Clan War Matchmaking Improvements

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iBork

The line is dictated by the two opposing forces of the game. Offense vs Defense. A maxed base has the two in balance. A non maxed base is skewed one way or the other. Clans are composed of a mixture of TH levels, each with different (out of balance) levels of defense vs offense. It's not that SC encourages engineering. It's that the parameters of the game enforce it. You are forced to engineer if you want fair wars.

---

Well would it be reasonable to say that the parameters are a little too broad? Perhaps some fine tuning is in order?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dtownies

Well would it be reasonable to say that the parameters are a little too broad? Perhaps some fine tuning is in order?

---

Yes and no. The parameters of the game are the parameters of the game. Meaning, a clan is composed of too many variables to make war match be equal across the boards. You can lessen the abusive defenseless engineering. But most are under the impression that MM can be modified to give fair wars to clans that have opted to max a TH as they move up. THIS, will never happen. It can't.

Engineering is the ONLY way to NOT get unfair wars. A maxed based is perfectly balanced per the game. A non maxed maxed base is not. There are non maxed bases in the game. <------- this is why.

I have 3 accounts 1 max th11 and 1 Th11 without eagle and 1 defenseless Th11. I have the laziest builders in my clan they never work. That being said I'm not free2play but I will tell you something you are missing.

Supercell is known for buff and nerf cycles. I could give you lots of troop examples where the new must have troops everyone gems and then it gets nerfed into utter uselessness.

Personally i feel they let engineering (march 2015 blatantly encouraging it) go unchecked for so long that most people serious about war created second accounts to stay competitive. Massive profit for Supercell last few years.

Now its gotten to the point they are ready to turn the tables and completely nerf engineering in hopes most engineers will pay for defense builds to stay competitive.

And to be honest most smart engineers knew this was coming. Supercell cleverly says they don't want to take away the option for different playing styles. But we all know that engineered bases will be as worthless as the miners were after the last nerf cycle.

On a side note I am happy to rid all engineered accounts from my clan if we could get a balenced war matchup. My point is there's always a profit motive in every update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by URaTOWELL

I have 3 accounts 1 max th11 and 1 Th11 without eagle and 1 defenseless Th11. I have the laziest builders in my clan they never work. That being said I'm not free2play but I will tell you something you are missing.

Supercell is known for buff and nerf cycles. I could give you lots of troop examples where the new must have troops everyone gems and then it gets nerfed into utter uselessness.

Personally i feel they let engineering (march 2015 blatantly encouraging it) go unchecked for so long that most people serious about war created second accounts to stay competitive. Massive profit for Supercell last few years.

Now its gotten to the point they are ready to turn the tables and completely nerf engineering in hopes most engineers will pay for defense builds to stay competitive.

And to be honest most smart engineers knew this was coming. Supercell cleverly says they don't want to take away the option for different playing styles. But we all know that engineered bases will be as worthless as the miners were after the last nerf cycle.

On a side note I am happy to rid all engineered accounts from my clan if we could get a balenced war matchup. My point is there's always a profit motive in every update.

---

Yes. I have the feeling they will really destroy engineering next time(they made only bad tries before as i heard. I clash only 14 months). So i stop farming and upgrading on many of my accounts. Th11 and th 9 engineers will be for donations. Today i will start upgrade poison to 4+1, then heal (only 3 now and it's easy to upgrade and i need it), then miners. I have full(for donations) lava, loons, dragons and bowlers. Golems, witches and hogs i can upgrade on my th 9 engineer(i have add walls, traps and teslas a week ago). It will be even not bad to stop wasting nerves on that accounts soon. Th 11 has all full barracks, ready for th 11 troops . I have what to do with my 3 th9 rushers(1 of them is something like 9,5 but with almost all 7 lvl walls and weaker defence) and main account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by URaTOWELL

Now its gotten to the point they are ready to turn the tables and completely nerf engineering in hopes most engineers will pay for defense builds to stay competitive.

---

Im in lvl 14 clan. So are my other accounts in a sister clan. So 3 clans and everyone who has an engineered or minimax or defenseless base has a main big base. Everyone who starts one on the side has a main. Everyone we accepted and tried out has a main.

Im not saying there arnt people who have them only.

Since this was brought up i have asked everyone what their intentions are. Everyone's answers are along the same guideline, abandon them. Don't add defenses. Spend less gems.

I just dont see how as a company where they care about profit and R&D, that this is the path they want to go down. I know I can't be the unicorn or exception, but I am the example from 3 clans. All our clans are over experienced. We go against non engineered clans and it's a good matchup. We trade officers with the other team to talk after war. I never hear, YALL WON ONLY BECAUSE OF _______ booo.

I just dont understsnd where the huge pushback is coming from. Maybe different levels and echelons of people warring and it's different down low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iBork

Yes and no. The parameters of the game are the parameters of the game. Meaning, a clan is composed of too many variables to make war match be equal across the boards. You can lessen the abusive defenseless engineering. But most are under the impression that MM can be modified to give fair wars to clans that have opted to max a TH as they move up. THIS, will never happen. It can't.

Engineering is the ONLY way to NOT get unfair wars. A maxed based is perfectly balanced per the game. A non maxed maxed base is not. There are non maxed bases in the game. <------- this is why.

---

okay, so the only way to garner a fair war is to geek the system.

Could we possibly say that the system is flawed?

If so, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that those who continue to "game " the system are only exasperating the problem?

Engineering wasn't the only way to go. It was the easy way. Modders had been given their just desert, and because of their tiny egos started enginnering. The masses followed suit. The simple progression isn't hard to follow. That's not to say that engineered clans are cheating. They aren't . But it's not a huge stretch to connect the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd1923

Yes. I have the feeling they will really destroy engineering next time(they made only bad tries before as i heard. I clash only 14 months). So i stop farming and upgrading on many of my accounts. Th11 and th 9 engineers will be for donations. Today i will start upgrade poison to 4+1, then heal (only 3 now and it's easy to upgrade and i need it), then miners. I have full(for donations) lava, loons, dragons and bowlers. Golems, witches and hogs i can upgrade on my th 9 engineer(i have add walls, traps and teslas a week ago). It will be even not bad to stop wasting nerves on that accounts soon. Th 11 has all full barracks, ready for th 11 troops . I have what to do with my 3 th9 rushers(1 of them is something like 9,5 but with almost all 7 lvl walls and weaker defence) and main account.

---

I believe you guys are getting upset for no reason. Over the last year or 2, SC has done nothing but promote engineers. You have had the absolute run of the game. Why do you believe that is going to change?

This can't happen soon enough!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makemewise

Making Engineered base to exploit the MM to gain advantage is also called cheating in the fair-play/competitive war.

That gameplay is absurd, its like TH sniping is okay and nice but SC said it's not the way clash should be played.

