MM just has to penalize .5's more, reward balanced more, .. SIMPLE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddylindo

Mano y mano= hand to hand
Mono y mono= one on one

Both interchangeable sayings in any universe

---

Nope.

Mano y mano = hand and hand.

Mano a mano = hand to hand.

Mono y mono = monkey and monkey.

Not interchangeable unless you wish to be mocked.

Sort of like a parity matchmaker and a parody matchmaker.

Anti engineers want a parody matchup confirmed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

Nope.

Mano y mano = hand and hand.

Mano a mano = hand to hand.

Mono y mono = monkey and monkey.

Not interchangeable unless you wish to be mocked.

Sort of like a parity matchmaker and a parody matchmaker.

---

Its an expression. Mono means one, according to science. I was using an expression. You're trying to translate everything into spanish. That's a direct violation of forum rule number 9. It's ok though, I wont report you buddy ;)

Mono y mono is an expression I literally never heard before joining this forum. And I'm reasonably educated. Ima side with Aspex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2SD

You are calling a ".5" a base with THX+1 Offense and THX Defense. I am generalizing and a base where the Offense is SIGNIFICANTLY outpacing the Defense I am calling ".5". A lot of people use this terminology, but call it "extreme .5". Defenseless bases at the bottom with TH11 max troops and L10+ GWs and L20 - 45 heroes IS a BIG part of the problem here, and in my vocabulary that is an "engineered account" or an "extreme .5" which is a type of ".5". Let's not get into a semantic argument here, as we all know that those defenseless bases at the bottom with ridiculous Offense IS a big problem in terms of war matchmaking and fairness to balanced/non-engineered players, and it is simple to negate the advantage of those accounts by penalizing them more in MM.

---

You can try to redefine .5 all you want, but the only genereally-accepted rule that I've seen on it is that in a .5, the offense is 1 th ahead of the defense. That's it. An 8.5 has th8 defense and th9 offense. A 7.5 has th7 defense and th8 offense. etc etc. If it's 2 or more levels ahead, it's not a .5 but a fully engineered account. And if it has no defense at all other than a lvl 1 cannon + teslas and traps, then it's defenseless.

Why dont you just say one on one or lets have a war?

Well, it's settled everyone. Posthoc sides with Aspex. It must be correct then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddylindo

Well, it's settled everyone. Posthoc sides with Aspex. It must be correct then.

---

Don't forget me too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2SD

This thread isn't about debating what the definition of a ".5" is... so let's take a step back for a minute and forget about terminology that you use that is different that what I use. The issue here is that a base that is defenseless but has max TH11 troops and a GW is NOT being penalized much, if at all, in the context of a clan where that account is at the bottom of the clan's roster. The issue here is that a base with max TH11 troops, L45 BK and AQ, and L20 GW but TH7 defenses is NOT being penalized much, if any, in the context of a roster where they are in the middle or bottom of the lineup. If my definition of "an extreme .5" is not matching yours or the general communities, then sorry, but if you read this thread you'll see that I am not referring to penalizing ".5s" any more, but penalizing accounts that are EXTREMELY out-of-whack in terms of their Offense being WAY ahead of their Defense.

---

No arguments here, a defenseless th11 with max troops and heroes is not penalized enough in war weight to make up for the huge offensive firepower that it brings to the fight. However, it is a huge penalty to the clan in that they are far more likely to face other, very highly engineered clans when they bring that defenseless 11 to the fight. I would go so far as to say that if you're regularly facing 11's like that then you're doing some pretty heavy engineering of your own most likely, or, if not, then you should spend some time figuring out why you're matching those bases at the least.

I recommend following the link in my signature, it should help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraven001

I think my definition of .5 is different than yours. A base is only a .5 if all the defenses we upgraded and purchased for the previous TH. If defenses are under that level that base qualifies as engineered (various degrees of amount to extreme engineers with defenseless bases)

i view .5 as the only real way to make it into the next bracket of attack difficulty. Ease into it. Just a method of upgrading to max for me. Do my basic offense first camps,CC, spell factory and hero if applicable. After that. Start working regular defenses up to new max before getting any new defenses. Followed by light weight regular defenses and work those. Than heavy weight. Keeping pace with the lab so they time out around the same point. Basically i work heros and follow that path to dump my other loot.

---

That is how I've done all of my th9's, and it has not caused my clans any problems at all. The issues for .5's arise when they completely ignore all defenses for months and months, until they get to max heroes and max offense in lab. Those guys don't just pull in max opponents, but they also completely skew the clan's balance rating in the mm and help to draw some crazy engineered opponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddylindo

Its an expression. Mono means one, according to science. I was using an expression. You're trying to translate everything into spanish. That's a direct violation of forum rule number 9. It's ok though, I wont report you buddy ;)

---

According to science? Lol. It's actually from the Greek monos, meaning alone. Etymology is important if you wish to argue language usage.

As you are using an incorrect Spanish saying translating it into Spanish is not unreasonable. You may try to argue that you are not (mis)using a Spanish phrase, to which I would point to your usage of "y" as a conjunctive, which is Spanish. The Spanish phrase that you should be using is mano a mano, hand to hand, which has entered into English usage.

As for me violating rule 9, I am not the one who repeatedly used "mono y mono" on the forums. That would be you. I won't argue if you choose not report yourself though.