Solution to fix engineering?

Require anybody with a level 8 lab to have two inferno towers to be eligeable for war. Require anybody with a level 9 lab or a warden to have two inferno towers and an eagle to be eligeable for war.

What do you guys think? Seems to me that might stop the largest problems with unfair wars even though it wouldn't totally fix the lower ths. It would still allow people to have defenseless bases all they want or rushed ths. They just wouldn't be able to war at high levels until they built the appropriate defenses.

Thoughts? Potential problems with this?

And how about fixing the extreme war weight of the eagle instead of telling players what they should upgrade? I dont see any problem with infernos, xbows etc. They are balanced and defenseless bases are not effective any more. We won last war against an engineered clan that have been clearly above our skill level even 3 staring one of our high th11s simply because we had a th10.75 more instead of their th10.

But the real problem is: If you cant engineer any more and matches are already very fair on what should all the clans blame their losses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrgin

And how about fixing the extreme war weight of the eagle instead of telling players what they should upgrade? I dont see any problem with infernos, xbows etc. They are balanced and defenseless bases are not effective any more. We won last war against an engineered clan that have been clearly above our skill level even 3 staring one of our high th11s simply because we had a th10.75 more instead of their th10.

But the real problem is: If you cant engineer any more and matches are already very fair on what should all the clans blame their losses?

---

The extreme war weight of the infernos xbows and eagle was probably to prevent a problem like bad matches from occurring in the first place. I don't see why you're against that.

And people complaining is not the problem.

The huge flaw in this is what about the bases that are already th11. You'd have a mass exodus. Also I personally choose an upgrade path that doesn't include the signature defenses, along with many other people.

As as much as this would help engineering I don't thinks it's a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlayneLee

The huge flaw in this is what about the bases that are already th11. You'd have a mass exodus. Also I personally choose an upgrade path that doesn't include the signature defenses, along with many other people.

As as much as this would help engineering I don't thinks it's a solution.

---

Bases that are already th11 would have to add infernos and an eagle to war.

This way people who decided to go a route to have a huge advantage over clans relying on skilled attacks would have to take their turn at being the ones at a disadvantage. Seems pretty fair.

https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...und-IV-ANSWERS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...und-IV-ANSWERS

---

That says they can't prevent such things from happening without huge complicated restrictions- but I don't see the restrictions I'm talking about being complicated- unless I'm missing something

I prefer the idea of giving every TH level the minimum war weight of a maxed base one TH lower. So if you're a TH9 your min war weight is a max TH8, etc.... This will prevent people from rushing their TH to max their offenses and get an advantage in war.

I am not for nor against strategic engineering of a base and or a roster for clanwars, one part of the clash experience the other being farming and to my cloud loving clashers pushing. Part of the joy people find on this game that within the rules SC sets players and clans have free will to upgrade offense and defense as they feel fit and participate in clanwars. Your line of reasoning though not without merit would fundamentally alter clan wars as restrictions/limitations would be enacted, could be a slippery slope to travel as whatever restrictions might SC impose....,clash on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

That says they can't prevent such things from happening without huge complicated restrictions- but I don't see the restrictions I'm talking about being complicated- unless I'm missing something

---

That says that SC do not want to introduce restrictions. Your entire suggestion is predicated upon restricting who can war.

Also I agree it wouldn't fix everything at all townhall levels but it would, I think anyways, massively help fix the level of engineering most people complain about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambletamble

I am not for nor against strategic engineering of a base and or a roster for clanwars, one part of the clash experience the other being farming and to my cloud loving clashers pushing. Part of the joy people find on this game that within the rules SC sets players and clans have free will to upgrade offense and defense as they feel fit and participate in clanwars. Your line of reasoning though not without merit would fundamentally alter clan wars as restrictions/limitations would be enacted, could be a slippery slope to travel as whatever restrictions might SC impose....,clash on

---

Supercell already decided to change something almost nobody was complaining about that most people used and wanted - sniping. So they already have show to just limit the game drastically at any point they feel like.

This would be about stopping people from getting easy wars and make wars based more on fairness and skill. I don't see the reason to be alarmed about making war more fair in a seemingly uncomplicated restriction they would benefit most players- and people have been asking for wars to be more fair for a long time now. This is a much less limiting change than getting rid of sniping.

