bringing a partial perma/max lineup to war (kids dont try this at home)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

You could draw almost the opposite conclusion from 3. Assuming you mean things like CWL by "clan league play". In this case they are effectively using a different sort of MM. And under that system max TH9s have an advantage over non-max TH9s. So guess what everyone uses? You can just as much argue clans are taking max TH9s because that's the most advantageous option for them as because they want fairness. The slight difference here is that since every opponent has bought themselves a stack of max TH9s, doing the same only brings you back to parity. Effectively every clan has engineered their line-up to the best possible with the systemic constraints, so there is fairness. How would a clan that decided they wanted to play with their existing TH9 players rather than buy/recruit a load of max TH9s get on? Presumably they'd be beaten up. Which is roughly what happens when a clan does a random spin war with their existing players rather than engineer their accounts to the optimum under the random-spin matching system.

---

So what? Whole point of the game is to progress your base by beating up weaker ones.

The leagues work outside the mm , because the mm is deficient.

This strawman is absurd... people camped at 9 because 10 play was broken. After th11 that is still the case. Yet you continue to insist th9 squatters do it to beat up on weaker bases , except the proof they haven't is the formation of leagues where they can match each. Friendly wars make players 0 loot , and every weekend there is 100s of clans with 15-20 max th9s ( or close) warring on equal footing. Best part is our clan didn't spin random after it. Will do potluck on Monday then maybe nothing until next cwl match. Point here being the mm is a waste of time so we are not in the pool.

The only scrubs who are random spinning to beat up on lesser players are the engineers . All the maxers I know rarely spin random these days. Probably making it worse for everyone else

If th10 was balanced play there would be no permanent th9s. I think that day might be approaching quickly .. we will see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

So what? Whole point of the game is to progress your base by beating up weaker ones.

The leagues work outside the mm , because the mm is deficient.

This strawman is absurd... people camped at 9 because 10 play was broken. After th11 that is still the case. Yet you continue to insist th9 squatters do it to beat up on weaker bases , except the proof they haven't is the formation of leagues where they can match each. Friendly wars make players 0 loot , and every weekend there is 100s of clans with 15-20 max th9s ( or close) warring on equal footing. Best part is our clan didn't spin random after it. Will do potluck on Monday then maybe nothing until next cwl match. Point here being the mm is a waste of time so we are not in the pool.

The only scrubs who are random spinning to beat up on lesser players are the engineers . All the maxers I know rarely spin random these days. Probably making it worse for everyone else

If th10 was balanced play there would be no permanent th9s. I think that day might be approaching quickly .. we will see

---

OK, so what is the problem? Your clan doesn't spin random; and matches up to what you consider fair play clans, instead of engineered scrubs; and presumably you have a ball competing against other clans who clash the "right" way. Why does engineering even affect you?

Oh, right. Because you want loot and laurels for beating up on non-perma bases. Because engineered clans are denying you the continuous win streak that your attack skills obviously merit. Because th10 is "broken" by your standards, which must be everyone else's as well.

Turns out, many of us have made the transition to th10. And many have found it difficult, myself included. In particular, it is much harder to three-star medium to max th10 than it was on the previous level. I call that a learning curve, and not a broken game. Opinions may vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by posthoc

You continue to insist that perma-max bases are "balanced" without offering any proof that SuperCell agrees with you, or any real justification. The reason people stay perma-maxed at th9 is not because they believe in "game balance"--it is because for a long time that was the best way to minimize three stars against, and also draw weaker th9 as opponents. Seems like these arguments about game balance started right after the MM was modified and this advantage was lost.

Your logic would suggest that th7 perma-max is also "balanced"--and yet no one chooses this path. And it is precisely because max th7 offers no advantage on defense.

I'd question whether th8 is balanced, either--haven't seen many that wouldn't fall to either gohowi or dragon spam. There simply aren't enough buildings or walls to defend against both attack strategies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

Reading is hard. 1 post up

---

No disrespect to Tomville, whose insights and eloquence I admire--but he doesn't speak for SuperCell, unless I really misunderstand the role of game specialists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

How would a clan that decided they wanted to play with their existing TH9 players rather than buy/recruit a load of max TH9s get on? Presumably they'd be beaten up.

---

I could tell you an interesting story about how this would play out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

I could tell you an interesting story about how this would play out...

---

im ready for it. love seeing all this hand wringing on "maxing out th9" millions of maxed11 and 10 out there.

Wow, this has went from engineering is the bad guy to now maxing or staying a maxed townhall is pure evil.

To those saying a perma max beats up on a non-maxed base; Would you rather lose to someone you're own townhall or to someone with a joke of an account that is two townhalls higher? It's an obvious choice imo, but maxers are evil... evil I tell you!

People are loosing focus on what's actually destroying the game and has been for the last year+. How about we push to fix that first, then iron out all the perma max. A lot of them may move up if engineering is culled...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Wow, this has went from engineering is the bad guy to now maxing or staying a maxed townhall is pure evil.

To those saying a perma max beats up on a non-maxed base; Would you rather lose to someone you're own townhall or to someone with a joke of an account that is two townhalls higher? It's an obvious choice imo, but maxers are evil... evil I tell you!
.

---

Yea, its a strawman. both my perma max 9 and 10 regularly hit max 9 or 11/10 respectively. Where your typical engineer is dipping 1-2 THs , except when they come in here to state we need a loon nerf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

OK. Give some examples of bases that are balanced then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

Pay attention & you'll notice that I said I don't pretend to know what SC considers "balanced", but find it more productive to look at what types of bases are typical. TH10s with 40/40 heroes aren't typical. TH9s with 30/30 heroes aren't typical. I'm going by the same list of players that Onyx referred to, who are probably more inclined to grind heroes that the average player, yet still had very few max hero accounts. Look at accounts you see in the wild & maxed accounts are very rare.

From a business standpoint, perma-maxers aren't good for revenue, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a return to MM as it worked before March 2016.

---

I don't know what is typical for a th10, but the one that I see most often in war has heroes in the 20's and no infernos, while almost every one I see in mp has infernos but is otherwise all over the place. For th9, I'd say max defenses, some combination of legos/skulls, and 25 combined heroes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

There have been some real doozies being posted lately. I'm starting to wonder if SC made an unannounced change to MM in the last week or two & somebody put some decimal points in the wrong place, lol.

---

They definitely made changes. Nowadays I'd say that even bringing one unbalanced base to war in a 20v20 could be enough to match you with pretty heavy engineers, especially if you have a really good recent war record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MossackFonseca

I don't know what is typical for a th10, but the one that I see most often in war has heroes in the 20's and no infernos, while almost every one I see in mp has infernos but is otherwise all over the place. For th9, I'd say max defenses, some combination of legos/skulls, and 25 combined heroes.

---

seeing it often means it is balanced? or you see it and think "man that is probably the balanced game play"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

seeing it often means it is balanced? or you see it and think "man that is probably the balanced game play"

---

Read both the quotes and you'll see why I answered it that way. Reading is hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

I knew the answer before I asked ... this is why it's so easy to disregard anything you post

Max townhall play (11) should be balanced or the game is broken. If you can't figure out why ;not sure what to tell you. Supercell agrees by evidence of witch and miner nerfs.

I think you can extend this to lower ths, th8 and 9 are balanced if you didn't have cc troops of th11 level.

10 is still probably tilted heavily toward the defense.

---

Where did you infer that I think max TH11 shouldn't be balanced? What you said was, "a maxed account is the most balanced an account can be." You made it very clear that you meant that to apply to every TH level, not just TH11.

Max TH9 is not balanced at this point, but neither are TH8 or lower. In the hands of an experienced player, any common TH9 layout is an almost automatic 3 star. You don't see anyone wringing their hands over TH8 balance because no one considers it relevant to high level play. I would say for the typical clasher, TH9 is perfectly fine as it is right now. TH10 has the exact opposite problem. It should not be harder to come up with a 3 star at TH10 than TH11 but it's significantly harder.

And again, the argument over what is balanced & what is not seems like a sideshow to the problems with MM. We have a MM system that rewards upgrading choices that no typical player would make if it didn't boost their chances of a favorable matchup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

Where did you infer that I think max TH11 shouldn't be balanced? What you said was, "a maxed account is the most balanced an account can be." You made it very clear that you meant that to apply to every TH level, not just TH11.

Max TH9 is not balanced at this point, but neither are TH8 or lower. In the hands of an experienced player, any common TH9 layout is an almost automatic 3 star. You don't see anyone wringing their hands over TH8 balance because no one considers it relevant to high level play. I would say for the typical clasher, TH9 is perfectly fine as it is right now. TH10 has the exact opposite problem. It should not be harder to come up with a 3 star at TH10 than TH11 but it's significantly harder.

And again, the argument over what is balanced & what is not seems like a sideshow to the problems with MM. We have a MM system that rewards upgrading choices that no typical player would make if it didn't boost their chances of a favorable matchup.

