Yet another NO MATCH FOUND; going on 6 days now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Currently I need a trigger warning when a thread involves the argument that .5s aren't engineering.

---

^this, this definitely makes me go crazy too. What is the point of THx.5ing if it's not for the advantage it at some point provided in war matchmaking? It's OBVIOUSLY engineering, just not to the degree of being a TH9.11 or defenseless, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

Might also need one for any mention of 'the way the game is meant to be played' since its so obviously PRspeak for "we've changed our minds".

---

I somewhat agree, but also think they can evolve to a position organically.

For example, with the TH sniping it was pretty obvious they didn't foresee it being so heavily used when the game was first designed. Then they watched their metrics, for years and years, to the point that Jonas publicly admitted that 70% of all attacks ("in higher leagues") were snipes instead of outright attacks. When sniping was only 10% of the total attacks being waged, they probably thought "meh, we're not really a fan and it's rather cheap, but it's a minor issue and not worth upsetting the apple cart." By the time TH11 was nearing and they saw that the MAJORITY of all attacks were simply snipes, they realized something had to be done. They didn't "change their mind" per se, they came to the realization that they finally needed to drop the hammer.

It's possible that they have come to the current understanding about engineering the same way. Prior to TH11 maybe they saw a few of these bases and clans, but there weren't enough of them and it wasn't so pervasive and so again they didn't want to upset the apple cart. But after the March 2016 update unleashed the fury, the problem assuredly grew and grew and grew over time to the point that engineered clans and accounts were everywhere. Some folks have done API analysis recently, and although I do not entirely trust their findings and think they're overstating the prevalence of engineered accounts and clans, the results clearly show that there are A LOT of engineers out there (most of us who war regularly already knew this). It's possible that SC saw the shift in the data too, tried to tinker around the edges (like October 2016), realized it wasn't having the intended effect, and finally broke down and said "we're going to work to close this loophole once and for all."

Yes, it should not have taken them this long to get to this position, it's rather shameful imo as the end result of the March 2016 update was foreseeable by many (Billius authored a great thread essentially correctly predicting the future in June 2016), but I do think it's entirely possible they're not just giving us PR speak on this issue and genuinely realized something had to be done. Again, the process was excruciatingly slow, but as they say "the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXXCHRISXXx

My guess; Not enough players knew about the loopholes until rather recently, Tank. I say up until about a year and a half ago, only the smartest(?) followed the low weight defense approach. Now that it’s like weeds in a garden, it’s affecting more and more casual players that never experienced a truly engineered clan/account. I remember the first time my clan happened upon a d-less, high hero th11. It was sitting at the bottom of a 10 man roster and my clan couldn’t for the life of us figure out what was happening and why it was placed so low. Needless to say when it reached up and cleared our top bases, we figured it out. I’ve been active here since that war.

Jack,
How does one rush to th11 while doing all the major lab work but not place ANY of the crucial defense structures? One lab, five builders... it’s clear which way the game “intended” you to rush. I’ve stated why it’s this way before. They predict players are going to rush defense leaving them without the troops needed to handle them. Which in turn leads to them gemming the troops and heroes... you get where I’m going.

---

Agree 100% with the second paragraph, but not the first, engineering has been going on since time zero, and supercell deliberatly supercharged it with the "afterall update". The only other explanation is to claim they are incompetent, and thst doesnt seam logical as they clearly are food at making popular games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

^this, this definitely makes me go crazy too. What is the point of THx.5ing if it's not for the advantage it at some point provided in war matchmaking? It's OBVIOUSLY engineering, just not to the degree of being a TH9.11 or defenseless, etc.


I somewhat agree, but also think they can evolve to a position organically.

For example, with the TH sniping it was pretty obvious they didn't foresee it being so heavily used when the game was first designed. Then they watched their metrics, for years and years, to the point that Jonas publicly admitted that 70% of all attacks ("in higher leagues") were snipes instead of outright attacks. When sniping was only 10% of the total attacks being waged, they probably thought "meh, we're not really a fan and it's rather cheap, but it's a minor issue and not worth upsetting the apple cart." By the time TH11 was nearing and they saw that the MAJORITY of all attacks were simply snipes, they realized something had to be done. They didn't "change their mind" per se, they came to the realization that they finally needed to drop the hammer.