If you're worried about a slippery slope worry about what happened in December of 2015 imo- not something that would help war be based more on skill than upgrading a certain way to have easy attacks.

I don't think SC wants to fix engineering, everything they have done claiming to make it better made it worse.

Example: if you have lowest base th7, opponents lowest base th3 like they usually do, now you get zero war bonus, how will it help? It rather rewards engineering.

Every Chinese clan we face is engineered. SC is owned by Chinese investors. This won't change. We have to learn to live with lopsided wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajputro

I don't think SC wants to fix engineering, everything they have done claiming to make it better made it worse.

Example: if you have lowest base th7, opponents lowest base th3 like they usually do, now you get zero war bonus, how will it help? It rather rewards engineering.

Every Chinese clan we face is engineered. SC is owned by Chinese investors. This won't change. We have to learn to live with lopsided wars.

---

You could be right about that- however they did seem to try and fix hacks and I think they have been successful to a large degree in that at least- and that shows that what you're saying is at least not necessarily the case. But I do forget if that happened prior to the change in majority shareholding so I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

That says that SC do not want to introduce restrictions. Your entire suggestion is predicated upon restricting who can war.

---

This is what it ends up saying "We can’t really prevent them without making extremely complex restrictions that will adversely impact some players and that would require a lot of time and development effort to do right - and even then they might not even work that well in the long term. "

What I'm saying is they could use simple restrictions- the claim that they'd have to be extremely complex doesn't seem true. And people could go on playing their engineered bases all they want as well. So they're not being restricted from having those bases at all.

And why would they worry about adversely effecting a minority of people who are adversely effecting others now? I don't believe that's a true answer either as they adversely effected the majority with the sniping update. So I don't believe that that is their main concern at all. It doesn't fit with their past history of actions. Also they just nerfed the ct which also adversely effected plenty of people just recently. Meanwhile they put restrictions on the builder base- so they can't in honesty be against restrictions either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

That was just a link that I had to hand. SC have repeatedly said that they do not want to impose restrictions on how people play the game. You are still proposing a restriction. I don't have links to them stating that and, TBH, cannot be bothered to dig them out but that is SC's position AIUI.

---

What I'm saying is they already have restricted how people played the game many times already so I don't believe that statement made in that topic to be true.

Also it seems that the argument they made saying they'd need complex restrictions that would take a ton of time to develop is part of their reasoning for not making them in that post- which is what I'm addressing currently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

This is what it ends up saying "We can’t really prevent them without making extremely complex restrictions that will adversely impact some players and that would require a lot of time and development effort to do right - and even then they might not even work that well in the long term. "

What I'm saying is they could use simple restrictions- the claim that they'd have to be extremely complex isn't true. And people could go on playing their engineered bases all they want as well.

And why would they worry about adversely effecting a minority of people who are adversely effecting others now? I don't believe that's a true answer either as they adversely effected the majority with the sniping update. So I don't believe that that is their main concern at all. It doesn't fit with their past history of actions.

---

That was just a link that I had to hand. SC have repeatedly said that they do not want to impose restrictions on how people play the game. I don't have links to them stating that and, TBH, cannot be bothered to search for them but that is SC's position AIUI. As you are still proposing a restriction I don't see this proposal being the way forward that SC would be likely to choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

Require anybody with a level 8 lab to have two inferno towers to be eligeable for war. Require anybody with a level 9 lab or a warden to have two inferno towers and an eagle to be eligeable for war.

---

Require everyone to play the "one right way" which happens to coincide with your playstyle. This is getting old.

Just to play devils advocate and further the discussion this would basically require all new th11s to drop the eagle right away. (As almost everyone upgrades their lab asap) I feel that even the most ardent maxers would find this progression silly.

