Huge topic of discussion: Engineering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

What's good and healthy for the game is for the game developer to continually improve the matchmaker, I think everyone agrees on that.

---

This is what I am trying to establish. So far I would think that no, not everyone agrees that the matchmaker should be improved. Arguing on pro-engineer side is arguing for the status quo. If we all indeed want to see the matchmaker improved, then there is no disagreement whatsoever. Who thinks what about who is completely irrelevant then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorsan

This is what I am trying to establish. So far I would think that no, not everyone agrees that the matchmaker should be improved. Arguing on pro-engineer side is arguing for the status quo. If we all indeed want to see the matchmaker improved, then there is no disagreement whatsoever. Who thinks what about who is completely irrelevant then.

---

I can't remember the last time a pro engineer came out and said "don't change the matchmaker, everything is fine and dandy, we love lopsided wars, screw the long term health of the game". Sure, some probably think this way but not vocally on the forums.

What pro engineers are say is "we are playing within the rules, blame the matchmaker not us, if supercell changes the matchmaker fine we will adapt".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

I can't remember the last time a pro engineer came out and said "don't change the matchmaker, everything is fine and dandy, we love lopsided wars, screw the long term health of the game". Sure, some probably think this way but not vocally on the forums.

What pro engineers are say is "we are playing within the rules, blame the matchmaker not us, if supercell changes the matchmaker fine we will adapt".

---

They used to say exactly that when I originally started the engineering debate.

If they don't anymore then the battle is already won. I must say that I wasn't on the forum for a long time, so if this is changed, then there is no need for a debate anymore. It's in SC's hands now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

No, they shouldn't. Facing a rushed 10 with baby heroes is easier than facing another maxed 9. While you're netting decent percentage/star attacks against the 10 they're struggling to three star your base due to their heroes. Now if said 10 had th10 troops/spells with high heroes, yes they should complain.

Once again, WE ARE ALL ENGINEERED BY DEFINITION. Every upgrade choice is engineering. However, only one group of players are doing it with malicious intentions, lopsiders. Let's end the entire engineer debate by calling "true engineers" lopsided as Supercell has. If your base is lopsided it's because your doing it with intentions of manipulating the match maker. There is no argument in that.

How we've went full circle with this is beyond my comprehension. We argued these same things MONTHS ago. Now that Supercell has a definition for "engineering" let's stick to it.

---

I am sure a th10 with 10-10 heroes but max valk will 3* a maxed th9 while a 30-30 heroes th9 will struggle to have high percentage of 2* to a mid th10 with a lvl1 inferno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samratulangi

I am sure a th10 with 10-10 heroes but max valk will 3* a maxed th9 while a 30-30 heroes th9 will struggle to have high percentage of 2* to a mid th10 with a lvl1 inferno

---

Yes, but that isn't the point. The point of the discussion isn't how well any one base can do on its mirror or some other plausible target it may have in a war, but rather whether a match is fair for the clan considered as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

If the matchmaker was perfect, engineering would provide no advantage and there wouldn't be this flood of complaints.

People seeing imperfections and taking advantage of that is within the TOS. It is human nature. Again, if the imperfections were minimized, people wouldn't take advantage of it.

If it is not about morals or ethics or definitions then what is this discussion about? Assigning blame for the phenomenon. You blame human behavior, I blame the matchmaker.

What's good and healthy for the game is for the game developer to continually improve the matchmaker, I think everyone agrees on that.

---

You are asking a question that I already answered in the text that you just quoted.

The focus of the discussion should be about the impact of engineering on the game.

Your issue seems to be that you don't seem to want to take any responsibility for engineering even though you are the one actually doing it and not the matchmaker.

I don't know why that is or why you're taking it out on me, but let me ask you this anyway...

If SC could somehow provide us with data showing that engineering is actually harming the participation rate of clan wars, would you still do it and defend it because "human nature" and continue to blame the matchmaker?

Can't we all agree to disagree?
Lets all get together to sing combiya and drink coolaide.
Last one theres a rotten egg :)

engineers are all sissys but thats just my opinion. #semiinvisiblesmirk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nullandvoid

You are asking a question that I already answered in the text that you just quoted.

The focus of the discussion should be about the impact of engineering on the game.

Your issue seems to be that you don't seem to want to take any responsibility for engineering even though you are the one actually doing it and not the matchmaker.

I don't know why that is or why you're taking it out on me, but let me ask you this anyway...

If SC could somehow provide us with data showing that engineering is actually harming the participation rate of clan wars, would you still do it and defend it because "human nature" and continue to blame the matchmaker?

---

What makes you think I am "taking it out on you"? Have I called you names or have I been rude in any way?

It just boggles my mind that you think the matchmaker doesn't play a role in the engineering phenomenon and its just the players' responsibility.

What responsibility do I have as a player? Should I self regulate how I upgrade my base so I can help out the flawed matchmaker?

Is it not the responsibility of the game developer to improve the matchmaker rather than shifting the burden onto the player base?

I don't need data showing engineering is harming the game. I know engineering is harming the game. But the harm doesn't come from the actions of the individual player, it comes from the flaws of the matchmaker. Individual players should be allowed to progress a base at his/her discretion. Its up to the game developer to make sure each base does not present an unwarranted advantage. I would still do it because my self interests and my clan's interests come before the community's interests. Its up to Super Cell to protect the community's interests, not me. They can do that by improving the matchmaker or make a new TOS saying engineering is against the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleggy

Can't we all agree to disagree?

---

No we can't. We're talking about a video game here, and there are serious issues to discuss about morality, responsibility, and dishonesty in regards to which imaginary buildings we choose to place on our virtual village.

And don't think for a second the discussion is fruitless. I for one have been convinced to gem infernos on my 9.5. Clearly, the $50 I was about to send to the Against Malaria Foundation would be better spent evening up my lopsided base, which is a crime against nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

What makes you think I am "taking it out on you"? Have I called you names or have I been rude in any way?

It just boggles my mind that you think the matchmaker doesn't play a role in the engineering phenomenon and its just the players' responsibility.

What responsibility do I have as a player? Should I self regulate how I upgrade my base so I can help out the flawed matchmaker?

Is it not the responsibility of the game developer to improve the matchmaker rather than shifting the burden onto the player base?

I don't need data showing engineering is harming the game. I know engineering is harming the game. But the harm doesn't come from the actions of the individual player, it comes from the flaws of the matchmaker. Individual players should be allowed to progress a base at his/her discretion. Its up to the game developer to make sure each base does not present an unwarranted advantage. I would still do it because my self interests and my clan's interests come before the community's interests. Its up to Super Cell to protect the community's interests, not me. They can do that by improving the matchmaker or make a new TOS saying engineering is against the rules.

---

It boggles my mind that you have come to this conclusion even though I have said nothing remotely to that effect.

Of course the matchmaker plays a role. The flaws in the matchmaker have provided an opportunity for players to take advantage of.

I have even said this, more than once.

The only thing I have taken issue to is you wanting to pretend as if you have no hand in engineering when you are the one doing it.

Of course it's SC responsibility to fix the matchmaker. If you're going to continue to engineer in the meantime then have at it. No one here can stop you and I, for one, wouldn't waste my time telling you not to.

But if what you want is for everyone to be OK with it just because it's not against the TOS then you are just being ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

No we can't. We're talking about a video game here, and there are serious issues to discuss about morality, responsibility, and dishonesty in regards to which imaginary buildings we choose to place on our virtual village.

And don't think for a second the discussion is fruitless. I for one have been convinced to gem infernos on my 9.5. Clearly, the $50 I was about to send to the Against Malaria Foundation would be better spent evening up my lopsided base, which is a crime against nature.

---

Sounds like you need a financial advisor...