Why engineering is good for the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfChaos

One does not have to define every term nor agree wholly, but as to what engineering is ill go with the Supreme Court standard of protected speech versus obscene... I know it when I see it.

Certainly allows for variety to exist in the grey areas that skirt the line but curtails the obscene which for all practical purposes in this case would be defenseless minimax and similar.

---

When I used the example of a TH9, it's what many are using to defend the argument "well this player is engineered in some form so you asking to change that is changing a playstyle"

The obvious engineered bases are... well... obviously engineered bases lol

But those defending it would use the argument aforementioned.

Not to mention they claim that the way they play is being soiled and is called forth as "wrong" or "cheating" (which it isn't)

Yet they are forcing others to play the way they play to even have a chance to have a 50/50 matchup.

It's not that I care about engineering much, it's that these arguments have a hypocritical stance that is thoroughly flawed.

I love finding lopsided bases when nexting. I wish there were a lot more of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotTheRealPaul

I facepalmed so hard here.

Maxing is not the "proper" way to play. It once was the best way, but now it seems strategic rushing is, depending on what you want out of the game.

IMO every playstyle should have strengths and weaknesses. So you choose where your account will be good in the game: multi or war.
The incentive to reach max th11 would be you could enjoy both aspects without sacrificing one.

---

What??? I want to have my cake and eat it too. What's wrong with everyone playing in a way that allows both -- I don't want to wait until I'm max TH11!

I think it was stated verbatim: every playstyle should have strengths and weaknesses. It still boggles my mind that maxers think that what is good for farming should be good for wars. And probably trophies too. Their way is the only right way.

Wow, i like your subtle added plug in of your clan. Freindly challenge frogy creek, we will 100% you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BbaBaba123

I like the fact that the definition of engineering changes to the person and in the end nothing truly is engineered unless someone feels like labeling it.

So, what is the universal term for this? It doesn't exist.

<snip>

---

I agree that the definition varies depending on the agenda of the unreasonable trolls and flamers. But reasonable and objective members of this forum recognize that base engineering is a gross disparity in the ratio of offense:defense. This is why Nerfed's disparity tax is the most effective solution that I have see put forward...

FD: In case that you didn't know, I am a base and roster engineer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfChaos

One does not have to define every term nor agree wholly, but as to what engineering is ill go with the Supreme Court standard of protected speech versus obscene... I know it when I see it.

Certainly allows for variety to exist in the grey areas that skirt the line but curtails the obscene which for all practical purposes in this case would be defenseless minimax and similar.

---

Agree
10 Agrees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BbaBaba123

When I used the example of a TH9, it's what many are using to defend the argument "well this player is engineered in some form so you asking to change that is changing a playstyle"

The obvious engineered bases are... well... obviously engineered bases lol

But those defending it would use the argument aforementioned.

Not to mention they claim that the way they play is being soiled and is called forth as "wrong" or "cheating" (which it isn't)

Yet they are forcing others to play the way they play to even have a chance to have a 50/50 matchup.

It's not that I care about engineering much, it's that these arguments have a hypocritical stance that is thoroughly flawed.

---

The only entity forcing people to play any way is SC to the extent that they continue to allow the MMA to provide matchups that so many find unfair. My opinion is that most of the people posting about unfair matchups are contributing to the situation but are ignorant of WW / MMA and even worse, lack the honesty to recognize their own actions are part of the problem...

In SC's defense (NPI), they want to provide matchups in a reasonable time from (under an hour) and with so many variables to account for and limited to the clans searching simultaneously, there will always be mismatches unless SC are willing to endure the whining about search duration rather than mismatches...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by posthoc

I think it was stated verbatim: every playstyle should have strengths and weaknesses. It still boggles my mind that maxers think that what is good for farming should be good for wars. And probably trophies too. Their way is the only right way.

---

But isn't this the way that we all think? I think that base and roster engineering are the right way to play but unlike others, I can appreciate the concerns of all play styles (since I use them all) and more importantly, I am concerned about the long-term viability of the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustworkout

You are an idiot and should never post again, troll...very creative moron. Ever heard of elaborations. I CAN TELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT, by not having any feedback concerning the topic. Just a direct assault of character with your adolescent insult of "troll". Thank you for discrediting any post you have ever made. Tool

---

I foresee a ban in your future...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustworkout

You are an idiot and should never post again, troll...very creative moron. Ever heard of elaborations. I CAN TELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT, by not having any feedback concerning the topic. Just a direct assault of character with your adolescent insult of "troll". Thank you for discrediting any post you have ever made. Tool

---

raging kid, what is your problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denton

I agree that the definition varies depending on the agenda of the unreasonable trolls and flamers. But reasonable and objective members of this forum recognize that base engineering is a gross disparity in the ratio of offense:defense. This is why Nerfed's disparity tax is the most effective solution that I have see put forward...

FD: In case that you didn't know, I am a base and roster engineer...



Agree
10 Agrees

---

Yea, the tax seems the easiest. You get taxed in the regular farm MM. Those presentations are based on trophy and th level. Not sure why war is different.

Cannot imagine one of the SC devs sitting there thinking, "oh a TH11 offense is matching a TH8" this is what should happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denton

But isn't this the way that we all think? I think that base and roster engineering are the right way to play but unlike others, I can appreciate the concerns of all play styles (since I use them all) and more importantly, I am concerned about the long-term viability of the game...

---

Sry u feel that way Denton, but then again I respect everyone's playstyle.
To me warring should be on even playground, ain't matter if engineering or not, but have a 50/50 chance of winning before u hit that war search, instead of trying to determine the faith of war by roster engineering before a match is found.
I get it that it provides fun at the start, having to build up a win streak, building up ur confidence, but later on don't u get bored of bullying ur opponents?
Call me old fashioned if u wish, but I like a challenge where my hands are shaking before I hit the attack button, what truly makes wars to have a sense.
To accomplish a win on even playground means a lot more then bullying in a war. Yet there are many who take pride in those bully wars wins, just find those ppl mentality childish ,my 2c.
Also it's the best way to progress ur game mechanics knowledge, to face tougher opponents instead of using op attack strategies on bully hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

Sry u feel that way Denton, but then again I respect everyone's playstyle.
To me warring should be on even playground, ain't matter if engineering or not, but have a 50/50 chance of winning before u hit that war search, instead of trying to determine the faith of war by roster engineering before a match is found.
I get it that it provides fun at the start, having to build up a win streak, building up ur confidence, but later on don't u get bored of bullying ur opponents?
Call me old fashioned if u wish, but I like a challenge where my hands are shaking before I hit the attack button, what truly makes wars to have a sense.
To accomplish a win on even playground means a lot more then bullying in a war. Yet there are many who take pride in those bully wars wins, just find those ppl mentality childish ,my 2c.
Also it's the best way to progress ur game mechanics knowledge, to face tougher opponents instead of using op attack strategies on bully hits.

---

you know there are ways to make engineering and roster engineering fair right? for the most part engineered opponents are not unwinnable and are at a disadvantage on many occasions.

And you do know that if you want to engineer effectively you cant rely on bully hits all the time? You do know that not all engineered bases hit lower townhalls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

you know there are ways to make engineering and roster engineering fair right? for the most part engineered opponents are not unwinnable and are at a disadvantage on many occasions.

And you do know that if you want to engineer effectively you cant rely on bully hits all the time? You do know that not all engineered bases hit lower townhalls?

---

I see what ur trying to achieve here, yet don't kid urself, having those defeneless bases allows for bullying, which most of the heavy engineers use it for. On the other hand it allows for more stronger hits against top bases, avoiding a real challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

I see what ur trying to achieve here, yet don't kid urself, having those defeneless base allows for bullying, which most of the heavy engineers use it for. On the other hand it allows for more strong hits against top bases, avoiding a real challenge.

