Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 96

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: New clan wars solution (credits to a guy in the original forums)

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by JD4U View Post
    I have no issues with your ideas. Why do you keep saying ‘everyone gets a chance to defend?’ Can the defensive strength of a base by tested daily by pushing trophies? Do you really, really, really need to see a base survive, crumble, or sustain damage during wars only? Good luck with your ideas I just have not really understood the ‘problem’ yet.
    Defence is just as important as attack. If no one cared about their base, why would anyone be excited about 3 starring a base that is derelict and not cared about. The defensive strength can't be tested by pushing since a high trophy count with high loot in the storages will result in being attacked by someone higher than your town hall level a lot of the time. The base you'll be using in trophies will predominantly be defending loot while also try to defend everything else so someone good will find a way to crumble it up every single time. Yes we do need to see bases survive because if all bases get 3 starred too easily, there is less fun to the game than to see some successes in each war and some fails. BTW how did you get the impression that there was a problem? Was it the word 'solution'? I think I should've said a war 'alternative' since I'm not really solving a problem here.
    Last edited by Def4ultpl4y3r; March 3rd, 2021 at 07:00 PM.

  2.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Def4ultpl4y3r View Post
    Defence is just as important as attack.
    For most people, that just isn't true.

    Defence is passive, you aren't doing anything actively, it can even occur while you are offline, and you can't change the outcome once it has started, while attacking only happens when you are actually playing the game, and is very dependent on what actions you take during the attack.

    Most people get a lot more out of the active side of the game than the passive.

    If no one cared about their base, why would anyone be excited about 3 starring a base that is derelict and not cared about. The defensive strength can't be tested by pushing since a high trophy count with high loot in the storages will result in being attacked by someone higher than your town hall level a lot of the time. The base you'll be using in trophies will predominantly be defending loot while also try to defend everything else so someone good will find a way to crumble it up every single time. Yes we do need to see bases survive because if all bases get 3 starred too easily, there is less fun to the game than to see some successes in each war and some fails. BTW how did you get the impression that there was a problem? Was it the word 'solution'? I think I should've said a war 'alternative' since I'm not really solving a problem here.
    That is indeed a large part of what people have been arguing. You have been presenting it as a solution, and that means there must be a problem to be solved. And nobody else sees it as a problem.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Def4ultpl4y3r View Post
    Defence is just as important as attack. If no one cared about their base, why would anyone be excited about 3 starring a base that is derelict and not cared about. The defensive strength can't be tested by pushing since a high trophy count with high loot in the storages will result in being attacked by someone higher than your town hall level a lot of the time. The base you'll be using in trophies will predominantly be defending loot while also try to defend everything else so someone good will find a way to crumble it up every single time. Yes we do need to see bases survive because if all bases get 3 starred too easily, there is less fun to the game than to see some successes in each war and some fails. BTW how did you get the impression that there was a problem? Was it the word 'solution'? I think I should've said a war 'alternative' since I'm not really solving a problem here.
    Defense is important in war, but not in the way you describe in my opinion. "Watching" it defend a lower hall first and then an upper hall matters little. The entire goal of defense in my clan for all halls lower than th13 is to hope that the enemy has to use a higher hall on it to 3 star it. That is a win. That uses up one of their higher hall attacks. If they are so lacking in strategy that they actually do it right away before trying it with a lower hall? Great! No bases below th13 "survive" in the wars I'm in. They all get 3 starred.

    Contact SC here. Click here for how trophies are calculated. Click here to see how war map placement of max halls is determined. An idea to improve legends here. I wish max players had a separate loot bank as described here. Caution, I often discuss for the sake of discussion and enjoy having my opinion challenged (or approved of) even when I care little about the actual issue. My balance wish: get rid of tornado trap, make it a decoration.

  4. #34
    Forum Superstar toofinedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Def4ultpl4y3r View Post
    Defence is just as important as attack. If no one cared about their base, why would anyone be excited about 3 starring a base that is derelict and not cared about. The defensive strength can't be tested by pushing since a high trophy count with high loot in the storages will result in being attacked by someone higher than your town hall level a lot of the time. The base you'll be using in trophies will predominantly be defending loot while also try to defend everything else so someone good will find a way to crumble it up every single time. Yes we do need to see bases survive because if all bases get 3 starred too easily, there is less fun to the game than to see some successes in each war and some fails. BTW how did you get the impression that there was a problem? Was it the word 'solution'? I think I should've said a war 'alternative' since I'm not really solving a problem here.
    I read it as your idea is water-soluble and not that it holds any water.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by toofinedog View Post
    I read it as your idea is water-soluble and not that it holds any water.
    Yes but 1 attack wars means that it is harder for attack and defence so people who are up for a challenge get what they want either way.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajax View Post
    For most people, that just isn't true.

