I don't think it works like that. each next is a brand new random weighted by algorithm search. So nexting 1000 times won't just leave you at the end of an imaginary line. But you may find several in that time due to chance.Originally Posted by Michaelyoda
Why would it make any difference if its 5 or 30 days, the resource amounts will be the same?
Wow you're such a hipocrite,You would be the first to correct someone making the removed/push back statement.I do gotta admit though you're a pretty consistent troll.
No, it's like saying the candy at the bottom of the pile doesn't exist.
IGN: Artilart.
Level: 150, TH10.
Leader Clan: Haiphongdeptrai
It all comes down to semantics. If you mean by removed that you won't be able to get to them then he is right. If you see how far inactives are pushed back with no chance of finding one I think the term removed serves well. They're not physically removed or deleted, but they are removed from gameplay.
IGN: Benny Clan: Koning Willem lvl 130+, TH10 (250 lego's), GG 1b, Max trophies: 3250
I think they are excluded from the search.
It may come down to the same result, but for me there is a distinction to be made here. I think we all agree that on the whole inactive bases disappear from matchmaking. Reasonable evidence for this is that we don’t see the old “spiked” bases any more. But how does this happen?
I see essentially two options:
1. SC purposefully executes some code during maintenance which “cleans up” the queue.
2. The general effect of active players being online/going offline and raiding means bases which haven’t been accessed for an extended period work their way further down the queue and this effect is magnified during maintenance as everyone goes offline at once and come back online over a period.
As I said the effect of these might both be the same, for me there is a difference between the two.
Option 1 is the stuff of conspiracy theories. It is what I think people mean when they say “SC removes inactives from the queue”, it would be deliberate on the part of SC to restrict loot. SC certainly is to blame for inactives disappearing if true.
Option 2 is more subtle. Here, I accept, it is SC’s code that makes these bases practically disappear from matchmaking, but if it is a consequence of code intended to do something else then it makes them less “guilty” than they would be under option 1.
In my view, I think the second is true. I just can’t see SC wasting time manipulating the matchmaking. I think they are more likely to write a code that says when you go off line you go to the front of the queue and this has the consequence of continually demoting bases which have been inactive for a longer period.
This also fits with Steve’s comment on looking at the post maintenance loot. I doubt he would say this if it was a deliberate act as opposed to a consequence of something else.
Perhaps you meant hypocrite?
So we all agree that inactive bases are harder to be found the longer they are inactive until the point they are statistically not to be found at all anymore. Ok. Check. Now what?
Thank you for proving my statement:-) You will correct absolutely anyone and everyone but when it comes to yourself you can "say it however you want" . All you do is spam nonsense from up there on your imaginary high horse.Your post count is proof enough of your dribble
