Is Supercell ever going to address engineered bases in clan wars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshsgrandad

Loophole.. Noun.. An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules..( is also an arrow/ musket slit in the side of walls).. Ok, so the loophole must be the fact that they made it def only, in the first instance?.. In that case, making def/ off equal should close it. But it didn't. The MM seemed incapable of ascertaining weights, and using them in such a way as to create a decent match up. I get where you are coming from, but the whole system of match making, start to finish, was severely flawed, to such an extent that decent (fair) matches were pure luck. In this case, there would have to be many variable problems (loopholes?) in play. Could such a bad set up suddenly, seemingly, become so good with a single change.
I am more than willing to concede, and learn, but there is maybe a good thread in what has been going on/ happened, in this area alone.

---

The loop holes are not as big as they used to be. I agree that the match maker was flawed on may different levels. #1 out of date weights. #2 working with overall averages. #3 Trying to match hundreds of types of bases rather then just 11 types (or maybe even 8) and doing a horrible job of value assessment. #4 not considering all relevant parts of accounts in war....and the list goes on.

As long as non standard bases are allowed to war and muddy the waters there will hardly ever be a perfect match. But, from what I am seeing all of our wars for the last 3-4 months have been in the realm of possibility. So more difficult and some less difficult. Have not felt out matched in a very long time.

It seems funny that they finally got the matchmaker to a good place only to make major changes to it. /shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSauron1973

Yes. No. Maybe.

I've pretty much given up on them getting it right TBH. Last September/October, the MM was about perfect IMO, but they kept fooling around with it. Now, it's hit and miss by a wide margin.

I've joined a new clan since then (after 2.5 years in my old one) because my old clan just couldn't get their stuff together, and I was tired of seemingly being the only one that cared.

My only observation that seems to have stayed mostly true since they started messing with the MM, is that the tighter the TH spread (IE not more than 3 TH levels) the better the match ups are. But even that doesn't always hold true.

My new clan is mildly engineered, and we don't allow anything under TH9 to participate in wars, but even then we're constantly down on # of Eagles, # of Grand Wardens, # of Inferno Towers or all 3 at once. We're always competitive in wars, and rarely lose by more than 2 stars, but our recent war log looks like a frog in a blender. Hard to win when the opposing team has 3 more Eagles than you do (which is huge in the ability to stop a TH11 3 star) if the other team is any good at all.

We still win more than we lose, and we'll keep soldering on, but SC needs to figure this mess out.

---

Wait. You win more than you lose and there is a problem? Ideally, with a good matchmaker, you should win about 50%. It should come down to that little bit of one attack either way. Good matchmaking doesn't mean you have an all green war log. There is room for improvement, no doubt. However, we have many wars where we are outnumbered by eagles or inferno but we are higher in other categories that balance it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSauron1973

My only observation that seems to have stayed mostly true since they started messing with the MM, is that the tighter the TH spread (IE not more than 3 TH levels) the better the match ups are. But even that doesn't always hold true.

My new clan is mildly engineered, and we don't allow anything under TH9 to participate in wars, but even then we're constantly down on # of Eagles, # of Grand Wardens, # of Inferno Towers or all 3 at once. We're always competitive in wars, and rarely lose by more than 2 stars, but our recent war log looks like a frog in a blender. Hard to win when the opposing team has 3 more Eagles than you do (which is huge in the ability to stop a TH11 3 star) if the other team is any good at all.

We still win more than we lose, and we'll keep soldering on, but SC needs to figure this mess out.

---

If the MM matches well 4/5 wars, I'm a happy man. I do not expect perfection with all the variables that go into the war MM.

That being said, my clan probably is in a similar boat as yours - mildly engineered with X.5s & 1-2 9.11s but only using 11-9 TH spread in war. I can safely say the MM is at the best it has been in recent memory for my clan.

Are we down eagles, infernos, and wardens every war? Usually yes. However, the relevancy is much tighter - we may be down 2-3 eagles, but they may only have 1 more warden, & we hold an overall hero advantage. Definitely seems like there is some TH or warden check in there nowadays, at least to my clan.

Before, with all our 9.5s, we'd be down 3 eagles, 4 sets of infernos, & 5 wardens. Whatever is going on now, is definitely better for us.

Other people may not see this - due to different TH spreads, levels of lopsidedness, etc - but I have actually been pleasantly surprised. Improvements can always be made, but I will never hold out for perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnyb0y

Well, I will give Supercell some kudos, the matchmaking has gotten a "bit" better lately for us.

---

Totally disagree. I'm getting tired of wars where opponents are getting all but one or two stars. TH9's being matched against engineered TH11... lousy algorithm for matchmaking. Gotta take offense into account.

