Engineering...after all my research... supercell is telling me ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samratulangi

My point is everybody including you r free to express opinions, but saying your opinion is representing largest population is ...

---

I feel like you are not trying to understand anything that I have said till now. And you're not aware of what we were discussing in the first place.

So, I'm just gonna say what you have said in a different manner. You're entitled have your own opinion, but I (yes, just talking about myself this time) can't be bothered to disprove opinions which are not backed by logic and understanding of the context. The moment you start resorting to abusive words (everyone here is adult and knows what those ... Stand for) , I judge you and decide not to waste my time with you. So, I'm not gonna go into the details and explain to you how I came to the conclusion about the largest population. If you understand what I had written and have a valid counter, you'll find out that I'm not rigid and I'll be happy to listen to your side of the story as well. Otherwise, Bye.

I think that the biggest problem with engineering is that it causes dissatisfaction with the game for other players, and that's why SC is at least giving lip service to addressing "the issue". They could care less how people upgrade defenses, or don't upgrade defenses, or do or don't upgrade offense...they just don't want a crapload of people complaining that the game is less fun, and perhaps spending less money on the game as a result, b/c they matched in war with somebody who upgraded in a nontraditional way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKL2207

I find the value of offense to be terribly overvalued in the forums in relation to how it is actually valued in the wider clash community when you factor skill.



If we were actually worried about advocating what's best for the larger player base you would have to actually come up with statistics from that said player base about the actual 3 star rates against same TH levels, all I see on these forums are citing stats from CWL and using those to justify game balance or the lackthereof.

If we are trying to advocate what's best for the larger population, and we value their fun, has anyone even bothered to work out what they deem fun yet? Does the larger population actually derive fun from hitting their own level and failing repeatedly, or do they like the continuation of farming practices of hitting weaker bases for more guaranteed success?

Do the greater population like spending time planning their war attacks or are they too busy doing real life stuff and just log and spam a pre-cooked army and hope to god it doesn't fail?

Essentially I see a bunch of hardcore players in casual clothing trying to project their version of what constitutes fun and saying this is what casuals consider fun and that the game will be wrecked if it isn't fixed, whilst ignoring the fact that those same people are the ones that reject players from lower levels from playing with them.

Here is a snippet from another thread:




^^Look familiar? You don't care about people of less skill don't pretend to. That's the larger population there buddy.

---

You've taken my quotes completely out of context. I was arguing that many people create engineered accounts to try & cover for their own lack of skill or clanmates with low skill or badly thought out upgrade progressions. I understand the reasoning, but it's not good for the long term health of the game.

People who don't have the time to create multiple accounts to follow that path are at a disadvantage. Casual clans are quitting war & quitting the game because of this. No one should think they will miraculously start going on long streaks, but those two star attackers would at least be fighting on an equal footing more of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MossackFonseca

No, what happened is that your clan hit a few engineers, some of your people started emulating them, and eventually it got harder and harder to out-engineer most of your opponents. It's a never-ending cycle. It's actually much easier for a guy like you to enjoy the game and win almost every war by NOT engineering because you are good enough at war to beat a true mirror almost every time. The easiest way to run into true mirrors is to just play the game rather than playing a spreadsheet. Look at Warios' clan, he posts on here every month or 2 with a ridiculously stupid matchup...but what he doesn't post is that they overcame fairly bad matchups regularly for a month during a 15-20 match win streak before hitting that crazy matchup b/c the mm was just determined to make them lose eventually. And people say that heavier clans with majority th10/11 are "better" or "more skilled", but in my experience Folkvangr hits about as many truly skilled opponents as we do truly engineered ones; ie, every now and then but very rarely.

---

Most of my clan are busy adults who can pull off enough TH9 3 stars to be competitive against other casual clans. Show them CWL style layouts & they struggle badly. We have 2 accounts that can be described as engineered, but even without them in the lineup, we see engineers about a third of the time. Not always good engineers... I think even with a perfect matchmaker, we'd win at about the same rate, but the actual gameplay would be more interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chang405

If I could like this post ten times I would. Coming from a friend and family clan that is composed mostly of folks who are working adults and have only one account I can tell "you" that what is making casuals quit isn't because they are sick of facing engineered accounts in war.

The primary reason for quitting is the god awful long grind once you get past TH8. Most have lots of fun prior to that point and then give up.

The next most reason for quitting is that war after TH8 is simply too hard for them. I am the war leader and I have people tell me that they want to hit weaker bases. The TH9 folks who are hitting their own level and failing repeatedly have either permanently opted out of war or have rage quitted the game completely.

---

That's always been the case. Only people who really enjoy the game last much beyond TH6. Between the greatly increased grind at TH9 & the difficulty of mastering attack skills, that's often the point where people sign off. I'm 100% behind anything SC wants to do to make it easier for new players to get to TH9 faster, like the decreased costs & faster upgrade times.

