Yes another Th 12 No Eagle thread→look at the pics⚠️

[samratulangi]

Well, I've been trying to keep more on topic of the unplaced eagle weighting (phantom weight) but it is easy to get off track. GASPS are the champions for all, and in that respect are limited to push the boundaries of what is possible and mostly when they talk about weights, the more prominent engineers on the forums tend to have better insight in that particular area.

If Sam is saying he's done testing with his results, I've seen testing first hand, and we have this particular thread with some more evidence it is more likely that it doesn't really count, and there is no phantom weight.

Though the best way would be MORE testing to know for sure and to be able to see the WHOLE roster rather than just the top bases so you know the missing weight isn't being traded elsewhere.

Just so you know, there is no “champions for all” code or anything GASPs need to live by. We can support engineering or not. I’ve never been down on engineers and have spent a lot of time here defending it (and doing it myself in the game).

Yes agree, 2222 was a more neutral Gasp regarding engineering, but lately i saw your post is more maxer style, especially after the GASP title.

I am pretty sure unplaced defenses does not count, because we already done a few test war with extreme unplaced ea th12, it was a 100k weight th12, and after a few wars, we never draw any ea from the other side, and mostly only 9.11 or 10.5, in some wars we even draw a th10 on top. We got a big advantage from top to bottom when we did the test war. And some forumers also totally convinced when seeing those wars. But again no definitive proof since it is all server side

[OnyxDS]

Find some no eagle 12s, do some test wars and get back to me then.

No we haven't, and never said we had. But if you look at the first post in this thread, it was showing the map order of bases as proof that the unplaced EA didn't count to matching. And that's the logic we've been arguing against. If map order is now totally unhinged from the matching, then that isn't evidence.
We've said that maybe SC did mess up and not actually count the hidden EA (it wouldn't be the first time); but we'd want some actual evidence, along the lines of...

I am pretty sure unplaced defenses does not count, because we already done a few test war with extreme unplaced ea th12, it was a 100k weight th12, and after a few wars, we never draw any ea from the other side, and mostly only 9.11 or 10.5, in some wars we even draw a th10 on top.

Have you got the player tag for the account? I'm curious to see what else it has.

[samratulangi]

Have you got the player tag for the account? I'm curious to see what else it has.

Sent you PM about this

[2222]

Yes agree, 2222 was a more neutral Gasp regarding engineering, but lately i saw your post is more maxer style, especially after the GASP title.

Total nonsense. Sorry, I’m not usually that blunt, but in this case it is the best way to describe it. My position on engineering has always been the same. I’ve always described engineering as doing nothing more than upgrading the way the matchmaker tells you to. I’ve consistently referred to the problem as being a matchmaker problem, not an engineering problem. I’ve said over and over that engineering is only a symptom of faults in the matchmaker. I’ve constantly disagreed with players who refer to engineering as cheating or who say negative things about engineers.

I’ve used the following example dozens of times since being a GASP: if I have gold to spend and I think spending it on defense A is better for my clan wars than spending it on defense B, why should I spend it on defense B? If anything spending it on defense B is selfish. I used that example so many times in response to players saying engineering is cheating that I started apologizing for using it so much. This is all after I was a GASP.

Now, at the same time, I’ve also consistently supported SC trying to change the matchmaker to remove the faults. I think a perfect matchmaker results in a match that is determined as much as possible in the attacking and base defending skill of the players in the clans and NOT on their knowledge of how to upgrade. I support trying to improve the matchmaker to make the matches as even as possible and I support players upgrading their base in the way they think gives their clan the best advantage. I have supported, for example, a minimum defensive weight set at 90% of the max defense of the hall below. That would still allow some thought being put into what to upgrade and some advantage able to be gained by it, but not a huge one.

About the only type of engineering I’ve always been against is the roster type engineering of filling the bottom with low junk. That isn’t a base upgrading decision. That is simply filling a roster with low junk to then totally blow away an unsuspecting clan due to a huge fault in the matchmaker not giving enough importance to the top of the rosters. Thankfully, that isn’t as easy to do as it once was.

[MajorJohnson]

No we haven't, and never said we had. But if you look at the first post in this thread, it was showing the map order of bases as proof that the unplaced EA didn't count to matching. And that's the logic we've been arguing against. If map order is now totally unhinged from the matching, then that isn't evidence.
We've said that maybe SC did mess up and not actually count the hidden EA (it wouldn't be the first time); but we'd want some actual evidence, along the lines of...



Have you got the player tag for the account? I'm curious to see what else it has.

Let's say for arguments sake that it did count, but was hidden.

This would cause far more problems in itself because you SHOULD be able to tell whether or not you are actually accruing that weight. If someone buys an eagle with gold and places it in their main base but doesn't place it in their war base it still counts for weight, and gold weight is visable on the map. Players quickly see that they need to add new buildings they dropped into their war base because it is only a disservice not to. If it were the same situation where they would get new buildings in their home base but not put them in their war base and would not visually see by gold weight and map ordering, players would constantly be getting handicapped thinking that it doesn't count when it does.

[2222]

Let's say for arguments sake that it did count, but was hidden.

This would cause far more problems in itself because you SHOULD be able to tell whether or not you are actually accruing that weight. If someone buys an eagle with gold and places it in their main base but doesn't place it in their war base it still counts for weight, and gold weight is visable on the map. Players quickly see that they need to add new buildings they dropped into their war base because it is only a disservice not to. If it were the same situation where they would get new buildings in their home base but not put them in their war base and would not visually see by gold weight and map ordering, players would constantly be getting handicapped thinking that it doesn't count when it does.

