Supercell PLEASE find a solution to roster engineering

[xXXCHRISXXx]

snip

It's not just town hall threes. Town hall 3 just happened to be the town hall I posted. When they are added at the bottom it results in mismatches at the top. In my case, as I've stated before multiple time on this thread, the enemy ended up with two town halls higher than the highest in our clan. Due to having little to no weight at the bottom. In no way should a th10 be matched to an 11 that contains all the things that make th11 so powerful. Maxed infernos, maxed eagle, grand warden lvl 5+, 4 xbows, extra camp spaces... all the goodies that makes it easier for an 11 to bully the 10 but makes it harder for the 10 to return the favor.

The idea of the match maker is to pair two clans that weigh the same. When adding accounts that basically have no weight (1k) you're shaving multiple k's(?) in weight off. That IS'NT balanced. Just because the two clans are comparable in weight doesn't mean it's a balanced match. Definitely not when the unbalanced part is at the very top of your war map and contains higher town halls than your own.

[Adevati]

I've been in this thread for a while now and the arguments against including TH3s really seem to strain credibility at this point. Many questions I have asked have, essentially, received crickets in reply.

Ultimately, I haven't read a single reason why it's bad to lower your clan weight via the inclusion of a "low" TH, like a TH3.

This thread has carried on upwards of 24-25 pages and many of the arguments just assume it's bad and haven't provided much logic/proof explaining why it is. It's a logical fallacy at this point.

Extending many of these arguments to their logical conclusion, it seems that the general sentiment is that if you don't bring your absolute best/highest TH, you're lowering your clan's overall weight and that's "gaming the system" & "unfair."

I don't think that argument holds much weight at all. The arguments against defenseless TH that could bully at/near the top of the war map held a lot more water than this current scorn held by many to those that lower clan weight by including low TH in their roster. What many seem to ignore is the very real drawback of including a, say, TH3s in your war roster




As explained above, you need to justify why including a TH3 that has only unlocked barbarians (in your example) is unfair and gaming the system.



I think there's a much more solid argument against lopsided bases than including low TH in war. I don't think it's reasonable to lump them together.

Insofar as including a low TH in war, like a TH3, I think this is a much better descriptor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit

I don't have a problem with a TH3 or two in a clan war. Some clans just have a wide range of levels. I don't think that was the purpose of the thread--which may be why people are ignoring your point. The issue is engineering an entire roster. Exactly what cnaf described a few posts earlier in his war example.

[Lunaticfringe]

It's not just town hall threes. Town hall 3 just happened to be the town hall I posted. When they are added at the bottom it results in mismatches at the top.

You keep saying this. Please provide something that supports this claim as highly probable/causal relationship, as previously requested.

And note that I literally just started a war last night, 15v15, and included three TH3s at the bottom of our war map. The resulting enemy and our clan are roughly balanced through the top 8. Their 9-15 vs. our 9-15 is where the "balancing" took place, so this would represent one data point against said relationship.

It seems to me that it might happen, in which case it can be frustrating, but it doesn't seem to have the causal relationship you claim it to be

In my case, as I've stated before multiple time on this thread, the enemy ended up with two town halls higher than the highest in our clan. Due to having little to no weight at the bottom. In no way should a th10 be matched to an 11 that contains all the things that make th11 so powerful. Maxed infernos, maxed eagle, grand warden lvl 5+, 4 xbows, extra camp spaces... all the goodies that makes it easier for an 11 to bully the 10 but makes it harder for the 10 to return the favor.

You've provided one data point, as have I.

And what you seem to really be frustrated with is bullying at the top of the war map, which SC has already worked on and I bet will continue to work on, and they probably should.

The idea of the match maker is to pair two clans that weigh the same. When adding accounts that basically have no weight (1k) you're shaving multiple k's(?) in weight off. That IS'NT balanced. Just because the two clans are comparable in weight doesn't mean it's a balanced match. Definitely not when the unbalanced part is at the very top of your war map and contains higher town halls than your own.

