CHEAP SHIELDING: How does it work? Sign Up to STOP IT!

[Sandalhat]

Then if he "loses" his connection more than twice in a season,then punish him.if he uses an army that wont get more than 40% and then quits at 40% then punish again?I think some said once before that taking away the end battle button once you're at 30% might help?Then its just worrying about if people intentionally lose their connections,However if you lose your connection the battle keeps going so its atleast a lil harder to cheap shield (is that still the case?that the battle keeps going?)

I disagree with the following:
1) any player who gets disconnected 2 times gets punished.
2) any player who fails to get 40% two times in a row gets punished.
3) champion league players being subjected to different rules than other players.

For obvious reasons.

[lim81]

No respons on my fair comparison?

It's not possible to compare the two since you can't win Resources on defence.

Sorry sir for my slow typing... Lol

Good day to you, sir. May you win in your argument...Lol

[Beerking]

Cheap or not, that's a part of the tactic. Here's the thing: nothing stops others from using the same method, other than they themselves.

If using multiple account is indeed against the rule, then it's SC job to provide punishment and it should be done already (they've done nothing, though)

If it's not, then who are you to say what he can or cannot do?

Very true, what I'm saying is that they are doing something that wasn't intended, you can't be attacked by your clan members for a reason and SC removed revenges for high lvls for a reason.

They are obviously working on it but saying that using an exploit is okey because there's no rule against it yet is like saying that using an performing enhancing drug isn't chéáting since it hasn't been classified as illegal yet.

[Beerking]

I saw your response and do not think that was a fair comparision(maybe to you but definitely not for me).... Lol

Defend the farming with town hall outside if you must. I am also exploiting the free town hall at the moment and is happily enjoying my 12 hours shield.

I am not taking sides but just trying to point out to the people who are pointing their fingers at some of the champs action, please take a look at what some of them are doing themselves. Taking their bases out of the match-making prematurely by offering free TH is actually considered as an exploit of some kind as well. At least to me (by my definition).

P.S. of course, to the farmers, they have their own definition/justification and see nothing wrong with what they are doing... Exactly like how champs having their own definition/justication and see nothing wrong with what they are doing...Lol

That's not a fair one but two completly different things are?

Well let's view it from both sides: Farmer want Resources but don't care about trophies >Leaves TH outside hoping for a sniper to come by. loses trophies but Resources are ok.
Trophy hunter want trophies don't care about resources> Leaves Resources outside hoping that a farmer comes by that takes his Resources but gives him trophies. loses Resources but gain trophies. That's the Trophy hunter version of leaving an exposed TH while farming and it's obviously not considered a exploitation.

Does any of them guarantee success? No! Difference is that the Trophy hunter doesn't neccessarly get a shield but he actually gains trophies making the result when next attacker 3 stars him often a +-0 lose/win.

Trophy hunter want to gain trophies and get a shield so he tries to get attacked by a clan member by leaving his clan. Resulting in 1 Trophy + and a 12h shield.
Note, only possible if you can gain Resources on defence and find clan members (sub 200 maybe) Farmer want to gain Resources and get a shield so he tries to get attacked by a clan member by leaving his clan.
Resulting in 400k/400k, 3k + a 12 hour shield. (This is what will happen if they implement resource defence wins, and they are high enough).

I used 400k/400k, 3k since it's max you can get from a battle and 1 Trophy is max the top players can get from a battle, but the Point is still the same if it were 50k, 100k or 200k.

Now these are Exactly the same so you can't possible say it's a unfair comparison, the first 2 scenarios are not considered chéáting but the second 2 are/would be, since they are exploiting the fact that you can be attacked by clan members when you leave your clan!

[rjdofu]

Very true, what I'm saying is that they are doing something that wasn't intended, you can't be attacked by your clan members for a reason and SC removed revenges for high lvls for a reason.

They are obviously working on it but saying that using an exploit is okey because there's no rule against it yet is like saying that using an performing enhancing drug isn't chéáting since it hasn't been classified as illegal yet.

That is a good point, and I agree. However, at the moment, it's not strictly "che@ing" per say, due to the fact that SC has yet take any official stand against it. Supposedly there's something like "Any method of using multiple account to take advantage of the system is not allowed", then anyone goes against it can be called a che@ter. For example, those who use fluffy bunny, they're che@ters, because they use 3rd party software, which is not allowed.

As for your analogy, it sounds good and i kinda understand what you mean, but I would argue that it never happens in reality. Sport (or any official competition) has a much more strict set of rules compared to CoC rules, and just the phrase "any abnormal performance would be deemed illegal" would be enough to rule out anything regardless whether it has been classified or not.
CoC on the other hand, there's no such thing. Attacking your own and giving yourself cheap shield is not against any section of the rule (yet), so technically, you cannot call it che@ting. Again, you can certainly call it a cheap tactic.

[Otisman]

Is this another nerd thread about the top guys? Get over it already. It's not you, it is never going to be you and be thankful that you are not the one who spent over $1000 on a video game to get on the leaderboards.

[Beerking]

I disagree with the following:
1) any player who gets disconnected 2 times gets punished.
2) any player who fails to get 40% two times in a row gets punished.
3) champion league players being subjected to different rules than other players.

For obvious reasons.

Agree with you on the two first numbers, I don't see a problem with the third though, they are really subjected to different rules (revenge, no week shield and chatting while searching). The only way I can see to stop it would be to take away the 40% shield in high champions.