SC never told players to use gold “weight” on the map and I suspect they wish they had never used it in the matchmaker to begin with. That said, I do wish Darian would respond by checking in to confirm they didn’t make a mistake and the weight is being counted.

[TankSinatra]

But what do I know?

There are separate issues at play here. We have specific SC (through Darian) word that an unplaced eagle (SPECIFICALLY AN EAGLE BOUGHT THROUGH A PACKAGE) (yes all caps justified here) counts for MM weight. We don't see that in storage weight. Some question whether this means storage weights are unreliable, some question whether this means Darian is unreliable. I personally think storage weights are close enough to make good decisions, and am agnostic as to whether Darian is wrong in this instance.

A very few took a flight of fancy & decided this means all unplaced buildings carry phantom weight. This is obviously wrong as you seem to know.

[Tomville]

Let's say for arguments sake that it did count, but was hidden.

This would cause far more problems in itself because you SHOULD be able to tell whether or not you are actually accruing that weight. If someone buys an eagle with gold and places it in their main base but doesn't place it in their war base it still counts for weight, and gold weight is visable on the map. Players quickly see that they need to add new buildings they dropped into their war base because it is only a disservice not to. If it were the same situation where they would get new buildings in their home base but not put them in their war base and would not visually see by gold weight and map ordering, players would constantly be getting handicapped thinking that it doesn't count when it does.

I’m not sure where that “should” comes from. There is no need at all to reflect undropped buildings in gold storage weight or map ordering. And there is good reasons not to if the purpose of those is to provide enemy some basic rough degree of difficulty ranking - not fine grained and accurate to the inch for the specialist, but broad and near enough for the casual. Nobody would be disadvantaged if there was no indication either of those places of the undropped item, since SC designed in a button that tells you when you’ve got undropped items on the war base... it’s (base edit icon) right there in front of you when viewing the war map on prep day and only visible when it applies to you, so no need to even view your own base, never mind go clicking gold storages and comparing to previous in order to know you forgot to drop something new. The war icon exclamation mark also stays there prep day on main base view when it’s that situation, rather than disappearing on the first time you visit to map to donate a troop or see who you matched. So plenty of notice in 2 layers, so nobody is handicapped.

[MajorJohnson]

I’m not sure where that “should” comes from. There is no need at all to reflect undropped buildings in gold storage weight or map ordering. And there is good reasons not to if the purpose of those is to provide enemy some basic rough degree of difficulty ranking - not fine grained and accurate to the inch for the specialist, but broad and near enough for the casual. Nobody would be disadvantaged if there was no indication either of those places of the undropped item, since SC designed in a button that tells you when you’ve got undropped items on the war base... it’s (base edit icon) right there in front of you when viewing the war map on prep day and only visible when it applies to you, so no need to even view your own base, never mind go clicking gold storages and comparing to previous in order to know you forgot to drop something new. The war icon exclamation mark also stays there prep day on main base view when it’s that situation, rather than disappearing on the first time you visit to map to donate a troop or see who you matched. So plenty of notice in 2 layers, so nobody is handicapped.

Lol no, in the case of no eagle vs not placing war items, the uninformed would think that they are gaining an advantage by not placing items in their war base and we would be buried in threads like this one.

You actually test unplaced eagle?

Go test unplaced eagle and get back to me when you do.

So many better ways to handle a loophole SC created and yet all I see is blind defense without consideration OR a better solution, which I have provided on previous threads about this issue.

All they needed to do was to to force people to place pack items in order to upgrade the town hall when they introduced the the build all policy and we wouldn't be here debating whether it counts or not.

[Tomville]

Lol no, in the case of no eagle vs not placing war items, the uninformed would think that they are gaining an advantage by not placing items in their war base and we would be buried in threads like this one.

No need to lol, I’m raising a serious point here: why “should”? That assumes the gold weight and map order is meant to feed back defence weight information rather transparently to engineers.

I’m suggesting that maybe that was never what map position and gold weight was about. It may well have had a different function: to convey rough but good enough information about relative difficulty of bases to the attacking clan. If so then it’s not far fetched to imagine that while it did happen to feed back information to engineers, it would not need to remain so if some need came up - as has done - to weigh unplaced items. If that’s the case it’s reasonable to think the designers retain that original purpose of the map order and gold weight, rather than visibly adding weight and changing that when in fact the degree of difficulty for the attacker hasn’t changed as the items are still unplaced (just penalised in the matching itself in some way we don’t know that isn’t observable).

What I’m suggesting is that perhaps we never really had a firm grasp on what rather designers were doing there or why they were doing it, just thought we did as it had seemed to work for ages... I rather doubt they ever did it with the intention of providing min-maxers specific detailed transparent information on base defence weights. So then, why “should”? Why would they continue with something that they not only realised fed back too much information but in fact cut across that original intent of why it was there in the first place?

They’ve made it clear: the unplaced items are now supposed to count (and probably do, but we don’t know for sure and are unlikely to get an official confirmation that it’s presently working as they intend and say). Why would they be interested in providing detailed feedback on base defence weights to “help” any of those who they saw as exploiting a loophole? There is no reason on earth besides the motive of min-maxing why you’d have an unplaced item at all for anything longer than a day or so in the first place.