---

I think what's happened is the term "balanced" is being used two ways in the discussion, so some are ending up talking past each other accidentally. 2 things could be meant:
1) Balanced as opposed to the Supercell term "lopsided", as in e.g. not having your own offence progression way out of whack with your defence progression. This is the one that ought figure for matchmaking fairness.
2) Balanced for a th level in warring, as in e.g. saying th9 on 9 it seems maybe th9 offensively imbalanced as too easily to get 3 stars, or th10 on 10 seems too hard to 3 star, suggesting 10 is offence imbalanced. This is the one that just applies to everyone at that th level, and so doesn't figure for questions of matchmaking fairness (but certainly figures for war strategy, expectations, gameplay experience, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

Where did you infer that I think max TH11 shouldn't be balanced? What you said was, "a maxed account is the most balanced an account can be." You made it very clear that you meant that to apply to every TH level, not just TH11.

Max TH9 is not balanced at this point, but neither are TH8 or lower. In the hands of an experienced player, any common TH9 layout is an almost automatic 3 star. You don't see anyone wringing their hands over TH8 balance because no one considers it relevant to high level play. I would say for the typical clasher, TH9 is perfectly fine as it is right now. TH10 has the exact opposite problem. It should not be harder to come up with a 3 star at TH10 than TH11 but it's significantly harder.

And again, the argument over what is balanced & what is not seems like a sideshow to the problems with MM. We have a MM system that rewards upgrading choices that no typical player would make if it didn't boost their chances of a favorable matchup.

---

Maxed 8/9 is balanced, like I said, if you do not have a maxed hound/bowler/hog/golem in the CC

The CWL TH9 hit rate is evidence for this, and like i said, you have no evidence otherwise. if so provide it. ( you wont, but I will wait for it anyway )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

I think what's happened is the term "balanced" is being used two ways in the discussion, so some are ending up talking past each other accidentally. 2 things could be meant:
1) Balanced as opposed to the Supercell term "lopsided", as in e.g. not having your own offence progression way out of whack with your defence progression. This is the one that ought figure for matchmaking fairness.
2) Balanced for a th level in warring, as in e.g. saying th9 on 9 it seems maybe th9 offensively imbalanced as too easily to get 3 stars, or th10 on 10 seems too hard to 3 star, suggesting 10 is offence imbalanced. This is the one that just applies to everyone at that th level, and so doesn't figure for questions of matchmaking fairness (but certainly figures for war strategy, expectations, gameplay experience, etc).

---

And in a third way - in terms of a balanced clan or roster. The observation was that a whole bunch of entirely maxed TH9s isn't a balanced clan - every TH9 is right up the extreme end of the range for TH9s; whereas warring with a range of TH9s probably gives much better matches.

In this case it's probably better to stick to calling them common/uncommon rosters, since the word "balanced" is being twisted back and forth so much. Somehow engineering threads always seem to end up arguing about the meaning of words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

And in a third way - in terms of a balanced clan or roster. The observation was that a whole bunch of entirely maxed TH9s isn't a balanced clan - every TH9 is right up the extreme end of the range for TH9s; whereas warring with a range of TH9s probably gives much better matches.

In this case it's probably better to stick to calling them common/uncommon rosters, since the word "balanced" is being twisted back and forth so much. Somehow engineering threads always seem to end up arguing about the meaning of words

---

I'd upvote you again if I could, great catch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

And in a third way - in terms of a balanced clan or roster. The observation was that a whole bunch of entirely maxed TH9s isn't a balanced clan - every TH9 is right up the extreme end of the range for TH9s; whereas warring with a range of TH9s probably gives much better matches.

---

I see your point.. but to me, balanced means the weight above and below the middle is about the same.

so a roster of 70k is balanced, but probably not ideal from a demographic standpoint.

a normal CWL style roster, 2/6/9s, 3/8/9s, 4/10/9s ... are balanced in that also...

imbalanced roster examples, and this is where the MM fails mightily.
our roster of 3/10/9s matching something like this: 6/10/6/2/2/2

forget weights a minute, why is this occuring? ( we dislike it bc the opp has 6 trash bases )

you are telling all of us, that this roster on right is balanced? or more balanced then 3/10/9s? Please show your math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

In this case it's probably better to stick to calling them common/uncommon rosters, since the word "balanced" is being twisted back and forth so much. Somehow engineering threads always seem to end up arguing about the meaning of words

---

Yes, you are getting it. the statistical/mathematical approach of analyzing the roster versus the demographics of the pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

You could draw almost the opposite conclusion from 3. Assuming you mean things like CWL by "clan league play". In this case they are effectively using a different sort of MM. And under that system max TH9s have an advantage over non-max TH9s. So guess what everyone uses? You can just as much argue clans are taking max TH9s because that's the most advantageous option for them as because they want fairness. The slight difference here is that since every opponent has bought themselves a stack of max TH9s, doing the same only brings you back to parity. Effectively every clan has engineered their line-up to the best possible with the systemic constraints, so there is fairness. How would a clan that decided they wanted to play with their existing TH9 players rather than buy/recruit a load of max TH9s get on? Presumably they'd be beaten up. Which is roughly what happens when a clan does a random spin war with their existing players rather than engineer their accounts to the optimum under the random-spin matching system.

---

Before TH11 rolled out & SC dropped the March 2016 thermo-engineering bomb, clans that could bring a lot of maxed TH9 offense had an advantage over most of their opponents. SC may have been attempting to push perma-maxed TH9s into hitting the upgrade button, but it backfired spectacularly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

SC may have been attempting to push perma-maxed TH9s into hitting the upgrade button, but it backfired spectacularly...

---

Best way to push perma max th9 to upgrade would be to provide more incentive to go to th10, rather than the current significant disincentive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryryshouse

Maxed 8/9 is balanced, like I said, if you do not have a maxed hound/bowler/hog/golem in the CC

The CWL TH9 hit rate is evidence for this, and like i said, you have no evidence otherwise. if so provide it. ( you wont, but I will wait for it anyway )

---

Any long time war can is going to have maxed hound/bowler/hog/golem, so taking that off the table when talking about balance doesn't fly. The troops are in the game & have to be accounted for in balance.

TH9 hit rate is supposed to be around 80% now. This is against teams doing their very best to come up with solid defensive layouts. If you take CWL TH9s & have them attack the bases that most more casual clans use, their hit rate is going to be almost perfect, unless they've been drinking heavily. Of course, typical TH9 players aren't 3 starring at anything near that rate. I am definitely not calling for a TH9 nerf.

I think we agree that the big issue is engineered clans being able to tilt the MM. Clans can't bring a lot of heavy TH9s to war. Clans are prevented from allowing lower TH levels from being in war, purely in an attempt to avoid mismatches with roster engineers. When promising new players can't get a shot in a good clan that will help them develop into the TH9-11 players the game needs to replace folks who drop out, it's bad for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MossackFonseca

Best way to push perma max th9 to upgrade would be to provide more incentive to go to th10, rather than the current significant disincentive.

---

Agreed. TH10 is maybe a bit better with the loon buff, but it's the hardest level to 3 star your peers as a maxed player. SC is basically pushing people to become lopsided TH11s instead of dropping infernos & warring like a big boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

Any long time war can is going to have maxed hound/bowler/hog/golem, so taking that off the table when talking about balance doesn't fly. The troops are in the game & have to be accounted for in balance.

TH9 hit rate is supposed to be around 80% now. This is against teams doing their very best to come up with solid defensive layouts. If you take CWL TH9s & have them attack the bases that most more casual clans use, their hit rate is going to be almost perfect, unless they've been drinking heavily. Of course, typical TH9 players aren't 3 starring at anything near that rate. I am definitely not calling for a TH9 nerf.

I think we agree that the big issue is engineered clans being able to tilt the MM. Clans can't bring a lot of heavy TH9s to war. Clans are prevented from allowing lower TH levels from being in war, purely in an attempt to avoid mismatches with roster engineers. When promising new players can't get a shot in a good clan that will help them develop into the TH9-11 players the game needs to replace folks who drop out, it's bad for the game.

---

I forgot that all clans and players have the +2 troop bump and max players in their clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

it's probably better to stick to calling them common/uncommon rosters, since the word "balanced" is being twisted back and forth so much. Somehow engineering threads always seem to end up arguing about the meaning of words

---

Common and uncommon is the only piece that matters in this argument as it refers to MM. Everything else is subjective and if your lineup is uncommon you can expect any range of matchups despite any attempt to fit your team into a forum recommended template. We spin 5/5/15 and match a range of clans every week. Ryryshouse is correct in that farm wars are a waste of time and are frustrating for rosters structured like this.

Many of the arguments in these redundant threads are motivated not by fact, but by self interest and mudslinging which is unfortunate.

Engineers take advantage of a system which is far to open to foster "competition" and seem to enjoy citing win-streak and placing burden on clans looking for a fair match-ups to participate in roster manipulation by exercising their understanding of a broken system. What about those who understand the system and simply don't want to participate?

Fact: If a roster is designed to pull in match-ups which are not suited to the clan's level of play where the clan consistently wins, that clan is not actually competing with anything aside from a broken system. There is nothing wrong with what these clans do, it is simply not respectable or commendable, AND should not be allowed in a game placing emphasis in competition as a core design value. If a boastful, objectively mediocre, NFL player chooses to return to a division III college (if it where allowed) and he is the best player in the division, do we reward or even acknowledge his achievements for the choice he made? No! Instead we ridicule and for good reason, but I digress - I think the key piece here is in parenthesis.

Another fact: the existence of engineering and increased diversity in clans leads to less available apples-to-apples matches between clans and a greater likelihood that any clans pairs in an unfair war (especially in heavy 25v+ wars).

