Are we past the point of no return with War MM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGame1

For me SC knows the issues, and I guarantee they know how to fix it, but it's clear they never will sort it out, shame.

---

I would never say never. They've did things before that people said would never happen. They listen, read, and ponder the things we discuss here. Of course not everything mentioned is going to make it to their meeting table. However, I do believe a majority of our concerns are looked over. The thing is, Supercell moves at a notoriously slow pace. Almost to the point people think they aren't doing anything. This is their flaw...and being such a small team makes progress even slower, to the point it drives players away.

CoC is a great game, by far one of the best I've played. The devs have done a great job with its architecture. It's set up in a way that keeps you playing day after day. Building your bases is fun. That aspect of the game is what has attracted most.

Where the devs fall short is in making the game competitive player vs player. The "play styles" we now have in wars, were born out of the devs lack of know how in that department, or perhaps closer to the truth, to them, wars aren't what the game is all about.

The lack of interest from them to fix the clouds and war, tells us plenty. They aren't focused on such issues. Perhaps they don't feel there is any return for the money to spend time on it.

It's unfortunate. They are alienating people with their incompetence. The game has evolved beyond base building, it has become a competitive sport.

There is NO excuse for unfair was. None. They have no interest in fixing it. That's all.

With the absence of any in-depth information from SC, we are flinging darts at the board...

The answer is rebuild the MM from the ground up with known values for offense and defense so that players can make informed decisions and of course for SuperCell to make this information available to everyone - pipe dream, I know...

In the meantime, it took me a week to figure out my lineup and get a fair matchup. The pre-update WWS continues for me but after reading many of the threads here, many are still suffering...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

The thing is, though, it doesn't need to be that way. Both sides matching in a way that gives each a pretty equal chance to win on paper is the aim and should leave all reasonable people happy with matching (particularly if they take the longer view and evaluate fairness over, say, the last 10 matches they had rather than any single match). Sure there may be a minority who mourn lost "cupcakes" but let's be honest, losing an unwarranted systematic advantage isn't actually unfair and I'm pretty sure most of those players would realise that without needing it pointed out.

---

I completely agree with you about fairness being the goal. However, the majority of clashers have no idea how to evaluate if a match is fair or not. I've seen plenty of complaints about being outmatched when in fact they have the advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

I completely agree with you about fairness being the goal.

---

But does SC agree? I don't see fair matching as the goal in regular matchmaking, in the builder base, in CR matchmaking. Where across SCs empire do we see fair matching outside of gem-gated CR tournaments?
Well calibrated doses of unfairness and frustration drive engagement, progression, gemming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

, in CR matchmaking. .

---

In Royale, SC have adopted a 'losing pool' if you lose too many matches within normal matchmaking (14.25) :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_99geT3VHE

Recent War performance checkbox in CoC anyone??:smirk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

a perfectly selfish viewpoint. Parity for all or dont complain that things are unfair.

---

And if parity for all isn't a possibility what would you choose? The way it is now hurts everyone who isn't a rusher. There are a lot more people who don't rush than do (strategic rushing excluded).

How about this for a compromise...

Equal TH levels automatically against each other, but with one small adjustment--If your weight is below 'X' you are matched against a TH'Y' with a weight which is also below 'X'. Better? That puts rushers and engineers in the same boat with each other, but Super Cell doesn't seem to be able to tell them apart anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWarDictator

I completely agree with you about fairness being the goal. However, the majority of clashers have no idea how to evaluate if a match is fair or not. I've seen plenty of complaints about being outmatched when in fact they have the advantage.

---

This is a fairly reasonable and accurate description for a majority of casual clashers who also probably make upgrade decisions on their bases without fully understanding consequences because they are casual and play for fun unlike the more serious clashers. Seperate from the matchmaker issue, I would like to see SC provide better info on weights whether ingame or on their websites to give all clashers the ability to make better decisions on how they build/upgrade their base. The fix then to war matching then turns to probably rebuilding the mm from the bottom up with all the solid ideas out there that makes more serious players scratch their heads and say 'What are you doing SC '..... Right now it seems that all types of players described as casuals,maxers,engineers,rushed are not getting a 'enjoyable' gaming experience from wars in general because the simple,casual game it once was has become far far more complex but required information needed is tremendously lacking....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheConfuzed1

And if parity for all isn't a possibility what would you choose? The way it is now hurts everyone who isn't a rusher. There are a lot more people who don't rush than do (strategic rushing excluded).

How about this for a compromise...

Equal TH levels automatically against each other, but with one small adjustment--If your weight is below 'X' you are matched against a TH'Y' with a weight which is also below 'X'. Better? That puts rushers and engineers in the same boat with each other, but Super Cell doesn't seem to be able to tell them apart anyway.

---

This is not a good argument, you are basically saying if we pretend all of the better ideas are actually much worse ideas or cant work, and this idea is much better and is the only one that can work, which would you choose?

how would an answer to a question like that provide any value in any situation ever? of course the crux of the matter is which if the many ideas is the best; If you assume this idea is the best, then well, yeah. Now assume this idea can never work and only nerfs solution can work and is awesome, what would you chose then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

In Royale, SC have adopted a 'losing pool' if you lose too many matches within normal matchmaking (14.25) :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_99geT3VHE

Recent War performance checkbox in CoC anyone??:smirk:

---

That's where I show my SC fanboy colors, its just genius. Frustration drives progression and gemming, but too much leads to quitting. So they put in a guardrail....

Would be hilarious if that's how the recent war performance checkbox works, precisely the inverse of what the forum thinks. Wouldn't be the first time we go far astray by thinking like players rather than thinking like SC. Why would SC put in something to penalize a clan on a win streak? Win streaking clans shouldn't bother them. Its the loss-streak clan that's in danger of breaking up & quitting, they need some help.
FWIW I've never noticed a significant win streak effect, though many feel there is one that kicks in at five wins. Wonder if the cocp.it guys could check for it? If streaks end at five a lot more often than at 4 or 6 it should be a clear tell.