The Alliances would still ruin it for the very top (that's not part of it) though. The only way I see countering this would be to remove the "end battle" option for the very top, this ofc could be unfair to some people. TBH though, most of the top people doesn't seem to care about building time/hero regeneration since they gem it anyway but it would be even more impossible to reach the top for non big spenders.

[CunningLinguists]

Please.... both are obvious and intentional... One wants his trophy and another one to keep his resources safe. Leaving out TH is not an intentional action? The town hall just unintentionally got to that corner of the base on its own?

Getting a base taken out of the match making can be also consider as an exploit of some kind. Just as how some people defines ♥♥♥♥♥ing, there are also others define free TH as exploits.

Sighz... there is no end to this again...

P.S. the win/win argument is ♥♥ to me.... but it seems to be most farmers justification for leaving their town hall out...

Sorry i should have been more clear when I said intentional and obvious.Cheap shielding is intentionally exploiting the game for you to win when I said TH outside is opposite i meant that its not to keep you on top,but rather to drop.they are both intentional except one is bad sportsmanship and the other is an accepted and fair way to play.You cant deny that its unfair to use cheap shielding techniques.why should you be on top of the leaderboards because you know people to do it for you?And if i dont know anyone then i cant get the same so i cant progress as far as you?Comparing using an outside TH to cheap shielding is just being pedantic and ♥♥♥♥.Yes maybe technically they are both exploits but to compare the 2 is just outright stupid as they do opposite things at totally different levels of play.How is win/win ♥♥?You dont have to take the TH and not go for resources,its an option to you so it is in fact win/win.Where as cheap shielding takes you out completely and nobody can take your trophies because you have exploited and taken away the fairness.At least for an outside TH you still have the option of doing either resources or trophies or even both.

[lim81]

That's not a fair one but two completly different things are?

Well let's view it from both sides: Farmer want Resources but don't care about trophies >Leaves TH outside hoping for a sniper to come by. loses trophies but Resources are ok.
Trophy hunter want trophies don't care about resources> Leaves Resources outside hoping that a farmer comes by that takes his Resources but gives him trophies. loses Resources but gain trophies. That's the Trophy hunter version of leaving an exposed TH while farming and it's obviously not considered a exploitation.

Does any of them guarantee success? No! Difference is that the Trophy hunter doesn't neccessarly get a shield but he actually gains trophies making the result when next attacker 3 stars him often a +-0 lose/win.

Trophy hunter want to gain trophies and get a shield so he tries to get attacked by a clan member by leaving his clan. Resulting in 1 Trophy + and a 12h shield.
Note, only possible if you can gain Resources on defence and find clan members (sub 200 maybe) Farmer want to gain Resources and get a shield so he tries to get attacked by a clan member by leaving his clan.
Resulting in 400k/400k, 3k + a 12 hour shield. (This is what will happen if they implement resource defence wins, and they are high enough).

I used 400k/400k, 3k since it's max you can get from a battle and 1 Trophy is max the top players can get from a battle, but the Point is still the same if it were 50k, 100k or 200k.

Now these are Exactly the same so you can't possible say it's a unfair comparison, the first 2 scenarios are not considered chéáting but the second 2 are/would be, since they are exploiting the fact that you can be attacked by clan members when you leave your clan!

That is how you see it.

Maybe let me explain how I see it.

Farmer
1) A farmer leave his TH outside
2) He hope someone will come and snipe his TH and go
3) If its successful; Gain: 12 hours shield Loss: 1000 gold/elixir and some trophy (insignificance)

Champ
1) A champ leave his clan
2) He hope his clan mates or friends find him to give him cheap shield
3) If its successful; Gain : some trophies Loss: some resources in the process (insignificance)


Both did something with an intention of achieving something that will benefits oneself. Both had done something that is not what the game intended them to do (of course, the farmers will say otherwise...Lol)

That is how I see what both is doing. I am not condemning the champs nor the farmers. Both exploit the game mechanics to the fullest to advance the game to their most desired position(Trophys for champs and resources for farmers).

But what I don't get is why one side can relentlessly blame the other side when they are doing something similar in nature (Of course the farmers will again say its not similar)

Going by my definition, its similar but going by yours, it might not.

Not trying to prove anything here but just trying to show that there are other ways of looking at things and insisting/proving on your way is right may not be always right...

[Beerking]

That is a good point, and I agree. However, at the moment, it's not strictly "che@ing" per say, due to the fact that SC has yet take any official stand against it. Supposedly there's something like "Any method of using multiple account to take advantage of the system is not allowed", then anyone goes against it can be called a che@ter. For example, those who use fluffy bunny, they're che@ters, because they use 3rd party software, which is not allowed.

As for your analogy, it sounds good and i kinda understand what you mean, but I would argue that it never happens in reality. Sport (or any official competition) has a much more strict set of rules compared to CoC rules, and just the phrase "any abnormal performance would be deemed illegal" would be enough to rule out anything regardless whether it has been classified or not.
CoC on the other hand, there's no such thing. Attacking your own and giving yourself cheap shield is not against any section of the rule (yet), so technically, you cannot call it che@ting. Again, you can certainly call it a cheap tactic.

Agreed I can see that the problem with condemning it as chéáting would be to prove it, why have a rule that can't be enforced? On the other hand I do Believe that SC are against it and are working on solutions, labeled as chéáting or an exploit that wasn't meant to be used are the same in my book.

As for the analogy, they actually have a list of what's considered "illegal" that is updated all the time. Yohan Blake used a substance that wasn't on the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list but it gave the same effect. It was still considered chéáting and he got suspended.

Getting a unfair advantage is chéáting no matter in what forms or shapes it appear even if they can't be punished for it.