My pro-engineering opinions

If you want to win in this game you want to give yourself the best chance to do so. you upgrade your troops and heroes in order to have stronger attacks. You practice your attack strategy in order to hone your skills. Why is there such a fuss when people upgrade their bases strategically in order to have an offense stronger than their defense? There is nothing unfair about any of these things. All of them are ways to help you and your clan win and retain win streaks, which i personally consider the objective of the game.

However, this topic is very polarized so i want to present both sides accurately.

The people who don't want to see people with stronger offense than defense think that its unfair, for whatever reason, fairness is what this boils down to. To them, its a unjust advantage. To them engineering is not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. The problem with this thinking is that they assume that it is necessary, or required, to be moral and act fairly and that just isn't the case. To quote the age old adage "All is fair in love and war". While this is a game, not real life, these people have to prove that even though its called war in the game its not actually war, where those who oppose these people consider CoC war equitable to war in real life.

In addition to that "fairness" is a highly subjective term and is can be a goalpost that can be moved at any point. Anyone can call something unfair and be correct in their description. "Life is unfair." But just using the term and being correct in its usage isn't enough to warrant an action to 'correct the unfairness" that is inflicted upon them even if it was able to make war just for some people, there will always be others where it will not. These people want war to be fair, but you can't make everyone happy.

Everyone has the same fairness in the opportunity to engineer, that is undeniable. Many people have been doing this so it had become normalized.

Engineering is just another strategy that people use in war, no different than tailoring an attack to exploit a weakness in the design of a base. It is legal, and fair and those who think otherwise are wrong.

OP, welcome to the forum. You seem to have a good grasp of this issue since you already know it's a polarizing topic. Not sure what you're trying to get out of this post, but I think it may turn toxic based on your subject line.

I engineer, and I believe it's sandbagging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

I do it for the sole purpose of manipulating the war mm to get an advantageous match up. It's not strategy imo, just gaming the system.

Here are some other good discussions that touch on the issue you bring up:

Billius discussion on the impact of Engineered clans and bases to the game
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...-and-Farm-Wars

Onyx view on Engineering
https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...84#post9272584

Seachicken view on Engineering
https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...53#post9304253

1000% Agree

This is a topic that is beaten to death on the forum, this post doesn't bring anything positive , just another viewpoint, which will turn into flaming and such.

I would suggest to post your opinion in the other 100's on this topic

Legal? Yes. Ethical? Probably not.

I think this post is much better now with the *edit*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitanToad

I think this post is much better now with the *edit*

---

Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitanToad

I think this post is much better now with the *edit*

---

I would suggest another edit-Can this be said in 100 words or less?

As it is now, everybody will read a paragraph or two and then flame away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

I engineer, and I believe it's sandbagging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

---

I don't think "sandbagging" is the correct term to describe engineering. Engineers aren't misrepresenting their strengths/weights. They aren't pretending that they don't have ITs or EAs...they actually don't have them. Engineers tend to think those items are overvalued by the war matchmaker.

Engineering is the practice of identifying the items that are overvalued or undervalued by the matchmaker. Engineers focus on placing and upgrading undervalued items, while avoiding the overvalued ones.

Engineering is more akin to "Sabermetrics" than to "Sandbagging".

See Also: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

I don't think "sandbagging" is the correct term to describe engineering. Engineers aren't misrepresenting their strengths/weights. They aren't pretending that they don't have ITs or EAs...they actually don't have them. Engineers tend to think those items are overvalued by the war matchmaker.

Engineering is the practice of identifying the items that are overvalued or undervalued by the matchmaker. Engineers focus on placing and upgrading undervalued items, while avoiding the overvalued ones.

Engineering is more akin to "Sabermetrics" than to "Sandbagging".

See Also: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game

---

Interesting point of view, but I disagree. I call what I'm doing sandbagging, but to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

I don't think "sandbagging" is the correct term to describe engineering. Engineers aren't misrepresenting their strengths/weights. They aren't pretending that they don't have ITs or EAs...they actually don't have them. Engineers tend to think those items are overvalued by the war matchmaker.

Engineering is the practice of identifying the items that are overvalued or undervalued by the matchmaker. Engineers focus on placing and upgrading undervalued items, while avoiding the overvalued ones.

Engineering is more akin to "Sabermetrics" than to "Sandbagging".

See Also: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game

---

True, sandbagging involves intentionally losing in order to line up weak opponents in a game that involves some kind of ELO system, like chess. Or lying about your win record, like in golf. So dropping trophies can fairly be called sandbagging, but engineering shouldn't be.

This is all perpendicular to the questions of, to what extent is engineering a problem, what should be done, fix the MM, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

I don't think "sandbagging" is the correct term to describe engineering. Engineers aren't misrepresenting their strengths/weights. They aren't pretending that they don't have ITs or EAs...they actually don't have them. Engineers tend to think those items are overvalued by the war matchmaker.

Engineering is the practice of identifying the items that are overvalued or undervalued by the matchmaker. Engineers focus on placing and upgrading undervalued items, while avoiding the overvalued ones.

Engineering is more akin to "Sabermetrics" than to "Sandbagging".

See Also: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game

---

Tactical upgrading focused on offense I suppose could be called a skill. If then, the purpose of that tactical upgrading is to remove the element of being able to defeat an opponent 1:1 on skill, by overwhelming them with your offensive numbers-that is a tactical win. I suppose then if SC had this in mind when they designed the game then the game should have been called "Clash of Clan Construction Geniuses".

But they didn't.

I am always floored by the rationalization behind this obvious game mechanic exploit.

The overall health of CoC's would have deteriorated if engineering had been allowed to progress unchecked. Too many regular players in day to day clans just felt cheated without really understanding the "why" behind the match. As it has been addressed and certainly being adjusted for in the MM I have no real issue with it anymore. We run into engineered clans from time to time but it is rarer that the match is an outright mismatch. So, engineer away I suppose but let's be honest about what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deckard

Tactical upgrading focused on offense I suppose could be called a skill. If then, the purpose of that tactical upgrading is to remove the element of being able to defeat an opponent 1:1 on skill, by overwhelming them with your offensive numbers-that is a tactical win. I suppose then if SC had this in mind when they designed the game then the game should have been called "Clash of Clan Construction Geniuses".

But they didn't.

I am always floored by the rationalization behind this obvious game mechanic exploit.

The overall health of CoC's would have deteriorated if engineering had been allowed to progress unchecked. Too many regular players in day to day clans just felt cheated without really understanding the "why" behind the match. As it has been addressed and certainly being adjusted for in the MM I have no real issue with it anymore. We run into engineered clans from time to time but it is rarer that the match is an outright mismatch. So, engineer away I suppose but let's be honest about what it is.

---

Similarities abound.

The 'Moneyball' Effect: Are Sabermetrics Good for Sports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

True, sandbagging involves intentionally losing in order to line up weak opponents in a game that involves some kind of ELO system, like chess. Or lying about your win record, like in golf. So dropping trophies can fairly be called sandbagging, but engineering shouldn't be.

---

FYI, sandbagging in golf doesn't involve intentionally losing. It involves using excess strokes to keep your handicap higher than it otherwise should be WHILE winning. The most effective way to sandbag in golf is to go out and shoot par or better, putting the match away with many holes to play and then suddenly "losing your swing" or shanking putts on the homestretch to keep that handicap up up up.

