Possible solution to engineered bases

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.

Best solution would be to just accept it as it is and play.

Oh yay! Another one of these threads.

I have another idea. How about, we make non-engineered bases unable to re-arm traps/defenses. That would seem to make non-engineered bases obsolete pretty instantly, wouldn't it?

There is another thread just like this one on the 1page of general , like three threads above you. Why not post there ?

It's up there look, right above this one. Actually below since this bumps it. Look :)

It's not very difficult to think of ways to stop engineering. What is difficult is realizing SC doesn't want to get rid of engineering. They may want to trim the fat a little but not get rid of it totally. They wont refer to it as "engineering" they distance themselves from the issue by calling it "lopsided bases". They are addressing "lopsided bases" not "engineered bases". Now what is the definition of a lopsided base? Most can't even agree on the definition of an engineered base. How do you fix something that can't even be universally described?

Engineering is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Either accept that or move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ayih

Engineering is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Either accept that or move on.

---

Don't just accept it, embrace it! Have fun with it!

better not change it i just started an engineered account before christmas :p

Arent all bases "engineered", some are just defensively lower then others whilst others choose to be offensively stronger? I have a th10, upon my townhall upgrade i choose to upgrade only walls and troops. I bought nothing new. I get paired with th10s in war constantly. They have infernos, 3 xbows, all sorts of defense upgrades. I can 3 star them even with their infernos and they 2 star me. Essentially they are attacking my base as a th9 max, and they cant 3 star me. So i ask you....why are there not more cat videos?

Weight Tax

10 weight tax

That's the best option I've seen, because it somehow solves the issues of both worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BbaBaba123

Weight Tax

10 weight tax

That's the best option I've seen, because it somehow solves the issues of both worlds.

---

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

[QUOTE=Deaf;9301927]Best solution would be to just accept it as it is and play.[/QUOTE

Stupid idea, supercell talks of fair play yet this is far from fair. Having a low TH7 going up against a TH10 with Max AD and a Queen is impossible for them to match up against. Then they have max attackers and can go all the way up and take out your 1... it's old and months past needing fixed. No big deal, just find a new game and delete the CoC off the ipad is what it's going to come down to.

Seen this question a ton of times and even brought it up myself. It's unfair yes, are SC going to do anything about it....NO. Time to just accept it and move on. I hate engineered bases in war but "if you can't beat em, join em"

That's an option... we just ignore the war and wait for another matchup. The supercell can act like it's about fair play but not much fair about A TH10 lining up against a TH7. It's not just one base either, its 3-5 of them like this in a clan. We ran into 4 out of the last 5 wars. We already started losing guys as they just decided to jump ship and delete their bases. At this point we just do not invest anything into the war and expect a few more of us to leave. The current engineers are rejects from myspace and just unable to figure out a solution.

I edited my first post to add this: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

I edited my first post to add this: 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.

---

This thread will soon be moved over to the clan war forum where it should be and perhaps combined with one of the 1000 other threads going on the same topic, some of which have made the exact same suggestion as you did.

There is nothing wrong with people upgrading their accounts in a way that gives an advantage in war. If SC were to change the rules and, for example, make every base weigh at minimum what is equal to the max weight of the hall below (I don't fully support that), it would end lop sided bases and people would instead upgrade their bases in whatever way takes advantage of that rule. Again, there would be nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I support SC trying to make what is good for war also good for multiplayer, which means upgrading everything on defense. In the meantime, I don't fault anyone for upgrading in a way that creates an advantage, especially on 2nd accounts. Why wouldn't you upgrade in a way that creates an advantage if you know what that is?

I engineer and always attack #1 and #2. Thats not easy mode. I have the responsability of getting 3 stars for my clan vs maxed bases always. My defenses do not matter at all. To say engineers want an eays game mode is showing you dont know what engineers do at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

There is nothing wrong with people upgrading their accounts in a way that gives an advantage in war. If SC were to change the rules and, for example, make every base weigh at minimum what is equal to the max weight of the hall below (I don't fully support that), it would end lop sided bases and people would instead upgrade their bases in whatever way takes advantage of that rule. Again, there would be nothing wrong with that.

---

Sorry, but you didn't even comment on MY idea. So what if some other idea is terrible? People on these forums really confuse me sometimes, it's like they aren't even trying to understand what is being written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

I engineer and always attack #1 and #2. Thats not easy mode. I have the responsability of getting 3 stars for my clan vs maxed bases always. My defenses do not matter at all. To say engineers want an eays game mode is showing you dont know what engineers do at all.

---

♥♥♥♥. Of COURSE it's easy mode, THATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF ENGINEERING!! lol. It makes the war easier on your clan, giving you an easier matchup. The fact that you could even argue anything else says a lot about your mental state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

I engineer and always attack #1 and #2. Thats not easy mode. I have the responsability of getting 3 stars for my clan vs maxed bases always. My defenses do not matter at all. To say engineers want an eays game mode is showing you dont know what engineers do at all.

---

Engineering isn't about creating an advantage for one person. It is about creating an advantage for the clan as a whole in war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

♥♥♥♥. Of COURSE it's easy mode, THATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF ENGINEERING!! lol. It makes the war easier on your clan, giving you an easier matchup. The fact that you could even argue anything else says a lot about your mental state.

---

My whole clan doesnt engineer, only I do and I don't do it to fix matches. I do it because it helps me rush and max walls and heroes faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

Sorry, but you didn't even comment on MY idea. So what if some other idea is terrible? People on these forums really confuse me sometimes, it's like they aren't even trying to understand what is being written.

---

Sorry but YOU only used part of my reply. Part of my replay was in response to you comments about people wanting to play the game on easy mode, how you find it funny, etc. I took that as you insulting engineers and responded with my opinion. I also pointed out you created this thread in the wrong forum. I have also pointed out "your" idea has been suggested by many others in the 1000s of threads on this subject.....in the clan wars forum. Sorry, but when you create a thread, you don't get to then own it and control it and limit discussion to only what you want discussed. As for idea you repeated here when you created this thread, it might be an improvement, but it also might not be. Weighting offense has its limitations, since people can upgrade only specific things to limit the total offensive weight. It would help limit lop sided bases, though.

