Printable View
In our current war, we are facing 14 TH11s even though we only have 6 ourselves.
Supercell has claimed to improve matchmaking many times but never has. It's all lies.
I say this as someone from a clan that wins at least 8 out of every 10 wars by the way. So it's not like I'm blaming the system for our failures because we very rarely fail. It just genuinely is a terrible system.
These changes have been an absolute joke.
Since the changes we have came up against way more engineered clans than before.
Or current war has been the worst of the lot. Various defenceless/mini defence accounts across the board. A TH11 at the bottom 9 spot with a level 15 warden. TH9s with queens and level 4 drags at the bottom of their 8s.
Our clan is all regular players and we only have one 9 that's not got xbows.
This war could have still been won if I didn't mess up my attack on their one.
But these matchups are a joke. So much for being matched against clans with a similar ethos to war as you.
Your post actually illustrates why SC will never be able to "fix" matchmaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyle
In my book, a fair match is a match where each side has a fair chance at winning - how many percentages it takes for a fair chance can of course be argued. In your case where you could have won if you hadn't messed up your attack the match actually turned out to be fair... (after the fact). So with that in mind... Is there actually a consensus about what a fair match is ? Most will only factor in the bases and troops that they can see before the war begins - the ability to actually utilize an advantage is disregarded with the usual "not our fault that they have no skills at all"..... which is the same kind of argument that is used by engineers vs non-engineers.
Had you drawn another clan more like your own and won by a landslide (I assume you would since you managed so well against the clan you did draw) would you then have considered the match to be fair ?
I know very well that qualitative measures are hard to code into the engine, but in the perfect world I wouldn't expect to see any clan winning the majority of their wars... winning often should be "rewarded" with harder opponnents - not the same rif raf you are used to go up against.
Just my oppinion (from a clan that show far more red than green :))
So it gave you one bad match, but the rest of the time you can win 8 out of 10. Doesn't sound all that bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSide
i've said it before, I'll say it again. It's NOT just the winning and losing. Playing against an engineered team is no fun because there is no satisfaction clearing a base with one cannon and a few tesla and heroes. In our current 20 V war, every base up to the number six of our opponent has a single cannon, heroes and traps. It's just not fun clearing those 14 bases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obamalix
players have been complaining about engineers on these forums for, quite literally, years. Finally, just recently sc announced that their developers had been working on mm improvements for "a few weeks". Specifically, improvements related to lop sided bases. That announcement raised a lot of hopes. But, there's always a but, the experience of two clans I am in, and according to many posting on this forum the experience of many other clans, the mm post update is worse, much worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neminoppan
i think it's only natural that many players hopes have been dashed to the extent that they think there actually is, quite simply, no solution, and so they give up wars. I am very close to being one of them
Stop with the whinging, matchmaking is perfectly fine.
Engineered clans have weak bases, defendless even better. If u guys are maxing your bases it would make life tough for them.
If anything you would have the advantage as they try to 3 star your TH11 with EA.
"We are matched against more engineers than ever"
There are more engineers in the game than ever.
"We play fair. We always put down xbows, infernoes, and eagles first thing."
Your upgrade order is inefficient and ineffective.
"This is not the way the game is intended to be played"
You mean this is not the way YOU intended for ME to play the game.
"We used to win by five stars but our last 3 wars were decided by damage percentage. So unfair."
It's working.
"Match was so unfair. Only reason we won..."
If you won it was not so uneven.
"Stupid matchmaker broke our 23 war win streak"
It's working.
"It was supposed to match engineers against other engineers"
No.
Sorry guys. Been playing for a while. We got some tough and some easy matches but usually close enough. Never perfect. But there are still wars that come down to the last attack in the last minute. That is why I keep playing.
We have been at a disadvantage just about every war since the change. Our current 20 v 20 war.
US VS Them
1-4(TH11), 1-9(TH11)
5-8(TH10), 10-15(TH9)
9-20(TH9), 16-18(TH10)
, 19-20(TH11)
I think this update made match ups more unfair. We have just 1 engineered th11 and 4 out of the last 6 match ups we went against 6 to 10 th11 engineered to our 1. Impossible to win and very frustrating. More weight on th level and more weight on th11 Max troops need to be addressed. Maybe also a weight reduction on xbows and infernos would help in fair match ups. Just my opinion