Engineering is the intentional hiding of strength, just like sandbagging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

Similarities abound.

The 'Moneyball' Effect: Are Sabermetrics Good for Sports?

---

I think you're missing the point of that article. That article is saying that the over use of statistical analysis takes away the fun factor from sports, and doesn't accurately capture character traits like leadership, chemistry, or work ethic. It's saying that fans shouldn't forget how much they loved a longtime player on their team who played hard and with success just because his BABIP and WAR #'s aren't great.

I really don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

FYI, sandbagging in golf doesn't involve intentionally losing. It involves using excess strokes to keep your handicap higher than it otherwise should be WHILE winning. The most effective way to sandbag in golf is to go out and shoot par or better, putting the match away with many holes to play and then suddenly "losing your swing" or shanking putts on the homestretch to keep that handicap up up up.

---

How does that apply to CoC? Intentionally only 2-starring an opponent, but still winning the war affects nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

Engineering is the intentional hiding of strength, just like sandbagging.

---

How are engineers "hiding" strength? Their strengths of their buildings, troops, and heroes are there for all to see.

I would counter by arguing that engineering is the intentional avoidance of overvalued strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

FYI, sandbagging in golf doesn't involve intentionally losing. It involves using excess strokes to keep your handicap higher than it otherwise should be WHILE winning. The most effective way to sandbag in golf is to go out and shoot par or better, putting the match away with many holes to play and then suddenly "losing your swing" or shanking putts on the homestretch to keep that handicap up up up.

Engineering is the intentional hiding of strength, just like sandbagging.

---

Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have brought golf in since all I really know about it is that its a good thing to put on TV when I want to take a nap. But my point still stands, sandbagging is intentional underperformance. So intentionally losing to reset the win streak would be sandbagging, but I doubt many do that. Dropping trophies in multiplayer is sandbagging, but not many people get upset about it. Engineering is like a fighter choosing where to put on muscle, and how to cut in order to make weight. It's strategy.

There's a valid discussion as to whether its good for the game, if engineers can coexist in the same pool as people that upgrade without regard to weights, what should SC do to the MM, etc. But the word "sandbagging" doesn't have any place in that discussion. I suspect people are using it not because its accurate, but because using the word "cheating" might get you moderated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

I would counter by arguing that engineering is the intentional avoidance of overvalued strength.

---

Fair enough, the matchmaking algorithm does a poor job of properly evaluating the strength of an account in the absence of certain items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have brought golf in since all I really know about it is that its a good thing to put on TV when I want to take a nap. But my point still stands, sandbagging is intentional underperformance. So intentionally losing to reset the win streak would be sandbagging, but I doubt many do that. Dropping trophies in multiplayer is sandbagging, but not many people get upset about it. Engineering is like a fighter choosing where to put on muscle, and how to cut in order to make weight. It's strategy.

There's a valid discussion as to whether its good for the game, if engineers can coexist in the same pool as people that upgrade without regard to weights, what should SC do to the MM, etc. But the word "sandbagging" doesn't have any place in that discussion. I suspect people are using it not because its accurate, but because using the word "cheating" might get you moderated.

---

i don't call engineers cheaters because they're decidedly NOT cheating, they're playing within the rules of the game. Sandbagging isn't cheating either, but don't expect to make a lot of friends in your local golf league should one engage in the practice however...

we have one notorious sandbagger in my work golf league, he wins the match play trophy almost every other year or so. We can't wait until he leaves the course after his round so we can all make fun of him and curse him behind his back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

Similarities abound.

The 'Moneyball' Effect: Are Sabermetrics Good for Sports?

---

I think you're missing the point of that article. That article is saying that the over use of statistical analysis takes away the fun factor from sports, and doesn't accurately capture character traits like leadership, chemistry, or work ethic. It's saying that fans shouldn't forget how much they loved a longtime player on their team who played hard and with success just because his BABIP and WAR #'s aren't great.

I really don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

---

Oh, it's not 1:1, but I think the parallels are clear.

One camp views the practice of identifying and utilizing undervalued assets as an efficient way to build a stronger team, much to the chagrin of the other camp that views it as incompatible with some true spirit of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoumilDude

Legal? Yes. Ethical? Probably not.

---

Ethics is the perfect term for this situation, since an ethics code is an attempt to force others to conform to one's own sense of morality or desired behavior, often with ulterior motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

I would counter by arguing that engineering is the intentional avoidance of overvalued strength.

---

I learned recently that in weight-based sports, competitors often engage in a variety of strategies to decrease the weight they think they won't need. For example, dehydration before a meet (which has performance tradeoffs), or purposely focusing on upper body strength instead of lower body strength to avoid heavier than needed leg muscles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have brought golf in since all I really know about it is that its a good thing to put on TV when I want to take a nap. But my point still stands, sandbagging is intentional underperformance. So intentionally losing to reset the win streak would be sandbagging, but I doubt many do that. Dropping trophies in multiplayer is sandbagging, but not many people get upset about it. Engineering is like a fighter choosing where to put on muscle, and how to cut in order to make weight. It's strategy.

There's a valid discussion as to whether its good for the game, if engineers can coexist in the same pool as people that upgrade without regard to weights, what should SC do to the MM, etc. But the word "sandbagging" doesn't have any place in that discussion. I suspect people are using it not because its accurate, but because using the word "cheating" might get you moderated.

---

Yes, its a way to say cheating without getting in trouble, a lyrical dance to find an insult thats not really a clear insult. You can see the motivation by the fact that the definition of sandbagging doesnt fit that engineers do. If sandbagging could apply to boxers or wrestlers cutting fat over muscle, to optimise for each weight class, then it would fit well, but no one used this term to describe cutting bodyfat.

Sandbagging a neutral term? Laughable.

like you say this is irrelevant to the long term damage done by a matchmaker that gives too much advantage to the wrong things, but thats a perpendiclar issue as you put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

Yes, its a way to say cheating without getting in trouble, a lyrical dance to find an insult thats not really a clear insult. You can see the motivation by the fact that the definition of sandbagging doesnt fit that engineers do. If sandbagging could apply to boxers or wrestlers cutting fat over muscle, to optimise for each weight class, then it would fit well, but no one used this term to describe cutting bodyfat.

Sandbagging a neutral term? Laughable.

like you say this is irrelevant to the long term damage done by a matchmaker that gives too much advantage to the wrong things, but thats a perpendiclar issue as you put it.

---

Sandbagging is not an insult. It is what engineers do.

EDIT: look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

Sandbagging is not an insult. It is what engineers do.

EDIT: look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

---

You can describe what people do, using a negative term or a neutral term. Optimisation is a neutral term. Sandbagging, even if it were 100% descriptively accurate, is still designed to be an insult. Moreover its not descriptively accurate. You can do mental and semantical gymnastics to make it fit, but thats only becaus your looking for it to fit, to get away with using the term "because its true".

lets be honest, if you found a website that had a picture of you, with the caption OPTIMISER, it would be niether here not there. If on the other hand you saw your smiling face with the caption SANDBAGGER, well you would not be thrilled.

if anything that definition, which is skill based, applies to permabasing. And I would not use that term, as I dont feel the desperate need to insult others or paint them in a negative light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

Sandbagging is not an insult.

---

Are you using the term admiringly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Are you using the term admiringly?

