Next on war docate should be manicured and rostar engineering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STRIKER44

You must be missing something, by what means are pairing comparable (you know about the same ave offence and defence ) with each other terrible? Point 2 is not correct. You have 5 th 9s. You only compare th same th levels. They compare to 5 other th9s. If you have a th9 with a th6 attack it brings that average down. So you could have 5 rushed th9s, they would be paired with comparable (you know like same bases) rushed th9s. Not forcong them to go vs max th9s. Im not saying to assign a spacific th weight. Saying you only compare the weight of the same th levels. If there are maxers in your "pool" that adds a max weight to it. Only thing correct in your statement was a max th would not be at a disadvantage. Ummm well kind of the point. It should be even. Ya having a max th9 sitting at the top of your pool is nice, but it also brings that pool ave up. Disadvantage the rest of the pool on ave with the comparable pool.

Point 3, may or may not be a problem. Before this grand update we got matched evenly about 2/3 of the time. Usually about, if not the same number/level of town halls. Our top 2/3 was usually even th wise unless we hit an engineered clan. But your correct it could be a potential problem.

With this mm by comparing each th pool it could encourage us to allow rushed th or new th to be included in war, because it would not hurt us as much as it does now it would actually bring your weight down if truly rushed or new. If it's an engineered base with max offence, then the offence brings the ave up.

---

I just explained it all to you above, please read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

point 1 - as stated this is not a townhall weighting system

point 2 - this system still is terrible, as maxers get a huge advantage of never having to be at a disadvantage, while every other base can. At the moment a rushed townhall, or new townhall, is not actually at a disadvantage (defence rushed are though), so your system forces a base for example who is townhall 9 with townhall 7 defence and offence now has to face a townhall 9, which means he will very likely he outgunned. You are creating tiny tiny pools which will mean huge marching errors, so the matches within each townhall will not be close at all, meaning rushed and new are liabilities, and maxers have a constant advantage.

point 3 - their simply are not enough clans searching to match townhall to townhall, making this option physically impossible, even If it was the world best idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STRIKER44

You must be missing something, by what means are pairing comparable (you know about the same ave offence and defence ) with each other terrible? Point 2 is not correct. You have 5 th 9s. You only compare th same th levels. They compare to 5 other th9s. If you have a th9 with a th6 attack it brings that average down. So you could have 5 rushed th9s, they would be paired with comparable (you know like same bases) rushed th9s. Not forcong them to go vs max th9s. Im not saying to assign a spacific th weight. Saying you only compare the weight of the same th levels. If there are maxers in your "pool" that adds a max weight to it. Only thing correct in your statement was a max th would not be at a disadvantage. Ummm well kind of the point. It should be even. Ya having a max th9 sitting at the top of your pool is nice, but it also brings that pool ave up. Disadvantage the rest of the pool on ave with the comparable pool.

Point 3, may or may not be a problem. Before this grand update we got matched evenly about 2/3 of the time. Usually about, if not the same number/level of town halls. Our top 2/3 was usually even th wise unless we hit an engineered clan. But your correct it could be a potential problem.

With this mm by comparing each th pool it could encourage us to allow rushed th or new th to be included in war, because it would not hurt us as much as it does now it would actually bring your weight down if truly rushed or new. If it's an engineered base with max offence, then the offence brings the ave up.

---

my awenser above that you replied to answered your reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

I just explained it all to you above, please read it.

---

Believe it or not we're on the same side, I just want this fixed and have fair matches. They tried an offensive match before and it was a problem too. So kind of hybrid system is needed. My biggest complaint is when we get matched vs more high level top of the clan attacks like 5 th11 vs our 1 or a even th higher attacks 2 th 11 vs our 0. Any system that can fix that I'm good with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STRIKER44

Believe it or not we're on the same side, I just want this fixed and have fair matches. They tried an offensive match before and it was a problem too. So kind of hybrid system is needed. My biggest complaint is when we get matched vs more high level top of the clan attacks like 5 th11 vs our 1 or a even th higher attacks 2 th 11 vs our 0. Any system that can fix that I'm good with.

---

there certainly are systems that can, i think we do a poor job brining them to the light. Dorsan and onyx have a ton of fantastic suggestions, they should get more exposure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STRIKER44

Believe it or not we're on the same side, I just want this fixed and have fair matches. They tried an offensive match before and it was a problem too. So kind of hybrid system is needed. My biggest complaint is when we get matched vs more high level top of the clan attacks like 5 th11 vs our 1 or a even th higher attacks 2 th 11 vs our 0. Any system that can fix that I'm good with.

---

An sorry If i seamed rude, Im very matter a fact when i argue, tands to annoying people, wasnt my intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorsan

If you ignore the weights of the bottom 20% bases, then all of the sudden you will have clans that will have their bottom 20% at the exact same weight as the player before them. This might seem like a non-issue until you think about a clan that runs with 10 th11s and might match a clan that runs with 6 th11s and 4 th10s (because you can already match 8 v 6 th11s easily, and now you just added them 2 more th11s for free).