Engineering base should go or upgrade them now. TH vs TH is competitive unlike defenseless base with max offense that could bully lower mirrored TH even with max defenses! Thats not right.

---

Cheating is subjective, engineering doesn't thread the line of breaking the ToS, if a certain crowd doesn't find it legal then they're free to do so. It doesn't change the fact that within the rules enforced by SC, it's not cheating.

And it's precisely the overwhelming advantage of engineering that prompted SC to tone it down a notch with this kind of approach.

Thank God for that

Thank you supercell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dtownies

And once again, your arrogance is on display. You don't own the keys to the castle. Furthermore, your idea of "hard work" is comical at best.

---

I don't understand you. Lol. I really think this change will be interesting. I will add defence to my th6-th7 engineers( 8 bases) and i will make full 7 th bases. I need that one way or another. I will start from point defence/teslas/traps first lvl and i will waste gold into walls on 7 th. Then i will decide if i really need and how many bases i need to turn into normal. That will be more interesting for tactical and strategic game. I like it so much!

I've been working on my engineered TH11 for over a year. Ironically I've barely used it in wars, because I've been working on the heroes. I'm not excited about this 'balancing' update, but since my clan already faces engineered clans, while my clan is much more balanced, I guess it won't make much of a difference anyways...

That being said, I have a feeling they may go overboard so that my TH11 will now be a liability instead of a carefully and patiently developed asset.

The "total weight" change was previously introduced by Supercell aimed to address one type of exploits clans were using. However, it led to these engineered bases (essentially taking advantage of the lower half of the lineup has lower weight + defense/offense weight ratio change).

Supercell think it found a better way to do war matching after all these years. Let's just wait and see. There are some intrinsic issues with the current war matching. Every tweak Supercell put in to war matching so far had introduced a side effect. Let's hope whatever change Supercell introduced this time will not....

Thanks for the news

I found that Supercell currently (prior to this new upcoming change) already match engineered clans with engineered clans. The thing I noticed is that when matching engineered clans vs engineered clans, the matchup can be quite unbalanced.

Have Supercell realised this total weight system is the cause of the unbalanced matchups, especially in larger war formats? They still want to go down the path of weight system and adjust it? Good luck Supercell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zegaloft

Cheating is subjective, engineering doesn't thread the line of breaking the ToS, if a certain crowd doesn't find it legal then they're free to do so. It doesn't change the fact that within the rules enforced by SC, it's not cheating.

And it's precisely the overwhelming advantage of engineering that prompted SC to tone it down a notch with this kind of approach.

---

Your reply is subjective enough and its precisely that prompted you to reply like this because you own an engineered clan.

SC will make things right and If I were you I'll start upgrading my minis defenses and stuff.

Ps. TH sniping do not break any in TOS but SC did something right I hope so this will be the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zegaloft

Cheating is subjective, engineering doesn't thread the line of breaking the ToS, if a certain crowd doesn't find it legal then they're free to do so. It doesn't change the fact that within the rules enforced by SC, it's not cheating.

......

---

So it´s the other way round. You can feel free to call it cheating ...... but it is definitely legal. :smirk:

Before people go on trashing all the engineered bases. Here is a question, does beef up offensive troops first before defensive buildings for a town hall considered cheating? What is the exact point of "not cheating" for town hall 9 building x-bows? If I waited till my heroes are both L20 before constructing x-bows, is that cheating? Or that's considered 0.5 style bases (which Supercell apparently fixed in the war matching according to some people).

The reality is that unless there are two clans with exactly same lineup, the matchup will generally favour one team over another team. It is just the degree. The real issue is that Supercell can get the matchups so wrong at times that you really wondered what kind of weird maths they used to do war matching...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd1923

I have 29 accounts, collection of 3-6 th, 7-8 will be full in a month or less. 3 9th rushed(9-11 in future), th 11 engineer, th 9 engineer, many abandoned th8-9 engineers, pack of 6-7 th engineers, 1 spy 5 th->6 th and main account 9 th with full base and 25 (upgrading) heroes. Main clan is 7 lvl. I have another clan lvl 2 (new one) to send there unneed accounts(without any thoughts about silly balance) and FARM STARS. i like your idea to spend less money. They don't deserve your respect with such attitude to players' hard work. I am poor so i am f2p and i will just create more accounts th7-th8 without whining

---

You......have.... 29 accounts? Um, why?

I believe SC should outline what their solution is and let the player base discuss on it. I have a feeling their solution is going to create a lot more problems.

Stage 1 -
People created lopsided bases with defense more advanced than offence; especially key defences like IT and xbows - This resulted in max TH8s facing Th9s with xbows and max TH9s facing Th10s with IT. Maxers lost out

SC increased defence weights of the key defences and increased weightage of defence over offence in matchmaking

Stage 2 -
People started making defenceless accounts to take advantage of the new algorithm - SC changed the weightage of offence and defence

Stage 3 - People started engineering accounts with selective upgrading of defence and offence. SC has announced it will change algorithm again.

Stage 4 ?

The problem as i see is that SC moves from one extreme to another instead of incremental tweaks. They should do small changes and see if it betters the matchmaking.

Some of the simple tweaks that could be implemented which will improve the situation without disruptions include:
1. Increase the offence / defense weight of grand warden - currently, the advantage of having a grand warden is too much and people rush to get him. There is negligible penalty in war weight getting him compared to getting an AQ or EA.
2. Minimum war weight for any TH level - if any TH level has a minimum defensive war weight, it will reduce the reward for engineering. Since a lot of people are rushed, i would advocate that minimum war weight should be the maximum war weight of a TH 2 levels down. So a TH10 will have minimum war weight of a max TH8.
3. The matchmaking should ensure that the highest TH levels in the clan are not seperated by more than 1 level. So no clan with Th11 will match a clan whose highest Th level is Th9.
4. The matchmaking should also ensure that the difference in the number of highest TH levels in the clans is within a range.

All these have been suggested before but SC has not acknowledged any of these tweaks.

These changes would reduce the incentive for engineering and making it difficult for most people to engineer. Obviously engineering will still have some advantages and would still interst the hardcore enthusiasts (good for SC as they are also the heaviest spenders).

But i have a feeling that SC is going to go overboard and we will see new forms of engineering.

I am all up for matchmaking being addressed but I think the bigger issue is the fact that if you come across a clan with 1 more max th11 with EA in the lineup, you will almost certainly lose by 1 star whether you are engineered or not and that is a bigger problem than engineering.

I just hope it works and engineered bases are matched with other engineered bases and those clans that don't engineer are matched with clans that also don't.

That's the fairest way IMO.

Looking forward to seeing how this works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strandwolfza

why don't we just play the game and let supercell worry about war weight and all that stuff?