It's possible that they have come to the current understanding about engineering the same way. Prior to TH11 maybe they saw a few of these bases and clans, but there weren't enough of them and it wasn't so pervasive and so again they didn't want to upset the apple cart. But after the March 2016 update unleashed the fury, the problem assuredly grew and grew and grew over time to the point that engineered clans and accounts were everywhere. Some folks have done API analysis recently, and although I do not entirely trust their findings and think they're overstating the prevalence of engineered accounts and clans, the results clearly show that there are A LOT of engineers out there (most of us who war regularly already knew this). It's possible that SC saw the shift in the data too, tried to tinker around the edges (like October 2016), realized it wasn't having the intended effect, and finally broke down and said "we're going to work to close this loophole once and for all."

Yes, it should not have taken them this long to get to this position, it's rather shameful imo as the end result of the March 2016 update was foreseeable by many (Billius authored a great thread essentially correctly predicting the future in June 2016), but I do think it's entirely possible they're not just giving us PR speak on this issue and genuinely realized something had to be done. Again, the process was excruciatingly slow, but as they say "the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine."

---

Darian's recent comments are by far the strongest against engineering that I've heard anyone from SC say. It makes me think there is still a possibilty they will consider a big hammer like a minimum defensive weight. As noted above, until they explain to me why it will never happen, I will keep asking for it. It would be a huge improvement, even if not a complete fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Yep, as nerf said a minimum weight per hall with the offensive check before applying that weight would not solve all of the matchmaking problems, but it would be a HUGE improvement and it would be easily explained and understood, which is another HUGE improvement over what we have now. I worry SC has allowed the pursuit of perfection to blind it to some simple improvements. I so wish SC had implemented something like this a year or more ago. The general feeling about wars would be much better, many of the players that quit clash or at least wars wouldn't have done so and we could have spent the last year discussing other things that need improvement with this one big problem out of the way. I for one will keep asking for it until someone from SC actually addresses it head on and tells us why there is no chance of it being implemented.

---

you killing me, i know this is petty fogging but he didnt ask for a minimum townhall weight "with offensive check" (townhall weighting type B, distinct from weighing the townhall - type A), he is saying apply a sliding scale tax only to the offence (ignore townhall colour completly, type C, the good kind).

if you ask for a minimum weight to thr townhall, as apposed to the far superior option of a sliding scale weight based solely on offence presented, you will miss a golden opportunity If they answer you, which will be it kille unfairly noob rushers, and they dont want to alienate new clashers. And Its a fair answer.

Not salient i admit, but here you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

It really is a perfect compromise in my opinion. It allows some engineering within a hall level to get a slight advantage. It removes the big advantages. Roster engineering would have to be dealt with too, but perhaps their current long search time aspect is starting to deal with that.

---

That's it, it's exactly a "compromise." A perfect solution it is not, but it would have worked for the vast majority of cases (like those employed by the OP of this thread) and left only the true engineers to frolick in their easy wins (think #6M). It wouldn't have caught everyone, but it would have caught many.

Ironically, you can do almost the same thing with roster engineering. If a war roster has a sudden jump of weight at the bottom tail of their roster, simply tax it up (to a certain percentage of the top weights) and proceed from there. That or truncate it and ignore the outlier tail altogether (e.g., if base weights in a roster go TH11 --> TH10 --> TH9 ---> TH3, simply ignore the TH3s and pretend the roster is filled out with 8s and 9s. Give em a match that's even up top and let the clan employing the TH3s find REAL accounts to flush out their roster).

I think it's cnaf that always says (paraphrasing) "if putting TH3s at the bottom of the roster gave a disadvantage, NO ONE would do it other than those who are truly just using the practice as filler to get to a multiple of 5."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

the gross sliding scale really is the key to your idea, and If it were implemented as we have noted blombardo would be getting his wars, but not in his favour. It seams silly to implement a tax without informingm as most of thr effect would be the informing both on engineers and angry non engineers.