Far too many people with blinders on. They only know one way to play.

People need to learn how to adapt to changes in the game. The offensive and defensive meta changes often. People need to learn to accept change and to adapt. Changing war matchmaking will simply make people adapt and come up with another solution to beat the opponent.

Another big problem I see all too often is people at TH9 and 10 with low level heroes and maxed defences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

Sorry, but you didn't even comment on MY idea. So what if some other idea is terrible? People on these forums really confuse me sometimes, it's like they aren't even trying to understand what is being written.

---

I don't know what you mean when you say "so what if some idea is terrible." I gave an example of another common suggestion to fix engineering and how no matter what you do people will try to upgrade in a way that is advantageous. There is nothing wrong with that. Different people have different opinions on what method SC should pick that is the most advantageous. You are pretty quick to insult others in this thread. Did you just lose a war streak to an engineered clan by chance? You seem very emotional right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Part of my replay was in response to you comments about people wanting to play the game on easy mode, how you find it funny, etc. I took that as you insulting engineers

---

Oh good, then you understood the point of that correctly. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

Oh good, then you understood the point of that correctly. :)

---

I did and I disagree, even though at the same time I support SC tweaking the match making to take away the advantage of lop sided bases.

if u cannot beat them, join them. or else, join them.

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.

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.

---

Wars are a team effort, not a me effort. Clan war teams are created to win the same way teams in this or any game or sport are created, to win. Also, where do you get this made up numbers ? Half of the wars are won due to engineering ? Do you work at SC to have such numbers ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

Wars are a team effort, not a me effort. Clan war teams are created to win the same way teams in this or any game or sport are created, to win. Also, where do you get this made up numbers ? Half of the wars are won due to engineering ? Do you work at SC to have such numbers ?

---

Are you trying to be provocative, or did you really not understand what the person you are replying to was saying?

Of course wars are a team effort. One of the best things the individual can do to help the team is to learn how to be a good strong attacker, by improving their skills. I believe this is part of what the person you are replying to means... the point is that all of us, the team members, would like to try to do our individual best to help the team goal.

Strong teams in any game or sport are made by having strong players together. Clan wars is the only place I can think of where the same result of a starting position of strength can be got by gaming the system (which is what the OP and the person you are replying to are saying is the problem). Engineering to seek easier war match ups is something like the equivalent of a pro football team systematically arranging to be matched only with the local gangs of weekend warrior keen amateur footy players, rather than with their peers (but not altogether that as pro footy players generally are in fact more skilled). The issue isn't the skill difference, it's the systematic seeking out of lower difficulty matches to artificially boost overall results in a way that obviates or undercuts skills.

The numbers, I believe, come from his/her experience, as simply recounting what his/her clan has struck over a period of time, and so not in need of suspicion or being called into question (unless they seemed wildly off or exaggerated, which they don't).

One can agree or not on whether engineering is ok, but to make a useful contribution to discussion requires reading and thinking about what people have actually said then replying with respect in a way that adds new points, rather than just tossing a few poorly thought out lines off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

Are you trying to be provocative, or did you really not understand what the person you are replying to was saying?

Of course wars are a team effort. One of the best things the individual can do to help the team is to learn how to be a good strong attacker, by improving their skills. I believe this is part of what the person you are replying to means... the point is that all of us, the team members, would like to try to do our individual best to help the team goal.

Strong teams in any game or sport are made by having strong players together. Clan wars is the only place I can think of where the same result of a starting position of strength can be got by gaming the system (which is what the OP and the person you are replying to are saying is the problem). Engineering to seek easier war match ups is something like the equivalent of a pro football team systematically arranging to be matched only with the local gangs of weekend warrior keen amateur footy players, rather than with their peers (but not altogether that as pro footy players generally are in fact more skilled). The issue isn't the skill difference, it's the systematic seeking out of lower difficulty matches to artificially boost overall results.

The numbers, I believe, come from his/her experience, as simply recounting what his/her clan has struck over a period of time, and so not in need of suspicion or being called into question (unless they seemed wildly off or exaggerated, which they don't).

One can agree or not on whether engineering is ok, but to make a useful contribution to discussion requires reading and thinking about what people have actually said then replying with respect in a way that adds new points, rather than just tossing a few poorly thought out lines off.

---

The user is attacking engineers because their playstyle is different to what he wants to be the accepted playstyle. Engineers are stacking, the word he uses, to win and that is an acceptable strategy according to game rules. Playing to win, which is what these players are doing is very frowned upon in the forums. This is why I didnt bother to give out a long, thoughout post. Even if I do and I bring solid points, it will be either ignored or people will just end up saying its not fairplay, it cheating etc.

He also speaks about doing it " the right way ". There is no right way. There is no rule that says maxing or not rushing is the only true, accepted right way. Just that sentence lets me know two things, he wont care about any points I bring up and he wont be open to discussion. Thanks for defending him though.

he also made up statistics ( you need to engineer or you will lose half your wars ) which shows a serious lack of debate skills. The moment you make up statistics to support your own agenda the post stops being serious. SC still has not published the number on how many bases are engineered or how many wars are lost due to it, so we are just speculating.

Add to the fact he only has 1 post and its a long paragraph to hate on engineers when he was in a clan that was 220-10. Not even once did he bother to post in the forums. That on itself seems strange, but thats for another post.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

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.

---

I always will focus on offense because if u are active enough defense dosent matter that much.
About dont have xbow, why would i put a new defense if i didnt have maxed all others? Sc put soo much weitgh in new defenses that isnt good to build a new one before maxing all others.
And u said yourself, lab and builders always will have differents times soo the only time defense is equal to offense is when u maxed a th...
Everithing different of this will be a disadvantageous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Part of my replay was in response to you comments about people wanting to play the game on easy mode, how you find it funny, etc. I took that as you insulting engineers

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

Oh good, then you understood the point of that correctly. :)

---

Sun Tzu once said “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” .

Strategies come in all shapes and sizes. As long as SuperCell hasn't closed the door on it, there are going to be people that use anything to give themselves an edge. It's the way it's always been with war in real life, so it's not surprising that ideology gets in here.