---

A lot of players and clans do just that, but on average their war record suffers because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iBork

The line will be drawn where it always has been. The only "play style" that I foresee adapting to the new MM is the engineer.

---

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.

The issue is that Supercell forgot its previous intention of the last war weight change - i.e. to concentrate more on the top half of the war lineup. Despite the previous weight change, the top half can still be poorly matched (especially if Supercell felt your lineup belongs to "engineered clans" - in that case, Supercell will match you with another one and that's put it this way, you'd better hope your "engineered bases" are far superior than the opposition's).

Then, there are other issues. If Supercell cannot find an opponent with the same max town hall base, should it match you with another one that supposedly just got upgraded to the next town hall or match you to the same town hall but medium level. Should people gone heavy on defensive buildings be penalised or not?

I am not a fan of yet another total weight tweak. However, Supercell indicated different people have different playing styles. I hope this change will be better, but with the way Supercell matches builder hall matchups, a truly equal matchup cannot be expected.

So we come full circle

Few seem to remember (certainly few talk about) the early days of war when offence and defence together were used to decide matches. In a 40v40 or 50v50 clan running th5 to th9s it was not uncommon to get a th10 with all lv1 turrets including an inferno sitting in the bottom quarter of the war list opposite th6s or 7s.

Lv4 drags were rare as hen's teeth then. If they had these but had not unlocked pekkas and witches they matched low. No th6 or 7 could get near to clearing an inferno base no matter how rushed, forcing a drop shot from the top to deal with them and they had the power to clear some max 10 bases and all th9 or below with their max drags.

The reason so many people come up against clans running more and more minimax bases is that they are POPULAR. SC announce they are putting an end to imbalanced and unfair matching every 6 to 9 months like clockwork. I wont hold my breath this time either.

People will generally follow human nature and strive to find and exploit any advantage that benefits their own position. To attempt to regulate against that is facile.

Remember it was SC's change to defence only in matching that caused offence heavy engineers to gain such a huge advantage. Im sure people will find the cracks in the new system just like they have in each previous one. And also the next one too.

I forsee many 1 cannon bases with an added bow or inferno doing the rounds in the near future.

Imo set a very tight limit to clan for clan breakdown match. Start prep day counting from when you press search and let it run for hours and hours. If a clan searches 23 hours without a match, they may change the format of their bases of their own violition.

The issue is not just engineered bases. The causes of engineered bases are:

1. Previous war total weight adjustment
2. Introduction of town hall 11

Now, if for some reason, the players which give us a competitive lineup (not because they are engineered, but more they are balanced and not those "just upgraded to the new town hall" players) and we still want to go to war, can Supercell actually do something? Or, it is just bad luck, you put lousy lineup in war, you get matched against a more balanced or smarter lineup and that's just life.

People just think engineered bases is the only issue. There are other issues too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexiskurien

I believe SC should outline what their solution is and let the player base discuss on it. I have a feeling their solution is going to create a lot more problems.

Stage 1 -
People created lopsided bases with defense more advanced than offence; especially key defences like IT and xbows - This resulted in max TH8s facing Th9s with xbows and max TH9s facing Th10s with IT. Maxers lost out

SC increased defence weights of the key defences and increased weightage of defence over offence in matchmaking

Stage 2 -
People started making defenceless accounts to take advantage of the new algorithm - SC changed the weightage of offence and defence

Stage 3 - People started engineering accounts with selective upgrading of defence and offence. SC has announced it will change algorithm again.

Stage 4 ?

The problem as i see is that SC moves from one extreme to another instead of incremental tweaks. They should do small changes and see if it betters the matchmaking.

Some of the simple tweaks that could be implemented which will improve the situation without disruptions include:
1. Increase the offence / defense weight of grand warden - currently, the advantage of having a grand warden is too much and people rush to get him. There is negligible penalty in war weight getting him compared to getting an AQ or EA.
2. Minimum war weight for any TH level - if any TH level has a minimum defensive war weight, it will reduce the reward for engineering. Since a lot of people are rushed, i would advocate that minimum war weight should be the maximum war weight of a TH 2 levels down. So a TH10 will have minimum war weight of a max TH8.
3. The matchmaking should ensure that the highest TH levels in the clan are not seperated by more than 1 level. So no clan with Th11 will match a clan whose highest Th level is Th9.
4. The matchmaking should also ensure that the difference in the number of highest TH levels in the clans is within a range.

All these have been suggested before but SC has not acknowledged any of these tweaks.

These changes would reduce the incentive for engineering and making it difficult for most people to engineer. Obviously engineering will still have some advantages and would still interst the hardcore enthusiasts (good for SC as they are also the heaviest spenders).

But i have a feeling that SC is going to go overboard and we will see new forms of engineering.

---

And according to you it is ok if TH11 is matched against TH10?

Problem will never be solved until every th accounts as th it is. Once you get even a single toy from the th you are in, be it a camp or a spell or a single troop with level up or a new defence, you get an advantage over th below you. First and foremost MM should be based by breakdowns and then further searching for most equal war weights inside the ths. And now someone will say that maxers will have the advantage. Yes, they will have slight advantage , but nowhere near the advantage engineers currently have with th+1 or th+2.

And someone will say that way no one will ever progress and people will sit forever at maxed ths, which will be true for some but for most not, for a simple reason that people do want to progress, they wanna get their hands on new troops, new levels, new defences. Hardcore war players are already sitting maxed and are going nowhere and playing in leagues, until they find a th up a new challenge.
So, there is no danger that every single clan will be full with just maxed ths. Even if that happens it can not get fairer than that. Only skill to be the real separator.

The only fair matchup is identical matchup, but that's unlikely to happen often.

The issue is the variance Supercell permit when doing war matching. Supercell simply need to stop that for at least the top half of the war matchup. The last major "change" for war matching was to make the top half matching more equal, but some combinations continued to get odd matchups.

Also, there are basically certain lineups which clans should simply avoid because Supercell simply cannot find you a proper equivalent and most other clans won't feature that lineup.

Generally, most lineups have weaknesses and there can be an alternative lineup with same "total weight" that's superior. So changing the "total weight" calculation will fix the issue? Let's see... I hope Supercell get it right this time after these years.

Any updated ETA for this update? Search last night found us a nice 30v30 matchup. 6 TH11s vs their 13 TH11s. At least eagles up top are even at 4 for each side...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MenionLeah

And according to you it is ok if TH11 is matched against TH10?

Problem will never be solved until every th accounts as th it is. Once you get even a single toy from the th you are in, be it a camp or a spell or a single troop with level up or a new defence, you get an advantage over th below you. First and foremost MM should be based by breakdowns and then further searching for most equal war weights inside the ths. And now someone will say that maxers will have the advantage. Yes, they will have slight advantage , but nowhere near the advantage engineers currently have with th+1 or th+2.