---

Doesnt change the fact that many engineered clans rarely get good streaks and are at a dsiadvantage often. Sure there are cases where extremely engineered clans get a consistent advantage however im sure sc will make incremental changes to decrease the advantage.

Let me ask you this. Whatd o you think is fairer. A th9 with 30/30 matching a th9 with max defenses and less than 15/15 or a th9 with 30/30 matching a weaker defense 9.5 with 20/20 ish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

Let me ask you this. Whatd o you think is fairer. A th9 with 30/30 matching a th9 with max defenses and less than 15/15 or a th9 with 30/30 matching a weaker defense 9.5 with 20/20 ish.

---

Tbh none of ur 2 examples are fair but asked which is more fair, to which I can can give a vague answer, where I'd pick ur second alternative with higher royals. But that's not what we maxers want from MM, rather a even playground. It's no fun for us facing rushed guys as it offers no real challenge. Same goes for heavy engineers.
Ur approach of convincing engineering is the fair way to go just doesn't add up if ur looking for a real challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

Tbh none of ur 2 examples are fair but asked which is more fair, to which I can can give a vague answer, where I'd pick ur second alternative with higher royals. But that's not what we maxers want from MM, rather a even playground. It's no fun for us facing rushed guys as it offers no real challenge. Same goes for heavy engineers.
Ur approach of convincing engineering is the fair way to go just doesn't add up if ur looking for a real challenge.

---

You know that wont always happen. maxers will more than likely face players same th but weaker offense atleast 75% of the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

I see what ur trying to achieve here, yet don't kid urself, having those defeneless bases allows for bullying, which most of the heavy engineers use it for. On the other hand it allows for more stronger hits against top bases, avoiding a real challenge.

---

stronger hits vs top bases and avoid a challenge? thats contradictory man.
btw, what will attacks up tops esp at th10/11 even achieve now? its so hard 3 starring a max 10, and max 11, all the attacks gonna do is just get a higher % 2 stars, which is a minimal advantage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

It's no fun for us facing rushed guys as it offers no real challenge. Same goes for heavy engineers.
Ur approach of convincing engineering is the fair way to go just doesn't add up if ur looking for a real challenge.

---

if its not fun, simply quit warring. no once is forcing you to war anyways.
if you are losing to engineers, unless the TOP player of the enemy clan is 1 TH lvl higher than your top guy, there is no reason why you SHOULD NOT WIN.
like seriously. have decent attacking skills and clear all their bases.

This is the only game I have ever played where intentionally making your base weaker by not building defences makes you stronger in the game. It just seems totally against the fundamental design of all games in this genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

You know that wont always happen. maxers will more than likely face players same th but weaker offense atleast 75% of the time

---

That has not been my experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

This is the only game I have ever played where intentionally making your base weaker by not building defences makes you stronger in the game. It just seems totally against the fundamental design of all games in this genre.

---

Couldnt agree more...2 simple sentences that sum up the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

This is the only game I have ever played where intentionally making your base weaker by not building defences makes you stronger in the game. It just seems totally against the fundamental design of all games in this genre.

---

That is not true at all, for several reasons.

1. All defenses make you stronger in multiplayer, not weaker.

2. Many games allow you to excel in one aspect of the game by by progressing certain things. Those games with a strong PVP component encourage selective upgrading. In fact WOW (if I can mention another game) has a complete PVP mode of play. Different equipment, different builds. Diablo 2 was the same way. You choose if you want to maximize your PVP ability or your PVE ability.

CoC is the same way now. Not all paths lead to success in both game modes. This makes for a richer and more varied game. Few things make me happier than finding a low defense lopsided base when nexting. I take all their loot and don't give them a shield.

I played WOW for 8 years, you are grasping at straws if you are trying to compare it to clash of clans. When you are playing WOW in PvP mode everyone else has their. PvP gear on as well. In CoC we don't have that option. You play with what you have. That is where the argument for unfairness in wars comes into play.
When we face a clan with engineered bases it's not fun whether we win or lose.

sigh, this discussion about engineering has been happening so long that you people should have noticed already that you just wont change the mind of whos pro and whos anti. Sure, there are people who adapted but we all know they never really changed their anti stance. there are also people people who are pro but still dont practice/have engineered bases.

all i can say is, lucky for those who are pro, and bad luck for those who are anti. Most of the time, 1 aspect that you dont like isnt enough to make you quit the game.

Nerfs have been coming down, and some anti are satisfied, others still calls for more nerfs. Once again, lucky for those who are satisfied. It will be long before every player is satisfied. It will happen. Either from making everyone actually satisfied, or making unsatisfied players quit so that what's left are only the satisfied ones.

There is more than one thing to take into concideration. When you say "the game". There iare pros and cons to both points. Defensively stacked, low heros. You dont three star in war, but your defense holds up for raids. Or a stacked offense and 1 cannon. Beneficial in war, maybe. Replace 6 stars for a loss of 2. Thats why if we switch it to 3 attacks, it would worsen problem. What if we made it 1 attack per player. 12 hour war, and war cc donations are 99% paid back. That would aleviate the problem. Supercell wont do that, but it is the only cure. Offense has a 2 to 1 benefit in war, you can gain 6 stars and only lose a maximum of 3. Here lies the problem. I just fixed the problem, 1 attack each, 12 hours instead of 24. War cc has to be cheaper...or does it. Gemmmies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

I played WOW for 8 years, you are grasping at straws if you are trying to compare it to clash of clans. When you are playing WOW in PvP mode everyone else has their. PvP gear on as well. In CoC we don't have that option. You play with what you have. That is where the argument for unfairness in wars comes into play.
When we face a clan with engineered bases it's not fun whether we win or lose.

---

I played WOW for 8 years as well. Actually the analogy has some validity You build for PVE or for PVP. No reason to expect one to fully translate to the other. Pick where you want to excel and spend your time developing along that path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

This is the only game I have ever played where intentionally making your base weaker by not building defences makes you stronger in the game. It just seems totally against the fundamental design of all games in this genre.

---

There are 2 ways of becoming strong in wars:
1) Engineering, it is as valid a tactic as maxing. Be truthful, a person with a maxed THx will not mind if their enemy is same TH level but weaker
2) Being a maxed TH11. This is the pinnacle of where wars should be, and it is. Being maxed THx does not matter unless you are 11, because you can always be outmatched if you are lower.

If you disagree with #1, then strive to be #2 its as easy as that.

Furthermore, many games reward you for min/maxing like what engineering does, and not be a generalist and upgrading everything you can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevs926

Nerfs have been coming down, and some anti are satisfied, others still calls for more nerfs. Once again, lucky for those who are satisfied. It will be long before every player is satisfied. It will happen. Either from making everyone actually satisfied, or making unsatisfied players quit so that what's left are only the satisfied ones.

---

And this is what's happening to the forums. Rusher and engineers quit not the game, but the forums due to toxic responses. This has led to increasingly marginalised and polarised viewed of the game, making the forums an increasingly narrow echo chamber with the same ideas and views thrown around since years ago with zero progress in terms of thinking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SinOfDusk

There are 2 ways of becoming strong in wars:
1) Engineering, it is as valid a tactic as maxing. Be truthful, a person with a maxed THx will not mind if their enemy is same TH level but weaker
2) Being a maxed TH11. This is the pinnacle of where wars should be, and it is. Being maxed THx does not matter unless you are 11, because you can always be outmatched if you are lower.

If you disagree with #1, then strive to be #2 its as easy as that.