Of the truly active & revenue generating player base, I suspect most are TH9 or higher, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

You've taken my quotes completely out of context. I was arguing that many people create engineered accounts to try & cover for their own lack of skill or clanmates with low skill or badly thought out upgrade progressions. I understand the reasoning, but it's not good for the long term health of the game.

People who don't have the time to create multiple accounts to follow that path are at a disadvantage. Casual clans are quitting war & quitting the game because of this. No one should think they will miraculously start going on long streaks, but those two star attackers would at least be fighting on an equal footing more of the time.

---

I have seen this argument that engineering is not good for the long term health of the game and every time I do it makes me thing of what would happen if everyone decided to become frugal with their money? The answer most often heard their is it wouldn't be good for the economy. Now before people start jumping in and says this is a poor analogy or it is a stupid argument and start dinging my rep look at the common answer. It would be bad for ... That is the common part. The issue with the frugal part is not everyone is going to suddenly become frugal just like not everyone is going quit because of engineering. Again similarity. So logic would tell us that because we are not all going to become frugal or engineer the economy and Clash will be just fine. There are many reasons why the economy goes up and down just like there are many reasons why people quit clash. Yes sometimes it is because of engineering however that doesn't make engineering bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

I have seen this argument that engineering is not good for the long term health of the game and every time I do it makes me thing of what would happen if everyone decided to become frugal with their money? The answer most often heard their is it wouldn't be good for the economy. Now before people start jumping in and says this is a poor analogy or it is a stupid argument and start dinging my rep look at the common answer. It would be bad for ... That is the common part. The issue with the frugal part is not everyone is going to suddenly become frugal just like not everyone is going quit because of engineering. Again similarity. So logic would tell us that because we are not all going to become frugal or engineer the economy and Clash will be just fine. There are many reasons why the economy goes up and down just like there are many reasons why people quit clash. Yes sometimes it is because of engineering however that doesn't make engineering bad.

---

If you've followed me on the forums for long, you should know that I don't think engineering is bad, I think it's boring. I posted a while ago that the long term effect of engineering will tend to push non-engineers out of random spin wars. New players will quickly learn that the mechanics are stacked against them & give up even faster. As the engineers start facing nothing but engineers, the players who don't engineer as well will give up because they can't expect any advantage. The number of players who are interested in hardcore arranged wars is miniscule. I suspect the number of really hard core engineers isn't much more.

If we're going to talk about economics, I suggest you do a little research. There actually is a tendency for everyone to become more frugal when a large enough number of others do so, regardless of whether they actually need to worry about their money or not. If it gets bad enough, you get a depression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefTuk

If you've followed me on the forums for long, you should know that I don't think engineering is bad, I think it's boring. I posted a while ago that the long term effect of engineering will tend to push non-engineers out of random spin wars. New players will quickly learn that the mechanics are stacked against them & give up even faster. As the engineers start facing nothing but engineers, the players who don't engineer as well will give up because they can't expect any advantage. The number of players who are interested in hardcore arranged wars is miniscule. I suspect the number of really hard core engineers isn't much more.

If we're going to talk about economics, I suggest you do a little research. There actually is a tendency for everyone to become more frugal when a large enough number of others do so, regardless of whether they actually need to worry about their money or not. If it gets bad enough, you get a depression.

---

If I am reading what you said correctly when enough people save money because others are doing it a depression occurs. Is that correct. Unless my research isn't correct a depression is something usually seen as not good. ie the great depression in the 1930's or great recession in 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

If I am reading what you said correctly when enough people save money because others are doing it a depression occurs. Is that correct. Unless my research isn't correct a depression is something usually seen as not good. ie the great depression in the 1930's or great recession in 2008.

---

Strangely enough, to continue your economic analogy, the 2008 global financial crisis came about largely through engineering of financial markets! Financial wizkids manipulating markets to gain an advantage. Didn't end too well for some of the engineers like Nick Leeson, Barings Bank, Worldcom, Enron etc... The world wouldn't be anything like it is without them, but engineers have a lot to answer for! lol. SC should be mindful that the global financial crisis was as big as it was largely because regulators failed to stop these engineers!

[Largely tongue in cheek, but there is a ring of truth here]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJackrabbit

If I am reading what you said correctly when enough people save money because others are doing it a depression occurs. Is that correct. Unless my research isn't correct a depression is something usually seen as not good. ie the great depression in the 1930's or great recession in 2008.

---

That's not exactly what he/she was saying. Yes it's good if people save money. Get enough people unwilling to part with money and the economy suffers. Think the rich not investing in new ventures. It may seem strange but it is bad if to many become to frugal. The economy needs action to thrive, not savers.