---

I just use it to describe the behavior. Like Johnny sullivan, I do it myself too with some of my accounts. I have zero problems with it. Some people however are having a hissy fit every time some one describes the behavior of engineers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

I just use it to describe the behavior. Like Johnny sullivan, I do it myself too with some of my accounts. I have zero problems with it. Some people however are having a hissy fit every time some one describes the behavior of engineers.

---

No, people give deserved pushback when you try use insults. You are missaplying the definition of hissyfit, much like you missaply the term sandbagging. If you describe engineering as matchmaker specific optimisation, no one will give any pushback, you are not being intellectually honest in your analysis or argumentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

No, people give deserved pushback when you try use insults. You are missaplying the definition of hissyfit, much like you missaply the term sandbagging. If you describe engineering as matchmaker specific optimisation, no one will give any pushback, you are not being intellectually honest in your analysis or argumentation.

---

Mmmm weird, I do not have a problem with it at all and do not think of it as an insult at all. I think it is a cool term. In fact, in real war sandbagging is a very good parallel term for what engineers are doing too. You are making the enemy (remember: the matchmaker is the enemy of the engineer) believe you do not have certain skills which you do. Sounds pretty smart to me.

Sandbagging is a loose term used to describe hiding true abilities. Engineers are able to hide abilities from the MM and therefore are sandbaggers. Is it a derogatory term, yes it is but engineering does fit the definition. They may not be hiding anything from other players but are able to fool the MM and its the MM that needs to be fooled to gain any advantage. Just because its a derogatory term doesnt make it untrue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

Sandbagging is a loose term used to describe hiding true abilities. Engineers are able to hide abilities from the MM and therefore are sandbaggers. Is it a derogatory term, yes it is but engineering does fit the definition. They may not be hiding anything from other players but are able to fool the MM and its the MM that needs to be fooled to gain any advantage. Just because its a derogatory term doesnt make it untrue.

---

Where does it say sandbagging is derogatory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

Sandbagging is a loose term used to describe hiding true abilities. Engineers are able to hide abilities from the MM and therefore are sandbaggers. Is it a derogatory term, yes it is but engineering does fit the definition. They may not be hiding anything from other players but are able to fool the MM and its the MM that needs to be fooled to gain any advantage. Just because its a derogatory term doesnt make it untrue.

---

The salient point is its an insult. Something can be descriptively accurate, and be a compliment, an insult or neutral. Something can be discriptively inaccurate, and be again a compliment, and insult, or neutral.

the description attached to the word, does not indicate if the word is an insult or not.

one could argue the true sandbaggers, are maxers, who hide there skill be staying for months or years at th9 or 10, but that wil still be an attempt to insult one group of people. If you support that OK, but dont pretend its not an insult, by trying to argue that the behavioral descriptions of the insult fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

Mmmm weird, I do not have a problem with it at all and do not think of it as an insult at all. I think it is a cool term. In fact, in real war sandbagging is a very good parallel term for what engineers are doing too. You are making the enemy (remember: the matchmaker is the enemy of the engineer) believe you do not have certain skills which you do. Sounds pretty smart to me.

---

Yes, how could anyone think sandbagging is anything other than a compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

Sandbagging is not an insult. It is what engineers do.

EDIT: look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

---

Its going to take a lot of handwaving to make one of those apply. Engineers are optimizing within a weight system, they're not hiding or fooling anything. If you think there are problems with the weight system, that's on SC to fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

Sandbagging is a loose term used to describe hiding true abilities. Engineers are able to hide abilities from the MM and therefore are sandbaggers. Is it a derogatory term, yes it is but engineering does fit the definition. They may not be hiding anything from other players but are able to fool the MM and its the MM that needs to be fooled to gain any advantage. Just because its a derogatory term doesnt make it untrue.

---

The matchmaker isn't interested in our abilities, its interested in our offenses and defenses. It knows our offenses and defenses, no way to hide them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Its going to take a lot of handwaving to make one of those apply. Engineers are optimizing within a weight system, they're not hiding or fooling anything. If you think there are problems with the weight system, that's on SC to fix.

---

Lol what? Do u actually believe engineering isn't trying to fool the war mm? Y does one engineer than? Is it not to draw in weaker opponents from top to bottom? Is ok if u engineer but dont b delusional to facts of y its done. Js shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kimchilove

Lol what? Do u actually believe engineering isn't trying to fool the war mm? Y does one engineer than? Is it not to draw in weaker opponents from top to bottom? Is ok if u engineer but dont b delusional to facts of y its done. Js shrug

---

How the hell do you hide something from the matchmaker? It knows exactly what troops, defenses I have. If you think its weighing things improperly, there's your issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

How the hell do you hide something from the matchmaker? It knows exactly what troops, defenses I have. If you think its weighing things improperly, there's your issue.

---

Lol cute. Y so mad bro? If u dont think engineering is trying to manipulate the system to gain an advantage....ignorance is bliss eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

How the hell do you hide something from the matchmaker? It knows exactly what troops, defenses I have. If you think its weighing things improperly, there's your issue.

---

The matchmaker doesn't know anything of the sort.

It is a piece of code that works using certain numerical values. Those values in fact have nothing to do with your actual offensive and defensive strength. If you know which upgrades are undervalued and which upgrades are overvalued, you can fool the matchmaker into considering your base weaker than it actually is.

A maxed th8 that just jumped to th9 and upgrades 2 mortars will have almost exactly the same weight as a maxed th8 that jumped to th9 and upgraded all canons and air defenses. We all know that those 2 bases will not actually have the same defensive strength. Therefore we can in effect fool the matchmaker to think that we have a weaker base than what we actually do.

On top of that the matchmaker seems to be adding up offensive and defensive weights and using only one value per base. This allows hiding strong offensive accounts from the matchmaker by not developing defenses.

Furthermore the matchmaker is looking at the clan weights average, so bringing some useless th3-th4 accounts on the bottom will translate to advantage on the upper half of the map - where it actually matters.

These are bugs in the matchmaker that we can abuse in order to fool it into finding a clan that is much weaker than our own clan as an enemy and winning more wars than we could if all would have been equal.

O side note: u will never c me complain about war mm although I do understand some valid frustrations if u playing straight up with no intentions of manipulating war mm. I dont focus as much on the war mm system n rather focus on clans performance. If u sharpen ur skill u can overcome most mismatches so whatever mm throws at us, we dont care for the most part cuz we swinging either way. I personally have no problems with war mm n im quite content with it atm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Ethics is the perfect term for this situation, since an ethics code is an attempt to force others to conform to one's own sense of morality or desired behavior, often with ulterior motives.

---

Ethics aren't universal. Being ethical is subjective to the individual's beliefs.

Engineering clans aren't attempting to force others to conform to their desired behavior. The people attempting to do that are the whiners on here about bad match ups and calling for supercell to speak out against it and change their algorithms.

Both sides have ulterior motives, anyone who doesn't agree with that is a hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

The salient point is its an insult. Something can be descriptively accurate, and be a compliment, an insult or neutral. Something can be discriptively inaccurate, and be again a compliment, and insult, or neutral.

the description attached to the word, does not indicate if the word is an insult or not.

one could argue the true sandbaggers, are maxers, who hide there skill be staying for months or years at th9 or 10, but that wil still be an attempt to insult one group of people. If you support that OK, but dont pretend its not an insult, by trying to argue that the behavioral descriptions of the insult fit.

