Clan War Matchmaking Improvements

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilISuppose

Two players with identical max TH8s should have exactly the same war weight
Regardless of the fact that one can three star a weak TH9s and the other can't three star a max TH8 they should be weighted the same.

---

There are many possibilities for two bases to achieve the same war weight. The question is whether weight alone is enough to determine a fair match. I am suggesting that player past war performances is a more reliable indicator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by URaTOWELL

Sounds much easier to manipulate than the current system. Sorry won't work.

---

Not sure how you can manipulate past war performances from individual players. It seems self-defeating to tank your war performances just so you can get a better matchup next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Fair? In my mind fair is both sides have as close as possible the same useful offensive and defensive power. The outcome then depends on the skill of the attacking and designing. The more skilled clan wins. That is the only system that makes sense to me in a game where the only war success marker is a win/loss record. As I have said before, I hate that the matchmaker takes into account recent war success at all. The idea that all clans would be close to 50/50 war records no matter their skill to me sounds like a good way to kill wars. People would quit. It wouldn't be fun. Some clan of kids spamming troops has the same record as my clan? No thanks.

You are using the word "fair" as though it is unfair for a skilled clan to match a clan that puts no thought into their attacks. That is not unfair. The clan putting no thought into their attacks deserves to lose. It is a competition. As I've said before, I don't like participation awards either.

---

You and I seem to agree on that war should be decided by skills. Our difference lies in who should get matched against who. Using your logic, it sounds perfectly fine for engineered clans to thrive in the war community. They should get the advantage over clans that put no thought into managing war rosters, unless you don't consider war roster management a skill. I seem to remember the war community complain previously when they get matched up against farm war clans for lack of competitiveness and waste of time. However, I get your point. But it seems the only way to achieve what you want is to match engineered vs engineered and non-engineered vs non-engineered. As long as you allow engineered bases, you will not be able to achieve "same useful offensive and defensive power" balance. That gray area is too subjective, especially if you aren't willing to take player past war performances into the calculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

But where is the line drawn that causes a base (or clan) to be considered one that gets put into a different pool and matched with an engineered account? That is what I mean. If they don't tell us where that line is, it will be just chance/luck. Those on the "right" side of the line will have a very nice advantage being engineered but specifically NOT matching engineered.

---

Good question. We will have to wait and see. What I believe will happen is that it will evolve into no line. Matching maxed bases with other maxed bases assumes the clan has only maxed bases. So what will happened to clans that have some bases maxed and some not maxed? How will the MM deal with that? The current style of engineering will just be adjusted to the new MM. The defenseless base will go away and new style will come into play that will be so close to "normal" base building that the MM can't separate the two.

So clans will have to have their roster full of only maxed bases. Perhaps, that is what maxers should do to have the war they want. The new MM, if working as stated, will give them what they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

There are many possibilities for two bases to achieve the same war weight. The question is whether weight alone is enough to determine a fair match. I am suggesting that player past war performances is a more reliable indicator.

You and I seem to agree on that war should be decided by skills. Our difference lies in who should get matched against who. Using your logic, it sounds perfectly fine for engineered clans to thrive in the war community. They should get the advantage over clans that put no thought into managing war rosters, unless you don't consider war roster management a skill. I seem to remember the war community complain previously when they get matched up against farm war clans for lack of competitiveness and waste of time. However, I get your point. But it seems the only way to achieve what you want is to match engineered vs engineered and non-engineered vs non-engineered. As long as you allow engineered bases, you will not be able to achieve "same useful offensive and defensive power" balance. That gray area is too subjective, especially if you aren't willing to take player past war performances into the calculation.

---

Yes, I know what you are suggesting and there are probably others that agree, but I don't. I don't want war to be 50/50 when the only measure of success is our war record. Introduce war trophies and it would be different.

No, my "logic" does not suggest engineered clans should thrive. In fact, I've often asked that the war matchmaker be improved such that both clans have as close as possible the same offensive and defensive power (game power, troops, defense, etc). Then let the win be determined by the players playing skill. Your suggestion is not like that at all. Your suggestion has little to do with engineering and instead has to do with forcing the skilled clans to face each other, resulting in the skilled clans getting the same amount of wins as the terribly unskilled clans. That I disagree with, again unless we add war trophies.