Actually, that seems to be your entire argument--balance at the top. If things are okay there, you would be fine with including, say, TH3s in a war lineup.

Is that correct?

It seems to me that this entire thread could be summarized as follows:

"SC,

Please work on the MM so that the top of a war map is more reasonable.

Thanks"

And note, I believe that, in larger wars, those lines blur, big time. The top of the war map seems to become less relevant in larger wars

I don't have a problem with a TH3 or two in a clan war. Some clans just have a wide range of levels. I don't think that was the purpose of the thread--which may be why people are ignoring your point. The issue is engineering an entire roster. Exactly what cnaf described a few posts earlier in his war example.

So, once again, it's bullying at the top?

Actually, if I understand correctly, it isn't bullying, it's higher defense for the enemy in cnaf's example. Is that correct? Offense seems ~balanced

[Milo123]

I'm not talking about just any low level account. It's accounts made with the sole intention of gaming the system. In other words, accounts like I posted, with nothing unlocked other than barbarians. It practically carries no weight, which in turn lowers the overall weight of the entire clan. If you're worried about filling spots with less riskful accounts, why not go out on global and recruit the lowest player you see? To create an account used solely for and kept at such a low town hall with nothing unlocked is gaming the intended system.

The point I'm trying to make is, not all of these TH3 or low accounts are made with the intent of gaming the system. Quite often they are simply made with the intent of filling an empty spot. I wouldn't touch global with a 10 foot pole, and certainly couldn't be bothered to try and recruit new players every single time I needed a spot or 2 filled, which is almost every war.

More often than not, our low level spot fillers result in us being matched against other spot fillers. Sometimes we gain a slight advantage elsewhere (rarely I must add) and sometimes we are matched against clans with several more low level accounts and so we are at a disadvantage.

If we weren't restricted to doing wars in multiples of 5, then yes, I would agree that intentionally keeping a low account is gaming the system. But since we are, I do not believe that filling up to 4 empty spots with the lowest TH possible is considered gaming the system. I consider it the smartest way to reduce risk of disadvantage due to including 4 inactive accounts in war.

Of course people abuse this, but you can't accuse everyone who uses low level spot fillers as gaming the system.

[xXXCHRISXXx]

You've provided one data point, as have I.

And what you seem to really be frustrated with is bullying at the top of the war map, which SC has already worked on and I bet will continue to work on, and they probably should.

That is the whole propose of this thread. To bring to attention the unbalancing going on at the top, which in my case is due to weight shaving/roster engineering at the bottom.

Actually, that seems to be your entire argument--balance at the top. If things are okay there, you would be fine with including, say, TH3s in a war lineup.

Is that correct?

That is correct, granted the enemy also has th3 in their line up. Wars are won at the top. I have absolutely nothing against lower townhalls being included in war if both sides have them. But when they're added solely to lower weight off your roster and your enemy has no townhalls around that level, you're gaming the system Supercell has put into place to balance wars.

[nerfedname]

The point I'm trying to make is, not all of these TH3 or low accounts are made with the intent of gaming the system. Quite often they are simply made with the intent of filling an empty spot. I wouldn't touch global with a 10 foot pole, and certainly couldn't be bothered to try and recruit new players every single time I needed a spot or 2 filled, which is almost every war.

More often than not, our low level spot fillers result in us being matched against other spot fillers. Sometimes we gain a slight advantage elsewhere (rarely I must add) and sometimes we are matched against clans with several more low level accounts and so we are at a disadvantage.

If we weren't restricted to doing wars in multiples of 5, then yes, I would agree that intentionally keeping a low account is gaming the system. But since we are, I do not believe that filling up to 4 empty spots with the lowest TH possible is considered gaming the system. I consider it the smartest way to reduce risk of disadvantage due to including 4 inactive accounts in war.

Of course people abuse this, but you can't accuse everyone who uses low level spot fillers as gaming the system.