How about a 3rd? In game, max TH11 clans are the only roster composition which cannot be negatively affected by engineering. These clans tend to have less impressive records as a result of the mostly even matchups decided by skill, execution, and sometimes luck. This is what makes competitive games desirable for people who truly are interested in competition.

There is a reason clan league play is highly regarded and has secured the highest social media presence in game, while engineered clans linger in the back alley and some switch clans after updates to protect the record or win streak they have built through unfair competition. Clan leagues attempt to mimic what TH11 wars provide while be accessible to a larger portion of the community - this is ONLY a good thing. Clan league play is the fairest of match-ups available in-game to mixed TH clans through external means allowing technical proficiency, execution, and sometimes luck to be the deciding factors in these wars. Trying to smear this type of gameplay by referring to it as a form of "engineering" is ridiculous.

I strongly encourage many engineered clans with exceptional records to test their so-called skill by participating in wars that require balanced rosters. I assure you that your precious 23 win streak, or what have you, will be much more difficult to secure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MossackFonseca

Best way to push perma max th9 to upgrade would be to provide more incentive to go to th10, rather than the current significant disincentive.

---

This incentive already exists if you are in a clan spinnign random wars. The October update following the buy-out provided this in spades. Our group experienced it first hand. It is no surprise that the TH packs were introduced at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

I strongly encourage many engineered clans with exceptional records to test their so-called skill by participating in wars that require balanced rosters. I assure you that your precious 23 win streak, or what have you, will be much more difficult to secure.

---

This is solid gold. If only this could happen... Unfortunately the point of engineering is to avoid having to face an opponent clan on equal footing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardF

This is solid gold. If only this could happen... Unfortunately the point of engineering is to avoid having to face an opponent clan on equal footing.

---

Spoken as a clan who used to wrack up double digit streaks routinely and got bored. Now we live for Pot Luck which spins tonight!

The problem is that the community identifies success with winning and losing as we do in society. However if Lebron James where to lead his team to consecutive high school basketball championships well into his 30s, how would we receive his accomplishments? The question is rhetorical.

Bring on the update! I hope we find that engineering is identified as a form of casual gameplay in the weeks to come by SuperCell. At which point we can all agree and there are no more petty arguments and mudslinging. Fingers-crossed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardF

This is solid gold. If only this could happen... Unfortunately 1 point of engineering is to avoid having to face an opponent clan on equal footing.

---

somehow we are bringing intent and reasons back in..

so here goes mine. (see what i added there)

i started my defenseless'ish 2 years ago. way before it was cool hah. im a hipster. why?
this is for me personally:
1. for the challenge. something different. this game is a matter of time, and i have alot of free time at work. so why not make an alt.
2. i thought i interpreted the way this game was heading. 2015 was all about ".5's". so why not take it as extreme as you can go. if a .5 gets rewarded by the algo, well then bring on the next step.
3. the miner death and 2 star th11 fest pushed me over the edge. i didn't take my alt totally seriously until then. now all of a sudden my main 11 was about as fun as a lump of coal. after a dozen wars of banging my head against the wall, it got shelved. it looks pretty and donates. where'd that freed up time get concentrated... guess.

this is for the clan:
1. mid - late 2015, we get punished by a few hardcore ".5" clan matches. we were mostly 8's and 9's, a few 10's. oh really, so this is where the game is headed. ok. leadership agrees thats our path. thats our policy. you can fully upgrade your defense after your offense is well on the way to being done. and if you dont want to up your def, that works too. finish your offense before going to the next. before it was voluntary. no more of that.
2. we are officially optimized for war. yay. mismatches are now very very rare (for us). morale is high. clan activity is high. donations are high. winning is high. (all of that feeds off itself). lots of folks talking about their clans falling apart. not us. sorry about your luck. we dont actually care about facing a clan on equal footing. we are having fun. we are doing our thing. we are collecting data and studying the algo and making it work for us. want no fame. we are self centered XXXXXXXX's. we have no forum threads. we aren't a internet popular clan. we dont put our info in our signatures (not that there is anything wrong with all that. do what makes you happy i say, whether it is ego or not everyone has their reasons.)
3. here comes the miner nerf. some of the guys with 11's say "this sux man. i wish i woulda started a defenseless a long time ago like you did". so they do. now we have several very low 8's and 9's to mix in wars.

and there ya have it.
why does jobob145 and his clan do what they do.
we are polite and civil. we enjoy reading these threads, contributing, sharing data...
but at the end of the day, we really just don't care about our "enemy's" sense of fairness.
bad for the game? maybe. care? nope. guess i'm too old. been playing games online over 20 years.
they come and go. make the most of them while you can, in whatever way makes you happy. there will be another one in a few years that catches your interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Fact: If a roster is designed to pull in match-ups which are not suited to the clan's level of play where the clan consistently wins, that clan is not actually competing with anything aside from a broken system. There is nothing wrong with what these clans do, it is simply not respectable or commendable, AND should not be allowed in a game placing emphasis in competition as a core design value. If a boastful, objectively mediocre, NFL player chooses to return to a division III college (if it where allowed) and he is the best player in the division, do we reward or even acknowledge his achievements for the choice he made? No! Instead we ridicule and for good reason, but I digress - I think the key piece here is in parenthesis.

---

I always like it when people make reference to stuff like this. It makes Engineers out to be the pros and others well... as you said division III. For this people blame the MM and want change. Cool but how about a change for the better. How about a way to bring those division III clans up to the pro level vs forcing the pros to play down to the division III level. The thing is that in COC the division III clans can under the current MM move up to the pro level but many chose to stay back and just play d3 ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

I always like it when people make reference to stuff like this. It makes Engineers out to be the pros and others well... as you said division III. For this people blame the MM and want change. Cool but how about a change for the better. How about a way to bring those division III clans up to the pro level vs forcing the pros to play down to the division III level. The thing is that in COC the division III clans can under the current MM move up to the pro level but many chose to stay back and just play d3 ball.

---

It could be me, but I think you completely missed the point of what was being said here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobob145

somehow we are bringing intent and reasons back in..

so here goes mine. (see what i added there)

i started my defenseless'ish 2 years ago. way before it was cool hah. im a hipster. why?
this is for me personally:
1. for the challenge. something different. this game is a matter of time, and i have alot of free time at work. so why not make an alt.
2. i thought i interpreted the way this game was heading. 2015 was all about ".5's". so why not take it as extreme as you can go. if a .5 gets rewarded by the algo, well then bring on the next step.
3. the miner death and 2 star th11 fest pushed me over the edge. i didn't take my alt totally seriously until then. now all of a sudden my main 11 was about as fun as a lump of coal. after a dozen wars of banging my head against the wall, it got shelved. it looks pretty and donates. where'd that freed up time get concentrated... guess.

this is for the clan:
1. mid - late 2015, we get punished by a few hardcore ".5" clan matches. we were mostly 8's and 9's, a few 10's. oh really, so this is where the game is headed. ok. leadership agrees thats our path. thats our policy. you can fully upgrade your defense after your offense is well on the way to being done. and if you dont want to up your def, that works too. finish your offense before going to the next. before it was voluntary. no more of that.
2. we are officially optimized for war. yay. mismatches are now very very rare (for us). morale is high. clan activity is high. donations are high. winning is high. (all of that feeds off itself). lots of folks talking about their clans falling apart. not us. sorry about your luck. we dont actually care about facing a clan on equal footing. we are having fun. we are doing our thing. we are collecting data and studying the algo and making it work for us. want no fame. we are self centered XXXXXXXX's. we have no forum threads. we aren't a internet popular clan. we dont put our info in our signatures (not that there is anything wrong with all that. do what makes you happy i say, whether it is ego or not everyone has their reasons.)
3. here comes the miner nerf. some of the guys with 11's say "this sux man. i wish i woulda started a defenseless a long time ago like you did". so they do. now we have several very low 8's and 9's to mix in wars.

and there ya have it.
why does jobob145 and his clan do what they do.
we are polite and civil. we enjoy reading these threads, contributing, sharing data...
but at the end of the day, we really just don't care about our "enemy's" sense of fairness.
bad for the game? maybe. care? nope. guess i'm too old. been playing games online over 20 years.
they come and go. make the most of them while you can, in whatever way makes you happy. there will be another one in a few years that catches your interest.

---

l am glad for you to find a new place to focus your time. I too mourned the loss of miners on my max 11 account and also stopped warring with it in a high level clan that had mostly max TH11 in the war roster. Things are much better for 11 now, but still have a way to go in war IMO. I moved my efforts to my TH9, now maxed, and use my 11 for troop donations and to annoy bases in T1 and legends.
Our clan chose to go the opposit route, focusing on balanced base development and solid attack skills. Both options are valid approaches and will tend to attract those with similar values.

It it is refreshing to meet someone willing to call it what it is. You want to win, and any means necessary to achieve that end. I get it, and thanks for being honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

I always like it when people make reference to stuff like this. It makes Engineers out to be the pros and others well... as you said division III. For this people blame the MM and want change. Cool but how about a change for the better. How about a way to bring those division III clans up to the pro level vs forcing the pros to play down to the division III level. The thing is that in COC the division III clans can under the current MM move up to the pro level but many chose to stay back and just play d3 ball.

