Supercell needs to clarity its position on engineered / offence strong accounts

[Vikingchief]

Honestly

Just deal with it
It's not that big of a deal

What's next? You want them to have a position on people with maxed heroes as well?

have never seen an 1000 post thread on maxed heroes, so no that wont be necessary, this issue comes up everyday it seams.

[Vikingchief]

Engineering offense is even easier than engineering defense. But I do wish offense would count more than it does now.
Giving TH a weight would only affect defenseless bases. The biggest deals IMO are extreme .5s or however we can call them, and purposely rushed accounts with key troops maxed

thag is true, but wouldnt a statement from supercell so everyone is clear on what they expect and support would be a usefull guide of everyone?

[andrgin]

Offense is already counted very much. You only dont see it because your position on the map is only the defense part. Offense before defense is so common because of the "hit your mirror" nonsense in many clans.

[Vikingchief]

Offense is already counted very much. You only dont see it because your position on the map is only the defense part. Offense before defense is so common because of the "hit your mirror" nonsense in many clans.

supercell said its not counted as much as defence in dec 15 update.

[willk8]

I think you want the clash royal forums, this is clash of clans, goodluck!

Thanks so much!!!!

[heisenberg42]

While I agree that SC could further clarify their position on this, I wouldn't say they have demonstrated a stance of support for engineering of bases to gain an advantage based on gaming the matchmaking algorithms.

The wording in prior announcements included phrases against the idea of carefully manicured or engineered bases to game the system. Their position as I read it is goal of a fair matchup, I.e., tuning up the matchmaking so the variety of bases can be allowed an equal chance of winning so that skillful attacking and defense layouts determines the winner and not gaming the matchmaking system.

I would be wary of investing great efforts to engineer a base for war purposes as there is a decent chance it will end up working against your clan in war with future updates.

[Traokoth]

supercell said its not counted as much as defence in dec 15 update.

This is the root of the problem. As soon as supercell started discussing fairness in clan war, "hyper-optimized" bases, and the concept of "the way the game was meant to be played" it opened up the discussion.

[hoopstime98]

Many easy ways with a simply matchmaker adjustment, iether higher weight to specific key offence, or an unfair way giving a th weight which kills premmi rushed bases with weak troops. Iether way even if you right I think supercell should offer a clear statement on engineered or offence focused bases.

No, as soon as they change anything, there will simply be a better/different way to engineer a base.

That said, there's no reason for SuperCell to give some "official statement" on things like this. Just like there's no reason for them to come out with an official statement for anything else. The ONLY thing that matters is the development work in the game. They can say "we hate engineered accounts and people shouldn't have them", that does absolutely nothing.

[Vikingchief]

While I agree that SC could further clarify their position on this, I wouldn't say they have demonstrated a stance of support for engineering of bases to gain an advantage based on gaming the matchmaking algorithms.

The wording in prior announcements included phrases against the idea of carefully manicured or engineered bases to game the system. Their position as I read it is goal of a fair matchup, I.e., tuning up the matchmaking so the variety of bases can be allowed an equal chance of winning so that skillful attacking and defense layouts determines the winner and not gaming the matchmaking system.

I would be wary of investing great efforts to engineer a base for war purposes as there is a decent chance it will end up working against your clan in war with future updates.

problem is the mixed messages, they were against bases that hide strong defences, and at the same time gave a war buff to offence strong engineered bases. Thats why i think a clarification will help all sides.

[Vikingchief]

No, as soon as they change anything, there will simply be a better/different way to engineer a base.

That said, there's no reason for SuperCell to give some "official statement" on things like this. Just like there's no reason for them to come out with an official statement for anything else. The ONLY thing that matters is the development work in the game. They can say "we hate engineered accounts and people shouldn't have them", that does absolutely nothing.

Actually communication is key to having good relationstips with the community. If they clearly state their position then everyone knows where they stand, and can adjust accordingly, instead of a situation occuring with th sniping where suddenly it was simply removed that causes chaos. To avoid that again communication before something becomes a de facto part of how the game should be played will be key. If they support offence strong bases then people know the rules and can adjust bases accordingly and i think realise the joy and fun of strategic war optimisation, on the other hand engineers wont invest time and money just to get nerfed if supercell feel the opposition way.

this is clearly a topic causing irritation to many, i dont see how anyone could be against a clarification on the issue?