And to whoever the super-dooper-pooper-user was who is ready to post their reply again... don't bother. We have the right to register our discontent with the app. The idea is to increase awareness (hopefully) to SC.

SC: Fix your lame match-making logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piper139

Wait. You win more than you lose and there is a problem? Ideally, with a good matchmaker, you should win about 50%. It should come down to that little bit of one attack either way. Good matchmaking doesn't mean you have an all green war log. There is room for improvement, no doubt. However, we have many wars where we are outnumbered by eagles or inferno but we are higher in other categories that balance it.

---

I get your point. And I agree, in the balancing. We also see that weight lost in one place, is recovered elsewhere, that's why I like the current MM. All wars appear winnable, for either side, when you break down the 2 rosters. Only thing.. I think the more skilful clan should always win, with a good MM tho, rather than it balance out on a 1:1 ratio. Thankfully for our clan, it doesn't work either way at present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

The loop holes are not as big as they used to be. I agree that the match maker was flawed on may different levels. #1 out of date weights. #2 working with overall averages. #3 Trying to match hundreds of types of bases rather then just 11 types (or maybe even 8) and doing a horrible job of value assessment. #4 not considering all relevant parts of accounts in war....and the list goes on.

As long as non standard bases are allowed to war and muddy the waters there will hardly ever be a perfect match. But, from what I am seeing all of our wars for the last 3-4 months have been in the realm of possibility. So more difficult and some less difficult. Have not felt out matched in a very long time.

It seems funny that they finally got the matchmaker to a good place only to make major changes to it. /shrug

---

Good post. I can only bow down, and concede (again). I simply struggled to label a totally messed up system as a loophole, but can easily go with your break down. And I totally agree with the MM being really good at present, from our clans perspective. If the other clan doesn't want to fight, that's their problem, but the MM is setting them up pretty well. I am also gutted they are talking about a major change too. If it aint broken, don't try to fix it ( for our set up, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piper139

Wait. You win more than you lose and there is a problem? Ideally, with a good matchmaker, you should win about 50%. It should come down to that little bit of one attack either way. Good matchmaking doesn't mean you have an all green war log. There is room for improvement, no doubt. However, we have many wars where we are outnumbered by eagles or inferno but we are higher in other categories that balance it.

---

I totally disagree here. I see no reason why a more skilled team shouldn't win 70,80,90% of their matches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperStorm103

No there was an obvious loop in hole in manipulating match results. It was just very difficult to close.

If you think about it, taking a defenseless base to war would typically be a silly strategy. But, because of the loop hole (manipulation of averages) it was a good way to make yourself an "unlooseable" war. Same goes for manicured offense. Going to war with only one army comp is not great strategy in general. But, because of the loop hole (offense was not calculated or checked) it was okay because you found yourself in a "double dip" scenario where you could get by with just one army comp.

If clan wars were free of loopholes that can be manipulated, common sense says you want as many defenses as possible and and as many offense compositions as you can get.

I say again the matchamaker is doing well currently in my opinion.

---

First, there is no loophole only because SC had made it clear that their stance is play how you want.

I can respect SCs position, but clearly engineering can and is being abused.

I can also respect an engineers perspective in that whatever playstyle is most advantageous should be the standard and one is putting themselves at a disadvantage by not playing that way.

But wherein the problem lies is that engineering has been an abuse of the matchmaker for too long and SC has failed to provide rules/boundaries on how to or how not to engineer and to fix those abuses.

Honestly, if you think about, are there really any games, especially successful ones, where the players aren't allowed to know all the rules?

All that aside, I have always viewed engineering, not the matchmaker, favorably much like any classic RPG game.

RPGs generally have basic player archetypes at their core, usually either Fighter/Mage/Thief or Tank/Healer/Damage Dealer.

I see engineering as just another way to specialize one's class, ie full defensive bases are tanks, defenseless bases are damage dealers, some engineers are like sneaky thieves, etc. Sacrifices are made in some areas to gain better benefita in other areas.

And the brilliance of any RPG is that if you wanna play as a fighter you can and if you tire of that then you can start a mage character. And you don't ever have to play the thief if you don't want to. Although you have individual successes, overall success is gained through a well balanced party.

That is what I think engineering does for war.

I just wish SC would have handled the abuses of the matchmaker in a more timely manner with more transparency in the rules so we all know where we stand and to be able to clearly point out and agree as to when someone is violating those rules so that there can be fairness across the board when it comes to warring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B1gb8dwo7f

First, there is no loophole only because SC had made it clear that their stance is play how you want.

I can respect SCs position, but clearly engineering can and is being abused.

I can also respect an engineers perspective in that whatever playstyle is most advantageous should be the standard and one is putting themselves at a disadvantage by not playing that way.

But wherein the problem lies is that engineering has been an abuse of the matchmaker for too long and SC has failed to provide rules/boundaries on how to or how not to engineer and to fix those abuses.

