Possible solution to engineered bases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

I believe the way it currently works is each base has an offensive weight and a defensive weight, each on a scale of 1-100. I'm sure I'm leaving out some details, but thats the rough idea. Your war weight is a combination of the 2.

Well, stop combining them and instead just use the higher of the 2 as your war weight. That would seem to make engineered bases obsolete pretty instantly, wouldn't it?


Edit to add: If your only objection is "but I like engineered bases" or "engineering is justifiable", please understand that I consider your "objections" just further support for this idea. Engineered bases is you saying to the world "I'm not good enough to attack an equal base, so this is a way to game the system so I can play on easy mode". I find it hilarious actually.

---

Well I have a real objection. The reason why killing off engineering is so hard is because to any objective game stats engineers are just rushers which seems insignificant at first until you realize that ~70% of the clash player base is rushed to some degree. That 70% is easily the majority of active players (and rushers that aren't super rushed spend more money than others trying to catch up). So engineering is essentially safe hiding amongst rushers and there isn't a good way to separate the two objectively and actually nerf engineering without ruining the casual war experience for ~70% of the player base.

Forgot to add, in my last 50 wars I have never faced an engineered clan. I think the engineer posts are way out of proportion. I really wish SC would let us know what the intended gameplay they want is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSeachicken

Engineering is insipid, and it has created a race to the bottom. It is ruining (has ruined) wars. The people who played the game early on, and played clan wars honestly in its infancy, who built defense with offense are those suffering the most.

You say, "there's nothing wrong with engineering." Maybe on an individual level no. At the team/war level, yes, it absolutely is a problem with mean matchmaking algorithms that completely ignore fundamental mechanics and the importance of the top.

What should games be about? Rigging the matchup? Stacking your clan with multiple engineered accounts so you can walk over opponents utilizing no skill at all? Or should it be about skill? Skill at building a sound defense? Or gaming an algorithm? Skilled raiding? Or just smashing bases 2 levels below your own for easy perfect wars?

When it is no longer about skill, but about clan composition, the point of calling it a game is lost. When one team can easily achieve a perfect war, while the other stands no chance of doing so, what is the point?

The game doesn't favor individual skills improvement. It only favors stacking the deck.

My clan at one point was about 220-10. We did it the right way, and played the game the right way. And for six months we've watched our record steadily fall not due to clans of superior skill, but simply because so many matchups are impossible to win, and we are CONSTANTLY outmatched by wide margins at the top. It's probably been 25 wars where we had a fair top, let alone an advantage.

It's sad, because if you have a clan higher than level 10, if you want to win half your wars you have no choice but to engineer, too. It's a joke. It's trashing the game. And no gamer with a shred of integrity or sense of principle would ever accept this as it stands. It doesn't help that the algorithm punishes success with clan level and win streaks.

For the high level clans, it is simply no longer about which clan has the best raiders. It's about which clan happened to stack the deck most in their favor. And I'm sorry, but it's wrong. Especially to the people who are paying money for it. And especially when there are easy computational fixes to it.

---

1. There is no "right way" believe what you will but engineering is within the game and SC does not issue bans
2. There is NEVER a perfectly fair matchup. NEVER. Someone always has an extra th11 or th10 or a couple more hero levels.
3. Seriously where did half come from. Also I've seen lots of clans over lv10 that don't engineer, IIRC OneHive doesn't engineer.
4. Please tell us these "easy computational fixes". I've seen many great threads on how to nerf engineering and it boils down the the fact that either there will be a different loophole for different engineers, or that it will hurt casual players (mostly rushers) which are more in number than engineers by a long shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krzeng9

1. There is no "right way" believe what you will but engineering is within the game and SC does not issue bans
2. There is NEVER a perfectly fair matchup. NEVER. Someone always has an extra th11 or th10 or a couple more hero levels.
3. Seriously where did half come from. Also I've seen lots of clans over lv10 that don't engineer, IIRC OneHive doesn't engineer.
4. Please tell us these "easy computational fixes". I've seen many great threads on how to nerf engineering and it boils down the the fact that either there will be a different loophole for different engineers, or that it will hurt casual players (mostly rushers) which are more in number than engineers by a long shot.

