 war clans all of the sudden need TH3s to fill slots? Really? TH3s that over the course of a season fail to attack even once? Never upgrade their TH?

Let me spin it a different way. If those TH3's somehow hurt the war pairings... you think any of those clans would still be worried about running a 30v war over a 20v war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

I think the notion of bringing along TH3 as a filler should be fine with everyone, including the OP if he were truly to think about it. For example, a new lvl1 clan starting out only has 8 members but wants to start warring, what are they to do? Take 10 minutes to make 2 TH3 accounts and go on their 10v10 search! No one should have a problem with that tactic.

But those filler accounts are there because the clan can't fill an entire roster, and therefore those accounts should be there to their detriment NOT their advantage. The matchmaker needs to put more emphasis at the top of the roster where wars are truly decided, and if those two TH3 filler accounts end up seeing TH7s or 8s as their mirror because the only other 10 man clan the matchmaker could find that matched the first 8 slots doesn't have TH3s at the bottom SO BE IT! That's what you get for not having enough real mates to fill a 10man roster.

The root problem here, and what really needs to be corrected with regard to the matchmaker, is that being shorthanded and having to fill your bottom with TH3 junk accounts SHOULD NOT result in a mismatch elsewhere on the war map that gives the shorthanded clan any type of advantage, and right now that is exactly what often happens. This of course assumes that those TH3 accounts are, in fact, there just to fill a slot (which as we all know is frequently not the case at all)...

---

Well said, and I totally agree that clans shouldn't be rewarded for using TH3's as spot fillers. Though why would you assume that using TH3's to simply fill spots is less frequent than using them to roster engineer? I would think the most common use for TH3's at the bottom is to simply fill spots. If you are using 5 or more, then you are clearly roster engineering.

There is a reason engineers get paid more than the normal worker. Engineer your own roster and enjoy the benefits. You have the ability to do it yourself or LEARN how to do it yourself.

Roster engineering is only a problem if it provides a consistent advantage which it does not... its unpredictable and can make you disadvantaged too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo123

Well said, and I totally agree that clans shouldn't be rewarded for using TH3's as spot fillers. Though why would you assume that using TH3's to simply fill spots is less frequent than using them to roster engineer? I would think the most common use for TH3's at the bottom is to simply fill spots. If you are using 5 or more, then you are clearly roster engineering.

---

I just said it's "frequently not the case," which is undoubtedly true for many clans out there, I didn't necessarily care to clarify whether it was more or less frequent. I'm sure there are clans using them for both reasons; ultimately it doesn't matter.. But regardless of why they're there, they shouldn't provide any sort of advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

That's a very convenient excuse to be able to hide behind.

Trying to tell me that TH11 war clans all of the sudden need TH3s to fill slots? Really? TH3s that over the course of a season fail to attack even once? Never upgrade their TH?

Let me spin it a different way. If those TH3's somehow hurt the war pairings... you think any of those clans would still be worried about running a 30v war over a 20v war?

---

It's not an excuse, it is a fact. Don't get me wrong, I totally game the system with engineered accounts, and I have turned my TH3 spot fillers into TH8 defenseless accounts. But when I did include my TH3's, their sole purpose was to fill spots, not to roster engineer.

Again, I know the system is flawed and I agree clans should not be rewarded for using TH3's at the bottom. I just think there is a difference between spot filling and roster engineering. Spot filling with 4 TH7's in a TH8+ war is the exact same thing as bringing in 4 TH3's, just to a much lesser degree. How often do you fill empty spots with bases that won't be at the bottom of your roster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Actually, that seems to be your entire argument--balance at the top. If things are okay there, you would be fine with including, say, TH3s in a war lineup.

Is that correct?

It seems to me that this entire thread could be summarized as follows:

"SC,

Please work on the MM so that the top of a war map is more reasonable.

Thanks"

And note, I believe that, in larger wars, those lines blur, big time. The top of the war map seems to become less relevant in larger wars

---

Well, yes that's exactly what people are worried about - the imbalance at the top. What we see is if 1 clan has several junk bases then they have a significant advantage elsewhere to bring the totals into alignment, more or less. The advantage might be in the mid range, and sometime is, but since we are comparing 2 sorted lists, any radical differences will tend to be at the ends - ie top in this case.