---

I made no attempt to pretend its not a insult. I specifically said its a derogatory term ie: insult

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorsan

The matchmaker doesn't know anything of the sort.

It is a piece of code that works using certain numerical values. Those values in fact have nothing to do with your actual offensive and defensive strength. If you know which upgrades are undervalued and which upgrades are overvalued, you can fool the matchmaker into considering your base weaker than it actually is.

A maxed th8 that just jumped to th9 and upgrades 2 mortars will have almost exactly the same weight as a maxed th8 that jumped to th9 and upgraded all canons and air defenses. We all know that those 2 bases will not actually have the same defensive strength. Therefore we can in effect fool the matchmaker to think that we have a weaker base than what we actually do.

On top of that the matchmaker seems to be adding up offensive and defensive weights and using only one value per base. This allows hiding strong offensive accounts from the matchmaker by not developing defenses.

Furthermore the matchmaker is looking at the clan weights average, so bringing some useless th3-th4 accounts on the bottom will translate to advantage on the upper half of the map - where it actually matters.

These are bugs in the matchmaker that we can abuse in order to fool it into finding a clan that is much weaker than our own clan as an enemy and winning more wars than we could if all would have been equal.

---

yes, but that brings up the point that calling people who uppgrade the archer towers before the mortars as manipulators hiding there strength from the matchmaker is a very hollow point. A mortar should not weigh multiple times the weig of an archer tower, the matchmaker should weights things correctly, its not resonable to expect people to deliberately build bases that put them at a disadvantage. These are not bugs, this would be if some code meant that certain configurations could result in incorect calculations with regard to weighting, not that the inputs were not decided correctly. Tanks point is that its not possible to hide your max cannons from the matchmaker, if the matchmaker underweighs them versus a mortar, you have to listen, as do all decent clans with regard to the matchmaker to a greater or lessor degree.

Tanks point is engineers dont hide the defences or offences they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

I made no attempt to pretend its not a insult. I specifically said its a derogatory term ie: insult

---

it seamed like the point of your post was to say that yes its an insult, but its true so its OK, if that wasnt the point of your post, what was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prutser

Where does it say sandbagging is derogatory?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

the description attached to the word, does not indicate if the word is an insult or not.

---

It's being used as a verb. I'm not aware of any verbs being used as insults. However, I may be wrong.

Imo, saying someone is sandbagging is the correct usage of the word. You're describing their actions, using a verb. It's debatable whether it applies to engineering.

Example: You're sandbagging the system. This would be the correct usage.

Now, calling someone a sandbagger is done as an insult because you're not describing their actions and should be considered toxic and dealt with accordingly.

Idk why engineers get upset over it. It's what they're doing. Have pride in it, say, dang right I'm sandbagging the system but guess what, it's not against the rules!

Sticks and stones may break.... yeah, yeah, yeah, we're all adults here right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

The matchmaker isn't interested in our abilities, its interested in our offenses and defenses. It knows our offenses and defenses, no way to hide them.

---

If players have no way to hide the abilities of the base they built then were does engineering advantage come from. To me it seems the MM is missing true strength and the players have figured out how to do it. Yes the MM can see the weight of what you built but can be fooled into thinking its weaker than truley is. It may be hiding in plain sight but is still hidden by the MM's inability to see a base for what it really is in terms of power/ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

yes, but that brings up the point that calling people who uppgrade the archer towers before the mortars as manipulators hiding there strength from the matchmaker is a very hollow point. A mortar should not weigh multiple times the weig of an archer tower, the matchmaker should weights things correctly, its not resonable to expect people to deliberately build bases that put them at a disadvantage. These are not bugs, this would be if some code meant that certain configurations could result in incorect calculations with regard to weighting, not that the inputs were not decided correctly. Tanks point is that its not possible to hide your max cannons from the matchmaker, if the matchmaker underweighs them versus a mortar, you have to listen, as do all decent clans with regard to the matchmaker to a greater or lessor degree.

Tanks point is engineers dont hide the defences or offences they have.

---

Y b so technical n b so caught up in semantics? Call a spade a spade n not a heart. Engineers "hide" their strengths by ug a certain way no? Lol plz for those who engineer n feel ur wars n records should b held in high regard....come on man. Time to wake up to reality. Just bc u have engineer clan doesnt mean yall dont have "ur idea of challenges" but when applying ur idea to clash overall....Lol stop just plz stop. Ask yourself this simple question: y r engineer clans not highlighted by cwl (or any leagues similar to it?) Y does sc not acknowledge n help highlight them? Y r most popular utubers not highlighting their wars? Things that make u go hmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

It's being used as a verb. I'm not aware of any verbs being used as insults. However, I may be wrong.

Imo, saying someone is sandbagging is the correct usage of the word. You're describing their actions, using a verb. It's debatable whether it applies to engineering.

Example: You're sandbagging the system. This would be the correct usage.

Now, calling someone a sandbagger is done as an insult because you're not describing their actions and souls be considered toxic and dealt with accordingly.

Idk why engineers get upset over it. It's what they're doing. Have pride in it, say, dang right I'm sandbagging the system but guess what, it's not against the rules!

Sticks and stones my break.... yeah yeah yeah, we're all adults here right?

---

Using a verb to describe actions cant be an insult? Is cheating a verb? Is lying a verb? Nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs can all be an insult. Wether or not the action lines up with the verb, does not indicate if a verb is insulting or not, it only indicates if you can be sued for slander.

Yes a noun is a more clear insult, but like we are saying, this is a dance to insult without falling foul of the moderators. Is it really not an insult to say engineers are cheating, but when you say they are cheaters then magically an insult is formed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

it seamed like the point of your post was to say that yes its an insult, but its true so its OK, if that wasnt the point of your post, what was?

---

I wasnt making any claim of it being ok or not just saying it is what it is. Calling a spade a spade if that makes it clearer. Ill leave the morals of it up to the individual, if you or anyone doesnt like the derogatory term that fits the practice you dont have to use it. That doesnt mean the term is wrong tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TehBarbarian

Engineering is just another strategy that people use in war, no different than tailoring an attack to exploit a weakness in the design of a base. It is legal, and fair and those who think otherwise are wrong.

---

You are completely missing the point, along with making senseless arguments and off base rationalizations not even worth quoting... but no strategy ever ever deserved the in game advantage that engineering created. It's one thing and fine to gain some advantage from using strategy but when that advantage is consistently and often overwhelming it is something else: it is not smart game play, it is not genius clan building or base building; it is a flaw in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

Yes a noun is a more clear insult, but like we are saying, this is a dance to insult without falling foul of the moderators.

---

Which is... Hold on, wait for it... within the rules. Just like engineering so one can not be mad about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

I wasnt making any claim of it being ok or not just saying it is what it is. Calling a spade a spade if that makes it clearer. Ill leave the morals of it up to the individual, if you or anyone doesnt like the derogatory term that fits the practice you dont have to use it. That doesnt mean the term is wrong tho.

---

Iether you are making no point, or you are saying its ok to use the term sandbagging because its true.