---

Thank you, especially for point number one. That alone is enough to end all engineering discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

Thank you, especially for point number one. That alone is enough to end all engineering discussions.

---

Lol just wait for the maxxer purists to come kill me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

Forgot to add, in my last 50 wars I have never faced an engineered clan. I think the engineer posts are way out of proportion. I really wish SC would let us know what the intended gameplay they want is.

---

They have sketched it out, at the first point here: https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...-Developer-Q-A

That they use the term "lopsided" rather than "engineered" is a pretty big hint that they think it's an issue on the table to address soon, and that they take it that the present situation is not a desirable manner for the game to continue. So I think we can take from it that they intend game play in war to be more balanced, or at least not reward lopsidedness, while allowing for freedom for players to progress and develop their bases in their chosen ways... the present situation, by contrast, in the particular sphere of war, disproportionately rewards some for choosing to not develop some elements available at their th level, or substantially delaying developing those.

The objection many have to engineering is not that it's not playing the "right" way and that we are all supposed to play some particular way (that strikes me as a silly and childish kind of complaint, and likely to draw the equally juvenile "you can't make me, so there!" kind of reply); it is rather that there is presently an issue with war matchmaking such that those who are choosing one particular lopsided path of development are provided a disproportionate advantage. I don't think many who presently oppose engineering would care if you wanted to keep building offence and neglect or delay defence all you liked for as long as you want to play the game, or only wanted to research war troops, or whatever it is you'd like to develop or build in whatever order... providing it didn't negatively impact their war matching in a way it seems that Supercell did not intend and seeks to remedy.

That is the "stacking" people are referring to, gaining an advantage before the war even began by using the base composition of the lineup to attempt to pull an easier team as an opponent. And hence the range of ideas offered by many and various posters suggesting ways they think the unintended advantage lopsided bases have in war might be removed or negated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

I believe the way it currently works is each base has an offensive weight and a defensive weight, each on a scale of 1-100. I'm sure I'm leaving out some details, but thats the rough idea. Your war weight is a combination of the 2.

Well, stop combining them and instead just use the higher of the 2 as your war weight. That would seem to make engineered bases obsolete pretty instantly, wouldn't it?


Edit to add: If your only objection is "but I like engineered bases" or "engineering is justifiable", please understand that I consider your "objections" just further support for this idea. Engineered bases is you saying to the world "I'm not good enough to attack an equal base, so this is a way to game the system so I can play on easy mode". I find it hilarious actually.

---

I will give u a example, my base got close to max th10 offense, with 40/34, 240 of space ,cc of 35 and spell factory upgraded but most of my defenses arent even close to max lvl,would say a mid th9 since i dont have xbow or 4 wiz tower, i always got 4 builders working but right now my defensives upgrades are behind...
With your idea i will probably matched with a almost full defense th10 (alredy happend) and close to max offense, why do u think this is fair? Why everyone has to play like u do?
Soo since i am a rusher i shouldnt be able to war?
Because whats u are sayng is that just a max th will be able to have a fair war....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

I believe the way it currently works is each base has an offensive weight and a defensive weight, each on a scale of 1-100. I'm sure I'm leaving out some details, but thats the rough idea. Your war weight is a combination of the 2.

Well, stop combining them and instead just use the higher of the 2 as your war weight. That would seem to make engineered bases obsolete pretty instantly, wouldn't it?


Edit to add: If your only objection is "but I like engineered bases" or "engineering is justifiable", please understand that I consider your "objections" just further support for this idea. Engineered bases is you saying to the world "I'm not good enough to attack an equal base, so this is a way to game the system so I can play on easy mode". I find it hilarious actually.

---

One problem with implementing this is that it causes many everyday players to be punished. Rushers, and maxers alike often max defense first or leave offense/heroes way behind defense especially at th9. This might kill wars for ppl who do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WerewolfXS

I will give u a example, my base got close to max th10 offense, with 40/34, 240 of space ,cc of 35 and spell factory upgraded but most of my defenses arent even close to max lvl,would say a mid th9 since i dont have xbow or 4 wiz tower, i always got 4 builders working but right now my defensives upgrades are behind...
With your idea i will probably matched with a almost full defense th10 (alredy happend) and close to max offense, why do u think this is fair? Why everyone has to play like u do?
Soo since i am a rusher i shouldnt be able to war?
Because whats u are sayng is that just a max th will be able to have a fair war....

