This is what I've been trying to stress... But I've been labeled as being "full of it"Quote:
Originally Posted by Skrags
Thanks for the link, it backs up a lot of what I've said and we experience the same as you laid out in your thread.
Printable View
This is what I've been trying to stress... But I've been labeled as being "full of it"Quote:
Originally Posted by Skrags
Thanks for the link, it backs up a lot of what I've said and we experience the same as you laid out in your thread.
No, this is not what you were trying to stress. The 2 situations are not comparable. Low level wardens might not be an advantage against maxed th10s with high royals. Yet they are a huge advantage against early th10s, t9.5s and th9s with low royals - especially when they come in combination with maxed th11 troop compos for a few select war attacks. On top of that he wrote that in those matches the defensive parity was good. However in contrast to that, in our wars the enemy clans have both the defensive and the offensive advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
It is though - His thread is showing that initial impressions when you match a war can be skewed based on seeing multiple TH11s and wardens (even if those wardens are low level and don't matter much).Quote:
Originally Posted by dorsan
Honestly there is no debating with you. I'm wrong in your eyes whatever argument I bring forth and your ideology of what a mismatch is so out of line its incredible.
We could have canned wars where each team brings maxed bases with the same hero and troop levels and one would attack with 3 star strategies while the other clan would attack with Gowipe 2 star strats throughout the war, and they might have it planned out as much as they possible can and try their hardest. By your definition this is a mismatch because it wasn't a "good match" because one side has inferior attacking skills when compared to the other.
In this past war you claim to have the disadvantage yet you still won by 4 stars it wasn't a "good match" because you had to try harder to get those stars. So coming back to the canned war scenario I laid out above The bases could all be the same weight, have the same troops, same heroes etc yet one clan has canned internet bases that are easy to crack while the other "tried harder" to create bases that are unique and anti 3-star. This would be another case where it's a mismatch in your eyes because the anti 3-star bases are harder to attack requiring more effort in order to get similar or better results.
Do you see how your definition of a fair war is ridiculous?
Not all teams will have the same weight. Not all teams will have the same attacking skills or base designing skills. Clearly most of your matches are not good wars when you are winning 98% of them. YOU might think they are fair but you keep beating your opponents pretty easily.... I think someone in your clan with access to your war log mentioned there were a lot of high % total destruction and 100% wars? your opponent's are likely thinking they are mismatches.
FYI, we won our war too. Even tho they had the better D, & 3 more sets of infernos, their lower heroes meant they couldn't 3 our th10s and our 11s stomped theirs. But, it was dicey in the middle because our 9s & 9.5s had more problems with their 9.11s than they thought they would.
I think you are wrong here. Dorsan would approve of that match. As you said, clans would be 100% equal on paper. That would be a perfect match. The result would be based on base design and attack skills. The better players should win right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
The only problem I see is that perfect matches would lead to the creation of super clans (the new engineering). There would be a need to some how sort clans based on skill level if perfect matches were attainable to make all wars challenging.
Again, Dorsan complains when his clan has the advantage. He is very consistent. He advocates for parity. The MMA shouldn't really try to account for a players skill when determining matches as it is now. It should focus on finding and providing fair matches on paper that's it. If it were capable of doing such a thing, then another system would be needed to match skill levels, again to prevent the super clans from non challenging wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
I'm fairly certain Dorsan is saying nothing of the sort. Skill is irrelevant to judging a mismatch.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
I think his judgement of a "mismatch" is spot on, and his clan was CLEARLY mismatched despite winning the war. They only won because the other clan couldn't attack, they sucked, they rely on their engineering crutch to win whatever wars they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
Had the other clan had the same skill level as Dorsan's clan they would have won easily 75-74 with almost minimal effort to obtain 75 stars while Dorsan's clan had to come up with an impressive attack against their #1 to get to 74.
many of his clan's wars probably are mismatches, and Dorsan would be the 1st person to tell you as much. And the reason for the mismatches is engineering...Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
double post...
