Collecting Clan War matchups...for science...and stuff!

[wynnsiensheng]

welcome to the forums. thank you for reading post #1 and doing the exact opposite of what was said.

there is no point doing all the analysis requested, it's just not needed. Our lattest 15 V war match up: we have 5 th10, one near max with infernos, 4 quite new and no infernos. They have 4 th11, one with defences up to act as an anchor, 4 with multiple max troops and mid sized wardens, 2 th3 at the bottom. What more do you need to know.

sc are making themselves look silly. THEY SAY, they want to remove the advantage of engineered accounts in war, so they are making changes to a complicated algorithm. IF, they were to be successful, the appetite for engineered accounts would disappear. Why? Because engineered accounts are not a "playing style" it is done to gain war advantage. I know, I have such accounts.

sc are not trying to remove the advantage of engineered accounts in war, they are paying lip service and trying to tone it down a bit. Were they to actually achieve what they say they want, there would be no engineered accounts to worry about.

if they truly wished to remove war advantage for engineered accounts, they would weight accounts using their complicated algorithum and the do a very simple additional step of comparing the actual weight to the max weight of the th below, and use whichever is greater. Simple, job done. Any th11 will weigh a minimum of a max th10, whatever its actual weight.

the current changes of weighting big heroes, offence and walls, ALL give further benefit to rushed th11 with only one attack style upgraded, mid heroes and no walls. DUH, of course you made a bad situation worse sc. isn't it obvious?

[MrJackrabbit]

I don’t get paid by Supercell ��

there is no point doing all the analysis requested, it's just not needed. Our lattest 15 V war match up: we have 5 th10, one near max with infernos, 4 quite new and no infernos. They have 4 th11, one with defences up to act as an anchor, 4 with multiple max troops and mid sized wardens, 2 th3 at the bottom. What more do you need to know.

sc are making themselves look silly. THEY SAY, they want to remove the advantage of engineered accounts in war, so they are making changes to a complicated algorithm. IF, they were to be successful, the appetite for engineered accounts would disappear. Why? Because engineered accounts are not a "playing style" it is done to gain war advantage. I know, I have such accounts.

sc are not trying to remove the advantage of engineered accounts in war, they are paying lip service and trying to tone it down a bit. Were they to actually achieve what they say they want, there would be no engineered accounts to worry about.

if they truly wished to remove war advantage for engineered accounts, they would weight accounts using their complicated algorithum and the do a very simple additional step of comparing the actual weight to the max weight of the th below, and use whichever is greater. Simple, job done. Any th11 will weigh a minimum of a max th10, whatever its actual weight.

the current changes of weighting big heroes, offence and walls, ALL give further benefit to rushed th11 with only one attack style upgraded, mid heroes and no walls. DUH, of course you made a bad situation worse sc. isn't it obvious?

It's not about putting all the info that they said, but adding more than just x number of th. That tells almost nothing about the matchup and sounds more like a person complaining because they didn't get their way.
As far as the adding weight to the TH. The idea is to get rid of the advantage engineers WITHOUT putting engineers at a disadvantage.

[Tomville]

I must say I’m not a fan of this new matching. We’ve just had our 10th straight match that is pretty much decided on prep day. We are getting about as many in our favour as against all told, but each of those matches is too far off to be really engaging. It’s all coming down to how many big or max th11 the matchmaker randomly serves for us - with us sometimes the hammer and sometimes the nail.

It’s a long time now since I have looked at a match and thought “either side can win” as opposed to “oh dear poor enemy” or “we can only win if they are completely awful attackers”. We lost the last one, despite the enemy (all th11) doing 6 zero star attacks and and 7 1 star attacks out of their 30 attacks total... that included 2 max th11 of theirs pulling 1 stars on a th10. We 3 starred a max th11 of theirs, 91% 2 starred another and were far higher on Average Destruction %... yet lost by a star as we had 2 th10 to their zero. And we’ve just rolled another identical match, only difference being this enemy is fully max th11 all the way down, rather than some “small” ones at a more modest 107k defence weight by gold (the sort we have 4 of).

Doubtless someone will be thinking this is our fault for taking 2 big th10 to war... but that’s exactly what is wrong with the matching: nobody should need to deliberately manipulate their roster and exclude friends with good big strong bases just to escape from crazy matching. We don’t play it that way, so we go on with the team we have just waiting it out. Unwillingness to join in roster manipulation and exclusion doesn’t remove the right to complain politely about the shortcomings of a situation, as opposed to just requiring one be realistic on how likely it is to turn out poorly for now.

