~Inactives Are Never Removed From Matchmaking~

Inactives are not removed from the matchmaking system after a maintenance.

Inactives are simply harder to find due to more players after a maintenence which means more players in the matchmaking queue.

However, they are pushed back so far they are almost impossible to find unless lots of nexting is involved.

Here is an official quote from a supercell employee, stating inactives are not removed from the system:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperSteve[Supercell]

Inactive are not removed from the matchmaking queue.


As we've said in the past we are looking into potential ways to improve post-maintenance loots.


Cheers,


Steve

---

This quote can be found in the thread titled "Proof inactives DO get removed"

It is now official that inactives are not removed after a maintenance.

Inactive bases are pushed back farther and farther each time there are new players, which makes them almost impossible to find.

Let's also remember SuperCell is working on ways to improve loot post maintenance.

Thanks for the post.



Besides, I think there is this massive misunderstanding that players who are not playing at all are responsible for those huge loot bases.


Players who log in occasionally are responsible for those loot amounts. At least when I really look at those "inactive" raids I get, most of the time its a base that is perhaps untouched for a day or two.


Just try this experiment. Don't login for a week or even 5 days. See how often you get raided. After a certain period your functionally not in the queue anymore

Sorry, but you are dead wrong... They dont "remove" them permanently, they just push them to the back of the queue. SC has come out and said this multiple times. Well, the back of the queue is for all intents... removed. The fact that you can watch abandoned bases with full resources stop being attacked after days of not logging in demonstrates it.

Supercell thinks active bases somehow magically provide enough loot to support other equally active people.... It is impossible unless you aren't using your resources anymore...

I am active, I raid 100 TIMES more loot from others than is taken from me! Tell me how active players work in an economy of only active players? By that i refer to our current game economy with low league bonuses yet high upgrade costs... The math doesn't add up, the game relies on semiactives to feed the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jcman

Sorry, but you are dead wrong... They dont "remove" them permanently, they just push them to the back of the queue. SC has come out and said this multiple times. Well, the back of the queue is for all intents... removed. The fact that you can watch abandoned bases with full resources stop being attacked after days of not logging in demonstrates it.

Supercell thinks active bases somehow magically provide enough loot to support other equally active people.... It is impossible unless you aren't using your resources anymore...

I am active, I raid 100 TIMES more loot from others than is taken from me! Tell me how active players work in an economy of only active players? By that i refer to our current game economy with low league bonuses yet high upgrade costs... The math doesn't add up, the game relies on semiactives to feed the economy.

---

Hi, thanks for your feedback! I basically said the same thing as you but with one sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theboldchen

Inactives are simply harder to find due to more players after a maintenence which means more players in the matchmaking queue.

---

More people means harder to find inactive bases. This thread is just to bring some clarification to the people who think bases are literally removed from the queue, you obviously know better though! :)

They are not removed, they are pushed so much behinf in the target queue that it's the same result:

In fact, I get few friends who are inactive since last summer. In 8 months, for the last 6 months, considering 3 friends with all collectors filled outside of village, one of them got attacked two months ago.
That's why we say they are "removed".
1 attack out of 8 months of inactivity out of 3 accounts, that's what I call bases that are not in matchmaking anymore.

Why do we have to keep going round and round over semantics?

For all intents and purposes, "pushed to the bottom of the queue" = "removed".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foufoumoro

They are not removed, they are pushed so much behinf in the target queue that it's the same result:

In fact, I get few friends who are inactive since last summer. In 8 months, for the last 6 months, considering 3 friends with all collectors filled outside of village, one of them got attacked two months ago.
That's why we say they are "removed".
1 attack out of 8 months of inactivity out of 3 accounts, that's what I call bases that are not in matchmaking anymore.

---

Thank you for supporting this, you understand this as well. However, I am refering to the misunderstanding that supercell literally removes inactives from the matchmaking after a mait., but in fact they are just being pushed back as you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahimi

Why do we have to keep going round and round over semantics?

For all intents and purposes, "pushed to the bottom of the queue" = "removed".

---

False because you can still find them. You can't use the term removed if they are findable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theboldchen

Thank you for supporting this, you understand this as well. However, I am refering to the misunderstanding that supercell literally removes inactives from the matchmaking after a mait., but in fact they are just being pushed back as you said.

---

They are effectively the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bakhoumgeorge

False because you can still find them. You can't use the term removed if they are findable.

---

I can use whatever term I want. Arguing with each other over semantics is stupid. The fact is they are pushed so far down in the queue that many folks have reported that they don't get attacked for weeks. Remove is a perfectly acceptable term to use and takes a lot less time to type.

Should we start debating the use of the term "farming" or do you think we are all actually playing Hay Day?