It doesn't matter if you think it's fair, or unfair. There's nothing you can do about it right now, as thousands of other people have brought it up for ages. For the time being, the ball is in SuperCell's court. However, insulting a large player base, that has simply had to adapt to change, is damaging to this game. You make engineers angry at maxers, and maxers angry against engineers. It's a vicious cycle that damages the social aspect, and will drive players away from the game, causing SuperCell to lose ratings, and then revenue, and that could eventually effect you in a negative way.

Discuss it by all means, but be a gentleman, (or lady) in doing so. The community has been the best part of the game, and attitudes like yours damage that. Let's just all grow up a little here. Insulting isn't going to help anyone here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog241

I edited my first post to add this: 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 noticed OP has been banned already. Still feel the need to respond as I am reading this type of comment more frequently recently.
I started a defenseless for fun. Did not even war with it for a long time. Just was curious how it would be.
Found a casual clan with lots of kids and old timers and started warring there. Mostly th7 to th9 in the wars plus some fillers. I am like nr 8 in a 15 roster and attack nrs 1 and 2 for 6 stars typically. So not really doing for an easy attack on my mirror and I don't think many engineers act that way.
Still having fun with that base.

Having said that, my base does give us a significant advantage which is why eventually extreme engineering has to be fixed imo.

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.

---

Good post, i also mentioned how engineering has become a race to the bottom a few months ago but it got 0 traction. Eventually we will reach a point when it becomes rare to see the best defenses in the game if thing dont change, alot are adapting and a race to the bottom it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJPB

Far too many people with blinders on. They only know one way to play.

People need to learn how to adapt to changes in the game. The offensive and defensive meta changes often. People need to learn to accept change and to adapt. Changing war matchmaking will simply make people adapt and come up with another solution to beat the opponent.

Another big problem I see all too often is people at TH9 and 10 with low level heroes and maxed defences.

---

I agree with this to a point. Im in a clan with a few engineered bases but mostly .5 and always thought that was the way to play. After joining the forums my opinion has evolved. How can the community adapt to a playstyle that involves building less and less defence. Having a lil experience with human nature 1 can assume this will become a race to the bottom, who can build less if you will. The end state of this cant be good.

dem feels :D !! I want a video of kitty playing piano too

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.

---

Excellent post. I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

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.

---

Good break down of the post, Major Tom. Thank you.

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.

---

1. Super Cell writes the laws. But the law is just an opinion with a gun. It is no metric of right, wrong, or fair. The fact that they don't issue bans, which I don't want, and most don't want, doesn't mean that exploiting algorithms to win wars is ridiculously stupid and unfair.
2. Nobody is asking for perfection. Stop strawmanning. The requests are for better balance, particularly at the top, so that both clans have a reasonable chance of winning and where skill dictates the outcome of the result as opposed to rigging the matchup.
3. One Hive doesn't engineer because they don't have to. Their clan is composed entirely of high level bases of O and D. Engineering simply does not impact them due to this clan structure as they operate on a very high mean where the only outcome is another clan at a high mean. There's nothing for those clans to gain in engineering. If you sit balanced with th7, th8, th9, even th10, you're fodder for engineers.
4. Mathematics isn't hard. Examining statistical normalization of both offense and defense through a clan also isn't hard. Looking at defensive versus offensive characteristics isn't hard. The way weight is currently allocated between O and D, and the weight of defensive objects is completely absurd, and totally arbitrary. It doesn't reflect mathematical realities. This is the very thing that opened the match making system up to exploitation in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

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

---

That's facile.

I don't think anybody is saying engineering is wrong way to play. By all means, engineer to your heart's content. It's clear where your desires lie and if this how you derive enjoyment, go for it.

What is being said is that current war matching algorithms create grossly unfair advantages to engineering clans, and produce outcomes that are not based on skill. This is not fair, and it creates disparate matchups.

That is a problem for sportsmanship in the game.

And the fact that you guys will string out arguments supporting this current structure and resist reforms that favor fairness, and habitually resist changes that would create improved skill based outcomes in clan wars, shows to the community where your level of sportsmanship lies. That you'd rather exploit an algorithm than tangle toe to toe against a fair foe, and let the outcome rest on skill.

Why whinge for . I have a engineered th11 with max troops. It's up to me if I want to have defenses . All you guys crying about them I don't understand. Its up to the individual what they want . Just get over it I reckon .
Ive spent probably 3k au money on my little gem and it's a beauty. The hardest thing about it is logging on everyday and seeing 500k worth of loot and 5k de gone . You guys don't mind raiding engineered bases do you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenFgts

Why whinge for . I have a engineered th11 with max troops. It's up to me if I want to have defenses . All you guys crying about them I don't understand. Its up to the individual what they want . Just get over it I reckon .
Ive spent probably 3k au money on my little gem and it's a beauty. The hardest thing about it is logging on everyday and seeing 500k worth of loot and 5k de gone . You guys don't mind raiding engineered bases do you.

---

Why should we get over it? Why should we stand for you manipulating the system? Why should we stand for you garnering a huge attack advantage in war, while helping to simultaneously create a defensive advantage at the top of the war roster?

Why should people "just get over" unfair outcomes to their wars not based on skill? And we should we, or even you, not push for fairness where outcomes are predicated on skill - not clan composition?

I do mind raiding your defenseless base in single player when it means I won't get any war loot because you've decided to exploit the system. And you're rolling your max 11 troops over my clans top two max th9s with no skill whatsoever. And if you were't engineered, I'd hit "next" and get big loot on some abandoned base anyway. I'm not out anything in single player - out a lot in the war realm, which is where all the gravitas lie anyway.

Threads like this will continue to appear, as more and more people get annoyed, our last 2 wars were ridiculously mismatched due to engineering, the first saw us against 2 TH11 and 5 TH10 plus over 20 TH9’s all engineered against our 2 TH10’s and 14 TH9’s, needless to say we were crushed buy 100% the 11 was pretty well maxed to TH10 and all the 10’s had 3 Bows. all you engineerers out their you can try to justify your methods as much as you want but at the end of the day, you couldn’t win a fair fight if your life depended on it. To quote SCC on this subject: “This is against the spirit of the game and a cowards way for winning the game” I live in hope that SCC are as they say pulling all-nighters to solving this problem, but alas I think I may die in despair before anything is done. You cannot justify manipulating something to such a degree it gives you an unfair advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSeachicken

Why should we get over it? Why should we stand for you manipulating the system? Why should we stand for you garnering a huge attack advantage in war, while helping to simultaneously create a defensive advantage at the top of the war roster?

