TH Upgrade Restrictions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

Because if SC validates or supports a strategy that requires having multiple accounts then they have to support having multiple accounts. Its really that simple.

Currently their stance is to discourage multiple accounts so technically making extra accounts to gain war advantages is not something you can fully argue isnt cheating. The multi account aspect of it does make it a form of pushing the rules.

---

There is nothing wrong with having multiple accounts. Having multiple accounts is supported by SC. What they say that they do not support is multiple accounts on the same device. In practice, they do attempt to help with problems with multiple accounts on the same device but it is not officially supported. SC have no stance discouraging multiple accounts.

As has been repeatedly stated, neither having multiple accounts nor engineering is anywhere close to cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Therealmitchypoo

With the growing number of engineered bases causing Clan Wars to be increasingly unfair, I'd like to propose a new mechanic to allow fairer gameplay. (Engineered bases are those that, for example, are a TH11 with TH6 defences, max troops and max walls, causing an unfair advantage when poised against their balanced TH8 opponent).
The mechanic to restrict this is a war weight calculator display, whereby you need to achieve a set war weight before upgrading your TH to the next level. This will force clashers to upgrade their defences to a set level before upgrading their TH. Not only will this target engineers, but will also allow clashers to fully experience each TH level and have a greater sense of achievement when they are eligible to upgrade their TH. From SC's perspective, those that are still so keen to rush ahead will be more inclined to spend gems, too! It's a win-win for everyone.

---

This is the original posters ideal and like most posts about fixing engineered bases we have got off topic. This should be supported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lonewolf1234

This is the original posters ideal and like most posts about fixing engineered bases we have got off topic. This should be supported.

---

Except SC have stated restrictions on how people play/upgrade are not the route they will take:

"We can’t really prevent them without making extremely complex restrictions that will adversely impact some players and that would require a lot of time and development effort to do right - and even then they might not even work that well in the long term. Instead, we try to improve our matchmaking algorithms to reduce unfair advantages from things like lopsided bases, and we will continue to do so regularly!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

Except SC have stated restrictions on how people play/upgrade are not the route they will take:

"We can’t really prevent them without making extremely complex restrictions that will adversely impact some players and that would require a lot of time and development effort to do right - and even then they might not even work that well in the long term. Instead, we try to improve our matchmaking algorithms to reduce unfair advantages from things like lopsided bases, and we will continue to do so regularly!"

---

Then how will SC address it. Just continually adjusting the matchmaking still has not loved this issue. Some other route need to be looked into.

Required % of completion of a townhall level directly addressed the issue.

We have suggested many others ways.
But continue with problems.

More importantly how can we talk about ideals to fix this when no matter how we come at it Aspex you seam to shot down every good ideal.

Engineered bases need to get addressed somehow managed somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lonewolf1234

Then how will SC address it. Just continually adjusting the matchmaking still has not loved this issue. Some other route need to be looked into.

Required % of completion of a townhall level directly addressed the issue.

We have suggested many others ways.
But continue with problems.

More importantly how can we talk about ideals to fix this when no matter how we come at it Aspex you seam to shot down every good ideal.

Engineered bases need to get addressed somehow managed somehow.

---

Read the quote that I supplied for how SC intend to continue addressing the issue. The changes to the MM so far have improved the situation and SC are committed to continuing to do so.

SC, the creators of the game who have all the data available to them to base their decisions upon, have said that this is the route that they will take. You say "Some other route need to be looked into" and suggest something that they have said that they will not do. What do you think SC will do, given that they have already said what they will and will not do?

Engineering is being addressed and managed. You may not like the way in which it is being addressed and managed or that SC see it as part of the game but it is and they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

Except SC have stated restrictions on how people play/upgrade are not the route they will take:

"We can’t really prevent them without making extremely complex restrictions that will adversely impact some players and that would require a lot of time and development effort to do right - and even then they might not even work that well in the long term. Instead, we try to improve our matchmaking algorithms to reduce unfair advantages from things like lopsided bases, and we will continue to do so regularly!"

---

The need for multiple devices to do the strategy makes it a division between the haves and the have nots. This makes it a factor to a persons war advantage what their real life situation is. Whether they have the resources to get multiple devices or whether not. The game needs to give a level playing field to all regardless of real life situations.

I do disagree with placing restrictions on upgrades simply because I dont see how that can be implemented without penalizing those that already have them. But if they adjust the algorithm so those guys are no longer avoiding getting matched up against peers that would solve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwelshjr

The need for multiple devices to do the strategy makes it a division between the haves and the have nots. This makes it a factor to a persons war advantage what their real life situation is. Whether they have the resources to get multiple devices or whether not. The game needs to give a level playing field to all regardless of real life situations.

I do disagree with placing restrictions on upgrades simply because I dont see how that can be implemented without penalizing those that already have them. But if they adjust the algorithm so those guys are no longer avoiding getting matched up against peers that would solve it.

---

There is no "need" for multiple devices. If you feel that you have to have the guaranteed backup of Support then use multiple devices, otherwise use a single device. Many players use multiple accounts on a single device, forum moderators included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

There is no "need" for multiple devices. If you feel that you have to have the guaranteed backup of Support then use multiple devices, otherwise use a single device. Many players use multiple accounts on a single device, forum moderators included.

---

I think it's time to give up on this thread.

They aren't really listening, and we will never convince them that it
won't work,
wouldn't be fair,
and isn't what SC want to do to address this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilISuppose

I think it's time to give up on this thread.

They aren't really listening, and we will never convince them that it
won't work,
wouldn't be fair,
and isn't what SC want to do to address this

---

Phil, it isn't an 'us and them' situation here. We're discussing an issue that many people seem to have a problem with and how it can be rectified. Through the course of the discussion in this thread, it does seem apparent that having restrictions on upgrading your TH based on one's level of defences does restrict gameplay in a way that SC does not support, nor players. What also has become apparent is that the solution lies in fixing the matchmaking algorith whereby more weight is placed on offensive capabilities.
Engineering is a strategy, but an unfair one. The whole strategy is based on abusing the matchmaking system to give yourself an unfair advantage, making it easier to win wars. That is a fact.
We just paired up with a clan in our CW today, where we have 5 th8's that are paired with a combination of th9s and th11s (that have AQs and GWs). There is no other th8 for our th8's to hit, and with high hp storages and max clan castles, in addition to AQs and GWs, makes our th8s redundant in attacking and quite frankly ruins the experience. This is an issue and NEEDS to be fixed.

My friends got three th10 with less deffence but war troops are maxed out and heroes too.