Though Op i tend to agree that the advent of th 11 particularly the grand warden has brought about issues in clanwars that many on this forum did not forsee the dec 15th update related to th sniping, loot bonus and shields had no impact on how people upgraded bases or set rosters for clan wars. Yes, they changed how clashers clash, some on here feel forced to play the builder village the same way you wish people be allowed to war if they only progress their base a certain way. The slope i fear then is does SC then say what other troops and spells must be upgraded, where is the line then drawn between free to play how you want and a potentially stale,boring conventional way...,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambletamble

Though Op i tend to agree that the advent of th 11 particularly the grand warden has brought about issues in clanwars that many on this forum did not forsee the dec 15th update related to th sniping, loot bonus and shields had no impact on how people upgraded bases or set rosters for clan wars. Yes, they changed how clashers clash, some on here feel forced to play the builder village the same way you wish people be allowed to war if they only progress their base a certain way. The slope i fear then is does SC then say what other troops and spells must be upgraded, where is the line then drawn between free to play how you want and a potentially stale,boring conventional way...,

---

My solution would simply be a way to keep things like th11s with wardens matching having the war weight of a th9 - something most people would want that benefits the community. Currently many people quit because such things are allowed and are upset- so it would be in the best interest of the majority for such a change to occur- and thus isn't anything to worry about.

The fact that they changed how the game was played years into it really is something to be worried about on the other hand. And those people weren't really even negatively effecting anyone either. So if you're worried about making wars more about skill and less about spending time upgrading to get easy attacks- I'd think you'd be much more concerned about what already happened and how it shows anything major could happen any time in the future on any sc game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holbomb

Require everyone to play the "one right way" which happens to coincide with your playstyle. This is getting old.

Just to play devils advocate and further the discussion this would basically require all new th11s to drop the eagle right away. (As almost everyone upgrades their lab asap) I feel that even the most ardent maxers would find this progression silly.

---

If you cant kill it dont build it, even a EA clash on... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holbomb

Require everyone to play the "one right way" which happens to coincide with your playstyle. This is getting old.

Just to play devils advocate and further the discussion this would basically require all new th11s to drop the eagle right away. (As almost everyone upgrades their lab asap) I feel that even the most ardent maxers would find this progression silly.

---

Yeah well this "one way" of playing (which is not one way in the slightest as you would still have a myriad of options available) simply means wars would be based more on skill and not grinding to have an advantage over other people in a war search. Why play a game not based on skill? is that really what this game has come to? Would their be much reason for us to keep playing if it has? They Limited hacks too to make wars fairer and the same complaints were made that you are making now and t happened anyways so most people could actually have fun.

Is it fun to be 21 and play basketball against kids? Seems like most people would say no to that and I find this similar in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

Yeah well this "one way" of playing simply means wars would be based more on skill and not grinding to have an advantage over other people in a war search. Why play a game not based on skill? is that really what this game has come to? Would their be much reason for us to keep playing if it has? They Limited hacks too to make wars fairer and the same complaints were made that you are making now and t happened anyways so most people could actually have fun.

Is it fun to be 21 and play basketball against kids? Seems like most people would say no to that and I find this similar in my opinion.

---

Here we go again with the assertion that enginneers are somehow unskilled at the game.

Here we go again with the comparison between engineering and using software specifically against the ToS.

And no forum rant would be complete without an obtuse sports metaphor lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

My solution would simply be a way to keep things like th11s with wardens matching having the war weight of a th9 - something most people would want that benefits the community. Currently many people quit because such things are allowed and are upset- so it would be in the best interest of the majority for such a change to occur- and thus isn't anything to worry about.

The fact that they changed how the game was played years into it really is something to be worried about on the other hand. And those people weren't really even negatively effecting anyone either. So if you're worried about making wars more about skill and less about spending time upgrading to get easy attacks- I'd think you'd be much more concerned about what already happened and how it shows anything major could happen any time in the future on any sc game.

---

You say that it isn't a change to worry about but you are trying to remove a level of strategy from a strategy game, saying that it is a problem that such a variety of strategy is allowed. It is not a problem, it is CoC's crowning glory, it is what made CoC the game that it is (hyperbole, I know, but I hardly ever stoop to it).

There needs to be room for the rushed, the defenceless, the mini-max, the maxed, all in the same game.

As long as the MM adequately accounts for and provides even matches there is no problem. That is what needs working on, that is what SC are continually adjusting, that is far better for the game than excluding players from a section of it just because some people don't like the way that others play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holbomb

Here we go again with the assertion that enginneers are somehow unskilled at the game.

Here we go again with the comparison between engineering and using software specifically against the ToS.