Furthermore, many games reward you for min/maxing like what engineering does, and not be a generalist and upgrading everything you can



And this is what's happening to the forums. Rusher and engineers quit not the game, but the forums due to toxic responses. This has led to increasingly marginalised and polarised viewed of the game, making the forums an increasingly narrow echo chamber with the same ideas and views thrown around since years ago with zero progress in terms of thinking

---

You forgot #3, cheating. Some here just got nailed with 14 day war suspensions for cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SinOfDusk

There are 2 ways of becoming strong in wars:
1) Engineering, it is as valid a tactic as maxing. Be truthful, a person with a maxed THx will not mind if their enemy is same TH level but weaker
2) Being a maxed TH11. This is the pinnacle of where wars should be, and it is. Being maxed THx does not matter unless you are 11, because you can always be outmatched if you are lower.

If you disagree with #1, then strive to be #2 its as easy as that.

Furthermore, many games reward you for min/maxing like what engineering does, and not be a generalist and upgrading everything you can

---

Sin, this is my last post addressing u. It's not worth having a debate with u as u only want to see ur side.
On ur points:
1) while I agree with the extent that engineering makes u stronger(by bullying) , the example u followed up with is another excuse of urs. Yeah sure the person who has the upper hand of the 2 ths u mentioned will have nothing against it, but the weaker guy who has, say lvl10 royals facing lvl20+ royals feels differently.
2) By becoming a maxed 11 doesn't automatically mean u became better. Sure ur offense has gotten stronger, but if one ignored learning the game mechanics of each troop he will still be in a bad spot no matter of his th progression.

So by truly becoming better in the game is to learn the troop ai, learning how to scout a base, how to break it down by finding all its weaknesses, to know what exactly u have to include in ur troop composition facing that specific base.
All this takes quite some time, which is why I'm pro going the slow way(maxer) progressing ur base IF ur war focused. Every th lvl has it's attack strategies which mastered at its th lvl will only help u on ur transition to higher ths.
By gaining these knowledges ur confidence will be stronger then any th progression can offer.

Ur philosophy which convinced quite some members of forum, only pushes one perspective. The farmers journey.
I feel bad for those that might have listened to ur guidline while they were interested in warring. U pretty much killed the TRUE competitiveness for them, as many find themselves with low royals on advanced ths.


Funny that u are the one saying that in ur last paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SinOfDusk

This has led to increasingly marginalised and polarised viewed of the game, making the forums an increasingly narrow echo chamber with the same ideas and views thrown around since years ago with zero progress in terms of thinking

---

If someone has a narrow view, a knowledgeing multiple aspects of the game, then it's u.
I somewhat feel like ur in need of daily dosis of argument, trolling around the forums.
Like I said, I'm done addressing your views, I won't feed ur fire ur looking for. End

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

Sin, this is my last post addressing u. It's not worth having a debate with u as u only want to see ur side.
On ur points:
1) while I agree with the extent that engineering makes u stronger(by bullying) , the example u followed up with is another excuse of urs. Yeah sure the person who has the upper hand of the 2 ths u mentioned will have nothing against it, but the weaker guy who has, say lvl10 royals facing lvl20+ royals feels differently.
2) By becoming a maxed 11 doesn't automatically mean u became better. Sure ur offense has gotten stronger, but if one ignored learning the game mechanics of each troop he will still be in a bad spot no matter of his th progression.

So by truly becoming better in the game is to learn the troop ai, learning how to scout a base, how to break it down by finding all its weaknesses, to know what exactly u have to include in ur troop composition facing that specific base.
All this takes quite some time, which is why I'm pro going the slow way(maxer) progressing ur base IF ur war focused. Every th lvl has it's attack strategies which mastered at its th lvl will only help u on ur transition to higher ths.
By gaining these knowledges ur confidence will be stronger then any th progression can offer.

Ur philosophy which convinced quite some members of forum, only pushes one perspective. The farmers journey.
I feel bad for those that might have listened to ur guidline while they were interested in warring. U pretty much killed the TRUE competitiveness for them, as many find themselves with low royals on advanced ths.


Funny that u are the one saying that in ur last paragraph.

If someone has a narrow view, a knowledgeing multiple aspects of the game, then it's u.
I somewhat feel like ur in need of daily dosis of argument, trolling around the forums.
Like I said, I'm done addressing your views, I won't feed ur fire ur looking for. End

---

The entire forums is a narrow echo chamber from both sides. (engineers AND anti enginers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

The entire forums is a narrow echo chamber from both sides. (engineers AND anti enginers)

---

That's ur opinion and ur entitled to it.

Imo there has been plenty great suggestions, new ideas on how to improve upon.
I hereby would like to thank the game specialists in specific, but also to other contributors. They have brought some fresh ideas along the way. Many of those ideas made it into the game which elevated the game we play today to a much better point then it was say 2/3 years ago.
So to call the whole forums narrow echo of chambers I find it somewhat ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

That's ur opinion and ur entitled to it.

Imo there has been plenty great suggestions, new ideas on how to improve upon.
I hereby would like to thank the game specialists in specific, but also to other contributors. They have brought some fresh ideas along the way. Many of those ideas made it into the game which elevated the game we play today to a much better point then it was say 2/3 years ago.
So to call the whole forums narrow echo of chambers I find it somewhat ignorant.

---

Engineers : Engineering is a fair way to play and should not be nerfed. At the least, engineers should have a small advantage over those who do not plan their bases.

Anti engineers: Engineering is a cowardly and unfair way to play and should be nerfed into oblivion and maxing should rule as the dominant strategy. (ok the last part only applies to some).

This is 100% the definition of an echo chamber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

I played WOW for 8 years, you are grasping at straws if you are trying to compare it to clash of clans. When you are playing WOW in PvP mode everyone else has their. PvP gear on as well. In CoC we don't have that option. You play with what you have. That is where the argument for unfairness in wars comes into play.
When we face a clan with engineered bases it's not fun whether we win or lose.

---

WOW is a very good analogy. Obviously you have heard of the "glass cannon" DPS (usually wizard). In order to maximize damage, he gives up health. This was much more prevalent in the earlier expansions where there was very little HP on DPS gear.
The big tradeoff was that if he was slow to move out of the fire then he would die, and do 0 DPS for the rest of the raid.

I just do not see how you can compare gameplay in a tower defence type game and a virtual world type game. They have absolutely nothing in common except you can chat with clan mates. I stand by what I said earlier, clash of clans is the only game in this genre that allows you to become stronger in war by building the least defences. But I feel like I'm barking at the moon so im gonna just go back to lurking like I typically do. Clash on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

I just do not see how you can compare gameplay in a tower defence type game and a virtual world type game. They have absolutely nothing in common except you can chat with clan mates. I stand by what I said earlier, clash of clans is the only game in this genre that allows you to become stronger in war by building the least defences. But I feel like I'm barking at the moon so im gonna just go back to lurking like I typically do. Clash on!

---

eh you cant really compare ANY game to clash unless they are ripoffs or extremely similiar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

eh you cant really compare ANY game to clash unless they are ripoffs or extremely similiar

---

For the sake of comparisson i think backyard monster came out before CoC. And they are extremely similar. Except for the clan war feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

Engineers : Engineering is a fair way to play and should not be nerfed. At the least, engineers should have a small advantage over those who do not plan their bases.

Anti engineers: Engineering is a cowardly and unfair way to play and should be nerfed into oblivion and maxing should rule as the dominant strategy. (ok the last part only applies to some).

This is 100% the definition of an echo chamber

---

That is the view of some in the forum. But for those who like to have a good debate and discussion on the topic, it is nothing like you stated above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SinOfDusk

And this is what's happening to the forums. Rusher and engineers quit not the game, but the forums due to toxic responses. This has led to increasingly marginalised and polarised viewed of the game, making the forums an increasingly narrow echo chamber with the same ideas and views thrown around since years ago with zero progress in terms of thinking

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkylineBay

Sin, this is my last post addressing u

---

I don't agree with all of Sin's posts, but your response is less than forth-coming. I want to reword the statements using your terminology.

