The engineer and the "flop"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Anytime you want to compare resumes, you PM me and we can take it offline.



No, it's circular/begging because those 2 play off each other and go round and round. It doesn't matter that you list them separately, it's still circular/begging. You can sum 1,000 different lines in Excel and still have a circular issue. But it really doesn't matter at this point.

You need to provide evidence that more strategies are always good for the game. You posited that and I'm specifically challenging you on that.

And don't think I didn't notice you not only ignore my comment that modding is a strategy, so please explain how that fits into your dubious theory, to say nothing about you attempting to shift the burden of proof to me with your question above.

You made the claim, you provide evidence for it



I very much agree. Insignificant engineering, to be defined, would be eyebrow raising to have a huge issue with.

But more and more we see ~entire clans that are engineered. We literally just finished yet another and cleaned their clocks because they couldn't attack for beans. Yes, we still won, but it doesn't make us roll our eyes any less.

Further, it goes beyond the fact that we won, which is important to being unbiased. Others who don't take this (cursed, stupid, annoying! :) ) game as seriously as we do could easily be outmatched simply because of war spins and that I/we have an issue with/can understand the frustration.



There is an enormous difference between strategically upgrading a base vs. an ~entire clan that is engineered. The former is usually just smart playing, the latter is where the primary issue lies.

And, based on what I'm reading on the forums, it's the latter that is causing the frustration. Just look at the "this is unfair!" threads that constantly show up in this subforum




Your specific comment was:



The issue isn't that annoyance being a sufficient reason to, "eliminate a base development strategy," which I haven't read much of anyone saying that is the problem... (this is now flirting with a strawman logical fallacy, which we can discuss at length here as well, if needed)

It's when ~entire clans are engineered (and this doesn't mean all bases are, of course...) that sure seems to be the issue or, as you like to call it, "unwinnable wars."

You direct me to the posts where "insignificant" engineering (which there are some, but I sure can't recall many) exists and I'd quickly fall to the side of, "not really an issue."

But I sure see a lot more going the other direction, to say nothing about what my clan directly has experienced



Oh, but they have a lot of indicators, yes?

For example, this forum might be one huge one...



Technically, I agree with the above, but it sure seems like your doing nothing more than playing with semantics here.



Or, perhaps, they can't attack and want to cover up for their crappy attacking skills by bully attacking. That's a very big reason why many clans/players do this too.




This point has some merit.

The MM definitely needs to be improved



This is head-shaking, seriously. Give me a break...

It brought out the flaws in the MM, often by players/clans that aren't very good at the game, not much else.



The analogy was and remains just bad.

If you have a roster of nothing but max TH11s, who exactly is the QB vs the linemen vs the RB?

It's usually a manipulation of the (faulty) MM, nothing more.



Oh, so what you're saying is that players can't play the way they necessarily want to (especially if someone wants to max their TH) and need to upgrade differently. Yup, that sounds like the way the MM should be set up...

---

You have to admit that a clan of all max th11 is very rare so an exception doesnt change the general statement.
Yes maxers are flawed. They keep losing to engineers of equal weight which may be the mm but still has made the game evolove beyond one style of play.
What gives? You really seem to have a issue with most of the people who play this game. Why cant their be a place for everyone vs your way or the highway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

You have to admit that a clan of all max th11 is very rare so an exception doesnt change the general statement.
Yes maxers are flawed. They keep losing to engineers of equal weight which may be the mm but still has made the game evolove beyond one style of play.

---

No. This is actually making the game devolve into one dominant style of play - a completely backwards and unintuitive style of play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

What gives? You really seem to have a issue with most of the people who play this game. Why cant their be a place for everyone vs your way or the highway.

---

This is exactly what we want and exactly what engineering does not leave any room for. Even by your own reasoning, it's either engineering or the highway (of losses). You are directly contradicting yourself.

What gives?

