you dont know this, you are claiming it does, If you want to have a decent discussion you cant just assert things, you have to explain how you know what you know, what evidence exists to prove what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by iBork
Printable View
you dont know this, you are claiming it does, If you want to have a decent discussion you cant just assert things, you have to explain how you know what you know, what evidence exists to prove what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by iBork
Ok..
10x engineered war -- 100% fair (tie/draw)
10x engineered war #2 -- 95% fair (tie /draw)
30x engineered war - not quite fair... enemy top bases had 5 max tens our top bases had th8/9 ish defenses. But we beat them on heroes big time. -- Stats for the top 8: This war ended as a tie 1 star short of perfect with a .03 percent difference in our destruction... of course -- they had to clear a 79k base... WE had to clear an 89k with infernos... big difference in what we had to hit...
Draconia 11 79 45 45 20 #22PJJ8PVU 110 -10 51 1 aliostovan 11 89 22 27 10 max laloon for th11 /engineered level 9 and 10 walls Bleazel groupme = band 11 76 45 45 20 #29QGY2CLV 110 -12 41 2 amirhosein 10 88 29 40 0 max ten / max troops and walls for ten Happy2 11 70 45 45 18 108 -16 63 3 cant read it 10 86 18 27 0 85% max troops for ten and max walls Ebrehnr 11 62 34 45 20 99 -18 77 4 mohammad73 10 80 11 11 0 skull walls th9 troop levels rushed ten with max air def Raven 11 62 17 17 11 #2Y8VCG2CR 45 -8 10 5 saeed 10 70 17 18 0 th9 troops and level 9 walls (*max 9 normal) RaginTalon 9 58 10 10 0 20 -11 -16 6 hojat 10 69 20 16 0 max 9 research all level 10 walls Nightmare 10 weight-9-15 11 57 20 20 10 50 -4 35 7 cant read it 9 61 8 7 0 level 4 drags only /rushed pink walls Nightmare 09 (th9 mirrors now) 11 57 20 20 12 52 -4 27 8 cant read it 10 61 12 13 0 level 5 dragon zap only - th6 walls pink missinglots
TODAYS war
10x - 95% fair engineered
30x -normal war - 90% fair
30x engineered war - INSANELY mis matched - worse than any war I have ever seen in my 4 years of clashing ; an dI've seen a lot of bad matches ... this ones insane...
Enemy top 10 are heavily engineered max 10.5's with 100% max offense (level 15 double archer/cannon/ inferno etc.. no eagles)
our top 2 are heavily engineered at a whopping 79k with no inferno or eagle.. (easy fodder for any one of those bases)
our next few have mid th10 strength and th8/9 weight..
can you say boned? ♥♥♥♥... This is after I removed all my mini accounts out and used only 2 of my own... we're up against a 35 win streak clan - and I see why ... they have a super solid top.. and guess what?
they have 15 fluffy th3 bases on bottom with 1 cannon no walls and no troops...
WE have zero accounts like that.
--So there you go everyone... if you wanna engineer a war win streak like that -- grab a pile of maxers -- and throw in a pile of useless th3's on bottom and BOOM... you get an epic advantage...
Time for me to make 20 new town hall 3 accounts I guess...
then the enemy will win if they have 25...
so maybe I'll just hve to make 47 town hall 3 accounts then put 3 maxers on top... Then perhaps I'll have a shot at winning...? ♥♥♥♥
this whole mess is supercells fault and I hope they fix it soon...
Heh, just as I and many other feared. We saw this potentially coming from a mile away. Apparently, SC is not aware of roster engineering. And we all thought there was no way they could be that out of touch. Gotta love averages!
/facepalm
What the hell update does supercell made in warmatchmaking...we started war even without any engineered or .5s . I feel really irritated on seeing an engineered th11 with maxed loons in enemy. Easy to hit us as we are just th9s in top.
There isn't a single system that can be improved by taking a continuous variable and turning it into a binary yes/no (in this case, engineered or not). The MODELS of those systems might improve, but the systems won't. So I call ♥♥ on your theory iBork,
2nd war since the update, both matched in under 2 mins and both have been fair. I guess we're getting lucky.
Running 10v10, a couple of mid/max 10s, mid/maxed 9s, and a couple of high/mid level 8s and we're matching very similar clans.
Our 2nd war for us and it's just like the first and we will win. As a .5 clan we're facing heavily engineered th11's (8+ in a 20/20 war) with low def and max war attacks in both wars. Never had these type of opponents before, usually get lighter engineering or .5's.
TH11's have 2 attacks, spam max miners or a really bad spam loons lavaloon. They smash everything up to a low TH10, then fail miserably higher. No skill, all they can do is rely on mismatches and judging by their win streaks we've broken, they had that advantage up until now.
This is something that would be very easy for cocp.it to check. Use the graphs defined by nodes of clans and edges of war matchups. Does the graph show a more distinct separation into groups than before. Sounds like a good blog post for them. The hard part is figuring out how to define regions of the graph, but I'm sure with a quick google, there exists research devoted to measuring the number of semidistinct regions in a graph/network.Quote:
Originally Posted by iBork
Yes, the accuracy is never improved by throwing away lower order details. Other factors may be, calculation difficulty for instance. Or search time. offense/defense ratings for each base is many more comparisons to "get right" than clan totals, so the threshold has to be relatively wider or it will take longer ie more even overall [but potentially off a lot at a few bases] or more even at each base [but off more in total]?Quote:
Originally Posted by posthoc
Personally, it seems like they didn't tweak much. They definitely increased search times, which suggests they're compromising less on match quality for a given amount of searching, maybe also with a lower cap on "worst acceptable match" This could be potentially be enough to explain nearly all the results without any specific tweaks to the formula. However, if they did this, I'd have expected them to decrease prep day also. Not much difference between 23 hours and 20 hours.
Edit: I think it likely that they also made other tweaks, like increasing offenses importance in a match being considered "acceptably close"
Edit2: I'm not saying iBork is right (I don't know), but the reasons you pointed out that iBork was wrong aren't sufficient. I do agree with you that separating clans into two bins seems like a very poor solution that introduces a new form of error (how bases/clans are classified) with a discontinuity in the output function of matchmaking when clans transition between the two sets. Discontinuous functions are very often bad game design.
There is no need for complex models and systems..Quote:
Originally Posted by posthoc
Just give some value for the offense and defense, count the best 2 attacks against each base. Then when you have 2 attacks and 2 defenses plus defense and offense weight ... and everything will go back to normal. Yeah ... the perfect wars will be very rare... but people will start building defenses , the bases will be more similar, the matches will be more fair , roasters will be more similar, war search time will decrease...