---

Twisting my language to suite your intent: strawman.

This entire statement is wildly out of bounds and qualifies as the mudslinging I just referred to. I take it CWL is D3 and the engineers play on some grander stage? Social media and the vast majority of the community says otherwise. What you suggest is like saying that street ball in Brooklyn is more reputable than what people pay to watch on television and in stadiums for reference - Yeah, if I have a knife and foul you, you probably aren't going to call it liek the refs do in the big leagues... So does having the knife make the game competitive, does it make it better, does it make it more fun for everyone? If I use it will people come back to play with me? Just plain absurd... Does your argument hold up when it ties back to reality? No it does not.

I enjoy sports references here because it fits nicely with something outside of constant nonsense displayed in these threads.

I believe you, and many others, are confusing winning with competition. Chess is a game that has withstood the test of time because the players engage in a battle of wits/skill which begins at parity. Would chess still exist if one player was allowed to play with checkers while the other played with chess pieces? Another rhetorical question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Twisting my language to suite your intent: strawman.

This entire statement is wildly out of bounds and qualifies as the mudslinging I just referred to. I take it CWL is D3 and the engineers play on some grander stage? Social media and the vast majority of the community says otherwise.

I believe you, and many others, are confusing winning with competition. Chess is a game that has withstood the test of time because the players engage in a battle of wits/skill which begins at parity. Would chess still exist if one player was allowed to play with checkers while the other played with chess pieces? Another rhetorical question.

---

Don't know if I've mentioned it yet but CWL is friendly war something similar but different than CW. In friendly war maxing is the superior strategy and engineers are at the disadvantage I admit. In clan war imo maxing is an inferior strategy to others.

edit: to come back to what you said about chess vs checkers in both games each side has exactly the same. COC has many more variables than both and would make it near impossible to get a perfectly even match. I do believe skill is involved in COC in attacking and base design. However many neglect to realize that it is a strategy game where strategy with a strategy game ,like COC, comes the strategy in how to make a clan have the best outcome in CW.
As far as winning and competition I like both but am not going to play a lower strategy to get better competition. Others may but not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Twisting my language to suite your intent: strawman.

This entire statement is wildly out of bounds and qualifies as the mudslinging I just referred to. I take it CWL is D3 and the engineers play on some grander stage? Social media and the vast majority of the community says otherwise.

I believe you, and many others, are confusing winning with competition. Chess is a game that has withstood the test of time because the players engage in a battle of wits/skill which begins at parity. Would chess still exist if one player was allowed to play with checkers while the other played with chess pieces? Another rhetorical question.

---

nope, chess is pure.
sc sure isnt!

sc's system is going to give someone the short end of the stick. i think it always has, and just keeps getting more exaggerated.
see the original post here!

i believe part of winning and having a good time and all that is making sure you are not getting beat by that stick.
make the other guy get whacked.

i know the algo math is messed up. but we refused to be beat by it, and went down our path.
others are waiting on a fix i believe.
maybe my balanced 11 will be relevant again! but if not, keep on truckin i say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

Don't know if I've mentioned it yet but CWL is friendly war something similar but different than CW. In friendly war maxing is the superior strategy and engineers are at the disadvantage I admit. In clan war imo maxing is an inferior strategy to others.

---

You missed the edited bit:

What you suggest is like saying that street ball in Brooklyn is more reputable than what people pay to watch on television and in stadiums for reference - Yeah, if I have a knife and foul you, you probably aren't going to call it like the refs do in the big leagues... So does having the knife make the game competitive, does it make it better, does it make it more fun for everyone? If I use it will people come back to play with me? Just plain absurd... Does your argument hold up when it ties back to reality? No it does not.

What does this mean for the game you enjoy? Think about it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobob145

i believe part of winning and having a good time and all that is making sure you are not getting beat by that stick.

maybe my balanced 11 will be relevant again! but if not, keep on truckin i say.

---

Winning != Having a good time. When I play Overwatch, I lose quite a bit because I am not very good but I have a good time because I am playing with friends and when we lose it is because the group we are playing against is better than us or because my counterpart is better than me. Here "better" implies objectively more skilled, knowledgeable, and better teamwork. In fact, many share this experience. Again in a game that is not as "pure" or older as chess parity still exists to start any match.

So if competition is in fact a core design philosophy of Clash of Clans as SC states, I suspect the update will make HUGE waves in this regard.

My max 11 is plenty relevant. I can't speak to what a balanced one looks like though - heroes and walls are very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

You missed the edited bit:

What you suggest is like saying that street ball in Brooklyn is more reputable than what people pay to watch on television and in stadiums for reference - Yeah, if I have a knife and foul you, you probably aren't going to call it like the refs do in the big leagues... So does having the knife make the game competitive, does it make it better, does it make it more fun for everyone? If I use it will people come back to play with me? Just plain absurd... Does your argument hold up when it ties back to reality? No it does not.

What does this mean for the game you enjoy? Think about it...

---

More like football and soccer. Similar in both are sports, played on a field and with a ball. Different in that they are different sports.
I'm not trying to fight you on this but you just see things differently than me and I was just pointing them out to you but not everyone can see both sides. So I will just move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Winning != Having a good time. When I play Overwatch, I lose quite a bit because I am not very good but I have a good time because I am playing with friends and when we lose it is because the group we are playing against is better than us or because my counterpart is better than me. Here "better" implies objectively more skilled, knowledgeable, and better teamwork. In fact, many share this experience. Again in a game that is not as "pure" or older as chess parity still exists to start any match.

So if competition is in fact a core design philosophy of Clash of Clans as SC states, I suspect the update will make HUGE waves in this regard.

My max 11 is plenty relevant. I can't speak to what a balanced one looks like though - heroes and walls are very important.

---

balanced i mean is not engineered. it would probably be maxed now, if last fall hadn't happened and miners died, and i stopped building anything

did you work through it?
curious as to what your 3* war rate is. i'm guessing we might have a different idea of fun in that regard.
2* = fail to me, but to each their own of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobob145

balanced i mean is not engineered. it would probably be maxed now, if last fall hadn't happened and miners died, and i stopped building anything

did you work through it?
curious as to what your 3* war rate is. i'm guessing we might have a different idea of fun in that regard.
2* = fail to me, but to each their own of course.

---

If stopped playing because mass miners got the axe then yes we do... miners never died they simply received a niche role fyi. Also FYI, general consensus among elite attackers in mixed clans is that less than 80% 2 star on max 11s is a fail. If you expect to triple 11s every war with some unbalanced mass troop combination, then the game is probably not much fun right now. For most it is more fun at TH11 than it has been since release last December.

Thanks for trying to qualify, you clearly didn't bother to do your research before going down this road. 3 star hit rate for 11v10 is well above CWL standard set at 80%, I'd venture to say upwards of 95% with a good scout and close to 90% on fresh hits. 3 star hit rate 11v11 is somewhere around 25-30% in war when I get the opportunity to hit max 11s, higher for non-max. My multi hit rate in legend is much closer to 40-50% vs max 11s depending on which troops I have cooked and whether my timing is on point. I am highly knowledgeable with the skill to back it up, and hopefully when I inevitably get the troll responses I have a few friends on the forums that will back me up ;)

The issue player's like myself and other have with engineering, aside from the joker's claiming that two clans playing the same game is analogous to playing different sports while suggesting lack of perspective, is watching less skilled player's be rewarded for exploiting weaknesses in an overly accommodating system. The same player's preaching about mass dip attack strategies requiring skill and being competitive is water over the bridge.

I'll check out and back in when someone offers an alternative perspective of merit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

If stopped playing because mass miners got the axe then yes we do... miners never died they simply received a niche role fyi. Also FYI, general consensus among elite attackers in mixed clans is that less than 80% 2 star on max 11s is a fail. If you expect to triple 11s every war with some unbalanced mass troop combination, then the game is probably not much fun right now. For most it is more fun at TH11 than it has been since release last December.

Thanks for trying to qualify, you clearly didn't bother to do your research before going down this road. 3 star hit rate for 11v10 is well above CWL standard set at 80%, I'd venture to say upwards of 95% with a good scout and close to 90% on fresh hits. 3 star hit rate 11v11 is somewhere around 25-30% in war when I get the opportunity to hit max 11s, higher for non-max. My multi hit rate in legend is much closer to 40-50% vs max 11s depending on which troops I have cooked and whether my timing is on point. I am highly knowledgeable with the skill to back it up, and hopefully when I inevitably get the troll responses I have a few friends on the forums that will back me up ;)

The issue player's like myself and other have with engineering, aside from the joker's claiming that two clans playing the same game is analogous to playing different sports while suggesting lack of perspective, is watching less skilled player's be rewarded for exploiting weaknesses in an overly accommodating system. The same player's preaching about mass dip attack strategies requiring skill and being competitive is water over the bridge.

I'll check out and back in when someone offers an alternative perspective of merit.