I can make up a very insulting word, and define it, and then point out that the term accurate defines a behavior, but there is no point to pointing it out.

if all you saying is that you can find a way to make the definition of engineering fit the definition of sandbagging, and thats all your saying, then OK, I dont have much to say about that, as you are not actually saying anything. If your saying that or implying that its ok to use the term sandbagger, or thats its not an insults because you at able to fit the definition, then I would say that simply because you believe a definition fits, does not mean it does fit, and it certainly doesnt make it ok to insult people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

yes, but that brings up the point that calling people who uppgrade the archer towers before the mortars as manipulators hiding there strength from the matchmaker is a very hollow point. A mortar should not weigh multiple times the weig of an archer tower, the matchmaker should weights things correctly, its not resonable to expect people to deliberately build bases that put them at a disadvantage. These are not bugs, this would be if some code meant that certain configurations could result in incorect calculations with regard to weighting, not that the inputs were not decided correctly. Tanks point is that its not possible to hide your max cannons from the matchmaker, if the matchmaker underweighs them versus a mortar, you have to listen, as do all decent clans with regard to the matchmaker to a greater or lessor degree.

Tanks point is engineers dont hide the defences or offences they have.

---

sc has been whispering in my ear for years.. "offense is the way, the more extreme you take it the more i'll reward you."
i've certainly listened.
and by whispering i mean showing me war match results, not what they publicly say. lots of times those are really opposite as we see here in this forum plenty of times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

It's being used as a verb. I'm not aware of any verbs being used as insults. However, I may be wrong.

Imo, saying someone is sandbagging is the correct usage of the word. You're describing their actions, using a verb. It's debatable whether it applies to engineering.

Example: You're sandbagging the system. This would be the correct usage.

Now, calling someone a sandbagger is done as an insult because you're not describing their actions and souls be considered toxic and dealt with accordingly.

Idk why engineers get upset over it. It's what they're doing. Have pride in it, say, dang right I'm sandbagging the system but guess what, it's not against the rules!

Sticks and stones my break.... yeah yeah yeah, we're all adults here right?

---

im not engineering or sandbagging.. im CUSTOMIZING for max results hah
in reality you right, call it whatever you want doesnt hurt my feelings.
ive said many times sc makes the game, i play it and adapt how i want.
will never change that based on the forums opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

Is it really not an insult to say engineers are cheating, but when you say they are cheaters then magically an insult is formed?

---

Yes...
Example: You're cheating me out of fair wars.

Example: You're a cheater cheating me out of fair wars.

Which would you consider being used as an insult. It's pretty obvious to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorsan

The matchmaker doesn't know anything of the sort.

It is a piece of code that works using certain numerical values. Those values in fact have nothing to do with your actual offensive and defensive strength. If you know which upgrades are undervalued and which upgrades are overvalued, you can fool the matchmaker into considering your base weaker than it actually is.

---

I know you think the MM is flawed (like everybody, though the particulars get debated) and I know you've got a proposal to deal with that. For all I know (which isn't necessarily much) your proposal would be a big improvement.

But currently the system is what it is. The matchmaker knows just as much as I do about my account, there's no opportunity to hide. As you say, it grabs "certain numerical values" and to what extent they don't reflect the reality of account strength, that's on the guys that assigned them a "certain numerical value". SC. We'd be fools to ignore that, right?

I know you're no fool, faced with the same incentives as me you've chosen the same course, to engineer accounts. Nothing wrong about that. Depending on what they come up with for MM tweaks in the update, maybe that will turn out to be a tactical error that we'll need to fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Yes...
Example: You're cheating me out of fair wars.

Example: You're a cheater cheating me out of fair wars.

Which would you consider being used as an insult. It's pretty obvious to me.

---

hold up, your trying to use a words multiple definitions, and then conflating them for an inaccurate comparison. Words have more than one defintion. In example 1, your using the word cheating as a synonym to depriving, not in the sense of rule breaking or dishonesty.

To say, your cheating in a game of cards, is calling you a cheater. Your example is not using the same defintion of "to cheat" in the verb and noun forms. I'll using this was an accident and that your were not trying to engineer the argument in your favour. To say your cheating in this debate, is not the same as to say your cheating me out of a fair debate.

Wow, it amazes me how easily people can get offended by strangers on here, remember it's just words written to get a reaction. Whether you engineer, sandbag, max your base like someone with OCD or just upgrade stuff when you get the gold, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Cowboy up and put your big boy pants on an quit getting your feelings hurt by a random internet stranger! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

If players have no way to hide the abilities of the base they built then were does engineering advantage come from.

---

From SC improperly weighing some things, and working in pursuit of goals other than "fair matches" in other things. Simple example of the second part, they may want to encourage hero grinding/gemming and thus underweight heroes.

Until SC fixes these issues, if they can, engineers are playing the game as it is. No point in getting mad that they're not playing the game as you wish it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Which is... Hold on, wait for it... within the rules. Just like engineering so one can not be mad about it.

---

Honestly this is a pretty good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

Wow, it amazes me how easily people can get offended by strangers on here, remember it's just words written to get a reaction. Whether you engineer, sandbag, max your base like someone with OCD or just upgrade stuff when you get the gold, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Cowboy up and put your big boy pants on an quit getting your feelings hurt by a random internet stranger! :)

---

yes, and who needs moderators? Would be much better if the forum was just like global?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

yes, and who needs moderators? Would be much better if the forum was just like global?

---

Never said anything of the sort, one problem with the world anymore is people are so hyper-sensitive, I just think everyone would be alot happier if they just growed a little thicker skin.
But what do I know, I'm a dinosaur. Words do not affect me like it seems to destroy today's generation if someone hurts their feelings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

From SC improperly weighing some things, and working in pursuit of goals other than "fair matches" in other things. Simple example of the second part, they may want to encourage hero grinding/gemming and thus underweight heroes.

Until SC fixes these issues, if they can, engineers are playing the game as it is. No point in getting mad that they're not playing the game as you wish it were.

---

I didnt get mad nor did I ask anyone to play my way. All i was doing is debating if its possible to hide the abilities a acct has from the MM. I believe you can you believe you cant. No need to look any further into my post since it said nothing more. I dont have to be mad just because i disagree, just debating what i believe to be true. No harm meant if it comes accross as insulting or harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

Never said anything of the sort, one problem with the world anymore is people are so hyper-sensitive, I just think everyone would be alot happier if they just growed a little thicker skin.
But what do I know, I'm a dinosaur. Words do not affect me like it seems to destroy today's generation if someone hurts their feelings

---

You can make the same arguments as a troll of global, i fact i'm pretty sure they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

Iether you are making no point, or you are saying its ok to use the term sandbagging because its true.

I can make up a very insulting word, and define it, and then point out that the term accurate defines a behavior, but there is no point to pointing it out.

if all you saying is that you can find a way to make the definition of engineering fit the definition of sandbagging, and thats all your saying, then OK, I dont have much to say about that, as you are not actually saying anything. If your saying that or implying that its ok to use the term sandbagger, or thats its not an insults because you at able to fit the definition, then I would say that simply because you believe a definition fits, does not mean it does fit, and it certainly doesnt make it ok to insult people.

---

Im lost on were your going with this. The topic had shifted to if engineering can be called sandbagging. As I understand the definition it clearly does. I also pointed out that I do believe its a derogatory term and I think thats well proven by peoples reaction. I finished up with saying just because people get insulted by it doesn't make it a incorrect term. I never made any claim its ok to insult anyone and I didnt pull this out of thin air just to insult anyone. I simply added my thoughts on if the term sandbagging accurately describes engineering and leave it up to the individual to decide if they want to use it. I think if you read the definition you will find my interpretation isnt whacky or unreasonable even if you dont agree. That makes 2 times in this topic I was told im getting mad and throwing insults. If my posts are carefully read it seems obvious to me neither are true. Just debating and conversing while leaving my emotions out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

You can make the same arguments as a troll of global, i fact i'm pretty sure they do.