1) Maxing is a valid strategy because it bullies weaker bases. Engineering is a valid strategy because it bullies weaker bases.

2) If people don't like having a weaker base, then become a max TH11 and people can no longer complain about being weaker. This is when people will have to come to the realization that other people play the game better than them.

On #1 SC realizes the strength of the maxing and engineering, so they are tweaking the algorithm to account for both. There are many posters here which can provide their experiences that both areas are being tweaked.

It makes perfect sense that if anyone is tired of waiting on SC to fix #1, that they move to #2. Unfortunately #2 takes a lot of time and or money, purposely designed that way by SC. Since #2 takes too long to do, then we are left with #1. However, which takes longer at #1, maxing a base or engineering?

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. We did well, three staring all except one base, including their nines. They won of course, they three stared all of our bases of course. It was the most absurd war I've ever been in and for the last couple of months there have been many. We went 16 absurf wars without a loss but not this time. The matching is screwed up.

This notion I keep seeing is that non-engineered clans don't match with engineered clans is total ignorance. It certainly is not even close to true but we will start to do so. No choice. Building our engineered bases for the last month. Have them soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gxr900

Considering actions taken by SC recently, exploiting the matchmaker does not appear to be a strategy they want people employing. Otherwise, why take steps to try and match engineers with other engineers?

---

It drives me insane that people are so clueless what is going on. Engineering only matters in war. I don't give a hoot what you do farming. So bully me with your freaking engineered base while looting. I don't care if you do it with a maxed our base or maxed out troops. It makes no difference to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormHeart

It drives me insane that people are so clueless what is going on. Engineering only matters in war. I don't give a hoot what you do farming. So bully me with your freaking engineered base while looting. I don't care if you do it with a maxed our base or maxed out troops. It makes no difference to me.

---

I'm on the same page, but most engineers will ignore it and try to justify their actions.
I'm all for engineering, but against its advantages in wars. Diversity is only doing good for the game.
To achieve max 11 the fastest way rushing is required, which is completely fine if one wants to go that route. They can't really expect to be effective with it when it comes to wars,but the MM loophole allowed them to achieve both. I for one like to take it slower, still spend a ton of gems to speed up time on royals,but I want to enjoy the longetivity this game has to offer, as I'm sure when I reach complete max th11, my motivation to play the game will decline.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denton

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...

---

Disagree. I hope SC does take into consideration what is posted in the forum. Of course it shouldn't be the sole source--I'm not saying that at all--but it should be one of many factors they use. And you can choose to not believe them--but they say they do use it as one of many sources, to include their own ideas, their own data, consultants, user test groups, and other market trends.

I also disagree with you about your view of the forum and how it represents the community. I think it does.

Does the forum represent the community?
https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...-the-Community

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

Disagree. I hope SC does take into consideration what is posted in the forum. Of course it shouldn't be the sole source--I'm not saying that at all--but it should be one of many factors they use. And you can choose to not believe them--but they say they do use it as one of many sources, to include their own ideas, their own data, consultants, user test groups, and other market trends.

I also disagree with you about your view of the forum and how it represents the community. I think it does.

Does the forum represent the community?
https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...-the-Community

---

All fair points but I believe in what I see implemented and in statistics when used properly...

Braindead defenseless "engineering" still works, so does low-loading a clan with mini ths. Every match we get thats lopsided at the top ... the enemy has these

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denton

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...

---

Do you think they were looking at their own personal data collection or pulsing the forums when they nerfed the miners? bolwers? witches? I think they used their own personal data for the past two buffs to witches. I think they also used their own data when they added another level to hogs. I hope they use their own personal data if they decide to buff air defenses, instead of listening to forum whiners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadrach777

Do you think they were looking at their own personal data collection or pulsing the forums when they nerfed the miners? bolwers? witches? I think they used their own personal data for the past two buffs to witches. I think they also used their own data when they added another level to hogs. I hope they use their own personal data if they decide to buff air defenses, instead of listening to forum whiners.

---

Ouch. Very harsh...I guess I'm viewed as a forum whiner when I express my opinion. Interesting.

Maybe if the forum was more proportional to the population of clash i suppose it could be more valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humbob

Braindead defenseless "engineering" still works, so does low-loading a clan with mini ths. Every match we get thats lopsided at the top ... the enemy has these

---

I take the lack of lengthy win streaks among these engineering clans as evidence that it's not working as reliably as before. Keep in mind that many of those clans are guys who flat out said, "We want easy wars, not wars where we have to actually compete." There are a few engineered clans out there that have a 'recipe' that has proved resistant to MM tweaks, but the guys who were running 30+ wins in a row by mindless engineering are winning at a much, much lower rate. I can't imagine the ones who fell into the group that wanted to avoid the stress of competition are happy with regularly matching balanced clans that have equal offense & better defense.

guys we may lose our streak this war and its fairly big. How do i cope with this lol. We still have lots of attacks left but preparing for the worst.

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.

---

I gotta agree with you about people thinking they need to 'win the thread' because it's going to change minds at SC. The forums are only one source of data for SC. I think mostly the forums are a place for us players to share information with one another, not a place where the direction of the game is determined.

But, saying SC pays zero attention to the forums isn't accurate, either. Ironically, I'd bet the low traffic Bugs/Feature Requests sub is the one most likely to get regularly monitored by SC's employees. Maybe one of the mods can shed some light on whether there is any monitoring by SC staff, or if the mods themselves have a process to to bring things to SC attention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadrach777

Do you think they were looking at their own personal data collection or pulsing the forums when they nerfed the miners? bolwers? witches? I think they used their own personal data for the past two buffs to witches. I think they also used their own data when they added another level to hogs. I hope they use their own personal data if they decide to buff air defenses, instead of listening to forum whiners.

---

Miners & Bowlers were somewhat overpowered at first. Bowlers seem about right, but miners have been badly bungled. TBH, I think the Miner was an ill conceived troop that will be hard to balance. Witches in conjunction with the Grand Warden were overly strong & got completely decimated. Witches are still a terrible value for the de cost & troop space. All of which was brought up here & other CoC discussions, like Reddit & YouTube.

It makes perfect sense that SC uses their own data along with our insights. Buffing air defense is a good point. Some insist that air troops are far too powerful. That may or may not be true at TH11, but at TH10, I don't think air is too strong. Even without infernos or upgraded AD, I've only been 3 starred by air a few times since the loon buff. It's strong when used by a skilled attacker, which seems appropriate...

There's two ways to engineer. One is to up your TH but leave your defenses behind, get that advanced attack power but give up easier 3 stars on your base as a result. The other is to up your defenses but not your camps, CC, troops or heroes. Try to get a big defensive advantage and hope the other team can't crack your heavier bases while you can score enough stars on them.

You'll notice no one does the second one and actually wins wars, which is why "engineering" is a problem. It's not cheating but it's gaming the system. One clan shouldn't have a gigantic attack advantage over the other with a pretty even defensive comparison. What's the fun in that?

Considering there's 2 attacks to 1 base, the weighting for matchups in war should be around 2 to 1, offense to defense. Or maybe 60% offense, 40% defense. So the clans that do want to engineer and get a whole lot more attack power compared to defensive power can certainly do that, they'll just pay for it in having to deal with more bases that they have the attack power to handle anyway. Surely they wouldn't mind doing that right?

They are both engineering and thus both gaming the system. SO is perma maxing at th9/10 and below. Gaming the system because you dont have to move up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NellyFor3

There's two ways to engineer. One is to up your TH but leave your defenses behind, get that advanced attack power but give up easier 3 stars on your base as a result. The other is to up your defenses but not your camps, CC, troops or heroes. Try to get a big defensive advantage and hope the other team can't crack your heavier bases while you can score enough stars on them.

