The engineer and the "flop"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

And the players that it frustrates a great deal, just screw them?

---

No: instead we encourage them, and educate them, so that they too can optimize their bases, and not be left behind.

Kind of like the guy who thinks that laloon means spam deployment, and then gets discouraged when he fails. We don't point and laugh, we point out specific things in his attack that he can improve on, and teach him loon pathing, surgical deployment, how to kill the AQ and CC first, and other things that can help him succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Note that the comparison between laloon and engineering is faulty...

---

They are both strategies in clash. They are both good for the game. That was the scope of my comment. If you have a counterargument, something better than "nuh-uh" might work better. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

No: instead we encourage them, and educate them, so that they too can optimize their bases, and not be left behind.

Kind of like the guy who thinks that laloon means spam deployment, and then gets discouraged when he fails. We don't point and laugh, we point out specific things in his attack that he can improve on, and teach him loon pathing, surgical deployment, how to kill the AQ and CC first, and other things that can help him succeed.

---

The above seems to posit that engineering is the way to play the game.

Is that accurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

They are both strategies in clash. They are both good for the game. That was the scope of my comment. If you have a counterargument, something better than "nuh-uh" might work better. :)

---

Engineering and it being, "good for the game" has not been accepted, most certainly not by me, nor do I think a huge percentage of the player population either. Your flirting with a Begging the Question logical fallacy now.

"It's good for the game because it's a strategy. And since it's a strategy, it's good for the game." is basically your argument, which is a circular reference/begging the question logical fallacy

At best, your reasoning behind this being good for the game is because it's "fun" for you, perhaps others, yet it sure seems to cause immense frustration and/or disappointment with many, many others. Just look at this Forum for some evidence.

And you most certainly don't want to go down the road of forcing people to play the game "that" way....

A war base needs to be within the "scope" of the game to be effective. If the MM was to ever be perfected, to be fair for all, it would not favor the maxed base nor the defenseless base, as they are both extremes.

SC, in trying to support both of these extremists, is in essence breaking the MM for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Playforwar

Negative. His point was two competitors using the same tools. Engineers have more advanced tools. Do maxers have access to more advanced tools? Of course we do, but by that logic, we should all be 11s. Heck, why even have ths? We can just have a mad dash to the finish.

There is one certainty in this mm discussion, engineers need maxers to prey on. Some of the best pro engineered posters will probably admit to such. They will admit that they have done so to gain advantage against maxers. That is why I think most engineers want no or limited changes to mm. But I ask, what will you do when the maxers are gone? If only engineers are left, then everyone needs to up there already engineered game. Where does it end and what is left? I say all that will be remaining is a shell of the game that I once really enjoyed.

Maxers have no need for engineers. In fact, we want no part of you. We admit that you are smart and you can crush our base from above. We truly don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't effect us. We just want to fight our own th level. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Just a side note. I've lurked on these forums for years and have really learned a lot from many excellent posts (both pro and anti engineered folks). I only recently started posting when our clan began regularly matching engineered. Thanks to those who have provided a wealth of information in this game.

---

I honestly have nothing else to say because Playforwar just read my mind and posted exactly what I think for me, but he expressed better than I ever would. Thank you, Playforwar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Playforwar

Negative. His point was two competitors using the same tools. Engineers have more advanced tools. Do maxers have access to more advanced tools? Of course we do, but by that logic, we should all be 11s. Heck, why even have ths? We can just have a mad dash to the finish.

There is one certainty in this mm discussion, engineers need maxers to prey on. Some of the best pro engineered posters will probably admit to such. They will admit that they have done so to gain advantage against maxers. That is why I think most engineers want no or limited changes to mm. But I ask, what will you do when the maxers are gone? If only engineers are left, then everyone needs to up there already engineered game. Where does it end and what is left? I say all that will be remaining is a shell of the game that I once really enjoyed.