Why should people "just get over" unfair outcomes to their wars not based on skill? And we should we, or even you, not push for fairness where outcomes are predicated on skill - not clan composition?

I do mind raiding your defenseless base in single player when it means I won't get any war loot because you've decided to exploit the system. And you're rolling your max 11 troops over my clans top two max th9s with no skill whatsoever. And if you were't engineered, I'd hit "next" and get big loot on some abandoned base anyway. I'm not out anything in single player - out a lot in the war realm, which is where all the gravitas lie anyway.

---

Calm down , I spend money like everyone else so why shouldn't I be able to do what I want . I don't want a crowded base that looks horrid . And max th9's , I hit max th10's +

if adapting isnt your style, then quit.

dead maxxer bases stays in crystal. the more quitters, the more loot. There are so many maxxer base already, your best contribution would be a resource farm for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenFgts

Calm down , I spend money like everyone else so why shouldn't I be able to do what I want . I don't want a crowded base that looks horrid . And max th9's , I hit max th10's +

---

First, how much money you did, or did not spend is entirely irrelevant.

Second, very few people are asking for prohibitions on how one can build their base (the poster you're responding to certainly is not). What people ARE asking for is alterations and changes to the war matchmaking algorithm to reduce or eliminate the undue advantage you currently receive for NOT building defenses in a "tower defense strategy" game. There is a decided difference. If you wanna have a maxed offense TH11 with but a single, lonely, lvl1 cannon, I do not care and do not wish to have SC enact any measures in the game that would prevent you from building such a base. You just shouldn't get any advantage in war for it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevs926

if adapting isnt your style, then quit.

dead maxxer bases stays in crystal. the more quitters, the more loot. There are so many maxxer base already, your best contribution would be a resource farm for others.

---

No thanks, I have no intention of "adapting" and starting a 2nd account so that I can engineer it to mess with the matchmaker. SC has repeatedly made statements suggesting they are not particularly a fan of lopsided bases, and have on previous occasions shown they are willing to gore the ox of many players if something is happening in-game that is "not how the game was intended," so I'll just continue to offer ideas and lobby supercell to alter the matchmaking system to provide more equitable matchups. Ideas like my weight tax, as well as others.

They made strides at reining in some engineered bases in October, and I'm fully expecting that they'll continue to tinker with the matchmaking algorithm as time passes. And if the algorithm ever gets to the point that your little-to-no-defense account becomes a liability to your clan (as a base with no defenses should be in a "tower defense strategy game") I hope you take your own advice and adapt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenFgts

Calm down , I spend money like everyone else so why shouldn't I be able to do what I want . I don't want a crowded base that looks horrid . And max th9's , I hit max th10's +

---

Do what you want. Nobody, least of all me, is requesting you to change. I'm not here to stop you from playing how you want.

I'm here saying you should be matched up against opponents in war fairly that play like you - that results in skills based war outcomes - not an exploitation in an algorithm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevs926

if adapting isnt your style, then quit.

dead maxxer bases stays in crystal. the more quitters, the more loot. There are so many maxxer base already, your best contribution would be a resource farm for others.

---

I don't understand the nature ofvthis attitude. If we don't like unfair matchups we should quit? If we don't want to adapt to a ridiculous structure to tip the odds we should quit? Where's the integrity and sportsmanship in such an attitude?

Everyone, regardless of their preferences, should desire fair war matchups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSeachicken

And you're rolling your max 11 troops over my clans top two max th9s with no skill whatsoever. .

---

you know how long it takes for a defless MAX 11?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxbaseee

you know how long it takes for a defless MAX 11?

---

to be fair, the guy he's replying to claims to have spent $3k Australian on his account, so likely not as long as one would think... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenFgts

Why whinge for . I have a engineered th11 with max troops. It's up to me if I want to have defenses . All you guys crying about them I don't understand. Its up to the individual what they want . Just get over it I reckon .
Ive spent probably 3k au money on my little gem and it's a beauty. The hardest thing about it is logging on everyday and seeing 500k worth of loot and 5k de gone . You guys don't mind raiding engineered bases do you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

Threads like this will continue to appear, as more and more people get annoyed, our last 2 wars were ridiculously mismatched due to engineering, the first saw us against 2 TH11 and 5 TH10 plus over 20 TH9’s all engineered against our 2 TH10’s and 14 TH9’s, needless to say we were crushed buy 100% the 11 was pretty well maxed to TH10 and all the 10’s had 3 Bows. all you engineerers out their you can try to justify your methods as much as you want but at the end of the day, you couldn’t win a fair fight if your life depended on it. To quote SCC on this subject: “This is against the spirit of the game and a cowards way for winning the game” I live in hope that SCC are as they say pulling all-nighters to solving this problem, but alas I think I may die in despair before anything is done. You cannot justify manipulating something to such a degree it gives you an unfair advantage.

---

Where did SC say it was a cowards way? I believe you are misquoting there. Also unless you have personal experience engineering you have no idea how SC has changed to make it much harder for them. The still have an advantage cause its off>def. And to clans that are def>off the is still a good advantage. Here's another idea. Stop blaming others for your misfortune and look and say gee maybe I should have few 3* war attacks before I max my defenses at this th. The my off will be greater than my defense. FYI anyone on the "wall hero" grind at th9/10 usually has their defenses maxed and therefor their def>off. That is most people's major problem right there and why those who skip that part are labeled as engineers and unfair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSeachicken

Do what you want. Nobody, least of all me, is requesting you to change. I'm not here to stop you from playing how you want.

I'm here saying you should be matched up against opponents in war fairly that play like you - that results in skills based war outcomes - not an exploitation in an algorithm.