[ilhard]

our latest war 15 v 15

1
us: th 11 max def exept EA. max troops,max heroes 45/45/20
them: th 11. mid th 11 defense, EA. mid lvl troops.30/29/20
2
us:th 10. max def,inferno, th 10 max troops, heroes 22/28
them: th 10.mix th9/th10 defense,inferno,th9 troops, 18/19
3
us:th 10. mix th9/10 def,inferno, mix th9/th 10 troops. 20/20
them:th 10. th 9 defense couple th10 def,1 inferno, th 9 troops. 15/12
4
us: th 10.th 9 def, no inferno, couple th 10 troops, most th 9 troops. 20/16
them: th 10. th 9 defence, no inferno, most th 10 troops, 21/23
14
us: th 8. th 7 def,mix th 7/8 troops lvl 7 BK
them: th 10. 1 cannon lvl 1. drag lvl 3. loons lvl 6, all dark troops lvl 1. heroes 5/5

rest of us: 7 th9 most max def. teens to max heroes. 3 th8 and 1 th7.
rst of them: 8 th9, with solid th9 def, couples have max th9 heroes

sorry ididnt read the first post. I'll edited later

[Lunaticfringe]

It's not about putting all the info that they said, but adding more than just x number of th. That tells almost nothing about the matchup and sounds more like a person complaining because they didn't get their way.
As far as the adding weight to the TH. The idea is to get rid of the advantage engineers WITHOUT putting engineers at a disadvantage.

And why exactly is that?

Perhaps it IS time to put this to bed and stop messing around. Eliminate the incentive to even do this nonsense and let's move forward.

Another war started for us, more engineered nonsense. Enemy clan is much stronger at the top, can hit harder at the top (not by a ton, but they can), and has engineered nonsense mid-range TH to clear where we have the advantage.

I'm exhausted, SC now royally sucks in my mind, and we're just sick of this. Winning or losing the war at this point just doesn't matter...

[MrJackrabbit]

And why exactly is that?

Perhaps it IS time to put this to bed and stop messing around. Eliminate the incentive to even do this nonsense and let's move forward.

Another war started for us, more engineered nonsense. Enemy clan is much stronger at the top, can hit harder at the top (not by a ton, but they can), and has engineered nonsense mid-range TH to clear where we have the advantage.

I'm exhausted, SC now royally sucks in my mind, and we're just sick of this. Winning or losing the war at this point just doesn't matter...

The nonsense of defenseless should be in bed however some people keep thinking is has some mythical advantage. Youve been playing for a while you know what I find funny. Back when I first learned to rush my base it wasn't about engineering. It was about getting to the top faster by starting on the aq sooner. We were called rushers and premies back then. Now if you do it you are called an engineer.
The incentive of rushing is to get the aq going and be half way to maxed by the time those that don't rush actually get to th9 and start. Sure there is an added bonus of a war advantage and I have no problem with SC eliminating that advantage. I would however have a problem with SC making it so rushing was at a disadvantage. It would only be a little problem because I would simply adjust to where they move the game. Seriously why are people so inflexible with adjusting to the game. Imagine american football where 90% of the plays were running plays or if basketball was played like it was before the 3 point line. They are totally different games now than they were back then. Yet in clash so many want to be stuck using the very first strategy used.

[Neminoppan]

I must say I’m not a fan of this new matching. We’ve just had our 10th straight match that is pretty much decided on prep day. We are getting about as many in our favour as against all told, but each of those matches is too far off to be really engaging. It’s all coming down to how many big or max th11 the matchmaker randomly serves for us - with us sometimes the hammer and sometimes the nail.

It’s a long time now since I have looked at a match and thought “either side can win” as opposed to “oh dear poor enemy” or “we can only win if they are completely awful attackers”. We lost the last one, despite the enemy (all th11) doing 6 zero star attacks and and 7 1 star attacks out of their 30 attacks total... that included 2 max th11 of theirs pulling 1 stars on a th10. We 3 starred a max th11 of theirs, 91% 2 starred another and were far higher on Average Destruction %... yet lost by a star as we had 2 th10 to their zero. And we’ve just rolled another identical match, only difference being this enemy is fully max th11 all the way down, rather than some “small” ones at a more modest 107k defence weight by gold (the sort we have 4 of).

Doubtless someone will be thinking this is our fault for taking 2 big th10 to war... but that’s exactly what is wrong with the matching: nobody should need to deliberately manipulate their roster and exclude friends with good big strong bases just to escape from crazy matching. We don’t play it that way, so we go on with the team we have just waiting it out. Unwillingness to join in roster manipulation and exclusion doesn’t remove the right to complain politely about the shortcomings of a situation, as opposed to just requiring one be realistic on how likely it is to turn out poorly for now.

This is similar to my clan. I woke up to war and found them having 7 out of 10 TH 11, all with wardens and max bowlers and hounds and maybe some had valks too. Not all are strong defensively, but strong enough for a TH 10 to struggle.
We have 2 maxed TH 11, then 2 new that has nothing at TH 11 except warden lvl 2 respectively 9. After that we are all Th 10 of various stages, closer to max or brand new with not all camps or troops upgraded and heroes at 20-22.