Kinda disspointed sc never even commented on the idea tbh.

---

Yeah, the sliding scale is key. I think we can all admit that a defenseless TH11 should be taxed harder than a TH10.5, even if both are relying on the same mechanic to get an artificial advantage. Yes, they're both "engineering," but it's a question of degrees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

you killing me, i know this is petty fogging but he didnt ask for a minimum townhall weight "with offensive check" (townhall weighting type B, distinct from weighing the townhall - type A), he is saying apply a sliding scale tax only to the offence (ignore townhall colour completly, type C, the good kind).

if you ask for a minimum weight to thr townhall, as apposed to the far superior option of a sliding scale weight based solely on offence presented, you will miss a golden opportunity If they answer you, which will be it kille unfairly noob rushers, and they dont want to alienate new clashers. And Its a fair answer.

Not salient i admit, but here you go.

---

Yep, a minimum hall weight with a check on offense before applying it is an even more simplistic version of nerf's sliding scale of a weight tax and one that I think SC has a better chance of implementing and/or at least understanding and responding to. I'd take either one at this point. They would be huge improvements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nerfedname

Yeah, the sliding scale is key. I think we can all admit that a defenseless TH11 should be taxed harder than a TH10.5, even if both are relying on the same mechanic to get an artificial advantage. Yes, they're both "engineering," but it's a question of degrees

---

Taxed "harder" yes because that defenseless th11 has more weight to be added of course to make it properly accounted for. A simple minimum hall weight with an offensive check wouldn't actually even increase the defensive weight of a true .5 since it already has a weight equal or exceeding the max weight of a hall below. I don't doubt your more refined system is superior. I just like the simplistic discussion that can surround a minimum defensive weight. Once SC starts down that path, a more refined discussion could be had. I just want them to get moving down that path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Yep, a minimum hall weight with a check on offense before applying it is an even more simplistic version of nerf's sliding scale of a weight tax and one that I think SC has a better chance of implementing and/or at least understanding and responding to. I'd take either one at this point. They would be huge improvements.

---

then ask for nerfs one, the more scattered the forum the easier to ignore us. Nerfs is easy to implement, Its not too complicated, and i cannot think of a reason they would not implement it today, until the marchmaker is reworked totally to best fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

then ask for nerfs one, the more scattered the forum the easier to ignore us. Nerfs is easy to implement, Its not too complicated, and i cannot think of a reason they would not implement it today, until the marchmaker is reworked totally to best fit.

---

I'm not convinced it is easy enough for SC to implement. SC hasn't shown it can be succesful at anything that slides at all. A blunt absolute rule that everyone understands, although it allows for more engineering within a hall level, is more easily implemented. That said, IF they could accurately implement nerf's plan, that would be even better. That would require accurate offensive weighting, which can be exploited, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Taxed "harder" yes because that defenseless th11 has more weight to be added of course to make it properly accounted for. A simple minimum hall weight with an offensive check wouldn't actually even increase the defensive weight of a true .5 since it already has a weight equal or exceeding the max weight of a hall below. I don't doubt your more refined system is superior. I just like the simplistic discussion that can surround a minimum defensive weight. Once SC starts down that path, a more refined discussion could be had. I just want them to get moving down that path.

---

Supercell wont do a minimum weight system because you will destroy the game for all townhall rushers (non engineers), and there are a lot of them. There is no way supercell will ever implement this, nerfs solution is as simple, has no counter arguments, and is much more likely to be impmented because it solves the issue at hand without side effects.

if you call for a minimum townhall weighting with offence check, you gonna confuse supercell, and they any think this is nerfs system, and not respond to his system, which has no counter arguments, none.

his system is simple, would work, has virtually no side effects, and has stod the test of time on the forums, get behind it man!!!

i argued with him for 2 days that increasing offence weight was almost as good and easier than having a weight tax, and i was 5000% wrong, his system is much better than that, as it is much better than a minimum weighting.

join team nerf, till we can have dorsans + friends system.