And someone will say that way no one will ever progress and people will sit forever at maxed ths, which will be true for some but for most not, for a simple reason that people do want to progress, they wanna get their hands on new troops, new levels, new defences. Hardcore war players are already sitting maxed and are going nowhere and playing in leagues, until they find a th up a new challenge.
So, there is no danger that every single clan will be full with just maxed ths. Even if that happens it can not get fairer than that. Only skill to be the real separator.

---

If the overall weight is matched as is the SC policy, 1 Th11 matching with Th10 will be okay as it will mean that Th11 is rushed or that there will be substantial advantage for the clan in Th10/Th9 levels.

The current problem is defenceless TH11s with high heroes making it completely one sided matchup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clashwarclans

I am all up for matchmaking being addressed but I think the bigger issue is the fact that if you come across a clan with 1 more max th11 with EA in the lineup, you will almost certainly lose by 1 star whether you are engineered or not and that is a bigger problem than engineering.

---

you don't have any experience with engineering?

nowadays... in most match it's normal when engineering faces more eagle more inferno....

Thanks Darian ;)

I never liked the term "total weight", either for a whole clan or for a single player on map. Even if this is a Clan War, the result is a SUM of individual attacks, it is not a cooperative mode attacking of defending. Therefore TH10 + TH9 is NOT EQUAL to TH11 + TH8. It is the same for a single player total weight: th9 with all maxed troops and defences is not equal to a TH10 or Th11 with th8 defences and even a single maxed troop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexiskurien

If the overall weight is matched as is the SC policy, 1 Th11 matching with Th10 will be okay as it will mean that Th11 is rushed or that there will be substantial advantage for the clan in Th10/Th9 levels.

The current problem is defenceless TH11s with high heroes making it completely one sided matchup.

---

Let's say this scenario (this is real from a previous matchup). Max th10 on one side with 40/40 heroes, 10.5 max(th10 def) on other side with 38/41/ and warden 10 and th11 troops. In which shoes would you like to be? Defenseless are not the only problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strandwolfza

there's a type of playstyle called engineering, it provides an advantage over non-engineers

if supercell manages to put engineers vs engineers, and not against non-engineers (say, maxers), then there'll be no advantage, am I wrong?




if there'll be no advantage, there'll be no engineering, no?

---

I believe Supercell is hoping that your last statement is wrong. By matching engineering clans with other engineering clans, it is clear that they hope to continue to glean the revenue generated from people that choose to play this way.

please make it happen, my clan still have opponent with engineer base, result: lost because troop level

maybe make how many th11 vs how many th11

Town hall matching is not the answer. There is a far greater difference between a new th 9 and a maxed th 9 than between a maxed th 9 and a new th 10. Just because a player upgrades a town hall doesn't mean some quantum jump in capability has occurred as so many of you imply. The game progresses along a spectrum with incremental increases in ability not quantum jumps. I salute SC for trying to maintain some flexibility in base design as it makes the game far more enjoyable. To be successful a clan must actively manage who hits who. Simply saying everyone hit one down isn't a plan for long term success.

It would seem that the best solution to insure the best match up would be to let the mm have some say in which bases are used in war. For example if my clan wanted to war 25 I could nominate from 25 to 28 members and the mm would select the 25 to war based on what it considered the best match against the opposing clan. The nominations could be desired war size plus up to 10%. OK so the size of a clan may need to be increased from 50 to 55 and the mm algorithm more complex, but that seems the best way ahead if equal matchups are the goal.

This is great news! I had a gut feeling further balancing was required to keep wars fair and enjoyable. I don't know what changed from when war was first introduced to now, but I don't recall ever seeing a complaining thread on "Engineered Bases" or whatever they call them now (in the past). I think it had something to do with when clan perks were introduced, but again, I don't know for sure.

LOL we just got matched up vs. the heaviest engineered clan we’ve ever faced. 15 vs. 15 war, we have no TH 11’s... they have EIGHT! :facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StickySword

LOL we just got matched up vs. the heaviest engineered clan we’ve ever faced. 15 vs. 15 war, we have no TH 11’s... they have EIGHT! :facepalm:

---

Wow it so scary. Hope it not happen to my clan. Do you remember,how long was your searching enemy war until found opponents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StickySword

LOL we just got matched up vs. the heaviest engineered clan we’ve ever faced. 15 vs. 15 war, we have no TH 11’s... they have EIGHT! :facepalm:

---

But what is ur lineup tho I'm pretty sure u have th10s and there th11 has no heavy defense what so ever I'm pretty sure

Great news indeed. I hope we get more information soon about how the new MM will really work and when it should be implemented. Speculation about this issue is groing up too strong and many of us are waiting for it to decide how we should upgrade our bases.

We have just had a 15 v 15 war
Our team consisted of :
1 - Th10
2- Th9
3- Th9
4- Th10
5- Th9
6- Th9
7- Th9
8- Th9
9- Th9
10- Th9
11- Th8
12- Th7
13 - Th7
14- Th4
15- Th4

Opponents team consisted of:

1- Th10
2- Th10
3- Th9
4- Th9
5- Th9
6- Th10
7- Th9
8- Th8
9- TH11
10- TH11
11- TH7
12- TH11
13- TH7
14- TH10
15- TH7

Please can you tell me the matchmaking in that ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TITAN54

Please can you tell me the matchmaking in that ??

---

The 2nd group is better at engineering than the first?

We have no engineered bases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TITAN54

We have no engineered bases

---

Your number 4 base is a Th10 that sits below 2 Th9s. That doesn't look like normal progression.

Furthermore you have 2 TH4s at the bottom of your roster. Either you were trying to roster engineer (sticking in low bases to lower your overall weight up top) and it went horribly wrong or you are unaware that the wider the TH variation in your war roster the worse the match will be for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TITAN54

We have no engineered bases

---

No engineered but in your line up you have th9 ahead of th7, th10 below th9. So are they rushers? Maybe the mm thinks they're engineered? Lol

Our number 4 should not have been in war, but the day we engineered bases is the day I pack up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TITAN54

We have just had a 15 v 15 war
Our team consisted of :
1 - Th10
2- Th9
3- Th9
4- Th10
5- Th9
6- Th9
7- Th9
8- Th9
9- Th9
10- Th9
11- Th8
12- Th7
13 - Th7
14- Th4
15- Th4

Opponents team consisted of:

1- Th10
2- Th10
3- Th9
4- Th9
5- Th9
6- Th10
7- Th9
8- Th8
9- TH11
10- TH11
11- TH7
12- TH11
13- TH7
14- TH10
15- TH7

Please can you tell me the matchmaking in that ??