---

i'm saying "3 star hit rate 11v11 is somewhere around 25-30% in war" to me is not fun. its probably getting closer but..
i think max offense should get way more of a chance at success.
hence i would claim my (would be) max th11 in war is not relevant.
(and i'm guessing it is that high because of the recent witch and loon buff?)

before it was... 5% ? i dunno, just totally made that up, but there are plenty of old posts around here from nov / dec about max vs max wars with 0% 3*

not sure where all the other numbers and comments came from but.. ok, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobob145

i'm saying "3 star hit rate 11v11 is somewhere around 25-30% in war" to me is not fun. its probably getting closer but..
i think max offense should get way more of a chance at success.
hence i would claim my (would be) max th11 in war is not relevant.
(and i'm guessing it is that high because of the recent witch and loon buff?)

before it was... 5% ? i dunno, just totally made that up, but there are plenty of old posts around here from nov / dec about max vs max wars with 0% 3*

not sure where all the other numbers and comments came from but.. ok, thanks.

---

Sorry man, I took the question the wrong way while responding to Rabbit-troll in a 2 for 1 message.

TH11 was tough but 11v11 triples were certainly higher than 5% for our group prior to the update. It was all about the queen walk back then, but you could also get away with split heroes and lalo on the right bases. Now there are a few options both ground and air with lalo variants being the most viable 3 star strategy with the highest opportunity for a 1-star which seems fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Sorry man, I took the question the wrong way while responding to Rabbit-troll in a 2 for 1 message.

TH11 was tough but 11v11 triples were certainly higher than 5% for our group prior to the update. It was all about the queen walk back then, but you could also get away with split heroes and lalo on the right bases. Now there are a few options both ground and air with lalo variants being the most viable 3 star strategy with the highest opportunity for a 1-star which seems fair.

---

see now this is exactly what i mean about getting folks to agree with whats fair.
check out the "whats eagle and infernos" worth thread. does anyone really agree?

3* percent on a max base is another widly debated / often disagreed topic.
i say if we want war weight equality with offense and defense, then their effects on gameplay should be equal

max offense attack vs max defense should yield 50% average success (3*)
skill pushes you up or down. neither side has a statistical advantage.

if this was true my alt would be alot less advanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

watching less skilled player's be rewarded for exploiting weaknesses in an overly accommodating system.

---

That's the problem in a nutshell. We just lost to a clan that is somewhat engineered with 9.5s (as are we at this point), but they managed to 3 star our full TH10s, while we had multiple fails on their 9.5s. The better clan won, imo. That's not the same thing as losing to a clan with wardens lurking behind low defenses. In hindsight, I think the warden was a poorly conceived unit & is incredibly underweighted.

SC is juggling a lot of variables since introducing TH11 & they haven't worked out how to appropriately weigh bases for MM. The fact that the MM algorithm is flawed & places too much emphasis on finding a match for clans running very atypical lineups doesn't help. The March 2016 update put a lot of clans on a path of lopsiding for easy matchups. They need to come down hard with a MM system that gives clans running a series of reasonably balanced THs preference, unless they truly think engineering is a valid play style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

They need to come down hard with a MM system that gives clans running a series of reasonably balanced THs preference, unless they truly think engineering is a valid play style.

---

As a player, I'd prefer not to see a hard crackdown on the engineering style of play because I don't want to see these players and clans stop playing. Instead, adding a new mode of game play focused on competition with parity (much like the clan leagues which have been very well received in general) placing emphasis on a common roster/upgrade with appropriate in-game incentives would be much better. At this point in the game, clan wars can become a casual gameplay mode, as they pretty much already are, and those who choose to exploit the system can be considered casual players while they do their thing, which is perfectly reasonable and fair. However, many of these groups will transition over time so long as the rewards system is lucrative enough.

Just a thought. This would be my business decision based on stated design philosophies and how well received clan league play has been. If a group of people can set these up and run them, it can be automated. Any system will not be perfect, but this would be a significant improvement on what we currently have...

If every war in one month felt the way Pot Luck wars feel, the community in general would be much happier. Our group experiences a fair war maybe one out of every 4-5 farm wars we spin with significant advantages existing for one side or the other. It's difficult to take the outcome of these wars seriously given this, but we have to spin or our team won't be as sharp for the fun wars, like Pot Luck and arranged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Just a thought. This would be my business decision based on stated design philosophies and how well received clan league play has been. If a group of people can set these up and run them, it can be automated. Any system will not be perfect, but this would be a significant improvement on what we currently have...

---

Strictly making educated guesses here- one would have to suspect that this massive update, this update that is going to be diffferent than any other update we've seen...is going to incorporate some type of league or tournament style regarding the war aspect of Clash.

A new TH level has been ruled out- so really what else out there could be on any grandiose scale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

Strictly making educated guesses here- one would have to suspect that this massive update, this update that is going to be diffferent than any other update we've seen...is going to incorporate some type of league or tournament style regarding the war aspect of Clash.

---

Thats the hope!

Hype from prominent members of the CWL community also back this educated guess.

Nah think I figured it out in another thread. Due to complaints about roster engineering and defenseless accounts at the bottom of the roster, SC will be reducing war sizes by 2.
OK lets be cautiously optimistic. But cautiously, remember the 'league bonus increase' they pitched a long time ago. Turned out, due to adding scaling based on destruction percentage, it was generally a decrease, but oh how they hyped it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

the 'league bonus increase' they pitched a long time ago. Turned out, due to adding scaling based on destruction percentage, it was generally a decrease, but oh how they hyped it up.

---

One of the single most irritating game "improvements" we have seen since release, but yes the hype was real and point well taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

If every war in one month felt the way Pot Luck wars feel, the community in general would be much happier. Our group experiences a fair war maybe one out of every 4-5 farm wars we spin with significant advantages existing for one side or the other. It's difficult to take the outcome of these wars seriously given this, but we have to spin or our team won't be as sharp for the fun wars, like Pot Luck and arranged.

---

A big question is, if they introduce some sort of new 'Tournament Mode', will it offer bonuses & clan XP the way wars do? That's a big part of the incentive for many clans, otherwise a lot more clans would be doing arranged wars.

If people want to do defenseless & other unconventional upgrade strategies for the fun of it, fine. But, to fix random spins, they need to encourage people who upgrade more or less in conventional order to want to be in wars. We've gone over the numbers enough to realize that a big part of the problem is that more & more clans are using lopsided in on form or another. It's already reaching the point where clans that want to do random spins assume they can't just throw in a lineup of well rounded bases & expect to regularly get fair wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Nah think I figured it out in another thread. Due to complaints about roster engineering and defenseless accounts at the bottom of the roster, SC will be reducing war sizes by 2.
OK lets be cautiously optimistic. But cautiously, remember the 'league bonus increase' they pitched a long time ago. Turned out, due to adding scaling based on destruction percentage, it was generally a decrease, but oh how they hyped it up.

---

It's kind of sad that SC has managed to bring there credibility down to the point where this seems plausible. Some people here who's opinions I respect, went to Finland & say it is amazing. Fingers crossed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

As a player, I'd prefer not to see a hard crackdown on the engineering style of play because I don't want to see these players and clans stop playing. Instead, adding a new mode of game play focused on competition with parity (much like the clan leagues which have been very well received in general) placing emphasis on a common roster/upgrade with appropriate in-game incentives would be much better. At this point in the game, clan wars can become a casual gameplay mode, as they pretty much already are, and those who choose to exploit the system can be considered casual players while they do their thing, which is perfectly reasonable and fair. However, many of these groups will transition over time so long as the rewards system is lucrative enough.

Just a thought. This would be my business decision based on stated design philosophies and how well received clan league play has been. If a group of people can set these up and run them, it can be automated. Any system will not be perfect, but this would be a significant improvement on what we currently have...

If every war in one month felt the way Pot Luck wars feel, the community in general would be much happier. Our group experiences a fair war maybe one out of every 4-5 farm wars we spin with significant advantages existing for one side or the other. It's difficult to take the outcome of these wars seriously given this, but we have to spin or our team won't be as sharp for the fun wars, like Pot Luck and arranged.

---

I feel the same way about realigning war matchmaking. I don't want to see engineers wrecked in a re-balancing as it could cost a lot of players, but at the same time I long for balanced matches like you see in well planned arranged wars like the Forum Cup. Here is hoping that SC has something huge up its collective sleeves that delights people in both camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

Strictly making educated guesses here- one would have to suspect that this massive update, this update that is going to be diffferent than any other update we've seen...is going to incorporate some type of league or tournament style regarding the war aspect of Clash.

A new TH level has been ruled out- so really what else out there could be on any grandiose scale?

---

If you are right, I will take credit for the idea (though SC already would of been working on it before I put it in the suggestions and features forum). Still there has to be some kind of credit for predicting the path of clan wars. I really hope so.

If they did clan leagues, you can bet clans would shift/modify their villages to get an acceptable structure to compete. It will be even better if they sort clans into higher and lower leagues so that you are always matched with a clan with similar skill level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

Strictly making educated guesses here- one would have to suspect that this massive update, this update that is going to be diffferent than any other update we've seen...is going to incorporate some type of league or tournament style regarding the war aspect of Clash.

A new TH level has been ruled out- so really what else out there could be on any grandiose scale?

---

Making predictions is always difficult, especially about the future. But my prediction would be a new game mode, especially something that requires clan cooperation or similar, rather than this.