Tactically in a mixed war the defence on the bottom few bases is irrelevant. In our TH8-10 it can never make any difference to our score if the bottom enemy is Th3 or TH7/weak 8. If an enemy with Th3s has extra defence (or offence) somewhere higher up to "balance" that hurts us.
It's likely the offence on some bottom bases is also irrelevant for clans that go down at least to TH8. In both our clans the low bases will always clear all low bases with attacks to spare. So if some of the low bases actually had TH3 offence it would only affect how well they can scout.

And no, bigger wars don't seem better. Our worst was a 40v, where our top was 2 strong TH10 then some 9.5s, then 9s, then 8s. The enemy was IIRC 4 eagle-less but otherwise almost max TH11s (offensively and defensively), 2 or 3 strong TH10s, then 9.5s, 9s, then TH3s (and some defenceless). Their attacking was horrible, but that was irrelevant since they were dipping every attack and double-dipping many

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeCleave

Roster engineering is only a problem if it provides a consistent advantage which it does not... its unpredictable and can make you disadvantaged too

---

If it more often than not provides a advantage, it needs to be adressed.

Also how exactly does it make you disadvantaged? Facing another clan that is also doing it, isn't a dissadvantage, nor is a tougher opponent due to having a winstreak a dissadvantage of rooster engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salkin101

If it more often than not provides a advantage, it needs to be adressed.

Also how exactly does it make you disadvantaged? Facing another clan that is also doing it, isn't a dissadvantage, nor is a tougher opponent due to having a winstreak a dissadvantage of rooster engineering.

---

it can get you disadvantaged. inf act, it does... repeatedly....


roster engineering is wildly unpredictable imo...

Dont get me wrong, i think sc should make the top of the war map more strictly matched, but it isnt the newbies at the bottom, its the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeCleave

it can get you disadvantaged. inf act, it does... repeatedly....


roster engineering is wildly unpredictable imo...

Dont get me wrong, i think sc should make the top of the war map more strictly matched, but it isnt the newbies at the bottom, its the top.

---

But are you not running a rather odd lineup, and crucially with a maxed TH11 in spot 1? Having the max base in spot 1 does rather limit the chances for the enemy to get an advantage over you at the very top! Clans without a max TH11 might have a rather different experience...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

But are you not running a rather odd lineup, and crucially with a maxed TH11 in spot 1? Having the max base in spot 1 does rather limit the chances for the enemy to get an advantage over you at the very top! Clans without a max TH11 might have a rather different experience...

---

running 10v10s with th9 at the top atm.

running into roster engineered clans (well not really, but they do have weak bases at the bottom) and they are at a disadvantage.

we do have 2 of our own th3 fillers though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micker99

Also, they need to adjust the system, to really put a weight focus on the top 50% of bases. The lower 50% weight bases don't really make a difference. You get 2 attacks and the top 50% can cover all the bases. Do you know any clan that has a REAL TH3-6 in war along with maxed out TH11s lol??

---

like this idea ... it is a fact that the top 50 % determine the war result

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

But are you not running a rather odd lineup, and crucially with a maxed TH11 in spot 1? Having the max base in spot 1 does rather limit the chances for the enemy to get an advantage over you at the very top! Clans without a max TH11 might have a rather different experience...

---

Before my clan got all our infernos dropped, after the October patch, we used to quite-regularly run into engineered clans, some of them very heavily engineered. We hit one war where we had 1 mid th11 (25-28-20), opponents had 6 th 11's spread throughout their roster. I think that was our worst loss since I've been in clan, we were lucky they didn't perfect us with so many th11 attacks to throw at our 1 and we struggled to get 52 stars in a 20v20.

We are doing much better on matchups now that all our bases are balanced, but we typical draw our most-even matchups when it's just th9/10's for us, with maybe one or 2 completely max 55k th8's throw in. I think that once we get a couple more th11's things will even out again, but running with just 1 or 2 of them can often skew us into matching up with a clan with double the number of 11's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micker99

Put some in yourself till they fix it. The whole defenseless base thing is stupid and they need to consider TH level way more than they do. A TH11 with no defenses, but a level 5+ GW, should be matching TH11s. Too bad if they didn't build defenses, that's on them. They should go by certain key things, like AQ built, GW built, level 6+ loons, etc.. Key offensive war troops, that give the person the attackig power of their real TH level.