---

until SC changes the algorithm, complaining here wont work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxbaseee

you know how long it takes for a defless MAX 11?

---

Wait - are you suggesting the time it may take (gemming aside) somehow justifies exploiting the algorithm? What, like you paid some debt or something and get to roll someone who likely spent equal time building defense AND troops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSeachicken

Wait - are you suggesting the time it may take (gemming aside) somehow justifies exploiting the algorithm? What, like you paid some debt or something and get to roll someone who likely spent equal time building defense AND troops?

---

equal?

really?

defless takes years for max11, waay shorter than the max th9s u say they r hitting.

btw, refer to my post b4 this

Its been true from day one, you exploit the algorithm or get exploited by it. Max def low heroes? Bad idea. Drop heavy defense immediately on TH upgrade then not upgrade offense for a couple months? Bad idea. Bring a th8 to war that's learning to attack? Probably fine. TH10 that rarely 2 stars? Bad idea.
Everybody's engineering, and hating on everyone that takes it one step farther. Poo is flung in all directions, and generally the most furious are the 'anti-engineering engineers' whose particular style of engineering just got hit by the nerf bat. They'd gotten so accustomed to having an edge, suddenly being on the other side of the mismatch is a rude awakening.
Perhaps defenseless needs a further nerf, its not clear to me but I doubt it as my nonengineered clan never sees them, and my engineered clan almost never sees them. I suspect they're a great way to pound th6/th7 clans but wars aren't competitive at that level anyway.
One question for the haters, when was the golden age of matchmaking? When's matchmaking been better than now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Its been true from day one, you exploit the algorithm or get exploited by it. Max def low heroes? Bad idea. Drop heavy defense immediately on TH upgrade then not upgrade offense for a couple months? Bad idea. Bring a th8 to war that's learning to attack? Probably fine. TH10 that rarely 2 stars? Bad idea.
Everybody's engineering, and hating on everyone that takes it one step farther. Poo is flung in all directions, and generally the most furious are the 'anti-engineering engineers' whose particular style of engineering just got hit by the nerf bat. They'd gotten so accustomed to having an edge, suddenly being on the other side of the mismatch is a rude awakening.
Perhaps defenseless needs a further nerf, its not clear to me but I doubt it as my nonengineered clan never sees them, and my engineered clan almost never sees them. I suspect they're a great way to pound th6/th7 clans but wars aren't competitive at that level anyway.
One question for the haters, when was the golden age of matchmaking? When's matchmaking been better than now?

---

I may add, some of the most vocal anti-engineers are modders, closet-modders or modder sympathisers. Oh the hypocrisy: breaking the rules of the game is more acceptable in their eyes, than exploiting the game mechanics within the rules of the game... BTW, it is debatable whether engineers succeed in exploiting the advantage - I don't think so. And I have yet to see ANYONE who can show me that engineers gain a CONSISTENT advantage in the mm. One mismatch advantage in 5 wars is not CONSISTENT and not a proof of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topbtm

I may add, some of the most vocal anti-engineers are modders, closet-modders or modder sympathisers. O h the hypocrisy: breaking the rules of the game is more acceptable in their eyes, than exploiting the game mechanics within the rules of the game...

---

I find this hard to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

to be fair, the guy he's replying to claims to have spent $3k Australian on his account, so likely not as long as one would think... :)

---

I've probably spent more then 3k bud... and I keep spending $30 every 3 weeks so I can get to 45 hero's and have a crack at hitting th11's . The only way that you guys are thinking there going to alter with engineered bases I personally think they will hurt every th9 and 10 also .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BbaBaba123

I find this hard to believe.

---

its actually true. there was a guy from a mod clan here once complaining

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeCleave

its actually true. there was a guy from a mod clan here once complaining

---

That may be true for one, but the way it was said is basically generalizing all anti engineers under a foul title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSeachicken

1. Super Cell writes the laws. But the law is just an opinion with a gun. It is no metric of right, wrong, or fair. The fact that they don't issue bans, which I don't want, and most don't want, doesn't mean that exploiting algorithms to win wars is ridiculously stupid and unfair.
2. Nobody is asking for perfection. Stop strawmanning. The requests are for better balance, particularly at the top, so that both clans have a reasonable chance of winning and where skill dictates the outcome of the result as opposed to rigging the matchup.
3. One Hive doesn't engineer because they don't have to. Their clan is composed entirely of high level bases of O and D. Engineering simply does not impact them due to this clan structure as they operate on a very high mean where the only outcome is another clan at a high mean. There's nothing for those clans to gain in engineering. If you sit balanced with th7, th8, th9, even th10, you're fodder for engineers.
4. Mathematics isn't hard. Examining statistical normalization of both offense and defense through a clan also isn't hard. Looking at defensive versus offensive characteristics isn't hard. The way weight is currently allocated between O and D, and the weight of defensive objects is completely absurd, and totally arbitrary. It doesn't reflect mathematical realities. This is the very thing that opened the match making system up to exploitation in the first place.

---

1. This is Supercell's world and they dictate what is right and wrong. The wrong gets banned. That is your opinion, SC's matters infinitely more in their world.
2. I find that a bit hypocritical of you. Saying I'm strawmanning then you proceeding to do the same in point 3 and 4.
3. See point 2. Also someone asked for a lv10+ clan that doesn't engineer, OneHive is lv10+. Doesn't matter why they don't engineer, the point is they don't. Again, see point 2.
4. Never said it was hard, see point 2. I think you used "statistical normalization" wrong there, you clearly don't know what it actually means, see point 2. The mathematical realities of what? Yes the weights are disproportionate between defences of similar dps and hp, I agree there. Well actually what opened up exploitation in the first place was war itself, unless it randomly matches 2 teams without regard to the contents of said teams.