And no forum rant would be complete without an obtuse sports metaphor lol

---

It was pretty pertinent though as it's kind of similar in a lot of ways. I just had to find a nice way of comparing the two without being insulting- which is why I used that imagery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

You say that it isn't a change to worry about but you are trying to remove a level of strategy from a strategy game, saying that it is a problem that such a variety of strategy is allowed. It is not a problem, it is CoC's crowning glory, it is what made CoC the game that it is (hyperbole, I know, but I hardly ever stoop to it).

There needs to be room for the rushed, the defenceless, the mini-max, the maxed, all in the same game.

As long as the MM adequately accounts for and provides even matches there is no problem. That is what needs working on, that is what SC are continually adjusting, that is far better for the game than excluding players from a section of it just because some people don't like the way that others play the game.

---

Why do we need rushing to get easy to use troops and heros as a strategy when there is already strategy in place with using different armies. Also the prior "strategy" is a one time strat- and gives you indefinite benefits whereas normal wars makes strategic planning count every war- which seems more like a game to me.

Also there would be just as much room for those people to play the farming game and the pushing game as their is now- it would still be allowed- so anybody who wants such bases could have them.

And I don't agree that what made coc the popular game it became was people rushing to get easy war matches at all- it was from all the social people playing and telling their friends it was a fun low stress game to spend time on. It wasn't from the people going out of their way to grind so they could have a long term easier war win record- the people who made this game such a success wouldn't have ever done that in my opinion. But I do think it made a lot of them quit long ago. Pretty sure if it started off that way most people would have never bothered staying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

You say that it isn't a change to worry about but you are trying to remove a level of strategy from a strategy game, saying that it is a problem that such a variety of strategy is allowed. It is not a problem, it is CoC's crowning glory, it is what made CoC the game that it is (hyperbole, I know, but I hardly ever stoop to it).

There needs to be room for the rushed, the defenceless, the mini-max, the maxed, all in the same game.

As long as the MM adequately accounts for and provides even matches there is no problem. That is what needs working on, that is what SC are continually adjusting, that is far better for the game than excluding players from a section of it just because some people don't like the way that others play the game.

---

Someone sticky this and put the last sentence in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

Why do we need rushing to get easy to use troops and heros as a strategy when there is already strategy in place with using different armies. Also the prior "strategy" is a one time strat- and gives you indefinite benefits whereas normal wars makes strategic planning count every war- which seems more like a game to me.

Also there would be just as much room for those people to play the farming game and the pushing game as their is now- it would still be allowed- so anybody who wants such bases could have them.

---

The vast majority of the bases out there are rushed. If you aren't thinking of them then you aren't speaking "for the good of the game". Lose the majority of players and you will have lost the game.

Nice of you that you wish to allow those that play in a way that you don't approve of limited rights to play parts of the game, almost as if they are real players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

The vast majority of the bases out there are rushed. If you aren't thinking of them then you aren't speaking "for the good of the game". Lose the majority of players and you will have lost the game.

Nice of you that you wish to allow those that you don't approve of limited rights to play parts of the game, almost as if they are real players.

---

So your interest here is not for engineers but for people who rushed on accident then ? I don't think that's the case but hey who knows. I can't prove it either way

Either way these kinds of things are definitely causing dissolusionment in a large base of players trying to play a fun game based on skill- so maybe if there is no way to change it we'll eventually have to move on and find things without such flaws. At the very least those of us who feel this way need to stop rewarding it with money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

So your interest here is not for engineers but for people who rushed on accident then ? I don't think that's the case but hey who knows. I can't prove it either way

Either way these kinds of things are definitely causing dissolusionment in a large base of players trying to play a fun game based on skill- so maybe if there is no way to change it we'll eventually have to move on and find things without such flaws.

---

Nice attempt to discredit my position by insinuating that I have a vested interest. Not only a fallacious argument but so poorly done that it would be laughable were it not sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

Nice attempt to discredit my position by insinuating that I have a vested interest. Not only a fallacious argument but so poorly done that it would be laughable were it not sad.

---

I said "who knows" for a reason. It means I could be wrong about your position even if I don't think I am. It just means I'm open to being wrong. Can't see anything wrong about that

Anyways thanks for being so friendly lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

I said "who knows" for a reason. It means I could be wrong about your position even if I don't think I am. It just means I'm open to being wrong. Can't see anything wrong about that

Anyways thanks for being so friendly lol.