---

Look at this guy his complaining but yet he has a th10 below th9 on number 4 but yet he's crying 😂😂😂😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TITAN54

We have just had a 15 v 15 war
Our team consisted of :
1 - Th10
2- Th9
3- Th9
4- Th10
5- Th9
6- Th9
7- Th9
8- Th9
9- Th9
10- Th9
11- Th8
12- Th7
13 - Th7
14- Th4
15- Th4

Opponents team consisted of:

1- Th10
2- Th10
3- Th9
4- Th9
5- Th9
6- Th10
7- Th9
8- Th8
9- TH11
10- TH11
11- TH7
12- TH11
13- TH7
14- TH10
15- TH7

Please can you tell me the matchmaking in that ??

---

It looks like you used at least one engineered base (#4) and you also tried to roster engineer (which to many is the most hated form of engineering) by putting some low weight bases at the bottom of your map. I have no problem with your #4, but personally I am glad to see your th4s at the bottom did nothing for you other than to cause you to match an engineered clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klavious

The 2nd group is better at engineering than the first?

---

Yep.

Roster engineering is no different than base engineering. It's all engineering.

When people complain about engineering -- they're complaining about lineups like yours.

For the record: I don't care that your clan engineers. If SC wants to do something about it, they will.

My opinion is that, just like in real war, if you're not trying to get an edge, you're not trying very hard and are going to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

You should really avoid broad sweeping statements. I have a clan mate who used to have a defenseless base.... a defenseless TH8. She saw other defenseless bases in war and thought it would be a different (fun) way to play the game (her main base has always taken the maxing route). She didn't do it for the MM advantage; in fact by having that Dless base in our lineup our clan was more likely to match better engineered Dless bases (bring us a disadvantage). But she was having fun so I let her roll with it. She has since grown out of that and is finding new fun in making that base a manicured base.

In short, people do things for different reasons.

---

Nothing in your statement contradicts anything I said in mine. Regardless of whether your clanmate had fun engineering or not she did it for the effect in war. If it wasn't for war MM she would not have done it. My point was outside of the war effect no one would ever just decide to push or farm building an engineered base. My statement stands, and no, for the most part people all engineer for the same reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gb410

So apparently engineering is now considered a valid playstyle by Supercell, otherwise they would not have bent over backwards to avoid nerfing engineering. This decision disappoints me greatly. The sole purpose of engineering and the only reason why engineered bases even exist is to generate mismatches in war. So now (assuming the new matchmaking even works properly) you will have divided your clan pool into two separate groups, the engineers and the non-engineers, which will reduce the number of available clans in each group for matching, thereby making the matching process take longer. All just to avoid offending the engineers. Great job, Supercell.

---

Can't agree with this enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

There is no need to target engineered bases or any other play style. Let people play anyway they like, but make each war as competitive as possible. Here are my suggestions:


1. Analyze each player's past war performances and start quantifying a player's war attack skill. Assign a score to each player, i.e. 100 for someone who can 3 star max TH11s everytime.


2. Start building models to reliably predict which clan is going to win the match. Keep adjusting the process until you achieve reasonable accuracy. There are tons of data points and past war results to make this happen.


3. Apply the new "AI" to the matchmaking system. Have it run simulations against all clans currently searching. Pick war matchhes based on simulation results. Results with least reliability suggest two clan are more evenly matched.


4. Feed new war results back into training the models to make your "AI" more accurate.


This process should produce matches where player skills are more evenly matched. It also prevents someone from manipulating the system as the system constantly updates itself with new data.

---

I don't even know what to say to this. So your MM would essentially punish clans who win with worse matchups? This is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

So everyone can win 50% of their wars? Terrible unskilled clans with 50/50 war records the same as very skilled clans that spend a lot of time and thought on their war? I hate that recent war success is even any factor at all. That said, I could get behind a war trophy system that takes the trophies into account in the match. That way, the win/loss record isn't the only way to judge a clan's success. In fact, it would end up being the least important of the ways because the trophies would be much more important.

---

Not sure what would be your top requirement for clan war? If you want competitiveness and even/fair match-ups every time, then wouldn't the win/loss records trends toward 50/50? If you want to room for long win streaks, then you are opening door for someone to manipulate the system. In my proposal, someone can still maintain a winning streak by constantly building new/better war bases and constantly upgrading their skills. But the streak will be challenging as the clan is likely to face tougher and tougher opponents equal to their own skill levels. I agree that a clan's win/loss records shouldn't factor into match-making as it's the "current" players in the war roster that determine a clan's strength. The match-making algorithm needs to looking each player's past war performances.

Every "easy" match-up means it's probably a "mismatch" for another clan. I don't know how else you can keep everyone happy when trying to reach for fairness. Perhaps SC should come out with a league system for clan wars to differentiate competition levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiseGuyClasher

I don't even know what to say to this. So your MM would essentially punish clans who win with worse matchups? This is absurd.

---

What's your definition of worse matchup? My proposed MM aims to match up every clan based on their players' "current" skill levels. If the players demonstrated their skill levels in previous war, shouldn't MM try to match them with someone equal to their skill levels? Why would that be a punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

What's your definition of worse matchup? My proposed MM aims to match up every clan based on their players' "current" skill levels. If the players demonstrated their skill levels in previous war, shouldn't MM try to match them with someone equal to their skill levels? Why would that be a punishment?

---

So if a clan with all th10s for example keeps winning your solution is to make them face 11s because their skill warrants the matchup being harder regardless of how even the weight, etc. is? That in my opinion is punishment.

Or are you thinking in that example they would just get another clan with all th10s that is as skilled as they are? Because I'm pretty sure that matchup would take days to find.

To my best we can do is not allowed up of City Hall without having all the improvements. That controlaria the inginerias. Something like the village at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiseGuyClasher

So if a clan with all th10s for example keeps winning your solution is to make them face 11s because their skill warrants the matchup being harder regardless of how even the weight, etc. is? That in my opinion is punishment.

Or are you thinking in that example they would just get another clan with all th10s that is as skilled as they are? Because I'm pretty sure that matchup would take days to find.

---

Definitely the latter. Yes, if you are the top clan with the most skilled players, then it would be most difficult to find a fair matchup for you under any MM system. But for most clans that sits in the middle of the skill range, this shouldn't be a problem. I have also heard people say they wouldn't mind longer search time for a better matchup. Even, if top TH10 clan gets matched with a few TH11s and lost, the AI would be adjusted in real-time to determine a cap on the player's capabilities based on that war result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

Definitely the latter. Yes, if you are the top clan with the most skilled players, then it would be most difficult to find a fair matchup for you under any MM system. But for most clans that sits in the middle of the skill range, this shouldn't be a problem. I have also heard people say they wouldn't mind longer search time for a better matchup. Even, if top TH10 clan gets matched with a few TH11s and lost, the AI would be adjusted in real-time to determine a cap on the player's capabilities based on that war result.