I think it would be harder to call a clan war tournament bigger than war itself. Also I think I recall someone posting a quote of one of the mods/youtubers rowing back on the hype just a little and saying that "some players will prefer war still" - as if it's an alternative, not an extension

I also think a clan war tournament by SC would require some drastic conceptual changes to the game. CWL works because all the clans buy/recruit accounts upgraded to the limit of the allowed b/d. Events like the forum cup no-dip worked because the organisers could assemble the clans so they matched (and just leave out all the engineered etc accounts that didn't match well). A tournament for existing clans has serious problems with matching, that will make the current MM look like perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

I also think a clan war tournament by SC would require some drastic conceptual changes to the game.

---

It would require transparent design choices in line with SC's core design values and public statements and that the game mode provide the players and clans incentive to follow the bread crumbs.

Ideally, such a system would leave clan wars as a casual alternative but reward players who participate in game play which is in line with said design values. This leads to standardization of rosters, greater search pools within the tournament/league structure, and an environment which clearly defines competitive play. The first 2 are necessary and lead to exactly the opposite of what you suggest since roster restrictions would ideally make it impossible for engineered accounts to participate in an exploitable roster slot until these accounts have upgrades which are in line with clearly stated design choices for this game mode. It is quite simple really and requires no magic or radical changes to concepts. In fact, the current algorithm has proven sufficient to match clans who already participate in this style of game play every time clans spin for Pot Luck. Fortunate for SC they have a template which has been very well received by the community to build from.

Is this what we will be provided in the update? Unlikely, but a step in this direction would be promising.

When starting a war search, I think there should be two available options:
a) Attack Twice and Defend Once
or
b) Attack Twice and Defend Twice

Anybody who likes the status quo can choose #1 (Eg: engineered/lopsided clans). Anybody who is tired of strong offense overwhelming weak defense can choose #2 (Eg: non-engineered/balanced clans). Both styles of play would be officially sanctioned and encouraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COCsuggester

When starting a war search, I think there should be two available options:
a) Attack Twice and Defend Once
or
b) Attack Twice and Defend Twice

Anybody who likes the status quo can choose #1 (Eg: engineered/lopsided clans). Anybody who is tired of strong offense overwhelming weak defense can choose #2 (Eg: non-engineered/balanced clans). Both styles of play would be officially sanctioned and encouraged.

---

I'm no sure how this would work... If you attack twice how do you only defend once? If it's 10 v 10 then that means 20 attacks but only 10 bases to defend.... You lost me.

And why wouldn't engineers choose whatever variation they think they have the better chance of a lopsided war with? That's why they are engineered in the first place. To get a cheap advantage.

Only a small % of the player base is 100% maxed at a specific town hall. If there is a league ranking systems all of these elite rosters will be pushed into higher leagues and face each other. There will be plenty of non maxed rosters in the lower leagues to match for fierce competition. Probably bigger pools in the lower leagues compared to the top leagues. And skill levels will be on par which is a far closer match then what you can currently get. You could match a cwl clan currently.

At least in the system, the worst attackers in the world would be matched against the 2nd worst attackers in the world. At some point when player skills drop to a certain level, it no longer matters if their base is maxed or not. So in the lower leagues it shouldn't matter even if you not maxed roster meets a maxed roster (which would be rare).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo

I'm no sure how this would work... If you attack twice how do you only defend once? If it's 10 v 10 then that means 20 attacks but only 10 bases to defend.... You lost me.

---

When someone starts a clan war, they could choose choose from 2 different types of war:

a) "Attack twice and defend once" war. This of course is how clan wars currently behave, where each player can gain 6 stars attacking but only give up 3 stars defending. For example in a 20x20 war, the maximum number of stars is 60. Because of the unbalanced point system, players at the top are more important than players at the bottom, wars are usually decided at the top, and engineered clans thrive.

or

b) "Attack twice and defend twice" war. Each player could gain 6 stars attacking and could lose 6 stars defending. For example in a 20x20 war, the maximum number of stars would be 120. Using this point system, every attack (and thus every defense) would matter. Players at the bottom would gain importance, and I believe balanced bases/clans would thrive. Skillful attacking against your mirror would be rewarded.

This would allow everyone to play the game however they want. Engineered clans would probably continue to start "attack twice and defend once" wars, and balanced clans would probably start "attack twice and defend twice" wars.

For an "Attack twice and defend twice" war, on the "Defenses" tab you would see 2 defenses per base (similar to how the "Attacks" tab currently shows 2 attacks per player). Each base would show "Defense 1" and "Defense 2", with up to 3 stars per defense.

The same war base would be used for both "Defense 1" and "Defense 2".

Cleanup attacks would still be possible. Getting 0 stars (or even 1 star) would be very bad, because doing a cleanup attack would mean you're giving up 3 stars somewhere else.

[QUOTE=COCsuggester;10054661][FONT=arial]When someone starts a clan war, they could choose choose from 2 different types of war:

QUOTE]

If one of the major problems with the matchmaker is the small size of the pool, as many think it is, splitting the pool further won't help.

[QUOTE=If one of the major problems with the matchmaker is the small size of the pool, as many think it is, splitting the pool further won't help.[/QUOTE]

I am guessing (hoping) that a positive change of this magnitude would reinvigorate clan wars and therefore more clans would start warring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COCsuggester

I am guessing (hoping) that a positive change of this magnitude would reinvigorate clan wars and therefore more clans would start warring.

---

Doubtful, and even then you'd need to double the number of clans at least to arrive at the same size pools as we have now. I don't believe the solution lays where you suggest in setting up a dual system. If they were to change it (and I don't think they should personally) then it would better to change it for all with no second option. so, for example, change it so everyone has just one attack and one defence. But that idea has problems, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

Doubtful, and even then you'd need to double the number of clans at least to arrive at the same size pools as we have now. I don't believe the solution lays where you suggest in setting up a dual system. If they were to change it (and I don't think they should personally) then it would better to change it for all with no second option. so, for example, change it so everyone has just one attack and one defence. But that idea has problems, of course.

---

Agree, or go with a suggestion by Tank in another thread (I think) in which you essentially abolish the current war weight system and just go with your bases "as is," getting matched by the number of bases you bring and not total weight. Would lend itself to a league system and be somewhat similar to what we have in multiplayer mode. There would be some limits, like we have in multiplayer mode, in that a clan of all TH11/10ss would most likely not match with a clan that wars with all TH9s/8s, unless that clan of TH9s/8s starts moving up in leagues, which would increase the chances of encountering higher TH levels.

[Apologies Tank if I'm misrepresenting your idea all together--regardless, I kind of liked it].

Would abolish engineering and be something everyone can easily understand, and would also be a game changer imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

Agree, or go with a suggestion by Tank in another thread (I think) in which you essentially abolish the current war weight system and just go with your bases "as is," getting matched by the number of bases you bring and not total weight. Would lend itself to a league system and be somewhat similar to what we have in multiplayer mode. There would be some limits, like we have in multiplayer mode, in that a clan of all TH11/10ss would most likely not match with a clan that wars with all TH9s/8s, unless that clan of TH9s/8s starts moving up in leagues, which would increase the chances of encountering higher TH levels.

[Apologies Tank if I'm misrepresenting your idea all together--regardless, I kind of liked it].

Would abolish engineering and be something everyone can easily understand, and would also be a game changer imo.

---

Doubt that came from me, though I can't say for sure as I drink a lot. Wouldn't that system lead to wars being won 99% based on luck of the draw? The weight system is flawed, but I think a no weight system would make it look very good in comparison.

Wondering if we see a th-based league system though, as some have speculated. Would make maxxed accounts the new optimized engineers within that subculture, non-maxed/less-competitive clans would still have the regular matchmaker. I'd use it only occasionally (my clan couldn't hack it but I might take an account elsewhere on occasion to piggyback in), but lots of posters here would love it.
Weaknesses would be further fractioning the war pool, though this can be mitigated by making it once a week. Bigger issue might be, encourages permabasing. Permabases spend no gems, and therefore aren't "playing the way the game was intended to be played" (tm).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Doubt that came from me, though I can't say for sure as I drink a lot. Wouldn't that system lead to wars being won 99% based on luck of the draw? The weight system is flawed, but I think a no weight system would make it look very good in comparison.

Wondering if we see a th-based league system though, as some have speculated. Would make maxxed accounts the new optimized engineers within that subculture, non-maxed/less-competitive clans would still have the regular matchmaker. I'd use it only occasionally (my clan couldn't hack it but I might take an account elsewhere on occasion to piggyback in), but lots of posters here would love it.
Weaknesses would be further fractioning the war pool, though this can be mitigated by making it once a week. Bigger issue might be, encourages permabasing. Permabases spend no gems, and therefore aren't "playing the way the game was intended to be played" (tm).

---

"...though I can't say for sure as I drink a lot." Ha!!!

Possibly...it would need to be fleshed out, but I don't think it would mean perma-base maxed accounts would be the ideal. It would be based on what league you are in for the most part. So to stay in a lower league, you would have to lose, or "drop trophies." Not so simple as dropping one barbarian or a hero and surrendering. You'd have to wait 47 hours before losing again.

I know there are probably other problems with this proposed system, but it would be closer to having the outcome determined by skill and base design vice that plus war weight / roster engineering.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

"...though I can't say for sure as I drink a lot." Ha!!!

Possibly...it would need to be fleshed out, but I don't think it would mean perma-base maxed accounts would be the ideal. It would be based on what league you are in for the most part. So to stay in a lower league, you would have to lose, or "drop trophies." Not so simple as dropping one barbarian or a hero and surrendering. You'd have to wait 47 hours before losing again.