---

This is gonna turn into a peeing contest, if you want to be offended Everytime someone says something you don't like then carry on. For me, life's to short to worry what others say. You win lol, I'm done talking

Well my fellow clashers, the Op is proud of his style of play and how it upgrades his base, congrats to you, glad you find your time spent doing this enjoyable. Though i dont personally take my own upgrading or engineering to your degree while building my base i too find enjoyment in playing, though less in war and more farming as i think the matchmaker is just a little off the last 8 or 9 months. I hope a year from now you still find the same happiness with your account as i am sure i still will following the plodding,boring,mundane way of working toward max th ten and eleven. Please disregard all the insults and hurt feelings being thrown by my other posters on both sides of the issue, they just cant seem to let the issue go...., clash on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

Im lost on were your going with this. The topic had shifted to if engineering can be called sandbagging. As I understand the definition it clearly does. I also pointed out that I do believe its a derogatory term and I think thats well proven by peoples reaction. I finished up with saying just because people get insulted by it doesn't make it a incorrect term. I never made any claim its ok to insult anyone and I didnt pull this out of thin air just to insult anyone. I simply added my thoughts on if the term sandbagging accurately describes engineering and leave it up to the individual to decide if they want to use it. I think if you read the definition you will find my interpretation isnt whacky or unreasonable even if you dont agree. That makes 2 times in this topic I was told im getting mad and throwing insults. If my posts are carefully read it seems obvious to me neither are true. Just debating and conversing while leaving my emotions out of it.

---

The topic had shifted to if it was an insult to call engineers sandbaggers when you weighed in. The point is you can find extrmely offensive words to describe people of certain economic classes, or specific races, and while the term may be defined as someone of that class or races this does not mean the term is not an insult, is non toxic or is OK.

if your only point is that you think sandbagging is well suited to describe engineering, and thats all, then like I said I have nothing to say about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krastor

This is gonna turn into a peeing contest, if you want to be offended Everytime someone says something you don't like then carry on. For me, life's to short to worry what others say. You win lol, I'm done talking

---

I honestly have no interest to enter into such a contest, unless there is a decent prize. I think we better off having an insult free forum, but I think logically I struggle to fend off Chrissxxx's point, so win or not I reckon I'm out of the sandbagging debate untill new information comes to light.

Ok im tapping out. Ive already done to much to help drive this train rite off the tracks. I apologize for my part OP. To the others i guess we just dont see eye to eye this time, mabey next time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

Ok im tapping out. Ive already done to much to help drive this train rite off the tracks. I apologize for my part OP. To the others i guess we just dont see eye to eye this time, mabey next time around.

---

there is no next time untill someone solved the ChrissXXX engineering - sandboxing paradox, if your cant be angry with engineers, you cant the angry with the engineered within the rules neutrisalt sandbagging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

I engineer, and I believe it's sandbagging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

---

Johnny,

I enjoy your posts, but I have a problem with this one. Sandbagging to me implies that there is deception going on before the contest. The pool or chess hustler plays poorly, the driver turns in a slow lap, the golfer takes a few extra strokes, etc. A clear idea of their true ability is not provided prior to making the match or assigning the handicap.

In clan wars, I think we can safely say that almost no one is deliberately losing some wars to get easier wars later. About the closest I can see someone getting to that might be losing a war immediately before a clan XP event to try to get surefire wins, but I am going to say that doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. So that leaves us with presenting a false impression of our abilities to the matchmaker. But the people who make the game, make the rules of the game, decide how we are supposed to play the game, they are the ones who provide the matchmaker, and it has perfect information about our bases (at least at the time of the search). Whether or not it interprets that information perfectly is another matter, but saying using an odd base is sandbagging strikes me as akin to saying that someone cheats on their taxes despite filling out the form truthfully and completely because they arranged their financial affairs (without breaking the law) in such a way that they don't owe a lot of taxes.

Ah sandbaggin, a person playing something that is way more skilled than they should be. Not really an insult if there is truth to the claim. Before Vike comes a charging at me, I gotta say, sandbagging isn't the proper term to blanket engineering. As someone that was found guilty of sandbagging, and don't like engineering, can't call it bagging.

However, I will say that there are individuals that due meet the sandbagging mark. These players are very skilled attackers that are using the engineering path for easier matchups for getting huge win streaks. This is sandbagging in my opinion. Not an insult, just a term to describe the situation at hand. Then there is the other type of individuals.

The other engineering player is a terrible attacker. Couldn't attack their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone their equal. So they use engineering as kinda of a handicap to enhance their attacking ability. This person wouldn't qualify for sandbagging.

So, I will agree calling all engineers sandbaggers is on the insulting side, but there is nothing wrong with calling an individual a sandbagger if there is truth to it. I use to paintball back in the day. Met up with some random guys that needed another player for their team in a tournament. Was a d5 level play. Did ok.

Formed a team a few months later and played in rookie level. Made it to finals. However, I was recognized by another player and found out I disqualified my team on sandbagging. Pleade my case to the head tourney judge that that was the only time I played that rank but it didn't matter. I played d5, we all play d5.

I was upset that I cost us the tourney, wasn't thrilled I got labeled a sandbagger, but never once was I mad about being called a sandbagger because it was the truth. It was my fault and I should have checked with the judges first. But intentionally sandbagging is an insult to all of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenchafer

Ah sandbaggin, a person playing something that is way more skilled than they should be. Not really an insult if there is truth to the claim. Before Vike comes a charging at me, I gotta say, sandbagging isn't the proper term to blanket engineering. As someone that was found guilty of sandbagging, and don't like engineering, can't call it bagging.

However, I will say that there are individuals that due meet the sandbagging mark. These players are very skilled attackers that are using the engineering path for easier matchups for getting huge win streaks. This is sandbagging in my opinion. Not an insult, just a term to describe the situation at hand. Then there is the other type of individuals.

The other engineering player is a terrible attacker. Couldn't attack their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone their equal. So they use engineering as kinda of a handicap to enhance their attacking ability. This person wouldn't qualify for sandbagging.

So, I will agree calling all engineers sandbaggers is on the insulting side, but there is nothing wrong with calling an individual a sandbagger if there is truth to it. I use to paintball back in the day. Met up with some random guys that needed another player for their team in a tournament. Was a d5 level play. Did ok.

Formed a team a few months later and played in rookie level. Made it to finals. However, I was recognized by another player and found out I disqualified my team on sandbagging. Pleade my case to the head tourney judge that that was the only time I played that rank but it didn't matter. I played d5, we all play d5.

I was upset that I cost us the tourney, wasn't thrilled I got labeled a sandbagger, but never once was I mad about being called a sandbagger because it was the truth. It was my fault and I should have checked with the judges first. But intentionally sandbagging is an insult to all of us.

---

I wont come charging, like I said I'm tied into a pretzel and unable to operate on this topic due the the chriss engineering-sandbagging paradoxxx, if you gonna blame the matchmaker for engineering and say dont be mad at engineers, you cant say blame people using sandbag as a way to quasi insult within the forum rules, as that would be in principle hypocritical, and my only option would be to complain about the forum rules, which is agains the forum rules, which would again make complaining hypocritical.