---

If they could pull that off then sure, but they are having a hard enough time just achieving a balance based on weights/th levels. If you start adding an additional variable for player skill without allowing the MM to simply force skilled clans to face higher weights I don't think there are anywhere near enough matches out there for it to work.

And given an example of an all th10 clan, if they match a clan with even 2 th11s and both are skilled that is a massive advantage even if it is only 2 bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiseGuyClasher

If they could pull that off then sure, but they are having a hard enough time just achieving a balance based on weights/th levels. If you start adding an additional variable for player skill without allowing the MM to simply force skilled clans to face higher weights I don't think there are anywhere near enough matches out there for it to work.

And given an example of an all th10 clan, if they match a clan with even 2 th11s and both are skilled that is a massive advantage even if it is only 2 bases.

---

TH level and offense/defense weights alone shouldn't determine a good matchup. 2 extra TH11s might not be much of an advantage if the players in that clan have trouble 3 starring all TH10s. Player's past war performances are much better indicators of a clan's strength. Yes, this would require SC to upgrade their technology if they haven't already looked into machine learning and AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

What's your definition of worse matchup? My proposed MM aims to match up every clan based on their players' "current" skill levels. If the players demonstrated their skill levels in previous war, shouldn't MM try to match them with someone equal to their skill levels? Why would that be a punishment?

---

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.

This cannot happen soon enough.

We did the heinous crime of winning more than 3 wars in a row.

We do a 20v20.

We have 1 TH11 (me) and 3 TH10.
8 TH 9
5 TH 8
the ones at the bottom are TH7.

Our opponent?

2 TH11. Both mostly max troops. But no EA and non-maxed infernos.
5 TH10. The bottom one (in 17th place where we have a TH8) has level 3 hounds. Golems. Baby drags.
7 TH9 etc etc etc.

we have lost before we have begun.

Its lovely for a bunch of bullies who can't fight people of their own level.
Rubbish for a friendly war clan made up of kids and adults who play for fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

TH level and offense/defense weights alone shouldn't determine a good matchup. 2 extra TH11s might not be much of an advantage if the players in that clan have trouble 3 starring all TH10s. Player's past war performances are much better indicators of a clan's strength. Yes, this would require SC to upgrade their technology if they haven't already looked into machine learning and AI.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WiseGuyClasher

Nothing in your statement contradicts anything I said in mine. Regardless of whether your clanmate had fun engineering or not she did it for the effect in war. If it wasn't for war MM she would not have done it. My point was outside of the war effect no one would ever just decide to push or farm building an engineered base. My statement stands, and no, for the most part people all engineer for the same reason.

---

Nope. She didn't even tell us she had the defenseless base until she was well into the TH5 stage. She did it to experience a different style of play. I told her to get that village into the clan so she could donate to herself. She then successfully pushed that TH8 into champions league for fun.

I'll trust her word over that of an internet stranger who doesn't even know her.

Edit: do you know that small numbers of defenseless bases existed even before there was such a thing as clan wars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesterdeath

This cannot happen soon enough.

We did the heinous crime of winning more than 3 wars in a row.

We do a 20v20.

We have 1 TH11 (me) and 3 TH10.
8 TH 9
5 TH 8
the ones at the bottom are TH7.

Our opponent?

2 TH11. Both mostly max troops. But no EA and non-maxed infernos.
5 TH10. The bottom one (in 17th place where we have a TH8) has level 3 hounds. Golems. Baby drags.
7 TH9 etc etc etc.

we have lost before we have begun.

Its lovely for a bunch of bullies who can't fight people of their own level.
Rubbish for a friendly war clan made up of kids and adults who play for fun

---

Your clan is what is sometimes called "roster engineered" you have low TH bases that lower the overall weight
Of course you're getting matched with other engineered clans...
Having such a wide range of TH (11 down to 7) in war is a great way to match against engineered

EDIT: I'll clarify my point
Your clan looks like it is roster engineered, adding lower THs to lower your overall war weight.
That might NOT be why you have the TH7-11 spread in your clan, if you're all friends and family or lower level second accounts, but the mathcmaker doesn't know that. It's looking at the spread of offensive and defensive strengths and getting matches that still aren't fair.

There are clans out there that take this to the absolute extreme:
5 strong TH11s (max or close to it)
5 TH3s (unupgraded)
the top 5 bases get 10 attacks between them so they just have to beat the other teams bases (which usually aren't TH11s)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gw2kpro

Roster engineering is no different than base engineering. It's all engineering.

When people complain about engineering -- they're complaining about lineups like yours.

For the record: I don't care that your clan engineers. If SC wants to do something about it, they will.

My opinion is that, just like in real war, if you're not trying to get an edge, you're not trying very hard and are going to lose.

---

There are lots of types of engineering. I happen to detest roster engineering, but not account engineering. Why? I don't fault anyone for building their base in the way the mathmaker tells them to. I don't it would be smart to drop a defense that you think the matchmaker overweights to give yourself a disadvantage intentionally. I find that much different than putting low weight bases (whether trash th3s or defenseless) at the bottom of your roster to intentionally face a much weaker opponent. No right or wrong here, it is just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

Not sure what would be your top requirement for clan war? If you want competitiveness and even/fair match-ups every time, then wouldn't the win/loss records trends toward 50/50? If you want to room for long win streaks, then you are opening door for someone to manipulate the system. In my proposal, someone can still maintain a winning streak by constantly building new/better war bases and constantly upgrading their skills. But the streak will be challenging as the clan is likely to face tougher and tougher opponents equal to their own skill levels. I agree that a clan's win/loss records shouldn't factor into match-making as it's the "current" players in the war roster that determine a clan's strength. The match-making algorithm needs to looking each player's past war performances.

Every "easy" match-up means it's probably a "mismatch" for another clan. I don't know how else you can keep everyone happy when trying to reach for fairness. Perhaps SC should come out with a league system for clan wars to differentiate competition levels.

---

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.

Now, throw all of that out if there is a clan war trophy system. THEN the war success is all geared toward how high you can get your trophies. As you move up the trophy ladder, your opponents will get tougher. That makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

Definitely the latter. Yes, if you are the top clan with the most skilled players, then it would be most difficult to find a fair matchup for you under any MM system. But for most clans that sits in the middle of the skill range, this shouldn't be a problem. I have also heard people say they wouldn't mind longer search time for a better matchup. Even, if top TH10 clan gets matched with a few TH11s and lost, the AI would be adjusted in real-time to determine a cap on the player's capabilities based on that war result.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

TH level and offense/defense weights alone shouldn't determine a good matchup. 2 extra TH11s might not be much of an advantage if the players in that clan have trouble 3 starring all TH10s. Player's past war performances are much better indicators of a clan's strength. Yes, this would require SC to upgrade their technology if they haven't already looked into machine learning and AI.