You'll notice no one does the second one and actually wins wars, which is why "engineering" is a problem. It's not cheating but it's gaming the system. One clan shouldn't have a gigantic attack advantage over the other with a pretty even defensive comparison. What's the fun in that?

Considering there's 2 attacks to 1 base, the weighting for matchups in war should be around 2 to 1, offense to defense. Or maybe 60% offense, 40% defense. So the clans that do want to engineer and get a whole lot more attack power compared to defensive power can certainly do that, they'll just pay for it in having to deal with more bases that they have the attack power to handle anyway. Surely they wouldn't mind doing that right?

---

Considering each clan has an equal amount of defences to offences, the 2 to 1 is irrelevant. In fact a base can defend many times per war, so perhaps we should make the defensive weightings higher. The defensive damage and hitpoints of the late townhall levels in fact far outstrip offensive hitpoints and dps increases, meaning we should weigh defence even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NellyFor3

Considering there's 2 attacks to 1 base, the weighting for matchups in war should be around 2 to 1, offense to defense. Or maybe 60% offense, 40% defense.

---

You have to be careful here. Sure there are 2 attacks for every one base. However a base is not limited to only defending against two attacks.

I've been in many wars where I've seen 6-8 attacks fail to triple a base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azrial

You have to be careful here. Sure there are 2 attacks for every one base. However a base is not limited to only defending against two attacks.

I've been in many wars where I've seen 6-8 attacks fail to triple a base.

---

Good point. Havnt seen many people address this part of the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NellyFor3

There's two ways to engineer. One is to up your TH but leave your defenses behind, get that advanced attack power but give up easier 3 stars on your base as a result. The other is to up your defenses but not your camps, CC, troops or heroes. Try to get a big defensive advantage and hope the other team can't crack your heavier bases while you can score enough stars on them.

You'll notice no one does the second one and actually wins wars, which is why "engineering" is a problem. It's not cheating but it's gaming the system. One clan shouldn't have a gigantic attack advantage over the other with a pretty even defensive comparison. What's the fun in that?

Considering there's 2 attacks to 1 base, the weighting for matchups in war should be around 2 to 1, offense to defense. Or maybe 60% offense, 40% defense. So the clans that do want to engineer and get a whole lot more attack power compared to defensive power can certainly do that, they'll just pay for it in having to deal with more bases that they have the attack power to handle anyway. Surely they wouldn't mind doing that right?

---

I heard that's what engineers were doing 1 year ago which prompted SuperCell to introduce the current system which led to the rise of offensively lopsided bases.

As you can see, true balance is rather hard to achieve.

:facepalm: Don't spread the secret...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azrial

You have to be careful here. Sure there are 2 attacks for every one base. However a base is not limited to only defending against two attacks.

I've been in many wars where I've seen 6-8 attacks fail to triple a base.

---

Hi , I'm new beginning for this site recommend I thank you for everything.: D

Just did a war search and pulled an engineering clan. I got a th9, 2 th8s, 6 th7s and a th6. I drew a th10, th9, 7 th7s, 1 th6. Looked at the mirrors at the top and knew something wasn't right. Sure enough, a near defenseless 10 in the 8 spot.

Now I'm no poster child for maxers nor am I a hardcore engineer. One of my 8s is lacking a bomb tower and tesla just because I haven't saved up for them. The th6 is the most engineered with lv 1 defenses but troops are weak too as I use it for a filler from time to time. I just upgrade it this way on its journey to 7 where it will park and play catchup on everything. All other accounts have defenses at or very near town hall level.

The 9 on the top isn't very strong. Looks like it came from th8 not too long ago. Defenses are ok but not great for an anchor base. Troop strength is average with lv 4 valks unlocked. Th10 has max valks, th10 drags and bowlers unlocked. Both have pre teen heroes. Mine just hit the teens.

Now, if I was a new th9 going against this, I wouldn't be happy. I would probably lack the attacking experience to 3 their top base while they are already celebrating the win with an easy 30. Th10 dips on my 9, th9 double dips on my 8s, 7s do the rest. Plus, its a one man clan on top of it. Other clan has an extremely easy time on the other side. Unlucky for him/her, I'll match that 30 with 30 of my own which means I can see the future. Hooray, what fun!

So, in my opinion, coming from a less experienced player's point of view, engineering is not good for the game. It is good for people with less than average attackers to enjoy the game by dip attacking on town halls lower than them. I know not all do this and they use it for an extra attack on an equal town hall. I can understand that use, but its also being used in the way I described. Probably a lot more than fighting equal town halls and that's the engineering I have an issue with.

You left out a thirs scenario, you update your offense to how you attack and add defensive structures to prevent 3 star in war. Yes 1 cannon and maxed out offenses isnt very creative, and is a defensive dissappointment most times. What if you were to only add the bare neccessities on defense and stack your offense. Its equally as difficult as maxing your base and following these make believe guidlines of taking 2 to 3 years to get a maxed out th8. I wouldve quit long ago if that were the only case. And if it becomes a reality, you will lose a very large % of people who actually spend monies on the game.

Mustworkout signing off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

I heard that's what engineers were doing 1 year ago which prompted SuperCell to introduce the current system which led to the rise of offensively lopsided bases.

---

That's what SC claimed at the time but it made no sense. Nobody was doing what they were afraid of (somehow 'hiding' and inferno from the matchmaker), and their changes buffed offensively lopsided bases that were heavily in use.

Not true, the idea and concept of the game was long ago established by age of empires. Maybe even one previous that. Its very similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azrial

You have to be careful here. Sure there are 2 attacks for every one base. However a base is not limited to only defending against two attacks.

I've been in many wars where I've seen 6-8 attacks fail to triple a base.

---

If we're playing the what-if game, then you should clearly state that those 6-8 fails were from 5-7 people using their second attack because they already tripled their target on the first attack. No clan has 6-8 attacks all on 1 base if they haven't already tripled the others. This is a prime example of why offense needs to weigh more than defense in MMA, because the other clan was probably thinking they were completely outmatched because the other team had 6-8 attacks against their hardest base.

When you're at the point that nearly every base takes 2 attacks, then you're close to parity. I think all TH11s in a roster is the only matchup that is close to parity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

That's what SC claimed at the time but it made no sense. Nobody was doing what they were afraid of (somehow 'hiding' and inferno from the matchmaker), and their changes buffed offensively lopsided bases that were heavily in use.

---

I did see one "hidden" inferno before the March update that boosted the inferno weight. But even then the inferno was heavy enough that the base was weak for its war weight - not as comical as such a base is now, but a disadvantage already I thought.

I think the other thing that SC was worried about was "manicured offence" - or the single troop accounts. They were rare, but there were certainly a few around (#6M!). And I think that's what made them ignore offence, because they couldn't figure out another solution to it (I'd probably better not comment on that!). Talk about the cure being worse than the disease! A bit like curing earache by decapitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadrach777

If we're playing the what-if game, then you should clearly state that those 6-8 fails were from 5-7 people using their second attack because they already tripled their target on the first attack. No clan has 6-8 attacks all on 1 base if they haven't already tripled the others. This is a prime example of why offense needs to weigh more than defense in MMA, because the other clan was probably thinking they were completely outmatched because the other team had 6-8 attacks against their hardest base.

---

It's not always that way though. My record for my micro account was 13 attacks required to kill it. It was #40 out of 40 on the roster, and all attackers had troops in excess of its base weight.

Another example from long, long ago is I remember watching in bemusement as a golaloon clan (obviously they "only used 3* strategies") got 1* on one of our mid TH9s 6 times. And thinking, since the match was in their favour, if they just gowiped one or two bases for 2* they might have more chance.

And my 9.5 has survived 6-8 attacks a few times in war in the last few months - nearly all from TH10s

Of course, it's a bit daft for an enemy clan to keep trying like that on one base - but he can be right; I've certainly seen one base defend it's way to victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

It's not always that way though.