So I wont be charging anywhere.

Meh, supercell is missing seeing the forest due to the trees. A matchmaker with a gaping exploitable hole drives people out of the game, because they do not have the desire or time to make multiple engineered accounts to get a fair match up. when you drive out all the regular players the people who create the 5,10, 20 engineered accounts to win, will decide they dont want to play against only the leftover engineers and the matchmaking war portion of the game will collapse. I dont blame players for exploiting a gaping hole that supercell created when they addressed .5 but ignored min/defenseless. It is what happens when the players with the time and desire to win find a surefire path to success,

But hey maybe the update will address this or they will finally put some staff towards making tournaments like the forum one they just did to replace regular war matchmaking. But I have my war stars and am opted out of war.

someone quote about CWL...
what's the difference when dipping still exist ..??

I spent long time reading all comments.
Also i spent much time with coc email responces in past.
Every time i complained them about engineering that just said wait plz we r doing to make it better. They never said its illegal or cheating. And when i wrote them that i am also going to make engineered account. They didnt say anything to make or not.

I am very clear that engineering is fair as upto now what the matchmaking is.

Instead of spending time in arguing with each other we should find ways to convince sc that the current system is not fair and needs change.

Also iguess that there would be some other sort of complains after the update. Obviously not everyone can be satisfied.

You can call it "engineering", sandbagging, or go nuts and call it smurf-herding - but in the end we're all still waiting for sc to fix a very exploitable part of their game. I sincerely hope they do something about it soon. I don't know if I can do another multi-year stretch like we had(?) with modders

The one thing we all want, from bilbo sandbaggins to old man maxin', is for even, fair play wars.

Since sc employees grace their forums about as often as humans visit the moon, I'm considering launching balloons with little notes attached. Anyone think gofundme will work with this "balloon parade"?

Fingers crossed for the next update.

I knew this thread would be a flame war, even with editing the original title. Some folks just cannot help themselves when it comes to this topic. It's funny how I call myself a sandbagger and get laughed at by some for....insulting myself? That is laughable.

Bandorf, Tank, and nerf were having an excellent, non-confrontational exchange on the issue, and an individual or two decide to say it's insulting.

Good grief. This forum depresses me sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

I knew this thread would be a flame war, even with editing the original title. Some folks just cannot help themselves when it comes to this topic. It's funny how I call myself a sandbagger and get laughed at by some for....insulting myself? That is laughable.

Bandorf, Tank, and nerf were having an excellent, non-confrontational exchange on the issue, and an individual or two decide to say it's insulting.

Good grief. This forum depresses me sometimes.

---

Ironically, with the insults in the constructive way, you have to admit you do gather viewpoints others bring on this matter. Be it from Pro and Anti, some have the opposite of the expected opinions from ethically and legitimately fair. I read the thread for the most part and can see where it came to the current conclusion and see the unexpected turns here and there.

Doesn't necessarily add much of value to the OP's post, but it does make some realize in the broad aspect, if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Yes...
Example: You're cheating me out of fair wars.

Example: You're a cheater cheating me out of fair wars.

Which would you consider being used as an insult. It's pretty obvious to me.

---

Clearly, both are insulting.

Now, what might meet the definition of sandbagging are clans of low-level alts of high-level players warring against other low-level clans. E.g., top base is TH7, rest are weaker, none engineered. These players are highly skilled, and are doing things with their perma-TH5s that first-time TH5s have never dreamed were possible. Most TH5s are noobs who have been playing the game for about a month and think giants + archers are a good war attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Clearly, both are insulting.

---

Only to the accused party. Personally, I haven't called anyone a sandbagger and don't think doing so would lead to constructive conversation so I avoid doing it. However, when the shoe fits one must wear it. As I stated, those being offend should just take it with pride, say dang right I'm sandbagging the system, BUT IT'S NOT AGAINST THE RULES. Just like calling it sandbagging isn't against forum rules. Both sides will have to accept that's how it's going to be.

Imo, players need to focus their attention to Supercell's inability to harness war match making. Fighting and arguing with each other solves nothing. Definitely arguing over the definition of a word and how it should be used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnyfsullivan

I knew this thread would be a flame war, even with editing the original title. Some folks just cannot help themselves when it comes to this topic. It's funny how I call myself a sandbagger and get laughed at by some for....insulting myself? That is laughable.

Bandorf, Tank, and nerf were having an excellent, non-confrontational exchange on the issue, and an individual or two decide to say it's insulting.

Good grief. This forum depresses me sometimes.

---

Keep the faith. Despite some stuff that goes on there is hope for worthwhile here.

I came across an interesting use of the term "sandbagging" that is apt. Totally unrelated context, professional article in a business magazine: they used the term "sandbagging" to describe someone who intentionally set low sales or output targets below their real ability in order to be safe in easily achieving them, and so be praised or rewarded for their good record in meeting the targets. Nice long war win streak, anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Only to the accused party.

---

Lol, obviously, when one person is insulting someone else, the person doing the insulting is not the person being insulted. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

However, when the shoe fits one must wear it.

---

Nobody has explained yet which definition from the wikipedia link to sandbagging describes engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

I came across an interesting use of the term "sandbagging" that is apt. Totally unrelated context, professional article in a business magazine: they used the term "sandbagging" to describe someone who intentionally set low sales or output targets below their real ability in order to be safe in easily achieving them, and so be praised or rewarded for their good record in meeting the targets. Nice long war win streak, anyone?

---

I think that fits the definition of the term sandbagging.

How does it relate to engineering? Engineers don't tell the matchmaker what their war weight should be, the matchmaker determines their war weight by objectively measuring their offense and defense in the same way that it measures everyone else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Nobody has explained yet which definition from the wikipedia link to sandbagging describes engineering.

---

I've found one that I can apply to clash.

Sandbagging is also prevalent in some racing games, particularly those that feature power-ups that either aid the user or hinder the opponent. In the Mario Kart video game series, players will sometimes sandbag to get powerful items such as the Star or Lightning in order to batter the other racer

Keywords: particularly those that feature power-ups that either aid the user or hinder the opponent... (higher troops/spells/heroes/traps)

In the Mario Kart video game series, players will sometimes sandbag to get powerful items.. relating this back to clash, sandbag the match maker into thinking I'm a one defense account while hiding the games most powerful troops and heroes.

Either one can relate back to clash imo.

I could personally care less about what you call me. But in my opinion the people using sandbagging, tend to be the vocal anti-engineers. And I think they are using sandbagging in an insulting way.

We are back to arguing definitions, so maybe we can tie this to when does a .5 cross the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

I think that fits the definition of the term sandbagging.

How does it relate to engineering? Engineers don't tell the matchmaker what their war weight should be, the matchmaker determines their war weight by objectively measuring their offense and defense in the same way that it measures everyone else's.

---

It relates to engineering in that the person or clan concerned has deliberately set out to find easier opponents by developing bases in a way that they know the matchmaker struggles to deal with, such that they can bring to bear higher level offence to the match and get a win result more easily, and so be more assured of building a win streak, as opposed to if they'd matched a string of clans where they'd held no offence advantage throughout. That's just another species of setting the bar low to be sure you'll get a track record of jumping it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripple1972

I could personally care less about what you call me. But in my opinion the people using sandbagging, tend to be the vocal anti-engineers. And I think they are using sandbagging in an insulting way.