---

I disagree completely for the reasons noted above, unless, again, we have war trophies. Including your trophy level in the matchmaker as a factor would make perfect sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nstar612

TH level and offense/defense weights alone shouldn't determine a good matchup. 2 extra TH11s might not be much of an advantage if the players in that clan have trouble 3 starring all TH10s. Player's past war performances are much better indicators of a clan's strength. Yes, this would require SC to upgrade their technology if they haven't already looked into machine learning and AI.

---

The goal of war matchmaking isn't that all clans should win 50% of your wars.
If a clan is full of <insertnamehere> who can't raid, maybe they just deserve to lose more than half of their wars.

The ONLY fair way to match clans is based on the combination of their Defensive and Offensive Strengths.
Effectively penalizing a clan because they have good raids isn't either fair OR a good idea.

Seeing is believing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilISuppose

Your clan is what is sometimes called "roster engineered" you have low TH bases that lower the overall weight
Of course you're getting matched with other engineered clans...
Having such a wide range of TH (11 down to 7) in war is a great way to match against engineered

---

I think that's problem several of us have with Engineering. It isn't about having a maxer mentality. It's about having a fair match for the whole clan without leaving anybody out.

So the solution has been not to allow lower TH8 & TH7 in because that makes us "roster engineered" and will draw engineers that bully them around?

How is any casual clan that has fun warring supposed to get a fair and fun match? Tell the kids or new guys, "No you can't war because we'll draw bullies" ? How are any of the low guys supposed to learn?

The MM should be smarter than that. We know the old algorithm isn't. So lets hope the new one is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrapeApeAffe

I think that's problem several of us have with Engineering. It isn't about having a maxer mentality. It's about having a fair match for the whole clan without leaving anybody out.

So the solution has been not to allow lower TH8 & TH7 in because that makes us "roster engineered" and will draw engineers that bully them around?

How is any casual clan that has fun warring supposed to get a fair and fun match? Tell the kids or new guys, "No you can't war because we'll draw bullies" ? How are any of the low guys supposed to learn?

The MM should be smarter than that. We know the old algorithm isn't. So lets hope the new one is.

---

I absolutely agree that the match maker should be smarter than that
Unfortunately it isn't at the moment

I have high hopes for the work they have been putting in

I'm a max TH11 so not sure there's a lot there that will effect me, but my clan does have a mix down to some 8.5s and a defenseless TH11 so we're sure to see some change here to matchmaking
If wars get fairer we might see more people want to war, which would be nice

I have a clanmate (been here for ages, great guy, good donations) who has 7 war stars since wars just aren't his thing.

Most people would agree that while Matchmaking isn't great at the moment, it's probably better than it has been. Most "bad" match ups are explainable now at least.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MenionLeah

Let's say this scenario (this is real from a previous matchup). Max th10 on one side with 40/40 heroes, 10.5 max(th10 def) on other side with 38/41/ and warden 10 and th11 troops. In which shoes would you like to be? Defenseless are not the only problem.

---

i agree defenseless are not the only problem;but they are the worst problem.We need solutions to them first and gradually tweak the MM to eliminate other mismatches.

Well, our current war BD is

Us: 4/5/21
Them: 4/10/16

Yep, they have five more TH10s than we do. And their bottom TH10 is an 88k base, max def, 39AQ, 35BK.

We have an obvious disadvantage in this regard.

No-one is bringing in dodgy lopsided bases from either side. All bases on both sides have all weapons etc. All of theirs are maxed, while we have some th9s at the very bottom without max weapons. The mind boggles how this was deemed an equal match. Oh well, the day this is fixed cannot come soon enough IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterOz

Well, our current war BD is

Us: 4/5/21
Them: 4/10/16

Yep, they have five more TH10s than we do. And their bottom TH10 is an 88k base, max def, 39AQ, 35BK.

We have an obvious disadvantage in this regard.

No-one is bringing in dodgy lopsided bases from either side. All bases on both sides have all weapons etc. All of theirs are maxed, while we have some th9s at the very bottom without max weapons. The mind boggles how this was deemed an equal match. Oh well, the day this is fixed cannot come soon enough IMO.

---

Unfortunately, Darian’s comment does not pertain to these kind of mismatches. The MM was designed to prevent these kind of mismatches even now. Sometimes it does not work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilISuppose

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.

---

As I explained in previous response, the only way to achieve what you are asking is to match engineered vs engineerd and non-engineered vs non-engineered. If you allow even the slightest flexibility in offensive and defensive weights, then you will end up with engineered clans again. What you and 2222 wanted is what we have in TH11-only wars today. They are based on skills (minus the modders). I understand where you guys are coming from, but I think at the end of the day, clan war is more about the competitiveness, rather than war records. A winning streak is still possible, just much more challenging (and hopefully more rewarding). I would take closely matched wars every time over any mismatches in war weights and/or skills. But that's just my opinion.

At a certain point, our clan had to decide if we were going to keep on crying about the problem or if we were going to adapt. WE were getting beaten by clans with engineered bases. I guess at a certain point I was done with crying about the problem and I did something about it. Since that time, we've put a significant amount of time and effort with developing bases from scratch. And, I know we've put in at least a few thousand dollars into it. Supercell put down rules and we played within those rules to gain an advantage in wars. Now that they have gotten our money, they have decided to change the rules. I would call that Bait and Switch. Our solution now is simple: They aren't going to get another dollar out of our clan ever again.

Please publish the algorithm to calculate war match making.
I'm working as security expert, and we know that cryptographic algorithms promising security by obscurity (code not publicly known) will be broken.
The same is true for the algorithm to calculate match making: Some will figure out how it works and miss-use that information.
If it is publicly known we can figure out and discuss its weaknesses and find improvements.

I'm not expecting much from this...this is the same developer that can't get the simplest matchmaking (1x1 BB versus battle) to give a fair match.

I really don't think they will get a 40x40 to provide a fair match.

It will probably jump from one bias to the opposite, and if they get it wrong will negatively impact the perfectly valid state of being a partially upgraded base.

Sure this will please some, but doesn't match what they say they to want to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sukram65

Please publish the algorithm to calculate war match making.
I'm working as security expert, and we know that cryptographic algorithms promising security by obscurity (code not publicly known) will be broken.
The same is true for the algorithm to calculate match making: Some will figure out how it works and miss-use that information.
If it is publicly known we can figure out and discuss its weaknesses and find improvements.

