Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 221

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Why penalize a player that chooses a way of playing?

  1. #71
    New Bloke/Chick
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    48
    We can dress this up however we want, but wars should be won based on base design, clan war management (attacking the right bases), and attacking ability. And unfortunately, the hardcore engineers dont play this way. So therein lies the problem for me. Anyway, THANK GOD FOR CWL. Excellent update supercell!

  2. #72
    As I said to begin with I'm not even one, I even just learnt what engineered meant like a month ago maybe. However, I was banned then unbanned for something totally unrelated of this thread I started. I still have to have infraction over something totally incorrect and unrelated. Dont even ask me as I'll get banned again as I asked about it. Even though when contacting main SuperCell, they said their not over Forums. BUT, to make another forum account and contact the mods. So, yeah take that how you see it. I only say all of this for this thread to be closed please moderator? I don't want any more bans infractions etc. I'm sorry for whatever I did do, I was just taking up for other players. In real life you have even Wars? No way. However I feel if this thread stays open I'll get in trouble for somethin anyone else says. Thanks and Clash on too all. Just being cautious as I never had any infractions etc for years til I make a thread about this. Later.

  3. #73
    Forum Elder
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    NE England, UK.
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by MajorJohnson View Post
    If you have the level of commitment to get there, yes

    I did not say they had the market cornered on SC revenue, I said it is a source of revenue. Fighting 15 TH3's vs 15 TH3's is not a source of revenue, nor does it require you to change strategy if MM is changed.



    I agree, I think many people would see it this way. If something should be said, does it matter who it comes from if no one is talking about it? I suppose if it were Oynx or 2222, it would receive more positive attention.
    You do yourself a disservice mate. I dont think it would have been received any different if Onyx or 2222 had suggested it.
    Your posts are both informed and based on experience. You have a vast knowledge on how the MM works, due to how you play the game. Your input is a valuable source of information to many of us.

    I was simply removing myself from bias, and seeing the problem from a more neutral perspective.
    I do agree it is harsh on guys like yourself, that do your homework, and continually have to adapt, in order to stay ahead of the game.
    But I also see why others would simply dismiss it.

    I would, however, like to think that SC would be willing to move to close any loopholes as they become evident. And this loophole is a guaranteed route to success. If it were to catch fire, then win streaks would become void.


    Quote Originally Posted by ElusiveDream View Post
    Just put 75% of all the weight in the th and the other 25% in upgrade levels. Then it will be fair right? If you want that th you better know what you are doing.
    Weighting the hall has been discussed on several occasions.
    It is generally considered a bad idea, not least because it gives advantage to perma maxing.
    Having a scenario where perma max is in a desirable spot creates stagnation within the game, as one of the major drawbacks...

    More to come if the discussion takes this route next.
    Last edited by joshsgrandad; 3 Weeks Ago at 12:21 AM.

  4. #74
    Forum All-Star Piper139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,355
    Interesting. Now we are moving into murkier waters. Which has more validity? A win streak based on contrived clan matching or engineering to ensure mismatches? For the first time ever, I took a look at clash of stats top win streaks. Boy are there some funky looking clans. Obviously groomed for one purpose. Win streak. Back to my question though. If a clan is self matching and getting wins from 1 attack, that is nonsense. It should fairly easy to detect too. As for the other, like sam or major, i have mixed emotions. They have put great effort into understanding the matchmaker. They build real bases and fight the wars. Albeit, usually with an advantage. However, they are still built for a purpose. Win streak. Neither is my cup of tea which is neither here nor there. I would call the self matching cheating. The engineered....I think they at least earned it with the planning up front. It's shades of gray. As long as there is any form of weight based matching, there will be those who find a way around it. It's why I prefer cwl.
    sig by dharmaraj in sig shop
    Clan: MN ICE #8UCRP8CL
    IGN: Piper139 #2PQQR9Q22

  5. #75
    Millennial Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tosti111 View Post
    So the real difference is only the risk? In one case it is 100% no risk and in the other it is what % risky? If that is the case, then what is the % that is acceptable. Is it 99% is it 50% is it 0%?

    Engineers have been trying to increase their chances of winning since the beginning. Can anyone honestly tell me that if there was a way to fool the MM that gave all your opponents a 3TH deficit that engineers could exploit to get 100% certainty of a win that they wouldnt be on it immediately?