Also, they need to adjust the system, to really put a weight focus on the top 50% of bases. The lower 50% weight bases don't really make a difference. You get 2 attacks and the top 50% can cover all the bases. Do you know any clan that has a REAL TH3-6 in war along with maxed out TH11s lol??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adr70

like this idea ... it is a fact that the top 50 % determine the war result

---

Not a bad thought there Micker. AQ or lvl 6 loons+lvl 6 dark barracks or lvl 4 valks or lvl 5 hogs or 205+ camp space or lvl 4 sf or lvl 5 cc or lvl 6 giants... Literally 8 different things that I thought of off the top of my head that give a th9 a tremendous advantage over a completely maxed th8, not to mention things like lvl 4 dragons, bbd, witches...

In an ideal scenario they'd just slot you at a max of the previous th once you had a single offensive upgrade. So, for th9 for instance, any of lab, sf, AQ, camps, dsf, barracks, dark barracks would put your minimum war weight at 55k. Though, how they get there and why is extremely important. Nerfedname's old suggestion of increasing weight penalty as offense and defense get more and more out of alignment could potentially fix everything, but the mm algorithm needs to be smart enough to tell the difference between 6m and a bunch of rushers or it could cause more problems than it fixes.

fyi: I've commented several times in this thread and even pm'd the OP to ask for his clan ID. Has anybody seen it? I'm trying to go audit his war lineup in an attempt to figure out what caused his bad match, or, really, to see if it's even a bad match at all, but he's dodging me. I wonder if he's hiding something?

All is fkd Up lately!!!!!!!
20 CW. We dont have Ingenieurs.
1 th10, Just fresh, no Infernos.
7 th9. Rest are th8-7.
They have 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Th 9.5 with th10 troops and every one with third xbow droped. Also 5 TH 8.5! In the low range also low defense th9-10. How the h should we win????????? Top th9.5 have not only third xbow but th10 teslas!!!!!! We can get all of their non maxed 9.5 but two at the top is too hard...
Someone should be stoned to death for such matchups SC!!!!!! And will burn in hell the mamager who ist responsible for Clan wars development!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemon

All is fkd Up lately!!!!!!!
20 CW. We dont have Ingenieurs.
1 th10, Just fresh, no Infernos.
7 th9. Rest are th8-7.
They have 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Th 9.5 with th10 troops and every one with third xbow droped. Also 5 TH 8.5! In the low range also low defense th9-10. How the h should we win????????? Top th9.5 have not only third xbow but th10 teslas!!!!!! We can get all of their non maxed 9.5 but two at the top is too hard...
Someone should be stoned to death for such matchups SC!!!!!! And will burn in hell the mamager who ist responsible for Clan wars development!

---

An ingenieur?


Quick, hide your wife and kids! the Ingenieurs are coming for us all!

What are the various types of rostar engineering?

1 Anchor engineering - maxed base or 2, 2 townhall above base 3
2 taper engineering - clan tappers th11 to th3
3 low weight bottom 25% bases - as described, use th3 or defence and offencless bases for fillers
4 reducing standard deviation - having a bunch of same weight bases
5.....

please help us out, we cant suggest solutions if we dont know all the types, I have been 10 and 15 different method or techniques.

remember this is roster engineering. - offence strong and intra displine are for other threads.

actually forget it, if the langoliuers are coming we all pretty much .... Well, it Aint gonna be pretty.

The only thing I can add to this train wreck of ingenieur and langoliers is. Scientist have calculated that the upcoming zombie apocalypse will wipe out humans in about 90 days.

Either fall in line or fall behind. Glad we have a leader who smart and humble enough to do what it takes to bring home the Gold bwhahahaha.

What's a clan ID, his clan is level5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FonzG420

What's a clan ID, his clan is level5

---

Not sure if you were commenting on my post about our clan war on page 9, but it was a close finish even though we didn't have any 11s and our opponents had 4 (top 3 with Eagle Artillery and upgraded defenses / troops).

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/...psypmfdyqb.png

Very kind of Homemade to drop in. I'd love a rematch sometime with bases of equal weight... all that being said, let the wars keep rolling.

ps our clan tag / id is #2JC2CQPP

Who are we to say how the game is "supposed" to be played? When is a war "supposed" to be won? Some people think a war is to be won BEFORE it begins. Some people thing a war is to be won AFTER it begins. Who is correct? How is designing your game to win BEFORE war starts any more manipulative then designing your base to win AFTER war starts.