---

Yes, that is what he is saying, he thinks your weight should be considered max as your offence is max. It's an odd kind of rushing to have somehow only gotten all the offence, but be missing basic defence items at even level 1 from the previous th level, just saying... looks more like a plan to max offence for war advantage than the usual kind of thing people call "rushing" which is often less focused. And I don't think the OP is saying everyone must play a certain way, but rather that he/she is unhappy with a certain disproportionate advantage that lopsided offence heavy bases presently provide in war matchmaking.

You are wrong on the second two points. On the system the OP suggests any base with balanced development of offence and defence will do well, even one fresh to the th level, and the more disorganised type of rushers would have the same kinds of issues they presently have (which is typically being an odd mix of both defensively and offensively weak vs the useful possible war targets for them in the team lineup).

The OP's proposal doesn't favour maxers, just balance. That's a point in its favor as a suggestion. It's also a potential flaw, given how many th levels have more days of research time than build time for the player with 5 builders... resulting in a tendency for rather many normal casual players just doing their thing to naturally end up a little lopsided, but in terms of the strength of their defence rather than offence-heavy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deaf

yet you and no one else has any idea how weight is taxed to begin with so pretty much solves nothing.

---

Except it does, all SC has to do is their part, the weight tax as stated by nerfedname would provide more balance than it is now:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

I like the tone and tenor of this thread AyanD, a good nonbiased (imo) discussion thread, thanks :thumbsup:

I do want to chime in regarding the suggested change of making certain offensive troops weight more, and why I don't think it would work particularly well. Mostly because EVERYONE upgrades certain troops if they're serious about war. Upping the weight of golems, for example, will do nothing to bring a defenseless TH9 in lane because although he does have lvl4 golems, so do all maxed out TH9 bases and so you're only lifting the offensive weight of many/most account universally without creating any separation. Furthermore, if you increase weight of ALL offensive troops, you help the most ardent engineers as they will only selectively upgrade certain troops (e.g., the war ones) while neglecting everything else, whereas fully developed bases upgrade most or all their troops (so you're adding weight to developed accounts increasing the discrepancy between heavily engineered accounts and developed ones). Basically, adding offensive weight in an additive way does nothing, and may even make engineering more lucrative.

What I think should be done, or something to this effect, is to add what amounts to as a "weight tax" for accounts with a high degree of disparity between offensive and defensive weight. For example, if two accounts both have lvl40 queens, the queen will actually weigh MORE on the account that has no infernos and xbows. The system calculates the offensive and defensive weight of the account, finds the difference between these numbers and then adds a portion of the weight back (i.e., "weight tax") on a sliding scale dependent upon the magnitude of the offensive-to-defensive weight disparity. There could even be a threshold to determine if the weight tax applies, so if your offense is ahead of your defense, but everything is roughly around the same TH level, you don't get taxed.

In this manner, an early THx.5 would barely be effected, as the difference in their offense-to-defense weight is rather low. A late stage perma-THx.5 (say a TH9.5 with 40/40 heroes and all maxed TH10 troops, but TH9 defenses) might get a very small tax added to their weight and contribute slightly more offensive weight to the matchmaker. The combined weight of the perma-9.5 account (e.g, both offensive AND defensive) would still be lower than a fully maxed TH10 with infernos, but the tax would make up a small portion of the difference and make the perma-9.5 account less lucrative than it currently is. Of course, for things like a defenseless TH9 with but a single lvl1 cannon and 20/20 heroes, the weight tax would be HUGE due to the severe weight discrepancy of the account.

Obviously, this is merely my opinion and many additional details would need to be dissected and fleshed out, but I think such a system could go a long way towards stamping out the most ardent and obscene engineering while still leaving a good amount of room for folks to tinker and personalize their upgrade path. It wouldn't even kill defenseless accounts, people may still run them, but they'd be less effective at gaming the matchmaker than they currently are.

---

Something else that nerfed brought up is that in this tower defense game, why should those that build defenses get punished when the main goal was to build defenses to begin with? Really dumb if you ask me.