    What if they could get 90% certainty?
    I believe current MM has been the best ever compared to previous iterations, why? because it give fair matches to every clan in the the middle of norm curve of warring clans till very close of the edge of the curve(more then 95%) while still able to accept a slight off&def difference).

    Selfmatch clan is abusing a loophole and can be considered wintrading, while normal engineered clans still fight the war.

    But in your book it is ok?
    Last edited by samratulangi; 3 Weeks Ago at 03:36 AM.
    https://www.clashofstats.com/clans/a...LPP80/members/

    Engineered clan focused on crafting optimized bases

  6. #76
    Millennial Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Piper139 View Post
    It's shades of gray. As long as there is any form of weight based matching, there will be those who find a way around it.
    Exactly, the one put effort to understand how it works and plan should get what they plan for. And that is not easy at today MM weighting system since all is not linear. So every single item effect will be different when it is all combined in a single base and plan every single base to fit your clan for the goals is another thing
    https://www.clashofstats.com/clans/a...LPP80/members/

    Engineered clan focused on crafting optimized bases

  7. #77
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    1,540
    Quote Originally Posted by samratulangi View Post
    I believe current MM has been the best ever compared to previous iterations, why? because it give fair matches to every clan in the the middle of norm curve of warring clans till very close of the edge of the curve(more then 95%) while still able to accept a slight off&def difference).

    Selfmatch clan is abusing a loophole and can be considered wintrading, while normal engineered clans still fight the war.

    But in your book it is ok?
    I am not sure where you got that idea Sam. I was asking why working the MM to selfmatch is any better/worse than working the MM for advantage. I am all about trying to be consistent where possible and IMO the difference is only a matter of degree. In one case it is 100% surety of a win and in the other it is 99% or less surety of a win. When we throw in the fact that engineering is not against TOS, then how is selfmatching any different since it really is only a matter of %. It is certainly a grey area and makes for a good discussion. For the most part, I am in agreement with Pipers comments.
    Last edited by Tosti111; 3 Weeks Ago at 03:48 AM.

  8. #78
    Millennial Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tosti111 View Post
    I am not sure where you got that idea Sam. I was asking why working the MM to selfmatch is any better/worse than working the MM for advantage. I am all about trying to be consistent where possible and IMO the difference is only a matter of degree. In one case it is 100% surety of a win and in the other it is 99% or less surety of a win. When we throw in the fact that engineering is not against TOS, then how is selfmatching any different since it really is only a matter of %. It is certainly a grey area and makes for a good discussion. For the most part, I am in agreement with Pipers comments.
    Where did you get the 99% surety of win? any calculation to back it up? there is no such thing, building advantage yes, but no surety, while the self match is 100%
    Last edited by samratulangi; 3 Weeks Ago at 04:11 AM.
    https://www.clashofstats.com/clans/a...LPP80/members/

    Engineered clan focused on crafting optimized bases

  9. #79
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    1,540
    Quote Originally Posted by samratulangi View Post
    Where did you get the 99% surety of win? any calculation to back it up? there is no such thing, building advantage yes, but no surety, while the self match is 100%
    I said 99% OR LESS I did not say 99%. i could just as easily have said from 0%-99%. It isnt quantified but we know for certain it is more than zero and less than one hundred otherwise folks wouldnt bother.

    At any rate I view it as only a matter of degree and that is where the discussion comes from. I was trying to determine where folks think the cutoff is...If 100% certainty is bad, then what if it was 99.9%....would it still be bad? What about if it was only 90% surety? Would that still be bad or would that be ok? it appears that folks have issue with100% certainty of winning but it gets grey below that.

  10. #80
    Millennial Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tosti111 View Post
    I said 99% OR LESS I did not say 99%. i could just as easily have said from 0%-99%. It isnt quantified but we know for certain it is more than zero and less than one hundred otherwise folks wouldnt bother.

    At any rate I view it as only a matter of degree and that is where the discussion comes from. I was trying to determine where folks think the cutoff is...If 100% certainty is bad, then what if it was 99.9%....would it still be bad? What about if it was only 90% surety? Would that still be bad or would that be ok? it appears that folks have issue with100% certainty of winning but it gets grey below that.
    Of course, there is very big difference between 100% surety and below it, everybody will know it, on top of that 100% because of loophole. It is totally different.
    https://www.clashofstats.com/clans/a...LPP80/members/

    Engineered clan focused on crafting optimized bases

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •