Would you want this if you could have it?

It occurs to me that the constant battle between engineers and maxers on this forum boils down to what type of war experience you want to have. If you believe the many threads on this forum ... many wars are decided by the matchmaker before you even start filling ccs.

this is my simple question ...

If a war matchmaking system could be created where every war matchup resulted in both teams having similiarly organized maps. If the matchup could be consistently found where skill as an attacker, base building prowess, participation and team organization would be the only factors in deciding the winner .... would you want that?

yes or no? Feel free to throw in a why.... if you feel like it.

It would be the ""perfect"" mm but in reality there's just no way to make it so that a matchup is consistently found in a reasonable time

Even many engineers would love a system like that, but since that isn't the system we have, they upgrade their bases in a way that gives them as much of an advantage as possible. If going the typical maxer upgrade path created the advantage in war then they would switch over and start doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeeBirds

It would be the ""perfect"" mm but in reality there's just no way to make it so that a matchup is consistently found in a reasonable time

---

I am aware of the practical limitations .... but if you could have it, would you want it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Even many engineers would love a system like that, but since that isn't the system we have, they upgrade their bases in a way that gives them as much of an advantage as possible. If going the typical maxer upgrade path created the advantage in war then they would switch over and start doing that.

---

I am not so sure .... engineers would be able to upgrade their base as they see fit ... which is something frequently pointed out ... but eliminating war advantage would be a big negetive I suspect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

It occurs to me that the constant battle between engineers and maxers on this forum boils down to what type of war experience you want to have. If you believe the many threads on this forum ... many wars are decided by the matchmaker before you even start filling ccs.

this is my simple question ...

If a war matchmaking system could be created where every war matchup resulted in both teams having similiarly organized maps. If the matchup could be consistently found where skill as an attacker, base building prowess, participation and team organization would be the only factors in deciding the winner .... would you want that?

yes or no? Feel free to throw in a why.... if you feel like it.

---

I think this system would destroy clash. You have to have an advantage to griding heroes, walls troops etc. If a th9 with 5/5 heroes, lev 1 pekka and golem, and yellow walls, has no more awesomeness factor than a th9 with 30/30 heroes and maxed wall, many people will simply stop upgrading, and many more will farm with much less activity. This will kill the social element of clash, which is critical to making the game enjoyable.

wars should still be close and competitive, but there must be 2 incentives, one too upgrade the challenging items within a townhall, and another to upgrade townhall and progress. Without this there will be no activity and no gem sales, bad for us and bad for supercell.

exactly how try create a lean to a base that upgraded within townhall, and then further to upgrade townhall, is complex but possibly, with small manipulations in a matchmaker, to give the right bases just the right amount of advantage, to maintain the drive to farm and upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

I
wars should still be close and competitive, but there must be 2 incentives, one too upgrade the challenging items within a townhall, and another to upgrade townhall and progress. Without this there will be no activity and no gem sales, bad for us and bad for supercell.

---

This I find interesting and something I had not considered. I take your argument to be that gaining an advantage is why most people play ... and subsequently if there were no advantage to be had, then people would stop doing the day-to-day farming, because ultimately the reward for farming is that in war you simply get harder people to attack.

I am not sure I agree with you that this would kill the social aspect. In my mind, the most social times of the game are when wars are close ... every one is on and trying to fight to see the last second attacks. Close wars bring folks together. When wars are decided before you begin is what creates apathy I believe.

Additionally, I have never looked at upgrading heroes or my base as trying to gain an advantage over any one else.... sure that ultimately is what happens but usually I upgrade because I want the new shiny thing. Furthermore, I have always wanted to be able to hit and have success against tougher bases. If I knew that by upgrading I would get a more challenging play experience and if I knew that every war would require my contribution for our clan to be successful ... I would be more motivated, not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

If a war matchmaking system could be created where every war matchup resulted in both teams having similiarly organized maps. If the matchup could be consistently found where skill as an attacker, base building prowess, participation and team organization would be the only factors in deciding the winner .... would you want that?

yes or no? Feel free to throw in a why.... if you feel like it.