I know there are probably other problems with this proposed system, but it would be closer to having the outcome determined by skill and base design vice that plus war weight / roster engineering.

Just a thought.

---

You are right and I don't understand while people cannot see this point. I say this almost every time this idea presents itself. Only the upper leagues will have 100% maxed rosters. If you see a 100% max roster in a lower league, it means they intentionally lost to get easier matches (who would do that though?). Or, they are bad attackers. In which case they can't use what they have so they may as well be considered not maxed.

My family clan will be competing, and outside of our #1 guy nobody is really maxed for their town hall level. Sure we may not be competing in the top league, but we will be in one that suits our skill levels. There will be plenty of clans going forward with non maxed villages.

As far as reducing the pool size. That, will only hurt those that are dependent on engineering and want to stay locked into the old system. Let them have their impossible to balance wars! If they are getting mis-matches they can either double down on their engineering efforts or balance their bases enough to not be at a big disadvantage in the league system.

Further, the league system will increase the pool size. Think of all the clans that have stopped warring due to the ridiculous current matches green lighted by the MM pitting 3 th11's against 12! Those clans will all jump back on board the war train and most likely go into the league system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

You are right and I don't understand while people cannot see this point. I say this almost every time this idea presents itself. Only the upper leagues will have 100% maxed rosters. If you see a 100% max roster in a lower league, it means they intentionally lost to get easier matches (who would do that though?). Or, they are bad attackers. In which case they can't use what they have so they may as well be considered not maxed.

My family clan will be competing, and outside of our #1 guy nobody is really maxed for their town hall level. Sure we may not be competing in the top league, but we will be in one that suits our skill levels. There will be plenty of clans going forward with non maxed villages.

As far as reducing the pool size. That, will only hurt those that are dependent on engineering and want to stay locked into the old system. Let them have their impossible to balance wars! If they are getting mis-matches they can either double down on their engineering efforts or balance their bases enough to not be at a big disadvantage in the league system.

Further, the league system will increase the pool size. Think of all the clans that have stopped warring due to the ridiculous current matches green lighted by the MM pitting 3 th11's against 12! Those clans will all jump back on board the war train and most likely go into the league system.

---

Wouldn't the pools and leagues have to be predetermined by roster with ranking occurring within the leagues for this to work? Any other system excludes some important pieces of the community.

Example:

Legend league: full TH11 roster with set war size
Titan League: set number of TH11s and 10s
Champion League: mixed war clans TH9-11 with set division
...
All the way down to TH6-8 for instance, all with set rosters and probably required member sharing between clans to make a weekly or twice-a-weekly roster for instance.

Details are glossed over of course, but the only way a game mode like this works if through divisions within divisions to be inclusive and cyclic play so that clans matched based on seasonal record comparison and overall weight or something similar.

Easy to code and easy to implement with many clans outside of max 11 clans, who have nothing really to gain from such a system as far as MM is concerned, joining leagues and buying in.

As far as encouraging maxer upgrade path, from my experience you won't find many players with access to only one account willing to sit on a max TH level and not move. These are usually alternate accounts and I have covered why this is preferable to grinding upgrades across 3, 4, 5+ accounts.

I agree with Storm and Johnny that a system like this is ONLY a positive step forward for competitive play. However, we differ on what successful implementation would look like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

I agree with Storm and Johnny that a system like this is ONLY a positive step forward for competitive play. However, we differ on what successful implementation would look like.

---

In my world, the each league would be host to any clan no matter the roster as long as their trophies are high enough to be in that league. Clans would win and loose trophies from each other based on the outcome of the war. Just like the single player system of gaining and loosing trophies for winning and loosing. So under this system, clans would be sorted into skill levels matching each other or really close and similar rosters.

In order to speed up the process, they could initially place clans in their leagues based on war record and start the filtering process from there. Eventually everybody will end up in a competitive league of equal bases and attack skills. Incentive for moving into higher leagues will be increased war spoils and maybe even gems distributed to the top 3 clans in the top 3 leagues. More gems per league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

In my world, the each league would be host to any clan no matter the roster as long as their trophies are high enough to be in that league. Clans would win and loose trophies from each other based on the outcome of the war. Just like the single player system of gaining and loosing trophies for winning and loosing. So under this system, clans would be sorted into skill levels matching each other or really close and similar rosters.

In order to speed up the process, they could initially place clans in their leagues based on war record and start the filtering process from there. Eventually everybody will end up in a competitive league of equal bases and attack skills. Incentive for moving into higher leagues will be increased war spoils and maybe even gems distributed to the top 3 clans in the top 3 leagues. More gems per league.

---

This is interesting but does not fix issues with the loose definitions of competitive play and variety in roster construction that MM struggles to fairly accommodate. Instead we are building a new system on the backbone of a system which is known to be fairly broken, and will lead to more (the same) complaints and resentment: think of the TH10s up in legend practicing war attacks and how unfairly the trophy systems handles them, now extend this to groups of 40 or 50 people. How does this group react when they perform well and eventually face an unwinnable matchup? This type of clan league system simply adds another meaningless parameter to MM and muddies the waters similar to what inclusion of win-streak/win-rate has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

This is interesting but does not fix issues with the loose definitions of competitive play and variety in roster construction that MM struggles to fairly accommodate. Instead we are building a new system on the backbone of a system which is known to be fairly broken, and will lead to more (the same) complaints and resentment: think of the TH10s up in legend practicing war attacks and how unfairly the trophy systems handles them, now extend this to groups of 40 or 50 people. How does this group react when they perform well and eventually face an unwinnable matchup? This type of clan league system simply adds another meaningless parameter to MM and muddies the waters similar to what inclusion of win-streak/win-rate has done.

---

I can see your point, but I think you are assuming that people cannot improve. In my experience, the tougher the competition the better you get. Especially if you learn from your opposition. If you lock a clan into their current abilities, of course they can only get so far. But, by getting better or even closer to max, they can move up in the leagues. They are not locked into to the bottom leagues forever.

Well, as you said a lot of the minor details are glossed over as it is really just our job to put the idea out. There are people that get paid to fine tune these things. For instance, SC and their data source can determine the most common rosters for roster break downs. There wouldn't be a 1 roster fits all. There could be multiple types of rosters, but in the effort of keeping the pool in each league as large as possible, they will have to limit some.

My estimate is that the lower league pools will be much larger then the upper league pools. But it shouldn't matter too much as the rosters will be much more well defined by that point. And as you said, I'm sure there will be clans advertising for certain player/town hall levels to be filled. Players will jump around to find their place. If a clan has too many th10's for their roster, as you said they can find another clan and share players.

My main goal with this suggestion was to guarantee similar rosters where each side has a chance to win as well as filter clans into skill levels. This way you wont have a CWL hardened clan matching a mom and pop clan.

There are many details to be worked out. I'm sure this is not a perfect system. But, its hands down better then the current one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

I can see your point, but I think you are assuming that people cannot improve.

---

My only assumption is that competition must begin with parity, or something close to it, for any league system to provide a meaningful indication of relative skill level and a functional ranking system.

As for learning from tougher competition - this is true, but I can promise that our group will not improve from our current war where TH11 count is 16 to 6 in a 25v war- the opposing clan is on an 88 win streak and can simply play looser and take more risks with no downside. One could conclude that if we want to be "better" we should have our 9s all skip to TH11 and upgrade heroes to 40/40/20 while focusing on walls, add multiple max offense defenseless at the bottom, and eventually run a variety of TH11s with max walls that look very much like 10.5, 10, 9.5, 8.5s, ..., all the way down to defenseless. Here "better" can only be defined as win-more as it requires almost no skill, strategy, and attention to detail for these 32 TH11 attacks alone to clear 25 bases including 12 TH10+ if we include the other 9 accounts on the roster which provide additional wiggle room. Match-ups like this are a waste of time and should not create a barrier in a new league based system as a result of good performance.

Since your system would not do away with clans like this in a new game mode, it is as broken as the current system and provides almost no value to clans interested in parity and victory through strategy and skill, NOT ASSETS and manipulation of a broken system.

A system rigidly defining roster constraints split into multiple leagues to accommodate as many interested clans as possible, each league having ranking within separate from the others, is far superior - and may only exist at Dream St on Lollipop Island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

My only assumption is that competition must begin with parity, or something close to it, for any league system to provide a meaningful indication of relative skill level.

As for learning from tougher competition - this is true, but I can promise that our group will not improve from our current war where TH11 count is 16 to 6 in a 25v war- the opposing clan is on an 88 win streak and can simply play looser and take more risks with no downside. One could conclude that if we want to be "better" we should have our 9s all skip to TH11 and upgrade heroes to 40/40/20 while focusing on walls, add multiple max offense defenseless at the bottom, and eventually run a variety of TH11s with max walls that look very much like 10.5, 10, 9.5, 8.5s, ..., all the way down to defenseless. Here "better" can only be defined as win-more as it requires almost no skill, strategy, and attention to detail for these 32 TH11 attacks alone to clear 25 bases including 12 TH10+ if we include the other 9 accounts on the roster which provide additional wiggle room. Match-ups like this are a waste of time and should not create a barrier in a new league based system as a result of good performance.

