Replace Trophy-Matching with "Caliber"-Matching

The Current Situation

Right now, who you can fight against is based on trophies. This proposal is about a new criterion for matching people up. Right now, a person can drop ranks and attack someone who is 1 TownHall level lower than them. In my opinion, this is fair to a certain extent.


Consider the following spectrum of level-6 to level-10 and player-W, -X, -Y, and -Z


6---------7[W]--------[X]8[Y]--------[Z]9----------10


Bear in mind that the penalty for attacking a player 1 townhall lower than you is 90%, which still makes them a viable target (compared to 2 levels, at 50%).


The most fair scenario:


The most fair scenario in which a player attacks below his level is if Player-Y attacks Player-X. This is because Player-Y has just upgraded and, for the most part, shares the same advancements as Player-X.


The most unfair scenario:


The most unfair scenario in which a player attacks below his TownHall level is if Player-Z loses trophies to attack Player-W. Visually, you can see that Player-Z is almost 2 town-hall levels higher than Player-W. It is pretty much the same scenario with Player-Z attacking Player-X. It is like a college football team challenging a high-school football team (well, more like college seniors vs high school freshman).

What Other Metrics Can We Use Other Than Trophies?

So the current scenario is that we use trophies to calculate how competitive someone is -- that's wonderful! The abuse, in my opinion, is when a high-level drops down to attack someone that is obviously not a competitive challenge (think Player-Z vs Player-W... think college vs high school). Or, he is invincible among a sea of noob-competitors. Cowardice!

Trophies can be abused (e.g. deliberately losing).


So what other metrics (besides trophies) can we use to measure competitiveness that cannot be simulated? How about an offense-algorithm and a defense-algorithm. The offense-algorithm calculates your troop levels and gives you a "caliber" score. The defense algorithm calculates your towers (and possibly your wall levels) and gives you a defense-caliber score. A type of standard-deviation is calculated to give a min-max for your calibers. So instead of penalizing someone for attacking one townhall below you (e.g. Player-Z attacking Player-X), you penalize based on caliber-ranges below you. The spectrum would look more like this:


Player-Z
6----------7----------8---(----[Z]9----)----10
Player-Y
6----------7------(---8[Y]----)---9---------10
Player-X
6----------7--(----[X]8---)-------9---------10
Player-W
6------(---7[W]---)---8-----------9---------10


So Player-Z will take 90% penalty when attacking Player-X and a 50% penalty when attacking Player-W. He will not take a penalty when attacking player-Y, because they are within caliber-range of each other. Player-Y will be able to attack Player-Z and Player-X but will accrue a 90% penalty for attacking Player-W.

And if We Try to Abuse/Control Calibers?

Let's say a lv-10 (townhall) deliberately chooses not to upgrade his troops, but maxes out his cannons. This means his offense will be matched up with a low-caliber defense (presumably a low-level player). He will get less loot, making it inconvenient to upgrade. Let's say a lv-10 (townhall) deliberately chooses not to upgrade his cannons, but maxes out his troops. He will find himself attacking defenses with a high-level defense-caliber, but his defense can only be attacked by low-level players. This gives low-level players an equal chance at gaining more loot (because the lv-10 player's offense is presumably gaining more loot in battle, which is guarded by weak walls and weak towers).


This is a sort of carrot-and-stick method (carrot = incentive; stick = punishment). You cannot abuse it like you can with trophies. This will force players to balance defense with offense upgrades. This will prevent a Player-Z vs Player-W scenario, where players must actually fight on an equal plane instead of this sort of statutory abuse of lower, weaker, players.

Of course, like any idea, there are holes, but I just wanted to throw this out there as a conversation piece.

Hmmm. This is very interesting.

I feel like this is part of the game however -- farming etc.

Also, unfortunately I highly doubt Supercell wants to change their current algorithm.

I think farming exists by accident--that is, it wasn't part of the design. At least that's how it feels. It's sort of like finding a tax-loophole to save your company tens-of-thousands of dollars every year. The government could come up with policies to patch it, but it would be expensive and cause other unwanted side-effects... but the point is, between tax-loopholes and farming... neither were probably supposed to be taken advantage of, or abused--at least on an ethical level.

But I understand that the world doesn't revolve around ethics, it revolves around making money (both in-game and for SuperCell) and pleasure. And making things competitive doesn't cater to either of the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fife

I think farming exists by accident--that is, it wasn't part of the design. At least that's how it feels. It's sort of like finding a tax-loophole to save your company tens-of-thousands of dollars every year. The government could come up with policies to patch it, but it would be expensive and cause other unwanted side-effects... but the point is, between tax-loopholes and farming... neither were probably supposed to be taken advantage of, or abused--at least on an ethical level.

But I understand that the world doesn't revolve around ethics, it revolves around making money (both in-game and for SuperCell) and pleasure. And making things competitive doesn't cater to either of the two.

---

Correct!
i believe Supercell has stated before that the trophy system was their desired system and would not remove it. If anything they would remove farming, but it is difficult, expensive and unpopular.

A while back, I suggested an alogrythmn that would prevent farming, but nobody liked it. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmeraldRange

Correct!
i believe Supercell has stated before that the trophy system was their desired system and would not remove it. If anything they would remove farming, but it is difficult, expensive and unpopular.

A while back, I suggested an alogrythmn that would prevent farming, but nobody liked it. :(

---

That's the thing though... I'm TH8 right now and I waver between Gold II and Gold III. I've never had problems getting gold or elixer for upgrades. Sometimes I face plant and get nothing, but to me, that's "normal". I don't classify my version of farming as "difficult" or "expensive".

And then I get to thinking... what if... when I level up to LV10, I find myself fighting a horde of insanely tough players and it's just so "hard" and so "expensive" that I end up noobing down to Gold league to molest noobs as well. And if that's the untold story (that I'm just too inexperienced to understand), I digress.

I doubt anything will change, but I would like to know what your algorithm idea was.

I like the system how it is. I cant see how new players can do anything but farm till a good standard before trophy pushing.

Some players choose to go down several leagues to not get attacked as much or at all while they upgrade and horde their own made loot.

Loot penalties are good in my opinion which means you cannot attack too low and rushers suffer for it. It also gives lower guys an opportunity to attack inactive dead bases.

I would also add attacking and farming tactics are different and its quite good to be able to practice lower down to hone certain skill sets.

Im not really interested in fair fights as a farmer or even a trophy pusher, i will always go for lowest risk with highest gain as i suspect most other players will do also. If i were a boxer then yes of course i need the weight divisions to help me and the regulations to protect me but i dont need it in this game.

Way to much math n stuff chill

I agree that something needs to be done. I feel that there are to many people giving up now because of the current system. Lets face it its one thing to be attacked by a slightly better opponent then out is to be decimated by someone who is so far ahead of you...case in point:

My base is routinely attacked by lvl 7(close to lvl 8)-early lvl 9 ths. I am at gold 3 around 1400 trophies. On rare occasions I'll get hit with a late lvl 9-early 10 th and of course I loose most of my village. Then I get what happen today (twice at that) where some mid lvl 10 -late lvl 10 hits me and just takes loot and goes. Its the raids like that, that make me not put money for gems.

Seriously how can I (early-mid lvl 8 th) defend against a lvl 20 arch queen and a horde of lvl 6 and 7 archers. The answer is I cannot, and that makes me push the game away even more. Sadly those two people took about 500k elixir and gold and about 1500 DE. Which takes days to recover even if I'm farming.

Whether or not you agree, there needs something done or else coc will take the Evony route and then noone will want to play it.