---

When people constantly make the assumption that one engineers and use that as the basis of their fallacious arguments, one tends to lose tolerance of such tricks and those who use them.

Edit: And despite what you may think, neither I nor my clan engineer. I also don't care whether you choose to believe me or not.

As you can tell, I've had this conversation before too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

When people constantly make the assumption that one engineers and use that as the basis of their fallacious arguments, one tends to lose tolerance of such tricks and those who use them.

---

It's not a trick though- it's what I would assume based on what I noticed to be an emotional attatchment to an issue- but I threw in the fact that I wasn't sure I was even right on purpose- because I'm not always right.

Either way I'm trying my best to be nice about something I think is totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

It's not a trick though- it's what I would assume based on what I noticed to be an emotional attatchment to an issue- but I threw in the fact that I wasn't sure I was even right on purpose- because I'm not always right.

---

It is both a rhetorical trick and a fallacious argument. Seriously. It's as old as the hills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

It's not a trick though- it's what I would assume based on what I noticed to be an emotional attatchment to an issue- but I threw in the fact that I wasn't sure I was even right on purpose- because I'm not always right.

Either way I'm trying my best to be nice about something I think is totally wrong.

---

So your best at trying to be nice is to assume the worst in people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

It is both a rhetorical trick and a fallacious argument. Seriously. It's as old as the hills.

---

Believe me- what I assume based on what I read is simply my best guess based on the evidence- and has nothing to do with tricks- it's simply what I gathered. And either way I already told you I left room for my assumption to be wrong- so I don't need to discuss that over and over again. You can if you want but I'm done.

I can see why so many people like coming to these forums lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

Believe me- what I assume based on what I read is simply my best guess based on the evidence- and has nothing to do with tricks- it's simply what I gathered. And either way I already told you I left room for my assumption to be wrong- so I don't need to discuss that over and over again. You can if you want but I'm done.

---

Firstly, what evidence? Seriously, what evidence do you have that would point to me either rushing or engineering?

Secondly, if you were not employing a rhetorical trick or advancing a fallacious argument you would have kept your erroneous, evidence free assumption out of your post. That you did not and that you used it as you did is what I objected to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

Firstly, what evidence? Seriously, what evidence do you have that would point to me either rushing or engineering?

Secondly, if you were not employing a rhetorical trick or advancing a fallacious argument you would have kept your erroneous, evidence free assumption out of your post. That you did not and that you used it as you did is what I objected to.

---

I will reply to the content of people who keep on topic - you can rehash that all you want though with the other guy I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspex

You made whether I rushed or engineered on topic when you brought that into the thread.

And it's a bit much of you to play the forum etiquette card when you posted a thread proposing a change to the game in the General sub-forum.

---

This isn't a proposal to change the game at all- this is a topic to discuss the pros and cons of what I was talking about.

As Hot is this thread is, both of are circling around the same thing and wasting precious ATP. I won't put words in either persons mouth but the fact is Aspen is correct in stating that SC has stated they wouldn't do such a change R/T a mass exodus and trust me when I say it would be huge! SC would be dumb to not be changing the MM algorithm, but I don't feel they would ever go public when they did. The reason for this is that people would find some way to be ticked about or find a way to instantly manipulate it. And most people I know who engineer spend quite a bit of money on heroes, builders and such. So I hope you can see where I'm going.

@Jack(OP): Your suggestion is not wrong by any means. Would it solve engineering? I don't feel that it would but it would certainly help with weights. And lastly I think the forums are a great place, unfortunately everyone has an opinion and many times opinions can lead to debates. And who on earth likes a debate lol!
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlayneLee

As Hot is this thread is, both of are circling around the same thing and wasting precious ATP. I won't put words in either persons mouth but the fact is Aspen is correct in stating that SC has stated they wouldn't do such a change R/T a mass exodus and trust me when I say it would be huge! SC would be dumb to not be changing the MM algorithm, but I don't feel they would ever go public when they did. The reason for this is that people would find some way to be ticked about or find a way to instantly manipulate it. And most people I know who engineer spend quite a bit of money on heroes, builders and such. So I hope you can see where I'm going.