You need to stop using the thesaurus to find big words to make you sound professional; it only makes you sound pretentious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

Threads like this will continue to appear, as more and more people get annoyed, our last 2 wars were ridiculously mismatched due to engineering, the first saw us against 2 TH11 and 5 TH10 plus over 20 TH9’s all engineered against our 2 TH10’s and 14 TH9’s, needless to say we were crushed buy 100% the 11 was pretty well maxed to TH10 and all the 10’s had 3 Bows. all you engineerers out their you can try to justify your methods as much as you want but at the end of the day, you couldn’t win a fair fight if your life depended on it. To quote SCC on this subject: “This is against the spirit of the game and a cowards way for winning the game” I live in hope that SCC are as they say pulling all-nighters to solving this problem, but alas I think I may die in despair before anything is done. You cannot justify manipulating something to such a degree it gives you an unfair advantage.

---

How many times that you crushed the opponent with your .5 and defenceless bases. How's the taste of your own medicine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

Threads like this will continue to appear, as more and more people get annoyed, our last 2 wars were ridiculously mismatched due to engineering, the first saw us against 2 TH11 and 5 TH10 plus over 20 TH9’s all engineered against our 2 TH10’s and 14 TH9’s, needless to say we were crushed buy 100% the 11 was pretty well maxed to TH10 and all the 10’s had 3 Bows. all you engineerers out their you can try to justify your methods as much as you want but at the end of the day, you couldn’t win a fair fight if your life depended on it. To quote SCC on this subject: “This is against the spirit of the game and a cowards way for winning the game” I live in hope that SCC are as they say pulling all-nighters to solving this problem, but alas I think I may die in despair before anything is done. You cannot justify manipulating something to such a degree it gives you an unfair advantage.

---

I'd like to see the source for that quote given the grammar is wrong.

if it makes anyone feel better, we apologized in our description for matching them so it makes it ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

Where did SC say it was a cowards way? I believe you are misquoting there.

---

In a response to an email I sent them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

Also unless you have personal experience engineering you have no idea how SC has changed to make it much harder for them.

---

I have enough experience and knowledge to know that what has done has had very little impact overall to the war matchmaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

The still have an advantage cause its off>def. And to clans that are def>off the is still a good advantage.

---

The way the game is designed, the ability to build/upgrade up to 5 buildings at once compared to upgrade 1 spell/troop at once will always lead to an imbalance if a person is not aware of the intricacies of weighting in war between offence and defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

Here's another idea. Stop blaming others for your misfortune and look and say gee maybe I should have few 3* war attacks before I max my defenses at this th. The my off will be greater than my defense.

---

I'm guessing you're speaking from experience here, you sound very rushed oh no wait, sorry 'Engineered' I myself have over 1000 war stars, regularly 3 star maxed TH9 as a maxed TH9 myself and have decided to go fishing instead of insulting you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

FYI anyone on the "wall hero" grind at th9/10 usually has their defenses maxed and therefor their def>off. That is most people's major problem right there and why those who skip that part are labeled as engineers and unfair.

---

Thats rubbish and you know it, people for what ever poor excuse they come up with, "I like a nice clean base", "I don't want to wait for all this horrid defence to upgrade", at the end of the day the only way they can get a good win streak in their clan is by manipulating it to give them a strong advantage. I as others have stated, have no desire for the ability of engineering your base how you see fit to stop, I believe people should be able to build the base they want, but you guys must think we are green as we are cabbage looking if you think we believe it is for any other reason than cheating the system.

Funny that prior to the realisation that people could win wars using this method there were hardly any engineered bases, and lets see how many survive after SC do fix it, because like the TH sniping and DE zapping, they will fix the imbalance in war matchmaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topbtm

I may add, some of the most vocal anti-engineers are modders, closet-modders or modder sympathisers. Oh the hypocrisy: breaking the rules of the game is more acceptable in their eyes, than exploiting the game mechanics within the rules of the game... BTW, it is debatable whether engineers succeed in exploiting the advantage - I don't think so. And I have yet to see ANYONE who can show me that engineers gain a CONSISTENT advantage in the mm. One mismatch advantage in 5 wars is not CONSISTENT and not a proof of anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BbaBaba123

I find this hard to believe.

---

Me too, if anything I would say it was the other way round, someone exploiting the system one way, will always look to exploit the system another way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krzeng9

I'd like to see the source for that quote given the grammar is wrong.

---

As stated in a previous post, it was via email and in response to one I sent.

my clan forum bound never sees engineers and when we did they had 1 defenceless th8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

Me too, if anything I would say it was the other way round, someone exploiting the system one way, will always look to exploit the system another way

---

To quote some of most vocal anti engineers: "what is the fun in beating 2 th level below....or beating on kids..."
therefore why would any freaking engineers be bothered with using mods? Think please.

https://forum-content.supercell.com/...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit https://forum-content.supercell.com/...post-right.png
Also unless you have personal experience engineering you have no idea how SC has changed to make it much harder for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

In a response to an email I sent them.

I have enough experience and knowledge to know that what has done has had very little impact overall to the war matchmaking.

---

Really? LOL. That is why many anti-engineers have zero credibility...cause you have no idea what you are talking about, and proudly admitting to it so as well.

I think it's funny how the people who already built all the defenses call it manipulating and the ones who started a fresh new base after they realized what was going on, call it being smart.

I hate when people say it's like a pro football star playing with high school kids... NO it's like an out of shape fat guy fighting a lean mean fighting machine!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingKreg

I think it's funny how the people who already built all the defenses call it manipulating and the ones who started a fresh new base after they realized what was going on, call it being smart.

I hate when people say it's like a pro football star playing with high school kids... NO it's like an out of shape fat guy fighting a lean mean fighting machine!!!!!

---

Ha ha ha ha..... What utter rubbish, It is manipulating. There is no skill to it, all those people say how difficult it is are talking nonsense, the hardest thing they have to do is watch their bases get raided by 30 goblins and lose a bit of loot, there is no skill to the way they attack, there is no skill in making the decision to build a defenceless base, the people that say it requires skill are the ones who don't have any and as such need to do it as the only way to win in war. And a better analogy would be, it's like Lance Armstrong riding in the Tour de France!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

Ha ha ha ha..... What utter rubbish, It is manipulating. There is no skill to it, all those people say how difficult it is are talking nonsense, the hardest thing they have to do is watch their bases get raided by 30 goblins and lose a bit of loot, there is no skill to the way they attack, there is no skill in making the decision to build a defenceless base, the people that say it requires skill are the ones who don't have any and as such need to do it as the only way to win in war. And a better analogy would be, it's like Lance Armstrong riding in the Tour de France!