We run 10v10.... leave Hero's down.... Why? We always get a match in our favor! If we don't? We Try! We want to war like you Maxing fools! Just smarter I think? Only 1 minimax in our line up....... And a .5 or 2!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

I very much agree. Insignificant engineering, to be defined, would be eyebrow raising to have a huge issue with.

[...]

You direct me to the posts where "insignificant" engineering (which there are some, but I sure can't recall many) exists and I'd quickly fall to the side of, "not really an issue."

---

The majority of engineering threads do not distinguish between "insignificant" engineering and "gamebreaking" engineering. So when someone makes a generic "we need to end engineering" post (probably half the threads here) they might just mean "we need to end defenseless TH11 with max offense" but that's not what they're actually saying. I don't care if defenseless TH11 are nerfed; in fact I would like that. But when someone calls for nerfing all of engineering, they are also calling for nerfing the parts that I like. Also, see the cause vs effect comment that I made. What they dislike is not necessarily that the defenseless TH11 exists, what they dislike is the gamebreaking effect of the defenseless TH11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Quote:

---

People often confuse cause and effect. They rage against "engineering" when what they actually care about are unwinnable wars. A single super-engineered base, a defenseless TH11, sometimes does not provide a gamebreaking advantage; and on the flip side, sometimes a bunch of very slightly engineered bases, .5s, do provide a gamebreaking advantage. The problem isn't the technique used to get there, the problem is that the matchmaker allows gamebreaking advantages.

---

Technically, I agree with the above, but it sure seems like your doing nothing more than playing with semantics here.

---

I think it gets to the core issue. I think people should be able to engineer to as extreme an extent as they want, and that extreme amount of engineering should not give them a gamebreaking advantage. Engineering isn't the problem, the matchmaker is the problem. I don't care if my opponent has a defenseless TH11, or ten; what I care about is that my clan still has a chance to win, or at least tie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Or, perhaps, they can't attack and want to cover up for their crappy attacking skills by bully attacking. That's a very big reason why many clans/players do this too.

---

It's definitely true some of the time, and it's a perfectly legitimate reason to engineer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Quote:

---

The more I think about the matchmaker, the more I think they are trying to get good outputs by tweaking the inputs and taking whatever the result is, when what I think they should do is filter the outputs and disallow ones that violate whatever criteria they judge to be gamebreaking (such as #1 max TH11 vs #1 max TH9).

---

This point has some merit.

The MM definitely needs to be improved

---

I wonder if supercell actually takes an engineering approach to creating their matchmaker. In my subfield we make heavy use of requirements and testing to verify proper behavior of the system being created. I don't expect supercell's testing to be super rigorous because it's just a game (and we've seen bugs get into releases that had to be fixed via unplanned updates) but with the matchmaker I think it would be very valuable for them to write down exactly what their goals are for it, rather than just winging it like most of the software world does.

If they had requirements, they could publish them and the community could comment on them. I would love to see them list explicitly what kind of matchups they are trying to cause and what kind they are trying to avoid. And then the community could point out, oh, matchup X is never OK and should be avoided, and supercell could say, perhaps, but avoiding that matchup would quadruple search time and violate this other requirement, or whatever. This is related to the often mentioned fact that we don't actually know what supercell considers a good match and a bad match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

You have to admit that a clan of all max th11 is very rare so an exception doesnt change the general statement.
Yes maxers are flawed. They keep losing to engineers of equal weight which may be the mm but still has made the game evolove beyond one style of play.
What gives? You really seem to have a issue with most of the people who play this game. .

---

Not only did I never say that a clan of max TH11s was common, it doesn't matter whether a clan of all max 11s is rare or not, your analogy remains a poor one, strongly appearing like a biased engineer justifying his actions.

Smart people are often really good at rationalizing actions for non-smart reasons & that looks to apply here.

If you simply argued that strategy X is the best one at this time because the flawed MM can be manipulated, I'd likely agree, but you seem to be arguing that the way it currently works is all good---maxers are flawed and that's it. Why can't it be that no route is flawed? Ever think of, or, even better, argue that?