---

I like watching my mini get continually hit as well, the record for me is 4 times with only 2 stars. Much smarter clans can usually crack it by the 3rd try with a dip.

Okay, I said 3 star everything else, let me be less idealistic. Are you saying in the scenarios you mentioned that the majority of the other bases had not been hit yet and people were still using their 1st attacks? Or was is it, something like 2-3 first attacks on your scenarios, and all other attacks were second attacks made by people because they already hit their primary target.

Do we really need to dumb the algorithm down for the clans where they use all their first attacks on 1 base because they can't 3 star it? Or do we make the algorithm smart enough to weigh offense more for the clans who are skilled enough to 3 star at least half the roster with the first attack?

Our clan is not the greatest, and we lose more than we win, but even we are able to 3 star roughly half the roster on our first attacks. It's the other half of the roster where we can't always secure the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

Ouch. Very harsh...I guess I'm viewed as a forum whiner when I express my opinion. Interesting.

---

Wasn't trying to be harsh. Are you saying that because your opinion was to nerf miners/bowlers/witches? Or because you provided an opinion on how to nerf air?

I haven't seen all your posts, but when I do see your posts I like seeing them over the negative ones provided by other forum members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

I did see one "hidden" inferno before the March update that boosted the inferno weight. But even then the inferno was heavy enough that the base was weak for its war weight - not as comical as such a base is now, but a disadvantage already I thought.

...
Talk about the cure being worse than the disease! A bit like curing earache by decapitation.

---

Yep, and the usual suspects noted it at the time :)

https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...iding-Infernos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadrach777

Wasn't trying to be harsh. Are you saying that because your opinion was to nerf miners/bowlers/witches? Or because you provided an opinion on how to nerf air?

I haven't seen all your posts, but when I do see your posts I like seeing them over the negative ones provided by other forum members.

---

:)

I took your post to mean you hope SC does not take into consideration anything said here in the forum as it pertains to recommendations to nerf or buff a troop or defense, since that is considered "whining."

Clearly some posts in the forum are misinformed and full of ignorance, and some do come across as whining, but I don't like sweeping comments that call out all who express their opinion as whiners. Based on your response it sounds like that wasn't your intent.

I also hope SC uses mostly their data to make a decision about nerfs / buffs, but I hope they take into consideration sentiment in the community, to include this forum, to be part of that decision. It has brought about change in other aspects of the game and is a good business practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

:)

I took your post to mean you hope SC does not take into consideration anything said here in the forum as it pertains to recommendations to nerf or buff a troop or defense, since that is considered "whining."

Clearly some posts in the forum are misinformed and full of ignorance, and some do come across as whining, but I don't like sweeping comments that call out all who express their opinion as whiners. Based on your response it sounds like that wasn't your intent.

I also hope SC uses mostly their data to make a decision about nerfs / buffs, but I hope they take into consideration sentiment in the community, to include this forum, to be part of that decision. It has brought about change in other aspects of the game and is a good business practice.

---

too bad there isnt some way to integrate the API to generate roster data about the current match that the user is complaining about... most, like high 90s most, provide no insight whatsoever into actual details of the thing they are complaining about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

too bad there isnt some way to integrate the API to generate roster data about the current match that the user is complaining about... most, like high 90s most, provide no insight whatsoever into actual details of the thing they are complaining about.

---

Totally agree. Would help immensely in dispelling myths, and having a better, informed discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

Totally agree. Would help immensely in dispelling myths, and having a better, informed discussion.

---

I also agree. It must be human nature to show the part of the match that was unfair to your side while conveniently neglecting to show the disadvantage the other side had.

I scratch my head when the majority of mismatch threads I see end up being won by the team that was complaining of said mismatch.

I would volunteer my accounting services. (Hopefully its not a 50 vs 50)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenchafer

Just did a war search and pulled an engineering clan. I got a th9, 2 th8s, 6 th7s and a th6. I drew a th10, th9, 7 th7s, 1 th6. Looked at the mirrors at the top and knew something wasn't right. Sure enough, a near defenseless 10 in the 8 spot.

Now I'm no poster child for maxers nor am I a hardcore engineer. One of my 8s is lacking a bomb tower and tesla just because I haven't saved up for them. The th6 is the most engineered with lv 1 defenses but troops are weak too as I use it for a filler from time to time. I just upgrade it this way on its journey to 7 where it will park and play catchup on everything. All other accounts have defenses at or very near town hall level.

The 9 on the top isn't very strong. Looks like it came from th8 not too long ago. Defenses are ok but not great for an anchor base. Troop strength is average with lv 4 valks unlocked. Th10 has max valks, th10 drags and bowlers unlocked. Both have pre teen heroes. Mine just hit the teens.

Now, if I was a new th9 going against this, I wouldn't be happy. I would probably lack the attacking experience to 3 their top base while they are already celebrating the win with an easy 30. Th10 dips on my 9, th9 double dips on my 8s, 7s do the rest. Plus, its a one man clan on top of it. Other clan has an extremely easy time on the other side. Unlucky for him/her, I'll match that 30 with 30 of my own which means I can see the future. Hooray, what fun!

So, in my opinion, coming from a less experienced player's point of view, engineering is not good for the game. It is good for people with less than average attackers to enjoy the game by dip attacking on town halls lower than them. I know not all do this and they use it for an extra attack on an equal town hall. I can understand that use, but its also being used in the way I described. Probably a lot more than fighting equal town halls and that's the engineering I have an issue with.

---

at that intensity of wars, most wars should be perfect anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

at that intensity of wars, most wars should be perfect anyways.

---

Hence why I said from an inexperienced point of view. Without the th10 crutch at the bottom, I seriously doubt the opponent th9 could 3 my 9 with the low heroes. If at that intensity of wars, most are perfect anyways, then why the need for the th10? Probably bad attackers or they feel good beating up on sub par clans, I guess.

Like I said, this is the engineering that gives engineering a bad name and is not good for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenchafer

Hence why I said from an inexperienced point of view. Without the th10 crutch at the bottom, I seriously doubt the opponent th9 could 3 my 9 with the low heroes. If at that intensity of wars, most are perfect anyways, then why the need for the th10? Probably bad attackers or they feel good beating up on sub par clans, I guess.

Like I said, this is the engineering that gives engineering a bad name and is not good for the game.

---

what would you suggest? that the th10 be paired with a th10? Wouldnt that be even more unfair since his offense can at most take out decent th9s and has weak offense?

maybe that th10 should pair with a new-mid th9. That seems pretty fair

agreed thats good decision..!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

what would you suggest? that the th10 be paired with a th10? Wouldnt that be even more unfair since his offense can at most take out decent th9s and has weak offense?

maybe that th10 should pair with a new-mid th9. That seems pretty fair

---

I gave your question some thought. Imo, yes there should be something a little beefer than new-mid. I would said mid-max 9-rushed 10. My #1 hits the scale at 61k. Basically th8 level defenses with bows. That's easy street with his/her troops. I can 3 that with my troops, this person will overkill it with max valks alone. To suggest this is fair gave me a good laugh. Thank you for that one.

The reason I say this is based on personal experience. My last war with the same 61k th9 at the top, sat across a 74k th11. Had lv 1 ITs, lv 1 bows, rest of defenses were on the weak side. My troops are weaker than this th10 that's being discussed yet I had to attack a base with th10 defenses. Weak th10 defenses yet th10 defenses nonetheless.

Why is it fair that I got to attack th10 defenses with th9 troops yet its not fair for someone with th10 troops to do the same? This 10 has equal or stronger troops, bigger cc, extra spell, and max camps. The only edge my 9 has is 10 total hero levels. I got 10/10, th10 has 5/5. Most of my troops are still th8 level with a few at 9. Not exactly packing a ton of firepower on my end.