Apparently, based on the complaints designing your base to win BEFORE war starts seems like the better option. Let me ask you this... if you found out that doing an all barbarian attack was not effective, would you continue to do an all barbarian attack and complain that they need to be improved, or would you change your attack? So if you found out that roster engineering won you wars, would you continue to NOT roster engineer and complain that your method of building a base needs to be improved?

Its a game... its pushing buttons... there is nothing that says "the way to play is to 3 star your exact equal in war". That no more valid then saying "the way to play is design a base that allows you to win before the fight starts". Its all personal preference. But... if one was is better, wouldn't you GO that way?

If the designers feel its not the way to play... they will change it. Until then... from the Eagles

I've gone fishin' fishin'

A while back I started 3 new accounts to use as war fillers (would rather put 1-3 of my filler accounts into war than exclude people to get to the correct total for war). I never raid with them, but with collectors they have now progressed up to th7-8. Based on my own limited experience only, they created a bigger advantage for us when they were th3-4. We seemed to get an advantage higher up.

Just give the LAB and the SPELLS a really big war weight until the defense gets near a normal weight for that TH.

So it scales down... if its a th 11 with max drags and light but their war weight is low TH 9.... match them with TH with Infernos...

problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeCleave

running 10v10s with th9 at the top atm.

running into roster engineered clans (well not really, but they do have weak bases at the bottom) and they are at a disadvantage.

we do have 2 of our own th3 fillers though

---

So you run into clans, that do not really rooster engineer, vs you actually you doing it, and you end up with the advantage? You do not see the problem with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

As the title suggest, please do something about roster engineering. There should be no reason why th3 are allowed to be included in a war lineup consisting of th10 and 11. This drops their entire clan weight making for very uneven matches at the top. IMO, anything below th7 shouldn't be allowed to war. Yeah I'll probably receive some flak for that but it's my opinion. There should be no reason an account like this is even allowed to participate in wars.




http://i.imgur.com/mLhweyq.jpg

---

Everyone should be able to war, It would not be fair for town hall 7 and above to be the only players to war. Plus everyone gets a bad match up now and then. If you are looking for a clan and are reading this and you want a clan join #J2UR28JV

Our next cw:
We 1 th10, several th9, rest are 8-7.
They have two th11 with lvl4 miners and low defences! Easy 3 stars on our th10. Again cw without any chances to win!
Why the f every time we take th10 we see such bad matchup?????
And why the h almost every such clan is arabic or from east asia? Have they nothing better to do????? All these irak/iran/siria clans?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salkin101

So you run into clans, that do not really rooster engineer, vs you actually you doing it, and you end up with the advantage? You do not see the problem with that?

---

nope. they have low levels at the bottom. sure they may not be having the intention, but technically they are roster engineered

also miners are no longer a surefire triple against th10s...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonrdavies

Not sure if you were commenting on my post about our clan war on page 9, but it was a close finish even though we didn't have any 11s and our opponents had 4 (top 3 with Eagle Artillery and upgraded defenses / troops).

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/...psypmfdyqb.png

Very kind of Homemade to drop in. I'd love a rematch sometime with bases of equal weight... all that being said, let the wars keep rolling.

ps our clan tag / id is #2JC2CQPP

---

Thanks for the war, you guys did incredibly well given the match up. I'm just going to put it out there that yes it was unfortunate for you but with the small amount of clans searching for 50/50 wars at any one time it is incredibly rare to get a perfect match as I'm sure you already know. Mismatches have gone both ways for us recently in the 50/50 game. Every account in goblin fury is a fully active account and there are no 'th3 fillers' which aren't active, the 3 defenceless bases are 'fun projects' for players in our clan family with multiple accounts. Every player under th8 is either a friend, family member or a mini account of someone throughout our clan family.

I'm sure if you spoke to homemade sometime it's possible we can arrange an even match in the future where you can face our combined A-team :)

Good old luck going forward - Crunk (Little Seekers, Littler Sneakers, Goblin Fury & Frostlight Family)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crunkstation

Thanks for the war, you guys did incredibly well given the match up. I'm just going to put it out there that yes it was unfortunate for you but with the small amount of clans searching for 50/50 wars at any one time it is incredibly rare to get a perfect match as I'm sure you already know. Mismatches have gone both ways for us recently in the 50/50 game. Every account in goblin fury is a fully active account and there are no 'th3 fillers' which aren't active, the 3 defenceless bases are 'fun projects' for players in our clan family with multiple accounts. Every player under th8 is either a friend, family member or a mini account of someone throughout our clan family.