Also, please provide evidence that I have an issue with, "most of the people who play this game." I have an issue with the MM & I disagree with people who argue that, "it's all the MM's fault!" in an effort to eliminate responsibility of the players who choose certain courses of action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

Why cant their be a place for everyone vs your way or the highway

---

Provide evidence of your statement above, presumably meaning that I don't want people to play the way they want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

The majority of engineering threads do not distinguish between "insignificant" engineering and "gamebreaking" engineering. So when someone makes a generic "we need to end engineering" post (probably half the threads here) they might just mean "we need to end defenseless TH11 with max offense" but that's not what they're actually saying.

---

Again, technically, I agree with your point, but I also remain unsure that's actually what's going on. Two quick thoughts:

1. While I haven't done a study, I often do see posters push back on many, "OMG! So unfair!" threads that often pop up. This leads me to think that just because a thread pops up, it isn't necessarily always an issue of the poster being accurate that the war is unwinnable and that such opinion is generally accepted
2. (& more importantly) When many of these threads pop up, it's pretty clear that people are referring to unwinnable wars when they say engineering. I do think what you are saying is accurate, but I also feel it's a fairly minor point, as I don't think there is much misunderstanding what the ultimate concern really is. Yes, it probably should be reworded (lead that charge! :) ), but I also don't believe that significantly diminishes the point either.

I, for one, do not think it's as grave as many make it out to be, but I (& my clan) do feel strongly that, at times, there is a legitimate complaint/concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

I don't care if defenseless TH11 are nerfed; in fact I would like that. But when someone calls for nerfing all of engineering, they are also calling for nerfing the parts that I like. Also, see the cause vs effect comment that I made. What they dislike is not necessarily that the defenseless TH11 exists, what they dislike is the gamebreaking effect of the defenseless TH11.

---

Actually, I think it goes way beyond that. It isn't just defenseless bases that can cause grief, mini-max bases are seemingly very popular as well and they can have a similar impact on overall war weight. Point being, there are many ways to skin the cat and create some silly, perhaps significant, advantage

It's difficult to answer, however, about when someone says nerf engineering, as not only does that call into question what engineering really means, but it also just seems to be a cry to SC to adjust the MM.

When you say that it might hurt the parts of engineering that you like, does that mean you don't want to lose an advantage that you currently have? That would be eyebrow raising...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

I think it gets to the core issue. I think people should be able to engineer to as extreme an extent as they want, and that extreme amount of engineering should not give them a gamebreaking advantage. Engineering isn't the problem, the matchmaker is the problem. I don't care if my opponent has a defenseless TH11, or ten; what I care about is that my clan still has a chance to win, or at least tie.

---

I agree, well said

The issue is that you have people like JackRabbit who come out and flatly say that maxers are flawed and that's the exact point--they shouldn't be, but that won't stop him, or biased players like him, from creating arguments that try and support a bad mindset

In theory, a player can play they way they want and have a reasonable chance at winning any war, maxing or not. The interesting part, however, is that many of these bases are solely because of the advantage they get from war/the MM, as only a fool would want to farm with said bases.

I am sympathetic to SC, as that theoretical model is just a monster to implement, but I don't think they are there yet and don't think I'm alone in that sentiment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

I wonder if supercell actually takes an engineering approach to creating their matchmaker. In my subfield we make heavy use of requirements and testing to verify proper behavior of the system being created. I don't expect supercell's testing to be super rigorous because it's just a game (and we've seen bugs get into releases that had to be fixed via unplanned updates) but with the matchmaker I think it would be very valuable for them to write down exactly what their goals are for it, rather than just winging it like most of the software world does.

