Worst War Matchup In History! .5 Gone Wild!

[KhalWarAngels]

This is not true! You only have one lab but you can have up to 5 builders. So if you were to upgrade everything as quickly as possible you would always hit max defenses way before you hit max offenses. The only way to max your offenses first is to purposely forgo upgrading defenses, which is what "engineered" bases do. They forgo all defense upgrades, sometimes even across multiple TH levels, while continuing to upgrade offenses in an attempt to give themselves an advantage in war. I don't think that's how SC intended the game to be played. Is it within the current rules/TOS, yes. But that doesn't mean it's fair.

If SC intended the game to be played this way they'd give you more then one lab or shorten times required to upgrade troops.

Disclaimer: Dan is a "max TH10" with teenage heroes.


And not true, I have only stopped having all 5 builders going as of 1.5 weeks ago. Maxing every single trap and point defenses will do that. And I haven't even done my cannons yet, sooooo...no, you're quite wrong.

[Redviper42]

Question i have: i keep seeing dont put too many filler or lower bases in war for fear you will match an engineered clan. Im sorry but to me this is junk. Ive been a leader of my clan for almost two years now and i made my clan good by growing organically, recruiting low ths and teaching them the game, cc kills, funneling, troop ai, attack planning etc. so why should these guys and my clan suffer because of this? And how about those searches when my number is in between the 5's? Normally id add the filler bases, and go up to the next 5. So now i have to cut people from the war? Keep in mind that some of these guys are the future of our game, but no one is willing to put them in war now?

[orangemojo]

Question i have: i keep seeing dont put too many filler or lower bases in war for fear you will match an engineered clan. Im sorry but to me this is junk. Ive been a leader of my clan for almost two years now and i made my clan good by growing organically, recruiting low ths and teaching them the game, cc kills, funneling, troop ai, attack planning etc. so why should these guys and my clan suffer because of this? And how about those searches when my number is in between the 5's? Normally id add the filler bases, and go up to the next 5. So now i have to cut people from the war? Keep in mind that some of these guys are the future of our game, but no one is willing to put them in war now?

ive put around 5 or so fillers as an experiment. we match similiarly structured clans and casual/family clans most of the times. i suspect you do as well. there are engineered abses but they are weak af with their drags being their best troops.

check my guide for more info

[ElectroWizzard]

This is not true! You only have one lab but you can have up to 5 builders. So if you were to upgrade everything as quickly as possible you would always hit max defenses way before you hit max offenses. The only way to max your offenses first is to purposely forgo upgrading defenses, which is what "engineered" bases do. They forgo all defense upgrades, sometimes even across multiple TH levels, while continuing to upgrade offenses in an attempt to give themselves an advantage in war. I don't think that's how SC intended the game to be played. Is it within the current rules/TOS, yes. But that doesn't mean it's fair.

If SC intended the game to be played this way they'd give you more then one lab or shorten times required to upgrade troops.

First, people who use x.5 as a waypoint do not forgo upgrading defenses, they forgo upgrading heavy defenses first. Meaning that Mortors, Wizzard towers, Xbows, Infernos, and Eagles are last on the list. Only thoose who overstay x.5 forgo defensive upgrades. Their are many more of the former than the later.

Second, once you forgo defensive upgrades across more than 1 th level you are no longer an x.5 base. They are not the same thing.

Third, you are welcome to your opinion on how the game should be played. But, do you not think that if SC had not wanted to give players the option to choose how they build their base they would have locked the Th upgrade until those requierments were met? In fact Seeing as how Playstlye diversity is one of the teams Design Values, I doubt very much it will ever happen.

Finally, saying that something fits into the rules and then saying that it is unfair is a logical fallacy. Because what is "fair" to you may not be "fair" to others. And the only party who can decide what is fair in this game is SC. They have stated that they will try to balance lopsided bases, but the problem is not with the players, or the choice of play style, it is with the matchmaker its self.

The moment that SC dictates to me how to play the game, I will unfortunately lay down a game I have enjoyed for over 2 years, because for me, making choices on what to upgrade and how that will effect my game, and my clan is what I enjoy about this game.

[ElectroWizzard]

Question i have: i keep seeing dont put too many filler or lower bases in war for fear you will match an engineered clan. Im sorry but to me this is junk. Ive been a leader of my clan for almost two years now and i made my clan good by growing organically, recruiting low ths and teaching them the game, cc kills, funneling, troop ai, attack planning etc. so why should these guys and my clan suffer because of this? And how about those searches when my number is in between the 5's? Normally id add the filler bases, and go up to the next 5. So now i have to cut people from the war? Keep in mind that some of these guys are the future of our game, but no one is willing to put them in war now?

Filler bases are fine. What you don't want are huge drops in weight. You want the weight to fall steadily from top to bottom.

There is an excellent post by Dorson where he describes this very well.