---

Don't just be a hater just because your clan is not very good at war.

Nex Addoians

#YJYP2LPY: 161-57 record

Nex Addo

#9Q8RQ999: 109-107 record

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoGen

Ha ha ha ha..... What utter rubbish, It is manipulating. There is no skill to it, all those people say how difficult it is are talking nonsense, the hardest thing they have to do is watch their bases get raided by 30 goblins and lose a bit of loot, there is no skill to the way they attack, there is no skill in making the decision to build a defenceless base, the people that say it requires skill are the ones who don't have any and as such need to do it as the only way to win in war. And a better analogy would be, it's like Lance Armstrong riding in the Tour de France!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

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

---

JS: Nice suggested thread, but given the changes made in the October updated, a few of the poster's answers need to be updated, especially regarding his answers to myth 1, 3 and 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topbtm

Don't just be a hater just because your clan is not very good at war.

Nex Addoians

#YJYP2LPY: 161-57 record

Nex Addo

#9Q8RQ999: 109-107 record

---

Your standards are pretty high! I think my clan is decent+ at 214-87-7 overall and 38-12 in our last 50. More importantly to me, though, we get mostly enjoyable wars, with decent targets for most of us (maybe a bit of a logjam in the 8.5 and th8 range). Also mostly competitive wars which either side has a chance of winning: only 2 unwinnable that I can recall, plus several in which we had a pronounced advantage on offense and parity or better on defense.

We were very bad early on. Got better by doing sensible things like pushing heroes and walls hard on our defense-heavy bases; having heavy bases with poor offense, troop-wise or skill-wise, sit out for a while (friendly challenges were a terrific training tool); getting rid of silly inactive patsies at the bottom; developing a number of 8.5 and 9.5, and recently two 10.5. I do have a secondary th10 base with no xbows, but otherwise max th9 defense. 8.99? 9.01?

I would not say we are massively engineered, either; closer to "barely engineered." Think it was TankSinatra who came up with that IMO apt description of our clan. Our few defenseless bases are th8 or lower, and I have real doubt about whether they are helping or hurting. We also encourage maxing at th7, 8, 9, and indeed just had a clanmate hit 30/30 and upgrade to th10 accordingly.

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?

---

No, the hard core engineers would focus on war offense for most of their bases and focus on defense for their bases on the top. Most extreme would be 50% offenseless and 50% defenseless, overall clan weight would be low in that scenario.

Alternatively, if you mean that each base gets its own weight that's then added to the clan, they could instead just upgrade war-only troops on otherwise offenseless bases. Just dragons/light on a th11, or just bowlers, whatever, just whatever troop combo they want to use, an otherwise not upgrade any troops at all.

Then, of course, we can say "well, why not put a big weight on camps, or heroes, or SF, or lab, etc etc etc". Issue with that is that the clan war MM has to match up a huge number of "normal" bases, ie people who don't think much about war and rush like madmen. If they changed out the war mm completely just to filter out extreme engineers then it would be very likely to screw up things for that silent majority of people who just want to play and have fun.

Nerfedname had a great potential solution a few months ago. He proposed instituting a progressive war weight penalty as offense and defense got further and further out of alignment. So, an early .5 would get hardly any penalty, a permabased .5 with max offense and no defense upgraded would get a pretty decent penalty, and a defenseless th11 would get such a huge penalty that he may as well put down all of his defenses. This is a quite elegant solution, and my only concern about it is that it doesn't directly address heroes. SC has a huge incentive to get people to spend gems on heroes, so I don't think that they would be wise to penalize for having high heroes, but this is one thing that can be very indicative of highly engineered bases...ie, low defense, high offense, and high heroes.

Even engineered clans lose. It's not cheating its strategy. Cheating is using third party apps to get an advantage. It doesn't matter if you engineer because you still have to get 3 stars. Force people to play the game the way you want them to with a gimmick. So if you don't buy any defenses then penalize that player in a clan war match up. As the opponent you get their engineered bases easily with 3 stars. You can still defeat the opponent with better defenses and attack strategy. I disagree with artificially making people fit in your mode so that you make it fair which in turn makes it not fair. So even if you do this somebody will be matched unfairly with somebody who can attack higher based on offenses. Because a no defense account will always have lower defense than offense. Then you are going to complain about that scenario? What is next? There is no easy solution. Your solution of weighting on just either defense or offense will back fire horribly. Because then I will continue to not upgrade my defense still getting matched up with a lower defense opponent, my lower team mates take care of my opponent leaving me with additional attacks to take care of the upper opponents. So to fix engineering you want engineering. You want to stop engineering then just play better than your opponent it is a much easier solution then whining about it being unfair.

Crikey,
I think South West 45 is 136-92-2 these days. Topbtm will tear us apart:saywhat:


On a serious note though. So much can change for any clan over a period of a few months.

Sometimes being through tough times (such as 9 losses in a row) and coming out the other side may make your clan stronger than ever!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingAroth

Even engineered clans lose.

You want to stop engineering then just play better than your opponent it is a much easier solution then whining about it being unfair.

---

We warred over the weekend with a big, engineered/defenseless clan. 25v war. Out eagled 2-4, out inferno 16-22. 6 TH11s to 11. Out grand warden attacks 10-20. Opposing clan had 4 defenseless bases in the under 30K defense weight- two were TH11s.

The kind of war that would have posters in here screaming bloody mismatch.

Won going away, 70-61... though they did leave 4 high attacks on the table. Might have made it a few stars closer if they chose to attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleMoon

My whole clan doesnt engineer, only I do and I don't do it to fix matches. I do it because it helps me rush and max walls and heroes faster.

---

If that's really what you're doing then it's not engineering, it's strategic rushing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

We warred over the weekend with a big, engineered/defenseless clan. 25v war. Out eagled 2-4, out inferno 16-22. 6 TH11s to 11. Out grand warden attacks 10-20. Opposing clan had 4 defenseless bases in the under 30K defense weight- two were TH11s.

The kind of war that would have posters in here screaming bloody mismatch.

