War MM & Cannon Cart changes - the FEEDBACK thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rephren

Did you miss where they stated they do not want to remove engineering? You're obviously not on the forums a lot then, thats ok. For the life of me I can't remember where I saw it but it was posted by Darian.

---

I think you may mean the video where he is being interviewed by Ash. If so his point was consistent with what JFSoul is saying: they don't want to kill it off as a base development option, just to remove an unwarranted degree of advantage in the matchmaking process where that playstyle has become overly dominant as the meta to the detriment of other equally valid play styles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rephren

hehe, JF, you obviously had that response neatly packaged ready for me when you knew I was going to reference Darian's post ;) nice catch. (even if you deny it)

In any event, the fact he has explicitly stated they do NOT want to limit any playstyle (engineering) yet they want to remove the advantage engineering has - means what exactly? It has much wriggle room doesn't it?

It's basically saying, "We accept engineering sucks and is wrong, but we don't want to remove it because many people play it" Basically there is an ulterior motive here too isn't there? If they don't remove engineering because "Its a playstyle they dont want to remove" they can then state they want to limit its advantage - do absolutely squat (as we're seeing with all the responses here) and still make plenty money.

So to summarise: they are saying they will not remove engineering, but will limit its advantage - then do absolutely nothing because that seems just lip service. And the matchups since the MM update and proving that "limit" its advantage is just that...lip service. Its genius really.

---

Not sure why you are personally attacking me. Just responding to your posts and trying to learn your point of view.

The highlight above is your opinion, and I've shared that sentiment at times: SC states they want to remove the advantage, but the perception is they have done nothing measurable in each MM update. But I disagree with your original post in which you said SC has stated they do not want to remove the advantage. That seems factually incorrect.

Cheers.

My man you're a sensitive bloke hey, that's ok, I really am not attacking you. I promise.

In any event, your picking apart of a factually incorrect statement is appreciated, but my point which you agree to, stands firm. Supercell are paying lip service to "correcting the advantage' that engineered bases have. Yet they let the mismatches continue on a grand scale. This tells us plenty. It tells us they aren't willing to mess with the revenue engineering brings. Yet they will make it look as if they are, which placates the maxers into believing SC are going to eventually fix this mess therefore it leaves then with hope, false hope, but hope nonetheless. Therefore the maxers continue to spend . It's a great plan by SC. Shrewd, just like We'd expect a freemium gaming company to be.

I am just trying to help spread this information so we can all manage our expectations and in the end hopefully this info will make happier clashers one day playing the game within the confines of the rules but enjoying the game more knowing what it is.

So after an unfair matchup on the first war ( previously posted), we decided to add 4 very low level bases. Well, the enemy also has 4 very low bases so that is fair. However, same as last time we have 2 TH11, one which is maxed and the other rather new. The enemy has two maxed th11 bases. This has now happened twice and I dont recall it ever happening before. My conclusion after two war matchups, I liked the previous algorithm better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rephren

My man you're a sensitive bloke hey, that's ok, I really am not attacking you. I promise.

In any event, your picking apart of a factually incorrect statement is appreciated, but my point which you agree to, stands firm. Supercell are paying lip service to "correcting the advantage' that engineered bases have. Yet they let the mismatches continue on a grand scale. This tells us plenty. It tells us they aren't willing to mess with the revenue engineering brings. Yet they will make it look as if they are, which placates the maxers into believing SC are going to eventually fix this mess therefore it leaves then with hope, false hope, but hope nonetheless. Therefore the maxers continue to spend . It's a great plan by SC. Shrewd, just like We'd expect a freemium gaming company to be.

I am just trying to help spread this information so we can all manage our expectations and in the end hopefully this info will make happier clashers one day playing the game within the confines of the rules but enjoying the game more knowing what it is.

---

To be honest, what you are spreading is cynicism and an interpretation of Supercell's motives, as opposed to actual feedback on your in game experience of the new matchmaker in action. They have created and stickied this thread asking for feedback, so let's stick to doing that. If the feedback is bad, then it's bad - but only useful if specific to in game experiences of recent war matching.

We are a clan of maxers and used to face engineered bases all the time. After the change, we faced a balanced war. They have one extra TH10, but no engineered bases. It worked for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rephren

My man you're a sensitive bloke hey, that's ok, I really am not attacking you. I promise.

In any event, your picking apart of a factually incorrect statement is appreciated, but my point which you agree to, stands firm. Supercell are paying lip service to "correcting the advantage' that engineered bases have. Yet they let the mismatches continue on a grand scale. This tells us plenty. It tells us they aren't willing to mess with the revenue engineering brings. Yet they will make it look as if they are, which placates the maxers into believing SC are going to eventually fix this mess therefore it leaves then with hope, false hope, but hope nonetheless. Therefore the maxers continue to spend . It's a great plan by SC. Shrewd, just like We'd expect a freemium gaming company to be.

I am just trying to help spread this information so we can all manage our expectations and in the end hopefully this info will make happier clashers one day playing the game within the confines of the rules but enjoying the game more knowing what it is.

---

You are making the assumption that SC has an ulterior motive for not having implemented a perfect MM system. Is it at all possible that they tried and failed? To me this seems a more likely scenario that what you are suggesting. Income generation requires a player base and I think they are aware that people are unhappy with the MM system as is. I don't think they are short-sighted enough to imagine that 'paying lip service' to anyone is going to keep them playing indefinitely.

SC has stated that there is an ability to adjust and fine tune this new MM. They are asking for feedback to see how it is working. Now it can be tweaked. Then they will ask again I would assume.

Our first match, 2 town hall 11's, 4 town hall 10's, misc nonrushed bases below. Them, 6 town hall 11's, 1 town hall 10, misc nonrushed bases below. It was no contest for us. Not very happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mat5592

0/2 so far.

---

Same here. Our highest offensive troop is Lvl 6 hogs, BUT twice since the update we're matched against th11 max offensed troops. WHERE'S THE UPDATE?? WHO HAS IT HELPED??