---

If this was a "small" company, I'd likely be a tad more sympathetic. At SC's value? Ehh, that's a stretch. They have the resources to put some mustard on the hot dog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Actually, I think it goes way beyond that. It isn't just defenseless bases that can cause grief, mini-max bases are seemingly very popular as well and they can have a similar impact on overall war weight. Point being, there are many ways to skin the cat and create some silly, perhaps significant, advantage

---

Absolutely; in fact, in one of these comments I referred to complaints about "engineered" clans that simply have a bunch of .5 bases. A few months ago one of the CWL clans mentioned such a random spin matchup, where they searched with a CWL-like composition and ended up matching a "mass .5" clan with a big advantage in number of infernos and wardens. It gets back to the problem being the output, not the input; the result of matchmaking, not so much the people who design their bases in nonstandard ways.

If the matchmaker had a set of rules of matches that it was not allowed to do, the net result would be more matching like with like. Clans that war with half defenseless would naturally pair up with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

When you say that it might hurt the parts of engineering that you like, does that mean you don't want to lose an advantage that you currently have? That would be eyebrow raising...

---

I am not sure how much advantage if any my engineering gives me. Almost all of our opponents are engineered about as much as we are and our win rate is about 3 out of 4. Almost none of our wars are extremely one sided; usually it's decided by one side or the other barfing on their attacks. Sometimes our wars are decided by TH9 performance against other TH9s, so even our middle bases can contribute meaningfully to our wars (with their offense and with their defense). It seems like we are at a sweet spot, with 0-1 full TH11 (rushed), 1-3 full TH10 (some rushed some not), 0-5 engineered bases that weight like TH10, 1-5 9.5s, 10 or so TH9, and then a smattering of smaller bases. We only have one base that appears on the war map below TH9 who can 3 star above TH9. In our war that just spun while I was typing this, each side has exactly 5 TH11 and 1 Eagle. We usually war 20v20 or 25v25, and at these sizes there are a ton of engineered clans that war with a single TH11 on top.

Considering advantage at the individual base level: omitting the infernos and eagle on my 9.11 lets me 3 star the base I draw into war (usually a 10 or 10.5), who also has the possibility of 3 starring me. If the MM changed so that this account always draws a full TH11 ("ending engineering"), I could drop the heavy defenses and be stuck in a CWL-like situation, where my TH10 has to try to 2 star the base I bring in while I dip to hit the base he brings in. That's not the end of the world for that one account, but I have two other engineered 11s as well (that use different offense and defense strategies, not necessarily optimally).

Basically, I like making bases in different ways. Every account of mine is a special snowflake. I have no need for 3 maxed or maxing TH11s. I'd probably stop playing on two of them. That would be unfortunate, and less fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

Quote:

---

I think it gets to the core issue. I think people should be able to engineer to as extreme an extent as they want, and that extreme amount of engineering should not give them a gamebreaking advantage. Engineering isn't the problem, the matchmaker is the problem. I don't care if my opponent has a defenseless TH11, or ten; what I care about is that my clan still has a chance to win, or at least tie.

---

I agree, well said

The issue is that you have people like JackRabbit who come out and flatly say that maxing is a bad idea and that's the exact point--it shouldn't be, but that won't stop him, or biased players like him, from creating arguments that try and support a bad mindset

---

Well, in two limited contexts, JackRabbit isn't wrong. If your goal is to max TH11 in the minimal calendar time, then maxing each TH along the way is a bad idea. If your goal is to not be beaten with a stick by the current matchmaker, then maxing is a bad idea. Basically, maxing can be summarized as "upgrading even the things that don't matter". But you are absolutely correct: upgrading the things that don't matter shouldn't penalize you. People often confuse "what is" with "what should be" in many different areas of life.