If I would post based on initial impression then yes, it would be relevant. But I wasn't. So it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
You didn't bring forth any arguments that are valid for the situation. And then repeated those same ones a few more times. Repetition doesn't make them true, nor do they become new arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
How are you able to make this assessment, when your idea of my ideology of what a mismatch is has nothing to do with my actual ideas on what a mismatch is? This will become quite clear as we deal with the rest of your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
Of course that is the case. What if we had only th8s and they all had th11s with infernos and eagles. And then we would win somehow because they were all just spamming wallbreakers at our bases. Now, we would need an insane effort to just get 1 star on each of their bases, and they would need next to zero effort to 3 star ours. Just because we would win that hypothetical war - due to them spamming wallbreakers - wouldn't make the matchup fair. Whether a matchup is fair or not depends on what offense and defense each clan has, not what the end score was.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
No. That would be a perfect match in my eyes because both clan have the same chance if the player quality is equal. It's not the matchmakers job to select for player quality. It's job is to select clans that have similar offense/defense strength. I don't know who is this straw-man Dorsan that defines good matches like you write I do, but it's most certainly not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
It is ridiculous, but it isn't mine. It's some strawman Dorsan's definition who only exists in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
No one is expecting 100% perfect matches, but we do expect some that are reasonably close. Which these aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
What does this have to do with the matchmaker?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
We won less than 80% of our wars, as seen from my signature. What are you talking about? Did you just make a straw clan too for the straw Dorsan? I must be the leader of #6m or something like that in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
Oh, so now the straw Dorsan's straw clan is beating their straw opponets pretty easily. Wish I was in that clan, because the reality is nothing like that. We are on a glorious win streak of 1, which we got fighting a clan that outgunned us badly and before that we had a perfect score draw because we went in without infernos so the GW attacks could 3 star all of our 9.5s and 9s.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
I fail to see any connection between this and the topic we are discussing here. We are not talking about our last 50 wars, last 10 wars or anything like that. We are talking about 2 specific wars in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeskyDingo
Completely agree with this assesment. While I stated yesterday I dont sympathise when engineers get mismatches it really cant be argued this is one.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerfedname
/sighQuote:
Originally Posted by dorsan
You literally said you had to work harder for the stars than your opponent so it was a mismatch. See your quote:Quote:
How are you able to make this assessment, when your idea of my ideology of what a mismatch is has nothing to do with my actual ideas on what a mismatch is? This will become quite clear as we deal with the rest of your post.
So if one clan had better base design, the difficulty would be harder than if someone had cookie cutter bases. Same thing right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dorsan
In this case you clearly would have no chance to win. You previous war it wasn't even out of the question that you had a good chance yet you see GW and see TH11 and jump to conclusions out of the gate.Quote:
Of course that is the case. What if we had only th8s and they all had th11s with infernos and eagles. And then we would win somehow because they were all just spamming wallbreakers at our bases. Now, we would need an insane effort to just get 1 star on each of their bases, and they would need next to zero effort to 3 star ours. Just because we would win that hypothetical war - due to them spamming wallbreakers - wouldn't make the matchup fair. Whether a matchup is fair or not depends on what offense and defense each clan has, not what the end score was.
But if you had to work harder to get the win then it's a mismatch, like you said.Quote:
No. That would be a perfect match in my eyes because both clan have the same chance if the player quality is equal. It's not the matchmakers job to select for player quality. It's job is to select clans that have similar offense/defense strength. I don't know who is this straw-man Dorsan that defines good matches like you write I do, but it's most certainly not me.
You saying that having to work harder to get the win means it's a mismatch solidifies that a far war in your eyes is same offensive and defensive weight and both clans have to put forth the same effort to get any sort of result. If one has to work harder then it's unfair.Quote:
It is ridiculous, but it isn't mine. It's some strawman Dorsan's definition who only exists in your head.
You are right - you won by 4 stars.Quote:
No one is expecting 100% perfect matches, but we do expect some that are reasonably close. Which these aren't.
It has to do with your perceived "we had to work harder to win so it's uneven" comment.Quote:
What does this have to do with the matchmaker?
No, someone posted that you had only 2 red lines in your war log. Maybe that was you?Quote:
We won less than 80% of our wars, as seen from my signature. What are you talking about? Did you just make a straw clan too for the straw Dorsan? I must be the leader of #6m or something like that in your head.
Again, someone in this thread mentioned your clan having mostly high % wars - 98%-100% total destruction. How did your opponents do in those wars? Also 98-100%? That would make them close wars. I don't know so I'm asking.Quote:
Oh, so now the straw Dorsan's straw clan is beating their straw opponets pretty easily. Wish I was in that clan, because the reality is nothing like that. We are on a glorious win streak of 1, which we got fighting a clan that outgunned us badly and before that we had a perfect score draw because we went in without infernos so the GW attacks could 3 star all of our 9.5s and 9s.
[quote
I fail to see any connection between this and the topic we are discussing here. We are not talking about our last 50 wars, last 10 wars or anything like that. We are talking about 2 specific wars in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so what was your % in the first of the 2 said wars we are discussing? high 90s?
Just out of curiousity, I saw that the #1 in the last war had hero levels that were something like 16/18/8. How did your clan's heroes compare?