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

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

July 27th, 2017
Stevejnr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexheney

I don't think it would make much difference, but it would severely affect how interesting wars are for everybody else.

I do agree that wars would be far less interesting without the two attacks, but many wars are losing interest for a lot of players purely because of the advantage gained by engineering, most of which seems to be that they get to attack for 6 stars against decent bases, which is good fun. In return the non engineers get to attack their trash defenceless base for a really boring 3 star that is no fun for even a TH7.
Maybe they could build something in to identify the heavily engineered accounts and limit them to 1 attack each, while non engineered folks can continue to get 2 attacks, that doesn't completely remove engineering it just severely limits the advantage.
July 27th, 2017
Skinnyfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandwolfza

look even if I try to be 'fair' in this debate and listen to the engineers POV, this thing that you just wrote is the kind of thing that makes think, "are you kidding me?!"

You could say why that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2222

Ha, yeah, that was not a good attempt. The better argument is that many engineers are currently engineers because they were getting bad matches against other engineers and they thought it would be a way to get an even match (this doesn't apply to roster engineers).

It wasn't meant as an attempt really. It's my opinion. How do you know it isn't true? It would be hard to know why people engineer unless you asked the majority of them to get a recurring theme.

The other viable reason could be that the players are like you 'great 3 star attackers' but they want to win so badly and easily they just engineer. Laziness really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexheney

If that is something that others "need to understand" then you must be pretty sure of it. So what evidence do you have for that rather unusual belief, to make you that sure?

Ok. I will rephrase. "It's something I would like you to understand". I don't have any evidence. Do you have evidence for your theory? I don't need evidence to give my opinion. I'm sure because that's what my gut tells me. I'm not on trial so I don't need to prove anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

It's customary in most games and competitions that skilled players/teams beat unskilled players/teams. I'm not sure I've ever heard it argued that that's an unfair outcome.
The next olympics could be interesting if this attitude takes hold!

Yes agreed but this isn't the olympics. In this case SC allows this behaviour so they have no call to answer. In your analogy The Olympic committee is allowing nations to use a method (within its own rules) to compete with the 'USA's' of the coc world. This is why I think any and all frustrations should be aimed at SC and not the players because the reason for them doing what they do is understandable.
July 27th, 2017
strandwolfza

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinnyfat

You could say why that is

I refuse

if I really have to explain why it's wrong to give any kind of advantage to a less skilled player so that he's able to compete with someone more skilled, then I'm out of this debate
July 27th, 2017
strandwolfza

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinnyfat

Ok. I will rephrase. "It's something I would like you to understand". I don't have any evidence. Do you have evidence for your theory? I don't need evidence to give my opinion. I'm sure because that's what my gut tells me. I'm not on trial so I don't need to prove anything

a good opinion is just as good as the reasoning behind it. without good reasons, it's worthless. also, "gut-thinking" is not reliable
July 27th, 2017
TankSinatra

Redirecting back to the OP, SC can change the game at any time. I think that's fair, but more importantly 'fair' has nothing to do with it. Their game, their rules. If you don't like it be clear on where the blame lies, fully on SC.
Seems everyone would rather argue whether its 'fair' to engineer now or going forward if we see no solution. I think it is, and I'm not going to consult any self appointed video game ethicist for a second opinion about strategic choices in a video game. I'll play the game within the rules, and if the rules change I'll adapt or move on. So if you're feeling hate, remember the words of noted philosopher Ice-T -

Don't hate the player, hate the game
July 27th, 2017
HarryHornet

My clan is made up of non hardcore players of all ages. We used to enjoy wars - expect to lose 2/3 which is fine and also want to enjoy some personal base progress.

Recently we are drawing more and more engineered clans (a clan with at least 2 bases out of 15 that have maxed troops with little or no defence) probably 3 times out of 4 - so we just don't bother fighting. We one star their bases for clan XP, they win. We don't get anything out of it, and presumably neither do they.

So as far as we are concerned clan wars are broken. Its also getting worse - you now have a choice, make an engineered base for war or a strong base for normal progression.

I'm all in favour of matching attacks rather than defences. You get two attacks so it makes more sense to match those. I am sure that the answer is not so simple, but there has got to be something better than the lopside draws we are seeing.
July 27th, 2017
2222

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryHornet

My clan is made up of non hardcore players of all ages. We used to enjoy wars - expect to lose 2/3 which is fine and also want to enjoy some personal base progress.

Recently we are drawing more and more engineered clans (a clan with at least 2 bases out of 15 that have maxed troops with little or no defence) probably 3 times out of 4 - so we just don't bother fighting. We one star their bases for clan XP, they win. We don't get anything out of it, and presumably neither do they.

So as far as we are concerned clan wars are broken. Its also getting worse - you now have a choice, make an engineered base for war or a strong base for normal progression.

I'm all in favour of matching attacks rather than defences. You get two attacks so it makes more sense to match those. I am sure that the answer is not so simple, but there has got to be something better than the lopside draws we are seeing.

The matchmaker definitely needs improvement, but if you are matching 3 of 4 clans with 2 max defenseless bases in 15v15 wars, there is something about your own roster you can change to lessen that. That isn't normal.
July 27th, 2017
Mozam

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandwolfza

a good opinion is just as good as the reasoning behind it. without good reasons, it's worthless. also, "gut-thinking" is not reliable

This isn't true at all. The truth of a conclusion isn't related to how one arrives at the conclusion. I can decide that I "know" the earth is round because I flipped a coin and it came up tails. I don't have any good reasons to believe the earth is round, yet my opinion is still true. This person's opinion on engineered bases is no more worthless than anyone else's --- unless Supercell weighs in and definitively explains how their game is supposed to be played.
July 27th, 2017
Skinnyfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandwolfza

a good opinion is just as good as the reasoning behind it. without good reasons, it's worthless. also, "gut-thinking" is not reliable

Well my reasoning is because I know what people are like in online gaming. They will do whatever they can to win because they have low self-esteem in real life and the winning feeling they get in-game must be achieved to give them that short-term happiness.

A less 'amateur psychologist' take on it would be 'nobody likes to lose'. So that is my reason for thinking that this is why engineering is so popular. I ask again; what is your theory?

It's my opinion and I'm not saying i am categorically correct anyway. It's all best guess.
July 27th, 2017
Mozam

My clan is casual, but we play the game for the wars. Without the wars, most in my clan would have quit long ago because we find the farming and/or trophy pushing boring. We did the expected thing for years, leveling up all buildings and troops as normal and then proceeding to the next townhall level. Then about a year ago, we realized that the opponents we were encountering who didn't have all their buildings for their townhalls weren't people who had just leveled their Townhall but that this was a deliberate tactic they were using for wars. This was how we discovered the .5 tactic. And we started implementing it ourselves because it's advantages were obvious after learning of it. Now in the last three or four months, we've gone through the same process with "engineered" bases who have maxed TH11 war troops but no defenses. And again, the advantages are obvious after you see the bases in action. So, we are now building defenseless bases. Not because we're lazy or can't compete, but because we want the footing to be as even as it can be and if we have some control over that, we want to use it.

I don't really care how Supercell addresses the problem, but I hope they do. I actually prefer the casual traditional method of progression.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page