I think the notion of bringing along TH3 as a filler should be fine with everyone, including the OP if he were truly to think about it. For example, a new lvl1 clan starting out only has 8 members but wants to start warring, what are they to do? Take 10 minutes to make 2 TH3 accounts and go on their 10v10 search! No one should have a problem with that tactic.

But those filler accounts are there because the clan can't fill an entire roster, and therefore those accounts should be there to their detriment NOT their advantage. The matchmaker needs to put more emphasis at the top of the roster where wars are truly decided, and if those two TH3 filler accounts end up seeing TH7s or 8s as their mirror because the only other 10 man clan the matchmaker could find that matched the first 8 slots doesn't have TH3s at the bottom SO BE IT! That's what you get for not having enough real mates to fill a 10man roster.

The root problem here, and what really needs to be corrected with regard to the matchmaker, is that being shorthanded and having to fill your bottom with TH3 junk accounts SHOULD NOT result in a mismatch elsewhere on the war map that gives the shorthanded clan any type of advantage, and right now that is exactly what often happens. This of course assumes that those TH3 accounts are, in fact, there just to fill a slot (which as we all know is frequently not the case at all)...

[cnaf]

[-QUOTE=Lunaticfringe;9268102]


Yeah, and I got real confused when he states:



I guess I'm missing something[/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is, it's not as if high level offense on our side attributed to the both sides are sporting 40/40/20 and such in the top 10.

I have an offensive metric that I use to help with my data compiling. Just a simple way to track offense in clans. I add up the hero levels and troop levels, camps from each base in war. Top 10 of this war came out as 3888-3813. So very similar. Top 10 total hero levels was 908-880. Again- fairly close.

Do we have an advantage, offensive and hero level wise, overall? Of course. Because 7 of their 25 bases have essentially no troops, and certainly no heroes. Thus, when the MM looks at everything as a whole... it deems it a fair match.

A match that can only be made thanks to roster engineering.

[cnaf]

The point I'm trying to make is, not all of these TH3 or low accounts are made with the intent of gaming the system. Quite often they are simply made with the intent of filling an empty spot.

That's a very convenient excuse to be able to hide behind.

Trying to tell me that TH11 war clans all of the sudden need TH3s to fill slots? Really? TH3s that over the course of a season fail to attack even once? Never upgrade their TH?

Let me spin it a different way. If those TH3's somehow hurt the war pairings... you think any of those clans would still be worried about running a 30v war over a 20v war?

[Milo123]

I think the notion of bringing along TH3 as a filler should be fine with everyone, including the OP if he were truly to think about it. For example, a new lvl1 clan starting out only has 8 members but wants to start warring, what are they to do? Take 10 minutes to make 2 TH3 accounts and go on their 10v10 search! No one should have a problem with that tactic.

But those filler accounts are there because the clan can't fill an entire roster, and therefore those accounts should be there to their detriment NOT their advantage. The matchmaker needs to put more emphasis at the top of the roster where wars are truly decided, and if those two TH3 filler accounts end up seeing TH7s or 8s as their mirror because the only other 10 man clan the matchmaker could find that matched the first 8 slots doesn't have TH3s at the bottom SO BE IT! That's what you get for not having enough real mates to fill a 10man roster.

The root problem here, and what really needs to be corrected with regard to the matchmaker, is that being shorthanded and having to fill your bottom with TH3 junk accounts SHOULD NOT result in a mismatch elsewhere on the war map that gives the shorthanded clan any type of advantage, and right now that is exactly what often happens. This of course assumes that those TH3 accounts are, in fact, there just to fill a slot (which as we all know is frequently not the case at all)...

Well said, and I totally agree that clans shouldn't be rewarded for using TH3's as spot fillers. Though why would you assume that using TH3's to simply fill spots is less frequent than using them to roster engineer? I would think the most common use for TH3's at the bottom is to simply fill spots. If you are using 5 or more, then you are clearly roster engineering.

[robertevans]

There is a reason engineers get paid more than the normal worker. Engineer your own roster and enjoy the benefits. You have the ability to do it yourself or LEARN how to do it yourself.