@Jack(OP): Your suggestion is not wrong by any means. Would it solve engineering? I don't feel that it would but it would certainly help with weights. And lastly I think the forums are a great place, unfortunately everyone has an opinion and many times opinions can lead to debates. And who on earth likes a debate lol!
:)

---

I don't think it would solve it either just lessen the blow for people feeling that the game is becoming less and less fun as time goes on. But either way you seem like a nice person so yeah not everyone is bad here it seems. And yeah I see what you're saying about them spending money on heros, and that might be the real reasoning behind the public relations statements that I don't think are true at all. You make a good point on that.

Too bad it kind of ruins the fun of a game for so many people though. Oh well not everything can last forever. Not sure it will cause the demise of the game but maybe it could assist in it happening. At least they fixed global though so I can use the game as a chat room again so I'm not totally ready to up and quit simply because of that. I just probably won't spend much time warring and definitely won't be gemming anything any time soon.

Thanks for being a cool poster on here though. Other people are just simply too much to handle lol and your presence here is appreciated amidst all that.

JackKerouac,

The game mechanics of Clash of Clans can be compared very much with Formula 1. Yes it helps to get the best driver but it also helps to build the fastest car. There are teams who spend an awful lot of time money and energy to creating the best setup that you can dream of. If you suddenly change the rules so the top teams will have a disadvantage then they will be very angry and probably quit. Let say that you want Formula 1 to be more fair and it should be based on the skills of the driver and you decide that every car will be identical, how do you think the current top teams would react to that decision? They spent probably billions to get where they are now and suddenly that investment is wasted. Although in CoC it is not about billions, but people might have spent years to get a base with just one level 1 canon and maxed out troops and maxed out hero's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazorBlade72nd

JackKerouac,

The game mechanics of Clash of Clans can be compared very much with Formula 1. Yes it helps to get the best driver but it also helps to build the fastest car. There are teams who spend an awful lot of time money and energy to creating the best setup that you can dream of. If you suddenly change the rules so the top teams will have a disadvantage then they will be very angry and probably quit. Let say that you want Formula 1 to be more fair and it should be based on the skills of the driver and you decide that every car will be identical, how do you think the current top teams would react to that decision? They spent probably billions to get where they are now and suddenly that investment is wasted. Although in CoC it is not about billions, but people might have spent years to get a base with just one level 1 canon and maxed out troops and maxed out hero's.

---

I'm supposed to feel bad for those people why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajputro

Every Chinese clan we face is engineered.

---

And most run like hell if you hit them hard and fast
In our exp. The Chinese are not the worst though I would rather face the Chinese engineers than some other parts of the world who seem to be most adept at actually breaking SC's ToS and getting away with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holbomb

Here we go again with the assertion that enginneers are somehow unskilled at the game.

---

Era good percentage are; which is why they do it in the first place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holbomb

Here we go again with the comparison between engineering and using software specifically against the ToS.

---

In our exp a lot of clans that promote engineering also turn a blind eye to the use of 3^rd party software

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holbomb

And no forum rant would be complete without an obtuse sports metaphor lol

---

And no forum rant would be complete without engineers trying to defend an indefensible case either lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazorBlade72nd

The game mechanics of Clash of Clans can be compared very much with Formula 1. Yes it helps to get the best driver but it also helps to build the fastest car.

---

Now that is a very obtuse sports metaphor – You evidently do not have the same understanding of F! That I, an avid fan for over 50 yrs, have of the sport. If you did then you either would not have tried to draw the comparison or the comparison that you drew would not have been so simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan203

I prefer the idea of giving every TH level the minimum war weight of a maxed base one TH lower. So if you're a TH9 your min war weight is a max TH8, etc.... This will prevent people from rushing their TH to max their offenses and get an advantage in war.

---

On the surface this would appear to be one of the more sensible suggestions I have seen but I am unsure how it would play out or if it would solve rather than just 'shift' the problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackKerouac

I'm supposed to feel bad for those people why?

---

You don't have to feel bad for them, just like they don't feel bad for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollboothwillie

You don't have to feel bad for them, just like they don't feel bad for you.

---

No one should feel bad for people preying on something that gives them an advantage permanently by gaming the system - people like that should always be put in their place