---

This may be true, however, calling it sandbagging is not against the forum rules, just like engineering isn't against the games rules. People are just going to have to accept that's how it's going to be. Either like it or don't, Or... adapt or quit, use which ever is less insulting.

Oh boy, it appears that I stirred the pot, doesn't it.

My point was that the term 'sandbagging' doesn't accurately describe engineering. It doesn't.

Whether it's used in billiards, golf, racing, etc., 'sandbagging' refers to the practice of deliberately under-performing to gain a future advantage. While the goal of engineering is to gain an advantage, it does not involve deliberately under-performing. Engineers don't deliberately throw attacks or shave stars. If anything, engineers attempt to get every star in every war. A more appropriate sports term might be "weight-cutting"

In CoC, the term 'sandbagging' would more appropriately describe trophy-droppers, who deliberately lose raids in order to get easier match-ups in the future.

I don't know whether everyone who is using the term intends it as an insult, per se. However, it is unarguably being used pejoratively. In the grand scheme of things, terms like that tend to sour the forum atmosphere.

Page 8, I've finally got through this long debate.
Wasn't the original definition of sandbagging derived from adding actual sand weight to a balloon or ship to artificially weigh it down at the start of a journey or race, only to dump out the sand and lighten the load making it go higher or faster?

Sometimes in my loon raids I swear my Larrys are dropping sandbags instead of bombs, I fail way too much.

My feelings are 'sandbagging' is a derogatorily term, because it is only ever done for some sort of advantage. The disparity happens with those who choose not to do it, then they label it negatively. The word 'engineering' is becoming more negative over time too.

In the end I don't mind any style of play, to each their own.

Great debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

Whether it's used in billiards, golf, racing, etc., 'sandbagging' refers to the practice of deliberately under-performing to gain a future advantage.

---

How is placing one cannon NOT considered under-performing for future advantages? You're under-performing on defense to gain the advantage on offense. Pretty cut and dry to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripple1972

I could personally care less about what you call me. But in my opinion the people using sandbagging, tend to be the vocal anti-engineers. And I think they are using sandbagging in an insulting way.

We are back to arguing definitions, so maybe we can tie this to when does a .5 cross the line.

---

Then you'd be mistaken, no insult intended, just a word commonly used to describe a certain pattern or circumstance where an advantage is being bought to bear in an obscured or hidden way, by hiding your actual strength in some way.

Second para is irrelevant to the discussion, but as a rough definition I would go with engineering being any 0.5 involving the notion of arriving at max offence, or max key war troops, or max heros, or some combination of that, before adding any new defences, as opposed to the oldstyle 0.5 progression pathway idea of doing your camps, spell factory and a barracks or two first when brand new to th level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

It relates to engineering in that the person or clan concerned has deliberately set out to find easier opponents by developing bases in a way that they know the matchmaker struggles to deal with, such that they can bring to bear higher level offence to the match and get a win result more easily, and so be more assured of building a win streak, as opposed to if they'd matched a string of clans where they'd held no offence advantage throughout. That's just another species of setting the bar low to be sure you'll get a track record of jumping it.

---

So why does dehydration before a boxing match or wrestling match not count as sandbagging?

In the sales person example, they are using deception to set an inaccurate measure. In the engineering example, there is no deception and no inaccurate measuring. Similarly, before a boxing or wrestling match, the competitor's weight is what it is.

I think deception is key to the sandbagging examples we've seen: claiming you can only accomplish so many sales, claiming you belong in an easier golf league...

Initially I assumed the term derives from mugging someone with a cosh or "sandbag", sneaking up behind and hitting them on the head, catching them unaware. There is definitely a common surprise aspect: the victims of sandbagging may be surprised to face someone stronger than expected, much as non-engineers may be surprised by the power of an engineered opponent. If "being surprised by how good the opponent is" is sufficient to count as sandbagging, then it describes lots more in life... does it describe the first game of a new sports season, where a team that expects to win going into the game is unexpectedly defeated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

How is placing one cannon NOT considered under-performing for future advantages? You're under-performing on defense to gain the advantage on offense. Pretty cut and dry to me.

---

Because placing defenses isn't 'performance'. It's 'preparation'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

So why does dehydration before a boxing match or wrestling match not count as sandbagging?

In the sales person example, they are using deception to set an inaccurate measure. In the engineering example, there is no deception and no inaccurate measuring. Similarly, before a boxing or wrestling match, the competitor's weight is what it is.

I think deception is key to the sandbagging examples we've seen: claiming you can only accomplish so many sales, claiming you belong in an easier golf league...

Initially I assumed the term derives from mugging someone with a cosh or "sandbag", sneaking up behind and hitting them on the head, catching them unaware. There is definitely a common surprise aspect: the victims of sandbagging may be surprised to face someone stronger than expected, much as non-engineers may be surprised by the power of an engineered opponent. If "being surprised by how good the opponent is" is sufficient to count as sandbagging, then it describes lots more in life... does it describe the first game of a new sports season, where a team that expects to win going into the game is unexpectedly defeated?

---

You have misunderstood I believe, the key point is of competing in a skill bracket less rigorous than your actual competitive ability. The idea of deception is a red herring or distraction, an attributed motive. The opponent's reaction has nothing to do with it, it's a description of concealed relative power relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

So why does dehydration before a boxing match or wrestling match not count as sandbagging?

---

Most athletic commissions are cracking down on severe weight cutting. A dehydrated brain taking multiple blows is very unhealthy both for the sport and the individual. Hence the cracking down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandorf

Because placing defenses isn't 'performance'. It's 'preparation'.

---

You're under-performing on defense compared to what you could be performing had all the defense been placed.

Preparation to receive the advantage they've sandbagged to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

Most athletic commissions are cracking down on severe weight cutting. A dehydrated brain taking multiple blows is very unhealthy both for the sport and the individual. Hence the cracking down.

---

And it can degrade the quality of competition, competitors that cut too hard too close to competition have little energy.

Which makes the analogy even more apt. Cutting weight, like engineering, is a rational response to the rules of the game. To whatever extent its bad for the game, the rules should be changed (in this case I've heard proposals for multiple weigh ins over days leading up to the fight, making severe cuts impossible). Until that's done, its not sandbagging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

And it can degrade the quality of competition, competitors that cut too hard too close to competition have little energy.

Which makes the analogy even more apt. Cutting weight, like engineering, is a rational response to the rules of the game. To whatever extent its bad for the game, the rules should be changed (in this case I've heard proposals for multiple weigh ins over days leading up to the fight, making severe cuts impossible). Until that's done, its not sandbagging.

---

Nice to see I have some fellow fight fans on the forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

You have misunderstood I believe, the key point is of competing in a skill bracket less rigorous than your actual competitive ability. The idea of deception is a red herring or distraction, an attributed motive. The opponent's reaction has nothing to do with it, it's a description of concealed relative power relations.

---

So when a solid war clan clicks "start war," choosing a random spin vs casuals, kids, and preemies instead of going CWL or asking a top clan for a FW, they're sandbagging. Not something I'd agree with, but fits your definition.
And I'm not sure why we keep coming back to the concept of "hiding" or "concealment". Believe me I've tried hiding an inferno under the AQ, she always wanders off and the matchmaker sees it anyway.