I just don't think its fair bringing in higher level town hall equipment to a smaller town hall skirmish. Unless someone throws acid in this person's face, they already got 30. To a new or inexperienced clan, that's just demotivating. Really sours the war when you already knows the opponent's score before the first fight begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenchafer

I gave your question some thought. Imo, yes there should be something a little beefer than new-mid. I would said mid-max 9-rushed 10. My #1 hits the scale at 61k. Basically th8 level defenses with bows. That's easy street with his/her troops. I can 3 that with my troops, this person will overkill it with max valks alone. To suggest this is fair gave me a good laugh. Thank you for that one.

The reason I say this is based on personal experience. My last war with the same 61k th9 at the top, sat across a 74k th11. Had lv 1 ITs, lv 1 bows, rest of defenses were on the weak side. My troops are weaker than this th10 that's being discussed yet I had to attack a base with th10 defenses. Weak th10 defenses yet th10 defenses nonetheless.

Why is it fair that I got to attack th10 defenses with th9 troops yet its not fair for someone with th10 troops to do the same? This 10 has equal or stronger troops, bigger cc, extra spell, and max camps. The only edge my 9 has is 10 total hero levels. I got 10/10, th10 has 5/5. Most of my troops are still th8 level with a few at 9. Not exactly packing a ton of firepower on my end.

I just don't think its fair bringing in higher level town hall equipment to a smaller town hall skirmish. Unless someone throws acid in this person's face, they already got 30. To a new or inexperienced clan, that's just demotivating. Really sours the war when you already knows the opponent's score before the first fight begins.

---

You sort of dodged the question.

The question is do you think it is fair for a th10 that can at most 3 star th9s match with th10s?

Matching as a th7-8 seems a bit unfair. Matching as a th9 to me seems like fair game. The offense of the weak engineered th10 is compensated by its weak defense. Now if we matched even a low th10, it would be very unfair as there is nothing compensating him for his weak defense.

and you matched a rushed premature base... good job. Those are one of the most numerous bases in clash, punishing them more is just bad. Very bad. Don't you think those rushed premmie bases deserve a break once in a while from facing real th10s and have an easier war? Probably not as it doesnt play in your favor.

another thing I would like to add that I should have in the OP.

You mentioned without the th10 engineered you would have won handily has they would have very little chance otherwise. In other words, you were ok with them being at a disadvantage and now when it is more even (lets not call it an advantage, your th9 is much more developed and experienced and shoult triple their new weak th9 with ease, heck, maybe more ease than the engineered th10 can triple you), you say it is unfair.

This definately sums up some anti engineer posts : "If the advantage is not in my favour, it isn't fair".

Some more things... their th10 had weak defense. This isnt directly said but you said he weighed below th8 so it is inferred. So in other words, if that th10 weighed heavier, say mid th9, it would be fair.

Why? The most that engineered th10 can triple is a decent th9. You both can triple each other handily and his strong offense is very well evened out by his weak defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

You sort of dodged the question.

The question is do you think it is fair for a th10 that can at most 3 star th9s match with th10s?

Matching as a th7-8 seems a bit unfair. Matching as a th9 to me seems like fair game. The offense of the weak engineered th10 is compensated by its weak defense. Now if we matched even a low th10, it would be very unfair as there is nothing compensating him for his weak defense.

and you matched a rushed premature base... good job. Those are one of the most numerous bases in clash, punishing them more is just bad. Very bad. Don't you think those rushed premmie bases deserve a break once in a while from facing real th10s and have an easier war? Probably not as it doesnt play in your favor.

another thing I would like to add that I should have in the OP.

You mentioned without the th10 engineered you would have won handily has they would have very little chance otherwise. In other words, you were ok with them being at a disadvantage and now when it is more even (lets not call it an advantage, your th9 is much more developed and experienced and shoult triple their new weak th9 with ease, heck, maybe more ease than the engineered th10 can triple you), you say it is unfair.

This definately sums up some anti engineer posts : "If the advantage is not in my favour, it isn't fair".

Some more things... their th10 had weak defense. This isnt directly said but you said he weighed below th8 so it is inferred. So in other words, if that th10 weighed heavier, say mid th9, it would be fair.

Why? The most that engineered th10 can triple is a decent th9. You both can triple each other handily and his strong offense is very well evened out by his weak defense.

---

Not sure how I dodged your question as I thought I explained my opinion in my first paragraph. Are we talking about the th10 in discussion or some made up th10? Either way, my answer will depend on your answer to this.

You keep using "matched like some say "mirror"? Is the situation? I'm kinda confused on the matter. If you are, then I really don't care on map location. At the end of the day, all I want is each side's offense to be challenged by the other side's defense. That's it. In this situation, I feel one side isn't challenged.

And once again I get called out for thinking I want some sort of advantage. Wasn't it you that did the calling out last time and I told you my thoughts on that? Just switch anti engineer with maxer and you are saying the same thing.

You are making it like I'm crying about my matchup when I've said numerous time if I was less experienced, I wouldn't be happy about it. Then you go on and hit me with the I'll 3 get them but the 9 won't so I'm sobing about the 10 getting me. That's not the case.

1. I'm confident in my attacking abilities. For some reason, you think my base is well developed and their #1 isn't? My base is far from well developed and theirs isn't weak. War hasn't started but we look even. Once again, the less experienced player part come into play about not being happy, not me personally.

2. I'm underestimating my opponent. The th9 does have lv 4 valks unlocked so they could get a 3 on my 1. However, I doubt I'll get to see it since I'm sure #8 will be paying it a visit and the 9 will dip down on the 8s.

If you wanna engineer your base, go for it. I don't care either way. It makes my wars boring for the most part as their are more engineered bases than normal ones when I do face one every now and then. I just think its weak sauce to have higher troop levels to attack a town hall that's lower than them. I always hated attacking down in war so that probably has a lot to do with it.

So, to answer the OP's question about if it is good for the game again. This one's for you Nate!!! If I was an inexperienced player looking from that point of view, I would say it is not good for the game. From my personal point of view, I don't care as long as your anchor will challenge me but its lame the other side has it somewhat "easier". Plus attacking a bunch of defenseless dumpsters makes war just so much fun to participate in.

I was referring to the th10 you guys matched. Good post, it seems i assumed a bit too much. from my view it sounded like you were saying their 1 did not have a good chance against your 1 and without their 8 would most likely lose.

also from an inexperienced point of view engineering could be beneficial as well. With some engineered baes, they would have a little more room to fail

also the th10 has 5/5 with max valks and some other troops max correct? So would it not be unfair for that th10 to match as, say, a th10? At most, the th10 with 5/5 u guys faced should match a mid th9 with 10-15 heroes. Yes, he has max valks but ive seen lots of th10s fail on th9s with max valks and good heroes so there is a chance for defense as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happyharpy

Engineered bases gives variation to the game, makes it so that there are more than one way to play the game. Why hate on a guy who has a fortress that houses peasants for an army(max defense, no fire power). Or a band of barbarians who only abid by the sword (max attack, army camps for defense). I believe these variations give beauty to the match making.
Making the game just a single one way road to a known common destination... That's boring.
The effort placed into building an "uncommon" village this way is hard and it gives an element of surprise to war. So instead of complaining, war doesn't know "fairness" you have a strategy to build with your clan mates, if your strategy fails your the one to blame for being an unworthy leader. I'll have your head��

---

It is not good for the game. It has ruined th8, th9 and just about th10. And given the amount of time it takes to properly upgrade to th10, This is not a problem you can fix overnight. You cant just say to those innocent th8's and new th9's in your clan who love the game, "hey go to th10 so we dont have to deal with these engineers anymore." It turns players off and ultimately will be what kills this game. It has gotten so bad that we just created a second clan for middle-baby th9's and down, and our main clan is very strong th9's to th11, and we only run 10's in our main clan now. So now unfortunately, we can't war with a lot of good friends because of the exploiters in this world that RUINED the experience. Pretty pathetic huh? But that's what we have to do. Im not telling my th8's and baby th9's to rush so they can compete. That would mean engineers dictating how we play the game, and that aint happening until my body lay dead. So in conclusion, it's NOT good for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathandrake2017

I was referring to the th10 you guys matched. Good post, it seems i assumed a bit too much. from my view it sounded like you were saying their 1 did not have a good chance against your 1 and without their 8 would most likely lose.

also from an inexperienced point of view engineering could be beneficial as well. With some engineered baes, they would have a little more room to fail

also the th10 has 5/5 with max valks and some other troops max correct? So would it not be unfair for that th10 to match as, say, a th10? At most, the th10 with 5/5 u guys faced should match a mid th9 with 10-15 heroes. Yes, he has max valks but ive seen lots of th10s fail on th9s with max valks and good heroes so there is a chance for defense as well.

