Why engineering is good for the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

I think the main issue is people having the wrong impression about what can be accomplished in the forums. Nobody's going to convince SC to do anything here, they're not even reading. Nobody's going to convince the player base to stop/start engineering, they're playing how they want to play (and maybe .001% are following the forums). The arguments are vicious, the stakes are small.

---

Disagree with above highlighted portion. Numerous examples indicate exactly the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

Disagree with above highlighted portion. Numerous examples indicate exactly the opposite.

---

Man.. I thought about this for 10 minutes. Think I agree with Tank here. barely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

Man.. I thought about this for 10 minutes. Think I agree with Tank here. barely

---

They added the cool down to making bases available for FC after the forums lit up over how it would be used for sandboxing. They made changes to PBT & added the loot cart to appease people who were enraged over the elimination of TH snipes. They've been making changes to MM to reduce the advantage of engineering. Are they exactly what we ask for? No, but I don't expect them to agree with us, just because we're the most vocal players.

They don't do a very good a job of interacting with the forums, or explaining what they are doing to address issues brought up here. But, it's pretty clear they are aware when something becomes a hot topic on the forums. I suspect they've been reluctant to engage on the forums too much because, let's face it: sometimes the attitudes get toxic. We'll see if this new Community Manager position is a move in the direction of better communication from SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormHeart

If that's what they are doing, it ain't working. We just finished a war with maxing 8s and 7s. I leave people out so we don't have too many max 8s in war when none of our nines have opted in.

This last war we saw, 4 TH9s, 1TH 5 and 5TH8s vs our Th8s and Th7s. 5, Th8s and 4 TH7s.

---

That's an interesting observation. A lot of the "serious" war community haven't warred with anything less than a full TH9 in so long, that the idea of war with TH8 & below is forgotten. I feel like might be a better case to explain how lopsided offense pushes maxxers out of the game, than the perma-maxed TH9s complaining about facing 9.5s & TH10s with low heroes.

That's exactly why I wish people would post relevant details when they talk about a mismatch due to engineering. From what I've seen, a lot of the engineering clans are run by one person with multiple accounts, looking to bully in 10 v 10, lower TH wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

They added the cool down to making bases available for FC after the forums lit up over how it would be used for sandboxing. They made changes to PBT & added the loot cart to appease people who were enraged over the elimination of TH snipes. They've been making changes to MM to reduce the advantage of engineering. Are they exactly what we ask for? No, but I don't expect them to agree with us, just because we're the most vocal players.

---

Those are the examples I can think of as well. For the FC cooldown, the forum pointed out a huge unanticipated consequence of a brand new feature and SC had to react. There was no controversy, no differing sides to the issue, so the relevance to any other debate is pretty limited.
The December 2015 debacle (snipe removal) lead to upheaval that makes the engineering debate seem really tame. SC was entirely dismissive of complaints, remember 'a real chief would adapt'? Two months later we got some tweaks, but nothing like what we wanted (easy shields). Seems more consistent to me with damage control based on game data (probably gem purchases in particular) rather than response to the forum, who knows.
My point is, the arguments get a lot more heated than they need to be because I think everyone imagines they're trying a case before a judge (SC), and they need to win the argument so that their thread/proposal will result in major changes.
But the judge & jury boxes are empty, folks. SC will come to their own conclusions using data we don't have access to, to support a huge and diverse player base of which we are a very small niche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Those are the examples I can think of as well. For the FC cooldown, the forum pointed out a huge unanticipated consequence of a brand new feature and SC had to react. There was no controversy, no differing sides to the issue, so the relevance to any other debate is pretty limited.
The December 2015 debacle (snipe removal) lead to upheaval that makes the engineering debate seem really tame. SC was entirely dismissive of complaints, remember 'a real chief would adapt'? Two months later we got some tweaks, but nothing like what we wanted (easy shields). Seems more consistent to me with damage control based on game data (probably gem purchases in particular) rather than response to the forum, who knows.
My point is, the arguments get a lot more heated than they need to be because I think everyone imagines they're trying a case before a judge (SC), and they need to win the argument so that their thread/proposal will result in major changes.
But the judge & jury boxes are empty, folks. SC will come to their own conclusions using data we don't have access to, to support a huge and diverse player base of which we are a very small niche.

---

Agree with highlighted portion above...SC has always done what they feel is best for the game.

But they do listen to us here in the forum. A few off the top of my head:

- Clan Perks
- Friendly Challenges
- Stop the use of TPAs
- Special events

Plus I see SC developers commenting on posts periodically. to say they never monitor or read the forum is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

But they do listen to us here in the forum. A few off the top of my head:

- Clan Perks
- Friendly Challenges
- Stop the use of TPAs
- Special events

Plus I see SC developers commenting on posts periodically. to say they never monitor or read the forum is false.

---

It's a big stretch to credit the forum with these changes. I think they were all ported over from Clash Royale, other than the octopus. And everyone was begging for action against modders for maybe 18 months before anything was done.
As to responsiveness, don't confuse moderaters with developers. We do get the occasional developer feedback, we only get a few nonanswers every other month or so - https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...und-IV-ANSWERS

Which I'm actually fine with. I don't think there's much use in them giving us more info, don't think there's much use in them adopting whatever the forum thinks they want. I'm just trying to shift the mentality in this forum away from 'fight to the death to determine the future of the game' more towards 'we're just a bunch of players sharing info & helping eachother out'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

It's a big stretch to credit the forum with these changes. I think they were all ported over from Clash Royale, other than the octopus. And everyone was begging for action against modders for maybe 18 months before anything was done.
As to responsiveness, don't confuse moderaters with developers. We do get the occasional developer feedback, we only get a few nonanswers every other month or so - https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...und-IV-ANSWERS

Which I'm actually fine with. I don't think there's much use in them giving us more info, don't think there's much use in them adopting whatever the forum thinks they want. I'm just trying to shift the mentality in this forum away from 'fight to the death to determine the future of the game' more towards 'we're just a bunch of players sharing info & helping eachother out'.

---

I think the forum should be partially the highlight above, but also a way to discuss changes and ideas for the game. I disagree with you about SC's approach to their forum. I think they monitor the pulse and take ideas from it, but I seem to have a more positive outlook than others when it comes to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

The December 2015 debacle (snipe removal) lead to upheaval that makes the engineering debate seem really tame. SC was entirely dismissive of complaints, remember 'a real chief would adapt'? Two months later we got some tweaks, but nothing like what we wanted (easy shields). Seems more consistent to me with damage control based on game data (probably gem purchases in particular) rather than response to the forum, who knows.

---

We also got a big reduction in trap reset costs before the update went live, when the forum pointed out the economy would bomb. (And whether star bonus and loot cart was influenced by the forum as well is impossible to say)

And then we later got some pretty drastic reductions to troop/spell training times (pekka in 3 minutes!?) because people had pointed out that the removal of sniping changed the dynamics of play and clan activity. Yes, SC obviously waited to see the effects of the snipe removal in game first, but I'm not sure they'd have made the link between sniping and troop training time without the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

<snip>, but I'm not sure they'd have made the link between sniping and troop training time without the forum.

---

Interesting supposition; I wonder how seriously that they take what is posted here since the majority of it biased and therefore skewed to meet the typical poster's agenda...

I am with Tank on this (and I hope that we are right) that SC is using their data rather than anything that they read here but given their lack of communication, I suspect that we may never know...