---

I don't see how your proposed war would have been evenly matched in the first place really. If the clans are actually evenly matched for the top 80%, then it more than likely would still be a competitive war. The bottom bases may scout higher or cleanup low most likely, but usually are not the ones to make or break a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

That wouldn't help the problem of th11s hitting th10s and/or one team having twice as many th11s as the other. Many people who war with lower halls think engineered bases are used for dropping way low to destroy lower halls, but in other clans of th11s and th10s, they are used differently. A clan with 5 th11s facing a clan with 10th11 offenses is at a big disadvantage. Those extra th11 offenses are often used to get extra shots on th11s.

---

Yep. Rarely do I see the engineered TH11s from other clans hit anything but one of our TH10 or TH11. Unless those are all taken care of, and a tough 9/9.5 is still standing, but that's once in a blue moon.

Last 3 wars we've spun since the new MM came into play, there has been a Warden disadvantage one way or the other.

First war, was our advantage. They had 7 to our 6, but in total levels we were way ahead ---> 96-57, including 3 maxed to their none.

Last 2 wars, we've been at the disadvantage ----> 8 vs 5, with 5 maxed for them to 3 for us, and total levels 128-90 for them.

Current war is ----> 10 vs 6. With both sides having 4 maxed, but they have a huge overall level advantage ----> 135-98. It's not even so much the number of Wardens, though that is a concern, but the levels of the Wardens.

We won war #1 handily by 5 stars. We lost war #2 on the tie breaker %. Mostly because their 11s were terrible. But with the extra 6 Warden attacks, they could afford to be less than great. Our #1 failed his attack on their #2, and that was the difference in the war.

War #3, I'm not sure how it's going to play out. Our 1 big advantage is that only their #1 has an Eagle Artillery, whereas our top 3 have them. Technically we 'should' 3 star all of their base up to #1, and unless they are amazing, they 'shouldn't' get to anything higher than our 4. But they do have 8 extra TH11 Warden attacks, so again they can afford to be less than perfect, while we have to be on the top of our game to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deathbringer666

I don't see how your proposed war would have been evenly matched in the first place really. If the clans are actually evenly matched for the top 80%, then it more than likely would still be a competitive war. The bottom bases may scout higher or cleanup low most likely, but usually are not the ones to make or break a war.

---

I wouldn't do the "ignore bottom 20%" method, but it would help v. roster engineering. There needs to be a way to "filter out" filler accounts to prevent roster engineering.

Personally, if I could re-write the war mm to deal with roster engineering, I'd do:
1) Check for off/def weight per each base & tabulate
1a) Determine def weight distribution at clan level (i.e. # of bases at th11 def weight ranges, # of bases at th10 def weight range, etc.)
2) Take top 60-80% of off weights & count twice (to account for 2 attacks). Not sure on exact %, but something in that range. Most [casual] wars are decidedly by maybe 2/3 of available attacks.
3) Based on 1a, somehow determine "anticipated" attacks required to 3*. Low def weight bases set to "1", mid def weight to "2", and increase as weight increases.
4) Match clans with these "lane" checks - effectively, "match" required attacks to maximize stars v anticipated defenses required

Poorly explained (and not fully thought out) and not feasible without an increase to pool size, but promotes accuracy, maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

dude you are killing me, this is how this conversation feels from my point of view.

Viking, I dont think we should weigh the townhall with a minimum weight, what Im suggestion is giving the townhall a minimum weight as a foundation, then we tweak it.

THATS A TOWNHALL WEIGHITNG SYSTEM!!!

why not just give the base a minimum weight based on offence upgraded. If you a townhall 11 with Max bowlers, which and warden, your minimum defensive weight is 85000, or 95000, or as you wish. If you have Max miners or dragons and lev 5 warden min defence weight is 75000.

this is fair and will work. Its not hard to weigh offence properly to make sure people who manicured offence dont get an unfair advantage.

you guys are acting like youve thrown in the towell. With our help supercell can fix this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

hold on, is this revenge for the other day?

if so well player sir, well played.

---

Haha, I have to admit I had some fun with this as a bit of payback. I definitely don't think the hall building itself should have a weight assigned to us. I do think bases should have a minimum total defensive weight. Basing that on what their hall level is would be an improvement over what we have now. Basing it on offense as you have suggested would be even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Haha, I have to admit I had some fun with this as a bit of payback. I definitely don't think the hall building itself should have a weight assigned to us. I do think bases should have a minimum total defensive weight. Basing that on what their hall level is would be an improvement over what we have now. Basing it on offense as you have suggested would be even better.

---

lol, ok so the three options are

1 townhall weighting (we agree is terrible)

2 minimum base weight based on townhall level (your option)

3 weight tax on offence (nerfs option)

Its possible to combine 2 and 3 then, a townhall level gives the base a minimum weight of say a Max townhall 2 townhalls below BUT as the offence get stronger than defence you also have a weight tax applied to this different and add it to the minimum weight assuming the base defence weight is lower than the base minimum weight.

Thats an option, but the same result can be achieve with 3 alone, so allthough 2 is not a pure townhall weighting system (Its a dynamic one where the townhall level determines a minimum weight as apposed to a permanent weight), 3 for me is the best of all worlds.