---

I'm not sure how they can do this without going to a ladder system. Even if the current system would be able to match entire clans on a lane by lane basis so you are essentially facing a exact mirror clan in every war, it could not take into account the disparities in skill, base building, participation and organization.

I understand some players relish the challenge in an even matchup. I like challenges myself. However, I am not sure the majority of players in this game share the same sentiment. In my friend and family clan, most people don't want the game to be too challenging. They like attacking weaker bases. One guy just quit the game because he (a Th9) could not 3 star other Th9s that were as strong as him defensively. He was used to attacking TH8 bases and I was trying to transition him into attacking TH9s but he just couldn't do it. Having the skills to do well in this game is not as common as you think. Most clans out there are just plain mediocre. Which is why there has been a surge in engineering; they are piggybacking on the idea that this will get them easier matchups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

This I find interesting and something I had not considered. I take your argument to be that gaining an advantage is why most people play ... and subsequently if there were no advantage to be had, then people would stop doing the day-to-day farming, because ultimately the reward for farming is that in war you simply get harder people to attack.

I am not sure I agree with you that this would kill the social aspect. In my mind, the most social times of the game are when wars are close ... every one is on and trying to fight to see the last second attacks. Close wars bring folks together. When wars are decided before you begin is what creates apathy I believe.

Additionally, I have never looked at upgrading heroes or my base as trying to gain an advantage over any one else.... sure that ultimately is what happens but usually I upgrade because I want the new shiny thing. Furthermore, I have always wanted to be able to hit and have success against tougher bases. If I knew that by upgrading I would get a more challenging play experience and if I knew that every war would require my contribution for our clan to be successful ... I would be more motivated, not less.

---

i first noticed this the social effect after sniping was killed, the change from constant farming using barching, and the constant clan chatter that followed, came to an abrupt end when people were using full armies and waiting 3 hours or more between attacks. Our clan become quiet and kinda boring, and allthough we survived and got used to the new normal, I think if the farming incentive dissapeared you would have a similar effect. Honestly I dont know how much, but it would be some effect at least. The social element is for sure shining brightest during wars, but the foundations for the social experience is created by the chats and socialising outside of the war environmemt. War is fun, but there fun because I do them with people who have become borderline buddies, even if they are electronic.

I think I agree with you that many people dont consciously say, "i must upgrade my heroes/lava/loons because they provide a matchmaker advantage". However the awesomeness or cool factor that used to be associated with a max hero or max wall, definitely came from the matchmaker advantage, and this made the desire to raid resources to upgrade them simply seam like the natural thing to do.

for me a case in point is walls for a while now, and very recently heroes. I have not raided a wall level in months, most of my th11 only have level 9 wall, but knowing that the extra 3 levels will bring significant weight (i think), and knowing EQ or jump will mean bowler healer wont be effected much, or when miners were hot would have no effect, and currently watching the lava and loons simply flying over, the interest just isnt there. Then knowing that heroes seam to be Killing .5 accounts, as evident on my more developed ones, means I dont have any incentive to be farming. Im farming less, logging on less, and if I was in my clan would mean less social interactions.

Of course a situation where non engineers or rushers could never win wars against hyper engineered bases is a much greater danger to clash, but supercell are working on that. i hope they create a perfect parity matchmaker, and then program in as i said before, just the right amount advantage, to upgrades that encourage farming.

the only 3 upgrades that I am sure should have a small advantage in the matchmaker are

1 heroes
2 wall
3 all sets of war troops and spells maxed (not sure about 1 set)

after that it becomes more complicated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

I am not so sure .... engineers would be able to upgrade their base as they see fit ... which is something frequently pointed out ... but eliminating war advantage would be a big negetive I suspect

---

What I mean is there are plenty of engineers that are skilled attackers and would be happy to have a system that favors maxing. They would recognize the change and adjust their base accordingly (and most engineers have multiple bases anyway). They only engineer because that is what they think gives a war advantage. If they thought maxing gave a war advantage, that is the path they would take.