[Redviper42]

Filler bases are fine. What you don't want are huge drops in weight. You want the weight to fall steadily from top to bottom.

There is an excellent post by Dorson where he describes this very well.

But are they? Im seeing about 2 out of every 5 wars against some form of engineering/.5ers of some sort lately. Basically same or similar lineups... But its gotten really bad.

[farenhawk]

You've barely even described the entire matchup.

Also, let me get this straight---you are complaining that .5s are the reason for that matchup? Seriously? What possible basis do you have for that conclusion?

And I don't believe war win streak specifically is what is considered in the MM. I believe it's recent war performance.

In any case, there clearly is more to the story.

I don't disagree at all that it's a poor matchup, but it appears you have myopically focused only on the top 7 and not the remaining bases. Did they drop some TH3 (or something similar) at the bottom of the war map?

I'll just go with your top line, after the first top 7 bases nothing else really matters in any war, all he had to do was tell us what the first bases consisted of and we all know the outcome of the war. People that do this to create an advantage to make themselves unbeatable are as bad as modders. Same mentality that says I'll do anything not to lose. Oh well I seem to have forgotten this is the generation that just presses reset if they are losing in a game and returns to checkpoint.

[KhalWarAngels]

I'll just go with your top line, after the first top 7 bases nothing else really matters in any war, all he had to do was tell us what the first bases consisted of and we all know the outcome of the war. People that do this to create an advantage to make themselves unbeatable are as bad as modders. Same mentality that says I'll do anything not to lose. Oh well I seem to have forgotten this is the generation that just presses reset if they are losing in a game and returns to checkpoint.

Yeah, except Matchmaking looks at clans as a whole.

[Dan203]

First, people who use x.5 as a waypoint do not forgo upgrading defenses, they forgo upgrading heavy defenses first. Meaning that Mortors, Wizzard towers, Xbows, Infernos, and Eagles are last on the list. Only thoose who overstay x.5 forgo defensive upgrades. Their are many more of the former than the later.

Second, once you forgo defensive upgrades across more than 1 th level you are no longer an x.5 base. They are not the same thing.

Third, you are welcome to your opinion on how the game should be played. But, do you not think that if SC had not wanted to give players the option to choose how they build their base they would have locked the Th upgrade until those requierments were met? In fact Seeing as how Playstlye diversity is one of the teams Design Values, I doubt very much it will ever happen.

Finally, saying that something fits into the rules and then saying that it is unfair is a logical fallacy. Because what is "fair" to you may not be "fair" to others. And the only party who can decide what is fair in this game is SC. They have stated that they will try to balance lopsided bases, but the problem is not with the players, or the choice of play style, it is with the matchmaker its self.

The moment that SC dictates to me how to play the game, I will unfortunately lay down a game I have enjoyed for over 2 years, because for me, making choices on what to upgrade and how that will effect my game, and my clan is what I enjoy about this game.

I can guarantee you that when SC developed the idea of wars they did not envision clans exploiting the flaws in their match making logic to give themselves an advantage. They may have thought it was something that could happen, but I can guarantee you it was not something they wanted to happen. When you have a mismatch where one team is almost guaranteed to win before the war starts then you have 1/2 the players upset. When you have a decent match where both teams feel like they could win then everyone is happy. It's in SC's best interest to keep the most people happy.

As for them dictating what you upgrade... I don't expect them to ever do that. All I expect is for them to balance the match making for war so that clans like yours no longer gain an unfair advantage. If that means they simply match lopsided clans against one another, rather then using a general war weight that can be exploited then so be it. Have fun watching your top two guys duke it out for 59/60 win, or worse a 60/60 tie. But they should not continue to reward this "strategy" to the detriment of the rest of the players in the game.

[KhalWarAngels]

I can guarantee you that when SC developed the idea of wars they did not envision clans exploiting the flaws in their match making logic to give themselves an advantage. They may have thought it was something that could happen, but I can guarantee you it was not something they wanted to happen. When you have a mismatch where one team is almost guaranteed to win before the war starts then you have 1/2 the players upset. When you have a decent match where both teams feel like they could win then everyone is happy. It's in SC's best interest to keep the most people happy.

As for them dictating what you upgrade... I don't expect them to ever do that. All I expect is for them to balance the match making for war so that clans like yours no longer gain an unfair advantage. If that means they simply match lopsided clans against one another, rather then using a general war weight that can be exploited then so be it. Have fun watching your top two guys duke it out for 59/60 win, or worse a 60/60 tie. But they should not continue to reward this "strategy" to the detriment of the rest of the players in the game.

you can guarantee??? Really? Go read the post where they said what SC had said about "lopsided" bases. They specifically changed the MM to concentrate on defense, because people would only upgrade the troops they needed for war, when the MM looked harder at offense. Of course they knew it would be exploited. "I guarantee it"