Won going away, 70-61... though they did leave 4 high attacks on the table. Might have made it a few stars closer if they chose to attack.

---

Congrats cnaf! Out of interest, and without naming names, were your opponents a 'successful' war clan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

Congrats cnaf! Out of interest, and without naming names, were your opponents a 'successful' war clan?

---

Thanks. I really didn't think we had a shot. Clan is 1-5 when we are out eagled and have less warden attacks. I think so, the name sounds familiar and they had 265 wins. Not one of the most popular ones though.

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.

---

I find statements like this very interesting. I'm very involved with 2 clans. Both are typically full or nearly full, but one allows everybody to war every time (in fact we don't start searches without 50 usually) and the other typically only runs 10-20 man wars.

The difference?

The 50v50 clan accepts anybody who has a forums account and is reasonably friendly, allows people to war with heroes down, and has a huge war weight spread. Something like 5-7 th11's on top, usually a couple of those are high 11's or max, and a few 8's and 7's on the bottom with weights as low as the 30's. Such a huge spread, plus with 50v50 being really tough to balance anyway, yields us with a pretty high % of mismatches. Probably 1/3 of our wars are vs actual engineers with double our 10's and 11's, but another 1/3 are mismatches in the other direction where our opponents have 1-2 th11 and a generally more-even spread of bases. It's very rare that we match up with an opponent that's within 3-4 th10+th11 of us in either direction, + or -.

The 10-20 man wars clan is Valks only, and usually lvl 2 valks, so we have something like 3 th8's, 3 th11's, and about an even mix of th9/th10. We don't allow people to do war attacks with a hero down. New members must have war-qualified bases, good anti 2* or anti 3* depending upon th and the specific war matchup, and they must also prove that they are capable attackers. That doesn't mean they have to be elite 3* specialists or anything crazy like that, but at least demonstrating decent funneling strategy and giving themselves io 3* their mirror is what we're looking for. We used to have a bunch of .5's, but since October patch almost all of those are gone. I went with an early 8.5 strategy on my two main accounts, but put down xbows after most of my points were upgraded and heroes got into double digits. In fact, in our current war we don't have any .5's at all. Generally, we try to bring anybody who is opted in to war, as long as he's proven to reliably use both attacks in the past. We have a TON of people upgrading heroes constantly, last war we only had 12 opted in in fact. At last count we've had 14 consecutive "fair" matches, ie, matches that could be won with quality bases and quality attacking by either side.

Obviously this is just 2 examples, but you can war in any way that you want. Just realize that your war roster dictates to a very large extent what your opponents roster will look like. For more info I recommend reading through this thread:

https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...mpetitive-wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MossackFonseca

I find statements like this very interesting. I'm very involved with 2 clans. Both are typically full or nearly full, but one allows everybody to war every time (in fact we don't start searches without 50 usually) and the other typically only runs 10-20 man wars.

The difference?

The 50v50 clan accepts anybody who has a forums account and is reasonably friendly, allows people to war with heroes down, and has a huge war weight spread. Something like 5-7 th11's on top, usually a couple of those are high 11's or max, and a few 8's and 7's on the bottom with weights as low as the 30's. Such a huge spread, plus with 50v50 being really tough to balance anyway, yields us with a pretty high % of mismatches. Probably 1/3 of our wars are vs actual engineers with double our 10's and 11's, but another 1/3 are mismatches in the other direction where our opponents have 1-2 th11 and a generally more-even spread of bases. It's very rare that we match up with an opponent that's within 3-4 th10+th11 of us in either direction, + or -.

The 10-20 man wars clan is Valks only, and usually lvl 2 valks, so we have something like 3 th8's, 3 th11's, and about an even mix of th9/th10. We don't allow people to do war attacks with a hero down. New members must have war-qualified bases, good anti 2* or anti 3* depending upon th and the specific war matchup, and they must also prove that they are capable attackers. That doesn't mean they have to be elite 3* specialists or anything crazy like that, but at least demonstrating decent funneling strategy and giving themselves io 3* their mirror is what we're looking for. We used to have a bunch of .5's, but since October patch almost all of those are gone. I went with an early 8.5 strategy on my two main accounts, but put down xbows after most of my points were upgraded and heroes got into double digits. In fact, in our current war we don't have any .5's at all. Generally, we try to bring anybody who is opted in to war, as long as he's proven to reliably use both attacks in the past. We have a TON of people upgrading heroes constantly, last war we only had 12 opted in in fact. At last count we've had 14 consecutive "fair" matches, ie, matches that could be won with quality bases and quality attacking by either side.

Obviously this is just 2 examples, but you can war in any way that you want. Just realize that your war roster dictates to a very large extent what your opponents roster will look like. For more info I recommend reading through this thread:

https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...mpetitive-wars

---

We have had similar experiences. Our clan used to be more like the first of yours: relaxed standards, friendly chat, almost any attack style allowed, letting folks war with heroes down as long as the base wasn't really heavy (our cutoff around 8.5, rule of thumb being, no xbow, no problem). Lots of mismatches, both directions.

We won a large number anyway because opponents don't always attack well, and sometimes not at all--we have learned through bitter experience never to include a new-ish member who would also be near the top in defensive weight, but might bail on us. Flake-outs or flat-out incompetence have cost us more than one winnable war. Anyway, overall our record was indifferent.

We are moving towards more serious warring, similar to your second clan. On offense, bring big troops, mostly valks. Lavaloon great also (with or without kill squad), as long as you can prove to us you know how to use it: IMO govalk or queen valk bowler funnel are much more forgiving of technical errors than lavaloon. (We have a high standard for lavaloons, too, as 3-4 core members are quite skilled.)

On defense: don't have a ♥♥♥♥ base with easily drawn cc, or soft walls, or predictable traps. Especially don't have weak air d, at any level. Th7 and to some extent th8 are auto with dragon, but no need to make it easy. th9 and th10 can fall to lavaloon, or even drag zap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topbtm

JS: Nice suggested thread, but given the changes made in the October updated, a few of the poster's answers need to be updated, especially regarding his answers to myth 1, 3 and 4.

---

You are correct, topbtm...
will need to update my links. Thank you.