I'm sure if you spoke to homemade sometime it's possible we can arrange an even match in the future where you can face our combined A-team :)

Good old luck going forward - Crunk (Little Seekers, Littler Sneakers, Goblin Fury & Frostlight Family)!

---

Yeah like Crunk said I have 2 regular gangsta accounts and recently started a defenseless account for fun and cuz I know how to evolve with the game. Even pony up money to supercell for the fun lol. Our #50 is my th5 defenseless account. Has war stars to prove its good, active account. Yeah so sorry bro no fillers like that here. Now it's th6 and going bwhahaha

another thing id like to add... engineering is also used more commonly now because either way, the matchmaker will screw you over eventually... engineering can help counter potential mismatches and such

as a defenseless TH5 I 6 starred a TH3 and TH6 in our last war. I was in the 15 hole (obviously) and those were our opponents 15/14.

This second base is super fun, which is why I'm doing it. It is a game, afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeCleave

nope. they have low levels at the bottom. sure they may not be having the intention, but technically they are roster engineered

also miners are no longer a surefire triple against th10s...

---

No, you just gave a example of a clan that DOES rooster engineer vs a clan that DOES NOT rooster engineer (or does it extremely badly), ending up with the one rooster engineering properly having the advantage.

Doing rooster engineering badly/not doing it ends up being a dissadvantage compared to actually doing it, with your example. That is not a example of proper rooster engineering being at a dissadvantage (which I dont see how it possibly could be).

This korean team that we are up against is doing a fine job roster engineering. Bottom 9 bases are all nearly defenseless. They added air defenses to the one cannon. The top one is a townhall 10 with level 30+ heroes and maxed troops. Should be an interesting war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

This korean team that we are up against is doing a fine job roster engineering. Bottom 9 bases are all nearly defenseless. They added air defenses to the one cannon. The top one is a townhall 10 with level 30+ heroes and maxed troops. Should be an interesting war.

---

Interesting for who? The very tops? Whatabout all your th8's and 7's on the bottom that gotta clean that mindless junk? Another reason I dont like engineering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salkin101

No, you just gave a example of a clan that DOES rooster engineer vs a clan that DOES NOT rooster engineer (or does it extremely badly), ending up with the one rooster engineering properly having the advantage.

Doing rooster engineering badly/not doing it ends up being a dissadvantage compared to actually doing it, with your example. That is not a example of proper rooster engineering being at a dissadvantage (which I dont see how it possibly could be).

---

I wonder if rooster engineering is considered particularly chicken by the anti-engineers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

This korean team that we are up against is doing a fine job roster engineering. Bottom 9 bases are all nearly defenseless. They added air defenses to the one cannon. The top one is a townhall 10 with level 30+ heroes and maxed troops. Should be an interesting war.

---

You omitted to say what you have up top, which probably affects the fun factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

I wonder if rooster engineering is considered particularly chicken by the anti-engineers?

---

Dont know, but rooster engineers claiming rooster engineering puts them at a dissadvantage is pretty damn wierd. It's just pure nonsense, there is a clear advantage in properly rooster engineering your lineup.

Is it a chase of not wanting to admit that they are doing it to gain a clear advantage from it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

I wonder if rooster engineering is considered particularly chicken by the anti-engineers?

---

I'm cracking up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingKreg

I'm cracking up.

---

I see what you did there.☺

In a game of COCs there is bound to be rooster engineers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

I wonder if rooster engineering is considered particularly chicken by the anti-engineers?



You omitted to say what you have up top, which probably affects the fun factor.

---

I didn't say it was going to be fun, just interesting.

We have 1 maxed townhall 11 versus their 2.
We have 1 maxed townhall 10 versus their 2
We have 2 mid townhall 10s versus their 3

They have the advantage but not unwinnable.

Our townhall 6-8 will have to clean the junk bases

Most of you act like your clans should be winning all of your wars all of the time and when you don't you start making excuses as to why.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. It's just a game, lighten up.

Stopping having less then th9 in your war, should help this to an extent.

you have no idea how many failed attacks i see on a th3's because of war cc troops. Its funny to watch and very entertaining.