As to whether engineering or roster engineering is a skill, I prefer to call it something that takes "knowledge" more than skill, but, yes, I agree it is something. I am not one who says engineering is bad, cheating, etc. I perfectly understand those who like it and think it should be rewarded. I personally don't like it and think it is bad for the game (yet have several engineered accounts myself). But, I understand the other side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Yes, I know what you are suggesting and there are probably others that agree, but I don't. I don't want war to be 50/50 when the only measure of success is our war record. Introduce war trophies and it would be different.

No, my "logic" does not suggest engineered clans should thrive. In fact, I've often asked that the war matchmaker be improved such that both clans have as close as possible the same offensive and defensive power (game power, troops, defense, etc). Then let the win be determined by the players playing skill. Your suggestion is not like that at all. Your suggestion has little to do with engineering and instead has to do with forcing the skilled clans to face each other, resulting in the skilled clans getting the same amount of wins as the terribly unskilled clans. That I disagree with, again unless we add war trophies.

As to whether engineering or roster engineering is a skill, I prefer to call it something that takes "knowledge" more than skill, but, yes, I agree it is something. I am not one who says engineering is bad, cheating, etc. I perfectly understand those who like it and think it should be rewarded. I personally don't like it and think it is bad for the game (yet have several engineered accounts myself). But, I understand the other side.

---

well said

Yes the matchmaking is terrible. My clan has constantly seen ridiculous matchups via engineering. We are in a war right now where we have one TH 11 and the opposing clan has 7! They will have 14 TH11 hits to our 2! This is just making those of us who are good at attacking, suffer loses because of troop strength. I hope its a real fix because I'm sure if it's just weighting offenses higher clans will just have each person only upgrade one set of troops while others do the opposite. Please get this done quickly this is very discouraging.

New Matchmaking is horrible...:polegares para baixo:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

There are many possibilities for two bases to achieve the same war weight. The question is whether weight alone is enough to determine a fair match. I am suggesting that player past war performances is a more reliable indicator.

---

And I'm saying that a max TH8 with zero war stars
and an identical max TH8 with 1000 war stars who three stars every time he raids

ARE

THE

SAME

For war weight purposes they are identical, and should be treated as such

The Matchmaking Algorithm shouldn't be trying to make the closest war it can by making sure people with similar war records meet each other, the only factor should be the upgrades you are made.

Let's be clear, of all the people complaining about matchmaking being bad, how many of them are saying

"It's not fair we are losing wars because you match us with players more skillful than us"

They're complaining that the match making isn't making a good comparison of the Offensive and Defensive capabilities of two clans.

Clans should never be matched based on skill.
Just expect the more skillful clans to have a better chance at winning.

So I guess, since supercell is changing the way the game is played, all those engineers who spent big $$$ on gems (and no, i'm not one of them) should be entitled to a full refund for any gems they purchased in order to engineer their bases... I would think thats only fair for them, since that base they spent money on to gain advantage, no longer gives advantage. I would have to think google and apple would agree that if someone spent money on a game to specifically improve their strategy and then the makers revoved the strategy, they'd be entitled to refund.

Does the in game notification means that it is now live???!

I welcome any improments the new algorithm may bring to matchmaking. In our current war 15 vs 15 we have all normally developed bases from th11 to th8, the only 'engineering' being a th4 as the last one. Our opponent has very similar higher bases, yet lower end differs dramatically. Their nr 13 and 14 are almost defenseless th11s with high level heros (e.g. max wardens) and several max troops, e.g. drags and bowlers. Nr 15 is a defenseless th10. I just cannot imagine what kind of fair match can put such attack power to match th8 and th4 bases. We have nothing against hard wars but such level of unfair advantage to one clan in attacking power is simply disgusting and makes people ask what is the point of clan wars. I really hope that the new algorithm also compares the total attacking powers of the the clans to prevent the most weird matches.