    Defence is passive, you aren't doing anything actively, it can even occur while you are offline, and you can't change the outcome once it has started, while attacking only happens when you are actually playing the game, and is very dependent on what actions you take during the attack.

    Most people get a lot more out of the active side of the game than the passive.



    That is indeed a large part of what people have been arguing. You have been presenting it as a solution, and that means there must be a problem to be solved. And nobody else sees it as a problem.
    I don't mean an actual problem. I just mean a way to make defence more useful since these one attack wars will force people to make every attack count so they will be more strategic and one wrong war strategy and they will be at a disadvantage.
    Last edited by Def4ultpl4y3r; March 4th, 2021 at 08:15 AM.

  7. #37
    Centennial Club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Def4ultpl4y3r View Post
    but yep only having one attack is a problem.
    So you are saying that one of the key points of your idea is a problem? Is that what you mean by this? Yeah, it is no one's fault if you get any mismatches. BUT if you are going to have a mismatch and chose to have the one-attack war type, then you are going to be in a bigger disadvantage.

    And to add: I do not think longer search times = more fair matchmaking. Longer search times are brought upon by weird rosters or the small pool of clans in which the MMA chooses clans to be matched against each other. The same pool that you are suggesting to get halved in order to have another war type.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by winwin3as View Post
    So you are saying that one of the key points of your idea is a problem? Is that what you mean by this? Yeah, it is no one's fault if you get any mismatches. BUT if you are going to have a mismatch and chose to have the one-attack war type, then you are going to be in a bigger disadvantage.

    And to add: I do not think longer search times = more fair matchmaking. Longer search times are brought upon by weird rosters or the small pool of clans in which the MMA chooses clans to be matched against each other. The same pool that you are suggesting to get halved in order to have another war type.
    One attack is a problem for some people. It is also a benefit for some people. Longer search times just means that there are very little clans available so the algorithm has to wait until they find a REMOTELY fair match. Take 'fair' with a pinch of salt because you are not going to find every opponent with the exact same development in your clan. The longer the matchmaking is there is more 'likely' to be a 'fair' match. So if you feel like a mismatch is going to happen, take the 2 attack war as you have more chances. I would like a one attack war as a chance because I feel like I'm in a position where I don't get mismatches. Unfortunately not everyone likes this idea so I think there is a bit of a clash.

  9. #39
    Centennial Club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Def4ultpl4y3r View Post
    One attack is a problem for some people. It is also a benefit for some people. Longer search times just means that there are very little clans available so the algorithm has to wait until they find a REMOTELY fair match. Take 'fair' with a pinch of salt because you are not going to find every opponent with the exact same development in your clan. The longer the matchmaking is there is more 'likely' to be a 'fair' match. So if you feel like a mismatch is going to happen, take the 2 attack war as you have more chances. I would like a one attack war as a chance because I feel like I'm in a position where I don't get mismatches. Unfortunately not everyone likes this idea so I think there is a bit of a clash.
    I am telling you that longer search times does not mean a more fair matchmaking. Based on my experience playing this game for years while maintaining a decent war log. Whenever we have a post 2 hours search, we are expecting a weird matchup or a mismatch.

    It is a bit tiring to argue so I will tell you this one last time: you said that "there is a longer search time because there are very little clans available" which is what you are going to have in your idea. You are solving something that is not that urgent to have a fix because MMA imo is running in one of the best states since I started playing.

    Have a good day, and good luck.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by winwin3as View Post
    I am telling you that longer search times does not mean a more fair matchmaking. Based on my experience playing this game for years while maintaining a decent war log. Whenever we have a post 2 hours search, we are expecting a weird matchup or a mismatch.

    It is a bit tiring to argue so I will tell you this one last time: you said that "there is a longer search time because there are very little clans available" which is what you are going to have in your idea. You are solving something that is not that urgent to have a fix because MMA imo is running in one of the best states since I started playing.

    Have a good day, and good luck.
    Ok. The one attack war is going to give worse match making because we have the 2 attack war going on as well. The matchmaking algorithm is fine it's just that there will be less clans available for matchup. However even now how can you still guarantee that you will find the fairest possible matchups happening. Even now there are mismatches taking place. If you don't agree with this idea. That is fine. I understand perfectly well what you are saying. However it's just that I think the benefit outweighs the disbenefit which is why is supported someone who gave me this idea. I'm not 'solving' a 'problem'. I am adding something new to the game and some people agree. You don't because of the disbenefit. I'm not trying to fix matchmaking as the main idea. It is something different. All clans are different so it's going to happen all the time anyway no matter the algorithm.

Posting Permissions

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