In the last last two months we’ve lost 9 wars and won 5. One war was won because the other clan didn’t attack, so I’m not sure we can count that one. And we used to have a 60% win rate. Before the changes to matchmaking we had fair matches. Now they are rare

[Crusher0029]

Not criticizing the effort being made here but I'm really concerned about what is being asked!

Requesting details of war matching wholly regarding defense has me worried about just how the "fairer" matchmaking algorithm has been developed.
Previously I would have concluded that the matching process while not being perfect was not too bad. However since the updates that were supposed to give a "better and fairer warring experience" the enjoyment has been for the opposition who have had an easy war against a "weak" opposition. Without having any engineered bases in our clan we have found ourselves pitched against very experienced clans with 2 or 3 engineered bases.
I had understood that the new algorithm would match clans with engineered bases to other engineered bases, so what happened?

I can live with losing a war in a fair fight but it seems that looting and pillaging has been added to and wars are losing their appeal.

I hope that Supercell improve the matching as being pitched against a far superior opponent with much higher troop levels is very demoralising.

[Lunaticfringe]

The nonsense of defenseless should be in bed however some people keep thinking is has some mythical advantage. Youve been playing for a while you know what I find funny. Back when I first learned to rush my base it wasn't about engineering. It was about getting to the top faster by starting on the aq sooner. We were called rushers and premies back then. Now if you do it you are called an engineer.
The incentive of rushing is to get the aq going and be half way to maxed by the time those that don't rush actually get to th9 and start. Sure there is an added bonus of a war advantage and I have no problem with SC eliminating that advantage. I would however have a problem with SC making it so rushing was at a disadvantage. It would only be a little problem because I would simply adjust to where they move the game. Seriously why are people so inflexible with adjusting to the game. Imagine american football where 90% of the plays were running plays or if basketball was played like it was before the 3 point line. They are totally different games now than they were back then. Yet in clash so many want to be stuck using the very first strategy used.

Not sure why defenseless is being brought up, lopsided takes on many forms. Above, I made a mistake, should have used the word, "lopsided." They exist & the edge they provide is often very obvious.

Further, the underlined part has me curious. What exactly does that mean?

Ultimately, the war scene should come down to play skill, not manipulating the MM. This is about the only game I can think of where this is an issue. If you play, say, Madden, MTG Battlefields (old school), etc., online against a vastly superior player, you just get creamed. I've never, not a single time, seen someone complain about getting defeated in such a manner in those games.

In CoC, however, lesser players often even the playing field by manipulating the MM and defenders of this argue it's reasonable because....SC let's you do it?

It's absurd. It isn't like you tee up a team on, say, Madden and get the 1976 Steeler defense, along with the 1999 St Louis Rams offense, while your opponent plays the 1976 Tampa Bay Bucs... Yeah, at times, someone might do it for fun and that's all fine and dandy, but players don't get the opportunity to input their thoughts into the MM before/during the selection of a match

I'm also fatigued with this disingenuous argument that manipulating the MM is a skill to be considered. No, it likely isn't. The rules for the MM are not public and players should not be held to that standard.

[MrJackrabbit]

Not sure why defenseless is being brought up, lopsided takes on many forms. Above, I made a mistake, should have used the word, "lopsided." They exist & the edge they provide is often very obvious.

Further, the underlined part has me curious. What exactly does that mean?

Ultimately, the war scene should come down to play skill, not manipulating the MM. This is about the only game I can think of where this is an issue. If you play, say, Madden, MTG Battlefields (old school), etc., online against a vastly superior player, you just get creamed. I've never, not a single time, seen someone complain about getting defeated in such a manner in those games.

In CoC, however, lesser players often even the playing field by manipulating the MM and defenders of this argue it's reasonable because....SC let's you do it?

It's absurd. It isn't like you tee up a team on, say, Madden and get the 1976 Steeler defense, along with the 1999 St Louis Rams offense, while your opponent plays the 1976 Tampa Bay Bucs... Yeah, at times, someone might do it for fun and that's all fine and dandy, but players don't get the opportunity to input their thoughts into the MM before/during the selection of a match

I'm also fatigued with this disingenuous argument that manipulating the MM is a skill to be considered. No, it likely isn't. The rules for the MM are not public and players should not be held to that standard.

It's simple. Many claim they want wars to have a fair matchup. Cool I'm good for that. Fair meaning no advantage nor disadvantage to ANY style of play. There are many who want to take away what they think is an unfair advantage of one side and make that side play at a disadvantage.
I will make it simple:
Many lopsided have an advantage over maxers.
Many maxers want that advantage gone by having fair wars.
Many maxers believe fair wars should put lopsided at a disadvantage.
If SC can come up with a mm system that makes war fair for all that is cool. However that means lopsided are not put at a disadvantage.
Also so many people have different idea of what is fair. I posted yesterday about my war lineup and posted why both sides had an unfair advantage using what different people think is fair.
I'm running 2 different clans, one lopsided one not. Some how I'm getting fair matches so I'm having a hard time believing the MM is so horribly bad as main claim.