Since your system would not do away with clans like this in a new game mode, it is as broken as the current system and provides almost no value to clans interested in parity and victory through strategy and skill, NOT ASSETS and manipulation of a broken system.

A system rigidly defining roster constraints split into multiple leagues to accommodate as many interested clans as possible, each league having ranking within separate from the others, is far superior - and may only exist at Dream St on Lollipop Island.

---

Actually it would. You would never see accounts like that in my system. There are designated slots for each town hall in order of town hall. So 3 th11 slots will be filled by 3 th11's no matter their offense or defense levels. So if a clan wants to bring a defenseless town hall 11 in one of their slots, they can. But, it would be matched with what ever th11 the opposing clans brings for that slot. You could place a lower town hall into a higher town hall slot (a th10 instead of a th11 in a th11 slot), but not the other way around.

So in this system any sort of defenseless imbalance is gone. Sure there would be a slight disadvantage of maxed 11 vs mid 11, but that is a much more workable situation then what you described in your previous post. And that disadvantage most likely won't exist in the lower leagues as those rosters would be less likely to me totally maxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

Actually it would. You would never see accounts like that in my system. There are designated slots for each town hall in order of town hall. So 3 th11 slots will be filled by 3 th11's no matter their offense or defense levels. So if a clan wants to bring a defenseless town hall 11 in one of their slots, they can. But, it would be matched with what ever th11 the opposing clans brings for that slot. You could place a lower town hall into a higher town hall slot (a th10 instead of a th11 in a th11 slot), but not the other way around.

So in this system any sort of defenseless imbalance is gone. Sure there would be a slight disadvantage of maxed 11 vs mid 11, but that is a much more workable situation then what you described in your previous post. And that disadvantage most likely won't exist in the lower leagues as those rosters would be less likely to me totally maxed.

---

Perfect. We are speaking the same language, I just missed the key TH slot bit.

With a large enough pool of clans fully max vs fully mid level would rarely occur with MM handling most of that. If season record were to be included in match criteria (which is reasonable), this could occur somewhat more frequently and provide a clear but surmountable advantage. Surely, nothing like what I described.

Update please give us something like this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Perfect. We are speaking the same language, I just missed the key TH slot bit.

With a large enough pool of clans fully max vs fully mid level would rarely occur with MM handling most of that. If season record were to be included in match criteria (which is reasonable), this could occur somewhat more frequently and provide a clear but surmountable advantage. Surely, nothing like what I described.

Update please give us something like this!

---

The final small detail is that record won't have anything to do with the who goes in what league. It will be just like single player mode. Clans will have clan war trophies, if you win you take trophies from the other clan. Certain trophy ranges will represent respective leagues. This was the factor that would also sort clans into leagues based on skill levels. Everybody gets a similar war of villages and skill level once they settle into their respective leagues. And, needless to say the war spoils will be better in each higher league. This will give clans both the ability to move up and incentive to get better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

The final small detail is that record won't have anything to do with the who goes in what league. It will be just like single player mode. Clans will have clan war trophies, if you win you take trophies from the other clan. Certain trophy ranges will represent respective leagues. This was the factor that would also sort clans into leagues based on skill levels. Everybody gets a similar war of villages and skill level once they settle into their respective leagues. And, needless to say the war spoils will be better in each higher league. This will give clans both the ability to move up and incentive to get better.

---

I like it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

The final small detail is that record won't have anything to do with the who goes in what league. It will be just like single player mode. Clans will have clan war trophies, if you win you take trophies from the other clan. Certain trophy ranges will represent respective leagues. This was the factor that would also sort clans into leagues based on skill levels. Everybody gets a similar war of villages and skill level once they settle into their respective leagues.

---

Ah I see the difference that I was stuck on more clearly now. Leagues do have to separate into different clan war roster slots in order to make the game mode more accessible to many groups for it to be successful implementation. Current CWL like BD would represent only one such league. Within league, clans would pair based on record in a tournament style system to better sort out ranking to support an incentive system.

I covered this in more detail a few pages back, but in general its a great idea and good for the game. It simply needs to be as inclusive as possible from a design standpoint to avoid having the business implementation flop.

Maybe leagues don't separate but some way of separate say max 11 clan rosters from TH9-11 rosters must exist then skill is determined by record as the season progresses as their is no other systematic way to measure this fairly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CasimirEffect

Maybe leagues don't separate but some way of separate say max 11 clan rosters from TH9-11 rosters must exist then skill is determined by record as the season progresses as their is no other systematic way to measure this fairly.

---

Out of curiosity whats wrong with a trophy ladder system? Also, Each league would have a set of given roster types. For example, each league could have the following Rosters:

All 11
All 10
All 9
All 8

Mixed Rosters:

3-11|5-10|12-9
5-10|10-9|5-8
........

Obviously there is some sort of balance that needs to be established so as not to make to many roster variations and make the pools to small for each league. But, really with it being as balanced as it is you don't need huge pools to choose from as the clans are already very similar to start with. SC has the data to easily figure out which rosters would include the greatest population of clans. There would would be some need for clans to conform to the roster selection, but it shouldn't be a big deal for most of them. And I think the reward for warring in a very balanced atmosphere would be well worth the effort.

Win streak would become completely irrelevant because clans will be looking to collect the most trophies and be on top of the ladder. Nobody will care about win streaks anymore. Just trophies. Plus, there will be no large win streaks anymore. The more you win the higher the league you get pushed into. Competition though balanced will still be much more fierce. You won't be able to keep dominating clans that have no change to compete with you.

This will also shift the focus away from win streaks, which is what is driving most of the problems we are seeing today in clan wars. Clans can totally manipulate the system into constantly giving them squishy match ups to keep that streak alive. In this system they will eventually hit a brick wall or become the best of the best. No if's and's or but's about it.

Oh and, at the end of each season, the top 3 clans in the top league could receive a set amount of gems. Just like in single player mode.

sounds good unless there is anyway it encourages permabasing (at anything lower than 11 of course!)

i think sc's business decisions will punish that as much as they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobob145

sounds good unless there is anyway it encourages permabasing (at anything lower than 11 of course!)

i think sc's business decisions will punish that as much as they can.

---

Permabasing is a hard topic. I personally want to get to th11 eventually. I am already getting bored of the th9 arena. I for the most part feel I have mastered it. My experience range at that level is extensive though. I honestly have more fun trying th10's good or bad then tripling a th9. Some people may just like th9 because that is what they are good at. And, they are going to stay there no matter what.

In reality, going to 10 from max 9, its like 2 weeks worth of upgrades (camps/spell factory/cc) before you can become effective at the th10 level. That is not a huge time sync to have potentially sit our of wars.

The activeness of the clan is very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

Out of curiosity whats wrong with a trophy ladder system?

---

If we get anything close to this in the update, minor details aside, the game will be MUCH improved!

We differ slightly on how we would implement, but that matters very little. What is important is balanced rosters no longer match clans like KingoftheDot in handicap matches within a new game mode.

In a world where parity exists in a clan war environment we can accept that, win or lose, the clan that won was better on that day, the culture will shift and everyone will be better able to focus on truly competing and game play. Here game play refers to attack strategy and base building, not manipulating MM through upgrades and roster composition.

If a ladder system would be in place, wouldn't it mean that you will be matched up with the same bunch of clans over and over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

If a ladder system would be in place, wouldn't it mean that you will be matched up with the same bunch of clans over and over?

---

Technically you could match the same clan again if they remain in the same league. But who doesn't want a rematch? It would probably be a pretty small change though.

Though, in the gigantic world of clans to match too, a while back we randomly matched with a clan that had beat us a couple months prior! They beat us again lol. Wasn't surprising as their first victory was by like 8 stars. So even in the current system you can match a clan you already faced.

Another issue I have with the ladder idea is that it would be a restrictive solution in my opinion. Let me explain what I mean:
It would be punishing players that want to opt out for any reason. If one or more of the top players in the clan are opted out, your clan will bound to be loose wars until the top players are opted in again. Or if your clan has lost so many times the clan can manage without the top players. That will work one time but soon whole clans would not war without their top players opted in.

So.... the ladder should be adjustable to the players you have in war, and then we have the current system :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

Another issue I have with the ladder idea is that it would be a restrictive solution in my opinion. Let me explain what I mean:
It would be punishing players that want to opt out for any reason. If one or more of the top players in the clan are opted out, your clan will bound to be loose wars until the top players are opted in again. Or if your clan has lost so many times the clan can manage without the top players. That will work one time but soon whole clans would not war without their top players opted in.

So.... the ladder should be adjustable to the players you have in war, and then we have the current system :rolleyes:

---

yeah i dont understand that part either unless i missed something.
it would work great for permabasing, (and sc hates that) or max 11

you have to fill the roster requirements somehow (and if you arent maxed in that th you are handicapping yourself)?

say you are in the all th9 roster for example, and kicking ***, as soon as some of your guys wanna go to th 10, are you s-o-l?

now you have to fill a roster for a mixed th10/th9 league, but they are brand new 10's and a big handicap.

seems like you still need some sort of weighting system?

As I see it, all the efforts on creating a "fair" system are not going to prevent people from circumventing the system. And that might not necessarily be a bad thing. However generally speaking it would make sense if the mm system took offense and skill more into account then it does now.