Honestly, if you think about, are there really any games, especially successful ones, where the players aren't allowed to know all the rules?

All that aside, I have always viewed engineering, not the matchmaker, favorably much like any classic RPG game.

RPGs generally have basic player archetypes at their core, usually either Fighter/Mage/Thief or Tank/Healer/Damage Dealer.

I see engineering as just another way to specialize one's class, ie full defensive bases are tanks, defenseless bases are damage dealers, some engineers are like sneaky thieves, etc. Sacrifices are made in some areas to gain better benefita in other areas.

And the brilliance of any RPG is that if you wanna play as a fighter you can and if you tire of that then you can start a mage character. And you don't ever have to play the thief if you don't want to. Although you have individual successes, overall success is gained through a well balanced party.

That is what I think engineering does for war.

I just wish SC would have handled the abuses of the matchmaker in a more timely manner with more transparency in the rules so we all know where we stand and to be able to clearly point out and agree as to when someone is violating those rules so that there can be fairness across the board when it comes to warring.

---

Hmm.. Loophole is only a term, a word. Doesn't matter which word is used, whether SC state its play how you want or not, the system grossly favoured one play style over another. This is abundantly clear, due to the fact they are specifically addressing it.
Another problem we got, is its not a RPG, its a tower defence game (or whatever), so although I get your drift on where you are coming from, having one type far superior to all others, is not beneficial to the long term good of the game, as that style couldn't be negated by another (which tends to happen in RPG, and similar). As to the rules, there are no set rules about account build, as they stated, so I personally believe that transparency can only help those who wish to optimise, or at least not put themselves at a disadvantage. Balanced build in a balanced roster, is all I need to know.
Having said that, I still stand by the fact that they have vastly improved the ability to match, so long as your roster is in a large enough pool of clans.
Good take on it tho, and I have no doubt that a nice blend of all types of build is probably the optimum roster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshsgrandad

Hmm.. Loophole is only a term, a word. Doesn't matter which word is used, whether SC state its play how you want or not, the system grossly favoured one play style over another. This is abundantly clear, due to the fact they are specifically addressing it.
Another problem we got, is its not a RPG, its a tower defence game (or whatever), so although I get your drift on where you are coming from, having one type far superior to all others, is not beneficial to the long term good of the game, as that style couldn't be negated by another (which tends to happen in RPG, and similar). As to the rules, there are no set rules about account build, as they stated, so I personally believe that transparency can only help those who wish to optimise, or at least not put themselves at a disadvantage. Balanced build in a balanced roster, is all I need to know.
Having said that, I still stand by the fact that they have vastly improved the ability to match, so long as your roster is in a large enough pool of clans.
Good take on it tho, and I have no doubt that a nice blend of all types of build is probably the optimum roster.

---

All I know is the matchmaker has always been a problem and SC has never been onw to provide guidance or transparency.

Had the matchmaker been fair from the get go, engineering would never have grown to be the monster it has become.

I remember when premie th9s used to get matched max th9s all the time. Your only choice if you wanted to win was to sit out of war as a premie th9 until enough folks figured out they could be less of a handicap in war and inserted into the lineup sooner if they just focused on offense above all else. It snowballed from there.

My hope is that SC is working on a new way to score wars and introducing some sort of individual handicap per account. Idk how it would work per se but something akin to bowling I would imagine. Or golf, but I admittedly know little about how golf is scored due to my dislike of the game lol.

Bowling is the only team game I can think of where men and women, young adults and seniors, total amateurs and near professionals, the serious and the not so serious and those with good equipment and those with poor equipment can compete in the same game, in the same league and all have a fair chance to compete and win all because of the handicap.

That being said there is always gonna be those that sandbag and the better team is most likely always gonna be the one that checks all the right boxes and has the most overall skill and best equipment. But at least there is a chance to win and fun to be had for all that participate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmoore603

Totally disagree. I'm getting tired of wars where opponents are getting all but one or two stars. TH9's being matched against engineered TH11... lousy algorithm for matchmaking. Gotta take offense into account.

And to whoever the super-dooper-pooper-user was who is ready to post their reply again... don't bother. We have the right to register our discontent with the app. The idea is to increase awareness (hopefully) to SC.

SC: Fix your lame match-making logic.

---

First bit. So far as I know, it does take offense into account, so they must have read your post already. Second bit. You are registering your discontent with other players, not SC, so register away mate.
NB.. Our clan aims to get close to maximum every war, that is the idea of clan wars. We don't engineer, we aren't even good players, but if you play long enough, then high scores are not a sign of a bad match maker, or of "cheating". Any clan that is competitive should be scoring close to maximum on most wars. If your bases are being levelled every war, either change the line up or change the bases.