Developer Q&A: Round IV [ANSWERS]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexheney

For most people, they are at least close to in sync.

Even in Champs 2, very few of the bases I see have heroes higher than low 30s, and further down, very few TH10 or TH11 bases have them above 30 at all. And at level 30, they are only a very few minutes different to a decent army.

It is only the people whose heroes are close to max, or who are building barch armies, where the heroes aren't close.

It still wouldn't hurt to see them reduced a bit more, now that they have levels above 40, so taht those few people with maxed heroes won't have to wait more than a few minutes.

---

I am not totally sure why hero times and army build times need to be "in sync" to begin with. Using heroes is extremely important and waiting 50 minutes for them seems reasonable. You can build whatever armies you'd like within that time and attack without heroes - your choice. Having different times for different things results in players needing to make this choice. Can you go without your heroes, is it worth the shield reduction, will another army be cooked in time for the heroes regen? I think it's a perfectly reasonable strategic component.


I have a lv45 aq. I feel the pain. I also work around it.

copy base option is the perfect !

Sorry but the bit about engineering is rubbish. Weve been massively outmatched our last two wars, and this one is our worst yet.

We have 4 th11 with eagles,
7 th10 with max infernos,
1 with lvl2s,
1 with level 1s,
1 9.5
11 th9s.

We matched
8 th11 with eagles
3 10.5
2 th10 lvl3s
1 th10 lvl1
6 th9
1 th8
1th7
2 th6
1 th5

so in summary they have 22 th11 attacks all with wardens and max bowlers - to our 8. How is this fair?! This isnt a one off either, its happening all the time. Matchmaking is BROKEN. We thought it was bad when all we ever faced was modders, but this is just as bad, we give it our all of course but when you've got 22 spam bowler attacks you can be pretty sure they are going to find a way to clear our 9 th10s.

A th11 should be matched with a th11 in war, period. If someone hits that upgrade button they should know thats what they are going to pull in. You dont have to stop 9.5 etc but you can stop it in war. I dont care what anyone says, engineering is giving yourselves an unfair advantage in war by taking advantage of the system and I find it hard to believe that Supercell employees are split down the middle when its a blatent breach of their 'fair play policy'.

Ok, at least you've now been clear on engineering/Lopsided...not that it helps or eases, but it's clear.

So we should be glad that the offensive weight is being taken into account for the whole lineup?....In comes roster engineering....."Hey lets just pop in a th3 defenseless base and nullify our bully 10.5! I mean who cares about the bottom, they'll get wrecked anyway"

Matchmaking still fails to take Lopsided rightfully into account. Top TH levels should be evenly matched offensive wise as much as possible. I don't give a single .... if I therefore have to wait several hours for a honest match up with a fair shot at the win for both parties.

The only word I liked in whole answer is
Super awesome update
Thanks
Btw this Q&A made no sense to me as every question asked was about engineered bases and really don't like talking about them

I really like this concept of the Q&A, but to be honest i was very dissapointed with the questions selected and just dont feel those questions really dug into anything deep.
It is nice to know SC stance on engineering bases but heroes regen time was a no brainer, the chests/quests thing already answered.

how much weight should a new players vote go to asking about upcoming changes and direction when they are still figuring it all out. No player that was been playing more than 2 years would really want to ask about hero regen time as it has already been reduced heaps, heck I would even say none of the long term players even thought about it... and yet it makes it to a poll and gets 18% of the precious vote....why?

I like how for number 5 they didn't even say yes or no. Great work SC.

When I read the answers, I see blah blah blah... no real definite answers. Why can't they be like clash royale developers. Straight forward and open. Little changes here and there. A few percentage buff or nerf, which are clearly announced, instead of drastically nerfing troops (like witches).

Seems like they are always workinga huge update that never seems to be that huge (except for the December 2015) and can't devote time to somethings the community really wants.

This is their new open communication. Didn't the developers say last year that they were going to be more interactive and open? We get some crappy answers to a few questions. Thanks for your time...(that was sarcasm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dvegas

When I read the answers, I see blah blah blah... no real definite answers. Why can't they be like clash royale developers. Straight forward and open. Little changes here and there. A few percentage buff or nerf, which are clearly announced, instead of drastically nerfing troops (like witches).

Seems like they are always workinga huge update that never seems to be that huge (except for the December 2015) and can't devote time to somethings the community really wants.

This is their new open communication. Didn't the developers say last year that they were going to be more interactive and open? We get some crappy answers to a few questions. Thanks for your time...(that was sarcasm)

---

What I also find funny is that they literally only answered four questions. Lach put in a question that he had submitted to the devs in the past in the poll. LOL

So to summarize; no, no, no, no, no :)

I do appreciate these, but might suggest a different format? Maybe submit a larger set of questions to the devs (2x, 3x?) and let them choose which ones to formally respond to (with the goal being they would choose the questions where the answers would be most interesting/informative for the community)?

I don't like to criticize without offering a potential solution ;)