Maxers have no need for engineers. In fact, we want no part of you. We admit that you are smart and you can crush our base from above. We truly don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't effect us. We just want to fight our own th level. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Just a side note. I've lurked on these forums for years and have really learned a lot from many excellent posts (both pro and anti engineered folks). I only recently started posting when our clan began regularly matching engineered. Thanks to those who have provided a wealth of information in this game.

---

Good post, and not surprising I have a slightly different ttake.

engineers don't need maxers to "prey" (dislike that connotation) on. I would guess it is more frustrating to maxers, who probably understand the game better than rushed or defensively lopsided. Engineers will match either and have the advantage. Maxers (who just want to fight on your win th) -your words, have the advantage if matched to rushed. So in the mm hierarchy premmie<maxer<engy.

understand the point about who will be left, if all maxers quit. SC needs to address this for the long term health of the game. But as many have pointed out, the long term health depends on gem purchases, and none of us have anything resembling overall game data to have an educated opinion. We can all guess, and try to extrapolate or use logic, but it's all guesses.

i would say maxers don't need engy' but could co-exist. If SC could properly weight offense and defense to match non directly equal base offense and defense strength; I don't know why engineered clans couldn't match max clans and get competitive wars.

Throughout the the history of sporting events you have had offense vs. defense matchups. They have produced competitive even games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripple1972

.....

Throughout the the history of sporting events you have had offense vs. defense matchups. They have produced competitive even games.

---

True, but it would have to be a 1 attack to 1 defense situation. 2 attacks for 1 defense is the scale tipper in war (and only war).


deleted idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

True, but it would have to be a 1 attack to 1 defense situation. 2 attacks for 1 defense is the scale tipper in war (and only war).


deleted idea!

---

Not sure I agree with that, but if you have deleted the idea, discussion ended. There is no solution, let the engineering beat downs continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripple1972

Good post, and not surprising I have a slightly different ttake.

engineers don't need maxers to "prey" (dislike that connotation) on. I would guess it is more frustrating to maxers, who probably understand the game better than rushed or defensively lopsided. Engineers will match either and have the advantage. Maxers (who just want to fight on your win th) -your words, have the advantage if matched to rushed. So in the mm hierarchy premmie<maxer<engy.

understand the point about who will be left, if all maxers quit. SC needs to address this for the long term health of the game. But as many have pointed out, the long term health depends on gem purchases, and none of us have anything resembling overall game data to have an educated opinion. We can all guess, and try to extrapolate or use logic, but it's all guesses.

i would say maxers don't need engy' but could co-exist. If SC could properly weight offense and defense to match non directly equal base offense and defense strength; I don't know why engineered clans couldn't match max clans and get competitive wars.

Throughout the the history of sporting events you have had offense vs. defense matchups. They have produced competitive even games.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

True, but it would have to be a 1 attack to 1 defense situation. 2 attacks for 1 defense is the scale tipper in war (and only war).


deleted idea!

---

I understand the analogy but you're also referring to two pro sports teams that almost expect to face each other because of being in the same league. Maxers, myself included, don't want to be in the same "league" as engineers. Let engineers face each other while maxers get to face other maxers. What storm is saying is that although the analogy fits, it would make more since if an attack was taken away. Right now, an engineered base gives up a triple in order to get 6 higher up on the map. Whereas if an attack was taken away, so goes the advantage that it brings. Granted, this isn't a viable solution and almost nobody would agree to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

The above seems to posit that engineering is the way to play the game.

Is that accurate?

---

Yes, optimizing for the matchmaker is currently the best strategy for random spin clan wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Engineering and it being, "good for the game" has not been accepted, most certainly not by me, nor do I think a huge percentage of the player population either. Your flirting with a Begging the Question logical fallacy now.

"It's good for the game because it's a strategy. And since it's a strategy, it's good for the game." is basically your argument, which is a circular reference/begging the question logical fallacy

---

Here is my claim:

1. Increasing the number of strategies / number of ways to play is good for the game
2. Engineering is a strategy (and is multiple ways to play because there are different ways to engineer)
3. Therefore, engineering is good for the game

No begging the question needed.