---

Sure, because the community would really rally together and no one would exploit those weakness whatsover?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galluccio

At a certain point, our clan had to decide if we were going to keep on crying about the problem or if we were going to adapt. WE were getting beaten by clans with engineered bases. I guess at a certain point I was done with crying about the problem and I did something about it. Since that time, we've put a significant amount of time and effort with developing bases from scratch. And, I know we've put in at least a few thousand dollars into it. Supercell put down rules and we played within those rules to gain an advantage in wars. Now that they have gotten our money, they have decided to change the rules. I would call that Bait and Switch. Our solution now is simple: They aren't going to get another dollar out of our clan ever again.

---

that's the difference

some just build their base
some just ug their hero
some just keep practice
some just post their mismatch
some just happy with their win
some just keep complaining

that's the beauty of clash world

roll on the update...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4wynds

Town hall matching is not the answer. There is a far greater difference between a new th 9 and a maxed th 9 than between a maxed th 9 and a new th 10. Just because a player upgrades a town hall doesn't mean some quantum jump in capability has occurred as so many of you imply. The game progresses along a spectrum with incremental increases in ability not quantum jumps. I salute SC for trying to maintain some flexibility in base design as it makes the game far more enjoyable. To be successful a clan must actively manage who hits who. Simply saying everyone hit one down isn't a plan for long term success.

It would seem that the best solution to insure the best match up would be to let the mm have some say in which bases are used in war. For example if my clan wanted to war 25 I could nominate from 25 to 28 members and the mm would select the 25 to war based on what it considered the best match against the opposing clan. The nominations could be desired war size plus up to 10%. OK so the size of a clan may need to be increased from 50 to 55 and the mm algorithm more complex, but that seems the best way ahead if equal matchups are the goal.

---

In a few weeks new Th10 can have 5th spell, lab and valks 5 (for example), +20 camp space, 2 infernos and a third xbow. He will be far superior both in defense and offense to a max th9. He can steamroll th9s but they can get 3 from him only if he has a bad layout. Once you get things that TH bellow you can not get (that is exactly what advantage is) you should be considered as TH you are.

are the new war matching system already live?

About time the engineered bases and clans got what was coming to them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casper1988

are the new war matching system already live?

---

I don't think so, but if they did in yesterday maintenance break, considering the matchups that players are posting they made it worse(if their wars were after the maintenance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sukram65

Please publish the algorithm to calculate war match making.
I'm working as security expert, and we know that cryptographic algorithms promising security by obscurity (code not publicly known) will be broken.
The same is true for the algorithm to calculate match making: Some will figure out how it works and miss-use that information.
If it is publicly known we can figure out and discuss its weaknesses and find improvements.

---

I've been asking google to publish their search algorithims so I can see if they can be improved but unfortunately they won't

I welcome the changes with open arms!!
When my clan notices an engineered clan, we dont even bother wasting troops, we just hope for a fairer one next time.

We try to make the game as boring for the engineers as it is for us when we face them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MenionLeah

And according to you it is ok if TH11 is matched against TH10?

Problem will never be solved until every th accounts as th it is. Once you get even a single toy from the th you are in, be it a camp or a spell or a single troop with level up or a new defence, you get an advantage over th below you. First and foremost MM should be based by breakdowns and then further searching for most equal war weights inside the ths. And now someone will say that maxers will have the advantage. Yes, they will have slight advantage , but nowhere near the advantage engineers currently have with th+1 or th+2.

And someone will say that way no one will ever progress and people will sit forever at maxed ths, which will be true for some but for most not, for a simple reason that people do want to progress, they wanna get their hands on new troops, new levels, new defences. Hardcore war players are already sitting maxed and are going nowhere and playing in leagues, until they find a th up a new challenge.
So, there is no danger that every single clan will be full with just maxed ths. Even if that happens it can not get fairer than that. Only skill to be the real separator.

---

Rushed bases make up the majority, maxers and engineers combined are in minority. By matching town hall first, as you and so many others on the forum propose, you eliminate the majority of those rushers from the matchmaking pool. Now the matchmaking pool being reduced by a large percentage, mismatches become even more common and more people give up on war. Simultaneously, clans in the know begin taking only maxed bases to war. Clans who are willing to take non max to war are at a huge disadvantage to these fully maxed war rosters and lose frequently. They quit war. The smaller the matchmaking pool the more dramatic and frequent mismatches become. With the one simple change so many are asking for, war dies for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MenionLeah

In a few weeks new Th10 can have 5th spell, lab and valks 5 (for example), +20 camp space, 2 infernos and a third xbow. He will be far superior both in defense and offense to a max th9. He can steamroll th9s but they can get 3 from him only if he has a bad layout. Once you get things that TH bellow you can not get (that is exactly what advantage is) you should be considered as TH you are.

---

Nonsense, the matchmaker as is accounts for those defenses and new clone spell he unlocked. This poor fool you speak of has lv1 infernos and max Valks but in your scenario is more likely to match a town hall 10 with lv 3 infernos, lv 40 heroes, max freeze, lv2 bowlers, and lv 13 point defenses. Furthermore his clan waited 6 hrs to match a fully maxed clan and get face rolled 139 to 87 in a 40 v 40 war.

Regarrdless of which side side of the engineering fence you prefer, townhall to townhall matching is game breaking.

Instead of changing matchmaking algorithms to fix the problem, I'd like to suggest a much less complicated solution.

I haven't seen this mentioned on this thread but I do apologise if this has been mentioned already.

I suggest that every player has 2 defense bases instead of 1. So in a 10v10 war there would be 60 available stars instead of 30. For a clan to get 100%, every single attack would need to be a 3 star.

I think the positives are:
- brings 'engineers' back to the field a little bit because even though they can get 6 stars, they can also be attacked for 6 stars.
- engineers can still help their clans by attacking the harder bases.
- lower town halls attacks would be much more important than they currently are (and their defense layouts)
- would be fun to have 2 different war bases in the same war (I guess you could use 2 of the same base if you wanted to)
- participation from everyone in war is more important
- would be very rare to see a 100%v100% draw

Some of the negatives:
- people may be less tolerant of less experienced players in war
- the very top bases wont get attacked as much because clans will take the easier stars first
- less war loot for higher players who have to attack lower to get max stars for their clan

Its not perfect but I think it is worth throwing out there.

My first post so be kind.

I Love this silence ��
Bang......we have the ultimative, Non plus ultra, super solution for you guys,...... no Comment since 3 days. Enjoy your holidays.

I wonder what will happen? do engineers match with the engineers? or do they match the same town hall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darian[Supercell]

The difference in this is that we recognize that certain play styles are having an impact on the overall meta of Clan Wars. This should help bring things back into equilibrium. Yes we have made tweaks and balances to the matchmaking in the past, but this should be a positive step to matching clans more evenly.

---

Did someone code a simulation to see what the matches with REAL clans would be like? Using data vs past few weeks, or is it make changes and cross our fingers kind of thing? SC does not have a good record of testing, Beta, Alpha, or Pre-release.