---

Glad we are on the same page. I still think max valks against a basically th8 with bows is still overkill. I still think it should have been pulling a mid to max 9 but I do give attackers extra credit sometimes judging off my experience. However in this case I'm correct as the th9 blind 98% my base with lv 4 valks. Cc gave him a little issue but the 10 will make short work of it.

That's why I say I would like a little more meat at the top to maybe defend against this. My base at the top is no anchor base. After looking at the 9 on the other side, its actually better defended than mine.

So better anchor than me with th10 troops, I got 2 8s to thier none. Really hard to say this is an even fight. Other than the 2 8s on my side, this clan has all the cards.

I do agree about the inexperienced point of view of the extra attack. But if you are using it to attack down all the time, you will never get better at attacking. Besides, not very many inexperienced players are gonna go defenseless/engineered the first go around.

As soon as my little clan hits lv 5, I'll probably hang up my war gloves for some time. Due to engineering and keeping my war weight down, I've missed a lot of builder time on my main account. I'm just ready to upgrade my defenses and forget about war all together. If I do that, my weight will run away and war will not be an option since I'll probably pull bases way stronger than my offense can handle. However with engineering in the mix, there is no telling what I'll draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenchafer

As soon as my little clan hits lv 5, I'll probably hang up my war gloves for some time.

---

This is alarming to me and if Supercell did have eyes on the forums it should be alarming to them also. You're not the first person I've seen the last couple of days saying this.

Edited to add: I can think of a thousand reasons why engineering isn't good for the game but I'll just settle for this one. People are quitting war. Soon it'll be an engineered wasteland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

This is alarming to me and if Supercell did have eyes on the forums it should be alarming to them also. You're not the first person I've seen the last couple of days saying this.

Edited to add: I can think of a thousand reasons why engineering isn't good for the game but I'll just settle for this one. People are quitting war. Soon it'll be an engineered wasteland.

---

No more alarming than the amount of good, quality upper Town Hall players that have called it quits over the past couple of months due to the continual defensive buffs that have turned everything into a 2 star fest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddylindo

It is not good for the game. It has ruined th8, th9 and just about th10. And given the amount of time it takes to properly upgrade to th10, This is not a problem you can fix overnight. You cant just say to those innocent th8's and new th9's in your clan who love the game, "hey go to th10 so we dont have to deal with these engineers anymore." It turns players off and ultimately will be what kills this game. It has gotten so bad that we just created a second clan for middle-baby th9's and down, and our main clan is very strong th9's to th11, and we only run 10's in our main clan now. So now unfortunately, we can't war with a lot of good friends because of the exploiters in this world that RUINED the experience. Pretty pathetic huh? But that's what we have to do. Im not telling my th8's and baby th9's to rush so they can compete. That would mean engineers dictating how we play the game, and that aint happening until my body lay dead. So in conclusion, it's NOT good for the game.

---

It takes almost no time, or resources for that matter, to turn a .5 into a "proper" base--especially if the .5 has already maxed all ad, sweepers, teslas, traps, and point defenses, roughly in that order. Seems like even maxers would agree with that prioritization. You don't drop your mortars first at a new th level, right? At least I hope you don't.

Here's the math for 8.5 converting to 9. I'm doing this right now on a second account so it's fresh in my memory.

4 mortar levels x 7 days and 3.2m gold = 28d / 12.8m
3 wiz tower levels x 6 days and 3.7m gold = 18d / 11.1m
1 brand new wiz tower (from th8 to 9) = 21.5d / 10.04m
2 xbows from zero to lvl3 * 25d /12m = 50d / 12m

Total is 117.5 days of builder time, and 55.84m gold.

If you have 4 builders, it will take a month. 5 and it will be just over 3 weeks.
56m gold is 28 yellow walls. 19 at the previous price, which I paid plenty of times.

So, 30 days, 30 walls. Still think it's hard to convert from .5 to full?

Competition is the heart of clan wars, and just as modding, engineers are bad for it. It is a problem when one group ('maxers') play to compete against each other, and another group (engi's) play against the matchmaker to avoid fair competition from opponents.

The answer is the one engineers complain about every time it's brought up on forums, as it would kill the strategy. A considerable minimum war weight attached to TH upgrades... Make a defenseless 11 weigh the same as any new 11 just upgraded from max TH10. I'd be happy to search longer for wars because of losing rushers and engineers.

Engineering is good for the game because it forces people to upgrade TH.
You look at these "perma th9s" sitting on max th9 - they aren't spending a dime. When they get continually crapped on by 9.5s and defenseless 11s they wisen up and decide to increase their offense power. They upgrade and start to farm and maybe buy some gems to boost barracks or wake up heroes.

After all, the point of the game is progression, not sitting at TH9 forever because it is the most "balanced".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddylindo

It is not good for the game. It has ruined th8, th9 and just about th10. And given the amount of time it takes to properly upgrade to th10, This is not a problem you can fix overnight. You cant just say to those innocent th8's and new th9's in your clan who love the game, "hey go to th10 so we dont have to deal with these engineers anymore." It turns players off and ultimately will be what kills this game. It has gotten so bad that we just created a second clan for middle-baby th9's and down, and our main clan is very strong th9's to th11, and we only run 10's in our main clan now. So now unfortunately, we can't war with a lot of good friends because of the exploiters in this world that RUINED the experience. Pretty pathetic huh? But that's what we have to do. Im not telling my th8's and baby th9's to rush so they can compete. That would mean engineers dictating how we play the game, and that aint happening until my body lay dead. So in conclusion, it's NOT good for the game.

---

agree.
We have 3 th8's 2 th7's then th6's to th3 with shield 1 as youd expect. We were war paired with 4 th9's, 2 th8's, 3 th7's, then 6th's and a 3. Their 3 was above a th7. They had CC lvl 4, little defence but high level heroes Bk AQ, large CC space and heaps of traps. Our th3 was paired with th7.
Needless to say these guys have the War weight down pat. We knew enough not to bother so these heros can go on a 40+ win streak and have massive tugs. Before this we had an even pairing and lost 30-29. Everyone enjoyed it.

SC needs to add weight to the TH so it will even a fair bit up. This would probs have many scrambling for defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonHN

Engineering is good for the game because it forces people to upgrade TH.
You look at these "perma th9s" sitting on max th9 - they aren't spending a dime. When they get continually crapped on by 9.5s and defenseless 11s they wisen up and decide to increase their offense power. They upgrade and start to farm and maybe buy some gems to boost barracks or wake up heroes.

After all, the point of the game is progression, not sitting at TH9 forever because it is the most "balanced".

---

Yeap this. Too many good players/potential players become perma th. This impacts sc's income so something had to be done

Even worse that so many of these players want the entire system rigged so that they get the advantage all the time (th based mm)

Winners adapt, some other players cry for the system to change to their favor