This seems to be the competing claim of the anti-engineers:

1. OP strategies are bad for the game
2. (At least some form of) Engineering is an OP strategy
3. Therefore, (at least some form of) engineering is bad for the game

I'm fine with supercell adjusting the matchmaker so that engineering is not OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

At best, your reasoning behind this being good for the game is because it's "fun" for you, perhaps others, yet it sure seems to cause immense frustration and/or disappointment with many, many others. Just look at this Forum for some evidence.

---

Like multiplayer, it's fun for me and others, and yet it sure causes immense frustration and/or disappointment with many, many others. Namely, those who lose. Losing in multiplayer causes me frustration too; I compensate by attacking much more than I defend. Note that we don't have any data on how many people engineering encourages vs discourages, and neither does supercell.

I hate BB because I have risen to the level where I lose 50% of the time. If you are like me and hate to lose, then either improve to the point where you don't lose as much, or do what I do and refrain from the non-fun activity (I've largely stopped attacking in BB).

For the same reason I think I'd hate CWL (if I were good enough to be in it). It's inevitable that almost everyone in CWL will lose. There's only one champion clan. CWL players enjoy high end competition, and more power to them, but they're not me.

If other clans in random spin wars improved to the point that my clan lost half of the time, I'd probably stop warring, or go make a one man clan (or maybe a local people only clan) where the inherent communication and coordination advantages would give me an edge over clans with multiple people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Yes, optimizing for the matchmaker is currently the best strategy for random spin clan wars.

---

If you don't see how significant an issue that is, I'm not sure what to tell you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Here is my claim:

1. Increasing the number of strategies / number of ways to play is good for the game
2. Engineering is a strategy (and is multiple ways to play because there are different ways to engineer)
3. Therefore, engineering is good for the game

No begging the question needed.

---

No, you are still begging the question. It's logical form is: "Claim X assumes X is true. Therefore, claim X is true." In this case, point 1 is assumed true. You then use your proposition in your proof by basically stating: more strategies are good for the game & because engineering is a type of strategy, it's good for the game. It's a circular reference/begging the question logical fallacy, bordering on a textbook example

To simplify it for you, answer why exactly an engineering strategy is good for the game

If that doesn't grab you, how about using an indirect proof model, perhaps something like this:

Modding is a strategy. Please explain to me why modding would be good for the game

And let's be clear...I'm referring to significant/extreme engineering---I don't feel that minor engineering, to be defined, really annoys people all that much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

This seems to be the competing claim of the anti-engineers:

1. OP strategies are bad for the game
2. (At least some form of) Engineering is an OP strategy
3. Therefore, (at least some form of) engineering is bad for the game

I'm fine with supercell adjusting the matchmaker so that engineering is not OP.

---

Ok, you just made me literally LOL...

Point 1 is exactly the issue, any OP strategy would likely be bad for the game. You even go on to say that you are okay with SC adjusting the MM. Your logic is just...strange...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Like multiplayer, it's fun for me and others, and yet it sure causes immense frustration and/or disappointment with many, many others. Namely, those who lose.

---

Oh really?

So it doesn't irritate those that still pull out wins?

Is that what you are saying?

Please confirm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Note that we don't have any data on how many people engineering encourages vs discourages, and neither does supercell.

---

I don't understand the relevance of this, but ok....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

I hate BB because I have risen to the level where I lose 50% of the time. If you are like me and hate to lose, then either improve to the point where you don't lose as much, or do what I do and refrain from the non-fun activity (I've largely stopped attacking in BB).

---

But many players/clans aren't doing that. They are manipulating the MM to gain an edge to cover up for their lack of play skill & that can cause frustration, big time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

If other clans in random spin wars improved to the point that my clan lost half of the time, I'd probably stop warring, or go make a one man clan (or maybe a local people only clan) where the inherent communication and coordination advantages would give me an edge over clans with multiple people.

---

One man clans exist already. Have at it & good luck with that