An idea that was batted around a week or two ago, that I think would help, would be to have the war weight of offense upgrades go down as more upgrades occurred. So for example, when you hit TH9 and max your first war attack (whether it be GoHo, or LaLo, or whatever) your points go up by the requisite amount, but then, the second attack you max, your point only go up by a little more, and then the third, your points go up a little less. Here is an oversimplified algorithm that could approximate that:

first new lab upgrade war weight increase = X
second lab upgrade war weight increase = X / 2
third lab upgrade war weight increase = X / 3
fourth lab upgrade war weight increase = X / 4
fifth and subsequent lab upgrade war weight increases = 0

So an account that only upgrades 1 or 2 troops would not have a massive offense war weight advantage over an identical account that upgraded every troop, and staying at a TH level to upgrade every last troop would not increase your war weight at all.

The game wouldn't even need to specify different weights for different kinds of troops. Who cares if hogs are better than goblins at war; trust the player to upgrade first whichever troop they care about the most.

Funny, I actually agree with most of what you say above

A few thoughts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

It gets back to the problem being the output, not the input; the result of matchmaking, not so much the people who design their bases in nonstandard ways.

---

While I don't necessarily disagree that the output is the problem, I strongly disagree with this idea that everyone is just designing their bases in nonstandard ways & they are just innocent. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Far, far too many clans/players are doing this solely/overwhelmingly to manipulate the MM to gain a significant edge and all else be damned. Worse still, many do it to cover up for bad attacking skills. How many times do you see loon spam or mass drag bully attacks? It's often ludicrous...

Let's just be honest about what is going on and not hold everyone out doing this as innocent bystanders.

If someone wants to say, "Dude, it's war, all bets are off." Fine, I get that mindset.

But don't in the same breath then refer to these people as being/insinuating innocent and it's all the MM's fault

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littledoctor

Well, in two limited contexts, JackRabbit isn't wrong. If your goal is to max TH11 in the minimal calendar time, then maxing each TH along the way is a bad idea. If your goal is to not be beaten with a stick by the current matchmaker, then maxing is a bad idea. Basically, maxing can be summarized as "upgrading even the things that don't matter". But you are absolutely correct: upgrading the things that don't matter shouldn't penalize you. People often confuse "what is" with "what should be" in many different areas of life.

---

No, disagree.

Just look at the post that started this thread by JackRabbit. He has little to no interest in, "what should be," even though that's the entire point.

He's basically preaching, "adapt, adapt, adapt!" when the feedback he's getting is, basically, that isn't what is best for the game and why so many want a change to me made.

It's a silly argument at conception anyways. As soon as SC makes a change to the MM, all previous guidelines are suspect, so what once was a winning strategy can then become also-ran.

It makes you wonder why he doesn't want to deal with what, "should be." Perhaps because he has an advantage right now and doesn't want a significant change to come through, removing said advantage?

That would be nothing more than bias and would be a fail at that point...

See what I said below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaticfringe

If you simply argued that strategy X is the best one at this time because the flawed MM can be manipulated, I'd likely agree, but you seem to be arguing that the way it currently works is all good---maxers are flawed and that's it. Why can't it be that no route is flawed? Ever think of, or, even better, argue that?

---

As you can see, I'm specifically referring to what, "should be" vs. "what is." And many players don't want to go the route of engineering, stressing about having an ideal engineered lineup, etc., but, instead, focus on, you know, just little things, like actually playing the game (i.e. base design and attacking).

And maxing a TH the fastest really doesn't apply too much to this discussion

Lunaticfringe: without wading into this back and forth, and being lazy not wanting to read the back and forth. What are you saying is the "should be"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripple1972

Lunaticfringe: without wading into this back and forth, and being lazy not wanting to read the back and forth. What are you saying is the "should be"?

---

In my opinion, the should be, is that wars should be decided by the clan's team work, effort, attacking skills and base layouts(not upgrade route) during the 2 days of war. Not the moment the war is declared.

I like the "what should be" "what is" formulation. I think the average thread flips back & forth unpredictably & incoherently, and there's a lot more agreement with a little more specificity to the subject.

And then I'll suggest that all the "what should be" arguments be snail mailed to Helsinki where they might make a difference, but that seems to ♥♥♥♥ people off...