The true debate.. Is it fair to Engineers to change the MM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevejnr

Would changing wars to a situation where each person only gets one attack go any way to limit the advantage that engineers gain?

---

Yes it can, but 1 attack for 48 hours of war seems a bit too small. And opening a village will no more be possible, either recovering a failed attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Yes, definitely, but I enjoy the strategy of 2nd attacks after having seen one.

---

Agree...have thought about this, and it would be a "nuclear" option for SC to mitigate engineering, however I think strategy after battle day is pure joy. And two attacks in war is a big part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funktastic

Nowhere else in earth you can have an advantage by not building good defenses.

---

Actually, many countries have realized significant economic advantages by relying on powerful neighbors for defense. A small number of countries have completely disbanded their military.

A case can be made, though I do not necessarily endorse it, that not building strategic missile defense brings advantage by preserving the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

As I said, I would prefer a perfect matchmaker that wouldn't give an advantage or disadavantage before the war begins. Note this would mean no advantage to the carefully crafted engineer and also no disadvantage to the thoughtless rusher.

---

I think that it adds depth to the game when how you build your base matters. But, our opinions are ultimately moot; without completely revamping how they handle war weight, it's actually not possible for supercell to construct a perfect matchmaker that wouldn't give an advantage or disadvantage before the war begins. (The only way I have been able to think of is the "everybody in war gets a max base" method.) One of the fundamental problems is that clans are too diverse to find perfect matches.

This has been a great thread for considering the hypothetical "what if perfection were possible / should it be done" scenario, but that is actually not a possible scenario without radical changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevejnr

How is one supposed to be accountable for what you have built when the matchmaking has changed to make those items a disadvantage now, when they were not in the past?
I hope you have the same attitude to having not built your defences if they change it again and that you are happy to be accountable for not being able to defend if it becomes more important.

---

This is kinda my thoughts as well. These flaws were nowhere near as prevalent in the past. So why should they continue to be moving forward? That has nothing to do with "making people responsible for their own actions," esp when this wasn't an issue before. I'm with 2222 by saying engineering shouldn't be completely nerfed but the advantage should be significantly reduced or completely taken away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClasherClash443

Yes, it's true, I think engineering is a very unsportsmanlike way to play the game. But I get it, this is a game open to hundreds of millions of people all over the world, of course some will exploit loopholes.

I think what bugs me more is people that try to justify it. The excuses and reasons they come up with are total nonsense. It's like watching one of those contortionists squeeze themselves into a tiny box, you know how it will end and the whole thing just looks painful and awkward.

I believe that is why these threads almost always degrade down into personal mudslinging and have to be closed. There just isn't enough actual substance here to be debated. The people trying to justify the use of engineering or supporting it have such a tiny space to operate in, the conversation has no choice but to turn ugly quickly.

---

It can be said of both sides for different reasons. Generally speaking it's been maxers vs engineers you were either one or the other and the maxer mentality is we are ethically and morally superior because we play the right way. Play however you want but our way is the only right way. Then they lose to either a different style, a rushed clan who has higher accounts since the closer you get to max the more likely they are to get the th above. Then it's the MM fault again because we are too good to admit their might be another way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funktastic

Yes I choosed to play the game how it was intented to be played, I shouldn't be disadvantaged, the contrary is a non-sense.
As I already said, engineering was born from an exploit of a matchmaking fault, and this exploit gives you an advantage.
In reality there is no debate to have, matchmaking should be solved, and then you will be accountable of the choice of exploiting the MM hole. At least, you can still recover and build your defenses.
Just wait and see....

---

I would love to see a manual that tells me how the game is intended to be played.

1) No matter how matchmaking is changed, as long as clans with non-identical lineups are paired there will always be some way of choosing your upgrades to get a material advantage.

2) There will always be two types of players: those who choose to beat the matchmaker and those who don't.

3) The current matchmaker can be beaten very thoroughly. A team with limited attack skills can beat a team with elite attack skills by setting up a matchup that is unwinnable by the second team. A team with good (not elite) attack skills and elite matchmaker skills can have far longer win streaks than a team with elite attack skills that does not play to beat the matchmaker.

4) The players who beat the matchmaker will tend to win against the players who don't. This will make the first group of players happy and the second group of players unhappy. The more often it happens, the more unhappy the second group will be. Right now they seem to be very very unhappy.

5) One way to guarantee a matchup where neither side has a material advantage is for both sides to agree in advance to have the same amount of material. This is done in the CWL, NDL, Clash Cup, and many arranged wars where each side agrees to have a fixed number of TH11, TH10, and TH9 bases.

6) Clash Royale has a "tournament rules" system to balance material strength between players in tournaments and challenges. Each troop and structure has a predetermined maximum tournament level. For example, a tournament-level cannon is level 9. If you have a level-12 cannon, it gets reduced to level-9 for the duration of the tournament. Once a player's cards are at tournament level or higher, they can compete on a mostly level playing field. Material imbalance can only occur if a player hasn't had the opportunity to unlock a certain card. This would be less of an issue in Clash of Clans where you don't have to wait for a new troop or defense to randomly appear before you get to build/upgrade it.

7) I propose an alternate war mode where each team has a predetermined number of bases at each TH level. If a clan has a base that is too strong for a lineup slot, then the tournament rules will temporarily reduce that base to the appropriate TH level only for that clan war. For example, if the top lineup slot is a TH9 and you are a TH10, then you will play as a TH9 for that war. There is no way to outplay this matchmaking system. If you are a rushed/engineered base, you can choose to play as a lower-level TH so you won't have a disadvantage. Engineers, rushers, and maxers can all use this war mode if they want to have a materially equal war. To make it easy to find matchups, the number of different predetermined lineups should be small.

8) Some players won't want materially fair wars, won't want to play as a lower TH level, or won't like this format for other reasons. They can continue to play "Clan Wars Classic" with the current matchmaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

I would love to see a manual that tells me how the game is intended to be played.

---

I'd love to see one warn people before they place heavy defense such as mortars or wizard towers.

Careful Cheif, that defense carries a lot of war weight! You may not want to place it until you're a townhall 11!

Common sense tells you how to play the game. Common sense tells me that Supercell spends time making the content so they must want me to use every bit of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

I would love to see a manual that tells me how the game is intended to be played.

---

just like when supercell removed th snipping and jonas said that it wasn't the way the game was intended to be played, we can confortably understand that not building any defenses and strategically maxing one specific type of offense (with the intent of gaming the MM) wasn't the way supercell intended this game to be played either

no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

I would love to see a manual that tells me how the game is intended to be played.

---

There is no manual on Coc but:

- All competitions organized by SC avoid engineers
- Matchmaking was correct before someone found that there is a loophole
- You decided to exploit this loophole (here you should begin to think that your way of playing is not the way SC first decided to be)
- SC said that they work and tweak the MM to avoid engineering
- Troops are balanced to attack the same TH level.
- SC release defenses and defenses level in order to build them, not to avoid them.
- SC announced an other change on MM, it's probably because they are not happy with it.
- Maxing doesn't give you an advantage over other normal players.