The confusion, on my part, arises from two separate arguments which I have placed myself into. I have confused the reasoning for acknowledgment (by action) supporting current 'problems' with the acknowledgment (by action) relating to long standing 'problems'.
Lack of acknowledgment (by action) only supports the loot "is not a game breaking issue" argument since the most recent update, in that no action has been taken thus far. Meaning things are running within the parameters accepted by SC. "The game ain't broke. If it was they would fix it." This of course assumes SC understood the ramifications of elixir walls and all the new upgrades being released, I think it is fair to assume SC knows what they are doing.
The lack of acknowledgment (by action), based on past behavior, does support that loot has been fine (SC's definition of fine) prior to the update and since the change in distribution of December 2013. "If there was a problem dating back to 2013 they would have fixed it by now." This of course assumes SC has an idea of what they want progression and time invested to be, again I think it is far to assume SC knows what they are doing.
Thanks for challenging my thought process. If the numbers are bad for many players I would expect a tweak to be coming in the next update to address those issues. God help us if is a large change to the loot system. :eek:
I'm happy to see that a conclusion was reached, your experiences represent yours and those you talk with and not the majority of clashers. Is there a problem? SC will let us know in an update.
You are wrong about SC's inaction relating to the recent fluffy bunny problem. They have acknowledged it but the will not discuss actions they have taken against it. And you know it. If one was to argue their inaction as proof it would be disproved by their acknowledgement and actions.
Mea Cupla, I was arguing under the assumption of a dire(abnormal) situation relating to loot that would demand immediate resolution.
The argument was,
in arguendo, that loot is abnormal meaning it demands immediate attention and resolution. We have an example of how SC handles an abnormal situation that demands immediate resolution, the "out of sync" ♥♥♥♥♥ which they acknowledged and corrected. Based on their past actions and given we have not seen SC comment nor take action there is no abnormal situation demanding immediate resolution.
Hogs were a problem based on SC's action of continually tweaking them up until two updates ago. If you wish to equate hog fixes to loot fixes here is the time line of changes and a comparison. Keep in mind this is talking about before the September update. If SC does not take action in the next update or sooner, it could be inferred due to past history that there was no problem (as defined by SC, people can have all the personal problems they want.)
Hogs were introduced 3.12.2013 and received 1 minor change before 8.27.2013 when they were changed to target defenses and became OP/a problem. After that the were adjusted every update minus the loot update and clan wars updates. Those balances were put out over the course of 10 months ending 7.3.2014 with the big bomb damage increase, possibly ending their problem(?).
Now prior to the loot update of 12.5.2013 there were regular tweaks to the loot system, changing percentages, adding penalties and bonuses. There were additions to loot like level 11 mines 10.27.2012, leagues 4.17.2013, TH10 got a mine 6.24.2013, and league bonuses were increased 8.27.2013. This evidences, by actions, that SC was working/balancing loot regularly. They have done nothing to add loot since 8.27.2013. And simply adjusted it's distribution amongst players 12.5.2013.
SC continually balanced Hog problems 4 times over 7 updates and 10 months ending(?) 2 updates,3 months ago. Loot has not been added in over 9 updates, 13 months nor changed since it became a "problem" 6 updates/10 months ago.
In conclusion. If SC is working on a problem they continually tweak it until a they have achieved their goals. Hogs are not a good analogy for evidencing SC's actions relating to problems unless you are trying to evidence the absence of a longstanding problem demanding attention.
P.S. This area of the debate is farcical, it does IMO help show that SC has been comfortable with loot production for a very long time while they were not with hogs.
Read the above post about past actions they have taken regarding loot. Prior behavior is indicative of future behavior but yes not proof, only supportive evidence.
In arguendo loot has been a problem for 10 months now and there has been no substantial additions since 8.27.2013. SC would likely not have made the recent change without investigation into the long term ramifications. This leads to the conclusion this is a short term or small issue based on past history. However, if there is a problem (as defined by SC) you can rest assured that SC will fix it.
Are the dev team the ones updating the servers?
Nope, sorry, I do understand the meaning of cause. Here is the dictionary definition to clear up any confusion.
noun
1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
Did you overlook SC's message that said the 1-gem boost was specifically implemented for the inconvenience of the repeated downtime of their servers? "Our servers are being updated... To make the deal sweet for you, the first one will start a 1 Gem Resource Boost Special! This will last until the last maintenance break on Tuesday."
coathanger, it is time to stop posting.
Next...
Originally Posted by Trmcgregor
